MPs pay – a brief response

There have been some good postings, which I hope my colleagues will read. The mood against MPs is very clear. One of the best points is that the federalist majority has been so keen to give Parliament’s powers away. Some members of the public have noticed this, and are asking the very reasonable question do we need so many MPs, especially the ones who are dear to keep when more and more is decided and done in Brussels?

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

6 Comments

  1. riddiford
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Well done for being so open about this topic.

    I note that the responses are not in any sense personal to you and thankfully not too vitriolic.

    This is quite appropriate it reflects the measured and intelligent content of your blog.

    I sense that the issue of honorable trust will never be recovered.

    The citizens of to day are not subservient any more and even if expenses etc are fully transparent how can the treason of giving away our nation of England ever be forgiven.

    Via this blog you have made a very big step forward you permit us to connect with our protectors and for that most would give you credit.

    My MP Bellingham Norfolk works assiduously as seen on "they work for you " but he does not connect personally in the way that you manage.
    Without a blog I suppose he never will be able to.

    As an aside how do CCHQ view your blog ?
    Do you have to submit for editorial review etc before publication?

    Reply: No, I do not submit my comments to anyone before publication, and I have had no comment on it from CCHQ. I am open minded aboout MPs' pay and expenses, and certainly favour a smaller number of MPs and staff, and fewer pieces of legislaiton. I also favour more scrutiny of the executive, with a September sitting and later hours on evenings when there is work to be done. I also favour getting powers back from Brussels, so Parliament takes more of the decisions.

    However thanks for honorable presence here and I am not even one of your costituents.

    best

  2. Elizabeth Elliot-Pyl
    Posted March 1, 2008 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    You say you hope your colleagues take note of our comments on MPs pay and expenses, well I jolly well hope so too. But will they?

    I very much doubt it, judging by past performance.

    PS Could you have a word with David Cameron, and ask him to ask the following question at PMQs on Wednesday? 'As the electorate have been denied a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and as it has been rushed through Parliament without the promised line by line scrutiny, will the Prime Minister allow his back benchers a free vote this evening and not whip them? Yes or No.'
    That should rattle Gordon.

  3. Posted March 1, 2008 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    As I said , I care little about this and consider it a gimmick subject really . On the other hand my own solution would be to have fewer MPs and pay them considerably more in a clear cut way. Underpayment is the problem currently not over-payment . There is also a crying need for a career path enabling those who cannot afford to mess around until they are in their mid thirties before earning any real money. I met quite a a few whilst in the Islington Conservative Party and whilst nice chaps they were , a thing about anything they will never know. So whilst it might appear unpleasant I would like to see Politics as a viable career.
    This would allow normal people to enter the House as opposed to the privileged and the Unionised only . The very people who have suffered most under Blair .
    When there is some formula for English votes we might immediately cut the number of Scottish MPs who will have almost nothing to do …what on earth do they do now if they are back benchers ?

  4. mikestallard
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    One of the really serious things, too, was overlooked.
    Do you remember the mass lobby last week for a referendum? It has been planned for several months, very carefully, on the internet. It was a success. 3,000 people turned up quietly waiting in the cold.
    But it was completely overshadowed by seven protesters who wanted to stop a runway at Heathrow.
    How did they get that great big banner into parliament? You said yourself that there is tight security. Is this some form of EU blockage against protests of the type we are hearing about from Daniel Hannan in the EU parliament?
    If our parliament does dirty tricks like that, then, honestly, it deserves all it gets.

    I, too, thoroughly enjoy your blog and, to be honest, I think that is the best praise you can get!

    PS Did you read the Spectator this week about the way the Speaker has let the side down?

  5. Posted March 2, 2008 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    I completely disagree with Newsmania. We need to prevent politics becoming a "career path " as he put it. We need a device to prevent people going from school/university/local party/local Council/research assistant/MP/Minister, ie not actually coming into contact with the real world and real people. I propose a minimum age for MPs of 30 and a rule that states that no-one can stand for public office more that twice consecutively. This should apply more than anything to the PMs job – no one can do that for more than 10 years and remain sane. William Hague is a good example of the beneficial aspects of a break from politics and a dip into the real world. One of the problems with the current Government is that most of them, eg the Treasury, are a load of 12 year olds with no real experience of life. Most of us are sick to death of being lectured by politicians and their idiot advisors who haven't a clue what they are talking about, but express themselves soso eloquently.

    I would also like to see a rule that any MP who proposed exempting MPs from legislation that they themselves had passed or approved should be kicked out of Parliament and banned from public office for 10 years – we could call it the McLean clause.

  6. backofanenvelope
    Posted March 2, 2008 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    I would set the minimum age at 40; give them time to make a living in the real world. The maximum age would be the national old age pension age.

    I would also reduce the number of MPs to about 500. Didn't someone suggest that some time ago?

    But turkeys don't vote for Christmas

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page