CC-BY image by Ch1ris2
Why should I care? I’m not Scottish, I don’t live in Scotland. I’ve only been there twice – first when I was too young to now remember and second for a four day drinking binge in Glasgow triggered by Biffy Clyro.
Not only that but I’d rather the UK remain together! I’m against Scottish independence and yet at the same time hoping Scotland votes yes.
Cognitive dissonance (heard that a lot recently) indeed. Let me explain…
I believe (though question that belief often) in devolution. The ultimate devolution for Scotland is independence. What better way to devolve power than all powers.
As an English citizen I observe with increasingly depressing dismay as the Conservative-led (and driven) coalition government privatises public service after public service (including the NHS), pushes more and more families into poverty, unfairly demonizes immigrants, perpetuates cronyism, gifts tax cuts to the rich and maintains economically and morally indefensible public spending like Trident and HS2.
Keeping an eye on the Scottish independence debate I can’t help but feel a wave of excitement and hope for Scotland. I’m incredibly jealous.
Scotland has already been able to protect the Scottish NHS from privatisation using devolved powers, compensated victims of the bedroom tax, maintained free university education, banned unreasonable letting agents fees and more.
All this and yet more is possible as an independent state in full control of all it’s affairs, free from the tyranny of selfish and inhumane Conservative ideology.
Westminster politicians are increasingly complacent (their failure to plan for a yes vote one example). Despite declining political participation and the resulting diminished mandate, they fail, even when giving ample opportunity, to fix our broken political system and instead push reforms clearly anathema to the British public.
Delivering a Yes vote in three weeks would do two crucial things;
1) Scotland would finally get the government it votes for. Conservatives a minority, Scotland would be a liberal socialist state largely unburdened by conservative economic dogma. It would be prosperous – there is no evidence to suggest it wouldn’t.
2) Westminster politicians would be delivered a massive kick in the teeth. The British public will be even more aware of the better deal that Scotland has through devolution, and made aware of the possibilities when freed from the self-serving boys club of the Palace of Westminster. They will demand more.
I really want that to happen. If ever the status quo were ripe for challenging it is now.
Problem is, an independent Scotland would deliver a huge blow to the rest of us. Without liberal socialist Scotland we would almost certainly be doomed to have Conservative governments.
That’s why I both have hope for a yes vote but worry that it’ll happen.
Amongst the media coverage of the PCC elections, both in 2012 and last week’s by-election in the West Midlands the Government has again trumpeted it’s “unelected and invisible police authorities” line in defence of the indefensible reform.
First, some facts. Police authorities in England and Wales were;
- Comprised of seventeen members
- 9 were elected representatives of the local authority (i.e. councillors voted in by the electorate, hardly undemocratic). Those 9 members would also be reflective of the political make up of the authority, reflecting the vote share of the parties, a further acknowledgement of the will of the people.
- At least 3 other members were local magistrates (i.e. people we already trust to pass judgement in our courts, and as such have a good handle on the justice system itself) appointed for fixed terms of four years.
- The remaining five members (if there weren’t more than 3 magistrates) would be elected by the police authority itself for fixed terms of four years.
A fraction over half of the police authority were elected, then. Not only that, but the political make up was reflective of actual votes cast in the actual county council elections.
Clearly, the rest of the police authority was ripe for reform, but replacing them with a single person elected on a tiny proportion of the electorate’s say so is not an improvement.
Let’s look at the West Midlands in particular.
Note that West Midlands Police Authority didn’t follow the make-up outlined above exactly, from what information I could find (given their website is now gone), but did resemble it. This may be that Wikipedia is out of date, or it could be that the authority was changed as part of the move towards PCCs. I’d appreciate any clarifying information on that, if you have it.
Of the 14 members of West Midlands Police Authority, 7 were county councillors.
- Cllr Diana Holl-Allen – elected on a 58.2% share from a 76% turnout
- Cllr Judy Foster – elected on a 43% share from a 53.8% turnout
- Cllr Sucha Bains – elected on a 47.7% share from a 31.39% turnout
- Cllr David Caunt – elected on a 49.19% share from a 41.63% turnout
- Cllr Keith Davies – elected on a 72% share from a 35% turnout
- Cllr Ernie Hendricks – elected on a 33.8% share from a 66.9% turnout
- Cllr Yvonne Mosquito – elected on a 59.6% share from a 25.1% turnout
As the above shows, the locally elected councillors serving on the police authority commanded much more public support than either of the West Midland’s PCCs have done.
