Cull of MPs

Now we know what Cameron's first priority will be.

The Financial Times revealed yesterday that Mr Cameron would - if he became prime minister - trim the House of Commons by more than 60 MPs. If he had announced he was cutting the number of MPs by 646 it would be a popular policy. MPs  popularity is near zero so it's a soft target.

The announcement was clumsy and self-defeating because it was made with a chortle that a reduction in the total of MPs would benefit the Tories. The Financial Times reported this morning:-

"Welsh MPs reacted angrily yesterday to news that they would be the biggest losers in David Cameron's plans for a 10 per cent cut in the number of Westminster MPs.

Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, typified the tone of response by dismissing it as "a shameless piece of gerrymandering". Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party, attacked the scheme as a "gimmicky and populist move".

Perhaps I should declare a personal interest although any change would not effect me until 2015. There is no argument that Wales is over-represented in Parliament on arithmetic grounds. There are 40 MPs with an average of about 54,000 voters per seat. This is much lower than 69,000 for the rest of the country. Newport West has 62,000.

The justification is that our large number of vast rural constituencies have historically tended to have fewer voters - such as Wales' Meirionnydd Nant Conwy with 33,392. Bringing Wales into line with the rest of the country would be likely to remove 10 Welsh seats - a quarter of the total. 15  of the smallest 30 constituencies in in the UK are in Wales

Reform is inevitable eventually especially if the  Assembly gets legislative powers. Cameron's announcement has put Welsh Tory candidates on the back foot. They have been challenged to say whether they are in favour of less representation for Wales at Westminster. Tricky.

There has been no stampede to respond.

Comments

[Graham Marlowe]

Paul, you have frequently been indiscriminate in your support of Purnells plans, which you well know, if you were prepared to be totally honest, far exceeds what Thatcher or Major's governments ever got up to. You say often you do not approve of people "playing the system" (if they are benefit claiments, buit you don't seem too peturbed by people like Balls and Cooper and their "playing the system". Double standards or what?

[Paul Flynn]

Cameron's call for a cull of MPs is a piece of meaningless populist bombast. Find an unpopular group of people and put the boot in.

I could make a case for having a 1000 MPs with serious jobs. An equally good case could be made to reduce the total to 400.

Parliamentary procedures are relics of a chalk and slate past. That has to be reformed first. MPs should have more power and independence, then we can reduce the numbers.

[Paul Flynn]

"Paul Flynn shares the view of Purnell that most benefit claiments are workshy, liars, malingerers, or a combination of all three_."

No he does not. This is an exaggeration on an Olympic scale on Purnell's views and on mine.

Tut. Tut. Graham

[Graham Marlowe]

The trouble is Huw, that certain MPs are allowed to get away with it for years, either because they are in a constituency where one party always keeps the seat (and think of all the "Labour" Tory manques like Hutton and Purnell who inhabit seats in the North and North East where Labour always wins, they wouldn't if they were in more marginal and liberal constituencies) or because these days party members are less keen to dfeselect MPs (think of, for example Birkenhead MP Field, who is in league with Nicholas Soames for concerted immigrant bashing). At one time I lived in the Barking constituency of Margaret Hodge who was usually only interested in putting herself around the constituency the couple of Saturdays before an election, where she would swan about with the condescending air of Lady Muck).

I really feel far too many MPs of both major parties are quite content now to be obsequiously "loyal" to the leadership, who never say boo to a goose and will just vote how they are told - the few genuine rebels get ordered out for five days for touching the mace, or implying that ministers are lying. The majority can't be bothered to think for themselves.

I am honestly grateful now for Parliaments long recesses - at least they can't be getting up to concerted mischief when the House isn't sitting. For let's face it this isn't a government with principles or even policy - it's a government of stunts and they just shamble from one stunt to the next (for example how Blears and Woolas leap aboard the anti-immigration bandwaggon from time to time, just to curry favour with cheap tabloids and how even Paul Flynn shares the view of Purnell that most benefit claiments are workshy, liars, malingerers, or a combination of all three_.

Frankly are such people worth wasting money on?

[Huw]

While individual MP's might be considered to be a waste of space, the post is not.
If the post is filled by someone who is incompetent, lazy, greedy or venal then that is the responsibility of the electorate as they choose who to employ in the role.
Reducing the number of posts would merely reduce representation which is ours and should not be considered a gift from Westminster nor the Tories.

My estimated calculations btw should include the total cost of employment of our politicians, which would include pensions.
BTW no individual MP could be costing you or me £24 too much. An individual MP costs income tax payers individually about 4 pence a year.

[Graham Marlowe]

Darren (Oand others) might be interested in this piece about GreenShhots Vadera:

http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/

[Huw]

I believe their entire cost is included in my estimates and once again while an MP may be pointless, the post is not and while there is fault to be assigned to MP's for incompetence, greed or venality, the ultimate responsibility for who fills the post is that of the electorate.
Removing posts, merely reduces the representation that belongs to us and to which we are entitled.

