And another thing…

David Chameleon’s only job outside politics was as the PR for a TV company which failed.

The Billionaires who back him may well have chosen badly.

It makes far more sense to reconsider, starting with an elected Lords imho.

When that has been democratised (This is the C21st I think? Even on sunday morning) take it from there.

I have my own pet schemes for how a bicameral system would work best – and in a more organic fashion in line with conservative notion of society per previous generations of the Tory Party.

But your fundamental point is quite correct of course, Chameleon and the foreign Billionaires this multi-millionaire represents are just using the issue as a tag for the A-politicals and the Mock Tory / Libertines.

Disgrace.

I realise that when writing comment pieces it’s now in vogue to misrepresent arguments but Straw-man commentary really is pathetic.

“To sum up the arguments currently in vogue: everyone hates MPs, so there should be fewer of them. And that’s it.”

No. The argument is the majority add no value. And that’s it.

Tom will only every vote of party lines as per his whip. Lot’s of Tories, Lib dems etc do the same. Tom is actually proud of his voting record.

The Commons has given up coming to a conclusion by reasoned debate (or heaven help us, doing what the majority of the population want) – it’s purely a percentage game.

Labour won the election so the executive will win all votes.

Why do we need over 646 people all voting as their whip tells them ?

We need less MP’s as the current crop refuse to hold the executive (and their own party) to account.

Of course, the other reason to have fewer MP’s is quite simple.
The majority of the population want it. It’s called Democracy.

I gues your views have nothing to do with the fact that the existing number of MPs and constituency boundaries favour Labour, and have for a generation, with the effect that it takes more voters to vote Conservative to elect an MP than it does Labour.

Labour has been sitting on this electoral cushion, and will continue to do so even at the next general election. If Labour loses, against the electoral odds, then it ill-behoves one of the losers to talk piously about the status quo.

The status quo is about to change, and not before time, even if it involves a different Government inheriting the worst economic context in more than 50 years. Vivat prudence …

Spoken like a true advent turkey.

I know it’s something you don’t like to think about but lets consider how devolution has created two classes of MPs.

There are English MPs that are responsible for the full range of legislation and then there are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs who are responsible for the few areas of legislation that affect the whole “UK” but not devolved issues.

Devolved issues, such as health, education and training, local government, social work, housing, tourism and economic development, many aspects of transport, law and home affairs (including, the police and the emergency services), the environment, agriculture, forestry and fishing, sport and the arts, statistics, public registers and records, planning, natural and built heritage – are handeld by members of the devolved administrations – not MPs.

So just what do these Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs do with all this extra time on their hands?

They spend their time voting on issues that do not affect their own constituents, namely English issues – often to the detriment of the English people.

And regarding constituency sizes – the current situation is deeply unfair and changes need to be made.

Some constituencies should be bigger like “Na h-Eileanan an Iar” (Scotland)with 22,200 voters and compare that with The Isle of Wight (England) with approx. 110,000 voters.

In order for the system to be just constituencies need to be roughly the same – currently they are not.

So I would disagree with Tom’s predictable analysis – there is plenty of scope to cut the number of MPs – and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the places to look first for savings.

Less MPs more power to a minority of elected representatives do we really want to have even more centralized power in the hands of The Government?

You will always find MP’s will attempt to justify the status quo, whether it be their numbers, their expenses, the employment of their relatives etc.etc..

Given that much of their work has now been devolved to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies and about 60% (a conservative estimate) of our domestic legislation now comes from Brussels, in reality MP’s must have a great deal of time on their hands.

Parkinson’s Law applies of course (work expands to fill the time available in which to do it), but it is not a necessary work expansion.

We must therefore take this golden opportunity to reduce the number and the cost of our legislators and not just accept more and more of them because twittering and blogging MP’s tell us they are still rushed off their feet.

The methodology you’ve used to justify a reduction in the number of MPs is almost as impressive as the one you used to conclude that 60 per cent of our laws come from Europe. Why 60 per cent? Because it’s a round number? You just made that up didn’t you? Here’s the real figure.

