If you were to draw up a tag-cloud of common phrases that dominated the political blogs in 2009, as the year wore on, you would have seen the dominance of the word “liberty” giving way to an increasing concern with “transparency.” But the left should not allow this concept to be dominated by the right.

Between Heather Brooke and the Telegraph, we’ve also seen MPs being the butt of the demands for disclosure – often in excruciating detail. In both cases, the left have found themselves on the back foot in these discussions, allowing our perceived shortcomings to reflect badly on the Labour government that introduced the Freedom of Information Act in the first place.

Now, it seems that – as the election draws nearer – we’re allowing David Cameron to use a half-formed notion of “transparency” as the foundations for his “Post-Bureaucratic Age”. This concept (or #PBAge as it has inevitably been tagged) borrows the fluffy clothing of behavioural economics and webby goodness. But it’s an aggressively Thatcherite programme in drag. Demands for more “transparency” are at its heart. In yesterday’s speech, Cameron makes a range of laudable proposals about increasing the capacity of well-heeled and resourced pressure groups ordinary people to participate in the legislative process. He also refers to the Tory’s plan to make the tendering of public services more transparent.

The left should be looking to take this one step further:

• What about opening up the delivery of those contracts? Let’s see the private contractors exposed to every bit as much scrutiny as the public sector are, and then we can make a call on the question of whether private provision is actually more efficient or effective.

• Let’s see people who are suspected of tax-dodging being subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the considerably-cheaper-on-the-public-purse benefit cheats.

• And what about more transparency in the way that the more socially useless parts of the finance sector increase short-termism by the way that they speculate? What about more transparency for fund-managers? In this post by Tom Powdrill about the Kraft/Cadbury takeover, we see opaque fund-managers speculating against jobs to create a less valuable company. And what about exposing the estimated $390 million in fees on that bad Cadbury deal?

• When do politicians meet commercial pressure groups, and where do they get the research that they introduce into debates? Surely shareholders should know every penny that is spent on lobbying – what is being advocated and who is doing the advocacy? When do wealthy organisations provide cheap interns and secretarial services for MPs and public committees and what do they get back?

• When do newspapers carry stories that are favourable to their proprietors commercial interests? Surely journalists should source assertions that they make so we can see who is influencing public debate? Good journalism should be subject to a great deal more fact-checking than it is currently, and Left Foot Forward’s very own Andrew Regan has a good tool that could be adapted to this purpose.

So far, all of the demands for transparency have been placed upon either democratic institutions or public service broadcasters. That tells you everything you need to know about who is making the running in this debate so far.

Now, maybe it’s time they had a taste of their own dogfood?

The weekend has seen continued question marks over the future of Scotland’s Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

Last week it was reported that Ms Sturgeon provided a character reference for one of her Glasgow Govan constituents, Abdul Rauf, who had been convicted of fraudulently claiming £80,000 in benefits. This was on top of being imprisoned in 1996 for stealing almost £60,000 in pension and benefit payments when he ran a Post Office in Edinburgh.

The Deputy First Minister’s letter to the Sheriff who had convicted Rauf said:

“Mr Rauf has accepted his wrong doing and has experienced the consequences of it through the effect on his health, the distress caused to his family and the impact on his standing in his community.

“He and his wife are anxious that a custodial sentence may be imposed by the court and of the effect this will have on Mr Rauf’s health and the impact on family life.

“I would appeal to the court to take the points raised here into account and consider alternatives to a custodial sentence.”

Opposition reaction to the case was hostile. In calling for her resignation, Scottish Labour Leader Iain Gray accused Ms Sturgeon of an “appalling lack of judgement”. And David Cameron has made clear his view that she had “serious questions to answer”.

During heated exchanges in First Minister’s Questions (FMQs) last week, First Minister, Alex Salmond seemed to pray in aid Paragraph 8.1.1 of the MSPs code of conduct, which states:

“Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs.

“It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent’s case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member’s political beliefs.

“If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case.”

During FMQs, Salmond said:

“The code of conduct says, in paragraph 8.1.1 — let us quote it exactly —that it is expected that each member will take on a case when approached by a constituent. It goes on to specify the circumstances in which a member would not take on a case.

“The circumstances are that a constituent’s request could conflict with other interests or perhaps with “existing casework” — a conflict of interest in constituencies.”

Salmond’s case, however, misses the point. As the relevant section of the MSP code of conduct makes clear, it cites examples of what might constitute grounds for not accepting case work from a constituent.

The first minister’s defence however spins the code, by suggesting that the examples cited in the code are an exhaustive list of reasons not to take on casework. In essence, Salmond’s defence of Ms Sturgeon that she was somehow duty bound to take on the case hides the fact that his Deputy’s involvement in the Mr Rauf’s case was based on a judgement she made, rather than some sort of binding duty to do so.

Furthermore, in Scotland’s Ministerial Code of Conduct, paragraph 7.7 clearly states:

“On occasions, Ministers are asked to provide personal or job references for constituents. Ministers can of course do this provided they make clear that they are doing so as a constituency MSP and not a Minister.

