David Cameron wants fewer MPs to keep costs down.

[Rheghead]

Do fewer MPs mean less representation for areas that are deemed worthy of amalgamation?:confused

Yes Caithness has really benefitted from that model of government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8047818.stm

[joxville]

Fewer MP's means the ones that remain will cover larger areas, which means they'll want salary increases and higher expense claims per individual. Net result=the taxpayer will still be bled dry. [disgust]

[percy toboggan]

Yep. Good idea.

WE can call them 'Titan' M.P's and send them on body-building courses to live up to the name.

Hazel Blears might be the first candidate. She could assume repsonsibility for the whole Manchester connurbation and live in a prefab on the outskirts of Salford - there are still a few left. After a qualifying period she can do a 'flip' to be closer to Westminster. Perhaps moving into a commune for the vertically challenged or a purpose built apartment block for M.P.'s at Tower Shamlets.

Her expenses could be minimised by utilising her famous motorbike for travel. I can see the diminutive figure now at a windswept Watford Gap leaning into the stiff breeze as artics overtake. Despatch box bungeed on next to her panniers. A Virago indeed.

Fewer M.P.'s? Seems to me a surefire way to devalue the representation we get.
I'd simply rather like to see numbers maintained at a salary of around £70k and expenses carefully controlled with profit from property purchases going back into treasury coffers.
Surely, we don't need to throw out babies with the bathwater, no matter how rancid, stinking and polluted the water has become.

[Green_not_greed]

Fewer MP's means the ones that remain will cover larger areas, which means they'll want salary increases and higher expense claims per individual. Net result=the taxpayer will still be bled dry. [disgust]

Joxville - you beat me to it - my first sentiments when I read Rheghead's post!

But on a less cynical view, wouldn't getting rid of at least one layer of our "governments" be a good thing?

The country was run very well with only MPs until relatively recently. Do we really need all the MEPs and MSPs?

[Miro]

I don't agree that less MPs will result in equal representation for less expenditure, however I believe that David Cameron will be the next PM and so we will have to live with John Thurso doing more work!!!

[Fly]

No way should we have fewer MP's. We ended up with a larger area for the Local Authority and we all know where that got us, costs went up and the service went down.

[Bazeye]

Just been on the news in the latest expenses racket that David Blunkett had claimed for a motorbike an a pair of binoculars.

[oldmarine]

Some good comments on this subject from a few posters. I wonder whether it would be cost effective and still get the representation required?

[tonkatojo]

Is David Cameron volunteering ?, I bet my next years wages he's not. [lol]

[maverick]

fewer MP's im for that, line them up against the wall and shoot em, David Cameron as PM, I bloody well hope not the country is in enough mess as it is, we have swine flu at the minute but in the late 70's we had the MAD COW discease, commonly called Maggie Thatcher. If anyone is listening out there for God's sake keep the tories out. I don't know what the answer is to our current problems, one thing is for certian its NOT the tories....

[sevenfortyseven]

hit the nail on the head - far to many mp's. perhaps if we paid them more they wouldnt need to claim for stuff. our mp's get paid half as much as other european mp's and are forced to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world to represent us.