Closing community hospitals – local GP speaks truth to power

“Dr Jon Orrell, A LOCAL GP has warned residents to not be “fooled by the warm words” in the Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group’s (CCG) current consultation.

Dr Jon Orrell attended a meeting in Bridport last week along with Wendy Savage – a gynaecologist and campaigner of women’s rights in childbirth and fertility – and Claudia Sorin of Save SCBU, Maternity and Kingfisher at Dorset County Hospital.

Dr Orrell discussed the CCG, of which he was previously a member, and said the group don’t take their views from the public.

He said: “The CCG is the local organisation which has been tasked in making all these cuts palatable and trying to sell them. You will be told it is clinically driven, you will be told that it is an improvement and there is no alternative.

“The CCG is headed by local doctors, however it is compulsory, I can’t carry on being a GP practising in Dorset unless I am a member of the CCG.

“It is very much hierarchical… we don’t take our views from the public, it is top down and a culture of agreement – I have experienced this first hand.”

He also warned residents to look deeper in the Clinical Services Review document and to be careful when filling it out.

He added: “Throughout the document you will see ‘care in the community’ popping up and ‘care closer to home’ as if that is necessarily a good thing. It is all playing with words in my opinion.

“If you rename ‘care in the community’ to ‘neglect and anonymity’ you have got it closer to the truth.

“Looking after people properly costs a lot of money and you need more doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants to do it.

“Care in the community would be great if you did it to the same high standards and done properly as in hospitals, but they don’t and it is just a couple of hours a day, half-an-hour, and is not necessarily a nurse, it could be a healthcare assistant who is not trained – it is not the same.

“If you look at the document it all looks very bright and smiley – everyone is happy by this change. However, you get down to the detail and small print and you find the truth emerging – this isn’t improvement, this isn’t making things better, this is Dorset’s share of £22billion worth of national savings.

“Be careful with the consultation, it looks like they are putting [forward] something good, if you tick ‘yes’ to any of the boxes you are voting to close local services without realising it, you will close community hospitals and GP surgeries.

“The final word of warning – don’t be fooled by the warm words, the motherhood and apple pie in the document; look a bit deeper.

“Absolutely fill it in and get your family and friends to fill it in as our NHS depends on this.”

Wendy Savage spoke to the audience about threats to the NHS nationally, including Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) which outline how NHS trusts will make savings, and urged residents to talk to their local MPs and councillors about protecting the future of health care.

She said: “The latest threat are these STPs, or what we call slash, trash and privatise. Slash the funding, trash the local services and privatise.

“We have got to make sure parliamentary candidates as well as sitting MPs know that not supporting the NHS is the kiss of death.”

Claudia Sorin highlighted some of the concerns that members of the Save SCBU, Maternity and Kingfisher ward at Dorset County Hospital have and how safety could be compromised if services were moved to the east of the county.

She said: “Various families with seriously ill children or children with disabilities will have their provision at home in the community.

“When I spoke to one of the CCG members who is in charge of children services and maternity, she said ‘yes, that is the case’ – they will be given a package of money and they will be given that funding and they will organise it themselves in their own homes.

“That is the integrated community model; closing down beds in hospitals, closing down the children’s ward and maternity unit and that will be a midwife led unit only.

“Some of the mums on the campaign have open access to the children’s ward.

“That takes pressure off the emergency services, takes the pressure off the GPs because they can go straight to the Kingfisher Ward where the staff there know their child and can quickly give them the vital treatment that they need. This is something that is going to be lost if Kingfisher closes.

“The parents of these children have spoken to consultants there, the nursing staff, and all of them, on the whole, think that it would not be safe for a lot of the treatments that their children are coming in to the hospital for to have at home.

“The idea that maternity services and the children’s ward should be over in the east of the county, consultants at DCH are saying that would be complete madness.

“So this is the message we are getting from DCH – it would compromise safety to have those services over on the east of the county.”

A spokesperson for Dorset CCG said: “The proposals that have been developed by local clinicians and are subject to public consultation have been well documented over the last few months.

“We want to be absolutely clear that no decisions have been made, nor will they be until after the public consultation has ended and the feedback analysed.

