A Conservative’s view of the General Election

For balance, Owl provides the following article by Rod Liddle in the Conservative “Spectator” magazine:

“I am trying to remember if there was ever a worse Conservative election campaign than this current dog’s breakfast — and failing. Certainly 2001 was pretty awful, with Oliver Letwin going rogue and Thatcher sniping nastily from behind the arras. It is often said that 1987 was a little lacklustre and Ted Heath had effectively thrown in the towel in October 1974. But I don’t think anything quite matches up to this combination of prize gaffes and the robotic incantation of platitudinous idiocies.

To have suggested that the hunting with dogs legislation might be subject to a free vote in the House of Commons was, whether you are pro hunting or against, a move of quite stunning stupidity. Why alienate that 84 per cent of the electorate opposed to fox-hunting (Ipsos-Mori, 2016), especially when some of them (including me) are quite passionately anti-hunting and might be tempted to change their vote? And when you already have the pro-fox-hunting votes in your grasp? It makes no electoral sense.

Still more remarkable was the decision to force demented people to sell their own houses, if they can remember where they are, to pay for their own care. Followed very shortly by an embarrassing U-turn.

This was passed off by the Tories as an example of pristine honesty, of nettles being grasped in an admirably transparent manner. But, like much of the current Tory campaign, it smacked to me of two things — complacency and arrogance. It suggested yet again that Theresa May called this election convinced that almost nothing she could do or say would prevent the inevitable landslide.

I think she was horribly wrong about that. I just pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that she was not so horribly wrong that we wake up on 9 June to find that Diane Abbott is the Home Secretary, Emily Thornberry in charge of Trident, all part of a Labour-Lib Dem-Tartan Munchkin Alliance, aided by that sinister reptilian Green woman, Lucas, and Natalie Wood or whatever her name is from Wales, look you.

That scenario is still unlikely, but I will bet it is not half so unlikely as many of you, or Theresa May, believed when the election was called. Back then the headlines were talking of a Labour and Ukip wipeout and a landslide for the Tories.

I never remotely bought that notion, no matter what the polls said. I have been banging on for ages about how the Labour vote, especially in the north, is a lot ‘stickier’ than the pollsters think. My guess was that May would win a majority of 30 or so, but that was before Conservative Central Office took out its hardy shotgun and began blowing off both of its feet. I may have to revise that figure downwards. Either way, and those gaffes excluded, here’s why I think the Tory lead in the polls has been halved — yes, halved — despite the fact that the Labour party is led by Chauncey Gardiner out of Hal Ashby’s wonderful satire Being There.

First, the election was not wanted and is deeply resented beyond the Westminster bubble. The only people who actually enjoy elections are journos and the politically active: that leaves 97 per cent of the population who are somewhat averse, especially after a bruising referendum last year. May is resented for having foisted the election upon us, and people may be inclined to punish her for it, either by staying at home or voting against. The most salient comment of this election may have been made on the day it was called, by Brenda of Bristol: ‘Oh no, what’s she done that for?’ People suspect that their lives are being disrupted for Theresa May’s political and personal gain. And they’re not wrong, are they?

Second. Jeremy Corbyn is not notably less popular in the Midlands and north of the country than Ed Miliband was. And he has had a good election so far. The Labour vote remains buoyant and is growing. Don’t forget that the populist revolution we have seen here and in the US and in Europe does not come exclusively from the right. Corbyn presents an anti-establishment populist left-wing agenda, much as did Syriza and Five Star (and the SNP, come to that) and he offers it to an electorate which has a certain appetite for such radicalism. If he changed his tune on immigration he could conceivably win.

Third. Theresa May has the personal warmth, wit, oratorical ability and attractiveness of an Indesit fridge-freezer which has been faultily connected by a man called Trevor for five quid, cash in hand, and which is now full of decomposing Findus Crispy Pancakes. There is no vision, there is no chutzpah. Just the bland repetition of meaningless phrases. Corbyn is a far better campaigner.

