Friday, 27 January 2012

Who to believe: Vaz or Straw?

Only yesterday when posting about a parliamentary debate I pointed to Keith Vaz complaining that MPs are so busy they do not have time to deal with matters EU. Well, well, today we have Jack Straw complaining that MPs have little legislation to consider and that they need some meat to deal with. One's first impression is that one of the two is telling porkies, however on reflection it is possible that both may have opened yet another Pandoras Box.

Some MPs, like Vaz, are it seems extremely busy with the promotion of themselves, whilst also following Ronald Reagan's maxim for all that is wrong with 'government', namely that if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it and if it stops moving subsidize it. Straw, it seems, wants more time to do just that. Odd that ministers felt it necessary to state that the Commons has a 'balanced diet' when it is widely known that they dine extremely......oh sorry, just noticed the additional words: 'of business'. On the other hand, if MPs have time to debate bills as ministers maintain, why is it necessary that time constraints are imposed? If Vaz is correct, then what are these other matters of such importance that limits his time? If Vaz is so busy with these other important matters, what is Straw not doing that he should be doing? Perhaps both could make their diaries available for public inspection?

If Straw is correct then the reason is obvious - with more and more areas of government being ceded to Brussels it stands to reason that there will be less and less for our politicians to do. In which case perhaps our MPs could debate the subject of their own existence and whether they are in fact necessary. Perhaps MPs could debate the cost/benefits of our membership of the European Union? Perhaps MPs could debate the question of treason and whether charges should be brought against those politicians that have routinely denied the British people a say on our membership of the European Union? Perhaps MPs could debate the question why we have so many quangos and advisory bodies advising them, yet maintain that they, the politicians, are the only ones capable of deciding important matters of state. Perhaps MPs could debate whether our system of representative democracy is in fact fit for purpose and the benefits people might gain by a change to direct democracy and referism? There is so much MPs could do, but don't!

Even better, when not inside the House of Commons, perhaps our MPs would just keep quiet?

No comments: