Monthly Archives: July 2016

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

Democracy, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Comments

3 Comments

Progressive Alliance

” … Unless something drastic and decisive happens, the next election threatens to become a contest between the Tories and Ukip: in other words, between rightwing technocrats owned by the banks and rightwing demagogues owned by Arron Banks.

What is this drastic something? A progressive alliance.

This means Labour, the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin and other parties agreeing to field just one candidate between them in every constituency. Whether that means a unity candidate representing all parties (perhaps chosen in an open primary, as the political innovator Paul Hilder has suggested), or making way for the party representative most likely to capture the progressive vote is a question that needs to be debated. The Greens and Lib Dems seem ready to play. What about Labour?

Joining such an alliance means giving up Scotland and giving up its hopes of a majority in England and Wales. You could see that as a lot to ask, or you could see it as accepting the inevitable. Here’s where the kinder, gentler politics is required: to abandon tribalism and strike generous bargains with old opponents. It’ll be hard, but the urgency of the task, as we confront an elite that is now empowered to tear down the remains of postwar social democracy, should be apparent to everyone. By giving up hopes of governing alone, Labour could be offered a last chance of survival – but only as part of a wider alliance.

Combined, these forces can win the next general election, whenever that might be. Apart, they will inevitably lose. A progressive alliance need win only once, then use that victory to reform our electoral system, to ensure that the parties of the left and centre never again engage in destructive competition.” …

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Local Plan

Who pays? Who benefits? Who cares?

Construction slows down, right down.
Local Plan targets are not met.
Government penalises councils by raising targets 20%.

Anyone spot the flaw?

And will developers cease buying up land for land-banking during this period?

Dream on, dream on.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Bovis, Developers/ Development, Development Management Committee, EDDC

Development Management Committee defers Bovis Seaton affordables decision to study viability figures

East Devon’s Development Management Committee has refused to approve an application from Bovis to build extra houses on the Tesco regeneration site at Harbour Road. It decided instead to bring the matter back to its next meeting to look more closely at the viability assessment for Affordable Housing.

Members were surprised when officers said that they were free to look at the viability assessment, although it will not be made publicly available.

This setback for the developers came after the DMC’s chairman, David Keys, and the Council’s Development Officer, Ed Freeman, recommended approval of an extension of the ‘zero relaxation’ for affordable housing (which means NONE at all in the huge project) in March, without bringing the matter to the Committee or informing the town council of the application.

However, it transpires that Bovis had already applied for extra houses on the site, and said no affordable housing should be included because the scheme overall was still £6 million in the red.

But as Seaton ward member Jim Knight asked the DMC, why would they be building these additional houses if the site was not profitable?

The issue came to DMC only because of the persistence of Seaton Town Council, supported on the DMC by Councillor Peter Burrows who insisted that the matter be on the DMC agenda.

The Chair of Seaton’s planning committee, Martin Shaw, argued that the viability assessment for the new application, which linked it to the viability of the scheme as a whole, was flawed because it did not take account of the improved density of the development. He questioned whether the District Valuer had been fully informed when he signed off the viability assessment.

DMC members on all sides expressed concern. Independent leader, Ben Ingham, said that for a long time Seaton had not had enough new housing, but now that it was coming on stream, Seaton people could not afford to buy the houses being built.

Conservative councillor Simon Grundy said ‘We need to stop being treated like children over this matter. The Town council seem to have got a lot closer on this than we did.’

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

Education (local)

Scandal hit academy school still being funded

Duryard Academy (see previous posts), once hailed by Michael Gove as the “Eton of the State Sector” is still being funded by the government after being threatened with closure.

Its former head teacher SIR Gregg Martin (once the highest paid head teacher in the country with a salary of more than £200,000 with around an extra £161,000 for running a swimming and gym complex in school grounds), who was knighted by Michael Gove, is now its Chair of Governors.

Mr Gove awarded the school £17 million to create a weekly boarding school in Sussex as well as running junior schools in London.

Its financial dealings have been described as “complex”.

Source: The Times

The government recently announced it would make all schools academy schools, but when MPs of its own party threatened to rebel, they rolled it back to only “inadequate” schools which would be forced to do so.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Local Enterprise Partnership scrutiny: Owl says “I told you”!

From Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Accounts Committee Report on Cities and Local Growth:

9. It is alarming that LEPs are not meeting basic standards of governance and transparency, such as disclosing conflicts of interest to the public.

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities.

There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities. It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

It is of great concern that many LEPs appear not be meeting these minimum standards. The scale of LEP activity and the sums involved necessitate that LEPs and central government be pro-active in assuring the public that decisions are made with complete probity.

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.

Recommendation: The Department should enforce the existing standards of transparency, governance and scrutiny before allocating future funding to LEPs. LEPs themselves also need to be more transparent to the public by, for example, publishing financial information.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/296/29605.htm

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

NHS (local)

NHS Property Services: questions in Parliament hinting at privatisation

Here are just two of several questions asked and answered recently by Parliamentary Question (an opportunity unavailable to Hugo Swire – or so he says – because they conflict with his ministerial duties at the Foreign Office):

NHS PROPERTY SERVICES
13th June 2016

Sir Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent discussions he has had on (a) complete and (b) partial privatisation of the National Health Service’s Property Services.

George Freeman, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Life Sciences: The Department is always looking at ways to realise efficiencies and value for money from the use of its assets and investments, and this includes its investments in companies like NHS Property Services.

Hansard 39784

and

NHS PROPERTY SERVICES: SUSSEX
14th June 2016

Sir Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will order a review to be undertaken of the administration and operational effectiveness of NHS Property Services in (a) West Sussex and (b) Mid Sussex.

George Freeman, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Life Sciences: Review of the effectiveness of NHS Property Services’ operations in all areas of the country is an ongoing process by the Company’s Board, which includes a Departmental senior civil servant as a Director, and by officials in the Department’s Commercial Division.

Hansard 39520

http://www.nicholassoames.org.uk/content/nhs-property-services-sussex-0

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

NHS (local)

NHS Property Services: how it “works” in practice

“THE empty floor at the new Townlands Hospital in Henley shows no sign of being occupied in the near future.

Health chiefs would like the town’s two GP surgeries to move in but negotiations over rent believed to be around £250,000 a year have failed to produce a deal.

The space is being advertised on the Government’s property finder website, leading to speculation that a private healthcare provider might be interested in it.

The hospital was still being built when Sue Ryder pulled out of a deal to relocate its hospice in Nettlebed to Townlands in December 2014. The building was completed in February and opened to patients in March.

Last summer, GPs at the Hart and Bell surgeries said they would be interested in relocating but they have not agreed a rental deal with NHS Property Services, which owns the building.

Philip Unwin, senior partner at the Hart Surgery, said: “We are trying to do it but at the moment NHS Property Services is advertising it on the open market to try to get a bigger rent.

“The best way of securing healthcare services for Henley in the long term is if we move up there and rent it on a long-term lease. It would be a really tight hub of medical services for Henley and the surrounding area.

“There’s a very small window of opportunity and if we don’t grasp it we will miss out. It would be the perfect site for us to move to but we need everybody to be on side to be able to do that.

“I understand why they are advertising it but I hope it’s going to be too expensive for anyone to take the bait. If someone does, we will stay where we are and plod on.”

Ian Reissmann, who chairs the Townlands Steering Group, said the most important thing was that a tenant was found as soon as possible.

He said: “We don’t want to see an empty floor. This hospital has been built to provide medical services and we want these much-needed services to be provided locally.

“Moving the GPs in there would not be straightforward and even if everyone wants to see it happen it’s unlikely to be quick.”

Cllr Reissmann said he would be reluctant to see a private company move in but this might be the only option.

He said: “I’d like to see NHS Property Services bring in other services from the Royal Berkshire Hospital and other providers rather than some sort of private provider.

“It’s an NHS hospital and we want to see NHS services available for free there, which is what we were promised.

“It’s important that the hospital is financially viable and while the hospital isn’t occupied fully then the financial model is not as originally planned, which is a concern.

“My first preference for the empty floor is NHS services which are free to use and my second choice is the GPs. My third choice, if there’s really nothing else, is to reluctantly allow someone to move in there to provide paid-for services. The worst option of all is to leave the floor empty.

