Today I introduce a Bill in the House of Commons that would give the people a direct vote on Britain's membership of the European Union; the European Union Membership (Referendum) Bill.The odds are very much stacked against the forces arguing for democracy and a referendum, but Mr Carswell is a persuasive man.
All three political parties promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Yet it never happened.
For thirty years, it's been left to politicians and diplomats to determine our Euro policy. No one under the age of 53 has had the chance to vote in a referendum on it. I think now it's time to let the people decide.
Showing posts with label Douglas Carswell MP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Douglas Carswell MP. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
If Not Lisbon, Then Rome
From Doug Carswell's Blog:
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Doug Carswell - Referendum Man
Private Members Bills are a tool for MP's who are not on the front benches to introduce legislation, but tend to have a low success rate and little floor time is provided. There is going to be limited time available in Parliament with the lead up to the General Election as well. However, with an issue as big as continued membership of the EU and with the right momentum there is a chance that Mr Carswell with enough public and media support could force the issue in Parliament. We should assume that the Whips will not be in any mood to help Mr Carswell in this cause, so it is down to people to make their voices heard and for the general population to shout out that we do indeed want this Bill to be passed to that we can have our say on EU Membership. It is time the people of this country are allowed a say on what we do and do not want.
Mr Carswell's piece, where he sets out his intentions is here.
I for one wish Mr Carswell every success, I hope he can succeed and help us get what so many of us have longed for, for a long time. He will be a very popular man if he can!
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
EDM 2090 - Parliamentary Elections (Recall And Primaries) Bill
Please write to, email, twitter or generally harass your MP in the most appropriate form to sign up to this EDM from Doug Carswell MP.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RECALL AND PRIMARIES) BILL
19.10.2009
Carswell, Douglas
That this House is deeply concerned about the lack of public engagement in political and democratic affairs and the cynicism and distrust of the political system felt by many voters; notes that the recent Power Inquiry found that this is all too often borne out of a sense of disempowerment; believes that new measures are required to enable voters to participate more fully in the political system; welcomes the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections (Recall and Primaries) Bill tabled by a cross-party group of hon. Members that would permit voters to recall their hon. Member in certain specified circumstances and also require a returning officer to hold primary elections if requested to do so by any local political party with the support of at least 1,000 voters; further notes that the leaders of the three largest political parties have expressed support for the need for new initiatives to engage the public; and hopes that this Bill will become law expeditiously, believing that it will help restore faith in the political process.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RECALL AND PRIMARIES) BILL
19.10.2009
Carswell, Douglas
That this House is deeply concerned about the lack of public engagement in political and democratic affairs and the cynicism and distrust of the political system felt by many voters; notes that the recent Power Inquiry found that this is all too often borne out of a sense of disempowerment; believes that new measures are required to enable voters to participate more fully in the political system; welcomes the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections (Recall and Primaries) Bill tabled by a cross-party group of hon. Members that would permit voters to recall their hon. Member in certain specified circumstances and also require a returning officer to hold primary elections if requested to do so by any local political party with the support of at least 1,000 voters; further notes that the leaders of the three largest political parties have expressed support for the need for new initiatives to engage the public; and hopes that this Bill will become law expeditiously, believing that it will help restore faith in the political process.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A Few Thoughts On The NHS "Debate"..
Daniel Hannan is again grabbing the political headlines by giving some talks in America about the drawbacks to Socialised Medicine, and dispelling some of the myths there about how the NHS really is over here.
The most annoying and depressing aspect of this is the immediate attempts by the British left to smear Hannan and shut down a debate before it has even happened. Andy Burnham even went so far as to suggest that Daniel Hannan is “unpatriotic”… I know few people Andy Burnham seriously, but still he is a Minister, and to make such a suggestion is not just comically inaccurate, but a calculated insult.
Here’s what I want to add to the debate. Firstly I am like most people in the UK, my family and I have had good experiences of the NHS and we have had dreadful experiences, but I have not experienced to any degree healthcare in any other country first hand. So, my experiences and opinions stem from a bubble of prescribed ignorance.
