Some jokes write themselves...

[DanaC]

I think it was his brother, Peter. I get the two mixed up.

[Undertoad]

Peter is more involved with his home country's politics, but it sounded like typical Christopher, because he is always the contrarian. (I love the gent, fwiw)

[glatt]

DanaC, what is your role in the government? I don't really understand the structure of the British government, so haven't understood too well what your role is when you have spoken about it. Plus I know you are careful about revealing too much that might identify you to someone in real life. I gather that you are some sort of local elected official. Is that right? How do the local governments fit in with the national government?

Would you be willing to explain it all to a curious foreigner?

[DanaC]

*nods* yah. I am an elected member of a borough council. Certain local governance is devolved to local councils, though it is heavily fenced in by government mandates. We have responsibility to deliver local services (or in the case of education 'commission' local services) and manage local matters like waste collection/recycling, traffic calming measures, local bye laws, licensing gaming establishments/clubs/taxi cabs etc. Planning decisions also are localised. Most of what we do is laid down quite precisely. Certain of our funding is ring-fenced by law to particular services. We collect a local tax (Council Tax) which is based on property bands and which in theory pays for local services. Most funding actually comes in payments and subsidies from central government, and that is based on our performance indicators.

There are different types of local government and sometimes they co-exist somewhat uneasily. So, for instance my borough is a unitary authority: one authority oversees the main running of the entire borough; however, below that level we still have the vestigial Parish councils in at least three of our towns.

It gets complicated :P

Earnings are very different :P But then it is intended that people are able to be councillors whilst still working full time. My allowance annually for being a councillor is £9k before tax. There is a minimal expenses system to cover additional out of borough expenses, such as attending conferences out of town.

The voting system is very similar to the national parliamentary elections. First past the post. But there tends to be more variance in terms of additional parties. The big difference though is in scale and levels of responsiblity. As a councillor I and 2 other colleagues between us represent a ward of c6000 people to a council which is not very powerful. An MP represnts a consituency of around 60,000 in Parliament, which is the centre of power.

[glatt]

So these boroughs, they are subdivisions of a county? Are there multiple towns in a borough, or is a borough smaller than a town?

Edit: actually, I see that you said you had at least three towns in your borough.

[glatt]

I see from wikipedia that each constituency elects an MP. And there are 646 constituencies. Does the borough have any relation to the constituency? Are they the same area on a map, or do they encompass completely different areas? Are they totally different systems?

[Sundae]

At the moment, Cameron is shouting about having LESS MPs. Apparently we have more per head of population than any country after China.

Personally, I'd rather keep the number of MPs and just have a few more constituency MPs. Like benn as he's beenmentioned before. Backbenchers who work for the people who elected them. I might even consider - and sit down before you read this - voting Tory if the MP was right. Ha-de-ha, ent gonna happen though. People like me buy our own furniture /obscure Alan Clarke reference/

[DanaC]

'Borough' is a fairly arbitrary redrawing of boundaries and merging of smaller authorities into a unified whole. The old 'borough' meant something slightly different. There's been an attempt in recent decades to effect a restrucuring of local government in order to simplify...our system had evolved across centuries and incorporated ancient rights and priveleges, overlapping authorities and competing claims. The relationship between central and local authority is not a simple one. It evolved out of relationships between kings and barons, metropolis and counties, royal and local prerogatives, all in the context of a North South divide that was cultural, political, economic and at one time racial.

Local government is a different tier of government, contained within and below the parliamentary system. Local government has no legislative function, merely executive and quasi-legal functions. We operate within a system which is dictated by Parliament. We are one of the mechanisms for operating the laws and systems they pass.

I am represented in local government (council) by a representative for whom I vote. I am also represented in parliament by an elected representative, and again I am represented by a member of the European parliament. They serve the same places but at different levels. The area an MP represents is much larger than the area a councillor represents. There will usually be 60-100 councillors working in the area that an MP represents. For the European parliament the area represented is even greater: County level .

I actually don't fully understand it. I am still confused as to the relationship between the Borough council I sit on and the Parish councils that also meet in this borough...