“Particular care must be taken, however, to avoid any conflicts of interests and in some cases it may not be appropriate for a Minister to provide a reference, even as an MSP.”

The entire SNP case has been based on the fact that Ms Sturgeon was acting in her capacity as a constituency MSP. As the Ministerial Code makes clear, to provide references of the kind Sturgeon wrote for Mr Rauf, it would be inappropriate to do so as a minister, which in this case, could raise serious questions over a government seeking to influence an independent judiciary.

However, speaking at his court case, Rauf’s lawyer, Donald Findley QC presented Ms Sturgeon’s letter to the Sheriff by saying

“I have a letter of support from the deputy first minister of Scotland.”

It is significant that the letter was presented as one from the deputy first minister, rather than from the constituency MSP. Again, this raises questions over whether Ms Sturgeon was somehow using her position in Government to influence the sentence of a convicted fraudster

 It would seem appropriate for Scotland’s most senior civil servant, its permanent secretary, Sir John Elvidge to investigate to ensure that Ms Sturgeon in no way used her position as a Government minister in dealing with this case.

What is more, SNP MP, John Mason appeared to distance himself from his party’s deputy leader, concluding, “We all make mistakes and we just can’t have a society where every time somebody makes a mistake, their head gets chopped off.”

Next week Ms Sturgeon will be forced to make a statement on the issue to MSPs at Holyrood which will be awaited with bated breath. If she is unable to provide a convincing response to the many serious questions that have been raised, her position will again be in considerable doubt.

What is more, with the general election now a matter of months away, the SNP will have to consider whether Ms Sturgeon remains an asset to her party as its deputy leader, not least after her involvement in the so called “lunchgate” saga.

In the week when Chris Grayling was rebuked by the Chair of the UK Statistical Authority, and a candidate in Putney misused burglary statistics, the Conservative’s use of statistics have again come under scrutiny.

A press release quoting Philip Hammond this evening titled ‘Labour’s legacy of debt,’ details that:

Official Insolvency Service figures show that under Labour the number of people who have gone bust is double the rest of recorded history…

Before the third quarter of 1997, there were 400,000 personal insolvencies in England and Wales.

But Conservative Party research shows that, under Labour, 800,000 people went bust – double the rest of recorded history. The IMF recently warned that the high level of personal debt in Britain could hold back an economic recovery.

But leading personal insolvency expert, Pat Boyden of PriceWaterhouse Coopers, told Left Foot Forward:

“There have been changes in legislation, changes in attitude, and changes in lending patterns so it’s a bit too naïve to say it’s all down to the government…

“Without look at all the factors, it’s an unfair comparison.”

The 1986 Insolvency Act, introduced by the Conservative party, created Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) a formal alternative for individuals wishing to avoid bankruptcy. This has resulted in 300,000 to 400,000 additional insolvencies, according to Boyden.

A minor change in 2000 dispensed with court applications and made it easier for IVAs to be carried out while the 2002 Enterprise Act, which took legal effect in 2004, pushed up the number of insolvencies by reducing the length of time that someone could be discharged from bankruptcy from three years to one.

As Boyden asks:

“What do we want as a modern democracy? Do we want people to be hung up on debt for a number of years or do we want people to get on with their lives? … It’s better than it was in the 17^th century when they use to hang them for debt.”

Although there should be no excuses for the increases in personal indebtedness in recent years, the comparison by Hammond appears to be spurious at best.

Hat tip: Alex Hilton

It is just over five years since Scotland’s Freedom of Information Act came into force, which the Scottish Government itself describes as having “introduced important new rights to access information held by public authorities and also requires more proactive publication of information”.

However, concerns have now been raised by Scotland’s Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, that the Scottish Government is routinely and systematically rejecting Freedom of Information bids.

The concerns date back to a ruling at the Court of Session last year in the case of Glasgow City Council v The Scottish Information Commissioner.

In the case, the judges ruled against a firm of solicitors who wanted to obtain copies of statutory notices held by Glasgow City Council. STV says of the ruling:

“They rejected the request stating the solicitors had asked for copies of the specific documents, rather than simply the information contained within the documents.”

The case has led to fears that the Scottish Government are interpreting the ruling in such a way that they will regularly refuse Freedom of Information requests that ask for Information contained within documents on the basis that a request has been made for information and not a document.

Expressing his concerns, Mr Dunion said:

“The Scottish Government’s interpretation of a recent court decision threatens to undermine the right-to- know regime. Last year, in the circumstances of a particular case, the court determined that freedom of information gives a right to “information”, not to specific “documents”.

“Scottish Government officials are writing to requesters refusing to respond to requests where there is a reference to documents. MSPs, journalists and voluntary workers are being told to try to rephrase their request. Some have tried and have still been refused. In exasperation, they are seeking my view.

“I find this to be a disturbing and unexpected turn of events.”

The commissioner then told BBC Radio Scotland that the SNP Government’s actions were “wrong” and “quite inexplicable”. As a result, the commissioner has issued guidance to the public sector which makes clear that:

“Authorities should not automatically refuse requests for copies of documents, as long as it is reasonably clear from the request that it is the information recorded in the document that the applicant wants.”

