Our NHS – being crushed to speed up privatisation

The deadline for comments on proposals to halve the remainder of community hospital beds in Eastern Devon is

TODAY

Please respond.

The email address is: d-ccg.YourFutureCare@nhs.net

Where to start?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38526285

Nuffield Trust reported on Today programme – their spokesman reported on Today there had been a 25% cut in social care funding. Also that there had been significant pressure in some parts of the country, including the West of England.

Bed pressures:
http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/blog/winter-insight-beds-pressures

Now blocked beds in mental health care:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38517648

Urges to stop this being a party political punchbag:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38521473

And yet it still is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38315259

And, to add insult to injury, see where the money goes in social care when you have privatised providers in this article (“Capital letters” – bottom of page) from Private Eye:

img_1409

Seaton Heights (Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd) director named in Guardian article

David Sullivan, a director of Lyme Bay Leisure Ltd (current or former owner of the Seaton Heights development (remember that?)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08513325/officers
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-sullivan-4b19152a

was named in today’s Guardian in connection with a highly controversial development in Lewisham (where he was formerly a highly controversial council leader and mayor for more than 20 years) which could see local Millwall football club having to relocate more than 100 miles away:

“Millwall Football Club have admitted for the first time that they may be forced to leave their south London home and relocate to Kent should the seizure of their land go ahead. Lewisham council’s plan to compulsorily purchase areas around the Den and sell them on to a mysterious offshore developer with connections to the current Labour administration has already drawn both disbelief and mass protest. …

… Until now concerns over the Millwall land-grab have centred on the council’s historic relationship with the offshore developers Renewal. Renewal’s chief executive is a former Lewisham officer and colleague of the current Lewisham chief executive, Barry Quirk, an unelected official best known locally for being paid more pro rata than the prime minister for working a three day week. In another bizarre twist Renewal was also set up and originality part-owned by the previous Labour mayor of Lewisham, Dave Sullivan. Sullivan has stated he no longer has any part in the company, which is owned by two anonymous offshore trusts based in the Isle Of Man and the British Virgin Islands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/05/millwall-admit-council-scheme-leave-lewisham

“Exmouth Creative Group” and EDDC – curioser and curioser

In The Exmouth Journal today an EDDC spokesperson said they are not aware of the Exmouth Creative Group or this group having been approached. Readers will recall that it was recently mentioned by supporters of seafront development protesters as having met with EDDC.

Now a contact has passed to Owl what purports to be a document produced by the “Exmouth Creative Group”. Owl cannot verify this document and therefore cannot vouch for its veracity or its authorship and it is shown below for information only.

What IS clear is SOMEONE appears to have produced this document for some reason and it further appears that the implication is offered up that EDDC or someone on behalf of EDDC has approached this group with a brief to design a vision for Exmouth – or it may be a complete “fake news” fabrication.

Readers must decide for themselves.

THE DOCUMENT

“Exmouth Creative Group: Brief

Background:

We are a small group of experienced and professional ‘creatives’ who live and work in Exmouth (similar to: http://assemblestudio.co.uk). We consist of designers, artists, writers, architects and developers. We are passionate about the town we live and work in. Add names here… [no names are shown in the document provided to Owl].

Key deliverables:

We have been asked by [a member of] East Devon District Council [who is named in the document] to:

1. Create a vision for Exmouth
2. Develop outline proposals that will deliver this creative vision through any number of creative developments/projects within Exmouth (e.g. iconic sculptures/buildings/etc.)

This is a unique, ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity to realise the future prosperity of Exmouth.

Therefore the creative vision must:

• Put Exmouth on the map
• Be unique but ‘true’
• Be high quality, intelligent and cultural
• Not be a ‘one off’ attraction but be something that encourages repeat visits
• Be of value to the local population and attract visitors all year round
• Financially and ‘footfall’ viable and sustainable
• Main target audience is ‘National Trust’ but also can’t ignore the youth?
• Be appropriate to Exmouth’s history
• Enhance our natural assets (ANOB, SSSI estuary, Jurassic Coast, sea front)
• Be low impact so it doesn’t detract from the natural environment and maintain the ‘open’ feel of the town and seafront
• Inspire a wider vision for Exmouth and other developments
• Turn ‘locals’ into advocates and inspire them to contribute to the vision
• Bring employment to the town
• Encourage year round ‘holiday’ trade
• It must be achievable and sustainable
• Involve local craftspeople
• Create a ‘culture’ in Exmouth