Fourth. Yes, the Labour front bench has the collective IQ of a fairly small bowl of krill. But the Conservative front bench is pretty thinnish, too, isn’t it? Would you book Amber Rudd or Philip Hammond to deliver a rousing speech at your company’s annual shindig? I’d rather listen to a tape of Greylag geese squabbling over mating rights.

Fifth. The Ukip vote will migrate to the Tories en masse — but in the south, where they don’t need it. Far less so in the north and Midlands, where they do need it. There, many will remain with Ukip, especially if Paul Nuttall ramps up the anti-Islam rhetoric in the wake of the Manchester atrocity. Of the rest, a fair few will go back to the habitual berth of the Labour party.

Sixth. I had not expected the Lib Dem vote to disappear. But given that it does seem to be disappearing, it won’t turn up in the pockets of Conservative candidates. Almost anyone but — and most likely Labour.

I’ve always thought that calling the election was a mistake predicated on misplaced confidence. Today, I’m even more convinced of that view.“

Photoshop – so useful for Swire!

The Swire photo on Twitter:

Now, Owl may be wrong, but isn’t this cropped from this – that chair and that view sure look similar:

IMG_1314

Original photo source: Sidmouth Herald
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east-devon-mp-signs-fairer-funding-letter-to-pm-1-4989277

Independent councillors are again power brokers in Cornwall

“This month’s county elections left Cornwall with 46 Conservative councillors, 37 Liberal Democrats and 30 Independents.

As the largest party the Conservatives had first go at putting together a ruling coalition. But, reports BBC News, their proposal was rejected by the Independents unanimously.

Instead:
The Liberal Democrats and independent councillors have regained joint control of Cornwall Council following two weeks of uncertainty.

Adam Paynter from the Lib Dems is the new leader following a secret ballot by councillors on Tuesday.

Independent councillor Julian German is to take on the role of deputy leader.

The council was run by a Lib Dem and Independent coalition before the elections.”

http://liberalengland.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/lib-dems-and-independents-take-back.html

“Ministers could have to lay bare their private Whitehall diaries after Freedom of Information win”

Owl says: bet there are a lot of interesting diaries at EDDC!

“Ministers could be forced to reveal details of their ministerial diaries after the Government failed in a bid to block disclosure of a diary kept by former Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley.

The ground-breaking case marks the first time the courts have considered the public right to see entries contained in a ministerial diary under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Transparency campaigners say the case is of importance because the diary covers the time Mr Lansley was working on the Health and Social Care Act and allegedly subjected to extensive lobbying by private healthcare interests.

A journalist, Simon Lewis, made a request to the Department of Health under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to see diary contents for the period May 12 2010 to April 30 2011.

Mr Lansley was health secretary in David Cameron’s Government from 2010 to 2012.

Only a redacted version was produced but in March 2013 the Information Commissioner required the department to disclose the majority of the withheld information.

The Government has now lost a series of legal challenges to the commissioner’s decision, ending in a unanimous three-judge appeal ruling yesterday in favour of disclosure.

It was handed down by Sir Terence Etherton, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Davis.

In the lead ruling, Sir Terence said the FOI Act created a general right of access to information held by public authorities but allowed for exemptions from disclosure.

The Government attacked two earlier tribunal decisions allowing disclosure of the Lansley diary.

Government lawyers argued the tribunals were wrong to find the relevant balancing exercise between disclosure and non-disclosure came down in favour of disclosure.

Sir Alex Allan, a former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, had been among Government witnesses who gave evidence that disclosure “would not assist the understanding of the processes of government and would be liable to mislead and misinform the public as to the efficiency and extent of the work of the minister”.

Dismissing the Government appeal, Sir Terence said there were “11 particular types of benefit” from disclosing the information, including “general value of openness” and “transparency in public administration”.

The judge also rejected the Government’s claim that the Department of Health did not hold the diary information “for the purposes” of the FOI Act.

