Comments on: Getting value for public money

By: Acorn

Acorn — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:08:39 +0000

Denis, Travel to work areas have grown up naturally based on where the work occurs. So I would guess that they have already chosen to a certain extent, the geography and demography of a city county. I suggest that they would have a greater interest in the state of the road or the bus service between where they live and where they work. One council that covered that geography, to me, makes sense.

EU regions, and government office regions, would be the last thing to be accommodated. They have only technical reasons to exist (EU voting); they have no “local community” purpose. As our current administrative geography is constructed from Wards, and we are dealing with the British here, I expect there will be some Wards declaring UDI.

The last set of Unitary Councils that were formed this year, covered on average a third of a million population. I envisage about 180 MPs for the UK.

This is just another idea Denis. But I am a believer in sorting out from the bottom up. The concept of a powerful cohesive local government structure, will frighten the lives out of the Westminster and Whitehall centralisers.

By: Denis Cooper

Denis Cooper — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:28:03 +0000

And, in your scheme, would people have any say on whether they were bundled into City Counties (aka the EU’s “City Regions”?), sharing one MP between a third of a million (voters or total population?) therefore with the House of Commons cut down to 135 – 180 members?

By: Acorn

Acorn — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:07:52 +0000

It appears that the “top down” reformers are offering various discounts on the number of MPs. I expect there will be an “elect three get two” offer soon, in a reverse supermarket offer.

As JR says, the US represents 300 million people with 435 MPs (Congressmen) representing the people and a 100 Senators representing the States in the Union. It is not how many you have but how and what they represent on behalf of the people.

I maintain that the UK and England in particular is a complete mess of administrative geography. That is why I am in favour of fully unitising the UK into locally recognisable units that can generate a sense of community with a common vision.

You will be aware that most MPs represent areas based on balancing population numbers. Those areas in most cases are not coterminous with a council boundary, health service boundary, police boundary, multiple quango boundaries; in any manner that is naturally recognisable to the citizens. A great strategy if you want to divide and conquer from a Westminster / Whitehall point of view.

Some of these natural areas show up in data such as ONS “Travel to Work Areas”. The easiest way to spot them is to stand at a City / Town centre Bus Station, and see where all the buses are going.

There is no reason that such City Counties (circa., a third of a million people), can’t be represented by one MP (with appropriate staffing) and one elected Mayor and Cabinet. These would be big jobs with status and highly visible to the electors (like Boris). I will leave the local financing of such new Counties for another day; but, suffice it to say it would be mostly local forms of taxation.

By: DiscoveredJoys

DiscoveredJoys — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:45:55 +0000

When I used to work in a privatised industry I used to tell my team that every pound they, or I, claimed in expenses was a pound that “a little old lady” had to pay on her bill for services.

I sincerely believe that the most scary thing about the expenses scandal rolling around Parliament (and possibly beyond) is *not* the amounts falsely or unwisely claimed, but the idea that the money is ‘free’.

Every pound claimed is a pound that “a little old lady” has paid in tax on her pension, or VAT on her ‘leccy, etc. Not such a ‘victimless’ source of funds now, is it?

By: Denis Cooper

Denis Cooper — Tue, 26 May 2009 07:22:12 +0000

On the face of it “Bar paid ministers from voting on timetable motions” seems a good idea. Their position is any case anomalous as they hold positions of profit under the Crown; and the more of them there were as a proportion of the MPs, the less likely that they could impose their will if they themselves were barred from voting. However, the fact remains that they can only impose their will now because other MPs allow themselves to be whipped.

By: Stuart Fairney

Stuart Fairney — Tue, 26 May 2009 05:18:06 +0000

OT but apparently this lot think your blog is worth $7,000

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.johnredwoodsdiary.com

An interesting contrast insofar as Mr Brown is likely to have used public money for his comfortable and natural looking appearance on youtube, yet I understand you fund this and actually generate value. This struck me as a nice contrast

Reply: Thanks. I have received various offers of ads for this site, but I prefer to run it at my own expense pro bono.

By: SJB

SJB — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:30:21 +0000

It seems to me most MPs will want some distance between the recent scandal and the General Election, Jim; because of the risk of a low turnout and/or voters turning to smaller parties to register their protest.

When the House of Commons sits again on 1 June, MPs will only have to kill about seven weeks before the House rises for the summer recess on 21 July. Hopefully by the time they return on 12 October things will have died down a bit.
http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/recess.cfm

The Irish will then be about to vote (or have voted) for the Lisbon Treaty, the Poles have agreed to follow the Irish … and Mr Cameron’s offer of a referendum lapses when the Treaty comes into force shortly after.

By: thespecialone

thespecialone — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:09:37 +0000

It is well known that the public sector is very extravagant in its expenditure. You only need to look at the jobs advertised in the Guardian to see what a joke most of these jobs are. Not only that, the wages offered on virtually all these jobs are massively more than the average wage.

When you the Tories get elected, you need to do a wholesale review of all Quangos, and I am sure millions could be saved by ditching most of them who produce absolutely zero of value.

Next, all reform should filter down to local councils, and all government departments and that includes the sacrosanct NHS. Councils should be told to stopped wasting money on ‘outreach workers’ and all the other non-jobs. All the myriad of minority groups that they lavish money on should be told they will not get another penny. However, councils should provide money in areas open to all such as youth clubs, care for the elderly etc.

I could go on and on as I am sure many other readers could. The next government have no choice but to get to grips with government and local authorities spending. We really are going down the pan if you dont.

By: Andrew Johnson

Andrew Johnson — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:41:35 +0000

Less MP’s sounds attractive, but how does no taxation without representation fit in? Under our current voting sytem, there are now millions of voters and non voters whose votes and views count for nothing.
I used to be a fervent supporter of our first past the post system – not any more. Some kind of PR is required. Power has to be taken from the whips, and MP’s have to become more accountable to their electorate, something that is now easily achievable via modern technology and communications systems.
I truly believe the anger over the expenses comes from huge frustration that the main policies of the three parties are increasingly indistinguishable from one another. e.g. Pro European; pro-immigration, pro -globalisation – intent on ignoring British agriculture, manufacturing, not tackling the housing crisis, transport crisis, crime crisis, and the ever increasing damage being done to our nation’s citizens by the corruption of a welfare system that was designed to be a safety net, but has now become an alternative lifestyle.
All of this is going to take a great deal of courage by politicians who have the nation’s interests at heart not their own or their party’s.
Please will someone tell me where they are? Some of us would like to vote for them.

Reply : PR strengthens the hands of the whips. Most PR systems give the party more power over choice of candidate and placing of that candidate.

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:25:49 +0000

It’s obvious that there is some fraud going on, but equally, if the rules are lax then some people are going to fall foul of such ambiguity.

This situation is remakably similar to the Banking collapse caused by complete deregulation.

Can anyone spot the common factor,

could it be argued that both the banking system and our Parliamentary system were deliberately sabotaged so that they can create their ‘New World Order’ from the resulting chaos.