General election purdah begins today

The Local Government Association (LGA) has clarified its position on the commencement of Purdah ahead of the general election in June, following the publication of its guidance

http://www.local.gov.uk/purdah-short-guide-publicity-during-pre-election-period

The LGA has confirmed that Purdah begins tomorrow for the civil service, but does not come into effect for all of local government. Instead, it said, that those authorities that do not have local elections this year (mostly councils in London) should commence a period of “heightened sensitivity” as set out in the local government code governing publicity.

The LGA advised that extra care should be taken when undertaking anything which could directly, or be perceived to, affect support for a party or candidate and urge officers to seek advice from their MO at all times. The LGA also stressed that pre-election activity can also include such things as use of council facilities, resources, codes of conduct, developing new or controversial policies and holding events (including some meetings) featuring candidates.

The full recommended code of practice can be downloaded at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recommended-code-of-practice-for-local-authority-publicity

“Exclusive: £8,000 for a blind, £2,000 for a tap; the true cost of PFI”

Owl says: although this is about schools, it applies to the NHS too. Why is Tiverton hospital staying open when others are closing – it is a PFI- funded hospital and closing it or even reducing beds, even if that is a right decision, is not an option.

“Schools are paying thousands of pounds more than they should for everyday items because they are locked into PFI contracts they have no control over, a Tes investigation has revealed.

In what are dubbed “life-cycle costs”, schools are charged over the duration of PFI contracts, which results in even modest monthly payments mounting up over the years.

One teacher, who asks not to be named, cites an example: “We are a PFI school with an annual PFI bill of £132,478. We have been paying £88 [a year] for the installation of a new sink for 14 years now. With nine years left on the PFI contact, that sink will cost £2,024.”

At Bristol Metropolitan Academy, a single blind for a room will end up costing £8,154 under PFI. Oasis Academy Brislington, also in the Bristol area, will pay £2,211 for an external water tap over the course of a contract.

Stella Creasy, Labour MP for Walthamstow, in north-east London, told Tes that the companies that profit from financing PFI deals were the “legal loan sharks of the public sector”. She wants an inquiry into PFI “before even more schools and hospitals are saddled with debts they can’t pay”.

For some schools, even getting the gates open to allow children to use the toilet before a school trip is a costly exercise.

One secondary in Oldham – Newman RC College – was charged £48 after security opened the school to allow pupils to visit the lavatory. The same school had to pay more than £400 for caretakers to fit some notice boards.

Such charges are not unusual. Tim Gilson, the head at Malmesbury School, in Wiltshire, said: “We had some benching put in the canteen, just along one wall, about 20 yards. We have to pay about £40 a month for the facilities management cost of that bench, on top of the cost of putting that bench in and all the materials. It’s a monthly charge that continues for the length of the contract.”

With 13 years left on his school’s PFI contract, the secondary will be charged £6,240 just for the management of the bench.” …

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-ps8k-a-blind-ps2k-a-tap-true-cost-pfi

“Public services pressures the next government can’t ignore”

Emily Andrews, Institute of Government writes:

“As the general election campaign gets going, politicians must not duck the issue of serious pressures in the public sector

It is no secret that the Conservative government has struggled to implement the promises of their last manifesto, particularly those around spending controls. As our Performance Tracker report shows, the short-term belt-tightening measures which produced efficiencies in the early part of the last Parliament – staff cuts and wage control – are no longer working.

In the last six months, the government has twice been forced into emergency action to stabilise services at or on the brink of failure: with emergency cash injections announced for 2,500 new prison officers at the end of 2016, and £2bn for social care at the March Budget.

The biggest pressures

The data makes it clear where the biggest pressures facing the incoming government lie.

The last time the UK went to the polls (in a general election at least) 91% of people were seen at A&E within four hours. This is shy of the government’s 95% target, which had not been hit since the end of 2012. Since then, despite record overspends and a cash injection at the last spending review, the number of people being seen within this targeted time has continued to fall, down to 81% at the end of last year.

Despite growing numbers of older people, and working-age adults with long-term conditions, adult social care received a 6% spending cut between 2009/10 and 2015/16. This includes a funding boost from the Better Care Fund last year.

Yet delayed transfers of care – where people who are deemed medically fit for discharge remain in a hospital bed – have continued to rise. The number of days delayed due to issues in social care has risen 51% since August 2015.

The extra £2bn provided to the adult social care in the March budget may help tackle this immediate problem, but the prime minister herself has admitted that the government does not currently have a long-term solution to put the struggling sector on a sustainable footing.

