Mr Garcia does seem to get about Somerset rather more than he appears in Devon. But then again, Hinkley is in Somerset:
Monthly Archives: March 2016
Standards: some MPs like breaking rules and others do it because they are too busy to notice!
Can you believe this woman is in charge of standards for MPs! She thinks that MPs who fail to register an interest in the chamber of the House of Commons or campaign politically using House of Commons stationery are guilty of only “minor transgressions”! And that rule breaking happens because they are “busy people.
Next time you forget to renew your car tax and get caught, just tell the policeman it is a minor transgression and it happened because you were too busy and see where that gets you!
“Some MPs are wilfully breaking rules in the House of Commons because they “do not agree with them”, the standards commissioner Kathryn Hudson has admitted.
Mrs Hudson also urged that members of the public are infuriated that they cannot email complaints to her about MPs and instead have to submit any complaints in hard copy with a signed letter.
The comments will add further pressure on MPs to beef up the watchdog which polices their work, perhaps by giving members of the public a vote over decisions whether or not to reprimand errant MPs.
Speaking to members of the House of Commons’ Standards committee which polices MP’s behaviour, Mrs Hudson said that there was a minority of members who repeatedly broke the rules, sometimes wilfully.
She said: “Within the House the vast majority of members observe the rules on a day to day basis and maintain high standards in practice, but there will always be some for whom it is not at the forefront of their minds or, dare I say it, do not agree with some of the rules and therefore perhaps do not abide by them.”
Mrs Hudson said she was concerned about repeated “inadvertent or minor breaches” such as failing to register an interest in the chamber of the House of Commons or campaigning politically using House of Commons stationery.
She said: “The things that come up for me over and over again really are about the culture of the organisation that means that members often are not fully aware what they are abiding and do not always realise they should look at the rules before they did certain things”.
She said that “very often members will find they have transgressed rules, such as use paper for political purposes, and they will not have realised that they were rules that they should have checked before they did certain things”.
Mrs Hudson understood that the rules were “set in a context where members come under quite intense scrutiny. They are very busy people, they are not always in a position to pay close attention to the rules”.
Mrs Hudson’s office sent to MPs “a very large volume of all the rules of the House that we thought were relevant for members before they came back after the last elections” in May last year.
But she warned: “Unless it is at the forefront of a members’ mind to think about the culture of the organisation and the rules by which they are expected to live by and the ethical standards, then this is not always going to be in their minds and I think I will continue to get these smaller transgressions.”
Mrs Hudson also hinted that she wanted to change the rules which force members of the public to complain about an MP in a hard copy signed letter.
She said: “At the moment we still have a requirement that any complaint made to me must be in writing, in hard copy, and signed before I can accept that complaint.
“I know that members don’t wish to change that – I know it causes great irritation to people who have sent me emails or have spoken on the phone to one of my colleagues and then want to make a complaint that they then are told ‘you must put this in writing’ when most Government departments and other organisations these day do not require that. So we could look again at that as something that would make the matter easier for complainant.
The news came after two former parliamentary standards commissioners who held the post before Mrs Hudson backed calls for an overhaul of the committee.
Sir Philip Mawer and John Lyon both said that “lay” members of the panel should be allowed to vote on decisions in order to check the power of MPs in regulating themselves.
Sir Philip said lay members were currently little more than “second class citizens”, fuelling criticism that MPs are “retaining the power of decision about their colleagues firmly in their own hands”.
Mr Lyon, Mrs Hudson’s immediate predecessor, said he now also supported the move.”
Public invited to meeting on future of Monmouth Beach in Lyme Regis
Now THIS is how you deal with local assets, EDDC:
“The future of the Monmouth Beach area at Lyme Regis will be discussed in public by town councillors.
Residents are being invited to sit in on the important meeting of the Monmouth Beach Car Park Assets Working Group in The Guildhall on Wednesday, March 22, at 7pm.
Working groups are usually closed to the public, but councillors have agreed to hold an open meeting because of the high level of public interest in the area.
Lyme Regis Town Council owns a significant part of Monmouth Beach car park and the surrounding area, which it leases to other organisations.
This includes land used by the power boat club, the bowling club, the boat building academy, the trailer park, the gig club, and West Dorset District Council.
Councillors in the last administration agreed to carry out a review of the town council-owned assets in-and-around Monmouth Beach.
The working group meeting next week will be the first time the new council administration will consider the future use of these assets.
Any recommendations from the working group will be formally considered by the full council or one of its committees.”
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/public_invited_to_meeting_on_future_of_monmouth_beach_1_4456753
First devolution judicial review
Derbyshire going to court to stop Chesterfield joining Sheffield devolution deal:
To orrow’s budget critical for role of Local Enterprise Partnerships and democratic deficit
From democraticaudit.com website
“The Budget on Wednesday will give a strong indication of how the government’s devolution programme will play out, whether it will it lead to meaningful change in centre-local relations, or whether it will be another instance of central government using councils as a tool to implement their wider programme.
Success will depend on a few crucial factors:
How well it actually delivers on its promise to increase economic growth, which, many critics have warned, is not a given.
Where the goal posts end up. In practice devolution is a process, not a single event. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act provides a framework but we are yet to see what will actually be made of it and how future deals will be made.
Rural areas. The driving force behind devolution was always growth in cities, so what happens in (largely Tory) county deals will be important.
National governments’ policy goals often play out in the arena of local government. Historically, the changes that are imposed on councils are the product of the wider political programmes that parties adopt when they come in to power.
The current plan is to use councils as a mechanism to drive balanced economic growth. They will be made financially independent by 2020, with the power to keep and vary business rates, as well as other local taxes, as an incentive to encourage businesses and economic activity.
Local government has borne the brunt of financial reform so far. There is a yawning gap between the resources required to run services and those available. Meanwhile there is the long-standing imbalance between prosperous and less-prosperous parts of the country, particularly between the South East and the North.
Governments have been seeking geographical “enabling frameworks” in order to promote development throughout England. City-regions are the most recent iteration and the government leapt on them as a model for reforming and innovating at scale. Perhaps their greatest champion of cities is Lord Heseltine, whose 2012 paper No Stone Left Unturned: In pursuit of local growth made the case for streamlined city governance and greater local control over economic development.
It soon became apparent that this would be the focus for a Conservative government and the first wave of city-deals came in 2012, followed by a second wave in 2013-14.
Since Heseltine’s paper the government deployed an interesting deal-based, almost Burkean, style of policy making. Rather than rushing to put together a national framework for devolution, government opened up the bidding, allowing councils to submit proposals for how their area might use devolved powers.
The first deal was struck with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in November 2014, followed by deals with Sheffield and West Yorkshire before the 2015 election, and Cornwall, the North East, Tees Valley, West Midlands and Liverpool City Region after the election.
Yet the government knows what it likes and it knows what it doesn’t. As the negotiation process has extended beyond cities to counties and non-metropolitan areas there are some very clear ideas in Westminster about what these deals should entail. They must be business oriented, for example, with a prominent role for Local Enterprise Partnerships, and there is an enthusiasm for mayors, which seems to be getting stronger with time.
And now the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act has established a legal framework for devolution. Amendments, written in to the Act late in its passage through Parliament, give wide scope for the Secretary of State to make governance changes to local authorities, including to the constitution and members, as well as the structure, electoral and boundary arrangements.
There are concerns with the process as well.
As the policy has been driven by individual deals, there is an inherent level of secrecy involved, which has troubled some. Engagement, accountability and scrutiny have all been raised as significant issues. Others worry about an under-the-radar local government restructure, as well as the lack of clarity about what is actually on offer, the divide and rule tactics and the rapid pace of change. The Mayoral model has also been a serious sticking point, particularly in county areas.
However there was also praise for the fact that the government has got the ball rolling. Pragmatic negotiators recognise that current deals could be a stepping-stone to further devolution in the future.
Meanwhile, the process is exacerbating a number of significant cleavages across the political landscape. These are apparent between central and local government, between different tiers of local government, and within the main parties.
A further worry is that mayors and local MPs may find themselves in conflict, with overlapping remits. There are already reports of MPs making their presence felt in negotiations, which have not helped to ease tensions.
So where does that leave us?
There may be big unintended consequences, as often happens when one arm of the state is used as a tool to ram home the policy goals of another. How much consideration has really been given to the disparities that might be exacerbated between successful and unsuccessful areas, let alone the prospect of some places falling by the wayside entirely. Is there a long-term plan to allow some parts of the country to “fail”, as with the likes of Detroit in the USA, when the RSG is removed in 2020?