We can’t accurately get an overall turnout but every single turnout for each candidate is miles higher than the recent (and previous) PCC election for the West Midlands. I include vote share above for completeness rather than comparison, as the PCC elections use a different electoral systems that requires the victor to gain over 50% from a “run-off”.
Half of the police authority was elected, and half not. If this is the basis of the Governments dismissal of police authorities, it would be yet another shameful show of hypocrisy. Our Parliament is comprised of two houses: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The former contains our 650 directly-elected MPs and the latter has 850 unelected Lords, many of whom are party donors. Just this simple fact arguably makes our very Parliament less democratic than the police authorities were.
So while the police authorities could have been more democratic, they were certainly not the “unelected and invisible” authorities the Government’s deceitful rhetoric claimed. It turns out, as the above turnout figures show, that PCCs are less democratically accountable than the police authorities ever were.
We should abolish the democratic abomination now.
Restoration, or renovation
Restoring the police authorities as they were is clearly not an option – they had issues. But here’s some ideas that would all be far more representative and accountable than the Police and Crime Commissioners;
- Simply remove the non-elected members
- Replace the non-elected members with a citizens panel (randomly-selected citizens panels have been shown to be reflective of the population in many cases)
- Have the members selected from local councillors based on proportional shares of the vote at the last local council elections
- Replace the entire membership with a citizens panel.
Perhaps some of those would be good. At the moment, almost anything is better than Police and Crime Commissioners.
One of my biggest gripes about UK Parliamentary elections is that successive Governments claim they have a “mandate” to introduce their ideological reforms (whatever the flavour) as if every single vote in their favour is a full and unconditional endorsement of their entire manifesto.
That is, of course, an absurd assertion but the ruling party invariably rolls out the “mandate” claim when challenged over the lack of evidenced need for new policy. It’s one of the many reasons we need a better electoral system for the UK. Instead, we have an elective dictatorship.
Mandate, or lack thereof, is the prime reason why the shambles of Police and Crime Commissioners must be abolished.
Last week’s PCC by-election in the West Midlands further demonstrates that nothing any PCC does has an appropriate mandate from the electorate. Before last week my own county, Staffordshire, had seen the lowest turnout for a PCC election at 11.63% but the West Midlands has now reduced that record to 10.38%.
Only 102,571 electors voted for the successful candidate, David Jamieson, out of an electorate of 1,974,518. That’s a ‘mandate’ of just 5.2%. David Jamieson is now free to make incredibly important decisions about policing throughout the West Midlands based on the support of a tiny proportion of the people who will be affected by those decisions.
Surely no one who supports the principle of policing by consent can possible contend that this pathetic election is in any way good for the people of the West Midlands. Couple that with the fact that PCCs cost more than the previous police authorities and you have an incredible insult to the electorate.
Following my letter to my Staffordshire county councillor, Terry Finn, I received the response below. I’ve some comments below.
Councillor Finn has asked me to respond to your recent communication. Thank you for your comments which have been noted.
Shame my councillor couldn’t be bothered to respond himself. He could have at least responded with his own thoughts and included the response from the officer (the author of this letter).
Staffordshire County Council believe It’s absolutely right that all local authorities are open and transparent about how they use taxpayers’ money to provide the services that residents, communities and businesses need.
Staffordshire County Council answered almost 2,700 Freedom of Information and the similar Environmental Information Regulation requests last year. While we fully support people’s right to have access to information, we do have concerns about the bureaucracy involved since the Freedom of Information Act came into force, and the way that some organisations use it.
For instance we receive numerous requests from businesses looking to sell us their goods or services, and using FOI legislation to save them time and money on research, at a cost to local taxpayers.
This is a good time to point out that as the Information Commissioner has said more than enough times, any information that could be released under FOI should be released pre-emptively. Were Staffs CC to do this as a default they would immediately reduce the very costs they are complaining about.
