Richard North, EUReferendum, posts on the gathering darkness in respect of the collapse of the Greek economy and the effects it may have on our country in the years to come, ending his post:
"On the bright side, it may take several years – even a decade – for the instability to spread to the UK, giving us time to adjust. The problem is, though, that there is no sign of a Churchill waiting in the wings, ready to lead to nation to the sunlit uplands. There will be no "finest hour " for us with lightweight fools such as Cameron in the driving seat. With him it may be our darkest hour. But how dark – and how quick - no one yet knows."
Whilst not disagreeing with that statement, it generated the thought whether we need another elected dictator at the head of what appears to be a bloated administrative. Some statistics are easy to obtain - the number of MPs and Peers - but not so when looking at local councillors etc. Google managed to throw up this helpful entry along with this BBC article on the cost of parliament - albeit that both sets if statistics are now out of date. However, whilst that data may have changed a tad, it serves for the purpose of this post.
In summary there are 650 MPs; 792 Peers; 433 local authorities according to Wikipedia, of which 353 of these are in England, 26 in Northern Ireland, 32 in and 22 are in Wales - providing the following number of local councillors:
- London borough councillors: 1,861
- English county councillors: 2,270
- Metropolitan borough councillors: 2,555
- English unitary authority councillors: 2,407
- English lower-tier district councillors: 10,575
- Welsh unitary authority councillors: 1,264
- Scottish unitary authority councillors: 1,222
- Northern Ireland district councillors: 582
- Grand total: 22,736
on top of which it has been estimated that there are nearly 100,000 town and parish councillors.
On the question of cost, from the BBC link above we learn that:
"The overall expense for taxpayers in 2008/9 came to £498.4m, down from £531.8m the previous year. The cost of the House of Commons increased by more than £12m, but the bill for running the House of Lords was reduced by £46m.The biggest single outgoing for Parliament was for MPs' salaries and pensions, which came to £157.2m.The total figures include wages for members and staff, building expenses, security and other administration."
Turning to the cost of local authorities, it is possible to access more recent date, courtesy of the Department of Communities and Local Government, from which we find that total expenditure by local authorities was £168billion in 2009/2010 and that they employed 1.8 million full-time employees staff and nearly 50 per cent of service expenditure (gross of income) was spent on these employees.
Which makes the suggestion encapsulated within my post even more pertinent:
".....it would seem that a mix of the US and Swiss system of government might just well provide that for which Richard North wishes. First, reduce the number of MPs elected to Westminster (they wouldn't be needed as all that Westminster would be left with would be matters such as defense of the realm, foreign policy etc); devolve to all county local authorities responsibility for internal matters - health, education, law & order - whilst also giving them tax-raising powers; and combining that with Richard North's idea for annual referendums."
The attractions in that suggestion are numerous, especially as it immediately rids us of unnecessary politicians resulting in less hands in our pockets, coupled with the fact that as cutting deficits is 'all the rage', the question is - as fellow blogger Mark Wadsworth is prone on occasions to ask - Whats not to like?
11 comments:
I have to admit that I would settle for a General Pinochet for a few years, to thin out the socialists in our country, and bring back fiscal responsibility. Chile was as basket case before he took control. Unfortunately, socialists being what they are, once he relinquished power, they infested the Chilean political system and tried to persecute the man. No wonder dictators are reluctant to hand over the reins to others.
Pinochet operated within a presidential system where Allende was in effect arming the trades unions for a coup. Few people recognise that 1930-32 Germany had been ruled by dictatorial powers using Presidential Decrees under Bruening BEFORE Hitler. By 1933 the choice Germany faced was Military Coup or Hitler.
Backs against the wall focus minds. Britain is still in denial spending much more on deficit funding than a year ago. Cameron has simply raised taxes and spending, so come the winter he may have quite a raging unrest to contend with.
Had Brown not been a patsy the Civil Contingencies Act would have been invoked in 2007 and Bank Directors put under direct government control with their homes and assets seized.
