Why do we have so many politicians?
Discussion
~800 members in the upper chamber, 650 in the commons, ~130 at Holyrood, ~ 110 at Stormont, 60 in the welsh parliament, 25 London Assembly Members, ~25 directly elected mayors, ~ 40 police and crime commissioners, 10s of 1000s of councillors etc.
Where will it end? Will it ever change? Sometimes the public are even asked if they want another layer of government, vote no yet get it anyway (For example, the mayor in Manchester).
They were going to cut the number of MPs down from 650 to 600 but the current government U-turned on that one (who’d have thunk it).
Where will it end? Will it ever change? Sometimes the public are even asked if they want another layer of government, vote no yet get it anyway (For example, the mayor in Manchester).
They were going to cut the number of MPs down from 650 to 600 but the current government U-turned on that one (who’d have thunk it).
As Billy Connolly once said - anyone who wants to be a politician should be prevented from ever becoming one.
Far too many politicians - abolish the devolved talking shops, redraw the constituency boundaries to reduce the number of MPs, do something to reform the Lords. Do we really need so many layers of government?
Far too many politicians - abolish the devolved talking shops, redraw the constituency boundaries to reduce the number of MPs, do something to reform the Lords. Do we really need so many layers of government?
BlackLabel said:
~800 members in the upper chamber, 650 in the commons, ~130 at Holyrood, ~ 110 at Stormont, 60 in the welsh parliament, 25 London Assembly Members, ~25 directly elected mayors, ~ 40 police and crime commissioners, 10s of 1000s of councillors etc.
Where will it end? Will it ever change? Sometimes the public are even asked if they want another layer of government, vote no yet get it anyway (For example, the mayor in Manchester).
They were going to cut the number of MPs down from 650 to 600 but the current government U-turned on that one (who’d have thunk it).
Because they are like bacteria in a petri dish. Left alone they increase in volume at a fair rate of knots.Where will it end? Will it ever change? Sometimes the public are even asked if they want another layer of government, vote no yet get it anyway (For example, the mayor in Manchester).
They were going to cut the number of MPs down from 650 to 600 but the current government U-turned on that one (who’d have thunk it).
You forget MEPs, members of the various EU structures etc.
One of my biggest reasons to vote the way I did in 2016. There has never been a genuine problem in this world where the answer was "more politicians". Layers need stripping away. We've started the process.
The reason comes down to representation which is rooted in what we might loosely call the British Constitution - although it's not called that.
A local council is given leave to look after and administer local matters in a way that suits the local need. The council area is divided into 'wards' areas of roughly similar population and a councillor is elected by each ward to represent their interests in that ward.
Where you have a two-tier council system (district / borough councils and a county council), some services and costs are shared. For example, a district council is responsible for collecting waste and recycling which it hands over to the county council who are responsible for what happens to it. Because your council tax goes first to the county council who then distribute a portion back to the district and then parish or town council, a County Councillor looks out for you interests at County level. These represent a wider area but often straddle the borders across districts and boroughs to ensure that each Councillor represents the same number of people.
Constituencies represented by MPs have to contain broadly the same number of people - around 90k - 100k IIRC. As populations grow, this number can mean either a boundary change to keep the numbers equitable or a new constituency requiring a new MP.
So as the population grows, so do the number of politicians, which makes sense.
As for Mayors.... most cities evolved from separate areas evolving and merging into a single mass yet each retaining their own administration. London is an amalgam of 23 separate boroughs so having an overarching authority makes sense to administer things that affect all boroughs (such as transport). They tried this before with the GLC but then they had a leader not Mayor.
That's broad gist of why we have so many.
The benefits and effect.... that's another debate!
A local council is given leave to look after and administer local matters in a way that suits the local need. The council area is divided into 'wards' areas of roughly similar population and a councillor is elected by each ward to represent their interests in that ward.
Where you have a two-tier council system (district / borough councils and a county council), some services and costs are shared. For example, a district council is responsible for collecting waste and recycling which it hands over to the county council who are responsible for what happens to it. Because your council tax goes first to the county council who then distribute a portion back to the district and then parish or town council, a County Councillor looks out for you interests at County level. These represent a wider area but often straddle the borders across districts and boroughs to ensure that each Councillor represents the same number of people.
