After dropping over the past few weeks, covid cases have once again risen in all parts of Devon.

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

In the latest complete seven day period (to Sunday, 23 January) the county recorded 12,745 new cases, 2,290 more than in the previous week. The 22 per cent rise takes the infection rate across Devon to 1,120 per 100,000 of the population, higher than the national average of 954.

The Devon County Council, which excludes Plymouth and Torbay, recorded the largest spike, with a 29 per cent (+1,816) rise. Its 8,176 new cases take the area’s infection rate to 1,009 per 100,000.

Torbay continues to have the highest infection rate in the county, with 1,270 cases per 100,000 of the population. The latest figures record 1,730 infections in the Bay; 181 (12 per cent) more than the previous week.

Plymouth’s 2,839 new cases are 279 (12 per cent) more than the previous week. The infection rate is 1,080 per 100,000 of the population. 

The spike is a setback for the city’s health services. Speaking recently Kevin Baber, chief operating officer of Plymouth Hospitals said the number of people waiting for treatment at Derriford is 40,000; up 10,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.

More than 3,000 people have been waiting over a year and 461 patients, primarily needing elected orthopaedics or spinal surgery, who have waited over two years.

Mr Baber said the pandemic has taken a toll on NHS workers in Plymouth, noting “an increasing number of staff who are off sick with stress, anxiety, depression and covid PTSD.”

Hospitalisations

As of the most recent data (from Wednesday 25 January) 240 patients with covid were in Devon’s hospitals. The majority (188) are in Derriford. 

Twenty-seven people are being cared for at the RD&E in Exeter, while a further 25 are being treated in Torbay Hospital.

Three patients in Devon are in mechanical ventilation beds. 

Deaths

Nineteen people died within 28 days of receiving a positive covid test across Devon in the most recent complete seven-day period (to Sunday 23 January), six more than last week. 

Ten people died in the Devon County Council area, which excludes Plymouth and Torbay. Five deaths were recorded in Torbay and four in Plymouth.

Across Devon, a total of 1,518 people have now died within 28 days of a positive covid test.

Vaccinations

Eighty-eight per cent of people aged 12 and above have had their first dose of a vaccine in the Devon County Council area, which excludes Plymouth and Torbay, with 83 per cent receiving both doses. Seventy per cent have now had their ‘booster’ dose.

In Plymouth, 85 per cent have had one dose, while 79 per cent have had both. Fifty-nine per cent have had the booster.

In Torbay, 86 per cent have received one dose, while 8q per cent have had both jabs. Sixty-five per cent have had their third vaccine.

The national rates are 91, 84 and 65 per cent respectively.

Devon Covid dashboard shows cases rising in all age groups except 60 to 79 year olds (cases to 25 Jan)

“One of the South West’s largest employers, the Exeter-based construction giant Midas, has reportedly filed a court notice of its intention to appoint an administrator.”

Steve Hindley, the Executive Chairman of the Midas Group, is also Chair of the “Great South West” which seems to have set itself up to take a leadership role for promoting economic growth across a number of neighbouring Local Enterprise Partnerships in the peninsular. 

In February 2020, with incredibly bad timing, “The Great South West” sent a report to Savid Javid just as he was replaced by Rishi Sunak, see: “The Great South West pitches to the wrong man. A week is a long time in politics” . Then the pandemic broke.

In July 2020 The Great South West appeared to be defunct, but it re-emerged in time for the G7 to publish a new, green, way forward in June 2021. This “greening” report, however, was  written by none other than one of the main polluters of our rivers and seas, the Pennon Group.

Currently we await Michael Gove’s “levelling up” White Paper, supposedly this week, but who knows what the government’s agenda is these days.

Concerns over future of SW construction giant

Colleen Smith www.devonlive.com 

The £290million turnover company filed the notice for itself and its main subsidiary Midas Construction Limited, the UK’s leading building trade resource Construction News revealed.

It follows a DevonLive exclusive yesterday which revealed that work had come to a virtual standstill on three major hotel construction projects worth £40m-plus in Torbay.

Midas is one of the region’s largest employers, with more than 400 people directly employed and supporting more than 10,000 jobs in supply chains.

The Exeter-headquartered business is ranked as the ninth largest in the Top 150 businesses in Devon and Cornwall 2021.

A notice of intention (NOI) typically means that a company will formally appoint an administrator within 10 days, unless it can find an alternative financial solution to its problems first. It follows the resignation of Midas Group’s commercial director Scott Poulter at the end of December and a nine-page Registration of Charge was posted on Companies House in mid January.

Administration is often used as part of a company restructure if the business is deemed viable. Directors can purchase some or all of the assets, and set up a ‘newco’ to move forward and save the business.

Midas is one of the region’s largest employers, with more than 400 people directly employed and supporting more than 10,000 jobs in supply chains.

The Exeter-headquartered business is ranked as the ninth largest in the Top 150 businesses in Devon and Cornwall 2021.

If they do enter administration there will be eight weeks in which to save the company, with sale as a going concern often the preferred option.

After months of concern within the building trade, fears for the company’s future mounted this week after the Fragrance Group spoke publicly to DevonLive about its fears for the lack of progress over the last three months at its twin £30m new hotel builds on Paignton seafront.

At the same time work ceased at the £11m construction of the Premier Inn in Torquay on The Terrace.

The company said its projects had been affected by the pandemic, Brexit, and labour and material inflation and shortages. “We are working closely with all our stakeholders to resolve the situation,” it said in a statement issued this morning.

A number of subcontractors have today revealed that they are owed five-figure sums by the company, whose HQ is in Pynes Hill, Exeter, and with offices stretching across the South West from Southampton to South Wales.

Last year the company reported a £2m pre-tax loss for the first time in it’s 40 year history. Midas is one of the UK’s largest privately-owned construction and property services companies.

Singapore-based Fragrance Group appointed Midas to build the two new hotels on Paignton seafront in January 2020, but after three months with little progress on the build their patience ran out this week.

A spokesperson for the group told DevonLive : “Over the past three months, the Fragrance Group has become increasingly concerned by the very limited progress on our two new Paignton seafront hotel developments, located on the neighbouring sites of the former Park Hotel and Lighthouse club.

“We are in constant discussions with the main contractors and are now reviewing our options to complete the development of these hotels.

“Our priority is to deliver these two new seafront hotels which mark a vital investment in the wider Torbay. We can confirm that the Fragrance Group is committed to Torbay.”

Torbay Council contracted Midas to build the £11m Premier Inn at The Terrace in Torquay. But after work stopped on site this week a council spokesman said on Thursday: “We are working with Midas to identify any issues that may be affecting the site and any required solutions.”

Midas works primarily in the commercial sector and also delivered jobs in the residential and education markets, with much of its work in the South West. In Torquay they are also currently building a new Special Educational Needs department at St Cuthbert Mayne school.

A spokesman for Midas told DevonLive yesterday: “As is well known in the industry there are issues relating to Brexit, Covid, ongoing shortages of materials and labour, and significant cost inflation, which are providing challenges to project delivery and timescales.

“We are working closely with all our stakeholders to resolve the situation.”

A former Hartlepool councillor will have to pay almost £50,000 in legal fees after an unsuccessful High Court challenge to void a result in the May 2021 local elections.

Laura Love www.gazettelive.co.uk

The hearing took place following a petition from Bob Buchan over claims of damaging information in Labour’s campaign material shortly before the 2021 local elections.