Neither the process, nor the Act, has dealt adequately with issues such as democracy, representation, and civic identity. The deal process in particular has been closed to the wishes of local citizens, and even council leaders have been the weaker party in negotiations. County Durham is the only authority so far to consult the public on their proposal. Citizens had the chance to approve the bid in a poll carried out in February. On the whole it has been subject to ministerial will, perhaps even to the will of other unelected figures close to the government.
At some point in the near future it is likely that we will reach a tipping point whereby the deal-based approach falls away and devolution becomes de facto national policy, with a framework drawn up and put in place across the country.
There will be a further challenge in clearly defining where power and responsibility lie. Mayors will be accountable upwards to the government and downwards to citizens and stakeholders. The new elected mayor in Greater Manchester, for example, will report to the scrutiny committee of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, drawn from the “Scrutiny Pool” of 30 councillors from the ten authorities.
Despite these arrangements we may start to see that soft power is more decisive than some have considered. Informal brokerage, leadership and negotiation could be key to combining health and social care, for example, though the mayor will have no formal responsibility in that area.
As with previous governments, local government is the arena in which a broader political programme is to be enacted. Whether in practice this is a radical change for the better or just tinkering around the edges we will begin to find out soon. It is certainly incumbent on councils to grasp the nettle by facing up to the offer pragmatically and positively.
To paraphrase Anthony King and Ivor Crewe in The Blunders of Our Governments, we have decided what is to be done, now local government will begin the doing of it.
—
This article is a summary of an LGiU long read ‘Devolution: A state of the nation assessment’. The full piece can be accessed here. The post represents the views of the authors and not those of Democratic Audit UK. Please read our comments policy before posting.
—
Andrew Walker is a researcher at LGiU and a PhD candidate Queen Mary, University of London, with the Mile End Institute.
MPs (and EDDC’s Standards committee) “marks its own homework”
Bear in mind when you read this that lay members of EDDC’s Standards acommittee are also not allowed to vote on matters put before them
Two former parliamentary standards commissioners have backed calls for an overhaul of the committee that regulates the conduct of MPs.
Sir Philip Mawer and John Lyon both warned that “lay” members of the panel should be allowed to vote on decisions in order to check the power of MPs in regulating themselves.
In a written submission to the Commons standards committee, Sir Philip warned that its lay members were currently little more than “second class citizens”, fuelling criticism that MPs are “retaining the power of decision about their colleagues firmly in their own hands”.
On Monday Mr Lyon, the immediate predecessor of Kathryn Hudson, the current commissioner, said he now also supported the move.
Dorset county councillors wants nine councils reduced to two
A “clear majority” of county councillors in Dorset have backed proposals to reduce the number of councils in the county from nine to two.
More than half (54%) also backed there being one unitary council for the current county council area and one for Bournemouth and Poole.
A second option – for there to be one unitary council for the area of East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland and one for Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch – attracted 41% of the votes.
Other options were considered and rejected. These were for: a single pan-Dorset unitary authority for Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole; two other options for separate unitary authorities; and of making no change to the current structure.
Dorset County Council stressed that the vote was not a binding decision. “The council voted unanimously do more work on the preferred options and a report will be brought to its next meeting with a view to developing a full business case,” it said.
It also noted that there would be a public consultation on any plans, and that this was likely to be held during the summer of 2016.
Cllr Robert Gould, Leader of Dorset County Council, said: “We had a thorough debate in which nearly all county councillors had their say. It was encouraging to see agreement that we need to change and do things better for the people of Dorset.
“We now have a clear consensus around having one, new council serving the whole ‘shire’ Dorset area, with an enhanced role for town and parish councils to deliver local services and strengthen their identity.
“This would simplify the structure of local government for residents, save money and help our case for a really ambitious devolution deal for Dorset.”
Cllr Gould added: “We will continue to work with the other Dorset councils to develop a solution for the whole county. A key part of this will be consulting with local people to make sure everyone has a chance to be involved.
“This is a great opportunity for the whole of Dorset to create something that supports the future needs and ambitions of the county.”
Councils could become spies – and redundant council offices could become community spaces (right!)
“Councils could place sensors in household rubbish bins which would alert GPs if pensioners fail to take their rubbish out for a fortnight, a Government backed report has found.
Within a decade every bin could have a sensor, the forecast suggests as it sets out how everything from reporting missed rubbish collections to ordering parking permits could be digitised to save money for cash-strapped local councils.
