Reform and Representation

I'm watching Thursday's Question Time from Glasgow. Among other stuff, they're talking about lobbying and how there are seemingly agencies who, for a fee, will set up meetings with politicians and their "clients". I imagine clients would be those captains of business who need and introduction to someone with power and stuff like that.

Anyway, this all got me thinking. We live in a democracy (let's not be cynical about whether or not it's actually an elective dictatorship or anything). More specifically, we live in a representative democracy, which means those who take part in the decision making do so by means of representing those who vote, the electorate. Their job is to translate the vote of the people in their constituency into a vote in Parliament (which is why I'm not big on party politics).

The politicians are choosing a life of representation which means they cannot pursue a career or maybe have to give up a career in the private sector. Since they cannot get a wage elsewhere it seems reasonable they should be compensated and given an appropriate salary, resembling what they would be earning for roles of similar responsibility and ability in the private sector.

Now think of the non-rigid way we would think of "the MP for Cathcart" versus the rigid "Tom Harris", things paid to the MP for Cathcart should be treated differently to the way we treat those things paid to Tom Harris. Tom Harris is to be compensated for giving up the prospect of a career in the private sector, the MP for Cathcart has made no such sacrifices and here we can start to really see the distinction (I'm using Tom Harris/Cathcart as an arbitrary example, nothing should be taken as directed at Tom Harris specifically). I would make the argument that they should be treated differently based on the fact that the MP for Cathcart is contingently Tom Harris, it is not necessary that they are the same thing.

The office of MP for Cathcart is an office constituted of at least two things; the people who vote for their representative and the actual representative. Tom Harris is constituted of only himself. It seems clear to me then, that is money paid to Tom Harris goes directly to the constituents of Tom Harris then the money and gifts paid to the office of the MP for Cathcart should go directly and equally to the constituents of the office of the MP for Cathcart, namely Tom Harris and the people who elected him.

How this would be implemented, I've not really considered. But it's a nice thought when we're thinking about constitutional reform.