We therefore think our taxpayers equally have a right to know the time and costs involved in dealing with these enquiries and for the last two years have published this information on our website, including where those enquiries are coming from. We also publish all of our responses to ensure this information is freely available.
Do they really publish all those responses? Well, I started my stopwatch and took myself off to their site.
Could I find the published responses? No. I spent six minutes looking.
Don’t believe me? Here’s the recording I took as I did so:
You’ll notice I find a page that has the line “Freedom of Information – What have we been asked?” that looks like it should be a link but is not a link at all. A search turned up nothing either.
The closest I got was a page of disclosures but they relate only to requests made subject to the ‘public interest test’ and don’t actually include the substance of the request at all so are useless in helping others find information.
This further emphasises my last point. If they want to reduce the cost of FOIs asking for ‘already publicy-available information’, maybe they should go and dust the cobwebs off their web team.
Within your communication there were some specific pieces of information you requested:
You asked ‘…I notice you have included “Labour Research Department” but there are no figures from other political parties’
We only record costs in relation to actual requests. In this instance a request would have been received that could be associated with this category. We would not include any groups that could be associated with a category per se unless they made a request.
You asked ‘…the page includes the names of individuals. Did you seek permission from those individuals to publish their names in this way?’
We do not seek explicit permission from individuals, although the links to the disclosure logs are included on the request page. Many individuals make requests through sites such as ‘What do they know’ and their names would already be in the public domain. We are currently reviewing our approach in line with new ICO guidance.
Slightly worrying. They’ve released names but don’t confirm if they have sought permission from those who submitted an FOI request privately. There may be very good reasons why someone is asking for information but would have serious issues with their name being disclosed and it sounds like Staffs CC may have made a mistake here.
You asked ‘ Please disclose, for the time period covered by the aforementioned web page, the percentage of FOI requests where the response by Staffordshire Country Council was to point out that the information was already publicly available’.
In the last 12 months we have received 350 requests where the information was available elsewhere either on our own internet pages or with another organisation this equates to approximately 12 per cent.
The main reason SCC give for scare mongering about the ‘cost of FOI’ is based on a measely 12% of all requests. Even if that represented 12% of the cost, that’s only £8,196 – 0.0000008% of their budget rather than the 0.00003% Ampp3d calculated.
Additional: It just occurred to me (post-publication) that the 12% will not even cost £8,196. Given the responses will likely be short and relatively quick (i.e. either stating information is already available and/or pointing the requester to the where the information is held) they should cost much less than the average response (which requires an information gathering exercise).
Once again, it’s worth pointing out that they have failed to lower this cost on two fronts themselves; a) by pre-empting FOI requests and releasing information before it’s requested and b) by disclosing their responses to previous FOI requests (aka knowing their arse from their elbow).
If you have any queries or require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
In the first instance if you have any comments relating to how your request has been handled by our authority, please write to Lian Stibbs, Access Manager, Information Governance Unit, Staffordshire County Council, Wedgwood Building, Block A, Tipping Street, Stafford, ST16 2DH.
If you have any further comments relating to how your request has been handled by our authority, please contact the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
I’ll make just one more point that I failed to adequately make in my original letter. The subtitle of the page on the SCC website is “The cost of “Freedom of Information” to local people.” (my emphasis). No, the cost is to Staffordshire County Council, not ‘the people’ and it’s SCC that has the power to reduce those costs, as I’ve made clear.
I’ve moved from angry to depressed. Here’s my letter to my MP, Michael Fabricant, about the Data Rentention and General Bullshit Bill (DRIP);
There’s probably no point in even bothering, given you are highly unlikely to rebel against your party (which, by the way, says something about our “representative democracy”, don’t you think?) but I can’t let this one pass.
After trying it with the slave labour Workfare scheme your party in Government is trying to legalise something that has been found illegal. The new Data Retention & Investigatory Powers Bill (DRIP) has no legal basis, being as it seeks to legalise an existing practice that has already been ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice.
Not only that but the way in which this bill has been concocted and is being pushed through questions the very legitimacy of Parliament itself.
