Why do we need loads of Mps in government?

[Anna B]

" 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...

[ECCOnoob]

So true.

 

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

 

Yes what a genius idea.

 

And replace them with who exactly??

[Stan Tamudo]

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.

[mjw47]

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.

[dosxuk]

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.

[Anna B]

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.

[dosxuk]

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.

[ECCOnoob]

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.

[LeMaquis]

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.

 

The USA is a federal system and has state governors and state legislatures. California for example has 80 members in the Assembly and 40 in the Senate.

[mjw47]

The USA is a federal system and has state governors and state legislatures. California for example has 80 members in the Assembly and 40 in the Senate.

 

Agreed and we should aim for something similar with regional representatives based in the areas they represent.

 

Our current election methods are not fit for purpose.

 

Unless you live in a marginal constituency your vote is worthless.

 

How is that in any way democratic?

 

Their talking of Blair's son standing in Bootle a Labour seat with a 22,000 majority.

Nepotism of the worst kind.

 

The fact is that change could be carried out without the numbers we have at present.

 

In the 2012 to 2013 session the House of Commons sat for 143 days.

 

That comprised 1131 hours which divided by 8 = 141 days.

 

How many MPs attended on every one of those days and remained there for every hour?

 

It's a part time job, which is proven by the number of 'other interests' MPs have.

 

How many other interests - which pay - does the normal working person have when employed full time?

How many other jobs would they have the energy to undertake if they work hard in their main employment?

 

Not only is it a part time job, it's a sedentary occupation.

 

Austin Mitchell is standing down at the next election he's 80 years of age.

 

Sir Peter Tapsell is 82 and has not announced any intention to stand down.

 

As of 1 April 2014 an MP receives £67,060 per anum.

 

Not bad for a part time job.

 

As for the 1 April, you can guess who was the April fool.

 

Would it be asking too much to require MPs to actually work full time in the occupation?

That would allow their numbers to be reduced with no loss of 'productivity'.

 

The present system is an anachronistic hangover from when the country was ruled by the landed gentry who needed to return to their estates to supervise the peasants working on the land.

 

Time for change, but little if any possibility of it.