David Levy – Defining a politician’s job – Jan 23

What do we look for in our politicians?

When trying to answer that I expect we are limited to our understanding of history and our own personal perspective of it.

As a child of the post war England, I remember being around when Sir Winston Churchill had suffered his electoral defeat after the troops came home and the introduction of the National Health Service (NHS/Holy Cow).   Nowadays political commentators state that England was never as good as then and hasn’t been the same since.   My recollections of rationing lead me to understand that there needs to be a collective hardship which makes an appreciation of attempts to be better, but all need to be in the same boat.

What is true now is that we have the hardship, but it is not equally shared and that is the difference.   Until such a time as those we elect have a similar understanding to our own then there will exist this divide that splits the country into the haves and have-nots.   That is no good for anyone.

I always wanted our politicians to have an oath of office which made them accountable for various spheres of national security on which they could be called to account on their voting and verbal record.   These would be:

• security through home produced food.

• security through home produced energy based on natural resources such as nuclear- wind – wave – solar – tidal – hydro-electric – hydrogen production, fusion and geo-thermal, and never to rely on foreign suppliers of energy.   Russia has demonstrated why this should be a truism.

• security in home defence which we currently have under the NATO umbrella, but also independently maintain with our nuclear deterrent.

This is not an oath of office, but it should be.   This is because relying on party politics leads to a fractured delivery on all these necessities.

An oath would also develop the leadership qualities needed to uphold your oath.   I do believe many in politics came to their calling with resolution of character, but have had the enthusiasm knocked out of them via the Party Whip.

From my standpoint, I value a friendship that faces disagreement head on and flourishes because of it.   I learn this way and broaden my understanding listening to others.

It has taught me how to say I am wrong and that I need to adapt, a lesson the House of Commons could well benefit from.

By the time politicians reach the Other Place they have to adopt a more social model of debate and, even though that House runs on party lines, people can speak their minds and make more of a stand.   It is a pity that this approach has not adopted into governance on a wider basis.

I have always sought solutions to our burgeoning problems, and I believe this approach would immeasurably help for our future.

Even more than this I would ask bureaucracy (each Ministry of Government and each of the Agencies) to thin themselves down by 50% within two years, and then over time all those currently employed should be retrained and redeployed to the front line, e.g. DEFRA to the EA — preferably in the field doing the job.

It is never right that for every nurse within the NHS there are ten bureaucrats.

Retrain, be fired or move on, but cut the over dependence on paperwork and unnecessarily complex paperwork.

It is the key to our current malaise.   Too much of the resource is being spent on non- productive administration.

Our slogan should be spend on the needy, and provide the bodies to do the job.

David Levy