Constituencies represented by MPs have to contain broadly the same number of people - around 90k - 100k IIRC. As populations grow, this number can mean either a boundary change to keep the numbers equitable or a new constituency requiring a new MP.
So as the population grows, so do the number of politicians, which makes sense.
As for Mayors.... most cities evolved from separate areas evolving and merging into a single mass yet each retaining their own administration. London is an amalgam of 23 separate boroughs so having an overarching authority makes sense to administer things that affect all boroughs (such as transport). They tried this before with the GLC but then they had a leader not Mayor.
That's broad gist of why we have so many.
The benefits and effect.... that's another debate!
Edited by StevieBee on Friday 18th September 15:34
StevieBee said:
The reason comes down to representation which is rooted in what we might loosely call the British Constitution - although it's not called that.
A local council is given leave to look after and administer local matters in a way that suits the local need. The council area is divided into 'wards' areas of roughly similar population and a councillor is elected by each ward to represent their interests in that ward.
Where you have a two-tier council system (district / borough councils and a county council), some services and costs are shared. For example, a district council is responsible for collecting waste and recycling which it hands over to the county council who are responsible for what happens to it. Because your council tax goes first to the county council who then distribute a portion back to the district and then parish or town council, a County Councillor looks out for you interests at County level. These represent a wider area but often straddle the borders across districts and boroughs to ensure that each Councillor represents the same number of people.
Constituencies represented by MPs have to contain broadly the same number of people - around 90k - 100k IIRC. As populations grow, this number can mean either a boundary change to keep the numbers equitable or a new constituency requiring a new MP.
So as the population grows, so do the number of politicians, which makes sense.
As for Mayors.... most cities evolved from separate areas evolving and merging into a single mass yet each retaining their own administration. London is an amalgam of 23 separate boroughs so having an overarching authority makes sense to administer things that affect all boroughs (such as transport). They tried this before with the GLC but then they had a leader not Mayor.
That's broad gist of why we have so many.
The benefits and effect.... that's another debate!
You missed the very lowest tier - parish councils. They're unpaid councillors whose main function is to get the blame for everything the district and county councils are responsible for, but do wrongly. Although some district/borough councils are now offloading some of their responsibilities down to PCs - eg 'gifting' them public toilets. Which saves the district money, but means the PC then needs to raise the precept to pay for the maintenance of them.A local council is given leave to look after and administer local matters in a way that suits the local need. The council area is divided into 'wards' areas of roughly similar population and a councillor is elected by each ward to represent their interests in that ward.
Where you have a two-tier council system (district / borough councils and a county council), some services and costs are shared. For example, a district council is responsible for collecting waste and recycling which it hands over to the county council who are responsible for what happens to it. Because your council tax goes first to the county council who then distribute a portion back to the district and then parish or town council, a County Councillor looks out for you interests at County level. These represent a wider area but often straddle the borders across districts and boroughs to ensure that each Councillor represents the same number of people.
Constituencies represented by MPs have to contain broadly the same number of people - around 90k - 100k IIRC. As populations grow, this number can mean either a boundary change to keep the numbers equitable or a new constituency requiring a new MP.
So as the population grows, so do the number of politicians, which makes sense.
As for Mayors.... most cities evolved from separate areas evolving and merging into a single mass yet each retaining their own administration. London is an amalgam of 23 separate boroughs so having an overarching authority makes sense to administer things that affect all boroughs (such as transport). They tried this before with the GLC but then they had a leader not Mayor.
That's broad gist of why we have so many.
The benefits and effect.... that's another debate!
Edited by StevieBee on Friday 18th September 15:34
StevieBee said:
The reason comes down to representation which is rooted in what we might loosely call the British Constitution - although it's not called that.
A local council is given leave to look after and administer local matters in a way that suits the local need. The council area is divided into 'wards' areas of roughly similar population and a councillor is elected by each ward to represent their interests in that ward.
Where you have a two-tier council system (district / borough councils and a county council), some services and costs are shared. For example, a district council is responsible for collecting waste and recycling which it hands over to the county council who are responsible for what happens to it. Because your council tax goes first to the county council who then distribute a portion back to the district and then parish or town council, a County Councillor looks out for you interests at County level. These represent a wider area but often straddle the borders across districts and boroughs to ensure that each Councillor represents the same number of people.
