Politicians doing their job

[paljor]

Does any1 think we will ever see a time when politicians will behave properly and SERVE the public as they are supposed to, rather than exercise power to serve their own ends and secure their own financial futures?

[andy-hughes]

In a word, no.

As Ken Livingstone said, "The fact of wanting to be a politician should automatically disqualify someone from becoming one." and there is a lot of truth in that argument.

You have to have a serious sense of self-belief to go through the necessary work and effort to reach a position of any influence, and once there, it is very easy to fall prey to the notion that you are in some way better and more important than others - reinforced by the constant attention, fawning, and money, that comes your way.

I have always said that from Day One, an MP becomes divorced from the reality of the lives of his constituants, because he or she is given First Class rail travel from Westminster to their constituancy, and back again. That instantly alienates them from the lives of the vast majority of perople who voted for them - i have travelled first class twice in my whole life - once on business, which was paid for by my company, and once as part of a treat for my wife's 50th birthday. MP's have this luxery - and it is a luxery - as a matter of course. The first step on the slippery slope ....

[OBonio]

The exact same words came into my head.

In a word, NO.

The best we can do is try and curb their actions and try and force some of them to become accountable for their mistakes. I believe the media try to do this, and have some successes. But then, they abuse their power too....

[january_bug]

In a word - yes.

Some will, some won't. If you ask if ALL politicians blah blah blah, then of course it's a "no". However, if you REALLY mean politicians, and that includes elected officials in public posts other than MPs (e.g., Local Councils) then I believe there are a very very few who serve their public.

[Hermia]

My local MP is useless (he's not famous, but an article about how useless he is appeared in the national press). He swaggers about doing nothing. He hardly ever bothers to turn up to his surgeries. He doesn't reply to letters from the public. He very rarely gets involved in local issues. In fact, the only time anyone sees him is when there is the chance of being in the paper or on TV. As soon as a camera is mentioned he turns up claiming to be a man of the people. But he gets voted in every time. Why? Because it's a Tory area and he is the only Tory candidate. I think local elections are problematic because someone who strongly identifies with a particular party is not going to vote for a local MP from the opposing party even if they do a brilliant job.

[Lonnie]

Where I live, we actually have an MP who is very good, and 'appears' to have the welfare of his constituants at heart, even the other party agrees, but in the main, they're in it for themselves, while pretending the opposite.

[paljor]

So the general consensus so far appears to be a resounding "no"! Phew, I thought it was just me. The Ken Livingstone quote is spot-on, as was the reference to the media's role in how we are governed (dont start me off about the media lol!)

Perhaps its time we started making more noise about the appalling state of our supposed "democracy" and how its powers are exercised by those we have granted authority.

[LeMarchand]

What andy said.

I also suspect that even those who started with honourable intentions soon find that they have to compromise their principles just to get things done. From there, it's the start of a slippery slope...

[january_bug]

Of course if you disagree with it all so much, you could always choose not to vote in the future.

[LeMarchand]

The problem with not voting is that you have noone (allegedly) representing you. I still think an "I do not trust any of the above" box at General Election time would be an eye-opener for the politicians.

(Or maybe not, hence the lack of such an option...)

[Lonnie]

Regardless of the apparant lack of faith in our MPs, I believe it should be law to vote in General Elections.

[paljor65]

If you choose not to vote then surely it allows those that are elected to ride roughshod over the wishes of the general population, as they then know their actions will only be met with apathy.

I agree we should be given a box on a ballot paper that allows us to register our disagreement and/or distrust of our political "masters", but I fear this is merely a pipe dream.

thanks to all who have responded, by the way.

[january_bug]

For those of you who haven't seen my style of posting before, my previous post was sarcastic.

I was expressing how tired I am of seeing people whinging about MPs becoming power hungry, yet failing to do anything about it or suggest a better alternative.

One could suggest more frequent elections to ensure greater responsibility, or PR to ensure that people are more directly elected (supposedly), or one could get involved in local party politics to ensure that the candidate standing for the party for whom you would like to vote, is actually worthy of your vote.

I quite agree that not voting was a filthy habit and that people should certainly be encourage, perhaps obliged to vote. My point was that so many people seemed so WEARY of the current process (and this is NOT news, by the way) that I thought I might suggest your alternative. To me, it's give up on it, do something about it, or put up with it and shut up whinging about it!

Just my view mind.

[paljor]

January_Bug I fully understand what you're saying. It seems to me that not only are the politicians corrupt or at least very easily swayed by their party guidelines, but also the system itself- the core manner by which we are governed- seems an out-moded, ineffective and easily-corruptible dinosaur

[january_bug]

"Easily swayed by their parties" - they are MEMBERS of the parties who CHOOSE to join. They collect into parties to make life easier for the electorate, who are on the whole, either unintelligent, ill-educated, or disinterested beyond what the tabloids tell them to think. Without parties, most voters wouldn't know what their political views are... and wouldn't vote at all.

With parties, of COURSE you won't like every policy, but you vote for the party whose policies BROADLY reflect your choices in life. The fact that a core of members of the party plan the policies, leaves the backbench MPs free to commit to their consitutencies. If you want to find out more about the work your MP does, then go along to one of his/her surgeries and ask. You may actually find that your own MP is not a power hungry, money thirsty, easily influence jerk, but you may find that they are. There are some of each out there - surely you knew that already!

What I don't understand, is how your initial "question", was a question at all, or news for that matter. I note that there was a question mark, but it seems just to be your excuse to rant about the poor state of politics here. It is clear how you think, and that's fine, but you must surely accept that such a broad sweeping generalisation will ALWAYS be wrong.

[paljor]

What I meant was, that once in the House of Commons our MP's (with a few notable exceptions) are driven more by what their party tells them to think and how to vote on a given subject than by the needs of their constituents.

Otherwise, why the extensive use of Whips?

I know there are MP's whose main purpose in their careers is to serve the people, however, they seem to be in a very small minority. And for your information, I happen to like my MP and think she does a fine job, despite not agreeing with her on some of her policies.

[january_bug]

Great! So you'll agree with me that what you had implied up to that point was an overstated sweeping generalisation that simply HAD to be wrong because it could never apply to LITERALLY ALL politicians!?!

Excellent! That's that settled! :-)