It predicts savings of £14.7 million if authorities make use of new technologies, automating backroom functions thus saving money through job cuts.
The vision for councils is set out by innovation charity Nesta in conjunction with the Public Service Transformation Network, established by the Coalition Government in 2013 and funded by Whitehall as a way to help public services provide value for money.
Town halls would “no longer directly provide most local services”, but would become “digital by default” and act as an online broker, with redundant offices and civic buildings instead becoming community spaces.
The rubbish bin proposal would protect frail elderly residents, the report suggests, because if a pensioner did not put their bins out for two weeks in a row, an alert would be triggered to the local GP surgery so a doctor could check they were healthy.
The fictional example is given of a septuagenarian retired bus driver, Martin, who in 2025 is “far from being a ‘digital native’”.
If Martin doesn’t put his rubbish out for two weeks in a row, this is automatically registered on the council’s system through the sensors in his bins,” it suggests.
“The integrated system knows Martin is in his 70s and has mobility issues so automatically generates a notification for his GP that Martin might need support. From this, a GP can make a quick phone call to check everything is okay.”
The report foresees “instant data sharing across services unless people explicitly opt out”, while noting that such advances would tread a “fine line” between efficiency and the public’s fears over privacy.
Technology could also enable social workers to step in sooner, with algorithms that could automatically alert authorities to children and others at risk of neglect or abuse, or families likely to become homeless.
Local authorities in Bath and North East Somerset already use sensors in public bins to capture data so that they are only collected when they are full.
Islington Council came under fire in 2008 for going through households’ rubbish without seeking permission to investigate whether people were recycling enough.
Campaigners have raised concerns about increased surveillance of residents by councils, especially of vulnerable elderrly people.
Daniel Nesbitt research director of Big Brother Watch said “With big data comes big responsibility, these proposals may sound great on paper but as more of our devices start to analyse information about us the opportunities for monitoring and profiling are clear to see.
“Any potential scheme involving the collection of data can lead to assumptions being made about individuals, these assumptions may not be correct.
“As more devices become connected and as more data is created, it’s vital that people are told exactly what using these devices will mean for them.
“It is critical that people understand what they are signing up to and how much they will be giving away before giving their consent, this is even more important when it involves the elderly or vulnerable.”
Modelling commissioned by Nesta from Social Finance suggested councils could save up to 13% of total spending by 2025 – £14.7 billion based on 2015/16 totals.
A Government spokesman said: “This is research was done in conjunction with the Public Service Transformation Network and gives examples on how councils can use technology to make efficiencies and deliver better services for local people.
“This is one of many examples of what a number of councils are doing across the country and is not central Government policy.”
Sensible use of technology can deliver cost savings, the spokesman said, adding: “We will continue to work with local government to help provide better digital services for local taxpayers.”
To vote in EU referendum you must be registered by 18 April 2016
Registration online is quick and easy and can be done here:
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
You will need your National Insurance Number (usually found on pay slips if you do not have a record of it) and it takes about 5 minutes.
It’s private landlords that profit from housing benefit – not tenants
“[Dispatches] airing on Channel 4, investigates how private landlords are now the fastest growing provider of accommodation for housing benefit tenants, receiving £9 billion a year from public funds.
…the programme also reveals how private landlords now own 40 per cent of all former council houses, leading to fears of a shortage in social housing.
Dr Victoria Cooper, lecturer in Social Policy at the Open University, tells the programme: ‘Approximately 40 per cent of the housing benefit budget is spent on the private rented sector.
‘What we’re seeing is a redistribution of wealth and while public funds were previously spent within social housing and then used to reinvest to expand that social housing, this is no longer the case.
‘With the private rented sector the money isn’t redistributed and it simply goes into the pockets of private landlords.’
Local Enterprise Parttnerships: a government briefing paper
Some quotes from the paper, published in December 2015:
“LEPs are non-statutory bodies, and so have a great deal of discretion in how their membership is composed, though they must be chaired by a business person and at least half of their members must be from the private sector.” …
“In an April 2013 interview Business Secretary Vince Cable argued that big decisions on funding must be administered from Whitehall on the basis that some LEPs had very small numbers of business people on their boards and were not publicly accountable and unsuited to manage large amounts of public money.” …
Prior to the 2015 election, Labour stated if elected they would retain LEPs, stating they would work to “improve LEPs, not abolish them” while outlining concerns over their “accountability and capacity to deliver.” …
“Professor Bob Bennett, a Cambridge academic specialising in economic geography has said that there is a “danger that (LEPs) require too much effort, for too little return” and that more than “£2 billion needs to be invested in LEPs and Enterprise Zones in order to stimulate growth and jobs around the UK”.36 Similarly, a report by the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies at the University of Newcastle argues LEPs will struggle to exercise substantive influence upon local economic growth on account of “the lack of long-term vision and strategy for their strategic development.”
