Scottish cities want radicall different devolution deals

Interesting that, in England, only London has solo devolution – seven Scottish cities want individual devolution deals.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/06/scottish-cities-set-out-devolution-proposals

EDA INVITES HUGO SWIRE TO BECOME INDEPENDENT

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/news/20160614/eda-invites-hugo-swire-to-become-independent/

Hugo Swire MP has used his blog to attack the idea of Independents both in Parliament and at District Council level. This is EDA Chairman, Paul Arnott’s response:

“The last time I saw Hugo in the paper he was greeting US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to the anti-corruption summit in London. It seemed marvellous that although the Swire family name was dotted throughout the Panama papers Hugo was joining the fight for accountability and transparency.

So, may I suggest that he casts off the shackles of Conservative membership, and the ministerial code which he claims prevents him speaking in Parliament about his constituency, and join the free-to-speak, free-to-act Independents? With all the extra time he may even be able to find a home down here.

But as a matter of fact, Hugo is wrong that East Devon Alliance Independents operate as a bloc in the council. There are 15 Independents in the Independent group, including 9 who are also members of the EDA, and it is a matter of record that every one of them votes as they individually decide. There has never been and never will be the kind of arm-twisting beloved of EDDC’s Tory hierarchy, which itself does a disservice to many excellent Conservative councillors as perturbed by this as us.

As to being anti-Tory, this is a canard Hugo has tried to float before. In fact, we have just made a submission to the Home Office in support of his colleague Theresa May’s Action Plan on Money Laundering and Terrorist Finance, with reference to the possibility of money laundering through property development. This is as relevant in East Devon as it is to the gleaming new towers of central London.

Finally, the EDA registered with the Electoral Commission precisely so that our microscopic spend at the May 2105 elections was open to analysis by the public. We look forward to Hugo’s views regarding a number of his Devon Conservative colleagues whose own Parliamentary electoral expenditure returns are now being investigated by the West Mercia Police.”

Community Infrastructure Levy rules likely to change as developers don’t like them

Developers don’t like it, so, of course, it has to go.

The government’s specially appointed task force is to call for a radical overhaul of the community infrastructure levy six years after it was introduced.

It will recommend a major policy U-turn, stripping CIL back to its original purpose by funding local infrastructure with a simple, national base tax on all new developments.

Section 106 charges would return for infrastructure requirements on large developments.

The changes are expected to be considered after parliament’s summer recess. The recommendations come from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s CIL review panel, set up as an independent working group chaired by former British Property Federation chief executive Liz Peace.

Changes are likely to need primary legislation and could be inserted into the Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill. …

… Barratt Developments’ group land and planning director Philip Barnes said: “We were hoping that when CIL was introduced it would give us more clarity and certainty, but actually we are finding we often have to negotiate s106 on top of CIL. If these changes were introduced they would give developers greater flexibility, whichcould speed up the delivery of larger sites.”

Details yet to be determined include how the base tariff would be set, whether any types of development would be exempt, and howmedium-sized developments could avoid being hit by both CIL and s106 requirements.

CBRE’s chairman of UK planning Stuart Robinson said: “The key questions will be, who will set the tariff and on what basis? And how will does affordable housing fit in?”

Simon Ricketts, partner at law firm King & Wood Mallesons, said he would not want a lower CIL rate subsidised by higher s106 payments. He added: “If there is a shortfall between what is needed and a new, low CIL, that should not come from s106, which would add extra complexity.”

https://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/task-force-to-accept-bpf-recommendations-on-cil/

Another fat cat getting fatter at our expense

Oh, the joys of unfettered capitalism!

“The boss of Britain’s worst rail company subjecting passengers to daily delays has been awarded a £2million pay deal.

David Brown, chief executive of Go-Ahead, saw a 10 per cent rise in his overall package for June 2014-2015, despite the poor performance of its rail franchises.

It also more than doubled from £924,000 the previous year, and £36.7 million was paid out to shareholders in dividends, up from £34.7 million the year before.

The huge payouts and increase in pay package revealed were branded ‘a national disgrace’ by a union boss.

