Thanks, 'fraid I didn't spot that at first.

"There is no point complaining about parties "kidnapping" representative democracy unless you have a viable alternative in mind."

In fact I do -- it's called "sortition". Follow the link on the flashing box in the left hand column of this page. I would be happy to discuss this option but you need to take a look at the literature first.

It seems MPs will be criticised whether they are a) part-time or b) full-time, damned if they do or if they don't. Personally I'd rather have a full-time MP and one who isn't in hock to a tobacco company, whether visible or not! This golden age idea is so persistent. There were MPs as late as the 1950s and 1960s being elected who never even visited the constituency they were elected to, never mind live there, or possess the radical idea of representing their constituents.

The truth is that if you want your government to be made up of directly-elected Members of Parliament (unlike, for example, French or US ministers), then you will have to accept that some MPs will work towards holding the government line. If they didn't - ie. if they all took different views on key matters and there was no clear party line - then how would the people know what they were voting for? Because, of course, people do vote for the party, and only rarely for the individual. We all know excellent, hard-working MPs who lose their seats in marginals, and poor and lazy MPs linger on in safe seats. 

There is no point complaining about parties "kidnapping" representative democracy unless you have a viable alternative in mind. Yes, the constituency system generates tension, but they are far better than oft-pernicious party list, where elected representatives really may be distant from voters. And organisation by party at least provides a coherence and framework for debate that is accessible and mostly effective. Perhaps a system could be devised whereby all MPs would be independents... but then surely they would begin to group themselves by sets of beliefs, and you would see a similar system emerge.  

"Parliament used to be seen as a part-time job, but is now a full-time career choice for snotty-nosed adolescents."

Indeed so. And there are far too many Trade Union officials, Local Government employees and former civil servants, all of whom have huge vested interests.

My former MP had never had a job, save working a bit in a US Senator's office and Labour Party work. What talents did he bring to Parliament ? None.

As to the Damian Green affair I for one am deeply concerned that the whole precincts of the Palace of Westminster are not protected by Parliamentary Privilege. It should be. And I think the bar to arresting an MP should be so high as to be near impossible, certainly for the offence Green was arrested for. The way this whole business has been handled is quite disgraceful. The Police have shown themselves to be arrogant and out of control, institutionally stupid as mentioned in The Spectator. And frankly Ms Smith's explanations in the Commons hardly hold water. This strikes me as a clever political ploy which has gone horribly wrong - typical of New Labour.

Everyone I have spoken too of late thinks it an utter disgrace and blame Labour for the mess. Serves them right.

"Your comments also highlight the perennial paradox within the role of constituency MP's. How do they resolve the apparent conflict of interests between party allegiance and their duty to to perform as representatives of the people? Can they ever serve these two masters simultaneously?"

Unfortunately not for, as Burke put it, independence of mind is not possible without independence of means. Parliament used to be seen as a part-time job, but is now a full-time career choice for snotty-nosed adolescents.

This is largely due to the outcry against "Tory sleaze" during the 1990s, which has now been replaced with a far more insidious form of corruption. Ken Clarke may have been in hock to BAT, but at least you knew where you stood, as there was a Government health warning printed on his forehead.

Rather than the naive idea that MPs could act in a disinterested way it's more realistic to create balance via a plethora of interests. As for the notion that an MP should act in the interests of his constituents, then which ones should he pick, the minority that voted for him?

Thank you John for this considered and balanced commentary. I am convinced that this entire affair has been played out essentially for party political advantage by all factions involved.

The troubling aspect of this matter has been the apparent impingement upon the perceived integrity (moral & physical) of Parliament as a "respected" office of democratic governance.

Matters now seem to have descended into the realms of farce, with culpable individuals diving for cover and pointing the finger of blame in any direction other than themselves - not me guv' honest!

Your comments also highlight the perennial paradox within the role of constituency MP's. How do they resolve the apparent conflict of interests between party allegiance and their duty to to perform as representatives of the people? Can they ever serve these two masters simultaneously?  

Perhaps the only lasting impression one is left with is the further exposure of widespread decay within the UK's institutional architecture; the unedifying spectacle of bitter rivals jostling to secure naked political advantage, even at the expense of sullying still further the already tarnished reputation of British democracy?

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England 

John Jackson: "Somehow ‘we the people’ must find a way to assert our right to determine the framework within which we are governed. Our political parties will not like that."

Agreed -- as to what that "somehow" should be, see "The Athenian Option" in the left-hand column of this page. Anyone who still thinks it is possible to wind the clock back to a golden age of non-partisan representation has not been paying attention.