…
“The Interim Government response was published in July 2013. While acknowledging the role LEPs play in regional economic growth, it raised concerns over their accountability. In turn, it recommended a single BIS Minister be made responsible and accountable for LEPs and that LEPs should have a single point of contact within the Department and LEPs’ objective setting processes are monitored to ensure they remain fit for purpose and have the capability to access future funding.” …
“In December 2013, The National Audit Office published a report titled Funding and structures for local economic growth, examining how effective the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been in supporting economic growth and providing value for money. The report states it has not yet been demonstrated that Local Enterprise Partnerships “are capable of delivering value for money.” Quoting evidence complied by BIS, the report states that of the 39 LEPs, seventeen made a strong case that they represent a functional economic area, sixteen made a plausible case, four made a weak case and no information was held on the remaining two.
The report states different LEPs have made progress at different rates. Areas of concern include weaknesses in leadership, changes in board membership, not taking advantage of available funding and insufficient administrative capacity.
In May 2014, the Public Accounts Committee published the report Promoting Economic Growth Locally, assessing the extent to which the coalition government’s local growth programmes had achieved their stated aims. The report expresses concern on “the lack of transparency of LEPs” and central Government’s reliance on “self-reported information” as a means of appraising their success.”
Hinkley C: a costly mistake and only France can pull the plug
Our Local Enterprise Partnership – to which major decisions about housing, health and infrastructure in Devon and Somerset will be devolved without any consultation of the public – has, not surprisingly, chosen the new Hinkley C nuclear plant in Somerset as its mega-vanity project. Not surprising because at least two (and maybe more) board members have nuclear interests.
A long article in today’s Guardian shows the total folly of the project and says only France can pull the plug on it as George Osborne cannot afford to lose face by doing it, nor can he allow the Chinese investors to do the same.
“Business situations are often described as zero-sum, or win-win. Hinkley Point, already the site of a power station in Somerset, is a rare case where the project could be damaging to both customers and investors. It would saddle British taxpayers with highly expensive power, and risk bankrupting a major French company, whose finances are already shaky. The government should cancel the deal.”
“Town planning gives us the worst of all worlds”
Keith Rossiter in today’s Western Morning News:
“A walk through any Westcountry market town at 8am on a weekday ought to be enough to convince us that Matthew Taylor, the former Truro and St Austell MP, is talking sense.
Matthew, now Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, says our housing policy is sick – and those pointless traffic jams in what should be rights be quiet country towns are the most obvious symptoms.
The worst of the traffic congestion comes from the new housing estates that ring our historic towns like encircling armies.
You can’t blame the people who live in these estates – like all of us, they are just looking for an affordable place to live.
But their homes are not affordable – the policy of allowing only this suburban doughnut of development has driven up prices to the point that in some parts of the country a single building plot will set you back £500,000.
And their homes are not even desirable, whatever the developer’s adverts say. They are increasingly tiny – the smallest in Europe, bar flat-dwelling Italy and Romania. They must drive into town because they have no schools, shops or jobs, and usually their streets aren’t even leafy.
The developers may have promised such luxuries when they were granted outline planning consent but, oh dear, when push comes to bulldozer, it’s “just not viable”.
The councillors on the planning committees shrug: at least they have met their Government-set housing targets.
Each time one of these new estates goes up, there are scores of angry, unhappy people who have lost their views and their access to the countryside. Multiply that across the country, and it’s no wonder town planners have such a bad name.
Is anyone happy? The suddenly rich former landowner almost certainly, as he flies his shiny new helicopter to his shiny new villa in Bermuda.
In a convincing speech to an audience at Plymouth University last Thursday, Lord Taylor called for a new planning strategy in which rural councils are given the power to acquire farm land to build new Garden Villages of 1,500-5,000 homes, separate from existing communities.
Legislation to allow councils to pay above market rates for agricultural land but below that for development land would kill two birds with one stone. The farmer will be handsomely compensated, and the resulting profit will be ploughed back into the new community for schools, shops and other facilities.