“We invite anyone who attended either the drop-in event in January or the recent meeting in Bridport to get in touch if they would like more information or clarification before they complete their questionnaire.

“It is important that you don’t miss out on your opportunity to have a say and you complete the questionnaire by February 28th.

“Whether you agree with the proposals or not or you maybe have an idea of how things could be done differently – if you don’t tell us what you think, we won’t have heard your point of view.”

https://www.viewnews.co.uk/gp-warning-ccg-consultation/

MPs and the stinky swamp some of them inhabit

“Is politics a service, a duty, a means to represent the needs and aspirations of the people, or is it a launchpad for lucrative jobs in the private sector? George Osborne was terribly amused in the House of Commons yesterday: all this fuss over a trifling issue like the corruption of British democracy! Can’t we see he’s doing us a favour, having to suffer the indignity of being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for multiple jobs rather than representing his constituents, all to make sure our “parliament is enhanced”, as he puts it? The sacrifice Osborne has made for all of us, having to be paid a juicy salary to further blur the distinction between media and political power, to make sure parliament is enriched by yet more MPs failing to devote themselves to the people who elected them.

There isn’t a sick bag big enough. It turns out he didn’t bother waiting for the advisory committee on business appointments to decide whether there is a conflict of interest first. Either they rule that there is an obvious conflict of interest in a serving senior Tory politician editing a daily newspaper, or the rules are a farce. Regardless, there are a number of lessons here. One is that some politicians think they are simply too brilliant to be reduced to the mere level of giving a voice to those they exist to serve, exploiting the prominence that comes with constituents selecting them as their representative and then making a packet out of it. Another was David Miliband, who made hundreds of thousands of pounds for speeches and corporate advisory roles when he returned to the backbenches: at least he had the dignity to eventually resign from his seat.

Then there is the revolving door of British politics. Public office gives you lots of marketable advantages: prominence, connections, knowledge of the inside workings of government. These can then be exploited by major corporations, wealthy individuals and media oligarchs to gain even more power over our corrupted democracy. Health ministers whose job it is to defend our sacred NHS end up working for private health firms who benefit from its privatisation; defence ministers end up working for arms firms bidding for government contracts. Our now foreign secretary was paid a quarter of a million pounds – described by Boris Johnson as “chicken feed” – for writing columns rather than, say, serving Londoners (although he did give up his regular column after becoming foreign secretary).”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/21/george-osborne-story-britain-ruled-never-ending-dinner-party

Independent councillor points out flaws in new EDDC housing company project

Owl says: One flaw NOT pointed out is how useless EDDC is at running large projects. Knowle relocation – bungled; Exmouth regeneration – bungled; Section 106 payments – bungled and all handled with secrecy and minimal information to the public and non-Cabinet councillors, including those in their own party.

If they can’t control these projects what hope do we have of them controlling bigger ones? And as for which developers they will choose …

“A housing company that could allow council bosses to better respond to market pressures has received early support – but a Sidmouth councillor argues there are ‘huge risks’ to taxpayers that need to be tightly controlled.

Agenda papers say an East Devon District Council-owned (EDDC) company, free from red tape, could play a key role in increasing supply of homes and meeting demand when private developers fall short.

However, Councillor Cathy Gardner raised concerns that it is not a ‘local’ housing company and will in fact be able to develop anywhere in the country.

She said: “EDDC has been good at looking after its council houses, but this isn’t about developing council houses. They may decide they want to build elsewhere in the country where they can make more profit. That might be all right if it was limited to building ‘affordable’ housing here, but that’s not written into the terms.

“It needs to answer so many questions – is the company being set up to meet housing needs in East Devon or is it more about profit, because it can take that money into its general funds? Where is the money coming from to set it up? EDDC may have fantastically good intentions, but the devil is in the details.”

Cllr Gardner also voiced concerns about the ‘huge risk’ in speculating on the property market and said it is dependent on house prices remaining high.

Cabinet members backed the creation of East Devon Homes last week and officers will now prepare an initial business plan, identify the first projects and report back to the council.

If approved, the company will be financed by EDDC and any profits would come back to the authority. It could sell land to the company at market value – or potentially gift it – and then borrow money to finance projects.

