Back in Gordon Brown's first reshuffle as prime minister, he turned the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) into the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR). He also created a new Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS). And according to the Evening Standard's Joe Murphy, this did not come cheap:
The Business, Enterprise and Regulatory, and Innovation, Universities and Skills departments were created in 2007 at a cost of £7million, including £218,063 on rebranding at BERR including emails, a website and headed stationery...
Two years later, and Gordon has been at it again, merging BERR and DIUS to create a new Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS). The estimated cost of this rearrangement is £3million.
Maybe it's a better arrangement than old one. Or maybe it's worse. Or maybe it made more sense when we just had one department for 'trade & industry', one for 'education', and one for 'the environment' (instead of having BIS, DECC, DEFRA, DCSF, and DCLG all tripping over one another). Who knows?
And to be honest, I don't much care. But the waste, inefficiency and duplication that all these rearrangements engender does make me wonder if we wouldn't be better off with the American system, where primary legislation is required to create new departments and delineate their responsibilities. Perhaps then prime ministers would think twice about playing departmental musical chairs (at our expense) every time they got bored.
Another huge own goal by Britain's parliamentarians. Everybody knew that they were taking a rather generous view on their expenses, and when a request under the Freedom of Information Act threatened to expose it all, the Speaker, the hapless Michael Martin, took it right up to the High Court. The argument was that the expense chits would show where MPs lived, which would be a security threat. Eventually a compromise was reached – that the information would be published, but with the addresses blacked out.
It is only thanks to the Daily Telegraph that we discovered what such censorship would have concealed. MPs 'flipping' their second homes to maximize their allowances, using public money to do up their houses before selling them at a profit, even maintaining a 'second home' that is neither in London nor in their constituency. Because the Telegraph saw the uncensored originals.
The receipts published online by Parliament today, however, have all the address information blacked out. So you can see if they've been charging the taxpayer 89p for a bathplug – but not whether they told Parliament that one address was their second home, and Revenue & Customs that it was their main residence (and therefore not liable to capital gains tax).
What makes it an own goal, though, is that the story has shifted: it is no longer about expenses, but about the cover-up. The censorship does far more than protect MPs from security threats. It protects them from embarrassment. One MP put in a grocery bill, but we're not even allowed to see what supermarket it was from, never mind what town it was in. That's above and beyond the call of security.
Thanks to the Telegraph, we know what has been going on. So the censorship now doesn't look like a prudent measure to protect MPs' safety – it looks like a blatant cover-up to save their skins. This will run and run.
In the wake of the MP expenses scandal, much attention is being given to the way in which our elected representatives are remunerated. Many people think they are paid too much, or at least that their allowances are too generous. On the other hand, there seem to be plenty of people (particularly those involved in politics and the media) who believe that MPs are not paid enough. The argument goes that if we want to attract decent MPs, we need to pay them more.
Well, I'd say Jim Hacker deals with that one fairly well in the video above (fast-forward to 2 minutes). You could fill every seat in Parliament twenty times over, even if people had to pay for the privilege. And it wouldn't make any real difference to the quality of the policies produced in Westminster.
The simple fact is that MPs these days don't have much of a job. The House of Commons is now so dominated by the Government that it's barely a legislature at all. In fact, it's more like an electoral college: we elect them and then they (indirectly) determine who the prime minister (and government) will be. Then they're stuck to doing social work for their constituents until the next general election, unless they can suck up to the government enough to get a ministerial position.
Perhaps that's an oversimplification. There are some backbench MPs – John Redwood, for instance – who do excellent policy work. But they're the exception rather than the rule. And, ultimately, that suggests a very unhealthy political system.
The turnout figures for the UK (especially in European and local elections) continue in an ever increasing downward spiral. Reports that the election on June 4 only managed to excite 34.5% or 15,625,823 means that 4% fewer people chose to vote this time around. Over the space of the previous three general elections turnout has fallen by 10% whereby now the election only garners interest from 6 out 10 people. How then do we ensure that voters re-engage with politics, how do make sure that the incentive to vote matters?
The Electoral Commission states that, "unless voters feel that the election is relevant to them and that their vote matters, they are unlikely to participate." The figures for the next General Election could take a significant hit as we have such a lame duck Prime Minister and government at the moment. On the one hand many voters will believe the Tories to be a shoe-in and on the other Labour supporters could turn their backs on their chosen party. There are two ways to address the declining turnout in voters: the first is by making it compulsory (exceedingly illiberal and ensuring around 90% vote) the second is by allowing people to sell their vote.
Much is made of those who abstain, (in a way this is the same as voting) they evaluated the candidates and decided they were unrepresented and now their vote goes to waste. But what if the market stepped in and allowed others to purchase that vote. In a European Election with low turnout prices would be low as there would be many people selling their votes. In a general election on the other hand prices would increase, especially if the buyer lived in a constituency with a narrow majority. Even more so if the person attempting to purchase the vote was from a party that the seller wasn't likely to support. Obviously some constituencies could end up with more votes than voters, but obversely when a minority of a minority elect an official we cite that it's democracy at work. Perhaps rather than attempting to stuff the ballot box Gordon Brown, via PR he could return democracy to us and allow us the freedom to cast our votes to whom pays us the most. (Not unlike the current system, just a fairer and surer way of obtaining the cash).
