Monthly Archives: June 2020

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Shock set back for new administration in Act V

Last night’s Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of East Devon District Council saw a surprise defeat for the new administration. The first part of the Agenda concerned a number of changes to the constitution to tidy up loose ends and to enable the EGM to deal with more than one motion. The Opposition tabled a further  amendment to the changes to the constitution to exclude cabinet members from sitting on either the planning or licencing committees. This was carried by 29 votes to 27. A couple of the Independent Progressive Group voted for this amendment. The new Council Chairman Dr Cathy Gardner, who has a casting vote in the event of a tied vote, chose not to exercise her personal vote and there were three absentees.

The grounds for excluding cabinet members from these committees concern potential conflicts of interest. Owl has already predicted that the Conservative Opposition would take renewed interest in scrutiny and it appears that extends to potential conflicts of interest as well. It was clear from the debate that attempts had been made over the past few days to find a compromise solution including calling in the Local Government Association to carry out a review of the governance of planning in EDDC (Owl thinks this is still likely to go ahead). There is no such bar in neighbouring local authorities. Legal restrictions only apply to the Leader and Cabinet members with responsibility over planning related matters such as strategic planning.

During the debate which lasted well over an hour Leader Cllr. Paul Arnott said he had a plan B in case the amendment was carried. (The Deputy Leader Cllr. Eileen Wragg had been nominated as Chair of Planning.)

The meeting concluded quite quickly after this by agreeing to the remaining issues: allocations of seats to committees and appointments etc. with the proviso that the Monitoring Officer would be delegated to agree the changes with Group Leaders necessitated by the amendment.

So we don’t yet know who will replace Cllr. Eileen Wragg as Chairman of Planning.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Eight out of 10 English councils at risk of bankruptcy, says study

More than eight out of 10 English councils providing adult social care services are at technical risk of bankruptcy – or face a fresh round of cuts to services – because they cannot meet the extra financial pressures caused by the coronavirus pandemic, according to new research.

Patrick Butler www.theguardian.com 

The analysis estimated that predicted Covid-19-related costs and income losses in 131 out of England’s 151 upper-tier councils this year will exceed both the levels of their available financial reserves and the support so far provided by central government.

The majority of those councils that are in the “red wall” northern England and Midlands parliamentary seats won by the Tories from Labour at the last general election are at risk of going bust because of Covid-19 pressures, the study found.

The Centre for Progressive Policy thinktank study said authorities in the most deprived areas of England already hit hardest by a decade of austerity faced higher pandemic-related costs, and should be prioritised for government support in line with ministerial promises to “level up” so-called “left behind” areas of England.

“Without additional support, deprived local authorities are again going to be hit hardest, leading to bigger service cuts in places where they are needed the most,” concluded the study.

Without a major package of support from the government – councils are currently estimating a net shortfall of at least £6bn for 2020-21 – there is widespread agreement among authorities of all political colours that many will be obliged to draw up painful cuts plans in the next 18 months to avoid bankruptcy.

Although the government has provided £3.2bn of pandemic emergency funds for English local authorities in two tranches in March and April, councils are reporting that the extra money has already run out as pandemic spending on adult social care, homelessness and other areas continues to remain high.

Several councils are already preparing emergency in-year cuts budgets to try to stabilise their finances. Leeds city council said it faced a £200m shortfall, forcing it to freeze vacancies and all non-essential spending. Manchester, Liverpool, Luton and Wiltshire have also signalled that they face serious difficulties.

Steve Reed, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for communities and local government, said councils faced a huge financial black hole. “By law councils will be forced to make devastating in-year cuts that will see frail older people denied care, libraries and leisure centres shut for good and bins left unemptied.”

Last week the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, warned at prime minister’s questions that councils faced “cutting core services or facing bankruptcy”, adding that “either outcome will harm communities and mean local services can’t reopen”.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies said this week that while all councils were hit by extra Covid-19 costs and income losses, councils in more deprived communities where problems of ill-health and poverty were greater were likely to face bigger pressure on services in the long term.

As well as costs in areas such as adult social care local authorities are increasingly concerned that the pandemic is storing up rising costs in other areas as lockdown eases. These include:

  • An anticipated surge in child protection cases as children return to school, and social workers resume home visits and face-to-face meetings with vulnerable families.
  • Fears that council-owned leisure centres that have been closed during the pandemic will no longer be financially viable as long as social distancing measures remain in place, and will have to be permanently shut.
  • Concerns that the cost of home-to-school bus services, particularly in rural areas, will be unsustainable if social distancing rules limit the number of children in each vehicle. Councils have paid transport contracts even while schools are closed to prevent firms going bust.

Local authorities are required by law to balance their budget each year, meaning they are unable to carry over financial deficits into future years. If they are unable to cover costs with resources, they are obliged to issue a section 114 statement, an effective declaration of insolvency.

Only one council – Tory-controlled Northamptonshire – has issued a section 114 notice in the past two decades. In that case spending was frozen and government-appointed commissioners sent in to oversee the authority, which was forced to implement drastic cuts to rebalance its books.

The Centre for Progressive Policy study used official Covid-19 returns filed by English councils to the government detailing extra costs and income losses in March and April and projected forward to the end of the financial year.

Simon Clarke, the minister for local government, said: “We’re giving councils an unprecedented package of support, including £3.2bn non-ringfenced emergency funding, to tackle the pressures they have told us they’re facing.

“Councils’ core spending power rose by over £2.9bn this financial year even before additional emergency funding was announced.

“This is part of a wider package of support from across government for local communities and businesses – totalling over £27bn including grants, business rate relief and for local transport. We are working on a comprehensive plan to ensure councils’ financial sustainability over the financial year ahead.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Devonians have a phrase for it! Quilling for votes (probably could be used for seeking other favours)

After a two-year campaign in Devon, the word that describes the practice of inebriating potential voters to get their backing at the ballot box has been recognised with a place in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Owl thinks we should re-introduce the term in East Devon to describe the seeking of favours in a more general way.

Quilling: drinks all round if that gets your vote

Charlie Parker www.thetimes.co.uk
Sometimes if you want to get somebody to vote for you, it might be an idea to buy them a drink first.

After a two-year campaign in Devon, the word that describes the practice of inebriating potential voters to get their backing at the ballot box has been recognised with a place in the Oxford English Dictionary.

While “quilling” may have died out, it has been acknowledged as a key part of historical ties between politics and publicans. The practice, where voters consumed drinks paid for by parliamentary candidates while casting their ballots, led to violence and some voters being accused of debauchery before it was eventually banned under electoral law.

The word is thought to refer to the use of a quill-type implement to get alcohol out of a barrel and it was particularly prevalent in Exeter and Devon.

Todd Gray, a historian at Exeter University, applied for the word to be formally recognised after discovering it in numerous documents that he came across during research. He also discovered forgotten Tudor swear words used in the county.

Dr Gray thought that it was most commonly used between the early 1700s and late 1800s. Quilling was defined in 1853 as “a very old term for social meetings of the electors at which there is drink of course”.

In the same year, during one evening of quilling at a pub in Exeter two days before a poll, 60 invited voters had 246 glasses of grog while 25 quarts of beer were given to labourers who could not vote but could show of support. Dr Gray said: “Quilling was a term, but not a practice, confined to Exeter and parts of Devon, and such bribery was common throughout the country.

“We know from reports that it encouraged violence and people living in Exeter were mocked [over] their enthusiasm for partaking of this hospitality. They did so because elections in the city were notoriously violent and contested. In 1761 a husband murdered his wife because they supported different parties. He attributed his actions to the ‘heat’ of liquor.”

Andrew Brice, an English writer and printer from Exeter, crafted the earlier definition of quilling, noting the “running of the quill”. Alexander Jenkins, author of a history of Exeter in 1806, wrote the “pernicious practice of quilling” happened during the city’s elections in 1790.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Jupp fails his first test of political ethics…

Jupp voted with the government ….. 45 MPs, including Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom did not.

A perfect storm causes Boris Johnson’s first parliamentary defeat since the election

By Stephen Bush www.newstatesman.com 

Boris Johnson has suffered his first parliamentary defeat since the general election after 46 Conservative MPs, including his predecessor Theresa May, joined the opposition to vote against plans that would have allowed MPs to vote on and discuss allegations of harassment and workplace misbehaviour made against them in the House of Commons. Thanks to an amendment by Labour’s Chris Bryant, the complaints will instead be tackled via a genuinely independent process. Most embarrassingly for the government, Penny Mordaunt, a sitting minister, rebelled against the plans.

