Talk:Douglas Hogg

Disambiguation

"Douglas Hogg" could also refer to the first Viscount. To prevent confusion, this page should be at Douglas Hogg, 3rd Viscount Hailsham. -- Emsworth 22:56, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) It is Kettlethorpe hall not kettleburgh like the Mirror says. I know due to my dog falling in the drain that leads to his moat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.108 (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Right Honourable or PC

There appears to be some controversy concerning the correct form of address to be used. For the avoidance of doubt, the form of address for Douglas Hogg as given on the UK Parliament's website is "Rt Hon Douglas Hogg, QC MP" (as used by Douglas Hogg on his own stationery), not "Douglas Hogg, PC QC MP". -- Graham Smith 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the controversy is here. Lords who are members of the Privy Council are given the post nominal PC. Members of the House of Commons who are also members of the Privy Council are identified solely with the prefix "Right Honourable". As one of the few Members of the House of Commons that is also a Lord a resolution needs to be made between these conflicting rules one way or the other. If you have a source which specifically states that Douglas Hogg does not use PC then that is acceptable. Unfortunately however I am unable to verify your source as the link returns the error "You do not have permission to view this." Were you accessing a non-public area of the Parliament website, or is it just my computer blocking me from viewing the page?

On a side note I have removed "The Right Honourable" from the introductory sentence. Biographies on Wikipedia do not normally include such titles in the first sentence, as you will see from viewing any other articles about members of the Privy Council. Road Wizard (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for any difficulties you are having with the link. From the Members & Staff page at www.parliament.uk, goto "MPs by alphabetical list" => "H" => "Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Con)" => "Biog" and look under the "Westminster" heading on the "Member Profile" page - Graham Smith (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Total Expenses Claimed in respect of Parliamentary Duties

Another editor has removed a table showing Douglas Hoggs total expenses over the past few years on the basis that he claimed the maximum Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) each year and the table is therefore misleading. I disagree and believe that the table helpfully allows the reader to put the sums of money discussed elsewhere into context.

I don't want to get into any fights over this by simply reverting the previous edit and want the opinions of others. For information, here is the disputed edit: — GrahamSmith (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Hogg has consistently had one of the lowest total expenses claims of all MPs.

Total expenses claimed

Year	Total Expenses	Ranking	out of
2001/02	£ 62,120	637th	657
2002/03	£ 90,665	607th	657
2003/04	£102,791	579th	658
2004/05	£104,000	595th	659
2005/06	£115,631	-	-
2006/07	£120,909	547th	645
2007/08	£127,902	551st	645

References

My view is that this is the total MP Allowances (not personal expenses) including items like Staffing Allowance, Stationery and Staff Computer Equipment. Hogg claimed the maximum Additional Costs Allowance (recently in the news) every year since 2002 - "joint 1st" according to TheyWorkForYou[1] - so listing total Allowances here as "expenses" confuses and does not in my opinion help understanding. In fact there is no single measure that can be simply tabulated that clearly compares MPs (eg given they all have different travelling distances). Best to simply point the interested reader at the full TheyWorkForYou table. Rwendland (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Others will know that, in an attempt to put Douglas Hogg's controversial Additional Costs Allowances (ACA) claims into context, I added a table showing the Total Expenses he had claimed using data from the independent TheyWorkForYou website. This was removed. After seeking comments via Talk:Douglas_Hogg I reinstated the table with a revised comment stating "Even though he claimed the maximum possible Additional Costs Allowance in five out of the seven years between 2001/02 and 2007/08, Douglas Hogg has consistently had one of the lowest total expenses claims." This revised edit has now been removed by what appears to be an unregistered user accessing Wikipedia from a BT Internet broadband account. I consider the table of total expenses meets WP:NPOV and also believe it helpfully puts the ACA claim into context; it should be allowed under WP:BLP as it is fair comment. — GrahamSmith (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am seeking information mediation on how to present the controversial Additional Costs Allowance within the context of Douglas Hogg's total expenses . — GrahamSmith (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For ref, the the official description of the various MP Allowances is here.[2] Only columns 1 and 2 of the main table, and the non-employee columns in the travel expenditure table, would match what in everyday use would be called "expenses". Rwendland (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Hi guys, I saw the request for a third party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal as requested by User:GrahamSmith. For your information, I am from the UK, so if you have an objection to be helping, please let me know straight away. As far as I understand, GrahamSmith added the table of expenses which shows overall he claimed a low amount compared to MP's which was then removed by [[User: Rwendland]] & then by an IP. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Could anybody who has a view pop their name below & say whether they are OK with me giving you a hand. Could you then give me a summary of your views & what you would ideally like the sentence/passage to read. Then we can go from there? dottydotdot (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi dottydotdot. That's roughly it, though I think the text reinstated then removed by an IP info was not the full table. I've explained my reasons in the section above, but to summarise the numbers tabulated are not "expenses" either in official House of Commons terminology, nor in an everyday sense. The rankings are a secondary issue.

a) This is officially called "allowances" by the House of Commons.[3]

b) The total tabulated includes allowances for staffing an office, such as elements for Staffing Allowance (employee salaries), Stationery and Staff Computer Equipment. So this total is not "expenses" in an everyday sense.

