Why MPs are paid so little and why something must change

An MP was never supposed to be a full time role. They are supposed to be a trusted working member of a local community who have offered themselves up for the privilege of helping those around them not someone who lives there as part of a political strategy.

Like with the hours families work in the economy. The role of an MP has raced to the bottom.

If a family is willing to work 100 hours / week for a modest lifestyle and it is allowed to then that is what low earners will have to do to compete.

If a political candidate is able to work 40 MP hours / week and has financial backing then that is what all political candidates must do to compete.

This excludes them from being what they are supposed to be, in touch members of the local community.

It also requires that they have a conflict of interest. A duty of care to the people who financed them or the other profit making organisations they are a part of.

So it is time to accept that the role of an MP has been allowed to change and as we learn from our mistakes we must change the game rules.

There seems to be only 3 options.

1. Pay rise so that an MP is a well paid full time, time tracked executive job. Lets match it to a head teacher. £140k for example. But with allowances no different than a school head teacher. No second home, modest accommodation provided. They can pay their own travel in and out of London and visit less frequently seeking council from their constituents.The further from London you are the more £140k means so it ballences out.

I'd like to see more MPs voting from home with their constituents giving them last minute encouragement not a whip. Public speaking opportunities should be part of their ideology and freely given, not something for sale commanding figures that could justify loyalty in parliament. Non-executive positions and directorships are not only areas of conflict but provide unfair competitive advantage as they have access to MP sentiment and were serving us when they got it.

2. Regulations are put in place so that money factors little in political success. 
Some ideas. Limit political campaigning to state funded circulations and events that give each candidate equal exposure. No door stepping or personal fliers.

3. Random. Yes a jury of 260 people deliberating. Can we pass laws without parties? Much easier to get a majority of 260 people to eventually agree democratically on one colour than three people who are disagreeing on principle.

Will there be some people obviously not suited to the roll? Yes. But they will do less harm than a clever crony.

My personal preference is in order is 321. But it can not continue like this.

If you are fed up of signing petitions against the latest evils pushed through by corporate interests in politics put in your calendar 28th August to visit www.GoodEgg.org.uk.