A lot has been written over the rise of the BNP due to their success at the European elections last week. There have also been discussions surrounding Labour's apparent demise and falling support. All the while the party that pushed Labour into 3rd place seems to have slipped under everyone's radar. UKIP supporters are crowing about how successful they were, pushing Labour into third and increasing the number of their MEPs by 1. But they were another group that benefitted from the disappearance of the Labour Party's core voters.
Overall UKIP's total number of votes fell by 8.6% but then this is probably reflective of a falling turnout. If you examine their vote across the regions it varies from a drop of 44.9% in the East Midlands to a 19.5% gain in the West Midlands (where they gained the extra MEP). The party only managed to gain supporters in 5 regions and the majority of those gains were below 6%. Their losses were heavier, three of them being above 18%. It is difficult to see where they can improve on the numbers who are voting for them, despite this election proving to be a fillip for them. In these politically apathetic times they are facing stiff competition from smaller/newer parties that are also anti-federalist. It is unlikely that we will see any increase on the 6% of the electorate who voted for them in the 2004 European election. Indeed if they deemed that a success one only has to look at the next election for the UK parliament where they only polled 2.2% of the votes, or 22% of the actual total number of voters from 12 months previously.
While many supporters of UKIP will see last week as a success the figures point to a party that has possibly reached it's zenith. But there still remains a hope for them, the continuing ignorance of the populace by the professional politicians of the day. Despite the citizens of the EU delivering a firm 'no' to the federalist leaning politicians they continue to call for more integration, as seen by yesterday's announcements by Peter Mandleson. UKIP's continued success depends on this blinkered idiocy to continue.
Yesterday dozens of protesters from the group ‘Unite Against Fascism’ swarmed on Nick Griffin’s European Election victory speech outside the House of Lords. They threw eggs, hit him and his supporters with placards and umbrellas and kicked his car as he drove away. As a result of the protest two people were taken to hospital.
Clearly there should be no place for the likes of the BNP and Nick Griffin in British politics – he’s a racist and a holocaust deniers. But they are now in a democratically elected public office and we cannot ‘blame’ or punish Nick Griffin for being democratically elected.
‘Unite Against Fascism’ are not a credible force to combat extremism in Britain. They seem to undermine themselves. The protest organiser is quoted as saying ‘I support freedom of speech but not for fascists’. Something doesn’t quite add up. You cannot support freedom of speech only when it suits you, and by campaigning to stump the free speech of the BNP, ‘Unite Against Fascism’ are becoming slightly fascist themselves.
If we are really to stop this rise in fascism we need to look at the root causes of its growth. People are voting for the BNP because they feel disenfranchised by the major political parties. They feel the BNP will be more responsive to their individual needs.
There are two ways to start to reverse the growth of the BNP. Firstly, we need to bring people like Griffin into the open. Let him give news interviews in the mainstream media. This way people will see what he a fool he is with his claims that he can ‘just see if somebody is British’. We also need a reform of Westminster that emphasises MPs and parties working for the people rather than themselves, a point the BNP played on with their focus on local tensions.
The irony of ironies was delivered over the weekend, sixty five years after the brave men and women of the Allied armies successfully breached the Atlantic Wall to fight national socialism, the UK decided the time was right to send national socialists to represent them in the European Parliament. The two regions, Yorkshire & Humber, and the North West, were those that 'successfully' elected MEPs from the British National Party despite the party actually losing voters in these two regions. (In Yorkshire & Humber their vote fell by 5.1% and in the North West by 2.1%). They were of course supported via a substantial drop in core Labour voters who decided that their non-appearance in the booths would show the party leadership in Westminster exactly what they thought of them.
The whole political system is to blame for this debacle. The destruction that has been wrought throughout the latter part of the 20th century by Westminster and Strasbourg/Brussels has allowed for the BNP to establish a firm foothold on the political ladder. The creation of the nationalized industries, the centralization of power firstly in Westminster and then to a lesser extent in the European parliament, the stripping of power at the local level and the end to oppositional politics has meant that the rise of smaller parties was inevitable. This has lead to apathetic voters who wish to protest at how they feel forgotten by those they traditionally vote for and also to political minorities across the whole spectrum choosing to vote for seemingly extreme/single issue political organizations.
The rise of groups such as UKIP, BNP, Plaid Cymru, SNP and the Greens is merely reflective of how out of touch Westminster and the parties have become. The fault for the election of the BNP lies squarely with the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. Voters may not fully understand what/who they vote for but they will vote for someone who listens to them. That is all the BNP did in this campaign. In these enlightened times it is difficult to believe that there are nearly 3 million racists in Great Britain, as this Channel 4 survey shows .