It is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary democracy that bills are presented to the House of Commons and scrutinised in depth by our elected representatives. We put faith in you do to this. No such process is taking place with this bill, which has been cobbled together in a secret cabal of all three major parties. MPs, such as yourself, have very little time to look at the bill.
We have been told that no new powers are being introduced. If this were true that does still not make the bill any more necessary or legal, given the legality of the practice it legislates on. However, initial analysis of the bill shows that it does contain new, wider powers.
We’re told this is a temporary measure, but as the last Labour government demonstrated this is meaningless. Hindsight tells us to expect these powers to remain permanently. Parliament’s record on this is there for all to see.
So I implore, no, I demand, you vote against this legislation in the interests of promoting a liberal country free of unwarranted mass surveillance already deemed illegal. Were you to vote for this legislation (or cowardly abstain as I fear many will) you will be complicit in the continued erosion of our civil liberties that will further damage the legitimacy of Parliament. Parliament is already woefully unrepresentative and citizens are engaging more with campaign groups than they are political parties such as yours. This is just one battle in the ongoing war for a politics that serves the people, not narrow interests.
After reading on Ampp3d that Staffordshire County Council were whinging about spending 0.00003% of their budget answering FOI requests, and checking out their whinge myself, I decided to write to my County Councillor (Terry Finn) to ask why SCC are attempting to demonise users of this critically important transparency law. I made a point of reminding him that it helps us (citizens) to hold power (him) to account, given that we are the ones that have given him that power, and temporarily at that.
Dear Terence Finn,
I am writing to you to express my disappointment in the way that Staffordshire County Council is attempting to demonise the use of a fundamentally important transparency law. Namely, the Freedom of Information Act.
As a Staffordshire resident the FOIA is crucial in ensuring I, and my fellow citizens, can hold you and council staff to account for the decisions you take in our name using the power we have lent you via the ballot box.
“The Cost of FOI Requests” on the SCC website (http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/yourcouncil/dataprotectionandfreedomofinformation/HowMuchFOIsCost/home.aspx) states that “Often the FOI process is used by some commercial organisations to save time and research costs. We think this is a wrongful use as the information requested is already freely available publicly. The same applies to a growing number of FOI requests from the media. This can save companies and the press money by, for example, reducing research costs but only at a significant cost to the Authority which is unfair to Staffordshire tax payers.”
This statement is an inexcusable attempt to belittle the important work that the media do in holding power (that’s you) to account on our (citizens) behalf. Individual citizens mostly do not have the time, expertise or resources to carry out the kind of investigations that are necessary to effectively scrutinise local authority decision making. We rely on the media to do that for us. Attempting to accuse them of wasting our money is an attempt to tarnish their reputation at our expense, and your benefit.
Pressure groups and political groups are also singled out in the FOI Costs page of the SCC website. I am pleased to see that WhatDoTheyKnow.com, and independent website, has already been removed from that section as it should be. Still, the singling out of those groups also seeks to highlight those in a negative way given the preamble of the page. As fewer people join political parties and instead join issue-specific campaigning and pressure groups, such groups are becoming much more representative of citizens than the membership of political parties. Something you would be wise to remember as you claim a ‘mandate’ for the decisions you make using the power we have loaned to you.
Following from that point, I notice you have included “Labour Research Department” but there are no figures from other political parties. Can you clarify whether this is an omission by releasing to me the number of FOI requests submitted by each registered political party, or party-affiliated group, in the last two years please? I trust that given SCC’s dislike of FOI you’ll get that information to me in a timely manner without my having to resort using the FOIA.
I also noticed the page includes the names of individuals. Did you seek permission from those individuals to publish their names in this way?
Finally, the website states “the information requested is already freely available publicly”. Please disclose, for the time period covered by the aforementioned web page, the percentage of FOI requests where the response by Staffordshire Country Council was to point out that the information was already publicy available. Again, I trust that you will provide this in a timely manner to avoid the use of FOI. To be clear, I am requesting this information in order to verify whether the claim that many FOI requests are due to lazy researchers is actually true.
It’s disappointing that the European Court of Hunan Rights has upheld the French ban on full-face veils.
Some call this a ‘victory for secularism’ but it is no such thing. Secularism is about equality for all. Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. It is not about curtailing individual liberties for some misguided notion about the ‘greater good’.
