our mp

[Marmora Man]

Michael Palaelogus seems to be recommending pork barrel politics as per USA. An MPs role is to represent the people of their constituency in Parliament - not necessarily reflect their views (or we'd just have endless referendums / referenda(?)), just put forward an intelligent response / input to the issues of the day, not hog government monies for their particular area.

Personally I'd prefer to see number of MPs halved, number of days they meet reduced by 90% and the legislation they generate reduced by 99%.

England / UK has had a parliament for almost 900 years - surely, with a very few exceptions, we should have created all the laws we need by now.

Let's go for small government (I don't mean Hazel Blears) and low taxes.

[Domitianus]

Pork barrel politics??? I think in the case of Tessa Jowell the correct expression would be Turkey Neck politics. Miaoww!

[mockney piers]

The world's a pretty different place from 900 years ago. A legislature does need to ensure laws reflect changes, technological and societal (not to mention climate), so that's a bit disingenuous of you.

But on the whole I agree that less is generally more, this government was (hopefully I can use the past tense here) absolutely obsessed with change, often for changes sake.

And just been scanning the Indy's world booklet thing I can't help but notice that Sweden comes out on top of absolutely everything and the U.S. might as well be in the third world, so not convinced by less taxes either.

[Fear 'n boozin]

also, a lot of the legislation (the bits that aren't jerk - in reaction and scope) comes from implementing European legislation, either new rules on say, animal welfare, or rules that are meant to harmonise standards etc accross the continent. Often good in principle.....

[Marmora Man]

Fear 'n boozin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> also, a lot of the legislation (the bits that

> aren't jerk - in reaction and scope) comes from

> implementing European legislation, either new

> rules on say, animal welfare, or rules that are

> meant to harmonise standards etc accross the

> continent. Often good in principle.....

But absolutely awful in their implementation .............

Is harmonising standards across the continent a good thing? Beer in steins tastes great in Bavaria - but it's not the same in the Bishop / Herne / CPT etc. Whose standards do we harmonise to?

I'd acknowledge technological change needs some "rules" and life, culture, standards do change. But 650 people, working full time + advisors and support staff all looking to create new laws does seem excessive. On the few occasions I've approached my MP they have simply forwarded my letter to quote "the correct department" - if they'd fight for their constituents, not pork barrellling but defending / supporting,and delivering or protecting cleaner streets, good schools, green spaces, local shops I'd be happier with them.

[Marmora Man]

Put same message up twice - apols

[Asset]

"England / UK has had a parliament for almost 900 years - surely, with a very few exceptions, we should have created all the laws we need by now."

It's only in recent times (last 100 years) that legislation has come into being in this country, with it probably really kicking in over the last 50. The courts still rely mainly on Common Law and judicial precedent as a means of dispensing justice.

[sian]

I have had occasion to contact her twice and found her very helpful particularly on a schools issue which will benefit swathes of ED residents. The local councillors dont seem particularly interested in us living sarf in the borough.

[Domitianus]

She still has a turkey neck though!

[macroban]

> a schools issue which will benefit swathes of ED residents.

Which is?

[Huguenot]

Pah! 'Tis cheap to slag off the incumbent with 'hopefully their last days', but I don't see anyone coming up with a bright alternative. MP can you even name the representatives of the erstwhile opposition, and do you intend to vote for them?

No checking on t'interweb...

[mockney piers]

To be honest I think local politics and now the office of the mayor affect the quality of day to day life more than your own MP. They're supposed to be a conduit to get your voice heard in parliament.

Parliament of course does have the power to affect our day to day lives, but not in such a micro way as local politics, more of a macro.

I've voted for another lot in national elections because this lot were utterly loathsome at cabinet level. I'm aware that there are decent politicians among their number though. I shall take stock of how the new government is doing (especially if they get rid of the detritus from the old one, read Kelly, Blears, Jowell, Straw and Des Browne) and go from there. First impressions are positive, especially new home secretary, whether or not she lives in Choumert Grove.

It does strike me that Jowell does seem far more concerned with the welfare of East London these days though. I'm she could equally do her olympics role from a non parliamentary perspective and stand for relection in the east end should she feel the need to do so.

[macroban]

>> a schools issue which will benefit swathes of ED residents.

> Which is?

A secret?

[Michael Palaeologus]

Hear Hear Piers!

[JoeChuff]

I used to work for an MP out in the West Country, it was basically my job to forward constituents' complaints to the relevant local government departments. People seem to forget that MPs have absolutely zero executive power over local matters. At best they can try to persuade local officials, and act as a kind of local ombudsman. But really, you shouldn't expect Tessa to do much for East Dulwich - although it seems counter-intuitive, it's not actually her job. That's the job of Southwark Council. Rather, you should expect her to represent your views on national issues in Parliament.

Ideally, MPs would stop holding constituency surgeries altogether, and the mayor of each borough would be directly elected and responsible for dealing with local concerns.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Um not really. There is nothing that galvanises a local council or the civil services like an MP's letter (a Parliammentry Question or PQ). I agree that the MP has a responsibility to represent their constituency at Westminster - which is preciely what Tessa has NOT been doing.

What infra-structure or economic benefits has ED got from the Olympics or the great Casino scramble? Zero.

If your MP is not in the Government, he or she can concentrate on local issues. Tessa is focused on serving the government and that means she will not represent her constituency when it runs against governmet policy.

[JoeChuff]

I disagree on your first point, that an MP's letter galvanises local council officials to act. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't; depends on the issue, MP and council. In my experience, it made little difference.

I agree with you on the second point, though, being both an MP and a minister will often create a conflict of interest. If all of her constituents are against the Olympics and she's the minister for the Olympics, you have a problem.

[Ondine]

I have worked for both MP and council and it does make a difference. Clearly not much where there are statutory limits on the issue, but officers pay attention to MPs' letters

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pah! 'Tis cheap to slag off the incumbent with

> 'hopefully their last days', but I don't see

> anyone coming up with a bright alternative. MP can

> you even name the representatives of the erstwhile

> opposition, and do you intend to vote for them?

>

> No checking on t'interweb...

The answer is, of course, that the Camberwell and Peckham Conservative Association have not, yet, selected their candidate. The previous candidate was selected for a "safer" seat elsewhere. Tories see Camberwell & Peckham as a training ground.