Brexit Ministers get a taste of civil service “impartiality”

“… Is the civil service orchestrating an EU referendum cover-up?

Whitehall sources have confirmed that Heywood [Head of Civil Service] told senior civil servants that there would be times when they would have to bypass the six senior ministers who want to leave the EU.

And in a statement issued by the Vote Leave campaign group, Patel said: “It is important that the civil service maintains impartiality during the EU referendum. Jeremy Heywood’s unconstitutional act threatens the reputation of the civil service.

“Secretaries of state are responsible for their departments. For an unelected official to prevent them being aware of the information they need for their duties is wrong. …

… Bernard Jenkin, the chairman of the Commons public administration select committee, who is tabling an urgent question in the Commons, said Heywood appeared to be acting in an “unorthodox and unprecedented” manner. The row first broke out last week when Heywood issued guidelines banning civil servants from showing official papers related to the EU referendum to Brexit.

In a move aimed specifically at Iain Duncan Smith, Heywood issued guidelines last week to ban civil servants from preparing new research for anti-EU cabinet ministers that could be used in the EU referendum campaign. No 10 had feared that Duncan Smith, who has strong doubts about the welfare elements of the prime minister’s EU reform plan, would seek to ask his officials to assess the credibility of the plan.

At least one permanent secretary is understood to have raised concerns with their Brexit secretary of state that Heywood may be acting in a constitutionally inappropriate manner because secretaries of state, technically at least, are solely responsible for their departments under a seal granted by the Queen.

Officials in Heywood’s office are also contacting the private offices of ministers who have yet to declare which side they are supporting in the referendum, asking them to make their intentions clear. This is designed to work out whether they are entitled to see all papers in their department related to the referendum. Duncan Smith urged David Cameron to reverse the Heywood guidelines.

Jenkin said that any attempt by Heywood to bypass a secretary of state would be unconstitutional and could be unlawful by infringing the Carltona principle, which says that officials in a department work “under the authority of ministers”. Jenkin, whose committee will question Heywood on Tuesday, said of the cabinet secretary’s guidelines: “This is unorthodox and unprecedented. In law the minister is indivisible from his or her department.”

Well, we can tell them all about how restricting information works in East Devon! If you don’t belong to the Cabinet (even if you are a councillor from the same political party) you will never get to know how some decisions start out, get developed or even end up. Your colleagues won’t tell you and senior officers won’t tell you either.

Welcome to our world Ms Patel!

First time buyers lottery: 141,000 to win up to £200,000 – nothing at all to 2 million

“The government’s starter homes initiative could deliver a taxpayer-backed windfall of £141,000 each to 200,000 lucky first-time buyers, but 2 million more aspiring homeowners will be stuck renting, campaigners say.

The scheme, which allows developers to replace shared ownership and affordable rented homes with properties sold at a 20% discount, has been widely criticised since it was first announced in December 2014. One of the key concerns for housing campaigners is that the homes can be sold on at the open-market rate after five years.

Lobby group Generation Rent said that this meant a “£27bn raffle” in which the original buyers stood to gain, while those who missed out would find it ever harder to get on the housing ladder. It said the scheme’s potential rewards “far exceed the already generous returns of home ownership”.

The figures are based on average newbuild house prices and numbers of new homes being built around the country. The average cost of a newbuild property in England stands at £297,000, according to the Office for National Statistics. So as a starter home it would be bought at £238,000, Generation Rent said. If house prices rise at 5% a year, after five years the same property could be sold for £379,000. Outside London, the maximum cost of a qualifying home is £250,000 but in the capital that rises to £450,000. Generation Rent said buyers could stand to make a profit of £228,139 on a home bought for £383,200.

The group is calling for the homes to be subject to rules saying that they can only be sold on at a 20% discount. Betsy Dillner, the director of Generation Rent, said this would help multiple first-time buyers “instead of a jammy handful of winners in a multibillion pound raffle”.

She added: “The government said its starter homes would be exclusively for first-time buyers, but by letting them vanish into the open market after five years, they’re betraying the millions who are stuck renting.”