It is a major victory for parliament’s cross-party band of serious anti-bullying campaigners, and a particular triumph for former Commons leader Andrea Leadsom and Labour’s Meg Hillier, two of the highest-profile MPs who can say they spoke out against bullying both when it benefited Remainers to ignore allegations against John Bercow, and when it embarrassed a Brexiteer government to vote against it.

The defeat, both in its scale and its cross-generational spread, will raise further questions about the government’s parliamentary management and intelligence-gathering. In addition to former ministers – most notably May and Leadsom, but the likes of Harriet Baldwin, Mark Harper, David Jones and Tim Loughton also voted against the government – and longtime mavericks such as Bernard Jenkin, 22 MPs from the 2019 intake rebelled, 20 of them for the first time. It’s a general rule that once MPs have rebelled once they are more likely to do so again, and it makes the whips’ lives much, much harder.

Add that to the government’s ongoing and self-created problem with men elected in 2015, and it created the perfect storm.

The reason for the defeat was simple: the government’s plans were terrible. There are a lot of issues in politics that come down to difficult trade-offs or questions of ideology, but on this: the government was just in the wrong. The plans would have placed the victims of workplace bullying in an invidious position – one reason why so many MPs rebelled is they felt, as one put it to me, that it was simply not something they could say to their own families and friends they had backed, while another said they couldn’t have looked their own parliamentary staff “in the face” had they backed the plans. The government ought to have U-turned and accepted Bryant’s amendment, heading off another rebellion.

Now it faces a number of self-inflicted problems: a large group of first-time rebels, many of whom will likely feel freer to vote with their consciences in the future. (As a whip once explained to me, the first time an MP rebels, they feel terribly worried about it. They wake up the next day, they are still alive, the world is still spinning on its axis, and they feel more inclined to vote with their principles in future. This is why one of Gavin Williamson’s underrated skills as chief whip was knowing when to retreat.)  They also have the tricky question of what to do about Mordaunt’s rebellion: firing someone draws attention to the substance of the row, which is a textbook example of politicians seeking to set their own rules, and would add another charismatic and potentially troublesome presence to the backbenches, exactly what this government already has too many of. Not firing her sends a signal that rebellions are consequence-free: exactly the signal that this government does not want to send.

It’s a reminder of one of the truths of this parliament: that the last election produced a landslide defeat for Labour but not a landslide majority for the Conservatives. Independent-minded backbenchers – of whom there are an awful lot – can defeat a government that reads the mood of its own MPs wrong. And when Downing Street puts relatively little effort and energy into gauging the mood of its MPs, defeats like this will happen more often than they should.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Comments

1 Comment

Tories gave Robert Jenrick home renovation the go-ahead

The housing secretary had an extension to his £2.6 million Westminster townhouse approved by Conservative councillors despite officials objecting to the scheme three times, The Times can reveal.

And

Labour will table a humble address to the Queen — an arcane parliamentary procedure that compels ministers to disclose confidential government papers — in the Commons this afternoon.

Billy Kenber, Investigations Reporter www.thetimes.co.uk

Robert Jenrick, 38, and his wife, 47, purchased the five-bedroom house in October 2013, a few weeks before he was selected as the Conservative candidate in Newark.

The couple submitted plans to turn a first-floor roof terrace into an extra room as part of renovations costing £830,000 but the scheme was twice rejected by a planning officer who concluded that it would damage the character and appearance of the building and conservation area.

In August 2014, two months after Mr Jenrick had been elected as a Conservative MP, a third planning application was made. Although the first two had been made in Mr Jenrick’s own name, the latest application was listed in his wife’s name, although she was misgendered as “Mr Michal Berkner”.

The application was for an extension that was slightly taller than the most recently rejected proposal and a planning officer concluded that it should be rejected for the same reasons as the previous applications. On this occasion a Tory councillor who lives on the same private square as the Jenricks, Steve Summers, intervened and requested that it instead be referred to a planning committee to make the decision.

In November 2014, the three Tory members of a planning committee voted to overturn the planning officer’s recommendation and approved the scheme. The minutes from the meeting record only that “the committee considered that the proposal will not harm the character and appearance of the building or the conservation area”.

The fourth member of the committee, the Labour councillor Ruth Bush, voted against the application. Yesterday Ms Bush said that she had been unaware that the property was owned by a Conservative MP and said that it raised concerns about why fellow councillors had approved the scheme.

“I am not at all happy now it’s been drawn to my attention that this proceeded in the way that it did. It should have been more transparent,” she said.

Ms Bush said that it was “strange” and “unusual” for a councillor to refer an application with no public objections lodged against it to a planning committee. “If it hadn’t been called into committee then the officer’s refusal would have stood,” she said.

At the time the application was approved, she told Labour colleagues that she believed that it was a “foolish mistake” because it risked setting a precedent for other applications.

Steve Reed, the shadow housing secretary, said that Mr Jenrick, who faces claims of “cash for favours” over the approval of a Tory donor’s housing scheme at Westferry Printworks, also had “serious questions to answer” over the way in which planning approval was obtained for his own home. Mr Reed said that “it deals yet another hammer blow to the integrity of the planning system”. “Robert Jenrick needs to tell us urgently what contact he had with Tory councillors in Westminster — the public need reassurance that there’s not one rule for Conservative politicians and another for everyone else,” he added.

Paul Church, one of the Tory councillors who approved the scheme, said that he couldn’t remember why he had decided to overturn the planning officer’s decision but he insisted that he had “no idea” that Mr Jenrick owned the home and that he had never met the housing secretary or his wife. “I certainly have never made any planning application decisions on anything other than merit,” he said.

Richard Beddoe, the chairman of the committee, did not respond to a request for comment while the third Tory member, Robert Rigby, referred questions to the council, as did Mr Summers.

A spokesman for Westminster city council said: “Planning committees are entitled to reach their own conclusions by attaching different weight to the various planning criteria, which they regularly do, making it clear their reasons for doing so.” The “proposal was not deemed harmful and had been amended following earlier refusals”.

A spokesman for Mr Jenrick said: “Normal planning process for a standard planning extension was followed by the applicant.”

Mr Jenrick faces a parliamentary vote that could force the government to make all of its communications on the Westferry scheme public today.

Labour will table a humble address to the Queen — an arcane parliamentary procedure that compels ministers to disclose confidential government papers — in the Commons this afternoon.

Steve Reed, the shadow housing secretary, said that Mr Jenrick had nothing to fear from disclosing the documents if he had nothing to hide. Mr Reed told Sky News: “What we are asking the government to do is to simply come clean . . . it has brought into question the integrity of the whole planning system.”

Mr Jenrick continues to enjoy support from cabinet colleagues. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Alok Sharma, the business secretary, insisted that the housing secretary had acted with “all propriety” in his dealings with Mr Desmond and that his explanation was “the end of the matter”.

• Richard Desmond, the Tory donor embroiled in the “cash-for-favours” scandal, is set to bid for the National Lottery contract (Billy Kenber writes). The former media tycoon is expected to take part when the Gambling Commission launches the tender process in August. Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, approved Mr Desmond’s plans to build 1,500 apartments a day before the imposition of a £40 million community charge.

The former media tycoon has admitted lobbying Mr Jenrick at a fundraising dinner and he donated £12,000 to the Conservatives a fortnight after the scheme was approved. Jo Stevens, Labour’s shadow culture secretary, said that there were “important questions about his suitability for the role”. Labour will today use an opposition day debate to try to force the government to release all documents relating to Mr Jenrick’s approval of the Westferry Printworks development.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Where is Ms Hernandez?

Black Lives Matter …
Devon and Cornwall police sergeant suspended for an inappropriate WhatsApp message about George Floyd …
Death of a black man in custody in Torquay …

Comments from our Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez – NOTHING!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Whitehall not sharing Covid-19 data on local outbreaks, say councils

“More than a month after being promised full details of who has caught the disease in their areas, local health chiefs are still desperately lobbying the government’s testing chief, Lady Harding, to break the deadlock and share the data.”

Whitehall still running things centrally (and failing) – Owl

Juliette Garside www.theguardian.com

Local outbreaks of Covid-19 could grow undetected because the government is failing to share crucial testing data, council leaders and scientists have warned.

More than a month after being promised full details of who has caught the disease in their areas, local health chiefs are still desperately lobbying the government’s testing chief, Lady Harding, to break the deadlock and share the data.

The situation was described by one director of public health as a “shambles”, while a scientist on the government’s own advisory committee said it was “astonishing” that public health teams are unable to access the information.

The prime minister said on Friday the country was moving from “a huge one-size-fits-all national lockdown programme to one in which we’re able to do more localised responses”, and ministers have told councils and their public health directors to take the lead.

They will be responsible for monitoring the spread of Covid-19 in local areas and deciding when to close schools, offices, care homes and if necessary impose lockdowns on whole towns. As they race to produce outbreak management plans by the end of June, public health directors warn they lack crucial data flowing from Whitehall.

“It can’t be stressed enough how important this data is to us,” said Ian Hudspeth, the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire county council, who speaks on health matters for the Local Government Association. “We’ve been pressing for this since the test-and-trace system was announced.”

Councils are asking for real-time information about who has tested positive, down to the names and contact details of individuals, and failing that by street, postcode, or catchment area of 1,500 people. However, most are only receiving a daily feed of aggregate community test results for the entire upper tier local authority.

This could hinder the ability to spot outbreaks at the earliest opportunity, according to Chris Jewell, an epidemiologist at Lancaster University and a member of the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) subgroup on modelling.

“We have to wait for [outbreaks] to emerge through the noise at a much larger spatial scale,” he said. In practical terms, that means waiting for more people to become infected and, he said, “delays are everything in dealing with outbreaks”.

Hudspeth said he had been “lobbying hard” for the information since the beginning of April when the health secretary, Matt Hancock, launched the national coronavirus testing programme.

“If someone has gone into a care home we need to contact them as soon as possible before they go into other areas and spread the virus,” he said. “We need to know on the day so that we can clamp down and prevent the spread.”

Jewell said he found it “astonishing” that local public health officials are unable to get the postcodes of people who have been infected. “I don’t quite understand what the problem is,” he said.

The number of new cases in the UK is falling, but remains just under the 1,000-a-day mark – and health directors are on the alert for local outbreaks of the kind seen in Beijing and in Germany. Last week, three meat-processing plants were shut down in England and Wales after more 100 people tested positive.

“We really do need the data shared,” said Sakthi Karunanithi at Lancashire county council. “Without it we don’t know whether we have localised outbreaks, for example in a single care home, or generalised transmission in the community. This will help us intervene early before the virus spreads wider.”

Greg Fell, who heads public health in Sheffield, told a parliamentary committee last week: “This is not nice-to-know data, this is necessary for the public health response in an emergency.”

Another long-standing director of public health, who asked to be anonymous, said the whole process was a “complete shambles”.

The warning about data comes after directors said they also remained unclear about whether local authorities will have the power to instigate local lockdowns or whether these decisions will be taken at a national level.

The missing information is largely from tests carried out in the national network of drive-in centres coordinated by management consultants at the accounting firm Deloitte, and from postal tests managed by the Northern Ireland laboratory Randox. The data is held by central government, but has not yet flowed through to councils and GPs. By contrast, GPs automatically get results from tests carried out in hospitals using NHS labs.

It is understood civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), where the test-and-trace effort is being overseen by the Conservative peer Dido Harding, are concerned that sharing details about individuals with councils may fall foul of data protection laws. “Public Health England have the data but they haven’t got the protocols in place to make sure there is that ability to share,” said Hudspeth.

Another source suggested that there had been issues getting de-anonymised data back out of a highly secure IT system intended to protect personal information.

The picture has been complicated by the creation of a new government agency, the Joint Biosecurity Centre. Giving evidence to MPs last week, its chief executive, Clare Gardiner, said her team would be responsible for pushing data out to councils. However, she said the agency was not expected to be fully operational until the end of the summer.

A DHSC spokesperson said: “Local outbreaks will continue to be managed by a specialist team from the local authority or PHE, and we have provided £300m to local authorities to further develop local outbreak control plans.”

“Testing data is being made available through local dashboards and we will continue to expand this to provide more data for local areas. The new test-and-trace service has an important role in limiting the spread of the virus nationally, and already thousands of those who have tested positive have been contacted and their close contacts traced.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Town councillors object to detailed plans for 317 new homes in Exmouth

Exmouth town councillors have objected to detailed plans for 317 homes at Goodmores Farm which also include land for a new primary school and commercial use.

East Devon Reporter eastdevonnews.co.uk 
Members backed Marley Road residents over their concern at their street being used to access part of the mooted development.They also lamented just five per cent of the proposed dwellings being ‘affordable’ and questioned the need for a brand-new school.Blueprints for the site, off Hulham Road and Dinan Way, already have outline planning permission.

Eagle Investments Ltd is now seeking the go-ahead for a reserved matters application.

This details include layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for 317 residential units, associated roads, open space, and an attenuation basin for water run-off. Sixteen of the homes would be affordable.

Five-and-a-half acres of the site can be utilised for mixed-use employment and commercial purposes and the provision of land for a primary school.

Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee voted to oppose the latest application at a meeting last night (Monday).

Marley Road resident Bob Horlock spoke on behalf of the 12 househlds in the street and raised concern that it would be used for access to a cul-de-sac of nine homes on the new development.

Mr Horlock said residents had been told at a public consultation event in 2014 that there would be no access onto the site from Marley Road.

He added that the ‘narrow, unclassified country lane’ is popular with cyclists and walkers – and a significant increase in traffic would raise the risk of an accident.

District councillor Paul Millar, who represents the Halsdon ward, bemoaned the low number of ‘affordable’ homes and told the committee: “This is a daft scheme which does nothing to relieve the number of people on the housing waiting list in Exmouth.”

An aerial view of the land earmarked for development.

An aerial view of the land earmarked for development.

He also questioned why a brand-new primary school was proposed when there was ‘ample space’ for existing ones in the town to expand.

Councillor Fred Caygill said the development had been ‘on the cards for over 20 years’ but backed Marley Road residents, who he said were ‘rightly concerned’.

He added: “Sixteen affordable houses is a bit hard to swallow.

“I would think that, before anybody goes down the road of building a new school, they revisit the need and requirement. More importantly, medical facilities are needed in this part of the town.

“If we are going to put more houses and more people into Exmouth, we need to look at something like medical facilities rather than a school, if it’s not needed.”

Cllr Mike Rosser said the plans were ‘cramming too many houses’ on the site and that gardens were ‘minute’.

He also lamented there being ‘no recognition’ of climate change and ‘no attempt to encourage’ renewable energy.

Cllr Tim Dumper said the application should be linked to safety concerns on Dinan Way, adding: “There is going to be a distinct need for a crossing on that road. There needs to be provision for a crossing and there needs to be a way to finance that.”

He added that he continued to support the development in principle – ‘as long as the details are got right’.

Councillors voted to object to the scheme.

Their concerns included the access from Marley Road, Dinan Way safety issues and the amount of affordable housing.

They also sought reassurance over the agreement for a new primary school and a construction management plan.

East Devon District Council will decide the fate of the application.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Finale of the long running “Changing of the Guard” at East Devon District Council Today, 6.00pm

(Or how the Conservatives with only one third of the Council seats tried to retain power for ever and ever. A comic tragedy in five parts.)

Extraordinary Virtual meeting of Council, Council – Wednesday, 24th June, 2020 6.00 pm

You can watch live or catch up on EDDC’s Youtube channel.

This comic tragedy has played out to an international audience (Owl has viewers across the globe) in five Acts over the past four weeks, why? 

In May 2019 the Conservatives, for the first time since the Council was formed in 1974, lost their majority. Cllr. Ben Ingham, leader of the opposition (who resigned from the Conservative Party around 15 years ago but campaigned and was elected as an Independent) took control of the council by forming an informal partnership/coalition/compact/arrangement with the Conservative councillors giving them key committee positions. In May this year after a series of defections, this arrangement broke down and a new Majority Group was formed.

The opportunity for a smooth transition was dashed when Conservative Cllr and Council Chairman Stuart Hughes took the opportunity provided by a change in legislation by the government to take the option of prematurely cancelling the Annual Council Meeting. This marks the end of one civic year and the beginning of the next. 

His, and his close Conservative colleagues’, reasoning became clear during the Act I debates: despite the democratic shift in power they didn’t want to see change. As one councillor put it “It is vital that we have stable leadership and in Cllr Hughes we have someone with the experience and the link with County Hall. To replace him would jeopardise the recovery process and demean the work he has done. To change in the middle of the crisis could be a monumental mistake. This is not the time to hold an EGM.” 

During all this Cllr. Ben Ingham resigns (sacks) his Cabinet and “falls on his sword.” The Council is rudderless. 

