Ah! You are forgetting that the vast majority of the current batch put themselves forward for the job. A few genuinely wishing to better the lot of their fellow man; but sadly most in it for themselves. 100% spoiled votes (clearly spoiled on purpose) IS the public vote of no confidence. The aim is to force a change in the system of how MPs are selected as candidates, and possibly a review of our first past the post elections.
I'm not necessarily in favour of PR. That could actually encourage the present Party First situation. With PR you vote for your party of choice, they choose from a list of candidate MPs, there is no local connection. At least with our present system there is the possibility of electing MPs who have their roots and a personal interest in their constituency. Also if they really live there, rather than buying a house purely to qualify as a candidate for the constituency, they can be seen, and indeed should be made, to be accountable for the way in which they represent their constituents.
But with the majority of MPs simply following party policy, because their job depends on it; and the current arrangements where key party members (and especially high profile transfers from other parties) are placed as the candidates for "safe" seats, we DO NOT have real local accountability.
A fine example. Local politicians want to demolish a popular public hall for a new retail development, in a Wiltshire town. They are informed by the local electorate that they will no longer be welcome in any business premises, they will be denied services by local businesses and tradespeople, indeed they will have to leave the area and move away to lead a normal life. The hall is still in use, I was dancing there at Whitsun. Accountability is important. We do not have it with the way the current party system works.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-06-09 09:59 pm (UTC)I'm not necessarily in favour of PR. That could actually encourage the present Party First situation. With PR you vote for your party of choice, they choose from a list of candidate MPs, there is no local connection. At least with our present system there is the possibility of electing MPs who have their roots and a personal interest in their constituency. Also if they really live there, rather than buying a house purely to qualify as a candidate for the constituency, they can be seen, and indeed should be made, to be accountable for the way in which they represent their constituents.
But with the majority of MPs simply following party policy, because their job depends on it; and the current arrangements where key party members (and especially high profile transfers from other parties) are placed as the candidates for "safe" seats, we DO NOT have real local accountability.
A fine example. Local politicians want to demolish a popular public hall for a new retail development, in a Wiltshire town. They are informed by the local electorate that they will no longer be welcome in any business premises, they will be denied services by local businesses and tradespeople, indeed they will have to leave the area and move away to lead a normal life. The hall is still in use, I was dancing there at Whitsun. Accountability is important. We do not have it with the way the current party system works.