The housing charity Shelter last year described the properties as “non-starter homes”, saying that by 2020 in more than half of the country they would be unaffordable for families earning average wages.

Shelter’s chief executive, Campbell Robb, said: “While the government is offering these discounted homes to a select few, for those who aren’t so lucky, all they’re offering is more time spent in expensive and unstable private renting, or living with mum and dad well into their 30s.

“This crisis can be turned around, but only if the government moves beyond schemes that only help the well off, and starts investing in homes that ordinary families can actually afford as well.”

As the House of Lords prepare to debate the policy as part of the housing bill this week, experts said there were many unanswered questions surrounding the policy. Neal Hudson, an associate director at property firm Savills, said that despite the scheme being a key plank of government housing policy “there is still a massive amount of detail outstanding on how it will work”.

He added: “There is likely to be a lot of uncertainty about how much people should be paying for land because they are not sure how they will be able to use it.”

Hudson said uncertainty remained over how the prices of starter homes would be determined if there were no comparable properties nearby, and how mortgage lenders would treat a property that could not be sold at market rate for five years.

Other analysts have questioned how the policy will run alongside the government’s help-to-buy loan scheme, where buyers are offered a 20% interest-free loan but must repay it when they sell.

In January the head of housebuilder Taylor Wimpey said that confusion over how the scheme would work was causing problems for developers. Pete Redfern said: “It’s quite hard if you’re looking at a future site to know how that policy balance will end up, because local authorities feel more threatened by starter homes than by anything else.”

Research carried out by Savills for the Local Government Association (LGA) found that the discounted starter home prices were out of reach for all people in need of affordable housing in 220 council areas and for more than 90% in a further 80 council areas.”

http://gu.com/p/4h4pe

Devolution 2: the missing link and the heart of our problem with it

The missing link is the cultivation of citizen participation and the development of structures and mechanisms for doing so, without which levels of accountability and alienation could be no better than before, for two reasons.

First, citizens have to wait until the next mayoral election to make their voices heard just as they do with local and general elections.

Secondly, people do not automatically feel more connected to local leaders because proximity is only one part of accessibility, which also involves visibility and approachability.” …

… While it is possible to argue that democratic structures could be developed after powers have been devolved, it makes more sense to set out ambitions for participation and accountability early on. These ambitions will affect which powers are needed and the governance arrangements of devolution agreements. For example, if the ambition is to use ‘pop-up parishes’ to design town- centre regeneration, then it may be necessary to devolve more power over planning and land use, and to ensure that proposalscan be tabled by citizen groups and not just by members of the combined authority leadership. …

… There is neither realism about the growth outcomes of devolution nor much concern about generating particular bene ts for local economic stakeholders, such as residents, local workers, and business owners. NEF’s work on local economies has shown that if cities are to ‘meet their full economic potential’13 in terms of benefiting local economic stakeholders, this will involve:

• Supporting people to be nancially strong individuals in terms of income-to-cost-of- living ratios and being able to have savings.

• Developing a strong local business sector with supply chains connecting small enterprise to big business.

• Making more ef client use of distribution of resources, with positive local circulation of money, low levels of wasted resources in local supply and production systems, a high level of staff retention in jobs, and falling levels of inequality and poverty.

In the documents, these sorts of economic outcome for local people are only rarely discussed. For example, reducing poverty is mentioned four times in a total of 1,129 arguments and cost of living is not mentioned at all. This is a gap in the debate. ‘More jobs’ is the overwhelming focus rather than ‘better jobs and wages’.

In current devolution agreements power remains firmly in the hands of Westminster who can revoke devolved functions and budgets in future if it is dissatis ed with progress, without clear criteria de ning success. Westminster will retain a stick with which to beat localities if they are not achieving outcomes desired by central government, perhaps especially economic growth and cost savings. This could prove restrictive rather than liberating. A Voluntary and Community Sector worker from Liverpool, for example, raised the concern that a devolution agreement for the Liverpool area would ‘cast a potentially narrow economic glow over our world’ and that the local government would be unable to prioritise non- economic outcomes which also matter to local people.