If we wanted something approximating to the everyday notion of "expenses" we would have to sum and rank certain parts of the overall allowances, perhaps columns 1 and 2 of the main table,[4] and the non-employee columns in the travel expenditure table.[5] I don't think this is worthwhile for Wikipedia, and would anyway have to be updated yearly. Anyway MPs have different travelling distances so ranking against each other is a dubious comparison. Unless we can find a secondary source that attempts to total (and maybe rank) suitable parts of the allowances data, I think we should avoid this level of detail. Rwendland (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to informally mediate, dottydotdot. It is very kind of you and, in answer to your question, I have no objections to your mediation providing you don't have a prejudicial interest in the subject (e.g. support of a UK political party, involvement in UK journalism, etc.). Kindly confirm this is indeed the case.

As set out above, my view is that the Additional Cost Allowance is just one part of the "expenses/allowances" that an MP can claim, and that it is helpful to see these total expenses. I therefore included totals from a table published by TheyVoteForYou.com. After this edit was reverted by Rwendland and subsequent comments above, I reinstated the table with a revised introduction making clear that Douglas Hogg had claimed the maximum ACA (see above for exact words used), as I hoped this would be acceptable. Regrettably it was not and I therefore requested informal mediation.

Since making the above edits to Douglas Hogg, MSN UK has published articles on the expense claims, together with a map with details of your MP's expense claims between April 2007 and March 2008. Like TheyWorkForYou.com, the MSN UK hot map shows total expenses that include not just ACA (which it calls "Second Home"), but also office, staffing, stationery, IT provision, staff cover, communication and travel.

In sum, ACA is only one heading under which monies (whether called expenses or allowances is immaterial to me, I use "expenses" because that term is commonly used on TheyWorkForYou.com and other websites) from the public purse can be claimed by MPs. And I think it is helpful to have a note of those total "expenses/allowances" included in the main article. — GrahamSmith (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)
No I have no affiliations to any parties & am not a journalist. Rather than me suggest a passage, can I get you guys to write down a passage that you are happy with-Rwendland, you may be happy with it at the moment, but if you can move towards GrahamSmith & GrahamSmith, if you can move the other way, then hopefully, somewhere in the middle will be a sentence that everyone is happy with! dottydotdot (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assurance, dottydotdot, which I greatly appreciate. I'm happy to make clear that "expenses" are more than simply expenses, if that is the issue and suggest:
"Even though he claimed the maximum possible Additional Costs Allowance in five out of the seven years between 2001/02 and 2007/08, Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP (including allowances, expenses and staff costs) have consistently been at the lower end of the scale as shown in the following table:"
Or, as Rwendland makes what is probably a valid point concerning travel distances, perhaps the following:
"Even though he claimed the maximum possible Additional Costs Allowance in five out of the seven years between 2001/02 and 2007/08 and lives over a hundred miles north of London, Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP (including allowances, expenses and staff costs) have consistently been at the lower end of the scale as shown in the following table:" — GrahamSmith (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still think the article is best without this level of detail. To quote some policy WP:NOT "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." I also recall there is a guideline that we should view the article from 50 years forward in judging what is important to include and will pass the test of time - and I doubt this level of detail passes that test.

More specifically, and as an example of the hazards, the "five out of the seven years" is misleading. In the election year there was no ranking in the source because of the broken parliamentary year, so "four out of the six full parliamentary years" would be accurate. Not that I think we should go to this detail.

This is not to say the section text is currently ideal, and could do with a bit of a rewrite, and a mention of his low overall allowances would be useful. I'd suggest simply adding Even though he had been claiming near maximum Additional Costs Allowance in recent years, Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP (including allowances, expenses and staff costs) have consistently been lower than most MPs. Just referencing TheWorkForYou, without including the data. Rwendland (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. But you did also mention the relative cost of travel, so could we agree on the following?

