Conservative: Cutting the Number of MP’s, Ministers and Special Advisers

Conservative Party Team

Telegraph News Link

The Conservatives will cut the number of MPs, ministers and special advisers by a fifth within five years if they win the election.Proposals for a "smaller government" Bill, to be published this week, will also promise a referendum in Wales on whether to abolish its assembly.The Tories said yesterday that Labour's constitutional changes had made the country "over-governed, over-regulated and over-taxed".

The Government is bloated, bloated with MP’s and advisers who are far too numerous for their job, their numbers need to be cut.
The Conservative Party propose to cut the number of 'politicians' by a fifth within five years of them being in office. This will include cutting the number of MP’s by between 127 and 134 within the first year.
This will save the tax payer £30 million each year in saved wages; also a reduced commons would save a further £1 million through ministerial salaries.
The cuts will also include a reduction in the number of special advisers and political appointees whose number have grown within recent years.

Tory spokesman Oliver Heald, made the following statement on the proposals:
"It is our aim to reduce unnecessary and costly interference in people's lives by reducing the size and role of the state."

This is a prime example of the Conservative Party’s pledge to cut waste and bureaucracy where ever they find it.

About time. Its been known for ages that Government has grown stupidly large under Blair/New Labour.

The civil service in general is a waste of cash. I know this from personal experience, and most of the people employed by the Civil Service sit around, doing nothing, pushing paper.

The same jobs done by 5 people could be condensed into just one. The Government should be run like a business, not employing people for employments sake, and then unable to get rid of them because they will either strike, or get moved internally if their department shuts, thereby not actually cutting costs at all.

Originally posted by stumason
About time. Its been known for ages that Government has grown stupidly large under Blair/New Labour.

Indeed it has, the Labour belief that more is better is flawed.

The civil service in general is a waste of cash. I know this from personal experience, and most of the people employed by the Civil Service sit around, doing nothing, pushing paper.

I haven't even got around to the civil services yet, but yes the Government in general needs reforming and it is my belief that the Conservative Party is the Party to do it.

Making a smaller government??
Correct me if i am wrong, but isn't a liberal government a small government that doesnt get too envolved with everyday life?? Looks like the Conservatives are trying to grab the liberals now first it was the far right, now its the liberals turn!

Wonder what group is next on their list?

Originally posted by infinite
Making a smaller government??
Correct me if i am wrong, but isn't a liberal government a small government that doesnt get too envolved with everyday life?? Looks like the Conservatives are trying to grab the liberals now

first it was the far right, now its the liberals turn!

I think a quote from the Conservative Home Page replies to this quite well:

Personal Freedom

Conservatives believe the people should be big, and the state should be small. That is why we are determined to thin down Labour's fat government. Today Labour's bloated bureaucracy is the same size as the population of Sheffield - and there are more civil servants in the Department of Work and Pensions than there are soldiers in the British Army. We will freeze civil service recruitment and reduce the mountain of regulations which Labour has inflicted on Britain - its businesses, its education service and its NHS.

Conservatives want small Government and bureaucracy cutting down to size, they want less interferance in people's lives.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Conservatives want small Government and bureaucracy cutting down to size, they want less interferance in people's lives.

That is what liberals believe governments should do, no interferring with our lives.
The Conservatives are gone mad

Originally posted by infinite
That is what liberals believe governments should do, no interferring with our lives.
The Conservatives are gone mad

You know what this means don't you...the Liberals and Conservatives agree on idealogy

That's right folks, hell has frozen over

Its actually quite strange that that is the case in the UK, whereas in the States, the Democrats ("Liberals", I hate that term) traditionally go for bigger Government, and the Republicans (conservatives) tend to go for less.

Originally posted by stumason
the Republicans (conservatives) tend to go for less.

- No stu, the difference is the conservative side make great claims about wanting a 'slimmer gov'.

If you want to believe the rhetoric and fine words that's up to you, but, if you can point to any previous conservative gov that has ever sustainably shrunk the size and cost of the UK gov (or in the USA a republican one) feel free.
I'm all ears.

.....but I think you'll find this to be a typical case of the image they wish to project obscuring their proven track record and reality.

(......and that's before anyone gets into any of the detail of exactly what parts of this supposed 'fat gov' they believe is ok to slash.
Or the fact that the current gov already has extensive plans to trim back the size of the state.
What do you want rid of....food standards agency?

Hmmm, typical neo-commie red-tape eh? )


[edit on 30-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- No stu, the difference is the conservative side make great claims about wanting a 'slimmer gov'.