“If NHS Property Services was serious about sorting out the problem they would have.

“They’ve known about Sue Ryder for 18 months and they could have made arrangements for someone to move in at least temporarily.”

Henley MP John Howell said: “Who goes on the floor is a matter for the NHS and Townlands Hospital to decide.

“The doctors should get a move on and finalise their bid. It would be good to have them there so they need to make sure they put in a good bid.”

A spokesman for NHS Property Services said: “We are continuing negotiations with prospective occupiers of the second floor.

“It is important to secure tenants for this prime site as soon as possible and we are exploring all options. Rent would be discussed as part of negotiations with prospective tenants.

“As previously stated, we have informed public sector partners that the space is available by listing it on the Government’s electronic property information mapping service for 40 working days.

“After this period, the property also appears on the Government’s property finder website. We have not placed the property on the open market at this stage.”

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=222190

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Exmouth, Moirai Exmouth project

“exmouth shows opposition to big seafront development”

The strength of feeling among those against the large scale development of Exmouth seafront was apparent when more than 200 people packed All Saint’s Church Hall in the town for a public meeting.

Organised by Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) the aim was to update residents and seafront users on the group’s actions and enable questions to be asked.

People put forward many relevant and knowledgeable arguments to support their thoughts and feelings, and expressed particular frustration that EDDC have continued to fail to engage with residents.`

Laura Freeman, an Exmouth resident who attended the meeting said “The fact that so many people came to SES’s public meeting shows that people do want to do something to force East Devon District Council to reconsider their plans to develop on Queen’s Drive, they just aren’t really sure how they can achieve that, but meetings like this are great for people to feel connected and share ideas”.

SES spokesperson Louise MacAllister would like to thank all who gave up a sunny Saturday afternoon to attend and contribute to the meeting, especially those who had to stand throughout.

Members of the public who were unable to attend the meeting are welcome to contact SES by email: exmouthsplashdiscussion@gmail.com.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exmouth-shows-opposition-to-big-seafront-development/story-29476988-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing

House builders won’t close the gap …

” … The public sector has to be a steady supplier of homes, much as it was during the 1950s under the Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan governments.

To most people in the housing industry, this was obvious for years. Labour, under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, attempted to bully private housebuilders into including social housing in their estates. But it was always an uphill task. Tony Pidgley, the chairman of Berkeley Group, who pocketed a 42% rise in his take home pay to £23m last year, could not close the supply gap even if he wanted to.

He needs to make a profit for his hungry shareholders, who have set him a target of generating £2bn in pretax profit over three years from 2015, as reservations fall by 20%. Social housing is a discreet element of the Berkeley mix, but like most other major housebuilders, it cannot be more than that.

Turnbull makes no judgment on private developers, other than to highlight the empirically irrefutable point that they never build more than 120,000-130,000 homes a year in a country that, even if net migration were brought down to the tens of thousands, would require at least 200,000 new homes a year.

Fathom Consulting is one of the economic consultancies that continue to make this point year after year. It argues that property suffers from a market failure, which must be tackled by the government. Let’s hope that the Lords makes the same point.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/04/construction-first-casualty-brexit-housebuilders-jitters-eu-referendum

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Public Accounts Committee sees BIG problems with devolution scrutiny

FINALLY MPs WAKE UP TO MAJOR FLAWS IN DEVOLUTION PLANS! BUT IS IT TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?

“MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have stated they have little confidence in scrutiny arrangements being put in place around the government’s flagship devolution deals, and called for these to be improved in order to protect taxpayers’ interests.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee published on 1 July, warned that, following the abolition of the Audit Commission, the existing arrangements for local scrutiny of devolved functions must be made more robust.

Examining devolution agreements in 10 areas – Greater Manchester, Cornwall, Sheffield City Region, the North East, Tees Valley, Liverpool City Region, the West Midlands, East Anglia, Greater Lincolnshire, and the West of England – the PAC said local authority scrutiny was constrained.

The devolution deals for these areas, while all bespoke, share a number of elements, including devolved responsibilities in areas of local transport, business support and further education.

Committee chair Meg Hillier said English devolution represented a big change to the way large sums of taxpayers’ money is spent. “It is therefore alarming to report that, as we hurtle towards mayoral elections planned for next year [in these combined authority areas], so many questions still hang over the process,” she added.

