pumpkinstrokemarrow

After the last not too successful foray into TK Maxx for trainers (see October 19th) and having in the meantime determined that they do quite a strong line in luggage, had another go this afternoon, in search of something suitable for carrying spare bags and their accessories when straying far from home. And I was pleased to come across a natty looking bag, smelling of leather and labelled 'Osprey', knocked down from £225 to £69.99. Nicely designed thing not awash with pockets and buckles. Just the ticket, so after a pause on the handy bench outside to be sure about it, the deed was done.

And just to be absolutely sure that I had indeed got a bargain, I have just taken a peek at the Internet where I find that Osprey do indeed sell bags, and a good number of the ones looking something like the one I bought do indeed cost around £200. But not the exact one that I bought. So off to the Osprey site proper where I page through the mens' bags and the rather larger number of womens' bags not to find it. Various posher versions (the one illustrated is a snip at £475. Miles too big for present purposes) and one cheaper version but not the thing itself. From which we deduce that TK Maxx operates the same model that Wetherspoon started out on: buy up lots of end of line stuff cheap and sell it slightly less cheap.

Yesterday I had occasion to mention Chris Grayling, who now deserves a second mention for another reason. On two occasions in the last year or so, prompted by the 'Dignity in Dying' people, I had occasion to send him an email. On both occasions I got a very prompt reply. OK so he does not agree with what 'Dignity in Dying' are trying to do, but whoever answered the emails had bothered, at the very least, to glance at mine. To do more than send out the standard reply for 'email from the Dignity in Dying campaign'. So the man runs an efficient office.

The second reply also raised a point which caught my eye. He claimed that his view on the matter was the majority view in the constituency (how could he possibly know?) and said that in any debate he would follow the dictates of his own conscience. The point that caught my eye being that of representation. Would it be right to for an MP to follow his own conscience on a matter where his constituents overwhelmingly took another view? Would the constituents have any other redress than to deselect or vote down the MP at the next opportunity - quite possibly years away?

One might argue that an MP in such a position ought to stand down, particularly in the case that his view had changed from that advertised at the time of his election. Slightly less drastic, such an MP should represent the views of his constituents, with it being fair for him to point out that he did not agree with them. At least to take the trouble to attend any relevant debate, to try and understand the point of view of those of his constituents with whom he did not agree. In a related way, old Labour governments  used to agonise about whether it was OK or not to dump this or that decision of the Party Conference, say on nationalisation of commanding heights or on getting rid of our independent nuclear deterrent. At least in those days they had a pricking conscience; not sure that today's politicians bother about that.

In some contexts, representatives are indeed mandated. They are obliged to do what it says on their ticket. I think the electoral college which, formally at least, elects a US president works in this way. I think trade unions work at this way at TUC: their line is decided back at the ranch and the delegates are not free to vary that line without referring back to ranch. Negotiators of all sorts are usually given limited mandates by whoever it is they are negotiating for; they have freedom within parameters.

Most parliamentary votes in this country are mandated in a slightly different way with an MP being obliged to vote with his party, irrespective of what he might think of the merits of the issue, and with the party line quite possibly being set by some inner cabal to which he has no access. Which opens a nice can of worms to which I might return tomorrow.

I close with the complication that we do not actually want our representatives to be dumb conduits of every swirl and twirl of popular feeling. Part of the point of our sort of indirect democracy is that the tabloid fuelled mob does not have access to the levers of power, which helps keep a bit of decorum in public affairs.