Schools have continued to be comparatively well-funded but deeper problems are starting to appear. Last year, the government’s target for teachers entering training was missed by 15%. Meanwhile the number of teachers leaving state secondary schools has outstripped the number entering them, at a time when the number of secondary school pupils is set to rise. Schools will have to tackle these problems at the same time as a 6.5% reduction in per pupil funding (up to 2019/20).

It is no secret that the Conservative government has struggled to implement the promises of their last manifesto, particularly those around spending controls. As our Performance Tracker report shows, the short-term belt-tightening measures which produced efficiencies in the early part of the last Parliament – staff cuts and wage control – are no longer working.

In the last six months, the government has twice been forced into emergency action to stabilise services at or on the brink of failure: with emergency cash injections announced for 2,500 new prison officers at the end of 2016, and £2bn for social care at the March Budget.

Waiting times IfG

Despite growing numbers of older people, and working-age adults with long-term conditions, adult social care received a 6% spending cut between 2009/10 and 2015/16. This includes a funding boost from the Better Care Fund last year.

Yet delayed transfers of care – where people who are deemed medically fit for discharge remain in a hospital bed – have continued to rise. The number of days delayed due to issues in social care has risen 51% since August 2015.

The extra £2bn provided to the adult social care in the March budget may help tackle this immediate problem, but the prime minister herself has admitted that the government does not currently have a long-term solution to put the struggling sector on a sustainable footing.

Facing up to the issues

So what are the options facing the current crop of ministers and aspiring ministers, as their election campaigns kick into gear?

Vague promises of efficiency and reform will not cut it this time round after another two years of intensifying pressures in public services.

Vote-winning cash injection promises – softening the blow of the new schools’ funding formula perhaps – may look appealing. But failure to match the cash to genuine solutions could end up wasting money which the next government, whatever their colour, will not be able to spare. And we know the ‘crisis, cash, repeat’ pattern of the last two years is unsustainable – financially and politically.

To square these circles – of demographic ageing, issues with the schools workforce, and a hefty Brexit implementation bill – the next government will have to make difficult decisions.

All politicians owe it to the electorate to make it clear what those are. It will be pretty obvious whether this is happening. It will mean, for example, putting some specifics behind promises of ‘long-term strategy’ for social care – for example, do the parties intend to implement the recommendations of the Dilnot Commission, and if so how do they intend to pay for it?

Even better, parties should commit to submitting their spending plans to independent scrutiny through an ‘OBR for public spending’, to assess their realism. In a ‘post-truth’ age, it is vital that the public can trust that politicians’ claims about what they can achieve are reliable.

Politicians should use this election to gain a political mandate for specific, challenging reforms to tackle these pressures – or risk failing services and intensifying public mistrust.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2017/04/public-services-pressures-next-government-cant-ignore

Twiss and shout in Feniton

Phil Twiss is hoping to follow in the footsteps of disgraced fellow Tory Graham Brown, and latterly independent councillor Claire Wright to represent the ward of Feniton and Honiton in the forthcoming County Council elections.

Leaflets currently adding to EDDC’s recycling efforts include a testimonial from MP Neil Parish that “Phil will be an asset in a number of matters, such as helping positively to continue with the work put together, to make Feniton more secure from flooding”.

Strangely there seems to be no room to acknowledge Graham Brown’s inability to get a flood scheme going for Feniton, Claire Wright’s dogged success in ensuring that the scheme was not forgotten, and independent District Councillor Susie Bond’s determination and success in getting the £1.6m programme implemented. Not to mention Susie Bond’s tireless work as a flood warden and information broadcaster each time danger has struck the village.

Any “continuation” is totally down to the efforts of these two ladies.

Whether Mr Twiss is willing to acknowledge their contribution on the stump remains to be seen.

Readers will recall it was Mr Twiss who, in 2014, took offence at a metaphor on Ms Wright’s blog about the need to “cull” Conservatives in East Devon.

Police subsequently declined to investigate. Hardly surprising since Conservative Leader David Cameron used the word in exactly the same sense in 2012:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/sep/04/david-cameron-cabinet-reshuffle-deliver

Truth or post-truth in Feniton’s election?

Pigs … troughs … snouts … what happens in a cosy council

“Tory councillors on Swale Borough Council have awarded themselves an inflation busting bumper pay deal whilst council employees pay remains capped at 1%.

