Covering ones earth.

Parliament can be so disappointing. It is theatre yes but it is Jane Austen theatre with its emphasis on formalised language, and whilst attractive in Miss Austen's hands it is completely inappropriate when dealing with the bread and butter issues such as investment in the East Anglian Rail Line.
The debate, to a virtually empty house, (remarkably no one appeared on the opposition benches), after an impassioned speech from the member for Saffron Walden it seemed to me little more an exercise in flummery from the Minister.
I suppose its one of the disadvantages of the Parliamentary system that Parliamentarians are not actually close enough nor "directly responsible" to the specific interests of their constituents, and the Civil Servants are even more remote.
The whole structure of government leads to the MPs participation lacking a sense of actual responsibility.
In "Business" one holds responsibility directly and ones continued employment is effected by how well we perform. The MP, not having a job description, his performance is not actually linked to the success of the issues he is chasing on behalf of his constituents.
In a previous blog, I discuss the Governments attempt to water down the ability of an MPs constituency party to recall a non performing MP. In the democratic system, there is a gap between the things which the voter needs to have done and the actual day to day activities of the parliamentary representative.
The scope and effectiveness of an MP is not in keeping with leisurely debate in an antiquated chamber which harks back to distant era. In this modern world, generalisations suitable only in the non liturgical world are useless when the action requires a brief to deal in the particular.


Once having collected sufficient opinion we should expect the Government representative,the Minister to deal properly with what ever matter is raised. Too often, one sees the Front Bench engaged in other administrative work as the debate is unfolding. Not appearing to listen, they rise to verbally demolish the case which apparently they hadn't bothered to listen to.
It seems the lowest sort of patronisation. It also seems to me that we should elevate the reports handed down by the cross party Parliamentary Committee, reports which involve the interrogation of the main players who appear in front of the committee. Unfortunately their reports, often only paid lip service and are often dismissed by Government who have their own agenda.
It's this question of agenda, often clothed in ideology, which contorts the effectiveness of Parliament. A parliament which is, first and foremost there  to represent the populous at large.