Challenges:

• Access:
o How do we draw people into the town when there is a lack of parking? Especially from the ‘suburbs’ of Exmouth who live on the surrounding hill which is too far away to walk to the town/seafront. If travelling by car, most will just go straight to Exeter
o Join together the town, seafront, train station and marina etc.
• Bring together the fragmented community groups
• Exmouth’s culture is either ‘low end’ or just well hidden
• Create something for all of the age groups
• There is little decent employment and opportunities within the town: the young are leaving the town due to lack of opportunities
• Exmouth is too small to have a close knit community; but too large to have a ‘scene’ “

Anyone think, like Owl, that the whole thing is VERY odd indeed!

Mark Williams refuses to answer questions – because (he says) they were not questions

As if you needed evidence of stonewalling and lack of transparency, here is an extract from minutes of Full Council meeting last week.

Although the Chairman (Stuart Hughes) could see that the speakers were questioning officers and councillors – indeed he asked the CEO to respond to questions, CEO Mark Williams neatly sidestepped the request by calling what people had said as “statements.

MORAL OF THIS STORY: MAKE SURE YOU ASK CONCRETE CLEAR QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT ANSWERS – AS OTHERWISE THE CEO WILL ACT AS IF YOU DON’T WANT ANY ANSWERS!

And would developers who give statements at Development Management Committee meetings be told they would not get answers as they had not asked a specific question in their submission?

“*46 Public speaking
The Chairman welcomed those present and invited members of the public to speak to the Council.

Sally Galsworthy spoke on the Queen’s Drive development making reference to the one remaining developer involved in the project and commenting on the risks should that developer pull out. She spoke of the anger of the residents in Exmouth towards the project expressed at meetings, the town poll and on a recent march, which had been attended by some 400 people.

Laura Freeman made reference to the outcome of the recent town poll seeking additional independent consultation on the redevelopment of Queen’s Drive. She considered that despite the restricted opening times of the poll, there had been a good turnout and that the outcome should be honoured and not ignored. She requested that the whole project be reviewed with a new outline application reflecting what the people of Exmouth wished to see for the area.

Jane Ashton spoke on the costs relating to both the Queen’s Drive development and relocation and also made reference to the collection of Section 106 and CIL contributions. She considered that the failure to foresee the additional costs involved in both projects was the result of the incompetence of those involved and that they should be removed from their positions. In respect of Queen’s Drive she commented that it would cost the Council less if it was to start the whole project from scratch.

Alec Huett advised that he had attended many meetings in the past regarding the regeneration of Exmouth and that Queen’s Drive had never been seen as a priority. He queried why the masterplan had changed so much from what had first been envisaged and commented that the plans would split the town into two leisure and retail zones. He advised that he was against any large development on the sea front when it should be the town centre that was the priority for regeneration works.

Richard Thurlow spoke on the increased costs relating to the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall – which would now cost more that refurbishing the Knowle. He advised that there was no detail or adequate rationale to explain the reasons for the increased costs and therefore did not consider that Members could make their decision based on fact.

Tony Green spoke on the Development Management Committee meeting held on 6 December and congratulated the Committee on their decision regarding the Knowle site. He stated that the Committee had to make their decision on material planning considerations only and therefore any comments relating to the relocation project or the adequacy of the existing building for its purpose should have been disregarded to avoid the appearance of bias. He asked for confirmation that this was the case and if so, asked that members of the committee be reminded of this.

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to respond to QUESTIONS [Owl’s capitals] raised by the speakers. In response to the first five speakers, the Chief Executive advised that no questions had been asked and therefore they would be noted as statements, however he advised that some of the issues raised were covered in the Cabinet minutes.

In response to the last speaker, the Chief Executive advised that information was often submitted by the applicant giving reasons for a proposal – the key issue was that when the Committee came to vote they only did so on relevant material planning considerations and not immaterial planning considerations.”

Click to access 211216-council-mins.pdf

More developer-led funding from government for “affordable” rented housing

“Housing providers are being invited to bid for a share of a £7bn fund in what is being billed as a “dramatic expansion” of the government’s affordable housing programme.

Communities secretary Sajid Javid today said he wanted to halt the decline in affordability of housing.

… The funding unlocked today is intended to support the delivery of more shared ownership homes, more Rent to Buy homes (where first-time buyers are helped to save for a deposit) and more Affordable Rent homes, to help those in the private rented sector with housing costs.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/01/javid-unlocks-ps7bn-fund-turbo-charge-affordable-housing

You see what they have done there? Yet again, the developers get the money! This will do NOTHING for most people not on the housing ladder but an awful lot for speculative rented sector property investors.

