As several commenters like to point out here, the UK parliament, having shed so many powers and transferred them to Brussels, is now more like a branch office of a large company, in which the great majority of the powers are exercised from the centre. The branch office staff may try to kid themselves that they are important, and voters in national elections may take the view that they are wielding meaningful power by voting, but the truth is that they are not.
Also, the workload of politicians as serious legislators has seriously declined. They are essentially implementing laws that have been, to a great extent, decided by someone else. So it makes sense, perhaps, to cull the number of MPs and cut their pay to reflect their diminished status.
I should have linked to this before, but Tory MP Peter Lilley has argued for precisely this: cutting MP’s salaries to reflect their weaker powers. Mr Lilley is a reminder that at least some MPs really get what has happened. As I occasionally point out, as MPs become more pointless, their behaviour, perks and corruption become less tolerable. Lilley’s proposal may not come to anything, but it is a meme worth spreading: these people are unimportant, and should be remunerated accordingly.
In an ideal universe, MPs would not be paid by the taxpayer at all, of course. We can always dream.
Why not have the compensation, perquisites, and allowable “outside activities” of the MPs and other types of “representatives” (French Assembly, etc) set and fixed by EU directives – but of course charged to the domestic budgets.
“This is what you Brits should pay for the managers of our U K subsidiary – a small price for the wonderful benefits provided from Brussels”
Devolution at its best.
The Crown, regardless of ‘Parliament’s*’ histrionics, needs to hold a referendum with a simple question.
It would be difficult because the parties have taken over total control of the polling system. The referendum should probably be done outside of the present polling system, conducted by the military with a finger-dye sort of fraud reduction.
*The scare quotes are because I see no way that the body of politicians presently running the country can legitimately claim the title of ‘Parliament’. The House of Representatives could no more dissolve the Senate or take unto itself the appointment of senators than Commons can do the same for Lords. Yet it has been done. Also, under the poorly presented but none the less substantial UK Constitution, the Commons are to be representatives of ‘the people’, not the parties. And yet the power structure in both the selection of and deliberation by that body clearly answers to the parties not the people.
As about 80% of all new regulations are the result (directly or indirectly) of European Union orders, Westminster M.P.s should have their wages cut by 80% right now.
And, of course, if the E.U. Constitution (sorry “treaty”) goes into effect (with, for example, its self amending clause allowing politicians and administrators to chance the text without any further national ratification) then the wages of Westminister MPs should be reduced by 100%.
Like you J.P. I have sympathy for a cut of 100% anyway (going back to the position before 1911). However, if the M.P.s are to have no real power at all (if their sole function is to make animal noises and so on) then there is no case to pay them anything.
The product placement for LG and Dell was even more blatant than for Audi! Quite a shock when a couple of Ford badges got stuck up close to the camera near the end of the film. Not sure why Ford would pay to be a secondary car sponsor.
The portrayal of Muslims was typical Hollywood and followed “24” to a tee. It has gotten ridiculously formulaic. Its okay to have some Muslims shown in a bad light if:
1. Good Muslim dies while saving protagonist.
2. Bad Muslims are secondary villains controlled by white man.
If these rules are not followed then you won’t see a negative portrayal of the Religion of Peace in a modern Hollywood production.
Still a very enjoyable film and superior comic book adaption. Downey and Bridges were excellent though I thought Leslie Bibb stole every scene she was in (tho’ that could be my nether regions talking).
Apologies for Iron Man intermission above (I’m sure I posted it the Iron Man thread!)
I knew the EU was getting big, but I had no idea it was that bad.
Reminder of why Peter Lilley is one of my favourite politicians:
Why do British MP’s engage in a charade of pretence that they retain their powers?
“They prefer to claim paternity rather than admit impotence – the fate of the cuckold across the ages.”
” Shall the United Kingdom’s self rule be ended and control handed over to the European Union’s government?
Yes or no?”
The central problem to this is,the Labour Government is so incompetent,dirigiste and stupid that we would vote,Yes.
On the subject of MPs,let them keep the jobs and the perks,but use them for medical experiments and organ transplants.
Thanks for the Iron Man heads-up m.n.
I had wondered how an anti “Islamist” film got made in Hollywood – and now I know that the film is no such thing (so I will not bother going to see it).
On “Classic F.M.” (a private British radio station but, like all national broadcasters, as leftist as the B.B.C.) the presenter of a show on film music went out of his way to snear at “True Lies” and it was clear that, although he did not openly admit it, it was the politics of the film he did not like.
An anti Islamist film could not be made in Hollywood today is seems.
Of course such a film would be against the policy of the E.U. as well – and against the regulations of some individual member states (such as France – which has the biggest film industry in the E.U.). To attack Islam is a criminal offense in France.
Ron Brick:
I think that most people would still vote “no” to the question you suggest.
But, of course, the question would not use those words – so it would be a hard fight.
Let us hope for a “no” vote in Ireland.
Actually, I’ll disagree re MP pay – I want them to get paid, so that MPs aren’t forced to be independently wealthy before they can run for office. Forcing people to live lives separate from those that they govern is a terrible practice.
I agree with you, Alsadius, but only to a point. If serving is the legislature is a full-time job it should pay appropriately. However, I submit that therein lies the problem: is there really enough legimate work for a legislature to do to justify it being a full-time job? I think not.
Here in the U.S., our congressional delegates (Senators and Congressmen) originally served a relatively short session during the winter months (i.e., not the growing season). However, as time passed, Congress has come to sit in almost perpetual session, and legislators’ staffs have grown to extraordinary size. The natural result has been for them to seek things to do; in other words, to find ever more ways to meddle and cause mischief. Another consequence has been the growth of a “political class”: people who have never had a real job in their lives, whose only function is perpetual campaigning for office. These people most certainly do “lead lives separate from those that they govern,” and it is not because they are underpaid. Frankly, I think it might be preferable to have only the wealthy in public office, especially at the federal level; most of them would have actually earned the money, and in any case few could be “bought” for a little insider information or a modest campaign contribution.
Some states (mine included) still have part-time legislatures (ours runs from January to April), and it seems to work fine. They are also paid very little (about $12,000 per year, as I recall). This does lead to some problems, since for the most part only the retired and the self-employed (primarily lawyers) can take that much time off from their jobs. But at least it ensures that they all do have real jobs, and to a large extent have to live with the rest of us.
The thing that really bothers me about legislative compensation is their retirement plans. These should not be lifetime careers, and there should be absolutely no pensions attached to them. The incumbents would be perfectly free to fund their personal IRA accounts like the rest of us, but that’s it: no “employer matching”, no special plans.
But the bottom line is that we desperately need term limits, for all elective offices at every level.