If we can have the debate, it needs to be wider than offering the US system as the alternative, there are others. Dan has pointed this out already but he and Douglas Carswell’s preferred alternative is that of the model used in Singapore, and this is the alternative that they set out in their book, The Plan, published last year. [In contrast to another smear, this time allegedly from Tom Watson, who claimed Dan Hannan was going abroad casting assertions that he would not make at home.] I have read The Plan, and from memory their healthcare idea is to have citizens save through health schemes their own money to pay for healthcare to be drawn upon as it is needed, additionally people will need insurance to pay for more expensive healthcare should it be required. The poorest in society will be provided for by the State, as and when it is needed. The system itself becomes open to price influence and consumer pressures and will naturally seek ways to compete for custom by improving service and offering competitive pricing. Medical staff will naturally seek to be better so that they can themselves do better. When the system fails, individuals can seek recompense openly and fairly.
This may not be exactly as was written in “The Plan” but is the motion at a high level.
The well off do have the advantage of being able to pay for better doctors and facilities; but in contrast to the UK system now this will be more widely available than is currently available to the smaller, but wealthier who can still buck the system. Perversely the less than 10% who can afford to do so in the UK now, simply buy their way to the front of the queue and will likely end up in the same operating theatre, with the same doctor using the same tools, the other 90% or so have to wait their turn for a slot to open for their treatments.
So, what troubles me is; why exactly is it so offensive to the British Left that alternatives systems are discussed that may actually improve the state of health in the people of this country? There is compelling evidence that there are other systems employed in the developed world where a UK equivalent could save more lives; so it cannot be a body count issue.
It is of course because the NHS is the bedrock of the Socialist argument in the UK; it is held up as universally popular and universally acknowledged as being a success. But away from the Government and out of the mainstream press that is not entirely how everybody views the NHS. If you tug at the threads of the NHS and show that things can actually be done better, cheaper and more efficiently then the whole of the Labour Parties core beliefs can come into question. The criticism and attacks we hear from Labour come from a position of fear, rather than of confidence.
I gave it some, but not really a lot of thought over the last week, and I am personally in no hurry to bring down the NHS. Firstly, there has been no debate and no consensus that an alternative should be sought. This however I would like to contribute to. Secondly, as with all change the fear of change clouds the uncertainty of the potential of improvement. Without more cheerleaders and an inspired vision it is hard to have confidence that a change would be successful… but that can change.
The fear stems from the certainty of what almost certainly will go wrong. Though I am not convinced the whole of the NHS is behind the notion that the State must run all, there would be enough organised opposition to ensure that any moves to change will be fiercely opposed. We can be sure of this fact because we have the benefit of history on our side. Also, no matter what changes are made, and no matter how good things get, we can only move from an imperfect system into a different imperfect system, and it is there that those who are ill served and neglected will be held up as the victims of what I would assume will fast be referred to as corporate healthcare.
So, as is probably evident, I am personally clearer on the fact that I think we should just be open and allow ourselves the luxury of talking about how we could make things better, than I am on how I personally would advocate how we can really make improvements. But the more everyone talks, the clearer these positions and alternative will become. That is the benefit of living in a free society, power and change can emanate from public debate, rather than from those who prescribe how they think we should governed.
If you are still convinced we can do no better than to allow the State to run the Health Service, I invite you to imagine for one moment a contrasting example. In your mind’s eye, look at how the State has taken more and more control in the past 40 years of Education. Think about how things were in all terms, does the money the rich have buy more or less of an advantage today compared to 40 years ago? What standard of service do the poorest get? Are the standards better or worse than 40 years ago? Now ask yourselves the same questions of your food supply?
Perhaps a bizarre example, but what I am trying to illustrate is that in 40 years, through private enterprise, Supermarkets like Tesco’s & Sainsbury’s, as well as your local stores and restaurants have done more for food and diet equality to the people of the UK than the State has done for education equality. For the few of you who scoff, I invite you to now image the reverse scenario, if food supply was a ring fenced competence for Government? Would it be cheaper, or as widely available? Try to imagine how that would affect yours and everyone standard of living. In that bizzarro world, you would be hard pushed to imagine how the free enterprise system could be providing food much more easily and cheaply, but we know it to be possible.
Hopefully, such an example illustrates that it is not unpatriotic to simply aspire to live our lives free from State control. Also, just because we don’t yet have all of the answers to how we can make things better, the first step is to talk openly and to include everyone in those discussions, because everyone is affected. Then hopefully, down the line and with popular consensus try some new ideas out for real giving them a real chance to succeed or fail.
