You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Why a limited term in a lower house designed to represent voters at a more local level? I get the logic in the HoL.
I'd add my support to the more pay, no second job camp. With these conditions; 1) reduce the overall number, 2) remove pension benefits, 3) have a government owned London loggings for them to stay in when out of their constituency.
hugo7-
I think being forced to stay in lodgings would put off more people than the shit salary.
A lot of MPs' work is in Westminster, especially if they're in government/shadow roles/on committees or APPGs, so not being able to have a London home would be punishing the more diligent MPs.
-
2) remove pension benefits
Why?
tbc
hoefla
I’d counter with £300k annual salary, term limited to 4 years.