The Kenyans are lucky ... although, if they paid them a bit more, they might be able to get them to stay away from Parliament for a while longer. Would that British politicians were are disinclined to interfere in other people's lives and livelihoods.

I'd have to run a complaint in about Britain's lazy bloggers though - theres and election on and how many posts ahve you mustered to date?

get thee to Kenya!

Reading that I realise how much we have lost with the democratisation of the Lords. A far more sensible idea would have been to abolish the Conmans.

Geez how much would we have to pay our congreffcritters to get them to only be in session 57 days a year? Maybe trim it down to a month?

JSAllison - a lot. But it would be worth it. And think of the billions we'd save from programmes and schemes for which no feasibility studies would be made; for which no quangoes would be created to administe, for which no office space would be leased and no computers bought and for which no "press officers" would be hired; under which there would be no hordes of people failing to meet quixotic "targets".

And also, to have to look at their smug, self-important little faces bleating out rubbish in no known language - certainly not English - for 300 days a year less ... surely whatever it cost would be money well spent?

Worth every penny of whatever it cost.

Parliament only sat for half the year in the days when Britain ran the largest empire in history. Legislators were unpaid until 1911 when they suddenly got £400pa, a modest middle class income then.

Since every election produces a flood of applicants to be candidates, it is doubtful if we need to pay people to be MPs. Nor is it obvious that the quality of their work would be lower if they did it for free, as a matter of public service or for prestige. An unpaid House of Commons would be composed of those who had achieved something in life beyond politics and could pay their own way, or those whose supporters admired them enough to finance them, like trade-union-sponsored MPs before 1911.

Don't be so sure that reducing parliamentary sessions would do any good. The British parliament's hours have been reduced, but it is legislating more than ever. Tony Blair's administration has even found a way of getting primary legislation through without any substantial debate.

Nearly everything is now guillotined.

And in the "Wash up" invented in 2001 for Blairite convenience, Bills get passed by simple agreement of party managers in the week before parliament is prorogued. Thus the following Acts of Parliament all received Royal Assent on 7th April:

Finance Act 2005

Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2005

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005

Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005

Disability Discrimination Act 2005

Education Act 2005

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Inquiries Act 2005

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005

Drugs Act 2005

International Organisations Act 2005

Railways Act 2005

Gambling Act 2005

Leaving aside the Finance Act, which is always passed on the basis of a formal budget debate, without any attempt at understanding on behalf of most MPs (good luck to them if they try), only two, by my reckoning, the Gambling Act and the Mental Capacity Act, had had any wider discussion. That's because the moral majority pitched in. And one part of the Serious Organised Crime Act was dropped because controversial.

Yet still the Government had the cheek to complain for political advantage about the opposition "blocking" things, notably state identity control and the controversial incitement to religious hatred section of SCOA.

I live in Zimbabwe where we are trying to persuade the leadership of the opposition to get out into the streets. Only mass action now will dislodge the monster Mugabe. But the opposition, not even yet in power, have got to parliament where they enjoy fat-cat status, and would rather stay there...Kenya is a kind of deja vu. Corruption runs through Africa like blood.