The devolution debate could go one of two ways. It could roll on in the backrooms of Westminster leading to opacity, confusion, and potentially falling public support for the policy.

Or it could be brought into the open, where there will be space for criticism and consideration of the downsides of devolution, as well as discussion of its potential to transform and strengthen our towns, cities and democracy. “

Click to access 1888588d95f1712903_e3m6ii50b.pdf

At last some straight talking on devolution

” … Should growth be the main goal?

Our research found that arguments for economic growth are weak at explaining how these outcomes would be achieved; they tend to focus on the benefits devolution would bring the national purse rather than the local economy. Devolution could improve the lives of local people, yet the current debate pays little attention to how this could be achieved.

How devolution would affect income-to-cost-of-living ratios, which affect everyone’s day to day economic reality, is seldom mentioned. The number of jobs that would be created is discussed far more often than the quality of jobs that would be created. Reducing poverty through economic growth is mentioned only four times in a total of 1,129 arguments.

Devolving fiscal and policy making powers to the local level over skills, housing, business rates and enterprise, could improve how the local economy works for its residents and local stakeholders. It could, for example, enable local government to better shape local business stock and promote resilience to external shocks through reasonable diversity in sectors, business size and ownership models. While economic growth may be one measure of success, it should not be pursued at the expense of other key economic and social goals that devolution could benefit.
Building a more democratic country

Creating a more democratic country seems an obvious aim for devolution but it is neglected by advocates of devolution, particularly in local government as Figure 2 shows. Discussions currently neglect the greater role citizens could play in political decision-making if decisions are made closer to home, but also the ways in which devolution could increase the accountability of elected leaders to the public. Simply creating elected mayors is not enough to revive an ailing democracy. This is why local governments should also be considering the mechanisms and structures for citizen participation which could make devolution worthwhile.

How can we change the debate?

We need to bring the debate into the open for public discussion, locally and nationally, so that everyday economic concerns like the quality of jobs created, and reducing inequality, feature strongly in discussions around what goals devolution should deliver.

So far, the debate has been conducted in the backrooms of Westminster rather than in public forums. Several parties in government have proposed a Constitutional Convention – a citizen forum where the governance of the country is discussed – but are yet to act on the proposal.

In the meantime, a group of academics and civil society groups have piloted this model in Sheffield and Southampton, showing how it would work. Drawing on examples from countries including Iceland, Canada, the Netherlands and Scotland, they show that the direct participation of local people in decision-making improves not only the democratic quality of decisions, but their effectiveness. It’s a match made in heaven for the devolution revolution.”

‘The briefing Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate’ is available for download here:

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/entry/democracy-the-missing-link-in-the-devolution-debate

Key findings:

Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving power.

Only 12.9% of arguments make the case for devolution in order to shift power, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen involvement in decision-making.

Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities in wealth and power between regions.

Environmental sustainability is part of just 0.8% of arguments.

Only 2.9% of arguments address the potential downsides and risks of devolution.

Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes less than central government or think-tanks.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/whats-missing-from-the-devolution-debate

Hugo Swire still doing the hokey-cokey!

According to tonight’s BBC Spotlight news, only 2 South West MPs have not yet declared whether they are for or against staying in the EE: Jonny Mercer (Con Plymouth Moor View) and our own Hugo Swire.

Please Dave or please Boris. … oh, the agony. He will soon be down to flipping a coin.

Wonder whether his constituency party realised he was torn between the two and had no firm views on the EU when he was parachuted into East Devon? Did they even ask him his views on the EU? Probably not.

Still, if he throws himself behind Boris and Dave fires him, we might see more of him in East Devon.

“Planning policy discourages larger homes says housebuilder”

Forgive Owl being cynical but larger homes sell for more money and make more profit for the builder! And why does “empty nesting” need larger homes?