The report says the company, run by a board of directors, will be able to operate on commercial terms, free of the ‘continual interference’ from central government.

Supporting the proposals, Councillor Jill Elson, EDDC’s portfolio holder for homes and communities, said: “This presents a wonderful opportunity for the council to play a more active part in the local housing market.

“We have researched the proposal carefully and fully, looked at the risks and rewards, and decided that the local housing company model is a suitable model for the council to deliver its housing ambitions.

“We are seeing high levels of demand for housing in the area and see this as a way of increasing supply consistent with the Government’s growth agenda.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_housing_company_could_develop_anywhere_in_country_warns_sidmouth_councillor_1_4935216

Views wanted on East Devon street trading

Owl says: make no mistake this is simply an EDDC cash cow. Instead of having a few regulated streets where outdoor trading can take place with a licence, this extends to ALL streets – bringing in more income for the council but potentially setting permanent traders with increased overheads (including business rates) against temporary traders without them.

No problem in vibrant, thriving towns but a big problem elsewhere. Except Sidmouth where local traders were so vehemently against it, the plan was dropped for that town only.

“District bosses are consulting on their latest plans for new street trading rules.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) is proposing to designate the whole of the district as a consent street, meaning street traders would have to apply to the council for a licence to trade.

However, following its initial consultation, EDDC now plans to exclude Sidmouth.

To take part in the consultation, visit http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/streettrading, or to obtain a paper copy call 01395 517569. The closing date for responses is April 26.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/views_wanted_on_east_devon_street_trading_rules_1_4935920

Plans for apartments at Sidmouth hotel ‘misleading’

“Town councillors fear they supported plans for eight apartments at a Sidmouth hotel on the basis of ‘inadequate and misleading’ information – after claims the properties could be sold into private ownership.

Permission for the apartments was granted in 2011 – when it was the Westcliff Hotel – after an application from hotel owner Nicolas James Group Ltd.

The new plans are in the name 
of Nicolas Roach, the company’s executive chairman.

Mr Page said: “The application implies it is all part of the Harbour Hotel, but it was submitted not by the hotel, but by Nicolas Roach.

“The proceeds will flow not to the hotel to support its viability, but to Mr Roach’s own pockets.

“What’s to stop further flats on the site when the Harbour Hotel directors decide it’s failed as a hotel? It’s prime land for residential development.”

Mr Page said the architecture was ‘banal and unworthy of the site’ and raised concerns that the apartment block has been moved three to five metres towards Peak Hill Road from its approved position, adding: “I think the application is unacceptable, whichever way you look at it.” …”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/plans_for_apartments_at_sidmouth_hotel_misleading_claim_1_4935203

Building new roads makes traffic worse, say campaigners and don ‘t boost economy”

“New roads in England not only fail to ease congestion and benefit local economies but worsen traffic, countryside campaigners warn.

Road-building also “obliterates” rural views and harms nature, the Campaign to Protect Rural England says.

Its study of 86 road schemes completed between 2002 and 2012 says the majority damaged the surrounding environment.

But Sir John Armitt, of the National Infrastructure Commission, said it was essential to increase road capacity.

The government will spend £1.2bn on building and maintaining roads in the next year, which it says will cut congestion and improve journey times while boosting businesses and jobs.

‘Depressing cycle’

Ralph Smyth, head of infrastructure at the CPRE, said road-building projects led to a “depressing, self-perpetuating cycle of more and more roads”.
Roads were not delivering the congestion relief promised, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “They improve it for the first year or so, then traffic rapidly increases.”

The CPRE’s research drew on official evaluations of 86 road schemes, which Highways England carries out for road projects costing more than £10m.

It said 69 of these road schemes had had an “adverse impact” on the landscape, including obliterating views and destroying ancient woodland and mature hedgerows.

And each road project it looked at, excepting one, saw traffic grow “significantly faster” than other regional roads.

In addition, the CPRE examined 25 road schemes which the government promised would boost the local economy.

