Isn't democracy simple? It's rulers being honest, inclusive and open with the ruled. Including the ruled in decisions, and giving them the power to vote out the rulers – participation and accountability. 

By contrast, secrecy and exclusion are the very antithesis of democracy. Avoiding the voters' eyes is a denial of democracy.

When you're at the very top of the tree – when you're an MP, with a full schedule  at Westminster plus the option of living nearby and having that paid for, fancy dinners with urbane people desperate to charm you, and a team of fawning, young interns in ill-fitting suits...

As I was saying, when you're there –  swanning about in subsidised bars in a large, opulent building hobnobbing with others of the Establishment, and giving forth of your bottomless wisdom in the chamber – when you're an MP, things can get pretty rarefied.

So, visits down in the constituency to meet your  humble residents, will be an occasion, and, you'd think, precious. It's a chance to do a bit of democracy – an hour's participation; a spot of accountability.

When you set a school hall, heated for the evening, with chairs in rows to welcome local people, you'd want them there, surely. You might ask that only constituents speak; you might even request that their affairs be kept confidential under Chatham House Rules. But why would you start the meeting by excluding people?

That's what happened to me and another “interloper” last night. A Barnet MP had set up the chairs, for what I had been told was a Q+A session with the MP. In front of three other voters (yes, that's as many as had arrived by the start-time) he asked two of us to leave. One of us was a constituent but not from that neighbourhood. This was an invitation-only event, he said; for people within a certain radius of the school who had been issued with an invitation. I was clear that I did not want to speak, just to listen and learn. The MP was insistent. We had to go.

What does this MP have to hide? What does he understand by democracy?

A public meeting was held recently, to which each of the campaigning parties in Barnet was invited.  Three parties sent someone to speak. One refused. The no-show is the ruling party. What legitimacy can a ruling party that refuses to face the electorate have? On what basis do they think they have a right to be re-elected?

Participation and accountability - simple.

Before the 2012 GLA election I attended four or five hustings. On once did the incumbent, who was also a candidate, come to face the electorate. On one occasion he had promised a deputy, who did not arrive. On another occasion – a joint hustings of Barnet and Brent – neither of his party's candidates put in an appearance. It is no surprise that he was not returned. His main rival – who had been at every hustings, and every protest – took the seat from him.

That's democracy for you too!