He declared that while Mr Lansley was a minister in the department the diary entries “were held by the department for itself even if they were also held – in the case of personal and constituency matters – for Mr Lansley as well”.

The judge added: “I cannot see that the termination of Mr Lansley’s ministerial position made any difference to that position.

“In particular it seems to me clear that it remained relevant or potentially relevant to the department to know, as a matter of historical record, where Mr Lansley had been and with whom on particular occasions, should there be a political, journalistic or historical interest raised with the department in relation to those matters.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “The Government is considering the decision of the Court of Appeal and will respond in due course.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/ministers-could-have-lay-bare-private-whitehall-diaries-freedom/

Billionaires and developers rush to fill Tory election coffers

“The Conservatives received a huge boost in donations in the three months before Theresa May called a surprise general election, according to figures published by the Electoral Commission.

The party received £5.46m from January to March this year, more than twice the £2.65m given to Labour.

By the time the prime minister called the election on 18 April, the Tories had received £1.85m more in donations during the first quarter of the year than it had in the last three months of 2016.

The biggest individual donation came from the Conservative party treasurer, Michael Davis, who gave the party £317,000. The South African-born former mining executive is overseeing the party’s fundraising efforts, which have targeted wealthy businesspeople and city figures.

Last week, it emerged that the Conservatives had raised £1.5m more than Labour in the first week of the general election campaign, receiving more than £4.1m while Labour raised just over £2.7m.

The Conservatives are expected to get close to the £19m maximum they are permitted to spend during an election campaign. Labour is expecting to spend less than the Tories, amid a drive for donations from its 500,000 members. …

Other major donations to the Conservatives include £55,000 from the Rigby Group, which owns exclusive hotels including Bovey Castle in Devon, where the Olympic diver Tom Daley recently celebrated his wedding.

A company called Anglesource, run by the billionaire Arora brothers, also gave £50,000.

A property firm owned by a Palestinian-born businessman has given £65,000 to the Conservatives this year. CC Property UK is owned by Said Khoury, a billionaire who also owns CCC, the largest construction firm in the Middle East.

Other major donations came from Leopold Noe, the property developer, who gave the Conservatives £130,000. The hedge-fund manager John Armitage gave £125,000.

JS Bloor (Services), linked to the property tycoon John Bloor, gave £120,000. JS Bloor and Armitage also made donations in the first week of the election campaign, which are subject to different reporting rules.

According to the Electoral Commission, the Tory party also has a credit facility of £5,554,000, while Labour has access to borrowing £113,000.”

Labour received £1.96m from trade unions, including £657,702 from Unite. Public funds are also listed for each party, which predominantly boost the totals for opposition parties. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/23/tories-5m-donations-boost-before-may-called-snap-general-election

Tory donors and diners from oil companies get well treated in Conservative manifesto?

“Oil executives whose industry is promised further government support if the Conservatives are returned to power have given more than £390,000 to the party since Theresa May became prime minister.

They include Ian Taylor, the chief executive of Vitol, whose firm was fined for making payments to an Iraqi state-owned firm, and Ayman Asfari, the chief executive of Petrofac, who was recently interviewed by the Serious Fraud Office over suspected corruption.

Three of the donors have attended dinners with May or senior ministers since she took office.

The payments will raise eyebrows because the 2017 manifesto includes a specific commitment to build upon previous “unprecedented” government support for the oil and gas industry. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/oil-bosses-have-given-390000-to-tories-conservatives-under-theresa-may

Cranbrook “country park” to go to public inquiry

Basically, developers want to skimp, and EDDC has no other way open to attempt to thwart their stinginess.

