Littering is an issue for communities up and down the country.

By Tom Gibbon www.inyourarea.co.uk

InYourArea

We’re asking you to take part in our quick questionnaire

Littering is an issue for communities up and down the country.

It’s also something we at InYourArea want taken far more seriously and is why we’ve partnered with Clean Up Britain for the Don’t Trash Our Future campaign.

But while most of us attempt to make the best of the difficult times we all currently find ourselves in, it seems a careless minority still hold the belief that others should clear up after them.

We’re asking you to take part in our quick survey below – or here – to help us understand if littering has got worse during the pandemic, particularly with discarded facemasks becoming a more and more common sight.

You can also help by supporting Don’t Trash Our Future and signing our petition. We’re aiming for 100,000 signatures so we can lobby for changes we and Clean Up Britian believe will help tidy up our country.

The campaign has two main aims – to raise the maximum on-the-spot fine for littering to £1,000 and to make it compulsory that councils enforce the law on littering in their areas.

You can sign the petition here.

Proposals to ‘stitch back together Britain’s tattered natural fabric of wild land’ have been adopted by East Devon District Council (EDDC).

Daniel Clark eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Wildflowers in West Hill. Picture: Claire Wright

Cabinet members last week unanimously backed eight recommendations aimed at improving biodiversity and natural habitats through ‘re-wilding’ and implementing nature recovery corridors.

These will be adopted across the district as part of the authority’s Climate Change Strategy, writes Local Democracy Reporter Daniel Clark.

Members heard the plans are part of a bid to develop a ‘nature recovery network’.

The concept will allow wildlife to thrive and plants, animals, seeds, nutrients and water to move from place to place enabling the natural world to adapt to change.

EDDC’s strategic lead for housing, health and environment John Golding told the meeting that, among the measures, the council would identify a suitable re-wilding site in every East Devon town within a year.

He said in a report: “To recover, wildlife cannot be confined to nature reserves.

“We should create a nature recovery network that extends into every part of our towns, villages and countryside, bringing wildlife and the benefits of a healthy natural world into every part of life.

“Letting flowers bloom along road verges, installing green roofs across our skylines, planting more street trees to give people shady walks in the summer, encouraging whole communities to garden for wild plants and animals – it’s time to stitch back together Britain’s tattered natural fabric of wild land.

“In doing so, we will not only help nature recover, but enable even more people to experience our natural world.”

Mr Golding’s report highlighted existing successes such as Exmouth long grass areas that have been created in Phear Park, Brixington Park and at the St John’s Road playing field.

Wildflower areas established in The Byes, Sidmouth, were also praised.

Mr Golding added: “In some areas we may experience a proliferation of litter, dog mess, and create vision barriers on road verges.

“Re-wilding will not be appropriate at every space and there will always remain a need to keep some areas cut tight with short grass giving a more manicured appearance.”

Councillor Denise Bickley told the meeting: “This is really forward-thinking, focused, and draws so many sources of information together and is easy to follow.

“For relatively little spend, and it could even save us money, with the environment at the fore, we will see improvements.

“We need to be transparent about what we are doing and why we are doing it, as looking after the environment no longer means cutting the grass and keeping it tidy. We are setting a great initiative here.”

Cllr Marianne Rixson added: “Nature has an amazing ability to recover, we just need to give it a chance.”

Ed Dolphin of Sidmouth Arboretum, said: “There is a need for action. The natural environment is in crisis.”

Cabinet members agreed to:

• Extending coverage of nature recovery networks and re-wilding projects, carefully defining our aspirations;
• Working through green spaces identified in the council’s Green Space Plan and assessing whether they are suitable for recovery/re-wilding;
• Identifying a suitable re-wilding site in every East Devon town as an exemplar within a year;
• Identifying areas of housing land suitable for nature recovery and/or re-wilding and consulting with tenants with proposals;
• Mapping and recording areas identified for recovery/re-wilding and monitoring the benefits arising from the process;
• Establishing an improved understanding of the position of fauna and flora species in the district;
• Establishing a campaign to promote the benefits of re-wilding in a range of settings;
• Establishing a project group, adopting the guiding principles, and specifying what constitutes re-wilding and how this can be achieved in the district.