After the figures emerged, one commuter write on Twitter: ‘Thank you for fleecing the entire commuting public.’

Mr Brown is the boss of Go-Ahead, which runs a number of companies including GTR, the operator of rail franchises Southeastern, Thameslink and Great Northern.

A survey by Which? found that passengers voted it the worst rail company in the country, with a satisfaction rating of just 46 per cent.

GTR also had the most delays and cancellations caused by a lack of train staff between April 1 2013 and December 12 last year with 62,000 incidents, according to Office of Rail and Road figures.

But last year, it warned passengers to expect three more years of misery until renovations to London Bridge station were complete.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640455/Boss-Britain-s-worst-performing-train-company-awarded-2-1MILLION-pay-deal-branded-national-disgrace.html

Rich get profit, poor get blame

“On Wednesday, two very different men will have to explain themselves. Both appear in London, to a room full of authority figures – but their finances and their status place them at opposite ends of our power structure. Yet put them together and a picture emerges of the skewedness of today’s Britain.

For the Rev Paul Nicolson, the venue will be a magistrate’s court in London. His “crime” is refusing to pay his council tax, in protest against David Cameron’s effective scrapping of council tax benefit, part of his swingeing cuts to social security. In order to pay for a financial crisis they didn’t cause, millions of families already on low incomes are sinking deeper into poverty. In order to pay bills they can’t afford, neighbours of the retired vicar are going without food. The 84-year-old faces jail this week, for the sake of £2,831.

Meanwhile, a chauffeur will drive Philip Green to parliament, where he’ll be quizzed by MPs over his part in the collapse of BHS. A business nearly as old as the Queen will die within a few weeks, leaving 11,000 workers out of a job and 22,000 members of its pension scheme facing a poorer retirement.

There the similarities peter out. Nicolson was summoned to court; Green wasn’t going to bother showing up at Westminster. When the multibillionaire was invited by Frank Field to make up BHS’s £600m pension black hole, he demanded the MP resign as chair of the work and pensions select committee.

But then, Green is used to cherry-picking which rules he plays by. Take this example: he buys Arcadia, the company that owns Topshop, then arranges for it to give his wife a dividend of £1.2bn. Since Tina Green is, conveniently, a resident of Monaco, the tax savings on that one payment alone are worth an estimated £300m. That would fund the building of 10 large secondary schools – or two-thirds of the annual cut to council tax benefits.

Just as Green underinvests in society, so he underinvests in his companies. The man to whom he sold BHS last year, Dominic Chappell, told MPs last week that “for the past 10 or 12 years there had been little or no inward investment in the stores”. A staple of the high street had been run down.

Then again, what incentive has he had to do otherwise? Green bought BHS with just £20m of family money and borrowed the rest. Within four years, he had pulled £400m of dividends out of the firm – 20 times his initial outlay.

He used the same tactic to buy Arcadia – stumping up £9.2m in equity and taking out £1.2bn three years later. This isn’t retailing as you might think of it, it’s balance-sheet shazam – the kind of financial engineering that posed as real business in Britain’s bubble years. And it’s enabled Green to turn major retailers into what Robert Peston, in Who Runs Britain?, calls “giant gushers of cash”.

But in today’s Britain, the poor are forced to pay the unaffordable, while the tax-avoider is honoured for his contribution to society. Green was knighted by Tony Blair, while David Cameron appointed him a government adviser.

Just as Green pretends to be a cheeky chappy even though he went to boarding school, so any charlatan in pinstripes can claim to be a businessperson – and be handsomely rewarded. The barons who run our rail services tout themselves as “investors”, but for every quid they put into their trains, they take out £2.47. That level of underinvestment ensures commuters are never sure of getting in on time and having a seat – but shareholders and managers can make a fortune.

From Margaret Thatcher through Tony Blair to David Cameron, successive prime ministers have preached the virtues of free enterprise. We’ve ended up with an economy comprised of what parliament’s public accounts committee calls “quasi-monopolies” – from water to banks to electricity to public outsourcing – and big businesses being treated as money-sponges to be wrung dry by their owners and managers. …”

http://gu.com/p/4yxn9