“One of the UK’s biggest housebuilders has hit out at government planning policy as new figures emerged showing a steady decline in the number of larger family homes being built.

The number of homes constructed with four bedrooms or more halved between 2001 and 2011, from around 50,000 to 25,000, research carried out by law firm Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners and Cala Homes found.

Since 1991, only 28pc of new homes built have had four bedrooms or more, which Cala blamed on rules that require developers to build a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare, favouring smaller homes.

The housebuilder warned that with the rise of the UK’s middle classes and a growing trend among the nation’s ageing population for “empty nesting”, more home owners are now demanding larger houses. It claimed more than 700,000 households in England are overcrowded.

Price inflation for large detached family homes has significantly outpaced that of other housing types over the last 20 years, further putting the squeeze on families looking to move up the housing ladder.

Recent government policy has focused on boosting housing supply for first time buyers through new initiatives such as the Help to Buy scheme, which provides mortgage guarantees and equity, and Starter Homes.

Cala wants the Government to review housing policy to give large home development at least equal weighting to that of smaller homes – saying it is currently too biased towards first time buyers. It also criticised the Government’s strategy to encourage older or single people to downsize, saying the policy will never contribute sufficient numbers of homes to affect housing supply.

Alan Brown, chief executive of Cala, said the policies failed to meet “the real demands of growing families across the country”.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/27/planning-policy-discourages-larger-homes-says-housebuilder/

Money to demolish “sink estates” is really loans to developers!


David Cameron’s promise to spend millions on bulldozing and rebuilding sink estates as a key part of his prime ministerial legacy appeared to unravel last night as it emerged that the small amount of money set aside for the project can only be accessed by private developers in the form of loans.
To great fanfare, the prime minister announced his intention in January to potentially tear down 100 of the UK’s worst estates to tackle drug abuse and gang culture. The modest size of the £140m “fund” set aside by Cameron to meet costs was widely questioned at the time, but Downing Street insisted that the redevelopment programme would reverse decades of neglect.

The housing developments being targeted reportedly include the Winstanley estate in Wandsworth, south London, the Lower Falinge estate in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, and Broadwater Farm in Tottenham, north London.

Now the Observer has learned that the £140m is only available in loan form to private sector organisations who come forward to regenerate stricken areas. A statement quietly released by the Department for Communities and Local Governmentin February admitted: “£140m of loan funding has been set aside by government, to be used as a springboard for partnership and joint venture arrangements, with the active involvement of communities.”

A spokesman said the rate of interest on the loans to private companies would vary “scheme by scheme”. The application process, more than a month since the announcement, has yet to be opened to interested parties.

The revelation will be an embarrassment for the prime minister, who claimed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show at the time that “in the worst estates … you’re confronted by concrete slabs dropped from on high, brutal high-rise towers and dark alleyways that are a gift to criminals and drug dealers”.
Promising to transform the worst estates, Cameron added: “For some, this will mean knocking them down and starting again. For others, it might mean changes to layout, upgrading facilities and improving road and transport links.”

His announcement on the regeneration of sink estates was widely seen as an attempt to claim the centre ground as Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party moved to the left. The redevelopment programme is to be overseen by Michael Heseltine, who helped to transform the Liverpool and London docks in the 1980s. However, in the light of revelation about the reality of the funding, John Healey MP, the shadow secretary of state for housing and planning, accused the prime minister of making “hollow announcements to make headlines”.

He said: “After five years of Tory failure on housing, those living on estates around the country need investment in new homes and estate regeneration – not an announcement of a new fund that is quietly downgraded when it is hoped no one will notice.”

A DCLG spokesman said the loan status of money set aside for regeneration had been laid out in the autumn statement, ahead of Cameron’s claim in a Sunday newspaper and on the BBC to have put aside a “fund” for the initiative.He said: “We’re determined to kick-start the regeneration of council estates to provide high quality homes to benefit thousands of people.