“Parliament and the public must be assured that devolved spending is subject to effective scrutiny and there are clear lines of accountability for delivering value for money. “These vital arrangements are still very much work-in-progress and must be confirmed as a matter of urgency.”

The committee recommended that government should set out by November how it intends to ensure local scrutiny of devolved functions and funding will be well supported.

The Cities and Local Growth report highlighted that, currently, local auditors focus on individual bodies’ financial statements and arrangements for securing value for money.

“It is not yet clear whether there will be any sort of independent institutional scrutiny of devolution deals as a whole, or what form this might take,” it stated. “As more powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved to the local level, we are therefore concerned that a gap in the scrutiny of value for money might be appearing.”

The report, which the committee acknowledged was being carried out in an evolving policy context, highlighted this was an untested policy area. There were already clear tensions emerging in the deals, with evidence that some deals may disintegrate. There should be greater clarity from ministers about what they are hoping to achieve, Hillier added.

“The government has set an ambitious timetable to implement devolution deals but it must not skip over crucial details in a blinkered race to the tape. “The interests of taxpayers are paramount and we urge the government to act on our recommendations now to ensure devolution fully serves those interests.”

A DCLG spokesman said the report “misses the point of devolution, which is to end the one-size-fits-all approaches of the past and hand power from Whitehall to local people who know their areas best”.

He added: “We’ve agreed 10 landmark devolution deals covering nearly 30% of the country, with local leaders accountable to their residents including through the election of mayors to oversee the new powers.

“This is a voluntary, bottom-up process based on local proposals demonstrating strong local agreement and clear accountability.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/pac-raises-doubts-about-devolution-scrutiny

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Post-Brexit Adjustments

Taking control and sovereignty – whose control?

Tricky one this. Presumably people voting Brexitassumed that control and sovereignty rested with Parliament. But David Cameron appears to think he can by-pass Parliament on this one. So, it’s a bit like the “elected Mayor” situation in devolution where one person gets to decide what happens next. Owl always thought that was a definition of dictatorship!

“The referendum held on 23 June was an exercise to obtain the views of UK citizens, the majority of whom expressed a desire to leave the EU. But the decision to trigger article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, the legal process for withdrawal from the EU, rests with the representatives of the people under the UK constitution.

The government, however, has suggested that it has sufficient legal authority. Mishcon de Reya has been in correspondence with the government lawyers since 27 June 2016 on behalf of its clients to seek assurances that the government will uphold the UK constitution and protect the sovereignty of parliament in invoking article 50.

If the correct constitutional process of parliamentary scrutiny and approval is not followed then the notice to withdraw from the EU would be unlawful, negatively impacting the withdrawal negotiations and our future political and economic relationships with the EU and its 27 member states, and open to legal challenge. This legal action seeks to ensure that the article 50 notification process is lawful.”

Source: Guardian Live blog

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Neil Parish, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Is Neil Parish indirectly supporting UKIP if he votes for Andrea Leadsom?

“No hysteria, I’m sure, in the Conservative party, where the whittling-down of leadership candidates begins tomorrow. Andrea Leadsom launches her official campaign today amid accusations that she is the Ukip choice for Tory leader. Ukip and Leave.EU funder Arron Banks is certainly on Team Leadsom, and Tory MP David Jones (a Theresa May backer) has warned:

There is no doubt that elements of Ukip are intending to try to steal a Conservative leadership election.”

Source: Guardian live blog

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Economy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Osborne has a 5 point plan …

“Chancellor George Osborne has come up with one [plan] and his also has five points [see Johnson, Boris], key among them a proposal to cut corporation tax to below 15% – the lowest of any major economy – to encourage businesses to invest in post-Brexit Britain. The others, as revealed in an interview with the Financial Times, are:

Ensuring support for bank lending.

A push for more investment in China.

A focus on delivering the Northern Powerhouse.

Maintaining Britain’s fiscal credibility.

No word from the chancellor on the brightness of the future, though he does urge everyone to stop “moping around”.

Source: Guardian Live blog

If that’s the plan, where does it place devolution outside the “Northern Powerhouse”?