[glatt]

Sounds really confusing, but I get the meat of it. It's similar here, and varies from state to state.

I live in an urban county. There is no incorporated city here. We have no mayor, just a county board. I am able to vote for each of the county board members when they are up for election.

In addition to that, I live in the state of Virginia, and I'm represented by a delegate at the state capitol.

[DanaC]

*nods* yeah. Sounds very similar.

[DanaC]

@ Sundae: here's another perspective on the expenses row. I think this article makes some very good points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8051577.stm

[Sundae]

Interesting, but - like all journalism - makes sweeping assumptions and pretends they're facts.

Some say - always the comfortably off, the privileged and elite - that the exposure of MPs expenses has fundamentally damaged British democracy. That the focus on claims for 5p Ikea bags, manure, moats and bathplugs is prurient, and more about public curiosity than public interest.

No. I say that too.

It's only the bourgeois who think that.

No, I say that too.

The point is that if public servants can't spend their expenses with prudence, how can we have faith they will spend billions of our taxes wisely on larger projects?

Do I trust someone who has worked the expenses within the given rules to look after the minutae of my money? Yes I do. I am the Worst Person With Money in the World. It's true, Monster gave me a prize. I've run Christmas Clubs, petty cash and Grand National sweepstakes. Not one penny has been unaccounted for.

This story has done more to engage the public in politics than any screwy government initiative.

Brits like to moan. And they like to focus on the second word in the phrase public servant. And they like scandal. End of.

[DanaC]

A local MP I know in passing has just been suspended from the Labour party for claiming £13k in mortgage assistance on a property that no longer had a mortgage. He'd paid off his mortgage already. That's two Labour party MPs being suspended for claiming mortgage payments on properties with no mortgage.

I really don't give a toss about dogfood, chandeliers, or even moats (except for the humour of that one). I really do give a damn about people who stand over us, and legislate for us - including swinging measures against the most minor benefit fraud - defrauding thousands of pounds.

What really pisses me off about this is...these people are comfortable enough to have paid off their mortgages and then steal money. I recently represented a lad to the benefits assessment enquiry team. After a year of unemployment he'd managed (after a few false starts on stoopit courses) to get a full time permanent job. He's a young guy, with mild learning difficulties but he managed to nail himself a half way decent job. He went from the interview to the jobcentre and ended his claim. Was told they'd do the rest.

When they didnt do the rest, he got a bill for two months housing benefit, and then was made to go in and be interviewed, under caution, suspected of fraud. he told them what had happened. They denied it. He got letters telling him he could either go to court and be prosecuted for fraud, or accept a liability penalty of £90 which would stand as an admission of guilt, but not lead to prosecution (whatever the fuck that means).

He was fortunate in that he personally knows a couple of local politicians including the MP. It took several letters and this poor lad having to explain himself many times. They eventually decided it was an administration error.

All that for £250 that crossed over during a change from benefit claim to work.

This MP needs to answer some questions. But I bet he won't be treated as shabbily by those asking the questions, as my friend was, and as I have no doubt, you or I would be if we failed to follow every last unknown procedure.

The speed with which our benefit agencies leap to prosecution and scare tactics (most of the letters, including the one about the penalty option, were standard letters) is a product of the state that creates/manages/governs it. The same parliamentarians who have successively contributed to the creation of an unforgiving and distant attitude to the unemployed, or otherwise economically vulnerable, within the state apparatus created to meet their needs have applied a significantly lower set of limits to their own behaviour.

[limey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

... That's two Labour party MPs being suspended for claiming mortgage payments on properties with no mortgage.

I really don't give a toss about dogfood, chandeliers, or even moats (except for the humour of that one). I really do give a damn about people who stand over us, and legislate for us - including swinging measures against the most minor benefit fraud - defrauding thousands of pounds.

What really pisses me off about this is...these people are comfortable enough to have paid off their mortgages and then steal money. ....

Me too.

[Sundae]

Yup, with you there, Danster.
Although with a caveat - just because you're an MP, doesn't mean you advocate draconian measures against the poor. There must be plenty NOT on the make and NOT up for bringing back hanging for those who end up claiming too much in error.