There are a few inconsistancies in the Crawley News story about county councillor expenses which are genuinely baffling.
One councillor, Brenda Smith, claims that the council’s email system is a secure system which you can’t access using your own computer so you have to have county council hardware to access it.
Another councillor, Duncan Crow, claims for broadband but is not supplied with a computer.
Those two things make no sense together. If it is true that the council’s systems are secured and cannot be accessed using non-council equipment then that broadband expense is a waste since it can’t be used for council business. If Duncan Crow is conducting council business with that broadband link then Brenda could be using her own PC .
I know Brenda wouldn’t lie about this, but she would happily admit to not being a computer expert. If she says the system is secure it will be because somebody in the council’s IT department told her so.  I could believe it either way. There is nothing to stop a council, or company, setting up a secure VPN link in such a way that their system could be accessed from anywhere, but lots choose to make it more secure and limit access to their own hardware.
I’m not sure I like the tone of the story though. Councils are moving towards providing more and more information electronically instead of printing everything out and the last thing councillors, even Tory ones, need is the suggestion that they are freeloading because they are provided with the means to read those documents. I have used corporate and council laptops in the past and they are not perks as they are normally useless for doing anything fun.
Crawley council used to have a policy about providing either a laptop or a BlackBerry, which was a bit foolish, though the BB was still experimental at the time. A BB is great for being able to get emails and check diaries on the move, much easier than opening up a laptop, firing it up, finding a wifi hotspot, but not good for reading a large PDF or writing long documents. I can see sound reasons for having both.
It looks to me like the News have just read a county council press release, stretched it out, and padded it with some quotes without any attempt to understand what it means or verify any of the technical details with the council’s IT department. They have ignored the anomalies, possibly because they haven’t understood it enough to realise that there are anomalies.
A decent version of this would have asked:
- How can one councillor get broadband provided without any equipment to make use of it?
- What happens to emails sent to the councillors with no IT provision? Do they only get read when they visit Chichester?
- Do councillors with laptops get sent less paper than the others?
- Are the non-IT councillors preventing the council from saving money by moving entirely to electronic delivery?
- Could the council save money by letting councillors access systems from their own PCs?
- What sort of security/encryption is there on council-provided laptops to protect information on them or access to central systems from them?
- Is there any scope for county and district councils to collaborate so that somebody who is a member of both can use just one PC and not need a county computer and a district computer? And has any comparison been made between what dual-council members claim at district and county level – not just in IT?
- What is the £400 annual cost for a laptop for?
I’m sure there are good answers to these questions, but they won’t get them by asking councillors (OK, maybe Bob Lanzer would know the technical side). That is just off the top of my head.
What could have been an informative article or even a useful investigation is just churnalistic filler. Funny how it appears a month before some of these councillors are up for election in the Crawley borough elections though.
Yes, I wondered about this. I do know that Brenda uses her crackberry quite a bit, but whether it is a WSCC one, I don’t know. I always find that it is a complete pain to have dedicated hardware. That is one reason that I dumped a company phone, a private phone and a pda to just use the HTC Desire, which does most things. (Won’t sync to my current work email but that is their fault and if they won’t fix it, well I’m not that bothered).
What about the discrepancies in mileage expenses with the fine Chris Oxlade only claiming 170 quid or something?
Well… either he doesn’t bother going to meetings, he doesn’t bother claiming or he gets a lift from Brenda. And I know he goes to the meetings.
I notice that as it was for 2009/10, Bob Lanzer had null figures. But there was another county councillor for the same seat, wasn’ there? What were Henry’s expenses
Good point. Another question the paper should have been asking instead of just doing a copy & paste job.
Who give a shite – have you forgotten there’s an election next month ?
And you are not concerned about the coincidence of the local papers producing anti-politics stories that are almost calculated to make people decide not to bother voting because ‘they are all the same’? (and not to bother standing because you’ll get the same treatment)
It seems to me that this is less about WSCC and more about the press sensationalising stuff and singling out one councillor. Indeed odd just before an election.
I can’t speak for what’s happening in Crawley, but up here were are campaigning on the issues (not perhaps trying to spend too much time arguing that the last government had nothing to do with the deficit). We are capable of doing more than one thing over an election period.
“Not perhaps trying to spend too much time arguing that the last government had nothing to do with the deficit” – Danivon
That’s the problem, as I see it. The Labour Party has persistently allowed the Tories to spin the propaganda of blaming them for the deficit, and thus able to blame Labour for the “necessity” of cuts.
Of course, the right-wing mainstream media are complicit in this Tory propaganda, which just means Labour have to be very, very clear :
Now, the only thing that will persuade the voter on May, and change the media bias, is if Labour completely – and without equivocation – reject these lies being peddled by the Tories”.
