An Open letter to Anne Main MP

Mrs Anne Main                                                                                                                   05/02/13
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Mrs Main

I write today with the second reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in mind. I have followed today’s debate with great intrigue, listening where I can to MPs speeches on the issue of equal marriage. Debates such as these make me proud of our Members of Parliament; typically the floor of the House is embarrassingly empty, however today the level of involvement on the floor of the House has made me proud of our democracy, for someone with a fondness of Parliament, it is nice to see MPs and indeed you involved in the debate.

However I am upset to see you voted against the Bill.

I understand the points you made during the debate; you are correct that it featured in neither of the coalition party’s election manifestos hence there is no mandate to legislate on this issue. This does not suggest however that you the elected legislature cannot govern on the issue. Indeed, this is a conscious issue where you the MP must uphold the Burkean (after statesman Edmund Burke) principle of voting in the best interests of your most loyal constitutes of whom you represent.

This is wrong. In entrusting you with the Burkean principles of representation, we the people of St Albans expect more than just a representation of St Albans interests. We expect you to be better, in standing up and arguing for what is fair and is what is right. I find it hard to believe that the UK can denounce countries who murder people for being gay, yet fail to recognise the right of man to love someone of the same sex in the act of marriage.

Indeed, during the debate I was moved by the words of David Lammy MP (Tottenham) who argues that we cannot be “separate and equal.” I refer you to the words of Salmon P. Chase, who in the aftermath of the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 said “There can be no Democracy which does not fully maintain the rights of man, as man.” While speaking on an issue of slavery (which has since been abolished in the US gladly) I wonder if his words can indeed be echoed today as well. How can we knowingly walk down the street, shoulder to shoulder, with homosexuals of whom we deny the joyous celebration of love that is marriage between two individuals?

While I respect your views to be your own, I urge you to clarify your position on this issue, and your reasons for voting against the Bill, by releasing a press-release on the issue and perhaps publishing your reasons in the local newspaper so your most loyal constituents can comprehend your reasons in obstructing this progressive piece of legislation. 

Yours Sincerely,

A St Albans constituent

Andrew Mitchell - Answers, not apologies needed

We are in a brief passage of history at the moment where the Police service appear to be in the news an awful lot. Beginning last Wednesday (12 September 2012) with the statement from the Prime Minister, apologising and condoling with the families of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, where 96 football fans went to watch Liverpool play Nottingham Forrest and never came home. The statement at last seemed to put to bed who was to blame, which for years was the victims as a result of a police smear campaign.

JFT96

News then broke Wednesday morning (19 September 2012) of the killing of two police women in Manchester, after an apparent hoax call, leading the two officers into a death trap. 

Within 24 hours the Police were once again at the center of a media storm, as Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell allegedly shouted abuse at Police guarding the gates to Downing Street for not letting him through on his bicycle. The claims made by the Police include Mitchell shouting "do you know who I am?", "...best learn your place", "I'll have your jobs for this" and "...you're fucking plebs".

Dubbed as "Mitchellgate", "Plebgate" and "gategate", the story raises the important point of status and position in British society. 

Thrasher

While some may or may not agree with the methods used by the Police, but there is no doubt in this situation, someone has gotten above their station and used their status as a means to try and quieten the other into submission. 

On the one hand, the Police could be seen as being too unreasonable in this instance. Let the man through on his bike, no harm done, Mitchell gets home 5 minutes earlier. Or, as was the case the Police stick to the protocol laid before them, and do not allow Mitchell to pass through security. As a result, Mitchell kicked off. 

Now, the Police no doubt will be given tongue-lashings invariable around the country, infact i'm sure the Police have probably heard a lot worse on a Friday night outside nightclubs. This however is not the issue in my opinion. 

What's gone on here is a Cabinet member to get above his station. Using his power, threatening to "have his job for this" is unacceptable. The power bestowed on him by David Cameron, can just as easily be taken away by him, if not the electorate in the next general election. There is no absolute and infinite power MPs have. Serving Government and the people should be a privilege, not something used a bargaining chip in the game of life. He should be asked where he gets off on the idea that status, position and power should be a means through which he can be treated differently. Had I asked to get through the Downing Street gates, then called the police "fucking plebs", i'm sure I would have walked away in 'cuffs. 

