There is a tool available to show graphically changes in population over time between 1992 and 2031.

The website provides an interactive map that graphically illustrates the extent to which age profile of the UK will change over the next few years. The mapping tool allows the user to select criteria for studying various age groups from UK level down to every local authority area. So, if you’d like to see what the age profile of your locality will look like in ten years’ time, this site can help. It is especially useful for local news bloggers.

Savings from Planned Cuts to Territorial Army Training and Bonuses Paid to MOD Staff.

A motion to exclude MEPs from the Westminster Parliamentary Estate was passed on Tuesday evening:

15 Access to Parliament (United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament)

Resolved, That the Resolutions of the House of 30 January 1989 relating to House of Commons Services and 6 December 1991 relating to Access (Former members and United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament) shall cease to have effect insofar as they relate to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament.—(Mr Bob Blizzard.)

This reverses a policy of 20 years standing, which has stood under both Conservative and Labour administrations. According to the BBC, Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, is claiming that it is about “Pressure Facilities” (presumably meaning “pressure on facilities”):

Commons leader Harriet Harman said the decision was made after a review of the rules relating to passes, and concern about pressure facilities.

Ms Harman says it applies to all parties. Thirty MPs signed a motion signed a motion backing the move.

This seems to me to be distinctly peculiar, as I can detect nothing which would have caused a change in pressure at this point. I think Harriet Harman is dissembling, and is actually trying to kick the BNP under the table while denying that she is doing so.

The BBC have not mentioned that 27 of the 30 signatories on the EDM were Labour.

John Mann MP is specifically linking the decision to the BNP (again, from the BBC):

Labour backbencher John Mann, who tabled the Early Day Motion, said he was “delighted” by the result of the vote: “This stops the BNP parading round here as if they’re legitimate politicians.”

This claim has credibility for the change in policy has credibility, since it was in response to an Early Day Motion tabled by John Mann on June 10th, exactly 6 days after the BNP won their two seats in the European Parliament:

EDM 1636

WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENTARY PASSES FOR MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THEIR STAFF
10.06.2009

Mann, John

That this House notes that the number of parliamentary passes available for the staff of hon. Members and Peers is necessarily limited; further notes that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are allocated passes to the parliamentary estate, but that hon. Members are not allocated passes to the European Parliament; and believes that it is unnecessary for MEPs or their staff to be allocated House of Commons passes and that new MEPs should not therefore be issued with such passes.

The whole thing seems distinctly peculiar, not to say whiffy.

This motion is also couched in terms of relieving pressure on resources, with no more credibility than Tuesday’s decision. The number of British MEPs was actually reduced from 78 to 72 in the Euro Elections this year, which reduced the alleged “pressure on resources”. This is about kicking the BNP.

A comparison with Sinn Fein, who were granted access to Parliamentary facilities and funds in 2001 by Mr Blair and his friends, is startling, when the Oath of Allegiance was suspended at the same time for the Sinn Fein MPs. The leaders of Sinn Fein had spent decades as apologists for murder, never mind the fact that many of their party members and leaders had been heavily themselves?

Is Nick Griffin really a greater threat than the leaders of Sinn Fein were then, or is this a case of political circumstances changing cases?

I can’t resist quoting what Mr Quentin Davies, now a Member of the Government, then a Conservative MP, said at the time: What it would amount to is giving Sinn Fein an enormous propaganda victory.

The right of MEPs to access the Parliamentary Estate has existed for 20 years, and to withdraw it for the sake of denying an iota of publicity to a couple of racists with a brainstorm in crumpled suits gives the appearance that someone is running scared, and feeds the BNP propaganda line. To then refuse to admit the real reason is bizarre.

A Guest post by Matt Wardman.

Sir Thomas Legg, who has reported into the last 5 years of MP’s Expense claims at Gordon Brown’s request, has written to a large number of MPs, with three potential courses of action:

1. Pay back monies which Sir Thomas Legg feels have been claimed improperly.
2. MPs requested to supply him with further information.
3. No further action required.

According to the Telegraph, MPs are threatening to defy orders to repay the taxpayer over questionable expenses claims – with possible legal action by MPs who think that the “rules” have been effectively redefined after the fact by Sir Thomas.

The Telegraph suggests that he has applied a “reasonableness test” to items such as excessive bills for cleaning or gardening, even where they were approved by the fees office, and that Lord Mandelbrot is not very happy about Sir Thomas’ actions.

MP’s Expenses have become a lightening conductor and icon for a disfunctional system of political representation, and have directed the spotlight onto the governance of our Parliament and political process.

We have seen some welcome moves towards making a start in beginning to consider a more representative political system (yes – I think it is that nebulous), and we have seen a lot of brave words which have yet to be matched by deeds.

But what about MPs and their Expenses?

I’m returning to the principle I first posted in February 2008, as part of our “House Rules for MPs” report.

I’d like to see the arrangents for politicians be as close as possible to those experienced by the normal population. I see that as a way to bring more sanity into some aspects of the ordinary system, as well as making our politicians more transparent as a route to restored confidence.

And also to the fundamental principle which has always been in place in the “Green Book” Guide to Parliamentary Allowances. This is the 1971 version:

The Additional Costs Allowance reimburses “for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence…for the purposes of performing Parliamentary duties. This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.”