Mr Buchan, who previously represented the Independent Union on the borough council, missed out on being one of three councillors elected in the Fens and Greatham ward to Labour’s Jennifer Elliott by 609 votes to 619.

After hearing evidence on Thursday, judge Philip Kramer on Friday concluded the statement in the election material related to “political conduct and character”, rather than a “personal” attack, and ruled in favour of Cllr Elliott.

He said: “The exercise of a vote in committee is a political act, the councillor is discharging a political function.

“Politicians are entrusted to take these decisions on the public’s behalf and when they discharge that trust, they are undertaking a political act, which is correctly characterised as political conduct.”

The defence submitted legal costs of just under £79,000 to the court, with the judge ruling Mr Buchan must pay just over £48,000 of this, after questioning and analysing the fees.

Speaking at the hearing Mr Buchan, said he had kept his legal costs to “about £3,500” and noted he will have to seek “support from family and friends” to pay the defence’s fees.

Speaking after the result, Mr Buchan said: “I’m naturally disappointed with the outcome of this case.

“The reason I brought this case in the first place is that Jennifer had informed 700 residents in the village I voted in favour of a controversial development, when it has now been proven in open court and accepted by Jennifer that this was not true.

“I am astounded that the defence team asked for almost £79,000 and I’m grateful for the judge for slashing the bill down by almost £30,000.”

The fees must be paid within 28 days, however Mr Buchan was told he can make a request to pay in instalments.

The case revolved around a Labour campaign letter just days before the May local elections, which claimed Mr Buchan had voted in favour of a controversial development for 18 council homes in Hill View, in Greatham, which was approved in January 2021.

The former councillor reiterated he was not at the meeting when plans were approved, and voted against a similar previous application in July 2020.

Judge Kramer ruled there was “no dispute” Mr Buchan did not vote in favour, as he was not present at the meeting .

During the hearing, Cllr Elliott had said it was an “honest mistake” in stating Mr Buchan had voted for the application.

However Mr Buchan had said he felt there had been an “attack on his reputation and good standing in the community” with the comments made in election material.

Speaking after the case, Cllr Elliott said she was “very pleased” with the court’s ruling and she is now focused on continuing to “fight for the residents of Fens and Greatham”.

She said: “I would like to thank all those who have supported me through a stressful and unpleasant time.

“I am looking forward to getting back to what really matters.”

Judge Kramer, speaking at the start of proceedings, had said if Mr Buchan had been successful, the result of the election would have been “void” and “have to be rerun”.

GPs would be nationalised under plans from the health secretary to make them do more to keep patients out of hospital.

Chris Smyth www.thetimes.co.uk

Sajid Javid is considering radical changes to the 70-year-old structure of the NHS that could see many family doctors directly employed by hospitals instead of running their own surgeries.

He has told Boris Johnson that there are “considerable drawbacks” to the system under which GP surgeries are in effect independent contractors paid per patient by the NHS.

A review of primary care planned by Javid will look at how to better integrate GPs with hospital care as part of attempts to do more to stop people developing serious illness.

Sources insisted there would be no forcible state takeover of GPs, who are likely instead to be given incentives to link up with hospital trusts.

The plans are likely to provoke resistance from doctors who said that the independence of GPs boosts innovation and offers value for taxpayers’ money.

Javid is keen to accelerate the pace of reform in the NHS as he feels pressure to deliver tangible progress in exchange for billions of pounds in extra funding.

He is reviewing hospital management to hold NHS chiefs more closely to account as well as considering “academy style” hospitals with more freedoms, which he hopes will start taking over GPs.

This month he wrote to the prime minister setting out his ideas for NHS reform, telling Johnson that he had “an ambitious agenda that has the potential to be a central plank of your domestic policy legacy”.

He suggested setting up a “new National Vaccination Service” to free surgeries from the need to administer regular Covid boosters, which could keep on some of the non-medical vaccinators employed during the pandemic to administer routine immunisations.

GPs in England were told to prioritise boosters before Christmas, but this week they were told by NHS England to “restore routine services” now that demand for jabs has dropped off.

In the letter, seen by The Times, Javid said: “Whilst there are some strengths to the system of primary care, it’s also clear that the historic separation of general practice from the wider healthcare system as created in 1948 comes with considerable drawbacks including an underinvestment in prevention.” He says he will launch “an independent review of the future of primary care”, to look at “workforce, business models and how GPs work with the other parts of the NHS such as hospitals”.

This month, The Times reported that Javid was considering a new class of “reform trust” in the NHS, modelled on the academy school scheme. The letter said that they would “drive innovation with the freedom to improve outcomes by pioneering approaches including by bringing together primary and secondary care”. The idea has been dubbed the Wolverhampton model after the city’s hospital took over GP practices and cut emergency admissions.

Martin Marshall, the head of the Royal College of GPs, said the current model “delivers exceptional benefits for the NHS”, and that the main problem was a lack of qualified staff. “There has to be a very good reason for changing a model that works well” for all.

Aren’t GPs already run by the NHS?

Although GPs are the front door to the health service, practices have never been owned by the government but are owned and managed by GP partners, whose pay in effect comes out of surgery profits.

How are GPs paid?

Surgeries get a fixed sum per patient, currently £155 a year, with extras for hitting targets on chronic conditions and for offering extra services, with allowances for extra staff such as pharmacists.

Why is the NHS set up like this?

It was a compromise struck as Nye Bevan set up the NHS facing resistance from the British Medical Association and others, who compared the plans to Nazism. To buy off their opposition, he allowed consultants to carry on seeing private patients and GPs to remain independent small businesses.

What is the case for reform?

Joining up care and preventing chronic illness is a key goal of health systems globally. Some argue that the divide between GPs and hospitals hampers this integration. Hospitals lack the opportunity to prevent disease while GPs lack the resources and financial incentives to prevent disease they do not pay to treat.

What is the case against?

GPs are established, developing long-term local links and are responsive to patients, not looking to the NHS hierarchy and an unresponsive bureaucracy.

Are any GPs paid a salary?

Yes, and the number is growing as fewer younger doctors want the responsibility of in effect running a small business. The number of salaried GPs in England has gone from 6,650 in 2009-19 to 11,000 in 2019-20, a rise of 65 per cent. GP contractors have fallen 27 per cent from 26,400 to 19,250.

What does nationalisation mean in practice?

Javid’s allies insist family doctors will not be forced to hand over their surgeries. They are more likely to be offered incentives to become part of larger NHS organisations, often hospitals.

What will this mean for patients?

The goal is a more seamless link between doctors and specialists, meaning problems picked up quicker and patients given help staying well. Critics say the changes will not address the fundamental problem of falling GP numbers.

Paul Griew always knew that his home, which sits on top of a cliff in Devon, would not last for ever.

www.independent.co.uk 

When he bought it in the late 1990s, he worked out that it would take 300 years for the crumbling edge to reach his property.

But the rate of erosion has since increased. “It’s 30 years at best at the moment,” the retired 73-year-old tells The Independent from his living room overlooking the sea.

His house in Sidmouth is one of many across the UK whose lifespan will be determined by how quickly the cliffs on which they sit crumble.

The Climate Change Committee, which advises the government, has warned that more than 100,000 properties could be at risk of coastal erosion by 2080.

Since Mr Griew has lived in his house on Cliff Road, he has seen around 20 metres of his garden, including a summer house, tumble into the English Channel.

