Are we Overgoverned?

[Dave225]

Are we overgoverned?

 

The discussion re the House of Lords etc made we just wonder how much is our government these days. So I did a little digging and using ball park numbers came up with the following.

 

We have 650 MP’s at an average cost of £100k per annum. Total annual cost: £65 miilion

We have 129 MSP’s at a similar average cost of £100k. Total annual cost: £12.9 million

We have 60 Welsh Assembly at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £5 million

We have 90 NI Assembly members at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £9 miilion

We have 800 members of the House of Lords. Assuming that on any given day 1/3rd of them are attending at £300 per day for 200 days per year gives a total cost of £270000.

 

This gives a grand total of £93 million for a UK population of around 60 million. Note ancillary costs such as ancillary staff, building costs, perks , extra salaries of Speakers, food subsidies etc are not included. I would guess you could add on another 20% for those.

 

The US pays each Senator and Representative $174000 per annum. I guess they also claim expenses but their total costs is a shade over £74 million to govern a population of 325 million souls.

 

I think we are being totally screwed and it needs to stop. My plan would be:

 

1. Scrap all devolved assemblies. We do not need them

2. Scrap the House of Lords

3. Reduce the number of MP’s to 500 and have a 2nd chamber of 100 souls all elected.

 

This would reduce our bill to about £60 million, a better balance between us and the US but probably still too high. Before anyone comments do not forget that all taxes currently go to London and they dish out money to each Assembly, so all UK taxpayers pay the lot....at the moment. I can understand the English being a little miffed, but then again it was Blair and Westminster who came up with the wheeze, not us devolved nations.

 

[RogerC]

I whole heartedly agree on the things you highlight.  The bottom line of any business (UK Plc?) should be cost/benefit analysis and if the cost outweighs the benefit then it should go.  However there are a great number of other issues that could be addressed such as centralised purchasing for the NHS instead of each doing it's own thing and getting screwed.  As a single entity the NHS would be in such a powerful negotiating position regarding contracts it could save a fortune.  If the MoD (all right not exactly the best example but you get the idea)can run centralised purchasing and depots why can't the NHS?

Scrap RFL and put whatever is needed to equal the income on fuel.....1,2,3p per ltr? then everyone on the road running diesel, petrol, autogas etc either pays or doesn't go anywhere.....does away with evasion and bureaucracy in one foul swoop.

But as you say the devolved governments (note England doesn't have one which is IMO democratically impossible to justify especially with the Midlothian question still not resolved....Scots get your soddin nose out of 'our' business  :-)   ) they cost a fortune and deliver what?  IMO just another unnecessary tier/tiers of mandarins/self serving ego maniacs who clamour for power. 

[John52]

Dave225 - 2017-03-08 5:49 PM

 

Are we overgoverned?

 

The discussion re the House of Lords etc made we just wonder how much is our government these days. So I did a little digging and using ball park numbers came up with the following.

 

We have 650 MP’s at an average cost of £100k per annum. Total annual cost: £65 miilion

We have 129 MSP’s at a similar average cost of £100k. Total annual cost: £12.9 million

We have 60 Welsh Assembly at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £5 million

We have 90 NI Assembly members at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £9 miilion

We have 800 members of the House of Lords. Assuming that on any given day 1/3rd of them are attending at £300 per day for 200 days per year gives a total cost of £270000.

 

This gives a grand total of £93 million for a UK population of around 60 million. Note ancillary costs such as ancillary staff, building costs, perks , extra salaries of Speakers, food subsidies etc are not included. I would guess you could add on another 20% for those.

 

 

Unfortunately it doesn't end there. We also have the cost of the Head of State and hangers on........

[RogerC]

Dave225 - 2017-03-08 5:49 PM 

Are we overgoverned? 

The discussion re the House of Lords etc made we just wonder how much is our government these days. So I did a little digging and using ball park numbers came up with the following. 

We have 650 MP’s at an average cost of £100k per annum. Total annual cost: £65 miilion 

We have 129 MSP’s at a similar average cost of £100k. Total annual cost: £12.9 million 

We have 60 Welsh Assembly at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £5 million 

We have 90 NI Assembly members at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £9 miilion 

We have 800 members of the House of Lords. Assuming that on any given day 1/3rd of them are attending at £300 per day for 200 days per year gives a total cost of £270000. 