Reacting to the publication of the Guidance, a spokesperson for the Scottish Government said:

“The Scottish Government is committed to Freedom of Information, and it’s underpinning principles of openness and transparent Government.”

Left Foot Forward reported this morning on Labour’s press conference where the confusion over Conservative spending cut plans were laid bare.

The Tories attempted to retaliate this afternoon with Craig Elder, Online Communities Editor, tweeting at 12.46:

“How we’re using social media and Google ads to highlight Labour’s backfiring attack on spending cuts: http://twitpic.com/10uotg #LabourChaos”

But the chaos appears to be in the Conservative camp. When you click on the “Labour chaos on cuts” Google ad shown in the pic above you link to … a blank page.

The lack of substance in the Tory spending cut ad is clearly an allegory for their own spending cut plans.

UPDATE 16.14

Liberal Conspiracy have also noticed this cock up. Sunny Hundal asks, “Who’s going to pay for the hundreds, possibly thousands of pounds wasted?”

UPDATE 16.37

Big sigh of relief in CCHQ as the google ad has now been restored. As tweeted by ConwayW:

“@johnprescott @leftfootfwd The Tories flash google ad working now but enjoyable while it lasted”

Progressive groups have reacted with dismay at the Government’s tactics over the Wright committee recommendations on parliamentary reform.

The Guardian editorial this morning argued that, “Harriet Harman offered a bizarre excuse for the sidelining of Tony Wright’s worthwhile plans for improving Commons procedure.” But a source close to Harman insisted that consensus had to be reached and told Left Foot Forward, “this is a matter for the House. We have to give Parliament its say.” Harriet Harman said in the Commons yesterday that, “The Government’s preference for reaching decisions on these reforms is that we proceed on the basis of consensus.”

Sunder Katwala, General Secretary of the Fabian Society told Left Foot Forward:

“The election of Select Committee chairs by the House is both substantively and symbolically essential to the idea of a stronger Parliament better able to hold the Executive to account.

“The idea of lack of consensus (while no doubt it may have some partial foundation) risks being a bit convenient for the Whips office in particular”

Gavin Hayes, General Secretary of Compass said:

“The public don’t just demand the Prime Minister or Government put out nice rheotric on cleaning up Westminster, they want concrete action. The Government should be doing all that it can to get this passed before the end of this session. They should take a much tougher line and impose a 3-line whip – as must the Tories and Lib Dems.

“That said, the whole Westminster way of doing politics is bankrupt and the real reform we need is electoral reform. It is absolutely critical that Gordon Brown keeps his commitment on electoral reform.”

Nick Brown has been accused recently of derailing electoral reform.

In 1980, Maragret Thatcher famously told her party conference, “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning!” Such words would have fallen on deaf ears in Nottinghamshire where  the Conservative county council leader, Kay Cutts, has made an about turn on the council’s proposed budget.

In October, the Council published its plans to save £33 million over the next year, with measures that included increasing charges for home care; cutting or increasing the cost of transport for older people; closing day centres; and increasing the costs of meal on wheels.

Last week however, Left Foot Forward reported that the County Council had found between £1.4 and £2 million, having underestimated the revenue increases they would get from council tax receipts. The figure was almost exactly that reported just weeks earlier by Unison East Midlands, which set out how the council could find £24 million to plug the gap without affecting services for the more vulnerable members of the community.

Since then, the council seems to have found an additional £4.6 million just weeks before a crucial budget vote. The reversals proposed include:

• maintaining spending on community transport rather than cutting by £150,000 from a total budget of £250,000 as originally proposed;

• reducing the non-school activities budget by 25 per cent rather than the original 50 per cent planned for Dukeries Community College and the Sutton Centre College;

• not withdrawing £560,000 from the budget to deliver dry recyclable materials to the Council’s material’s recovery facility;

• cutting the Welfare Rights Service budget from £150,000 rather than £250,00;

• increasing the cost of meals on wheels from £2.35 to £3 rather than the £3.95 as originally planned; and

• finding extra money for the gritting budget rather than reducing it by £50,000.

Furthermore, the Mel Shepherd, Cabinet Member for Adults, Social Care and Health has said that it is unlikely the sale of the council’s 13 residential care homes will now take place over the next financial year. Following the announcements, the Tory leader, Cllr Cutts, said:

“We have listened to people. This is a genuine consultation. I have been interested to what people have had to say.

“We remain committed to ensuring that the county council is financially sustainable.”

Unison East Midlands have concluded:

“We are delighted that the council have started to listen to what we are saying. The reversal of £4.6m of the cuts is to be welcomed. But as we have demonstrated the council have the scope to reverse a further £19m of cuts to protect vital services for the most vulnerable. The people of Nottinghamshire are counting on them to do the right thing.”

“This has only been possible by vigorous campaigning making use of excellent local government finance advice from head office, coordination the media and external campaign by the regional office and relentless workplace activity by the branch.