When the first section went, the 73-year-old rushed to check that the gardener – who had been there not long before – was safe. “I told him and he had to sit down,” he says.

Five minutes later, the summer house followed over the side of the cliff.

Mr Griew says he was just about to go and collect some things from it when the bit beyond it collapsed. “And I didn’t, fortunately.”

Even so, the retired consultant says he does not worry too much about getting caught in a collapse. “It happens once every six years and you lose five or six metres. So the chances of it going when you’re there are quite low.”

He adds: “I tend to keep at least a metre away from the edge anyway.”

While he would lose 10cm of his garden every year when he first bought the property, it is now more like a metre.

Mr Griew says one of the reasons is that the flood defences set up to protect the town of Sidmouth have prevented a process known as longshore drift – a natural defence against coastal erosion – which means that shingle has not been able to build up at the base of the cliff.

The Environment Agency has also warned that the risk of coastal erosion is growing as sea levels rise and the frequency of storms increases as a result of the climate crisis.

But for Maria and Richard Dudley, who live further up the road, the threat is a small price to pay for a house in such a scenic position.

“Where else would you get this view for less than a million?” Maria asks from her garden backing out onto the sea.

She explains that the garden has lost just a metre of its 60-metre length since they bought the property around seven years ago.

Her husband tells The Independent that coastal erosion is “not a problem”. However, he says, he is fed up with the publicity.

Another resident, Jasmine Reeves, says house prices are being driven down by the crumbling landscape – but puts this down to a lack of protection rather than media attention.

The 31-year-old says her house – which lost its orchard over the side of the cliff – has been valued at around £750,000. “But the properties around here would go for more than that if it wasn’t for the cliff,” she adds.

But this isn’t a problem for Mr Griew, who is not thinking about selling his house – despite the fact that it could disappear into the sea within the next few decades.

That isn’t to say its estimated lifespan of 30 years doesn’t bother him. It could always end up being faster than that, and it would be nice to pass the house on to his children, he says.

“But also it’s a lovely position,” he adds, as the sea gleams through the huge glass doors at the back of the house. “It’s worth keeping houses along here.”

After years of back and forth between different agencies, engineers, consultants and the council, there are plans for protective measures, including several metres of shingle on the beach and groynes, Mr Griew says.

“We’re told summer of 2023 is a likely start date, but I’m not holding my breath at the moment,” he adds.

An East Devon District Council spokesperson said that the gradual erosion of the East Beach cliffs was “natural and unpredictable”, as the rocks are soft and prone to falls – although periods of heavy rain can increase the rate.

Experts suggested that heavier and more frequent storms as a result of the climate crisis, more rainfall, the collapse of an abandoned railway tunnel, manmade structures on the promenade and the Sidmouth flood defences are all possible reasons behind the increased cliff erosion. “Any of these could be the cause, or it may be simply a combination of all of them,” they said.

The council has faced delays to its beach management plan while trying to secure extra funding, and is aiming to start work on the £14m project in 2024, the spokesperson added.

North Devon’s MP has criticised the government’s “piecemeal” approach to high-speed internet connectivity in her rural constituency. 

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

Speaking in the House of Commons on Wednesday [26 January], North Devon’s Conservative MP Selaine Saxby said she wanted faster roll-out of fibre internet than currently planned for North Devon.

Ms Saxby said: “The pandemic has clearly showed how vital connectivity is to all our communities, as those without good broadband have struggled with so much during the pandemic. 

“Too many schoolchildren have explained to me the problems of the circle of doom, so I thank [BT] Openreach again for coming to the aid of some of my more rural primary schools and expediting their broadband connection, but I remain concerned that this piecemeal approach to connectivity and the focus on competition in urban conurbations is reducing fibre access altogether in rural Britain.

“If we are truly to level up our rural communities, speeding up our digital roll-out to them is vital.”

Fibre-optic broadband offers much faster internet speeds and a more reliable connection than older home broadband networks that run on old-fashioned copper telephone lines.

The MP, who is also chair of the all-party parliamentary group on broadband and digital communication, added: “In this day and age, fibre broadband is a utility, and there should be universal provision. 

“Rural constituencies such as mine should not be left behind to facilitate market competition in our towns and cities.”

Ms Saxby wants a change of approach: “before any other visitors to my lovely constituency find themselves in an all-too-readily-available North Devon notspot.”

She was speaking at the second reading of the Product Security and Telecommunications Bill.  

It is aimed at speeding up the deployment and expansion of mobile, full-fibre and superfast capable networks across the UK and will introduce new measures to make ‘smart’ products more secure against cyber attacks. 

A senior Plymouth Tory councillor has expressed his anger and “complete surprise” after not being selected by his party to run in upcoming elections.

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

Councillor Downie has been a city councillor for almost eight years and was planning to stand again as the Conservative candidate for Budshead in the May elections.

The move is particularly surprising given that cllr Downie is also a cabinet member for education, skills and children and young people, and chair of the council’s corporate parenting group.

It’s not clear why he had his application to represent the party rejected by the eight-member approvals panel of Plymouth Moor View Conservative Association on Saturday 22 January. 

Cllr Downie said he was supported by the leader of the council, Nick Kelly (Conservatives, Compton) who, Downie said, “gave a very good testimony” prior to the interview.

“I interviewed extremely well in the opinion of my leader and in my own humble opinion but, for whatever reason, the panel chose not to approve me as a candidate in the ward that I have served for eight years.”

He said it was a “complete surprise…to be deselected by your own association is extremely upsetting and has made me very angry, if truth be told.”

Cllr Kelly says the matter was not directly a matter for the Conservative group at Plymouth City Council, nor a decision the group has control over. 

Cllr Downie said he “could speculate all day” as to why he was rejected but admitted, “there’s no proof of anything.” 

“I have my own thoughts and opinions as to why my own executive wouldn’t support me, although I have an unblemished record.”

Cllr Downie said he had the support of the council leader and that he would be appealing the decision, although he can only appeal on technicalities and processes. 

He added: “I don’t understand it. I’m amazed that in this day and age there can be a secret ballot with no feedback given as to why someone was not chosen.

“These unelected people [at the Conservative Association] are allowed to make unelected decisions about other people’s livelihoods and not give any feedback and any information as to why they declined their application for approval.”

Margaret Boadella, chair of the Plymouth Moor View Conservative Association said she was unable to comment on the decision at the moment.

Cllr Downie said if his appeal fails he would “seriously consider” standing an independent candidate for Budshead.

He said: “I would like to think I would gather quite a few votes because I’m extremely well known there, I’ve done a lot of work for the community over the years.

“I’d like to think I could challenge whoever was put up in Budshead ward and give them a good fight.” 

The comedian Joe Lycett, who apparently caused chaos and “mass panic” in government when he tweeted a fake version of Sue Gray’s “partygate” report, has said his social media stunt was motivated by anger after the death of a close friend during the first lockdown.

Caroline Davies www.theguardian.com 

Lycett tweeted a parody Gray report with a fake Cabinet Office letterhead, titled: “A summary of my main findings”, captioning his tweet: “BREAKING: Leaked Sue Gray report reveals shocking abuse of rules. Hard to see how the PM can cling on after this.”

He later shared a message that he said came “from someone who works for a cabinet minister. Source verified.”

The message, purportedly from someone who works in parliament, read: “Your tweet this morning was read as an actual serious leak from Sue Gray’s report. U had MP staff literally running around panicking from what it said. Panic dialling MPs like we need to discuss this right now.”

