Partime Government....?

[Jack Knave]

I occasionally ponder on the thought of the point of the need for fulltime governments. And something I've just read has prompted me again on the idea. When a new government is formed, and especially when it is a different party to the last government, they have this urge to justify their victory by changing things that don't need altering just to look busy and important. Sometimes they just change the name of a system, tweak it a bit and then claim they have brought in something 'progressive' and improved peoples lives sand society.

The Tories have double the size of the tax law document in 6 years and for what? You would have thought after decades, if not centuries, that most of our laws and institutional requirements must be pretty much sorted with only the need for minor adjustments....?

What do people think about part time governments, something we had in the 19th century? Or, would people vote for a party that said it wouldn't change things unnecessarily, making their MPs and others get a job in the real world to compensate for the reduced income of being an MP?

[Udayana]

It's not just MPs .. they want to be seen to be doing "something", but it's mainly about jobs for the boys in the civil service. Drives for tax law simplification and more efficient institutions inevitably lead to more complicated laws and more inefficient organisations!

Recommend "Yes Minister" and  "Yes Prime Minister" for a quick re-education

[Hope]

The Tories have double the size of the tax law document in 6 years and for what? You would have thought after decades, if not centuries, that most of our laws and institutional requirements must be pretty much sorted with only the need for minor adjustments....?

Quite possibly, in order to close tax evasion and other loopholes, JK.  At the sae time, there are certain provisions which have to saty in place for x years after a law change, so have to remain on the bboks, even though the law has changed for those coming to the table anew.

What do people think about part time governments, something we had in the 19th century? Or, would people vote for a party that said it wouldn't change things unnecessarily, making their MPs and others get a job in the real world to compensate for the reduced income of being an MP?

The problem with this would such a government say that it would pay the wages of the various researchers and secretaries MPs have today - something that probably didn't exist to the same extent back in the 19th century.  Agreed, some might suggest that some MPs have too many of these 'assistants', but how many really do?

[Jack Knave]

Quite possibly, in order to close tax evasion and other loopholes, JK.  At the sae time, there are certain provisions which have to saty in place for x years after a law change, so have to remain on the bboks, even though the law has changed for those coming to the table anew.

This may explain what I have heard recently that the tax law has only increased by a third, the rest being what you have said as that which has to stand for a given number of years before it can be nullified.

The problem with this would such a government say that it would pay the wages of the various researchers and secretaries MPs have today - something that probably didn't exist to the same extent back in the 19th century.  Agreed, some might suggest that some MPs have too many of these 'assistants', but how many really do?

I think it was Belgium who took 18 months to form a government and in that time the country grew and prospered more than it had done for years. I'm just suggesting the government probably do more harm than good in being fulltime- idle hands do the devils work and all that.

[Hope]

I think it was Belgium who took 18 months to form a government and in that time the country grew and prospered more than it had done for years. I'm just suggesting the government probably do more harm than good in being fulltime- idle hands do the devils work and all that.

Well, it started at a pretty low level, so I'm not sure that any growth is too big a thing to be proud of.  What I'm not sure is who pays for their MPs' researchers and other staff.  The Government?; the different parties?; the individual MPs (as is the case here in the UK)?