“Big Brother’s” Survey – the small print,

the very small print, and the even smaller print (hard to spot at the very bottom).

“The Conservative Party uses the information you provide for the purposes of democratic engagement. This covers a wide range of activities inside and outside election periods, including but not limited to: democratic representation; communicating with you: surveying and opinion gathering, campaigning activities; activities to increase voter turnout; supporting the work of elected representatives, prospective candidates and official candidates; and fundraising to support any of these activities.


“For full terms of use and how to exercise your rights see our Privacy Notice at http://www.conservatives.com/Privacy”

Pretty wide ranging.

Can anyone spot the “I agree to the terms and conditions” tick box?

Neither can Owl.

“Your details are on the Register of Electors, provided to us for electoral purposes under the Representation of the People Act. You received this material because we believe you will be interested in its contents. You can request that we do not contact you in future or exercise your rights by visiting http://www.conservatives.com/contact and selecting Data Protection/Stop Mailings.”

The Legal Eagles amongst you might like to consider the questions raised by Paul F.

 In full posted as comment here, but more briefly summarised below:

1. The Privacy web page referred to is for the Conservative Party (central office) and although this refers to “the wider Conservative Party” it clearly states that local associations “may be data controllers in their own right or data processors acting on behalf of the Party”. This survey strongly states that it is a local “Community” survey (local to a specific town, not even the entire constituency) and this is highly suggestive that the data processor is the local association, yet the Privacy Policy they refer to is the central Party one, suggesting that it will be the main Party that will be processing the data. I am therefore left entirely uncertain as to who the Data Processor for this particular survey, and I suspect that without this being made explicitly clear, any consent is void – not the least of which because who would you legally need to contact if you wanted to know what data was being held or to request that they delete it or change your communications preferences.

2. Section 4.1 of the Privacy policy is also somewhat worrying – because it allows them to Canvas and collect your political opinions and process this data without having explicit consent (first item in the table). Whilst it may be legal for them to communicate with you about their policies based on your entry in the electoral register (Public Task), I doubt very much that it is legal for them to collect specific personal data on your political opinions based on a Public Task consent (2nd 4th and 6th rows). I doubt that a party can claim a “Substantial Public Interest” because on that basis, any political party (i.e. a one-man band set up specifically for this purpose) could collect political opinion data for the entire country without requiring any consent whatsoever.

3. I am not quite sure what would happen if the survey was returned without this having been filled in as it contains personally identifiable data (name and address on the front) but the person has clearly not consented to the processing of the data.

Planning applications validated by EDDC for week beginning 21 November

Exeter car park demolition won’t become student flats

Councillors have backed plans that would see a well-known Exeter city centre car park demolished and turned into housing. Mary Arches Street car park is becoming obsolete according to Exeter City Council and would require a £3.8 million refurbishment to “extend its usable life.”

Ollie Heptinstall www.devonlive.com

The council’s executive, at its meeting on Tuesday, approved knocking it down and turned into a “residential-led mixed use scheme” of around 100 homes with commercial use on the ground floor. The decision will need to be rubber-stamped at a full council meeting in a fortnight but, if approved, the car park could close before January.

A report by council finance director Dave Hodgson says a public consultation on the site’s future will then start in the new year, followed by a planning submission next August and demolition of the car park in November. The brownfield site, for which the council has secured £1.3 million of government funding towards demolition and asbestos removal, is expected to be ready for redevelopment in January 2024.

A number of upgrades are required to Mary Arches including structural, surfacing, accessibility and decoration works. The lifts also haven’t worked for over five years; bringing them back into use would cost £240,000 alone.

The report said the proposed regeneration scheme “is in the public interest and will improve the wellbeing of residents in a number of ways,” including by increasing the city’s housing supply, removing the “unattractive and obsolete existing car park” and reducing anti-social behaviour.

“In addition, the site is a key gateway to and from the north of the city and a high-quality scheme will contribute towards the positive forward-looking image of Exeter ensuring it is an attractive place where people choose to live, work, study and visit.”

The closure of the car park will mean the loss of 481 parking spaces in the city centre. However, the report states: “Across the city, there is spare capacity to take up customers when Mary Arches Car Park closes down.”

Speaking at the meeting, Mr Hodgson said part of the site has “significant archaeological interest underneath,” adding: “Therefore it is highly unlikely that that [part] would be disposed of for residential use.”

Responding to questions about what the residential development will consist of, council leader, Cllr Phil Bialyk, said: “I can be clear, if it is the city council’s land, there will be no purpose-built student accommodation.”

He added the finer details were “all a matter that will come forward in a planning application of which we’ve got a consultation charter and we will fully consult with everybody else.” Councillors were told the date of the car park’s closure is still to be finalised, depending on its safety and the confirmed timetable for the project.

Simon Jupp and team want to record how you voted in 2019

A couple of correspondents have brought the latest Tory “Community Survey” to Owl’s attention.

The first tore it up in disgust, the second sent Owl a scan.

It is not clear how widely this has been distributed within Jupp’s constituency; it asks questions on both national and local issues.

Here is how Simon introduces it:

But these were the three personal questions that stuck in the craw of the correspondents:

This survey was personally addressed, using information from the electoral register for what are deemed to be electoral purposes.

Despite having their name printed on the survey, recipients were also asked to confirm their name, if they returned the survey in the prepaid envelope.

Interesting questions: under the data protection act how do you justify holding, and how do you store and for how long, information on how individuals voted in a secret ballot? What uses are you entitled to put it to? Who has access to it?- Owl

Planning at crisis point – Local plan gridlock

Local plans for 15 years of development in each area are the bedrock of Britain’s planning system. Despite a government deadline to have an up-to-date local plan by the end of this year, 59 per cent of the country still lacks one, according to Lichfields planning agency. Amid labyrinthine complexity the average time to sign off a local plan rose from 450 days in 2009 to 815 days in 2019, the government’s planning white paper found.

Martina Lees www.thetimes.co.uk (Extract)

Uncertainty over whether the government will abandon top-down housing targets, famously called “Stalinist” by former prime minister Liz Truss, have caused many councils to abandon making local plans. In April almost 70,000 homes across eight stalled local plans were in jeopardy, according to Lichfields. By September at least 19 councils had put their plans on hold. Sam Stafford, planning director of the Home Builders Federation, believes the count is now well above 20. “The local plan making system has effectively collapsed this year,” he says.

The process of making local plans should consult residents from the start instead of allowing developers to suggest sites, says Rosie Pearson, who chairs the Community Planning Alliance of about 600 local campaign groups. The system makes residents feel “things are always dumped on you. You don’t get a chance to influence them positively,” she adds.

“Don’t propose a load of plans and then ask people what they think and carry on ignoring everyone. Get everyone in a room and say, ‘Write what you liked about your area. What don’t you like?’ Then propose things and then run them by people,” Pearson says. “It’s called ‘engage, deliberate, decide’. It’s the opposite that happens at the moment, which is ‘decide, announce, dissent’.”

Devon seaside resort deserted in winter could become ‘next St Ives’

Across Devon and Cornwall it’s a familiar story: towns and villages that are buzzing with life during the summer, but little more than ‘ghost towns’ during the winter, as second home owners retreat to their cities and Airbnbs are left vacant. Salcombe, St Ives, Falmouth, Padstow, Newquay, Bude; the list gets longer every year. And now the award-winning, much-loved seaside resort of Woolacombe could be next.

Becky Dickinson www.devonlive.com

The very nature of Woolacombe means that it has always been busier during summer. For decades, tourists have flocked to the jewel on North Devon’s coast to lap up the sun, surf and golden sand, while sustaining the local economy. In winter, locals have enjoyed the chance to rest and regroup before the madness resumes all over again the following year.

But in recent years, the tide has shifted. In summer, Woolacombe is as busy as ever, but in winter, it’s becoming increasingly abandoned. Locals say second home owners are to blame, sweeping up properties as soon as they become available and pushing up prices – often into the millions. The result is that locals are being driven away due to the lack of long-term affordable housing in the place in which they grew up.

Nicola Roberts has lived in Woolacombe for 40 years and works in Londis. She says: “When I first moved here there were a lot more locals. Second homes weren’t really a thing. But the village in the winter now, there’s very few lights on, most of the properties are empty because a lot have just been bought up as second homes.”

Nicola adds: “There’s less of a community, yet this village is full of empty properties. People can’t afford to live here, they can’t afford to rent here, there are very few properties to rent because it’s all AirBnB.”

And she fears it could spell the end of village life. “I think it’s coming to the point of saturation where it will spoil the village,” she says. “Eventually, if we’re not careful, Woolacombe will end up like Padstow or St Ives. It’s a slow progression but that is what is happening.”

Compared to a decade ago, the village has already changed beyond recognition. Gone are the butchers, bakers and newsagents, replaced by chain clothing stores and expensive art galleries – that locals can’t afford to shop in. And according to property website Zoopla, the average sold price for a property in Woolacombe in the last 12 months was £545,537 – that’s well over the national average house price of £294,559.

Like so many other locals, Nicola can’t afford to buy a property in Woolacombe. She lives in rented accommodation – and to add irony to insult, the house right next door was used as second home. “They would send their teenage daughters down, they’d be having a fabulous time, screaming and laughing and joking which you do at that age,” says Nicola, “but they don’t know who their neighbours are – they’re not bothered that they’ve been working all day.”

While Nicola can only dream of owning her own home, there are others who buy them like ice-creams. Someone she knows works in an estate agents. “She said a chap phoned up and bought two properties to the value of £2million. He didn’t even view them,” recounts Nicola.

The population of Woolacombe now stands at just 840 people. And fewer locals means fewer workers. “There aren’t people living here to staff the businesses,” says Nicola. “Staffing this summer has been an absolute nightmare. People can’t travel in to work very easily, they can’t park, on a busy day they can’t get in to the village.”

Nicola would like to see rules introduced to ensure people are only allowed to buy a property if they intend to live in it. “I’ve got nothing against holiday makers because that’s why we’re here,” she says, “but the second homes are a problem. The whole financial structure is causing a problem in the village for lots of people.”

Nicola’s concerns are echoed around the village. Richard Walden was ‘lucky’ enough to move to Woolacombe 18 years ago before prices rocketed. He says: “it’s tough for local people. There are people who have lived here all their lives, they can’t afford to buy property in the village, they’ve got to go to Ilfracombe or Barnstaple. It’s already having a detrimental effect on community.”

And he says the situation is creating a division in the village. “You’ve got people coming in buying up second homes for hundreds of thousands, they’re just out pricing everybody else. The village is becoming ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ “

In the Beachcomber cafe, John – the cafe’s most loyal and treasured customer – is enjoying his daily coffee. He loves coming to the cafe, with its ‘lovely staff’ and says he’d ‘be lost without it.’ But after more than 50 years in the village, John is no stranger to change. “The population has altered a lot since I’ve been here,” he says. “I don’t really agree with second homes when there’s so many people without a home at all. Seeing a lot of empty homes isn’t much fun and it’s a waste of a house if they only come occasionally.”

Maggie Parker is another one who has witnessed the insatiable demand for second homes. Now 61, she is Woolacombe born and bred. Her grandparents used to run a hotel on the front and she went to school in the village. “When I grew up it was lovely, there was a butchers, all the shops, everyone knew everyone,” she says. “Now there’s no community, nothing.”

The culprits, in her eyes, are the second home owners. “It doesn’t bring money into the village because they get their deliveries from Tesco or wherever,” she says. Maggie’s daughter, Stacey Phillips, agrees.

Stacey runs Captain Jacks, the last standing traditional pub in Woolacombe, as well the Chichester Arms in Morthoe. However, despite running two businesses, Stacey still can’t afford to buy a property in the village. She currently rents the rooms above the pub with her husband and three children. And of all the friends she grew up with, only one still lives in the village.

“It’s upsetting that you’re shoved out of the place you grew up because you just can’t afford to live here,” she says. “In a way you can’t blame people because it’s a fantastic part of the country to live in. But living here is one thing, owning multiple properties that are then left empty is another.” And she believes the rent on many holiday rentals is “obscene.”

Stacey is passionate about the need for affordable housing and has put her name down on the parish council. “It’s getting to the point where something needs to be done because there isn’t a community,” she stresses. On top of the housing crisis, Stacey also faces trying to keep two pubs afloat in the face of a dwindling local population and the escalating cost of living.

“We’ve never wanted to be a business that just opens from April through to October and then shuts up, it’s always been for the community,” she says. However, “it’s getting to the point where what’s the point in opening 12 months of the year?” she asks. “You’ve got people to pay, you’ve got massive energy costs, with just a few people coming through the doors.”

Add to that competition from chain pubs and you’ve got the perfect storm. “One of my biggest bug bears is overhearing ‘I can get this for less in Wetherspoons,’ “says Stacey, who endeavours to use local produce and suppliers wherever possible. “But they (chain pubs) buy huge volumes of everything so they can get a better price. When you’re an independent you don’t get those prices.”

For now, Captain Jacks remains open for the scattering of locals who come to sit by the fire with a pint of ale or a plate of chips. But for all its beauty, there is a dark side to Woolacombe. With summer a fast fading memory and winter a grim reality, it’s hard to escape the sense of doom and resentment that haunts the village like the marauding cry of seagulls. And unless second home owners rent or sell empty houses back to local people at an affordable price, there may be some difficult decisions ahead.

Letter: Marine Conservation Society and Good Law Project join forces to take Government to court over sewage dumping

onthewight.com 

This from Maggie Nelmes, Ventnor. Ed

Islanders are up in arms against Southern Water’s constant release of raw sewage into our coastal waters.

Whether a surfer or wild swimmer, a fishing or tourism business owner, or simply an Island resident, we are all adversely affected by this shameless flouting of the regulations, this willful fouling of the rivers and seas we value and depend on.

Seven IW locations in top ten of dry spills

In a recent report, publicised by News OnTheWight, Surfers Against Sewage revealed that, “Southern Water was responsible for four times as many ‘dry spills’ as the next worst offender, South West Water, and the Isle of Wight has seven locations ranking in the top ten for ‘dry spills’”.

Dry spills are sewage discharges occurring when no rain fell. Yet regulations stipulate that discharges are only permitted during ‘unusually heavy rainfall’.”

All around the country, private water companies are now routinely dumping untreated sewage in our rivers and seas, endangering human and animal health, and killing freshwater and marine life.

Unfit-for-purpose Victorian sewerage systems

Rather than investing in new infrastructure, they are making do with unfit-for-purpose Victorian sewerage systems, to maximise their profits for the benefit of their directors and shareholders.

No wonder many people are calling for public utilities like water to be brought back into public ownership.

Storm overflows within 1km of Marine Protected Areas

There are 1,651 storm overflows within 1km of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in England, and they were spilling sewage into the sea for a shocking 263,654 hours in 2021.

Many people across the country worked hard to persuade the Government to set up these protected areas to shelter vulnerable marine life and provide nurseries for young fish to grow, reviving depleted stocks caused by overfishing.

Marine Conservation Society join the campaign

Now, as a last resort, the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) is joining forces with the Good Law Project (GLP) to take the Government to court for failing to stop this environmental pollution.

At their Great British Beach Clean in September this year, the MCS found sewage related pollution on 73 per cent of the beaches they surveyed in England.

Luk: A polluted, toxic soup

Sandy Luk of MCS writes,

“It hardly needs saying that this is not good for the health of our seas. Plastic, chemicals and bacteria are all part of the cocktail of pollution that makes up untreated sewage spills.

“It won’t matter if we have the most effective management of marine protected areas, or the most sustainable fisheries management in the world (both key Marine Conservation Society ocean goals) if the sea is a polluted, toxic soup.”

Plan fails to offer solution

In August, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published its new ‘Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan’ for England, but its proposals to tackle the problem fail to offer a solution to sewage spills from storm overflows.

Here are the MCS’s concerns about the Plan:

  • It virtually excludes most coastal waters (except for bathing waters), with some types of marine protected areas and shellfish waters totally excluded. This means around 600 storm overflows are not covered by the Plan and water companies will therefore continue to be able to dump uncontrolled amounts of sewage directly into English seas and onto beaches – completely legally.
  • The proposed time frames lack urgency, long-stop targets are being set for 2050, and the earliest, most urgent, targets will not have to be met until 2035.
  • There are no targets to implement upstream solutions or to stop harmful pollutants, including chemicals and microplastics, at source.

Sandy Luk of the MCS writes,

“In our consultation response in March, we pointed all of this out and proposed solutions.

“The plan has not been amended since the consultation.”

Government dismissed MCS’s concerns

In early August, the MCS met with DEFRA to draw their attention to the urgency of these issues and recommend strong action.

To their utter amazement, the Government dismissed its concerns, claiming that storm overflows don’t harm estuaries and coastal waters because the sea dilutes the sewage.

This is,

“A ridiculous statement showing either a complete lack of understanding of the impact of the cocktail of plastics, chemicals and pathogens in raw sewage on marine life, or a complete disregard and disrespect for the importance of that marine life.”

No response to open letter to DEFRA

Driven by frustration, the MCS wrote an open letter to DEFRA to highlight their concerns and demand more information on the impacts of the Plan on coastal communities, who had lobbied so hard for DEFRA to address coastal sewage spills.