Don’t hold your breath for a good result in the current political and developer-led situation.

http://www.devonlive.com/public-inquiry-to-be-held-of-plans-for-countryside-park-in-cranbrook/story-30348970-detail/story.html

Progressive alliance – an idea whose time has come

“Caroline Lucas, Green Party

In an increasingly complex world, no one party has a monopoly on wisdom. People at the grassroots understand this – now the parties need to catch up
As the polls narrow, the Tories attack the idea of a progressive alliance and the possibility of coalition government because they know these could deny them their landslide. In the long term they fear a progressive realignment breaking their stranglehold on office and power. They are right to be scared because while on the surface all for them seems strong and stable, just below a new politics is bubbling up.

If Antonio Gramsci’s haunting phrase “the old is dying and the new cannot be born” was ever applicable to a UK general election, then it is this one. The old election is taking place in party headquarters, at the daily press briefings and meet-the-people events with no real people. But what is most old-school about this election is the main parties’ tribalism: “Only Labour can defend the NHS”; “Only the Tories can provide strong and stable blah”. It’s all about them: they believe they have a monopoly on the wisdom, superiority and singular ability to manage a world that is becoming more complex by the day. They are out of their depth. We know it and inwardly they do too.

The new election campaign is happening from the bottom up in local parties and communities. When Labour insisted on standing a candidate in the Richmond Park byelection last November, after the Greens stood aside to give the Liberal Democrats a freer run at Zac Goldsmith, thus establishing the working principle of the Progressive Alliance, Labour polled fewer votes than they had members. It is always the people who get it first.

Because what is being exposed during this campaign are the limits of deeply tribal parties in an increasingly non-tribal society. Our democracy is a tired adversarial system designed for two parties when we live in a multi-party moment. Young people simply don’t understand why you can’t join more than one party – and often do. The Women’s Equality Party has shown a different way of doing things is possible by saying this is fine.

Critics complain that “progressive” is a woolly term, so let me define it: being a progressive means believing the best in people, not the worst; that a good society is one that knows it is not yet good enough. It means being impatient for greater equality, democracy and sustainability.

When a progressive alliance government is formed it will introduce proportional voting so we never have to fight against the electoral system again. So this is more than just a deal to defeat the Tories in June. The progressive alliance is based on the principle that we make better decisions by working together. Unlike the arrogant view that any one party knows it all and can do it all, we believe there is wisdom to be found in the crowd. The Greens think most about the environment, Labour about work and the Liberals about liberty. This can be a winning political hand. Not least because it starts to help us deal with the complexity of the world we face. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/23/progressive-alliance-general-election-labour-future

“The state of rural services” report

“Changes to rural transport provision affect access to a range of service facilities and outlets, where these are not available locally and where travel is necessary. Recent reductions to bus services are therefore of direct relevance to various topics covered by this report.

Similarly, rural access to a range of services is altering due to the provision of and take-up of online services. This has considerable scope to address long standing concerns about rural access to services, if geographic distance is no longer such a barrier. However, this is not straightforward. Not all groups are online, some rural areas await decent (broadband) connectivity and one consequence may be less used physical outlets e.g. bank branches.

The demography of rural areas and, in particular, the growing number of older people has implications for the future of services covered in this report. On the one hand it places considerable extra pressures on public services such as GP surgeries and adult social care, especially if funding for them is tight, as it has been for some years and seems likely to continue being. On the other hand older age groups are more likely to be users of locally based commercial services in rural areas, such as convenience stores, thus helping them to survive. Retired people who remain in good health are also likely to make up a good proportion of the volunteers engaged with providing community-run services. …”

https://ruralengland.org/the-state-of-rural-services-2016-report/

Claire Wright – damaged and stolen poster boards “unfair and disappointing”

Press release:

“In the past week Claire Wright has received growing reports of her A1 poster boards going missing or being damaged across the East Devon constituency.

More than 300 boards are now in place across towns and villages in the area, however, in the past week, she has received reports of boards going missing or being damaged, including at: Sidmouth, West Hill, Ottery St Mary, Budleigh Salterton and Woodbury Salterton.

She said: “We don’t know who is damaging the boards and it is really disappointing because it is a practice I would always condemn.

“With my 600 strong army of supporters I am fighting really hard to win this election. But I will always fight fairly and honestly.

“It is particularly disappointing because my campaign is funded exclusively by local residents who have been amazingly generous, donating an incredible £9000 over two weeks. Each board costs over £5, so it is local people’s money that is being needlessly wasted and that is deeply regrettable.”

I hope that whoever appears to be targeting my boards will now stop.”

Strong …ly weak and stable..y wobbly on home care charges!

Summary: May is panicking … she will say ANYTHING … as long as it REALLY means NOTHING!

What Owl thinks: the bigger your house, the more money you will be able to leave to your relatives. Yeah, that sounds more like a Tory policy!

“Theresa May has refused to say how high the Conservatives’ new cap on social care costs would be, after announcing an unprecedented U-turn on her manifesto plan to remove the limit.

The Prime Minister became increasingly flustered as she faced a barrage of questions from journalists, having seemingly watered down a key element of the Tory manifesto.

Asked by Channel 4 News’ Michael Crick where she would set the limit, Ms May said: “We have not changed the principles of the policy we set out in our manifesto. Those policies remain exactly the same.”

May waters down ‘dementia tax’ in U-turn after poll lead slashed
The Conservative manifesto’s section on social care makes no mention of a cap. Previously the plan had been to introduce an upper limit of £72,000 on the lifetime cost of a person’s care by 2020.

It said a green paper would be drafted to “address system-wide issues to improve the quality of care”.

But Ms May told journalists at the launch of the Welsh Conservatives’ manifesto: “The plans that we set out were very clear in the manifesto, you can look in the manifesto … We said we would issue a green paper and of course within that green paper we’ll be consulting on the details of the proposals.

“Nobody is going to have to pay for their care, nobody is going to have to pay for their care … while they are alive. Nobody is going to have to lose their family home.

“We have not changed the principles we set out in the manifesto.”

She added: “We will have an upper limit, absolute limit, on the amount people will pay for care.”

It came after a pair of polls showed Labour narrowing the gap on the Conservatives to just nine points, following the launch of Ms May’s manifesto.

The Tories’ lead has halved compared to a week ago, according to Survation, with Theresa May’s party on 43 and Labour on 34.

The poll of 1,034 adults was taken over 19 and 20 May and showed people were more likely to say Labour had the best policies for older people and the NHS.

A YouGov poll had Labour on 35 per cent, their highest of the campaign so far, with the Tories on 44 per cent.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-theresa-may-social-care-cap-limit-costs-conservative-manifesto-u-turn-a7749171.html

“Claire Wright stands up for pensioners”

“Claire Wright, the independent County Councillor fighting to win the Devon East constituency, is opposing what she deems a triple-pronged attack on pensioners, revealed in the Conservative manifesto this week.

She said: “The Conservative manifesto contains some appalling attacks on the very people who can bear it the least.

“In recent years we have seen younger people, those on benefits and disabled people, lose vital financial support and it seems that the Conservatives are now targeting older people.

“The winter fuel allowance will be so restricted that an estimated 10 MILLION people out of 12 million will lose out. That’s almost everyone.

This will create terrible hardship for older people who are already struggling to make ends meet in addition to heating their homes.

The pension triple lock is set to be lifted, which could see the same people who are struggling to make ends meet suffer hardship as they see their state pension lose value year after year.

“Meanwhile insurance companies circle like sharks, trying to cash in by providing schemes with high premiums. What kind of caring Conservatism is that? They’re taking apart the welfare state and selling it off piece by piece.”

“I’ve received messages from pensioners who are concerned, upset and angry. These are people who’ve worked hard for 40 years or more, paid their taxes and National Insurance like good citizens do, and simply want to pass on their home to their children or their grandchildren.

“And the Conservatives are aiming to take it away: Incredible! Many of them are core conservative voters. They’re telling me that they will never vote Tory again and that they’re happy to find an Independent they can back instead. One couple called it ‘an insult to our generation’.”