Firstly each MP should represent roughly the same number of people, and the constituency lines drawn on roughly homogeneous communities to better represent the majority view of the people in a fair way. Currently the system isn’t like this.

To be honest, we don’ need so many MP’s, staffing fewer would be a better option. Plus! you’re missing the fact that Cameron is expecting to devolve powers from the top to the bottom, thus reducing the number of issues that MP’s are directly responsible for.

The Conservatives have had the cushion of a majority (including their independents) in the Lords since 1215, if we count the preceding epochs of our political history.

Now why do second cousin to HM Queen Chameleon, his foreign Billionaire puppet masters and his online cod & mock tories want to begin their cuts in the elected chamber?

Neow let me see . . .

What we actually need is 61,000,000 members of Parliament, not 646 devoted to following the agendas of their respective parties.

Hit the red button on the remote now if you think you’d like to vote on Parliamentary business yourself……

I agree with your opinion of Minette Marin – I don’t I’ve read any piece by her that I didn’t think was mean-spirited and unpleasant (and she came in from some scorching criticism from one of her fellow columnists on the Sunday Times, India Knight, over some comments she’d made about disabled children and their families).

Marin is tapping into the general mood of blanket condemnation of MPs. I think most people only have a vague idea of what MPs actually do all day, and perhaps there is a very small minority who do as little as possible and get their bag-carriers to do most of the work while they get to do the photo ops. But most MPs have the kind of punishing workload which would freak out most people.

But there’s a media consensus that all MPs are self-serving wastes of space. A dramatic version of this is The Thick of It – which is mildly amusing, but certainly isn’t doing much for politicians’ credibility (yeah, I know that’s the point). It seems very mischievous to portray MPs as that chaotic and incompetent. Malcolm Tucker is more like Trainspotting’s Begbie than Alastair Campbell. (Although that line ‘You look very suave, Malcolm, it’s as if there was Scottish James Bond.’ – said without irony – that was funny.)

In last night’s episode, they kept referring to ‘Rob Holt’s blog’. Wonder what the inspiration for that was? Tucker was very disparaging about those who read and comment on blogs = something about people who can’t spell, overeat and wear tracksuits. Huh!!

BTW, pleased to read that you were laying a wreath this morning. My Mum did the honours at her church this morning (she was in the WAAFs during WW2).

What now needs to happen given that Labour has transferd so much to the EU. Is for far more power to be devolved to local councils, and that the Westminster set up needs to be reduced dramaticly and the MPs that are left can spend far more time in the area they represent, with say an office the local council building. So MPs become what they have created glorified County Councilors.

OT

A write up of my little walk, Tom

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/08/guy_fawkes_demo/

@Robtro: Plus! you’re missing the fact that Cameron is expecting to devolve powers from the top to the bottom…

Given that Cameron is essentially going to do nothing about the EU issue, his policy of devolving powers from the top to the bottom hasn’t exactly got off to a good start.

Dictatorship of the net would immediately become dictatorship of the billionaires who manipulate our media.

Stuff like this would be suppressed toute suite:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/nov/08/cocaine-alcohol-mixture-health-risks

Most people don’t want to have to keep up with every minute idea propagated by the raving right, or the sane centre, or the left.. They show that largely by not voting, and that should remain their right.

Representative Democracy rules fairly well. The “best” is often the enemy of the Good.

BTW Nicky,

Glad to read your Mum got some recognition, mine was in the WAAF too, gone now, as also my Nan – ARP Warden – and Dad and Uncle – RAF both.

It was a pity the WAAF wasn’t WRAF or just part of the RAF in those days.

Those who run the services have usually been very conservative, and now they are coming out into the open.

“Representative Democracy rules fairly well. The “best” is often the enemy of the Good.”

Tell that to the Swiss. The richest, happiest, healthiest, best educated people on the planet.

tv pictures when bob ainsworth made his ‘apology’ over nimrod showed an almost empty chamber

when m.p.’s expenses came under discussion the chamber was full

where had they all been hiding ??

