Tag Archive: Yvette Cooper

“The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs are involved in considering and proposing new laws, and can use their position to ask government ministers questions about current issues.”

UK Parliament website.

In the media today we are informed that:

1. With the recent killings of two police officers our elected representatives have been hitting the airwaves to inform us that restoration of the death penalty – likewise arming our police – would be a retrograde step with Nick Clegg warning against arming the police in response to the death of two police officers; Philip Davis being quoted as saying the case for restoration of the death penalty grows stronger by the day; Norman Tebbit stating that the “deterrent effect of the shadow of the gallows” should be debated. In this instance it has now been confirmed that the  man suspected of killing the two PCs in Greater Manchester was on bail over a fatal pub shooting.
2. Politics Home informs us that the Home Office is bringing in new guidelines for domestic abuse cases to include non-violent coercion, such as preventing someone from leaving the house. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the changes would “help expose the true face of domestic violence, which is much more complex and much more widespread than people often realise”. The new definition will be implemented by March 2013 and follows a 15-week consultation which took views from the public, victims, charities and frontline agencies. Coercive behaviour is described as “an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim”. The Government also announced today a Young People’s Panel set up by the NSPCC which will help inform the Government’s work to tackle domestic violence. Action for Children has piled in lobbying for these new ‘laws’ to be applied for the benefit of children and Yvette Cooper has not missed an opportunity to make a political point.
3. With yet more tinkering to our education system, this time by Michael Gove, John Redwood appears to be sitting on the fence.
4. We are informed by EurActiv that the introduction of smart meters is to proceed following the publication of a ‘benchmark report’, one due for mid-201, on the cost and benefits of smart meters (and we all know that we will be told obviously the benefits will be great and the cost minimial – when in actual fact benefits and costs finding in practice will be reversed). The roll-out of smart meters has already begun in this country with our government still determined to have 30million electricity meters and 23 million gas meters replaced by the 2019, at a cost of £11.7 billion to energy customers, recovered through their bills – despite a false-start, the cost of which will no doubt also end up on our bills.
5. Yesterday, we witnessed a Conservative MP telling us what should be done about the question of our nation’s membership of the European Union.

When considering the points above, an immediate question arises – namely, if MPs, who are our elected representatives, are meant to represent our interests and concerns in the House of Commons, then on what basis does any MP pontificate that the death penalty is wrong; on what basis does any MP feel they are able to introduce yet more laws defining how we should interact with each other? Which ever of the above examples you care to select one common factor will be found and that is that not once have the people been consulted – unless of course the political elite do in fact possess God-like powers and, in exercising them, ‘pulled off’ a number of referendums unnoticed?

Over the last few weeks I have attempted, on Twitter, to engage Daniel Hannan, Tom Harris and Glyn Davies in a debate on democracy, representative democracy and the right of people to decide the type of society in which they wish to live and in each instance they cited excuses why it was not appropriate so to do at that particular time. It is logical to presume that their failure to accept the opportunity of debate can only mean they are unable to argue the case for a system they wish to continue.

That MPs do not represent the views and concerns of those that elect them cannot be in dispute as the evidence that they do not is now plain for all to see. A video has just surfaced of Nick Clegg apologising for the fact that he made a pledge on tuition fees and failed to adhere to that pledge. Clegg with Cameron made a pledge that voters would have the right to recall errant MPs, but did not mention that the final decision on the voter’s request would rest with a panel of their own. Why should we trust those whose pledges mean absolutely nothing to them, ones that they break for political expediency or for the simple reason that in making them they had no intention of keeping them?

As I have commented previously – and so many times it is probably becoming tedious for readers to hear it repeated – we are continually informed by our political elite that change is necessary for our country. The only problem with that message is that the change which is necessary is one they do not want and have no intention of giving us.

The change about which I speak is one that would mean people in an area have control over their lives and the type of society in which they live; one that would reinstate the people as the deciding factor in that which happens within and without our country; one that reasserts the status of the people as the only true sovereign entity in our country. Needess to say I talk about the introduction of a system based on the principles of direct democracy.

It is interesting that the one country that practices those principles is Switzerland and doubly interesting that that country would appear to be the destination of politicians wanting to learn more about those principles. Within the UK we are beset, almost on a daily basis, of articles in the media which report on discord within various sections of our society. Yet when one turns to Swiss media the reporting of such discord is, in contrast, virtually negligable – and the reason why is because such problems are resolved by the people within each area (canton) and most noticeably without the interference of central government.

QED?