“The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised to such a level that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win”

“In poor democracies, votes are bought directly. In rich ones, money is spent to secure votes. Instead of being bribed, voters are subjected to a deluge of advertising, rounds of door-knocking and incessant social media messaging. Laws in richer democracies are meant to be tightly enforced. A check on UK election spending is that contributions have to be declared correctly. That is why the decision to fine the Conservative party a record £70,000 for “numerous failures” in accurately reporting campaign spend at the 2015 general election and three by elections in 2014 is so important. It is a wrong compounded by cover-up. The Tories “unreasonably” failed to cooperate with the Electoral Commission, which acted after a Channel 4 News report.

Foolishly, David Cameron displayed not a hint of contrition, claiming he had won “fairly and squarely”. He ran a shambolic operation. It’s too early to say whether a criminal offence has been committed. Any prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is dishonesty not just non-compliance. The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised so that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win. Money buys access to shape policies. Without strict rules and harsh penalties, politicians will be tempted to win office by mortgaging the future to an investing elite.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/the-guardian-view-on-tory-election-spending-its-a-scandal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Election purdah: expect LOTS of good news and promises next week!

Purdah for the local county council elections (and possibly a General Election if rumours are to be believed) will begin on Monday 27 March 2017. Be aware NO council (not just the county council) can ignore purdah.

You can find a useful guide here:

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91+Unpacking+Purdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d

From this guide:

“This means that:

• In general you (this means councils and councillors) should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters (an exception being situations covered by legislation or regulations directing publication of information for explanatory purposes).
• Particular care should be taken during the pre-election period to abide by the Act.
• Consider suspending the hosting of third party material or closing public forums if these are likely to breach the codes of practice.
• Do not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views on proposals in a way which identifies them with individual councillors or groups of councillors.
• Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published unless expressly authorised by statute.
• You are allowed to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.

Although this new code supersedes the previous versions and may seem less specific, in practice your conduct should be similar to previous elections.
What this means in practice:

Publicity is deemed as “any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.”

The first question to ask is ‘could a reasonable person conclude that you were spending public money to influence the outcome of the election?’ In other words it must pass the ‘is it reasonable’ test. When making your decision, you should consider the following:

You should not:
• produce publicity on matters which are politically controversial
• make references to individual politicians or groups in press releases
arrange proactive media or events involving candidates
• issue photographs which include candidates
• supply council photographs or other materials to councillors or political group staff unless you have verified that they will not be used for campaigning purposes
• continue hosting third party blogs or e-communications
• help with national political visits (as this would involve using public money to support a particular candidate or party). These should be organised by political parties with no cost or resource implications for the council.

You should also think carefully before you:
• Continue to run campaign material to support your own local campaigns. If the campaign is already running and is non-controversial (for example, on issues like recycling or foster care) and would be a waste of public money to cancel or postpone them, then continue. However, you should always think carefully if a campaign could be deemed likely to influence the outcome of the election and you should not use councillors in press releases and events in pre-election periods. In such cases you should stop or defer them. An example might be a campaign on an issue which has been subject of local political debate and/or disagreement.
• Launch any new consultations. Unless it is a statutory duty, don’t start any new consultations or publish report Findings from consultation exercises, which could be politically sensitive.

and

Council Notice Boards:

Councils are required to publicise details of the election and how to register to vote. Material relating to wider political issues should not be posted on of official notice boards which may be seen by members of the public. This includes publicity issued by, or on behalf of, a trade union.”

GPs tell the truth to other GPs but don’t let on to us

One of Owl’s owlets picked up a copy of a GP’s magazine (Pulse) recently and was astounded at some of the articles it contained. Here is a summary:

Front cover: Austerity for GPs must end

Page 6 – GP practices in Northern Ireland threaten to leave the NHS en-mass “unless the Government substantially increases investment”. If they do this then “many patients [will need to] pay for GP services”.

Page 6 – Practices lose six-figure sum after federation fails – 54 practices lost £284,700 after investing in a federation that failed. See also Page 18.

Page 6/7 – Chief Inspector of Care Quality Commission has his own practice rated “requires improvement” after failing to review patients on high-risk medications.

Page 7 – Capita is planning to replace staff with robots to boost profits by “taking away some of the decision-making”.

Page 7 – GPs in Somerset have been banned from prescribing a raft of medicines for minor illnesses.

Page 7 – Virgin Care wins £67m contract in W Lancs.

Page 16 – “Closing the gate before our role has bolted” – moaning that GPs are now a gatekeeper service to refer people to other treatment points, making them “deskilled and lazy” and “nodding off at the gate, drowsily waving people through”. See also page 34 for a similar story by a different doctor.

Page 18 – “Is federating putting GP practices at risk?” See also page 6. Government is still promoting these as a way of improving productivity – spending “£205m” (of our money) on promoting it. “My concern is that federations are a stepping stone towards finishing off the independent contractor status of the self-employed GP [and] large healthcare companies [see Page 7] could step in and start running them.” So Virgin Healthcare will make more profits and GPs will be paid less, leading to a shortage of GPs in the UK (like nurses and soon junior doctors).

Page 22 – “GPC bids to save ‘last man standing’ GPs” – talking to Welsh government about bailing out an increasing number of small GP practices where doctors are leaving due, with 20 practices in Wales having quit the NHS in 2016 cf. a total of 33 between 2011-2015.

