At last, something to celebrate
Friday, October 19, 2007 
The Daily Telegraph reports that "MPs may be given an extra 12 days holiday over the next year after the Government ran out of legislation to put before Parliament" (full story HERE).
The tone of the report ("increase takes annual leave to more than 90 days ... more than three times that of the average worker ... will embarrass Gordon Brown" etc) suggests disapproval. Personally, I think it's something to celebrate. In fact, if it means a reduction in legislation (ie less government), I would happily let MPs enjoy 180 days off each year - on the same salary.
I know this is simplistic, but what this country needs is fewer MPs working fewer days, especially in Parliament. In general, less legislation equals more freedom. It's hardly rocket science.
Reader Comments (8)
Why not leave it to only one dictator then he or she should be capable of banning everything. Therefore no need for taxation or 600+ misfits in parliament acting like donkey. Nay! Nay!
Could not agree more Simon - the less time they have to legislate the better. We do not want them to add to the 3,000 criminal offences that New Labour has thrusted on British society in the past decade.
Unfortunately, we have a generation of "professional" politicians, who have very little experience of working for a living in the real world.
Less legislation may indeed mean more freedom but there are certain areas, health for example, that do warrant legislation for the wider good.
Like most parents I am often pestered to take my children to fast food outlets and to buy certain types of food at the supermarket. This is one area where extra government regulation could help. There is a report out today citing shockingly high salt content used by one particular pizza chain - 4 times the recommended daily amount of salt for a child just in one of their meals!!
If the government were to pass more legislation in areas like this wouldn't it give us all more freedom in terms of choosing whatever food we like without having to worry about children's health or own for that matter?
There is a danger that in many people's dislike of this Labour government, we dismiss all of their past and future legislation as negative.
I look at this as a sign that MPs are not given long enough to debate legislative proposals, and that this is indicative of the Labour government's rush through - too much through; too quickly - approach to legislation.
This leads to poor legislation and the overabundance of select committees (au pairs?) being corralled to mop up after Nanny's 'little accidents'.
Well Robert, who have labour got to blame for that? With the shameful debarcle over the smoking ban, the broken promises and junk science that was used, why should any of us trust anything they now say?
We can go back years and see the different fads over what is supposedly bad for you one year and the best thing since sliced bread the next!
Never mind the salt, earlier this week the reports were that obesity is a much bigger killer than smoking! Unfortunately many people who give up smoking tend to put on weight, some to the point of becoming obese. I did wonder a while ago whether the smoking ban was a reverse psychology thing, bearing in mind how the government are struggling to meet pension payments, why on earth would they want a large number of people living longer (if the smoking junk science is to be believed)? That is when I thought of the reverse pshycology idea - get people to give up by convincing them they will live longer, when in fact many will put on weight and die even younger than if they had continued smoking! Great, fewer pensions to fund!
Perhaps this means that the government are not as stupid as they seem, if this is the way they have been thinking! We just have to remind them and show them that we, the public and the people who pay their wages, are not so stupid either!
Lynn, it is true that giving up smoking can cause people to put on weight and it is known that smoking can suppress appetite. I'm not sure whether obesity is the greater threat to health or not.
But if we are heading for a situation where most of the population are obese within the next decade or two, doesn't the government have a duty to do something about it? If that means yet more legislation, then so be it. I think David Cameron and Boris Johnson set very good examples by cycling to the House of Commons whilst the rest of the population drive everywhere, even if 80% of all personal journies are said to be less than 5 miles.
Perhaps the government could build more cycle routes, abolish VAT on gymn membership fees, introduce Japanese workplace style morning exercise sessions (starting with the civil service first of course). John Prescott could show us how it's done. But then again, ideas like that may need yet more legislation and that would never do.
When they lowered the body-mass index, it brought millions of people into the obesity range. Very convenient. There is NO evidence that being a couple of stone overweight affects longevity. In fact there have been studies shown that being a little overweight cand help you live longer, but again many studies contradict each other, which basically shows that the extremes are the factors in most connections with lifestyle and disease. The risks of being seriously overweight is another matter. Exactly the same as smoking and drinking. Moderation is the sensible approach to just about anything. that's all people want to know, and not to be bullied.
I see so many fat politicians,and that includes Brown, whinging on about healthy lifestyles, that it would be all quite comical, if it wasn't for all the special interest groups competing for grants for research, seeing who can come up with the scariest predictions for our future health.
When I pick my children up from a school with 1400 pupils, most of them look pretty slim to me. It may vary a little in different areas, but let's not get carried away with the words of zealots, and health extremists looking for the next Government handout.
It's comical alright. Comrade Fatty Brown preaching to the plebs about "an obesity epidemic" from the pulpit of his 42" waistline.