Perhaps this is nothing new, however events of this year have helped me to realise the depth of the contempt in which the public, the public’s opinion, normal rules of behaviour and the rules of governance are held by politicians of all colours, in all nations.

• Mark Garnier – forced to resign as Minister but not MP for calling his Parliamentary Aide “Sugar Tits”
• Damien Green – forced to resign as Minister but not MP for lying about data on his Parliamentary computer
• Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy refuses to speak to Pro-Independence parties following their election to the Catalan Parliament
• The FCC in the US votes to repeal Net Neutrality despite overwhelming public support and 20 million public requests not to do so
• David Davis not sacked as Minister or MP despite having lied to parliament about the Brexit Impact Assessments
• Priti Patel forced to resign as Minister but not as MP after soliciting for funds on behalf of Israel behind the Foreign Office’s back
• US President Donald Trump still refuses to release his tax returns as they are under audit – despite no such constraint existing
• French Presidential candidate Fillon refuses to stand down despite paying his wife €800k for a job she never performed

For each of the above cases, there is undoubtedly a very good reason why what happened, happened; yet alongside this there is also the common sense view that says that each of these cases is an example of the disdain shown by the political classes.

In the case of Mark Garnier, he admits having called his aide “Sugar Tits”, but this was before he was a Minister, and he says it does not constitute harassment. Yet according the the Citizen’s Advice Bureau sexual harassment comprises unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature which makes you feel degraded or humiliated.  To me – the unwonted epithet of Sugar Tits certainly fits that bracket…

Damien Green lied to the public concerning the data found on his Parliamentary computer, however the Code of Conduct does not prohibit this, so no reason to resign.

Following the Catalonian elections, Mariano Rajoy is only willing to talk to the single biggest party, and not the Pro-Independence parties.  The problem with this is, that that party does not have a majority – not only that, it cannot make a majority without the help of at least one Pro-Independence party.

As for Donald Trump… well, the IRS do indeed check the accounts of the President, but they are bound to assign someone within 10 days, so it is unlikely that the accounts are still under audit – and even were they, the IRS itself says that this is no impediment to releasing them.

François Fillon maintains that it was perfectly legal to employ his wife as a Parliamentary Aide – which it would be, had she actually been doing any work.  However, despite being employed for 15 years, Penelope herself claimed in an interview with the Telegraph that “I have never been actually his assistant or anything like that.”  Penelope coincidentally resigned from this ‘job’ a mere 2 months before the law was changed to mean that such payments had, in future to be declared.

Why is it, that the political class permit within their own ranks, behaviour which would not be tolerated in any other employment situation? It seems to me to be remarkable that a Minister in the UK government can be asked to resign because of an impropriety, and yet they remain engaged as a representative for the people.  Likewise, how can anyone hold store in the integrity of a politician when their moral compass is sufficiently skewed to think that is is acceptable to embezzle nearly a million Euros from their own government?  How can anyone believe that Mariano Rajoy is listening to the Catalan people when he refuses to engage with the Pro-Independence parties – who together form a majority?  How can the electorate have any faith that these people will represent their best interests?

It is clear that all they are prepared to do is look after their own…  Perhaps this then is the crux of the matter; perhaps the politicians look around them and see that if they censure their peers for such behaviour, then they too may also one day be censured.  Rather then than throw stones, they prefer to grumble about impropriety whilst allowing it to continue.  Only this would explain the deliberate avoidance of imposing specific rules and specific punishments – since only vague regulations and self-policing can permit these situations to continue.  In such matters we should hold not only the individual politicians responsible, but every single politician which does not actively stand up and either change the system or resign – immediately.  In the case of David David, 12 MPs voted against calling for Contempt of Parliament – all of them supporting the same government of which David Davis forms a part – they are therefore to be considered (in my eyes) as guilty as him.

“Let the electorate decide if what I have done is wrong” they say…  “I will be judged in the ballot box”.  By which time of course, it is already too late, and the undemocratic voting systems we have in place ensure that as long as the candidate continues to be supported by the party, they will probably survive.  Anyway, as we can see from the everyday events of the world, they all do it don’t they?  So what does it matter which politician you vote for?  For my part, I don’t want ambiguity in the application of rules, I don’t want the value of someone’s misdemeanour to be determined by someone with a vested interest.  I don’t want the rest of the political class to remain seated when they should rise and do the job for which they were elected: they are our representatives for a reason, and that reason is to represent us, not themselves.

How long must we sit here and watch the politicians impose rules upon us which they are not themselves prepared to endure?