Jump to content

Why do we need loads of Mps in government?

Recommended Posts

I wasn't aware - despite best efforst of people nothwithstanding - that the North was politically seperated from the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have. A council for the North of England.

 

Wales and Scotland have them. We need something similar.

 

Wasn't a North-East Assembly rejected by the people not so long ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't a North-East Assembly rejected by the people not so long ago?

 

Yes, I think it was.

 

But it was before the recession, and I think John Prescott was wanting to lead it, no wonder it wasn't popular then, but at least the problem was being recognised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Why do we need loads of Mps in government? " The simple answer is, we don't.

 

 

Angel1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" Why do we need loads of Mps in government? " The simple answer is, we don't.

 

 

Angel1

 

So true.

 

Let's save some cash and get rid of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So true.

 

Let's save some cash and get rid of them...

 

Yes what a genius idea.

 

And replace them with who exactly??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes what a genius idea.

 

And replace them with who exactly??

 

Cardboard cutouts. They don't represent the people, there're just a committee representing the interests of their big business chums. Cardboard cutouts could do the job just as efficiently and at less expense to the taxpayer who we all know happens to be big business without whom we'd still be living in caves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes what a genius idea.

 

And replace them with who exactly??

 

The point is that we don't need to replace them with anyone.

 

we are completely over represented, the USA has far less political representatives per head of population than we have.

 

As pointed out earlier, if we had the same ratio of citizens to representatives as the USA we would only have 184 MPs as opposed to 650.

 

At an annual salary of £65,000 that is a current yearly cost to the taxpayer of £42,250,000. with the present figure of 650.

 

By reducing the number of MPs to 300 it would reduce the annual cost to £19,500,000 an overall reduction of £22,750,000.

 

Add in their expenses and you can double that figure, which is quite a decent saving.

 

No one can claim that the last couple of governments have represented value for money.

 

What happens in the real world when companies don't perform?

 

They are forced to 'Downsize' which means staff lose their jobs.

 

Why shouldn't the same rules apply in politics?

 

Might concentrate their minds. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might concentrate their minds. :)

 

Why? Unless you think it's coincidence that the career politicians sit in safe seats and don't actually have to fight for their jobs.

 

Reducing the number of MPs would probably just reduce the number of MPs who are actually trying to make things better, than get rid of any of the ones who are MPs because they wanted to be an MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why? Unless you think it's coincidence that the career politicians sit in safe seats and don't actually have to fight for their jobs.

 

Reducing the number of MPs would probably just reduce the number of MPs who are actually trying to make things better, than get rid of any of the ones who are MPs because they wanted to be an MP.

 

That in itself is why we need a new system.

 

No elected politician should feel 'safe.' That gives him carte blanche to do whatever he likes knowing he can get away with it, (which is pretty much what's been happening...)

 

Politicians should be accountable, their dealings transparent, and be in awe and fear of the voters who put them there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That in itself is why we need a new system.

 

No elected politician should feel 'safe.' That gives him carte blanche to do whatever he likes knowing he can get away with it, (which is pretty much what's been happening...)

 

Politicians should be accountable, their dealings transparent, and be in awe and fear of the voters who put them there.

 

None of that has anything to do with the number of them.

 

As far as I'm concerned, less MPs = less representation for us and fewer people for big business to sweet talk. I agree, making elected roles more volatile would probably improve things, but by just getting rid of half of them you wouldn't be doing that - there'd be one cull, and the dead wood that remains would continue to hang around for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that we don't need to replace them with anyone.

 

we are completely over represented, the USA has far less political representatives per head of population than we have.

 

As pointed out earlier, if we had the same ratio of citizens to representatives as the USA we would only have 184 MPs as opposed to 650.

 

At an annual salary of £65,000 that is a current yearly cost to the taxpayer of £42,250,000. with the present figure of 650.

 

By reducing the number of MPs to 300 it would reduce the annual cost to £19,500,000 an overall reduction of £22,750,000.

 

Add in their expenses and you can double that figure, which is quite a decent saving.

 

No one can claim that the last couple of governments have represented value for money.

 

What happens in the real world when companies don't perform?

 

They are forced to 'Downsize' which means staff lose their jobs.

 

Why shouldn't the same rules apply in politics?

 

Might concentrate their minds. :)

 

Most "employees" in the real world dont face a mass public vote which could lead to them completely losing their job every time there is a election.

 

As for whether the current government is value for money I consider that to be a matter of opinion. I personally consider the current lead - even with the coilition blot of dumbo clegg - to be making rather a good job of attempting to fix the mess created by the previous 13 years of red rose politics. However, many others would disagree with me or have no opinion whatsoever.

 

I get the point you raise with regards the US but does less necessarilly mean more. Look at the areas they cover. How many of the local populus get access to correspond and meet with them. How many actually have time, focus or even attend to local issues. Any consituancy changes will cost significnat amounts of money, voting areas increase, area responsibility increases, turn round time for things to be done increase.

 

That may have a negative effect. After all they do work for us.

 

I have said earlier, the only reason there are 650 MPs is because there are 650 separate constituancies. We have a right every single local / general and European election to consider each and every candidate and pick who WE beleive represents our views.

 

Unfortunatley through total voter apathy and a massive amount of Sheep mentality - particuarly for a certain alliance round here - that rarely happens. Its far less about what an individual candidate can/would do for us in the areas that matter to us... and more about "who did my dad vote for" "who are my neighbours voting for" "which party makes me look best"...

 

That is a big part of the problem. Not the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.