drummonds Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 the boundary commission is set to report to parliament in 2018 about proposed boundary changes for the 2020 election. the idea being to equalise voter numbers in some constituencies. in places folk have moved away and in others new suburbs have led to huge discrepancies. however one proposal is to cut the number of mps to 600 from 650. this seems to be in reponse to the allowances scandal, and in a way is quite odd. in 1983 to average constituency was around 65,000 voters and now it is 71,000. so to get back to the 65,000 we would need more mps not less. what are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan edake Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Even when there is a full house of MPs in parliament if the camera runs along them many can be seen using mobile phones,playing games or just sleeping.I would therefore suggest only the amount actually taking an interest should be used as a yardstick as to the number required.Somewhere in the region of about 150 to 200 would be about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Even when there is a full house of MPs in parliament if the camera runs along them many can be seen using mobile phones,playing games or just sleeping.I would therefore suggest only the amount actually taking an interest should be used as a yardstick as to the number required.Somewhere in the region of about 150 to 200 would be about right. But you don't know what the rest are doing - in the office dealing with constituents, sitting on select committees or working groups which meet the same time as the debate chamber does... just basing it on TV appearance is the worst way possible of doing it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan edake Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 But you don't know what the rest are doing - in the office dealing with constituents, sitting on select committees or working groups which meet the same time as the debate chamber does... just basing it on TV appearance is the worst way possible of doing it.... How can they be doing anything else,a full house of MPs means they are all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 The Palace of Westminster is larger than the Commons you know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 How can they be doing anything else,a full house of MPs means they are all there. those terrible mps who meet members of the public or attend policy meetings when they should be posing for the cameras when there is nothing for them to debate. it was just the same last week at the town hall. i looked into council chamber and there wasn't a soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 those terrible mps who meet members of the public or attend policy meetings when they should be posing for the cameras when there is nothing for them to debate. it was just the same last week at the town hall. i looked into council chamber and there wasn't a soul. Back to your question... I think we should increase the size of constituencies to say 125,000 to 150,000 and return 2 MPS for each one. One from a party list one by direct vote, and stagger the appointments so each gets elected once every six years, offset by three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummonds Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Back to your question... I think we should increase the size of constituencies to say 125,000 to 150,000 and return 2 MPS for each one. One from a party list one by direct vote, and stagger the appointments so each gets elected once every six years, offset by three years. an interesting idea, but what the boundary commission will be reporting on, and what mps will be voting on is where the boundaries should be and whether the number should be 650 or 600. according to the usual protocol the number should have actually increased to 715, but as there is no room for them as well as public pressure to reduce the numbers the debate will be whether to stay at 650 or drop the number to 600. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Even when there is a full house of MPs in parliament if the camera runs along them many can be seen using mobile phones,playing games or just sleeping.I would therefore suggest only the amount actually taking an interest should be used as a yardstick as to the number required.Somewhere in the region of about 150 to 200 would be about right. I agree there are far too many MP's doing what is effectively a part time job . I think they could easily half the number to 325 which would be a good saving for tax payers . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Bearing in mind that it is only the cabinet that sets policy and decides which laws to push through and that the rest of the party are merely whip fodder for the votes to overcome the opposition I think you could comfortably halve the number of MP's and make significant savings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now