The CPRE said that in 15 of these cases there was only “thin and circumstantial to non-existent” evidence that this had happened. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39328643

EDDC Manstone Depot relocation cost so far: £70,000 – £106,000

Freedom of Information Question:
“Could you provide me with the full and exact costings for this planning application; the building costs of the new offices; and where the finance for this project is coming from

Answer:
Full and exact costings are not yet known. We have a working estimate which indicates that the cost of this element of the project is likely to be between £71,750 and £106,750 but, as we will soon be securing bids for this work, we are not prepared to disclose our budget estimate breakdown as this will seriously weaken our contract negotiating position and our ability to achieve best value for the work needed. We are withholding this information under Reg 12(5)(e) of the Environmental Information Regulations. We believe that the overall budgetary cost being in the public domain allows for the public interest in this matter to be adequately served.

This is an existing costed element of the relocation project and £100,000 is included within the overall re-location budget for this project and was in the budget when considered by the Council back in March 2015.”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

Rural health concerns

“The government must improve the way it collates information on the health of people who live in rural areas, according to the Local Government Association and Public Health England.

One sixth of areas with the worst health and deprivation levels are located in the countryside, says the organisations said in a joint study released over the weekend.

Izzi Seccombe, chair of the LGA’s community wellbeing board, said: “We often think of rural areas as picture-postcard scenes of rolling green fields and farming land, yet this idyllic image is masking pockets of deprivation and poor health.

“Although many rural areas are affluent, this is not the case for everywhere.”

The report points out 55% of rural households compared to 97% of urban ones are within 8km of a hospital. Eighty per cent of rural residents live within 4km of a GP surgery compared to 98% of the urban population, Health in rural areas highlights.

Rural areas have on average 23.5% of their population over 65 compared with 16.3% of urban areas aged over 65.

“Rural communities are increasingly older, and older people often experience worse health and have greater need of health and care services,” said Seccombe.

“We are also concerned that the make do attitude and reluctance to make a fuss of some older rural residents means they may not seek out health care or treatment when they need it.”

This stores up worse problems later on, she explained, when they will need more serious and emergency care.

Councils could better plan how to provide services and meet the needs of people in rural areas if the government collated better information on health of people in these areas, the LGA and Public Health England believe.

Duncan Selbie, chief executive of Public Health England, said: “Local authorities are already finding new and imaginative ways of reaching out to people in remote communities who so often go unnoticed.

“This report offers a number of great examples that other areas can use to ensure they do not miss out on the opportunity for better health and wellbeing.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/03/lga-and-public-health-england-highlight-rural-health-concerns

Now home care is in crisis

Owl says: if you believe that final paragraph you will believe anything and, if you are old or otherwise vulnerable should not complain when you get no help! Though some, of course, will be rich enough to buy their way out of trouble – but it was ever thus.

“Home care contracts are being ripped up across half the country as companies say they are no longer paid enough by councils to look after the elderly.

Dozens of care providers are going bust and a quarter are at risk of insolvency as local authorities force down what they pay for carers to go into the homes of the elderly and provide essential help, research has found.

Hundreds of thousands of older people are already going without help with everyday tasks such as washing and dressing as councils cut back and there are fears that the problem will worsen if companies collapse.
The elderly care system was promised an emergency injection of £2 billion over three years in the budget, but councils say a long-term solution to keep pace with an ageing population is needed if the money is not simply to delay disaster.

Freedom of information requests by the BBC Panorama programme found that 95 of 197 councils which replied had seen home care contracts cancelled.
Mears, one of the largest home care companies, handed back a contract with Liverpool city council in the summer, saying they could not cover costs at the £13.10 an hour they were being paid. “That was a terrible thing to do for both service users and for care staff. We absolutely did not take that [decision] lightly, but frankly what choice did we have?” Alan Long, from the company, told the programme.

Colin Angel, of the United Kingdom Homecare Association, an industry body, said: “We have some really desperate providers who really do not know whether they’re going to be able to continue in business beyond the next year. That means they’re really having to make some hard commercial decisions, whether they might need to cease trading or indeed just hand back work to local councils.”

