Much legislation is driven by the EU (carbon emissions, dozens of petty interferences) it is hard to see what responsibility ordinary MPs have.
Also, qualifications whatsoever are required for the job (other than having spent time ingratiating oneself with a political party or trade union).
The USA manages with only 435 representatives, which calls into question why 650 are needed (epecially in view of EU primacy over so many things)
Many MPs were adept at making large sums from expenses, second homes etc and probably still are.
Taxpayers struggling to make ends meet would be more than happy to have £65K and a generous pension to look forward to. If MPs think they can earn more elsewhere, they are welcome to take the Chiltern Hundreds and do so.
Whatever view one takes of the EU, and I suspect we're in opposite camps, it has relatively little influence on MP's work. In so far as there is EU legistaion there is still scrutiny of it as orders or primary legislation is required to implement. Business for Yesterday for example http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob130703.pdf shows little EU influence. It is in any event a myth that MPs effectiveness can be measured on the floor of the Commons. The 'heavy lifting' is in constiuency casework etc and that goes on all the time, not just when the House is sitting.
Certainly some are less than well qualified and there are egregious examples in all parties, say Nadine Dorrie, Mike Handcock and Eric Joyce, picking one from each. Most though, including from direct experience incumbent Northampton South MP and his predecessor in the North seat. I've met both through their interest in town's rail service. They're hard working and able corresondents and meeting chairs.
The US, despite its common language, is a very foreign place with a completely different constutution and culture. Realtively few decisions affecting ordinary citizens are made in Congress as so much rests with individual state legislatures.
No longer any money in second homes, the days of subsidised mortgages ended at the last election. Dodgy claimants get no sympathy from their Whips and face rapid de-selection.
There is of course plenty of competition for each vacancy but lowering the pay at least arguably reduces the attraction to any but party placemen over eager to ascend the greasy pole. Or of course the rich who can do it as a sideline.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 04/07/2013 at 14:02
|
