Eileen Wragg, East Devon district councillor, writes for the Exmouth Journal.

EILEEN WRAGG www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

It is sometimes surprising how people and groups from different sectors can, with commitment, join forces and work together, and achieve results which work for the benefit of others.

I recall becoming aware of the unfair charges levied on water customers following the privatisation of the water industry in 1989, when companies replaced the water authorities, issuing shares which ensured investment in the world of water supply and sewage treatment for good financial returns.

This was not good for the six per cent domestic customer base who were supplied with meters in the early 1990s, of which I was one, and I quickly realised that my water bill was almost double that of unmetered customers who could use limitless amounts of water for a fixed price, while I had to ration my family’s use.

I eventually began a campaign against South West Water’s (SWW) charges, which grew into a national movement, attracting huge press, radio and television coverage.

The results were surprising, SWW was receiving hostile publicity which was feared to be affecting its investors and share dividends, so it decided to set up a Devon and Cornwall Customer Consultative Group, of which I became chair, and then a Special Assistance Fund which helped customers in water debt – that later became WaterSure, now outsourced to Citizens Advice.

Along with other customers, we worked well together with the company, for the mutual benefit of both sides.

Now, customers are being offered the choice of shares in SWW, or a £20 discount on their bills.

What a long way we’ve come!

The outcome personally was that I was asked to stand for local elections in 1996, and the rest is history, albeit still in the making.

I am still a Liberal Democrat district councillor, and in the spring this year, the Democratic Alliance was formed with the East Devon Alliance, Greens, Lib Dems and an Independent joining together, breaking over 45 years of Tory rule at East Devon District Council.

I am delighted to report that we now have a healthy administration and work extremely well together in a truly harmonious way.

As the late MP Jo Cox said in her maiden speech: “There is far more that unites us, and we have more in common than things that divide.”

“… the Health Secretary, ‘in trademark pantomime dame-style, cracked a gag about how he’d stand everybody a drink but as PHE was keeping a count, he’d never have to pay up. It did get quite a laugh’.”

By Brendan Carlin Glen Owen for The Mail on Sunday www.dailymail.co.uk 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock was last night accused of breaking his own Covid curfew by drinking in a Commons bar beyond 10pm – where he made a crass joke about the Government’s test and trace failings. 

Mr Hancock arrived at the bar just before a 9.40pm vote, ordered a glass of white wine and announced: ‘The drinks are on me – but Public Health England are in charge of the payment methodology so I will not be paying anything.’ 

His ill-conceived joke came after he had tried to explain to the Commons why the quango had lost nearly 16,000 positive coronavirus tests – a fiasco which Labour claimed had put ‘lives at risk’. 

A senior Tory MP told The Mail on Sunday that Mr Hancock remained in the Smoking Room bar until at least 10.25pm, despite Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle insisting that Commons venues must abide by the same 10pm drink-up-and-leave curfew as all English pubs. 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock was last night accused of breaking his own Covid curfew by drinking in a Commons bar beyond 10pm – where he made a crass joke about the Government’s test and trace failings

In a carefully worded statement last night, a spokesman for the Health Secretary said: ‘No rules have been broken. 

‘The Secretary of State was in the Smoking Room prior to the vote that evening. 

‘The Secretary of State left the Smoking Room to vote. The vote took place at 9:42pm. ‘The Secretary of State then departed the Parliamentary estate to go home.’ 

Asked whether Mr Hancock had returned to the bar after voting and before he went home, the spokesman failed to respond. 

The Health Secretary is seen as the leading pro-lockdown ‘dove’ in the Cabinet, enthusiastically backing the curfew measures. 

Mr Hancock arrived at the bar just before a 9.40pm vote and ordered a glass of white wine

This is increasingly angering ‘hawks’ such as Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who fear the lasting economic damage being caused by stringent Covid rules. 

Other Tory MPs present in the Smoking Room on Monday have privately admitted still being in the room with drinks on their table after 10pm. 

Last night, Charles Walker, the Tory MP overseeing Commons bars, promised an investigation into claims that the curfew was not being observed. 

Mr Walker, chairman of the Commons’ Administration Committee, told The Mail on Sunday that he would now be ‘talking to senior management within the catering department’. 

He insisted it was up to fellow MPs to obey the rules, not rely on staff to tell them. 

But he added that if alcoholic drinks ‘are being consumed in our bars after 10pm, then those instances need to stop’. 

Last night the Health Secretary was under pressure to apologise over his ‘tasteless’ joke about Public Health England (PHE). 

Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ Health spokesman, said: ‘If these tasteless remarks are accurate, he must apologise. Matt Hancock has no shame. 

‘Thanks to his incompetence, we have a failing test-and-trace system which has left thousands mourning loved ones and millions worrying about their livelihoods as they face yet further lockdown measures. 

‘Instead of taking responsibility, he’s making jokes at their expense and blaming everyone for his incompetence. The British public will not forget.’ 

Mr Hancock’s spokesman declined to comment on the remark, which came just a few hours after the Minister faced a barrage of questions in the Commons over PHE’s failure to report 15,841 positive coronavirus tests in England, and fears that it meant 50,000 potentially infectious people had failed to be reached by contract tracers. 

Mr Hancock admitted the blunder ‘should never have happened.’ 

The extraordinary allegations that he broke the curfew come as Boris Johnson faces a mounting Tory rebellion over the rules, which critics claim are ineffective and killing jobs and businesses without stopping the spread of the virus. 

Sources say Mr Hancock joined about 20 other MPs in the Smoking Room on Monday evening, where he ordered a glass of French sauvignon blanc and made his joke. 

One person present described how the Health Secretary, ‘in trademark pantomime dame-style, cracked a gag about how he’d stand everybody a drink but as PHE was keeping a count, he’d never have to pay up. It did get quite a laugh.’ 

Mr Hancock left the room for a 9.42pm vote, but one person present claimed that Mr Hancock had later returned and stayed beyond 10pm. 

Another, more junior, Minister ordered a bottle of wine at 9.59pm and stayed drinking it with colleagues, the source said. 

Mr Hancock is also said to have ordered a large glass of white wine not long before the bar shut at 10pm and then stayed on to drink it. 

‘He wasn’t the only one – some people were still ordering bottles of wine right up to the deadline,’ said one MP. 

‘However, it was extraordinary that at 10.25pm our Health Secretary – the man who maybe more than Boris himself has lectured the nation about respecting the Covid rules – was knocking back a glass of vino when out in the real world, drinkers and diners had been kicked out of pubs and restaurants across England. 

‘Everyone is panicking and trying to cover for Matt, but I know what I saw and I can tell the time.’

Britain is set to be left without an environment watchdog to replace the EU’s at the end of the Brexit transition period, because of government “dither and delay” over legislation.

www.independent.co.uk

Ministers’ flagship Environment Bill was supposed to establish a new enforcement structure for environmental regulations in time for the end of December, when EU rules stop applying.

But repeated delays to the legislation mean there is no longer enough parliamentary time for the bill to pass into law before 1 January – leaving a gaping chasm in environmental enforcement.

Environmental groups said the bill was “the most important piece of environmental law of the last decade” and that the delays would likely lead to extra environmental harm.  

“Boris Johnson’s government seems to be treating the Environment Bill like an essay crisis,” said Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK.

“Delaying this vital piece of legislation until the last minute could lead to less scrutiny, fewer chances to improve it and a cliff edge in the environmental safeguards and their enforcement once EU rules no longer apply.”

She called for a “powerful, independent watchdog that can hold ministers’ feet to the fire when it comes to protecting the living world”.      

After the resumption of parliamentary business in the summer, bills on immigration, trade, pensions, and the Commonwealth Games were all brought back before MPs – but the environment bill has yet to be so.