Absolutely, Tom. This is, if I may say so, you at your very best, placing received wisdom under close scrutiny. Well done! Coming as it does on the same weekend that Sadie closed the tavern – through which I found your blog – it has cheered me up a bit.

Ah yes cop out Switzerland, not been at war since 1815. Not for them repaying WW2 debt into this milenium . . .

Has very successfully exploited her neutrality in various ways. inc by hosting many international organisations and her role at the centre of W Europe’s landmass.

Gave the world the cuckoo clock.

>> Some constituencies should be bigger like “Na h-Eileanan an Iar” (Scotland)with 22,200 voters and compare that with The Isle of Wight (England) with approx. 110,000 voters.

There is also a matter of logistics. Maybe Skye could be included in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, but that would add only a few extra thousand – anything more would involve tranvelling and communication costs and difficulties unimagined on the Isle of Wight.

My constituency – Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross – already is the largest in area with tortuous travelling up-and-down single-track western roads, but has only 40,000 or so voters.

Comparable disparities are seen with the US Senate, say, when California returns the same number of senators as Alaska, or Delaware as Texas.

>> What we actually need is 61,000,000 members of Parliament, not 646 devoted to following the agendas of their respective parties.

Governance by plebiscite or referendums (not referenda!) is not really democracy.

>> Tell that to the Swiss. The richest, happiest, healthiest, best educated people on the planet.

Tell that to the women who, in some cntons, were disenfranchized as recently as the 1980s.

By all means, reduce the number of MPs, but increase the clout of local government, as in the USA.

Quietzapple.

Just what are you on about. Have you had too many late nights or something.

I would go and lie down in a darkened room if Tom will make way for you.

Not saying how many MPs there should be, as you write it depends on what you actually do.

However, given that those who sit on SI and other committees don’t actually seem to do much except kowtow to the governments wishes and most obey the whips they aren’t doing what they’re elected to do. Your constituants, I suspect, expect you to work for them not on behalf of your party come what may.

On the devolved issue, that will come up and really non-English constituancy MPs shouldn’t vote on England only matters. That’s simply wrong as those you affect have no come back against you.

Choose a number of MPs for the UK; 500, 600, 700 whatever and then ensure that constituancies are of a similar size in terms of electorate and that MPs don’t vote on issues that don’t affect their constituants.

Predictably, the claims from the right that reducing MPs will reduce the cost of politics don’t stack up. Has David Cameron made any estimate of the cost of a full-scale boundary review? The costs of this will dwarf any savings made, even in the longer term.

“Bigger constituencies mean bigger workloads and increased staffing and administrative budgets for MPs”

Ahh, so then we should have smaller constituencies. Much, much smaller. I suggest constituency sizes of one. That way we can all have a vote on everything. Democracy… marvellous isn’t it?

@Tom
The numbers or percentages of laws passed in the EU are completely meaningless, of course.

If there were just one law which said, for instance, EU law supersedes UK law, that would be enough to disturb most people who were interested in self-determination.

It will probably come as something of a surprise to some of the above commenters that the Boundary Commission, in its regular review of boundaries, is obliged to try – as far as practicable – to create constituencies with roughly the same average number of electors and respect local identities and communities. Unfortunately (and inevitably) those two aims are occasionally contradictory.

Johnny Norfolk:

Look just tie this around your toe or something and I’ll pull it when the discussion might interest you and engage your faculties, ok?

I’m speaking out of ignornance here, but when was the last significant review by the Boundaries Commission? Accusations of gerrymandering by New Labour is a pretty serious charge, and I assume those making it are able to substantiate it (the other possibility, that the largely unchanged boundaries pre/post 1997 just so happened to unjustly benefit Labour post is a bit silly to entertain).

>> Ah yes cop out Switzerland [...] Gave the world the cuckoo clock.

