Charles Kennedy: This country needs less government

From a speech by the Liberal Democrat leader to the Social Market Foundation in London

Wednesday 16 July 2003 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

On the wall of my office, there's a print of Gladstone's Cabinet of 1880. There are 14 men in the picture, five with beards and nine without. Compare that with the Cabinet of 2003. The proportion of beards has gone down. But the overall number has gone considerably up - to 21. It raises a question. If it was possible to make do with a much smaller Cabinet when Britain ruled a third of the world, do we really need a Cabinet of 21 to run the UK on its own? Particularly when Scotland and Wales now have their own devolved legislatures.

I believe that central government could help achieve a great deal more by doing a great deal less. We believe that by both restructuring and slimming down central Government and by cutting back on less productive spending programmes, we can secure significant savings.

I have decided to set a target of finding savings of at least one per cent of total annual government spending to re-allocate to priority areas like education, health and tackling poverty. By the time of the next election, one per cent will be equivalent to savings of around £5bn a year - enough , for instance, to fund over 150,000 extra nurses, teachers and police every year.

We'd leave far more decision-making to the local level, where local people understand local needs. But that would not mean large amounts of extra local bureaucracy soaking up the money transferred from the centre. There are already plenty of public servants struggling to deliver services at regional and local level. They are hampered, not helped, by the weight of central bureaucracy - constantly having to check whether they are fulfilling the endless targets set by Whitehall. Our proposals would set them free to get on with the job of delivering better services.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in