Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Why Pay Them At All ?

I have said this elsewhere but I am saying it again anyway .I feel the problem is not the petty corruption a la Smith and 'Onan the Barbarian', but the unimportance of the MPs . I think we need urgent electoral reform to establish a new relationship between the public and their representatives. Why, after all pay powerless lobby fodder anything at all.? This is especially the case when, for example over Lisbon, the one job they are supposed to do , represent our views , they utterly fail to carry out . Same with crime immigration etc.

I suggest ....
Open Primaries on safe seats
2 Stage elections with the last two standing contesting all votes
HOP timetables to actually debate European legislation currently kept quiet
Secret HOP ballots on Select Committee membership and wherever possible ( to re-empower the Commons )
Action On Boundary reform with the over representation of Inner Cities dealt with.
A halving of the MP to bod ratio in devolved countries
A third less MPs over all
A bonfire of pointless layers of authority
I would also recommend PR elections for half the House of Lords at the same time to stop tactical voting and beef up the second chamber

Then our MP`s would actually be our representatives and they would have power. Then we would not mind paying them properly . At the moment they are either doing nothing or conspiring to deny tax payers what they have instructed time to do time and time again and people rightly resent a penny wasted on them.

Believe me
(Lord Curzon, the last Victorian viceroy of India ended all letters thusly and I rather like it )


david cameron's forehead said...

You have got one thing right, which is that despite this relentless push about "diversity", Parliament is more homogenous & less diverse than it ever was.

Because in reality, if you've got a load of blacks, gays & women who all have the same opinions about everything, handed down from dear leader, then you haven't got diversity. I take the point that someone other than priviliged men can offer a fresh perspective. But let's not celebrate them in themselves, only when they actually challenge shite conventional thinking.

I actually think private wealth is a profoundly good thing. Charles Darwin, for example, had no employer & his inherited money enabled him to say whatever he wanted without fear. Those who have already prospered, rather than being career politicians, will be more independent-minded.

But if we are to have politicians who are not wealthy, & I am of the view that we should, an outright salary is a lot better than sponsorship by outside organisations & fuck knows who. I am almost inclined to go down the Iain Dale road of saying they should be highly paid but have little/no expenses.

Bit of a thorny issue & that.Open primaries isn't a bad idea. But wouldn't it mean party membership shifting to something more American? I'm led to believe that being registered as a Democrat, Republican or whatever isn't really taken as seriously as joining a British party would be.

I were inspired to respond by this ref. to "powerless lobby fodder". I welcome any way to make members of Great Britain's parliament something else.

Newmania said...

Good point on your last para DC , I think there is no choice Partry memebers are now 1% of the elctorate and as I know even they have no power at all

david cameron's forehead said...

Aye, like. I am warm towards your suggestions. But I am not aware of any party plans to bring them into being, or owt.

it's either banned or compulsory said...

Nothing to add except that my favorite signing off reads

No Regards

Useful for local council complaints and the like.

Blog Archive