Counsel for a poor mortal

Update at 12:15, 14/07/2009:

oldnat (of Blether with Brian fame) has helpfully pointed out that Stirling council split their expenses figures, one set from April 2007 to 3rd May 2007 and the other from 4th May 2007 to March 2008. Shetland have done the same and I suspect (but couldn't find the info) that the same is true for Clackmannanshire. It seems that the Beeb 's geeks have not noticed this though - out of 467 councils in their spreadsheet 125 have an average cost per councillor below £6000. The obvious moral of the story is to check the source data...and not to trust the Beeb too much!

The revised table minus Clacks is below. Happily Orkney and Shetland are now bosom buddies in the table, not much difference between their costs. But I'm still puzzled by Midlothian and West Lothian Councils...why does a councillor in West Lothian cost on average £10,000 more than one in Midlothian? Anyone got any idea? Might dig a bit deeper into the council websites when time allows...

Council	# Cllrs	Total cost*	Cost/cllr
West Lothian Council	32	£835,518.00	£26,109.94
Inverclyde Council	20	£474,598.35	£23,729.92
Argyll and Bute Council	36	£817,143.63	£22,698.43
Highland Council	80	£1,727,849.81	£21,598.12
North Lanarkshire Council	70	£1,478,710.00	£21,124.43
Edinburgh City Council	58	£1,216,614.85	£20,976.12
Scottish Borders Council	34	£698,538.00	£20,545.24
Shetland Islands Council	22	£446,618.20	£20,300.83
Orkney Islands Council	21	£425,911.34	£20,281.49
Western Isles Council	31	£624,554.00	£20,146.90
East Ayrshire Council	32	£634,824.94	£19,838.28
Aberdeenshire Council	68	£1,337,062.36	£19,662.68
Glasgow City Council	79	£1,544,427.00	£19,549.71
South Lanarkshire Council	67	£1,308,586.30	£19,531.14
East Lothian District Council	23	£440,939.00	£19,171.26
East Dunbartonshire Council	24	£459,825.02	£19,159.38
Moray Council	26	£496,496.00	£19,096.00
Dumfries and Galloway Council	47	£889,981.00	£18,935.77
Perth and Kinross Council	41	£761,610.87	£18,575.87
Angus Council	29	£536,249.00	£18,491.34
North Ayrshire Council	30	£554,398.84	£18,479.96
Aberdeen City Council	43	£794,498.00	£18,476.70
West Dunbartonshire Council	22	£406,113.12	£18,459.69
Stirling Council	22	£403,958.68	£18,361.76
Fife Council	78	£1,418,840.30	£18,190.26
East Renfrewshire Council	20	£350,773.00	£17,538.65
Falkirk Council	32	£545,823.55	£17,056.99
Renfrewshire Council	40	£671,787.24	£16,794.68
South Ayrshire Council	30	£494,514.00	£16,483.80
Dundee City Council	29	£477,115.38	£16,452.25
Midlothian Council	18	£293,157.27	£16,286.52
Clackmannanshire Council	18	?	?

Source: BBC Research + oldnat's investigative powers

---------------------
Perhaps someone can help me out with the following...

BBC Research has produced an interesting list of councillor pay and expenses for 2007-08, broken down by government region and also by council. Glancing at the figures for Scotland (see table at the bottom of this post) I noticed huge variations in the cost per councillor. For example...

		Council	# Cllrs	Total cost*	Cost/cllr
		Orkney Islands Council	21	£425,911.34	£20,281.49
		Shetland Islands Council	22	£50,476.63	£2,294.39

*Total cost = Pay, expenses and allowances for 2007-08.

No, I haven't got those numbers wrong. Can anyone shed some light on this? Why the vast discrepancy between two councils that, to an ignorant mainland loon at least, look like they should be broadly comparable? The only thing I could think of was the Shetland oil fund. But then again I'm pretty sure Clackmannanshire doesn't have one of those, yet they seem to be blessed with much cheaper councillors than Midlothian...

Council	# Cllrs	Total cost*	Cost/cllr
Midlothian Council	18	£293,157.27	£16,286.52
Clackmannanshire Council	18	£69,934.61	£3,885.26

Now for the really weird part. Despite the yawning chasm in the table above, Midlothian have the 4th lowest cost per councillor in Scotland. In fact it's actually Clackmannanshire that pips them to the bronze medal, albeit by a whopping £12,401.26 per councillor! In other words no council in Scotland has a cost per councillor between £3,885.26 and £16,286.52. What's going on?