This gives a grand total of £93 million for a UK population of around 60 million. Note ancillary costs such as ancillary staff, building costs, perks , extra salaries of Speakers, food subsidies etc are not included. I would guess you could add on another 20% for those. 

Unfortunately it doesn't end there. We also have the cost of the Head of State and hangers on........  

Look out folks the 'every opportunity monarchy/Armed Forces basher' is back.........   :-)

[derek pringle]

hi Dave 225,

I am sure you agree that we get excellent "value for money" haha

 

cheers

derek

[nowtelse2do]

John52 - 2017-03-08 9:11 PM

 

Dave225 - 2017-03-08 5:49 PM

 

Are we overgoverned?

 

The discussion re the House of Lords etc made we just wonder how much is our government these days. So I did a little digging and using ball park numbers came up with the following.

 

We have 650 MP’s at an average cost of £100k per annum. Total annual cost: £65 miilion

We have 129 MSP’s at a similar average cost of £100k. Total annual cost: £12.9 million

We have 60 Welsh Assembly at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £5 million

We have 90 NI Assembly members at a similar cost of £100K. Total annual cost: £9 miilion

We have 800 members of the House of Lords. Assuming that on any given day 1/3rd of them are attending at £300 per day for 200 days per year gives a total cost of £270000.

 

This gives a grand total of £93 million for a UK population of around 60 million. Note ancillary costs such as ancillary staff, building costs, perks , extra salaries of Speakers, food subsidies etc are not included. I would guess you could add on another 20% for those.

 

 

Unfortunately it doesn't end there. We also have the cost of the Head of State and hangers on........

 

She probably does more for our tourism industry than you do, so why knock it?

 

Dave

[derek pringle]

hi Dave,

You have failed to include the cost of all the Mandarins and civi servants who ACTUALLY run the country.

 

cheers

derek

[John52]

nowtelse2do - 2017-03-09 8:51 AM

 

 

She probably does more for our tourism industry than you do, so why knock it?

 

Dave

 

France gets more foreign tourists than Britain - its palaces are fully open for people to visit instead of stand outside like spectators at a feast trying to catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew ;-)

But if they really do bring in foreign tourists why not make some money out of it. Put all the Royal Hangers on in the Millennium Dome, Give them a zone apiece and charge all the foreign tourists to go in and look at them *-)

[John52]

derek pringle - 2017-03-09 8:55 AM

 

hi Dave,

You have failed to include the cost of all the Mandarins and civi servants who ACTUALLY run the country.

 

cheers

derek

 

And the essential staff, with their retinue of servants.

We can do without miners and shipbuilders, but York will always need a Duke *-)

[StuartO]

John52 - 2017-03-09 9:08 AM ... Put all the Royal Hangers on in the Millennium Dome, Give them a zone apiece and charge all the foreign tourists to go in and look at them *-)

 

Already been thought of - aren't they already on display in Madame Tussaud's, now with Donald Trump for company?  Not quite the real thing though.

 

The Firm has trimmed back on using lesser royals now that we have three heirs and lots of spares, not to mention Princess Charlotte.  The generation change has taken place.

 

Fortunately the Duke of York, having toured the world full of his own importance as a trade ambassador, is safely in retirement, residing in Royal Lodge, within Windsor Park, and playing golf on the private golf course in Home Park.  Probably cheaper that way than when he was on the loose.  He'll presumbly just turn out for Remembrance Day and the like from now on.

 

[RogerC]

..........He'll presumbly just turn out for Remembrance Day and the like from now on.....

At least he served his country which is more than can be said for some on here who are nothing more than armchair generals and keyboard warriors who have done nothing other than serve themselves all their lives or moan about others who have done their duty.

[John52]

RogerC - 2017-03-09 7:37 PM..........He'll presumbly just turn out for Remembrance Day and the like from now on.....

At least he served his country which is more than can be said for some on here who are nothing more than armchair generals and keyboard warriors who have done nothing other than serve themselves all their lives or moan about others who have done their duty.

How do you know what they have done all their lives *-)Since you don't know that even you usual ad hominem / change the subject tactics won't work either :D

[RogerC]

Ah Mr 'ad hominem' is alive and whining.

