There is a very simple answer to the long-running soap-opera over MPs' pay and expenses. Stop paying them salaries and expenses – and pensions. Instead, treat them like the adults that some claim to be.

Pay each an annual "constituency fee" and let them decide how to spend it, whether on themselves, staff, offices or whatever. Require them to publish annual accounts on their websites and a summary on their electoral addresses if they stand for re-election. Let the voters then decide whether their MPs are value for money.

View full article here

Very simple and it would work leaving MP's income and expenses open and above board, or 'transparent' as they like to say. For those very reasons this idea would never be considered, let alone instigatged.

I've come to the conclusion MPs shouldn't be paid at all.

After all, the Lords gets on pretty well without pay, and I suspect many peers would manage even without expenses.

I'm sure we would see fewer submissive careerists and a more independently minded House.

And if they were short of a bob they could always take a bucket out on the high street and get some donations.

Good one Richard, you missed your vocation, this should have been implemented when the UK had politicians with balls.

Completely agree, I have been suggesting many of the same things (recall, publish accounts on website) for years. Well said!

Transparency leading to genuine and informed choice would hopefully be the death of the political class. Too many MPs belong to that grey mush and are lacking in convictions.

Transparency of all public accounts would lead to an awful lot of savings at national and local level. There are many people aware of scams with public money and open accounts would give them the ammunition to blog about it. Taxpayers Alliance would then probably become a reference point/clearing house for anti-waste campaigns?

Does the Taxpayers Alliance publish its accounts?

Top idea.

I couldn't disagree less...

But then there will be the objections that only rich people could enter Parliament.

One idea is that only independents get a Parliamentary wage. If they are there on behalf of a political party, the party has to pay the wage.

I don't think you can treat MPs differently depending on their status or affiliation.

It would not be only the rich who could enter Parliament so much as those who could support themselves. If an MP did not have independent means he might work part-time or be self-employed or retired on a pension. The Commons could help by reverting to hours which allowed people more easily to attend to private business alongside being an MP.

The amount required to subsist as an MP is surely within the means of many people, if they put their minds to it. I would guess Richard could manage it.

MPs supported by voluntary contributions from constituents only??

I am not convinced that your proposal would have the consequences you intend, Richard. In a marginal seat you would get pork barrel politics with the MP paying certain groups to keep his seat. In some Labour seats where the majorities are overwhelming, the incumbent would pay himself handsomely knowing that he was unlikely to be removed.

Why impose a limitation? Or necessitate policing?