Affordable housing figures lowest since 2000

“Spending on affordable housing is at its lowest point for 14 years.

Latest figures show it stood at £965million last year – the same as it was in 2000.

But the Tories were so embarrassed about the stats they waited five months to put them out. …

… Labour’s Chris Ruane tabled a Commons question in November asking ministers to provide details of their spending.

Housing minister Brandon Lewis finally answered as Parliament was dissolved last week for the General Election.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/affordable-homes-spending-lowest-2000-5418836

Does this press release conform to purdah rules?

“Pssst….know any good rubbish men?

The search is on for a suitable service provider for East Devon District Council’s new recycling and waste services contract – due to expire in March 2016.

The procurement process began with a ‘Get to know East Devon’ bidders day event at Knowle, which interested contractors were invited to attend.

The aim was to introduce the area of East Devon to potential bidders and to explain the importance of the contract, as well as its aims and objectives.

Most importantly, participants were given crucial insight into our core requirements: Meeting customer demand, keeping quality high, adding the collection of cardboard and mixed plastics as a minimum and reducing costs.

East Devon’s residual waste sent for disposal is the third lowest in the country and missed collections rate is a mere 0.0005%. The current service costs the householder only £1.30 a week

Full details of the service can be found on our website: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/recycling-and-rubbish/.”

Read more: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Hunt-class-rubbish-men-east-Devon/story-26246754-detail/story.html

Doesn’t it sound rather celebratory with the words “mere” and “only”, rather than plainly factual?

Maybe time to tighten up a bit – the owl is watching!

Stage-managed party politics

Timothy Garton Ash in today’s Guardian:

“One reason for this [political posturing] is that so many MPs depend so directly on the party leaders. At the last count, there were roughly 150 ministers, parliamentary undersecretaries and parliamentary private secretaries. If you add a similar number for those shadowing them on the opposition benches, that brings you close to half the lower house (even allowing for some of those ministers being peers). How many will step out of line to ask a critical question?

Everything is coordinated by an army of special political advisers – known as spads; hence “the spadocracy” – and heaven help the aspiring politician who departs from the script to say something original interesting or (perish the thought) honest.

… Between the childish Punch and Judy of PMQs and the PR Stalinism of the spads, the substance of deliberative democracy is lost. …

… The scrutiny of legislation in the lower house is often woefully inadequate. We depend on unelected lords and then on unelected judges to defend our civil liberties against badly worded and over-broad legislation. These bills have usually been produced as a kneejerk reaction to some event or popular outcry, on the lines of the great satirical syllogism: “Something must be done; this is something; therefore we must do this.” The best select committees do a fine job of cross-examining the powerful, both from government and the private sector, but they need more funding and staff.

And then, of course, there is corruption. When the scandal about MPs fiddling their expenses broke a few years ago, a cartoon showed a pinstriped gent fending off an angry crowd in front of the Houses of Parliament saying, “No, no, I’m a banker!” Call me naive, but I did find it shocking to see two former foreign secretaries caught on camera by a journalistic sting offering their services to a bogus Hong Kong-based company for about £5,000 a day. Yes, money howls still more loudly through American politics; but we don’t want to descend to that level, do we? … ”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/27/parliament-lawmakers-pmqs-special-advisers

Monitoring Officer – some questions

Should a Monitoring Officer also be a council’s Legal Officer?

Mr Gordon Lennox is currently EDDC’s Principal Solicitor and appears to have had enough work to keep him fully busy in the job for some years. Can he also discharge the role of Monitoring Officer – a role which has kept others rather busy recently?

With the relocation now in train (or not depending on future decisions) won’t he have lots of legal work to do – or maybe he’s getting an assistant or two.

On a wider scale: Is there something of a mismatch in being the council’s Principal Solicitor AND Monitoring Officer given that the former is dedicated to guarding the interests of the council according to the law and a Monitoring Officer should be a neutral figure representing fairness. Do these always coincide?

The wider question is: how did the transposition of roles in EDDC take place and why has the Monitoring Officer’s job not been externally publicised since Ms Lyon left last year. Has it been subsumed into the Principal Solicitors job or is it still a separate one? Were councillors made aware of the change? Have any parts of either job description changed?

There is now a rule, it is said, that Acting posts should only be filled for a maximum of one year, after which the job must be filled permanently or deleted as a job – is this an Acting post (again) or not? If so, for how long?

And has Standards Committee been made aware of the changes?

The Monitoring Officer is the only person the general public can approach when they fear the Code of Conduct has been breached – we need to know what to expect.