And this is the 2009 text:

Members are cautioned against instances “where they may appear to be vulnerable to criticism or accusations of impropriety.” It also reminds MPs that their conduct should be placed concepts of “selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership.”

My view of the Legg measures

The strongest proposals in the Legg measures are for repayment of some expenses’ claims.

It seems to me that the basic principles above justify a requirement for full restitution, and that the intentions of those making the claims, and incompetence, collusion, or even corruption in the Parliamentary administration, are not especially relevant.

For a principle of “treat MPs like the rest of us”, then we need to remember that if I make a mistake (or a “mistake”) in my own Expenses, error, misunderstanding or bad advice is no excuse, and the monies must be repaid with the likely addition of interest and a penalty.

I think that these measures should be applied. Equally, if in law the “reasonableness” test applied by Sir Thomas Legg is not valid, then this test should be set aside.

For the sake of our politics this needs to be pursued straight down the line, all the way.

And then we have to get on to everything from the Westminster-bubble Gold-Plated Parliamentary pension scheme, to the 6-12 months salary received for MPs “declared redundant” by their Electorate, and allowances in the House of Lords, and all the rest.

This is just the first step on a long road. Gird your loins.

There have been several events and reports worthy of note in the last week in the world of local blogs and websites . I thought it worth a roundup, and some reflections

David Cameron, the Conservative Leader, has pledged to cut the cost of Parliamentary politics. From the Independent:

David Cameron laid down the gauntlet to Gordon Brown today by pledging to slash pay, perks and costs at Westminster.

The Tory leader set out plans to cut the number of MPs by 10 per cent, reduce ministerial salaries and do away with subsidised food and drink.

Although the £500 million annual bill for running Parliament was only a “pinprick” in terms of overall public spending, politicians had to give an example for the looming “age of austerity”, Mr Cameron insisted.

“With the Conservatives, the gravy train will well and truly hit the buffers,” he said.

Iain reckons that it will save 100 million ukp per year. Mark Thompson suggests that there are some self-serving motives giving rise to some strange holes in the proposals.

To me it seems that they are looking at cuts of 10% across the board on financial totals. So 10% fewer MPs, a small cut in Ministerial Salaries which will could be made up to 10% with a reduction in number of Ministers, a 10% cut in overheads etc.

The Daily Telegraph is suggesting on that link that Mr Cameron is looking at a reduction in the number of Ministers to around 100 from the current 119, which would go some way to meet Mark’s scepticism if it were to happen one day.

There’s been a point made that 100 million ukp will make hardly a dent on the face of the country’s financial bottomless pit. That is true, but – assuming we have a Tory government – Mr Cameron is going to have to take an axe to whole areas of unnecessary public expenditure, and will need to be seen to give a lead.

I think that 100 million ukp is too small a symbol after 10 years of bloat and the biggest trainwreck of self-liquidated political integrity in a century, and that there are some (different from Mark) strange holes in the proposals.

There is also still a herd of elephants standing in the corner of the room that are being ignored. That oft-ignored herd of elephants is the level of the Basic Salary of MPs.

Between 1993 and 2006 these were the comparative changes in the UK:

1. Retail Price Index: increased by 44%.
2. Average Earnings: increased by 63%.
3. 95 percentile of taxable earnings: increased from 33,100 ukp to 58,500 ukp, that is by 77%.
4. Basic salary of MPs: increased from 30,854 ukp to 59,686 ukp, that is by 93%.

So, ignoring the squealing and the guff from Alan Duncan MP about “rations”, MPs are already thoroughly at the top of the heap, and steadily climbing higher. I’ll post the graphs and sources of the analysis tomorrow.

Then there’s another hundred million or more that Mr Cameron needs to pledge to go after as well, and that is the money which has been obtained by laxity within, or fiddling of, the Parliamentatry Expenses system over the last 10 years.

Part of this may well be due to a House of Commons regulator which “went native”, but if I make a mistake in my taxes it is no excuse to have been badly advised, and the Inland Revenue will still want their pound of flesh.

If the Inland Revenue think there has been a problem, they can go back decades. MPs’ Expenses should be no different.

And if it will take primary legislation to ensure that the principles which should have been applied, are applied, then so be it.

I think it applies equally to both.

The first of 2 postings for the Bonkety-Bank Holidays, a Freedom of Information Request by Steve Wood about Elastic Bands.

For the record, the ball on the right contains about 850k rubber bands.

I cannot help noticing that all the streets round my area of Bristol are frequently littered with the rubber bands used to collate bundles of post for mail deliveries. In the light of this could you inform me:

1. How many elastic bands – in terms of either numbers or weight – does the Royal Mail procure and/or consume per year?

For the last three years, the number of rubber bands used by Royal Mail
was:

2007/8 871,695,000
2006/7 825,750,000
2005/6 753,480,000

Do you remember Information Sharing Orders, to allow Ministers to override the Data Protection Act by fiat, smuggled into the “Coroners and Criminal Justice Bill” at the end of last year.

Well, Plan B to circumvent the Data Protection Act may have surfaced: rather than sharing data we will all have an “Integrated Citizen Record”.