“The autumn statement made absolutely clear that the government is providing loan funding for council estate regeneration projects. “The £140m will be used to lever in additional funding from local authorities, housing associations and private investment. High up-front costs and long timescales for development mean regeneration schemes can become stalled because upfront finance is unavailable. These low-risk loans will help remove blockages and speed up processes to transform estates.”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/27/david-cameron-sink-estates-fund-turns-out-to-be-loan

Time to put an end to retrospective planning applications?

East Devon District Council deals with a large number of retrospective planning applications – sites that were started without planning permission. If these sites remain undetected for long enough, sometimes a local authority is powerless to refuse permission.

One major area where retrospective planning applications has been relatively common is at Greendale Business Park, for example, where the speed of development appears to have outstripped the speed of obtaining the relevant permission at the proper time. And at Pooh Cottage (see previous posts)

What excuse is there for this? One can understand, say, a single householder not realising that they need permission for a new window opening or a new drive. But can one really excuse hard-nosed businessmen and women who know the score but don’t quite manage to keep to the rules, even with the best architects and “consultants” available to them?

Once there is a Local Plan, surely there is no excuse for this. A development is either in it or it is not.

In the case of illegal developments commenced BEFORE the Local Plan came into existence, people could be given six months to “come clean” and have their cases decided.

AFTER the Local Plan has been adopted and after the six month period of grace has elapsed the ability to put in retrospective planning applications should totally cease. The consequence of starting work BEFORE planning permission had been granted should automatically be that the building(s) be demolished within three months at the applicants expense. No ifs, no buts, NO fines – they would almost certainly be disproportionate and developers would happily pay up to circumvent the Local Plan – with planning lawyers getting rich on case law.

With a Local Plan there is no case for retrospective planning applications.

Retrospective planning applications

All those new jobs for “Greater Exeter” – we might need to think again!

Exeter has come top on the list of cities with the most jobs that will be lost to robots.

Roughly one-in-11 vacancies across the UK currently being advertised are likely to be obsolete by 2035, according to new calculations from jobs website Adzuna.

Of the 56 major UK cities studied Exeter has the highest proportion of job at risk, with 9% likely to eventually be replaced by robots.

The sorts of jobs at risk include billboard installer, tree trimmer and fence builder. …

… The report showed that of 56 major UK towns and cities studied, Exeter was revealed to have the highest proportion of advertised vacancies at risk of automation, with almost nine per cent of all ads for jobs in the city being for roles Oxford University researchers think very likely to be replaced by robots within 20 years.

Doug Monro, Adzuna’s co-founder, said:”The risk of a robot invasion on the Devon coast might sound fanciful, but there’s a serious message for younger workers, whether they’re looking for their first job, or are comfortably in a career: if you want to remain relevant in the workplace, you need to develop skills that cannot be easily automated.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exeter-tops-list-jobs-lost-robots/story-28819478-detail/story.html

Hugo Swire – still doing the hokey-cokey?

Dave has decided in, Boris has decided out, George in, Michael Gove, out.

So, come on, Hugo – the “big brains” have now decided about the EU – time to shake it all about and make up your mind. That fence will be getting awfully uncomfortable very soon.

And, of course, apologies if you HAVE decided – it’s just that, as we don’t see you very much here in East Devon, we only have your website to go on when we want to find out what’s going on.

And as of this morning, it gives us no clues at all.

LEPs: Vince Cable helped to create them then had second thoughts, as did others

Lots and lots of people and institutions saw that LEPs were not what they were supposed to be – including Vince Cable who helped to create them!

Vince Cable has questioned the coalition’s “messy” system to help businesses across the regions of Britain and admitted that ministers may not have “got it right”.

The Liberal Democrat business secretary said he was sceptical of whether local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and the “City Deal” project, which the government ushered in to replace regional development agencies (RDAs), had been successful.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/01/vince-cable-local-enterprise-partnership-messy_n_5245455.html

Insight Public Affairs in 2013:

“Accountability”

It is imperative that the government put in place improved accountability structures that will provide a conduit for the effective assessment of the performance of LEPs, appraising the value-added by major funding streams and also the extent of local economic development. While the creation of the local growth committee is welcome, it operates in a vacuum at the heart of government with little interaction with Parliament and the 39 LEPs, and as a result, it is not ultimately responsible for the performance of LEPs in delivering economic growth. Accountability will not be established until lines of responsibility are improved within Whitehall; this can only be achieved by appointing a minister for local growth with sole responsibility for the performance of LEPs.”