This indefensible decision of Cllr. Stuart Hughes created chaos since the only way to make the inevitable change was through “Extraordinary General Meetings” (EGMs) but these constitutionally are restricted to a single motion.

Hence the five acts in this comic tragedy which will have been appreciated, no doubt, by another influential and “experienced” Conservative, sent packing by the electorate in May 2019: Cllr. Paul Diviani, Chairman of EDDC Council 2007 – 2009 and Leader from 2011 – 2018 with almost 10 years experience in stage entertainment including Howard & Wyndham’s Pantomimes. 

Act I – The prelude or warm up act, where a meeting had to be held to decide to have a meeting to vote for a new Leader. (Some people don’t seem to get “democracy”. If you have a minority of the vote you are going to lose on a matter of confidence such as this)

Refreshments served as Cllr Stuart Hughes resigns as Council Chairman following this defeat.

Act II – where the meeting to elect a new Leader crashed when Conservative Cllr. Tom Wright was so taken aback by the way the votes were being called (he shouldn’t have been) swore on open mic causing You Tube to pull the plug with only a few votes left to be cast. 

Interlude overnight

Act III – the reconvened meeting the following morning where Cllr Paul Arnott was elected Leader. Paul Arnott appointed Cllr Eileen Wragg as Deputy Leader and a Cabinet (these are all Leader appointments). At this point we have a new administration with a new purpose. 

Change of Costume – Cllr. Ben Ingham who campaigned and was elected as an Independent claimed he had  “No Choice” but rejoin the Tories after 15 years.

Act IV – where Cllr Cathy Gardner and Cllr Val Ranger were elected Council Chairman and Vice Chairman. The new Civic leaders and upholders of the constitution. This was an uncontested election. A considerable number of Conservatives and Cllr Ben Ingham absent themselves from this virtual meeting.

Now we come to the Finale which should be a matter of ratification of the governance arrangements and committee appointments for the remainder of the civic year (until the next Annual Meeting May 2021).

Act V – where the council will consider Governance Arrangements and committee appointments for the remainder of the Civic Year (2020/21). The important aspect of this meeting is the procedural changes proposed in Part A to cut the Gordian Knot and resolve all the outstanding issues in the one meeting.

Owl has already commented on the shift in power balance these key appointments represents.

PART A 

  1. Approves the amended Constitution to determine the committee structure, their size and terms of reference and the scheme of delegations.

 PART B 

  1. Confirms the Conservative Group as the formal opposition.

 PART C

  1. Approves the allocation to different political groups of seats on the overview, regulatory and other committees (see agenda papers)
  2. Approves the allocation of seats on individual overview, scrutiny, regulatory and other committees as set out in Appendix 1 of agenda papers. 

PART D

  1. Agrees the Membership of the Standards Committee and Housing Review Board (as detailed in Part D of this report) and approves an extension of the appointment of the Independent Person for a further year. 

PART E

  1. Approves the appointments of Councillors to committees as set out in the table in Appendix 2.

 PART F 

  1. Approves the appointments of the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the committees as set out in Appendix 3

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

The New EDDC Administration inherits a Poisoned Chalice on Derisory numbers of Affordable Houses

From a Budleigh Correspondent:

As an onlooker from Budleigh Salterton I have been surprised that there has been little outcry from Exmouth to date at the derisory number of affordable houses which Eagle Investments propose for the Goodmores Farm site. After all, this is meant to be a green wedge and five and half acre farmland is being lost so there must be exceptional reasons to build here. I would have thought that the most compelling reason is to provide affordable housing. But only 5% of the proposed housing will be affordable, only 16 out of a total of 317 houses .This is a great reduction to the 49% Plan requirement ie 88 and 33 less than the original 14/0330/MOUT approved application. This site is the largest allocated site in Exmouth in the EDDC Local Plan so the remaining 5 sites will have to provide a total of 591 affordable homes (i.e. requirement 607 less the 16 Goodmores’ proposed affordable homes).

This has been brought to my attention by the recent Local Government Association report that states that at least 100,000 homes should be built every year to rent to key workers who have helped fight coronavirus and to the families of those who have lost loved ones in the pandemic. The 100,000 target should become part of the government’s wider ambition for building 300,000 homes a year. The 16 houses proposed for Goodmores Farm site will not go very far to alleviate Exmouth’s need.

Will we be concreting over more of Exmouth’s few remaining green fields?

The EDDC new administration have inherited many poison chalices, including this application. Eagle Investments Ltd has already secured outline permission for up to 350 homes on the site after its original blueprints were NARROWLY APPROVED by East Devon District Council’s Development Management Committee in July 2018.  But who is now to get the blame on this one? Not the old DMC chaired by Tory Mike Howe but the Democratic Alliance.

As a contributor to EDDC’s website writes “I understand the developer has been let off the requirement to provide the usual proportion of affordable homes to protect his profit margin due to the high value of his S.106 obligations. This is difficult to defend in my opinion. It is the affordable homes that are needed not yet more speculative housing which will largely be occupied by incomers rather than locals. If this site is considered uneconomical to develop then don’t develop it. That would please many more people than it upsets.”

Why am I from BS so interested in this problem? Well, of course we have had the same fiddle. BS Town Council agreed to release land at the time of the start of the EDDC Local Plan in 2011 as 50% of the housing was allocated for affordable housing needs even though the site was outside the BUAB and in the AONB, a designated protected area. The land was owned by a retired local GP who, to quote, “would like to see housing for local people and he had found a developer with the experience and the FUNDING to achieve such a project”. Planning permission was granted for 30 affordable homes -50% – in a development of 59.

Of course the DMC reduced this to 21 affordable homes in 2016.

And, of course, this they reduced this to FIVE in 2018. Yes, I repeat 5 reduced from 30!

The Housing Strategy Officer Melissa Wall was unhappy

“This application seeks to reduce the amount of affordable housing provided which is obviously disappointing. Under the current S106 agreement (as varied) this site was going to provide 50% affordable housing. The applicant has submitted viability evidence claiming that it is only viable to provide 5 units (8.5%) of affordable housing in phase 1. It is proposed that phase 2 will contain no affordable housing. An affordable housing provider has been found for this site and is due to take the 5 already completed units in phase 1. 2. This variation is contrary to Strategy 34 of the East Devon Local Plan which requires 50% affordable housing in Budleigh Salterton.”

The local councillors were deeply unhappy quoting BS Neighbourhood Plan policies and EDDC Strategies 21 and 34. Words such as “the original application was reckless” “If this developer can’t go some way to honour the undertakings given when planning was approved let someone else try.” “This application to vary the conditions to me smacks of developer greed.”

Perhaps I should let the local Tory councillor sum up

“I strongly abject to the application that will blow a hole in the policies intended to protect the AONB. This site is in a sensitive location, on a rise to the south of the approach road from the north east. The only justification for such an encroachment was the provision of a high level of affordable homes for local people.”

But of course, the Tory dominated DMC approved the application. It was called the Development Management Committee for a reason!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Revealed: The elite dining club behind £130m+ donations to the Tories

Guess who’s coming to dinner? A correspondent has been digging:

Revealed: The elite dining club behind £130m+ donations to the Tories

Correction, 26 November 2019: Dominic Johnson is no longer the chair of the Chancellor’s Group.

Peter Geoghegan www.opendemocracy.net 

An elite Tory dining club that enjoys direct access to Boris Johnson has given more than £130 million to the Conservative Party since 2010, openDemocracy can reveal today.

More than 80% of funds raised by the Conservatives for the general election so far has come from the secretive Leader’s Group. For the past eighteen months, the Tories have failed to honour a pledge to publish details of the controversial club, after previous scandals.

Labour shadow cabinet office minister Jon Trickett has today written to Conservative chairman James Cleverly calling for “much greater transparency in how the Conservative Party handles its political donations and relationships with rich and powerful elites”.

The Leader’s Group, which has included wealthy individuals linked to Russia, the fossil fuel industry and climate denial, is open only to those prepared to give the Conservatives at least £50,000 a year. In return, they receive regular private dinners, lunches and drinks receptions with the prime minister and other senior Tory figures, including leading cabinet ministers.

openDemocracy’s in-depth analysis of this top donors’ club has found that the Tory party is increasingly dependent on a handful of funders involved in finance and, particularly, the hedge fund industry, with many of the party’s pro-EU donors fleeing since 2016.

openDemocracy’s research has also found that:

  • Boris Johnson has attended at least six Leader’s Group meetings since 2016, as have dozens of present and former senior government ministers, often at official government residences.
  • Sixty Leader’s Group donors are collectively worth at least £45.7 billion.
  • Leader’s Group donors tied to the City of London have given more than £50 million since 2010, and just five wealthy hedge fund backers have collectively given more than £18 million.
  • Senior Leader’s Group donors have received honours, including controversial knighthoods and peerages.
  • Pro-EU donors have fled the Tories since the 2016 Brexit vote, while a number of Brexit Party donors have also attended Leader’s Group dinners.

