Hugo Swire: not the first time he has “put his foot in his mouth”

Oh no, it happened in 2007 too and cost him his job at the time, though David Cameron forgave him and gave him a better job!

https://thehuntsman2007.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/hugo-swire-puts-foot-in-mouth-and-quickly-removes-it/

Evening Standard survey shows Londoners don’t trust politicians

” …In a series of stark findings, it shows:

Three quarters of Londoners believe MPs have not done enough to “clean up” politics, or improve its image, since the 2009 expenses storm.

More than half believe MPs are more motivated “by helping themselves” – with less than one in ten thinking they are primarily driven by the aim to “help others”.

Sixty per cent back a ban on MPs, elected for this Parliament, having second jobs outside the Commons.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/parliament-has-failed-to-restore-trust-after-mps-expenses-scandal-10161775.html

EDDC seeks “planning solicit

We thought we had one – Mr Gordon Lennox – but he now also appears to be Monitoring Officer (temporary or permanent – who knows) since the last one we (temporarily) shared with South Somerset seems to have gone – all very confusing!

Or perhaps EDDC is expecting SO much work with the thousands of houses to be built the planning department must expand.

And “Strategic Lead – Legal, licensing and Democratic Services” is that Mr Gordon Lennox too? Or someone else? Only recently EDDC made one of its most senior officers redundant and another couple quietly drifted away – are we back to boom after bust?

Joining our talented legal team, you will support our Strategic Lead (Legal, Licensing and Democratic Services) in providing a highly efficient and effective legal service. You will offer your first-class legal advice in planning and listed building law as well as administrative law to our council officers, committees and sub-committees. You will draft, negotiate and complete related legal documents and you will represent the Council at court and in planning appeals.”

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_jobs&task=detail_job&id=17441:planning-solicitor&Itemid=

Do you really want to vote for a candidate who is at the “top level of Government and has influence?

 

One who spends his time with his Big Business buddies all over the world with precious little time for his constituency, who makes tasteless jokes about expensive cars, Greeks and people on benefits at a £15,000 per table fundraiser and who has no idea whatsoever about the devastation being wreaked on East Devon by his government’s planning rules?  If so, feel free to vote for this man:

hugowest

 

Or you might you vote for someone who refuses to be the mouthpiece for big business, instead promises to support the local small to medium businesses, to fight for and protect the NHS in her area and has a solid record of objecting to the most devastating planning policies that this district has ever seen – Claire Wright.

Here she is drawing crowds at Ottery St Mary, Sidmouth, Budleigh Salterton, canvassing in Eastern Exeter

otterypublicmeetingcrowd  sidmouthwoolbrookcrowd_pic  budleighpublicmeetingphilip2  broadfieldsstpetersschoolfeb15  ottery_hosp_protest_oct_14

and there are many more pictures of her at smaller locations and venues on her website, talking to people and basing her Manifesto on what they told her they needed to happen in this district:

See and hear her speak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZYXMTm1lgmg#t=0

 

 

Purdah for local newspapers: a good idea or a bad idea?

Whilst there are government directives regarding the purdah period for councils (to prevent them tying a future to expensive decisions that will affect them) there is no such rule for newspapers.

One local newspaper has today announced that it will operate a purdah period to ensure that candidates are treated fairly, yet another one stated that it would report political news throughout the election period.

Would it be fair if, say, one candidate got a mountain of negative publicity and behaved really badly and one got a mountain of positive publicity and behaved impeccably, to keep this news from readers?

Surely, a fairness policy then appears to protects the least liked and least popular candidates from harm and the most popular and most liked from being given credit. This can then skew election choice. Is that really fair?

Is it perhaps more a case of not wanting to tread on powerful feet?