Mr Golding added: “We should operate a properly-orchestrated campaign and actively promote re-wilding, encouraging gardeners and people with small green spaces to participate in re-wilding, recognising the value that all natural spaces can contribute towards the diversification goal.

“We also need to be working with partners and landowners as there are many groups who share our ambitions and we should be working with the Devon Wildlife Trust, Clinton Devon, AONB managers, Jurassic Coast Trust, allotments, farmers to name just a few.

“Collectively there is a large and influential group of partners here that could make a transformational difference to the project, and there are opportunities in people’s private gardens and how they form part of the overall wildlife matrix.”

Guided by the science……………………

1. Choose a start time
2. Select target group
3. Choose a new rule

Boris Johnson’s reputation among Conservative members has plunged to a record low, it has emerged, as the party enters its annual conference facing accusations of a “chumocracy” at the top of government.

[But not all gloom for Boris. Party members’ verdict: not quite as useless as Gavin Williamson – Owl]

Michael Savage www.theguardian.com

With Tory MPs restless over the government’s performance, which has seen it lose a huge poll lead over Labour since the start of the pandemic, the prime minister has recorded his first ever negative satisfaction rating among a survey of Tory members on the ConservativeHome website. He recorded the second-lowest score of any cabinet member, with only education secretary Gavin Williamson performing worse.

The prime minister will attempt to use the virtual party conference this week to try to relaunch his premiership by looking to the programme he wants to pursue beyond the Covid crisis, which has dominated his time in Downing Street.

It comes as his performance has been tested again during a series of regional television interviews, in which he appeared to forget key facts about his hospital spending programme and struggled to explain how residents across the north of England should regard the local Covid 19 restrictions they face.

Asked how much hospital investment would come to Leeds during an interview with BBC Yorkshire’s Look North, Johnson scrambled for notes on the floor and asked aides for the figure before apologising for not having it to hand.

He also appeared to struggle to explain the rules in different parts of the north west, during another disjointed interview with ITV Granada Reports. Asked whether or not certain activities were allowed, he suggested people did not have to strictly follow local lockdown rules as long as they “show common sense”.

Asked if someone in Wirral could go for a walk in the park with someone from another house, Johnson said it could be all right as long as they used social distancing. However, the interviewer pointed out that social mixing between households in the area was against government advice.

Johnson added: “Provided people show common sense and they look on the local websites – that is the best way to get this virus down.”

Johnson is facing concerns from different wings of his party. While the libertarian wing is increasingly concerned that Covid restrictions remain too severe, figures on the modernising wing are concerned about radical plans to breach international law regarding the European Union, and to confront the BBC – an agenda they attribute to Johnson’s senior adviser, Dominic Cummings.

Jesse Norman, a Treasury minister, warned that Conservatives should be wary of tearing down institutions. “The difficulty with the revolutionary position is that human beings are remarkably bad at making radical decisions that prove to be wise in the long term,” he told the Bright Blue think tank’s magazine. “Conservatism also means acknowledging that institutions are wiser than individuals. You could look at many institutions and call them relics of a bygone era, or you could see them for what they are, the product of innumerable compromises that contain a great deal of knowledge and wisdom.”

Justine Greening, the former education secretary, writes in the Observer today that many voters still regarded the Tories as being “dominated by the voices of privilege and chumocracy, more than those representing the party of effort and reward; that it protects the monied, vested interests that bankroll the party, ahead of the interests of the public; that too often government roles seem handed out based on who knows whom, rather than who knows what”.

However, other senior figures in the party are trying to take a longer-term view. “Looking back at the things we’ve gone through in the last 18 months, some of them feel like 18 years ago,” said one minister. “By the spring, if Covid is looking better, the economy is picking up and the Bond movie is finally out, things could look very different.”

Johnson’s team are keen to return to the themes he backed during his early weeks in power, such as the “levelling up” agenda. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Commons leader, has written to the cabinet to ask for “bold and ambitious bills” ahead of the next Queen’s speech in the spring.