Opposition MPs and transparency campaigners have called for the Conservatives to “urgently” publish full details of their leading donors, amid growing concerns about corporate influence on British politics ahead of the general election on 12 December.

“This is very serious. It shows how the rich and powerful can buy influence with the British government,” said Scottish National Party MP Tommy Sheppard. “What are they getting in return?”

Transparency International’s Steve Goodrich said: “Wealthy donors securing access to government ministers has continued to be a worrying practice throughout a series of governments over the years. Such a transactional approach to rewarding donors can easily give rise to the perception of some form of quid pro quo.”

David Cameron agreed to publish limited data about the Leader’s Group, following a controversy in 2012 when it emerged that the then prime minister had hosted secret dinners for major donors at his Downing Street flat and at his official country retreat, Chequers.

Cameron had promised to come “clean about who is buying power and influence“. But since 2018, the Tories have not published any details about the elite donors who provide millions to the party every month.

A staff member in the Conservative Treasurer’s Department told openDemocracy that they thought publishing details of Leader’s Group donors was “a directive of David Cameron’s, many years back” that had since ceased. No such lists have been produced in the six weeks since openDemocracy’s request was made.

‘Over-casual attitude towards obeying the rules’

In recent years the Tories have relied increasingly on a small number of wealthy individuals. Last month, the prime minister was reported to have been seeking to raise £30 million mostly from City funders, to counter Labour’s donations from grassroots activists and trade unions.

In the first week of the 2019 general election, the Tories raised more than £5.6 million in large donations. Labour took in under £220,000 over the same period.

In that week, just fifteen wealthy individuals gave the Conservatives £4.4 million – more than 80% of the funds that the party has raised so far for the campaign. Billionaire theatre impresario John Gore gave the party £1 million.

Boris Johnson has proved particularly popular with donors. Donations to the Tories, which fell away dramatically towards the end of Theresa May’s premiership, have reportedly risen sharply since he took over as leader in June.

Earlier this year, the prime minister was judged to have exhibited an “over-casual attitude towards obeying the rules” on declaring financial interests as an MP, and in recent months there has been a string of high-profile conflict-of-interest scandals in which Conservative MPs and ministers have come under scrutiny.

Premier supporters

Set up in 2003, the Leader’s Group is the top of a network of Tory donor clubs – a network that grew dramatically under David Cameron. According to the party’s website, the Leader’s Group is “is the premier supporter Group of the Conservative Party. Members are invited to join the Leader and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches.”

openDemocracy’s analysis of the most recent data for top Tory donors – from the end of 2013 to the middle of 2018 – as well as Electoral Commission filings shows how successful the Conservative Party has been securing donations from wealthy individuals.

It has been an open secret for many years that the annual Sunday Times Rich List provides a ‘hit list’ for fundraisers of all causes – and the conspicuous success of the Conservative Party treasurer’s department can be measured by no fewer than sixty Leader’s Group members featuring in this year’s Rich List. Collectively, these sixty donors are worth £45.7 billion. A 61st Leader’s Group donor had previously been on the Rich List, but no longer qualifies – they are worth only an estimated £88 million.

Some 200 donors attended Leader’s Group events from 2013-8, including some of the UK’s richest business people. Some 97% of attendees were male.

Henry Keswick, who has attended at least eight Leader’s Group meetings, is chairman of international conglomerate Jardine Matheson, and is worth more than £6 billion.

Anthony Bamford of the JCB construction empire has given more than £5 million to the Conservatives since 2010. The Ferrari-driving, private-jet-owning, yacht-sailing billionaire, who has personally donated £80,000 to Boris Johnson in the last year, is estimated to be worth over £4 billion.

The Tory’s elite donors include the Russian businessman Alexander Temerko, who calls himself a “friend” of Johnson’s, and Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a former Kremlin government minister. In 2014, Chernukhin paid £160,000 to play tennis with Johnson and David Cameron.

This month, openDemocracy revealed that the Conservatives had become increasingly dependent on money from Russia-linked donors. Since the start of November, Chernukhin has donated £200,000 to the party, taking her gifts to the Conservatives this year to over half a million pounds.

Other regular guests at Leader’s Group meetings including Rosemary Said, who has given almost £200,000 to the Tories in 2019. Ms Said’s husband, Syrian-born Wafic Said, helped broker the UK’s biggest arms sale – the Al-Yamamah deal – signed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1985.

A number of senior Conservative donors have received honours including knighthoods and peerages. In September, Tory treasurer Ehud Sheleg received a knighthood, as did outgoing Tory treasurer Mick Davis. Sheleg, an art dealer, has given the party more than £3 million.

One of the Conservatives’ most generous donors, taxi millionaire John Griffin, has criticised the party’s reliance on wealthy benefactors, and urged a “more energetic” approach to soliciting small donations from ordinary members. But there is no sign of any change in direction.

Off-the-record soirées with the Tory top table

The Leader’s Group meets at least once each quarter. Soirées have been held at the homes or corporate dining suites of big donors and key party figures. No records are kept of any discussions that take place at these events, but they frequently attract the top table of the Conservative Party.

As well as Theresa May, David Cameron and George Osborne, frequent attendees at Leader’s Group events have included important figures in the recent Conservative administrations. Michael Gove, Ian Duncan Smith and Sajid Javid were all present at numerous Leader’s Group meetings between 2013 and 2018.

One Leader’s Group donor, Neil Record, chairman of the think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, previously said of the group: “The donors are treated like an intelligent fan club. If there is a businessman who wants to have a chat with a future prime minister then this is his opportunity.”

The previous Labour government was dogged by donations controversies. In 2006, Labour peer Lord Levy was arrested but not charged during the ‘cash for honours’ scandal, in which businessmen who gave loans to the party were subsequently recommended for peerages. Levy denied wrongdoing.

Hedge funds and pheasant shoots

In early February 2018, leading Conservative lights gathered among the dinosaurs at the Natural History Museum in London for the party’s Black and White fundraising ball. Guests dined on slow-cooked beef and drank expensive wine.

The highlight of the night was the auction. As well as dinner with Michael Gove and Sarah Vine for £120,000, guests could also bid for a 500-bird pheasant and partridge shoot at Maristow & Bickleigh estate near Plymouth, sponsored by Andrew Law and his wife.

Law, who is one of the hedge fund industry’s most successful money managers, has given almost £3 million to the Conservatives since 2010, and attended at least fourteen Leader’s Group meetings. He is one of a number of successful hedge fund managers among the Tories’ biggest donors.

More than 40 per cent of the Leader’s Group donors owe their wealth to investment firms – a combination of finance, hedge funds, private banking and private equity.

Collectively these donors have given more than £50 million to the Conservatives since 2010. Firms that describe themselves as hedge funds are particularly influential – just five wealthy donors who have been involved with hedge funds have donated more than £18m over the last decade.

Lord Michael Farmer, co-founder of hedge fund Red Kite and one of the most regular attendees at Leader’s Group meetings, has donated over £6.4 million. His son, George, is also a member of the elite group of Tory donors. George Farmer has also donated to the Brexit Party and headed up the British wing of the controversial right-wing US student group Turning Point.

Former Tory party co-treasurer Stanley Fink – nicknamed the ‘godfather’ of the UK hedge fund industry – has given the party more than £1.75 million.

Another Tory donor is Michael Hintze, one of Britain’s wealthiest hedge fund managers, who is worth about £1.4 billion. He has donated £4.1 million to the Tories since 2002. Hintze, a major donor of the Vote Leave campaign, is one of the few known funders of the climate change-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The Conservatives’ growing dependence on hedge fund donors has not gone unnoticed. In September, former chancellor Philip Hammond declared that Boris Johnson was in league with financiers who, he said, stood to profit handsomely from a no-deal Brexit. The prime minister’s sister, Rachel Johnson, agreed.

Economist Frances Coppola says that the Conservatives’ reliance on hedge fund donors is not an orchestrated attempt to make money from Brexit but shows that the interests of a very small subset of the financial industry now have a hugely disproportionate influence on the Conservative Party.

“The Tory party is now wholly unrepresentative in any way of the UK population – its source of funds is so restricted,” said Coppola. “And because they are so dependent on this small group of donors, Tory party policy is going to be skewed.”

“These are all people who want to see a bonfire of regulation, a Singapore-on-Thames,” added Coppolla. “They want to dismantle all state regulation, lower taxes to zero.”

Such views are not a secret. Months before the referendum, over a hundred City executives including former Conservative treasurer Peter Cruddas signed an open letter that called for a slashing of red tape and divergence from EU standards after a Brexit vote.

Another Tory donor group, the Chancellor’s Group, for those who give £25,000 a year, was formerly chaired by Dominic Johnson, a donor and party treasurer who founded the Somerset Capital investment firm in 2007 with Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Big oil and ‘unsavoury’ regimes

Energy companies are also heavily represented among Tory Leader’s Group donors. All but one firm is involved in fossil fuels.

Ian Taylor, boss of the world’s largest oil trader Vitol, has given almost £2.5 million. As the Financial Times noted in a 2018 profile, Taylor “has done business with some of the least savoury regimes in the world, from Castro’s Cuba to Saddam’s Iraq, via Africa, the Balkans and Central Asia”.

Ayman Asfari, chief executive of UK oil and gas firm Petrofac, has given the Tories nearly nearly three-quarters of a million pounds. Both David Cameron and Theresa May were criticised previously for lobbying the Bahraini government on Petrofac’s behalf.

Asfari was questioned by the Serious Fraud Office over allegations of bribery and corruption at the Jersey-based company. Earlier this year it emerged that the British government had underwritten a £750 million loan to Petrofac following meetings between Asfari and two cabinet ministers in 2016. The company said the meetings were in a personal capacity and related to the humanitarian crisis in Syra.

There is no evidence that the hedge fund bosses, property magnates, oil executives and others involved have ever tried to, or succeeded in influencing government policy. But critics warn that the secrecy surrounding the Leader’s Group events will inevitably raise suspicions.

Public concern

Labour shadow cabinet minister Jon Trickett has written to Tory chairman James Cleverly calling on the party to publish all the details of the Leader’s Group.

“Your party has failed to honour previous promises to publish details of the Leader’s Group dinners on a quarterly basis. The last Leader’s Group update on your website is from the second quarter of 2018 – 18 months ago,” Trickett wrote.

“Your party’s secrecy on this matter adds to what is a deeply disturbing set of affairs and highlights the need for much greater transparency in how the Conservative Party handles its political donations and relationships with rich and powerful elites.”

Liberal Democrat Tom Brake said: “‘Nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ has long been an ill-judged Conservative mantra, so you can only really draw one conclusion from the fact that they’ve stopped declaring attendees at donors’ dinners, despite David Cameron’s promise to come clean.

“Complete transparency is critically important for a functioning democracy, and it’s vital that all parties uphold this.”

Sarah Clarke from campaign group Unlock Democracy called the Leader’s Group “just the latest example of the UK’s pay-to-play politics, which enables the super rich to buy power and influence.

“While money is pumped through the veins of our political system, our collective future will be determined by the highest bidder. That is not democracy, that is plutocracy.”

A Conservative Party spokesperson said: “The Conservative Party is funded by membership, fundraising and donations, including over 600 local associations across the country and it is this small-scale, grassroots support which is the bedrock of the Party. The Electoral Commission figures exclude the significant sums we have received from small donations.

“All reportable donations are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them, and comply fully with the law.”

Additional research by Adam Ramsay

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Comments

1 Comment

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick mired in new planning row – Owl struggles to keep up!

This one also involves prominent Conservatives and party donors as well! – Owl.

“The housing secretary is facing fresh scrutiny over his use of planning powers after he intervened in a development project backed by prominent Conservatives and party donors.”

Louisa Clarence-Smith, Billy Kenber, George Greenwood www.thetimes.co.uk 
Robert Jenrick has used his ministerial planning powers to recover an appeal by Britain’s largest horse-racing organisation, the Jockey Club, for its development of 318 homes and a hotel at the Sandown Park Racecourse in Esher, Surrey.The Jockey Club launched its appeal after Elmbridge borough council rejected the application because it was on green-belt land and would deliver only 20 per cent affordable housing, against its target of between 40 and 50 per cent.

Normally, an appeal would be decided by the government’s planning inspectorate. Mr Jenrick has intervened to recover the appeal and determine it. In a letter to the local authority, seen by The Times, the reason given was that the appeal related to proposals for significant development within the green belt. That means that instead of a government planning inspector writing a decision, the inspector will prepare a report, which will be forwarded to the minister to inform his decision.

The intervention has raised concerns about conflicts of interest given the Jockey Club’s links to senior Conservative figures and donors. The club’s board includes Baroness Harding, the Conservative peer in charge of the government’s Covid-19 tracing app, and Rose Paterson, wife of the Conservative MP Owen Paterson. It also includes Peter Stanley, who donated £5,000 to Matt Hancock’s constituency office in Newmarket, home to the Jockey Club’s headquarters, last year.

Tim Syder, a racehorse owner, gave the Conservative Party £12,500 last November, shortly before he joined the Jockey Club board. Councillor Richard Williams, of Esher residents’ association, said that it was “alarming” that the future of the site was being taken out of local people’s hands. “We should be convincing the inspector of our case, not a minister,” he said.

Mr Jenrick is embroiled in a “cash-for-favours” planning row over his decision to approve a £1 billion development proposed by Richard Desmond, a Tory donor. He overruled a planning inspector and gave the scheme the go-ahead in January, one day before Tower Hamlets council was due to vote on a rule change that would have left Mr Desmond with a £40 million community charge bill. In that case, it emerged yesterday, government lawyers tried to dismiss the council’s legal challenge to Mr Jenrick’s decision weeks before he conceded that he had acted unlawfully.

The Jockey Club has argued that the Sandown scheme constitutes appropriate development. A spokesman said: “We trust that whoever determines the appeal will do so based on planning considerations only. We believe that our application has considerable merit and offers local social and economic benefits.” The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Each planning appeal is taken on its own merits.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Dear Shielder, your time is up. No more sick pay. No more bunking off.Lots of Love, Matt

Hancock lifts Covid-19 restrictions in line with economy – sorry, science

John Crace Sketch  www.theguardian.com 
How much does Boris Johnson hate Matt Hancock? I’m asking because it’s clear the health secretary is completely burnt out. The smiles and the Tigger-like warmth are all gone. All that’s left is a desiccated shell that could crumble at any minute. A man reduced to muttering platitudes while scowling at the television cameras.

A kinder, more sensitive boss – the type that Matt was about to insist were omnipresent and would be falling over themselves to welcome back staff who had been shielding – would have told Hancock to take some time off a while ago. A chance to catch up on lost sleep and reacquaint himself with his family. After all, it’s not exactly as if he would be missed.

Instead, Matt found himself sent out on another hospital pass of a Downing Street press conference. After the usual nonsense about “our plan is working”, Hancock got down to the nitty-gritty.

He wanted to say a huge thank-you to the 2.2m people who had been shielding for the past three months, but would shortly be writing to them all individually to tell them their time was up.

“Dear Shielder,

“As of 6 July, we want you to reacquaint yourself with the outside world, so feel free to hang out in groups of up to six people. Have someone to stay overnight if you like. Because from August 1, the fun stops. That’s when the food boxes, the medicine drops and the statutory sick pay will end. Anyone found bunking off from then will be on their own. So prepare to get your compromised immune systems back to work. Lots of love, Matt.”

Predictably, most of the questioners were sceptical that not all those who were shielding would be quite so thrilled by the news. Not because they weren’t keen to meet up with friends and families again, but because they didn’t trust the government to relax the guidelines in a sensible way.

Matt just glared his disapproval. Though it might have looked as if the government was deciding policy by focus group, it was actually committed to doing everything in line with the science. And to prove his point, he handed over to deputy chief medical officer, Jenny Harries. “Thank you for guiding us through this crisis, Jenny,” he added. Which was a bit like thanking a wonky satellite that had been transmitting faulty data for the past three months.

But Harries was determined to do her best to help. The infection rates had now fallen from 1 in 400 to 1 in 1,700, so you could meet 1,700 people before you were in danger of getting the coronavirus. Even my basic maths could see the logical problem with that. Then Jenny became positively Ayn Rand.

“Work is good for you,” she continued, so it was the government’s job to push shielders through the pain barrier. Yes, some people might still think that a 1 in 1,700 chance of catching a disease that could kill you if you had underlying health issues was a risk they were unwilling to take, but once they had re-experienced the joys of stacking shelves at night, they would see the error of their ways.

