Fine by me. The Conservative party has held some open primaries to select Parliamentary candidates.

Surly its not beyond the wits of politicians to think of perfectly acceptable way of avoiding the types of problems you mention.

For example the candidate would have to be elected as they are now by the local constituency anyway. If they did not want a candidate simply on the make thats their choice. If they did then that is also their choice. This used to be called democracy.

You could also bring in other restrictions like a maximum payment for example of $50 per voting member to go towards the MPs wages.

I ask you to think again most if not all of you objections are quite frankly silly and very easily avoidable. I did not claim I could set out what would indeed have to be a whole complicated ACT OF PARLIAMENT in one single short paragraph.

It is the idea that is the point.

Give the idea to one of your people and see if a system could be formulated that would have the desired effect. Avoiding the things you mention. But remember the responsibility is with the local constituency to get it right in the end. It is their constituency and it will also be their money. You trust us to deliver the propaganda to the right door. Why do you not trust us to select and deselect and pay for whoever we wish?

EU related bureaucracy on the other hand should be continously pegged back.

I have a very very good plan which would solve all our problems in one, but I simply just know you are not going to like it one tiny little bit.

Like a typical politician you are looking at this issue from the wrong end of the proverbial telescope.

You are supposed to be a conservative are you not?

Therefore you should know that when there is a disconnect between the customer and the supplier then shit happens to a greater or lesser extent.

This disconnect could not be more wide then between the constituency MP and the members of said constituency that selected and greatly helped get him his job.

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. This statement is generally true but not always to say the least.

But what if a monkey is all that the customer wants or all that the job post EU requires?

What if the wages and expenses are not indeed anything like peanuts but the employer still gets a monkey?

So here is an idea that is democratic, fair, conservative, as cheap as chips, and could increase rather then decrease MPs wages but most likely will not. Which is most surly why no politicians including yourself will like one word of it. But here gos anyway.

MPs wages terms and conditions, should be set in advance of any general or by-election decided in agreement with, the respective constituency party. A small standard national subsidy, say of £30.000 per year payed by the state the rest make up out of local constituency funds. With no limit to how much is payable.

See I knew you would not like it.

But could you come up with even one GOOD reason why, apart from entirely selfish ones?

I for one would be very happy indeed to contribute an extra £50 per year to party funds. Just to listen to my local prospective MP beg for his supper at least once a parliament and justify his performance. Like I have to myself every day in private business.

If by any chance you do think this is a good idea would you please suggest it to DC. It would be a massive vote winner and the most popular idea with constituency members imaginable. It would also put the fear of GOD up the Labour soon to be opposition.

REPLY; SUCH A SYSTEM COULD SUIT MANY MPS VERY WELL, AS IT COULD LEAD TO A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN PAY. THE PROBLEM WITH IT WOULD BE THAT IT CREATES THE SPONSORED MP – WOULD BE ABLE TO WEAR T SHIRTS IN THE CHAMBER ADVERTISING THE COMMERCIAL INETRESTS WHO HAD BACKED OUR LOCAL PARTY WITH THE CASH? I WOULD NOT WANT TO GO THAT WAY BECAUSE IT WOULD UNDERMINE WHAT INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGEMENT IS LEFT IN OUR SYSTEM AND WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SLEAZE CASES.

An interesting blog post. My personal view is that MPs should have a higher salary, that should automatically increase in line with average earnings in the economy only, but much less ability to claim expenses.

On staff, there should be a pool of civil servant administrators that are allocated to MPs. This is the same way that support is provided in the private sector. Others have made sensible suggestions on accommodation – there should certainly not be the ability for private gain.

Oh – and finally – Westminster should take a lesson from the Scottish Parliament. Every receipt for an expenses claim can be scrutinised, and there are good search facilities: http://mspallowances.scottish.parliament.uk/MSPAl…

A good blog as you do spell out the long hours the average MP earns works.

However, you left out several really important points which you should have put in – such as the large number of weeks holidays you ‘can’ enjoy (should you wish to), the lack of oversight from a boss/employer, the ability to largely come and go as you please (subject to votes), book deals, income from broadcasting/journalism, the ability to earn large sums of money in consultancies from the private sector, the gold plated and very generous pension allowances, and the ability to step into a well paid job should you lose an election or step down – and the rather comfortable ‘parachute payment’ when you do.

In short, once you are elected, you work long hours, but no-one really has oversight over you, and you can do pretty much what you want.

