Wish I could steal £16k, get away with it and call it a mistake.

[davieG]

So if they were to scrap allowances and gave themselves a payrise to initially compensate £13 million isn't really asking a lot is it?

£250,000 a week for 600 MP's.

Aren't some footballers paid this every week!

Hardly a fair comparison.

[Sir Fynwy]

So if they were to scrap allowances and gave themselves a payrise to initially compensate £13 million isn't really asking a lot is it?

£250,000 a week for 600 MP's.

Aren't some footballers paid this every week!

There are a few problems there, we don't need 600 MP's, if we cut the number to 200-300 not only would Parliament work better but costs would drop significantly, £250,000 a year is way over the top for the abilities and responsibilities of these people, a fair wage would probably be somewhere between £70,000 and £100,000. Make them stay in Government lodging when in London unless they want to buy their own property at their own expense and I'm sure the commons could supply lunches to them at a reasonable cost.

The comparison with Footballers is ludicrous as top line footballers are paid stupid amounts of money.

[davieG]

There are a few problems there, we don't need 600 MP's, if we cut the number to 200-300 not only would Parliament work better but costs would drop significantly, £250,000 a year is way over the top for the abilities and responsibilities of these people, a fair wage would probably be somewhere between £70,000 and £100,000. Make them stay in Government lodging when in London unless they want to buy their own property at their own expense and I'm sure the commons could supply lunches to them at a reasonable cost.

The comparison with Footballers is ludicrous as top line footballers are paid stupid amounts of money.

Yes, apart from those with official roles the rest are just there to toe the party line and vote accordingly and to keep their constituents off the party's back whilst ensuring they can get back on the gravy train come the next election - well most of them anyway.

[hairy]

we don't need 600 MP's, if we cut the number to 200-300

So our vote would count for less and the two major parties would dominate even more. Great.

[Sir Fynwy]

So our vote would count for less and the two major parties would dominate even more. Great.

Silly comment, our vote would carry the same weight, MP's would just have a broader area to lobby for, if you think reducing numbers is a problem maybe having a referendum on all items of public policy would be more to your liking.

[Zingari]

1 MP per average of 100,000 people does not seem excessive ,

[Sir Fynwy]

1 MP per average of 100,000 people does not seem excessive ,

It does to me and since they have less decision making powers now due to EU treaties I can't see how a house of over 600 members for a relatively small country like the UK can be efficient. Look at the size of the government in out trading competitors.

[hairy]

Silly comment, our vote would carry the same weight

Why silly

If my area has a populus of 100,000 and by your suggestion it is made larger to 200,000 or 300,000 (based no reducing 600 to 200 or 300) then my vote would go from 1/100,000 to 1/200,000 or 1/300,000 and therefore count for less

[Guest]

Why silly

If my area has a populus of 100,000 and by your suggestion it is made larger to 200,000 or 300,000 (based no reducing 600 to 200 or 300) then my vote would go from 1/100,000 to 1/200,000 or 1/300,000 and therefore count for less

That would be a good argument if MPs had equal numbers of people in their constituencies.

Looking at the latest table here the constituency in England with the lowest population has 69,982 people cf. the highest where there are 146,473 residents, over double. Looking even further, in Wales there is a difference between 42,126 and 97,583. In Scotland, it ranges from 26,350 to 105,255.

Whilst there may have been at time that this justifiable geographically, some of these lesser populated areas could be merged. In this day and age, MPs don't need to be in an area, although it is desirable that they are close to the communities that they serve. And it isn't impossible to serve a larger geographical area these days, it's not like they don't have cars.

Halving the number of MPs may be extreme, but there is an argument for reducing the numbers we have.

[hairy]

That would be a good argument if MPs had equal numbers of people in their constituencies.

but reducing the number of MPs would no doubt increase the number of people voting in my area and therefore reduce my voting power even if I was in the lowest or highest populus areas originally.

[Guest]

but reducing the number of MPs would no doubt increase the number of people voting in my area and therefore reduce my voting power even if I was in the lowest or highest populus areas originally.

It depends on how it is done. I suggested above that constituencies could be merged on a geographical basis with areas of low population being targeted. Unless you lived in the country, in Wales or in Scotland, then you probably wouldn't be affected. It makes sense to me to have higher populated urban areas being geographically smaller in area than rural areas. I am also not talking about halving the number of MPs, just reducing numbers. I don't have time to analyse the data, which is why I am not saying by how many.

If you read the figures above, you will see that you have a reduced voting power cf. the Welsh and the Scottish. What I suggest would bring balance.

Electoral reform is not new. It was recently proposed that a reduction of 20% was needed (2007) (Hansard)

This paragraph is particularly interesting.

I believe that this is a sensible suggestion. It was put forward in 1988 by Roy Jenkins in his report, which is still revered somewhere in the Liberal party, on electoral reform; namely, that there should be a single electoral quota, 76,000. The comparison with the size of other constituencies around the world is interesting. The United Kingdom, with a population of 60 million people, has 646 MPs; Germany, with a population of 82 million, has 600; Japan, with a population of 127 million—twice the size of ours—has only 470; Russia, with a population of 144 million, has 450; and America, with a population of 293 million, has 430 Congressmen. By any standard internationally we are massively over-represented.

You'll see that Sir F's view is supported further down

[Sir Fynwy]

but reducing the number of MPs would no doubt increase the number of people voting in my area and therefore reduce my voting power even if I was in the lowest or highest populus areas originally.

Basically you only vote for the party, non-independent mp's generally follow the whip so you have very little input anyway, you'd be better asking for PR, that way everyones vote carries the same value and the electorate gets the government that they actually voted for.

[davieG]

Full devolution for England, Scotland, Wales & NI coupled with a National Parliament with representatives from the 4 devolved powers.

With this I'd reduce the number of local, devolved and national representatives to a level below the current combined national + local levels. The whole lot from parish through to National being merged/streamlined where appropriate.

[Webbo]

I do believe that the Tories are planning to reduce the number of MPs by 10% if they win the election.

[Zingari]

do we need over 700 members of the house of lords ?

they could be pruned back quite a bit without anyone noticing any significant effects

[Head Honcho]

It does to me and since they have less decision making powers now due to EU treaties I can't see how a house of over 600 members for a relatively small country like the UK can be efficient. Look at the size of the government in out trading competitors.

I've nothing against a reduction in the number of MP's we currently have but this will do nothing to reduce cost. (which after all is what this thread is about) If anything you'll have more people on the periphery being paid more with absolutely no accountability whatsoever.

[Ford Super Sunday]

I do believe that the Tories are planning to reduce the number of MPs by 10% if they win the election.

I don't think that will counteract the damage they will do to this country (particularly the Broadcasting sector) if they get elected.

[Webbo]

I don't think that will counteract the damage they will do to this country (particularly the Broadcasting sector) if they get elected.

I take it you're not a tory voter?

[Ford Super Sunday]

I take it you're not a tory voter?

How did you tell!

No, my speciality is Television and television broadcasting, so that's what I will look to first when it comes to political parties.

The fact I don't want to see ANY part of the BBC licence fee top-sliced or reduced influences my decision immensly.

I might have slightly considered voting them before Cameron decided to enter anal sex with Rupert Murdoch. As he has done, and Murdoch will now exploit by further trying to use his power to reduce the BBC and PSB, while he carries on making MASSIVE profits, there is no way whatsoever I will even consider even glancing at them now.

[Head Honcho]

How did you tell!

No, my speciality is Television and television broadcasting, so that's what I will look to first when it comes to political parties.

The fact I don't want to see ANY part of the BBC licence fee top-sliced or reduced influences my decision immensly.

I might have slightly considered voting them before Cameron decided to enter anal sex with Rupert Murdoch. As he has done, and Murdoch will now exploit by further trying to use his power to reduce the BBC and PSB, while he carries on making MASSIVE profits, there is no way whatsoever I will even consider even glancing at them now.

Quick question!

Why should the BBC be funded by a license fee?

I'm not trying to be clever or anything because I don't mind paying for it but it needs a bloody good clear out from top to bottom

[Ford Super Sunday]

Because it is the greatest institution on this country, in my opinion anyway (up there with the NHS)

The BBC is renwond worlwide for what it does, and it is admired by many around the world. True, the BBC has gone downhill in recent years, but hasn't ALL television.

The licence fee is, (again my opinion) fantastic value for money. £142.50 will get you superb television services, comprehensive radio services, an absolutely amazing website, interactive services, all free at the point of use. To run the BBC's servies, to pay its 25,000 staff, on £3.6 billion a year emphasises what it does and how great it is.

Show me one top quality programme made by Sky for Sky. Forget Sports coverage, that's all Sky now, this the company which accuses the BBC of a monopoly, goes and spends £1.62 billion, or 47% of the YEARLY income from the licence fee, on Premier League rights.

I'm in the middle of writing an essay on why PSB should be preserved, and quite frankly, it should. The whole system of PSB needs to be re-jigged, else ITV, C4 and Five could be threatened, but the BBC is the cornerstone of PSB, and should remain as it is.

People moan about directors pay and the DG's pay, yet if they paid less then this level of ability would offer their services elsewhere, the BBC has to try and compete for top talent, else you ain't gonna get top quality for your £142.50 per year.

If you think the licence fee isn't value for money, go to iceland, where the fee is 350 Euros a year! Also, the licence fee works out at about 39p a day, which is exactly 51p cheaper than a Guardian, and 61p cheaper than an Independant.