NHS consultation ends on 6 January 2017 – have your say

“You can “have your say” here on-line:

http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-future-care/102019

This is a simple on-line survey form which must be returned by Friday 6 January.

INFORMATION PRIOR TO FILLING IN THE SURVEY

As a member quoted yesterday, she had replied “none of the above” to the
questionaire, but it is then a question as to say why. So key points
are as follows:

This particular new health and care model is complex, particularly in a
rural area like East Devon with an elderly population well above
average. Hence it is vital to carry out a detailed risk assessment
before committing to the new model. There is a lack of information
about the quality questions that will be addressed to ensure that
community services can be delivered safely to the new model before
closing community beds.

The current situation appears to be based on the supposed fact that it
has been working in North Devon so there will be no problems, when in
fact it has NOT worked well in North Devon.

Community services are already overstretched with an acute lack of
appropriate carers for people in their own homes. There are significant
difficulties with recruitment.

This new model of care for East Devon is rejeccted by our local
politicians at all levels, including MPs. It is not at all clear how
much money could be saved using this new model, if any at all. There is
a need to cover for an expected annual 4% shortfall in the local NHS
budget; it is interesting to note that 4% equals the annual underfunding
nationally of the NHS since 2010.

There is a strong suspicion that because of the high value of NHS estate
land, hospitals without beds would eventually be sold off for house
building land. So this would be a strong motivator to cutting hospital
beds.”

http://www.newdevonccg.nhs.uk/about-us/your-future-care/102019

Hinkley C: possible £2 billion hit on British taxpayers played down

“Taxpayers still face a possible £2billion bill for building a nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point despite a minister’s claim they were ‘fully insulated’ from the cost.

The Government is underwriting loans to the builders of the plant, which is a joint project with France and China.

This is despite Business Secretary Greg Clark telling MPs in September that after Prime Minister Theresa May paused the project, taxpayers were now protected.

Despite the remarks, the £2billion guarantee – which would kick in if the companies involved in the project collapse – are still counted as a ‘contingent liability’ on the Government’s accounts.

Shadow minister Barry Gardiner told The Times he had been misled by Mr Clark’s response. …

… After work resumed, Mr Clark told MPs: ‘EDF has confirmed to me that it will not be taking up that £2 billion guarantee, so the taxpayer is fully insulated from the costs of construction.’

EDF confirmed by letter it did not ‘anticipate’ calling on the guarantee.
But in October, in a written statement to both MPs and peers, ministers said: ‘The government is confirming that it has approved the provision of a guarantee for up to £2billion to the project for the construction of its new EPR nuclear plant in Somerset, backed by commitments from the shareholders.’

They added: ‘The guarantee will be available from 2018 to 2020 if necessary conditions are met and is at government’s discretion.

‘Even if made available, and EDF have indicated to the secretary of state for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that it is not their current intention to take up the guarantee, I judge the likelihood of any call under the guarantee to be very low.’

After the memo came to light yesterday, Mr Gardiner said: ‘The assurance that Greg Clark gave me was categoric: EDF were not taking up the guarantee.
‘Whilst I took him at his word, it appears that the Treasury were aware the secretary of state was suffering from baroque speech.

‘That is why the guarantee is still marked as a liability on their books.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4090908/Taxpayers-left-2bn-bill-new-Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant-despite-promises-ministers-insulated-cost.html

Good coverage of North Devon’s well-organised NHS protest

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b085fd4b/spotlight-late-news-04012017

And for MUCH more information on protests throughout Devon see the Facebook group “Save Our Hospital Services Devon“.

Developers on a big roll – but still far too poor to provide truly affordable housing

Owl believes that the Conservative government’s policy is to destroy affordable and social housing in favour of private renting, where housing benefit is payable direct to landlords and councils have no responsibilities for their poorest residents and their families.

Current “affordable housing” provided by developers (at 20% less than average prices on the same site) are actually much smaller houses, with basic and/or cheap fittings on the least pleasant parts of sites – e.g. near main roads, parking areas, etc and require such discounting.

“[Persimmon] reported an 8 percent revenue rise, and said that the sales rate was up 15 percent between July and December, confounding the notion that the Brexit vote could take the wind out of property-related companies.