The programme is set to include a criminal justice bill, a controversial planning bill to speed up development and house building, an animal welfare bill and a plan to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act – a move that will again give No 10 control over the timing of the next election.

A No 10 spokesman said: “The prime minister has been clear that we will not be blown off course in our plans to build back better, and that’s just what our next Queen’s speech will do.”

A new three-tier lockdown system is being planned for England, with leaked government documents paving the way for potential harsher restrictions including the closure of pubs and a ban on all social contact outside of household groups.

Heather Stewart http://www.theguardian.com 

The draft traffic-light-style plan, seen by the Guardian, is designed to simplify the current patchwork of localised restrictions, which apply to about a quarter of the UK. It also reveals tougher measures that could be imposed by the government locally or nationally if Covid cases are not brought under control.

On Sunday the number of cases jumped by 22,961 after it emerged that more than 15,000 test results had not previously been transferred on to computer systems, including for contact tracers.

Called the “Covid-19 Proposed Social Distancing Framework” and dated 30 September, it has not yet been signed off by No 10 and measures could still be watered down.

Alert level 3 – the most serious – contains tougher measures than any seen so far in local lockdowns since the start of the pandemic. They include:

• Closure of hospitality and leisure businesses.
• No social contact outside your household in any setting.
• Restrictions on overnight stays away from home.
• No organised non-professional sports permitted or other communal hobby groups and activities, such as social clubs in community centres.
• Places of worship can remain open.

Schools are not mentioned in the draft. A government source said this was because Boris Johnson had made clear that classroom closures would be a last resort and the reopening of schools was considered within Whitehall to have been a relative success.

Any attempts to impose more stringent measures are expected to provoke renewed anger among Conservative backbenchers, who are likely to demand a vote in parliament should they come into force.

A government source said the measures in the draft document, particularly those under alert level 3, had not been finalised and the document still needed to be approved by ministers in the Covid-operations committee and by the prime minister.

Marked “official – sensitive”, it says the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) has advised that a package of measures, rather than single changes, will be most effective in controlling the spread of the virus.

“Preventing household mixing and closing businesses and venues in which there is close social interaction was recommended as the best way to reduce R,” it says, referring to the rate of infection that the government aims to keep below 1.

The three-tier system should improve compliance with the rules: “Research tells us that people would welcome a clearer and simpler structure to the advice and rules that they should follow,” it says, acknowledging that “many people do not have a clear understanding of the rules that apply to them”.

The document says that alert level 3 would be “triggered in geographical areas or nationally when alert level 2 measures have not contained the spread of the virus, or where there has been a significant rise in transmission”.

Under alert level 2, people must not meet others outside of their household in private dwellings or gardens, apart from their support bubble, or in pubs, restaurants or other settings. Level 2 will be “triggered in geographical areas or nationally when there has been a rise in transmission, which cannot be contained through local responses”.

Visiting care homes will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances and travel should be limited to essential purposes, though holidays are permitted within households.

People can continue to play organised team sports. Weddings are limited to 15 attendees and receptions would not be permitted, with funeral numbers also slashed from 30 to 15 attendees.

Alert level 1 contains restrictions currently in place across England, including the “rule of six” for gatherings indoor and out, the wearing of face-coverings, the 10pm curfew on hospitality businesses and numbers limited to 15 at weddings and 30 at funerals.

A Whitehall source said the levels were intended to be “minimum standards” and specific local circumstances would also be taken into account.

Downing Street declined to comment. A government source said it was an “early draft and proposals are still being considered by ministers”.

The shadow health secretary, Jon Ashworth, said Labour had long called for a simplification of the rules and said ministers must now make clear the criteria that would be applied to put areas into different alert levels.

“Vast swathes of the north of England and the Midlands are under a form of lockdown with a myriad of different rules applying,” Ashworth said. “In recent days, Boris Johnson got himself into an utter muddle over these rules, confirming that the ad hoc way in which decisions are made causes confusion.”