What is policy if it is not a claim?

If you want to believe the rhetoric and fine words that's up to you, but, if you can point to any previous conservative gov that has ever sustainably shrunk the size and cost of the UK gov

So we're going to remain in the past are we, how far back should we go to look at past Government records? 10 years 15 years 20 years why not 80 years????

.....but I think you'll find this to be a typical case of the image they wish to project obscuring their proven track record and reality.

So once a mistake has been that Party is doomed to relive their mistakes are they?

(......and that's before anyone gets into any of the detail of exactly what parts of this supposed 'fat gov' they believe is ok to slash.
Or the fact that the current gov already has extensive plans to trim back the size of the state.
What do you want rid of....food standards agency?

Agencies will indeed be cut, see the policy document:
Better public services, better value

www.conservatives.com...

[edit on 30-1-2005 by UK Wizard]

Thats what I meant Smink, traditionally thats what the two sides claim, I know neither side has exactly lived up to many of their "promises".

Personally, I don't plane to vote for either Labour or Conservatives. Both a waste of time, but then I am left with the choice of which other bunch of old men to vote for, a tough cookie, as they are all liars.

As for which departments to get rid of...hmm.... perhaps if they tried to slim the civil service by eliminating duplication.

They could have one Admin service doing the paperwork, instead of dozens of different departments employing hordes of civil servants to do essentially naff all.

Ths CSA can go, pile o'#e that is.

Perhaps they could look into getting a firm that can deliver a computer project on time and within budget as well...

How many Government projects (not just Labour Smink, before you jump down my throat! ) have been over-budget, overdue and in the end being a waste of money/scrapped.

The private firms share some blame on bloated government, as they see public cash as being unlimited, and keep racking up the costs to stupidly high levels, before delivering 3 years overdue.

But the Government must pay attention to what it is they are buying (the guys in charge of procurement usually know nothing about what they are actually procuring), and not just go with whoever has the cheapest quote, as they invariably end up being the most expensive as the company deliberately underbid to win the contract.

Anyway, went off on a tangent, I just hate Goverment wastage, when we could easily divert those funds into something constructive, instead of large tents, or crappy databases, or some other cash cow that has been created to spend for spendings sake.

[edit on 30/1/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by UK Wizard
What is policy if it is not a claim?

- Indeed. But some claims are more credible than others, yes?

So we're going to remain in the past are we, how far back should we go to look at past Government records? 10 years 15 years 20 years why not 80 years????

- Wizard matey let's face it, people are going to be remembering the tory past for a long long time yet.
Quite rightly too considering the actual deep hardship they imposed nation-wide for so long.
That wasn't a mere debate on the best approach about how to govern it was a heck of a lot of people's day to day experience.
They got nearly a 20yr go. Maybe after 20yrs of Labour they'll get a look in (if they don't disintegrate in the mean time)

So once a mistake has been that Party is doomed to relive their mistakes are they?

- Well they do give every indication that they are merely proposing a slight reheating of their old policies. Their instincts have not changed since 1997. Tax cuts aimed mostly at the most well off and public sector cuts which will hit the least well off, same old same old.

Agencies will indeed be cut, see the policy document:
Better public services, better value

- Well the track record they have to show us for all their claims of fiscal competence is (let's put it plainly) -
'Sh*te collapsing public services of no value at all to anyone'

Ths CSA can go, pile o'#e that is.

- What?!
....and have all those "feckless fathers" (copyright Maggie 1988) go scott-free from supporting their kids and have you and I pay for them!?

How many Government projects (not just Labour Smink, before you jump down my throat!

)

- as if I would!

have been over-budget, overdue and in the end being a waste of money/scrapped.

The private firms share some blame on bloated government, as they see public cash as being unlimited, and keep racking up the costs to stupidly high levels, before delivering 3 years overdue.

- Yes that is a worrying aspect to all this. In the days when there was a public sector of sorts the private sector always made great claims about being so cost-efficient and basically so superior to the publis sector.
It seems they have exaggerated their abilities somewhat.

But the Government must pay attention to what it is they are buying (the guys in charge of procurement usually know nothing about what they are actually procuring), and not just go with whoever has the cheapest quote, as they invariably end up being the most expensive as the company deliberately underbid to win the contract.

- No arguements from me there.

I just hate Goverment wastage, when we could easily divert those funds into something constructive, instead of large tents, or crappy databases, or some other cash cow that has been created to spend for spendings sake.

- I agree.

But when it comes to who to vote for how do you disregard a record of the 2 deepest longest recessions since WW2?