“To date, we have had no response to our open letter.”

Legal action as last resort

Now, having run out of all other options, the MSC is having to resort to legal action. It is joining forces with the Good Law Project (GLP), an oyster business and a surfer. GLP is setting up a crowdfunding campaign. On its Website, it writes:

“This is one of the biggest environmental scandals of our times. But the Government is failing to put a stop to it.

“We need urgent action to protect our precious and biodiverse ecosystems and to safeguard everyone’s right to safely enjoy our beaches and waterways for generations to come.

“We are joining forces …to compel the Government to rewrite its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan to impose much tighter deadlines on water companies to clean up their act. We are also in discussions with other potential claimants, who may be added to the claim later.”

What is the Good Law Project?

Good Law Project (GLP) is a not for profit organization, independent of any commercial interests, and funded mainly by members of the public. Its mission is to protect the environment, uphold democracy and defend the interests of marginalized groups.

GLP recently succeeded in forcing the Government to totally rethink their Net Zero strategy.

Eleven gambles that went wrong for Liz Truss

In the autumn of 2022, Liz Truss bet her premiership on a so-called mini-budget that ripped up decades of economic orthodoxy. It did not pay off.

By Nick Robinson www.bbc.co.uk

I spoke to those involved about the thinking behind the biggest risks she took during her seven weeks as prime minister – and why they did not succeed.

1. Not heeding warnings of ‘fantasy economics’

At the start of Liz Truss’s leadership campaign, when I interviewed her on Radio 4’s Today programme, I put it to her that she was gambling with the British economy by preparing to borrow as much as Jeremy Corbyn, whose policies she had condemned.

She replied that the real gamble was to carry on as we were; condemned the economic ideas of the past 30 years pursued by both Conservative and Labour governments, which she called the “Treasury orthodoxy”; and told me she was prepared to “bulldoze” opposition to her plans.

During the campaign, her rival, the former Chancellor Rishi Sunak, called her ideas “fantasy economics”. His ally Michael Gove said they were a “holiday from reality”.

And, as it became ever more clear that she was going to win, her circle of advisers got smaller.

Then-cabinet minister and one-time Truss ally Simon Clarke describes the mood in the Truss campaign as “revolutionary”. He says: “You could definitely sense that she herself had resolved that it was do or die.”

2. Sacking a top Treasury official

Days after she moved into No 10, Truss sacked the Treasury Permanent Secretary Tom Scholar, a senior civil servant who had worked for chancellors from Gordon Brown to Rishi Sunak.

This had the effect of intimidating other officials.

Once it had become clear she would win the Tory leadership election, officials met her at Chevening – her official residence as foreign secretary – but they did not warn her about her plans.

They believed it was not their job to do so, given that Truss was not yet prime minister. But one political ally of Truss’s, who asked not to be named, told me that anyone who challenged her was “executed in that room”.

Indeed, very few of those who worked behind the scenes have been prepared to talk up until now. I’ve spoken to many off the record. Asa Bennett, Liz Truss’s speechwriter both before and after she became prime minister, did agree to talk in public.

“It’s safe to say that he [Scholar] would still have been in the job if he was deemed to be helpful,” says Bennett. “Certainly many saw him in the Tory Party as the personification of Treasury orthodoxy.”

3. Bypassing the budget watchdog

Truss did not trust the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – the body set up by the former Conservative Chancellor George Osborne to make sure politicians could not fiddle official economic forecasts.

She believed its forecasts were usually wrong and that it did not share her belief that tax cuts could stimulate growth and, potentially, pay for themselves.

In order to bypass the OBR, she said her plans to spend billions on tax cuts were not a budget. They were instead what she initially called a fiscal event – language designed to ensure she could ignore the law that states that the OBR must issue forecasts whenever there is a budget.

This world view echoed what Truss was hearing from those around her during the summer leadership campaign.

Jon Moynihan, who was Liz Truss’s main fundraiser and spoke to her regularly throughout the campaign, says: “This whole idea that you have to get the tick of approval from the OBR, which has been consistently wrong in its financial forecasts is, in my view, anti-democratic.”

4. Not following some tax and spend advice

Truss’s allies in cabinet warned her that she needed to produce plans to cut spending to demonstrate how she intended to pay for tax cuts.

The minister who previously had been in charge of public spending at the Treasury, her new Levelling Up Secretary Simon Clarke, discussed plans with her to cut spending by five to 10%.

And while there remained ministers back at the Treasury arguing for the need to talk about spending restraint – a paragraph spelling that out was removed by No 10 from the Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget speech.

Truss told them that cuts would “distract from the message” about tax and growth and they could “worry later” about it.

People who raised worries were told that they had become part of the “Treasury orthodoxy”.

“We certainly discussed the importance of making sure tax and spend were in alignment,” says Clarke, who at one point was rumoured to be a candidate to be Liz Truss’s chancellor.

“The question which sits at the heart of all of this is at what moment in her mind she decided that was not necessary… I think her appetite for radicalism had only consolidated.”

5. Not having her ‘homework marked’

Truss had a trio of friendly economists who gave her advice. They were known as the Trussketeers.

One – Gerard Lyons – says that he warned her not to go further or faster than was expected by the financial markets and that he wrote a memo to the chancellor in the week of his mini-budget to repeat his warning.

“My view, both privately and publicly, was that any fiscal announcements needed to stick to what the markets had expected,” he says.

“I think all three outside economists stressed it was necessary to have a fully costed budget. The phrase I used: it was necessary to have your homework marked.”

6. Cutting the top rate of tax

Truss’s closest allies inside No 10 and in the cabinet did not know that she intended to cut the top rate of tax until the night before the mini-budget.

Although the cost was relatively small compared with other tax-cutting plans, it sent a signal to voters and the markets that the new prime minister was willing to ignore concerns about unfairness – and was ideological in her approach to economics.

Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, sat opposite Kwasi Kwarteng as he announced the plan.

“There’s lots of things that we prepare for because we don’t know what the big surprise is going to be in the budget,” she says.

“We didn’t anticipate that happening. The reason that we didn’t anticipate that happening is that it was bad economics and bad politics.”

7. U-turning on 45p tax

In the fallout from the mini-budget, Truss hoped that reversing her plan to cut the top rate of tax would silence her critics. But she encouraged them to demand further changes – and also embarrassed and alienated her allies who, like the Daily Telegraph, had praised her as the lady who was not for turning.

When she did backtrack – in the middle of the Conservative Party conference – even her most ardent fans were worried.

“I thought: ‘It’s the beginning of the end,'” says Jon Moynihan. “Concede on one, you would end up conceding on all.”

8. Sacking her chancellor

Jon Moynihan was right. Days after the Tory Party conference, Truss sacked Kwasi Kwarteng, her friend, long-term ally and the man who had implemented her ideas.

She replaced him with Jeremy Hunt, who tore up almost every one of the policies in Kwarteng’s mini-budget.

Sir Graham Brady, Chair of the influential backbench 1922 Committee, could sense which way things were moving.

“I think at that point it was very difficult to see how the whole thing could just work,” he says.

“She could do everything possible to restore market confidence, but to do that she was ending up doing all of the opposite things to those that she promised to do.”

9. Making enemies in the party

Truss sacked almost all those who disagreed with her and promoted those who backed her.

She did nothing to reach out to Rishi Sunak and his supporters despite the fact that he had won the support of more MPs than she had.

Her allies accused her critics – like Michael Gove – of mounting a coup. They still believe that to be true.

Nadine Dorries, former Culture Secretary and an ally of Truss, is writing a book arguing that this was a case of conspiracy rather than cock-up.

“The moment she won the leadership competition, they were never going to let her stay. She was always going to be removed. I thought she may be there for six months. But I knew they weren’t going to let her survive until the next election.”

10. Fighting the financial establishment

Truss’s allies believe she was undermined by leaks from the Treasury and the hostility of the Bank of England and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which criticised her policies.

Truss’s supporters – and some of her critics too – believe the people she had sacked, ignored or belittled were happy to see her fail.

Some allege there was co-ordination between the Bank of England and the IMF in issuing critical statements which unnerved the markets. Senior officials in one organisation had previously worked in another or knew their counterparts well.

Her allies blame the Treasury for briefing news of a possible climbdown on corporation tax, that bounced her into making the U-turn, then forced her to sack her chancellor, and ultimately cost her her job.

The “forces against her” comprised “such a huge proportion of the British establishment or blob”, says Jon Moynihan.

“I don’t think the Bank of England was particularly well-disposed towards the Truss government.”

Asked if there were people in the Treasury and at the IMF who wanted Truss’s government to fail, Jon Moynihan says “certainly”.

11. Truss always believed in herself

Liz Truss was nicknamed “the human hand grenade” but embraced this as a compliment rather than criticism.