However, the stock remains down 9.2 percent since the referendum last June.

Sector peers also rose on Thursday, with Taylor Wimpey (TW.L) and Barratt Developments (BDEV.L) both up nearly 3 percent.

“This latest positive update from a sector major adds to yesterday’s positive UK PMI Construction read and improving mortgage approvals data while the UK mortgage market remains highly competitive and government initiatives supportive,” said Mike van Dulken, head of research at Accendo Markets.

“Although house price data does remain notoriously mixed, the post-Brexit crash foreseen by many simply hasn’t materialised and prices held up remarkably well”.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks-idUKKBN14P0YK

“Brexit negotiations will fire the starting gun on the decade – so understanding these changes key for negotiations”

New IPPR report shows an accelerating wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape 2020s Britain

In a landmark report, leading think tank the IPPR has analysed factors shaping the UK up to 2030. It sets out the choices that must be made now if these changes are to lead to a fairer and more equal society.
The report highlights key facts that will change the way we live in the 2020s:

As the population grows, the UK is set to age sharply and become increasingly diverse. The 65+ age group will grow by 33% by 2030.

The global economy and the institutions that govern it will come under intense pressure as the Global South rises in economic and political importance.

Half of all large companies will be based in emerging markets;

Due to demographic trends, a structural deficit is likely to re-emerge by the mid-2020s, with adult social care funding gap is expected to hit £13 billion – 62% of the expected budget – in 2030/31;

Up to two-thirds of current jobs – 15 million – are at risk of automation.

These changes in technology have the potential to create an era of widespread abundance, or a second machine age that radically concentrates economic power;

The income of high-income households is forecast to rise 11 times faster than for low income households in the 2020s;

Climate change, biodiversity degradation, and resource depletion mean we will increasingly run up against the limits of the physical capacity of the Earth’s natural systems;

The UK has the richest region in Northern Europe but also 9 of the 10 poorest regions.

Mathew Lawrence, IPPR research fellow and report author said:

“By 2030, the effects of Brexit combined with a wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape the UK, in often quite radical ways.

“In the face of this, a politics of nostalgia, institutional conservatism and a rear guard defence of the institutions of 20th century social democracy will be inadequate.

For progressives, such a strategy will not be robust enough to mitigate against growing insecurity, ambitious enough to reform Britain’s economic model, nor sufficiently innovative to deliver deeper social and political transformation. They would be left defending sand castles against the tide of history.

“Britain’s progressives should be ambitious, seeking to shape the direction of technological and social change. We must build a ‘high energy’ democracy that accelerates meaningful democratic experimentation at a national, city and local level, and also in the marketplace by increasing everyone’s say over corporate governance, ownership and power.”

http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-ippr-report-shows-an-accelerating-wave-of-economic-social-and-technological-change-will-reshape-2020s-britain

The full report is here:

Click to access future-proof_Dec2016.pdf

Halt those bulldozers at Hinkley C?

Just how much money is our LEP throwing into this eerily-glowing black and bright green hole? Though maybe it doesn’t think it is such a bad deal when lots of people (perhaps including board members with nuclear interests) are lining their pockets with lucrative pre-construction contracts, training courses and consultancies.

Remember, Somerset County Council is the accountable body for LEP spending, not Devon County Council – and it may also see spending, any spending, in Somerset as a good thing. After all, it’s “growth” – isn’t it?

“After eight years of prevarication, French firm EDF was panicked by Brexit into finally making the “decision” to build a new nuke at Hinkley. Concrete progress? No. Construction of the reactor cannot begin until it has been re-engineered to satisfy regulators here and in France, after discovery of fundamental metallurgical flaws in several French nukes.

Following this, a major component already manufactured in France was tested to destruction (literally) and found to be unsound. Since there is only one foundry in France making these huge steel forgings, and this is unable to meet safety standards, EDF doesn’t know what to do next. We will hear a lot more on this in 2017.”

Source: Private Eye, “Keeping the lights on”, page 9, issue of 23 December 16 – 12 January 17

“NHS groups ‘paying millions to private firms that block GP referrals’ “

“NHS organisations are paying millions of pounds to private firms that stop patients being referred to hospital by their GPs, an investigation has found.

Controversial referral management centres are used by some clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to scrutinise patient referrals to hospitals by family doctors.

Supporters say they can reduce inappropriate referrals, saving the NHS money, but critics argue that adding an extra layer of scrutiny risks delaying diagnosis. There is also doubt over the effectiveness of such schemes.