Finally, and just because I think it is important to mention something that is sometimes, strangely ignored and occasionally spun inaccurately. The NHS is free at the point of use, in that an ambulance driver no more needs a credit card than does your GP’s receptionist; but the NHS is not free. It is in fact very expensive and consumes a big chunk of the taxes we pay.
The most annoying and depressing aspect of this is the immediate attempts by the British left to smear Hannan and shut down a debate before it has even happened. Andy Burnham even went so far as to suggest that Daniel Hannan is “unpatriotic”… I know few people Andy Burnham seriously, but still he is a Minister, and to make such a suggestion is not just comically inaccurate, but a calculated insult.
Here’s what I want to add to the debate. Firstly I am like most people in the UK, my family and I have had good experiences of the NHS and we have had dreadful experiences, but I have not experienced to any degree healthcare in any other country first hand. So, my experiences and opinions stem from a bubble of prescribed ignorance.
If we can have the debate, it needs to be wider than offering the US system as the alternative, there are others. Dan has pointed this out already but he and Douglas Carswell’s preferred alternative is that of the model used in Singapore, and this is the alternative that they set out in their book, The Plan, published last year. [In contrast to another smear, this time allegedly from Tom Watson, who claimed Dan Hannan was going abroad casting assertions that he would not make at home.] I have read The Plan, and from memory their healthcare idea is to have citizens save through health schemes their own money to pay for healthcare to be drawn upon as it is needed, additionally people will need insurance to pay for more expensive healthcare should it be required. The poorest in society will be provided for by the State, as and when it is needed. The system itself becomes open to price influence and consumer pressures and will naturally seek ways to compete for custom by improving service and offering competitive pricing. Medical staff will naturally seek to be better so that they can themselves do better. When the system fails, individuals can seek recompense openly and fairly.
This may not be exactly as was written in “The Plan” but is the motion at a high level.
The well off do have the advantage of being able to pay for better doctors and facilities; but in contrast to the UK system now this will be more widely available than is currently available to the smaller, but wealthier who can still buck the system. Perversely the less than 10% who can afford to do so in the UK now, simply buy their way to the front of the queue and will likely end up in the same operating theatre, with the same doctor using the same tools, the other 90% or so have to wait their turn for a slot to open for their treatments.
So, what troubles me is; why exactly is it so offensive to the British Left that alternatives systems are discussed that may actually improve the state of health in the people of this country? There is compelling evidence that there are other systems employed in the developed world where a UK equivalent could save more lives; so it cannot be a body count issue.
It is of course because the NHS is the bedrock of the Socialist argument in the UK; it is held up as universally popular and universally acknowledged as being a success. But away from the Government and out of the mainstream press that is not entirely how everybody views the NHS. If you tug at the threads of the NHS and show that things can actually be done better, cheaper and more efficiently then the whole of the Labour Parties core beliefs can come into question. The criticism and attacks we hear from Labour come from a position of fear, rather than of confidence.
I gave it some, but not really a lot of thought over the last week, and I am personally in no hurry to bring down the NHS. Firstly, there has been no debate and no consensus that an alternative should be sought. This however I would like to contribute to. Secondly, as with all change the fear of change clouds the uncertainty of the potential of improvement. Without more cheerleaders and an inspired vision it is hard to have confidence that a change would be successful… but that can change.
The fear stems from the certainty of what almost certainly will go wrong. Though I am not convinced the whole of the NHS is behind the notion that the State must run all, there would be enough organised opposition to ensure that any moves to change will be fiercely opposed. We can be sure of this fact because we have the benefit of history on our side. Also, no matter what changes are made, and no matter how good things get, we can only move from an imperfect system into a different imperfect system, and it is there that those who are ill served and neglected will be held up as the victims of what I would assume will fast be referred to as corporate healthcare.
So, as is probably evident, I am personally clearer on the fact that I think we should just be open and allow ourselves the luxury of talking about how we could make things better, than I am on how I personally would advocate how we can really make improvements. But the more everyone talks, the clearer these positions and alternative will become. That is the benefit of living in a free society, power and change can emanate from public debate, rather than from those who prescribe how they think we should governed.
