The post you are reporting:
Keith some points that you are forgetting.
1/ MPs are actually not paid very much. £65k is peanuts to get the sort of people we really need as MPs and that is why a fair proportion are 'monkeys'
2/ I have agreed their pay should be frozen at least until after the election when the new parliament can make a decision which, again, I would hope be a freeze for a while longer.
3/ I have no interest in flunkeys but I do want MPs to have the staff they need to carry out their tasks properly, particularly their caseload.
4/ You cannot compare different systems the way you do. Take America - the legislature is separate from the executive so of course they need fewer people in the legislature than we do.
In the UK we have 650 MPs so there needs to be at least 326 for a majority. Ministers, junior Ministers, PPS's and government whips, what is called the payroll vote, comes to about a third of the governing Party's MPs. That leaves a very small pool of ruling party MPs for backbench positions, committees etc.
Now as I said I do believe there is room to chop the number of MPs, perhaps to 600 but not much more. But the more you reduce the number of MPs the more power is in the hands of the government payroll vote and the less room there is for rebels among the governing Party. The consequences would be even more bland representatives than we have now because Parties would have to play a lot safer over selections.
Personally I want more room for individualist MPs (within the major parties) and real characters and not just have party machines. That is why there is not much room to cut back numbers.
That said - the more your cut the number of MPs, the bigger their Constituencies, the more staff (your flunkeys) they need to deal with the case load.