GP practices ‘offered rewards’ for not referring patients to hospitals

In an investigation, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) sent freedom of information requests to all 211 CCGs in England. Of the 184 that responded, 72 (39%) said they commissioned some form of referral management scheme.

Almost a third (32%) of the schemes are provided by private companies, while a further 29% are provided in-house and 11% by local NHS trusts. Some 69% of the CCGs with schemes gave details of operating costs. These CCGs combined have spent at least £57m on schemes since April 2013.

Most CCGs were unable to provide evidence showing the scheme saved money. Only 14% could show that the scheme had saved more cash than it had cost to operate, while 12% showed that their schemes had not saved money overall.

Meanwhile, 74% of CCGs (53 groups) failed to supply figures to show whether any money had been saved, the BMJ reported.

Some CCGs did not collect data on savings, some said their referral scheme was designed not to save money but to improve the quality of referrals, and others declined to disclose details of savings on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

Overall, there were 93 referral management schemes in operation across 72 CCGs, with some CCGs having more than one.

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association’s GPs committee, told the BMJ: “[CCGs] are leaping at these schemes without any clear evidence of benefit. They are just hopeful that it might reduce their costs.

“It is a very short-term approach to healthcare management. We need to see much more evaluation … and not just keep making the same mistakes year after year. As public bodies, there should be an expectation on every CCG to account for what it is doing.”

Vautrey said some schemes were helpful because they gave GPs rapid access to advice from local specialists.

Graham Jackson, co-chair of NHS Clinical Commissioners, the membership organisation representing CCGs, said referral management was only one way of managing demand for services.”

Owl bets that, if NEW Devon CCG hasn’t yet done this, it will be champing at the bit to commission a scoping study for a feasibility study for a consultants report for a pilot study at a health hub near you!

“In many cases they provide a useful and effective role which is more than a redirection service,” he said. “CCGs will balance the cost of commissioning with the benefit they provide to GPs and patients in terms of peer review, education, caseload management and choice.”

In October, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Labour MP for City of Durham, criticised a local scheme to screen referrals for conditions including cardiology, gynaecology and gastroenterology.

The North Durham CCG has awarded a contract to the private firm About Health to manage referrals.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/04/nhs-paying-millions-private-firms-block-gp-referrals-hospital

Growth? Not in retail

Local Plans, Local Enterprise Partnership – constantly push growth, growth, growth. But REAL figures tell a different story – with possible big job losses in retail fairly soon across the country, but particularly in retail in our area, where is this ” growth” in jobs and housing construction coming from and going to? There will be no growth if new jobs in one sector are offset by losses in other areas.

“The UK high street suffered its quietest Christmas in almost two decades new figures have shown, just hours after clothing giant Next announced a sharp slump in festive sales.

Retail footfall was at its lowest December level since 1998 – the year consultancy Ipsos Retail Performance first started its Retail Traffic Index.
Depressing updates emerging from retailers suggest that the decline in store footfall wasn’t converted into a lift in online sales and consumers cut back on spending all round. …

… The South West of England and Wales suffered the biggest footfall drop of all the regions, with a year-on-year decline of 14.4per cent.”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-4088176/UK-high-street-suffers-quietest-December-TWO-DECADES-shoppers-cut-spending.html

“Exmouth regeneration board chief threatens to ignore key community group”

A press release from “Save Exmouth Seafront”:

“Councillor Skinner’s initiative with the previously unknown ‘Exmouth Creative Group’

Councillor Skinner, Chair of the secretive Exmouth Regeneration Board has threatened to ignore both the Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) Group and the Exmouth public as he goes to a previously unheard of group of elites for their opinion on the seafront.

In recent months Cllr Skinner has repeatedly avoided engaging with the Exmouth public. He has been avoiding a public Q&A meeting and stated at the East Devon District Council (EDDC) Full Council meeting of 21/12/16 that independent consultation with the public, as requested in the Town Poll, will not happen.

It has now come to light that while Cllr Skinner consistently refuses to engage with the Exmouth public he has meanwhile been in contact with the previously unheard of ‘Exmouth Creative Group’ and asked them to ‘create a vision for Exmouth’, and ‘develop proposals to deliver this vision’. Spokesperson for SES, Louise MacAllister reacted to this news:

“When I heard that Cllr Skinner was seeking the opinion of Exmouth residents regarding the future of the Exmouth Seafront I was really pleased. This is exactly what SES have been requesting through an open and independent consultation.

