Tom Richmond: Dear David... how come you can’t cut cost of governing?

The number of special advisers working for Ministers has risen from 85 to 98, with the salaries paid to these political “lackeys” now standing at £7.2m – an increase of £1m in the past year and £400,000 more than the total cost during the final year of Gordon Brown’s government.

Another controversy over MPs’ expenses is imminent – there are reports that some politicians have been renting constituency offices from local parties and unions and then claiming the money back from the public purse.

And then there is the cumbersome nature of Cameron’s Cabinet. As well as 22 full-time members – I challenge readers to name the Welsh Secretary and Leader of the House of Lords – another 11 are entitled to attend.

These range from political veteran Ken Clarke (Minister Without Portfolio) to Dewsbury’s Sayeeda Warsi (Senior Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Minister for Faith and Communities) and Oliver Letwin (Minister For Government Policy).

Aren’t all members supposed to be “ministers for government policy”?

In terms of numbers, Cameron’s crew are no different to Brown’s blusterers who totalled 23 Cabinet members and 10 hangers-on.

But Cameron cannot claim that his Cabinet is any cheaper. Or more efficient. Or in touch with public priorities.

For, if it was me, I would allow key posts to evolve to take account of the country’s changing circumstances.

That’s why I would have a Cabinet member for the elderly; policies allied 
to an ageing society, like those pensioners who will have to choose between heat or eat this winter, are a priority.

I want a Consumer Secretary – it’s about time there was a politician charged with getting to grips with rip-off Britain.

Likewise HS2. If this high-speed rail revolution is to ever take place, there needs to be weekly updates in Cabinet – and a political consensus forged between the main parties that can withstand the onslaught from Ed Balls.

And then sport. If Britain is to make the most of the Olympic legacy and become a healthier nation, then Helen Grant – the newly-appointed minister – should be fighting her corner in Cabinet rather than becoming bogged down by issues like gay marriage and media regulation.

Some suggestions? Have one minister for the Celtic nations; downgrade the status of the Lords leader and incorporate the international development brief into the Foreign Secretary’s portfolio – aid and diplomacy should be intrinsically linked.

I’d also do away with the Cabinet “extras”. They’re not needed. What right does the Tory chairman Grant Shapps have to attend for example?

Evidence that the massaging of political egos is taking precedence over the smooth(er) running of Downing Street, I’d simply tell every minister of state – Tory and Lib Dem – that they will be expected to attend Cabinet (for no extra pay) if their policy brief is on the agenda.

But this requires a politician who can lead and manage? Is Cameron that man? I’m not sure.

EVEN though the Lib Dems are still committed to House of Lords reform, one of the constitutional issues kicked in the long grass, Nick Clegg’s party still wants to recruit more peers.

The reason? According to Lord Wallace of Saltaire, independent cross-bench peers are becoming more assiduous attenders and, therefore, the Lib Dems need better representation to ensure the smoother passage of Government legislation.

My solution? A moratorium on all future appointments until a referendum can be held – possibly to coincide with next year’s European elections – on whether the Lords should be fully-elected or not.

It’s a far more democratic solution than the creation of yet another committee which perpetuates the cycle of undemocratic appointments to the Lords.

BELATEDLY, the selection of Tory parliamentary candidates – potential MPs of the future – is going to be far more robust.

In the key seat of Croydon South, potential nominees have to go out canvassing for votes with existing councillors.

The reason is this: it allows Tory members to see whether candidates have an empathy with an area and the requisite local knowledge.

Evidently, this exercise has turned the selection panel’s opinion of several candidates on its head. One observer noted: “While some seized the moment and impressed, a couple faltered badly – all of which helps to inform the decision for the final shortlist.”

Yet, given the Conservatives pride themselves in being a meritocracy, why are such exercises not more commonplace? After all, the party’s prospects in 2015 hinge on its ability to win over sceptics in key battlegrounds like the M62 marginals.

AFTER a 10-month Parliamentary study, MPs have concluded that vulnerable youngsters must be given more help to manage their money. I could have told them that for nowt last Christmas.

Yet, rather than targeting specific sections of society, why aren’t MPs pushing for numeracy lessons in primary schools to be far more effective?

If more youngsters can grasp maths at this stage, they’re less likely to struggle with the subject during their secondary education – and then in adulthood when they’re responsible for their family budget.

I’M glad I’m not the only one infuriated by Gary Lineker’s heavily-scripted puns on Match of the Day and the monotonous ramblings of some of his guests – it’s all getting too much for Margaret Thatcher’s former press secretary Sir Bernard Ingham, the Yorkshire Post’s esteemed Wednesday columnist.

“When Alex Ferguson retired, I breathed a sigh of relief. I would not have to listen to the grump complaining he had been unfairly treated by the ref. Then, dammit, Chelsea appointed Jose Mourinho who is a classic case of an ego out of control. My cup of poison overflowed,” he says.

“The trouble with broadcast sport is that it inflicts on us the mindless yatterings (always assuming you can decipher the accent or the mangled English) of commentators whose insight I can never detect. I never go to watch a match on TV until the last minute so that I avoid all the chatter.”

Sound advice that I’m happy to share and endorse.

TOP marks to Scarborough MP Robert Goodwill for explaining clearly the need to cancel so many trains on Monday so rail staff could remove fallen trees from lines.

The newly-appointed transport minister’s argument was this: there was no point allowing passengers to board a train unless it was certain that they could reach their destination.

His clarity and candour were refreshing. For, as I can testify, there is nothing worse than being stuck on a stationary train for hours on end in the middle of nowhere.

In contrast, what does it say about the leadership and management of Leeds Council when no official or councillor was prepared to go on the BBC to defend the imposition of parking charges during evenings, and on Sundays, when the authority is already raking in £26m a year from such fees?

I’m sorry – but any transport policy, local or national, will hit the buffers unless there is far clearer communication and openness.