That would have brought the banks to heel. Instead they were given the keys to the Treasury and told to speculate and gouge customers for profit thoroughly destabilising nation states.
Economic Collapse is inevitable and then killing bankers and their families and politicians likewise will not appear quite so extreme. There are new realities waiting to be born.
Hmmm...not too sure about delegating powers from one corrupt branch of government to another - People's Republic of Brent, anyone? Imagine what they'll do with all that new power.
I favour as much power as humanly possible being given to the individual. Vouchers for education, health AND local services. Local Councils should be made to compete with any provider that thinks they can do a better job on a fixed term contract and with everything published on-line for all to see.
This should apply to all branches of government. All minutes, all the time except where it directly affects the security of the nation (I'm not in favour of putting missile locations on-line). MP's and Councillors diaries to be put on Google Calendar - why not? That way we can see who they're talking to and why. Any omissions to be a criminal offense (with the usual provisos - see above).
I want the power to control my own life, not to have it transferred from Whitehall to the local incompetents.
Dead right TomTom "....Bank Directors put under direct government control with their homes and assets seized. That would have brought the banks to heel...."
Indeed if that had been done even in one major country we would have had the opportunity for a root and branch reform of the global banking system, gaoling of the actually criminal bankers (those knowingly bundling toxic mortgage assets to hide them) and a resolution of the fiat money crisis in a relatively painless monetary/banking revolution. Instead politicians went into screaming headless chicken mode, prostrated themselves before the banking lobby banging their heads on the floor screaming 'save us, save us, tell us what to do.'
As to Richard North's hope that we could stay free from a Greek financial apocalypse for a few years while we adjust, well I would put that down as very faint at best. Like a pressure cooker once it starts to go it will go big, floors, walls and ceiling, nothing around it will be safe (and yes, I am talking from unfortunate culinary experience!).
As to local control of services, I am with Pirran there. My experience of local councils is that they are far more inherently corrupt, both politically and financially, than central government, probably because no one really looks too closely or particularly cares. I have long held the view that local services should be run by employed managers organising clearly defined responsibilities and the elected councillors should be there purely in a monitoring and auditing role to ensure efficiency and honesty.
Local political self determination and democratic decision making is a myth and an excuse for politicians to play, nothing more.
That's an English Parliament or a UK one?
jic: I have to say be it politician or dictator they will never give up power. Having had it, they love it too much!
TT: Good point about banks and bankers!
P: That is the constituents of Brant's problem, P - especially as each area will be self-funding. They happy for their elected reps to create hell in Brent, again not my problem. Those that don't like it will move, as will others resulting in a wasteland.
So who are you paying money to for these vouchers?
Accept your suggestion re transparencty but don't believe you understand what is proposed by your last paragraph.
PC: Think about this, please. A much smaller parliament, local devolution combined with yearly agreement to their programmes, both in subject and cost, I rpt whats not to like? The reason for incompetence of local authorities and apathy of local electorate is councillors have not had any power other than to ensure the policies of central govt were implemented.
JH: Depends on situation. If UK remains then obviously national. If Scotland departs then English.
jic: I have to say be it politician or dictator they will never give up power. Having had it, they love it too much!
TT: Good point about banks and bankers!
P: That is the constituents of Brant's problem, P - especially as each area will be self-funding. They happy for their elected reps to create hell in Brent, again not my problem. Those that don't like it will move, as will others resulting in a wasteland.
So who are you paying money to for these vouchers?
Accept your suggestion re transparencty but don't believe you understand what is proposed by your last paragraph.
PC: Think about this, please. A much smaller parliament, local devolution combined with yearly agreement to their programmes, both in subject and cost, I rpt whats not to like? The reason for incompetence of local authorities and apathy of local electorate is councillors have not had any power other than to ensure the policies of central govt were implemented.
JH: Depends on situation. If UK remains then obviously national. If Scotland departs then English.