However I soon learned that Cllr Skinner is liaising only with a group called the ‘Exmouth Creative Group’. There are many established community groups in Exmouth with an interest in the seafront who have not been asked for their opinion.

The ‘Exmouth Community Group’ does not appear to pre-exist Cllr Skinner’s contact with the group. This is concerning as the Exmouth public made themselves very clear through the Town Poll that they want to be consulted, and yet the public are now being ignored in favour of this unknown group.

It is an incredibly disappointing stance from the Chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board who consistently ignores my emails and fails to live up to the responsibility of his role”.

SES asked the following questions of Cllr Skinner with regards to the Exmouth Creative Group:

– What criteria did you use when selecting potential groups to communicate with?
– Why does this one group get to play a role when you are so dismissive of majority opinion?
– Who is in this group and how does one become a member?
– Why did you select a previously unknown group for this important task?
– With whom in the ‘Exmouth Creative Group’ did you broker your links?

In response Cllr Skinner rudely dismissed the questions posed with the bizarre statement that he is:

“Not a delegate, I am a councillor and am certainly not in the business of responding to you within your time scales or even at all if I so choose.”

So just as Cllr Skinner has dismissed the opinions of the wider Exmouth public, he has made it clear he will respond to a key community group only if he so chooses, and in doing so makes it clear that he does not value the group, or the wider public that SES strive to represent. Meanwhile, he has gone to an unknown group with a brief to design a vision for Exmouth Seafront.

SES strongly welcome the opportunity for the people of Exmouth to feed into ideas on the future of the seafront but not when it is conducted behind closed doors and solely with a previously unknown group who are seemingly as secretive as the Exmouth Regeneration Board members themselves.”

“Brexit ‘zombie legislation’ could damage wildlife and farming, MPs warn”

“Brexit could harm the UK’s wildlife and farming, according to a cross-party committee of MPs, with key protections left as ineffective “zombie legislation” and farmers facing a “triple jeopardy” of lost subsidies, export tariffs and increased competition.

A new report from the environmental audit select committee warns that many of the rules governing food production and the environment in the UK come from EU law and that weakening of these rules would damage the countryside and reduce the viability of farms, food security and safety.

The MPs said that for the government to meet its manifesto commitment to “be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it found it”, ministers must commit to passing a new Environmental Protection Act before it triggers article 50 and starts the formal process of leaving the EU.

The MPs said it was concerning that the environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, gave no reassurance that farmers would receive subsidies after 2020. But the report also recommended that if a new subsidy regime was put in place, it should focus less on direct income support to farmers and more on delivering public goods, such as preventing flooding, tackling climate change and boosting wildlife.

Attenborough urges UK to use Brexit to improve wildlife protections
“Changes from Brexit could put our countryside, farming and wildlife at risk,” said Mary Creagh, chair of the environmental audit committee (EAC). “Protections for Britain’s wildlife and special places currently guaranteed under European law could end up as ‘zombie legislation’, even with the great repeal bill.”

Creagh said food, animal welfare and environmental standards had to be maintained as the UK seeks new trade deals with other countries. “The government must not trade away these key protections [and] it should also give clarity over any future farm subsidies.”

There are about 800 pieces of EU environmental legislation, covering wildlife and habitats, water quality, farming, food and fisheries. The government’s great repeal bill intends to transpose all those rules into UK law, but Leadsom told the EAC that about a third would be difficult to transpose.

The EAC said that, without pre-emptive action, these rules would end up as “zombie legislation”, with no body to enforce them, no updates and easily eroded by ministers via parliamentary statutory instruments, which receive minimal scrutiny from MPs.

The EU’s common agricultural policy provides £3.5bn a year in subsidies to UK farmers, making up more than half of their income, and the MPs said Brexit posed a “triple jeopardy” for farmers. Firstly the loss of subsidies would threaten the viability of some farms. Secondly, new export tariffs would cut farm incomes and, thirdly, new trading relationships could lead to competition with nations with lower animal welfare, food safety and environmental standards.

If the UK chooses not to be part of the EU single market, Tim Breitmeyer of the Country, Land and Business Association told the EAC that lamb exports to Europe would face tariffs of 30% and that beef export tariffs could be above 50%.

Even if the UK remained in the single market, the MPs said crucial EU directives such as those protecting habitats, birds and beaches, would have to be replaced as they are excluded from that agreement. “The government should safeguard protections for Britain’s wildlife and special places in a new Environmental Protection Act,” said Creagh.