“A formal response from UNISON to the consultation will be submitted by Friday 22 January and we hope that the council will listen to what we have to say as we believe they can prevent nearly all of the propose service cuts.”

It will be hoped that the announcements made by the councils are not a cynical attempt to butter up the electorate ahead of the general election, with the original cuts planned likely to be reinstated after the election. For the time being however, Kay Cutts is misinterpreting Thatcher: “you turn if you want to, the lady is for turning.”

There are signs that Conservative-run Nottinghamshire County Council’s budget proposals, advocating cuts totalling £33 million, might not be as well thought through as council leaders would suggest.

Earlier this month, Left Foot Forward reported that Unison East Midlands had identified how the council could raise £24 million to plug the deficit, substantially reducing the impact of the service cuts being proposed.

Among the points made by the Union were that the council were predicting a zero increase in its council tax base. However, whilst housing growth had slowed but not stopped, Unison suggested that the tax base would grow by 0.5 per cent, equal to £1.5 million.

Now, a report in the Nottingham Evening Post has indicated that the council now agrees with this assessment. Speaking to the Post, the council’s Director for Finance and Trading said:

“When the budget proposals for 2010/11 were drafted there were a number of uncertainties around next year’s financial position, including council tax collection levels.

“At the time we had to assume that there will be no growth in tax base in Notts for 2010/11, based on indications of the low number of new homes built in the county in 2009.

“Each year district councils are required to let the county council know of their estimated tax base by the end of January, which gives us a more precise picture.

“Early indications suggest that there could be tax base increases of between 0.5% and 0.75 %, which amounts to an extra £1.4m to £2m for the county council. Once we have more precise figures we can decide how this will affect our final budget plans.”

The news raises questions over the council’s decision to base its entire budget on a worst case scenario. Concurring with this view, local MP for Broxtowe, Labour’s Nick Palmer, said:

“I think we should not only have a worst-case scenario in the budget papers. We should have a middle-case scenario. Otherwise you end up cutting things you don’t need to cut.”

Reacting to the development, Unison East Midlands have said:

“Now we’ve shown them that they will have up to £2m extra income it remains to be seen if they will use the money to protect vital services for the vulnerable. You can be sure we will be pressing them to do the right thing.”

The news came after MPs from across the county met with Conservative council leader, Kay Cutts, to discuss the budget.
After the meeting, Cllr Cutts was quoted as saying:

“I am very glad so many of Nottinghamshire’s MPs accepted my invitation to today’s meeting with me and my Cabinet members. As we work to meet the financial challenges that the council faces it is vital that we talk with politicians of all parties.“

However, Labour MP and Schools Minister, Vernon Coaker, made his concerns clear, concluding:

“What I am worried about is the services that Notts people rely on. The cuts in the budget are changes which affect the most vulnerable people in our areas.

“What was discussed was, ‘if you are going to increase charges, don’t do it to the most vulnerable people’.”

Similarly, Labour MP for Sherwood, Paddy Tipping, raised Conservative policy to freeze council tax:

“If they were not so dogmatic about not putting up council tax, it would give them an extra £9m to spend.”

Not all MPs at the meeting were so critical, however. Local Conservative MP and Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke defended his Conservative colleagues on the council:

“Obviously they have to make quite serious cuts because of the mess public finances have got into. They are having to put more money onto key areas of child protection and learning disabilities.”

The full council is due to vote on the budget on Feburary 25th.

Boris Johnson has spoken out against the bankers’ bonuses tax. Not only is he at odds with his own party and the Government, but also with leading economists.

The Evening Standard report today that the London mayor has written to the Treasury outlining his concerns. Johnson writes:

“I have already had numerous conversations with both UK and foreign banks who are quite seriously reconsidering their earlier decisions to locate, grow or remain in London…

“These short-sighted proposals could potentially and permanently damage the competitiveness of London as a financial centre by driving away the city’s unique cluster of highly skilled people, ideas and expertise.

But Simon Johnson, a British economist at Massachusets Institute of Technology – recently awarded the title of top public intellectual on the financial crisis by Prospect magazine – dismisses arguments like that used by Johnson on his Baseline Scenario blog:

“It’s unlikely that many good people will leave, but if they do move to smaller institutions that are not Too Big To Fail, that’s good for the rest of us.”

Simon Johnson is urging the US to adopt a “supertax on big bank bonuses” but is critical of the UK approach:

The supertax structure being implemented in the UK is definitely not the right model – these “taxes on bonuses” are being paid by the banks (i.e., their shareholders – meaning you, again) and not by the people receiving the bonuses.

Essentially, we need a steeply progressive windfall income tax – tied to the receipt of a particular form of income.  This is tricky to design right – but a lot of good lawyers can get cranking.

Boris Johnson has previously defied David Cameron on 50p tax.

Conservative Home this morning has a list of Boris Johnson’s 100 achievements since taking over in May 2008. But prolific London blogger, Adam Bienkov, outlines which actually add up.

On his Tory Troll blog, Bienkov outlines that:

“A few are real achievements but most are either deliberately misleading, or point to some new definition of “achievement” that I’ve yet to come across.”