Analysis for Panorama by the consultancy Opus Restructuring found that a quarter of Britain’s 2,500 home care companies were at risk of insolvency, and 69 had shut down in the past three months.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: “Older and vulnerable people must get compassionate care, which is why we have provided councils with £9.25 billion of dedicated funding, including an extra £1 billion in 2017-18 to provide immediate relief. We will bring forward proposals later this year to ensure a more financially sustainable social care system.”

Source: The Times (paywall)

“The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised to such a level that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win”

“In poor democracies, votes are bought directly. In rich ones, money is spent to secure votes. Instead of being bribed, voters are subjected to a deluge of advertising, rounds of door-knocking and incessant social media messaging. Laws in richer democracies are meant to be tightly enforced. A check on UK election spending is that contributions have to be declared correctly. That is why the decision to fine the Conservative party a record £70,000 for “numerous failures” in accurately reporting campaign spend at the 2015 general election and three by elections in 2014 is so important. It is a wrong compounded by cover-up. The Tories “unreasonably” failed to cooperate with the Electoral Commission, which acted after a Channel 4 News report.

Foolishly, David Cameron displayed not a hint of contrition, claiming he had won “fairly and squarely”. He ran a shambolic operation. It’s too early to say whether a criminal offence has been committed. Any prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is dishonesty not just non-compliance. The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised so that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win. Money buys access to shape policies. Without strict rules and harsh penalties, politicians will be tempted to win office by mortgaging the future to an investing elite.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/the-guardian-view-on-tory-election-spending-its-a-scandal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Election purdah: expect LOTS of good news and promises next week!

Purdah for the local county council elections (and possibly a General Election if rumours are to be believed) will begin on Monday 27 March 2017. Be aware NO council (not just the county council) can ignore purdah.

You can find a useful guide here:

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91+Unpacking+Purdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d

From this guide:

“This means that:

• In general you (this means councils and councillors) should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters (an exception being situations covered by legislation or regulations directing publication of information for explanatory purposes).
• Particular care should be taken during the pre-election period to abide by the Act.
• Consider suspending the hosting of third party material or closing public forums if these are likely to breach the codes of practice.
• Do not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views on proposals in a way which identifies them with individual councillors or groups of councillors.
• Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published unless expressly authorised by statute.
• You are allowed to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.

Although this new code supersedes the previous versions and may seem less specific, in practice your conduct should be similar to previous elections.
What this means in practice:

Publicity is deemed as “any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.”

The first question to ask is ‘could a reasonable person conclude that you were spending public money to influence the outcome of the election?’ In other words it must pass the ‘is it reasonable’ test. When making your decision, you should consider the following:

You should not:
• produce publicity on matters which are politically controversial
• make references to individual politicians or groups in press releases
arrange proactive media or events involving candidates
• issue photographs which include candidates
• supply council photographs or other materials to councillors or political group staff unless you have verified that they will not be used for campaigning purposes
• continue hosting third party blogs or e-communications
• help with national political visits (as this would involve using public money to support a particular candidate or party). These should be organised by political parties with no cost or resource implications for the council.

You should also think carefully before you:
• Continue to run campaign material to support your own local campaigns. If the campaign is already running and is non-controversial (for example, on issues like recycling or foster care) and would be a waste of public money to cancel or postpone them, then continue. However, you should always think carefully if a campaign could be deemed likely to influence the outcome of the election and you should not use councillors in press releases and events in pre-election periods. In such cases you should stop or defer them. An example might be a campaign on an issue which has been subject of local political debate and/or disagreement.
• Launch any new consultations. Unless it is a statutory duty, don’t start any new consultations or publish report Findings from consultation exercises, which could be politically sensitive.

and

Council Notice Boards:

Councils are required to publicise details of the election and how to register to vote. Material relating to wider political issues should not be posted on of official notice boards which may be seen by members of the public. This includes publicity issued by, or on behalf of, a trade union.”

GPs tell the truth to other GPs but don’t let on to us

One of Owl’s owlets picked up a copy of a GP’s magazine (Pulse) recently and was astounded at some of the articles it contained. Here is a summary:

Front cover: Austerity for GPs must end

Page 6 – GP practices in Northern Ireland threaten to leave the NHS en-mass “unless the Government substantially increases investment”. If they do this then “many patients [will need to] pay for GP services”.

