MPs, their support admin, and the traditional paraphenalia cost so much and yet so little gets done. Has this form of democracy become inefficient and not cost-effective? I'm not a monarchist and I'm wary of dictators but, honestly, how many more doctors could we have for one MP?
2006-11-24 07:12:46 · 11 answers · asked by Merlynson S 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No, no. Take away elected representation and what are you left with? The executive, the courts and the media. Who is to hold the law that the executive puts forward up to scrutiny and account? Corporations? I'm sorry but you are being profoundly anti-democratic and short sighted.
I agree there is a problem with the current system. (There is an argument that we have too many M.P.s and although not one I have sympathy with, it is an argument with merit). Part of the answer to current problems though is to strengthen the powers of Parliament at the expense of the government rather than weaken it.
2006-11-24 07:27:52 · answer #1 · answered by 13caesars 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you may have a misconception of how much your legislature costs. There are huge gov't ministries with sprawling bureaucracies and they cost billions, whereas your legislature costs mere millions. MP's support staff are probably some of the more efficient wages being paid by the government, typically MP support staff are educated, bright, ambitious young peope who get underpaid for their work.
In Canada, the Senate (equivalent to the House of Lords) costs Canadians 16 cents each, yet is criticized for being a waste of money.
Don't be confident that there is another cheaper form of gov't, dictatorships can also have sprawling bureaucracies. Its not really the number of people who have support staff that make a significant dent in public budgets, its the overall efficiency of the public sector.
2006-11-24 16:38:22 · answer #2 · answered by Per Anders D 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do not agree that the system is perfect, or that we are getting full value for our money. BUT
How would you like someone like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown being able to make decisions without any form of control.
A Dictatorship brings so many problems to the indigenous population.
Tony Blair is the closest this Country has come to a Dictatorship for hundreds and hundreds of years.
I feel that we have to hang on to the present system of Parliament, although I feel the claims for expenses from some of our MP"s is obscene
2006-11-24 15:51:03 · answer #3 · answered by researcher 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes we can. Parliament does a lot of good work- particularly in looking at leglislation- I've done a lot of work in my life on particular bits of historical and currant leglislation and we would be in deep trouble withotu the work that MPs do. I know of MPs who basically work all day and most of the night, taking a couple of hours for sleep, before returning to work. Some of the stuff they do is amazing and shouldn't be knocked. Just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean that it doesn't work well.
We could have doctors for MPs but MPs perform a useful role in that they make sure our systems function well- in particular they guard us often against the excesses of government.
http://gracchii.blogspot.com
2006-11-24 15:20:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What would it be replaced with? MPs expenses as listed the other week are very misleading as these include support costs of the staff they employ. It would cost more to support all the unemployed MP staff. No price can be put on liberty.
2006-11-24 15:15:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In principle, yes: every country, no matter how small, has a parliament. But salaries and allowances and pensions of UK MPs are now so inflated, and the number of MPs itself so large, that they are barely affordable by a population whose living standards is constantly falling.
Waste, fraud and mismanagement. Indeed.
2006-11-24 15:15:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Despite the ridiculous expenses that MPs have, no amount of money is worth losing democratic representation.
Of course, with our first-past-the-post system, we do not really have democratic and representative representation at all...
What I'd do, instead of getting all dictator-esque, is limit the amount that MPs could spend, and heavily scrutinise how they spend our money.
2006-11-24 15:34:35 · answer #7 · answered by carnation-soul 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well in terms of cash in hand at the Treasury, yes. If they have billions to waste in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes. But the real question is: Do we wish to continue spending millions on these incompetent tossers? And the answer is a resounding NO!
2006-11-24 15:24:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If I was made the PM I would change things... oh yes!
2006-11-24 15:20:43 · answer #9 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can we afford the Royals
2006-11-25 07:23:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