Why do we need loads of Mps in government?

[ECCOnoob]

They do have other jobs to do outside the house you know.

 

When do you think they attend to their constituency surgeries, attend local office, deal with press matters, deal with their correspondence, read their paperwork, attend conference, attend to union or party matters etc.

 

Some MP s are also cabinet officers and have additional boards to attend and second or third offices to run.

 

I'm not being all defensive for MP's but let's at least get the facts right. Its more than just sitting in the chamber arguing the toss.

[Anna B]

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.

 

Do you feel represented by them? I don't.

 

Apart from the odd few, most seem more concerned with representing business interests than the people who put them there.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2014 at 13:02 ----------

 

They do have other jobs to do outside the house you know.

 

When do you think they attend to their constituency surgeries, attend local office, deal with press matters, deal with their correspondence, read their paperwork, attend conference, attend to union or party matters etc.

 

Some MP s are also cabinet officers and have additional boards to attend and second or third offices to run.

 

I'm not being all defensive for MP's but let's at least get the facts right. Its more than just sitting in the chamber arguing the toss.

 

Yet an MPs job is essentially part time so they can take other jobs 'to keep them in touch..'

 

Yeah, right.

A nice cushy job on the board of a bank is hardly my idea of getting down and dirty with the people... but it does set them up for a well paid job when they get booted out of office.

 

Surely running the country should be full time at least.

 

And they get the best holiday allowance of any job I know - not including a few 'fact finding' trips to the Bahamas...

[dosxuk]

Do you feel represented by them? I don't.

 

Apart from the odd few, most seem more concerned with representing business interests than the people who put them there.

 

Have you ever met your MP, or even needed / wanted something from them?

 

Even then, if you sacked half the MPs, it wouldn't be the "odd few" who actually try to represent their constituents that stay in the jobs, it would be the ones who're there because they want to be an MP.

 

I would rather have limits on terms - e.g. stand no more than twice in one constituency, stand no more than four times in total - to eradicate the career politicians, than to just half the numbers for no better reason than to "save" money.

[mjw47]

They do have other jobs to do outside the house you know.

 

When do you think they attend to their constituency surgeries, attend local office, deal with press matters, deal with their correspondence, read their paperwork, attend conference, attend to union or party matters etc.

 

 

Well, three times a week I meet two mates for coffee at a cafe where Sky news and politics are on constant display.

 

The commons debates are shown regularly and apart from Prime Ministers question time, or a debate dealing with MPs pay or expenses, there is never more than a couple of dozen of them present.

 

So I assume that they can attend to most of the above during the 143 days that they attend Parliament.

 

Other than duties where they need to be physically present, which applies to three of the eight activities mentioned in your post they can carry out the rest from their desks in the Houses of Parliament.

 

We are talking about a 'job' which can be adequately carried out by people in their 70's 80's and even the occasional 90 year old has managed it.

 

I remain unconvinced as to the strenuousness of the occupation.

 

The only exception that I would make would be members of the Cabinet.

In their case the argument could be made that they are overworked and wind up making vital decisions whilst under extreme stress.

 

So basically a wonderful system we have in place to run the State.

 

No wonder everything is going so swimmingly, buoyant economy, no armed conflict or environmental issues ..... oh, hang on!

[dosxuk]

The commons debates are shown regularly and apart from Prime Ministers question time, or a debate dealing with MPs pay or expenses, there is never more than a couple of dozen of them present.

 

You do realise there is more than one debating chamber in Westminster? Only the biggest / most publicised debates use the actual commons.

[tinfoilhat]

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.

 

And in a lot of places there will be a parish council, district council and county council, plus (if your welsh or Scottish) a devolved parliament plus Westminster. How many representatives do we want (also noting they can only raise issues, not fix them).

[Stoatwobbler]

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.

 

I agree with this. There are serious problems with UK politics, but reducing the number of MP's will not do a thing to resolve those problems.

[mjw47]

I agree with this. There are serious problems with UK politics, but reducing the number of MP's will not do a thing to resolve those problems.

 

Neither would it do anything to increase those problems would it?

 

The fact is that we are continuing on with an antiquated system that was originally designed to suit the needs of the country as it existed century's ago.

 

The whole thing could do with an overhaul in order to try and end up with a modern, democratic, fit for purpose system in order to deal with circumstances as they exist today.

 

As opposed to something which worked when Britannia ruled the waves ( and waived the rules ) and we could send a gunboat.

 

Reducing the numbers of MPs and changing the ethos from the 'Boys own Club' which appears to be the current situation would be a start.

 

It won't happen, simply because the present set up suits those who are there and are the only ones who could effect change.

 

Why would they do that? It would be to their personal detriment. Only someone who held the interests of the country before their own interest would contemplate such an idea.

 

That rules out around 90% of politicians.

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2014 at 16:30 ----------

 

You do realise there is more than one debating chamber in Westminster? Only the biggest / most publicised debates use the actual commons.

 

Really?

 

Who sits as speaker in these chambers?

 

Does the City Remembrancer sit behind him/her and report all business back to The City, which is where the real power resides?

 

Because that is what happens in the actual House, and they wouldn't want to upset The City would they?

 

Are these debates recorded in Hansard?

 

Or are you talking about inconsequential talking shops with no actual power?

[dosxuk]

Or are you talking about inconsequential talking shops with no actual power?

 

The inconsequential talking shops where the vast majority of things are hashed out before being taken to a vote? Yes, them.

 

I dread to think how long any legislation would take to implement if the only time it was allowed to be discussed was in the Commons.

[mjw47]

The inconsequential talking shops where the vast majority of things are hashed out before being taken to a vote? Yes, them.

 

I dread to think how long any legislation would take to implement if the only time it was allowed to be discussed was in the Commons.

 

Yes I get that, but not every MP is involved are they? I still think it would make sense to reduce the numbers.

 

Not really interested in the saving money part of it.

 

Given the incredible amount of money wasted by government overall their salaries are a drop in the ocean.

 

In fact it wouldn't concern me if the salaries were increased for the remaining MPs. By all means pay them a salary commensurate with the responsibility.

 

But I would like to see tight controls and regulation of expenses by an independent body who could not be overruled by MPs as happened in the Maria Miller case.

 

It is an embarrassment to have people who are deciding on legislation which the rest of us have to abide by 'fiddling' their expenses.

 

The whole system needs streamlining and bringing out of it's eighteenth century mindset.