Johnson recently had to apologise for suggesting people could meet in pub gardens in north-east England after misinterpreting the rules – a mistake that a cabinet minister blamed on a “gotcha” question.

Ashworth said that the lockdowns meant “unanswered questions about the upcoming school half-term or Christmas” and said that families needed to know their area was being treated fairly and getting support.

“Keir Starmer has called for clear criteria to apply when an area goes into lockdown and how it escapes. Ministers are now admitting how confusing their approach has been,” he said.

A Department of Health spokesman said: “We are seeing coronavirus cases rise at a rapid rate across the country and, given how serious this virus is, it is vital everyone plays their part by following the rule of six, washing their hands, practising social distancing and wearing a mask in enclosed spaces.

“As we have shown, we are prepared to take action decisively when it is necessary, and it is of course right to look how we make sure everyone understands and complies with the restrictions that will keep us all safe.”

The ERS and groups representing elderly voters and BME communities are warning that mandatory voter ID risks pulling up the drawbridge to thousands of voters, after the government confirmed plans to impose the ‘show your papers’ policy.

Author: Electoral Reform Society www.electoral-reform.org.uk 

In the government’s response to the Electoral Commission’s reports on last year’s elections – out this week – Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith confirmed she plans to push ahead with imposing mandatory voter ID, writing: “We are concentrating on the promises we made in our manifesto including to ensure electoral integrity by introducing voter ID and bringing forward changes to strengthen postal vote processes and to equalise constituencies amongst other changes.”

The report responds to a challenge from the Association of Electoral Administrators which argued that voter ID was unnecessarily ‘introducing more complexity’ to an ‘already creaking system’.

There was just one proven case of personation fraud, out of millions of votes cast in the UK last year, according to the Electoral Commission.

Today, we are urging the government to re-think the voter ID policy.

We know that the government’s voter-ID proposals will disproportionately hit older voters, people of colour, and those on low-incomes. Experience from the US shows that when there’s no universal ID scheme, these laws unfairly – and often deliberately – lock millions out of the ballot box, skewing the system and deepening political inequalities. We must not import US-style voter suppression to the UK.

Voting is a right and one you shouldn’t have to opt into. Rather than pulling up the drawbridge to large groups of voters, ministers should deal with bringing in the nine million people who are missing from the electoral register, and the dangerous loopholes in our analogue-age election laws.

Given the huge potential for disenfranchisement, it is deeply worrying that ministers see imposing voter ID as a priority – rather than reforming Westminster’s warped voting system or unelected House of Lords. When it comes to Britain’s democratic crisis, this isn’t just fiddling while Rome burns – it’s pouring petrol on the flames. It’s vital that ministers think again before driving another wedge into our already-unequal politics.

Dennis Reed, Director of Silver Voices, which represents people over-60s, told the news outlet Byline: “We fear this is a ‘Trumpian’ manoeuvre to limit voting by those who are not natural Government supporters – i.e. the most deprived members of communities, including senior citizens in poverty.”

Josh Bradlow, policy manager at Stonewall, added: “LGBT people – particularly those who are working-class, older, disabled, and people of colour – are more likely than the general population to live in poverty or experience homelessness, which can create significant obstacles to obtaining photo ID. Many trans and non-binary people also may not have ID matching their gender.”

Anti-racism group Hope Not Hate described mandatory voter ID as “a cure that is worse than the sickness.” 

A spokesperson for Liberty added: “The Government has given us plenty of reasons to be wary of its digital projects. Recent months have seen backtracks over the planned contract tracing app and exams algorithm, and only last year the Home Office had to apologise to EU nationals and Windrush citizens in the space of a week for data breaches.”

BME groups have also accused the government of importing US-style voter suppression.

Last year’s voter ID pilots in just a handful of council areas saw over 700 people turned away and not return – effectively being denied a vote.

The government may have also misled Parliament over the policy. A series of Freedom of Information requests revealed that government departments do not know who will be hardest hit by mandatory voter ID plans, despite ministers repeatedly claiming that “the evidence shows there is no impact on any particular demographic group.”

This policy risks turning thousands of election workers into bouncers at the ballot box – the government needs to re-think the voter ID policy.