For example, what about the Shadow Cabinet member who enjoys extra-parliamentary roles with a bank and a management consultancy? I know for a fact he does several hours work a day with the bank and is handsomely rewarded for his efforts (well in excess of his Parliamentary salary). I know he works long hours, but he isn’t exactly setting the media world ablaze – and is a fairly average kind of ShadCab member. But if he is spending a large amount of his working day concentrating on the commercial interests of a bank and a corporate, he clearly cannot be rushed of his feet as either an MP or a shadow cabinet member! It is individuals such as this which rather undermine your pleading that the lot of an MP is not a happy one.

So, whilst you work hard for sure, let’s not forget the above points, which the public are fully aware of. It is not acknowledging this which undermine the pleadings of the political class and make the public cynical.

You also raise the point others do not have their staff salaries considered perks – very true, but I don’t know of many others who can employ their spouses/child/lovers and pay them handsomely at the tax payers expense. Also, I know of no other field where you can claim such large sums without proper oversight (no receipt for things under £250 – I am an employer and I would sack anyone who tried to claim £250 of my money without a receipt) or for things which other people would simply have to fund out of their salary! And let’s not forget the subsidised meals and the endless hospitality of journalists and special interest groups, overseas travel and freedom to employ pretty American interns!

In short – being an MP might not be great in the here and now, but on the whole, there are no shortage of applicants – so it cannot be too bad now can it!

However, these points aside, I accept that MPs are not paid a great deal of money. But perception is a huge issue. Where I was born and grew up, a salary of £60,000 is a huge amount of money, and many of those I knew as a youngster can only dream of what it would be like to earn such massive sums. However, where I now live, the opposite situation is true – people wonder how on earth an MP can survive on so little, and more understanding.

At the end of the day, being an MP is a privilege. An MP is serving the public – not the other way around. Whilst we want to encourage high quality candidates, and we need a package which is sufficient to achieve this, people should not go into politics as a means of rewarding themselves financially. I suspect that a lot of the more hopeless members of the 97 intake – those who have always lived at the expense of the tax payer, or who have never worked in the private sector, employed, created or built anything – enjoyed a huge increase in their monthly take-home. This is symptomatic with the left, who view the public purse as something they have ownership over, and fewer issues with rewarding themselves handsomely for their ‘job’. Those on the right understand that being an MP is not a ‘job’ but a vocation, a privilege and that the taxpayer is funding them. Hopefully therefore, those on the right will see it as their job to champion the tax payer and ensure best value for money. My concern is though that MPs across the divide will club together to look after each other – and themselves!

I think the answer is a wide ranging reform.

I think an MP should be paid about £90,000 a year, but should be prevented from having paid outside employment. The Parliamentary week should have more ‘normal’ working hours (say 9-6 at most), but with no more than eight weeks a year ‘holiday’, giving MPs more debating time through the year! MPs should not control budgets for staffing, and all expenses should only be claimable with a receipt. The housing allowance should be removed, and the extra costs associated with running a home in London run off against the high salary. MPs should not claim for meals (what’s wrong with a packed lunch like others have), and the travel allowances need to be cut back on. MPs should declare in the RoMI any close relative they employ, with details of how much they are paid. Payments should come direct from the fees office.

REPLY I AGREE THAT BEING AN MP IS A PRIVILEGE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THE PUBLIC. THE BLOG WAS TO SET OUT THE CASE AS MANY MPS SEE IT. I QUITE UNDERSTAND THE FEELINGS OF PEOPLE ABOUT THE LEVEL FO PAY AND PERKS AND AM NOT MYSELF PROPOSING AN INCREASE.

The days of believing in the honour, personal integrity and trustworthiness of politicians as a breed are long gone. I wonder if collectively they have enough concern for their steeply declining public image to ever do anything about recovering the situation.

Politicians who, only a few decades ago, would have quickly apologised, resigned and permanently disappeared into political obscurity after a relatively minor misdemeanour, today are reinstated in no time at all, or pop up with a lucrative job in Europe. That's when, of course, they have the decency to resign in the first place – something of a rarity nowadays.

In addition, many politicians seem to inhabit an alternate universe within the 'Westminster bubble' where they appear totally disconnected from the realities of living in this 21st century version of the UK. They are content to work away to protect their privileged position in 'the bubble' while effectively ignoring many of the major issues that face this country.

It is no wonder that politicians are generally viewed with utter contempt and disgust by much of the electorate.