In the 'Codes of Conduct for Members of Parliament' it clearly states that:
6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.
How often do the party whips use threats and intimidation to force your MP to vote in accordance with party policy? Well, on contentious issues, the answer is 'all to often'. How can an MP discharge his/her duty to their constituents if they are being coerced to vote? Doing what the party wants is not always in the interest of the constitiuents, or even the nation as a whole. Sometimes, the ego of a politician appears to hold more importance than the interests of the country.
As an example, the Health and Social Care Bill currently going through Parliament will highlight this point. The bill is receiving overwhelming dissapproval from Unions, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Midwives. These are 'the experts' who have first hand knowledge of how the proposed changes will affect people like you and me. However, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health has said:
"In fact, the Bill will help address the very concerns about fragmentation that the experts raise. It will help the NHS and other public services work together better for children, young people and their families."
Who would you rather trust an expert or a spokeswoman?
And they are not the only people who are expressing their concern. The people of this country are registering their objections by signing a government e-petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22670 which calls for the entire bill to be scrapped. At last count, 139,479 people had signed this petition, and that includes me.
The fact of the matter is, this bill is intended to pave the way for privatisation of the NHS. Do you really think that this will serve your interests? Or will it serve the interests of shareholders? Members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have accused the Government of "misrepresenting" the Bill as being something that was necessary for the NHS.
David Cameron has said:
"As a parent, night after night, I've known what it is to have the NHS by your side."
"I've seen the dedication - the reassurance that if the worst happens, the NHS will be there for your family."
This is implying that when his disabled son, Ivan, died in 2009 he made full use of the NHS. Yeah, right! A man of David Camerons financial means relying on the NHS rather than private healthcare does not exactly have the ring of truth to it.
And there is more, senior Conservative MPs claim there is no rift in the coalition Cabinet over these controversial NHS reforms. I guess that someone should have told Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes, who has demanded Mr Lansley be shifted from his post. Or perhaps the Downing Street source who was quoted last week saying that the Health Secretary should be "taken out and shot". I guess 'no rift' means something completely different to me.
Does any of the above show that polititians are acting in the interest of the people they represent? I don't think it does. Will the government continue to push this ill conceived bill forward? Yes, they will. They may even go so far as to force it through in much the same way they have with the Welfare Reform Bill. Using the party whip to force MP's to vote against their conscience, reviving archaic laws to ignore the objections of the House of Lords and totally disregarding the will of the people. It makes a farce of democracy to have a government who were NOT democratically elected doing as they please rather than what the people want!
How often do the party whips use threats and intimidation to force your MP to vote in accordance with party policy? Well, on contentious issues, the answer is 'all to often'. How can an MP discharge his/her duty to their constituents if they are being coerced to vote? Doing what the party wants is not always in the interest of the constitiuents, or even the nation as a whole. Sometimes, the ego of a politician appears to hold more importance than the interests of the country.
As an example, the Health and Social Care Bill currently going through Parliament will highlight this point. The bill is receiving overwhelming dissapproval from Unions, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Midwives. These are 'the experts' who have first hand knowledge of how the proposed changes will affect people like you and me. However, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health has said:
"In fact, the Bill will help address the very concerns about fragmentation that the experts raise. It will help the NHS and other public services work together better for children, young people and their families."
Who would you rather trust an expert or a spokeswoman?
And they are not the only people who are expressing their concern. The people of this country are registering their objections by signing a government e-petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22670 which calls for the entire bill to be scrapped. At last count, 139,479 people had signed this petition, and that includes me.
The fact of the matter is, this bill is intended to pave the way for privatisation of the NHS. Do you really think that this will serve your interests? Or will it serve the interests of shareholders? Members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have accused the Government of "misrepresenting" the Bill as being something that was necessary for the NHS.
David Cameron has said:
"As a parent, night after night, I've known what it is to have the NHS by your side."
"I've seen the dedication - the reassurance that if the worst happens, the NHS will be there for your family."
This is implying that when his disabled son, Ivan, died in 2009 he made full use of the NHS. Yeah, right! A man of David Camerons financial means relying on the NHS rather than private healthcare does not exactly have the ring of truth to it.
And there is more, senior Conservative MPs claim there is no rift in the coalition Cabinet over these controversial NHS reforms. I guess that someone should have told Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes, who has demanded Mr Lansley be shifted from his post. Or perhaps the Downing Street source who was quoted last week saying that the Health Secretary should be "taken out and shot". I guess 'no rift' means something completely different to me.
Does any of the above show that polititians are acting in the interest of the people they represent? I don't think it does. Will the government continue to push this ill conceived bill forward? Yes, they will. They may even go so far as to force it through in much the same way they have with the Welfare Reform Bill. Using the party whip to force MP's to vote against their conscience, reviving archaic laws to ignore the objections of the House of Lords and totally disregarding the will of the people. It makes a farce of democracy to have a government who were NOT democratically elected doing as they please rather than what the people want!
No comments:
Post a Comment
These comments are moderated, so nothing obscene, rascist or threatening please!