If you are still convinced we can do no better than to allow the State to run the Health Service, I invite you to imagine for one moment a contrasting example. In your mind’s eye, look at how the State has taken more and more control in the past 40 years of Education. Think about how things were in all terms, does the money the rich have buy more or less of an advantage today compared to 40 years ago? What standard of service do the poorest get? Are the standards better or worse than 40 years ago? Now ask yourselves the same questions of your food supply?
Perhaps a bizarre example, but what I am trying to illustrate is that in 40 years, through private enterprise, Supermarkets like Tesco’s & Sainsbury’s, as well as your local stores and restaurants have done more for food and diet equality to the people of the UK than the State has done for education equality. For the few of you who scoff, I invite you to now image the reverse scenario, if food supply was a ring fenced competence for Government? Would it be cheaper, or as widely available? Try to imagine how that would affect yours and everyone standard of living. In that bizzarro world, you would be hard pushed to imagine how the free enterprise system could be providing food much more easily and cheaply, but we know it to be possible.
Hopefully, such an example illustrates that it is not unpatriotic to simply aspire to live our lives free from State control. Also, just because we don’t yet have all of the answers to how we can make things better, the first step is to talk openly and to include everyone in those discussions, because everyone is affected. Then hopefully, down the line and with popular consensus try some new ideas out for real giving them a real chance to succeed or fail.
Finally, and just because I think it is important to mention something that is sometimes, strangely ignored and occasionally spun inaccurately. The NHS is free at the point of use, in that an ambulance driver no more needs a credit card than does your GP’s receptionist; but the NHS is not free. It is in fact very expensive and consumes a big chunk of the taxes we pay.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Motion Of No Confidence Against The Speaker Has Been Tabled
Tabled by Doug Carswell, Paul Flynn, Gordon Prentice & Ben Wallace.
“That this House has no confidence in Mr Speaker and calls for him to step down; notes that Mr Speaker has failed to provide leadership in matters relating to hon. Members’ expenses; believes that a new Speaker urgently needs to be elected by secret ballot, free from manipulation by party Whips, under Standing Order No. 1B; and believes that a new Speaker should proceed to reform the House in such a way as to make it an effective legislature once again.”
Hopefully Mr Martin will resign tomorrow, if not it will got to a vote.
Despite a potential swoop for Ming a few months back, so as to prevent a Tory being appointed, that may well be out of the question after tonight's story on his expense claims.
I did make my suggestion here in February, I suggested... Doug Carswell.
“That this House has no confidence in Mr Speaker and calls for him to step down; notes that Mr Speaker has failed to provide leadership in matters relating to hon. Members’ expenses; believes that a new Speaker urgently needs to be elected by secret ballot, free from manipulation by party Whips, under Standing Order No. 1B; and believes that a new Speaker should proceed to reform the House in such a way as to make it an effective legislature once again.”
Hopefully Mr Martin will resign tomorrow, if not it will got to a vote.
Despite a potential swoop for Ming a few months back, so as to prevent a Tory being appointed, that may well be out of the question after tonight's story on his expense claims.
I did make my suggestion here in February, I suggested... Doug Carswell.
Friday, February 20, 2009
If The System Is Broke, Why Don't We Fix It?
Parliamentary Standards Commissioner has finally decided that there will now be an investigation into Jacqui Smith's expenses. This has only come about because neighbours at the questionable South London residence have spoken up and claimed that the 'Second Home Secretary' was spending two to three nights a week there, and not every week of the year.
I won't hold my breath, but at least due process is finally in effect.
It is worth remembering that there is a so called grace and favour house that is in place and would have been free for Jacqui Smith to use in her position as Home Secretary. But in doing what she has done, she has claimed £116k from the Tax Payer to put towards her "other" home in Redditch.
My question is this. Clearly the system is broken, so why is there not a clear and deafening call to clean up the rules and wipe the slate from after the next General Election? Any wrong doing should still of course still need to be investigated, and punished. But surely we should draw a line in the sand AND get the reform that is desperately needed. Such abuses, in the public mind at least warrant a prison term. Not a slap on the wrist.
Second Question, who amongst the Conservative ranks do we trust to draw up the new rules? My vote, Mr Carswell.
I won't hold my breath, but at least due process is finally in effect.
It is worth remembering that there is a so called grace and favour house that is in place and would have been free for Jacqui Smith to use in her position as Home Secretary. But in doing what she has done, she has claimed £116k from the Tax Payer to put towards her "other" home in Redditch.
