Loans for Peerages, and Local Elections
Posted by David Burrowes, MP for Enfield, Southgate, at 09:51, Mon 3 April 2006:
I am a member of the Public Administration Select Committee which is investigating the loans for peerages furore. We intend to question those in the middle of the inquiry like Lord Levy, Labour's fundraiser. What are your views on this issue and what questions would you like to ask?
The local elections are only a few weeks away. Presently less than a third of councils' revenue is raised from local taxation, with the remainder coming from the Government and only a third of the electorate will vote. I have been a Councillor for 11 years and have seen how councils have too little control over their finances and therefore accountability to the electorate. Do you agree? What would get more people to vote in local elections?
David Burrowes MP, Member of Parliament for Enfield Southgate, david@davidburrowes.com
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by David Quinn, 12:50, Tue 4 April 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
On the first question re party funding it seems obvious that those who gave loans were at least seeking influence, whether or not they were after peerages (which is really a matter of personal vanity). The question to ask the fundraisers on both sides is this: if it was actually more beneficial financially to accept gifts rather than loans why did they favour the latter if it was not tied up with anonymity and therefore influence peddling? This stuff is completely poisonous. You only have to look at America, whose democracy is now thoroughly debased, because the political parties have sold themselves lock stock and barrel to the corporations just to fund electoral TV advertising. I would favour both public funding and a strict limit on party electoral spending at all levels. After all much of the spending goes on spin rather than a genuine attempt to persuade. Persuasion is actually rather cheap.
The issue of local government funding is problematic. More local funding could lead to serious "postcode" government as different councils take radically different views to quite fundamental administrative areas, education for example. A national approach at least offers some degree of consistency. What I think would reduce apathy is if councils took a more holistic "quality of life" approach to all that it does at a genuinely local level. This would produce a measure of joined up local government. Enfield I believe has a quality of life unit but there is scant evidence that it has much influence. An example is waste collection where the agenda was driven by Europe rather than the councils.
Finally I believe the whole cynical approach to traffic and parking really turns people off. There is plenty of evidence that it is done to raise revenue first and foremost. The outsourcing of parking attendants for example means they are entirely driven by money and explains the aggressive way they ply their trade. It is really little motivated by the desire to manage traffic better. Ditto speed cameras; These are often justified by the number of accidents, e.g. Bounds Green Road, until you discover that many of these are to do with kids speeding late at night. Tragic of course but little to do with traffic during the day. Reliance on such spin suggests a financil motivation rather than a safety one. And if you don't believe people are upset by this just raise the topic and watch the volcano. This stuff is deeply damaging way beyond its nomina influence. People feel they are both being duped and treated like children, as if they were back at school. It is a major source of the feeling of complete powerless they are experiencing and is important way beyond its nominal level. The local government cynicism it embodies is met with public cynicism in return. These measures may have started out with good intentions but their corruption is pure poison to our democracy.
Posted by James Moran, 17:33, Tue 4 April 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #
I'd like to see some probing about Labour's other business deals, like the sponsoring of their party conferences, the many direct contracts for NHS work, or anything else that was not put to tender. It's all interrelated, and it would be interesting to know how many people from these businesses got other honours, not just peerages. Things seem to be heading in the direction of the US, with the government completely beholden to big businesses.