Pay Them More!

This isn't entirely original but one way of avoiding the MPs' expenses farce or debacle is to pay them more so they don't need to put in expenses' claims. By so doing we accept that the role they play in our parliamentary democracy is of great importance and that we downplay it at our peril. Newspapers love to dig up dirt about our representatives and then to cluck in disapproval. The parliamentary expenses system seems to offer them easy targets. I don't like the idea that the system is being misused but I don't like the ammunition it provides for newspaper proprietors and editors to lay into our admittedly imperfect system, and its too human participants, to make us doubt our own democracy. What would they propose we replace our democracy with?

Don't get me wrong here. I am pissed off with my parliamentary representatives as much as the next man as I think they are in danger of devaluing our system by providing such easy targets for the newspapers and media. I do think part of the problem is the ability of prime ministers to hang on to power until they judge the moment is propitious for a general election. I believe we should insist on exact terms or periods of office - so if a government is elected on the 7th May one year, we all know that the next general election is the 7th May five years hence. This would prevent or at least limit the media attacks on a "dying duck" government in an attempt to bring pressure on a prime minister to call an election. It seems to me that the pressure must have the reverse effect.

I am also pissed off with the "presidential" nature of our government. I don't think our prime minister should be the all powerful "president" of our government but rather the head of a coherent cabinet of like minded and strong individuals. The government should not stand or fall by the likes of Gordon Brown or David Cameron. There is too much trying to make them the equal of Obama for goodness sake, but the Americans run a different democratic system to us. Their system was built upon the hopes and dreams of disenfranchised Englishmen ( and I do believe there is a case to be argued to bring the American revolution back home but that is a different issue from the one being argued here). We mustn't boost the role of the prime minister so he can go and talk on equal status with the USA President. Rather he goes as the representative of a strong and independent nation of some 60 million plus. This brings me back to the status of our other parliamentary representatives and the raising of their salaries to end any reliance upon expense claims or daily attendance allowances or whatever other rot is proposed instead.

Now I know I am going to be asked how can this be paid for? I do have an answer but I would first like to remind readers we are a strong, independent and incredibly wealthy nation. Even in a recession, when those three adjectives come under attack, we still qualify as all three.

I am pissed off (today's expression I fear) about our treatment of the Gurkhas and feel we as a nation have a debt of honour. To hear Phil Woolas trying to mealy-mouth (is that a verb?) his way out of any agreements by saying we must look at the financial costs and implications annoys me. A government that can find billions and billions of funding when they need it can spare a few millions of our money in a matter of national honour and pride.

How will I pay for the increase in salary to our MPs? At the moment we have 646 MPs or one MP for every 92000 people or 68000 electors: 529 for the English (population 50 million), and 117 for the Britons (population 9.75 million). One also needs to add in the fact that the Britons all have their devolved assemblies of their own. I admit the powers to those assemblies are restricted by Westminster but still those assemblies do exist.These numbers will change slightly in 2010, when 4 more English MPs will come into existence while the Britons stay the same, but all that does is increase the total number to 650.

My proposal would be to reduce the number of parliamentary representatives not to increase them as seems the current trend. My suggestion would be reduce the number to 430, thereby cutting 220. This cut would go some way to financing the raise in salary for the new number. The 430 would consist of 360 English MPs and 70 Britons. This would slightly increase the English representation from 81.8% to 83.7%.

In order to do this each MP would have to represent 138967 people or approx 102715 electors. This would mean the end to some historical constituencies and I do love tradition. It would also reduce the Labour strongholds in Briton and possibly enhance the Conservative ones. There are drawbacks to my proposal and I haven't been able to think through them all but doggone it I think it's worth a thought or two!