Posts Tagged ‘Parliament’

It is immoral that we are helpless to prevent the party in power from deceitfully & deliberately reversing a manifesto pledge e.g. #NHS

March 7, 2017

This was a letter to the Daily Mirror , published but with a hard edit

With what’s happening to our NHS, it’s unbelievable, for me, that we are helpless to prevent it.
There was no mention of this destruction in any pre-election speeches.
In fact we were assured that the NHS was “safe” in Tory hands.
In normal circumstances, one can understand the need for Governments to have the stability of a five year term of office but the Sovereignty of Parliament becomes a farce, when the wishes of the Population are ignored as an irrelevance, even in times of War.
There needs to be a means for the population to demand a General Election, or, at least, a referendum on issues, which directly affect the whole population

#|t’s unbelievable what’s happening to our NHS and it has left me feeling helpless. There was no mention of plans to shut hospitals in any pre-election speeches. In fact, we were assured that the NHS was safe
in Tory hands. There must be a means for people to demand a referendum on huge issues.


My MP’s response on lobbying, with my preface.

August 14, 2013

I am not convinced by the phrase “Lobbying is a normal and essential part of an active democracy.” but somehow MP’s have persuaded themselves that this is true.

OK! Charities and businesses need to present their case to Parliament and Parliament needs an input from them.

That does not mean that my MP should be representing, or merely presenting, the views of an organisation, instead of mine.

In fact their views may be contrary to the best interests of those who voted for her.

This applies generally to all MP’s, who in this “Democracy” are supposed to represent the interests of the plebiscite, NOT those of vested interests, who may not even be domestically based.

An alternate means of achieving an input into Parliamentary decision making needs to be found.

If the upper chamber is to be unelected, let them be sponsored by these vested interests, as was their historical role. Better still, let’s have select committee’s filter and distil these representations and present them as reports, available for reference by individual MP’s, who solely represent their constituents.

Anything, other than through MP’s.

If by chance an MP has a vested interest then this should be declared, in the HoC, when standing to speak.

If it is found later that an MP has neglected this duty then he/she should be subject to strong reprisal with no mitigation allowed.

This is the only way to rid Parliament of corruption.

The proposed lobbying measures, referred to, in the following letter, will not end the corruption.

Thank you for contacting me recently regarding lobbying and the Government’s current proposals for a register of lobbyists.

Lobbying is a normal and essential part of an active democracy.

However, as a number of recent scandals have shown, it is clear that the professional sector of the lobbying industry needs to be properly regulated and I agree it is important that lobbyists operate in a transparent way so that everyone can see how and why decisions are taken.

That is why I support calls for real lobbying reform and would like to see the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists, a code of conduct backed by sanctions and measures to ensure that anyone doing a senior job for the government of the day who is a professional lobbyist must be declared.

This would make the whole lobbying system much more transparent and help restore public trust.

The Government have failed to take any action on this for three years but have now finally published a Bill — the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill — which is currently being considered by a House of Commons Select Committee and is scheduled to be debated in the House of Commons after the summer recess.

It is clear, however, that the Government’s Bill includes totally inadequate proposals which will only apply to a tiny proportion of the lobbying industry. Indeed, the Government’s proposals would establish a register only covering third party lobbyists — who make up just 1% of all ministerial meetings and less than a quarter of the whole industry. This could mean for example, that lobbyists working directly for big business groups would not be required to register.

I know that organisations such as the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) and Unlock Democracy have also expressed serious concern that the Government’s Bill will not bring about the wide-ranging reform of lobbying that is needed to regain public trust and help clean up politics.

This is a real opportunity for Parliament to bring about much-needed changes to lobbying and it is vital that Parliament is now able to scrutinise and improve the Government’s Bill. I can assure you that I will be supporting amendments to the Bill as it progresses through Parliament to make it more effective and to ensure that it tackles this very serious problem.

Thank you once again for writing to me and for sharing your views. I can assure you that I will continue to bear them in mind as this issue develops.

