Comprehensive list of blog sites for UK member of parliament from the 3 major political parties.

Conservative MP’s Blog Sites

• John Redwood MP

• David Cameron MP

• Nadine Dorries MP

• David Davies MP

• David Jones MP

• James Duddridge MP

• Richard Spring MP

• Stephen Crabb MP

• Theresa May MP

• Ed Vaizey MP

• Jeremy Hunt MP

• Douglas Carswell MP

• David Mundell MP

• Boris Johnson (Mayor of London)

• Richard Bacon MP

• Angela Watkinson MP

• Crispen Blunt MP

• Tony Baldry MP

• David Burrowes MP

Liberal Democrat MP’s Blog Sites

• Lynne Featherstone MP

• Sandra Gidley MP

• John Hemming MP

• John Pugh MP

• Adrian Sanders MP

• Steve Webb MP

• Tom Brake MP

Labour MP’s Blog Sites

• Adrian Bailey MP

• Alan Campbell MP

• Alan Johnson MP

• Alan Keen MP

• Alan Meale MP

• Alan Milburn MP

• Alan Simpson MP

• Alan Whitehead MP

• Alistair Darling MP

• Alun Michael MP

• Andrew Dismore MP

• Andrew Gwynne MP

• Andrew Mackinlay MP

• Andrew Miller MP

• Andrew Slaughter MP

• Andrew Smith MP

• Andy Love MP

• Andy Reed MP

• Angela Eagle MP

• Angela Smith MP

• Ann Coffey MP

• Ann Keen MP

• Ann McKechin MP

• Anne Begg MP

• Anne McGuire MP

• Anne Moffat MP

• Anne Snelgrove MP

• Anthony Wright MP

• Ashok Kumar MP

• Austin Mitchell MP

• Barbara Follett MP

• Barbara Keeley MP

• Barry Gardiner MP

• Barry Sheerman MP

• Ben Bradshaw MP

• Betty Williams MP

• Beverely Hughes MP

• Bill Rammell MP

• Bob Ainsworth MP

• Bob Blizzard MP

• Bob Laxton MP

• Bob Marshall-Andrews MP

• Brian Donohoe MP

• Brian Iddon MP

• Brian Jenkins MP

• Bridget Prentice MP

• Bruce George MP

• Caroline Flint MP

• Celia Barlow MP

• Chris Bryant MP

• Chris Mole MP

• Chris Mullin MP

• Christine McCafferty MP

• Claire Ward MP

• Clive Betts MP

• Clive Efford MP

• Colin Burgon MP

• Colin Challen MP

• Dan Norris MP

• Dari Taylor MP

• David Anderson MP

• David Borrow MP

• David Cairns MP

• David Chaytor MP

• David Clellan d MP

• David Crausby MP

• David Drew MP

• David Hamilton MP

• David Hanson MP

• David Kidney MP

• David Lammy MP

• David Lepper MP

• David Miliband MP

• David Winnick MP

• David Wright MP

• Dawn Butler MP

• Dawn Primarolo MP

• Denis MacShane MP

• Derek Twigg MP

• Derek Wyatt MP

• Desmond Turner MP

• Diana Johnson MP

• Diane Abbott MP

• Don Touhig MP

• Doug Henderson MP

• Doug Naysmith MP

• Douglas Alexander MP

• Dr Howard Stoate MP

• Dr Hywel Francis MP

• Dr Ian Gibson MP

• Ed Balls MP

• Ed Miliband MP

• Elliot Morley MP

• Emily Thornberry MP

• Eric Illsley MP

• Eric Joyce MP

• Eric Martlew MP

• Fabian Hamilton MP

• Fiona Mactaggart MP

• Frank Cook MP

• Frank Doran MP

• Frank Field MP

• Frank Roy MP

• Gavin Strang MP

• Geoff Hoon MP

• Gerry Sutcliffe MP

• Gillian Merron MP

• Gisela Stuart MP

• Glenda Jackson MP

• Gordon Prentice MP

• Graham Allen MP

• Greg Pope MP

• Gywn Prosser MP

• Harriet Harman MP

• Harry Cohen MP

• Hazel Blears MP

• Helen Goodman MP