My question is this. Clearly the system is broken, so why is there not a clear and deafening call to clean up the rules and wipe the slate from after the next General Election? Any wrong doing should still of course still need to be investigated, and punished. But surely we should draw a line in the sand AND get the reform that is desperately needed. Such abuses, in the public mind at least warrant a prison term. Not a slap on the wrist.
Second Question, who amongst the Conservative ranks do we trust to draw up the new rules? My vote, Mr Carswell.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Crime Is Up, Crime Is Down..... Thanks BBC
The BBC reported today that reported crime numbers are up. The figures are as follows:
Knife/Sharp Instrument Robbery - Up 18%
Fraud/Forgery - Up 16%
Drugs - Up 9%
Home Burglary - Up 4%
Other Burglary - Up 3%
However, at the same time, a separate BBC report states that crime numbers are down. The key points being:
Gun Crime - Down 26%
Knife Crime - Down 12%
Robbery - Down 17%
Rapes and Domestic violence - Both Up
The difference between them being that the figures that show the increase are for the UK, where as the figures showing a reduction are for London only.
The two BBC reports, despite being online do not make reference to each other.
So let me ask the question. How is it that crime nationally continues to rise, but crime in London is falling? Could the answer be that in London the Met Police Authority is Chaired by the Mayor, currently Boris Johnson? This is not a Tory/Labour Comparison, as the figures show in London year-on-year trends meaning this is a continuation of a trend started under former Mayor Ken Livingstone. It is the only authority in England that is not completely controlled from Centralised targets sent down from the Home Office, and where the Met Authority has a say on policing, rather than the Chief Constable rolling out initiatives based on centrally set Home Office targets.
Could this be the real evidence that can be used to further the case for locally elected sheriffs and/or elected Police Commissioners? With the Mayor being an elected official in London chairing the Met Authorities meetings we can see a tangible link between an elected official conveying the concerns of the public that they are elected to represent.
A convincing case for local Sheriff's has been made by Daniel Hannan and Doug Carswell in their book The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain. I must confess that I was sceptical about local Sheriffs until I read their proposal, but they won me over on this particular point.
Knife/Sharp Instrument Robbery - Up 18%
Fraud/Forgery - Up 16%
Drugs - Up 9%
Home Burglary - Up 4%
Other Burglary - Up 3%
However, at the same time, a separate BBC report states that crime numbers are down. The key points being:
Gun Crime - Down 26%
Knife Crime - Down 12%
Robbery - Down 17%
Rapes and Domestic violence - Both Up
The difference between them being that the figures that show the increase are for the UK, where as the figures showing a reduction are for London only.
The two BBC reports, despite being online do not make reference to each other.
So let me ask the question. How is it that crime nationally continues to rise, but crime in London is falling? Could the answer be that in London the Met Police Authority is Chaired by the Mayor, currently Boris Johnson? This is not a Tory/Labour Comparison, as the figures show in London year-on-year trends meaning this is a continuation of a trend started under former Mayor Ken Livingstone. It is the only authority in England that is not completely controlled from Centralised targets sent down from the Home Office, and where the Met Authority has a say on policing, rather than the Chief Constable rolling out initiatives based on centrally set Home Office targets.
Could this be the real evidence that can be used to further the case for locally elected sheriffs and/or elected Police Commissioners? With the Mayor being an elected official in London chairing the Met Authorities meetings we can see a tangible link between an elected official conveying the concerns of the public that they are elected to represent.
A convincing case for local Sheriff's has been made by Daniel Hannan and Doug Carswell in their book The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain. I must confess that I was sceptical about local Sheriffs until I read their proposal, but they won me over on this particular point.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Brown U-Turn On MP Expenses
The other day I picked up on what was written in the blogosphere online about the MPs expenses scandal. Thanks to Mick Fealty I found out about the MySociety campaign through theyworkforyou.com to try and force MPs to vote against the proposals (and against decent standards of Democratic process). I also read on Douglas Carswell MP blog that he was going to publish details of his expenses, inspired by a pledge from Ben Wallace MP.
Last night I was having a flick through the blogs and I saw on Doug Carswells Blog that he had top slot at PMQ's today, and that he was looking for suggestions for questions... seemed simple really - ask about the expenses, and see if he can get Gordon Brown to make a similar pledge. So, this was what I suggested, (twice actually, as my post last night was not visible on his blog this morning, so I posted it again today).