In a social democracy, we should be able to resolve conflict such as this through sound reason and judgement, not resorting to a "my-dads bigger than your dad" esque confrontation. While perhaps not role-models, a Politician of his position should not let down the electorate by making such remarks. 

Already dubbed as "thrasher" for his tough persona, Mitchell has not helped his cause here. "I'm the Chief Whip" may well impress the bourgeoisie, but it won't impress the likes of the working-class. The gap between Politician and electorate is something, in my view, we need to eliminate in order for politicians to be more accessible. Stories such as this do no good. Cameron should make a stand and have Mitchell stand down in order to make the point that in reality, MPs are just elected members of society, not social heavyweights who can bully their way through life. 

Nick Clegg - A Political train wreck?

Nick Clegg, with David Cameron and Chris Huhne

Okay, so this week Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg made a heart-felt apology, filmed in his own home, with regards to the raising of tuition fees for higher education students. Signed into effect as the The Higher Education (Higher Amount) (England) Regulations 2010, this year marks the first intake of students that will have to pay higher fees to go to university: a maximum of £9000 will now be charged to university students compared to to previous maximum of £3200.

Within a day of making the apology the video had appeared on YouTube as a remix "Nick Clegg Apology Song - Sorry." No sooner had that appeared before Clegg had latched on and given his approval for the song to be commercialised, with profits going to charity. There is of course a serious point to all this: it rather does emphasise the ridiculous nature of the whole affair.

It seems to me like a completely misjudged attempt at redemption, dreamt up by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

To begin, he wrongly makes the point that he was wrong to make a promise that in reality he could not follow through on: i.e. we could not afford to NOT raise tuition fees. While some may be accepting of this and others quick to reject it as an excuse, it raise an important question about his party's ability to govern. Having a grasp of what one can and cannot afford is important in all walks of life, especially so in Government. Not being able to afford to keep the cap in place should have been something his party should have known - given the importance of the issue to many of their core voters: students. In ability to foresee this issue raises questions about their ability to Govern.

Dr Vince Cable

Secondly, I would suggest that there are instances where apologies are appropriate and others where they are not. I remember when I was younger, mother would tell me and my sister off when something happened, and the blame was sometimes (rarely) not squarely left on my shoulders. I would profess "I'm not apologising for something i didn't do." Perhaps a poor example, but again it raises an important point: apologising here does all but apportion the blame fully on his shoulders. It's an unfortunate position to be in, but let us remember the following: the Statutory Instrument was passed in Parliament offering all MPs a chance to vote on the issue, 21 Liberal Democrats voted against whereas 28 Lib Dems voted in favour, and of course former Liberal Democrat deputy leader and current Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills spearheaded the bills development. All this considered, it is very much a "team responsibility" if you will, rather than the blame resting solely on the one man. I would therefore consider "the apology" very damaging for Clegg. We live in something of a blame culture i believe, and rather than sharing the blame, by appearing in the video he has taken the flak himself.

Finally, one has to consider his image, and how it has been effected by the apology video. As mentioned briefly above, it rather does entrench his position as the Liberal Democrat scapegoat. Had the video been spun (sorry, Government's don't spin) written in a tone of "honest explanation" rather than an grovelling apology, he might have come out with his head held slightly higher. Instead, I believe his reputation and image in the public eye is left in tatters, because in reality "I'm so Sorry" is something I have said to numerous ex-girlfriends, not something i would like to have said to me by the deputy Prime Minister.

With the conference coming up, one has to wonder, how will Nick Clegg will perform; and perhaps more importantly will his performance be well received by party members. If the Liberal Democrat members are getting restless, the time for a leadership election is coming, infact with the election less than 2 and a half years away, the time might be now.

An Elected House of Lords is a recipe for disaster

The temptation to write what would possibly be my fourth "film-related" post was, trust me on this, incredibly tempting. However, for the meantime I shall delay said idea for a blog and return to my blogging roots, harking back to a time when all I bored you with was politics. Compared to my essays on the subject, i'm going to dumb it down a touch, just so it can appeal to world en masse (2,250 hits worldwide in just over a year, whoop whoop).


To my dismay, the Government's House of Lords Reform Bill is set for its second reading on the coming Monday (9th) and Tuesday (10th of July 2010). [I ought to mention to those who don't know, a Bill is a proposal for a policy to be enacted into law, to put it simply]. This is an incredibly important part of the process of law making. The first reading is merely an announcement of the proposed legislation. The second reading however is the meat and drink of the legislative process: The House of Commons will debate and then vote on the issue. Expect there to be fireworks between what should be a particularly busy House of Commons. 