Things really began to fall apart, though, when it was gently pointed out that this was all a bit previous. Announcing the end of the shielding programme the day before the government was about to make wholesale changes to other lockdown guidelines really didn’t make sense.

Given that many people were already treating the 2-metre rule as a 1-metre rule, a switch to a 1-metre rule would be the end of any kind of social distancing for some. And with travel restrictions being eased in line with the focus groups and the economy – sorry, the science, there was clearly no way of anyone knowing if the changes would lead to an increase in the rate and number of infections. So the end of shielding could be a death sentence for the shielders.

Now Matt’s eyes narrowed. A man on the edge of a nervous breakdown. This was supposed to be a “good news” press conference and he was sick and tired of everyone being so negative. He didn’t care if the director of the World Health Organisation thought some countries were being too cavalier in unlocking too quickly. He was always guided by the science. And where the science disagreed, he was all in favour of following the science that took him places he wanted to go.

He was fed up with people laughing at the UK’s mishandling of the coronavirus, so he was willing to take a punt on relaxing the rules to make us more like other countries. And if people started dying, then we could always lock down again. By the end, Matt looked as if he was going to crack completely.

Just as well no one asked him about his nonexistent “world-beating” app.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

UK public ‘supports green recovery from coronavirus crisis’

People would be prepared to continue many of the lifestyle changes enforced by the coronavirus lockdown to help tackle the climate emergency, and the government would have broad support for a green economic recovery from the crisis, according to a report.

Fiona Harvey www.theguardian.com 

Working from home is a popular option, along with changes to how people travel, and the government should take the opportunity to rethink investment in infrastructure and support low-carbon industries, the report found.

The findings come from Climate Assembly UK, a group of 108 members of the public chosen to be representative of the UK population and to help shape future climate policy by discussing options to reach net zero carbon emissions, in line with the government’s 2050 target.

Nearly eight in ten of the members said the measures taken by the government to help the economic recovery from Covid-19 should be designed to help reach net zero, and an even bigger proportion – 93% – said that, as the lockdown eased, the government and employers should encourage lifestyle changes to cut emissions.

“It was quite clear that many of the assembly members felt this period should be taken as an opportunity to encourage a green economic recovery with a focus on promoting cleaner, greener lifestyles, and an economy that prizes sustainability over short-term benefits that would harm the planet,” said Ibrahim, an assembly member who is a GP from Surrey.

“It feels that climate change is as big a crisis as Covid,” said one respondent. “[We] don’t want the government to put climate change on the back burner because of Covid.”

Another unnamed member said: “It would be too easy to just carry on as before and take advantage of cheap oil and other special offers, [such as] cheap travel, cheap clothes, factories turning out cheap goods, to get the economy going. We need incentives to reduce emissions … and penalties for people who do not consider the environment when building or rebuilding businesses.”

The chairs of the six select committees of MPs who commissioned the Climate Assembly wrote to the prime minister on Monday to say the experience of the coronavirus crisis was likely to make people more receptive to green messages from government.

“In recent months, the UK public has demonstrated its capacity to respond positively and responsibly when they understand the risks posed to them by an invisible threat that demands collective action. We believe that a similar approach, based on securing public support for ambitious policies through open dialogue around the science, is a sound basis for the net zero journey,” they told Boris Johnson in a letter.

Jim Watson, a professor of energy policy at University College London, who spoke to the assembly as an expert, said he was struck by what a “very very strong result” the questions produced. “People are prepared to change,” he said. “[But] they don’t see lifestyle changes in isolation from policy change and what businesses are doing. There is very strong support for the government shaping and directing the economy [towards net zero emissions].”

Their opinions carry no legal weight or official recognition, but the organisers said the assembly members’ views were significant because “there is no other group that is at once a representative sample of the UK population, and well-acquainted with the sorts of measures required to reach net zero”. The assembly met for three weekends in Birmingham early this year, before lockdown, and since then attended three online meetings in April and May.

Citizens’ assemblies have been used in other countries to help guide government decisions on tricky or controversial policy issues, most notably on the 2018 referendum on abortion in Ireland.

Their full findings will be released in September, but an interim report on the impact of the Covid-19 crisis is being published on Tuesday because the government is engaged in working out its economic response to the pandemic. The interim findings will also figure in a report by the committee on climate change this Thursday, which does carry statutory weight, as the government must make a formal response.

Campaigners called on ministers to take note, and plan for a green recovery that would be “mind-blowingly popular”. Muna Suleiman, a climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: “It’s time to push the reset button on our carbon-guzzling and dysfunctional economic system, and prioritise the health and wellbeing of our planet and its people.”

“Now the government has been given an overwhelming mandate for action from the informed public,” said Rosie Rogers of Greenpeace. “[If ministers fail to act] it will be glaringly obvious who they’ve been listening to behind the scenes.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

I’ll take axe to planning laws, says Cummings

Dominic Cummings pledged last night to overhaul the “appalling” planning system as Britain emerges from the coronavirus crisis and heaped praise on Rishi Sunak.

The unelected , unaccountable, “one rule for you, another for me”,  “Disruptor – in – Chief” Dominic Cummings  (who is “focused on developing the policy to respond to the coronavirus crisis” which has been so  successful!) – Owl

Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor www.thetimes.co.uk
The prime minister’s most senior adviser said that there would be no return to austerity and that the government would address “long-term problems” such as the planning system. He denied that there would be a reshuffle and dismissed suggestions that Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, could be moved on as “invented bollocks”.

He repeatedly singled out Mr Sunak, the chancellor, for praise, saying that he has done an “amazing job”.

In his first conference call with government advisers since his alleged breach of lockdown rules, Mr Cummings criticised the media and described Sir Keir Starmer as a “Remainer lawyer”. Mr Cummings criticised positive coverage of Sir Keir since he became the Labour leader. He said that the media had split into the “old Leave and Remain camps”. “They are pissed off we won,” he added.

Cummings also said that Conservative MPs should not believe what they read in the newspapers after a series of backbench revolts, including over his 500-mile round trip to Durham at the height of the lockdown.

He said that he is detatched from day-to-day politics and focused on developing the policy to respond to the coronavirus crisis. As an example, he said that he recently had to ask colleagues in Number 10 who the Liberal Democrat leader is. He said that they did not know either.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Tory ex-planning minister ‘faces probe’ over links to hotel plan firm

An interesting example of “strategic consultancy advice”, another example of “questionable” behaviour. – Owl

See link for full article

Mikey Smith www.mirror.co.uk 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Comments

1 Comment

Another view of “Three Homes” Jenrick’s re-think of planning “from first principles”

“Ministers are expecting a wide-ranging government reshuffle in September in which Boris Johnson will sack key figures who are judged to have underperformed in the Covid-19 crisis….

….Among those seen as vulnerable are education secretary Gavin Williamson, communities secretary Robert Jenrick and work and pensions secretary Thérèse Coffey.” www.theguardian.com 

(Doesn’t mean he can’t do a lot of damage before he goes -Owl)

Housing secretary calls for ‘first principles’ reform of planning system

By Joey Gardiner  10 June www.bdonline.co.uk 

Jenrick’s comments come after reports he is working on radical reform package with Dominic Cummings

Housing secretary Robert Jenrick has said it is time to re-think the planning system “from first principles” following reports at the weekend that the government is considering the introduction of US-style zonal planning in the UK.

Jenrick, commenting on the release of a collection of essays on the planning system by right wing think tank Policy Exchange, said: “The time has come to speed up and simplify this country’s overly bureaucratic planning process”, adding that the government was “thinking boldly and creatively about the planning system to make it fit for the future.”

His comments come after the Sunday Times reported at the weekend that Jenrick has been working with the prime minister’s controversial chief of staff, Dominic Cummings, on a package of radical planning reforms.

Jenrick said: “I want everyone, no matter where in the country they live, to have access to affordable, safe, and high-quality housing, and to live in communities with a real sense of place. It’s time to re-think planning from first principles.”

The changes being discussed are reported to include a move to zonal planning – a system used in some other countries including the US whereby certain uses get automatic right to planning permission in certain areas – alongside a radical deregulation of use classes designed to allow high streets and town centres to adapt to changing uses.

In addition, it was reported that there will be a new fast-track planning system for developers of high quality, well-designed buildings. The changes are seen as part of an economic stimulus package designed to reboot the economy in the wake of the covid-19 crisis.

While Jenrick last night insisted that “high-quality design and sensitivity to the local vernacular must be at the very heart of the process,” his comments are likely to alarm those worried about the impact on development quality of further deregulation of the planning process.

Jenrick has previously called for a “first principles” reform of the planning system, when in March he published a policy paper detailing proposed reforms in advance of a forthcoming white paper, still not published. However, the proposals at that time were not widely seen as radical.

The suggestion from weekend press reports is of reforms that are closer to proposals aired by Policy Exchange in a January paper authored by Jack Airey, who was shortly after appointed as Boris Johnson’s housing advisor in Number 10 Downing Street.

The essays published yesterday by Policy Exchange include contributions from a series of experts seen as influential in the government, including economist Bridget Rosewell, who sits on the National Infrastructure Commission and recently chaired the Independent Review into Planning Appeal Inquiries.

The Sunday Times said that she was part of a panel of experts convened at the weekend to discuss the forthcoming proposals, alongside property developer Stuart Lipton. In her Policy Exchange essay Rosewell proposes abandoning the current “plan-led” planning system, which she says acts as a “straightjacket” on development.

She says: “We must abolish the Plan as a shibboleth, a straitjacket and an industry. […] Abolishing the current planning edifice does not remove the need for frameworks for permissions. Tensions still exist and must be resolved.”

While she says she doesn’t propose moving to a “free-for-all”, with major strategic priorities planned for, nevertheless, “in detail, local interests and local people can fight it out.”

>> Also read: Jenrick vows to implement ‘as much of beauty report as we can’

Jenrick’s March policy paper laid out plans for a modest trial of zonal planning alongside a further expansion of permitted development rights, including over use classes. But even when this was announced, Royal Town Planning Institute chief executive Victoria Hills described it as likely to encourage a piecemeal, short-term approach which “risk poorly designed and inappropriately located housing and will make it more difficult for communities to have a say on development.”

Then Labour housing minister John Healey said the paper was a “threat to give big developers a freer hand to do what they want, ignoring quality, affordability and sustainability”.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Dr Cathy Gardner’s statement to Devon Health Scrutiny

From the Seaton and Colyton Matters blog of County Councillor Martin Shaw. 

[Dr Cathy Gardner is funding a Judicial Review against the Health Secretary through crowdfunding. She has met her first target of £10K, her second target of £50K and has now set a new extended target of £75K. Her action is very much in the public interest please help her to hold the Government to account – Owl]

Dr Cathy Gardner’s statement, which she was unable to make to Devon Health Scrutiny yesterday because of technical difficulties

Posted on June 17, 2020 Updated on June 17, 2020

Here are the notes for the statement which Dr Cathy Gardner tried to make to yesterday’s [16 June] Health & Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting. Due to problems with Microsoft Teams, she couldn’t be heard, and the statement was read out much later in the meeting. This lost much of its impact, although I and other committee members raised some of the issues.

Good morning, my name is Dr Cathy Gardner. I am speaking today because my father died of probable COVID-19 in an Oxfordshire care home

  • Here in Devon, we may have had a lower number of COVID-19 deaths than elsewhere, but it’s still a scandal that we had ANY deaths in care homes 
  • It’s a scandal that half of all recorded COVID-19 deaths in Devon have been in care homes
  • Some of these were people who were infected when patients were discharged from hospital, without any regard for the consequences. Around the country, some patients were discharged to care homes with proven COVID, others had not even been tested.
  • Did this Council act to protect residents rather than simply complying with government orders?  
  • How will the Council respond if it’s challenged by the relatives of those who died?
  • Outbreaks have continued to develop since new guidelines were published on April 15th , why is this?
  • Care homes should be relaxed, secure places – they shouldn’t be used for treatment and recuperation of people with highly infectious diseases.
  • It is not difficult to isolate care homes to protect residents. Regular testing of staff is essential, including agency workers.  Has this Council done all that it can to ensure that this is happening in Devon?
  • The NHS should provide separate ‘step-down’ care for people who need to be discharged from hospital: has the Council helped with this?
  • What is being done to ensure that care home residents are protected NOW and in the future so that no more COVID-19 infected people are moved into care homes? This virus is not going away anytime soon but we can protect the most vulnerable in our society if we want to.
  • Thank you

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Mystery over abandoned car filled with rotting food and Christmas decorations in Budleigh Salterton

An abandoned car full of rotting food and Christmas decorations in Budleigh Salterton has sparked concern for the welfare of its owner.

“A visitor to Budleigh who spotted the car, and wishes to remain anonymous, said: “I just find it astonishing that there’s a car been there for months full of rotting food and someone’s possessions and the council simply treat it as abandoned and the police have nothing to say. It’s absolutely incredible.”

Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk 

The silver Citroen C4 has been left in a car park near Station Road for more than six months, according to notifications left on it.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) says its officers have been unable to contact the vehicle’s registered keeper and it was due to be removed late last week.

Devon and Cornwall Police said its officers were not aware of any logs relating to the car or its owner.

Notifications left on the abandoned car by EDDC warned the vehicle’s owner of its ‘poor state’, calling the condition of the possessions inside ‘hazardous’.

Inside, the car has bags of coloured Christmas baubles, packets of food, minced meat – turned rotten months after it was bought – a carton of milk, festive sweets, and cobwebs

EDDC’s StreetScene team says in its notice that it has made ‘repeated enquiries’ to contact the last-known owner, and any phone calls made were ‘ignored’.

An EDDC spokeswoman said last week: “We are aware of the abandoned vehicle but we have been unable to contact the owner despite following all relevant protocols including, of course, contact with the last registered keeper.

“The vehicle should be removed this week.”

A visitor to Budleigh who spotted the car, and wishes to remain anonymous, said: “I just find it astonishing that there’s a car been there for months full of rotting food and someone’s possessions and the council simply treat it as abandoned and the police have nothing to say. It’s absolutely incredible.

“No-one goes food shopping then abandons their car. It’s not a very old car.

“It looks roadworthy and contains food shopping, Christmas decorations and various possessions.

“The council may be following their procedures for an abandoned car but clearly there is more to it – where is the car’s owner?”

Budleigh

The car seen here with the EDDC notices attached.

Cobwebs, a carton of milk and other items can be seen here inside the car.

 

EDDC

EDDC left notices on the car warning its owner the vehicle was deemed ‘hazardous’.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2020

Posted under

Misc

Government Under Pressure to Cut VAT on Retrofits

www.homebuilding.co.uk 

The government needs to reduce its 20% VAT rate on retrofitting old homes, according to the chief executive of Historic England.

Duncan Wilson was speaking at the Architects Journal’s AJ100 breakfast event, where he questioned retrofitting being taxed at 20% while VAT on new build projects is 0%.

“We have been speaking to the government for quite a long time [about] changing the VAT regime,” said Wilson. “That is something we need all to keep battering away at, because it is somewhat crazy to have 0% on new build and 20% on repair, refurbishment and maintenance.”

Retrofitting a home helps to improve its energy efficiency by adding new technology or features. This process differs from renovating a house or conducting home improvements to make a home more aesthetic.

Wilson’s comments follow an industry-wide push to amend the policy. Green Alliance published a report last week stating the government should cut VAT on retrofits, the Federation of Master Builders (FMB) wants VAT to be reduced to a maximum limit of 5-10%, and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors urged the government earlier this month to reduce VAT to 5%.

The Importance of Retrofitting

Wilson said that around 21% of UK homes are more than 100 years old, and retrofitting homes built before 1990 could be particularly important because these homes have been reported to be four times more likely to require repairs.

He also argued that refurbishing ageing homes to increase their energy efficiency was key to tackling climate change – making your home eco-friendly means you will pump less harmful carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere – and meeting the government’s net zero carbon economy by 2050.

However, Wilson acknowledged that planning rules may have to be altered to ensure retrofitting measures successfully enable energy efficiency.

“There may be planning rules that will get in the way of making buildings significantly more energy-efficient – such as on glazing or curtilage. We are going to have to be more flexible and consider greater degrees of alteration than we previously have,” he said.

How to Make Your Home Energy Efficient

One of the main benefits of retrofitting for homeowners is that it can help to reduce energy bills. And you can retrofit your home in a variety of ways.

Installing insulation and upgrading your boiler to improve your home’s energy rating can increase its value by £25,000. Even quick jobs such as replacing your light bulbs with energy-efficient light bulbs can make a difference.

Insulating your loft and cavity wall can also help to keep heat in, and both external and internal wall insulation could save up to £455 on annual heating bills (according to the Energy Saving Trust).