POLITICS

The party system of government which evolved in the 19th century, seems to have little regard to democracy in the late 20th or the 21st century. The advent of mass media has changed election of a representative into a means of electing a leader albeit with a party tagged on. Proportional Representation is only perpetuating the "Party" system. This process became more apparent with the Conservative victory in 1984 with Margaret Thatcher as prime minister, their success was attributed to her popularity.

The conclusion must be that the electorate voted for her, not for the the individual who was to represent them in parliament. The same situation is apparent with the Labour victory in 1997, the conclusion is likely to be same if they retain power for the same length of time. Already we can see New Labour attempting to run a presidential style parliament, with decisions being made before being presented to the Cabinet, which will make MP's even more superfluous than they are now.

If the electorate vote for the individual that was selected by the system that is following the words of "chairman Mao" who is following the way of the guru. In computing terms a "loop", neat, but going nowhere, or perhaps "ring of roses" is more apt, until "we all fall down".

As a system it leaves a lot to desired, the function of parliament should be government for the country, and for the people, not defending the status quo of the party. If an individual was elected for their ability to represent a constituency, then that is what they should do, the first responsibility should be to the country, the second to their constituents, there is no place or logic for an organisation which claims priority over the people or the country.

If such a system was in place the MP's could elect the cabinet, who could elect a leader drawn from the cabinet members who wish to stand, the result then confirmed by the "house". Any cabinet or members proposal would have to be put to the "house" for approval as it is now, except every vote would be a free vote.

The saga over the EU elections should be a lesson for the politicians, as with most issues, there are MP's who are "for", and others "against", irrespective of party policy, yet has there been a free vote to give the electorate an indication of the mood of parliament?. NO!.

It is interesting to hear Tony Blair saying what he disagreed with when John Major said " we will go in when the price is right for us". The public's response was predicable in that less than 1in4 bothered to vote, and that includes me, how can you vote for something you 1:- do not agree with. or 2:- do not understand. Proportional representation is a con' and it convinces no-one except the party faithful , and there is not many of them left, (or right, the few that remain are in the "middle" and as confused as the rest of us). If every one is in the "middle", party politics' make even less sense now than before, the only ones to gain are party hierarchy and the faceless mandarin's of Whitehall, what would they do if they could not play one against the other?. (YES MINISTER).

The current system is open to corruption, any organisation that can get to of the influential members of the party can influence the policy of the country, hence, the power of the Multi-nationals and Super-markets. How big can a company get before it 1:- becomes a threat to the host. 2:- "our" politicians take their corporate heads out of the trough long enough to notice.

The current system, which, when a bill is passed (no matter how good and needed) it is set in tablets of stone until a change of government (if one drove a car like this you would have to change driver every time you needed to slow down or speed up), yet government can't "take their foot off the throttle" because of defending the party policy of instigating the bill in the first place. So the pendulum swings again, and again, and again, and the tax-payer foots the bill again, and again, and again.

On a visit to the USA in 1980, I got into a discussion with an American and a Russian, and eventually the topic turned to politics', the conclusion was:- 1:- In Russia they know who is running the country, and it's not the public. 2:- In the West the public think they have a say because they have a vote, but the reality is that regardless of which party gets in, the senators/MP's will be directors or consultants to the same companies regardless of the party, it is those companies that are running the country, not the public.

An example, look at what happened to Bill Clinton's green policy, it was thrown out by the senate after intense pressure from the power companies, that sort of politics is a daily occurrence, hence that power of some companies has grown to be greater than a lot of medium sized countries (and scientists are trying to get rid of cancer?????).

Surely it must have occurred to someone by now that :- If only 75% of voters actually vote, then it must leave 25% which do not find the current system attractive, if someone is bright enough to attract the best political minds with guts (well lets start with guts, the others will follow) enough to go independent, they could take the country by storm. and we may have a future.

I subscribe to "there is such thing as a free meal", any party/politician who has a large election fund must be tied to a lot of promises and "dead wood" when they get in to power. If one looks at the USA elections, one begins to understand how the public can get screwed when the debt to fund subscribers has to be paid.