And Calvinism. To anyone who insists on comparing the UK to third party countries, I say the same as I do to those Snuppies who can’t speak of an independent Scotland population by Scots but have to compare her to a third country (such as Iceland, but only before the same greed overcame us both)… I say, stop it.

Switzerland also does rather well in guaranteeing permanent residency only to those foreigners she likes (such as Lewis Hamilton and Scratch Perry). Not for her opening her doors to cheap labour which must then be maintained, and to give her elite a thrill of being tolerant).

~*dragged from keyboard by dark swirling forces of overpowering intensity*~

I agree with Tom.

In 1652 there were 460 MPs for an English population of about 5 million, with an average of about 11,000 constituents per MP.

In 2009 there are 646 MPs for a UK population of 61 million, with an average of about 95,000 constituents per MP – 10 times more than in 1650. The value of a vote has been devalued 10 times over the interval, at least.

If the same proportion of MPs to population had been maintained, there would now be 5,600 MPs in parliament. And it would probably be rather difficult for such numbers to be whipped into line.

@ Quietzapple (1.20pm) thanks – I agree.

The problem, as noted by another commentator is that the residential density varies from place to place.
It would be neither feasible nor I suspect possible to have one MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar that had 100,000 constituents. You’d be talking a huge geographic area. The possibilities of people being able to visit their MP, already day ’s travel in some cases, would be immense.
Likewise, in central London, 22,000 is probably walking distance from an MP’s office so it makes more sense to have a larger geographic area and the subsequent larger number of constituents.
Doesn’t mean they work any harder than the Western Isles bloke/bird.

Ditto staffing costs would go up. I’ll be writing up a post on my blog I think on the hypocrisy of staffing in parliament as I just read a lovely article on the Beeb about unpaid interns and the MP’s that are (probably) breaking the law in their ‘employment’.
Pay MP’s a fair decent wage for the job they do, give them suitable budgets for their constituency and staffing needs (so more for the Na h-Eileanan an Iar MP who has to take 3-4 ferries to even cross his constituency and less for an inner-london MP who can do it on 3 tube-stops), scrap the silly expenses (food is not a justifiable expense for instance. You’d still have to eat if you weren’t MP) and leave them alone.

On the whip issue, not much can realistically be done. It’d be nice if there was a less official “whip”, and if Party’s allowed MP’s to vote according to their own beliefs or (shock horror) what their constituents probably want, but it’s not going to happen. Even if it did, the very first time the sitting Government lost a vote because the opposition decided to whip and they didn’t, it’d die.

Direct-democracy, outside of clear single-issue referendums isn’t a great idea. I used to think, back when I was a bit more techno-lusting, that YEAH! We could totally use a net-based voting system where every cafe and library, every home and high scool had voting booths and the issue of the day could be decided easily.

Now I see how useless that would be because the apathetic masses would only vote on things they personally care for, so, like Facebook groups, you’d get special-interests dominating the less headline-grabbing but important votes.

Fancy the idea of an e-mail driven BNP supporters campaign on a minor bit of race-releations law? No, me neither.
And that’s before we get to the sad fact that the majority of people are not intellectually and educationally capable of making the right decision on a lot of complex things. Even MP’s struggle with the hard stuff. Treaties, economic policies, it’s hard. Do you really want no-grades Jimmy who’s currently sat at home all day on the broo (hence his impressive voting record) making decisions on the future of the common fisheries policy when he lives 100 miles inland and the closest he comes to fish is a take-out after the pub on Friday night?

In a perfect Utopia, maybe direct-democracy would work, but this isn’t and it won’t.

Given the number of ministerial posts I don’t believe that there are (many) more MPs than are needed. If governments are to be held to account you do not want half of MPs on the government payroll, or receiving extra pay as chairmen of committees.

That said, failing a proper PR system, the size of constituencies should be properly and ruthlessly equalized. Scottish arguments about geographical distances really won’t wash. Scotland has geographically resident MSPs in more than sufficient numbers to cope with Scottish domestic issues, freeing Westminster MPs who need only deal with reserved matters from much of the work load of English MPs and allowing them time to get their unwelcome claws into English matters which do not affect their own constituents. (and guess what, Scotland has telephones and email and I am told that much Scottish transport is no longer horse drawn).