I have not seen the footage yet, I will be looking for it when I get home.
Anyway, The Times is already reporting that Gordon Brown is to perform a U-Turn after having been asked the question by Doug Carswell MP. You can read the Time Report here.
Here is a snippet: Mr Brown made the announcement in response to a question from Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP, who asked why he was whipping he MPs to pass the matter.
The change is a victory for the opposition parties and for the huge grassroots campaign by groups such as mySociety and Unlock Democracy. The Tories announced yesterday they were opposing the measure, while Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat, has led the case for the opposition.
I am pretty sure that Mr Carswell would have had this thought on his own, he is after all one of the smarter of the MPs we have in Westminster, but I am grateful that he did ask on this particular matter. I am more grateful really that such a counter-productive law will not be passed.
Unfortunately, despite the apparent u-turn we can be sure that this will be slipped back in as soon as the Government thinks no one is looking, or when outrage is so high against them, this will pale in comparison to whatever cock up we are lambasting them for.
My final thought is this, Doug Carswell knew in advance that he was to get the lead question, I understand that the Speaker sets out who is to get that particular privilege each week. I am sure it will not have escaped the Speakers attention that Doug Carswell had pledged to publish his expenses on the Internet. I wonder if the Speaker wanted Doug Carswell to ask that particular Question? Perhaps Mr Speaker wishes avoid himself being cast in yet another embarassing expenses story?
Last night I was having a flick through the blogs and I saw on Doug Carswells Blog that he had top slot at PMQ's today, and that he was looking for suggestions for questions... seemed simple really - ask about the expenses, and see if he can get Gordon Brown to make a similar pledge. So, this was what I suggested, (twice actually, as my post last night was not visible on his blog this morning, so I posted it again today).
I have not seen the footage yet, I will be looking for it when I get home.
Anyway, The Times is already reporting that Gordon Brown is to perform a U-Turn after having been asked the question by Doug Carswell MP. You can read the Time Report here.
Here is a snippet: Mr Brown made the announcement in response to a question from Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP, who asked why he was whipping he MPs to pass the matter.
The change is a victory for the opposition parties and for the huge grassroots campaign by groups such as mySociety and Unlock Democracy. The Tories announced yesterday they were opposing the measure, while Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat, has led the case for the opposition.
I am pretty sure that Mr Carswell would have had this thought on his own, he is after all one of the smarter of the MPs we have in Westminster, but I am grateful that he did ask on this particular matter. I am more grateful really that such a counter-productive law will not be passed.
Unfortunately, despite the apparent u-turn we can be sure that this will be slipped back in as soon as the Government thinks no one is looking, or when outrage is so high against them, this will pale in comparison to whatever cock up we are lambasting them for.
My final thought is this, Doug Carswell knew in advance that he was to get the lead question, I understand that the Speaker sets out who is to get that particular privilege each week. I am sure it will not have escaped the Speakers attention that Doug Carswell had pledged to publish his expenses on the Internet. I wonder if the Speaker wanted Doug Carswell to ask that particular Question? Perhaps Mr Speaker wishes avoid himself being cast in yet another embarassing expenses story?
Monday, January 19, 2009
MP's Expenses
Mick Fealty blogged today that MySociety, through theyworkforyou.com is planning an offensive back against MPs who vote in favour of concealing their expenses this week. This involves a letter and email campaign to MPs and the subsequent naming and shaming of MPs who vote for the subversion of open democracy, not forgetting those who abstain. A worthy campaign that I will support on this blog.
Already I see that Douglas Carswell MP has declared on his blog that he will publish online details of all of his expenses. He says he is following the example of Ben Wallace MP. Hopefully all MPs will not only pledge to do the same, but vote down this ridiculous proposal, that can only further alienate politicians from the people they are supposed to serve.
In the aftermath of this issue, should any MP discovered to be wasting tax payer money will surely be slaughtered in the court of public opinion.
Already I see that Douglas Carswell MP has declared on his blog that he will publish online details of all of his expenses. He says he is following the example of Ben Wallace MP. Hopefully all MPs will not only pledge to do the same, but vote down this ridiculous proposal, that can only further alienate politicians from the people they are supposed to serve.
In the aftermath of this issue, should any MP discovered to be wasting tax payer money will surely be slaughtered in the court of public opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)