Among the “findings” on his faked document, Lycett stated that at one party a “senior minister” insisted all cabinet ministers get on to a table and perform Pure & Simple by Hear’Say, that one of Johnson’s staff was referred to as “Twateral Flow”, and that a video of Johnson’s wife, Carrie, confirmed her attendance and she was overheard saying “it could be as few as four and as many as 60 kids”. Games were played called “Slow Dance” and “Pass the Arsehole”, the fake findings said.

He finished the fake report with: “Please forward any queries to my email ItsAllSueGravyBaby@aol.com.”

Explaining his motivation, Lycett tweeted on Friday: “I wrote some jokes on Twitter, some dumb people (some in our government) found them plausible rather than funny and now I’m in most of the newspapers. I write comedy sometimes as a way of using anger.”

He said he was “angry right now probably for the same reason many other people are angry”. He explained that his best friend died from cancer in 2020 but he was unable to be there for him “because I was following the rules”.

“So I suppose like thousands of others with their own stories, I’m angry about that.”

Experts have warned that Boris Johnson‘s administration is more corrupt “than any UK government since the Second World War”.

www.independent.co.uk

Researchers at Sussex University’s Centre for the Study Corruption warned that the “absolute failure of integrity at No 10” could have potentially serious consequences for the UK if allowed to fester.

It comes as opposition figures warned of the “appearance of an establishment stitch-up” over an inquiry into rule-breaking at Downing Street.

The Metropolitan Police on Friday said it had asked civil servant Sue Gray to remove key details of potential illegality from her long-awaited report into the Partygate scandal – citing a need not to prejudice its own separate investigation.

The development means some aspects of behaviour at Downing Street may not be made public at a key moment of political danger for the PM – and even raises the prospect that some facts might never see the light of day at all.

Robert Barrington, Professor of Anti-Corruption Practice at the Centre for the Study of Corruption in the University of Sussex said: “There is more corruption and corruption risk in and around this government than any UK government since the Second World War.

“The PM has direct influence on this through personal example and through what he allows amongst his Ministers and No. 10 staff.

“There has been an absolute failure of integrity at No 10 which has consequences for democracy and Britain’s global influence – and longer term, if unchecked, for the economy and national security.

“The enablers of this are any MPs or Ministers that allow the failure of integrity to go unchecked. But – although standards have slipped, they can still be restored, if there is the political will to do so.”

The latest row over the Partygate inquiry came just 48 hours after new evidence suggested that the prime minister misled the public over his role prioritising the evacuation of animals from Afghanistan last year. He had previously denied any involvement.

The prime minister has also found himself embroiled in a scandal over private donors financing a lavish refurbishment of his private Downing Street flat.

And last year the government was forced to back down after it moved to abolish a standards watchdog which had recommended mild sanctions against a Tory MP who broke lobbying rules.

Dr Sam Power, a lecturer in corruption analysis at the anti-corruption centre, said: “We didn’t really need a detailed inquiry to know what Partygate is. Either having a party, or indeed a work event, is in blatant contravention of the rules as written, and the commonly understood way in which the British public was expected to behave during the height of the pandemic.

“Partygate is indicative of Johnson’s reckless approach to the rules and the kind of behaviour that the public expects of those in the highest office.

“Whilst this cavalier approach to ethics is, in part, baked into his wider electoral appeal his standing is now damaged beyond repair with the British people.

“Whether Conservatives decide Gray’s report is enough to warrant a change of leadership, is an open question. But his standing is now so damaged with the voters that MPs may well consider if one of Johnson’s core strengths, his electability, is now a fatal weakness. To many, the joke simply isn’t funny anymore, if it ever really was.”

The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group on Friday said the the investigation into No 10 lockdown parties was becoming “circus”.

Fran Hall, whose husband served in the police for more than three decades before dying with coronavirus, accused the Metropolitan Police of letting bereaved families down.

The Met has asked for Sue Gray’s partygate report to make “minimal reference” to events it is investigating to avoid prejudicing inquiries – but this has led to criticism that the findings will be watered down.

Tory MP Roger Gale meanwhile described the latest development as a “farce created in Scotland Yard”, while Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said the proceedings risked giving the “appearance of an establishment stitch-up”.

“First the police were waiting for Sue Gray, now Sue Gray has to wait for the police?” he said.

“Any appearance of an establishment stitch-up between the Met Commissioner and the Government is profoundly damaging. Police officers need the trust and confidence of the public to do their jobs and keep our communities safe.

“That’s why we called for the police to investigate Number 10 weeks ago and put this whole sorry business behind us, instead of waiting for Sue Gray.

“The Sue Gray report must be published in full, including all photos, text messages and other evidence. If it is redacted now, a full, unredacted version must be published as soon as the police investigation is complete.”

Chair of the East Devon Alliance, Martin Shaw, on politics in the district and beyond…

www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

As it became clear that Boris Johnson was potentially lying about the lockdown-busting parties he attended, it was good to see a local Conservative MP organising the campaign to remove him, while another lost the whip to support removing VAT from our soaring energy bills (she must have read my last column).

Unfortunately, the MPs in question were the members for West Dorset and Newton Abbott respectively, not those for our district. 

Instead the members for East Devon, Simon Jupp, and Tiverton and Honiton, Neil Parish, have avoided criticising Johnson. They also voted down the move to help people with their energy bills. 

I suspect that many residents will be very unimpressed that Messrs Jupp and Parish have not spoken out and expressed what local residents feel about the hypocrisy coming from Number 10.

Their only possible excuse might be, I suppose, that they fear that funding for their constituencies might be withdrawn if they spoke out, since the Tory chair of the Commons Constitutional Affairs MP, William Wragg, has alleged that the Tory whips are using this threat to ‘blackmail’ MPs into supporting Johnson. 

If either Mr Jupp or Mr Parish has been targeted in this way, they have a duty to let us know. Even if they have not personally experienced this, this allegation must surely make them realise that Johnson does not merit their continued support.

This represents an appalling level of corruption, but it follows numerous other instances. 

The Levelling Up Fund was used to support marginal Conservative constituencies and even those of two ministers in the department running it – Axminster lost out, presumably because Tiverton and Honiton was thought too safe. 

The government ran a VIP ‘fast lane’ to enable Tory cronies to obtain pandemic contracts, and this has been ruled unlawful by the High Court, in a case brought by the excellent Good Law Project.

In a memorable recent video take-down, Line of Duty’s AC-12 team told Boris Johnson that ‘your corruption was mistaken for incompetence’. 

However the charge applies to the whole government, not just the charlatan-in-chief, and to the Conservative Party, since not one minister or backbencher has challenged it.

It is also shocking that in his desperation to cling to power, Boris Johnson has prematurely ditched the remaining Covid protections and slashed the isolation period for those who have the disease to five days – against scientific advice that one-third of people are still infectious. 

The timing of the loosening is bizarre from a public health point of view, with 1,000 deaths a week, hospitals still struggling with nearly 20,000 Covid patients, and cases going up again in primary schools. 

It has all been rushed out to buy the support of the anti-health faction in the Tory party, which Mr Jupp supported in December’s votes.

***

It’s great news for Seaton that East Devon District Council have found the money to implement the Beach Management Plan, which community representatives helped them draw up. 

This will renew the protection which is keeping coastal erosion at bay, and the work will begin in late 2023. 