Click to access IPA-LEP-Report-Clarity-or-Confusion.pdf

Financial Times 2013:

The fear is that, if weaker LEPs do not catch up, Lord Heseltine’s bidding process will result in money being allocated according to how effective a LEP is rather than how needy a region may be.

“We need stronger LEPs across bigger areas,” said Robert Hough, chairman of Liverpool city region LEP. “Many depend on local authority support. That is difficult to give when they are cutting elsewhere and libraries and leisure centres are closing.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f8d387e-5cdb-11e2-8229-00144feab49a.html

Nick Clegg lambasts Cameron and Osborne: no social housing because Labour voters live in them an Tories rig rules to stay in power

“George Osborne and David Cameron blocked plans to build more social housing because it would “produce more Labour voters”, Nick Clegg has claimed,

According to the former deputy prime minister, the chancellor and prime minister rejected repeated Lib Dem attempts to get more money to build homes for people on low incomes.

Clegg quoted the chancellor and prime minister in an interview with The Independent today as telling him: “All it does is produce more Labour voters.”

The former Lib Dem leader also said Osborne blocked his attempts to expand childcare provision for two-year-olds for poorer families in favour of offering 30 hours of free childcare for older children as it would score a political victory over Ed Miliband.

Clegg claims the chancellor told him at the time: “All we want to do is to shoot Labour’s fox”.

Labour MP Jess Phillips MP told The Huffington Post UK: “Nick Clegg complaining about a Tory government which he propped up for five years would be funny were it not so serious for the millions of working people who have suffered at the hands of him and David Cameron.

“That said, amidst all the self-serving bluster Nick Clegg has stumbled upon one truth: the Tories are trying to rig the rules of the game in their favour.

“Whether its attacks on opposition funding or changing constituency boundaries to help themselves, David Cameron’s is a government which puts its own interests before the country and it’s Britain that is paying the price.”

In the interview, Clegg also accused the Conservative Party of “rigging the rules” in its favour in such a way that could lead to a Tory “one-party state”.

He said: “If you look at the way the Conservatives seek to hobble and neuter Westminster, the bullying swagger with which they treat the BBC, the general air of hubris, there is a feeling that politics is being reduced to the whims and mood swings of one political party. That is not healthy.

“A combination of US-style game playing by the Conservatives and Labour’s self-indulgence is conspiring to leave millions of British voters completely voiceless.”

His criticism comes as officials have announced details of how the UK’s electoral map is to be re-drawn, but an analysis of the Boundary Commission’s proposals suggest it could cost the Labour Party 10 MPs to the Conservatives at the next election.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/26/george-osborne-didnt-want-to-build-houses-that-produce-labour-voters-claims-nick-clegg_n_9324920.html

“Many public appointments need more rigorous scrutiny” says Parliamentary Committee

“Rt Hon. Andrew Tyrie MP, Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, said:

“Public appointments to quangos need more rigorous scrutiny. They have needed it for years. More of the most powerful appointments – of the Chief Executive of the FCA and the Governor of the Bank of England – should be subject to full pre appointment scrutiny. The Government continues to disagree, appealing to the ‘market sensitivity’ of these appointments. That is not an adequate explanation.

The time has come to entrench the independence of the post of Chief Executive of the FCA. On behalf of the Treasury Committee, I have tabled an amendment to the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill to give this effect. The Chief Executive of the FCA should be able to operate with the confidence that he or she cannot be dismissed without Parliament’s – the Treasury Committee’s – approval. The public, too, need to have confidence that the Government is not interfering with independent supervisors and regulators.