He highlights two laughable “achievements”:

“27. The Queen’s portrait unveiled in City Hall.”

“73. Boris Johnson appeared in EastEnders visiting the Queen Vic.”

And goes on to examine the evidence base between some of the other claims:

1. “Frozen the Council Tax for two years running.”

Yes, but he’s also raised public transport fares for two years running. This cancels out any council tax savings by many, many times over.

5. “There are 400 more police officers for buses.”

Yes, but he is also taking 455 police officers off of the force overall.

63. “Knife crime is down by 30%.”

Yes, but gun crime has soared

79. “Overall crime on the Tube and DLR is down by 8%. Robbery is down by 29.2%, violent crime is down 2.6% and public disorder offences are down by 4.5%.”

But Gun enabled crime has gone up 67.1%, Homophobic crime is up 27.6% Rape is up 22%, other sexual offences are up 2.2%, Residential burglary is up 7.5%, business robbery is up 3.3%, Residential burglary is up 7.5%, Racist crime is up 6.9%

http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/

Just days after Left Foot Forward highlighted the 600 jobs to be lost at Leicestershire County Council, further questions are being raised about the way neighbouring, Conservative run Nottinghamshire County Council is addressing what they say is a need to save £33 million.

In November, Left Foot Forward reported on the publication of Nottinghamshire’s draft budget, summarised by the Nottingham Evening Post:

“The Conservatives are proposing to save millions of pounds by increasing charges for home care; cutting, or increasing the cost of, transport for older people, particularly those who use day centres; closing day centres and charging for services; and increasing the costs of meals on wheels.”

The Conservative manifesto for the 2009 elections in Nottinghamshire however said:

“Conservatives will ensure residential homes remain open and available for those who need them, and respect and support older people who wish to remain in their own homes.

“We will support lonely and vulnerable older people who want to retain their independence but be within easy reach of their friends and family.”

Serious questions are now being raised over weather Nottinghamshire County Council’s ideological obsession with freezing council tax is unnecessarily hurting the most vulnerable across the county.

In an article for the Evening Post, Ravi Subramanian, Unison’s Head of Local Government in the East Midlands, has identified a number of measures to raise at least £24 million of the £33 million the council says it needs to cut. The measures include:

• Increasing Council tax by 3 per cent in the county – this would raise £9 million, the equivalent of an extra 46p a week for a Band A property or £1.37 for a Band H property. Current budget proposals could see some of the most vulnerable paying up to an extra £10 a week to cover the costs of services for the elderly.

• The County Council have reported an under spend in the last financial year of £10.4 million, with at least half of this being put into reserves rather than protecting services. This as the council complains that they are short of funds, making service cuts and job losses inevitable.

• Current reserves at the council total £150 million, £24 million of which is unallocated. Unison are calling for just £2 million of this to be used to protect vital services during the tough economic times.

• £1.9 million could be saved by implementing proper management measures. Last year, the authority spent £19 million on agency staff – the highest of any council across the East Midlands.

• Conservative leaders in Nottinghamshire based their figures on no new revenue from new build housing. Whilst the market has slowed, it has not stopped altogether. As such, Unison suggest that the albeit slow growth in housing across the county would equate to an extra £1.5 million in council tax receipts.

• £130,000 could be saved by scrapping the extra cabinet post created after the Conservatives won control of County Hall in Nottinghamshire and abandoning plans to appoint a new communications post.

In defending her draft budget, council leader Kay Cutts sought to blame the Government. She said:

“We are meeting the challenges created by Gordon Brown’s failed economic policies and 28 years of his Labour colleagues here shying away from making difficult but necessary decisions.”

As Mr Subramanian says, Ms Cutts and her Conservative administration, along with her colleagues in Leicestershire and other councils will have to understand that governing, even at a local level, is about taking responsibility for your actions, not blaming everyone else for your woes, woes which in this case are self inflicted. He concluded:

“The council has the chance to reverse the majority of the proposed cuts. On 25 February they will either seize this opportunity, or they will show their cuts are not about money, but about a Tory political agenda to slash services in pursuit of David Cameron’s desire for a ’small state’.”

Tory-run Barnet Council’s plans for “no frills” services have been ruled illegal by the High Court. Today’s Times reports that the judgement has forced them into rethinking planned cuts – including cutting the number of live-in wardens in sheltered housing.

The council outlined their no frills approach last August, voting to implement it in October. The scheme would have seen provision of key services slashed, with wealthy residents able to jump the queue for planning applications and rubbish collections.

The ball is now in David Cameron’s court, with coucil leader Lynne Hillan urging him to pave the way for such schemes with new legislation if he wins power. She told The Times:

“Councils do have powers to impose some charges but there is no flexibility.

“We are now pressing the Tory leadership to introduce new laws if they win power to allow councils to implement their initiatives.”

With George Osborne telling the Conservative Councillors’ Seminar in September that “Conservative Whitehall will have much to learn from Conservative town halls”, Ms Hillan will have her dream of services for the few come true if the Conservatives win.

