Change? Yes, we can. But will we?

120 Labour MPs plan to stand down at next general election | Politics | The Observer.

This could be good news. In our parliamentary democracy, unbounded by constitutional limits, everything depends on the quality of our Members of Parliament. Leaving the expenses scandal aside, the present crew has failed us badly. They have failed in their basic duties; to control the executive and scrutinise legislation.

Any lawyer will tell you the quality of parliamentary drafting is in dizzying decline. Is that surprising? Look at the intellectual calibre of the cabinet. These are the creme de la creme, people, so consider how poor the backbenchers must be. The sad fact is that our MPs are representative of the general population. Which is to say they are barely literate, completely innumerate and every bit as poorly informed about economics, law and the constitution as the people they represent.

They no longer seem even to query the need for legislation. Laws are bad things per se. They are evils only to be resorted to when necessary. They increase burdens on business; raising costs and damaging international competitiveness. They are burdens for private citizens too, who have a duty to know and observe them. This is the logical corollary of "ignorance of the law is no excuse". How much law do you actually know, gentle reader? I am afraid that if you are sued successfully or convicted of a crime, there is a very good chance you will (in an ethical, if not a legal, sense) be innocent. There is just too much law.

Typically, unless the law is founded on what is left of our common morality (or on the rags and shreds of our former religion) only lawyers and other specialists in the field it covers will even know about it. Most lawyers only really know the law in their own specialised field. Even then, they still need to check details. Of course, laws need adapting to changing circumstances, yet there are hardly ever any repeals. Layer is added to layer; increasing complexity and maximising error.

One might expect a parliament imbued with common sense, even a parliament as weak in the collective head as the present one, to take this point. But it hasn't.

It's easy to cheer at the thought of such losers departing, but it will not help unless they are replaced with higher quality human material. And the auspices are not good. The party leaders are still taking more interest in the willingness of their troops to be led, than in their intelligence, courage and initiative. David Cameron is no better than Gordon Brown in this respect. He may even be worse. Archbishop Cranmer predicts;

Out will go the ‘Right-wing troublemakers’, and in will come ‘a new
breed of youthful and inexperienced “Chloë-bots”,’ as the telegenic,
smooth-talking, compliant candidates are known, named after the
27-year-old Chloë Smith,
who was recently elected MP for Norwich North. David Cameron said she
is ‘exactly the sort of MP I want to see in the House of Commons for
the Conservative Party’.

His Grace soberly adds;

It should not be for the Leader to declare, but for the people to decide 'the sort of MP' they wish to elect.

Quite. In the end, we have only ourselves to blame if the next Parliament is as stupid, lazy and greedy as the last. In the campaign for the next general election, voters should take every opportunity to challenge candidates on their skills, their experience and their ethics. An election campaign is, finally, a job interview like any other. It should be approached (by both employers and potential employees) in that spirit.