But we also need movement on the Seaton Seafront Enhancement scheme, which will smarten up the area around Fisherman’s Gap, the sea wall and the Moridunum. 

EDDC and our MP are willing to promote the scheme and it is now time for Seaton Town Council to resubmit the application for planning permission, which was unfortunately allowed to lapse.

It’s less good news, moreover, that the Environment Agency is now so underfunded that it can no longer monitor smaller waterways. 

I recall how the EA worked with a local farm to eliminate slurry spills into the stream which flows to Seaton Hole, which showed how valuable their work is. 

On top of the revelations about sewage outflows polluting local rivers and beaches, we need a radical shift in policy and resources to keep them safe.

Levelling up is down – Owl

Cristina Gallardo www.politico.eu 

A post-Brexit British fund for regional development will fall £1 billion short of what the U.K. received from the EU, MPs warned.

The House of Commons Treasury committee said Thursday that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) is worth just 60 percent of the EU structural funds it aims to replace.

The U.K. government has touted the long-awaited British scheme, due to launch in April, as a “centerpiece” of its so-called “Leveling Up” policy agenda, a looming regional development strategy.

The UKSPF is due to be worth £1.5 billion a year by 2024-25, but the committee said this falls short of the £2.5 billion a year the U.K. received in EU structural cash before Brexit.

“If the new fund is intended to be one of ‘the centerpieces’ of the government’s ambition, it is surprising that the size of the fund is being reduced to such an extent,” the committee wrote in a report. “The government will need to demonstrate how these reduced funds will achieve their defined metrics for leveling up.”

Elsewhere, the committee noted that “leveling up” was mentioned 91 times in the U.K. budget and spending review documents, but said the government should clarify how this policy goal will be measured and attained.

“Rebadging existing programs may not have the impact the government is seeking,” the report warned.

A spokesperson for the Treasury said the government has “an ambitious domestic agenda to boost investment to improve people’s everyday lives,” which includes the UKSPF.

“The upcoming Leveling Up White Paper will set out the next steps in how the huge investment set out in the Spending Review will deliver on this central mission,” the spokesperson said.

What’s plan B if the government can’t attract investors willing to fund Sizewell C? 

Nils Pratley www.theguardian.com 

A sum of £100m is peanuts in the expensive world of nuclear power stations, so regard the business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng’s funding for a round of development work on Sizewell C as a form of advertising. The cash is intended to send a message that the government is serious about getting the plant built in Suffolk. And it is an appeal for outside investors to volunteer to sit alongside developer EDF, the French state-backed group.

There was also a definition of a desirable investor: “British pension funds, insurers and other institutional investors from like-minded countries”. Note the nationality test. It is the closest we have come to official confirmation that China General Nuclear (CGN), originally slated for a 20% stake in Sizewell, will be kicked off the project. It remains to be seen how, legally, the government will rip up the 2015 deal with CGN signed by David Cameron’s government, but the intention is clear.

So, too, is the intended funding mechanism. It will be a regulated asset base (RAB) model, a version of the formula used at Heathrow Terminal 5 and the Thames Tideway giant sewer. The key point for investors is that they will see some income before Sizewell is built, unlike at Hinkley Point C where EDF and CGN earn their princely cashflows only when the electricity starts to flow.

The switch will lower Sizewell’s lifetime costs by “more than £30bn” versus Hinkley’s contracts-for-difference model, says the government, being economical with the economics. What it doesn’t mention is that any cost overrun (a real risk given nuclear’s reliable record of never hitting its construction budgets) will be shoved on to consumers, who will in any case see £10 a year added to household energy bills during the build phase. But, yes, Kwarteng is correct that the RAB model is the only one with a chance of attracting new investors.

What, though, if those British and like-minded institutions still refuse to play? Nuclear represents unknown territory for most of them. What if competition to invest, which is meant to be the other way in which RAB lowers financing costs, doesn’t materialise? What’s the government’s plan B?

The only possible solution is for the state to invest directly. If that is so, wouldn’t it be better to run an upfront benchmarking exercise at the outset to compare the numbers? Sizewell, unfortunately, is probably inevitable given the current panic over high gas prices and long-term energy security. But taxpayers, on the hook anyway via household bills, deserve to know that the odd billion or three isn’t being diverted unnecessarily to intermediaries.

By the time Sizewell’s sums become enormous, transparency will be essential. The government has just thrown £1.7bn at Bulb, the failed energy supplier, to keep it on life support and it will be a miracle if all the cash comes back in full. In that context, using public money to invest in a productive energy asset doesn’t seem such an awful prospect.

“Those who have worked closely with Johnson over the years say fibbing is an entrenched part of his psychological makeup – and his political toolkit. His first instinct, when backed into a political corner, is to tell a wilful untruth, they say. Indeed, they suggest that, over time, Johnson comes to believe the version of reality he weaves for himself as he fibs his way out of trouble.”

Heather Stewart www.theguardian.com 

If Boris Johnson’s premiership is brought to a humiliating close in the coming days, it will not only be because he allowed Downing Street’s boozy lockdown parties to happen on his watch – but because he lied about them.

When allegations of parties first emerged, Johnson told MPs in the House of Commons that Covid guidance “was followed completely in No 10”, and on another occasion – vehemently – that he had been “repeatedly assured” there were no parties.

Both of those assertions now seem increasingly hard to believe, as has been evident in Johnson supporters’ tortuous efforts to defend him. Slavish loyalist Conor Burns plumbed new depths of absurdity this week by saying the prime minister was “ambushed by a cake”.

On Wednesday Labour claimed there was further evidence of lies when newly released Foreign Office emails appeared to contradict Downing Street’s insistence that Johnson did not personally authorise the controversial rescue of cats and dogs from a British animal charity in Afghanistan.

Even those cabinet ministers who have backed him in recent days have stressed the sanctity of the ministerial code, which says bluntly that “ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.

Citing that rule on Wednesday, Labour leader Keir Starmer called on Johnson to resign immediately. But judging by the prime minister’s half-apology for attending the “bring your own booze” party in May 2020, which he insisted he believed was a “work event”, he appears likely to argue that if he did mislead parliament, he did so unwittingly.

Amber Rudd resigned as home secretary in 2018 when she discovered she had “inadvertently misled” the home affairs select committee but Johnson appears unlikely to take the same approach. His allies have insisted he will fight any vote of no confidence.

Those who have worked closely with Johnson over the years say fibbing is an entrenched part of his psychological makeup – and his political toolkit. His first instinct, when backed into a political corner, is to tell a wilful untruth, they say. Indeed, they suggest that, over time, Johnson comes to believe the version of reality he weaves for himself as he fibs his way out of trouble.

“It’s almost a superpower in a way,” one former colleague said with something approaching awe.

He has twice been sacked in the past for lying. In 1988, the Times got rid of him after he made up quotes in a news story. He later conceded that he had “mildly sandpapered something somebody said”.

As an MP in 2004, he was dispatched from the Tory frontbench, not for having an affair but for failing to come clean about it. He had described the claims of a long-running relationship with Spectator colleague Petronella Wyatt as “complete balderdash”.

During the 2019 Tory leadership contest, Conservative MPs who compared notes afterwards found he had made completely contradictory promises to them about what stance he would take on particular policies.

None of that appeared to matter too much when the odd fib was part of the devil-may-care persona his own MPs believed made Johnson the “Heineken politician”, reaching groups of voters the Tories had previously struggled to win over.