I said '''more than could be said for SOME" which is an indication that some have served....others clearly have not which in turn shows I was NOT commenting or even claiming to know what/who/where/when anyone has done anything with their lives.  Although I suspect you (ad hominem coming....) have spent most of yours finding something to moan about and boring the pants off all unfortunate enough to be within earshot of you......now THAT IS 'AD HOMINEM'!!!!.

I really should know better than rise to your constant harping on......it's worse than a spoilt brat having a tantrum.

Note to self......resist....resist.   :-)

[Dave225]

Look with all respect may I suggest if you wish to discuss the relative merits of the monarchy....start a new Thread.

 

Mty point was regarding the various 'branches' and sub branches' that have been created all in the interests of controlling us. It should be noted that no approval was asked of the population if the so called Assemblies should be created, we were given them as a fait accompli. Now as a Scot I am proud and patriotic but my wallet tells me why should I pay for a numpty in Edinburgh to tell me somehting a numpty in London has already said, and when they both disagree, it costs even more. Good or bad, please keep government simple, as that is usually the cheapest option for those of us who actually have to pay the bill.

 

Do we need 900 Lords and so called Ladies just so they can sit a subsidised lunches and thwart the given will of the people? Again speaking as a Scot one can only say I am ashamed at the calibre of the average MSP. One does wonder if they know how to dress in the morning as their knowledge of even basics is frankly lacking. Considering that many of them do not even have to be elected, merely 'appointed' is an affront to democracy anywhere, but when you allow fringe Parties to have sway, that is what you get. In the olden days we used to hang miscreants int he Grassmarket in Edinburgh, and large crowds turend ourt for the occasion. Prsonally i wuld re-introduce them with polticians being the star attraction. Think of the boost to tourism etc?

 

Then we might actually get people who have some form of intelligence.

 

However, the point is the US seems happy to manage with a far smaller governing body than we seem to require. Let us make economies and get rid of most of them.

[RogerC]

Apologies for being part of the wanderings......it's the resident anti monarchist that made me do it M'lud!

Back on topic I thoroughly agree.  There are too many tiers of bureaucracy which IMO is only there to satisfy the chattering classes and those self serving individuals who feel they know better than the rest of us but in reality have likely done nothing altruistic in their lives.  They are IMO all merely power hungry and self serving individuals with over inflated ideas of their own self importance. 

The bottom line is....too many chiefs....to many expensive unnecessary 'chambers' of political gathering to upkeep and drain public funds and too many incompetents....nay thieves even where they have no right to be.

If they could be trusted to act in the interest of populace and country instead of using both as a political football we should all be much better off.....and even (heaven forbid) grow to trust them but then again I've still yet to see a pig fly.

[Archiesgrandad]

I think that you will find that on average our MPs cost us more like £250, 000 to £350,000 per annum each,and if you throw in the cost of their index linked pension it will be more than that.

 

I think that I have lived a wonderful life so far, and I have few regrets, but if I could start again I would seriously like to consider a career in politics,or perhaps as a teacher, they do pretty well for not much input, but on reflection, I don't think I could live a life so disingenuous, so maybe I did get it right the first time.

AGD

[John52]

Dave225 - 2017-03-10 7:14 PM

 

Look with all respect may I suggest if you wish to discuss the relative merits of the monarchy....start a new Thread.

.

May I refer you to the thread title - Are we Overgoverned?

Monarchy is at the top of Government.

[RogerC]

May I refer you to the thread title - Are we Overgoverned? 
Monarchy is at the top of Government.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/sleep/yawn.gif

[Dave225]

John52 - 2017-03-11 6:51 AM

 

Dave225 - 2017-03-10 7:14 PM

 

Look with all respect may I suggest if you wish to discuss the relative merits of the monarchy....start a new Thread.

.

May I refer you to the thread title - Are we Overgoverned?

Monarchy is at the top of Government.

 

Technically yes, the monarch is at the top of the pile but as she cannot introduce any laws, change any laws or do actually anything without being told by parliament, then i beg to suggest the monarchy is not relevant to my point. Despite 'brenda' and her brrod my poin t was that we have far more other earthlings doing jobs that seem to have little function in life execept self emolument. One does think maybe Cromwell got it right when he ran all the MP's outt of parliament.

