Articles RSSWhy do we need so many MPs?
Pay more to fewer of them
The US Congress comprises 435 congressmen and 100 senators. Congressmen serve districts of, on average, 693,000 residents. With Senators this clearly varies by state size, but the mean state population was roughly 6m in 2008. Hence the cost of the $174,000 (about £115,000) that both congressmen and senators get is minimal - 25 cents (16p) and 3 cents (2p) per year per citizen respectively. This is the base salary and excludes staff and expenses, as Oliver Harvey points out. The average constituency size in Great Britain is 92,000 residents, and there are 646 MPs, to increase to 650 in the next election. The £64,766 MPs are paid works out as 70p a year per citizen or $1.06 for comparison.
My question – why do we need so many MPs? If the issue is the overall cost of paying our MPs (£42 million in base salary and a great deal more in staffing costs, office costs and obviously the expenses) then why can’t we just reduce their bloated numbers? This could either be done gently, over time, or preferably through a violent bout of creative destruction. Halve the number of MPs. Let the parties decide their bad apples. Knock constituencies together and make MPs actually fight to be retained as their people’s representatives. So many bad MPs survive through party ineptitude and hefty majorities. A bit of carnage on both sides of parliament would help to bring about the step change in politics Harvey talks about. We could also afford to pay MPs double what they get now. But I suppose the real issue lies not in the cost of an MP, but in the principle of how much they are paid.
I watched Ming Campbell last night talk of his early days in public office when MPs were paid more than GPs and Head Teachers at secondary schools. Both of these jobs are clearly publicly funded and both are now paid more than MPs. If the problem is not the expense to the public purse of paying MPs more but the slightly awkward multiple of average incomes in the UK and MPs' salaries, then we need to bite the bullet recognise that you get you get what you pay for and start giving MPs more. Harvey makes valid points about comparable incomes, and many realistically ask the question - who would want to be an MP?
Maybe this isn’t fair - being an MP has obvious benefits beyond the money. Financial gain has not, and never will be politics' main allure. But I think someone needs to make the case to the electorate that it wouldn’t cost any more to halve the number of MPs and pay the survivors the difference, and then maybe we won’t get any more claims for plugholes or porn. To be sure, it would stir things up in Westminster...
Comments in chronological order
Total: 2
Tue 19 May 2009 11:48am
A possible moderation on your view from Jacob Rees-Mogg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8U6aIXOqaw
I am not talking about having any kind of qualification or peer review, I am talking about democracy and I simply think that an MP, Conservative or Labour, representing a constituency where they have 40% majority is not exposed to enough scrutiny.
Alex Chadwick
Sat 16 May 2009 1:58pm
To be a GP you have to consistently demonstrate that you are competent at being a GP. GPs have no chance to fiddle their expenses, and they're not even allowed to accept free dinners from drugs companies any more.
As far as I'm aware, MPs don't need any qualifications. To achieve your cull, you should suggest kicking out anyone who doesn't have a first from Oxbridge in a critical science - medicine and engineering should be about enough. They should then be given the power to completely ignore their constituents who have rubbish ideas, and anyone who speaks against their MP can be sent for re-education. The only problem is, I don't think current MPs would like the idea very much, so we'll have to have to find a way of sorting that out. In fact, because I am amazing, I have an idea that would make a very good proof-of-concept: make the current parliament produce a paper explaining why they don't need qualifications, and if it doesn't stand up to peer-review, they're all out.