Page 6 – Practices lose six-figure sum after federation fails – 54 practices lost £284,700 after investing in a federation that failed. See also Page 18.

Page 6/7 – Chief Inspector of Care Quality Commission has his own practice rated “requires improvement” after failing to review patients on high-risk medications.

Page 7 – Capita is planning to replace staff with robots to boost profits by “taking away some of the decision-making”.

Page 7 – GPs in Somerset have been banned from prescribing a raft of medicines for minor illnesses.

Page 7 – Virgin Care wins £67m contract in W Lancs.

Page 16 – “Closing the gate before our role has bolted” – moaning that GPs are now a gatekeeper service to refer people to other treatment points, making them “deskilled and lazy” and “nodding off at the gate, drowsily waving people through”. See also page 34 for a similar story by a different doctor.

Page 18 – “Is federating putting GP practices at risk?” See also page 6. Government is still promoting these as a way of improving productivity – spending “£205m” (of our money) on promoting it. “My concern is that federations are a stepping stone towards finishing off the independent contractor status of the self-employed GP [and] large healthcare companies [see Page 7] could step in and start running them.” So Virgin Healthcare will make more profits and GPs will be paid less, leading to a shortage of GPs in the UK (like nurses and soon junior doctors).

Page 22 – “GPC bids to save ‘last man standing’ GPs” – talking to Welsh government about bailing out an increasing number of small GP practices where doctors are leaving due, with 20 practices in Wales having quit the NHS in 2016 cf. a total of 33 between 2011-2015.

Page 22 – “13 practices to close in single county [Fermanagh, NI]” “Patients will be travelling 30 to 40 miles to see a GP.” “The situation in [NI] has worsened significantly [!!!!] since reports that a third of practices will close due to retirement of a third of the 66 GPs”.

Page 22 – “Just 7% of [Scottish] GPs say 10-minute consultations are adequate”

Page 24 – Full page article on how “GPs [have to] drive patients to hospital [themselves] amid ‘scary’ ambulance delays” “Very young and elderly patients are dying because of worsening delays to 999 calls, say GP who, in some cases, have had to drive patients to hospital when an ambulance has failed to arrive.” “Underfunding of ambulance services is putting patients at risk.”

Page 24 – Government wants GPs to provide “urgent home visits”. Government wants CCGs, emergency 111 providers and local councils to set up A&E Delivery Boards to consider this alongside asking GPs to spend time in A&E departments. GPs say they haven’t got enough resources. See page 26 and 30.

Page 26 – Commissioners want to save £22bn in primary care i.e. GP services by “investing” £1.2bn. See page 24 and 30.

Page 30 – “Austerity for GPs … can’t continue” – “The primary care minister” (David Mowat) says “the Government can’t attract 5,000 extra GPs if it continues to suppress funding. See page 24 and page 26 and page ….

Page 34 “Do you want to be a musician [i.e. treating people] or a conductor [i.e. referring people]?” See page 16.

In summary, this looks to me to be a GP crisis in its infancy but growing up fast.

You have to be either especially stupid and incompetent or especially evil to create this breadth and depth of crisis so quickly.

Could Seaton Town Council or EDDC buy Seaton Heights?

Well, that’s what Teignmouth Town Council want to do with a large hotel which is about to come on the market. And Seaton Heights comes up for auction next week! There is previous experience: many of Weymouth’s hotels used to be council owned.

Or maybe it could be the first purchase for EDDC’s mooted housing company.

“Teignmouth town council are investigating the possibility of buying the Cliffden Hotel. The Cliffden is part of Vision Hotels, whose profits go towards supporting blind and partially sighted people across England, and employs dozens of people.

It is run by national charity Action for Blind People, profits raised go to supporting visually impaired people across England. But last year the charity confirmed it would stop running the three Vision Hotels, including the Cliffden.”

http://www.devonlive.com/teignmouth-town-council-could-by-2m-cliffden-hotel/story-30213861-detail/story.html

Or imagine the site for a Community Land Trust.

http://www.devonlive.com/teignmouth-town-council-could-by-2m-cliffden-hotel/story-30213861-detail/story.html

“I feel sorry for the people of Tatton – I hear their MP is just too busy to care”

The above quote from Labour MP, Jess Phillips.