Even though he had been claiming near maximum Additional Costs Allowance in the 2001 and 2005 UK Parliaments and despite living over a hundred miles north of Central London, Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP (including allowances, expenses and staff costs) were consistently at the lower end of the scale.

References

"Douglas Hogg MP". TheyWorkForYou. mySociety is a project of UK Citizens Online Democracy (UKCOD). UKCOD is a registered charity in England and Wales, no. 1076346. Retrieved 2009-05-12.

—GrahamSmith (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)
The sentence seems to be taking shape-I agree we don't want too many large tables etc. GrahamSmith, at the moment the extra bit "despite living over a hundred miles north of Central London" does not read as having a NPOV. Do you have any problems with the version put forward by Rwendland, which appears to both mention the large ACA but also his lower than average other costs? dottydotdot (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's just take a moment here to review where we are. My original contribution was a correctly referenced table, taken from a respected independent source, showing that Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP have consistently been one of the very lowest of all MPs. This table was introduced with the sentence: "Douglas Hogg has consistently had one of the lowest total expenses claims of all MPs."

This was disputed by Rwendland, who made the following points:

1. The table showed total MP Allowances (not personal expenses) including items like Staffing Allowance, Stationery and Staff Computer Equipment.
2. Douglas Hogg claimed the maximum Additional Costs Allowance every year since 2002 - "joint 1st" according to TheyWorkForYou.
3. All MPs have different travelling distances.

In response to these points, I suggested using the introductory sentence "Even though he claimed the maximum possible Additional Costs Allowance in five out of the seven years between 2001/02 and 2007/08, Douglas Hogg has consistently had one of the lowest total expenses claims." This was also deleted and I therefore sought informal mediation.

I then suggested "Even though he claimed the maximum possible Additional Costs Allowance in five out of the seven years between 2001/02 and 2007/08, Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP (including allowances, expenses and staff costs) have consistently been at the lower end of the scale as shown in the following table:"

And then, to take account of Rwendland's third point: "Even though he claimed the maximum possible Additional Costs Allowance in five out of the seven years between 2001/02 and 2007/08 and lives over a hundred miles north of London, Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP (including allowances, expenses and staff costs) have consistently been at the lower end of the scale as shown in the following table:"

In response to comments and suggested words from Rwendland, I suggested Additional Costs Allowances be referenced to the two relevant UK Parliaments, rather than specific years, and also (reluctantly) agreed to drop the summary table.

It now seems to me that I have addressed ALL of the original points made by Rwendland:

1. No summary table: simply a reference to the original detailed data;
2. Addressed the "expenses" point by replacing the word "expenses" with "total running costs" and made clear these include allowances, expenses and staff costs;
3. Addressed the "maximum Additional Costs allowances" point by including the factual comment "...claiming near maximum Additional Costs Allowance in the 2001 and 2005 UK Parliaments";
4. Addressed the travelling distances point by noting that Douglas Hogg lives over a hundred miles north of Central London.

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that the entry now be agreed as:

Even though he had been claiming near maximum Additional Costs Allowance in the 2001 and 2005 UK Parliaments, and despite living over a hundred miles north of Central London, Douglas Hogg's total running costs as an MP (including allowances, expenses and staff costs) were consistently very much lower than most MPs.

References

"Douglas Hogg MP". TheyWorkForYou. mySociety is a project of UK Citizens Online Democracy (UKCOD). UKCOD is a registered charity in England and Wales, no. 1076346. Retrieved 2009-05-12.

—GrahamSmith (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Graham, I'm content with your suggested sentence. I'd be happy if you wanted to leave out "and despite living over a hundred miles north of Central London", which might help readability and conciseness. Sorry to be slow replying, have been busy the last two days. Rwendland (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)OK cool, Graham if you want to go & change it, then we're sorted? dottydotdot (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I please express my grateful thanks to dottydotdot for the calm and reasoned approach he has taken to (what I believe is) his first attempt at mediation? I am also very grateful indeed to Rwendland, without whose willing participation this informal mediation would not have succeeded. Thank you both! —GrahamSmith (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, afraid so, newby to this! Thanks to both of you for making this easy & calm! dottydotdot (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stevens Inquiry Discussion

It would seem appropriate in the light of the government's official report of Dec 2012 to update this section. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/246867/0802.pdf see also relevant news media comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthisuseful (talk • contribs) 11:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas Hogg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050607062510/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=4642 to http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&PersonID=4642

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas Hogg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610153435/http://www.madden-finucane.com/patfinucane/archive/pat_finucane/2003-04-17_stevens_report.pdf to http://www.madden-finucane.com/patfinucane/archive/pat_finucane/2003-04-17_stevens_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)