The government has extended the bill’s timetable three times, and Labour says the latest schedule means MPs will not be able to give it detailed scrutiny until 1 December – the start of a process that takes months.

Luke Pollard, Labour’s shadow environment secretary, said: “The government’s dither and delay highlights a worrying lack of focus on the urgent need to protect our environment. We cannot afford any more government incompetence. Ministers need to act now.”

The government says it is committed to resuming passage of the bill. A Defra spokesperson said: “We are committed to a greener future, which is why we are setting ambitious goals for nature and biodiversity in our landmark Environment Bill, as well as introducing new ways to reward farmers for protecting the environment and investing £640m in the Nature for Climate Fund.

“We remain the first major economy to legislate for net zero, and as we build back greener from the coronavirus pandemic we are committed to shaping a cleaner and more resilient society.”

The UK left the EU earlier this year, but the Brexit transition period under which all EU rules continue to apply to Britain is set to end on 31 December. The EU and UK are trying to negotiate a free trade agreement before this date to facilitate trade. 

Meddling with Brexit, mulling a new leader – the Tories will do literally anything except reflect on their Covid response

Marina Hyde www.theguardian.com 

Another week, another opportunity to wonder if the country has slipped through a tear in the government-Covid continuum. It was back in March, you might recall, that Boris Johnson explained we would turn the tide on the coronavirus in 12 weeks, despite the fact that people as clinically clueless as even me could see that would not be the case. This was partly why so many Britons went into a deep psychiatric decline a fortnight ago, when Johnson suddenly dropped the “six months of restrictions” bomb. Given his history of hopelessly optimistic margins of error, that could mean we’ll be out of the woods as early as 2036.

Apologies for jumping around the timeline. Having forecast the tide-turning, Johnson then explained of the virus that he was “absolutely confident” that we could “send it packing in this country”. Strangely, it still appears to be with us. Then again, perhaps we and Johnson understand different things by the phrase “sent packing”. For many years, Johnson’s experience of being “sent packing” meant he was readmitted to the family home in fairly short order, allowing him to make some more promises to break when he next felt like it. If it helps, think of the virus as the sexually incontinent husband in the nation’s spare room. “You have to believe me, love – I’ve CHANGED.”

Anyhow, the prime minister’s next unforced decision to make himself a hostage to fortune came in July, when he announced we could be moving away from social-distancing measures by November, with “a more significant return to normality” possible in time for Christmas. And yet, as we approach the midpoint of October, and with apologies for sliding into epidemiological technicalese … are we bollocks.

On Thursday, Nadine Dorries – an absolute primo candidate for being against all restrictions were she not greasy-poleing it as junior health minster – warned that ICUs risk being overwhelmed in 10 days time, while some Sage members cast our current situation as equivalent to the crucial (and squandered) mid-March moment.

Nevertheless, the government dithers. Restrictions are coming, yet the restrictions have not quite come. We learn about the future from newspaper leaks, which is also where local mayors and authorities glean information as to what central government has decided for them. A totally self-defeating time-lag seems to be the government’s comfort zone. The decisive action that many believe is required is once again deferred, in order to manage aspects of the politics. Because of that, much more draconian measures than would otherwise have been necessary become unavoidable further down the line. Once again, we are behind the curve, falling between every stool.

Why does this keep happening? Unfortunately, we won’t know, because despite the entreaties from political friends as well as those on the other side of the divide, Johnson’s administration resisted absolutely all suggestions that it should hold a brisk inquiry into how we handled the first wave of coronavirus, in order that we might be better prepared going into the second.

This does seem a puzzle, given that it is supposed to be a highly sophisticated, data-driven government, at least according to that chief incel to the prime minister, Dominic Cummings. Indeed, without wishing to put the cat among the skunkworks, it’s almost as if the government can’t face any form of self-awareness. Analysis-wise, we’re on the level of the armchair football pundit whose verdict is that England just didn’t play with enough “passion” during the first wave. At the end of the day, the virus just wanted it more.

The period we might have used to interrogate the first-wave response was instead lavished on such things as relitigating even the bits of Brexit they had agreed to, and deciding to reorganise the civil service.

Perhaps displacement activities are cheaper by the dozen. Because the other topic of conversation in Westminster is the Tory succession – born of the fact that Johnson isn’t working out as some in his party had hoped. Remember: there is literally NO time the Conservative party would regard as “not really the moment, babe” for a discussion about who’s best placed to lead it next. There is honestly no horseman of the apocalypse who could be charging us down in a manner so ferocious it would preclude the discussion. A nuclear ash cloud could be falling and people would be going “in the tearoom, there is concern about whether Gove has that quality to reach beyond the nutter base”, or “Rishi gets it: he always returns calls and really seems to listen”.

Or to put it another way, you could be staring down the barrel of a deadly pandemic winter and people would still be volunteering opinions like, “I actually think it’ll play well for her that Priti always looks like a firstborn toddler unable to conceal her delight at having finally done it in the potty.”

At some level, you have to marvel at this Conservative unit’s regenerative capacity. No matter how badly it implodes, it somehow gets back up again and rebuilds itself while it’s walking back towards you, twice as pissed off as it was before. If only it applied the same urgency to protecting those it was elected to serve – but of course, one can’t have everything.

• Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist

Hannah Corfield sidmouth.nub.news 

A community-focussed café in Sidmouth’s town centre is disputing a decision to prohibit the continued use of a stretch of pavement for outdoor seating.

A temporary pavement licence was issued to The Dairy Shop on Church Street back in July, as a special measure to help the local hospitality sector reopen after lockdown.

Devon County Council Highways Management who hold responsibility for pavement licensing have rejected an application for the permit to be renewed.

Having relied on the extra seating for the past three months, the decision came as a shock to business owner, John Hammond, who told us: “Having tables and chairs outside of our small café space, in this current climate of fear around coronavirus, is crucial for us.

“The arrangement has worked perfectly well up to now – enabling us to stay afloat as a business – providing jobs and serving the local community throughout the pandemic.

“Sidmouth Town Council has also actively supported our cause and spoken out about the ‘unfair’ refusal.”

In response, a Devon County Council spokesperson said: “The footway in this location is restricted and it’s unusual to grant a licence on the opposite side of the road from a premises.

“But, because it was within social distancing measures being promoted by the Town Council, and had the support of the local member Councillor Stuart Hughes, we made an exception in this case and a provisional licence was granted until the end of September.

“Unfortunately, the applicant then placed additional seating outside the agreed area.

“We advised him that further breaches would lead to the licence being revoked and asked that the extra seating be removed.

“Then, outside of what was agreed, the removed seating was put back and additional parasols were added to the tables.

“This resulted in several complaints being received by the Authority, which impacted on adjacent businesses and effectively reduced the width of the highway.

“It is not a ‘right’ to occupy the highway, but a concession granted by the Highway Authority for community benefit.”

TOP STORY in Today’s Western Morning News:  The Westcountry stands to lose hundreds of acres of countryside under concrete if proposed Government changes to the way housing need is calculated go ahead, a rural pressure group warns today, reports Philip Bowern.

Countryside groups in Devon and Cornwall are demanding changes to the Government’s proposed shake-up of planning laws, warning it will lead to the concreting over of large parts of the region’s rural acres.

The CPRE countryside charity branches in both counties are joining forces to protest at the shake-up, which is part of the Prime Minister’s plan to re-build Britain after coronavirus and solve the housing crisis.

Cornwall CPRE chair Richard Stubbs has already warned a one-size-fits all policy leaves the county open to a developers’ free-for-all.

Now research from neighbouring Devon CPRE shows that the algorithm devised by ministers to replace local input into setting levels of housing need will see a 60% increase in the number of properties built in the Devon countryside.