Page 22 – “13 practices to close in single county [Fermanagh, NI]” “Patients will be travelling 30 to 40 miles to see a GP.” “The situation in [NI] has worsened significantly [!!!!] since reports that a third of practices will close due to retirement of a third of the 66 GPs”.

Page 22 – “Just 7% of [Scottish] GPs say 10-minute consultations are adequate”

Page 24 – Full page article on how “GPs [have to] drive patients to hospital [themselves] amid ‘scary’ ambulance delays” “Very young and elderly patients are dying because of worsening delays to 999 calls, say GP who, in some cases, have had to drive patients to hospital when an ambulance has failed to arrive.” “Underfunding of ambulance services is putting patients at risk.”

Page 24 – Government wants GPs to provide “urgent home visits”. Government wants CCGs, emergency 111 providers and local councils to set up A&E Delivery Boards to consider this alongside asking GPs to spend time in A&E departments. GPs say they haven’t got enough resources. See page 26 and 30.

Page 26 – Commissioners want to save £22bn in primary care i.e. GP services by “investing” £1.2bn. See page 24 and 30.

Page 30 – “Austerity for GPs … can’t continue” – “The primary care minister” (David Mowat) says “the Government can’t attract 5,000 extra GPs if it continues to suppress funding. See page 24 and page 26 and page ….

Page 34 “Do you want to be a musician [i.e. treating people] or a conductor [i.e. referring people]?” See page 16.

In summary, this looks to me to be a GP crisis in its infancy but growing up fast.

You have to be either especially stupid and incompetent or especially evil to create this breadth and depth of crisis so quickly.

Could Seaton Town Council or EDDC buy Seaton Heights?

Well, that’s what Teignmouth Town Council want to do with a large hotel which is about to come on the market. And Seaton Heights comes up for auction next week! There is previous experience: many of Weymouth’s hotels used to be council owned.

Or maybe it could be the first purchase for EDDC’s mooted housing company.

“Teignmouth town council are investigating the possibility of buying the Cliffden Hotel. The Cliffden is part of Vision Hotels, whose profits go towards supporting blind and partially sighted people across England, and employs dozens of people.

It is run by national charity Action for Blind People, profits raised go to supporting visually impaired people across England. But last year the charity confirmed it would stop running the three Vision Hotels, including the Cliffden.”

http://www.devonlive.com/teignmouth-town-council-could-by-2m-cliffden-hotel/story-30213861-detail/story.html

Or imagine the site for a Community Land Trust.

http://www.devonlive.com/teignmouth-town-council-could-by-2m-cliffden-hotel/story-30213861-detail/story.html

“I feel sorry for the people of Tatton – I hear their MP is just too busy to care”

The above quote from Labour MP, Jess Phillips.

But why only Tatton?

Here in Devon we have our own Hugo Swire who, after telling us all how sorry he was not to be able to speak for us when he worked at the Foreign Office but then, when sacked by Mrs May, immediately took the post of Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council.

We also have Conservative West Devon and Torridge MP Geoffrey Cox – in whose area the North Devon District Hospital is under threat of closure – who has to juggle his constituency problems with being a successful barrister. According to the Daily Telegraph, based on the declarations in the register of members’ interests, his extra-parliamentary work was worth £820,867 in 2014 or 12 times his annual MP salary. Not to mention his little problem with an alleged tax avoidance scheme.

And Owl is sure there are many many more MPs with their snouts in many conflicting job troughs – and other conflicts – for example those with large shareholdings in private health care companies.

But people vote for them again and again.

As Ms Phillips says:

“The column I wrote last week about how the ex-chancellor was treating being an MP as a hobby after the announcement of his one-day-a-week £650,000 job working for BlackRock Investments is not even in the recycling yet (thanks to years of austerity cutting the collections). Yet, just days later, he’s acquired another job he is apparently going to do on the other four days a week. Next week you can look forward to my column announcing that Osborne has a Saturday job presenting Match of the Day and a Sunday job in the clergy. He is as qualified for those jobs as he is to be the editor of the Evening Standard.

The conflicts of interest are so numerous that my brain has no time to think of them before another pops up. I shall try to devise a list as an aide-memoire for the similarly baffled. It is not OK for politicians to be the editors of newspapers. Not in the UK at least. It’s all the rage in Russia, which is perhaps why the Standard’s proprietor, Evgeny Lebedev, thought nothing of it. No one who read the Evening Standard’s coverage of the London mayoral race would be surprised that it is of the Tory persuasion. It showed then that it was a fan of a rich boy with no talent by supporting Zac “God loves a trier” Goldsmith.

People might think it’s no biggy, it’s not the BBC, it doesn’t have to be neutral. No, it doesn’t, but it does have to at least make some commitment to reporting facts and holding to account those in positions of power. How can George Osborne ever be trusted to do this?

At the moment, when the press is getting a global drubbing from people shrieking “fake news”, how will we be able to trust anything the Standard says? For all those hard-working news reporters and political journalists fighting to be trusted and maintain an important part of our democracy, this is a smack in the face. As pravda means truth in Russian, anything political written in the Standard must now be judged as equally “true”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/george-osborne-editor-evening-standard-constituents