What are “our” MPs now for?

David Davis

Newmania wonders here why we ought to pay them anything at all. The strategic problem as I have often said here is that, in an age where there is widespread execution of socialist vulgate, there is a class of persons that parasitises on the “masses”, in that it…

(a) wants to be “in power”, for its own sake – that is, to bully others and boss them about (the sort of people who get to be JCR “presidents” for example):

(b) has never held a proper job, such as being self-employed – a “Masterless Man”, as Conan Doyle termed such people:

(c) without therefore any justification or experience, thinks it knows what is best.

Here are Newmania’s recommendations:-

Open Primaries on safe seats
2 Stage elections with the last two standing contesting all votes
HOP timetables to actually debate European legislation currently kept quiet
Secret HOP ballots on Select Committee membership and wherever possible ( to re-empower the Commons )
Action On Boundary reform with the over representation of Inner Cities dealt with.
A halving of the MP to bod ratio in devolved countries
A third less MPs over all
A bonfire of pointless layers of authority
I would also recommend PR elections for half the House of Lords at the same time to stop tactical voting and beef up the second chamber

Then our MP`s would actually be our representatives and they would have power. Then we would not mind paying them properly . At the moment they are either doing nothing or conspiring to deny tax payers what they have instructed time to do time and time again and people rightly resent a penny wasted on them.

The first part’s fine, but sorry: I don’t agree with the bit in purple.

I believe it should be made as hard as possible for anyone to want to believe that it’s OK and also is a jammy sinecure, to become a member of the “governing classes”. In a truly libertarian civilisation, there would be very, very few job-opportunities anyway. Anarcho-capitalists think there would be none: but in an uncertain world, there are still Big-Statist States such as whoever comes after Hugo Chavez, or even (the way things are going under the strangely-strange Kevin Rudd) Australia. These could not be trusted to view libertarian polities any more positively than we do here: thus, there will be openings at things like libertarian Ministries of Defence, or counter-intelligence departments. Perhaps even these could be provided by the private sector…..

No, sorry. Sorry. I have no intention of recommending that MPs should be paid anything. Certainly not now, when an example must publicly be made of the Gramsco-FabiaNazi ideologues-without-maths-ability, shysters, moochers and thieves who have, while professing to fight for “our” interests, have consistently – on the left anyway – abused our trust and treasury. There are of course honourable counter-examples – there always are, which is good as it vindicates a positive-Libertarian’s views about human nature and the innate goodness of Man.

Additionally, the following disqualifications for “office” shall apply:-

Attendance at all the following shall be a bar to office:-

All courses between 1950 and 2020 at “new” (or indeed actual real) “universities”, which contain the words “relations”, “political”, “international”, “social”, “media”, the suffix-word “management”, the prefix “psycho-“, the suffix “-ology” where specifically applied to any other disciple outside the “Hard Sciences”, _and_ the words “health” , “diet”, “diet-“, “environmental”,  “enviro-“or “education” where applied on their own to any course whatsoever.

But for now, MPs will have to be old ladies who used to run post-offices such as Gladys Snooks*** (she must have existed), successful scholar-Generals such as Enoch Powell, retired sandwich-bar-proprietors (can’t think of any, although Sir Charles Forte would have done good) people like David Davis (not me), Alan Sugar (he is growing up at last and will be a responsible adult soon) even Tony Blair – at least the bastard worked (if only a bit) for a living.

No money shall be offered to these people. Then we will in the early fragile stages of classical liberal recovery of individual freedom and responsibility, get only those coming forward who really want to help and who are not doing it for the money.

***Gladys Snooks might have claimed for a pint of milk one Saturday afternoon, in 1954, when all the shops were closed, and she had to telephone to the farmer to ask nicely if he could bring some, as that nice Mr Eisenhower was coming for tea.