Don't get me wrong WfW, I'm all for smaller government, 'referism' or equivalent direct democracy, electoral control of both money and legislation, as I have said before.
The snake in the water exists where there is any form of representative democracy, the global standard, I know. Once you pass power to a 'representative' in the modern meaning you have given up any form of control. The traditional definition is that your 'representative' is informed by your, the electorate or constituents', wishes and concerns and presents those in the parliamentary process, but this is wrong. The true definition, as politicians see it, is that we give carte blanc to our representative to do as they decide, generally irrespective of our wants or concerns although not irrespective of the wishes and concerns of the Establishment, twitterati, vested interests and so on.
Representative democracy may have been valid when it could takes or months to communicate between London and the provinces and illiteracy was the norm, but it has no value in today's world of instant communication and supposedly educated masses.
PC: Re your second paragraph: Accept that what you say is true, however the beauty of "Referism" is that the politicos, both nationally and locally, are on a yearly contract. They not only have to justify the following years programme/budget but also their spending/actions in the preceding year - that should concentrate a few minds!
It boils down to the politicos having tried it, now it would be the electorate's turn to do a little social-engineering......
WfW wrote: "P: That is the constituents of Brent's problem, P - especially as each area will be self-funding. They happy for their elected reps to create hell in Brent, again not my problem. Those that don't like it will move, as will others resulting in a wasteland.
So who are you paying money to for these vouchers?
Accept your suggestion re transparency but don't believe you understand what is proposed by your last paragraph."
You seem to want to write off large swathes of the UK populace simply because they happen to live in the wrong place or are surrounded by self-serving minorities. This is hardly a recipe for empowerment. It sounds more like the derelict vehicles and abandonment of Detroit on a massive scale - is that really a country you want to live in? Asking people to move every time another self-serving demagogue is elected to power is no way to run a country. That's why as much power as possible should be invested in the individual so that local government can not have too disastrous an effect.
Voucher systems can be run at either a National or Local level. Educational vouchers have been effectively operated (with success) in The Netherlands since the end of the First World War and in Sweden since the '90's. The exact models differ, but usually the average cost of a school place is calculated and then offered to each parent. This is not that difficult to administer effectively and can be done in a transparent manner, so I really don't see your objection.
I am fully aware of the implications of my last paragraph and it seems preferable to the naivety of your response to PC. What's not to like? Plenty! The idea that local govt. is only corrupt and self-serving because it has limited power is dis-proven by the GLC and Liverpool in the '80's, not to mention the endemic corruption of many US States. Has state autonomy helped with corruption in Alabama or Mississippi? Sicily has a fair amount of autonomy - want to live there? Your vision of a patchwork Britain alternating well run enclaves surrounded by chaos is not one that I wish to subscribe to.
I am not advocating Anarcho-Capitalism, there is always a vital but limited role for National Government as a "Good Referee", providing there is suitable transparency and accountability. I am far less convinced of transferring those powers to Local Mandarins and Mafia bosses with the power to control the lives of those around them.
Give the power to the people and those powers that practically can't should be delegated upwards with great caution, transparency and care.
P:I am not suggesting I woud be happy writing off swathes of the country. Staying with Brent as the example, it is up to the people of Brent to become involved, to take an interest in their area and decide what type of society they want in Brent. I am not asking people to move every time an area changes hands and to suggest that I am is a tad childish on your part. If people don't like an area and are unable to change it, the option remains for them to move, it is their decision.
Neither am I against voucher systems for education or health, however they have to be paid for by means of taxes - far better that those taxes are paid to local rather than central government as the level of tax can be set depending on what type of education and health system local people want.
All government at present is corrupt, one way or another due to the apathy of the populace, which in turn is due to knowing that locally and nationally however they vote makes no difference to the outcome.
I quite agree that government both national and local need to butt out of peoples lives. Where 'public' services are concerned, however, decisions on how they are run and managed must be for the local people to decide and not have a one-size fits all imposed on them from central government.
Post a Comment