Report comment

Anonymous 11.14, halving the number of MPs is a strange thing to think would make government more responsive to electors' wishes. We need at least twice as many, on lower pay - say, twice median wage. There would be a bonus pot awaiting at the end of each Parliament and, at the next gen election, electors would vote whether their MP or another should receive some or not, and they would be rewarded by the decile in which the proportion of votes cast put them.
It was believed when I was at school in the 50s that having MPs as ministers would make them more responsible to the Parliament that was supposed to control them but it has more and more become a perverse incentive unthinkingly to support government/party policy. Ministerial appointments should have to be made individually by a majority in each House and should entail vacating their seat for the duration of the Parliament and a new MP being voted in. Ministers would be the employees, not the masters of Parliament. After leaving Parliament MPs would be banned for at least 10 years from undertaking any work based on their former status which would allow somebody to minimise or nullify the legislative efforts of subsequent Parliaments - no 'gamekeepers turning poacher'.
1000 MPs would mean about 44 000 per elector, compared to about 68 000 now. Their only job would be to scrutinise in detail everything that government proposed, and their criterion would be whether the electors would approve it if they could vote themselves. It would be a criminal offence to covertly take into account other interests than those of the electors, to whom on conviction they would become civilly liable.
We would then have something like 'government of the people by the people'.