Some of the most beautiful landscapes, in the South Hams, Teignbridge, North Devon, Mid-Devon and East Devon would be hardest it, the CPRE’s director in Devon Penny Mills warns.

She said: “To deliver the type of homes we need at the pace we need them, the government should abandon centralised housing targets and ensure planning remains locally led, with local authorities and communities empowered to have a say in what gets built where.”

Conservative MPs, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and her former deputy, Damian Green – both now on the back benches – have also warned against the policy change.

Mrs May told a House of Commons debate it would fail to deliver the homes needed.

Councillors “not going quietly” accusations of “bullying and intimidation”  and “gagging” – Where has Owl heard this sort of thing before?

More council “goings on”.

Edward Oldfield www.plymouthherald.co.uk

Two senior councillors have been suspended from the Conservative group on Plymouth City Council.

They are former group leader Ian Bowyer, who represents Eggbuckland, and Peverell councillor Tony Carson who is chair of the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Conservative Association.

The action has been taken by new leader Nick Kelly, who took over from Cllr Bowyer earlier this year.

Cllr Kelly refused to comment, saying it was an internal group matter.

The reason for the suspensions has not been confirmed.

The action follows a press release issued by Cllr Bowyer in September in which he and Cllr Carson called for the speed limit on the A38 in Plymouth to be reduced.

It is understood that the views do not represent local Conservative policy.

Both councillors have now been suspended from the city council’s Conservative group pending an investigation.

Cllr Kelly said: “This is an internal group matter and in view of this we are not going to discuss such matters publicly at this time.”

Cllr Bowyer was first elected for Eggbuckland in 2006 and was the leader of the city council for two years until Labour regained control in 2018.

Cllr Carson is a former member of the council’s Conservative shadow cabinet.

Cllr Carson and Cllr Bowyer declined to comment on their suspension and referred inquiries to the group leader.

The Labour administration tightened their grip on the council at the local elections in 2019, with 30 seats.The Conservatives were left on 25 and there are two Independents.

Elections for 19 seats, including Cllr Carson’s in the Peverell ward, are due to take place in May 2021.

The vote was postponed from May 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The city council usually holds elections for a third of the seats in each of three years, with a break in the fourth year of the cycle.

EDDC Leader Paul Arnott speaks to all of us in his debut column in the “new look” local press.

PAUL ARNOTT www.exmouthjournal.co.uk 

Paul Anrott talks about how East Devon has responded to the coronavirus pandemic in his first column. Picture: Paul Anrott/GettyImages

A view from East Devon Council leader Paul Arnott

I’d just like to begin this debut column by thanking the publishers for this opportunity. A free press is the hallmark of any democracy and I wish the new direction that this paper is taking the very best of luck.

Of course, we all know that most of our national newspapers are owned by an assorted clutch of off-shore billionaires, and despite their claims not to meddle with their papers’ editorial line, they blatantly do.

But I think readers are smart enough to see this. They buy a newspaper which – by and large – reflects their own views. Local papers, however, are to my mind much more important in helping citizens hear about and understand the democracy in the places where they live.

Many might pick up a paper for the youth football results, news of a successful charity jumble sale, or just to buy a car.

But when the chips are down those same people will want to hear about a proposed by-pass, or why their public loos have not been fully opened during Covid-19, or the reasons for some town councillors to be doing battle over funding for a new football pitch.

However, equally there must be room for good news too. In recent months we have come to understand that more than ever.

The way in which our East Devon towns and villages have dug in and helped our neighbours since March is well worth celebrating.

As we head into another rocky period all those same generous attributes will doubtless come to the fore again.

In a way we are living through a period of historic importance, and as both a private person and as leader of the district council, I have been overwhelmed by the many examples of kindness I have seen.

This will guarantee that when the history of 2020 is written, how we conducted ourselves as a society and the altruism on display will be greatly to our credit.

All this has made me feel very fortunate to live where we do, but also very mindful that people have been experiencing the lockdown phase in very different ways.

For some, and famously, it has been a period of learning to bake sour dough loaves, walking to places we didn’t know were on our own doorstep, and the very moving period of Thursday evening rounds of applause for workers in the NHS. In short, many have had one of the most remarkable summers of our lives.

For many others, however, it has been a fearful time. Those in protected categories were terrified for months even to leave their homes. Those in the tourism and hospitality sectors – for whom Easter and late spring contribute a vital part of their annual income – felt real hunger until lockdown was eased further in the summer.

In early March – when I could see what lay ahead – I felt that this was inevitably a two-year problem to be treated economically like a war. The Exchequer would have to do what must be done to keep as many jobs going as possible, and where that could not happen ensure that good local people did not slip into often concealed poverty and debt. This was how community spirit was preserved from 1939-1945.

In 1996, the then Chancellor Ken Clarke announced – in his final budget before the Blair era began – that he was pleased to say we had just paid off the debt for World War Two. Fifty years on! Most of that had been accrued by war loans from the USA and the manufacture of weapons and instruments of death.

Now we need to look at how we can finance a recovery with a similar financial instrument – but this time towards greener homes, sustainable and well-trained jobs, and even the possibility of a national wage.

We are about to learn that we cannot save ourselves by community spirit alone.

“the handling of the pandemic represents the most egregious failure of British governance in living memory.” Professor Sir Ivor Crewe, from an essay entitled, “Points of failure, lessons for the future”.

Building a resilient state: A collection of essays by:

Deborah Cadman OBE, Professor Sir Ivor Crewe, Professor Ian Goldin, Andy Haldane, Suzanne Hall, Danny Kruger MBE MP, Rt Hon Baroness Nicky Morgan, Professor Nick Pearce, Charlotte Pickles, Dr Rod Thornton and Dr Marina Miron, Rt Hon Lord William Wallace

Published by Reform the Whitehall think tank for public reform – October 2020 

All the essays are worth reading: Owl posts just one:

Points of failure, lessons for the future

Professor Sir Ivor Crewe

Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan in 1651 in the aftermath of the chaos of the English Civil War. A revised edition appeared in 1668, shortly after the Great Plague of 1665-66 had killed 100,000 in London alone, and the Great Fire had devasted the Medieval city. Leviathan was the precursor of the theory of the modern state as a social contract: the establishment of a single, unified sovereign, with absolute power over its subjects, was necessary to transcend the “state of nature” in which a “war of all against all” would render people’s lives “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

The foremost purpose of the modern, democratic state is the security and welfare of its population, notably protection from the ravages of civil disorder, external threat, natural disasters, and epidemics. In return the population pays taxes, obeys the law, complies with regulations and (in the past) accepted military conscription and rationing among other impositions.

The UK State has had a creditable record since World War II. It repulsed a German invasion, maintained a liberal democratic order, rebuilt the economy and constructed the welfare state. The pre-war scourges of destitution, mass unemployment and epidemics did not return, although occasionally it was a close-run thing.

Governments have dealt effectively with the lesser-scale emergencies of floods, mad cow disease and terrorism, which appears to be contained. The jury is out on climate change, which is work in progress.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the gravest threat to the health and livelihoods of the British people since 1945. It poses the most demanding test of the State’s resilience and good governance in our lifetime. Any judgement of its performance should be tempered by recognition of the speed with which the pandemic spread, unavoidable uncertainty about the character and trajectory of this novel virus, and the exceptionally high-stakes trade-off between protecting public health and sustaining businesses and employment.

Moreover, a full and detailed account of the Government’s major decisions is not available and what currently appear to be errors and deficiencies may be vindicated in retrospect.

Despite these caveats, the handling of the pandemic represents the most egregious failure of British governance in living memory. The major failures include:

•         The continuing lack of a clear and coherent strategy, understood by decision-makers and public alike.