But why only Tatton?

Here in Devon we have our own Hugo Swire who, after telling us all how sorry he was not to be able to speak for us when he worked at the Foreign Office but then, when sacked by Mrs May, immediately took the post of Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council.

We also have Conservative West Devon and Torridge MP Geoffrey Cox – in whose area the North Devon District Hospital is under threat of closure – who has to juggle his constituency problems with being a successful barrister. According to the Daily Telegraph, based on the declarations in the register of members’ interests, his extra-parliamentary work was worth £820,867 in 2014 or 12 times his annual MP salary. Not to mention his little problem with an alleged tax avoidance scheme.

And Owl is sure there are many many more MPs with their snouts in many conflicting job troughs – and other conflicts – for example those with large shareholdings in private health care companies.

But people vote for them again and again.

As Ms Phillips says:

“The column I wrote last week about how the ex-chancellor was treating being an MP as a hobby after the announcement of his one-day-a-week £650,000 job working for BlackRock Investments is not even in the recycling yet (thanks to years of austerity cutting the collections). Yet, just days later, he’s acquired another job he is apparently going to do on the other four days a week. Next week you can look forward to my column announcing that Osborne has a Saturday job presenting Match of the Day and a Sunday job in the clergy. He is as qualified for those jobs as he is to be the editor of the Evening Standard.

The conflicts of interest are so numerous that my brain has no time to think of them before another pops up. I shall try to devise a list as an aide-memoire for the similarly baffled. It is not OK for politicians to be the editors of newspapers. Not in the UK at least. It’s all the rage in Russia, which is perhaps why the Standard’s proprietor, Evgeny Lebedev, thought nothing of it. No one who read the Evening Standard’s coverage of the London mayoral race would be surprised that it is of the Tory persuasion. It showed then that it was a fan of a rich boy with no talent by supporting Zac “God loves a trier” Goldsmith.

People might think it’s no biggy, it’s not the BBC, it doesn’t have to be neutral. No, it doesn’t, but it does have to at least make some commitment to reporting facts and holding to account those in positions of power. How can George Osborne ever be trusted to do this?

At the moment, when the press is getting a global drubbing from people shrieking “fake news”, how will we be able to trust anything the Standard says? For all those hard-working news reporters and political journalists fighting to be trusted and maintain an important part of our democracy, this is a smack in the face. As pravda means truth in Russian, anything political written in the Standard must now be judged as equally “true”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/george-osborne-editor-evening-standard-constituents

United Nations asks UK to pause Hinkley C for assessment

“A United Nations committee asked the U.K. to suspend work on the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant pending assessment of the environmental impact.

The UN Economic Commission for Europe requested the pause, it said in a document on its website. Electricite de France SA, the French state-controlled utility, won approval to build an 18 billion-pound ($22.3 billion) nuclear plant on England’s western coast in September. To help shoulder the construction costs, EDF convinced China General Nuclear Power Corp. to take 33.5 percent of the project.

The UN committee recommended the halt until it established whether “a notification under the Espoo Convention” was useful, according to the statement. The Espoo Convention sets out the obligations of countries to “assess the environmental impact of certain activities,” according to the commission’s website.

Bouygues SA and Areva SA have received contracts for work at the plant.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-18/un-asks-u-k-to-pause-hinkley-nuclear-plant-work-for-assessment

“The Prime Minister, the Tatler Tory, his Conservative party Battlebus mistress and a VERY revealing election expenses leak”

“The [Conservative] party was fined £70,000 last week after an Electoral Commission inquiry found it had failed to record correctly £275,000 spent during the 2015 general election and at by-elections like Rochester.

An email showing how ‘Tatler Tory’ Mark Clarke and his mistress ran the Conservative Party battlebus campaign at the centre of an election expenses row was leaked last night.

In the email, Clarke tells MPs his battlebus will not affect their election expenses because it ‘is accounted for out of central campaign spend’. …

… In it, he says the campaign has the ‘full financial support of CCHQ (Tory HQ)’ and has been ‘signed off’ by election chief Lynton Crosby and party chairman Lord Feldman.

