FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

MP's

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

For the size of this country...do people from all voting persuasions feel that we have too many MP's....and it causes the country a problem ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

In the digital age, I think we could certainly prune a few off, providing there is a monetary saving there.

The Boundaries Commission is trying to get the number down to nearer 600.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the more views and suggestions the better, hence more MP's / MSP's are better than less

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'd be happy with 100 or less.Far to many.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I'd be happy with 100 or less.Far to many."

Sounds about right to me as well

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

The whole political system needs to change, not just the number of MP’s.

It is quite an indictment of our politics that the Brexit referendum was about a protest and a need for change and the result was influenced by people who voted to make something change after being energised to do so by political activists, politicians themselves and the media during the campaign.

It is unfortunate that the referendum prior to the Brexit one was never the subject of quite as much political engagement - indeed by comparison - virtually zero. The irony is that for the people who voted for Brexit in the hope that in future they will be heard and their voice will have a meaning - Brexit will not be the answer. The answer would have been in voting for a change in how British politics works by voting for AV. Unsurprisingly, politicians did not want people to vote for AV and so the engagement was effectively zero in that referendum compared to the Brexit referendum.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilent.KnightMan
over a year ago

Swindon

Too few and you lose the scale of opinions (at an extreme what I’d we all voted for one MP to rule us?). Too many and it becomes a cost burden. (Im assuming this is why ppl don’t like the numbers we have)

IMO it’s not about the numbers but the way it is nigh on impossible for small political parties to get traction. So many people vote to keep someone out rather than get someone in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Too few and you lose the scale of opinions (at an extreme what I’d we all voted for one MP to rule us?). Too many and it becomes a cost burden. (Im assuming this is why ppl don’t like the numbers we have)

IMO it’s not about the numbers but the way it is nigh on impossible for small political parties to get traction. So many people vote to keep someone out rather than get someone in. "

Well they would still be able to vote for a party...but considering all and how small the UK is and that you could fit in Texas 3 times over ...623 MP's seems a lot to me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilent.KnightMan
over a year ago

Swindon


"Too few and you lose the scale of opinions (at an extreme what I’d we all voted for one MP to rule us?). Too many and it becomes a cost burden. (Im assuming this is why ppl don’t like the numbers we have)

IMO it’s not about the numbers but the way it is nigh on impossible for small political parties to get traction. So many people vote to keep someone out rather than get someone in.

Well they would still be able to vote for a party...but considering all and how small the UK is and that you could fit in Texas 3 times over ...623 MP's seems a lot to me "
but why ? Not that I’m disagreeing, but to set a better number we would need to be able to say why a certain number adds benefit while another number detracts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Too few and you lose the scale of opinions (at an extreme what I’d we all voted for one MP to rule us?). Too many and it becomes a cost burden. (Im assuming this is why ppl don’t like the numbers we have)

IMO it’s not about the numbers but the way it is nigh on impossible for small political parties to get traction. So many people vote to keep someone out rather than get someone in.

Well they would still be able to vote for a party...but considering all and how small the UK is and that you could fit in Texas 3 times over ...623 MP's seems a lot to me but why ? Not that I’m disagreeing, but to set a better number we would need to be able to say why a certain number adds benefit while another number detracts. "

Well i just feel that we dont get the correct flow of information that we should do...perhaps less would be better and maybe they wouldnt have to tow the party line as much and work together on things

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilent.KnightMan
over a year ago

Swindon


"Too few and you lose the scale of opinions (at an extreme what I’d we all voted for one MP to rule us?). Too many and it becomes a cost burden. (Im assuming this is why ppl don’t like the numbers we have)

IMO it’s not about the numbers but the way it is nigh on impossible for small political parties to get traction. So many people vote to keep someone out rather than get someone in.

Well they would still be able to vote for a party...but considering all and how small the UK is and that you could fit in Texas 3 times over ...623 MP's seems a lot to me but why ? Not that I’m disagreeing, but to set a better number we would need to be able to say why a certain number adds benefit while another number detracts.

Well i just feel that we dont get the correct flow of information that we should do...perhaps less would be better and maybe they wouldnt have to tow the party line as much and work together on things "

I share your concerns. But would solve through other means. Fewer MPs would mean that a revel MP has more power ... but I’m less convinced we’d get to vote for such personalities. Parties would put up lap dogs.

And the information bit is partly public engagement, the ons publish tonnes of stuff, and partly the system. Look at brexit economic impacts, the fact they aren’t published isn’t due to MP numbers but the system.

Being accepting of hung parliaments and coalitions would help with colabaration. Until we, the public, crucify one of the parties for shirking on promises when comprimising.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

If anything needs reform it is the House of Lords not The House of Commons. Far too many Lords and the number of them needs cutting drastically, Lords should also be elected by the voting public.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If anything needs reform it is the House of Lords not The House of Commons. Far too many Lords and the number of them needs cutting drastically, Lords should also be elected by the voting public. "

Lefty

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If anything needs reform it is the House of Lords not The House of Commons. Far too many Lords and the number of them needs cutting drastically, Lords should also be elected by the voting public.

Lefty"

Sorry, you sounded like a revolutionary talking about reform.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"If anything needs reform it is the House of Lords not The House of Commons. Far too many Lords and the number of them needs cutting drastically, Lords should also be elected by the voting public."

I think you are very wrong, although I do understand your point of view...

The beauty of the Lords is once your in you can't be removed unless you do something seriously unlawful. As a result the Lords are free to do the right thing without having to worry about being reelected and therefore needing to toe a party line where it is in conflict with their beliefs or face deselection.

To my way of thinking that freedom from party dogma alone makes the Lords worth keeping as it is for all its anachronisms.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ilent.KnightMan
over a year ago

Swindon


"If anything needs reform it is the House of Lords not The House of Commons. Far too many Lords and the number of them needs cutting drastically, Lords should also be elected by the voting public.

I think you are very wrong, although I do understand your point of view...

The beauty of the Lords is once your in you can't be removed unless you do something seriously unlawful. As a result the Lords are free to do the right thing without having to worry about being reelected and therefore needing to toe a party line where it is in conflict with their beliefs or face deselection.

To my way of thinking that freedom from party dogma alone makes the Lords worth keeping as it is for all its anachronisms."
. I agree. The lords is a very useful check against short term politics. I also like the fact we have experts taking a view on our laws. Not just career politicians and civil servants.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes we have too many MP's in the modern day. I have never had cause to contact mine and I wonder how many people haven't had to contact theirs? As a token of solidarity and fairness I think we should cut 30% which would save £14.6m in wages alone. It shows true leadership to the rest of the country - they are sharing the hardship like everyone else.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top