That'll be the day
As matters stand you don't have very much at all. And, if you are angry about last year's shenanigans at Westminster - as you should be - the limitations on your power should make you even angrier.
* If you live in a constituency with a so-called "safe" parliamentary seat, a vote for any party other than the "safe" party may be little more than a protest. However, see note 1.
* If you live in a "safe" constituency, want to vote for the "safe" party but don't like its candidate, your vote cannot express your view.
* If you like a constituency candidate of one party but want to see a government formed by another, your vote cannot express your view.
* If you want to know about your MP's work and how they vote, you must make your own enquiries because there is no requirement for the MP to keep you informed.
* If your MP has fiddled expenses, "flipped" houses or otherwise acted improperly, you have to wait until a general election to try to remove him or her. In the meantime the MP will continue to draw salaries and "expenses" and look forward to a large gratuity when and if they are forced out. (See note 2)
* To vote to remove a Government, even one in terminal decline, you must wait until the end of a five year term or until the Prime Minister selects a date he or she thinks most favourable to their party. In the meantime ministers will continue to draw their salaries and "expenses" and look forward to very large gratuities and lecture circuit fees when they are eventually forced out.
* Members of the House of Lords and Quangos are appointed by ministers of the party in government. You cannot vote them in to office and, even if they fiddle their expenses or otherwise act improperly (c/f Jeffrey Archer), you will not be able to vote to remove them.
* If you want to influence policy of either of the two mainstream parties you will either need a lot of money (tickets for dinners with David Cameron are available at £50,000 a throw) or be a leader of one of the trade unions and be ready to hold the country to ransom.
Liberal Democrats and our predecessor parties have been calling for electoral reform since 1922. For the best part of thirty years we have been pressing for changes to the constitution to provide for fixed term parliaments, increased transparency and accountability, a reduced number of MPs, an elected upper chamber, and limits on party donations. Three years ago, before the expenses scandal, we called for independent audit of MPs' expenses, which needless to say, was rejected out of hand by both Labour and the Tories. You will only know that Labour and Tories are serious about change when the former breaks its financial ties to the unions and the latter its ties with its big business and overseas donors
Note 1; There is no such thing as a "safe" seat even under First Past The Post system of voting. Generally reckoned to be a majority of in excess of 10% of the constituency electorate (say, 8,000), this could be wiped out by a matching increase in turnout. So, if you want to see change, simply go out and vote for it.
Note 2: Whilst not a "fiddler" or "flipper", Chingford and Woodford Green MP Iain Duncan Smith shamelessly abused the system of parliamentary allowances. He claimed a sum of £11,000 as office costs which he paid to a company controlled by the Tories' former Director of Communications, for the preparation of reports for the Centre for Social Justice, the think tank he set up. The House of Commons Green Book is explicit as to what constitutes "office costs". And what it does not include is developing Tory party policy. These costs should properly have been borne from party funds or the think tank itself
Not one Liberal Democrat MP bought a second home with their allowances and, therefore, none made a profit, none were "flippers" and none had any liability for Capital Gains Tax.
Follow the party's activity on...