Again with the demanding…
I’m sorry, but it’s frankly not credible to people, notwithstanding your opinion, for us to say that it had nothing to do with the government of the day. Clearly some of the responsibility does lie with the last government, even if a lot goes to the banks and to the US. And even if the Tories would have been no better it makes no bones to people on the doorstep.
Rather than try and fight yesterday’s battles, we need to focus on today’s. That revolves largely around the pace and depth of cuts, what they are going to do to services, and what the effects will be on the economy.
How real people will lose out if the Tories and their yellow chums keep on as they are is actually vital. Esoteric arguments about propaganda wars will make us look like fruitcakes.
“Not perhaps trying to spend too much time arguing that the last government had nothing to do with the deficit” – Danivon
That’s the problem, as I see it. The Labour Party has persistently allowed the Tories to spin the propaganda of blaming them for the deficit, and thus able to blame Labour for the “necessity” of cuts.
Of course, the right-wing mainstream media are complicit in this Tory propaganda, which just means Labour have to be very, very clear :
Now, the only thing that will persuade the voter in May, and change the media bias, is if Labour completely – and without equivocation – reject these lies being peddled by the Tories”.
Good point Danivon – but being so concerned not to appear a “fruitcake” Party to voters, your attacks on the Tories appear like being “mauled by a dead sheep”.
But that is nothing new, is it Skuds ?
All I’m saying is that it is a distraction for Labour, at a time when you should be out there telling people to vote for you.
There are far more critical issues to address, without using up energy on the insanity of WSCC.
Such critical issues include
1. The unequivocal rejection of the Tory lie that Labour was to blame for the Deficit (& thus the Public Sector Cuts). It was the Banks – the very people who are now controlling the Coalition.
2. Being an advocate for those suffering under the cuts – eg disabled & benefit-dependent.
3. Exposing the Tory deceit openly & publicly.
This is simply not happening nationally with \’Millipeed\’, and locally with Brenda Smith – they are both allowing the Tories to frame the debate (eg Cuts are necessary etc).
If you in the the local Labour Party don\’t get your heads out of your own posterior – and fast – you are going to lose the best opportunity to \’sweep the board\’ on May 5.
Simply put, you are allowing the Tories – grandmasters at winning elections – to frame the debate about CUTS & THE DEFICIT.
Nationally (Leader \’Millipeed\’) and locally (Leader Brenda Smith), the opposition Labour Party is accepting the Tory propaganda that public sector cuts are necessary because of the Deficit, but not challenging them on the most crucial point : WHO CAUSED THE DEFICIT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
The Tories blame the previous Labour government under Brown – and this peddled lie is not being publicly & unequivocally rejected by the Labour Party. This makes you \’as much use as a chocolate teapot\’ as an opposition.
The Deficit has been caused by BANKS. Period. That\’s the truth – and that truth is not being told by the Labour Party – nationally & locally.
By not exposing the lie about cuts & the deficit, and not telling the truth, the Labour Party is likely to lose the local elections.
Private Banking Corporations, primarily Rothschilds, have created an economic & political system designed to benefit themselves.
\”Any good political scientist\”, says Chomsky, \”knows that wealth entails control of the political system (eg Governments of Countries – Ed), which is used to increase the concentration of (private) wealth\”.
The US & UK Governments have selected Bankers, Economic Advisers, Corporation CEO\’s & Hedge Fund Managers – \”the guys who have created the (deficit-debt) crisis\” (Chomsky).
They, in turn, design programmes – Bank Bailouts for example – that benefit those who caused the collapse (eg of the housing market) in the first place – not the millions of people who have been re-possessed or dispossessed (lost their homes, public sector jobs, disability benefits etc).
Privatize the profitable – \’Socialize\’ the rest (eg get public taxpayers to pay for losses).
This is our version of Capitalism – \’gangster-casino capitalism\’ : a system of economic, political & social policies that benefit the extremely wealthy…and the rest of us can survive as best we can – or die.
If you in the the local Labour Party don’t get your heads out of your own posterior – and fast – you are going to lose the best opportunity to ’sweep the board’ on May 5.
I’m sure the party will be flattered that you think that is a possibility. Taking control of the council is theoretically possible, but not without winning in either Maidenbower or one of the Pound Hills which might be asking a lot.
A sure way to lose is to either get overambitious and stretch the resources too thinly or to take supposedly safe seats for granted. That sort of hubris is partly resposible for the party losing too many seats.
“Health Reforms equals mass privatization of the NHS” – Rachael Maskell – UNITE National Officer (Daybreak ITV today – 6.40am)
Why are you not saying that loud & clear in the Labour Party, especially just before elections ??!!
Richard, Unite is part of the party. Miliband attacked the NHS Bill yesterday.
“Attacked” ?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw his performance – like being “mauled by a dead sheep”.
And how many times did ‘millipeed’ say the reforms were another term for privatization ?
Unfortunately Danivon, the Labour Party has a ‘dud’ in Milliband.