But you’ll be concreting over our green and pleasant land! I hear you cry.
Not so, says Lord T. Today, just nine per cent of England is developed. Another million homes in Garden Villages would barely take that figure to 9.5 per cent.
Unlike the present system, which seems designed to create unhappiness, “a new Bodmin, off the A30 and over the hill, would be seen by hardly anyone,” he says. Being smallish, it won’t require new dual carriageways. And being at least partly self-contained, it can become a real community.
What’s not to like?”
Heart of the South West LEP – another conflict of interest?
Nick Engert
What his LEP profile says:
When is a conflict of interest not a conflict of interest? Who knows …
“Nick is a regular advocate for over thirty years at public inquiries into planning appeals and objections to Local Plan proposals. He was made a partner in 1979 and ultimately chairman of the whole firm in 2000. Nick retired from the partnership in 2009, but remains a consultant with Clarke Willmott with particular emphasis on advising land owners in respect of current major nuclear development proposals in Somerset.”
What his entry on his former employer’s website says (he remains a consultant to the firm):
“Nick has a national reputation as a planning advocate and regularly provides advice on a broad range of planning matters. He advises a number of public and private institutions and major landowners on issues relating to planning applications and appeals, environmental aspects of property transactions, development control, planning agreements, enforcement notices and listed buildings. Nick is recommended as a leader in the planning field by the legal directories.”
More nuclear interests … and the land around …
One company does at least 250 Housing estimates for local plans – councils refuse to disclose data
One botched arithmetical calculation could change housing figures all over the country – but councils refuse to allow scrutiny of the data.
“Councils have a public duty to estimate housing need. Guildford has delegated this calculation to a property consultancy called GL Hearn. It has not disclosed the detailed arithmetic and assumptions to show how the housing need for the borough was calculated. It even professes not to hold a copy of the model.
Guildford’s Code of Conduct pays lip-service to ‘Openness’, ‘Transparency’, and ‘Honesty’. Failure to oblige contractors and consultants to disclose their calculations to the public is not consistent with these values. Nor is it an acceptable method of conducting public affairs. It is not consistent with the principles of good public procurement contracting. Failure to explain in detail the assumptions and arithmetic behind the housing need estimates which underpin the Local Plan is a dereliction of public duty.
GL Hearn apparently subcontracted the work to Justin Gardner Consulting:
http://www.justingardnerconsulting.co.uk/index.php?page=test-page
It claims to have worked for some 250 planning authorities across England. Failure to disclose may therefore be widespread.
Please see the Information Commissioner’s decision on the link below:
“Growth”
All today’s newspapers announce that George Osborne is having problems because his estimate of “growth” has gone awry – it has slowed down – and therefore he must cut public spending and find ways of increasing taxation even more than he had anticipated.
However, our Local Enterprise Partnership continues to operate on old (very old) overestimated growth forecasts and makes great claims about how those overestimated figure will allow them to create 167,000 jobs over the next 15 years.
What does our LEP know that George Osborne doesn’t?
“I love you Yorkshire … Lincolnshire … Cornwall says Cameron in near-identical articles!
“David Cameron has been accused of touting a series of almost identical articles to local newspapers around the UK in an attempted PR “carpet bombing” of the country outside London.
The Yorkshire Post refused to publish what was billed as a “very personal” opinion piece by the prime minister.
The paper said it discovered tweaked versions of the same piece had been sent to several other regional titles as part of what it called a “sham media operation”.
The prime minister’s piece began with the words “I love Yorkshire & the Humber” and was designed to highlight some of the region’s attractions as part of English Tourism week.
In an editorial, the Yorkshire Post explains that a Downing Street press officer telephoned to offer the “very personal” piece but when the column arrived, doubts arose over how genuine it was.
“It appeared very formulaic, lacked empathy and only made passing reference to the misery caused by the Yorkshire floods,” the editorial says.
Then the newspaper discovered other regional and local publications had run remarkably similar pieces.
The Herald, Plymouth’s newspaper, published a piece from Cameron which
began with the words: “I love Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.” The Newcastle Chronicle carried a piece that started: “I love Northumberland.” And the same in the Lincolnshire Echo: “I love Lincolnshire.”
For the Cornish audience, the PM wrote: “From their stunning beaches
and coastal walks to their creative arts projects, this county is one
of the many jewels in Great Britain’s crown.”