There is much discussion as to exactly what kind of people have voted for the BNP at the European elections. Much of the discussion surrounding this has been either naïve or disingenuous; many people who voted for the BNP are indeed racist and there are still plenty more rascists besides who voted for other parties or did not bother going to the ballot box at all. Racism is still common in this country and unless this is accepted the wrong conclusions from the BNP’s assent will be drawn.
So what are we to do about the BNP? Well, firstly ignoring them hasn’t worked; in fact quite the opposite. Ian Dale is spot on in tackling them head-on and Nick Griffin showed himself to a fool when quizzed by Adam Boulton on Sky. This is a good start but it is not enough.
We also need to see the depoliticization of European politics in favour of free trade and strong diplomatic relations. The European polity is a shambles and it is little surprise that the fascists have been voted into its realm by a number of European countries. As rotten as our national politics is, at least these BNP voters will mostly be voting Labour at the next general election; in 2005 the BNP received 192,746 votes, a lot, but nothing like the 943,598 votes they just got in the European elections. After all, even racists have priorities.
So Labour have been decimated and quite right too. Although I am no fan of Cameron’s incoherent stance on Europe, it is certainly preferable to Labour’s machinations since Blair came to power.
UKIP have done well despite the shoddy folding of many ballot papers, while the Liberal Democrats have not benefited from Labour's collapse. These moves are clearly a direct call for a fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and Europe.
Those across the political spectrum calling for further integration will argue that voters are in fact not voting on Europe but on National issues. Certainly given the drubbing that the Labour Party has received suggests that this is the case. Yet surely this is an even further rejection of the European project as it stands: even the elected face of this Behemoth is not a primary factor in the legitimacy for the voters of this country. This is reflected in the consistent low turnouts at European elections.
As an aside, during the BBC’s coverage the question was asked: "Why would voters choose the fascist BNP rather than the left wing Communists given the recession?" This is wrongheaded as the BNP is closer to what many in the left wing of the Labour Party would vote for. It is the failure of the Labour Party that accounts for the BNP gaining two seats.
The result is clear: it is a vote against Brown and a vote against closer ties with the European Union.
As Gordon Brown has lost most of the women from his cabinet by one means or another there has been much talk of the male cabal of Brown’s inner circle control. Most prominently former Europe minister Caroline Flint has stepped down accusing Brown of treating her as window dressing, while others have been pressured to leave for a mixture incompetence and corruption. The Blair babes are no more.
Flint is sticking the knife into the Prime Minister pretty deep, with many political commentators suggesting that the anti-female nature of politics is indicative of the necessary overhaul required of the political system. This though could be a distraction from the issue at hand. Perhaps Brown was and is anti-woman, but the real issue is not to open up the cabal but to shut it down.
The size and scope of government needs severely restricting to the point where it matters little whether the Prime Minister is a man or a woman, a time when national politics is restricted by the defense of the rights of man and woman; where the people can do anything except when it inhibits the freedom of others, while the government can only do that which ensures this freedom is upheld.
Such a state of affairs is possible. The Magna Carta was signed in this country. Perhaps it was never realized, but logic demands people to recognize that the problem is not restricted to Gordon Brown, but permeates the institution of Parliament. Rich and poor alike need protecting from the politicians and the people that believe in them.
With the fundamentals of freedom enshrined in law and protected by a watchful citizenry, we will all be free to compete and cooperate without the strictures of government intervention. This is the only freedom that women should really aspire to; outside of this we are all still stuck in the Panopticon.
The turnout figures for the UK (especially in European and local elections) continue in an ever increasing downward spiral. Reports that the election on June 4 only managed to excite 34.5% or 15,625,823 means that 4% fewer people chose to vote this time around. Over the space of the previous three general elections turnout has fallen by 10% whereby now the election only garners interest from 6 out 10 people. How then do we ensure that voters re-engage with politics, how do make sure that the incentive to vote matters?
A lot has been written over the rise of the BNP due to their success at the European elections last week. There have also been discussions surrounding Labour's apparent demise and falling support. All the while the party that pushed Labour into 3rd place seems to have slipped under everyone's radar. 
The irony of ironies was delivered over the weekend, sixty five years after the brave men and women of the Allied armies successfully breached the Atlantic Wall to fight national socialism, the UK decided the time was right to send national socialists to represent them in the European Parliament. The two regions, Yorkshire & Humber, and the North West, were those that 'successfully' elected MEPs from the British National Party despite the party actually losing voters in these two regions. (In Yorkshire & Humber their vote fell by 5.1% and in the North West by 2.1%). They were of course supported via a substantial drop in core Labour voters who decided that their non-appearance in the booths would show the party leadership in Westminster exactly what they thought of them.
So Labour have been decimated and quite right too. Although I am no fan of Cameron’s incoherent stance on Europe, it is certainly preferable to Labour’s machinations since Blair came to power.
As Gordon Brown has lost most of the women from his cabinet by one means or another there has been much talk of the male cabal of Brown’s inner circle control. Most prominently former Europe minister Caroline Flint has stepped down