On average a Tory councillor is now a staggering 15.59% better off than last year whilst the average pay of a UKIP councillor has seen a pay cut of 4.70%. …

We asked the leader of the Council Andrew Bowles whether he cared to offer any justification for the increase to which he said, “Come on, I know it’s election time but 39K divided between 47 councillors is hardly large”. …

You may well ask how this was allowed to happen, surely there are restrictions in place to prevent such an outcome. Well that’s true, but you can always play the promotion game to circumvent the rules and that is exactly what has occurred in this case.

The remuneration of councillors is based on the recommendations of an independent panel, but their recommendations are not mandatory and have been overruled on previous occasions. …

This year in an apparent bid to share the workload, although not the pay, Tory members approved the creation of 7 brand new positions, all of which are for destined for Tory councillors and all of which attract additional pay. …

Out of the current crop of 32 Tory councillors, over half, 18 in fact will now hold special positions attracting additional pay. …

That’s nearly half the Council who need to keep the leader happy for fear losing a paid roll. This destroys independence of thought amongst Councillors, and ensures that residents’ interests will always come second to those of the Conservative Party. This is not democratic, it is not open and transparent governance, and is quite frankly a betrayal of the people who put their faith in this system.”

And if you think this year’s pay awards are just a one-off, I’m sorry to disappoint because over the last five years the basic allowances have risen by 50% and the Special Responsibility Allowances by an eye-watering 66%. ”

http://www.sittingbourne.me/sittingbourne-blog/council-leader-says-pay-rise-is-not-large

Sidford hustings: strong performance from Councillor Rixson (Independent EDA)

Best candidate for County Council? It’s your choice. Voting’s on 4th May!

The Devon County Council hustings at Sidford on Wednesday evening (19 April),brought together five of the six candidates vying for the Sidmouth division, which now covers the whole of the Sid Valley.

They are Jeannie Alderdice (Green), Ray Davison (Labour), Stuart Hughes (Conservative), Marianne Rixson (Independent East Devon Alliance) and Richard Wright (UKIP). Only Lewis Ragbourn (Lib Dem) was unable to attend the event, which was Chaired by Cathy Debenham of the Sidford-Sidbury Residents’ Group.

A common thread for most candidates was “transparency, accountability and listening to residents”; concerns about cuts to NHS, social care, and education; and inappropriate development. Despite passionate speeches from Jeannie Allerdice (“EU environmental rules should apply post-Brexit”); Ray Davison (“Conservative austerity policy is past its sell-by date”);and Richard Wright (“countryside not concrete”), just two serious candidates emerged based on their respective records as serving councillors: Marianne Rixson, and Stuart Hughes.

Cllr Rixson has a solid reputation for thoroughness and efficiency, much appreciated by local people in the successful fight against the planned Sidford business park. Long-serving Cllr Hughes offered promises such as “the long-awaited Sidmouth traffic management plan”, and “funding for Alma Bridge” this year.

On the basis of this hustings, Caroline Lucas’ suggestion this week of an informal coalition of e.g. Greens, Labour and Lib Dems, against the Conservative Party machine, sounds a sensible idea.

A second hustings, arranged by the Vision Group for Sidmouth, is scheduled for 28th April , 7pm, in the cellar bar at Kennaway House. For details, see futuresforumvgs.blogspot.com Voting for this DCC election is 4th May, 7am-10pm.

Another government u- turn – to benefit the well-off

That should win them a few votes in the leafier suburbs of East Devon!

“Probate fees: Planned increase scrapped ahead of election

“Controversial plans to raise the legal fees payable after death are to be scrapped ahead of the general election.

Probate fees had been due to rise from £155 or £215 to up to £20,000 for some estates in England and Wales from May.

The Ministry of Justice said there was now not enough time for the legislation – dubbed a “stealth death tax” by critics – to go through Parliament.

A senior Conservative declined to say if the scheme would be brought back if the prime minister was re-elected.

Probate charges are paid to the government when someone dies and the executor of their estate gathers their assets to distribute to beneficiaries of a will.

Currently, there is a flat fee of either £155 or £215 per application for probate, depending on whether or not the application is made through a solicitor.

There is no fee paid for estates worth under £5,000.

Legal move?

Under the proposed changes, this system would have been replaced by a sliding fee scale linked to the value of the estate.

Thousands of people would have faced sharp jumps in probate costs as a result.

Estates worth more than £50,000 and up to £300,000 would have attracted fees of £300, rising to £20,000 for those valued at more than £2m.” ….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39663204