Or on a more personal note the prospect of mortgage rates sky-high for a year (and if you recall 'black wednesday' they were quite prepared to shove them up at a stroke from 12% to 15% before someone gave them a reality check)?
That's the kind of folks they are (and they are, so many hail from those very days).

I agree Smink, the Conservatives have a bad record, and Labour has its plus's since 1997, the economy for one, but you will not catch me voting for them this time round, especially as Blair is in charge, the lying monkey.

As for the CSA, it wastes money like there is no tomorrow, and does very little in sorting out errant parents (the distinction should be made here, as fathers are somewhat vilified).

I am a father, and I am not with the mother. However, I have sorted out things with her, we are good friends, and i have my daughter more than she does most weeks.

I realise not all are like that, but in the same instance, you must realise its not only fathers. My mother left when I was 12, and my father didn't see a penny, and suffered very badly.

Where was the CSA then?

Not interested, as it was a mother, and they had farthers to persecute...

I can't in a single post come up with what will work in its place, but one things for sure, that the CSA isn't working and is in fact wasting more money than it collects, thereby making us pay for it anyway.

There must be an easier way, but unfortunately, i need to go to the toilet, and prepare my handover for my colleague....so maybe tomorrow?

[edit on 30/1/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
I agree Smink, the Conservatives have a bad record, and Labour has its plus's since 1997, the economy for one,

- That would be one of the biggies for me.

but you will not catch me voting for them this time round, especially as Blair is in charge, the lying monkey.

- They all 'dissemble' stu.
Anyhoo, this is your last chance as he goes at the end of this coming term!

As for the CSA, it wastes money like there is no tomorrow, and does very little in sorting out errant parents (the distinction should be made here, as fathers are somewhat vilified).

- Oh I wasn't picking on dads stu, I was just using the trademarked 'Maggie' phrase.

I am a father, and I am not with the mother. However, I have sorted out things with her, we are good friends, and i have my daughter more than she does most weeks.

- Good for you. Seriously.
That's really nice to hear and I'm sure you'll be glad things are like that over the coming years as you are involved in her growing up.

I realise not all are like that, but in the same instance, you must realise its not only fathers. My mother left when I was 12, and my father didn't see a penny, and suffered very badly.

- Oh I don't doubt it stu.
I know it isn't just dads (as I said, I was just cracking on with the 'term' she once used). Sadly it is mostly, apparantly.

Where was the CSA then?

- It's a pretty recent thing is the CSA.....are you that young?

I can't in a single post come up with what will work in its place, but one things for sure, that the CSA isn't working and is in fact wasting more money than it collects, thereby making us pay for it anyway.

There must be an easier way, but unfortunately, i need to go to the toilet, and prepare my handover for my colleague....so maybe tomorrow?

- I agree that it has been a grossly expensive mess for years (under both colours of gov).
I just can't get my head around why.

I don't subscribe to the 'private sector (automatically) good - public sector (automatically) bad.

Yeah, ok, if you want to chew it over another time/tomorrow......?

[edit on 30-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

It's funny how we've drifted so quickly from Conservative Policy for cutting the number of MP's, advisers etc to how bad the Conservative Government was in the past.

It seems 'Tory Bashing' has become a sport, people refuse to stop looking at the past, try looking at the present and future.

What's your opinions on the original statement.... not the tory past, not the civil servies cuts and not anything else! Focus on the thread topic, we'll get around to the other Conservative Policy when i post it.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by UK Wizard]

That would be one of the biggies for me

Yeah, can't fault them on that one.

They all 'dissemble' stu.
Anyhoo, this is your last chance as he goes at the end of this coming term

Thank God/Allah/Buddha/Krishnu....whoever it was, thanks!

Oh I wasn't picking on dads stu, I was just using the trademarked 'Maggie' phrase.

Yeah, I know, but as this is a public forum, I had to point it out for those that are of the less "aware" persuasion.

Good for you. Seriously.
That's really nice to hear and I'm sure you'll be glad things are like that over the coming years as you are involved in her growing up

Thanks chap, she is the best thing to happen to me. Besides, her mum gives good head.......

Oh I don't doubt it stu.
I know it isn't just dads (as I said, I was just cracking on with the 'term' she once used). Sadly it is mostly, apparantly

I agree, however, there are many Dads out there who don't get given the chance, due to the mother denying them any access becasue they don't get on. At the end of the day, it is just the kids who lose out.

It's a pretty recent thing is the CSA.....are you that young?

22 my friend. 23 in May.... little baby I know , and damn good looking to boot!