    Rather than having periodic general elections, with very limited
    choice as to candidates, each elector is at any time free to choose any
    person of his or her preference (who must of course be willing so to act),
    to be his or her elected representative, always on a revokeable basis.
    Each day is a possible ‘Election Day’ for each elector and each

    Representatives can then delegate their work-load as they see fit, to
    those they have confidence in. In this age of easy communications, there
    need be no restriction on the total number of elected representatives
    meeting in Assembly by means of electronic and tele- conferencing. The
    emphasis shifts from ‘winners and losers’ to ‘market shares.’

    The relationship between elector and representative is a standard
    civil-law contractual one (offer -> acceptance -> performance (->
    payment)). Representatives may form mutual-interest groups, which might
    in some respects approximate the present political coalitions. New
    patterns of support will emerge. They will not be beholden to political
    parties. Elections will cease to be periodic all-or-nothing affairs, and
    will reflect and accommodate gradual shifts in opinion and support, as
    electors change and develop their preferences between representatives –
    and their policies – over time.

    (A variant of modern public-key/private-key security cryptosystems
    can easily be arranged, to ensure a secret ballot for those preferring
    such an arrangement. It should be pointed out that most of the present
    ‘secret-ballot’ electoral systems are only as ‘secret’ as the authorities
    running them want them to be).

    The legislative functions of the elected assembly will be carried out
    by means of the representatives voting on measures, each casting that
    number of votes corresponding to the sum of contracting electors they
    represent at the time of the vote. Public laws would require the assent
    of a real majority — preferably at least 50% of the electorate’s votes
    (after subtracting ‘votes-against’ from ‘votes-for’). I expect this to
    result in many fewer — and clearer — statute laws.

    It should be worthwhile to introduce ‘sunset’ review provisions for
    existing legislation, (as distinct from the body of civil law), so that
    pre-existing legislation (much of which is dated, inappropriate, corrupt
    in origin, harmful or poorly-thought-out) will be subject to review and
    re-enactment or repeal.

    A Written Constitution, setting out the basic principles of universal
    human rights — to facilitate formal and legal enforceability of those
    rights by means of accessible _trial by jury_ — is both educational and
    advantageous for liberty, with entrenching clauses barring attacks on key
    individual rights and liberties, and forbidding cruel or unusual
    punishments, and so on. Every country in the world _nominally_
    subscribes to these principles already, in the 1947 Universal Declaration
    of Human Rights:

    http://www.hri.org/docs/UDHR48.html (UDHR Attached)

    (The drafting of this document _preceded_ its adoption by the UN,
    and acceptance of the UDHR does not imply endorsement of the UN variant).

    It is usually easier to convince people (and governments) that they
    should _respect_ what they’ve already _actually assented to_.

    Representatives may go on to appoint an Executive to deal with
    defence matters, external affairs and so on. There may also be a second
    (non-spending) oversight and revision chamber, or Senate, with
    representatives especially chosen for their wisdom, knowledge, character,
    standing and so on – as electors and their representatives may wish.

    For the honest and ethical political representatives, there are many
    advantages to be had from Democratic Agorism, and few disadvantages. Each
    can work to build up their electoral constituency (‘market share’), and to
    offer the most attractive and worthwhile programmes, to ensure ongoing
    support and revenue. Each can look forward to promoting their preferred
    objectives. Each can have some security from the domination of party,
    leader or faction. Every shade of opinion can be proportionally

    For the elector, the available opportunities will be very considerably
    improved over the present unresponsive legislatures and government
    monopolies. There will be a whole new series of market-places, offering
    packaged choices of services with strong incentives to be efficient and
    attractive. Programmes compete for electoral support on a basis which
    facilitated comparison for quality and value over time. The existence of
    a variety of simultaneously available alternatives will considerably
    enhance individual freedoms and reduce social conflicts arising from
    monopoly provision.

    It should be noted that Democratic Agorism can be built up gradually
    (or even covertly, or clandestinely) in non-democratic societies, so as to
    supplant and replace undemocratic systems by more representative – hence
    more legitimate – fully democratic ones.

    And Democratic Agorism provides very useful ‘benchmarks’ against which
    any existing social arrangements and situations may be appraised. “What
    would be happening in this situation within the parameters of Democratic


Leave a Reply