[John52]

Dave225 - 2017-03-11 7:48 PM

as (the Monarch) cannot introduce any laws, change any laws or do actually anything without being told by parliament,

Where in the constitution does it say that?

(My understanding is that we don't have a written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Like the paintings in Windsor Castle we aren't allowed to see except when she allows them out to public galleries accompanied by notes they are on loan from her. But when they were damaged in the Windsor Castle fire whilst in her care they apparently belonged to us because we got the £30m bill for restoring them. Now they apparently belong to her again.

In any case, when push comes to shove whoever controls the armed forces controls the country, and they swear allegiance to her, not to us. The ultimate power lies with her, all we seem to have is an unwritten understanding she won't use it as long as things keep going her way. Unless you can point to anything more substantial?)

[StuartO]

The whole of our constitution is an unwritten understanding, isn't it?

[John52]

StuartO - 2017-03-12 9:06 AM

 

The whole of our constitution is an unwritten understanding, isn't it?

 

Which means that having the highest military spending in Europe does not guarantee our freedom. There are countless examples of where the military has been used against the people - including in England where Her Majesty's Armed Forces were used against those who won our freedoms :-(

Of course it suits the powers that be and the people who work(ed) for the military to claim the military keeps us safe. But then they would say that wouldn't they *-)

You could be safer in a country that spends much less on its military if that country has a proper constitution to ensure the military is responsible to the people, not some unelected head of state . :-S

[StuartO]

John52 - 2017-03-12 10:14 AM .... There are countless examples of where the military has been used against the people - including in England ....

 

I can't think of any modern times examples apart from in N Ireland, where the Army were "assisting police" (under the direction of elected politicians) in the context of civil disorder and the threat of violence from the IRA - and we are still seeing the extent to which our military are held to account (including by our courts) for their conduct during such actions.

 

I think the combination of an elected Government with a hereditary, consitutional monarch as Head of State is a relatively safe bet.  There is always some risk of either the Government or the Monarchy getting itself into difficulties but hopefully not at the same time and we've certainly had a very good, evolving run with Elizabeth II on the throne since 1952.

 

[RogerC]

The whole of our constitution is an unwritten understanding, isn't it?

John.......(CLOSET COMMUNIST???)

Which means that having the highest military spending in Europe does not guarantee our freedom. There are countless examples of where the military has been used against the people - including in England where Her Majesty's Armed Forces were used against those who won our freedoms   

Of course it suits the powers that be and the people who work(ed) for the military to claim the military keeps us safe. But then they would say that wouldn't they   

You could be safer in a country that spends much less on its military if that country has a proper constitution to ensure the military is responsible to the people, not some unelected head of state . 

Edited by John52 2017-03-12 10:34 AM

Arrrrgh.....http://cdn.glocals.com/sites/glocals/_media/forums/211//211167_cf_photo1_4ff53.jpg

[Dave225]

John52 - 2017-03-12 7:17 AM

 

Dave225 - 2017-03-11 7:48 PM

as (the Monarch) cannot introduce any laws, change any laws or do actually anything without being told by parliament,

Where in the constitution does it say that?

(My understanding is that we don't have a written constitution so they can make it up to suit themselves as they go along. Like the paintings in Windsor Castle we aren't allowed to see except when she allows them out to public galleries accompanied by notes they are on loan from her. But when they were damaged in the Windsor Castle fire whilst in her care they apparently belonged to us because we got the £30m bill for restoring them. Now they apparently belong to her again.

In any case, when push comes to shove whoever controls the armed forces controls the country, and they swear allegiance to her, not to us. The ultimate power lies with her, all we seem to have is an unwritten understanding she won't use it as long as things keep going her way. Unless you can point to anything more substantial?)

 

Don't quote me but I believ that there was a 'deal' somewhere about the turn of the 19th/20th Centrry where the monarch passed control to Parliament. The authority of the Crown has been whittled away at various times usually in return for cash. I do not doubt that the queen or the Charles can make suggestions, and do so, but the days of them ordering you to the Tower for being anaughty boy have long passed. It is also the Prime Minister who declares war these days, and as with the case of Blair, they may not even advise parliament.