Owl has found more explanation of why the new group of seven Independent Progressives split from Ben Ingham, and his “surprised” reaction to them, in the second part of this post on exmouth.nub.news.

Ben Ingham is quoted: “They have been pretty secretive so far about it and they are putting together a merger of several groups that no-one voted for just 12 months after an election. It is profoundly disappointing.” – bit rich coming from last year’s post election “plotter-in-chief” who formed a coalition between some Independents he had recruited, as such, and the Tories.

(Owl has not posted the first part as it is very similar to the earlier post announcing the formation of the partnership seeking to take control, but the link to the full article is above.)

……Cllr Ingham has called the decision of the eight councillors to leave his group as ‘profoundly disappointing’ and said that it is a shame that during a time of such turmoil for everyone, this is when two political groups in East Devon have decided to play political games of the highest order in order to further their own political ambitions.

Cllr Geoff Jung last week left the Independent Group to join the Democratic Alliance, while Cllrs Nick Hookway, Vicky Johns, Tony McCollum, Kathy McLauchlan, Geoff Pratt, Jess Bailey and Megan Armstrong have formed the Independent Progressive Group.

In a joint statement, the seven said: “We all stood as Independent councillors so that we could make a difference for the people that we represent and feel we will be better able to achieve this by being part of a forward-thinking, more progressive administration.

“We all look forward to continuing doing our utmost for the communities we serve.”

The statement added: “A group of seven Independent councillors, six of whom were newly elected last May, have left the Independent Group because over the course of the year they have realised that they view things differently to some others in the Independent Group.

“The new Independent Progressive Group has this week formed a coalition partnership with the ‘Democratic Alliance’ and it is hoped that the two groups will work together to form a new ​administration, following ​an extraordinary council meeting which is expected to be held on June 4.

“The coalition represents a total of thirty one members which would then be the majority in the council.”

Three of the defecting councillors – Cllrs Jung, Bailey and Armstrong – were part of the nine-strong cabinet in charge of the council, but Cllr Ingham confirmed that he had taken the decision to keep them in place and not sack them.

He said: “I decided not to fire them. Geoff Jung done a really good job as a portfolio holder. He has undermined the Group, which I am not happy about, but I certainly couldn’t fire him for lack of effort, and at the moment, as leader of the council, when we have a pandemic across the country and district, continuity is very important and that is what the officers need.

“It is annoying to have these distractions at and I am not convinced that firing three portfolio holders will help.”

Asked why he felt they left the Group, Cllr Ingham said: “I know a number of councillors who left the Independent Group found the work load difficult to cope with, which is why we had decided to work with political parties to form a new administration.

“Unfortunately that was not good enough for them and so they have formed the Progressive Independent Group. I understand they are currently signing a Memorandum Of Understanding with the Democratic Alliance, which will give them overall control of the Council by 31 councillors to 29.

“It is a shame that during a time of such turmoil for everyone, this is when two political groups in East Devon have decided to play political games of the highest order in order to further their own political ambitions. Our officers at East Devon are under considerable strain to support our communities as it is, without any further distractions, but perhaps no one should expect politicians to behave reasonably nowadays.

“It is always a shame when anything stops something you believe can work, and it is profoundly disappointing as a leader because I look back over the last 12 months and I am very pleased with what we achieved as a team. Crikey, we set one hell of a council plan for the next few years, and stepped up to the plate on hat incredibly quickly. For long term strategic thinking, we have come up trumps.

“We have been progressive and did some ground-breaking stuff that makes you think why the Tories didn’t do that. I am proud of our track record and it will be a great shame if anyone undoes that and I am not sure it would be in the interests of our communities.”

On Wednesday, the first virtual meeting of East Devon’s cabinet will take place, with Cllr Ingham saying that all members of his cabinet will as usual be given the free reign to speak for and on whatever they like, and then the following Wednesday will see an extraordinary full council meeting held.

Cllr Ingham said that after the meeting over the future leadership and control of the council the cabinet would be reshaped – either by him if he was still the leader, or by a new leader of the council if they were elected.

He added: “If the Democratic Alliance and IPGs finally organise themselves to work together, there will be ample opportunity for them to take control of East Devon District Council in the next few weeks. They seem to have been plotting and scheming this for a long time so they should be able to work it out.

“The Progressive Independent Group, that’s interesting as they not progressive in my definition at all and are quite regressive, as there is a whole load of things they don’t want which is why they split away. But for an independent group, to sign a memorandum within 10 days with three different political parties, I am not sure how independent that is.

“They have been pretty secretive so far about it and they are putting together a merger of several groups that no-one voted for just 12 months after an election. It is profoundly disappointing.”

Exclusive: Review contradicts Boris Johnson on claims he ordered early lockdown at UK care homes

Uk.reuters.com Reporting by Andrew MacAskill and Stephen Grey; editing by Janet McBride

LONDON (Reuters) – Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Britain’s parliament on Wednesday that his government moved swiftly to protect the country’s vulnerable care homes. Under increasing pressure to defend his record on fighting Covid-19, he said: “We brought in the lockdown in care homes ahead of the general lockdown.”

An examination by Reuters of the guidance issued to care homes, as well as interviews with three care home providers, has provided no evidence that any such early lockdown was ordered.

The government’s handling of care homes has emerged as a major controversy in parliament. According to a Reuters analysis of official figures (here), the pandemic has resulted in over 20,000 deaths in UK care homes.

The prime minister’s spokesman told reporters on Wednesday that in his comments earlier that day to parliament, Johnson was referring to government advice to care homes, issued on March 13. This advice, he said, was “recommending essential visits only, that obviously came before we took steps nationwide in relation to social distancing.” The government issued a general lockdown order to the nation on March 23.

The March 13 guidance bit.ly/2WWkoFW by the government was equivocal, a review of the documents shows. The advisory, reviewed by Reuters, did not impose a ban on visits from family or friends.

Instead, the document from Public Health England, an official agency, advised home providers to “review their visiting policy by asking no one to visit who has suspected Covid-19 or is generally unwell, and by emphasising good hand hygiene for visitors.” Balancing those restrictions, it said that care home policies “should also consider the wellbeing of residents, and the positive impact of seeing friends and family.”

At a press conference on March 16, Johnson commented that “absolutely, we don’t want to see people unnecessarily visiting care homes.”

Reuters found no official guidance which made that advice mandatory. The news agency asked 10 Downing Street, Johnson’s office, if it could point to any official order that care homes must close to outside visitors, prior to the broader UK lockdown on March 23. A government spokeswoman referred Reuters to the March 13 advice. Asked if there were further instructions to care homes between March 13 and the March 23 general lockdown, the spokeswoman said there were not.

In a statement, the government said it had been “keeping in regular contact with care homes to provide guidance on reducing the spread of infection. We have continued to review and update our guidance, in line with the latest scientific advice.”

The government’s cautious approach to imposing restrictions was signalled earlier in March by Chris Whitty, the chief medical adviser. At the launch of the government’s coronavirus action plan, on March 3, Whitty told journalists that specific advice for care homes would be issued in future, “but one of the things we are keen to avoid … is doing things too early.” He explained that premature action would bring no benefit “but what you do get is a social cost.”

A Reuters investigation last week here detailed how the government’s focus on shielding hospitals, to prevent emergency wards from being overwhelmed, left care home residents and staff exposed to COVID-19. To free up hospital beds, many patients were discharged into homes for the elderly and vulnerable, many without being tested for the coronavirus that causes the disease.

On May 5, when Reuters initially asked the Department for Health and Social Care when an order was first given to ban care home visits by family and friends, a press officer responded: “There was no order, care providers make their own decisions about visitors.”

Later that day, another press officer said the guidance was issued in a document dated April 2 here which said visits should only be made in exceptional circumstances, such as when residents are dying. That guidance was issued 10 days after the national lockdown and 20 days after the earlier, more nuanced advice to care homes.

Joyce Pinfield, who runs two care homes and is on the board of directors at the National Care Association, a body which represents care providers, said she spent time Wednesday after Johnson’s comments to parliament trying to find out when the order to lock down care homes was made. She said she found no trace of any order prior to the wider UK lockdown on March 23 and the April 2 instruction closing homes to outside visits, and concluded there hadn’t been one.

“The guidance should have been far better,” she said. “It was left to care providers to make their own decisions.”

Pinfield’s view was echoed by Julie Nicholls, the manager of the Appleby Lodge residential home in Cornwall. Nicholls said care home managers were left to make their own decisions about whether to restrict visits. She closed her care home on March 13, the day after the government moved the threat level of the virus to “high” and the prime minister warned the nation to expect to lose loved ones.

Nicholls said she “definitely didn’t have any government guidance” to close before the general lockdown ordered by Johnson on March 23. “There was never a formal order,” she said.

Opposition MPs have accused Johnson this week of misleading parliament over the government’s handling of the coronavirus.

Labour leader, Keir Starmer, confronted the prime minister in parliament on Wednesday with Public Health England guidance for care homes that was in place from February 25 to March 12. This stated, as reported by Reuters on May 5, that “it remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected.” A government spokesman told Reuters in early May that the advice “accurately reflected the situation at the time when there was a limited risk of the infection getting into a care home.”

Johnson replied to Starmer that “it wasn’t true that the advice said that.”

After the debate, Starmer wrote to Johnson asking him to correct his remark. The prime minister responded that he stood by his comments and accused the Labour leader of selectively and misleadingly quoting from the documents.

Owl has previously posted a cry of anguish from someone deeply affected by the treatment of loved ones during the closure of the Shandford Care Home in Budleigh and their fears for the future.

Now, with great sadness, Owl feels it in the public interest to post to post another. This time it is from local Independent Councillor Dr Cathy Gardner who articulates the anger of many at the cause of the loss of her father in an Oxfordshire Care Home.

Owl extends deepest sympathy to Dr Gardner and to all those who have lost loved ones during the pandemic.

Owl’s next post is on an exclusive Reuters review that contradicts Boris Johnson on claims he ordered early lockdown at UK care homes. (Following Keir Starmer during this week’s Prime Minister’s questions)

news.sky.com

Newly-formed district council coalition bids to take control after eight councillors leave ruling independent group.

A year after the false dawn when Ben Ingham seized control, then jumped into bed with the Tories, at long last looks like the voters will get the change they voted for.

Owl congratulates all those who have formed the coalition partnership and wishes them good luck in these incredibly challenging times, particularly in local government.