Good ideas, but I'll advocate once more with feeling, the very first, and possibly only thing that needs to happen with the current method of parliament is to remove the whips.

You can still keep your party's, MP's of a similar persuasion would still be able to gather and discuss issues and present a party manifesto to the public at election times and to their members every working day, but they would have to properly think policies through and convince 51% of 650 MP's (or wherever you place your majority vote) that their policies should be enacted or put into law.

There wouldn't be as much emphasis then on the party in majority because their majority could be lost, or it could be improved at every policy change, everything would depend on their ability to convince enough MP's to individually vote without pressure and retribution from within their own party, in fact I'd go a little further and suggest that any party pressure behind closed doors is made an illegal act as coercion or bribery is, and make the coerciee criminally responsible.

We'd end up with 650 representatives who can vote according to their personal beliefs, or according to their constituents desires and at that point we, the electorate, suddenly become players in the democracy for if a national or local policy grabs our attention then we can easily contact our representative to express our views, its very easy to do this now via the one system of email they all use and this could very simply include spot polls for opinions - it must also be possible given parliaments diary to publish in advance what debates and votes are due in the next month given that that is how parliament works anyway.

In our constituency we have an MP who is prepared to campaign on issues and has voted against his party on 10% of all votes in the last term, is very contactable and publishes his diary of activities every day - we're almost there with him - time to spread it out a bit further afield.

Get rid of the whips, thats all we need.

Sajid Javid left his £3m a year job to become an MP.

I am sure there literally hundreds of other MP's who have been, and could be earning more, in the private sector before becoming an MP.

How do you earn that type of money if you aren't:

Ripping people off.
Charging too much.
Not paying the rest a fair salary.
Winning the lottery annually
Receiving "bonuses" which again is another way that the first 2 points apply.

I don't know, but I do know that "trickle down" doesn't work, Food banks are on the increase, there are too many people incapable of doing the jobs that industry is crying out for because you need to be able to think and develop and the current educational system basically discourage such radical thoughts. Add that most businesses see "training" as dead money and if they do train others will poach , yet if £3m a year is available to some, it seems to me that perhaps the whole system is quite a bit wonky.

Ah well

We live in interesting times.

I guess that you aren't earning £3M pa yourself, then?

To become an MP ... and DO WHAT?

Serve the British public or serve himself and members of his class?

I mean, he sure [iseems [/ilike he's on our side - what with him deciding to cut £10bn of "Red Tape From Small Businesses". Who could possibly be against[i free money[/i? Makes you wonder why no one bothered to do it decades of go. Makes you wonder what he means by "Red Tape" - and whether any of his personal interests are affected by this policy.

This is a guy who worked for Deutsche bank. Which means, like his colleagues across the pond, he's been parachuted in to protect the interests of the banking community.



Oh ... the [ihumanity![/i

I'll leave it to Peter O'Borne's superb rlThe Triumph of the Political Classrl (and subsequent) to administer a much-needed antidote to your perception of (and faith in) members of Parliament.

Just before he became Tory leader David Cameron opened our office in Witney. He didn't have security, instead he oozed through the front door, his motion lubricated by the oiliest Lord Mayor you could possibley imagine. He (the Mayor, not Cameron) said to me, while quaffing the free champagne, "if there is anything you need just let me know" while actually nudging me and winking. Straight out of Monty Python.

I also had the misfortune to run into Rees Mogg the Friday morning after the election - 5am at Bath University. The Scotsman I was with decided to share his views with him about leaving the EU. I don't think I could have managed much more than a c***, w*******, J**z faced t***. So elected to remain silent. Where are terrorists when you need them eh?

Again I ask

Of what and whom Am I supposed to envious of?

You didn't answer before and I doubt if you can this time either.

Your attacks are always on those who you deem to be in a priveledged position. Regardless of how clever they are, how hard they may have worked or how much they may have sacrificed to achieve you resent that they earn what they do. Even rugby you think the likes of Keighley should get an equal share of the Sky money despite contributing nothing to generate it. Yours is the rhetoric of envy.

Now just once answer my point about Hockney and McIlroy and your ill concieved meritoracy of earnings

Quite right Sal. He must be a member of the Green Party (as in green with envy)

They use exactly the same tools and techniques most often associated with confidence tricksters (making someone feel "special" or an "insider" is as old as the hills - and still works). Which is what they are, really.

It was F. Scott Fitzgerald who once said, [i"An artist is someone who can hold two opposing viewpoints and still remain fully functional". [/i

But even Fitzgerald would have been left open-mouthed at the likes of Tony Blair, who really was the master of the craft. He could hold four different conversations in the same room - each of which fundamentally opposes the other three - and speak with flawless conviction. And he likely believed in all four standpoints - at once.

Cameron is Blair's spiritual progeny. And he's good, too. But he's still a long way short of the Master. Roman Polanski was extremely close to the mark when he made that film, [iThe Ghost Writer[/i.

It's interesting to contrast Blair and Cameron with political operators who are closer to the more traditional "Cult of Personality" school of leadership - the best example being Boris Johnson. Both he and those around him have been very clever in crafting his style and behaviour sufficiently close to Churchill for people to make the connection (seemingly on their own). He likes to project this image of spontaneity. But there's nothing spontaneous about the guy. His image is finely managed (very few people are even aware he's a bloody Yank!). If ever a Tory was being groomed for No. 10, Boris is he. He's done his time giving oral to big business as Mayor and he can expect plenty of benefactors when he throws his hat into the ring.