“It is deeply unfair, especially when the government is prioritising spending billions on projects that are nothing to do with improving lives of people living here, such as HS2, a third runway at Heathrow, building brand new roads, free schools and new grammar schools, to give just a few examples.

East Devon is well known as a beautiful place to retire to. The Guardian named it number five in the country in a 2012 article. The 2011 census showed that 28% of our local population is aged 65 and over, and that three quarters of people here are owner-occupiers. Both of those statistics are significantly higher than the national average.

So East Devon will be particularly hard hit by this misguided policy. Our local pensioners, who’ve paid into the system for decades, are being deserted by the government.

Meanwhile Hugo Swire, the Conservative candidate, is tweeting about Brexit and refusing to come to hustings.

“Theresa May talked about ‘Mainstream Britain’: that’s precisely what she’s attacking right here in East Devon!”

The Conservatives plans have been questioned by politicians and others across the spectrum.

Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative MP for Totnes raised concerns. The National Pensioners Convention is worried, and the term ‘dementia tax‘ seems to have caught on.

Even the Bow Group, the oldest Conservative think tank in the country, has described the proposal as “the biggest stealth tax in history”.

Claire continued: “We need to pick up the Dilnot Commission’s proposal from 2011, for a cap on what an individual would have to pay on care in their lifetime. The Commission was appointed by the coalition government, and proposed a cap of £35,000.

“Implementing this would ensure security for our pensioners: thousands of people in East Devon who deserve better.”

“If I’m elected to parliament on June 8th (and that’s looking increasingly likely), this is precisely the kind of assault I will stand up against.

I will work with MPs in other parties, just as I’ve been working with councillors from other parties for the last six years. I will do my best to protect ordinary people here in this beautiful constituency from the ravages of the Conservatives.

Unlike other MPs who have to follow the whip and worry more about their party leaders than the people who put them there, my focus will always be the welfare of the people of East Devon.”

Source: press release

Tories “paying for Google ads to lead people away from negative ‘dementia tax’ stories”

“The Conservatives are buying up Google ads to stop people reading about the controversy around its “dementia tax”.

The party has come under huge pressure over its new care plan, which will see older people have to pay for the services they use. The controversial policy has been called a dementia tax, since it means people who need care as they get older will have to pay far more than they did before.

Now the party appears to be attempting to limit that controversy by stopping people reading about it. It is spending probably thousands of pounds to keep people from reading about the widespread opposition to the party – and encourage them to click on its own website instead.”

Ads are being placed at the top of Google searches for “dementia tax” to direct people onto a special page on the Tory website.

Underneath the ad shows an array of stories about the dementia tax, all of them negative. The three top stories at the time of publication was a piece in The Guardian reporting that Theresa May is “under pressure” over the plan, a Financial Times report on the fact that senior Tories were “kept in the dark” over the dementia tax and an article in The Independent on Liberal Democrat claims that nine out of 10 homes would be sold to fund care costs under the policy.

The Google ads are unusual in taking on the terms defined by Labour, which first referred to the policy as a dementia tax. The Tories have mostly referred to the policy as its “social care plans” – which is the way it is defined when people click through on the ads.

The ads presumably reflect growing concern that the dementia tax is losing the Tories votes. The page attempts to stem those concerns, arguing that the policy is required because the country is getting older and claims that the policy emerged because the Tories “have chosen to act, in the national interest”.

It has been blamed in part for the shrinking lead that the Tories have over Labour. That has been cut into single figures since the Conservative manifesto and the dementia tax were announced.

And the policy has even been criticised by Conservative candidates, who say that it is playing badly during campaigns. Senior Tories were not even told about the policy before it was announced, according to the Financial Times.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/dementia-tax-google-adverts-conservatives-stop-reading-policy-controversy-election-2017-manifesto-a7748646.html