•         The delay of the lockdown until mid-March.

•         The inadequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) to medical staff and other key workers.

•         The offloading of untested elderly hospital patients to care homes.

•         The failure, after six months, to establish an efficient national system of testing, tracing and isolation (TTI).

•         The squandering of public trust in government measures of protection, particularly social restrictions, and the growth of non-compliance.

Appearing before the Parliamentary Health Committee, the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, Sir Patrick Valiance said that keeping the pandemic toll to under 20,000 deaths would be “a good outcome” (17 March). But these and other failures have contributed to cumulative deaths numbering 42,000 and rising (October 2020), including 20,000 in care homes left to fend for themselves, one of the highest excess death rates due to coronavirus pro rata to population in the world, behind only Ecuador, Peru and (just) Italy (1).

The delayed Government lockdown of 16 March led in the following quarter to the sharpest contraction of the economy of any of the 37 OECD countries, and the forecast of a 10.1 per cent contraction for 2020 as a whole, well above that for the G20 (4.1 per cent) and the Eurozone (7.9 per cent) (2).

‘Failures of governance’ fall into different categories, with accordingly different implications for the reform of the country’s governing arrangements. Some are strategic, others operational; some are structural, the product of design faults in our decision-making institutions; others are human, the product of deficiencies in the country’s political leadership.

The persisting absence of a clear and coherent strategy: the government procrastinated over strategy when decisiveness was imperative in the face of conflicting models and advice from the epidemiologists. Initially the Government adopted a ‘mitigation’ strategy of ‘flattening’ the curve of rising infections by a programme of testing and isolating those with symptoms and shielding the vulnerable. But the limited available testing capacity was soon overwhelmed, which forced the Government to abandon community testing and switch to a ‘suppression’ strategy, requiring a national lockdown.

The hesitation over strategy led to four other major failures.

The delay to the lockdown: this was a policy failure of the core executive of ministers and their most senior advisers. The Government imposed the lockdown two weeks or more after much of Continental Europe, despite well-publicised reports from Lombardy in February of exponential increases in infections, overwhelmed hospitals and mounting deaths.

The Government had only half an eye on the ball (“we shall adopt the right measures at the right time”); Boris Johnson, distracted by delivering Brexit, and reluctant to grapple with the details of bad news, was absent from COBRA meetings.

The inadequate supply of PPE: this was an operational failure arising from bureaucratic inertia and amateurism. Despite warnings to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in June 2019 of low stocks, UK hospitals and care homes were beset with PPE shortages throughout March and April, resulting in higher than necessary absentee, infection and fatality rates of key medical and caring staff.

The DHSC had been slow to construct, pilot and test supply chains, and to recognise that gowns designed for influenza were inadequate for COVID-19 (3). By the time desperate NHS trusts looked abroad, global supply chains had dried up.

Frontline staff were promised PPE that didn’t materialise and issued with frequently changing guidelines. Number 10 scrambled through personal contacts to secure supplies with what turned out to be flawed contracts.

The offloading of untested elderly hospital patients to care homes: this appalling error was a product of long-term policy neglect in the form of chronic underfunding of social care since at least 2010, and of structural weakness in the central responsibility for social care provision, which is divided between the DHSC, local government, charitable and private providers. No agency considered it had overriding responsibility for the protection of the sector.

The NHS declared the highest level of emergency on 30 January, but there was no action plan for care homes until 15 April, by which time 25,000 elderly untested patients had been discharged by hospitals desperate to find beds for the swelling inflow of COVID-19 patients. PPE was in even shorter supply for the staff of under-resourced care homes, leading to high rates of self-isolation and absence from work. A parliamentary report concluded that care homes “were thrown to the wolves”.

The failure to set up a national TTI system: this was – and remains – a public service delivery fiasco, rooted in initial government ambivalence about the role of TTI in its overall strategy, a skills deficit in Whitehall and over-centralisation of implementation. On 16 March the Director General of the World Health Organisation declared that his central message was: “testing, testing, testing” (4). South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore had adopted a mass TTI programme and already appeared to have the virus under control. But four days earlier the Government abandoned general testing.

Public Health England was slow to get a national effort off the ground: a mass capacity TTI system, available locally on demand, with rapid processing times and reliable tracing of contacts needed to ensure timely isolation, proved a huge logistical challenge beyond PHE’s capability. A succession of capacity targets were set and usually missed. On 20 May Boris Johnson announced in Parliament that the UK would have a “world beating system” up and running by I June, but it did not materialise.

Moreover, capacity was irrelevant without efficient implementation on the ground. By September capacity had very significantly increased, but delivery was a shambles. People seeking appointments online were directed to testing stations hundreds of miles away; some testing stations were largely idle; tracers complained of being given no contacts to follow up; and the processing of test results was too slow – up to 48 hours – which defeated its purpose.

PHE over-relied on a small number of central laboratories for processing, and on a home-grown mobile phone app for contact tracing (of which the first prototype had to be abandoned). In retrospect, PHE should have taken advantage of the substantial unused processing capacity in university and private laboratories and should have mobilised local authorities, each of which has its own department of public health, with knowledge of the local community, for tracing contacts of those testing positive. Over eight months after infections began, Britain still lacks a national TTI system fit for the purpose of containing their spread.

The erosion of public trust and compliance: a test of good governance is its capacity to rely on the public’s compliance with emergency directives that disrupt their everyday lives and take away their normal freedoms. The Government began well: the unexpected lockdown, a drastic deprivation of people’s liberty and means of livelihood, was very widely supported and observed.

A palpable national solidarity, crystallised in support of the NHS, lasted until late May. It was sustained by the Government’s one undoubted success in the early stage of the pandemic – the rapid and efficient roll-out of bold schemes for furloughing workers who could not work from home, loans to businesses and adaptions to Universal Credit.

Solidarity then slowly frayed as lockdown measures were gradually eased. By late summer there were widespread breaches of compliance with the Government’s guidelines on social distancing, household mixing and masks.

There is no reliable measure of how compliance levels in the UK have compared with those abroad and nothing but impressions to suggest that public discipline has been stronger elsewhere. But by September self-reported levels of compliance were low. For example, a Kings College London survey of over 31,000 people living in the UK from March to August found that only II per cent of those in contact with someone who had tested positive went into quarantine and just 18 per cent of those who developed symptoms isolated themselves. By common observation enforcement in pubs, shops and public transport was patchy.

Acquiescence with social restrictions would very probably have drifted down irrespective of official exhortation and regulations, but numerous Government mistakes accelerated the drift. The critical failure was the absence of a clear and convincing strategy for balancing the protection of public health with sustaining the economy. The outcome was a set of regulations and appeals which taken together defied common sense: for example, the Government encouraged people to go out to pubs and restaurants, but avoid family get togethers; and throughout the lockdown, non-UK travellers from countries with high infection rates were free to disembark at airports without testing or restrictions and continue their journey (an automatic quarantine policy was introduced later by which point COVID-I9 levels in most countries abroad were much lower.) Apparent illogicality and inconsistency in the rules eroded the public’s confidence in them.

This was compounded by the Government’s carelessness with the public’s trust in both its competence and integrity. Government ministers and officials breached the social distancing in plain sight, and the Prime Minister’s Chief Adviser, Dominic Cummings, who broke the self-isolation rule, in spirit if not technically, escaped the sack, unlike other delinquent officials before him.

The message was that one could decide for oneself to be exempt from the rules. The blizzard of changes to the rules over the summer, compounded by different but varying restrictions for local lockdowns, left people both confused and sceptical that the rules in every detail were necessary.