Officials say she always wanted to be the most radical person in any room – which was fine when she was not the ultimate decision-maker and could be overruled. But once she was prime minister there was no-one empowered to hold her back.

Her chief of staff was a political campaigner who openly admitted to having very limited knowledge about policy. Her chancellor was an old political friend and ally who said that he saw his job as delivering the PM’s wishes. Her cabinet secretary had been told she planned to sack him and, insiders believe, did not want to stand up to her whilst his position was insecure.

Truss was the Conservative Party members’ choice to be PM. MPs who were not her supporters rushed to endorse her once they saw she was going to win. The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph hailed her as Margaret Thatcher’s successor. Her most ardent supporters attacked Rishi Sunak as a socialist.

She, and they, gambled. Many would say, the country paid the price.

Additional reporting by Jack Fenwick and Stephanie Mitcalf

Police watchdog head Michael Lockwood resigns amid investigation

The head of the police watchdog has been forced to resign after becoming the subject of a police investigation, Home Secretary Suella Braverman says.

“Leaky Sue” might benefit from a bit of self reflection – Owl

www.bbc.co.uk

Independent Office for Police Conduct director general Michael Lockwood said on Friday that he was resigning for “personal and domestic reasons”.

But on Saturday the home secretary said she had taken action after learning of the probe into a historical allegation.

Mr Lockwood was asked to either resign or be suspended, Ms Braverman said.

She said she had accepted the resignation, which came into immediate effect. No further information about the nature of the allegation was given.

Home Office staff are now working with the IOPC to “put in place temporary arrangements for the organisation’s leadership”, Ms Braverman added.

The home secretary said in a statement: “I took immediate action upon being made aware that Mr Lockwood was the subject of a police investigation… and instructed my officials to ask him to resign or face immediate suspension from his role.”

Mr Lockwood was the first person appointed to lead the IOPC when it replaced the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2018.

It handles the most serious complaints against police in England and Wales.

In his statement on Friday, Mr Lockwood said he was resigning with “great sadness”, adding that it had been an “enormous privilege” to serve as the organisation’s first director general.

He was previously chief executive of the London Borough of Harrow, north-west London.

After the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, Mr Lockwood was asked by a government task force to lead the recovery and remediation work and liaise with the bereaved families and survivors, according to the IOPC website.

A qualified accountant, he has also worked in central government at the National Audit Office, and for the Local Government Association as executive director for local government finance and policy.

‘Historic’ deal for more power and cash for Cornwall called ‘weak’

“The deal looks to be worth £12m per year, which is a tiny percentage of Cornwall Council’s budget – about 1%.” (Labour Leader)

“A drop in the ocean when you consider that the council faces a shortfall of £63m in its budget for the next year.” (Acting Leader LibDems)

“It’s astonishing that this deal is being signed by one person, Linda Taylor, without even holding a debate and a vote of her cabinet let alone Cornwall Council. This is the same Linda Taylor that has said she wants to be mayor and she will know the job will pay double what she gets now. This whole thing has a nasty whiff about it. It’s a shabby stitch-up by one political party that knows they are losing power.” (Independent councillor Tim Dwelly).

Campaigning to become Mayor of a rural area the size of Cornwall will need the logistic backing that only a National Party or a millionaire can offer. Doesn’t look very “fair” or “democratic” to Owl, more like a “plutocracy”. 

Richard Whitehouse www.cornwalllive.com

Cornwall Council has signed a new devolution deal with the Government which would guarantee £360million of funding and new powers over the next 30 years. Cornwall MP Steve Double said that the publication of the Cornwall deal was the “start of a new era”.

At Spaceport Cornwall Levelling Up Minister Dehanna Davison signed the document alongside Cornwall Council’s Conservative leader Linda Taylor with both describing it as an “historic” day. The deal is subject to public consultation, full agreement from Cornwall Council and Parliamentary approval.

Under the deal Cornwall Council would be given responsibility for the adult education budget as well as getting additional powers over planning, housing and transport. The deal includes an additional £8.7m for housing and funding for the Cornish culture and language.

The proposed deal has been overshadowed by the requirement for Cornwall Council to change its governance arrangements to secure the deal which will mean Cornwall having a directly-elected mayor for the first time. There has been a vigorous debate about whether there should be a public referendum on whether Cornwall wants to have a mayor elected by the people – instead of a council leader chosen by councillors.

Explaining the need for a mayor Ms Davison said: “We set out in the Levelling Up white paper a framework for devolution and different levels that people could opt into and we always said that in order to access the biggest groups of powers and funding we would like to have that directly accountable leadership so we in central government can go spend the money on what they are doing and that is why we really believe in the mayoral model.

“But we have never imposed that on any local area, it has always been for areas to opt into that and Cornwall were very keen to do so and I am really, really pleased that they decided to. You would have heard what Steve the local MP was talking about, having a seat at the table in these big national negotiations Cornwall will be there with their mayor and attracting international investment. People all over the world know what a mayor is as a figurehead for a local area and a spokesperson for that local area and that is going to be really important.

“But also being on the start of a devolution journey with a mayor in place, if you look at other areas across the country with elected mayors – I’m talking about Teesside, West Midlands, and Greater Manchester – they started with a particular deal and since then there has been so much more progress, so much more powers given, so much more funding given so I think this is the start of a really, really incredible and positive journey.”

The headline figure on the deal is the £360m over 30 years which provides £12m a year for Cornwall. But Ms Davison said that it was not just about the funding: “It is absolutely not, this is the start and the start of a long-term agreement between Government and Cornwall to make sure we are focusing on what is right for Cornwall and they have the powers and funding they need to attract investment, grow local jobs, bring benefits for the local area and that investment fund is additional money, money that wasn’t available otherwise so that is a good thing, but having it guaranteed across 30 years is really important because what that allows us, the mayor, the leader, to do is borrow against it and put in place really major investments at the outset.

“A guaranteed 30 years of funding coming in they are able to invest in vital infrastructure improvements, they can invest in job growth and opportunities, so it is so much more than that, but also having a seat at the table, looking at further, deeper devolution as we move along, there will be other opportunities, this is not the end it is very much the start.”

The Cornwall Devolution Deal which was signed at Spaceport Cornwall today (Image: Richard Whitehouse/LDRS)

The Cornwall Devolution Deal which was signed at Spaceport Cornwall today [Looks a bit “foxed” to Owl]

Cornwall Council is set to launch its consultation on the deal next week and the minister said that people should get involved: “This is an opportunity for local people to feed in and give their views but I would certainly hope that now that they can see the detail of what is in the deal that they would see it as an optimistic thing. Of course it is up to Cornwall Council, Linda and her team to go out and sell this as well as local MPs and us in Government but also that is why the consultation is important. I am an optimist, I am very much an optimist, and I feel in my bones that when people see these details and recognise what it could mean for them and their communities they will absolutely be behind this.

“There are real tangible things here for local people and it is our job to go out and sell that. That consultation is going to be really important and we would encourage as many people as possible take part.”

St Austell and Newquay MP Steve Double attended the event at Cornwall Airport Newquay and said the deal was about much more than just extra funding and he believed the introduction of a Mayor for Cornwall was actually more important.

“It is far more than that (funding), clearly the money is welcome but we need to see this as the start of the journey. It is not the finished picture. It gives us the opportunity to reset our relationship with government to have a new era, to have a seat at the top table along with the other mayors across the country. And then that gives us a basis for future negotiations to attract more investment, more powers, devolve more powers to Cornwall.

“It will give us a much stronger voice nationally and to really start to address some of those deep-seated issues and those powers are there in the deal around housing and dealing with some of our challenges around transport, adult education, these are really important things for Cornwall’s future and to have that clear, democratically-elected political leadership that really can represent Cornwall at the top table is really important, that is what this deal is about. Money is important and welcome but it is really about giving us a stronger voice.”

On the split opinions about a mayor Mr Double claimed it would not add another level of bureaucracy and would give people more of a say: “I think in terms of Cornwall it is primarily an administrative change. We are simply saying that instead of 87 councillors picking who should be the leader of Cornwall Council the people of Cornwall will get to elect who leads Cornwall Council, we are basically swapping the leader of Cornwall Council for a directly-elected mayor and that means that the people of Cornwall will have a far greater say over who leads the council.”

And he added it would help Cornwall on a wider scale: “I also think it is about having that far greater profile and voice nationally and internationally. We mustn’t underestimate the international significance. Governments around the world and businesses around the world are used to dealing with mayors, they understand that they have that clear political leadership and mandate and therefore it gives us a great opportunity to promote Cornwall internationally and attract investment and help with our economic growth here in Cornwall. So I think for those reasons that is why I believe it is the right thing to do. I know a lot of people have got caught up in it and lots of speculation that it means another layer of bureaucracy it really won’t, it isn’t another layer of government, it is about replacing the leader of Cornwall Council chosen by councillors with the leader of Cornwall Council chosen by the people of Cornwall.”