A government spokeswoman said: “The UK has a long history of wildlife and environmental protection and we are committed to safeguarding and improving these, securing the best deal for Britain as we leave the EU.”

Vicki Hird, from Sustain, an alliance for better food and farming, said: “MPs have correctly identified a huge risk to the UK farming system and environment from Brexit and new trade agreements. Without environmental safeguards in place, [this] would mean major damage to the natural environment – the soils, pollinators and water – on which farming and everyone depends.”

Sam Hall, at the liberal conservative thinktank Bright Blue, said: “Brexit is an opportunity to improve the UK’s environment. The MPs rightly suggest new legislation could be needed to guarantee existing protections post-Brexit. But a new bill could go further and increase the level of ambition for the natural environment”, for example with tougher pollution controls.

Sam Lowe, at Friends of the Earth, said any changes to environmental protection must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and not made via statutory instruments: “No one voted to ‘take back control’ for the UK parliament, only to hand it straight over to a minister, brandishing a red pen, with the power to delete vital nature protections on a whim.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/04/brexit-zombie-legislation-damage-wildlife-farming-mps-warn

“The 2017 local elections: time to bury councillors, or to praise them?” asks Cornwall blogger

“We are now less than five months away from one of our infrequent four-yearly opportunities to express our democratic view of Cornwall Council. As the Council’s leadership desperately clings on to the tiger of housing growth, no doubt people will be asking themselves as local elections near, ‘what have councillors ever done for us?’ Others won’t ask; they’ll be loudly calling down a plague on all of them.

This may be a bit blunt. I’m sure most councillors believe they’re doing their best for Cornwall and its communities and are not, as so many assure me, in the pay of upcountry developers and determined to transform our land into a Little England by the Sea as quickly as possible. The more proper question therefore becomes ‘why have councillors been unable to raise credible opposition to population growth policies and developer-led planning?’

While not actually wishing to bury councillors, it’s surely time to remind some of them of a few home truths. Many councillors are clearly beyond redemption, uncritically swallowing wholesale the advice of their officers, kowtowing to London’s orders with scarcely a whimper, or perhaps not possessing the wit or wisdom to challenge conventional ‘mainstream’ policies.

It’s the others I worry about.

Over the past month or so I’ve heard from three Cornwall Councillors (from different party groups), all genuinely concerned for the future of their land, all deeply worried by the lemming-like drive for massive building projects and renewed people-led growth that threatens to transform the landscapes around our towns and villages. Yet none of them seemed to have discussed their concerns much with fellow councillors across party lines who might share their views. None seemed fully aware of campaigns outside their particular patch. Intra-councillor communication is one problem, while external communication is the second.

Why are councillors unwilling to take a lead and organise? Why can’t those who rightly question the Council’s direction of travel forget their party labels and coordinate their opposition? Instead of moaning about the constraints imposed by central government, constraints that are all too real, why don’t they do more to publicise their dilemma? Is it not possible to oppose central government diktats publicly, while educating Cornish voters about the straitjacket the Government imposes? Can’t they do more to point out how the Council’s leadership complies too readily with those diktats?

At MK’s [Mebyon Kernow – The Party for Cornwall] recent Annual Conference for example, their councillors admitted that they ‘did too much without shouting about it’. So why not do more to shout about it? First, they could surely make more effort to publicise what they’re doing. Second, they could pro-actively disseminate information they come across that illustrates the absurdities of the current Council strategy or the various ways in which Cornwall is being treated unfairly. Look at the MK website and you’ll find surprisingly little such information.

Surely MK and other councillors could build more bridges to campaign groups and campaigners outside, who can then spread this information through the grassroots. There’s a huge amount of energy and anger building up in local campaign groups as people see the changes unfolding around them and begin to realise what the elites have in store for us. But there’s also a lot of confusion and ignorance as well as anger.

The danger is that people take a blanket view and blame ‘the council’ and all councillors for what’s happening. We’ve seen over the past year where this can lead, if left to stew unfocused in this way. People will vote for the first demagogue that comes along. They end up protesting against the establishment by electing slightly more marginal members of the same establishment, some just chancers and others who deliberately fan anger and fear into racism and bigotry and offer simplistic solutions but no substantial remedy for a system that’s unfit for purpose.

To prevent that, we need a grassroots populism, also anti-elitist, but confident in its ability to replace the failed elites, not with a set of chancers from similar backgrounds but with genuine and credible voices of localism and community democracy.

