Job Creation

The present Coalition Government at Westminster came into office promising to cut the cost of politics and as far as I remember the Labour Party agreed with that noble aim as well, in the spirit of rebuilding public trust after the great MPs' expenses scandal.

But the Government plans to reduce the number of MPs was sabotaged by their own side, i.e. the Lib Dems who were getting their own back on the Tories for not supporting a new form of voting at Westminster elections, known as the Alternative Voting method or AV.

Labour also voted against AV because they stood to lose out, so any principle went out the window because the discredited First Past The Post (FPTP) system is worth maybe up to 50 Labour seats due to the way its vote is concentrated across the UK.

Yet here we are again as another bun fight breaks out at Westminster over the appointment of a new Clerk to the House of Commons who is paid an eye watering salary of £200,000 a year would you believe - much more than the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

The neat solution to the problem seems to be job creation with the Clerk's job being split into two and I'll bet that both of them still end up getting paid a small fortune.

Which doesn't sound a lot like 'cutting the cost of politics' to me although I'm pretty damn sure the politicians would never get away with this ridiculous job creation nonsense in the Scottish Parliament. 


John Bercow's bid to appoint Australian to top Commons job goes off the rails

By NIGEL MORRIS - The Independent

The crisis over Commons Speaker John Bercow’s choice for a top parliamentary job has deepened after both Downing Street and the current incumbent raised doubts over his handling of the selection.

The provisional appointment of the Australian Carol Mills as the Commons Clerk has provoked uproar among MPs who have protested she does not have the necessary knowledge of British parliamentary procedure for the post.

They have called for her to be cross-examined before she is given the job, which combines the role of being the Speaker’s key constitutional adviser with taking charge of the running of the Commons.

Downing Street indicated that Mr Cameron shared their concerns when a spokeswoman said he believed the new clerk needed to have the support of MPs and said the Prime Minister had not yet passed Ms Mills’ nomination to Buckingham Palace for the Queen’s approval.

Stressing the appointment was “ultimately a matter for the House and for the Speaker”, the spokeswoman said: “Clearly it is an important role and in order for the individual to be able to carry it out successfully, they would need support from MPs across the House of Commons.”

Mr Bercow has sought to calm the row by saying he wants to split the functions of the £200,000-a-year post, the most senior position in the Commons, into two jobs as quickly as possible.

But the current Clerk, Sir Robert Rogers, who is retiring after reported clashes with Mr Bercow, made clear his disdain for the Speaker’s proposal.

In a letter seen by The Independent, Sir Robert says creating a “divided command” would create confusion and conflict, as well as a series of practical problems in the administration of the Commons.

He argues: “Where would responsibility lie? The prospect of two officials of equal rank playing Members off against each other (or each other off against members!) is not attractive. The buck must stop somewhere.”

Ms Mills, who heads the department of parliamentary services in Canberra, was selected by a six-strong panel headed by Mr Bercow. His allies argue that the appointment was endorsed by the committee as a whole and that she was the most impressive candidate in interviews. They also believe that some critics are hostile to her because she would be a moderniser.

Senior Conservative and Labour figures, who have argued that the job should go to the current deputy clerk David Natzler, have criticised the appointment and have called for her to face a confirmation hearing before a committee.

The backlash has dealt a blow to Mr Bercow’s authority and one ally has even warned the controversy could cost him the Speakership.

Cost of Politics (14 August 2014)

Despite all the talk from from political leaders about 'cutting the cost of politics', the Palace of Westminster continues to receive a huge public subsidy of £6 million a year to help  meet the cost of its exclusive bars and restaurants - which are not open to the general public, of course. 


Parliament bars and restaurants received £6m of public money

Accounts show overall costs for House of Commons catering services fell but rose for Lords

Press Association - The Guardian

Westminster aims to bring public costs down to £3m by 2016.. Photograph: Jonathan Shock/Alamy

The taxpayer subsidised parliament's exclusive bars and restaurants to the tune of £6m last year.

While costs fell in the House of Commons after a series of revenue-raising measures, costs at the Lords went up.

Usually the Commons publishes figures that offset sales of souvenirs and gifts against spending on its catering service. But in response to a freedom of information request, the authorities revealed that without that income the operation ran a deficit of £4.5m in 2013-14 – down from £4.9m the previous year.

Meanwhile, the House of Lords' annual accounts showed that the net cost of its catering and retail outlets rose by around £150,000 to £1.45m. Excluding profits from banqueting functions and retail sales, the overall bill was some £2.44m – up from £2.3m in 2012-13.

A Commons spokeswoman said: "Much of the net cost to the House arises because of the irregular hours and unpredictability of parliamentary business.

"Food and drink prices are regularly reviewed and set at levels benchmarked against similar outlets outside the House. The costs to the House have been reduced since 2003. We are determined to reduce costs further and have a target of £3m for 2015-16."

Give to the Needy! (January 27th 2012)

While I'm in the mood for poking a bit of fun at MPs - I thought I'd share with readers one of the great mysteries of our time.

The fact that MPs in the House of Commons enjoy a public subsidy of £5.8 million a every year - for what amounts to their staff canteen.

Now I'm sure there's lots of good reasons for trying to keep MPs in the building - some of them might get lost if they were to venture out into the streets of London - looking for a great meal deal at Subway.

So they're encouraged to stay within the Palace of Westminster with some bargain basement prices - which are not on offer to the ordinary man or woman in the street.

For example:

£2.60 for a pint of beer
£2.35 for a glass of wine
£1.40 to a drink of Lucozade - recently increased from 80p

£2.05 for a lunch dish of braised pork with black pudding bonbon
£2.70 for an apple salad
£4.15 for halibut and soft boiled quail egg with carrot dressing

£7.80 for a rib-eye steak with hand cut chips and béarnaise sauce
£6.75 for haddock and leek fish cakes with tomato and dill cream
£6.75 for a chickpea and lentil curry with red onion fritter

£2.05 for a chocolate and orange torte
£2.05 for a serving of fresh fruit salad
£2.05 for home-made ice creams and sorbets
£3.10 for a selection of fine cheeses and biscuits

Now I'm all in favour of good tasty food being served up to our public servants.

But what I don't get is why it should be subsidised at taxpayers' expense - especially during these straitened times.

Why at £5.8 million every year - the subsidy accepted by our MPs amounts to six times the bonus paid to the RBS boss - Stephen Hester.

Which is getting lots of people very worked up - according to the news media earlier today.

Strange - don't you think?