Skip to main content

Project Creep and the European Union

Project Creep is a logical conclusion of the Dustbin Theory of Decision-making.

The Dustbin Theory of Decision-making (prop D. Howarth) is that most decisions are made essentially by a dustbin being passed around and everyone who it passes chucking something in. That means that most decisions are dominated by the people who are passed by the bin.

This is one of the flaws of politics. It also results in Project Creep. Project Creep means that if the people involved in the project also dominate in defining the boundaries of the project then it will expand gradually to get larger and larger.

This is the big problem in relating to the European Union. Unless the project is held back through constitutional mechanisms them power will gradually be centralised.

That is why I am really "not sure" about the European Treaty. I am sure that I would wish to have a referendum on the issue. However, I am uncomfortable with anything that makes project creep easier. If anyone really thinks the politicians control the EU they need to have a look at the balance between the decisions made by officers and the decisions made by politicians. The dustin of decisionmaking is normally kept in the officers' office. Only a few politicians get a chance of chucking anything in. Hence officers dominate most decisions.

I am not happy with the micromanagement of some of the european directives that specify (for example) that we must not include in recycling targets any residue following incineration. There is an ideological row about incineration. At the end of the day we need a sustainable society. That will involve some incineratoin. Even traditional hunter gatherer villages have fires. For the EU to take an ideological position that douses the fire is irrational.

Comments

Tristan said…
This is the problem with the EU (and Westminster).

Its something that us LibDems really must articulate. It is possible to be pro-EU and be against the way it functions and some of what it does.

Rather than keeping quiet and allowing ourselves to be painted as craven slaves of Brussels, we really should be criticising the EU, pointing out its failings and what should be done and highlighting what it does well.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: