STPs may not be introduced till after Brexit – but are ‘Success Regimes’ similarly doomed or not?

Owl has had to resort to CAPITALS it is so mad!

OWL DOESN’T UNDERSTAND: IF STPs WON’T BE LEGISLATED FOR TILL AFTER BREXIT – WHY ARE LOCAL COMMUNITY HOSPITALS AND MATERNITY SERVICES CLOSED OR BEING CLOSED?

HONITON AND SEATON COMMUNITY HOSPITALS ARE ALREADY BEING WOUND DOWN FOR CLOSURE LATER THIS YEAR – IS HUNT SAYING THIS IS NOT LEGAL?

OUR DOCTORS AND OUR COMMUNITIES ARE AGAINST THESE PLANS, WHICH HUNT SAYS NEED LOCAL SUPPORT, SO IS OUR CCG ACTING ILLEGALLY?

TIME FOR THAT REFERRAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND A JUDICIAL REVIEW. THIS POWER-MAD, ARROGANT CCG NEEDS TO BE TAMED OR, BETTER STILL, DISSOLVED.

BUT YOU CAN BET OUR TWO MPs WON’T TOUCH THIS HOT POTATO! AND THAT MS RANDALL-JOHNSON WILL BE DEAF TO IT, AND DCC TORIES SPINELESS TOO.

THANK HEAVEN FOR PEOPLE LIKE CLAIRE WRIGHT, MARTIN SHAW AND ROGER GILES!

What Hunt said yesterday:

“Given the result of the latest general election and with the negotiations around Brexit due to start later this month, it is now unlikely that the government will be able to introduce legislation for sustainability and transformation plans (STPs) in the next few years – if at all.

Speaking at NHS Confederation yesterday, health secretary Jeremy Hunt argued that the legislative landscape has changed after a hung Parliament was declared last week. Because of this, it is unrealistic to expect the government to enact legislative health changes before the Brexit process is finished.

“We said [in our manifesto] that we would legislate to give STPs a statutory underpinning if that was felt to be necessary,” he said. “To be clear, we’re expecting to be in power until 2022 and deliver a stable government to make that possible.

“But obviously, the legislative landscape has changed, and that means that legislation of this nature is only going to be possible if there is a consensus across all political parties that it’s necessary. I don’t think that is in any way impossible, but it’s realistically not something we would do while the Brexit process was carrying on.”

Post-Brexit, he added, the government will have “a lot better understanding” of the legislative changes required by STPs. But even then, changing the law would require cross-party support – a much greater challenge now that the Conservatives no longer hold the majority in the House of Commons.

Responding to audience questions after his keynote speech, Hunt – who survived Theresa May’s recent political reshuffle – also hinted that the NHS could be in line to receive some more transformation funding.

Asked by a West Hampshire GP about the possibility of supporting transformation with ringfenced investment in order to enable new models of care elsewhere in the country, the health secretary argued “that is what the STP plans are about”.

But the biggest risk to pouring in more capital funding, he noted, is “if we don’t maintain the financial rigour and discipline that we started to see coming back into the system in the last year”.

“That was really what slowed down this process in the 2015-16 financial year, when we would’ve liked to put a lot more money into transformation,” the health secretary said. “But I think now we’re in a much, much better position to do that. We absolutely want to make sure that money is not an impediment to the rolling out of the STPs, because they are central to our vision.”

In fact, the recent NHS response to the horrific terrorist attack in Manchester, which saw staff working around the clock to cope with the unexpected demand, is a “very good reason for exactly what we’re trying to achieve with the STP process”, Hunt argued.

“The interesting lesson for me about the response in Manchester was how joined-up it was as a result of the terrific progress, under Jon Rouse’s leadership, that trusts have made in coming together as part of their STP,” he added. “I think they’ve probably gone further and faster than anywhere else in the country. I know it’s not been easy to do that, but it was extremely streamlined and effective.”

He also suggested that the government would be prepared to boost the region’s cash pot “if there are specific aspects of the response to those terrible events where there have been unexpected costs that the NHS incurred that wouldn’t be part of its normal response to emergency situations”.

STPs need local support
Asked by another audience member to explain the importance of bringing all local communities together into designing and delivering change, Hunt emphasised that the reasoning behind STPs is to bring about “fantastically beneficial” changes for patients.

“It’s a transformation that is wholly positive for the public,” the secretary of state said. “But people are passionate about their NHS and they obviously worry about any change that happens, and that’s why we have a responsibility to communicate that change. And that change is usually best not communicated by politicians, but by clinicians, because frankly you guys are trusted a lot more than we are.

“That’s why I think it’s really important to have that local engagement, and that’s why, when it comes to the big transformation plans, Simon Stevens and I are supporting them with every fibre in our bodies at a national level.
“But at a local level, we need you to be making the arguments. The evidence is that when you do that, even with potentially controversial changes, it’s quite possible to win the case to do them. But it does involve a lot of local engagement and I think that’s going to be one of the central challenges for the next few years.”

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/election-result-means-stp-legislation-now-due-only-after-brexit#.WUvMkaIufac.email

“EAST DEVON BACKS SENDING HOSPITAL BEDS ISSUE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE”

Blogpost by recently-elected Independent East Devon Alliance DCC Councillor Martin Shaw”

“East Devon District Council’s Scrutiny Committee called tonight for the existing level of community hospital beds in East Devon to be maintained, with no closures. It expressed ‘great concern’ that under the NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group’s plans ‘there will be no community hospital beds east of Sidmouth, leaving residents in a whole swathe of eastern Devon remote from the nearest hospital facilities.’

The Committee also agreed to write to Devon County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee, urging it to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Health ‘as a matter of urgency’ as it was ‘concerned that lack of an early submission will result in NEW Devon CCG going ahead with its proposals’. This followed a claim from Councillor Mike Allen that staff were already leaving and patients being turned away from Honiton Hospital. The point was echoed in comments by County Councillor Martin Shaw about Seaton Hospital.

The Committee’s resolution was the outcome of two hours’ pressure from Committee members, other councillors and the public on the Chair of the CCG’s Eastern Locality, Dr John Kerr. The resolution was proposed by Chairman, Councillor Roger Giles of Ottery St. Mary, who had interrogated CCG representatives on their proposals. He repeatedly asked ‘how many additional staff will be required’ for the CCG’s new model of care, only to be told ‘what is required’. Other members expressed doubt that enough new staff could be recruited.

Cllr Giles’ proposals followed speeches by Councillor Shaw and EDDC ward councillor Andrew Moulding of Axminster for keeping hospital beds in Seaton. Councillor Moulding pointed out that not only Axminster, but also Axmouth, Uplyme and Rousdon, had been omitted from the CCG’s calculations of the population served by Seaton Hospital.

Much of the discussion at the EDDC meeting reacted to the discussion at Devon’s Health Scrutiny Committee last Monday. Devon councillors had followed the recommendation of their Chairman, Councillor Sara Randall Johnson, to postpone until July a decision on Councillor Claire Wright’s proposal to refer the CCG’s decisions to the Secretary of State for Health. Councillor Shaw, who also addressed the Devon meeting, said afterwards that he was ‘incredibly disappointed and frustrated by the unnecessary and damaging delay’. Sixty protestors, from Honiton, Seaton, Colyton and other parts of Devon, had waved placards outside County Hall and had then watched the Scrutiny Committee, some of them jeering when it was proposed to delay the decision.

Councillor Shaw later expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the EDDC meeting, which he said ‘put saving the beds back on the agenda’ and pointed the way for Devon County Council’s Scrutiny Committee to follow when it reconvened. He said, ‘I am very pleased at the strong cross-party case made for East Devon hospitals and especially the mounting support for looking again at the CCG’s completely indefensible abandonment of Seaton. Keeping beds in Seaton has had tremendous backing this week, including not only from Councillor Moulding but also Councillor Hall from Axminster, and Mike McAlpine, Chair of the Committee for the Axe Valley Health Hub. Seaton’s Deputy Mayor, Martin Pigott, made an excellent case at County Hall.’

Councillor Shaw said it was very obvious that CCG representatives, Dr Sonja Manton at the Devon meeting and Dr Kerr at EDDC, had refused to answer direct questions about the flawed case for axing Seaton’s beds. ‘I am optimistic that when this comes back to Devon, councillors on the Health Scrutiny Committee will pick up the Seaton issue and we will finally get justice for our communities.’

Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton

EDDC’s reputation on planning described as “disaster area”

Express and Echo interview online with editor Patrick Phelvin had a brief mention of the reputation of East Devon (about 5 minutes into the interview on the video embedded within the article)

“being an absolute disaster area on matters like planning”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-mp-hugo-swire/story-30382446-detail/story.html

And, no, he hadn’t contacted Owl when he said it!

“Health and safety professionals urge deregulation rethink”

But it goes hand-in-glove with the Tory policy of the smaller state and the hands-off approach to development and developers!

“The government has been urged to rethink the deregulation of health and safety legislation in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, which is believed to have killed at least 79 people.

In an open letter to prime minister Theresa May, more than 70 leading organisations and figures from the UK’s health and safety professions have called for a change in attitude to health and safety regulation and fire risk management.

The signatories have also called on the government to complete its review of Part B of the Building Regulations 2010, which cover fire safety within and around buildings in England, as a matter of urgency.

The letter, whose signatories include the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), Park Health & Safety, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the British Safety Council, states: “We believe it is totally unacceptable for residents, members of the public and our emergency services to be exposed to this level of preventable risk in modern-day Britain.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/06/health-and-safety-professionals-urge-deregulation-rethink

East Devon bursting at the seams – official!

Owl says: all these extra residents accessing fewer and fewer services. Let’s hope most of them are young and going to Cranbrook, Exmouth and Sidmouth – because there will be no maternity services or community hospitals in Axminster, Seaton, Honiton or Ottery St Mary.

“People moving to East Devon increased the population by almost 2,500 people – more than almost anywhere else in England and Wales.

An estimated 8,316 people moved to East Devon from elsewhere in the UK between July 2015 and June 2016.

This compared to 5,848 who went the other way during this time, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

This meant that an extra 2,468 people moved to East Devon than left – the second highest figure anywhere out of almost 350 counties and districts around England and Wales.

As of June 2016 there were 139,908 people in East Devon, meaning that 1.8 per cent of the population was made up of people who had just moved to the county from elsewhere within Britain.

This was the highest share out of anywhere in England and Wales.

The most popular destination for people to move to East Devon from was Exeter.

… A total of 700 people were estimated to have moved from East Devon to Exeter after subtracting those that went the other way, more than anywhere else.

On the other hand, Taunton Deane was the number one destination away from the area.

A net total of 54 people moved to Taunton Deane from East Devon in 2015/16.”

http://www.devonlive.com/more-people-move-to-east-devon-than-nearly-anywhere-else-in-the-uk/story-30405338-detail/story.html

Another Tory dirty trick during the general election campaign?

“The Conservative party allegedly operated a secret call centre during the election campaign that may have broken data protection and election laws, according to an investigation by Channel 4 News.

An undercover investigation by the programme has found that the party used a market research firm to make thousands of cold calls to voters in marginal seats in the weeks before the election.

Call centre employees working on behalf of the party used a script that appeared to canvass for support rather conduct market research. On the day of the election, call centre employees contacted voters to promote individual candidates, which may be a breach of electoral law, the investigation claimed.

At the start of the election campaign, the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, wrote to all the major political parties reminding them of the law around telephone calls and data protection. She said that calling voters to promote a political party was “direct marketing” and was regulated by law.

The government also announced during the campaign that it wanted to tighten up the laws on nuisance calls and a bill on the issue was included in the Queen’s speech.

The Channel 4 News investigation, which ran over several weeks, found that a team employed by the Conservatives rang voters from a call centre in Neath, south Wales.

Operating from a script, the staff carried out calls for “market research” and “polling”. Identifying likely Tory voters in marginal seats could be important for the get-out-the-vote operation on election day, and also enable a political party to better direct its canvassing operation.

On election day, undecided voters were told that “the election result in your marginal constituency is going to be very close between Theresa May’s Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party”.

They were then asked:

“So does knowing that you live in a marginal constituency that will determine who is prime minister for the Brexit negotiations, does that make you a lot more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate or a little more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate, or are you still unsure, or does it not make a difference?”

At an earlier stage of the campaign, the call centre staff said they were calling from a company called Axe Research, which does not appear to exist. Under the Data Protection Act, callers must disclose who they are and how the data will be used.

Asked what Axe Research was, one supervisor told Channel 4 News: “It’s just the name we do these surveys under, basically. I did a Google search, nothing comes up. But as far as anyone’s concerned, yeah, we’re a legit independent market research company.”

A week before the election, the same call centre staff started saying they were calling on behalf of Theresa May’s Conservatives.

The Conservative party said the call centre was conducting market research on its behalf, and was not canvassing for votes. The call centre confirmed it was employed by the party, but denied canvassing on its behalf.

A Conservative spokesman said: “Political parties of all colours pay for market research and direct marketing calls. All the scripts supplied by the party for these calls are compliant with data protection and information law.”

Evidence obtained by Channel 4 News suggests that on the day of the election, staff called voters in 10 marginal seats, including Bridgend, Gower, Clwyd South and Wrexham.

According to the Representation of the People Act, it is illegal to employ someone “for payment or promise of payment as a canvasser for the purpose of promoting or procuring a candidate’s election”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/22/conservative-party-call-centre-may-have-broken-election-law

“Heads warning of ‘cash starved’ schools”

“Heads are writing to parents warning them of deepening funding problems for schools.

Head teachers in England are keeping up the pressure on school funding, sending a letter warning about “cash-starved” schools to almost two million families.

As the government prepares to set out its plans in the Queen’s Speech, school leaders across 17 councils are calling for urgent action over a funding gap.

Claims over school funding shortages became an election battleground and a doorstep issue with voters.

The Conservative manifesto promised an extra £1bn per year from savings.
But there have been doubts cast on the biggest slice of this extra funding – with uncertainty over whether the government will go ahead with scrapping free meals for all infants.

With no majority in the House of Commons it would be more difficult to get through legislation to scrap the free meals for infants, introduced three years ago.

The plan to remove the meals came under fire from chef and healthy-school-food campaigner, Jamie Oliver.

Cutting staff

The funding warning letter will be sent by head teachers to parents in more than 4,000 schools, saying that many schools are going to have to cut staff and subject choices.

There were warnings before the election of schools having to reduce hours or even go down to a four-day week for some pupils.

School governors backed the concerns over funding, with the first ever “strike” by governors in West Sussex.
The letter will go to parents in the following councils: Brighton, East Sussex, Northamptonshire, Surrey, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Oxfordshire, Thurrock, Cornwall, Hertfordshire, Peterborough, Wokingham, Devon, Norfolk, Suffolk, West Sussex and Dorset.

Parents will be told about analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which said that the Conservatives’ plans for school spending would mean a “real-terms cut of 2.8% in per-pupil funding between 2016 and 2022″.
The head teachers sending this letter are part of a regionally based campaign over school funding shortages.

Teachers’ unions are also demanding greater investment in schools. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40344057

A tale of two seaside towns

Exmouth

BIG seafront development plans, unpopular with locals, lots of income for land-holding EDDC and big income potential, quick tender and choice of partner:
http://www.devonlive.com/here-s-what-the-exmouth-seafront-development-will-look-like/story-30067091-detail/story.html

Seaton

SMALL seafront development plans, popular with locals, almost no EDDC land- holding or big income potential, no tender, no progress:
http://www.devonlive.com/multi-million-pound-seaton-seafront-redevelopment-plans-revealed/story-30194330-detail/story.html

Gung-ho Exmouth, inertia on Seaton

If anything illustrates EDDC as business-led rather than resident-led this is it.

Oooh – Midweek Herald gets political – and on its front page!

Well, it’s a start.  But, of course, it won’t offend EDDC as it is a DCC responsibility!

Local government property investment – the auditors’ roles

“Are these the magic money trees? The office blocks, shopping centres and petrol stations currently filling up the local government property portfolio with their promise of a harvest abundant enough to keep the fruit bowl full for years to come? Quite possibly, with a good soil for rooting, plenty of sunshine and lots of green-fingered attention. But also quite possibly not. Which is why you can expect a visit from your auditors, once they have remembered where they put their wellies.

It is a common scenario for auditors to have no knowledge of a substantial and risky project until it is too late for them to have any influence over it. Commercial sensitivities often lead to projects being run on a “need to know” basis, with external auditors joining internal auditors, scrutiny committees and sometimes even the section 151 officer on the other side of a firmly locked door.

The auditor may only find out about a project when the ink is drying on the contract, when there doesn’t seem much more to do than offer a sheet of blotting paper.

However, there is still a lot that the auditor can do that would be of benefit, even if there is nothing to be critical about.

For instance, the Spelthorne Borough Council £360m purchase of the BP campus with new borrowings of £377m against a budget requirement of around £13m is such a huge transaction that its mere existence surely justifies a public interest report from the auditors to reassure the local population that their new role as BP’s landlords will not weigh heavy upon them. There is no reason why public interest reports have to be reserved for bad news.

Unfortunately, auditors are not particularly keen on bringing good news. The best you will get is “negative assurance”: a declaration that, based on the investigations carried out, there is nothing that provokes the need for criticism. But this would still be a valuable contribution and is arguably what is required by the reporting duties in Schedule 7 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

The least that we can expect is that auditors will eventually say enough to manage their reputation risk – limiting the possibility that someone at some point in the future could ask “where were the auditors?”. A couple of paragraphs in the audit letter affirming that it is an authority’s responsibility to make its own investment decisions and summarising the less reliable judgements by which those decisions have been taken.

So what will the auditors be particularly interested in?

Legal Powers

Since the introduction of the general power of competence, people seem more relaxed about identifying the legal powers supporting a decision. However, it is still important to know what powers are being exercised, particularly in understanding the implications of the limitations on those powers for a particular proposal.

For instance, the general power comes with restrictions on charging other than to recover costs and requires commercial activity to be run via a company. And the investment powers in the Local Government Act 2003 only extend to purposes relevant to an authority’s functions or the prudent management of its financial affairs. Advice confirming legality will be expected.

It is sometimes forgotten, by those without a legal background, that even if a power can be identified, then that power has to be exercised reasonably under the Wednesbury rules. Auditors will look for legal advice being properly grounded.

If an authority is borrowing to fund its purchases, there may also be questions about the propriety of borrowing to invest. Not so long ago this is something that would have rung alarm bells across the audit community. Judging by their appearance before the Public Accounts Committee in 2016, though, it does not seem a matter that DCLG and the Treasury are overly concerned by.

Finally, how are these projects integrated into the Prudential Framework? Arguments can be put that asset prices will rise to more than cover the cost of acquiring property and making good its depreciation, such that Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) is not needed. But this is risking a potentially major funding problem if the value/cost relationship shifts adversely in the future. How can an authority demonstrate its legal duty to act prudently?

Value for Money

Auditors will be concerned to examine all the significant judgements, estimates and projections involved in a decision to invest. They will also review accounting treatments to ensure they align costs and benefits appropriately and look critically at funding and financing arrangements.

Exit strategies will also be relevant, particularly noting that if rental income falls sale of a property will only generate a capital receipt rather than revenue income that might fill the gap in the budget.

Any reporting in this area will be restricted to the adequacy of the arrangements put in place by the authority to achieve value for money and will not provide any comfort that it has actually been achieved.

Decision Making

Auditors will check that the authority has complied with its democratic framework and schemes of delegation, particularly if the proposal has proceeded on a “need to know” basis.

So, if you are in the process of bulking up your property portfolio, prepare for the muddy tread of your auditors as they come to gaze sceptically upon your magic money tree.

Stephen Sheen is the managing director of Ichabod’s Industries, a consultancy providing technical accounting support to local government.

http://www.room151.co.uk/151-news/stephen-sheen-expanding-your-property-portfolio-prepare-for-the-auditors/

Demonisation of the poor – Trump shows how to do it bigly

“Donald Trump has said he doesn’t want “a poor person” to hold economic roles in his administration as he used an Iowa rally to defend his decision to appoint the wealthy to his cabinet.

The US president told a crowd on Wednesday night: “Somebody said why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy? No it’s true. And Wilbur’s [commerce secretary Wilbur Ross] a very rich person in charge of commerce. I said: ‘Because that’s the kind of thinking we want.’”

Congressional Black Caucus refuses to meet with Donald Trump
The president explained that Ross and his economic adviser Gary Cohn “had to give up a lot to take these jobs” and that Cohn in particular, a former president of Goldman Sachs, “went from massive pay days to peanuts”.

Trump added: “And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person. Does that make sense?”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/22/donald-trump-says-he-doesnt-want-a-poor-person-in-cabinet-roles

The DUP, corruption, transparency

“The government needs to get its business through parliament – that’s what governments do. So it’s no surprise that the prime minister is looking to bolster her reduced number of MPs with the support of others, specifically the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). But at what cost to the government’s reputation for fighting corruption?

Northern Ireland doesn’t currently have an elected government. Four months ago the devolved administration collapsed in acrimony following controversy about the ‘Cash for Ash’ scandal over the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme. The assembly election which followed didn’t change the fact that politicians from both nationalist and unionist traditions needed to agree to work together to restore devolved government. This hinged on demands for the DUP’s leader Arlene Foster to stand aside for the duration of the independent public inquiry into RHI scheme, which she has refused to do.

To re-cap: the UK’s prime minister is seeking support for her government in negotiations with a party leader who lost her hold on government over serious questions about the use of public funds.

There have been several recent corruption concerns in Northern Ireland. The National Crime Agency has opened an investigation, at the request of the local police, into the sale of Northern Ireland assets owned by the Republic of Ireland’s National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). Other issues relate to the management of public contracts for housing maintenance. Meanwhile, the funding of most of Northern Ireland’s political parties remains unusually opaque. All of this is hard to assess, but we have a responsibility not to just shrug and accept such things as a normal part of modern politics.

A possible deal to support the new UK government in parliament is not the only reason why transparency over who funds Northern Ireland’s political parties now matters to British politics. The DUP was used as a channel for hundreds of thousands of pounds to support the Leave campaign during last year’s EU referendum.

In the past five years, the UK has established itself with a reputation for global leadership in the fields of tackling corruption and its counterpart, promoting open government. The UK has risen to be in the top ten of Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index, the Serious Fraud Office has acquired one of the better anti-bribery enforcement records around the world, and this country has been a leader in the Open Government Partnership.

As the curtain fell of the last parliament, the previous government passed the Criminal Finances Act, with its ground-breaking provision for Unexplained Wealth Orders to freeze the assets of kleptocrats using the UK as a safe haven. Much remains to be done but worryingly, some of the gains of recent years could now be at risk. The long road to the arrival of the Bribery Act reminds us that there are those who will seize any opportunity to lobby to weaken it, and others who in difficult times for the economy will argue we should seek to attract foreign cash irrespective of its origin. …”

https://t.co/xarFNV5EDn

Could this be our next Prime Minister? Please, NO!

Anyone who voted Conservative in East Devon but who might be wobbling nos, PLEASE read this and do your research on the ONLY alternative – Claire Wright. And ask yourself – is this better or worse than Diane Abbott forgetting a couple of numbers.

“It must have seemed a good idea at the time. A 15-minute light grilling on the morning BBC sofa with whichever stand-in presenter the corporation had dredged up to fill the void left by Andrew Marr, still recovering from a stroke. Nothing that an old hand like Boris Johnson need fear.

Tousle the hair a little, some self-deprecation and a bit of a plug for the BBC TV documentary on Monday to remind the Tory backbenchers that if the ball ever popped out of the scrum, he would be on hand to take it, almost accidentally, over the line. A spot of liberal differentiation from his school chum David Cameron on the benefits of migrants might provide with him an entry to the likely story of the day, the prime minister’s imminent speech on migrants and access to social housing. But after the 15 minutes of chilling inquisition by the softly spoken Eddie Mair, Johnson’s reputation had taken a severe pounding. Indeed, it was probably the worst interview the mayor has ever conducted.

It was inevitably described as a car crash, but in the case of Johnson, it was more of a bicycle crash: spokes all over the road, wheels mangled and a reputation badly dented.

After the opening exchanges – “Good morning, how are you?”; “Very, very good, thank you” – Johnson went downhill at an alarming pace until by the interview’s close, admitting he had “sandpapered” quotes as a Times journalist, failing to deny he lied to the party leader at the time, Michael Howard, about an extramarital affair and conceding that he had humoured an old friend when he asked for a phone number in the knowledge that the friend intended to beat up the owner of it.

By the interview’s close, “You’re a nasty piece of work, aren’t you?” was one of Mair’s more generous reflections on Johnson’s integrity.

Doubtless Johnson had been lulled into a false sense of security by the opening minutes in which he was able to hint, without providing incontrovertible proof, that he thought Cameron was misunderstanding the importance of migrants to the London economy.

He also gently put the boot into his predecessor as mayor for failing to plan the London Olympics’ stadium properly. He came across as the charming, talented politician that he is.

But then Mair took the interview on an unexpected turn, and asked Johnson why he had agreed to be interviewed for the Michael Cockerell documentary. Johnson flannelled before, saying he had not seen the programme. Suddenly Mair’s tone changed lethally: “But this happened in your life, so you know about this. The Times let you go after you made up a quote. Why did you make up a quote?”

It is impossible to describe the menacing politeness of tone in which Mair specialises, or his ability to pause mid-sentence to maximise the impact. Johnson asked plaintively: “Are you sure your viewers wouldn’t want to hear more about housing in London?” It was, he added, a long and lamentable story, to which Mair replied: “OK. But you made a quote up.”

Johnson was cornered. “Well, what happened was that … I ascribed events that were supposed to have taken place before the death of Piers Gaveston to events that actually took place after the death of Piers Gaveston,” he said.

“Yes. You made something up,” Mair replied. Johnson said: “Well, I mean, I mildly sandpapered something somebody said, and yes it’s very embarrassing and I’m very sorry about it.”

With this admission trousered, Mair continued: “Let me ask you about a barefaced lie. When you were in Michael Howard’s team, you denied to him you were having an affair. It turned out you were and he sacked you for that. Why did you lie to your party leader?”

Johnson squirmed. “Well, I mean again, I’m … with great respect … on that, I never had any conversation with Michael Howard about that matter and, you know, I don’t propose …”

Mair interrupted: “You did lie to him.”

Johnson: “Well, you know, I don’t propose to go into all that again.”

Mair: “I don’t blame you.”

Johnson: “No, well why should I? I’ve been through, you know, that question a lot with the, well, watch the documentary. Why don’t we talk about something else?”

Unfortunately for Johnson, Mair was willing to change the subject.

Referring to the documentary, Mair explained: “The programme includes your reaction as you listen to a phonecall in which your friend Darius Guppy asks you to supply the address of a journalist … so that he can have him physically assaulted. The words ‘beaten up’ and ‘broken ribs’ are said to you …”

Johnson replied after snorting about an old story being dragged up. “Yes, it was certainly true that he was in a bit of a state and I did humour him in a long phone conversation, from which absolutely nothing eventuated and … you know, there you go. But I think if any of us had our phone conversations bugged, they might, you know, people say all sorts of fantastical things whilst they’re talking to their friends.”

Mair proceeded to inform, in passing, a dazed Johnson that even convicted fraudster Conrad Black does not quite trust him, before asking him to show some honesty by openly admitting that his ambition is to be prime minister rather than trading in obfuscatory metaphors such as rugby balls emerging from a ruck or saying it is not going to happen.

Mair: “You’re not going to land on the moon either. But do you want to be prime minister. Say it.”

Johnson obfuscated, presumably hoping for something to eventuate, before saying he wanted to do all he could to help Cameron be re-elected – “and in those circumstances it is completelynonsensical for me to indulge, you know, this increasingly hysterical …”

Mair: “You could end it all just by saying what you know to be true. What should viewers make of your inability to give a straight answer to a straight question?”

By now most viewers are hiding behind their sofa, or telling their gawking children to look away, or ringing the BBC begging them to show the test card.

With the clock running down, Johnson desperately tries to mount a recovery, saying he disputes Mair’s interpretations. Then he resorts to the old standby: “What viewers want to know is …”

He said: “They don’t care about phone conversations with my friends 20 years ago, they don’t care about some ludicrous, so-called made-up quote, and what’s the third accusation? I can’t remember …”

“Lying to Michael Howard,” Mair reminds him, before Johnson finally collapses in a heap, his lights, pannier bag and reputation strewn across the bicycle lane.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair

Guardian letters: The East Devon voting experience and its implications

Guardian letters today:

“Writing of Ed Miliband’s revision of party membership rules as “his greatest error” is not just old news, it’s fake news too (Labour members built networks. Now Corbyn must too, 19 June), which Zoe Williams rightly recognises as negative commentary, repudiated by Jeremy Corbyn’s actual performance through – and out the other side of – the election campaign.

However, it is clear that Zoe needs to take the temperature outside of the capital – as John Harris has done so successfully – where she will find that people have made careful assessments to desert their “natural tribe” to support the best-placed candidate.

In East Devon – a very traditional Tory seat that includes chunks of Exeter, which returns a Labour MP – more than 21,000 people opted to support an independent candidate. The Labour leadership would be wilfully blind to continue running there, thus ensuring the inevitable return of the Tory incumbent. The notion of a progressive alliance took root without instructions from elsewhere; now it must be nurtured by a newly confident Labour leadership.

Les Bright
Exeter, Devon”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/can-the-labour-party-build-a-new-united-front-on-the-left

This is no time for council vanity projects

“Public service leaders have expressed dismay over the Queen’s Speech failure to address public sector issues including pay, social care and local government funding.

Today’s address laid out prime minster Theresa May’s legislative agenda for the next parliament but is far removed from the Conservative manifesto pledges she hoped to introduce.

She has been unable to push through all of her policy plans after she failed to win a majority in the bruising general election vote. The government’s weakness has been hampered further by the inability to finalise a confidence and supply arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party.

There was no mention of May’s proposal to change the way social care was funded, pledges on grammar schools, retention of businesses rates for local councils or removal of the triple lock on state pensions.

CIPFA chief executive Rob Whiteman said “pressing issues” were missing from the speech, highlighting social care, devolution and the NHS.

He added: “Without urgent action, both health and social care budgets will be stretched to breaking point. More realistic medium and long term financial planning, and investment in prevention, is needed to stabilise the financial position of the NHS.”

This view was shared by Jo Miller, chief executive of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, who said: “I am disappointed that key legislation – absolutely fundamental to ensuring the future sustainability of local government – has now been dropped.

“Local government urgently needs clarity around our future funding – at present we simply face a cliff edge from 2020. This must urgently be resolved.”

Claire Kober, chair of London Councils, also expressed disappointment at the lack of detail on council funding, adding she was “deeply concerned” by the absence of discussion regarding 100% business rates retention.

Garry Graham, deputy general secretary of the civil service Prospect union, said this “was a missed opportunity” for the government to listen to the public over the election result.

“This was an ideal time for ministers to acknowledge that the 1% pay cap is no longer working and that public servants deserve a pay rise,” he said, adding that hard-pressed public servants would struggle to deliver a good Brexit because of bad pay and increasing world loads.

Alison Michalska, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, welcomed the measures on mental health and domestic abuse but criticised the government for not tackling funding concerns for schools and local authorities.

She said: “The government must recognise that there is not enough money in the education system rather than focusing on the way in which existing funding is distributed to schools.”

She said it was “a matter of urgency” that great clarity was provided on local government funding as children’s services face funding shortages.

Dave Prentis, Unison general secretary, claimed the government was ignoring the nation’s concerns while “ministers are living in a parallel universe”.

He said: “People have had enough of austerity, and want proper investment in schools, hospitals, police forces and local services. Yet there was none of this in the Queen’s Speech.

“Nor was there anything about pay. Nurses, teaching assistants, council workers, police support staff and other public sector employees should be rewarded for their hard work with a long overdue wage rise.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/06/public-service-chiefs-slam-lack-policy-action-queens-speech

DUP wants £2 BILLION – that’s roughly 66,666 nurses, doctors, firefighters, police, teachers

Owl says: how many nurses, doctors, police and firefighters would that buy? Lets say they cost £30,000 each (source http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/uc/uc2010/uc2010_s10.pdf)
Answer: 66,666

“Theresa May’s most senior ally has admitted that a deal with the DUP is at risk as it emerged the Northern Irish party has demanded more than £2billion.

The DUP has demanded extra money for the NHS and infrastructure as a price for propping up a Conservative Government, according to reports.

It came as Damian Green, the Prime Minister’s own deputy, cast doubt on whether the Tories will be able to do a deal.

… The DUP is reportedly demanding an extra £1,100 is spent on each person in Northern Ireland.

Finance for devolved nations is usually allocated through the Barnett formula, which ensures any increases or decreases are proportional across the UK.

Every £1 spent in the province would require an additional £35 to be found for Scotland, England and Wales.

… There was speculation yesterday that the Conservatives could even open talks with the Liberal Democrats’ 12 MPs about supporting the Tory Government if the DUP talks fail.

The party believes that Downing Street’s approach to what should have been a relatively simple set of negotiations has been “chaotic” and insisted its support “can’t be taken for granted”.

Despite the drama Westminster sources have insisted that it is overwhelmingly likely that a deal will eventually be signed, most probably tomorrow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/revealed-dup-demands-2bn-nhs-infrastructure-theresa-may-allies/

Affordable homes in Budleigh Salterton? You’re having a laugh!

Owl says: two totally different plans? A new planning application called for. Show your mettle EDDC!

“The number of affordable homes in a 59-dwelling development being built south of the B3178 is set to be slashed by nearly half under altered plans.

At a meeting of the town council’s planning committee, it was also revealed that the amount of one- and two-bedroom ‘starter’ houses could be reduced from 39 to 12.

Town councillors raised concerns over the change while discussing plans to move plots due to the costs of relocating a foul drain on the site, which will be known as Evans Field when it is built.

The council backed plans to move the plots in phase one of the project, but expressed ‘disquiet’ about the changes lined up for phase two.

Planning committee chairman Councillor Courtney Richards said that changes, which could see the amount of people living on the new site increase, did not ‘sit easy’ with him.

He added: “It’s exactly the same number of dwellings; however, there’s one extra five-bedroom house, 11 extra four-bedroom houses, 15 extra three-bedroom houses, 22 fewer two-bedroom houses and five fewer one-bedroom houses.

“I find that a very significant change in the plan to what has been previously agreed. The two sets of plans are very, very different.”

Previously, an application to reduce the amount of affordable homes on the site from 50 per cent to 40 was rejected.

Thirty affordable homes were originally planned for the site, but under the variation proposal, this could be reduced to 16. The requirement for 50 per cent affordable homes would still be met as shared-ownership homes would make up the other 14 needed.

Deputy mayor and district councillor Tom Wright added: “We’re keen to have starter homes for people. The need in Budleigh is for young families to move into smaller homes to get onto the housing ladder.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/council-concern-at-changes-to-affordable-homes-in-budleigh-development-1-5071693

Queen’s speech: a masterclass in Toryspeak!

… those made homeless by the fire should be rehoused “as close as practically possible” to where they lived before (HOW CLOSE?)

… will continue to work to ensure that every child has the opportunity to attend a good school (Owl lives this one – “continue to work to ensure”! Priceless! NOT “WE WILL ENSURE”!)

… will work to ensure people have the skills they need for the high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the future, including through a major reform of technical education ( more working to ensure)!

… work to improve social care” and “bring forward proposals for consultation” on social care (NOT WE WILL IMPROVE)!

… bring forward measures to help tackle unfair practices in the energy market NOT TO TACKLE, JUST TO “HELP” TACKLE!

… examine “markets which are not working fairly for consumers”
EXAMINE not REGULATE!

Summary: we are stuffed, but I’m damned if we will admit it!

Bets on October election?

750 senior civil servants will be moved to Brexit department and not be replaced

“Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, is planning to relocate at least 750 policy experts from across Whitehall to five key Brexit departments without any extra cash to cover the cost of replacing them.

In further evidence of the drain upon resources by Britain’s complex negotiations to leave the EU, the head of the civil service asked last month for experienced policy developers to be prepared to move as soon as possible.

The “policy professionals” will go to the Department for Exiting the EU), the Department for International Trade, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office.

Senior Whitehall mandarins from non-Brexit departments have been warned to expect further demands for more senior staff in the long term, according to leaked emails.

There will be no extra resources given to the Brexit departments to recruit the new staff or to non-Brexit departments to replace those who have moved, the Cabinet Office has indicated.

The move will draw upon a dwindling band of experienced civil servants who develop policy for central government. Those being asked to move are ranked from executive officers to departmental directors….”

“Number of government-funded social homes falls by 97% since Conservatives took office”

“The number of new government-funded houses built for social rent each year has plummeted by 97 per cent since the Conservatives took office in 2010, official statistics have shown.

More than 36,700 new socially rented homes were built with government money in England in 2010-11 – the year in which the Tories came to power in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. By the 2016-17, financial year that finished in April, that figure had fallen to just 1,102.

In the same period the total number of affordable homes built with government money more than halved – from 55,909 to 27,792.

Instead of socially rented homes that are typically available to vulnerable families at around 50 per cent of market value, the Government has prioritised the building of “affordable” homes for which rents can be charged at up to 80 per cent of market value. Critics say that, in many areas of the country, these rents are not genuinely affordable for people on low and middle incomes.

The Conservatives were forced to U-turn during the election campaign after Theresa May announced the Tories would deliver “a constant supply of new homes for social rent”. The Government was later forced to admit that the new homes would, in fact, be the significantly more expensive “affordable” homes.

The drop in social house building is likely to increase pressure on Theresa May and her Government in the wake of the devastating fire at Grenfell Tower in Kensington, which raised fresh questions about the Government’s record on social housing. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-housing-government-funded-properties-rent-falls-97-per-cent-study-homes-communities-agency-a7799116.html