Originally Posted by
Easy Street
As an MP he is accountable primarily to his electorate, who I dare say back him overwhelmingly. Being in receipt of taxpayers’ money does not in any way constrain MPs’ freedom to take political actions or express political views, indeed in other circumstances they are the least constrained of all citizens in that regard thanks to Parliamentary privilege. There are plenty who see his actions as far from ugly, quite the opposite in fact: standing up for (small-c) conservative values at a time when such things are too easily labelled ‘reactionary’ and their adherents ‘boomers’ or ‘gammons’. Good for him.
As a conservative (again, small-C), I value the same things and I certainly wouldn't have protested at the Cenotaph, I just see the big picture and the ugly precedent that he has set, which will undoubtedly be used by others to score points in the future. Again, as a conservative, I am pretty used to my views being censored in the name of "political correctness" these days, so I am mindful of the free speech of others.
By the way, Parliamentary privilege only applies in the Commons/Lords. As soon as they leave the building, they must be responsible with their speech, like the rest of us. For example, Dominic Raab has the total freedom in the main chamber of the House of Commons to reveal the nation's most classified, current foreign intelligence and he cannot be prosecuted for it, because it would be said under Parliamentary privilege. He would go to prison if he revealed the same information in his constituency or elsewhere, outside of Parliament.