But what if, in the consultation, the people of Cornwall reject this deal and proposal for a mayor? Mr Double said: “The council will have to listen to that, that is the whole point of the consultation. But now we have got the deal and people can see for themselves, I would simply say to everyone in Cornwall, let’s approach this with an open mind, most decent, honest, sensible people in Cornwall I think will take the opportunity to look at exactly what is on offer, not the speculation and all that has been going on up until this point. We have now got it in black and white, take a look and I struggle to see what’s not to like about this. More money, more powers, the opportunity to continue to protect and enhance our unique Cornish identity and culture, which is really important to a lot of people here, and the opportunity to make the most of the opportunities ahead of us.”

Mrs Taylor said: “This is a big deal for the whole of Cornwall and provides the certainty required to tackle the challenges we face. This gives us the opportunity to secure more decision-making powers as well as bringing in millions of pounds of extra investment which will allow us to shape the future of Cornwall for the benefit of residents for many years to come.

“The proposed deal provides clarity in uncertain times and would allow us to make future plans with confidence, enabling us to deliver on our priorities to create a carbon neutral Cornwall where everyone can start well, live well and age well.

“The government has made it clear that the proposed deal is conditional on making our governance change. I am appealing to one and all to carefully consider this huge opportunity for Cornwall to receive more funding, powers and influence – and have your say on the deal that will help shape Cornwall’s future when the consultation begins next week.”

However, opposition councillors have not been impressed, many of them highlighting that they had not been given details of the deal before they were released to the media. Cllr Taylor said the information had been sent out by the Government and she did not want councillors to hear about it in that way but all councillors would be sent a copy of the deal and have a briefing on it.

Labour group leader Jayne Kirkham said: “On the face of it (because most councillors have not yet seen it) the deal looks mainly to be worth £12m per year, which is a tiny percentage of Cornwall Council’s budget – about 1%. It cannot possibly deal with all the issues that Cornwall faces.

“It also seems that the cost of the mayoral election and paying for the mayor themselves could have to come out of that figure, which may not be able to be spent on services like social care. The whole deal is conditional upon Cornwall accepting a mayor and there do not seem to be any significant powers passported down from Westminster as part of this deal.

“It’s also disappointing that the deal is being ‘signed’ today by a junior government minister and the leader of Cornwall Council before Cornwall Council and the people of Cornwall have even seen it. The Conservatives are taking Cornwall for granted.

“The next Labour government is committed to pushing forwards with genuine devolution that will be much deeper and broader than that being offered by the Conservatives. We also wouldn’t force a mayor or governance structure on Cornwall.

We have a plan for green growth – investment in renewables, clean power, insulating 19 million homes, skills and jobs. All of that could benefit Cornwall so much and bring real investment and decent, well-paid jobs down here.”

Mebyon Kernow leader Dick Cole called on people to take part in the consultation and call for “real devolution” for Cornwall. He said: “From the press release it is clear to me that this so-called devolution deal is not devolution at all. It does not include far reaching powers being transferred from Westminster to Cornwall like what has happened elsewhere in Wales and Scotland that helped create the Welsh Parliament and Scottish Parliament.

“As someone who has campaigned for meaningful devolution for his entire adult life I am desperately disappointed that this is the best that we can do. I would call on everyone to call for proper devolution.”

He added: “We feel very much outside of this, it is a Conservative council coming up with something with a Conservative Government. People should make their views heard and I would say that people need to look at the devolution deal as well as the mayoral part of it. Cornwall is a unique place, it is a Celtic nation like Wales and Scotland and we should be coming together asking for proper devolution like they have got.”

Colin Martin, acting leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “The content of the deal looks extremely weak. It touches on many areas of concern to residents in Cornwall, but the new powers and funding on offer fall far short of what is needed to tackle the enormous challenges we face.

“For example, on housing, we want the power to require planning permission before a home can be converted to holiday accommodation. There are 21,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing in Cornwall, and 25,000 houses being used as second homes or holiday lets. But all the deal offers is a promise to ‘work closely with Government to address these issues’. That’s exactly what was promised would happen if we elected six Conservative MPs to represent us, and again in 2021 we were told the same if we elected Conservatives to run the council, yet the situation has only got worse.

“The promise of £360m sounds great… until you realise it’s spread over thirty years. The annual figure of just £12m is a drop in the ocean when you consider that the council faces a shortfall of £63m in its budget for the next year.

“Devolution without adequate powers and money is simply a recipe for passing the buck. The new mayor will end up being a lightning rod to divert criticism for Conservative failure away from our Conservative Government.”

Independent councillor Tim Dwelly said: “It’s astonishing that this deal is being signed by one person, Linda Taylor, without even holding a debate and a vote of her cabinet let alone Cornwall Council. This is the same Linda Taylor that has said she wants to be mayor and she will know the job will pay double what she gets now. This whole thing has a nasty whiff about it. It’s a shabby stitch-up by one political party that knows they are losing power.

“And everyone can see it’s no big deal. There isn’t going to be any extra money at all for council services. Not even £1. The Cornish people must be given a vote on whether they want an all-powerful mayor running everything. It’s time for a referendum. Without one this whole thing will be seen as the worst possible case of London ordering Cornwall to do what it’s told.”

Winchester College: An urgent appeal

DEAR parents and alumni,

www.thedailymash.co.uk 1st December 2022

The socialist Keir Starmer has put pressure on the prime minister to withdraw the charitable status enjoyed by us here at Winchester College, the £46,000 per year fee-paying school attended by Mr Sunak himself. 

For the sake of humanity, this cannot be allowed to happen.

As winter draws in, we at Winchester are forced to send an unseemly plea for money to stave off the destitution that would surely follow if Starmer’s cruel, jealous measures were brought into place.

So what difference can you make?

Just £5 would get you a derisive chortle from our staff. £5? You might as well give us five pence, you ridiculous peasant.

£5,000 would go some way toward helping our rifle club, which is crying out for a new annex. And if the proletarian mob were ever to start a revolution, I’m sure we’d all be grateful for those shooting skills.

£10,000 would help provide glass protection for our extensive art collection in case class war anarchists from Just Stop Oil attempt to destroy civilised society by throwing paint at them.

£20,000 would be enough to provide a lifetime’s supply of enamel paint for our rowing boats and a straw boater for every pupil. These may not appear strictly necessary, but not wearing one would be terribly bad form.

So help Winchester maintain the facilities that have enabled us to produce tomorrow’s Conservative MPs. MPs with the talent and unwarranted self-confidence to line their own pockets and tank the economy faster than anyone thought possible. Please give generously.

Soaring rents making life ‘unaffordable’ for private UK tenants, research shows

Soaring rents have in effect made life unaffordable for private tenants across swathes of the UK, according to research undertaken for the Guardian.

Robert Booth www.theguardian.com 

The analysis shows that asking rents on new listings are up by almost a third since 2019, and some people are facing increases of up to 60%. Prices in 48 council areas are now classed by the Office for National Statistics as unaffordable when compared with average wages.

It comes amid warnings of a rising wave of evictions, allegations of “price gouging” by some landlords, and fears that the rental crisis is fast becoming a homelessness emergency.

Tenants in London and Manchester are planning protests this weekend to demand that the government freezes rents as an emergency measure.

Michael Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, is facing growing calls to finally ban no-fault evictions, used by landlords seeking to raise rents, which the government has been pledging to do so since April 2019. Ministers also face demands to pay more in housing benefit to cover rising costs.

The London Renters Union said its members had reported average rent increases of almost £3,400 a year (21%), which it described as “rent gouging”, with consumer price inflation at 9.6%.

One union member said he and his partner were forced out when a landlord demanded £8,000 more a year, and he was now working two jobs to pay the extra £200 a month in rent for their new home. Another said they were sofa surfing after being evicted after an unaffordable rent increase.

“It’s a pretty bleak situation to be in when you have 20 years of work behind you and nothing to show for it,” one renter in her 30s told the Guardian. She is awaiting bailiffs after refusing to pay a 60% rent rise in an east London property with a leaking roof, taps and rot.

Sarah, 56, a part-time carer in Manchester facing a choice of a 16% rent rise or eviction, said: “Gove isn’t moving on anything. It’s not good enough. There are people living in damp and disrepair. There is a huge crisis developing.”

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced a rent freeze in September, describing the pressure on household budgets as a “humanitarian emergency”. The UK government has resisted rent control, saying last month it would lead to “disinvestment in the sector”.