The following are letters that I have submitted to the media, and have been printed

Dear Editor

The reform of the House of Lords is putting the cart before the horse. The condition of the foundations should be established before retiling the roof. I never thought I would agree with Tony Benn, but his criticism of the Blair administration acting in a presidential manner is a symptom of party politics' that has had clones elected as MP's. Serious reform can only come when the "party" system is abolished and every political candidate has to be independent, only then will we see an increase in the turnout at the poll's. If every non-voter turned out next election and voted for a "sensible" independent, we could have a new government. Proportional representation is only a protection system for party politics.

=============================

Dear Editor

Democracy? Is the Labour saying that an MP living in London and a member of a trade union (or two) will only get one vote? Who and how will they establish that?

London should determine it's own destiny and not be rigged to favour party politics.

Is it not time for party politics' to be disbanded in favour of all MP's being independent and answerable to the electorate, at least all parliamentary votes would be free, we may get more than 75% of the electorate out to vote (including me), and we may get sensible MP's instead of clones selected by the parties. How low does the turnout have to be before the penny drops?

If the non-voting public turned out next election and voted Independent we would have a government without sleaze (how could you nobble a leading MP when any proposal he/she made would have to have approval by the votes of the House in a free vote?).

What the Middle, Third or Forth ways mean is a continuation of trying to fool the public that "their" party is different to the "others". PR means, if it goes pear shaped, we will still get a slice of the cake.
As a "redundant" voter, (an ex Tory) none of the "ways" will get me back, the only thing that will see me at the ballot box is a good "independent", to whom every vote will be "free" to use according to his/her conscience.
I am old enough to remember (before the days of mass media elections) the MP's that were elected for their ability, which counted for more than who the party leader was, or the policies.
It is also interesting to analyse some of the politicians which have impressed me the most, they are Winston Churchill, Maggie Thatcher, Derek Hatton, Ken Livingstone, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Michael Portillo and Enoch Powell. All have/had fallen over for one reason or another, yet they had what it takes and nobody could ever call them "clones". This does not mean that I agreed with all of their policies or their style of living, but I would have voted for them out of the belief that they would follow their own conscience regardless of who it upset.
Also, I doubt if any would qualify for Sainthood, which seems to be a requirement today, but then what Saint would stand a chance in today society.

============================

The following letter was sent to UK parliament info office.

Dear Editor

What is the legality of the "Party" system of the House of Commons?

If MP's (elected by their constituent's) object to the principles of a Bill, what Law says that anyone has the right to force them to vote against their principles?

I am one of the increasing percentage (about 50%) of the population who do not vote. My reason is that "clones" selected by the "Parties" do not give me any assurance that they can do anything for the electorate, and when the pendulum swings, yet again, the tax-payer i.e. ME, will not finish up paying the bill.

Any alterations to the status and the occupants of the House of Lords will make no improvement to this, in fact, it will make it worse.

The reply:- Thank you for your recent enquiry. No Law exists to force MPs to vote for a Parliamentary Bill if it was against their principles. However party whips in the House of Commons are an informal mechanism that allows parties to control their MPs. An MP who is not prepared to toe the party line is expected to go and see a whip and explain his or her views. MPs who persistently disagree with the whip may well get into trouble with their local parties, however each political party has various ways of dealing with MPs who consistently vote against them.

My comment:- Which generally means the voters who put them in parliament, running last.

=============================

Dear Editor :- I make no apology for repeating the following as it is a fundamental point:-
If one takes any group of people, say MP's, separate them by party, record the result. Shuffle the pack and then separate them by any subject, like EU for example, record, and repeat on any other subject and each time the result would be different.

If, in the view of the MP's, the executive (Chairman Mao and/or his Guru) has got it wrong, then they should be free to say so, unless the MP's are elected because of the party and have to toe the line, which must mean (under today's media exposure) the electorate (or 30% of them) has elected a leader (the front man/woman) and X number of MP's who are only a means to achieve an end. As they are selected by the political machinery in order to stand, how can they not be clones?

If, on the other hand an MP is elected because of their personality/judgment/etc, there should be no higher authority who can interfere with that opinion, as they will be answerable to the people who elected them.

If MP's were independent, it would remove a great deal of the potential for manipulation by the multi-nationals and media, and MP's would be better for it.

How can it be wrong for a group of independent MP's sitting round a table and coming to a balanced decision? Rather than the "loaded" decisions made by a like minded group.

Politics'