Members of Parliament would have us believe that they appear on Twitter as a means for the public to interact with them – and vice-versa. Has any reader actually attempted to do that? The reason I ask is that every attempt I have made to interact with any Member of Parliament on something they have tweeted results in them eventually “running the proverbial mile”.
Earlier this evening (approximately 4pm) Michael Fabricant (Conservative) (@Mike_Fabricant) tweeted:
“MPs are representatives. They must vote for what they think is right for the country as well as for their individual constituents.”
When I responded:
“And that Mr Fabricant is where you are so deluded! It matters not what you think. Understand democracy?”
There was then an “interruption” from someone (@EN_Somat) who believed that as Fabricant had been elected to Parliament (and I wasn’t) he therefore had a vote (and I didn’t). He was promptly “put in his place” – but I digress.
Following the aforementioned short exchange of views, Fabricant then responded:
“I think it might be time for your pill…….”
To which I replied:
“Oh, the usual response then. Sarcasm coupled with rudeness. Obviously no response to my statement then?”
From which time, to the time of writing (nearly 5 hours), nothing has been heard from Fabricant.
Earlier this evening (approximately 5pm – 4+ hours ago at the time of writing) I also “took to task” Andrea Leadsom about her article on ConservativeHome; and when “announcing” my post on Twitter, took the trouble to ensure she saw it by including in the tweet her Twitter “address”.
Since then – nothing.
That, dear reader, demonstrates in a nutshell exactly how our political class view those they are meant to serve – and who employ them. When “confronted” they will not – or cannot- engage in debate. They run the proverbial mile.
The European Union has a policy, one which they term “User Pays”. This requires that where a public service is provided the user – ie, those for whom the “service” is provided – should bear the costs involved. What this policy does not acknowledge is the point that if the user must bear the costs of said service, should not the user have a voice where said costs are incurred? It should also be recalled that the funds for the provision of public services are forcibly extracted from our pockets virtually “at the point of a gun”; ie if we refuse to pay we are liable to imprisonment. We have no voice in the level of taxation because, in effect, we write each incoming government a blank cheque – we receive no estimate of any government’s expenditure, they notify us what said level will be once they assume office.
Much as I am against any legislation, or the basis for said legislation that the EU imposes, is it not time that we adopted the principle of user pays with the caveat I added? When one considers that the UK is no longer a sovereign country, one self-governing and thus able to make its own laws, – coupled with the fact that those that are meant to represent us, don’t and appear to have no wish so to do – just why the hell should we continue to fund them?
Members of Parliament rely on the defence that they are only answerable to their constituents and that unless you are one, they have no requirement to enter into discourse with you. However, when an MP “goes public”, utilising the services of what is but a public information service like Twitter to make pronouncements which are directed at no-one in particular, just how does their defence of non-accountability unless one is a constituent, hold water?
As I pointed out to Fabricant – and while being sorely tempted to alter the last vowel of his name, I resisted as I did not wish to lower myself to his level where the level of debate was concerned – the electorate elect him and his colleagues as virtual dictators in that for a period of 5 years whichever party forms a government, they are able to act with impunity and pass whatever laws they like as the electorate has no means whatsoever of calling a halt to their actions.
This begs the question to whom does the United Kingdom belong – the people, or is it the fiefdom of the 650?
On the basis that the state is meant to serve the people – and not the other way round – the sooner the people demand a change in our system of democracy, the sooner they will regain their freedom. Harrogate Agenda anyone?
Whenever – and whatever – legislation is imposed on the people of this nation causes me to think of a quotation attributed to Peter Calcagno:
“We must remember that government, no matter how hard it tries, cannot protect an individual from themselves. This legislation is simply one more attempt by big government to tell us that they know what is best for us. It is not the first time – and it will not be the last.”