Apparently one in five people are happy with MPs. I wonder how many are unhappy with either the system, the personnel or both?
The parliament of the UK (housed in a crumbling Victorian pile unfit for purpose) is presently the uncomfortable union of four countries. It has a first chamber elected by a first-past-the-post system, (a distinction shared with a less than-democratic Belarus) and a second chamber populated by lords appointed by heredity, discretionary “ennoblement ”.
Facilitated by our unwritten constitution our legislation – the product of the deliberations of these little better than feudal arrangements – is given the “royal assent” by a monarch selected from birth, who along with the heir apparently is entitled to an income of public money accompanied by exceedingly generous tax exemptions.
Our present Tory government are held in place by an electoral law an earlier version of the same government changed to their benefit. Our prime minister is selected by their own party membership, a constituency of miniscule proportions. The most recent appointment, that of Rishi Sunak, was expeditiously dealt with by an even smaller constituency.
Despite everything and the many changes in leadership, the Tory government are the same people representing the same narrow ultra-weathly interests, with the same greedy appetites, and the same selfish philosophies. They are the party who by gross misjudgement guided the country to the impoverishing self-harm of Brexit and an agenda that openly battles against a society that their exemplar Margaret Thatcher denied to be existent.
What possible reason can there be for dissatisfaction?
David Nelmes
Newport
What cannot be overlooked
Tom Peck’s withering assessment of the UK electorate’s satisfaction with their MP is a stark reminder of our indolence and disinterest in the political process. With satisfaction levels on a par with Russia according to a survey conducted by King’s College London, we clearly can’t carry on like this. Impotently and ineffectually moaning.
Satisfaction with your MP doesn’t get much lower than South West Norfolk, where we’re faced with the prospect of at least another 18 months of an indolent and sidelined Liz Truss.
Comically, the local Conservatives have attempted to distance themselves from the national “ennui” with Tory values by rebranding themselves as “Local Conservatives” instead of their traditional and usual listing as “The Conservative Party Candidate”, but I fear it’ll take more than a desperate and superficial relabelling as “local” to convince voters they’re somehow different to London Tories.
Bearing in mind many of them were outsiders parachuted into this region from Conservative HQ , their disingenuity is unlikely to be overlooked by those who can be bothered to vote.
Steve Mackinder
Denver
Foreign aid can help pull us out of the cost of living crisis
Amid the current political and economic climate, we are seeing times of hardship in the UK as we plunge head-first into a cost of living crisis. It is now as we experience these shared struggles to make ends meet that we can empathise most with those less fortunate than ourselves abroad and appreciate to some degree the small fortunes that we possess within the safe haven of a first-world country.
Contrary to the common myth that foreign aid consumes a high percentages of the UK’s GDP, the reality of this statistic sits at a mere 0.7 per cent of budgetary spending.
Yet improving the living conditions of people in poorer countries and raising the standards of life for those most in need can have equally beneficial, localised effects within the UK. Through diplomacy, development and defence, it can help form a generation of new jobs and markets, or help strengthen our national security via political stability abroad.
Ultimately, foreign aid can be viewed as an investment of some sort, into a country or place of need, with the prospect of lucrative long-term return investments and well-fortified rapports. In this respect, relating to our current economic downturn in the UK, we can see the mutual benefit of helping people abroad in order to generate prosperity and wealth on both ends.
It is important for us here in the UK to look outwardly and uphold our moral duty to take care of our fellow human beings around the world.
Hannah Naylor
Solihull
When it comes to teachers’ strikes we need to talk about college funding
Ed Dorrell’s latest piece on the teacher’s strikes forgets to mention the pressure that sixth-form colleges are under. The government funds each student over the age of 16 roughly £1,000 less than a pupil who is between 5-16 years old. We that work in this sector would like parity in pay with our colleagues who work in schools, paid for by raising the funding to match that of younger students.
Why has age discrimination been allowed to exist with funding?
Kartar Uppal
West Midlands
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments