Monthly Archives: November 2018

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny

What has happened to our politics and politicians (of all three main parties)?

Letter in Independent”:

“Can any UK government get it right? Politicians appear unable to achieve good outcomes on the things that really matter. Only the most self-compromising and self-serving appear to get to the more senior positions and stay there – Gove, Hunt, Johnson, Grayling, Williamson et al. Most are able to add plain vicious or nasty to their approach.

Labour appears unable to pull a robust, costed, action plan together and are more tainted than most with the brush of incompetent fiscal policy and business/financial management. The Lib Dems are just irrelevant most of the time as their “good” policies are undeliverable.

Most government ministers engage in cynical fiscal and financial sleight of hand while smiling wolfishly and proclaiming, yet again, that we have, or will never have had it so good. (The latter may be true, but we need to feel good for it to ring true.)

We keep being promised good politics and yet it never seems even close. Even MPs are abandoning PMQs. The disgraceful budget fix on betting machines, promises of looking after hard-working people, of proper funding for everything from the NHS to schools and social care; building houses, roads, and railways; and dealing with drugs, street crime, hate crime, and illegal immigrants, all suffer from saying one thing and doing another to avoid or reduce the perceived benefit – or, simply, the truth.

Conning the public appears to be seen as acceptable practice. Under-promising and over-delivering appears to have been deemed a mugs game. Decades of this attitude and action has seen the public and public institutions respond in kind – becoming cynical, self-serving, immoral and quasi-criminal, if not actually so. Politics, while supposedly championing fair treatment, has become covertly immoral and promotes hatred instead of tolerance, extremism instead of compromise.

The politics of a UK-style Brexit, when compared to the calm, clear and firm EU approach, is symptomatic – we are combative and threatening when intelligent, cool, calm and pragmatic heads are needed.

I am a Remainer, but could be persuaded by sensible and reasoned argument to Leave (much as I would prefer the EU to change a bit) except for the bile spouted by the “just (expletive deleted) do it” Brexiteers. It’s the ignorance and seemingly blind self-serving stupidity of UK politics that exasperates me.

Our car industry and other industrial productivity is in decline (not wholly due to external strategic decisions in the case of Jaguar Land Rover) and the financial and services sector is going to be damaged by any deal, no matter how “good”.

We refuse to act with moral strength over any matter, citing financial necessity. Instead of acting to remove the stranglehold, we shrug and let it continue while that further degrades our standing. Nowhere can be far enough away to let these things slide in this modern world – you are either decent, or not.

We are told, authoritatively, that we have 12 years to act before millions suffer dreadfully from climate change, with hardly a comment from our leadership and the departments concerned. Same old kick-it-down-the-road, let-someone-else-deal-with-it “leadership”.

We are told that domestic energy prices will be capped, when poorer users just need some help to swap and the companies concerned are making reasonable margins, while the fossil fuel industry is allowed to fleece us and make record profits as the government freezes fuel tax again – enabling further profit to made, just as lifting stamp duty thresholds made no difference to house costs for buyers.

Fiscal policy should be promoting less profit in bad things and making good things worth doing. Throwing money at public institutions is not the answer I seek. Every part of society should be fairly treated against sensible outcomes, and efficiency and improvement rewarded. Taxes must rise, but as little as possible. Gold-plated public service packages and pensions have to go, along with private sector executive super-deals. Free market economics are good, but with sensible limits to provide a balanced reward system for everyone in profitable companies, and a decent safety net for those that need it.

Companies where principals take most of the cake without sharing can simply be taxed to avoid eight figure payouts. No one needs more than £10m over the life of a contract or period of employment without sharing.

On a positive note, politicians such as Tracey Crouch who treat their brief seriously and honourably are to be applauded. If more politicians and civil servants acted honourably we wouldn’t run out of good politicians and managers, we would develop better practices. You reap what you sow.

As the centenary of the First World War is played out it seems not much has changed in practice – the British people are being led by some of the most donkey-like and immoral leaders imaginable, while our “lions” are sacrificed for principles that are being overtaken by wiser countries, and we fail to deliver on our talk of global leadership.

Time for a change.

Michael Mann Shrewsbury”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire

Comments

1 Comment

And Swire has yet another job!

His current register of interests adds:

“From 11 October 2018 to 11 October 2020, Senior Adviser giving strategic advice to Brennan and Partners Ltd, of Wilmington House, High St, East Grinstead, RH19 3AU; a provider of strategic investment advice for the Latin American market. Fees will be based on a percentage of profit and on my contribution to the business. Expected time commitment: between 2 and 4 hours per quarter. (Registered 26 October 2018).”

What a busy boy our MP is! He now has FOUR jobs listed as well as his (non trading) investment with Lord Barker (see post below)

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/181029/swire_hugo.htm

Emerging markets, Latin America, the Middle East, the Maldives, Commonwealth Investments, airports, British Honey (remember that £15,000 pot he auctioned at the controversial Tory Fundraiser!):

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/02/11/hugo-swire-is-auctioneer-at-15000-per-head-tory-ball/

which was also where David Cameron “playfully slapped his (Swire’s) bottom:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/10/21/david-cameron-playfully-slaps-hugo-swires-bottom/

Aren’t we lucky to have him!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire

Swire’s business partner hits the national headlines in the USA

This is a LONG article about how Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska is doing all he can to escape sanctions in the USA.

It notes that he is being assisted with this by Lord Barker of Battle “a former protegé of David Cameron” (an energy minister in the Cameron government) who is attempting to persuade the US that Deripaska is giving up control of a company (EN+) that he has run for many years. Barker is chairman of that company. People are not convinced. The article details how Deripaska has wooed many politicians and bankers all over the world. EN+ even hired a well-connected London public relations company, run by Roland Rudd, whose sister, Amber Rudd, was Britain’s home secretary at the time.

Why does this matter to East Devon Watch? Because Lord Barker and Hugo Swire are 50/50 partners in a company called Eaglesham Investments (not yet trading) which was set up to focus on “renewable energy projects” though elsewhere it says it is for “emerging markets”. (Registered 22 May 2018). Swire registered this interest in December 2017 after East Devon Watch drew attention to it in Lord Barker’s register of interests in May 2017.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/181029/swire_hugo.htm

The article says of Lord Barker:

“Unlike Mr. Deripaska, Lord Barker had a largely spotless reputation. His only minor brushes with scandal came in 2006, when he left his wife to live with a male interior decorator, and in 2012, while serving as energy minister, when he made the tabloids for using a microwave at Parliament to warm a cushion for his pet dachshund, Otto.

Lord Barker’s appointment, the company declared, was proof of its “commitment to the best standard of corporate governance.” His allies say his efforts since then have been focused on what is best for the company — its employees and all of its shareholders — rather than on Mr. Deripaska’s personal benefit.

Others saw Lord Barker’s appointment as chairman of EN+ as proof of a phenomenon known as “Lords on Boards,” a long line of eminent Britons willing to lend their names and connections to Russia’s scandal-singed elite.

Before entering politics in the early 2000s, Lord Barker had worked in Moscow as the head of investor relations for Sibneft, a Russian oil company connected to two Russian oligarchs, Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, a onetime business partner of Mr. Deripaska’s. Lord Barker’s job was to convince often skeptical investors and financial journalists that Sibneft had shaken off its shady past in rigged privatization deals and broken with the habits of its oligarch founders.

Now, Lord Barker assumed the chairmanship of EN+ and the London listing was a success. Mr. Deripaska, with his family, took around $1.5 billion from the stock sale and was able to repay VTB. …

The prospect that it would soon become illegal under United States law to do business with the world’s biggest aluminum producer outside of China made it dangerous to sign long-term contracts with any entity connected to Mr. Deripaska. Manufacturers feared grave disruptions in their supplies.

Hanging on as chairman of the board, however, was Lord Barker. Rather than being a figurehead chairman, he was suddenly faced with having to save a company whose structures he had only just become acquainted with.

Friends say Lord Barker is not in it for the money but for an opportunity to promote renewable energy, of which Mr. Deripaska has vast amounts thanks to his hydroelectric plants in Siberia and his investments in solar power.

“He would not compromise his beliefs for money,” said Peter Brown, a British businessman and friend of Lord Barker’s who once managed the Beatles.

In recent months, Lord Barker has lobbied Ireland’s business minister to press the Treasury Department to relent on sanctions. He has also made trips to Moscow and to Cyprus, where he presided over the annual general meeting of EN+.

Most important, Lord Barker began hiring lobbyists and lawyers in Washington to promote the Barker Plan. The core of that plan is the still-to-be-proved proposition that Lord Barker and his allies are not merely puppets, and that Mr. Deripaska is really willing to sell down his stake and step away from his empire.

The legal and lobbying teams for Mr. Deripaska’s companies have proposed various measures to reassure the United States government that he would truly do so — and not immediately benefit from an expected rebound in value that would come from lifting the corporate sanctions.

He and several allies have resigned from top positions at EN+ and Rusal. The Barker Plan also calls for the creation of an escrow account into which the proceeds from Mr. Deripaska’s stock sales would be deposited. He would be barred from accessing the money until he met certain conditions, including being removed from the personal sanctions list.

Lord Barker “wants to save Deripaska by getting rid of Deripaska,” said David Ruffley, a former British legislator and an old friend of Lord Barker’s. …

… In Washington, Lord Barker turned to Mercury Public Affairs. Only a few weeks after the sanctions were announced, Bryan Lanza, a former Trump campaign and transition aide who is now a Mercury lobbyist, contacted top officials at the Treasury and State Departments and at the White House.

At that point, Mercury was in the final stages of signing a $108,500-a-month contract to represent the board of directors of EN+. Mercury registered with the Justice Department as a “foreign agent” working on behalf of “Lord Gregory Barker of Battle,” not for Mr. Deripaska or his companies, which might have been prohibited under the sanctions. …

… If nothing else, the lobbying effort is notable for its scale. Lord Barker’s team and Mr. Deripaska’s companies have also turned to a trio of high-powered law firms to make their case to Treasury. Latham & Watkins is representing Lord Barker; Dentons is handling negotiations for Rusal; and Steptoe & Johnson is working for EN+, according to people familiar with the effort. …”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2018

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

“Theresa May’s flagship policy to solve housing crisis will deliver no new homes in half of England”

“Theresa May’s flagship policy for sparking a revival in council housebuilding will not deliver a single new home in more than half of the local authorities in England, The Independent can reveal.

