David Cameron is talking this lunchtime, the news tells us, of his plans to reform Parliament by removing subsidised meals and shaving 5% off the pay of ministers.
Danny Alexander MP, Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Liberal Democrats is a) unimpressed and b) unfamiliar with the concept of run-on sentences:
There is a good argument to be made for cutting the cost of politics, the Liberal Democrats have proposed reducing the number of MPs by 150, but if the Conservatives seriously hope to convince people they are fit to govern it is time they stopped dodging the tough questions.
The Liberal Democrats have proposed not renewing Trident, David Cameron wants to increase the price of salads. While it’s nice to finally have some concrete proposals from the Conservatives, at this rate it would take them several centuries to balance the books.
David Cameron claims to want to cut spending but refuses to tell anyone how he hopes to achieve it. The Conservatives need to stop insulting our intelligence and set out what they really believe.
While we’re on the topic, let us not forget a post by Will Howells, formally of this parish, but writing on his own blog in January. He lines up the ducks to show that David Cameron’s proposal is significantly less ambitious than Tory policy under Michael Howard in 2004. And yet still less ambitious than the Lib Dem policy which would remove two-and-a-half two-and-a-half times more MPs from the books than the Conservatives.
Thanks for the correction!
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Leicester councillors deselected by Labour's NEC are from minority ethnic backgrounds
My tweets
Welsh Labour Government emulate John Redwood
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Are things looking up for the Conservatives in the polls? - The Week in Polls
It is time to make black mould in Ludlow history
Martyn Bond
Mel Borthwaite
Peter Watson
Jenny Barnes
Peter Martin
12 Comments
I think you meant ‘two and a half times more MPs’, unless our policy is to slice an honorable member in half.
Anyone care to nominate the MP who should be sliced in two?
I’m not sure I can see the point in cutting lots of MPs on cost grounds. The amount saved will not be huge, and if it results in parliament being less effective it’s not worth it. Of course, if it results in a more effective parliament then it’s worth doing even without the cost saving, but I don’t think it would.
Unless there are also measures to reduce the number of MPs with government posts, reducing the number of MPs would increase the proportional size of the payroll vote and so reduce the ability of parliament to be a check on the government.
.
How about shaving 100% off the unearned capital gains from MP’s second homes?
Worth a bit more to the taxpayer than the paltry sums that Desperate Dave is bigging up.
“formally of this parish.” Wearing his suit is he?
In a way, Cameron’s ambition is large and audacious. He wants to cut the number of MPs by 60. By cutting off at 60, the list of constituencies will almost entirely be safe Labour, Plaid Cymru, LibDem and SNP seats in Wales and Scotland. There will hardly be a single Tory seat, if any – on the list. So by simply chopping off non Tory seats he will further secure a comfortable seating in government under our daft electoral system. So he is ambition to fasten himself into office and make it more difficult for the opposition to reduce his majority.
This is not a reforming move. This Cameron selfishly looking after Number One. The argument is doing this to save tax payers’ money is pathetically thin. £15.5M to be saved by cutting 60 MPs is a drop in the ocean of government spending.
I’ve just gone back to some number crunching I did about this last April.
Of the 60 seats which Cameron would cut based on the list of electorates per constituency: 34 of the seats are in Scotland. 18 are in Wales (the rest are in England).
So the vast majority are in seats with no Tory interest whatsover.
If he cut off at 150 as we suggest there would be more natural Tory seats involved and therefore the cut-off would be fairer.
Cameron’s proposal is naked political greed.
The Lib Dem policy of cutting the number of MPs is fatuous. It was never a properly thought through policy anyway, just a marketing man’s gesture chucked into ‘Make it Happen’ last year, purely for effect.
If the number of MPs were cut by 150 (i.e. from 646 to 496), it would increase the number of voters in each constituency by about 30%. The quality of representation would decline for negligible financial gains.
And why 150? It sounds like a round number plucked out of thin air. One might just as well argue for a cut of 93 or 142.
Of course, if there were thorough constitutional reform such that the UK acquired a federal system of government, with powers currently held at Westminster devolved to regional assemblies, then there would be a case for reducing the size of the Commons commensurate with its reduced duties. But right now it’s just gesture politics, a chronic case of hair-shirtism intended to appease the anti-democratic sentiments of the tabloids.
There’s a stronger case for cutting the number of marketing men in the leader’s office.
“just a marketing man’s gesture chucked into ‘Make it Happen’ last year, purely for effect”
…Or, alternatively, it’s been party policy for over a decade and a half and in several General Election manifestos since it was first considered in a ‘structure of government’ working group as part of the very decentralisation proposals you suggest as if they were brand new.
But why bother checking your facts, Simon? I know you’re a new member and couldn’t be expected to have noticed such things over the years 😉
Formally / formerly aargh! I looked at that repeatedly before I hit publish, and still didn’t get it right. I suppose it’s rule one of teh internets – criticise someone else’s grammar or spelling and
condomcondemn yourself to making a mistake.Paul – I don’t think his plans are to just get rid of 60 constituencies and leave them without representation, more to instruct the Boundary Commission’s next review to reduce the total number of seats.
*ahem* As a member of the last working group who worked on this and as someone who HAS checked their facts, I quote you from For the People, By the People:
The working group discussed this extensively and it is fair to say we were somewhat divided on the issue. But as someone who had a kneejerk reaction in favour of reduction I have to say the nay-sayers had the stronger arguments. In my own opinion it isn’t a terribly practical proposition unless you BOTH radically decentralise AND seperate the executive and legislature in a more formalised way. Otherwise you will very quickly find yourself with a minority government in which 90% of the MPs are on the payroll.
As for how it managed to wangle its way back into Make it Happen, well, that almost certainly had more to do with marketing concerns than a deliberative policy making process. Ditto its companion policy for a recall system (that doesn’t technically actually amount to a recall system but presses all the right buttons).
Regarding the difference between Cameron and Howard, I suspect they are actually the same policy as authored by Andrew Tyrie MP. The difference is that Howard wanted Tyrie’s 20% cut straight away while Cameron is going along with the 10% cut now and (possibly) another 10% in ten years. Reading Cameron’s speech there were certainly a number of Tyrie-isms (PDF) – including the stuff on the Electoral Commission cutting down on its remit which is about four years out of date.
To cut the number of MPs to 496 AND reduce the payroll vote has some serious implications.
E.g. Cornwall has 5 MPs (to be six at the next election) That would be down to 4 elected under STV.
The minor parties (SNP, DUP,PC) would have 30-40 MP’s
A Governemnt with a bare majority 250 MP’s will still have the same yes minister dilemma – 1/3 to old or failed, one third too new and not ready leaving 1/3 to fill 80-90 Government posts.
If reducing the payroll vote means reduing it as a proportion of MPs – say to just 50 -60, then taht is a big change.