To round things off, the 22 councillors of Stirling Council cost a total of £48,708.08, i.e. £2,214.00 per councillor. In contrast, the 32 councillors of West Lothian cost £835,518.00 in total, at an average of £26,109.94 per councillor. Why can 3 of our councils give us councillors at an average cost below £4,000, yet all the rest cost from £16,000-£26,000?!?

Now, there may well be a very good reason for this bizarrely skewed distribution of costs, in fact I really hope there is. If so I'd love to know what it is! Please respond via the comments box below.

Council	# Cllrs	Total cost*	Cost/cllr
West Lothian Council	32	£835,518.00	£26,109.94
Inverclyde Council	20	£474,598.35	£23,729.92
Argyll and Bute Council	36	£817,143.63	£22,698.43
Highland Council	80	£1,727,849.81	£21,598.12
North Lanarkshire Council	70	£1,478,710.00	£21,124.43
Edinburgh City Council	58	£1,216,614.85	£20,976.12
Scottish Borders Council	34	£698,538.00	£20,545.24
Orkney Islands Council	21	£425,911.34	£20,281.49
Western Isles Council	31	£624,554.00	£20,146.90
East Ayrshire Council	32	£634,824.94	£19,838.28
Aberdeenshire Council	68	£1,337,062.36	£19,662.68
Glasgow City Council	79	£1,544,427.00	£19,549.71
South Lanarkshire Council	67	£1,308,586.30	£19,531.14
East Lothian District Council	23	£440,939.00	£19,171.26
East Dunbartonshire Council	24	£459,825.02	£19,159.38
Moray Council	26	£496,496.00	£19,096.00
Dumfries and Galloway Council	47	£889,981.00	£18,935.77
Perth and Kinross Council	41	£761,610.87	£18,575.87
Angus Council	29	£536,249.00	£18,491.34
North Ayrshire Council	30	£554,398.84	£18,479.96
Aberdeen City Council	43	£794,498.00	£18,476.70
West Dunbartonshire Council	22	£406,113.12	£18,459.69
Fife Council	78	£1,418,840.30	£18,190.26
East Renfrewshire Council	20	£350,773.00	£17,538.65
Falkirk Council	32	£545,823.55	£17,056.99
Renfrewshire Council	40	£671,787.24	£16,794.68
South Ayrshire Council	30	£494,514.00	£16,483.80
Dundee City Council	29	£477,115.38	£16,452.25
Midlothian Council	18	£293,157.27	£16,286.52
Clackmannanshire Council	18	£69,934.61	£3,885.26
Shetland Islands Council	22	£50,476.63	£2,294.39
Stirling Council	22	£48,708.08	£2,214.00

Source: BBC Research

New Labour: a Titanic mess

Well, it's been an interesting few weeks! Pushing past purely partisan posturing I'd place our pompous parliamentary popinjays in a progression from porcine pampering to paragons of probity:

1. Labour - Hogzilla
   
2. Conservatives - Gloucester Old Spot (of Bother)
   
3. Lib Dems - Piglets caught snuffling for truffles
4. ...
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...
8. ...
9. ...
10. SNP - as innocent as Babe
    

That's my perception of the extent to which reputations have been damaged anyway. What say you, the great blogging public?

The Telegraph has a neat summary of New Labour's twelve years in power: Life under Labour: the worst of worlds. A couple of New Labour's majestic works caught my eye. Apparently it is illegal to:

• Stage a protest of any sort, even if alone, within 1km of the Palace of Westminster, without the authority of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
• Enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State for Transport (Protection of Wrecks (RMS Titanic) Order 2003).

In fairness the first of these now looks like a sensible precaution for our poor beleaguered MPs.

But the second?! What were they thinking? "New Labour: tough on Tomb Raiding, tough on the causes of Tomb Raiding"? And does our jurisdiction really extend to a few kilometres below sea-level in the 1km radius around 41⁰ 43’84”N 49⁰57’23”W? Surely they were taking delusions of Britain's glorious imperial power slightly too far with that one.

As the article says:

MPs have simply not being doing their jobs properly. They are there to hold the Government to account but have allowed a torrent of legislation to pour forth. They have spent too much of their time thinking up ever more imaginative ways to claim their generous allowances. They have given up their primary task.