Sign our petition to protect your right to vote

Coronavirus looks set to have a lasting impact on office use, new figures from the Institute of Directors reveal.

Institute of Directors www.iod.com 

In a survey of close to a thousand company directors conducted last month, nearly three quarters (74%) said they would be keeping increased home-working after coronavirus. Furthermore, more than half of those polled said their organisation intended to reduce their long-term use of workplaces. More than one in five reported their usage would be significantly lower.

Among those who had been using their workplace less before the change in Government recommendation last month, more than four in ten said that working from home was proving more effective than their previous set-up.

Business leaders surveyed had been making a number of other adjustments during the pandemic that they intended to keep in place. 43% had embraced greater use of flexible working such as compressed hours, while over a fifth had moved a service they provided online.

The IoD warned that the prospect of increased home-working over the long-term could raise legal questions around employers’ responsibilities for staff outside the office. The Institute also argued that the Government should take a number of steps to help SMEs and the economy adapt to increased home-working:

• Improve SME tax incentives, enabling more small firms to harness new digital technologies and bolster the productivity of home-working. This could be achieved by expanding the scope of R&D tax reliefs, as proposed in the 2019 Conservative Manifesto.
• Improve access to leadership and management training, to reduce concerns around the potential impact of remote working on productivity and employee wellbeing. Boosting management skills could be one target of the National Skills Fund.
• Lower employment costs, particularly Employers’ NICs to encourage job creation among businesses and help more firms retain staff. This could be done by increasing the Employment Allowance or raising the threshold for paying National Insurance Contributions. 

958 company directors were surveyed between 11-31 September.

Roger Barker, Director of Policy at the IoD, said:

“Remote working has been one of the most tangible impacts of coronavirus on the economy. For many, it could be here to stay.

“Working from doesn’t work for everyone, and directors must be alive to the downsides. Managing teams remotely can prove far from straightforward, and directors must make sure they are going out of their way to support employees’ mental wellbeing.

“The UK has long needed to up its game when it comes to management skills, and the pandemic has only made this more pressing. It’s crucial that the Government targets this key area, ensuring businesses and their people can make use of accessible courses that reflect their skills needs.

“Any remote-working set-up is only as good as the technology that enables it. Alongside continued investment in digital infrastructure, the Government should give small firms the headroom to invest in the latest equipment and software. The restrictions have spurred significant innovation, but low revenues and high costs could put a lid on this.

“The benefits of the office haven’t gone away. For many companies, bringing teams together in person proves more productive and enjoyable. Shared workspace often provides employees the opportunity for informal development and networking that is so crucial, particularly early on in a career.

“Looking ahead, it seems more and more companies will take a blended approach to where they work. Any transition can cause challenges, and the Government should look to ease this. In the long run, greater flexibility could benefit both business and worker alike. However, it’s crucial that the legal and economic implications of this change are grappled with from the start.”

Full survey results

958 respondents, conducted between 11-31 September 2020.

Relative to before the COVID-19 pandemic, which of the following best describes your organisation’s intended level of ‘workplace’ use in the long-term?

	Total	Office based (inc. ICT, financial services)
Significantly more	2%	1%
Slightly more	4%	3%
No change	30%	24%
Slightly less	32%	33%
Significantly less	21%	26%
Don’t know	1%	1%
NA	10%	10%

Have you made any of the following changes to your organisation due to the pandemic that you intend to now keep in place?

Increased working from home	74%
Increased flexible working (e.g. flexitime/staggered hours/compressed hours)	43%
Moved operations to digital platforms	26%
Moved product/services to digital platforms	21%
Created a new product/service	21%
Other	8%
Diversified supply chains	7%
Onshored operations/supply chains	2%

621 respondents, conducted 11-24 September:

Which of the following are the main reasons for the current reduced use of your workplace? 

Concerns around infection at workplaces	65%
Working from home is proving more effective	44%
Prospect for further waves/lockdown	34%
Concern around use of public transport	33%
Due to a reduction in operations	17%
Issues around childcare	15%
Cost of adjusting workplaces	9%