Some of the most deprived towns and cities with the greatest need for new homes, including Liverpool, Bolton and Wakefield, are among areas that will miss out as a result of changes that will only benefit some councils.

The prime minister used her speech to the Conservatives’ annual conference last month to announce a major change that will see the government scrap restrictions on how much councils can borrow to fund housing.

She said: “Solving the housing crisis is the biggest domestic policy challenge of our generation. It doesn’t make sense to stop councils from playing their part in solving it.”

No 10 said the move would allow councils to build up to 10,000 new homes a year for low-income families, as councils scale up borrowing by £4.6bn.

However, ministers have admitted that less than half of councils have the type of account that will allow them to increase their borrowing.

Only 160 of the 326 councils in England with responsibility for housing have housing revenue accounts (HRAs), the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said.

The revelation will prompt fears that people in areas with a desperate need for new homes will lose out, while those in neighbouring areas could benefit from a boom in housebuilding.

Councils set to miss out on the potential funding boost include several with some of the longest housing waiting lists in the country.

Authorities that will be unable to borrow more include Bolton, where 25,600 households are on the council waiting list – the third highest in England – and Wakefield, the sixth highest with 20,600 families waiting for a home.

Liverpool, which has the 11th longest waiting list, totalling 16,500 households, will also miss out.

The Independent has revealed that the government spending watchdog believes the lifting of the HRA cap will deliver far fewer new homes than Downing Street claimed.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said the move would result in fewer than 9,000 new homes over the next five and a half years – a fraction of the 10,000 per year predicted by ministers.

While it will allow councils to build 20,000 new homes – around 3,600 a year – the OBR said this would be offset by fewer homes being built by housing associations, meaning the net total is just 9,000.

Many councils have already transferred their housing stock to a housing association and closed their housing accounts, meaning they will miss out on the ability to use their increased borrowing powers to fund thousands of new homes.

In response to a parliamentary question from Labour, housing secretary James Brokenshire said: “There are 160 local housing authorities without a housing revenue account, as they have transferred their housing stock to a housing association.”

Governments have long encouraged councils to close their housing accounts and transfer their homes to a private body because, unlike council borrowing, housing association debt has traditionally not been included in national debt figures.

Under current rules, councils must own 200 homes before they are allowed to open a housing revenue account, creating an obstacle for many that might now wish to do so. Authorities are also likely to have lost their housing expertise when they transferred their properties to a housing association. …”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-housing-policy-local-councils-rents-revenue-borrowing-half-england-a8617201.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2018

Posted under

Budleigh Salterton, Clinton Devon Estates, EDDC, Environment (local)

Comments

1 Comment

East Budleigh – rare bats or bulldozers? Special council meeting 7 November 2018

Clinton Devon Estates – which frequently touts its so-called environmental credentials – now has a difficult choice to make in East Budleigh – as does East Devon District Council.

A short notice special meeting of East Budleigh Parish Council has been called for 7pm on Tuesday 6 November to discuss the findings below which will bring into sharp relief a pressing question: which is most important: environmental sustainability and bio-diversity or cold, hard profit?

The East Budleigh Parish Wildlife Protection and Conservation Group was formed earlier this year to try to save what were thought to be 11 species of bat from having their habitat destroyed as a result of 18/1464/FUL — Demolition of existing barn and construction of a single dwelling behind the Pound. As a result of their observations they have recorded as many as 14 of the 18 known species in the UK.

This not only confirms but extends the survey conducted by Richard Green Ecology between 2012 and 2017 for Clinton Devon Estates (CDE). This survey found: the rare Greater Horseshoe (roosting); Lesser Horseshoe (roosting); the very rare Grey Long Earned (roosting); Natterer (roosting); Soprano and Pipistrelle (roosting). These findings make this site one of the most species rich in the County.

Of these, the finding of Grey Long Eared, Greater and Lesser Horseshoe bats are, perhaps, the most exciting as they are some of the rarest bat species in the UK.

EDDC, in order no doubt to inform the DMC, has just published an independent review of the CDE commissioned Richard Green ecology report. We the ratepayers have paid for this review and Owl wonders whether it represents value for money in these hard pressed times. All it appears to be, as is clear from the Terms of Reference, is a review of the 2012/2017 work done by Richard Green to see whether it was reasonable and in line with best practice, given the ecological constraints identified. Not surprisingly, since it was conducted by a reputable ecological survey firm, another equally reputable firm concludes it was fine.

This ratepayer funded review presents no new data to support or reject the more recent local finding of 14 bat species, indeed it couldn’t really do this because it was conducted too late in the year when bats are less active as they begin to hibernate and the surveyors didn’t venture onto private ground.

The original surveys were undertaken on 31 August and 10 September 2012 including a dusk bat emergence survey and placement of an automated bat detector in the barn between 11 and 17 September 2012, allowing recorded bat calls to be analysed. Further bat emergence surveys were undertaken on 25 May and 22 June 2016, and 31 July 2017. The East Budleigh Group have spent many evenings conducting observation using computer aided bat detectors this year, 2018.

One question not satisfactorily answered is whether the barn is being used as a maternity roost. This is particularly important as some species like the Grey Long Eared bat are so rare that research advice from the University of Bristol states that maternity roosts should not be destroyed under any circumstances as this would compromise the favourable conservation status of the species, particularly as research has shown maternity roosts of this species do not respond to mitigation measures.

In the UK, Grey Long-Eared bats tend to live in close proximity to human settlements and roost almost exclusively in man-made roosts making the barn in East Budleigh an important roost. The overall estimated population size is around 1000 making it one of the rarest of UK mammals. Its extinction risk is high due to its habitat specialisation of foraging close to or within the vegetation, its small foraging ranges and limited long distance dispersal ability is a result of its flight profile. There are only eight known maternity colonies left in the UK and females have only one pup a year. So there has to be one near the Pound.

Another question is whether the demolition and rebuild will destroy too much habitat so the bats will never return, despite “mitigation”. (When CDE developed the Budleigh Salterton allotment site their slow worm “mitigation” was a disaster, they were simply bulldozed away by mistake).

Surely we ought to be celebrating the discovery that East Budleigh has one of the most species diverse bat colonies in Devon rather than sending in the bulldozers – again.

Everyone involved would do well to read this recent article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/stop-biodiversity-loss-or-we-could-face-our-own-extinction-warns-un

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments

Essential medications after Brexit – a worrying silence

Guardian letters:

“Regarding Patrick Cosgrove’s letter (I don’t want to go blind due to Brexit, 29 October), I would like to make a similar case about type 1 diabetes.

Like Theresa May, I have type 1 diabetes and am insulin-dependent. I emailed Matt Hancock as I am concerned about how supplies of insulin will be ensured once we leave the EU. Diabetes patients may be interested in the response I received from the Department of Health and Social Care (and in knowing that Keith Vaz has emailed to say he will be taking my concerns further). The reply said the contingency plans include “precautionary stockpiling by suppliers, to ensure that the supply of insulin to patients is not disrupted”. This is worrying as insulin needs to be refrigerated and my understanding is that very little insulin is produced in this country. Perhaps Mrs May could give us some answers?
Lisa Parker
Nailsworth, Gloucestershire

• Patrick Cosgrove is not alone in trying, and failing, to find out about the availability of drugs on which he is dependent in the event of a no-deal Brexit. I am in a similar position. Over three months ago, I wrote to my MP (Julian Sturdy) and asked for “an informed comment on certainty of supply of pharmaceuticals in the event of a hard or ‘no deal’ Brexit”. Over six weeks later he replied, asking for details, which I supplied. Another six weeks have passed, 29 March looms, and I still have no information. I am coming to the frightening conclusion that no one actually has a clue about what will happen.
Steven Burkeman
York

• Patrick Cosgrove raises the pressing issue of medication availability post-Brexit. My own four daily doses are made variously in Austria, Germany, Spain and Slovenia. Without them I’m in trouble. But what about my son and all the other transplant patients who must have their anti-rejection meds? And those with diabetes? I await my MP’s advice, not very hopefully.

Any hope out there, anyone?
David Moore
Somerton, Somerset

• Like Patrick Cosgrove, I have hereditary glaucoma and have been prescribed Ganfort for many years. Three months ago my prescription was changed to preservative-free Ganfort. It is currently proving very difficult to obtain this due to the complexities of the pharmaceutical industry. Thanks to a diligent pharmacist, I’ve not been let down yet; my medicine has arrived monthly, but since the change in prescription it has been very delayed. I now need to order it earlier to ensure I am not left without. Last month it came via a Spanish source.

I don’t want to go blind for this “cause” either. To the government: open your eyes and see (unless you have glaucoma).
Gill Sellen
Corfe Castle, Dorset”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/04/no-deal-fears-over-drug-supplies

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local)

“Terry is dying, and there’s no one to care for him: the real impacts of the NHS crisis”

“The doctors in my practice have well over 100 years of combined experience as GPs, so you’d think we’d seen pretty much everything. But last week we were confronted with a scenario we had never before encountered.

The patient concerned – a 42-year-old called Terry – has been battling a particularly nasty form of lymphoma for several years. He’s an unconventional person, and his life hasn’t featured much in the way of stable relationships, but he has an elderly aunt and uncle who have stuck by him as he’s sought alternative remedies for the disease that orthodox medicine has been unable to cure.

He’s now arrived at the end of the line. The lymphoma is overwhelming him, leaving him incapable of getting out of bed, let alone managing his daily needs for food, drink and hygiene. While he kept mainstream services at arm’s length during his exploration of complementary therapies, he’s now relying on us in what will be his final days.

What is required more than anything is help meeting his basic human needs. One of my partners spent quite some time on the phone, organising equipment at short notice, rapid hospice outreach support and an urgent social care assessment. The social worker came to an uncontentious conclusion: Terry needed care visits four times a day. But she was sorry, this wasn’t going to be possible. It wasn’t the funding – despite ongoing budget cuts, they still have money for cases like this. No, it was staff. There are not enough care workers. They simply have no one available to look after Terry.

This is unprecedented, and I actually couldn’t compute it when my colleague broke the news. A swift look at the figures, though, tells you everything you need to know. According to the training charity Skills for Care, there are now 110,000 vacancies in adult social care – that’s around 8 per cent of all positions unfilled. And this is an exponentially increasing trend – 22,000 of those posts have been added to the total over the past year. Job turnover in the sector is around 30 per cent.

The reasons for this crisis are multiple, and most can be laid squarely at the door of the current government. Years of austerity-driven spending cuts have piled stress and pressure on staff, many of whom have voted with their feet. Others have gone for different reasons: around one in six of our care workforce have traditionally come from EU countries; Brexit Britain has become a very unattractive proposition. Caps on non-EU, “low-skilled” immigrant numbers have choked off alternative sources. And as ever fewer staff struggle to cope with constantly increasing demand, stress and demoralisation mount further.

My partner spent another hour on the phone trying to find some way of getting Terry help. The service specifically set up to avoid “inappropriate” acute hospital admissions had no available cottage hospital or nursing home beds – the only solution they could offer was to throw in the towel and admit Terry to our local district general. As winter takes hold, and yet again you hear about patients who don’t need to be in hospital “blocking” beds, remember Terry’s story.

Terry did not want to die in a busy, noisy hospital ward. He is currently being supported by a rag-tag assembly consisting of his remaining elderly relatives, a hospice night-sitter, and some capacity that my partner eventually managed to beg from the community rehabilitation team.

The government’s response to the care crisis is to be a “national recruitment campaign”, due to be launched any time now. I predict it will be as successful as that aimed at attracting an extra 5,000 GPs by 2020 (numbers continue to fall). At some point, surely, someone has to wake up and accept that sparkly adverts won’t recruit and retain staff when services are so chronically underfunded and overstretched. By then, though, it will be too late for Terry, and for many others like him nationwide. ”

Phil Whitaker
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2018/10/terry-dying-and-there-s-no-one-care-him-real-impacts-nhs-crisis

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Nov 2018

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Inequality, Lobbying

NIMBY MPs get their way in Milton Keynes

“Plans for a major expansion of one of Britain’s best known “new towns” were dropped from the Budget at the eleventh hour after heated objections from a government whip and a defence minister, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

Iain Stewart and Mark Lancaster, the Tory MPs for Milton Keynes, opposed proposals for some 100,000 new homes on the outskirts of the town, over fears that an influx of residents could clog up its roads and overburden the local hospital. …”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/03/milton-keynes-major-expansion-dropped-budget-eleventh-hour/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Nov 2018

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Economy, Inequality

Comments

2 Comments

“One-third of UK workers got pay rise of 1% or less last year” [again]

“More than 10 million workers received a pay rise of 1% or less last year, according to official figures that highlight the growing concentration of workers at the bottom of the pay scale.

The Office for National Statistics said almost 32% of Britain’s workforce of 32.5 million people were given an increase that was less than one-third of the inflation rate, which reached 3.1% in November 2017.

Most workers lost out last year, the ONS said, after it found the median gross weekly earnings for full-time employees grew by 2.2%.

Fuelling the debate about low-paid workers, the figures showed employers barely reacted to the inflation spike last year, when they paid employees much the same as in 2016, when inflation was below 2%, and in 2015, when inflation fell to almost zero.

Wages have climbed this year, according to the Bank of England. It estimates the rate of increase has reached 3%, though this is only marginally more than the consumer price index (CPI) measure of inflation, which is 2.4%

The ONS said much of the 1% cap affected the 5.3 million workers in the public sector, many of whom are better educated and higher paid than the average across the workforce. But millions of private sector workers were also affected by wage rises of 1% or less, leading to a greater concentration of workers on the bottom rungs of the pay ladder.

Many were protected by the “national living wage”, which increased by 4.2% on 1 April 2017 from £7.20 to £7.50. Workers on wages above this level, however, were among those to receive either no rises or low ones, leading to clustering around the minimum wage, according to the ONS.

A regional survey found the UK’s worst-affected area was Northern Ireland, with 13.1% of employees earning close to the NLW, compared with 5.9% in London. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/02/millions-of-uk-workers-received-pay-rise-of-1-or-less-last-year

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Local Government Finance, Scrutiny

“CIPFA moots steps to quell commercial property ‘craze’ “

The majority party at our council is also mooting – a move into the commercial property market.

“Forthcoming CIPFA guidance on councils borrowing to invest in commercial property could clarify the definitions of “borrowing in advance of need” and “proportionality”, according to the man drawing it up.

Last month, CIPFA announced it would produce more guidance to address the failure of the government’s revised investment code to curb some instances of councils borrowing to invest in commercial property.

Speaking at the CIPFA Treasury Management and Capital Conference in London this week, Don Peebles, the institute’s head of UK policy & technical, gave more clues as to what the guidance could contain.

Speaking to delegates, he said: “It may well be that we actually specify and think about what exactly is ‘borrowing in advance of need’.

Proportionality parameters

“We may set parameters of what proportionality looks like. We may give guidance on what the appropriate ratios are for commercial income associated with net service expenditure.”