And did he mean investment IN China or FROM China?

Whatever, our LEP members – all hit hard by Brexit implications in their individual sectors (nuclear, arms dealing, housing development and universities) – must surely be taking time out from their LEP duties to spend more time with their own businesses, now in dire need of their expertise.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Rural communications, Rural communities

Rural broadband: the missing 5% deserve better

“RENEWED effort is required to ensure that the final 5% of premises have adequate broadband connections, says the Rural Services Network.

The government’s proposed “right to request” superfast broadband connections was disappointing, said the network in response to an Ofcom consultation.
Rural homes and businesses were being treated differently to the 95% of premises already connected, the network warned.

“Government intervention through the Superfast Broadband Programme has enabled networks to extend into rural areas where there has been a market failure,” said the network.

“This is benefitting many rural households and businesses – albeit often in the easier-to-reach rural areas,” it added.

The government has proposed a Universal Service Obligation that would see all premises given a legal right to receive a minimum broadband speed of 10Mbps.

But the network said: “Renewed effort is now required to reach the final 5% of premises, most of whom are in rural locations and who still constitute around a quarter of all rural premises.”

It had become clear that the proposal was, in fact, simply a “right to request” access to a broadband network rather than universal provision of access to such networks.

“This is very disappointing and means that households and businesses in the final 5% are being treated quite differently from those in the 95%.”
The network said premises which couldn’t achieve an acceptable broadband connection must not be financially penalised simply because of their location.

“Some form of uniform pricing structure is therefore required for USO provision,” it said. “This would be in line with other USOs, such as that for postage.”

The network said it strongly supported the notion that the cost of providing a USO connection to consumers should not be disproportionate.

Proposals for the USO would lead to unreasonable connection costs for some rural consumers, especially in the most remote or sparsely populated areas.
By definition it was likely to be relatively costly to provide broadband to the remaining 5% of yet-to-be connected areas, said the network.

“Setting a £3,400 (or similar) connection cost threshold will impose a cost penalty on many rural consumers, which in certain cases could be very high.
“The USO could be especially unfair to the farming community.

“We do not think it is either fair or reasonable to make consumers responsible for all of the costs above such a threshold.

“This will result in some deciding to forego a broadband connection and will particularly hit low income rural households or financially marginal rural businesses.”

The network added: We conclude that the proposed threshold is both fundamentally unfair to the final 5% of consumers and is likely to be unworkable in the real world.”

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/services/network-fights-for-better-broadband

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Jul 2016

Posted under

Rural communications, Rural communities

Ofcom wants rural broadband volunteers for research panel

“Ofcom said it wanted to find out more about the “rural broadband experience” by encouraging rural people to join its research panel.

Ofcom said it existed to make communications markets work for everyone. One of the ways it did so was by conducting research to find out about the customer experience across the UK.

Each year, Ofcom reports its findings in its flagship Connected Nations report – which provides a snapshot of the state of the UK communication network.

To inform this and wider work, Ofcom is calling for volunteers to sign up to join its expanded research panel of broadband customers.

Ofcom said it was “particularly looking to sign up more people who live in rural areas in order find out more about the challenges they face”.

Potential participants are encouraged to sign up via Ofcom’s partner’s website at https://signups.samknows.com/ofcom/

Volunteers who meet Ofcom’s sample requirements will be sent a unit to plug into a mains socket and connect to their home broadband router. …”

http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/services/telecoms-watchdog-seeks-rural-volunteers

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Torbay council Scrutiny Committee being blocked from seeing report on cuts

Bet they don’t get to see devolution reports either!

How similar to East Devon.

“ANGRY councillors who say ‘the future of Torbay council is at stake’ claim they are being blocked from seeing a vital new report.

A row erupted over the timescale of the efficiency plan which will give details of cutbacks and savings, enabling the council to receive the next four years’ funding from central government.

The overview and scrutiny committee demanded mayor Gordon Oliver keeps them updated with the detailed efficiency plan after hearing they would not have sight of it until eight days before final decisions are made.

The council is required to have an efficiency plan in place by September 2016, to receive a four-year revenue support grant settlement from the Department for Communities and Local Government. It has to published and sent to DCLG by October 14.

