For those following Rory Stewart's personal processing of politics

Agree absolutely MaizieD.

It's on my Christmas list, growstuff, along with Chris Bryant's and James O'Brien's.
I already have Ian Dunt's book on the same theme.

We need a Hercules to clean the Augean Stables that is Westminster...

Rory Stewart: .”I went on to speak – according to Hansard – 400 times in Parliament. And tried to speak much more than I was called. I had travelled to Syria, I think, more than anyone in the chamber but I could not get the Speaker to call me in a Syria debate. I had visited Ukraine straight after the Crimea invasion, and been on the front lines, and had crossed the southern border to enter Tripoli the day Gaddafi fell, but I struggled to speak in the Russian or Libyan debates. I was proud of my careful speech, limited by the Speaker to four minutes, on intervention; my hour-long speech on why we should remain in the European Court of Human Rights; and my speech on why Scotland should remain in the Union. But the only speech which seemed to achieve any public prominence was a ten-minute speech, delivered at ten at night in an adjournment debate, on the subject of hedgehogs. This was watched by six people in the chamber and over a million times on social media.”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqTkLoekm_0

What does this say about British politics?

PS. Just finished his book - well worth reading.

Once again, the thing that comes over is their ability to discuss in a measured way. These problems are so difficult.

As Rory Stewart says, the big inequality is between the 60% who own houses and the 40% who don't.

I'm not sure how easy it is to hypothecate any tax, as he suggests this might be, but we should but we certainly need to look at all sources.

A wealth tax on houses (after death) is something I could go with.

And yes, I do have a house.

This us just a reel (short). I'm not sure how many will agree with all of it.

Fixing the UK's inequality. It's from a longer podcast.

Above all, Stewart wants to reform the electoral system, so that, like New Zealand’s, it has some proportional representation. “We need fresh, new parties coming in.

www.ft.com/content/959589b8-9e25-4fd0-a39e-e30145d06f83

If voting is "whipped" what is the point of MPs? ... they might as well use avatars.

His tv series about The Borders is being repeated on BBC4. It was the series that first brought him to my attention. I assume it will be on catchup.

I have no doubt that RS is a flawed human being as we all are. But I do think it is wrong to imply a knowledge of wrongdoing without making this clear. It is fundamentally unacceptable.

Luckygirl3

NotSpaghetti

27Luckygirl3
Re his voting record - I think there's a lot there that HE wouldn't endorse too!

Therein lies the problem! Should our MPs be voting for things they disagree with? Or is the point of their job to do as they are told and ensure they get promotion?

It is the system we have. A two party, first past the post system means just that. We should all be shocked by it but I doubt we are unless, like MPs, we are confronted by its reality.

Siope

It’s pleasing (to me, anyway) to see people questioning Stewart’s track record. I worked with him and, being tactful, he’s not the paragon of all the virtues he portrays himself as.

When and where has he done that Siope?

The people interested in these threads are interested in his analysis. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be? What are you trying to add to the discussion. It isn't very obvious.

MayBee70

I think he suffers from a lot of self doubt and admits that he is having counselling. Both he and Alastair stress how important it is to seek help for mental health conditions ( not that I’m saying that that applies to Rory). And, much as a lot of us like him I don’t think that we blindly agree with everything he says. Although, to be honest, I usually do agree with him.

After the likes of Johnson and Trump- how refreshing and reassuring is that.

silverlining48

Not sure anyone is a paragon of virtue

Understatement of the year.

Siope should at least make her accusations clear. What are we talking about here, politics or personal behaviour?

I think he suffers from a lot of self doubt and admits that he is having counselling. Both he and Alastair stress how important it is to seek help for mental health conditions ( not that I’m saying that that applies to Rory). And, much as a lot of us like him I don’t think that we blindly agree with everything he says. Although, to be honest, I usually do agree with him.

Not sure anyone is a paragon of virtue

Siope

It’s pleasing (to me, anyway) to see people questioning Stewart’s track record. I worked with him and, being tactful, he’s not the paragon of all the virtues he portrays himself as.

Insinuations are unfair. He certainly never portrays himself as a paragon of all virtues- and never does anyone here.

Siope

It’s pleasing (to me, anyway) to see people questioning Stewart’s track record. I worked with him and, being tactful, he’s not the paragon of all the virtues he portrays himself as.

Absolutely. But he’s almost reached sainthood level on GN.

NotSpaghetti

27Luckygirl3
Re his voting record - I think there's a lot there that HE wouldn't endorse too!

Therein lies the problem! Should our MPs be voting for things they disagree with? Or is the point of their job to do as they are told and ensure they get promotion?

It’s pleasing (to me, anyway) to see people questioning Stewart’s track record. I worked with him and, being tactful, he’s not the paragon of all the virtues he portrays himself as.

27Luckygirl3
Re his voting record - I think there's a lot there that HE wouldn't endorse too!

There are arguments in favour of the party system - but it is becoming harder and harder to justify this. MPs just rubber stamp the party line now, and are frankly totally pointless.

The irony of the good constituency work they do is that a lot of the time they are trying to redress the negative impact of their own party's policies on the constituents.

We really have no idea how ramshackle and undemocratic our parliamentary system is, despite attempts by people 'in the know' to draw it to our attention.

That is the way the parliamentary system works. MPs who don't vote as they are ordered to do by the whips put themselves out of the way of a chance to gain office and can cause serious embarrassment to the party. There is a 'sliding scale' of obligation to vote with the party by way of one, two and three line whips. Occasionally there can be a free vote, but on matters where it is important to the party to show solidarity there is no choice. An MP who voted against a 3 line whip can be slung out of the parliamentary party.. It's a cold and lonely life being an independent MP

Anyway, as Rory himself says, a good many MPs don't even look at the legislation that they're voting for, they do what they're told... this has got worse and worse over the years as the governing party has complete power over the parliamentary timetable and can allow so little time for debate on proposed legislation that MPs have very little chance to examine the detail or debate on it.

This is an area where PR could make the whole process far more democratic and consensual rather than just toeing the party line...

It is very worrying that there is no room for integrity and voting with one's conscience built into our system - or heaven forbid, voting in the interests of your constituents!