Faith in the Government’s competence to manage the COVID-19 crisis was also undermined by a catalogue of policy reversals. Of these the most significant was the Education Minister’s reluctant reversal of his insistence that, in the absence of A level exams, teacher-assessed grades be adjusted by an OFQUAL algorithm despite warnings that it would produce bizarre and unjust results.

But the list includes: agreeing to the right of leave to remain for families of non-UK key workers who had died of COVID-19; the abandonment of the immigration health surcharge on immigrant doctors; the mid-June switch from resisting to insisting on the wearing of face masks on public transport, followed by a similar reversal in August for schools and shops; the abandonment of the commitment in June to give all primary school children four weeks of schooling; the switch from refusal to agreement to extend Free School Meals over the summer holidays; the cancelling of the home-grown NHSX tracing app for a new app involving Apple and Google; the launch in May of an ambitious antibody-testing programme (trailed by the prime minister as a potential “total game changer”), followed by its suspension in mid-July; and in late September the Prime Minister’s plea to people to work from home wherever possible, having appealed for the exact opposite three months earlier.

A few of these U-turns could be justified as reasonable adjustments to a changing situation; but most were concessions following intense

public and media pressure. The constant drip of policy shifts and reversals wore away public confidence in the Government’s grip, and the foundations for compliance with restrictions designed to manage the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has tested the British State’s capabilities and the Government’s competence. Both get relatively low marks. What are the lessons to be learned for next time? A brief list follows:

1. Do not plan future wars with the battleplans of the last. PHE was geared up for an influenza epidemic similar to SARS in 2003 and MERS in 2015 but Covid-19 proved far more infectious, unpredictable and lethal.

2. Do not delay the action plans of risk assessments.

3. Understand the limits of scientific advice. There is always some uncertainty and therefore rarely full consensus. Social scientists (e.g. of public health) should be heard alongside modellers (epidemiologists) and biomedicals (virologists). All should be on tap, not on top. Elected politicians must always choose between conflicting scientific advice.

4. Develop, at speed, a clear and coherent strategy, apply it across all policy sectors, and sell it to decision makers and public alike. This is the ultimate test of good government.

5. Recognise the limits to the centre’s capacity to design and deliver public services. Incorporate from the start local government and other local agencies in delivery of services on the ground.

6. An old lesson, still not learned: develop Whitehall’s project programme skills, especially in IT and logistics, on a much larger and deeper scale, or at least the skills of an intelligent client if outsourcing complex projects.

7. Another old lesson, not yet cracked: improve both horizontal and vertical coordination of responsibility in policy sectors that cut across departments, e.g. social care.

8. Nurture public trust, which will be needed for compliance. Adopt a communications strategy that levels with the public. Under-promise and over-deliver, not the other way round.

Public policy failures rarely have a single or common cause, as this eclectic list reveals. There are lessons for the strengthening of the country’s administrative apparatus and decision-making structures. But the quality of governance ultimately rests with the quality of governors, which cannot be legislated for.

Professor Sir Ivor Crewe, was until 2020 the Master of University College, Oxford and President of the Academy of Social Sciences. He was previously Vice-Chancellor of the University of Essex and also a Professor in the Department of Government at Essex. In 2013, he co-authored The Blunders of our Governments.

References:

(1) FT Visual a Data Journalism team, ‘Coronavirus Tracked: The Latest Figures as Countries Fight Covid-I9 Resurgence’, The Financial Times, I October 2020

(2) Building Confidence amid an Uncertain Recovery: OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report September 2020 (OECD Economic Outlook, 2020)

(3) Camilla Hodgson, ‘UK Had No Stocks of Protective Gowns When Coronavirus Struck’, Financial Times, 28 May 2020

(4) WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-I9 -16 March 2020′, Web Page, World Health Organisation, 16 March 2020.

Two former Conservative cabinet ministers have launched a joint parliamentary inquiry into the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, as they warned No 10’s own probe will come “too late”.

Ashley Cowburn, Political Correspondent www.independent.co.uk

As infections of the virus surge across the country, Greg Clark, chair of the Commons science and technology committee and Jeremy Hunt, chair of the health committee, said “important lessons need to be learned” to help inform decisions through the next phase of the crisis.

Their two committees – alongside MPs who sit on them – will aim to produce a joint report in the Spring of 2021, but insisted there will be “staging posts” along the way.

In their sessions the chairs are expected to call on ministers and on professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific, who have often appeared alongside Boris Johnson at No 10, to give evidence to MPs.

The inquiry – starting next week –will focus on the deployment of non-pharmaceutical interventions like the national lockdown and social distancing rules to manage the pandemic, the impact on the social care sector and the government’s widely criticised Test and Trace system.

It will also probe the UK’s prior preparedness for a pandemic, the development of treatments and vaccines, and the impact of coronavirus on people from minority ethnic backgrounds.

In the summer, Boris Johnson committed to holding an independent inquiry into the pandemic, but insisted it was not the right time do so as the government continued “combatting” the virus. Downing Street has not given any further details as to when an inquiry may launch or the exact format.

Ahead of the launch of the joint inquiry by the two Commons committees, Mr Clark, the former business secretary under Theresa May, said: “We’re very focused on being able to find and learn lessons during the course of the pandemic that can be applied to decisions that might be coming up further down the road.

“The prime minister has committed to a public inquiry, but clearly that has some way to go before it even starts, let alone concludes. Whatever lessons and conclusions are learnt from that, it’s likely to be too late for the weeks and months ahead. 

“We want to in a constructive way, feedback what we learn from witnesses both in this country and around the world.”

In a statement, Mr Hunt said: “Parliament has a crucial role in scrutinising the actions of government at a time when the country is in the grip of a crisis such as the current pandemic with its tragic impact on lives and livelihoods.

“Important lessons need to be learned that can help inform further decisions that will need to be taken in the months ahead. It is crucial to learn and apply them now since the public inquiry that the prime minister has promised is likely to be some time away.”

The former cabinet minister added: “Our committees will jointly learn what went well, what didn’t, and what lessons must be learnt at this point in the pandemic. We will use the independence of our cross-party committees and weekly detailed questioning of witnesses to consider the decisions and the evidence they were based on and assess their effectiveness.

“We will develop clear recommendations so that the UK can benefit from the lessons learned for future stages of this pandemic and for future crises.”

Want a new challenge? No previous experience necessary.

Owners of a family-run café in the heart of Sidmouth have expressed their frustration at losing permission for an outdoor seating area, after it was allowed for three months over the summer.

Hannah Corfield sidmouth.nub.news 

‘Street café’ connected to The Dairy Shop

The Dairy Shop on Church Street was issued a temporary pavement license by Devon County Council back in July, as a Covid-19 measure introduced to support local businesses.

“It saved the business; without it the café would not have survived,” Owner John Hammond explained.

“Our business model centres on sharing tables, with limited space available in the café. Obviously, with one person to each table we’ve reached full capacity with about three people. It’s just not sustainable.

“The extra seating outside got us through a busy summer; meaning our staff could come back full-time and didn’t have to rely on the furlough scheme.

“All things considered, it has been a good summer.”

Until September 10, when John received a letter from Devon County Council stating that he would need to reapply for a license to continue with the set up of three tables and six chairs on the pavement opposite The Dairy Shop.

“Initially, the letter seemed to imply that there would be no issue reapplying for a license. But when I did, my application to extend the permit was rejected,” John continued.

“With the arrangement having worked perfectly fine for the the past three months, I don’t understand why there is an issue with it now. We feel quite dumbfounded by the whole situation.”

Sidmouth Town Council has shown full support to The Diary Shop, requesting that ‘common sense prevail’ and the permit be re-granted to enable the business to continue operating.

Chair Ian Barlow commented: “The reasons for refusing to renew the license appear unsubstantiated and rather petty in my opinion.

