NOW OPEN: the MSE Forum 'Ask An Expert' event. This time we'd like your questions on TRAVEL & HOLIDAY DEALS. Post by Wed and deals expert MSE Oli will answer as many as he can.
'What should we pay our MPs?' poll discussion
edited 26 May 2009 at 10:50AM in MoneySaving polls
87 replies 9.8K views
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Energy Price Cap change
Martin Lewis on what it means for youMSE News
Best £1 you've ever spent?
Share your most impressive bargainsMSE Forum
New MSE Forum avatars available
Try 'em out nowMSE Forum
This would have the effect of making parliament non-partisan and maybe make it a place where real debate and representation of the whole population takes place.
Incidentally, it would be several orders of magnitude cheaper than the current system.
Yay! I voted the same as Martin! And for somilar reasons.
I think we need high calibre people to be MPs and people shouldn't be stopped from doing it because they don't have enough money.
Thiose without London constituencies could be allocated a small flat for when they are in London.
Or do what the MPs for my home city do - all three of them share a house in London and claim one lot of housing allowances between them. Well done Wolverhampton MPs!
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton
please tell us why?
worthy peops like doctors dont even get that!!!
This whole business has made me so angry I cannot express it adequately. :mad:
If there are no prosecutions as a result of this mess I shall never vote again.
Actually I didn't. I live in a constituency where less than 50% of the local voters actually voted for the MP for the area. I made the choice not to vote for her and instead voted for the candiate I thought was best, as did many hundreds of others. Unfortunately due to our first past the post system she still got in.
She represents her political views in parliament and not those of the majority of her constituents. They disagree with her party and didn't vote for them.
I would stand for parliament but I can't afford to do it independently and I have no intention of joining any of the parties on offer who don't represent my views in parliament.
If they fail to get re-elected then the process starts again from scratch.
2. To achieve their full salary entitlement they should achieve a minimum 75% attendance of sittings at the House of Commons each year, with at least 6 hours per day spent within the Palace of Westminster on PArliamentary business
3. Pension.. buy your own like everybody else.
4. expenses.. travel to & from constituency at lowest available air or rail fare (if that means buying a standard rail season ticket (not 1st class) then so be it).
5. 2nd home allowance? basic single rate for MPs travelling more than 120 miles from their constituency to Westminster `as the crow flies`
Having a second home is a necessary expense for MPs who represent areas well away from London. I do appreciate the impracticalities of running the job from hotel rooms and rented accommodation may not have adequate security. Therefore, any MP needing a London second home (presumably most of them) should have that home provided by the state and kept by the state for its next occupant. There would be no profit (or loss) for an MP upon vacating the second home.
Mind you, I also think there is a case for having enough MPs to be selected at random (like jury service) to hold the balance of power. e.g. govt. majority + 50. If govt majority is 77 then 127 MPs selected in same manner as jury service. Yes it's radical. So was allowing the working class, then women, the vote once upon a time. It may be the only way that Parliament can keep some respect in the longer term.