Constituencies represented by MPs have to contain broadly the same number of people - around 90k - 100k IIRC. As populations grow, this number can mean either a boundary change to keep the numbers equitable or a new constituency requiring a new MP.
So as the population grows, so do the number of politicians, which makes sense.
As for Mayors.... most cities evolved from separate areas evolving and merging into a single mass yet each retaining their own administration. London is an amalgam of 23 separate boroughs so having an overarching authority makes sense to administer things that affect all boroughs (such as transport). They tried this before with the GLC but then they had a leader not Mayor.
That's broad gist of why we have so many.
The benefits and effect.... that's another debate!
Re: MP boundaries - a bit of an anachronism aren't they? They don't match council boundaries and get re-drawn as the population increases. Why not have a central "pool" of MPs that anyone in the country can access when they have an issue. Maybe split the pool into rural and urban for specialist advice.A local council is given leave to look after and administer local matters in a way that suits the local need. The council area is divided into 'wards' areas of roughly similar population and a councillor is elected by each ward to represent their interests in that ward.
Where you have a two-tier council system (district / borough councils and a county council), some services and costs are shared. For example, a district council is responsible for collecting waste and recycling which it hands over to the county council who are responsible for what happens to it. Because your council tax goes first to the county council who then distribute a portion back to the district and then parish or town council, a County Councillor looks out for you interests at County level. These represent a wider area but often straddle the borders across districts and boroughs to ensure that each Councillor represents the same number of people.
Constituencies represented by MPs have to contain broadly the same number of people - around 90k - 100k IIRC. As populations grow, this number can mean either a boundary change to keep the numbers equitable or a new constituency requiring a new MP.
So as the population grows, so do the number of politicians, which makes sense.
As for Mayors.... most cities evolved from separate areas evolving and merging into a single mass yet each retaining their own administration. London is an amalgam of 23 separate boroughs so having an overarching authority makes sense to administer things that affect all boroughs (such as transport). They tried this before with the GLC but then they had a leader not Mayor.
That's broad gist of why we have so many.
The benefits and effect.... that's another debate!
Edited by StevieBee on Friday 18th September 15:34
Governments of both colours have been keen for the introduction of even more devolved politics.
Regional devolvement is their goal, it was tried on with our own areas recently but was turned out by some Council Members not in favour of seeing their own little power house being swallowed up.
And yet those in favour continued to push the idea forward, of course the little people were not consulted never mind given a local referendum on the matter. For now it’s on the back burner.
Regional devolvement is their goal, it was tried on with our own areas recently but was turned out by some Council Members not in favour of seeing their own little power house being swallowed up.
And yet those in favour continued to push the idea forward, of course the little people were not consulted never mind given a local referendum on the matter. For now it’s on the back burner.
bigpriest said:
Re: MP boundaries - a bit of an anachronism aren't they? They don't match council boundaries and get re-drawn as the population increases. Why not have a central "pool" of MPs that anyone in the country can access when they have an issue. Maybe split the pool into rural and urban for specialist advice.
And who would decide who was in the pool? The local constituency model, whilst flawed, does allow you to vote for a specific person/party/issue. rscott said:
Although some district/borough councils are now offloading some of their responsibilities down to PCs - eg 'gifting' them public toilets. Which saves the district money, but means the PC then needs to raise the precept to pay for the maintenance of them.
I can see in some places that might work ok - the PC can arrange maintenance/repairs locally, rather than having to call it in and wait an age for it to get sorted, meanwhile fielding local complaints about it and having to say "sorry, nothing I can do!".ATG said:
UK population is 66 million so 650 MPs is fewer than 1 for each 100,000 people. How is that "too many"?
I'm represented by an MP(doesn't reply to letters, didn't vote for him and never will), a constituency MSP(replies promptly, have voted for) and 7 list MSPs, 3 county councillors(one of whom replies to communication; he gets my vote) and an entire community council(no power, no budget, no thanks); the dispensing with of MEPs ought to be a start and not an end, I'd be getting rid of some of the list MSPs and replacing both councils with a burgh council like we used to have. A council area of a little under 7000 km2 is unmanageably large when the burgh council that was subsumed into Strathclyde in 1979 covered less than 10km2.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff