Monday 20 March 2006

The end of the peer show

What a useless response from the Conservatives (sic):
Tory leader David Cameron will propose a cap on fundraising and an element of state funding, the cost of which could be offset by having fewer MPs.
There's no reason at all why one penny of taxpayers' money should be used to fund political parties. And if we can get by with fewer MPs (and we can) why doesn't Daveboy call for that anyway? The real question is whether MPs should be paid at all. And the answer is "No". Instead of nonsensical proposals to allow sixteen-year-olds to become MPs, we should be restricting membership of Parliament to those who have worked for at least ten years in the real economy and have saved enough money to finance their period in the legislature.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

Tom Paine
All legislation should be renewable. We are accruing more and more law and - if we are honest - we are all ignorant of our obligations.  
If legislation lasted only 10 years, each Parliament would spend a good proportion of its time considering whether or not to reenact old laws. Not only would this avoid the accumulation of bad and obscure law, it would keep the damned politicians busy and leave the rest of us with a better chance of getting on with our lives. 
PS With respect, anon, I don't think the stupid are a minority in need of protection. They are a majority from whom the sentient need protection.

1 April 2006, 06:26:50 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

Robert Speirs
How about a bonus for every act repealed?

23 March 2006, 18:58:00 GMT
– Like – Reply

Howard R Gray
Perhaps MPs should pay for the privilege of being an MP rather than we pay them.  
The rate should be one penny for every word uttered in parliament and in the press and one pound sterling for every word that they legislate that can be traced to them as the originators of the bills, acts and delegated legislation that they foist on us. 
Sheer pie in the sky but it is a nice thought. Totaly unrealistic of course.

21 March 2006, 00:28:20 GMT
– Like – Reply

Andy Wood
This kind of corruption would probably promote economic liberalism. 
Rather naive, I fear. The normal pattern is that businessmen favour a free market for the things that they buy, but protection and regulation for the things that they sell. 
I think the result of having MPs sponsored by large companies would be that they would be more likely to vote for regulations that put their sponsors' competitors out of business.

20 March 2006, 22:31:49 GMT
– Like – Reply

If they don't get paid they are more likely to be corrupt.  
I agree with the state funding of political parties but not at the rate they are wanting. It should be 10,000 per MP.

20 March 2006, 18:39:09 GMT
– Like – Reply

Bondwoman and Andrew, 
I'd quite like to see companies sponsoring MPs. It's corruption, but corruption isn't always a bad thing. This kind of corruption would probably promote economic liberalism. And that's a good thing. 
And it would be better than the 'descriptive democracy' that we have at the moment. Do we really want minorities to be represented? It's all very nice to want women, blacks and commnunists in parliament, but why should any such minorities actually have the right to be there. Should we get some stupid people into parliament just because they're another minority who get taken advantage of? Of course not!

20 March 2006, 13:33:24 GMT
– Like – Reply

Andrew Ian Dodge
Politicians in the major parties would love that then they could have a lock on what parties "deserve" funds and what don't...effectively cutting out all the smaller ones.

20 March 2006, 12:51:15 GMT
– Like – Reply

I tend to agree with you on state funding, but disagree with you on not paying MPs. Would you prefer to see a situation in which large companies effectively sponsor MPs? Now there would a bad case of regulatory capture.

20 March 2006, 12:01:24 GMT