It is becoming clear that a significant number of our MPs do not understand how to fully carry out their role in a world where many of us choose to use social media to communicate with a range of people and organisations as our first preference. There is also a gap in understanding between what MPs think they vote for and what many constituents understand they have voted for. This dual breakdown in communications has the potential to create a tipping point in a relationship that is becoming increasingly tenuous.

Last week MPs voted to elect their new deputy speaker. I wrote about my concern that they would elect Simon Burns for several reasons, but in part because he had made clear that he did not believe that 38 Degrees were a helpful organisation. Thankfully he was not elected but the new deputy Eleanor Laing, whilst not carrying the baggage that Simon Burns carries, has nevertheless spoken out critically about 38 Degrees. This week one of my local MPs, Sir Peter Bottomley has spoken out about 38 Degrees as part of a wider speech. I hold no brief for the lobbying network and as candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner I was on the receiving end of their activities. However my view is that rather than criticising and challenging the group, these MPs and the many others who have also spoken out, should see it as offering them the opportunity to engage with some people who do not participate in any other democratic processes. If 38 degrees was to be wound up as an organisation, there is every reason to assume that something would need to be developed to fill the space left behind. Peter Bottomley and his colleagues might wish to engage with people in a different manner to an onslaught of emails, most of which are identical from 100’s of people on a select range of subjects. However some of their constituents have chosen or been persuaded to follow the mechanism that they have. The nature of democracy is that the employee or servant, doesn’t get to set the basis for their work. Perhaps that is at the heart of some of the dissatisfaction. After all Parliament, made up of our current MPs sets its own pay, determines the boundaries of constituencies, sets the dates of elections, determines what they will debate and what laws they will set and chooses who can vote. To then find out that some other agency is canvassing constituents and setting the terms of a series of limited debates via a mechanism that is relatively new and on a scale that MPs struggle to respond to is probably a bit frustrating. Little wonder that so few people have confidence in their elected representatives.

When Sir Peter was expressing his frustration with 38 Degrees he did so in the context of a another concern. He was also criticising an organisation known as NCVO for mobilising their members to contact their MPs over the bill which is currently passing through Parliament. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill 2013-14 is a law that if passed in its current form will deter many charities from engaging with their local MP or in the case of national charities from engaging in Westminster with the Government and Opposition Parties. That is not Sir Peters view and it is not the view of his colleague in Crawley Henry Smith. I would like to tell you how other Sussex MPs view the bill but they have all ignored my tweets. The exceptions are Caroline Lucas who voted against the Bill and Stephen Lloyd who abstained. I wrote previously about the Bill here. My point this morning is that whatever Sir Peter and Henry think the Bill does, if charities are deterred from engaging with MPs and Parliament, all of us will be the poorer for it. As an example I have heard from groups who are concerned that holding hustings for local Parliamentary candidates will put them on the wrong side of this law. Most charities are risk averse, primarily because of the nature of their governance, most will err on the side of not putting the charity into a position of breaking any rules or laws. That is not the case with other organisations and groups that carry out lobbying activities, were risk carries the potential for reward. The problem is that a Bill that was promised for over three years has been rushed out at the last minute, it has had insufficient debate within Parliament and almost no consultation with those that will be affected by it. All of the charitable sector is now focused on the Lords to make amendments in the committee stage in a bill that need never have included charities within it in the first place. There is already sufficient legal and regulatory guidance to prevent charities from interfering in democracy. If any charities are breaking these rules, the Government appointed charity commission exists to deal with such abuses.

Sir Peter Bottomley has conflated the lobbying bill and the nature of how his constituents have chosen to contact him. He is not alone in his views. This creates a problem for our Parliamentary democracy. If this signals that we have arrived at or near a tipping point, yesterdays reflection on Russell Brand and the idea that we need a new political paradigm might be more pertinent than it seemed even 24 hours ago.