Indeed, unlike other Bills, this is particularly important because it has the potential to change the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom. Now, the United Kingdom doesn't have a written, codified constitution. The United States are of course the prime example of a country that does have such a document, which is often why you hear many controversial issues described in America as "Unconstitutional". The UK, does have a constitution of sorts (that is, an idea of how the country should be run), but it is not found in one place, it is found in several, in Acts of Parliament produced over hundreds of years. Naturally, these Acts of Parliament  get old, and Political Parties tend to fight elections on the basis that they need updating. Classic examples would be an Act of Parliament allowing marriage only to be between a man and a woman; many years ago this was fine, but as countries and indeed democracies develop, opinion changes, and in 2005 an updated Act was passed to allow marriage to also be allowed between same-sex couples. 


Coming back to the reason for the blog, the three main parties (and this happens very rarely) all agree that the House of Lords needs to be updated to be more aligned to  other aspects of the modern political framework. The House of Lords at present is unelected, members exist by virtue of nomination. This is deemed undemocratic by the party machines that exist in the UK. Naturally, the word "undemocratic" is incredibly inflammatory to the public, because often "undemocratic" and "dictatorship" are found very close to each other in the political dictionaries around the world. 


Of course, changing it would be great, but I shall highlight three problems with making the House of Lords an elected chamber:

1. It will be party dominated - much like the House of Commons, anyone who wants to stand has a better chance if backed by a party. Indeed, anyone can stand for the Commons (famously, Katie Price once stood for election as an MP). However, the electorate tend not to vote for independents and smaller parties. In the bigger picture, they see 1 of at most 3 parties getting into Government, and setting the legislative agenda. A vote for an independent is considered a wasted vote, because of the support that the steam rolling major parties can create. Indeed, the House of Lords at the moment consists of a vast array of intelligent, independent minded members, who contribute massively to the legislative process. People will not go to the polls and vote for Mr Independent on the basis he has contributed massively to medical research (as he would have been nominated to the Lords for). Instead, they will vote for the party, as people do time and time and time again in the House of Commons. The Lords would just mirror the House of Commons in terms of its composition. You think legislation is fastracked through the Lords at the moment? Imagine how quick it would get through, with a Majority in both Commons and the Lords. 
2. They will have an elected mandate - Gordon Brown as Prime Minister never won an Election as a party leader, hence he was Prime Minister without an "elected mandate" for his Premiership. This damaged his credibility severely, because of the way he inherited his post as PM. Indeed, if the Lords are elected, they will carry an elected Mandate into their role. Great! Wrong. Lords will have been elected in the UK by a proportional system of voting. This is widely accepted as a fairer system, because the amount of votes received tends to equate to the amount of members elected (i,e, if Labour recieve 25% of the vote in the Midlands, expect 25% of Labour candidates from the Midlands to be elected to the Lords). Without wishing to debate the merits and demerits of the system, there is a consensus that a PR system is fairer than the system in place for the House of Commons: a Single-member list system. If members are elected by a fairer system, what is there to stop members saying "Hang on a minute, we're here fairly, you lot [in the House of Commons] have been voted in via safe seats and on 36% of the popular vote, what we say is far more legitimate than what you say!" The point is, the Lords may well get into a position where it is superior to the Commons, which would upset the political system of the UK (the Prime Minister would thus be drawn from the "unfair" House of Commons).
3. Loss of expertise - I pose the question, will my University Professor stand if the House of Lords become elected? Well, I did ask him that and he said he wasn't sure. In reality, as a Conservative member of the House of Lords, he would only be able to stand if endorsed by the Party. Punch Lord Norton into Wikipedia, and you will find the quote  "the United Kingdom's greatest living expert on Parliament". At the moment, he can weigh in during the legislative process, something i quite like the idea of, particularly if the debate is with regards to anything about our political system. An elected House may well exclude such experts, as indeed its very much down to the parties as to who gets in and who doesn't. It would become a chamber not so much of experts, but loyal party candidates, who are more than willing to vote inline with the party. At present there is a very lax whipping system in the Lords, regardless, there is no majority in the Lords because of the existence of 181 independent cross benches. 

Indeed, I would suggest three good arguments, as to why the Lords should be kept as it is.