The OBR provides an appropriate precedent. In 2010 the Chancellor agreed that the appointment and dismissal of the head of the OBR should be subject to Select Committee approval. He also agreed that this would bolster the independence – and the perception of independence – of Robert Chote, to the benefit of both the Chancellor and the country. And so it has proved. The Chancellor has frequently alluded to the Chairman of the OBR’s independence from the Treasury to reinforce the credibility of the forecast. A similar arrangement should also be put in place to entrench the FCA’s independence.

The OTS’ independence certainly needs to be bolstered. The OTS cannot achieve much if it appears – whether fairly or not – to be a creature of the Treasury. It is crucial that the scope and limitations of its independence are fully understood by HM Treasury, the OTS, Parliament and the public.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/scrutiny-of-appointments-report-published-15-16/

Sidbury ward – town council by-election

IF YOU HAVE STRONG VIEWS ON THE SIDFORD FIELDS INDUSTRIAL SITE, THIS MAY BE OF INTEREST:

“The election of a new town councillor will be held on March 31 – if the Sidbury seat is contested.

Residents have until Wednesday (March 2) to get their nominations in for a candidate to join Sidmouth Town Council.

The new councillor will fill the vacancy left by the resignation of David Addis last month, and will join Councillor John Hollick in representing the village.

If the ward is uncontested, a new member will be seconded onto the council.

Nomination papers are available from the returning officer at Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL, and they should be sent to the same address by 4pm on Wednesday (March 2).”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/get_nominations_in_for_sidbury_ward_1_4435051

And here is the good news …

Look forward to a LOT of pothole filling in the next few months as (some) East Devon roads are made safe for Tour of Britain cycle riders when the have their Sidmouth – Ottery – Honiton section on Friday 9th September.

We wouldn’t want THEM falling off their bikes or their back-up cars getting broken axles.

Where’s Hugo Swire? Not in New Zealand or Canada …

His staff say that because he has been travelling in New Zealand and Canada he hasn’t been able to study Dave’s EU deal so hasn’t decided how he will vote.

WELL! THAT’S ODD …

according to this website:

http://mea.gov.in/newsdetail.htm?3339/Foreign+Secretary+meets+Hugo+Swire+Minister+of+State+for+the+Foreign+and+Commonwealth+Office+during+his+visit+to+the+United+Kingdom

and this website:

http://www.ukmalayalee.com/uk-news/news.php?id=Mzk4Mg==

he met the Indian Foreign Minister in London YESTERDAY (Wednesday).

And on 23 February (Tuesday) he was answering questions in Parliament about curries and trade with Commonwealth countries

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-02-23b.146.5&p=10669

It is unusual for Hugo Swire to take such an active interest in constituency business (see below). Is the NHS becoming an “issue” so soon after the election in which we, the electorate, voted on the basis that it was safe in Tory hands?

“MP for hub talks
Journal 25 February 2016

“East Devon MP Hugo Swire says he is “deeply frustrated” by delays to the reopening of Budleigh Salterton Hospital.

The hospital, closed since last summer, had been due to reopen five months ago as a health and wellbeing hub, but this has been delayed due to an ownership dispute, with NHS Property Services said to be needing to generate a commercial rent for the building.

Mr Swire said: “I have always been a keen supporter of this project. Like many of my constituents in Budleigh and the wider area, I am deeply frustrated by this delay. It is my plan to set up a round table meeting with all of the stakeholders involved in this project in an effort to find a solution to this particular problem. I have already invited the Health Minister, Lord Prior* and hopefully he will be able to attend.”

*Lord Prior’s real title is: “Parliamentary Under-Secretaty of State for NHS Productivity” and he sits in the House of Lords, not the House of Commons. He formerly worked for Lehman Brothers as an investment banker.

“In April 2014 he [Lord Prior] had a hip replacement operation paid for by private insurance but was treated in a public ward at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Under-Secretary_of_State

A couple of questions:

Will “stakeholders” include users and potential users of the hospital?

And don’t forget, everyone, Swire will not be able to bring the matter up in Parliament because he is a Minister.