“To say that Church Street is a ‘busy road’ is ridiculous. The café opposite The Dairy Shop has an outdoor seating area with no problems.”

Cabinet Member for Highways Management, who also lives in Sidmouth, Stuart Hughes said: “A permit to have tables and chairs on the pavement where they were previously located is not viable and will not be granted on the grounds of posing a risk to pedestrians.

“There is a way forward though, and that would be for Sidmouth Town Council to apply for the road closure to include Chapel Street, which runs next to The Dairy Shop.

“This would make a suitable space for an outdoor seating area. It might take some time – probably until January to secure – but it would be a lasting solution.”

When asked why the outdoor seating area couldn’t remain as it was, he responded: “There were objections made by members of the public who were unhappy about how social distancing was being adhered to and restrictions to pavement access.

“Devon County Council granted the initial three-month permit, designed to help businesses through the pandemic, with the proviso that it could be renewed if no one objected. Once complaints have been made, they have to be investigated and in this case it has been deemed unsafe.”

Theresa May has sharply criticised the government’s planning reforms, describing them as “mechanistic” and “ill conceived” as No 10 struggled to contain a backbench rebellion.

George Grylls www.thetimes.co.uk /

In August Robert Jenrick, the housing secretary, published details of a formula that will be used to calculate where 300,000 homes a year will be built.

It permits large increases in development in London and rural areas, while cities in the north including Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle will be asked to build fewer homes.

Mrs May told MPs that the reforms would send more investment into “London and the south”.

She said: “What this new algorithm does as regards to levelling up, is it flies in the face of the government’s flagship policy.

“This is a mechanistic approach and it is ill conceived. We need to reform the planning system. We need to make sure that planning system sees the right number of homes being built in the right places. But we won’t do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that will be built and building over rural areas.”

In Mrs May’s Berkshire constituency of Maidenhead, according to the system, an additional 221 homes will be constructed each year over and above current requirements.

Meanwhile, a seat such as Manchester Central will have to build 260 fewer houses, Times analysis has found.

Referring to the government’s change of mind on A-level results, the former prime minister said: “I would have thought the government might have abandoned algorithms by now.”

Anger has been building on the Conservative back benches for some time over the reforms. Fifty-five Tory MPs sought to speak in the debate with nearly 80 in a WhatsApp group opposed to the targets. The government is hoping to avoid a binding vote on the algorithm, but the rebels are expected to amend the wider planning reforms if the formula is not changed.

At a meeting of the backbenchers’ 1922 committee last night, Mr Jenrick tried to calm opposition. But in the Commons, former cabinet ministers including Jeremy Hunt, Chris Grayling, Damian Green and Damian Hinds all spoke out against the algorithm, with Mr Hunt warning the government that it was showing “contempt for local democracy”.

A source close to Mr Jenrick said the government would not be “deterred” from its target of 300,000 homes a year, adding that the targets would be distributed in a “fair and sensitive way”.

Analysis by The Times has shown that Conservative constituencies will bear the brunt of the development. Excluding London — where housebuilding will increase dramatically — Tory seats will have to accommodate an additional 54,000 homes each year, while Labour constituencies beyond the capital will be asked to build 3,000 less.

Bob Seely, MP for the Isle of Wight who called the debate, said that the algorithm would leave Tory shire voters “furious” and Red Wall voters “betrayed”.

Christopher Pincher, the housing minister, responded that the planning system was “opaque, slow and almost uniquely discouraging for all but its most expert navigators”, adding that the government was “actively engaged” with backbenchers and “listening to feedback” about the effects of the algorithm.

With coastal towns severely affected by coronavirus, one creative duo are planning a string of artist-led festivals in October half-term to lure people back to the seaside

Dixe Wills http://www.theguardian.com 

Can the arts help save the seaside? The organisers of a new multi-town festival planned for October half-term (26 October-1 November) are hoping they can.

Billing itself as “a coastal call to arms”, Back & Fill was created by writer and artist Dan Thompson and designer Kate Kneale of Margate-based studio HKD as a response to the economic damage done to seaside towns by the coronavirus crisis. Working with a small team of volunteers furloughed from their jobs, the pair have invited local people involed in the creative arts to put on performances, exhibitions and other events to lure people to the seaside for one last autumn fling.

“The idea came to us when we were sitting in our studios in Margate talking about how the summer would be wiped out,” said Thompson. “So many things were cancelled and the Turner Contemporary, one of our key attractions, was closed for much of the year.”

That loss of the summer season was disastrous for coastal communities across the UK, despite the few weeks immediately after lockdown when some towns were overwhelmed by visitors as restrictions lifted. As early as April, a study by the University of Southampton and the Centre for Towns warned that lockdown would show the economies of seaside towns to be especially vulnerable. Many are heavily reliant on holidaymakers – in Newquay and Skegness, for example, more than half the local jobs depend on tourism. Of the study’s list of the 20 towns in England and Wales identified as most at risk, 16 are on the coast. By August, the National Coastal Tourism Academy was estimating lockdown would see seaside towns losing up to £10.3bn this year.

Back & Fill hopes the festivals will claw back a little of those losses. Each local event is independently run, using a starter kit devised by Thompson and Kneale that anyone can share and edit. To date, a dozen towns have signed up. Ten are in England – Cleethorpes, Hastings, Margate, Newhaven, Portsmouth, Ramsgate, Sandown (Isle of Wight), Southwold, Westward Ho! and Weymouth – along with Swansea in south Wales and Northern Ireland’s Portrush.

With anti-Covid measures still in place up and down the country, Thompson is keen to point out that he’s not encouraging large gatherings. The events are typically small and keep to the rule of six.

“They’re an antidote to big crowds,” he said. “They’re about exploring and discovering, about beauty and magic. We wanted to plan something for people to look forward to, that would extend the summer season. A moment of joy and happiness somewhere over the horizon after the summer has ended.

“We’ve also created a new network of arts organisations in seaside towns that will talk to each other and offer mutual support in these difficult times.”

Plans for events are still being finalised in many of the participating towns and details will be released shortly. Those already announced include a “pennydrop” treasure hunt in Westward Ho! by the artistic duo Quiet British Accent, who have organised similar events around the world.

Swell Portrush is unleashing Operation Zombie by the Big Telly theatre company, in which teams of up to six people will work their way across town, completing missions to drive the zombies out. There’ll also be a wild food walk, a wildlife cruise, lots of yoga, driftwood boat-making and shop-window exhibitions along Main Street.

Among events planned in Margate is an exhibition of “lockdown prints” by Robert Montgomery, famous for his art installations.

In Cleethorpes, the Birdhouse Theatre is hosting Life’s a Beach, a week-long programme engaging children and families in nature-based and creative activities, most of which will take place outdoors, including a shipwreck ramble and story-telling in the sand dunes. Full details will be announced on its website on 12 October.

According to Thompson, there’s still time for more coastal towns to join the event. So it will be worth checking the Back & Fill website nearer the date for a last dose of seaside fun before winter.

As a correspondent wrote to Owl a few days ago:

Johnson wants more young people to buy their own homes.  More and more young people will be unemployed over the current months as furlough ends and more lickdowns may take place.  Some who own their homes may have to move miles to get new jobs and will be unable to take those jobs – until they sell their homes to people who can’t afford to buy them.  Add that there is a possibility that post-Brexit house prices may fall, many new buyers may then be in negative equity.  AND their homes being converted from shops and offices may turn out to be sub-standard….. Would you buy a house from this man?

www.independent.co.uk 

Few television programmes can be as depressingly upbeat as Homes under the Hammer. It’s not the dated music, formulaic structure or the cheesy, lobotomised chirpiness of its presenters.