News that Fife Council is receiving what it describes as a “much needed boost” to its supplies of salt to grit ice covered roads is undoubtedly good news in the midst of one of the coldest snaps for many years. However the end results have hidden a lack of communications between Ministers in Scotland and officials.

According to Fife Council, stocks of salt had completely diminished prior to their being re-stocked on Monday afternoon. Bob McLellan, Head of Transportation at Fife Council told the BBC that the authority had “virtually no salt left at all”, adding:

“We have been let down quite badly by our supplier but having said that the suppliers are having to keep all the councils in the UK happy in very difficult times.”

Furthermore, The Scotsman have identified a number of other councils across the country which have also faced problems with the supply of grit.

For the Scottish Government, however, Finance and Sustainable Growth Secretary, John Swinney, appeared to contradict Fife Council’s interpretation of events. He said:

“Salt levels are sufficient at present to deal with the situation – any suggestion to the contrary is not correct – and our operating companies are regularly replenishing their stocks.”

Reacting to the somewhat opposing interpretations of events, Labour’s Transport Spokesman Charlie Gordon said on Monday:

“The Scottish Government appears to be saying this morning that everything is under control but the evidence does not support that with many roads and pavements still covered by snow and ice.

“With more freezing temperatures on their way it’s vital that the Government acts to keep Scotland moving.”

Similarly, in raising fears for the safety of motorists, Paul Watters, Head of Roads Policy at the AA told The Herald:

“It is unthinkable we should reach a situation like this. It is a desperate situation for Scotland’s drivers and we have to ask what is the plan now?”

Given that warnings of a prolonged period of sub-zero temperatures have been in force for a substantial period of time, it begs the question why both local and national Government in Scotland allowed stocks of salt to get so low in the first place, rather than anticipating future need, based on forecasts, and ordering extra stocks in advance.

Furthermore, the concerns raised by a number of local authorities raise questions about how many of the lessons from the UK Parliament’s Transport Select Committee have been learnt, following last February’s severe snow storms which saw London’s transport system grind to a halt.

Lessons will have to be learnt to ensure improved communications and greater clarity for the public during periods of severe weather.

Furthermore, the event raises questions over whether the Scottish Government have in place the appropriate mechanisms to learn what policy does and does not work and incident management from not only London but also Cardiff Bay and Stormont.

The Conservative party have released a press release claiming that the “Ministry of Justice Bans Tinsel.” But the story is a hoax and Conservative spokesman, Will Littlejohn, was unable to provide evidence to back up the claims.

The press release claims that:

“Civil servants working for the Court Service have been told that they cannot put tinsel around their desks as it “might offend other religions”.

“The officials, who provide administrative support and do not work in courts themselves, have been told that tinsel would break the Court Service Diversity Policy, which commits court service managers to “creating a culture where E&D [equality and diversity] forms an integral part of everyday working life” and “incorporating E&D into day-to-day management activities”.

A note on the release sets out that, “Baroness Warsi has received a letter from a member of the public which says: ‘I work as an admin officer in the county court and we have been told that we can’t put tinsel around our counter window as it might offend other religions according to the HMCS Diversity Policy’.” Baroness Warsi is quoted saying:

“Non-Christians don’t want to see Christmas banned, and they’re fed up of being patronised by Labour”.

A Ministry of Justice source told Left Foot Forward, “It’s complete nonsense. There’s tinsel everywhere – you can’t move for the stuff.” Indeed, Justice Secretary Jack Straw penned an article for The Times on Christmas Eve 2005 when he said:

“I was horrified to learn from an American friend that in the circles in which she, at least, moves it is considered not the done thing to wish people one does not know well “Merry Christmas”, still less to send out “Christmas” cards saying so.

“It’s mad, in my opinion.”

Boris Johnson’s transport woes escalated today with news that he is to scrap free rail travel on New Year’s Eve in a bid to plug a £5 billion deficit. Introduced by Ken Livingstone six years ago, the free travel has proved immensely popular with Londoners.

The Mayor himself admits that the measure will result in only a £100,000 saving – a mere 0.002 per cent of the deficit. He will also reduce the length of the fireworks display from 10 minutes to 7½ minutes, saving a further £175,000.

Buses, tubes, trams and the Docklands Light Railway will, however, remain free between 23:45 on New Year’s Eve and 04:30 on New Year’s Day, with only the more expensive National Rail services in London and the South East having to be paid for.

In addition to infuriating hard-pressed party goers, the Mayor has set himself on a collision course with the Government after demanding Whitehall pay for a £400 million shortfall in tube upgrade work – this despite the Department for Transport no longer having responsibilty for tube maintenance under the terms of the public private partnership.

And earlier this week he was forced to concede that the new non-circular Circle Line had resulted in fewer trains and increased delays. Transport for London had claimed that the new line “would improve train frequency”, but the opposite is the case – there are now only six trains an hour rather than seven.

The SNP Government is coming under criticism from all sides as it publishes its White Paper on plans for an independence referendum.