Yours sincerely

Yvonne Fovargue

Labour Member for Makerfield

@Daily_Express either move water to London or, better, move London to the water

March 18, 2012
 An email, in response to Nick Ferrari’s echoing of my own comments about how The Water Companies should be using their Government approved, excessive profits to feed water down to the South , possibly via the canal system:
I did enjoy your attack on the water apartheid.
From basic Geography lessons at school, I have always been aware that The South-East is the driest part of the country and, from my History lessons I learned that the only reason that London has become so over-crowded is that it is the largest port in close proximity to the Continent.
In this age of Electronic communications, there is no need for Government to meet in London and no need for all the other dependent institutions to be sited there, either.
This was proven by your own industry and the demise of Fleet Street, as it was.
The obvious alternative, to shipping the water to the South-East, is to encourage more personnel to move out to the provinces, as the BBC is doing.
I appreciate that many, perhaps yourself, will not want to move, but why do MP’s have to meet there?
If Dave can fly off to the States to socialise with Obama, surely he can catch a train up to Brum for P.M.Q.’s.
It’s not as if many MP’s actually visit the house to debate issues. The number’s involved in most debates, could easily be handled on video-conference.
Why do we have all those Embassies? Apart from stacking up parking tickets and providing a target for demonstrators, would we miss them?
London is based on an artesian well and as the water dries up, London sinks, which, I understand, is why the Thames barrier had to be built.
Save your City. Begin a campaign to physically de-centralise the Government. Civil Servants can just as easily shuffle papers in Manchester, or Leeds, or Newcastle.
Even if Ministers and pussies were shifted off with their depts. they would only be a few hours by train from Number 10. (Less if the P.M moved up to Sheffield, or even Oxford)
In any event, getting back to what prompted this: Won’t George Osborne’s intent to regionalise salaries attract more people down to London and exacerbate the drought situation (as well as congestion and housing problems)?

The Whips apparently claim to speak for the Silent Majority

December 31, 2011

I’ve just been listening to the Speaker’s debate on the Parliamentary Channel.

The topic ( a subsection of a debate on whether the Victorian age was the Golden age of Parliament” is  whether or not Whipping should be abolished.

Lovely bit of sophistry used to perpetuate whipping.

“It’s the vocal minority calling for an end to the Whip and Party Politics.”

” We don’t hear from the silent majority, who want strong Government.”

” If we wish to speak for the silent majority, then we must support The Whip and Party Politics.”

So the vocal minority, who want reform are to be ignored.

The Silent Majority don’t have to be ignored, because they must be happy with the Status Quo.

Furthermore, It wouldn’t be fair to bother the Silent Majority with a referendum on a topic, in which they have no interest.

Being The Silent Majority, they probably wouldn’t vote, whereas the vocal minority would.

This would mean taking control from the safe hands of the 650 highly paid public servants, who actually know what’s best for both sections of the plebians and Parliament and The City.

It’s not cameron’s contempt for our intelligence that I resent, it’s his indifference to our being aware of his contempt

December 5, 2011

He reneges on promises of commitment as easily as I scratch an itch. He has claimed that he is committed by his own legislation to hold a referendum on Europe if there is any treaty change. Later this became “significant treaty change”, where it was his option to decide what amounted to being “significant”.

Now Merkel has pulled the rug from under that form of weaselling, by declaring a need for a raft of treaty changes, he has resorted to a flurry of anonymous warnings, to himself, that he must claw back special concessions.

This being another attempt to subvert the need for a referendum by pretending that his opponents are not making such a demand.

That “those who matter” agree that a referendum is unnecessary.

We know that we are not going to get a referendum, that such a possibility will not be discussed, that the media will sit on such a discussion and, worst,  he knows that we know and he knows that he can ignore us, with impunity.

75% of people won’t vote in the May elections and that % will rise, as voters see that how valuable their wishes, needs or wants are.

We are drifting back to Victorian Parliaments.

Places like Wigan are the modern equivalent of a “Rotten Borough”.

How long before Council wards and Parliamentary seats are sold off by local party bosses to the highest bidder?