When the guidance was announced last month, Peebles told Room151 that it would be likely to formally incorporate text from the commentary which was released alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG’s) revised investment code, which was adopted earlier this year.

On proportionality, that commentary says that each council should set its own “limits that cannot be exceeded for gross debt compared to net service expenditure, and for commercial income as a percentage of net service expenditure”.

However, Peebles’ comments were a hint that the guidance could go further by providing indications on what the appropriate ratios are.

Also speaking at the event, Duncan Whitfield, director of finance and corporate services at London Borough of Southwark, said that any definition of proportionality must take into account the needs of local authorities to properly finance services.

He said: “I am looking at my budget now and seeing how much of it is ring-fenced for social care.

“So are we talking about a proportion of our ring-fenced money in our revenue account or is it the total budget? In different parts of the country that varies wildly…”

Financial freedoms

And Richard Paver, treasurer of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and chair of the CIPFA treasury and capital management panel, warned that the guidance should not reverse freedoms introduced under the prudential code introduced in 2004.

He said: “I can tell you it was a complete pain in the neck to run anything in the old days when you had annual limits on your capital spend, you could only spend a proportion of your capital receipts generated in any one year. You had to pool your capital receipts and pass them back. We need to remember where we are and protect that. The CIPFA guidance needs to give us the tools to do that.”

During a separate session of the conference, Peebles acknowledged the point, saying: “I am conscious that the guidance [should be] within the flexible framework we have all enjoyed and any steps to minimise that flexibility starts to take away from the 15 years of success of the prudential framework and operation of the prudential code.

“But in the current climate it seems additional guidance is certainly needed.”

Also speaking at the conference, Martin Easton, head of capital and treasury at Birmingham City Council, said that the term “borrowing in advance of need” was “unhelpful” and should be scrapped.

He said: “It originated years ago in the treasury management code in addressing treasury management investment activity which is about managing the cash flows of the authority. In that, there will be some times when the yield curve is such that you can borrow cheaply for a few years or in advance of your need for treasury purposes, and it was possible to reinvest it short term until it was needed for meeting the cash flow needs of the authority.”

He went on to say: “That expression doesn’t really work when you are investing in a community organisation, let’s say, to deliver social or service outcomes, or even when you are making an explicit decision to invest in commercial property.

Investment crazes

“I think you could drop the ‘in advance of need’ from that phrase – the key issue is: is it right or appropriate for your authority or ever for a local authority to borrow purely or mainly to make a financial gain? Is that really the role of local authorities?”

Easton also warned that the current increase in borrowing cheaply to invest in commercial property was another “craze” sweeping the sector, and compared it to investment in Icelandic banks, LOBOs and interest rate swaps.

He said: “What fundamentally might be a sound idea – like a limited proportion of your book could be in LOBOs because it manages risk in a different way and produces a good revenue result, or managing treasury risk through interest rate swaps – is good but doing it excessively is not.

“These things get overdone. They overtake the sector and then a wheel inevitably comes off at some local authority that has gone too far… And I fear that we are in the grip of another one of those crazes, which is called commercial property at the moment.”

Giving a private sector perspective, Howard Meaney, head of real estate UK at UBS Asset Management, said that the real estate market was “quite disparaging about some of the transactions [by local authorities] that have been undertaken recently.”

He said: “I think what the market is generally seeing is local authorities are almost, in some situations, a buyer of last resort.

“They are setting new market levels with some of the transactions and they are buying assets in what to a degree is a buy and hope – hope that tenant stays in your property and continues to pay your money and your rent so you can arbitrage that to increase your revenue and pay your coupon on your debt.”

Councils need to be prepared to invest in their commercial property assets in future in order to maintain rent levels, Meaney warned.

He asked: “Looking down the line, will local authorities have that money to invest into a property to continue to receive the revenue?”

http://www.room151.co.uk/treasury/cipfa-moots-steps-to-quell-commercial-property-craze/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Nov 2018

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Persimmon, Redrow, Wainhomes

Wain Homes, Redrow, Persimmon – more local horror stories

One home selling for £50,000 less than bought for after 10 months to escape it (Wain Homes, South Molton); one family moved out for 3 weeks at their own expense as the house was unliveable in (Redrow, Exeter) and one home allegedly still has 120 problems 5 years after moving in (Persimmon, Exeter).

https://www.devonlive.com/news/new-build-horror-home-stories-2177182

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Exmouth, Fords of Sidmouth, Planning System, Sidford Business Park

Exmouth has too much employment land says retirement developer*

* How odd – Sidmouth doesn’t have enough employment land and Exmouth has too much – maybe Exmouth could take the companies that want to occupy the Sidford Business Park!

“The planning inspectorate has now set a date of February 5, 2019, to hear arguments for and against a 59-apartment retirement community on land near Tesco, in Salterton Road originally refused by East Devon District Council as the land has been earmarked for commercial use.

In its appeal statement, developer YourLife Management Services – a joint venture between Somerset Care and McCarthy and Stone – argues that the employment allocation is ‘surplus to requirements’ and not a ‘viable’ proposition ‘now or in the near future’.

Ian Cann, vice chairman of the emerging neighbourhood plan – currently being assessed by independent examiners ahead of a public referendum – has urged the planning inspectorate to consider the need for employment land in Exmouth.