And it was of a piece with the ruthless approach he and his band of Vote Leave veterans took to bulldozing Brexit through – even when that meant proroguing parliament, or taking the whip away from senior and long-serving MPs.

Little more than two years after Johnson secured a thumping parliamentary majority and did indeed “get Brexit done”, he may be felled by the very maverick qualities that helped him into Downing Street – not least his seeming inability to stick to the truth.

The new Covid variant labelled ‘Stealth Omicron’ could be 1.5 times more infectious than the original strain, latest studies have revealed.

Brett Gibbons www.devonlive.com 

The new strain BA.2 has been deemed a variant under investigation (VUI) by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) because of its similar properties to original cases, the Express reports.

The BA.2 has been nicknamed “Stealth Omicron” because of the challenge for scientists to track, unlike the original strain that stood out on PCR tests without the need for extra genome sequencing.

Experts now fear it may lengthen the current wave, with a growth in Omicron infections among children – with boffins from Imperial College London warning this could lead to another surge in adults.

Results from the government-backed REACT-1 study, based on more than 100,000 random tests across England, show the infection rate in primary school-age children was 7.8 percent — and rising — from January 5 to 20.

In adults, by contrast, infection rates were significantly lower — and falling — with over 75s, at 2.4 percent, least likely to have Covid.

Professor Paul Elliott, director of the REACT programme from Imperial’s School of Public Health, said: “There is good news in our data in that infections had been rapidly dropping during January, but they are still extremely high and may have recently stalled at a very high prevalence.

“Of particular concern is that there is rapidly increasing prevalence among children now they are mixing more following the start of the school term and, compared with December, prevalence in older people aged 65 and over has increased 7- to 12-fold, which may lead to increased hospitalisations.

“It’s therefore vital that we continue to monitor the situation closely to understand the impact of the Omicron variant, which now makes up almost all infections in the country.”

The new sub-lineage of the Omicron strain is “increasing in many countries”, as confirmed by the World Health Organisation. It said BA.2, “differs from BA.1 in some of the mutations, including in the spike protein”.

Early data suggests that BA.2 may be both more transmissible and better able to evade vaccines than the more common BA.1 sub-lineage. While it has not yet caused as much concern as Delta and the original Omicron variant, officials are monitoring the outbreak.

Professor Oliver Johnson, director of the Institute for Statistical Science at Bristol University, said: “Probably one to keep an eye on rather than panic about at the moment, but still potentially annoying.”

He added on social media: “It may mean things being a slog in the ‘1,000 to 2,000 [hospital] admissions’ range for longer than we’d like, so we can’t start to make inroads into waiting lists as a result.”

Dr Meera Chand, Covid incident director at UKHSA, claimed: “It is the nature of viruses to evolve and mutate, so it’s to be expected that we will continue to see new variants emerge as the pandemic goes on.

“Our continued genomic surveillance allows us to detect them and assess whether they are significant. So far, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether BA.2 causes more severe illness than Omicron BA.1, but data is limited and UKHSA continues to investigate.”

Marie Le Conte www.opendemocracy.net 

It seems fair to say that the Number 10 parties scandal has brought several issues into the spotlight. There is the harshness of the UK’s lockdown rules; the seemingly endless capacity for those in power to regard themselves as above the law; the inscrutable internal mechanics of the parliamentary Conservative Party and so on.

What do they all have in common? Well, none of them would be making headlines now – or getting investigated by Sue Gray – if it weren’t for leaks. After all, the boozy work events took place last year and the year before that; had insiders not decided to start spilling their secrets to journalists last month, we would collectively be none the wiser.

It isn’t possible to know who decided to tattle and why they decided to do so now, but it seems worth taking a broader look at the leaking culture in Westminster, how it works, and what it tells us about how our Britain is being run.

Jigsaw puzzle

“I see it as a jigsaw with some of the pieces missing,” says one senior political journalist. “If you’re lucky, you’ll get a big bit – something identifiable – and from that you can extrapolate and build outwards. But mostly what happens is you get the outside bits and have to build inwards.”

Far from brown envelopes and shady meetings where everything is revealed in one fell swoop, leaks to journalists usually start with a morsel, given purposely or by mistake, which sets reporters on a certain trail.

In over a decade in political journalism, “I’ve only ever been given one proper big leak, which ended up making a splash in the paper I worked for,” the journalist added, “and the person who gave it to me did it for money. That was unusual.”

It’s a rare occurrence because no one person will have access to every possible bit of information on one story; they can share only what they know then rely on the hack to reach out to people who can help build a fuller picture.

It is also usually the case that political insiders do not want to be wholly responsible for one seismic leak. There is safety in numbers, and being one of several blabbers will always be better than potentially being singled out as the one chatty rat.

A natural follow-up question should be: why do people even leak information when it could cost them their reputation, or even their job? Well, it depends.

As a former government special adviser explained, “there are several ways in which people leak. Sometimes it’s by accident, and they give up information that they don’t realise is important in the course of conversations.”

What is obvious to some will not be obvious to others; it can be hard to know what is an open secret, what is known by all, and what really should stay hidden.

“Sometimes it’s because Westminster is based on the currency of information,” they continued, “and people quite often want to pretend that they’re more important than they are – and their stock-in-trade is information.”

What you know can be just as important as what you do in British politics; marking yourself as someone who is in the thick of it can elevate you in the minds of your peers. Of course, it is a fine line; staffers can further their career by hinting to journalists that they are terribly well-informed, but too much gossipping will make them look needy and unreliable.

Being known as a sieve is not something you can usually come back from; the streets of SW1 are littered with the ghosts of advisers who realised this only once it was too late.

Still, it feels worth reiterating that most of what makes it to the papers does so purely because British politics is built on casual conversations. MPs and staffers talk to each other; those staffers talk to journalists, who talk to special advisers, who talk to ministers and to each other, ad nauseam.

Information is constantly floating around and, sometimes, some of it will happen to be in the public interest and make it into print. Once that starts happening, things can get sharper very quickly.

As ‘partygate’ has shown, tattling calls to tattling everywhere; few people want to throw the first stone but once it has happened, heads suddenly start appearing above the parapet.

Thanks to modern technology, it has also become easier than ever to leak information confidentially. When sources once had to meet journalists in person to hand in hastily photocopied documents, anything and everything can now be discreetly pictured and sent on WhatsApp.

This is one of the reasons why it feels like leaking is currently out of control; give people the means, and they will deliver the goods. That is, however, only one part of the equation. If people are happy and secure in their jobs, they are unlikely to try and drown their own government, even if doing so would require minimum effort.

That every day now feels like it comes with its own serving of dramatic leaks means that – at risk of stating the obvious – Number 10 isn’t currently a happy ship. There are few ways in which people can fight back in politics if they feel they have been treated wrongly; handing journalists helpful information is one of the only weapons at their disposal.

In short: if the hull keeps filling up with water, it is probably a sign that whoever is at the helm isn’t doing a very good job.

In an attempt to belittle the Sue Gray report and the police investigation into breaches of lockdown laws in Downing Street, some of the more loyal Conservative MPs have joked that the whole scandal is about a birthday cake.

Editorial www.independent.co.uk

Not only is such banter in poor taste, it is actively damaging their prime minister’s slim chance of surviving the revelations in the report. It is not all about a birthday party cake, or wine or cheese platters for that matter. What Partygate was – and is – about is Boris Johnson and the political culture he inculcated; not least the sense of entitlement and “one rule for us few and another rule for the many outside”.