[Graham Marlowe]

Huw, Even IF MPs only cost us £25 each a year, in some cases (like Follett, Opik, Pound and Redwood), that would be about £24 too much, BUT remember we pay for them until the day half a dozen men carry them into the local church on their shoulders in their over-generous pensions.

[Ol]

Paul, this was a Lib Dem policy first. And it has merits. In a fully devolved United Kingdom, where AMs have a lot of authority over Welsh affairs, Scotland retains its current authority, what real need is there of over 600 MPs?

By significantly slicing the number of MPs, we create a national Parliament able to deal with the UK economy, defence, and other massive issues which should be co-ordinated. At present, if the Assembly gained even further powers for Wales, and we kept the same number of Welsh MPs, we'd end up with two elected representatives doing the same job.

What is the objection to slicing down the number of MPs, and having say, one MP for Newport. Or go further, and have one MP for South Wales East? Its a very reasonable suggestion, and one that David Cameron managed to take hold of and lukewarm it to death.

If you want the real, radical policy, you are welcome to visit the Lib Dem policy document, "Make it Happen" which contains the full measure.

[Huw]

Hmm, save taxpayers money by cutting down on MP's
646 MP's
26 million income tax payers.
Paying £147,324,000,000 or an average of £5667 yearly.
( http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-2.pdf )
If we assume the cost of employing an MP at around (I'll err on the generous side) a million pounds a year all MP's cost us each £25 a year (less than half of one percent of the average yearly income tax).
The saving in cutting 10% would be £2.50 a year back in your pocket.
Not exactly the most wonderful saving to be made in any case and when it carries the high cost of reduced representation it should be rejected by any sane person.

PS
The amount of money which has been taken from those who attempted to avoid paying their taxes but were caught out by the Revenue in 2007/2008 was £9.17billion.

There is no harm in keeping MP's in check as regards salaries, expenses etc. but please try to keep those issues in perspective.

[Graham Marlowe]

Perhaps gthe government is overstuffed with Scotsmen. I think we should have fewer Scottish MPs to start with.

For example, on the Radio 4 Westminster Hour on Sunday, we had Tom Harris, one of Brown's most obsequious bag carriers enthuusing about the third runway at Heathrow.

Granted we probably pay for him to live in London during the week, but why should this Scottish MP be allowed airtime on an issue that has nothing to do with Scotland.

[Huw]

It is depressing to see people so mired
in their despite of MP's that are the choice
of their electorates, to me when MP's are 2nd rate the issue is with their electorate and rather less with the particular MP's.
If on average Welsh constituencies have smaller constituencies there are obviously
2 ways to bring them in line with the rest
of the United Kingdom, one to reduce representation in a representative democracy.
Something that quite frankly should be anathema to anyone who believes in democracy.
The other option is of course to increase the number of constituencies and therefore representation across the board.
While I know there will be many who disagree with my own notion that 50,000 people can only be poorly represented by 1 mp, they should consider who it suits, the mp's who choose to go directly against the will of large numbers in their consituency
or the ones who truly wish to represent
their constituencies.
A reduction is not only, gerrymandering in this instance, but antidemocratic at its most fundamental.

If Wales could get full powers, then obviously there would be no issue with reducing the number of Welsh MP's to Westminster, presumably to the level we have
in the NI assembly or the Scottish assembly, Dáil Éireann, the Israeli Knesset or the US houses of congress.

[Graham Marlowe]

Vadera isn't an MP, Darren - she is just one of Brown's cronies (yet another "investment banker") who was given a peerage so she can sit in the Lords - another Soley, no doubt, enobled for services to grovelling.

It is strange that a so-called Labour" government loves bankers so much: she sounds as ignorant as David Freud, who admitted he "knew nothing about welfare" but was commissioned to write a report on it.

[Darren]

well, If they think they can run the country with 10% fewer MP's (and I don't see why they can't) then surely this is a good thing as it would mean a cut in governmental expenditure which could be passed on to the taxpayer (yeah, like that is going to happen!!!).

I could already name 1 MP that would be no loss to anybody - Baroness Vadera, who clearly doesn't live in the real world if she honestly thinks there are "green shoots of recovery" beginning to show, and stating this on a day of announcements where 3000+ jobs have been lost (not including the job losses at Grattan which will virtually leave Bradford a ghost town) .

I mean in any business, if the owners/management think they can operate better or by cutting their workforce, they don't think twice about it, they go and do it - why should MP's be any different?

[Graham Marlowe]

"The Financial Times revealed yesterday that Mr Cameron would - if he became prime minister - trim the House of Commons by more than 60 MPs."

Oh my God! What a shocking calamity!. The world as we know it would end if people like Chris Grayling, James Purnell, John Redwood, Hazel Blears, Nicholas Soames, Frank Field, Caroline Spellman Sion Simon, Lembit Opik and Barbara Follett had to go and get real jobs.

We don't only pay for MPS during their "working" lives, we also pay a fortune for their pensions to keep them in the luxury to which they have become accustomed.

And poor old Stephen Pound - what on earth would he do if he couldn't appear on the "and finally" items on the Today programme giving his "unique and humorous" slant on obscure and jocular stories.

A nation mourns, indeed