For the north-east: “From Hadrian’s Wall to Europe’s biggest sky park,
this county is one of the many jewels in Great Britain’s crown.”
For Lincolnshire, the PM said: “From the quaint market towns to the
rolling countryside, this county is one of the many jewels in Great
Britain’s crown.”
The Yorkshire Post acknowledges that the prime minister was not likely to be aware that this was happening in his name – but refused to run his article.
The paper was also angered because it had sent a number of questions
to the PM to answer in the wake of the floods that hit the region, but
six weeks later had yet to receive a response.
The newspaper, which backed five more years of a Tory-Lib Dem coalition ahead of last year’s general election, has received widespread support on Twitter for refusing to run the article.”
Government Petition: Give parish councils the right to appeal planning decisions.
“The planning system is unfair. It is one of the few decision-making processes that gives no right of appeal to affected third parties. The government should introduce a limited third-party right of appeal by giving parish councils a right to appeal planning decisions to the Planning Inspectorate.”
Sign here:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110489
If it reaches more than 100,000 signatures it must be debated in Parliament.
Special software instantly destroys secret communications between banks
How long before local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships get it?
George Osborne is being urged to crack down on bankers keeping communications secret by top Tory.
A leading Conservative MP is urging Chancellor George Osborne to take action on bankers using special software to keep their communications secret.
Andrew Bridgen MP has written to Mr Osborne warning him of the dangers of Symphony interbank software.
Mr Bridgen fears the software – which allows instant messages and emails to be deleted without a trace – could help cover-up another banking crisis.
In a letter to the Chancellor, seen by the Sunday Mirror , he said: “I am writing regarding my deep concerns in respect of the relationship between several banks and hedge funds and Symphony Communications.
“A group of 14 banks and hedge funds, led by Goldman Sachs, invested $66 million into Symphony Communications.
The money was used to buy the Perzo messaging platform, an instant messaging system in the financial markets.”
Mr Bridgen then raises concerns the firm has boasted of special tools “to prevent government spying”, that there are “no backdoors” and that it has “a specific set of procedures to guarantee that data deletion is permanent”.
He added: “There is obviously an ongoing concern regarding the conduct of the banking industry following the financial crisis of 2008 and the several scandals that followed this.
“Although I believe the banking culture has changed in the UK, if employees of banks using the Symphony communication system believe they will never get caught insider trading and manipulating markets, then that culture will soon change back again.”
Mr Bridgen had previously written to the Business Secretary Sajid Javid and the Financial Conduct authority with his concerns.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-being-urged-crack-7545681
Devolution: where are the new jobs coming from?
“About 25,000 jobs are expected to be created during construction of the power plant, as well as 900 permanent jobs during its 60-year operation.”
163,000 new jobs by 2030
http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/news/devolution
So, this means that up to 2030 Devon and Somerset has to create around 147,000 jobs in 15 years (163,000 minus 26,000 even though 25,000 of these jobs will be temporary and with two Hinkley sites closing most of the 900 permanent jobs will probably go to redundant workers from the old sites)
147,000 jobs in 15 years equals around 9,800 new jobs in Devon and Somerset each and every year over and above those being created at Hinkley C.
The LEP says:
LABOUR MARKET
“There were 11,292 JSA claimants (1.1% of the working age population, compared to UK 1.8%) across the Heart of the SW in July 2015. This is a minor increase of 0.4% from June 2015, but a 22.2% fall since July 2014. The most significant reduction over the year has been experienced in Somerset (-34.0%), followed by Torbay (-26.1%), Devon (-20.2%) then Plymouth (9.7%). Devon and Somerset continue to have the lowest claimant rates across the sub-region (both 0.8%, compared to Torbay and Plymouth 1.9% and 2.0% respectively). This has contributed to the HotSW ranking among the best performing LEPs in the country in JSA claimant terms (14th out of 39)”
There is no way that 163,000 jobs can be taken up by every unemployed person in Devon and Somerset – indeed employing EVERY unemployed person in the area would soak up about a year’s worth of the new jobs specified.
This means that around 90% of the new jobs must be filled from outside the LEP area at a time where EVERY LEP is making similar claims about the number of jobs it expects to create.
And let us not forget that many of the 25,900 jobs at Hinkley C will go to French and Chinese workers.
The maths just don’t work. Good luck with that.
East Devon Watch 