• Helen Jones MP

• Hilary Armstrong MP

• Hilary Benn MP

• Hugh Bayley MP

• Huw Irranca-Davies MP

• Iain Wright MP

• Ian Austin MP

• Ian Cawsey MP

• Ian Davidson MP

• Ian Lucas MP

• Ian Pearson MP

• Jacqui Smith MP

• James Plaskitt MP

• James Purnell MP

• James Sheridan MP

• JanetAnderson MP

• Janet Dean MP

• Jeff Ennis MP

• Jeremy Corbyn MP

• Jessica Morden MP

• Jim CunninghamMP

• Jim Devine MP

• Jim Dowd MP

• Jim Fitzpatrick MP

• Jim Knight MP

• Jim McGovern MP

• Jim Murphy MP

• Jimmy Hood MP

• Joan Ruddock MP

• Joan Walley MP

• Joe BentonMP

• John Austin MP

• John Battle MP

• John Denham MP

• John Grogan MP

• John Healey MP

• John Heppell MP

• John Hutton MP

• John MacDougall MP

• John Mann MP

• John McDonnell MP

• John McFall MP

• John Reid MP

• John Robertson MP

• John Spellar MP

• Jon Cruddas MP

• Jon Trickett MP

• Jonathan Shaw MP

• Judy Mallaber MP

• Julie Morgan MP

• Karen Buck MP

• Kate Hoey MP

• Katy Clark MP

• Keith Hill MP

• Keith Vaz MP

• Kelvin Hopkins MP

• Ken Purchase MP

• Kerry McCarthy MP

• Kevan Jones MP

• Kevin Brennan MP

• Kitty Ussher MP

• Laura Moffatt MP

• Liam Byrne MP

• Linda Gilroy MP

• Lindsay Hoyle MP

• Louise Ellman MP

• Lyn Brown MP

• Lynda Waltho MP

• Lynne Jones MP

• Madeline Moon MP

• Malcolm Wicks MP

• Margaret Hodge MP

• Margaret Moran MP

• Mark Lazarowicz MP

• Mark Tami MP

• Mark Todd MP

• Martin Linton MP

• Martin Salter MP

• Martyn Jones MP

• Mary Creagh MP

• Meg Hillier MP

• Meg Munn MP

• Michael Clapham MP

• Michael Connarty MP

• Michael Foster MP

• Michael Meacher MP

• Michael Wills MP

• Mike Hall MP

• Mike Wood MP

• Natascha Engel MP

• Neil Gerrard MP

• Nia Griffith MP

• Nick Raynsford MP

• Nigel Griffiths MP

• Paddy Tipping MP

• Parmjit Dhanda MP

• Pat McFadden MP

• Patricia Hewitt MP

• Paul Clark MP

• Paul Flynn MP

• Paul Murphy MP

• Paul Truswell MP

• Peter Hain MP

• Peter Kilfoyle MP

• Phil Hope MP

• Phyllis Starkey MP

• Richard Burden MP

• Rob Marris MP

• Robert Flello MP

• Roberta Blackman-Woods MP

• Roger Berry MP

• Roger Godsiff MP

• Rosemary McKenna MP

• Rosie Cooper MP

• Rosie Winterton MP

• Russell Brown MP

• Sadiq Kahn MP

• Sally Keeble MP

• Sandra Osbourne MP

• Sarah McCarthy-Fry MP

• Shahid Malik MP

• Shaun Woodward MP

• Siân James MP

• Siobhain McDonagh MP

• Siôn Simon MP

• Sir Peter Soulsby MP

• Sir Stuart Bell MP

• Stephen Byers MP

• Stephen Hepburn MP

• Stephen Hesford MP

• Stephen Ladyman MP

• Stephen McCabe MP

• Stephen Pound MP

• Stephen Timms MP

• Terry Rooney MP

• Tom Harris MP

• Tom Levitt MP

• Tom Watson MP

• Tommy McAvoy MP

• Tony Cunningham MP

• Tony Lloyd MP

• Vera Baird MP

• Vernon Coaker MP

• Wayne David MP

• Yvette Cooper MP

At last one of the major parties have come forward with a sensible solution to the current spiralling cost of fuel, albeit the idea is not original, having been outlined in the past by the RAC.

