Writing on RSA about what the public expects from their MP, Anthony Painter states: The public expects you to give over your whole life to pursue their ends (rather conveniently ignoring the fact that there are many conflicting ends that you are meant to pursue). You should be utterly selfless, give your all and be charismatic and gracious at all times. You have to represent every local and personal concern and be a national and international legislative participant simultaneously.

There is nothing wrong with the first; after all is that not what the public expects when they are informed that by electing a candidate he/she is being elected to represent them? That there may be many ‘conflicting ends’ matters not to the public; in any event they have no knowledge of, nor care about, any such ‘conflicting ends’. Any MP is indeed expected to be selfless – is that not why they were elected and is that not what the public are led to believe an MP will be? The requirement to represent every local and personal concern while also being a national legislative participant is akin to being a member of government wherein it is expected that government policy will be defended at all times regardless of what complaint an individual constituent may have against said policy – in other words, impossible to achieve.

Isabel Hardman has an article in the Independent in which she questions whether we know how much it costs to become a Member of Parliament – cue crocodile tears? Sir Peter Tapsell misses hitting the nail on the head when he is quoted as saying that banning MPs from second jobs may well mean that only those unemployable elsewhere would succeed in becoming MPs – what he seems to have missed is that there are already a number of MPs who, from their knowledge and performance, already show they are unemployable elsewhere.

On that particular point, we have John Redwood, on his blog, rather grandly announcing: Mr Redwood’s contribution to the debate on Devolution in England, 2 March 2015. Just what is it that this Parliamentarian does not understand about transport per se, when he should know that it is a competence of the European Union? Devolve all you like, Mr. Redwood – ultimately it is pointless.

It never ceases to amaze me that calls for MP’s salaries be increased, the reason being given that if they were paid circa £100,00/£150,000 pa that this would negate their wish to pursue ‘outside interests’ – human nature being what it is, are we all not on the lookout to create ‘extra wonga’ given the opportunity? Are we not all ‘taxis plying for hire’?

.At the time of the ‘original’ Expenses Scandal, the public (given their head) would no doubt have ‘cleared’ Parliament of far more than those that ‘voluntarily’ decided to end their journey on the ‘gravy train’ on which they were more than willing passengers; and not just the ‘sacrificial goats’ that were offered up to the ‘altar of legal retribution’. Mind you that did not stop Tim Yeo continuing to milk the ‘gravy train’; nor did it stop Charles Hendry, nor John Gummer – aka Lord Deben.

Then, continuing this ‘fog produced by supposed knowledge’ we must not lose sight of ‘independent’ think-tanks such as Open Europe and Business for Britain. In respect of the latter, I can but refer readers to this corruscation from Richard North. My new Member of Parliament writes that: I share your concerns regarding how the electorate would arrive at an informed decision in any referendum particularly in view of the misinformation in the media. Leaving to one side his reliance on a ‘source’ on which reliance cannot be placed, are not politicians just as guilty of spreading misinformation?

It is impossible to let pass without mention ‘that programme‘, aired on BBC4 (Sunday) without a comment. Like Daniel Hannan I ‘switched off’ after about 35 minutes; and the Newsnight Debate which followed received the same treatment.

Writing in the FT, Janan Ganash would have us believe that a ‘change’ election is unlikely as voters seem to want the country tweaked, not turned on its head, continuing that those who are fatalistic believe a society decides for itself how and when it wants to change. That may be so, but it should be recognised that any change society wants is within carefully constrained parameters, those parameters being controlled by our politicians. In any event, has not society been changed and at the will of politicians, without the people being consulted – witness the ‘open borders’ policy taken by the last Labour administration; subsequently aided and abetted by so-called charities promoting equality, diversity and the remainder of what may be termed human rights.

Another example of what I term the fog produced by supposed knowledge comes from Brian Binley and Dr. Lee Rotherham with a paper published by Civitas, one entitled Hard Bargains. It beggars belief, even were it possible, to reclaim certain powers which have been ceded to the European Union – something that John Redwood (yes, him again) suggests in the Foreward; stating that if Cameron’s negotiation falls short of restoring our authority over the things that matter he would vote to leave. He refers to Cameron wishing to restore sovereignty to our country – and to Parliament – over the big things that matter. What about the little things? I ask because logically if there is not total control over everything then no country, nor its parliament, can be considered sovereign. Some politicians, such as Grahame Morris, prefer to argue that the UK has not ceded sovereignty but rather pooled sovereignty. Ceded or pooled, it still amounts to the same thing – the UK can no longer be considered a sovereign country while even one matter is not under its direct control.

There is a side issue too in that which Redwood writes; namely that by reclaiming powers on important matters he believes politicians will be able to say to voters once again their parliament can respond to their wishes and get things done as they want. This is also a further extension of the fog that is enveloping us where political statements are concerned. Presently the people can say what they want; whether they get it is dependent on the whim of whichever government is in power – and politicians call that democracy.

Of late much has been made about the costs and benefits of the UK’s membership of the European Union, but as I mentioned to an audience recently what is the point of any cost/benefit analysis when the two most important matters – matters which, it could be said, are ‘priceless’ – are omitted; namely sovereignty and democracy, neither of which we presently have.

In what ever area one looks, when considering that which the political class tell us, it is hard to dispel the feeling that we are being lied to – and the process is not rectified by a media which, in general, accepts everything it is told without question.