Or, put without the spin, London councils, which includes some of the richest areas in the country, benefit by over £500m over other areas, even without taking into account deprivation.
Is this the same Neil Coughlan who failed to get elected as a Labour candidate on Braintree District Council in 2015? Adds a bit of context to the story doesn't it...
"the tools they needed to keep behaviour in check" it's not the job of Monitoring Officers to keep the behaviour of councillors in check - and it wasn't under the old standards regime. Council solicitors provide advice to the council, the electorate and the press are there to keep councillors behaviour under review.
FPTP has a number of significant advantages. It connects politicians to a specific and defined electorate - and it ensures that voters, not parties are the primary driver in who gets elected. In Germany, for example, campaigning in person is unheard of for many senior politicians - their place on the party top-up list is assured. In the UK, FPTP allowed Portillo and Ed Balls to both lose their seats. It is also easy to understand, and reduces the risk of extreme parties gaining seats (we have never had a BNP MP - but we have had MEPs). It's easy to dismiss these arguments with talk of "everyone's vote counting" - but doing so as simplistically as this piece does is to overlook a serious and valid debate.
Report from the Electoral Reform Society's research director calls for more STV. Next on LGC, report from Bears, suggesting they are prone to defecation in arboreal environments. Come on - can't we do a bit better than cutting and pasting their press releases?