Conservative shadow chancellor, George Osborne, has proposed the introduction of a fuel stabiliser, which it is claimed, would even out some of the current peaks and troughs in the fuel prices. The intention is that the fuel stabiliser would reduce duty when prices rise and increase duties when prices fall. The process would be managed in such a way that the government’s tax revenues remained neutral, rather than the current situation where the government is directly responsible for a major part of the increase, given they take some 63% of all petrol revenues in the form of duty and VAT.

Whilst it is a conservative proposal, when the public are facing such severe hardship, the government would be well advised to consider the adoption and introduction of this policy. Sooner, rather than later. If the public are fleeced at the pumps, the labour government can expect a trouncing at the polls..because, whatever the labour parties so called ‘advisors’ tell them, the British public have long memories!

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

So, the politicians say that they cannot be held responsible for the rising gas and oil prices, because they are beyond their control. This true, but only up to a point, lets consider the facts.

The hike in fuel prices is, for the most part, a consequence of rising demand (global demand went up 3.4% last year), production capacity,  the fact that some of the largest oil reserves are within unstable countries and, of course, speculators. However, there is another factor that makes us very susceptible to the vagaries of the market and that is, we now a net importer of oil and gas.

In spite of the fact that we had excellent oil and gas reserves in the north sea, successive governments have placed no caps on the exploitation of these essential assets. Because the current labour government have presided over this country for the past 11 years, they must take the lion share of the blame.

The government has known for years that there would come a time when we would need to import gas and oil, yet they appear to have placed no restrictions on the oil companies. Restrictions could have ensured that the situation we now find ourselves in would have been delayed for decades. Instead, short-termism was the order of the day, so that the government could maximise tax revenues and squander this country’s precious assets.

In fact, this government has not even bothered to build in any gas storage capacity, if the gas supplies were stopped, we would quite simply run out of gas in just 3 to 4 days! This would also lead to electricity shortages, given some of our power stations are gas fired and any shortage of gas, will inevitably see an increase in demand for electricity.

Not only do we have problems with a lack of gas reserves, this government has taken so long to get its act together in respect of nuclear power stations, that there is every likelihood that we will have electricity shortages in the future, given it takes some 10 years to build and commission a power station. Whatever your views on coal fired or nuclear electricity stations, the bottom line is this country needs electricity to survive…socially and economically. We will all pay the price for this governments’ abject failure to consider the medium to long term needs of this country in respect of oil, gas and electricity. Some of the pain is being felt now, but there is much more to come.

Whilst our government is washing its hands of any responsibility, it is worthwhile looking at who is profiting out of our pain. Something like 63% of the cost of fuel goes to the Exchequer in respect of duty and VAT. So, for every 10p per litre your fuel rises, the government is directly responsible for 6.3p of that rise. Crocodile tears come to mind! When the government tells us that it is going to suspend the fuel escalator, they make out they are doing us some sort of favour, that it is going to cost the government etc., but the reality is, they are the biggest pimps of fuel price increases. Most of the political commentator’s seem slow to grasp this particular nettle, but when they have, the minister’s claim that reduced demand means that the tax revenues from fuel are neutral. Just who are they trying to kid?

The conservative party have proposed a ‘fair fuel stabiliser’, whilst this idea is not original, the government would do well to consider its introduction. However, this is unlikely, because whatever they tell us publicly, if truth be told, the government need this additional revenue because they will almost certainly have some black holes in their revenue forecasts.

Next time you hear a government minister feigning concern about how higher fuel prices are impacting the “people” (that condescending terminology they use to describe you and me), consider the fact that they have presided over the exploitation of our precious fuel assets denying us the opportunity to be, at least in part, self-sufficient. By their actions, they have placed us at the mercy of both market forces and political shenanigans. They have not built any additional storage facilities that could have enabled us to stabilise prices, or ride out a political storm. Their legacy will be one that we shall all pay for in the coming years, you mark my words.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

There are many examples, and I shall name a few in the coming days, of MP’s being completely out of touch with what matters to the British public. The latest instance has to be set by shadow education secretary, Michael Gove.