However, the overview and scrutiny committee were angry when they were told they would have just eight days to scrutinise the plan before making recommendations to full council.

Cllr Chris Lewis said: “The future of Torbay Council is at stake. We are making lots of cuts and we should have started this work months ago. How can we have just eight days to look at it?”

Mayor Oliver told the committee: “We have spent months working on this. Officers have been left to make their judgement as to how to balance the books correctly.”

However, the report would not be ready before July.

Then, before the full report can be shared by councillors, it would have to go to the mayor’s executive group in August, before coming to overview and scrutiny eight days before full council has to vote on it.

But councillors are asking for the report to be ‘drip-fed’ to them to enable them to scrutinise the details of cutbacks.

Cllr Alan Tyerman said: “We are going around in circles here. After the August meeting it needs to come to overview and scrutiny as soon as it can so we can understand what is in the plan. I feel we are getting muddled here, but we need to know what is in the plan. We have to have involvement in this vital piece of work. If we only have sight of it at the last minute it won’t work.”

Torbay Council chief executive Steve Parrock said there were 42 pieces of work involved.

But, Cllr Nick Bye replied: “It feels like there is some political blockage in sharing this important work.

“It is going to be a pile of poo anyway, but the danger is we won’t be allowed to have an impact.” Cllr Bye felt there was a political reason why councillors were being blocked, but mayor Oliver said: “There is no Agatha Christie plot here I am aware of.”

The committee unanimously voted information be shared to them as early as possible on elements of the plans which are non-controversial. And that as soon as it is complete and gone to the mayor’s executive group, it be shared with them formally.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/councillors-anger-over-time-span-to-study-vital-new-report/story-29452846-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Neil Parish, Post-Brexit Adjustments

Leadsom, Remainer in 2013 does not rule out working with Farage

This is what Andrea Leadsom, leading Brexiter and Tory candidate for PM (backed by our MP Neil Parish) said about the EU in 2013 and her current ideas:

” … Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom has refused to rule out giving Nigel Farage a position on the government’s EU negotiating team if she becomes Prime Minister.

The admission comes despite the Ukip leader drawing boos and shouts of rage from MEPs in his ‘victory’ speech last week as he declared many of them had never had a proper job.

Asked if she’d appoint Mr garage to help lead Brexit negotiations, Ms Leadsom – who has painted herself as the heir to Margaret Thatcher – said: “I don’t want to get into who would do what.” …

… ,Ms Leadsom was forced to confront claims of hypocrisy today after a tape emerged of her saying Brexit would be a “disaster”.

She said in 2013: “I’m going to nail my colours to the mast here: I don’t think the UK should leave the EU.

“I think it would be a disaster for our economy and it would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates of global success are moving.

Like the rise and fall of the Roman and Greek empires, we are seeing the rise of the Asian or South American economies at a time when our own future is less certain.

“And to be honest, economic success is the vital underpinning of every happy nation. The wellbeing we all crave goes hand in hand with economic success.”

Asked to respond to the remarks, Ms Leadsom told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show: “It’s been a journey”. …”

She also did not rule out employing Nigel Farage, or possibly offering him a knighthood if she gets the power to do so.

Source: Andrew Marr Show, 3 July 2016

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/no10-hopeful-andrea-leadsom-refuses-8338756

As Mr Parish has also changed his mind about Brexit a couple of times, one can perhaps understand why she is so attractive a candidate to him.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy

5 independent MPs hold the balance of power in Australian general election

Who said independent MPs can’t influence government?

“Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten have begun courting the five lower house independents who will be kingmakers if the 2016 election delivers another hung parliament, although the prime minister insists he is “quietly confident” of a narrow majority after postal votes are counted.

After suffering an unexpected nationwide 3.4% swing and losing 11 seats to Labor, with at least six more in doubt, Turnbull has begun contingency planning for the minority government he has long argued would be chaotic and disastrous for the nation.

While he insisted he was “quietly confident” of a majority Coalition government, the prime minister – in a sharp contrast to his election campaign warnings about the dangers of a vote for minor parties – emerged on Sunday afternoon to promise to “work constructively” with the crossbench to deliver a stable government “without division or rancour”.”

http://gu.com/p/4nj7c