After all, MPs are supposed to represent their constituents, and the fewer MPs the larger the number of people each MP has to worry about. On the other hand, MPs cost money - so perhaps having fewer of them would be more efficient.
Bring back Rotten Burrows, where people can neither stand nor have seats, is what I say. ;-)
I'm suspicious of why it is suddenly needful to cut the number of MPS, and I wonder if this isn't an attempt at making sure only the right party gets its candidates elected.
Since we are told that some figure between one and two thirds of UK legislation originates in the EU and simply needs to be translated and rubber stamped, I'd expect that a reduction of at lest 1/3 in MPs and the more senior (and highly paid) civil servants would be fully justified.
Then I'd like to see the pay of the remaining top dogs based on the average take home pay of everyone in the UK who is *NOT* paid by the government.
The number of MPs isn't as important as getting constituencies of broadly equal size. When there is a systematic bias in favour of or against a particular party because (for example) constituencies in one part of the country are smaller, then that is clearly undemocratic and easily fixed.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wellinghall) wrote2011-09-17 08:17 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
After all, MPs are supposed to represent their constituents, and the fewer MPs the larger the number of people each MP has to worry about. On the other hand, MPs cost money - so perhaps having fewer of them would be more efficient.
Bring back Rotten Burrows, where people can neither stand nor have seats, is what I say. ;-)
no subject
no subject
Then I'd like to see the pay of the remaining top dogs based on the average take home pay of everyone in the UK who is *NOT* paid by the government.
no subject