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.

To find out more, visithttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/ageingintheuk/agemap.html

If you set the age range to the 0-15’s, it’s like watching pools of water dry up on a sunny day, as the drought of young people spreads across the country. Or watch the progress of the over-65s (which I join just after the end of the period) as the map gradually darkens.

Hat-tip: St Aidan to Abbey Moor.

Sources: Defence Management, Times Online

It’s the Vote for a Change campaign, keeping the buggers’ feet to the fire.

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.

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.

Wired Magazine Intelligence Briefing

Recently I gave an interview about current directions in the world of local blogging, for a Wired Intelligence Briefing, to @jamiedouglas. This is the overall presentation. (*)

The presentation consists of “10 current trends in 20 minutes”:

1. We the people – isolation of the political class.
2. Abundance creates scarcity of attention.
3. Serendipity and shared experiences – where discovery happens.
4. Everybody is local – enrichment of neighbourhoods.
5. Collaborate and listen.
6. The media is unpoliceable.
7. Watch out, sport.
8. Social networks have a half-life.
9. Google’s Achilles’ heel.
10. An era of etiquette.

(*) I am not keen this particular smorgasboard presentation format, especially as it eats PC resources. Sorry about that.

Talk About Local ‘09

Also worth a look is a report in the Guardian about the Talk About Local ‘09 Unconference, held on Saturday 3rd October in Stoke-on-Trent:

Almost 100 people left their bedrooms, home offices and local community halls for talkaboutlocal’s inaugural unconference this weekend. Some attendees in Stoke-on-Trent are professional journalists, starting out on their own against a backdrop of local and regional press lay-offs and closures, some have a political cause to fight while others quite simply want to give a voice to a community not well-served by a newspaper industry retracting and centralising.

Definitive numbers of these hyperlocal sites are hard to come by but the website www.nutshell.org.uk has already listed more than 50.

The event organiser, William Perrin, from TalkAboutLocal.org says: “People have always wanted to get involved to make things better and suddenly they can do it for themselves. The web 2.0 tools provide platforms that are incredibly easy to use, without any real cost.”

In the Guardian, the report author mentioned the practice of Stoke City Council to treat “Citizen Journalists” as being different from ‘real journalists’:

The town hall which PitsnPots set up to scrutinise has been less welcoming. Stoke Council’s head of PR and communications, Dan Barton, explained that bloggers would not be invited to briefings and are excluded from sitting at the press table in the council chamber.

“Opinion should be encouraged but we do draw a distinction between what is news otherwise we are in danger of de-valuing the role of journalists,” he said.

The National Association of Local Councils (NALC) is currently updating its guide to include the rise of social media networks but looks unlikely to change the definition of who gets treated as a journalist. A spokeswomen said: “We can say anecdotally that we would encourage councils to treat only accredited journalists as journalists. And treat citizen journalists as citizens. But that does not stop citizen journalists making enquiries in the normal way … And there is no reason why media releases cannot be available to everyone as they are public documents.”

Reflections

The comment from Dan Barton seems to imply that the content of newspapers is “news, not comment”, and that the content of blogs is “comment, not news”.

I’d suggest that this is a ludicrous position to take, bearing in mind the extent to which news and opinion are mixed in the local (and especially the national) media, and also the miraculous range of howlers and planted stories which appear regularly. To mention just two that I have covered in the the last 5 weeks, remember the non-fact-checked Mayor of Baltimore spoof, which appeared in half a dozen national media outlets, and the Alan Sugar on Terrorism Death List story, which was invented out of the air and swallowed by the Sun?

I’d assert the opposite position: that thoughtful and careful bloggers, whether our beat is “local”, “subject-based”, “professional”, “political”, “technical”, or anything else, have potential to increase significantly the range and quality of niche coverage, due our tighter focus and our freedom from a need to work tightly to deadlines and volume of output requirements.