Poll results: Who do you blame for the expenses scandal?

Individual MPs: 16 votes
Party leaders: 7
"The system": 8
Fred Goodwin: 2

So, it seems that individuals are mainly to blame, with a rap on the knuckles for the party leaders (presumably for failing to enforce expenses discipline?) and the system for allowing the abuses in the first place. And poor Fred Goodwin! (not a phrase you hear very often) He still attracts a protest vote! ;o)

Class acts

"Down, down, deeper and down", as the Quo memorably put it. With the expenses furore plumbing new tennis courts (surely "depths"?), it's amusing in a macabre sort of way to compare and contrast the "requirements" of Labour and Tory MPs...

Labour

• Mock Tudor beams
• As much free grub as possible
  
• Refixing bog seats (see previous item)
  
• Second (third, fourth, ...) homes
  
• Holiday home in balmy Southampton
• TVs
• "Educational" movies
• Bath plugs
• Glittery bog seat
  
• Imaginary Council Tax

Tory

• Helipad
• Swimming pools
• Light bulb changes (for the Shadow Skills Minister - you couldn't make it up)
  
• Moat dredging
• Piano tuning
• Fixing stable lights
  
• Horse manure
• Plumbing in the summer room

Suffice to say I think we still have some way to go before we become a classless society.

Resign! Resign! Resign!

Well, where to begin? And for that matter, where to end? Who to highlight among the vast crowd of guzzlers? It seems pretty clear that all parties will be shamed by the extent of embezzlement that has been going on, so no point trying to score points off parties at this stage.

No, the issue here is one of individual immorality, and it is individuals who must be held to account. There should be a raft of by-elections to let the people judge whether the expenses claimed have been reasonable. In fact it would be easier and better to have a general election, such is the widespread contempt that our MPs have held their constituents in.

The common excuses have been: "I acted entirely within the rules"; "The expenses wouldn't have been paid if they weren't reasonable"; and worst of all, from the PM himself, "The system is to blame".

You've had 12 years to reform the system Gordon! Why the sudden damascene conversion? Could it possibly be because you got caught red-trottered? Yes of course it could. You wouldn't have given reform of the expenses system a second thought if you'd been able to keep this all under wraps. Your feeble defence is utterly contemptible, nakedly self-serving pigswill of the lowest order. Your priorities for governing must now be: Resign! Resign! Resign!

Trough-tastic!

Seems the Telegraph has got hold of the uncensored version of our MPs' expenses claims and will be publishing them tomorrow - they have a teaser here plus the Beeb is reporting on it here.

Looks like more grim news for Gordon, hot on the heels of the bizarre hokey cokey-style of politics he's been guilty of lately...you put proposals in, proposals out, in, out, in, out, u-turn all about...

Let's privatise Royal Mail, erm, no on second thoughts let's go for a John Lewis-type solution, in fact let's not bother at all...let's have a flat rate daily allowance for MPs, on second thoughts let's not, we'll leave it to the enquiry to decide, or rather not, let's rush through some changes after all...we must be strict with the Gurkhas, or maybe we can be a bit flexible after all, but I won't meet Joanna Lumley, too busy for her, she can meet someone less important, erm, no on second thoughts the press have got wind of that, so let's meet her after all... [continues until May 2010...]

Brown's brisk bumbling

Another day, another dollop...of humble pie for Gordon Brown, forced to abandon his flat-rate daily allowance in order to appease his mutinous backbenchers. Ever since his bizarre home movie I've been wondering why Brown wants to push through reform of MPs expenses quite so quickly...

..and then cynicalHighlander brought this Daily Mail article to my attention on the Beeb's Blether with Brian blog: Love cheat MPs on 'suicide watch' as expense claims threaten to expose affairs.

It makes for an interesting read. If even half of it is true there could well be a few by-elections for Brown to deal with over the next few months.

And in light of these claims it makes perfect sense that Brown would seek to rush Sir Christopher Kelly's inquiry into expenses reform. Or when Kelly refuses, quickly cobble together some half-baked proposals without consulting his own party or the opposition parties. And when both of those fail, back down in order that something, anything(!), can be voted through. Even though the Kelly inquiry is still continuing.

When the full horror of Labour's gorging on expenses emerges Brown calculates that he simply must be able to say that he's already started reforming the system, even if only in a rushed and cack-handed fashion.