The real problem is not too many MPs,it is too much government. The belief that new laws solve problems and that governments must always be seen to be doing something. I would happily have more MPs paid more, if I could be sure that they would, collectively, do less.

From Wiki: “House of Commons elections

“Every eight to twelve years, each Commission conducts a complete review of all constituencies in its part of the United Kingdom.

“In between general reviews, the Commissions are able to conduct interim reviews of part of their area of responsibility.

“The interim reviews usually do not yield drastic changes in boundaries, while the general reviews often do.

“As of August 2008, the latest general review in Wales was given effect by an Order made in 2006[2], in England by an Order from 2007[3] and in Northern Ireland by an Order from 2008 [4], with the new boundaries to be used for the next general election.

“The most recent general review in Scotland was given effect in 2005 [5], and the resulting constituencies were used in the May 2005 general election. . . .

“After the reviews noted above, there will be 533 constituencies in England, 40 constituencies in Wales, 59 constituencies in Scotland and 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland giving a total of 650.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_(United_Kingdom)

Most of the whinges are in the same category as “The Tories won more seats in England than labour” & etc.

Three time losers do become deluded.

So, what, exactly, will Westminster MPs be for from January 2010?

>> In 1652 there were 460 MPs for an English population of about 5 million, with an average of about 11,000 constituents per MP.

>> In 2009 there are 646 MPs for a UK population of 61 million, with an average of about 95,000 constituents per MP – 10 times more than in 1650. The value of a vote has been devalued 10 times over the interval, at least.

A lot more, as MPs are now representing all their constituents – and are returned by potential all the adult population – rather than the interests of the handful (and, in the case of Old Sarum, one man) with the franchize.

Those who underestimate the link between an MP and his/her geographical area, and the coalescence of some communities (an MP may represent several – split one and that may not be at all popular) are presumably not involved in the politics of the area they live in.

Few areas have completely irrelevant political boundaries.

I fear for Chameleon’s safety should he have the opportunity to enact this, perhaps one of the most random of his idiocies.

I am wondering if we really need a second chamber. I know that in theory they are there to revise (although I understand that legislation can and does start there).

It is also said that it is a house of experts. But a fair old number of errors seem to creep through for all that expertise that they have.

The fact that the numbers just keep growing and growing alarms me, specially when people are appointed to do a job, take it on, get the red robes, make a bit of a mess and then give it up, all in pretty short order.

Legislation regarding devolved matters doesn’t seem to need a pile of aristocrats pouring over it and seems to be just a good as anything coming from Westminster.

It’s not a party political point I’m making. I just wonder if we couldn’t save some money by getting rid of them altogether. They don’t seem to be good value, especially not for the Celtic nations.

Comments would be welcome.

You could all just do whatever the richest expat billionaire tells you all to – cut out the middle men.

Oh.

Tris, your argument against the House of Lords is that they’re not good enough to be worth the money – but I really don’t know how you can say that when we have no idea what it would be like if we had no upper chamber; there’s nothing to compare it with (though it’s possible we would have 42 days detentions sans trial). You can try to compare with other countries, but there are a lot of variables in the way lower houses legislate, power of committees and expertise, origin and expertise of MPs, presence of an upper chamber and all that entails, where ministers can come from, etc.

Yes, they’re not perfect, but I certainly believe they make a positive difference. Plus, you say they get appointed and then mess up and give up – can you substantiate that with some sort of evidence for me please?

Yes, their numbers keep growing (well, after they dropped in ‘99); but that’s because the only real way they can stop being a Lord right now is to die, and I don’t think many have that planned. The proposals to let peers take a permanent leave of absence and/or resign the title would help that – most estimates I have read (of which there are not many admittedly – if you know of any, please point them my way) say a couple of hundred would be likely to leave the House, for various reasons (infirmity, other commitments, loss of interest in politics, etc).

