Thursday, 13 October 2011

And the difference between

A 'slo vak' and a 'brush off' is that of principle. I have for some time been of the opinion that a true system of democracy would be a combination of the system practised in Switzerland, incorporating a liberal dose of "Referism". That we suffer in this country with what I term 'democratised dictatorship' is self-evident if one cares to look. At election time we are presented with three main parties whose policies are basically the same; who present manifestos to the electorate that aren't worth the paper on which they are printed; that  having elected one of them with a majority - and when we don't, two of the parties then cobble together a 'fix' which results in a programme for which the majority did not vote - that we are then stuck with that government until we are given the opportunity to remove them. The politicians that then form the House of Commons show no willingness to actually represent the views of those they are meant to serve and instead are more interested in sucking up to their party leaders in the hope of personal advancement - and thus of their careers.

Mark Wallace has posted the contents of an interview he had with Juraj Droba, one of the 21 SaS MPs sitting in the Slovakian Parliament and Vice-Chairman of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. One section of this interview is most prescient. In answer to the question why he and his colleagues in Slovakia said 'No' when all the other Eurozone countries said 'Yes' to the bailout, he replied:
"We are a new party, composed of people who were previously successful in the commercial sphere. Our bottoms are not glued to the political chairs, we are ready to leave anytime and even sacrifice our mere political existence for a principle as noble as pointing out the main trobules [sic]with EFSF and ESM."
Contrast that statement with the MPs currently sitting in the House of Commons. How many of our MPs have shown that they are prepared to leave at any time; how many of our MP's bottoms are most definitely glued to the political chairs?  One only has to look at events in Parliament on Tuesday last, to see the latter situation in operation and on which John Redwood posted:
"The truth is the UK is contributing to this foolish policy of bail out through the IMF and directly in the case of the Irish loan. We were asked to approve more of the documents for it last night. Labour abstained and a few of us voted No."
 It is about time that a mandatory question was put to all MPs seeking re-election at the occasion of their 'hustings', or when they come 'a-knocking'; and that is:
"You have sat in the House of Commons as an MP of the (Lib/Lab/Con) party, accepting your party's whip, whilst disagreeing with various aspects/the majority of your party's policies. In that situation the most honourable course of action, as a matter of principle, would have been to resign from your party, or 'cross the floor of the House'; or even resign from Parliament. Why didn't you?"
Some may consider that a silly question as the response received would no doubt incorporate crap about 'change from within', but I would still like to hear them justify their actions.


k said...

WfW: I am very happy to totally, without reservation, agree with everything you have said in this post. I think the leader of the Slovak parliament, Richard Sulik, who said he would rather be a pariah in Brussles than have to feel ashamed before his children, is a hero of the calibre of Vaclaw Klaus. If only Britain had politicians like him.

kenomeat said...

Above post, identified as "k" should of course have read kenomeat

Oldrightie said...

K or Kenomeat, same flavour for me.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

k & Or: thanks for the agreement!