One misguided Tory MP even suggests that everyone in the country was breaking the rules. The great majority were not. The great majority, of all kinds of political persuasions and one, played by the rules, to protect themselves and others, and out of respect for the law.

They made sacrifices – unable to celebrate the birthdays of loved ones, even when it would turn out to be their last birthday. Unable to say goodbye to the terminally ill. Families effectively separated. Funerals without many mourners and without the salve of a drink after the service.

Socially distanced misery was endured by millions because they wanted to do the right thing. The Queen set a fine example, as did many others. In Downing Street, the culture – we now know – was rather different: contemptuous of others, and contemptible.

People care about these things, as well as caring about the cost-of-living crisis, the freedom of Ukraine, social care and much else. It is not a zero-sum game. The voters have a certain – usually low – expectation of how their politicians behave, but not to the extent that lying is the default reflex to every problem.

This is a further reason why the prime minister has become such a liability for his party, though some refuse to accept the reality. It would now appear that Mr Johnson was inaccurate and less than candid in the public statements he made about the evacuation of Pen Farthing and his menagerie from Kabul during the emergency evacuation last August.

It was a controversial matter at the time because the concern was that Afghans who had assisted the UK and US would be displaced in the airlift by cats and dogs. There were limited spaces on a limited number of flights.

It seems likely that the issue reached the prime minister’s desk. Some say his wife, Carrie, an animal welfare champion, had some influence in this matter. The prime minister at the time maintained that he had not approved any prioritisation of the animal airlift.

Now, leaked emails made available to MPs by a whistleblower suggest that Mr Johnson did indeed approve the operation and offer his support. There seems, not for the first time, to be some discrepancy between the public impression he gave at the time – “complete nonsense” – and what was really happening.

One leaked email states that the situation at the Nowzad animal charity set up by the former royal marine has “received a lot of publicity and the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated”.

The lesson from this latest story is that the government – and the Conservative Party, and the country – is never more than a day or two away from some fresh scandal; usually with its origins in the prime minister’s uneasy relationship with the truth, and with the demands of his office.

It has been a way of life for him, according to even the most sympathetic biographers, that he has a habit of pushing his luck and being economical with the truth if he gets found out.

Indeed, many would say the 2016 Brexit Leave campaign and the Conservative victory in the 2019 general election were built on such mendacious foundations. He has always had a habit of bouncing back from his misfortunes, but the point is that in order to recover he first had to be fired from various jobs, or leave them voluntarily before the truth caught up with him – as with the London mayoralty and his personal IT consultant, Jennifer Arcuri.

Under the most intense of scrutiny, it looks increasingly as though he won’t get away with his old tricks again. Even if he does, he will be a permanent source of embarrassment to his party and the nation. He might not mind – but do his MPs?

Environmental campaigners are fighting to stop a water company being given almost total immunity from any private legal action for discharging untreated sewage into waterways.

Sandra Laville www.theguardian.com 

The Good Law Project (GLP) and the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) are challenging a decision by the high court that the water company United Utilities cannot be subject to any private legal action for its discharges of raw sewage from storm outfalls into the Manchester ship canal.

The decision made last April is being reviewed by the court of appeal, which this week granted permission for the legal groups to submit evidence as part of the case.

Jo Maugham, the director of the GLP, said if United Utilities was to win the case it could end a vital legal option to hold water companies to account for sewage dumping. Lawyers for the GLP say the decision would effectively act as a precedent which all water companies would seek to rely on.

The environmental groups will tell the court of appeal it has now become clear that sewage dumping from storm overflows has been occurring with alarming regularity and does not just take place in exceptional circumstances, for instance after very heavy rainfall.

Emma Montlake, the joint executive director of the ELF, said: “ELF works with and assists communities across the country plagued by the environmental and health consequences associated with sewage pollution into British water systems.

“We are delighted that the court [of appeal] has agreed that the ELF’s evidence and that of others in the consortium will be able to assist the court of appeal to understand the context and wider ramifications of unchecked sewage pollution.”

The fight over the rights to sue a water company over discharges from outflows of raw sewage began in 2010 when the owners of the Manchester ship canal sought damages against United Utilities for discharges of sewage into the waterway. MSC argued that water companies did not have a legal right to pollute waterways with raw sewage. They argued that untreated, or inadequately treated, discharge that was unauthorised would be unlawful and therefore could be challenged by legal action.

In response United Utilities sought a declaration in court that as a water company it could not be subject to private legal action because it was a matter for the regulator.

The high court agreed with the water company and granted the declaration it sought, that there was no case in law against United Utilities in respect of discharges from the company’s outfalls. The judge – in supporting his decision – said discharges were “the effect of sudden heavy rainfall, which causes flooding and results in the capacity of the existing system being exceeded” and had “occurred without United Utilities doing anything to cause it or being able to do anything lawfully to stop it, except by spending money on large-scale capital improvements”.

In 2020 water companies discharged raw sewage into rivers and waterways more than 400,000 times over 3.1m hours.

A United Utilities spokesperson said: “The legal case you have referenced is not about avoiding accountability, the aim is to clarify the regulatory position regarding wastewater outfalls. This is the latest in a long series of cases brought against United Utilities by the owners of the Manchester ship canal. We cannot comment any further on this as the legal proceedings are ongoing.”

Concern that rising inflation is having a disproportionate impact on people in poorer households in the UK has prompted government number-crunchers to provide a more detailed breakdown of the cost of living.

Larry Elliott www.theguardian.com 

The Office for National Statistics said it accepted that every person had their own inflation rate and it would do more to capture the impact of price increases on different income groups.

Mike Hardie, the head of inflation statistics at the ONS, said in a blog the published annual inflation rate – currently 5.4% – was an average for all households. “But everyone has their own personal inflation rate. Some people may spend a larger proportion of their income on gas and electricity, or petrol if you commute via car daily.”

The move was welcomed by the food writer and activist Jack Monroe, who has exposed how prices for cheaper food products have soared as availability fell, contributing to rising hunger and poverty.

Monroe, who is drawing up an inflation index to track basic food prices, tweeted: “Delighted to be able to tell you that the @ONS have just announced that they are going to be changing the way they collect and report on the cost of food prices and inflation to take into consideration a wider range of income levels and household circumstances.”

Writing in last week’s Observer, Monroe said: “In 2012, 10 stock cubes from Sainsbury’s Basics range were 10p. In 2022, those same stock cubes are 39p, but only available in chicken or beef. The cheapest vegetable stock cubes are, inexplicably, £1 for 10.

“Last year the Smart Price pasta in my local Asda was 29p for 500g. Today it is unavailable, so the cheapest bag is 70p; a 141% price rise for the same product in more colourful packaging.”

Terry Pratchett’s estate has authorised Monroe to use the Vimes Boots index as the name of the new price index, which is intended to document the “insidiously creeping prices” of basic food products.

The index, Monroe said, would be called the Vimes Boots index in honour of Pratchett’s creation Sam Vimes, who in the Discworld novel Men at Arms lays out the “Sam Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness”.

The author’s daughter, the writer Rhianna Pratchett, said her father would have been proud to see his work used in this way by the anti-poverty campaigner.

The ONS previously published a more detailed breakdown of inflation but it was suspended during the Covid pandemic because so many items were unavailable. During the previous economic downturn, the financial crisis of 2008-09, when inflation also surged, the ONS said poorer households were more severely affected.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

“Given the level of interest in the cost of living and inflation we are planning to restart this series,” Hardie said.