Given that Scottish voters seem to have turned against independence, the Independent on Sunday reported that Alex Salmond will attempt to shore up his plans by opting for what has been described as “devolution max“, which would see Scotland remain part of the UK, but gaining control of every policy area except for defence, foreign affairs the overarching economy policy. The Queen would also remain head of state.

The news came as Alex Salmond used an interview on the Politics Show to confirm that his intention is for a referendum on the plans to be held on Burns Night in 2010.

Responding to the reports however, former SNP member, and now Independent MSP for the Lothians, Margo Macdonald, a veteran advocate for an independent Scotland described SNP thinking as “half baked”, continuing:

“The SNP have failed to make the case for independence. I will have to vote for the bill because presented with a choice between giving the Scottish people a say or giving them no say, I will have to back it. But I hate it and I will say why I hate it.”

For Labour, Scottish Secretary, Jim Murphy accused the SNP of having a “peculiar obsession” with independence. He went on:

“In these difficult times they should behave like patriots, not just like nationalists, and put Scotland before their party.”

However, both Labour Leader Iain Gray and Jim Murphy have use weekend interviews to make clear that while they did not believe a vote now was in Scotland’s interest, they were not opposed to a referendum forever.

Meanwhile, Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader, Tavish Scott has written to the Parliament’s Presiding Officer, Alex Fergusson to investigate the circumstances around the sacking of a constituency assistant to Constitution Minster, Mike Russell.

The row centres on the actions of Russell’s assistant, Mark MacLachan. The Sunday Telegraph reported that while being paid by the taxpayer, MacLacen used contributions to his blog to smear opposition politicians.

The Telegraph’s Scottish Political Editor, Simon Johnson, has written:

“Mr MacLachlan suggested some Labour politicians got a sexual thrill from bullying women, falsely branded a prominent Tory “the biggest liar in the Scottish legal system” and posted a picture of Gordon Brown in a noose.

“He also alleged a married Labour MSP visited gay cruising spots, attacked the daughter of Lord Steel of Aikwood, the former Holyrood presiding officer, and launched foul-mouthed tirades against a series of other targets.”

Opposition parties have united in their condemnation of such behaviour, and have called on Alex Salmond to explain how it was allowed to happen, and for an apology.

Russell made his disgust clear, saying:

“It’s absolutely unacceptable; I was shocked to discover it.

“There’s no place for despicable anonymous commentary of this sort in politics and the person no longer works for me.”

This weekend has also seen Iain’s Gray’s decision to oppose SNP plans for a minimum price for alcohol challenged.

The BBC has reported that former Labour Health Minister, Malcolm Chisholm will vote in favour of the SNP’s plans. The corporation goes on to quote part of a letter from Chisholm to the Royal College of Physicians, in which he says:

“I believe that a range of measures must be taken to combat the serious problems caused by alcohol in Scotland.

“I believe that price is a key element and I am persuaded by the arguments in favour of minimum pricing.”

Similarly, another former Labour Health Minister, Susan Deacon, who stood down as an MSP in 2007, told the Politics Show Scotland:

“Frankly, the Labour party in Scotland has ended up in the wrong place for the wrong reasons on this issue.”

SNP Health Secretary and Deputy Leader, Nicola Sturgeon reacted:

“I am encouraged by the support from Malcolm Chisholm and Susan Deacon, and we will continue to have constructive talks with opposition parties about the broad range of positive proposals contained in the Alcohol Bill, including minimum pricing.”

Speaking against the proposal, Murdo Fraser, Deputy Leader of Conservatives at Holyrood has claimed that the SNP policy could be illegal. He went on to say that minimum pricing “penalises responsible drinkers and will cause immense damage to the whisky industry”.

The head of the Conservative councils’ innovation unit and leader of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has launched a blistering attack on the competence of the Shadow Cabinet.

In a discussion on increasing efficiency through reforming local government, reported by Public Finance magazine, Stephen Greenhalgh said:

“My mates are all in the shadow Cabinet, waiting to get those [ministerial] boxes, being terribly excited. I went to university with them, they haven’t run a piss-up in a brewery”

“They’re going to get a department of state, in one case running the finances of the nation.”

Earlier this year Mr Greenhalgh was in the news for his secret plans to demolish 3,500 homes in his borough.

44 hereditary peers were among 179 Lords to vote last night to retain a “free speech” amendment on new laws against inciting homophobic hatred – the precise difference between ‘contents’ and ‘not contents’. 14 Labour and 4 Liberal Democrat peers also voted for the amendment.

On Monday, MPs voted by 342 to 145 to defeat Lord Waddington’s amendment, which activists believe would provide a loophole for those inciting violence on homosexuals. But last night Lords voted by 179 to 135 to retain the clause. Jonathan Finney, head of external affairs at Stonewall, told Left Foot Forward:

“Stonewall’s concern is that the House of Lords insistence on retaining the Waddington clause sends a worrying message just when homophobic attacks are on the increase. The tone of Lord Waddington’s unnecessary amendment is offensive and stigmatising. Furthermore, an exemption of this kind risks allowing some people to seek to evade rightful prosecution for stirring up anti-gay hatred. Having long campaigned for incitement protections we’ll be pressing the Government to implement these necessary and important measures as soon as possible.”

