This is the title to an article by Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North prior to being ousted by Chloe Smith (Conservative), an article which is one of a regular series of his which appears in the Norwich Evening News and in which some interesting observations are made.
(click to enlarge)
In the article (enlargement not that good – apologies) Ian Gibson was asked the question whether he would allow a son or daughter of his to enter politics and, if so, why? Gibson makes the point that the major criticism was of the pathway from university debating society to government, via various filters such as think tanks. Gibson also makes note of the fact that “My party, right or wrong” is common among MPs; that Parliament is becoming more presidential; that ideology is rarely found as parties continue to ignore serious debate; and on the question of falling party membership it was felt there was no point in joining a party if one’s voice was ignored.
All the above are but examples of what is wrong with representative democracy as practiced by our politicians and condoned by an ill-informed electorate. Having written that which he did, I can but wonder what prevented Gibson taking the logical next step and mentioning direct democracy?
In the same edition of that newspaper another article appeared in relation to Dr. Rupert Read and his idea of “Guardians of Britain’s future”.
If, as Read maintains, democracy means ‘government by the people’, then what, in the name of all that is holy, would we want yet another layer of government placed between the people and parliament? He writes:
“The Guardians would have a power of veto over legislation that was likely to have substantial negative effects for society in the future, the right to review major administrative decisions which substantially affected future people and perhaps also the power to initiate legislation to preserve the basic needs and interests of future people.”
So why not just ask the people themselves? Why not just introduce direct democracy? The mind boggles that the taxpayer has funded education for someone and the end result is a suggestion as ridiculous as that proposed. Sorry Rupert, but your idea does not ‘bear’ thinking about.