成人论坛

Barrie/Ed

Would a non-party system wherein the people elected their independent representatives at constituency level, who then elected their leadership in a central assembly, effectively constitute the rudiments of a Worker's Democracy? There's not much difference between our parties on policy anymore....

Crafty, New Labour (and their backers)... aren't they? ;-)

Time for reform?

Adrienne in post 6 is absolutely right.

I haven鈥檛 contributed to the Newsnight blog for quite some time, I鈥檝e been resting from my usual windups designed to provoke conversation, but THIS (below) is a VERY serious suggestion:

We have seen reform of the House of Lords. It is now time for reform of the House of Commons. This is well overdue.

I鈥檓 very surprised and annoyed to learn that MP鈥檚 live such a generously rewarded lifestyle at the expense of the tax payer. The case of 鈥榚mbezzling鈥� conservative MP Derek Conway and his generously provided for luxury lifestyle for himself and his family (who are NOT MP鈥檚) aside, I am appalled that every single MP is rewarded with above average salary, expense accounts, generous allowances and equally generous protected employment conditions, which, uniquely and rather unfairly includes exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. Whilst the rest of society has to accept low pay, costs of inflation, home mortgage repossessions, a failing NHS, an over stressed police force, crumbling armed services and a government which gives every impression that it does not care. I have a solution for you:

The taxpayer wants to see every penny given in tax accounted for and spent wisely for the good of the country. I don鈥檛 class lining MP鈥檚 pockets with public money as being 鈥榝or the good of the country.鈥�

Not only are MP鈥檚 paid for by the taxpayer, but also any 鈥榮taff鈥� which they want to help them. My solution has been suggested before, not just by members of the public but also by politicians; In this modern age there are too many MP鈥檚 in the House of Commons. Communications are better than ever before; - e-mail, the Internet, better personal transport etc make the life of a modern MP much easier that his/her counterparts of previous ages. It has been calculated that the House of Commons could safely cut ONE THIRD of the present number. All UK Constituencies would need to be reorganised to be ONE THIRD bigger. Keeping a fair or equal initial balance of Party MP鈥檚 would maintain a system of fairness. Not only would a third of MP鈥檚 be selected to go (selection could be by consent, early retirement and by lottery) but their support staff would also go. Legislation MUST be created to require Parliament to account for every penny of taxpayer鈥檚 money it spends. From this basis it is clear that a massive saving to the public purse would be of benefit to the whole of the country. In addition to this, future employment vacancies for staff should be widely advertised to the general public.

Looking to the future, as all concerned citizens should be: It is good to see another tenet for change slowly gaining popularity. Party politics are, by their nature, divisive and therefore harmful to the general interest. What the people of this country want is good government, not selfish 鈥榦ne-upmanship鈥�, which is, sadly, a strong feature of Party politics. A non-party system of independent representatives is what is needed. A good MP is one who strives to do the best for his Constituents irrespective of narrow Party lines. I strongly believe that MP鈥檚 should be elected on their Constituency mandate, NOT Party dictates. Therefore, the electorate would be voting for individuals, NOT Parties. Under this system, government would consist of all those individuals voted for by the electorate, making such a Government one of unity and not of Party division. This can only be good for the Country.

I hope that others will join me in lobbying Parliament and local MP鈥檚 on the matter of reform of the House of Commons.

Peter D Dewar-Finch.

One factor that has not been discussed in the debate about MP's expenses is the fact that they all stand to make many thousands of pounds capital gain on their London properties when they leave office. As the taxpayer has funded the purchase of these properties should there not be a mechanism for some of the capital gain to be repaid to the Inland Revenue?

If any of these politians are found to be using relatives to claim expenses for employment that they are not doing. Will they be prosecuted?
Surely it is just the same as a person who falsely claims benefits when they shouldn't have done so, they get a criminal record. So why should we overlook these people who are in parliment to act on our behalf, I personally think they are worse than benefit fraudsters.

Why restrict this to family members? What about other forms of nepotism that would be barred in normal employment, such as employment only of those of the same faith, the same ethnicity, or the same politics? Suggestions that MP's staff should be employed directly by parliament would surely mean they too were controlled?

But perhaps we should think twice. Perhaps MP's own staff should be outside that system? After all, these are people who have voted the rest of us employment protection much greater (albeit still insufficient) than they have themselves. As soon as an election is called, they, and their staff, are instantly unemployed. Would their staff being selected and employed by parliament not bring MPs further towards being part of the machinery of state, instead of being our accountable representatives, than the party machinery has already? Make it the more likely we will have almost useless party placeholders, lobby-fodder fearful of losing their job, unwilling, or perhaps incapable of acting as they should when there is a conflict?

Perhaps the present controversy should be seen as a fairly exceptional (within Westminster) case of unrestrained greed masquerading as a part of a man's political beliefs, as seems rather widespread these days? Could it be that the Tory leader's willingness to sacrifice more independence of MPs is less ethical than taking an opportunity to acquire more power for his party machine, and deflect attention from his party's responsibility for promoting "greed is good" since Thatcher became their leader?