He said: “One of the focuses of the neighbourhood plan is for Exmouth to be ‘demographically balanced’ and at the moment it’s out of sync and we need to retain our younger people in the town.

“It’s all well and good giving them a house but they need to have job.

“If you want to retain this people in the town you need to create as many jobs as possible. To do that, we have to identify as much commercial land as possible.

“We have to defend against other uses of land identified for commercial use – we have to defend that to the hilt.”

If the planning inspector agrees with developers, the application, which includes self-contained flats for those over 70 years old, would be approved.

Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee has twice opposed the application, despite the developer putting its case forward.

All previous representations made about the proposal have been forwarded to the planning inspectorate and people have an opportunity to either change or add their comments by Monday, November 12.

Visit https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk or emailing west2@pins.gsi.gov.uk to comment on the plans.

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/planning-appeal-date-set-for-rejected-exmouth-retirements-flats-plan-1-5762317

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Persimmon

Persimmon: yet another horror story

(The photographs accompanying this article are truly shocking)

“A STRESSED-out dad is suing over his “shoddy” brand new home which has brick walls looking like a wavy patchwork quilt.

When Darren Harris collected the keys to his freshly constructed £210,000 four-bedroom house, he was shocked to find more than 80 defects.

The 53-year-old was also stunned to learn the bumpy brickwork on his house wall had become a laughing stock of the neighbourhood.

The civil engineer has shared pictures of the poor workmanship and plans to take legal action against Persimmon Homes, which built the house on the Martello Park estate in Pembroke, West Wales.

Harris said: “We got the keys to our house and I drove down to the property with my wife.

“The neighbours came over and asked me if I had seen the brickwork on the back of the house.

“They said to me ‘We have been having a bit of a laugh and a giggle’. It looks unstable, the brickwork is wavy and looks unsafe.”

He and his wife, an area manager for Greggs bakery, then decided to take a look inside their property, but struggled to open the door.

The engineer said: “We put the key in but the door wouldn’t budge. We couldn’t get in.

“I thought there must be a problem and went back to the site office. A Persimmon agent came back with me and in the end he had to shoulder-barge the door to get it open.”

They discovered later that the door frame was fitted incorrectly.

As time went on the list of problems expanded with Harris finding that “drain covers weren’t fitted properly, paving was laid on top of rubble, the guttering doesn’t reach the end of the house and water cascades down the sides when it rains.

“The doors inside all had to be rehung and I’ve done so much work myself just to get it liveable.

“Everything is appallingly built – the workmanship is just shoddy. The problems are unbelievable.”

Mr Harris bought the house before it was built, after seeing a show home on the site.

He said: “It looked like a nice spot, with views of Pembroke Castle. We put a deposit down in February and planned to rent it out.

“But ever since we got the keys, the reality has been far from perfect.

“It’s caused my wife and I no end of worry and stress. She has been in tears. If my marriage wasn’t so strong this could have finished us.”

Now Harris, from Sutton Coldfield in the Midlands, says he has no option but to take Persimmon Homes to court.

He said: “I have been on to head office. I have been brave enough to take them on and take them to the small claims court.

“The rectification work they attempted was not acceptable. I have given them the opportunity to put it right.

“I have had to put off getting my tenants in, which has resulted in losses of £1,600.

“We have been forced to get on with the retrospective work ourselves and it has cost us thousands. That’s the only way I could get the house finished and ready for our tenants.”

A spokesman for Persimmon Homes West Wales said: “We are aware of Mr Harris’s concerns and we are working to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

“We have many happy customers across South Wales and we take customer service seriously.”

In October, Persimmon’s boss Jeff Fairburn walked off in the middle of a BBC interview after he was grilled about his whopping £75million bonus.

When questioned over any regrets about last year’s payout – cut from £100million after a public outcry – Fairburn replied: “I’d rather not talk about that”.

The payout is believed to be the largest by a listed UK firm, the BBC said.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7647536/brand-new-house-wales-wonky-brickwork-sinking-garden/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Lobbying, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Sleaze

MPs who accepted hospitality from the betting industry

A reduction from £100 per bet to £2 per bet, agreed by the government, has been postponed and the Minister for Sport has resigned saying vested interests were allowed to influence the decision. The current high rate is reckoned to lead to many suicides. It is thought the decision has been postponed to raise revenue for the government to assist with post-Brexit issues.

Sixteen MPs have declared hospitality received from the betting industry. Nine were Labour MPs, six Conservative and one SNP:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46076119

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Independent Councillors

Call for independents spreads to Bournemouth

Where East Devon (Alliance) leads the “Alliance for Local Living” in Bournemouth follows!

“A NEW political party is planning to contest next year’s election to the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole combined authority.

However ALL, or the Alliance for Local Living, is being set up in contrast to the traditional party system, as its members will all be independents standing under one banner.

They will not be forced to follow the party line via the whip.

The organisers, a group of residents, have now put out a call for candidates.

“We want ordinary members of the public, passionate people who are doing valuable things in their community to think about possibly stepping up and bringing local politics back into that community,” said Felicity Rice (above), one of the founders. “We are happy to have anyone in our group, they can even be a member of an existing party, but they must make their own decisions based on their personal opinion.”