IF we kiss goodbye to the BBC, then we are welcoming in an era of biased news and low brow television (though some may say it can't get any worse). Goodbye to Antiques Roadshow, goodbye to Songs of Praise, Countryside, and all niche programming, say hello to crap, cheap made shite that is designed just to make money.

We can say hello to rampaantly increased prices on subscription services, dominated by, yes, you guessed it, BSkyB, who are so badly struggling while the BBC exist.

Granted, the BBC might be seen to be chasing ratings with shows like 'Hole in The Wall' and similar crap, but that's only going with society. It seems clear to me that people love Z-List celebrities on Tv shows (All star family fortunes, all star Mr. and Mrs. anyone)

Point is, in my opinion, for what you get from the BBC, it offers fantastic value for money, and should be funded by a licence fee for a long, long time to come

[Head Honcho]

Because it is the greatest institution on this country, in my opinion anyway (up there with the NHS)

The BBC is renwond worlwide for what it does, and it is admired by many around the world. True, the BBC has gone downhill in recent years, but hasn't ALL television.

The licence fee is, (again my opinion) fantastic value for money. £142.50 will get you superb television services, comprehensive radio services, an absolutely amazing website, interactive services, all free at the point of use. To run the BBC's servies, to pay its 25,000 staff, on £3.6 billion a year emphasises what it does and how great it is.

Show me one top quality programme made by Sky for Sky. Forget Sports coverage, that's all Sky now, this the company which accuses the BBC of a monopoly, goes and spends £1.62 billion, or 47% of the YEARLY income from the licence fee, on Premier League rights.

I'm in the middle of writing an essay on why PSB should be preserved, and quite frankly, it should. The whole system of PSB needs to be re-jigged, else ITV, C4 and Five could be threatened, but the BBC is the cornerstone of PSB, and should remain as it is.

People moan about directors pay and the DG's pay, yet if they paid less then this level of ability would offer their services elsewhere, the BBC has to try and compete for top talent, else you ain't gonna get top quality for your £142.50 per year.

If you think the licence fee isn't value for money, go to iceland, where the fee is 350 Euros a year! Also, the licence fee works out at about 39p a day, which is exactly 51p cheaper than a Guardian, and 61p cheaper than an Independant.

IF we kiss goodbye to the BBC, then we are welcoming in an era of biased news and low brow television (though some may say it can't get any worse). Goodbye to Antiques Roadshow, goodbye to Songs of Praise, Countryside, and all niche programming, say hello to crap, cheap made shite that is designed just to make money.

We can say hello to rampaantly increased prices on subscription services, dominated by, yes, you guessed it, BSkyB, who are so badly struggling while the BBC exist.

Granted, the BBC might be seen to be chasing ratings with shows like 'Hole in The Wall' and similar crap, but that's only going with society. It seems clear to me that people love Z-List celebrities on Tv shows (All star family fortunes, all star Mr. and Mrs. anyone)

Point is, in my opinion, for what you get from the BBC, it offers fantastic value for money, and should be funded by a licence fee for a long, long time to come

The BBC is a great institution I agree but don't you think that £46,000 on taxis, £30,000 on hospitality, £50,000 on flights and £17,000 on hotels the top bosses spent on expenses for the first 3 months of this year is rather excessive?

.......................and not to mention the £21.2 million spent on the top 106 executives salaries!

You can't really blame the tories for siding with public opinion can you when money like this is being spent without any real accountability?

[Webbo]

I really don't mind paying the licence fee. I don't think that's it bad value for money, but I can see why the BBCs competitors are complaining.

The commercial operators are having to slash budgets as advertising revenue declines whereas the BBC that cannot go bankrupt continues to expand.

Commercial radio stations can't compete against Radio1 and 2, because they don't have the budgets and nobody wants to listen to the same crappy adverts 10 times an hour.

Local newspapers are going bust partly because you can read the local news on the BBC website.

I know it's all competition and survival of the fittest but it's not really a level playing field is it?

[Ford Super Sunday]

The BBC is a great institution I agree but don't you think that £46,000 on taxis, £30,000 on hospitality, £50,000 on flights and £17,000 on hotels the top bosses spent on expenses for the first 3 months of this year is rather excessive?

.......................and not to mention the £21.2 million spent on the top 106 executives salaries!

You can't really blame the tories for siding with public opinion can you when money like this is being spent without any real accountability?

No, and expenses that cannot be shows to be ABSOLUTELY essential should not go unnoticed, and change is needed.

£21.2 million. I work that out at about £210,000 per executive, to be fair, as much as that sounds, I'd love to know what the 106 executives at RBS earn.

[Head Honcho]

No, and expenses that cannot be shows to be ABSOLUTELY essential should not go unnoticed, and change is needed.

£21.2 million. I work that out at about £210,000 per executive, to be fair, as much as that sounds, I'd love to know what the 106 executives at RBS earn.

..................if I'm not mistaken 150,000 license holders aren't paying their salaries!