In Manchester, Bath, Nottingham, Cardiff, Brighton and Exeter, average asking rents now stand at more than 30% of a couple’s median income, the level at which the ONS considers rent “affordable”, Guardian analysis found.

One in five households in England rent their home, and costs have increased rapidly in recent months as the Bank of England has increased interest rates. In June, across the UK, average advertised rents were 5% higher than 12 months earlier, but by October they were up by 12% from 12 months previously, according to figures supplied to the Guardian by the property data company TwentiCi.

The sharp rent rises appear to have been triggered by some landlords passing on rising interest rates, and others following their example, creating a rent ratchet. While there are 4.4m renting households, there are only 2m buy-to-let mortgages, suggesting around half are owned outright. Renters told the Guardian how they had been served eviction notices on properties in considerable disrepair, only for them to be let out at several hundred pounds a month higher rent.

“Almost a million private renters are at risk of being kicked out of their home this winter, and more will follow,” said Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, which ran a survey suggesting 504,000 private renters had received or been threatened with an eviction notice in the last month, up 80% on the same period last year, and that 482,000 were behind on their rent. “Every day our emergency helpline advisers are taking gut-wrenching calls – from the mum who’s skipping meals to pay the rent, to the family terrified they will be spending Christmas in a grotty homeless hostel.”

The housing and homelessness minister, Felicity Buchan, said last month that the renters reform bill, which would ban no-fault evictions, would be introduced “during this parliament”, which means tenants may remain unprotected until late 2024.

After the lifting of the pandemic eviction ban, no-fault eviction court hearings have tripled in the last year, with accelerated proceedings where no hearing is needed rising to 6,619 in the three months to the end of September – above the equivalent pre-pandemic rate. From April to June, English councils had to help nearly 6,000 households either made homeless or threatened with homelessness after receiving a no-fault eviction, almost double that of a year earlier.

In October, the median rent listed by estate agents across the UK stood at £1,150, up 12% from the £1,025 recorded in October 2021, and up 28% from the £895 average asking price recorded in 2019, according to TwentyCi. The analysis is based on live asking price data on about 200,000 properties a month on property portals and estate agent sites.

There was a 48% increase in asking rents in Westminster in the year to October, the largest increase in the country, while the properties available to rent fell by 18%. House hunters saw rents increase by 37% in Arun, West Sussex, by 35% in Windsor and Maidenhead, and by 34% in Elmbridge, Surrey.

Chris Norris, the policy director for the National Residential Landlords Association, said dwindling supply was to blame for rising rents. He criticised Gove for previously saying he wanted to “shrink the private sector”, and said the NLA was urging him to reverse course, unfreeze housing benefit and accelerate housebuilding.

“According to Zoopla, the demand for private rented housing is up 142% so far this year compared to the five-year average,” Norris said. “In stark contrast, the supply of such housing has fallen by 46%. The end result is that more and more tenants are finding it difficult to access a dwindling supply of homes, resulting in higher rents.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities cited the energy price guarantee, which lasts until April 2023, as evidence of the help being provided for renters.

“Councils have a duty to ensure families are not left without a roof over their heads, and we’re giving them £316m this year to help prevent evictions and provide temporary accommodation,” the spokesperson said. “Ensuring a fair deal for renters remains a priority for the government. That’s why we will deliver on our commitment to abolish section 21 ‘no-fault’ evictions.”

Council debate on mayor leaves people scratching their heads

Conservatives seem to be in “attack dog” mode, regardless – Owl 

As the dust settled on a fractious and chaotic meeting of Cornwall Council this week the disputes and arguments over proposals for a Mayor for Cornwall continued outside the council chamber. As councillors were leaving New County Hall the leading Conservative group issued a press release about the day’s events, which appeared totally at odds with what had actually happened.

Richard Whitehouse www.cornwalllive.com

“Opposition councillors on Cornwall Council vote against giving County Hall a vote on having a referendum or not on future mayor plans for Cornwall” it claimed. Wait a minute, hadn’t Independent councillor Tim Dwelly tabled a motion which called for councillors to have a vote on whether to have a referendum? I looked back at the papers just to make sure I wasn’t going mad.

There it was in black and white: “Cornwall Council should hold a vote to decide if a referendum of all voters be held to determine whether Cornwall is in future governed by a mayor. This vote of full council shall be held after consideration of any public consultation exercise undertaken by this council.”

So, what were the Conservatives claiming exactly? In their press release council leader Linda Taylor was quoted: “I was really surprised to see our opposition apparently united in opposing plans that will, following the shortly forthcoming consultation to the people of Cornwall, see a vote at County Hall on whether future plans for a mayor should go to a referendum or not.”

Eh? But that was exactly what the motion from Cllr Dwelly was asking for, a motion that the Conservative group said they couldn’t support.

Having sat through the fractured and confused debate which gripped councillors in the chamber (and very few others) some might wonder whether some Conservative councillors had actually read the original motion.

Later I spotted on Twitter that some Conservative councillors kept up this attack line, trying to make out that they were on the side of the people and that the Independent councillors were somehow opposed to a referendum. This despite the fact that it was an Independent councillor, seconded by a Conservative councillor no less, who had called for the council to be able to have a vote on whether there should be a referendum on the mayoral issue but not until a public consultation is complete.

Confused? It would appear that political spin is the name of the game on this matter but the problem with that is that it is the people of Cornwall who are left in the middle of a cyclone with no idea which way is forward. The public consultation on the proposed devolution deal will be published next week – Cllr Taylor said there would be no time for councillors to approve this before it goes to the people.

Crucially the majority of councillors are yet to see what is included in the devolution deal all we have been told is that it is “ambitious” and would bring £390million to Cornwall. However, there are claims that that is over 30 years – so £13m a year – and there will be limits on what that can be spent on.

When the consultation goes live next week there will be a lot of people looking very closely at the questions included and how they are worded. If you ask most people would they like an extra £390m for Cornwall they are likely to tick any box stating yes.

There has always been talk from councillors of all political persuasions about their enthusiasm for openness and transparency – all should be clear that it is vital that on this issue there is true clarity about what the people of Cornwall will get if they accept the deal and the mayor that comes with it.

t.

Down the drain: how billions of pounds are sucked out of England’s water system

The untreated sewage that overflowed into England’s rivers and beaches this summer came only a few months after the companies responsible paid £1bn to their shareholders. The payment, for the financial year to March 2022, was less than average. Dividends from England’s big water and sewage companies are usually twice that – £2bn a year.

Anna Leach, Ellen Wishart, Sandra Laville and Carmen Aguilar García www.theguardian.com 

The amount of sewage leaving the system was unusual, but the amount of money leaving the system is not.

In the 30 years since England’s water was privatised by Margaret Thatcher, water companies have set up a system in which billions of pounds leave the network in an average year.

It’s money that could have gone towards building a more resilient water system, say academics. Among them, Dieter Helm, an Oxford professor of economic policy specialising in utilities, went as far as saying in 2021 that England’s water system was “a scandal of financial engineering”.

So where is the money going?

Note: yearly averages across the big nine English water and sewage companies, at March 2022 prices. See data note below for more details.

The water company debt mountain

England’s nine big water and sewage companies had zero debt in 1989 when they were sold off to the private sector. Now they have £54bn. The number is even higher when you include the six smaller water-only companies.

It’s normal for companies to take out debt to fund things like investment.

But it is actually customers that have been footing the bill for investment, researchers say.

“Investments have been entirely financed from customer payments, almost every year,” argues David Hall, visiting professor at Greenwich University and leading commenter on England’s water industry, in a 2021 analysis.

In Hall’s argument, that means the loans have been used for something else. He claims: “The companies have nevertheless borrowed large amounts of money, building up a large pile of debt and large annual bill for interest. This debt has not been taken on to finance investment, but to finance the payment of dividends.”

Approximately 20% of our water bills each year pay dividends and interest payments, the Competition & Markets authority found.

Water company debt has gone from zero in 1989 to £54bn in 2022

In the same time frame, £66bn has been paid out in dividends. Again, including dividend payments from England’s smaller water-only companies would result in a higher figure.

Water companies made several statements to the Guardian about their dividend policies and levels of debt.

Several companies say that dividends are important to shareholders and allowed by the regulatory system. Some highlight that less is spent on dividends than investment.

Several emphasise that external shareholders haven’t received dividends this year, though it is evident from financial statements that all the big nine regulated water companies except for Southern paid out dividends in the year ending March 2022, though these may have gone to “internal” shareholders such as parent companies. Once these payments leave the water company under the title of “dividends” it can be hard to track where they go, but we do know the money is no longer on the balance sheet of the water company.