The devolved legislatures only have specific areas in which they can make law and so the burden is substantially less; and I don’t know any qualitative studies of legislation from the devolved legislatures nor how much attention they pay to House of Lords committee reports, so I can’t really comment. I have to say though I don’t think life peers count as aristocrats really, so I think that’s a bit unfair to class them all that way.

The House of Lords also costs roughly a sixth of the House of Commons, so I’m not too concerned about price. Also, it’s interesting to note that large countries (of more than say twenty million people) tend to have two chambers.

Some of the advantages of the House of Lords is that debate in that chamber generally is considered better informed (as you would expect having so many experienced people – I pity the defence minister who justifies government policy against potentially seven former chiefs of defence staff, five former defence secretaries, and assorted others) and scrutiny more detailed, the fact that no party has a majority, with a third completely independent, means that the government has to actually barter and negotiate with the other parties and the crossbenchers more.

I’m not saying the Lords does not need reform; I would love a statutory appointments commission that has veto power over party appointments based on the current criteria for cross-bench peers for a start, but I can’t imagine the parties doing anything about that right now.

Responses welcome, of course.

If politicians simply did their job instead of being seen as those there for the vanity and the gravy train then maybe the populace would have a different opinion of them. I mean is it really that old fashioned to think they are there to empower their constituents!

http://www.twawki.wordpress.com

Tom, what would your policies be for making the House of Commons function better as a representative democratic chamber?

It is hard to see that it is more powerful now than in 1997. It would be nice to hear your views on this.

Surely as a member you would want your voice and the concerns of your constituents having the most powerful possible voice.

Is Carswell barking or on to something? You work there and I suppose would have some idea.

Lots of ignorance about politicians, people believe what the Billionaire media tell them to believe for the most part, so the howling headlines which belied the truth – that most MPs regarded their expenses as part of their normal income – failed to register.

http://bit.ly/3NOXjr

If the a-politics loons continue all independence will be gone, and MPs will be scions of Cashcroft et al.

Canada has bout half the popualtion of the UK, and its House of Commons has about the number of members.

Also, the US has a directly elected uper chamber, so really it has 535 congressman, not 435.

“To sum up the arguments currently in vogue: everyone hates MPs, so there should be fewer of them. And that’s it.”
True, but why? Simple. You singuarly refuse to listen to us on crime, punishment, Europe, benifits, Section 28 etc etc etc.

A silly number game…

Quite right Tom, get rid of the lot of you.

But perhaps that is too much of a concept for you to get your head around. British Democracy is a sick and stale joke. Politicians are mainly sycophantic idiots.

Try looking outside the box instead of inside the Westminster cesspit, but of course you will never engage as you are in the swamp.

Democracy is not the nirvana, in reality it is an abbregation of responsibility by the masses and a sad indictment of humanity.

To be fair, you can’t really compare the British Parliament directly with the US Congress – as a federal nation, we’d have to take account of the state legislatures as well. And in the UK, the devolved assemblies and parliament would have to be put down as well, and an average found for the number of representatives per hundred thousand people or some such measure in both countries. And that’s not taking account of funding (vastly higher in the US). I’m too tired right now to give that a go, but I can’t imagine it would be too hard. Maybe tomorrow, though.

Perhaps there should be more MPs, making them more directly responsible to their local constituents and less responsible to the party that puts them forward.

Of course, the fewer MPs there are the less chance of the fringe elements actually being represented (BNP, Greens, Lib Dems etc.)

Major may be back (No, not Gordo showing mercy . . .):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226718/Just-thought-safe-vote-Tory—John-Major-hints-Camerons-bench.html

ELECT THE LORDS.

(We can just hear Major, admired by Chameleon apparently, telling the Witney Worrier, as the economy falls into depression: “Now let me, I know how to do this . . “)

[...] Tom Harris argues against cutting the number of MPs in the Commons [...]