On ‘expenses and funding,’ Clarke says: ‘Our costs are met by donations contributed and declared via CCHQ. We fund all activist refreshment. This is not an election expense. We fund all the hotel and transport. This is an election expense and is accounted for out of central campaign spend.’

He advises MPs to contact battlebus campaign aide India Brummitt for further information. She can be seen in the audience in a film of Mrs May – then Home Secretary – in a crowded bar at Clarke’s ‘RoadTrip’ during the Rochester by-election, which the Tories lost to Ukip’s Mark Reckless. Mrs May tells Clarke: ‘What you are doing is absolutely tremendous.’ She leads a round of applause for him.” …

… The Electoral Commission report said the Tories were likely to have ‘understated the value’ of their spending on the three by-elections.

It said the party’s failure to accurately report its expenses meant there was a ‘realistic prospect’ that candidates gained a ‘financial advantage’ over opponents. Former Tory treasurer Simon Day was reported to the police and could face jail if found guilty. Up to two dozen Tory MPs could face charges of electoral fraud.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4327812/Prime-Minister-Tatler-Tory-Conservative-party-mistress.html

East Devon Alliance NHS cuts meeting – Colyford hall filled

“COLYFORD Memorial Hall was packed for East Devon Alliance’s (EDA) public meeting today (Saturday) to fight the decision to close hospital beds in Seaton and elsewhere in East Devon.

Independent county councillor Claire Wright was the invited guest speaker, the stage also featuring EDA leader Dr Cathy Gardner and EDA county council candidates Paul Arnott, Martin Shaw and Paul Hayward.

In short, it was decided to put pressure on town and parish councils, and East Devon District Council to oppose the decision by NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group.

The possibility of seeking judicial review/s was discussed.

An action plan will be finalised in about two weeks’ time when it is known where town and parish councils, and other interested parties stand.”

https://www.viewnews.co.uk/colyford-hall-packed-seaton-hospital-bed-closure-protest-meeting/

George Osborne and his pals

We assume this includes old Etonian mates Swire and Cameron – all three fired within a few days when Mrs May took power.

… “For six years, Britain was governed by public schoolboys who were useless at almost everything apart from handing cash to their mates in the City and the housebuilding industry. They boasted of competence, yet tanked the economy so badly that British workers are suffering their worst decade for pay since the Napoleonic wars. They claimed to be compassionate, yet Osborne and his colleagues snatched money off the poor and sent disabled people to their deaths. The believers in free markets called and bungled the referendum that will drag Britain out of the EU. The Conservative and Unionist party has done an admirable job of smashing up the union.

It was a government of Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson [and Hugo Swire]. It was an administration of bunglers, chancers and the shameless; it has done huge damage to the relationship between the political elite and the public. And at its centre was Osborne, the tactician-in-chief, the man who cut taxes on multinationals even while he lifted benefits off disabled people. His reward? To be handed more money by the mates who got most out of him while in office.

The public-school larceny might make you angry; the lack of effective oversight should make you despair. Osborne’s new job must be agreed by parliament’s advisory committee on business appointments, which is meant to regulate the jobs taken up by former ministers. This is the same watchdog that allowed Gove to go back to work for Rupert Murdoch, former health secretary Lansley to take money from drugs firms and the ex-water minister, Richard Benyon, to take on £1,000 a day in the water industry. Dress it up in ceremonial robes but this is class privilege writ large and made all the more glaring by being pursued by politicians who bang on about a “fair crack” and the need for social mobility. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/18/george-osborne-laughing-evening-standard-david-cameron

Number of people over 65 working in East Devon has more than tripled

“4.5 In terms of the age 65+ population, there has been a significant rise of those who are economically active in the past decade. In 2005 just 5% of the 65+ population were economically active. In 2016 this has increased to 16.8%. This suggests that people are either choosing to postpone their retirement, continuing to work out of necessity or are re-entering the workplace post retirement.”

Click to access 280317-overview-agenda-combined.pdf

page 38

So, not quite the “economically inactive” as labelled by some councillors and officers (many of whom are over 65 themselves and certainly economically active drawing their various allowances from EDDC).