Yesterday he made a big noise about so called ‘lads mags’, claiming that “Titles such as Nuts and Zoo paint a picture of women as permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available.” What is this guy on? I don’t intend to argue the case for or against these publications, in a tolerant such as ours, I find it hard to believe that this was all the Conservative MP could find to talk about.

There are many things that may cause families to break up these include losing their homes as a result of negative equity and rising interest rates. Money worries as a consequence of rising fuel prices, food prices, utilities and taxes. Stress in terms of having to work harder, for less money, maybe in fear of redundancy. There are a whole string of reasons, another is perhaps taking their partner for granted, something Michael Gove would do well to consider, because he and his party seem to be taking their poll lead for granted by believeing they know best and taking on a policy of patronising the electorate.

What we should all be asking is where has this guy been for the past 6 months, what does he really think concerns the British public at this time? Now lets think about that… could it be, an impending recession, the credit crunch, rising fuel prices, knife crime, house prices, redundancies? If this is not enough, there are many other serious issues that are of real concern to the electorate, perhaps Michael Gove should get out more, rather than reading Zoo and Nuts!

Every party claims to be “listening” to their public, well who are they listening to, it sure as hell isn’t you or me? Is Michael Gove going to seriously claim that one of his constituents came to see him to claim about lads mags? If he did receive a complaint, maybe someone could remind him about placing things into perspective.

It is high time all MP’s started to talk to the people that put them in office and more importantly, learned to listen. It is also time the Conservative party started to act like a real opposition party, the truth is, they only look good, because the Labour party is so awful. In my opinion, all Michael Gove has done, is to confirm, that it is not just the Government that has lost touch with the voters, but also some MP’s of the official opposition.

David Cameron needs to reign these guys in, before the electorate catch on to the fact MP’s within the his party are as removed from the public as government ministers and labour party MP’s. He should also consider bringing in real people to advise, people with real world experience, or better still, have real people stand as the local Conservative MP, rather than career politicians or local ‘faces’. Now, more than ever before, this country needs MP’s that talk, sound and look like the rest of us. No wonder the electorate feels so disenfranchised.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

Lets face it, the only people that keep extolling the virtues of democracy are the politician’s and yet, here in the UK, some 60 million people are ruled by less than 650 members of parliament. So, if we keep hearing that we live in a democracy, then we will believe it…right? Now lets look at in a little more detail.

Every 5 years or so, we get the opportunity to vote for our preferred party, by electing a local MP who represents the party we support. Of course, some people support a particular MP, but the vast majority are thinking in terms of who will govern us, rather than who the local MP will be.

Each party creates a manifesto, theoretically, a commitment to their aims, goals and values. It is supposed to be a mandate on what they will deliver during their term in office, or if you like, a commitment or promise to the electorate. Now we have all seen how worthless that commitment can be, most notably in recent years with the broken promise made by the current government in respect of the EU Treaty. Made worse by their willingness to treat the electorate like fools.

The Manifesto

Now, when we vote for a new government, we are provided with a party manifesto, and each party will assume that if we vote them in, we support the manifesto verbatim…but this is so often just not the case. For example, with so many things needing reform during a parliamentary term, how many people would really have voted for a ban on fox hunting? Some, but not many I suspect. So, the manifesto of the party elected to government is likely to include many things that we simply do not agree with, but how can we communicate this to those that are supposed to represent our interests in government. We can’t and it was probably designed that way!

For example, the only people that believe the labour party will get into government at the next election, is the labour party, unless they are being honest, but that would be an unusual trait. Therefore, theoretically, the opposition can create a manifesto and include virtually anything they like. Granted, it can’t be too controversial, but if they offer for example, 80% of what the electorate wants, the chances are they can do pretty much what they want with the other parts of their manifesto.

So, in other words, we must accept all of the terms of the manifesto, if we want to support a particular party. So why can’t we also vote on the contents of the manifesto? If we assume that most will only have 10 or so key commitments, then surely they can include on the voting forms, a brief description and the opportunity for the voter to indicate whether they are for or aganist a particular manifesto commitment. Of course they won’t. This is either, because they assume we are all too stupid to be able to form an objective opinion on their commitments or, more likely, they believe it passes too much control to the electorate…! Ask yourself this, if we are capable of voting on a manifesto in its entirety, why aren’t we entrusted to vote on the individual issues that make up the manifesto?