boycott party donors

January 10, 2011

Fuel price rises are destroying Hauliers and making farming unprofitable and a new campaign of blockades is planned. The past two campaigns caused a lot of disruption and then fizzled out, for various reasons, without directly affecting fuel prices.
Such campaigns will always be ineffective, because the only people that can affect the situation are oblivious to the concerns of The Public.
The men who control the basic fuel price are motivated, only by profit and they know that we need the commodity that they control.
Our Members of Parliament, who control the Tax regime, are also motivated by money. How much they can pay themselves and how much they need for getting re-elected.
They are completely indifferent to what the electorate wishes, as evidenced by their insistence on staying in Europe and ignoring calls for a referendum.
They, too, know that there are commodities that we need and can not just simply Boycott.
The only type of Boycott that will affect Parliament is one that directly affects them through their finances.
A few years back, an email campaign called for a Boycott of Esso, because they had financed George W. Bush’s election campaign and because they were thought, by some, to be instigators of the causes of fuel price rises.
That campaign was not an apparent success but does point a way to grabbing Parliament’s attention, without inconveniencing the Public. Boycott’s of a particular Company would cause that Company to bring pressure on Parliament and would be very effective, if that Company was a known backer of the prevailing Cabinet.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires that party donations must be declared and lists of donors can be found on the internet.

Parliament pantomime

September 22, 2010

On my freeview TV I have BBC News at channel 80 and the Parliamentary Channel on 81.

Just one click of my remote control away from each other, so why did the BBC feel it necessary to cut transmission of Mervyn King’s address, as Governor of the Bank of England, to switch to Prime Minister’s Questions, which was already being broadcast on the Parliamentary Channel?

The former was a very reasoned Diagnosis and Prognosis of the economic mess that we are in, to be followed by a Question and Answer session on a topic which was of great concern to more than the 6 million voters, who are represented by delegates at the TUC.

On the other hand, Prime Minister’s Questions is a pantomime of miscellaneous issues, which, although of concern to many, are not going to be affected by what’s said in that deluge of Political Party Point Scoring.

I would have liked to heard Mervyn King’s considered and authorative response to the attentively listening audience  and their queries about bankers’ bonuses and director remuneration. I’m sure that there would have been many more related issues discussed, which viewers would have liked to hear, but which  our Politicians are insufficiently educated on, or concerned about, to broach, even when they next want to engage with us.

The BBC announcer’s throwaway comment that listeners could switch on their computers and log on to the BBC website, if they were interested in this topic (just watching out of boredom, maybe?), was not helpful or courteous.

con lib lab con

April 19, 2010

It’s depressing how shallow The Media are in terms of our General Election.

Every 4 to 5 years, we get to choose which political party is going to screw us. We never get the chance to discuss alternatives, because the Media chiefs are either too lazy or too corrupt to allow the views and opinions of any alternative campaigns to be aired.

It’s a Con/Lib/Lab con.

Watch TV, read the Newspapers, whatever! All you get is the hyped up differences between these three. This election there is another Other party, which, even starved of the Oxygen of publicity, is polling at 8% of the electorate.

If the Media gave UKIP the same level playing field as the three fat cat parties, UKIP’s poll might make it a fourth mainstream party, especially as it has one significant issue, on which it dffers from the other three groups of complacency personified.

Perhaps UKIP is full of self-servers, as are the three main stream parties, but we’ll never get to know, because The Media are trying to stifle such parties, at birth.

Unless this is a Hung Parliament and we get a collapse of The Government, UKIP will slip into obscurity as European politicians take control of our affairs. Meantime, we will slip further into the bureaucratic tyranny of Whitehall, as it becomes subsumed into Brussels.

16/12/harriet harman

December 17, 2009

 Harriet Harman, standing in  for Gordon Brown, at Prime Minister’s Question Time, gave a very able performance and I’m sure the political pundits will have been very impressed by her.
I do enjoy these little bits of theatre.
They are as entertaining as those War films, where GI’s show their usual fortitude, whilst bullets fly all around them.
However, when the bullets have stopped and the smoke has cleared, nothing has changed.
When Harriet left the chamber and the benches cleared for the next act (the Nimrod Explosion apology), we knew that nothing would have changed here, either.
Whilst MP’s enjoy their well-earned Seasonal respite from their occasional foray into the House of Commons, we will still be reading the same mix of stories in the daily papers.
Stories of :
Shop-keepers being murdered by drugee’s; Soldier’s dying through lack of adequate equipment; Wheelie bin edict’s; House-holders going to prison for shouting at intruders; Tax rises; Banker’s collecting obscene bonuses for incompetence; Millions dreaming of managing to survive Christmas, with an income which is less than an MP’s travel allowance; Sums of money, which we are having to borrow, being generously donated, on our behalf, to Foreign Powers; Photo-shoots of Politicians, grinning inanely, whilst shaking hands with, allegedly, important foreign politicians.

The House of Parliament is good Reality Television but, apparently, little else.