Companies also say that they have spent significant sums of money on investment since privatisation. Using Ofwat figures we can see that the big nine have spent a total of £158bn on capital expenditure (investment) between 1991 and 2022. On debt levels, companies maintain that they have responsibly raised debt and worked to ensure financial stability, with some taking action to reduce inter-company loans and overall debt levels.

Full responses from the water companies can be found here.

Is a public system better? How England compares with Scotland

A look at the Scottish system shows that bills are slightly lower, and investment is slightly higher, for each household in Scotland.

A household in Scotland pays 7% less for its water and sewage services than one in England or Wales. The annual average bill for an English or Welsh household is £419 in the year 2022-23 compared with £391 in Scotland, data from Water UK and Scottish Water shows.

It is hard to make a direct comparison because there are many differences between the two systems, such as the type of the territory – Scotland is more mountainous and has more remote areas – and the length of the mains and the total volume of water produced. Scotland has a population of 5 million to England’s 57 million.

But we can see that the Scottish system has invested more in maintaining and upgrading its water infrastructure in the last decade than companies operating the system in England and Wales.

In the year to March 2021, Scottish capital expenditure was 7% higher, spending £243 per household compared to £228 per household in England and Wales, analysis from Ofwat and Scottish Water data shows. The financial situation of Scottish Water is different to England’s water companies as it is a public body, but it had £3.9bn in debt in March 2022.

Pipes in Scotland leaked 9% more water. On average, 10.5 litres of water per mile of pipe were lost in Scotland every minute during the year to March 2022 compared with 9.7 in English and Welsh pipes per minute.

A Water UK report published this year shows that all companies have reduced leakage from 2004 to 2020, with Scotland registering the biggest reduction.

A Water UK spokesperson said that “leakage is a top priority for the industry” and that leakage has reduced 10% in the last few years.

‘The purpose has been to profit-maximise’

Reflecting on how England’s water system has fared since privatisation, Helm writes:

“The sad reality of 30 years of privatisation has been high gearing [a measure of debt], high profits and dividends, and investment well below what could have been achieved.”

The flaw is in the set-up of the system he argues – because this is what the businesses that own the water companies do.

“The purpose of private water companies has indeed been to profit‑maximise. It would be odd to expect the infrastructure and private equity funds to have decided to forgo an open goal.”

About the data

  • Operating expenditure and capital expenditure from nine English water and sewage companies taken from Ofwat. Average derived from 1991-2022.
  • Dividend expenditure by nine English waters companies taken from Karol Yearwood 2018 (1991-2018), David Hall 2022 (2019-2021) and Guardian research (2022). Average derived from 1991-2022.
  • Interest payments by nine English waters companies taken from Karol Yearwood 2018 paper (1991-2018). Average derived from 1991-2018.
  • Net debt position of companies taken from 2022 company annual reports.
  • Companies included: Anglian Water, Northumbrian Water, Severn Trent Water, South West Water, Southern Water, Thames Water, United Utilities, Wessex Water, Yorkshire Water. NB: Welsh Water is excluded from these calculations – it became a not-for-profit in 2001
  • All historic prices adjusted for inflation to March 2022 values.

‘Alternative supply’ sought as Devon residents still without water

Dartmouth residents have been without water since early this morning (December 1). South West Water are still exploring an ‘alternative supply’ following the major outage, which is ongoing at time of writing (9.15pm).

Toby Codd www.devonlive.com

The outage was first reported at 5am and the latest Twitter update from the water supplier was at 4.17pm. They said: “We are still investigating the cause for supply issues, we aim to have an update in the next few hours.

“We are also looking into the possibility of providing an alternative supply of water, We will keep you updated. Sorry for any inconvenience.”

By 7pm, the water had not been restored with residents beginning to ask questions on social media. One person asked South West Water when the issue was likely to be resolved, with the supplier replying that they did ‘not have an update on any information’.

The South West Water reply read: “Good evening Lauren, unfortunately we do not have an update on any information. We are still trying to locate where the issue is. As soon as we have an update we will advise you.”

Another reply to a different resident at 7.33pm said: “Good evening Philippa, the reason you have had no communication is because there has been nothing to communicate. We have been investigating since 5 AM and have not been able to locate where the issue is. We will keep you as updated and informed as possible.”

At 8.28pm, South West Water told a customer that a water collection point had been set up at the Stoke Fleming Village Hall. It said customers would be notified when the collection point was put in place.

Anthony Mangnall, MP for Totnes and South Devon, said that he will be speaking with the water supplier to get an update on the disruption at 8.22pm. He added that ‘residents have already had to wait far too long without water.”

He tweeted: “I will be speaking to @SouthWestWater shortly to get an update on the water disruption to Dartmouth and the surrounding areas. Residents have already had to wait far too long with out water.

“I will post further information as and when I receive it.”

New plans to turn council HQ into retirement village

[Including a reduction in the number of affordable units – Surprise, surprise – Owl]

Revised plans for the controversial redevelopment of the former East Devon District Council offices in Sidmouth have been unveiled. Plans have previously been given the go-ahead to turn the premises at the Knowle into a purpose-built care home, retirement living apartments and affordable housing.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

It was all the way back in 2018 the scheme for an assisted living development was granted on appeal. Property developer LifeStory though ‘reviewed the consented development’ before selling the site to McCarthy Stone.

They have now come back with fresh plans for the site. McCarthy Stone and Porthaven are holding a virtual exhibition to display their revised proposals, which respond to the concerns raised by the community as part of the original planning consent, and that the proposals have incorporated feedback received from the first consultation held in Summer 2022.

The updated proposals for the site’s redevelopment look to provide a purpose-built care home, Extra Care and age-restricted Retirement Living accommodation as well as policy compliant affordable housing. The consultation will provide the community with the opportunity to view and comment on McCarthy Stone’s proposals for the site, ahead of a planning application being submitted in the coming months.

Shane Paull, Divisional Managing Director at McCarthy Stone Southern, said: “As part of our commitment to community engagement, we have now launched a second consultation, to ensure that the local community are afforded with another opportunity to view and comment upon the updated proposals for the site.

“The virtual exhibition provides us with another important opportunity to understand feedback on our proposals, and for us to demonstrate how the updated plans have responded to concerns raised by the community as part of the original planning consent, and from the Summer 2022 consultation.”

Latest artist impressions of plans to redevelop the Knowle in Sidmouth

Changes to the masterplan include:

· Additional parking has been included within the centre of the site, that will be naturally screened by new tree planting.

· The provision of four houses on the north-western part of the Plateau

· The number of affordable apartments has been reduced from 21 to 17. This has also enabled the affordable apartment block to be relocated from the northeast part of the Plateau to the north-west, that is stepped away from neighbouring properties

· The reduction in the level of Retirement Living PLUS apartments, from 59 to 53

· Additional tree planting to provide an extension to the Arboretum, that provides a green corridor stepping down to the south part of the Plateau site.

· The provision of two houses along the southern grass verge of the Plateau.

Latest artist impressions of plans to redevelop the Knowle in Sidmouth

The plans now include:

· In northern part of the site that currently comprises of a car park, to be developed by Porthaven, to provide a 68-bedroom care home

· A high-quality Retirement Living and Retirement Living PLUS (Extra Care) development to be developed by McCarthy Stone on The Plateau part of the site, featuring up to 27 one-and two-bedroom Retirement Living apartments as well as up to 53 one- and two- bedroom Retirement Living PLUS (Extra Care) apartments for private sale, part-rent part-buy and rental options

· The Plateau part of the site to also include up to 17 one-and two-bedroom affordable open market housing apartments, as well as four houses, in compliance with local authority guidance

· Tailored shared facilities within both the Retirement Living developments, including a communal lounge with a kitchenette and a hotel-style guest suite as well as an onsite bistro restaurant within the Retirement Living PLUS development.

· Principal vehicle access from Station Road, with secondary access from Knowle Drive for the use of emergency and refuse vehicles only.

· Sufficient levels of car parking onsite, including disabled and electric vehicle charging bays, in accordance with East Devon District Council’s standards, as well as an overflow parking area to the southwest of The Plateau part of the site, that will be accessed from Station Road.

The plans are available to view and comment on until December 14 at www.mccarthystoneconsultation.co.uk/sidmouth The principle of the site’s redevelopment has also been established within East Devon District Council’s Local Plan for the period up to 2031, adopted in January 2016.

Highland Council chief Donna Manson leaving for Devon post of DCC CEO

Highland Council chief executive Donna Manson is leaving to take up the same role at Devon County Council.

BBC News www.bbc.co.uk

Donna Manson

Donna Manson joined Highland Council in 2018

She was service director for children and young people at Scottish Borders Council, before taking up the top job at Highland in 2018.

Ms Manson is due to leave Highland Council in February.

Convener Bill Lobban said she had led the council through difficult and challenging times, including the Covid pandemic.