Over the longer term, he added, the ONS was “transforming” the way it measured prices in order to understand people’s spending patterns in a more detailed and timely way. The ONS measures inflation by looking at the cost of 700 items from a number of price points.

“We are currently developing radical new plans to increase the number of price points dramatically each month from 180,000 to hundreds of millions, using prices sent to us directly from supermarket checkouts,” Hardie said.

“This will mean we won’t just include one apple in a shop … but how much every apple costs, and how many of each type were purchased, in many more shops in every area of the country.”

Worth spending 24 minutes watching the video (best bits from an hour long session). Alternatively read the report in the Huffington Post below.

Owl can think of a number of EDDC Tory councillors who might benefit from watching the video as well!

Graeme Demianyk www.huffingtonpost.co.uk 

Ian Hislop has evoked the public’s anger over the series of sleaze allegations engulfing British politics, telling MPs in parliament they are “very sick of being taken for fools”.

The editor of Private Eye magazine was appearing before the standards watchdog on Tuesday when he clashed with politicians over the recent lobbying scandal.

Speaking about some MPs’ second jobs, Hislop told the Commons committee on standards: “What do you think these companies are paying the money for? Do you think they are chucking it away?

“When politicians declare their interests, why do they think businesses are paying them this money?

“I think the public is very sick of being taken for fools at the moment on all sorts of levels, and it is very sick of being taken for fools on this level.”

His comments came as MPs have been embroiled in sleaze allegations over money earned outside parliament.

The scandal erupted after Tory MP Owen Paterson resigned over findings that he lobbied on behalf of two companies paying him more than £100,000 per year.

Hislop told the committee: “I think we have to admit that the system failed in that Owen Paterson had obviously no idea he was breaking the code, and a large number of his fellow MPs decided that they had no idea either, and that the whole system wasn’t working.

“We have to redefine the term lobbying, and we have to incorporate some of the proposals you have made, and instead make them harder.”

During the hearing Hislop clashed with Tory MP Bernard Jenkin, who suggested more rules are not enough to change MPs’ attitudes towards breaking them.

Jenkin said: “You can police rules and have tougher rules but lots of people will carry on gaming rules.

“If they think rules are the only issue and they don’t understand why the rules exist – what the principles are behind the rules – you aren’t going to change people’s attitudes.”

But Hislop said: “That’s just depressing – the idea that politicians are just so innately corrupt that they won’t understand public anger at what they are doing and none of them will obey the rules.”

He later added: “You want a moral shift in the type of people who become MPs, I can’t do anything about that.”

Jenkin responded by suggesting that conversations may help to foster better attitudes.

Hislop said: “Why do you have to explain to a new MP why he shouldn’t lobby for a company taking government contracts? Why isn’t that blatantly obvious?”

Journalists also spoke to the committee about the lack of transparency in the way MPs declare their interests, including second jobs and what constitutes lobbying.

Hislop said that contracts for second jobs outside parliamentary duties should be published.

He said: “If you’re taking money from a company, what are they getting out of it?

“At least print the contract, tell us what you’re being employed for and let’s have a look at the minutes of the board meeting.”

Richard Brooks, another journalist at Private Eye, told the committee that current definitions of lobbying are not wide enough.

“By restricting what you band to lobbying, you narrow it down too much because lobbying is open to a very legalistic technocratic interpretation that doesn’t include all kinds of behaviour – a quiet word in the ear, expressions of opinion without formally lobbying – all those sorts of things that are just as important,” he said.

“The problem is that a lot of what goes on that distorts public decision-making doesn’t qualify as lobbying and I think you perhaps need to look a little bit further and say ‘OK, what sort of jobs do we need to ban’.”

When asked specifically which second jobs should be banned, he said: “Any job that is given to a member of parliament because they are a member of parliament, rather than because they have some other qualification for it.

“For example, if they’re a doctor, teacher, lawyer, nurse, that sort of thing.”

(Letter from last week’s Sidmouth Herald)

The Sidmouth Jazz and Blues Festival planned for 2022: 

I read with interest in last week’s Sidmouth Herald that the proposed Sidmouth Jazz and Blues Festival for 2022 will not take place on The Ham, or in Connaught Gardens, and will only take place in Blackmore Gardens if monies can be raised to fund it. The Parish Church is hosting events. 

The Festival was ill-conceived and ill-thought through. It was attempted to be pushed through by Sidmouth Town Council. 

Much upset and dismay was caused by Sidmouth Town Council in relation to the Event taking place on The Ham. This was compounded by the actions of the EDDC Planning Department and EDDC Planning Committee Councillors. 

The Sidmouth Town Clerk and Leader of Sidmouth Town Council told the Festival Organiser that Plans for the use of The Ham and the Festival were ‘agreed, done and dusted’, before they were. 

Local residents were told that the Festival was agreed, before it was, and that there was therefore no point in objecting to it taking place. 

There was also the expectation that a late-night lounge Music and drinking Event would take place on The Ham, until 2.30am, each night, during the proposed Festival, in a residential area. 

A full meeting of Sidmouth Town Councillors giving them the opportunity to consult, consider, understand, debate or decide upon any proposals, at this point, had not taken place. 

Local residents highlighted serious concerns raised by the Festival Plans: the arrangements made, the numbers involved, safety and accessibility for Sidmouth residents and proposed attendees. 

These included 2,250 people attending the afternoon or evening Events and the impact on The Ham area. That Sidmouth residents and visitors would be denied access for 14 days to The Ham pathway and cycleway whilst the Festival was set up and taken down on The Ham, funnelled onto a small unsafe pathway and narrow road to access the Town and Esplanade, with these concerns intensified with the increased Festival attendees and traffic. 

The Festival Organiser with the support of Sidmouth Town Council presented their Application to the EDDC Planning Committee, as part of the formal process for the Festival taking place. 

Arrangements for making a Formal Objection were not straightforward with the EDDC Planning Department. 

This was another opportunity for the EDDC Planning Committee to externally scrutinise the concerns raised, and for the Plans to be fully reappraised by the Festival Organiser and Sidmouth Town Council. 

The EDDC Planning Committee Councillors, at the Objections Committee Hearing, gave full approval to the Festival Plans supported by Sidmouth Town Council. 

This was on the basis of the provision of ‘no information, no Consultation, no Consultation of Statutory Bodies, no risk and safety assessment’ and on ‘promises’ made by the Festivals representative, and the assurance that they would act in the best interests of Sidmouth. 

Sidmouth Town Councillors and Sidmouth EDDC Councillors (except one) provided no support and made no intervention on behalf of the ill-conceived and ill-thought through proposal, causing great upset and dismay. 

There had been no consultation, involvement or consideration of local residents, or Sidmouth townsfolk by Sidmouth Town Council, EDDC or their Councillors. Concerns exist about the role of scrutiny and accountability exercised by Councillors. 

For many, the case is strengthened for major events to take place out of Town. 

It heightens longstanding and ongoing concerns about the lack of consultation with, and consideration of local residents by Sidmouth Town Council, (except one) Sidmouth Town Councillors, and Sidmouth EDDC Councillors. 

Sidmouth Town Councillors and EDDC Councillors for Sidmouth need to actively stand up for Sidmouth, and its residents, and be seen to do so. 

Stephen Pemberton, 

SIDMOUTH,