In the debate last night, Lord Chris Smith said:

“If the signal that the House sends is that it is all right to be intolerant, I fear that we will end up seeing more violence and more attacks and more difficulty for people simply because of their sexual orientation.”

Explaining the provisions in the bill to MPs on Monday, Justice minister Claire Ward said, “In order to fall foul of the bill, the person’s words would have to be threatening and their behaviour intended to stir up hatred.”

UPDATE 10.23, 13/11

You can see the roll-call vote here.

Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government Caroline Spelman has again sought to divert the media gaze away from more serious examination of Conservative Town Hall ‘stealth taxes’ by blaming central government, rather than the decisions of her own councils.

Speaking at the New Local Government Network yesterday, Spelman said:

“I think people are coming to the end of their tether with direct and indirect tax-raising measures. Last year the Audit Commission found that the average family is paying £1,190 on charges for Town Hall services. The origin of this lies in Whitehall.

“In articles and speeches the Government has called on councils to charge for more services and has expressed concern that councils are not doing enough to charge for services. But as households tighten their belts the Whitehall ratchet of taxing and charging has to slacken.

“Councils should not be coerced into putting up costs all the time simply to make ends meet.”

This accusation will be received with some bemusement by those who work to finance local government services. The level of fees and charges are almost entirely at the discretion of local authorities, not government rules. They currently make up around 20 per cent of local authority revenue each year and are an important source of income, paying for discretionary services.

They are levied across a wide range of services, from play centres through to library charges, music lessons and car parking. Typically a council will have over 1,000 such charges. Historically these were usually pegged to inflation – but often kept lower, at the discretion of the council, due to local social or community factors.

Where there has been a debate about fees and charges in the past, for example when councils were in danger of setting unreasonable council tax rates or failing to keep expenditure efficient or under control, fees and charges remain the preserve of the local council.

But an entirely different picture emerges if the record of Conservative councils is scrutinised. They have adopted an aggressive policy pushing up local government fees and charges whenever they have the chance to, a tactic used (in part) to disguise a ‘lower council tax’ policy.

London is a case in point, but there are examples elsewhere in the country. Behind the headline of low council tax settlements, it is Conservative-run councils who make up the balance by adjusting their fees. While this often hits the most vulnerable the hardest, it also has the knock-on effect of depressing demand – effectively running down a service.

• The leader of the Tories’ flagship Wandsworth council, Edward Lister, has urged Tory councils to “increase charges as far as possible beyond inflation” and that fees should be used on a “trial and error approach” to test just how much residents will bear.
• To much acclamation in Conservative circles, in north London, Barnet Council is forcing through a new model which charges residents once for their council tax and then asks them to pay an extra fee to jump the queue if they want a better or faster service.
• In Hammersmith and Fulham residents’ parking charges have increased by 12.5 per cent, and children’s out-of-hours play service charges have risen by 121 per cent. The minimum increase across all council charges is 5 per cent. Meals-on-wheels prices rose by an incredible 40 per cent – adding £365 to annual food bills for the elderly.
• Mayor Boris Johnson might pledge to keep the mayoral precept down, but he has raised the cost of travelling in London by up to 20 per cent with bus users suffering the hardest. A single pay-as-you-go bus ticket will rise to £1.20 with off-peak tube fares also rising by almost a fifth. The congestion charge, held at £8 since 2005, will also rise to £10, although this will not come in until the Western Extension is scrapped next year. All this, just one year after a similar above inflation hike.
• And this also happens where the Conservatives share power, rather than have outright control. In Camden, the Conservative/Lib Dem administration set a budget putting up Meals on Wheels dinners for the elderly by 50p each (or nearly £300 a year for a couple); hiked up play-after-school and holiday-play schemes and even raised the cost of burying your child by over 15 per cent. Permission to park notices (for builders or removal vans outside your home) famously went up from £9 a day to £33 – a 267 per cent increase – hitting residents and small businesses.

But whether Conservative councils have raised their fees dramatically or incrementally, it is interesting to note that they were less willing to decrease them, even slightly, when the VAT cut came in. Camden, like neighbouring Westminster and other Conservative authorities, did nothing to pass on the VAT cut for ‘paid for’ services last year when they should be passing the benefit on to residents.

Of course, all councils should set rates for services as they consider appropriate and reflecting what they can afford. If Conservative or Lib Dem councils want to charge more for services, they can: that is localism. But they should also be straight with residents about how the shared burden of council tax is being shifted – by stealth – onto those who use council services.

If prices reach a tipping point, as they have in some boroughs, then it will naturally have an impact on demand. With fewer users, services become unaffordable in the eyes of the council – a justification for closure or the running down of a community service.

Raising ‘stealth taxes’ via fees and charges is ultimately a local choice. But under the Conservatives these they are happening locally, across the country.

Theo Blackwell is the opposition Finance spokesperson for Camden Council