It’s the fact that, every weekday morning, for 1,000 episodes now, it has nonchalantly exposed the glaring absurdity at the heart of UK economy, apparently without even realising.

I’m not suggesting that a daytime TV show is responsible for the housing crisis. But Homes under the Hammer did start in 2003, which, coincidentally, was roughly when the UK property market finally ceased contact with objective reality, consigning a generation to insecure renting.

For 17 years since, a rolling cast of would-be property developers have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame telling pinstriped estate agents how they made their fortunes flipping run-down terraced houses.

On a basic level, we know something feels intuitively odd about this. Why do we live in a country where people make so much money by covering the nation’s properties in cheap laminate, magnolia paint and faux leather sofas – then renting them out to people who can’t afford to buy their own?

Can this really be more valuable than, say, being a civil engineer or starting a business that makes something or provides a service?

Is it just an immutable law that house prices always rise? Or have we created a system with fundamental flaws?

Figures out this week give credence to the latter view. They should cause alarm, but the government seems to have its fingers its ears.  

Despite a catastrophic recession, a global pandemic, the looming prospect of mass unemployment and huge disruption to trade, average house prices jumped 7.3 per cent in the past year – far more than wages.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson unveiled his plan to turn generation rent into “generation buy” – a slogan that hides a barely fleshed-out plan, apparently to subsidise 2 million low-deposit mortgages with public money.

To understand this phenomenon, and why the government’s plan will make it worse, it’s necessary to confront two fundamental myths about the housing market and the financial system that props it up.

First, the pervasive myth that high prices are caused by a shortage of supply. This is not true, no matter how many times it is repeated. Supply rose last year at its fastest rate for three decades, yet prices shot up.

While supply and demand are important factors in determining price of anything, in the housing market an over-riding factor is the cost of debt, because property is the one purchase that almost all ordinary households fund largely with borrowing.

According to Bank of England research, the fourfold increase in house prices since the 1980s can be explained almost entirely by falling real interest rates. Cheap money means expensive houses.  

Markets now think the economy is going to tank, so rates are forecast to stay low, meaning banks are continuing to offer cheap mortgages – particularly for those with a big deposit. Along with a cut in Stamp Duty, this has helped push up house prices further.  

The second myth is that banks are responsible stewards of money; financial intermediaries channelling idle savings into profitable investments.  

In reality, banks are more like debt factories, creating money out of nothing. They don’t look at their deposits to see how much they have left to lend then think who might make best use of it. They simply create as much money as they are allowed to under the rules and lend it out to the most profitable borrower.  

They simply tap a number into a computer and it’s in your account as a debt to the bank.

Because of poorly designed rules supposedly designed to make banks safer, it’s much more profitable for banks to lend against the value of a “safe” asset like a house than it is to lend to a company that wants to expand. Property asset bubbles are built into the system.

The vast majority of money that UK banks create is for assets or financial transactions. In other words, it does not expand the nation’s productive capacity by, for example, funding education or research, it merely inflates the value of assets that already exist.  

This has created a £7 trillion housing market that fails to construct affordable homes and gives a huge, unearned windfall to those who joined in the game first – some of them are part-time developers of Homes under the Hammer fame, others are simply homeowners born at the right time who’ve now cashed in their chips.

To all intents and purposes, the UK housing market is a pyramid scheme reliant on ever-increasing prices.

This can’t continue forever, but successive governments and central bankers have done their best to try and keep the music going long after the party should have ended, and they may well keep it going for a while yet.

At some point rates must rise, the cheap money tap will turn off and homeowners, banks and the country will have a problem. 

And yet, at this point, the government plans to provide 95 per cent LTV mortgages, adding tens of billions of pounds more debt, probably backed by the public, (though we don’t know yet as Boris Johnson hasn’t said) to an already colossal pile.

This would effectively protect banks by putting taxpayers first in line for losses when house prices fall. It will not result in more affordable homes being built.

The approach taken by recent governments has also meant years of missed opportunity. At the low rates available for much of the past decade, governments could have borrowed to expand the productive capacity of the economy, to boost skills, develop infrastructure and build publicly-owned housing.

Then, as the economy picked up and wages rose the Bank of England could have taken its foot off the throttle and increased interest rates, returning the property market slowly to planet Earth.

Instead, the government chose to slash spending on public services and is now ready to get the chequebook to underwrite a further splurge on housing debt.

So we are left with the absurdity that, a decade after a crisis caused by trillions of dollars pumped into an unsustainable bubble, our government and central bankers seem intent on giving it a few last puffs just to make sure it bursts as catastrophically as possible.

That won’t be tomorrow, it may not even be next year, but it has to happen.  

“Sea defences at the mouth of the River Otter, built 200 years ago to claim fresh farmland from the sea, along with other man-made alterations to the river over the centuries, mean the Otter is no longer as naturally connected with its floodplain as it once was.”

Unintended consequences of land-owner tinkering with nature, but who picks up the bill? And can this be cited as “mitigation” for building on the Clyst estuary? – Owl 

Howard Lloyd www.devonlive.com

Ambitious new plans have been submitted for a £15m scheme to help protect the Lower Otter Valley from the increasing threats of climate change.

The EU-funded scheme, which is still subject to approval, would create a new nature reserve while also protecting public amenities and leaving the area better-equipped to deal with rising sea levels.

The project is being proposed due to the failure of existing sea defences and the impact this is having on the immediate area.

“The project is being considered because the existing 200-year-old sea defences are now starting to fail and are becoming increasingly hard to maintain,” claim the Lower Otter Restoration Project.

“This is already impacting on public infrastructure, local businesses and homes, and recreational facilities. The project is in the process of securing sufficient funding as well as planning and other consents to allow us to move towards implementing the proposals.

“The Lower Otter Estuary is a very special place. It is home to local people and businesses. It provides habitat for a wide variety of breeding and wintering bird species, and it is enjoyed by tens of thousands of visitors each year.

“But this coastal community, like many others, faces growing challenges due to climate change. As the oceans warm up, they take up more space and sea levels rise. We are also seeing more extreme storms and rainfall events which increase the intensity and erosional power of rivers and the sea.

“The Lower Otter Restoration Project is working with local people and partner organisations to adapt and enhance the downstream part of the River Otter, its estuary, and its immediate surroundings for future generations in the face of a rapidly changing climate.”

The project, led by landowner Clinton Devon Estates and the Environment Agency, would see the Big and Little Marsh floodplains around Budleigh Salterton restored, with breaches created in the Little Bank, the Big Bank and the River Otter Embankment to allow water to flow through.

It would also see the town’s cricket club move location.

Previous flooding at Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club’s Ottermouth ground

The funding will support the Lower Otter Restoration Project’s aims of climate change adaptation by working with natural processes to provide benefits for people and wildlife.

Sea defences at the mouth of the River Otter, built 200 years ago to claim fresh farmland from the sea, along with other man-made alterations to the river over the centuries, mean the Otter is no longer as naturally connected with its floodplain as it once was.

The hope is that the plans will see ‘original habitats restored (and) riverand wildlife allowed to respond naturally to climate change’.

Floods have left part of their current Ottermouth home under water on three occasions in the last 10 years, with a plan to relocate to Janie’s Field on the outskirts of the town having been agreed.

More than 80% of people who tested positive in a national coronavirus survey had none of the core symptoms of the disease the day they took the test, scientists say.

Ian Sample www.theguardian.com

The finding has prompted fears that future Covid-19 outbreaks will be hard to control without more widespread testing in the community to pick up “silent transmission”, particularly in universities and high-risk workplaces such as meat processing facilities.

Researchers at UCL said 86.1% of infected people picked up by the Office for National Statistics Covid-19 survey between April and June had none of the main symptoms of the illness, namely a cough, or a fever, or a loss of taste or smell the day they had the test.

