Today many politicians are telling us to "move on" - the problem is fixed, the beast has been tamed.
I welcome Christopher Kelly's report - and urge MPs to take their medicine and accept his recommendations in full. But this crisis was the result of our failed politics - not the cause. And in truth, yesterday's broken system still stands.
The politicians have had their chance to change: but they've failed. I've just written a letter to the three Party leaders telling them that it's now time for the people to be given a genuine say in how our democracy is run.
If you're fed up with seeing MPs arguing over their second homes and the right to give jobs to their nearest and dearest, while our public services face severe cuts, people are losing their jobs and homes and struggling to repay their mortgages - then you should sign it too:
http://www.power2010.org.uk/notenough
We'll deliver all of the signatures to the Party leaders ...
Our politicians have shown us time and time again that they are neither able nor willing to clean up politics and renew our democracy. The fact that MPs cannot be trusted to have a vote on the Kelly recommendations says it all.
Join us in standing up to broken Westminster politics - join the thousands of people who have already told the politicians that their time has passed and that our future rests in our, not their, hands.
Send the politicians a message by co-signing my letter now:
http://www.power2010.org.uk/notenough
Now more than ever it is clear that if change is to happen - it'll be powered by us. Sign my letter now and join our rallying call for change.
Thank you,
Pam Giddy
Power2010
POWER 2010 | Kelly: Not enough
2 comments:
I'm not entirely sure what this is about Andii. It reads like an opportunistic attempt to ride on public discontent with MP's expenses to try and encourage people to give their support to a campaign that as yet, by its own admission, has no concrete proposals. Call me overly cynical, but I strongly suspect that if I sign such a petition, at some point down the line I will be assumed to be supporting a campaign that may have nothing to do with MPs expenses. I had a similar experience with Inclusive Church a while back - signing up to a petition I heartily agreed with, only to have Giles Fraser happily assume my support for a succession of new causes that did not appear in that petition.
More directly, regarding this petition specifically, I find myself confused as to what the objection is that is really being presented here. It sounds suspiciously like the politics of envy masked with a veneer of righteous concern. Yes, in the current economic climate many people are facing unemployment and struggling to maintain mortgage payments on their homes. Why does this have anything to do with MPs having second homes and employing members of their own families? It seems to me entirely reasonable that MPs, who we expect as our representatives to be present both in Westminster and in their constituency, will need second homes in order to do their jobs properly. Naturally the practice of flipping shows how this can be abused, but the principle remains sound. Similarly, like many who are effectively running a small business from their homes at irregular hours, they find it convenient to employ members of their own family. Yes, this can be abused, with family members effectively receiving an income for nothing, but the principle remains sound.
We need a system that forces MPs to be accountable for how they spend taxpayer's money, not one that forces them to do their jobs on some pre-determined standard of living. Some MPs will be wealthy, some will not. None should be asked to do their public duties out of their own pockets (just as, on an unrelated point, I don't feel clergy should be asked to either). This petition appears to focus its ire on the wealth of MPs, I think this is unfortunate and unhelpful.
I think that this is about accountability rather than envy but you may be right that there is an ambiguity and I saw what I hoped for. (Reversing our responses to the Inclusive Church thing; I liked the rhetoric but was concerned it might be signing me up to things I might not want to say so refrained).
Looking at the way the thing has gone: it seems to have been really focussing on asking Gordy and co to come up with some responses that are robust and take the public outcry seriously rather than adopting a fiddling while Rome burns attitude. So it seems not to be broadening the tent. And at each point you are asked to write your own response and use your own words. So the net effect is of saying there are diverse views but all want to see some change and not bits of tinkering. More, that the change needs to be constitutional and not just parliamentary rules. Beyond that we give our own ideas.
Post a Comment