Should MPs be term limited?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by SkiCarver, Feb 3, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes, 1 term max

  2. Yes, 2 terms max

  3. Yes, 3 terms max

  4. No, it's a bad idea

  5. It's a good idea but it will never happen

  1. Would limiting the number of terms an MP can sit in parliament improve the UKs political process?

    Pro. It would mean the end of 'professional politicians'. Those people with no experience of the real world (E.G. Blair and Brown). It would reduce the likelyhood that civil servants will become beholden to particular politicians (e.g. chiefs of police) As the possibilities for being a career politician will be limited, those who take up being an MP will do so out of principle and will likely be experienced in life when they decide to try for election.

    Con. The experience gained by the politician would be lost after his/her/its' two terms.
  2. Not only that every MP should have been living in his constituency for a period of 10 years before he can stand. No parachuting people into safe seats. If an MP does not think you are worth living with, what makes him worth voting for?
  3. I like it. I think it is a good idea that will never happen because the MPs will want to keep the current situation as it is better for the party.
  4. Three terms maximum then 10 years doing completly unrelated work away from politics. If they choose to return, then they can spend the rest of their lives as politicians
  5. At the moment MPs have no security of tenure (which is of course quite right and proper - they have to be elected by the people) however this means that they must prepare for the future when they may not be re-elected and so they all have a 'day job' sitting in the wings. This in turn can mean that they have interests that are at variance with what they are elected to do.

    The other option would be professional politicians who are in for ever.

    So there is no answer, like many other things in life, it is all a compromise.

    There should however be a way of firing the bu99ers if they misbehave.
  6. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Not sure that's a good idea - if they know their term in power is limited, they might be more inclined to feather their nests at speed.
  7. As opposed to now?
  8. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Well, know they seek to feather their nests over a potential 20-odd year period. Imagine every incumbent politician attempting to achieve the same results in 10 or 12 - twice the greed, twice the cost.
  9. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Book Reviewer Good Egg (charities)

    They are however guaranteed an index-linked pension, even if they're elected in a by-election and lose the seat at the next general election. And they have a salary which is at least three times the average wage, plus expenses and a second home.

    If they can't live on that and make their own preparation for the future, how do they expect constituents on minimum wage to do so?
  10. fair point. I guess my thinking would be that having term limits would change the demographics for parliamentarians. many would be much older, say 50, experienced in life, and will already have established careers. So the change to being an MP would be out of principle, rather than the likes of brown who have no worldly experience and are simply in it for power. There will always be nest feathering, i just think term limits would have more benefits than costs.
  11. I read "Should MPs be terminated?"

    And I yelled "yes - painfully"!!!

    I really should have gone to Specsavers, shouldn't I? :D


  12. How about canning votes, pensions and return rights for ex pats?

    If we're not good enough to live with why should they get a say in how it's run?

    Just a thought.
  13. It would preclude constituents from being represented by their choice of individual.

    Furthermore, I think we have seen enough 'fiddling' around with our system of government in the last twelve years.
  14. I fully agree with trying to rid the world of career politicians, but unfortunately this scheme gets rid of the (few) good policitians as well as the bad. Plus you would undoubtedly get them recycled through the Euro MP ranks and back again.

    The flaw in this whole plan however, as with their pay and allowances, is that they would have to vote to agree it. And they are never going to collectively vote that they should only be able to stand for a limited time.
    Or if they did they would no doubt vote that because they can only stand for 'X' terms then they should be renumerated at four times their current salary to compensate for their shortened career possibilities. And no doubt better pensions too.

    Better to work harder to highlight the misdeeds of the scum (I'm talking to you Mr Mandelson) and properly punish the corrupt and incompenent with dismissal and vote for those worthy of the post. Easier said than done I know.
  15. You'd end up getting rid of some very good MPs. Since honest, hard working, dedicated MPs are getting increasingly thin on the ground on both sides of both houses, we might not want to chuck out this increasingly valuable resource if we don't have to.

    I think you'd also end up with massive quangoes being created to provide highly paid jobs for former MPs to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed until the Parliamentary Pension kicks in.

    Some better options to consider might be:-

    Mandatory general election if the PM changes.

    MPs sitting in Parliament should be more representative of the votes cast in an election. It's unacceptable that the 3% majority of the popular vote obtained by Labour last time round turned into 80% more seats.

    Constituents can force a by election if their MP turns out to be cr@p and spends all his time in the Big Brother House or in his villa in Portugal writing books about Che Guevara.

    A political fraud/corruption inspectorate that is not within the PMs chain of command. Having the cash-for-peerages investigation run by Sir Ian Blair at the Met and a former colleague of Cherie Blair at the CPS was a farce. I read today that the voting records for the Glenrothes by election have mysteriously disappeared following the unusually high turnout at the election. What's next? Stuffing ballot boxes at the general election to ensure the 'right' PM ends up in No 10?