Three quarters who tested positive had no notable symptoms at all, the scientists found when they checked whether people reported other ailments such as fatigue and breathlessness on the day of testing.

Unlike coronavirus testing in the community which focuses on people with symptoms, the ONS infection survey routinely tests tens of thousands of households around the country whether the occupants have symptoms or not.

“At the moment, the focus is on people who have symptoms, but if you are not catching all those who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic it may be really difficult to get outbreaks down in time, before they get out of control,” said Irene Petersen, an author on the study and professor of epidemiology and health informatics.

While those who tested positive in the ONS survey may have gone on to develop a fever, cough or other common symptoms, Petersen believes there is a risk of “silent transmission” by people who are unaware they are infected.

The study, reported in Clinical Epidemiology, analysed the symptoms described by more than 36,000 people who were tested between April and June. Only 115 tests came back positive and of those only 27 people, or 23.5%, had symptoms of any description.

When the scientists narrowed the symptoms down to the main three for coronavirus infections, namely a cough, or a fever, or a loss of taste or smell, the number reporting the ailments fell to 16 or 13.9%.

On the back of the findings, Petersen argues that universities and high-risk work places, such as meat processing facilities, should do regular testing to pick up people who may be infectious but are not displaying symptoms. She urged universities to ramp up testing capacity now so students could be tested through the autumn and crucially before they return home at Christmas. “Anybody who’s had students coming home at Christmas knows they often bring some sort of bug with them and this Christmas in particular they could bring Covid home and potentially seed new outbreaks,” she said.

Last month, the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) issued a similar warning, stating there was a “critical risk” of large numbers of infected students sparking outbreaks across the country when they returned home at the end of the term.

Given the pressure on testing capacity, Petersen said pooled testing was needed, where swabs are grouped together and tested as one batch. Since most people do not have the virus, most pooled tests will be negative, but when a batch tests positive, the contributors need to be tested individually to identify the infected person.

Patrick Maxwell, head of the school of clinical medicine at Cambridge, said the study underscored that many people who are infected are asymptomatic. “There will be great public health benefit in terms of reducing transmission if we can reliably identify asymptomatic individuals and they then self-isolate,” he said.

He said Cambridge was piloting an approach that uses pooled samples to enable a “mass asymptomatic testing programme” for students.

Owl has just been tipped the wink that the Parish Council is holding another online meeting to discuss the objection that Charlie Hopkins has written on behalf of the Parish Council to the planning application. They will also be discussing the latest additional amendments to the planning application at Winslade Manor and surrounding buildings. 

Those wanting to “attend” this virtual meeting need to email the Parish Clerk beforehand to get login details ( Bishopsclyst@gmail.com ). Owl assumes they should also include their name and address.

This link will take you to a copy of Charlie Hopkins’ draft objection ( the planning barrister employed by the Parish Council)

Your Local Democracy Reporters keeping Devon and Cornwall informed

This article explains how the BBC funds journalists to provide a Local Democratic Reporting Service as a partnership between the BBC and local news organisations. [The Watch first reported on the BBC’s intention to do this in 2015, but it took until 2018 to happen]

The online article features Local Democracy Reporters: Ed Oldfield who covers Torbay and Plymouth;  Richard Whitehouse, Cornwall; and our own, and much valued, Daniel Clark who covers Devon.

Only Daniel is featured in this post (to see the others’ profiles go on-line).

 It’s good to be able to put a face to local news. [Followers will recall that the Times paparazzi snapped Owl unawares earlier in the year].

Nevertheless, there must be concern that we have to rely on a single source of Local Democratic Reporting as the Government “goes on manoeuvres” over the “impartiality” of the BBC.

Devon Live www.devonlive.com 

In these unprecedented times, it has never been more important that the facts of what is happening are reported.

Everywhere you look, you can find some sort of conspiracy theory and someone with an agenda to drive, and that muddies the truth around the most important issues of the day.

Getting to the bottom of what is happening is not always easy and certainly not quick – and in a world where journalists are under more and more pressure to hit ever increasing numbers and volumes of targets when there are fewer and fewer of them remaining – the sometimes dry, complicated and detailed world of local councils, politics, and statistics could easily be put aside.

This is where the Local Democracy Reporting Service comes in. The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) was set up in 2018 in a unique partnership between the BBC and local news organisations such as Reach PLC, which publishes DevonLive, CornwallLive and PlymouthLive as well as the Herald Express, North Devon Journal, Express and Echo, Mid Devon Gazette, The Herald, West Briton, Cornishman, Cornish Guardian and the Western Morning News.

The journalists are funded by the BBC as part of its latest Charter commitment but employed by regional news organisations, with nearly Local Democracy Reporters having been allocated to 59 news organisations in England, Scotland and Wales.

The partnership has enabled reporters to get back into council chambers (once physical, now virtual), shining a light into the corners of local authorities and reporting on what has been happening.

Stories are then written, uploaded to a wire and distributed to all partner agencies, including our traditional ‘rival’ newspapers to use as they wish.

And since the coronavirus pandemic hit the country in March, nationwide, Local Democracy Reporters have published more than 15,000 stories relating to coronavirus – covering everything from the daily statistical updates, the impact of council finances, how individuals and businesses have been affected, and the knock-on impacts that the lockdown will have going forward.

All of this has run alongside the usual business of covering council activities – although rather than putting reporters back in County Hall as originally planned, it has seen us dial it Zoom calls or watch meetings live on Youtube.

Virtual meetings have enabled democracy (and subsequent reporting of it) to carry on throughout the pandemic, but every reporter is longing for the day the words ‘you’re on mute councillor’ is a thing of a past.

Daniel Clark

Daniel is the LDR for Devon – mainly focused on covering Devon County Council, as well as when time allows, the eight district councils – East Devon District Council, Exeter City Council, Mid Devon District Council, North Devon Council, South Hams District Council, Teignbridge District Council, Torridge District Council, and West Devon Borough Council, plus Dartmoor National Park

Local Democracy Reporter Daniel Clark (Image: DevonLive)

Coronavirus has been the main thing on everyone’s mind and lips this year, so it would be churlish not to mention it, but making sure that the facts and figures, and the latest comments, warnings and advice from the county’s Public Health Team is a vital part of the job – many stories could be mentioned, but here is the latest.

The other major story that has been in the news this year has been around race and the Black Lives Matters movement following the death of George Floyd in America. It has led to councils across Devon to re-examine their relationship with their historical past, their current relationship with minorities, and allowed those from BAME communities to tell their story in an attempt to affect change.

The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan was due to be the major blueprint for development across large swathes of Devon – covers East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge. Plans for thousands of new homes, including a second Cranbrook, relocating service stations, a sports hub etc were due to go out for consultation – but following a vote from East Devon, the GESP is now dead.

Exmouth seafront remains one of the most controversial sites in Devon – with the long awaited plans to regenerate the site having hit yet more setbacks this year. It may seem an age ago, but back in February, it felt like movement was finally being made when councillors backed the marketing exercise for the site, but since then, a call-in, a change of leadership, and the coronavirus pandemic have thrown the plans into chaos and back to square one.

It has been a year where active travel and getting people out of their cars and onto other forms of transport has been high on the agenda, with Exeter seeing road closures and new cycle lanes popping up, while plans to reopen railway lines have been progressed with bids submitted for Bere Alston to Tavistock, Cullompton, and the Marsh Barton station – so back in January – which feels like a different world – I went back and looked at all the lost railway lines as part of the Beeching Axe in Devon and Cornwall.

daniel.clark@reachplc.com

Telephone: 01392 346759 / 07775 030856

Read Daniel’s latest articles here,follow him on Twitter here and visit his Facebook page here.