A dysfunctional relationship

On Thursday, the British parliament did something wonderful: it not only put the brakes on the juggernaut trundling to war, but it went further and forced the PM to concede that, certainly at this time, the British people did not want to get involved in another ill-thought-through Middle Eastern escapade. Since then, some people have been banging on about the damage done to the "special relationship" we supposedly share with the US. The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, was among this sorry chorus chanting "Woe, woe and thrice woe!". But hold on - if we have any kind of 'relationship' and if we are supposed to be friends, doesn't that mean that we should be able to speak openly, to disagree, to hint pretty loudly that we think the route being pursued by our friend is wrong? Surely true friendship isn't about the bigger, richer friend being allowed to make all the decisions while the weaker, poorer friend merely tags along for the ride, hoping that, if things turn out well, some reflected kudos will maybe come their way? In my book, a true 'relationship' or 'friendship' would mean that each party can say what they feel without fearing that a wrong word will cause a spiteful reaction from the other. If we are in a 'relationship' of any sort - special or not - with a power that might arbitrarily cut us off because our elected representatives had the temerity to listen to the people who put them there, then that is no relationship that we should want to be part of.

The other thing to come out of the vote in Parliament was the story that Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, stood and hecked the Tories who voted against the government by screeching at them "Your'e a disgrace!". No Michael, actually, they are a refreshing change: MPs who were not prepared to cow-tow to the party whips when their constituents had voiced concerns over our getting involved in another war while our troops are still being killed in Afghanistan. What those MPs were doing, Michael, was called democracy as it should be: we, the people, elect representatives to represent our wishes in Parliament. MPs are elected by people within a constituency. Due to the complexities of the British voting system, most people end up voting along party lines but but they are still voting in the belief that, whoever they elect, that person is going to look after the interests of their town, to promote and defend it at a national level. When those MPs voted against the motion last night, perhaps they actually showed that some in Westminster still understand the relationship between the electorate and the elected. Mr Gove's relationship with the democratic process in pouring scorn on their actions would seem to be just a little dysfunctional.