In an age where the most important banking matters happens at the touch of a smartphone screen and AI chatbots handle customer service. Government bureaucracy is ever growing and costly. Readily available and secure technology raises an important questions : do we still need Members of Parliament to vote on our behalf and could we save money by reforming?
Satvir Kaur the Southampton MP for Test recently appointed Frankie Peck from PR firm Lee Peck media as ‘Communications and Campaigns Lead’. Most MPs traditionally employed their partner as a secretary to bag an additional wage for the household (think Christopher Chope the MP for Chirstchurch). Government data shows that the total cost per MP has more than doubled since 2004, with staffing costs being the most dramatic rises. In 2004 the average MP cost for staffing and expenses was £104,000, now this stands at over £300,000. Which begs multiple questions, with modern technology reducing most workforces why is the parliamentary wage bill expanding, do MPs need to employ so many staff, and what exactly is the role of an MP now?
The role of MPs emerged organically in the 13th century, when towns and counties began sending representatives to political meetings. These early parliamentarians quite literally rode on horseback to represent their local areas, carrying the concerns of their constituents to the heart of power. Fast forward to 2024, and the modern MP comes with a hefty price tag. The basic annual salary for an MP now stands at £91,346, but that’s just the beginning. Each MP receives a staffing budget of £236,170 for constituencies outside London and £252,870 for London-based MPs, covering the salaries of researchers, caseworkers, and constituency office staff.
The modern whipping system has transformed these local representatives into what some critics call party automatons. Former minister Rory Stewart has described the current whipping process as a “hazing” system, while others argue that it reduces MPs to mere mouthpieces for their party leaders, rather than independent advocates for their constituencies. So local matters are rarely resolved and MPs are not voting to represent the concerns of their local areas, many MPs do not even live in their constituency.
The question of whether technology could replace MPs is complex. Opposition to this would argue online voting might seem an obvious solution, but it oversimplifies the multifaceted role of an MP. Beyond voting on legislation, MPs serve as local advocates, problem-solvers, and scrutinise government policy. Yet the current system, with its rigid party discipline and high costs, raises valid questions about value for money and democratic representation. If MPs don’t actually represent their local areas, there can be little justification for their existance beyond a mere smokescreen of democracy. Recent expense scandals with Keir Starmer having his spectacles and suits paid for by a donor, lobbying bribes and second jobs for MPs it seems like the role of an MP is not as serious as argued. Is it really a full time job that require a team of staff?
The whipping system sits at the heart of UK politics, operating on an unwritten code that prioritises party loyalty over constituent interests. MPs who dare to vote against their party line risk “losing the whip” – effectively being expelled from their party. This system of control has led some to question whether MPs truly represent their constituents or merely serve as expensive rubber stamps for party decisions.
As we progress further into the digital age, perhaps the question isn’t whether to abolish MPs entirely, but how to reform the role for the 21st century. Could a hybrid system combine direct digital democracy with reformed parliamentary representation? A slimmed down parliament with fewer support staff would save taxpayers a vast sum. Using technology to help MPs better represent their constituents while reducing operational costs. Why cant local areas vote on a smartphone app for keys issues? Should whipping and government incentives be banned to get bring back democracy.
What’s clear is that the current system, with its high costs and party-first approach, is increasingly at odds with modern expectations of democracy. The horse and cart may be long gone, but the question of how best to represent local interests in national government remains as relevant as ever. Labour and Conservatives Party’s with their entrenched establishment roots have no appetite for change. For many years a Labour manifesto pledge had been to replace the first past the post voting system with Proportional representation, as soon as Keir Starmer began to move ahead of the Torys in the polls this was removed. Reform UK will be the only political party with interest in truly updating the UK system, appealing to dismayed voters. The role of MPs and use of technology to reduce costs should be examined in detail and play a key part in any future Reform UK Manifesto.