I don't subscribe to the 'private sector (automatically) good - public sector (automatically) bad.

Yeah, ok, if you want to chew it over another time/tomorrow......?

I would prefer for the Government to take back control of certain things, like the railways for example. BR may have been bad, but wasn't worse than what we have now!

I would chew it over with you now, but seems UK wizard wants his thread back

Originally posted by UK Wizard
It's funny how we've drifted so quickly from Conservative Policy for cutting the number of MP's, advisers etc to how bad the Conservative Government was in the past.

- Well;
1) they were that bad
2) their track record (especially after getting such a long run at it) gives no idication they'll actually do it
and
3) as for the original idea - cutting back the number of MP's might superficially sound a good idea.....until the loss of representation affects you.

How are you going to feel Wizard if Labour utterly wipes out the tory party in the enlarged constituencies that must follow then?
Is that better? Is that more efficient?

Cos I don't see them also proposing PR to help avoid this.

As it stands it's a stupid idea with a probable outcome that would not be healthy for the country IMO.
One that I, even as a Labour supporter, wouldn't like to see happen.

I think they have taken leave of their senses.

I also see no reason why the gov should not have access to the best advice available.
It may be that there is call for a better system as to how these advisors relate to the civil service and the actual party of gov but I see no reason why the country cannot afford a couple of hundred 'senior expert advisors' as and when they are required.

It seems 'Tory Bashing' has become a sport, people refuse to stop looking at the past, try looking at the present and future.

- I am primarily looking at the prsent tory proposals, I see how similar they are to their past and I think we can extrapolate from that another disasterous tory future.
Were they ever to get the chance.
Which they're not going to get. :

Originally posted by stumason
Yeah, I know, but as this is a public forum, I had to point it out for those that are of the less "aware" persuasion.

- Fair enough, I've been called on that one myself a few times.

Besides, her mum gives good head.......

- Lucky man, remaining 'just good friends' has come on a bit from my experience.
(I recall it as meaning they wouldn't go broadcasting to everyone they met what a bas*ard they thought you were when you split up!
....er, maybe that says more about me!)

I agree, however, there are many Dads out there who don't get given the chance, due to the mother denying them any access becasue they don't get on. At the end of the day, it is just the kids who lose out.

- Very true.

22 my friend. 23 in May

- A mere youngster - as opposed to Wizard's foetus status!

I would prefer for the Government to take back control of certain things, like the railways for example. BR may have been bad, but wasn't worse than what we have now!

I would chew it over with you now, but seems UK wizard wants his thread back

- Ahem, yeah, it seems so. Ooops!

but seems UK wizard wants his thread back

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
3) as for the original idea - cutting back the number of MP's might superficially sound a good idea.....until the loss of representation affects you.

659 is alot of MP's for a country with a population of 60million, and yes i'd be happy with the reduction in MP's, no matter what happens due to it.

Cos I don't see them also proposing PR to help avoid this.

I've always thought PR a bad idea.

- I am primarily looking at the prsent tory proposals, I see how similar they are to their past and I think we can extrapolate from that another disasterous tory future.
Were they ever to get the chance.
Which they're not going to get.

:

So i bet it really annoys you when people say the Tory's and Labour are the same...

Originally posted by UK Wizard
659 is alot of MP's for a country with a population of 60million, and yes i'd be happy with the reduction in MP's, no matter what happens due to it.

- By which 'yardstick' is this meant to be a lot anyway and why, exactly?

Who says 650 or so is too many, especially when so many find fault with the pace at which the current system works (have you ever had your MP do anything for you Wizard?).

I've always thought PR a bad idea.

- Like all systems PR isn't perfect but then again there are so many versions of PR most of the obvious pit-falls can be avoided.

It's greatest quality though IMO is the manner in which it (over time) encourages colleagiate and IMO far more grown up and productive politics and a move away from the petty confrontational kind (of which this immigration 'debate' is part of) we in the UK have traditionally 'enjoyed'.

So i bet it really annoys you when people say the Tory's and Labour are the same...

- No, honestly not in the slightest.
Because when it really comes down to it it is simply not true.......and anyone looking at Howard's 'tory-ism' can see it as plain as day too.

My bet is that some tory strategist thought it was a funny and damaging 'dig' at Blair at some point before 1997 and hence we had this become currency.

Afterall if you can get the electorate to believe they're all the same, all as bad as each other etc etc and basically get huge numbers of the people turned off of voting the right-wing parties stand a chance of getting elected even if they are actually only supported by a tiny minority of the populace.
Right?