ALL, also known as Three Towns Together in its earlier stages, was inspired by the similarly organised Independents for Frome group, which took total control of the Somerset town’s council in 2015.

The reduction from 120 to 76 councillors covering the three boroughs in the new unitary has led to concern that it will be dominated by one political party. Independents and members of current opposition parties are known to have spoken with ALL as a way to unite a disparate opposition against the Conservative Party.

Current Poole People Party councillor Andy Hadley said he was liaising with the group on behalf of his party, and he thought them “well-matched”.

“We have been passing on advice on what we have had to go through to get elected as independents, the vision of getting 72 seats is is very extreme. But to get enough to make a significant impact on decision-making would be really good.

“I know quite a few people have expressed an interest, but it needs people to stand up and say ‘we want to be part of this’.”

ALL’s first selection day for candidates will be November 24. Visit voteforall.org.uk to get involved.”

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/17187673.new-party-of-independents-all-wants-ordinary-people-to-stand-for-election/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Housing (local), Local Government Finance, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

Affordable housing: with this government there is ALWAYS a catch!

“Government’s new council house building drive will come at expense of housing associations”

The Government’s council house building drive will come at the expense of fewer new units constructed by housing associations, The Independent has learned.

The revelation that housing associations will be partially crowded out casts doubt on the Government’s claims to be fully committed to a surge of new housing for people on low incomes.

In her Conservative conference speech in October Theresa May announced the borrowing cap on local councils would be lifted in order to allow authorities to start building houses for low-income families again in serious volumes for the first time in thirty years.

It was a reform that housing campaigners and many council bosses had long pressed for as a vital element of solving the shortage of social housing.

In the Budget on Monday, Philip Hammond followed up on the pledge, with official Treasury estimates suggesting the removal of the cap would lead to extra borrowing to build by councils of £4.6bn over the next six years.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility said it expected new council house construction of 20,000 units over the period as a result of the lifting of the cap.

However, the OBR, also added that it expected this to crowd out private house building, with every two new council houses resulting in roughly one less new private house, meaning the net impact on new housing supply as result of lifting the cap would be only 9,000.

And The Independent has learned that the basis for this assumption is that councils, as well as funding new council building from borrowing, will also partly fund the new supply by tapping funds from the Affordable Housing Programme (AHP).

This is a pot of government grant money currently mainly drawn on by housing associations (charities and third sector organisations that provide housing at below-market rates) to fund their own construction of social housing

The upshot is that the OBR thinks housing associations’ available government grants will effectively be squeezed to accommodate councils. …”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/council-house-building-social-housing-associations-theresa-may-a8614281.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Unitisation

More on that unitary council “sunset clause”

(See post below also)

Looks like, after March 2019 there will be no chance of a Devon unitary council as ALL councils to be subsumed will have to agree.

To many vested interests (particularly in the area of planning!) even if there were financial savings to be had. Developers trump savings!

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37206%3Acommunities-secretary-warns-councils-ahead-of-change-to-process-on-reorganisations&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Local Government Finance, Unitisation

Another county goes unitary – despite local district council opposition

Owl says: the “sunset clause” (see below) is a new one to me!

“John Fuller, chair of the District Councils’ Network umbrella group, said: “This unwelcome decision has not secured the local consent amongst the elected local councils that was called for in March.”

He blamed the decision on “ill-conceived legislation” – the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act. This act contains a sunset clause, which expires next March, permitting the secretary of state to fast track structural and boundary changes with the consent of only one local authority.

Brokenshire said that “the great majority” of local public sector partners backed the plans including the police, ambulance service, clinical commissioning group and NHS trusts.

He also said it would improve local government and establish a “credible geography”, thus meeting the criteria needed for structural change.

Brokenshire did acknowledge there were concerns that a single unitary might weaken democratic engagement at the most local level.

“To help reassure any who might be concerned on this, I intend to speak with five councils to determine whether I should modify the proposal before implementing it,” he said.

Martin Tett, leader of Buckinghamshire County Council, hailed the decision as “historic” and called for unity among local leaders.

“The announcement paves the way for a brand new council, fit for the future, created by combining the best of both county and district councils,” he said.

“This new council will be simpler, better value and more local to our residents. It will also have more clout to face head-on the great strategic challenges facing the county over the coming decades.”

Brokenshire said he would also consult on whether to delay local elections due to take place in May 2019, to avoid councillors being elected for only one year.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/11/buckinghamshire-set-single-unitary-status

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Police (local)

Comments

2 Comments

Hernandez says police have no social responsibilities – NHS and councils should take them off police forces

Owl says: this would mean the NHS and local authorities would need to create a full 24-hour, 7 day a week totally responsive crisis service!

“Police officers are not social workers or mental health workers, yet spend far too much of their time dealing with issues that would be better handled by the NHS or local authorities. I don’t think policing should be the main point of contact for people having mental health crises, and our officers shouldn’t be the lead negotiators for suicidal people. It was refreshing to hear similar sentiments aired by a senior and well-regarded police officer.”

Alison Hernandez
Devon and Cornwall Police Commissioner

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-45972475