Banning the veil does nothing to address the mistreatment of women by adherents to Islam, it only serves to discriminate against those women who freely choose to wear face coverings and open them up to victimisation, isolating them from the rest of society.
Veil bans are a divisive policy concocted by politicians seeking to placate the far right for fear of losing votes to the likes of the National Front. The ECHR should be recognising this illiberal nonsense and rejecting it, not endorsing it.
Two things happened in the last week to spark this post; I gave the weekly “Show and Tell” at work on my favourite things about Drupal that I’d like WordPress to learn from (one of them should appear in 4.1, by the way), and yesterday a vulnerability was revealed in the still popular TimThumb library used by many WordPress themes and plugins.
One of my favourite things about Drupal is that it offers theme and module developers the ability to use dependencies. A few simple lines in the module.info file (Drupal’s sort-of readme.txt equivalent) can specify that the module depends on other modules and Drupal will recognise that, offering to install and/or enable those modules for you in order to meet those dependencies. E.g.;
dependencies = views dependencies = rules dependencies = features
That’s not all though, Drupal also allows module developers to specify required libraries in a similar way. Those libraries are then installed in a ‘libraries’ directory alongside the modules directory.
By contrast, WordPress plugin and theme developers often have to bundle those libraries into their plugin or theme. The result, when a security issue like yesterday’s TimThumb exploit is revealed, is that individual plugin and theme developers need to update their projects individually and push out an update, leaving users vulnerable until the developer gets round to it.
Instead, having a system like Drupal’s dependencies means that, once the library itself is updated, all installations could pull down that library update and secure their site without the plugin/theme developer having to lift a finger. Installs are secured quicker with minimal effort.
There are other benefits to a dependency system but I believe the security angle is by far the most compelling.
My suggestions above actually go a bit further than what Drupal offers at the moment, I believe, but a system that works as close to the plugin/theme system as possible would be beneficial.
Before you say it, yes, there is a better way to deal with TimThumb specifically. David Bisset put it best:
There’s a solid way for theme developers to avoid Timthumb security issues. Don’t use Timthumb.
— David Bisset (@dimensionmedia) June 25, 2014
Picture credit: The Colorful Library of an Interaction Designer by See-ming Lee
A couple of posts have caught my attention over the last week;
- Australia wants Drupal-based gov-wide CMS by Simon Dickson (obviously, ’cause he’s the boss nowadays)
- What can the WordPress community learn from the state of Drupal? by John Eckman
It got me thinking about the WordPress Foundation and whether it could do more to help promote WordPress. With 18.9% of the web powered by WordPress you might think there is no need! You might be right.
As John points out, efforts from the likes of the WordPress.com VIP team and the Big Media & Enterprise WordPress meetups are great, but with much of that coming from Automattic and WordPress agencies, is there a case for pooling that effort to better promote WordPress more widely, and with more independence?
Already the Foundation gives enabling support to WordCamps and it’s fantastic that we have so many. Here are some quick ideas off the top of my head of other promotional efforts the Foundation could* do;
- WordPress sector champions who would work on promoting the use of WordPress in specific sectors, producing case studies, networking in those sectors, generating connections and leads for agencies and freelancers and so on. Target sectors might include;
- Core support staff who would help with organising IRC chats, trac tickets, helping new contributors get started, running/supporting contributor days. These could be either employed direct by the Foundation or seconded to it by agencies. (I have no idea if some of the work I’ve mentioned here is even required.)
- Outreach people to help arrange things like Google Summer of Code and other as-yet-unspecified outreach projects aimed at getting folks engaged with WordPress.
- A WordCamp team who would work with and support WordCamp organisers. Likely nothing/little needs to change on this point anyway.
Of course, all that would need funding, and I’m reminded here of the jQuery Foundation and it’s membership structure. Something similar for the WordPress Foundation may work, and help those involved in WordPress feel like not only are they contributing to WordPress the project, but also the WordPress ecosystem.
What do you think; does that sound like a good idea, is is necessary, is it a terrible idea, is it okay but could be done differently? Shout below!
* Not could as in could do now, but could do at some point, if the resource was available.