Delivering on their commitments

In the real world, few people would get away with a failure to deliver on their commitments, whether they are in business or even in their personal lives. At some stage we are all called to account. However, when we look at a government, we should really be judging them in the same way as we would a public company, with the electorate as shareholders. Think about it, the UK government is just a huge company with social and economic responsibility.Therefore, we should really refer to is as UK Plc.

This government and others have been great supporters of corporate governance and as a consequence, we have seen a good deal of legislation brought in to “protect” the shareholders of these big companies. Whilst it is right to question just how far this legislation has gone, the principal was a good one. Why then, have we not seen something similar for UK Plc? If the chairman, or the board of a public company fails to deliver, the shareholders can oust them at the Annual General Meeting (AGM), yet we have to wait up to 5 years. Imagine if you will, a chairman of a company that has consistently failed to deliver, or has mislead his shareholders, having the right to determine when he leaves, or is put up for re-election. Ludicrous, isn’t it? Yet that is precisely what happens with UK Plc.

Now the government of the day will probably argue that there are various committees that scrutinise their actions. True, but whilst they may have the right to publicly admonish wrongdoing, they can’t fire a minister, or call for the government to step down. Nor is there anyone measuring the government’s performance against their manifesto commitments. Whenever a government fails to deliver, all they do is ask the electorate for more time at the next election, typically stating that they need to continue their “programme of reform”. So what have they been doing for the past 5 years, that is what we should be asking, if they make a manifesto commitment, they should make clear how long they expect it to take. Imagine the chairman or chief executive of a public company making bold commitments without placing a timescale on it, this just would not happen. Yet UK Plc, our government, get away with it time and again.

Can we expect the opposition MP’s to do anything about it? Unlikely, because they have no more wish to be judged by their delivery of manifesto commitments, than anyone in government.

Your local Member of Parliament

We could all be forgiven for believing that when we vote for our local MP, that he will or she will be representing our interests. That they will be our voice in the houses of parliament. Sadly, in most cases, the truth is invariably something completely different. True, some MP’s will raise matters in parliament which relate to local issues, perhaps a hospital, post office or school closure. But when have they ever asked you what you want? The only time you may get asked is if you bump into a prospective MP seeking your vote, but even if they do make promises to you, can you really trust them to deliver?

Ask yourself why, if MP’s are supposed to represent the interests and views of their constituent’s, every party has a ‘chief whip’. This person, or people, are there to ‘whip’ MP’s into shape. To ensure the government receives the backing of all their MP’s to support, what is often, a controversial issue that divides parliament and therefore, most likely, the country. Government Whip’s may cajole, bully or perhaps even offer incentives to an MP to ensure that he or she supports the government line. So when are your interests represented? Local MP’s are always keen on sending us details on what they have done for us, so they know how to write and theoretically, they know how to communicate, so why don’t they ask us what we think?

If our local MP is supposed to represent the local constituent’s, then surely they could provide the electorate with their own mini-manifesto and at the same time, tell us where they stand and therefore, how they will vote on national manifesto issues. That way, we the electorate, will know exactly what our MP stands for and will know that no deals can be dome behind closed doors. Too much to ask?

 Loading ...

 Loading ...

In my view, not for a great number of years, has the UK electorate felt so remote from their politicians. Our members of parliament, from the prime minister down claim to be listening to us, but just who are they listening to?

This government has been in power so long, they have forgotten how to listen, they have lost touch with their voters and no matter where you go, everyone appease to be equally frustrated…and who can blame them?

The electorate could be forgiven for believing that the politicians only listen to the press and who gave them the right to talk for us? They seem to dip their toe in the water and then read the press the following day, if there is no outcry, then it becomes government policy. These are just gesture politics. Anyone that believes we live in a democracy is simply fooling themselves. The simple truth is over 62m people are rules by some 650 MP’s. Few if any, actually bother to talk to their voters unless, or until it becomes a necessity because of an impending election.