Forty potential ministerial code breaches never investigated, report reveals

Why no ethics adviser? – Owl

Forty potential breaches of the ministerial code have never been referred for investigation by the ethics adviser, according to new data.

Jessica Elgot www.theguardian.com 

It comes as a parliamentary committee warned historic breaches of the code may never be investigated or resolved, including the conduct of the home secretary or Islamophobia claims against a former chief whip.

Rishi Sunak has launched a hunt for a new adviser on ministerial interests but the Guardian reported last week several candidates have turned down the role. Sunak is not offering candidates any enhanced powers – which means advisers would not be able to launch their own investigations.

The ethics adviser, when appointed, would probably face calls to renew or open at least two complex investigations – including concluding one into alleged Islamophobic comments made by the then-chief whip Mark Spencer to MP Nusrat Ghani.

There will also probably be pressure to open an investigation into the home secretary, Suella Braverman, who was sacked for a potential security breach by Liz Truss though reinstated by Sunak.

The pressure group Transparency International has been among those calling for the role to have significantly enhanced powers since it was vacated by Christopher Geidt five months ago under Boris Johnson.

In analysis of media reports, the group found 40 potential breaches of the ministerial code have not been investigated over the past five years. Those included:

All the ministers have claimed donations and meetings were recorded accurately, but Transparency International said each one represents a potential breach that should be investigated where a perceived conflict of interest may arise.

The group has also called for appointments to the role to be made with a competitive process and for the position to be defined in law – rather than both being at the whim of the PM.

Daniel Bruce, the chief executive of Transparency International UK, said: “This is further evidence the conventions-based system that is supposed to uphold standards in high-office is simply not fit for purpose. The extent of potential misconduct at the heart of government may be a shock to many, but equally concerning should be the lack of transparency over why these cases were never investigated independently.”

Sir Alex Allan, a former independent adviser, resigned after Boris Johnson refused to take action after an investigation into bullying by the then-home secretary Priti Patel.

Truss, during her short tenure as prime minister, expressed no interest in appointing a successor to Geidt. No transparency data on ministers’ interests has been published since May, despite multiple changes of government including three prime ministers.

While Sunak searches for Geidt’s successor, a separate independent investigation has been launched into the conduct of the deputy prime minister, Dominic Raab, by the senior employment barrister Adam Tolley KC, who is examining three bullying complaints.

A government spokesperson said: “We have been clear that this government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level and have committed to appointing an independent adviser on ministerial interests. This process is ongoing.”

“Leaky” Sue story resurfaces

“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.” Rishi Sunak

Braverman return sets ‘dangerous precedent’, says Commons committee

Rishi Sunak’s decision to reappoint Suella Braverman as UK home secretary sets a “dangerous precedent” for what should happen to ministers who are alleged to have broken the ministerial code, a Conservative-led committee of MPs has warned.

Kiran Stacey www.theguardian.com 

The public administration and constitutional affairs committee released its latest report into government ethics on Friday, issuing a damning judgment on the government’s recent record in office.

It took issue, in particular, with the reappointment of Braverman, who resigned in the last days of Liz Truss’s premiership after sending an official document from her personal email to another MP. However, Sunak made her home secretary again soon after taking office, despite promising to bring “integrity and accountability” back to government.

The committee, which is chaired by the Conservative MP William Wragg, said in its report: “The reappointment of the home secretary sets a dangerous precedent. The leaking of restricted material is worthy of significant sanction under the new graduated sanctions regime introduced in May, including resignation and a significant period out of office.

“A subsequent change in prime minister should not wipe the slate clean and allow for a rehabilitation and a return to ministerial office in a shorter timeframe.”

Sunak took office in October pledging a return to sombre and ethical government after the turbulence of the tenures of Truss and her predecessor, Boris Johnson.

But he immediately faced criticism for his decision to reappoint Braverman amid allegations she had broken the ministerial code. The rightwing Braverman’s decision to back him during the Tory leadership campaign was seen as pivotal in killing off Johnson’s attempt to return to office.

Sunak has also struggled to appoint an independent ethics adviser after the resignation of Christopher Geidt, who quit after months of revelations about lockdown-breaking parties in No 10.

The Guardian revealed this week that several candidates had turned down the role over the past five months owing to concerns about its remit. One source close to the process said Sunak was not planning to allow the new adviser to launch their own investigations, which would leave substantial investigative power in the hands of the prime minister.

The committee said in its report that the role should be enshrined in law, and the new adviser should be able to begin their own inquiries. The MPs said: “The statutory role should preserve the recent increase in powers for the independent adviser, notably the authority of the post holder to initiate their own investigations rather than waiting for instruction from the prime minister.”

They added that the adviser should also be allowed to conduct inquiries into historical behaviour, which would allow whoever takes the role to look into the allegations against Braverman.

Downing Street has been approached for comment.

Information Commissioner to investigate university over student accommodation numbers refusal 

Compliance failure follows university admission that there are nearly 39,000 students based at Exeter campuses in 2021-22, suggesting around three quarters of city’s private rented housing stock occupied by students.

Exeter Observer exeterobserver.org 

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is to investigate the University of Exeter’s refusal to disclose student accommodation numbers under freedom of information legislation.

Its investigation follows the university’s failure to comply with a deadline it was given to review its handling of an Exeter Observer information request to provide the numbers of Exeter campus-based students housed in Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) during the 2021-22 academic year.

The university had already admitted, in response to a related freedom of information request, that there were nearly 39,000 students based at its Exeter campuses that year – 11,500 more than the 27,300 FTE students it claims on its website.

(FTE student numbers combine full-time and part-time students into a single total used for planning educational provision, not accommodation, although the university does not explain this anywhere on its “facts and figures” page.)

The university can choose what to publish on its website, but its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are legally binding. It is a criminal offence to alter or conceal information held by public authorities (including the university) with the intention of preventing disclosure following a request for the information under the Act.

Exeter PBSA bedspace availability and occupancy rates make it likely that fewer than 10,000 of the the university’s Exeter-based students stayed in this form of accommodation during the 2021-22 academic year, meaning around another 29,000 students would have been living in the city’s residential housing stock in one form or another.

Academic research on the impact of increasing student numbers in Exeter and government housing stock and tenure distribution figures suggest that these students occupied around three quarters of the city’s stock of private rented properties – 8,250 dwellings which could otherwise have been used for residential housing by local people.

The government does not hold precise figures for tenure distribution at local authority level and there are likely to be small PBSA occupancy rate variations. Meanwhile the city council continues to use council tax records to estimate student residential housing stock occupation despite the Office for National Statistics (ONS) concluding last year that they cannot be relied on for this purpose.

So we asked the university to provide its own figures for the distribution of Exeter campus-based students across both university- and privately-provided PBSA in 2021-22 so we could, in turn, confirm exactly how many were living in the city’s private residential housing stock.

Exeter PBSA map

Exeter PBSA map. Source: University of Exeter.

The university’s response was to claim it does not know and cannot find out because it “does not hold structured or consistent data to answer the question without manual process to review all student records”.

It nevertheless also said: “Records are kept as standard address: house number, street name, postcode” but claimed this information could not be used to identify which of its students lived in either its own or privately-provided PBSA despite it also knowing the location and ownership of all 66 such blocks in the city, information it publishes on its website.

When we pointed out that its standardised student address format would enable it to make simple database queries to match the postcodes of each PBSA address against the postcodes of each student address record, yielding the information we had requested, it claimed that it was not obliged to provide the information as it would have to perform this cross-referencing by hand.

University regulations and policies which relate to the electronic online Student Record System that it uses to manage address information for all its Exeter students say otherwise.

Its data protection notice says that it holds and processes permanent and term-time addresses of all its students and its general regulations say all Exeter-based students are required to maintain up to date home and term-time address records via its electronic online Student Record System as a condition of enrolment, a requirement repeated on its academic study administration portal.

It even provides a student records data request service that enables staff to access these records.

When we asked the university to review of its handling of our information request, as per the rights conferred by the Freedom of Information Act, it initially resisted, repeating its previous claim about manual processing.

Then, when we pointed out that its response did not address any of the issues we raised regarding its failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, and asked it to confirm that it had provided its full and final response before we complained to the ICO, it suddenly changed its tune and said it would perform a proper review.

Such reviews should normally be completed within twenty working days. After 22 working days we followed up and were told that a review was underway and would be completed in no more than 40 working days, the maximum allowed by law.

When 43 working days passed without the university completing the review (62 since we submitted the initial request) we wrote to the ICO, which gave the university a ten day response deadline.

The university remained silent, the deadline passed and the ICO has now confirmed it will launch an investigation into the university’s refusal to provide the information.

Martin Redfern is editor of Exeter Observer and a director of its publisher Exeter Observer Limited.