There are two clusters of issues that we need to address:

1. We need to make sure that we do work to a level of quality which is equivalent to, or better than, our colleagues whom Mr Barton is willing to name as “journalists”.
2. We need to make sure that it is impossible for the councils we are scrutinising to refuse to accredit us for any reason.

I’ll cover these issues more in a future article, but I think it is time for local bloggers to go on the front-foot; the decline in local media has left the gate wide-open.

Two places to start are firstly to write for other outlets, such as your local newspaper and sites which are regarded as “media” not “blogs”, and to see if you can get a UK Press Card. There are a range of bodies which issue UK Press Cards, and some people may come within the rules who do not realise that they do so.

Matt Wardman is an online consultant, and edits the Wardman Wire group political blog and Nutshell directory of local blogs and websites.

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.

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

2. How many postal delivery workers have been fined or successfully prosecuted for dropping litter (i.e. the said elastic bands) in the last year for which records are available?

Royal Mail Group has not been served with a fixed penalty notice or prosecuted for a littering offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 arising from the discarding of elastic bands. Royal Mail Group would not necessarily become aware of such action being taken against individuals. However, we are not aware of any delivery officer having been prosecuted for littering when discarding elastic bands.

3. What steps are being made by the Royal Mail to stop such littering and to recycle elastic bands?

Royal Mail re-uses many millions of rubber bands each year and bands are generally re-used within delivery offices and mail centres. We remind our people about the benefits of re-using bands and also ask them not to discard them after use.

Royal Mail uses millions of rubber bands each year because they are very useful when it comes to sorting and delivering the mail. Unfortunately, given the quantity that we use it is inevitable that some rubber bands will be dropped by mistake. The vast majority of our people are hard working and conscientious but, and as with any labour intensive organisation, errors will occasionally happen. Issues concerning the environment are very important to us, in particular those of street cleanliness and recycling.

The rubber bands we use are specifically designed to be more biodegradable than the normal brown rubber bands and this is intended to lessen the environmental impact.

Going forwards we have a number of process reengineering initiatives that should reduce the volume of elastic bands we use in our operation:

1. collection reengineering
2. customer traying
3. Reengineering mail handling equipment

I make no further comment.

Plans to allow people’s details to be shared across government departments and agencies have been criticised as “draconian” in the Commons.

…

But he was accused of using the controversial inquest proposals, dropped last year from counter-terrorism legislation, as a “red rag” to attract attention while data-sharing proposals were “smuggled” in.

The Information Sharing Orders would remove data protection restrictions that mean information can only be used for the purpose it was taken.

Which were subsequently dropped after the idea was placed under the spotlight:

The government has revealed that it will ‘rethink’ a proposed law that would allow departments to demand information on citizens from businesses or other agencies, and use it in ways for which it was not originally intended.

The clause in the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently under evaluation by Parliament, would allow government departments to impose ‘information-sharing orders’ on public and private sector organisations, at the request of a minister.

The only requirement would be that the information-sharing order was in the interest of any stated policy directive.

Many groups, from NO2ID to the BCS, have criticised the clause, arguing that it would effectively grant the government unfettered access to citizens’ private information.

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

The project, being led by the Department for Communities and Local Government, is called EPDM, short for ‘Effective Partnership Data Management’.

Though sounding fairly innocuous, EPDM has been described by those involved in the project as the ‘silver bullet‘ for the public sector’s data sharing problems.

The remark came from consultants Xantura, who were commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government last year to develop what they called

‘a strategy and programme of work to challenge assumptions and constraints to the sharing of data between public sector agencies’.

The plan, it now transpires, is to give every individual an ”Integrated Citizen Record’ which will track their every interaction with government and trigger automatic alerts to other databases on any change.

At the centre of this is the ‘data-sharing platform’ which will enable police, councils, NHS bodies and other government agencies to exchange personal information they hold on citizens.

FFS. The price of Data Protection is constant vigilance.

Campaigning trousers – on.

Sigh.