How many mps should there be in westminster?

 

I dont know, but I DO know how of 650 that are on 70k plus expenses and they sure as hell have no knowledge of the real world

So be in touch with the real world they have to be on benefits or ZHC?

"How many mps should there be in westminster?"

A damn site less than there are now. Maybe 10% or less.

Angel1

Any government needs about 50 MPs to man ministerial and similar posts. Based on a ruling party with, say 375 MPs, when ministers , get the sack, resign, die, or otherwise absent themselves, replacement must come from with in the 325 left. Overtime the ability to appoint worthy people diminishes as the talent pool shrinks.

We therefore need more MPs not less.

Any government needs about 50 MPs to man ministerial and similar posts. Based on a ruling party with, say 375 MPs, when ministers , get the sack, resign, die, or otherwise absent themselves, replacement must come from with in the 325 left. Overtime the ability to appoint worthy people diminishes as the talent pool shrinks.

 

We therefore need more MPs not less.

Including junior ministers, under-secretaries, assistant under-secretaries and God only knows what other titles they come up with, a Government has about 120 - 150 members, some of which will be taken from the House of Lords, but most of which come from the majority party in the House of Commons

As there will always be MPs who are too inexperienced, too unreliable (for the party whips), or out of favour with the leader, you need a larger pool of available MPs to form a Government

You could argue that there are too many Government posts, but currently, a majority party needs at least 300 MPs to be able to effectively fill those posts and have enough in reserve

 

We therefore need more MPs not less.

agree. It should be about 680.

It depends what you expect them to do. Probably more if you want them to be easily accessible as constituency MPs. Id imagine some have easier times than others.

prosperous Tory constituencies are going to be generally easier for an MP to represent than poorer Labour ones.

what about the Liberal ones? Oh forget that, there aren't any.

the SNP are on a learning curve there. Quite a few of them are representing what would be Tory consituencies, if they were in England.

the SNP are on a learning curve there. Quite a few of them are representing what would be Tory consituencies, if they were in England.

Well they wouldn't be Scottish constituencies if they were in England. 60 years ago the Tories had 50% of the votes and MPs in Scotland. 40 years later they had lost two thirds of their vote and all their MPs. If successive governments - Labour and Tory - hadn't treated Scotland like a distant outpost of the empire the SNP would still be a fringe party. The Scots think differently and no longer put up with the English superiority complex.

---------- Post added 14-10-2015 at 19:17 ----------

Alternative view: real-world jobs make them better MPs.

There are too many of them who have no experience of anything outside Westminster.

So spending time not doing your job as an MP makes you a better MP.

 

So spending time not doing your job as an MP makes you a better MP.

Can you define an MPs job?

Can you define an MPs job?

I would say primarily,

looking after the rights and interests of your constituents

attending as many debates in the house as possible

I would say it is NOT

getting as many part time business jobs as possible

sitting on the boards of companies instead of being in the house

As a matter of interest what is YOUR definition?

Alternative view: real-world jobs make them better MPs.

There are too many of them who have no experience of anything outside Westminster.

I agree there are far too many career politicians .