Better to have a socialist who believes in something than anyone who believes in nothing

I like Frank Field. Let me rephrase that. I believe Frank Field's policies are disastrous and would destroy economic growth and make the average standard of living worse. However, I respect him greatly for his almost single-handed willingness to stand up to the Labour Party leadership over issues he (and his constituents) disagree with. Today he has threatened to lead a backbench rebellion against Government plans to reduce the housing benefit for some 300,000 beneficiaries, and has previously stood up to the Government over the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

For me Parliament is a place where different and real views can be aired and debated, from the far-left to the far-right. It is deeply depressing to see (on both sides) a seeming proliferation of MP's who simply parrot whatever the party line is on that day, and seem unable to think for themselves (or afraid that by publicly airing their opinions they will miss out on the fruits of government office). Part of this is due to the centralisation of the Party machines. You now have central parties taking (at least on the Conservative side) almost unprecedented control over candidate selections - meaning that if you want to get into Parliament, it helps not to rock the boat. Notice, for example, how few Tory prospective Parliamentary Candidates stood up for Daniel Hannan MEP over the National Health Service. Although a good number of them agree with Hannan, none were willing to risk their selection as a candidate to stand up for what they believed in. It is sad.

And it is another good reason to avoid proportional representation like the plague. Any system that further strengthens the role of the central party in candidate selection should worry us all - or we will end up with a Parliament of placeholders.