‘Labouring’ to keep the status quo – and are they not all ‘labouring’, regardless of party?

It is noted that Pat Glass MP has tabled a private member’s bill (which today had its second reading) saying officials must use the latest electoral register when drawing up new constituency boundaries,  which seems a logical suggestion; however she also wishes to keep the number of MPs to 650. The Hansard report of the ensuing debate can be found here. Never mind a ‘talking-shop, it seems ‘looking after number-one’ is more important; an accusation that could well be leveled in other directions where the introduction of direct democracy is concerned.

Labour are the biggest losers under the commission’s proposals, with up to 30 of their current seats expected to disappear – including Jeremy Corbyn’s. Ms Glass’ Parliamentary Constituencies (amendment) Bill would keep the number of MPs at its current level.

We’ve got a democracy in which, at general election and local elections, fewer and fewer people vote, but when people bother to register we’re not even counting them, she said, adding: There is something wrong in a government which is seeking to reduce the elected house at the same time as it is creating 250 more Lords.

The first question that arises is if the ‘democracy’ that we have results in fewer and fewer people actually bothering to vote, how can we be sure that newly registered members of the electorate will, in fact, exercise their franchise – and, more importantly, should we not change that system of democracy so that any of the electorate feel their vote will actually matter? The second question is one that asks if the membership of the Upper House is to be increased, why is it left to the Prime Minister – and Leaders of other political parties – to so decide without obtaining the agreement of those that have to fund his/her/their largess?

Under our present system of democracy we are reminded time and time again, by the 650, that they are elected to represent their constituents. Just when do they; and how can they when invariably their vote is ‘whipped’, or they vote for their party in the hope of advancement up the ‘political ladder of opportunity’?

Should not those that fund any system of democracy have a voice in how it works and its cost?  Why do we need 650 ineffective ‘representatives’; ‘ineffective’ in that they care not one jot about how their constituents feel when they have a career to follow?

For how much longer do we, the people that fund our politicians and their, for example, sycophantic fake charities who to a certain extent have an element of control over the  actions of  our elected representatives, have to endure a system of democracy whereby servants dictate and are thus able to rule their masters? Is it not the case that those who hire paid labour to carry out work on their behalf then decide what and how – that paid labour does?

Paul Flynn stated (@10.44): ……. She referred to this place as the mother of Parliaments. In the past that would be said with pride, but we can no longer claim to other countries, particularly those with newly minted democracies, that we are the example to be followed. Now, sadly, the mother of Parliaments is a dissolute, degraded hag.

So one final question: if the mother of Parliaments is a dissolute, degraded hag just why do we allow it to continue in its present form – which includes funding it and its occupants?

I shall elaborate further about the content of this article, on dd4uk.com, during the course of the coming weekend.