Councillors who can see through the Council’s corporate agenda need to stand up, join with campaigners and begin to discuss how to make the future of Cornwall an issue in next year’s local elections. We can’t let things go on the way they are. So how do we best challenge the people-led growth consensus that grips our policy-makers and replace it with a more sustainable vision of Cornwall? Who’ll make the first move?”

https://cornwalldevelopersparadise.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-2017-local-elections-time-to-bury-councillors-or-to-praise-them/

Could this sort of protest persuade our Tory MPs to back the NHS?

Conspiracy theorists and fake news enthusiasts are already saying that this was organised to make Trump look good – hhhm! And can we see parallels here – nationally and locally?

“WASHINGTON ―

After a torrent of bad headlines, countless phone calls to member offices, and two tweets from President-elect Donald Trump, House Republicans dropped their plans to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics Tuesday, just minutes before the House was set to gavel in for the 115th Congress and adopt their rules package for the next two years.

The amendment ― authored by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) ― would have placed the independent congressional ethics office under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee, changed the OCE’s name and barred the office from releasing reports to the public. In effect, it would have neutered Congress’ most aggressive watchdog.

The decision to strip the Goodlatte amendment came just before noon on Tuesday as Republicans planned to begin the 115th Congress. Earlier in the day, responding to numerous news reports about Republicans gutting the OCE, Trump asked in a tweet whether Republicans really had to make the “weakening” of the ethics office their first order of business, though he also didn’t necessarily come out against the idea of eventually overhauling the OCE.

Ethics groups were quick to criticize House Republicans for the effort. A coalition of groups including the Campaign for Accountability, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the League of Women Voters sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday calling for the reauthorization of the OCE.

Several other groups, including the conservative Judicial Watch, called the move “shameful.” The nonpartisan group Common Cause even pointed out that exactly 11 years ago, lobbyist Jack Abramoff ― whose crimes helped lead to the creation of the OCE ― pleaded guilty to charges including fraud conspiracy and tax evasion. (Abramoff told Politico Tuesday that Republican’s efforts to gut the ethics watchdog are “exactly the opposite of what Congress should be doing.”)

Members reported that they had started getting a flood of phone calls from constituents concerned that Congress was neutering a key ethics watchdog.

“The calls we’ve gotten in my district office and here in Washington has surprised me, meaning the number of calls,” said Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who noted before the amendment was stripped that he would vote against the rules package if it remained in the measure. “People are just sick and tired.”

Some Republicans, including South Carolina Reps. Trey Gowdy and Mark Sanford, were reporting Tuesday that they would vote against the typically party-line rules package.

Facing public pressure and an internal mutiny, GOP leadership called a special meeting and told Republicans they needed to strip the OCE amendment.

Leaders told members they would instead work with Democrats to come up with a proposal to reform the OCE before the August recess, though a number of Republicans were unsatisfied by the promise.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he would now work to completely abolish the Office of Congressional Ethics, citing concerns over anonymous whistleblowers making accusations against members and the OCE leaking information to the press.

Asked to provide an example of the OCE leaking information to the press, King failed to come up with one and got testy.

“Just google it,” he said.

Pelosi issued a statement after the amendment was dropped, noting the “clear contempt for ethics in the People’s House” that she said Republicans showed with their plan.

“Once again, the American people have seen the toxic dysfunction of a Republican House that will do anything to further their special interest agenda, thwart transparency and undermine the public trust,” she added. “Republicans should remember the strength of public outrage they faced in the space of 12 hours as they scheme to do lasting damage to the health and economic security of millions and millions of hard-working families.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-republicans-ethics_us_586bdb14e4b0de3a08f99e66?

“Us versus Them – The New World” – tomorrow, 9 am, Radio 4

“Us Versus Them – The New World”, Radio 4, tomorrow 9 am:

“Political movements which proclaim themselves as anti-elitist challengers to the mainstream establishment have been achieving success, from Brexit campaigners to Donald Trump and various European parties.

John Harris explores the reasons behind this international phenomenon, examines the motivating forces for the anxiety and anger of voters, and considers the response of the political establishment in this new era.”

To be followed same time next week by:

“It’s the Demography, Stupid!
The New World

How is population change transforming our world?

Think of a python swallowing a pig: a big bulge makes its way slowly down the snake from the head end to the other end. That’s a bit like what’s happened to the UK demographically.

The baby boom generation – which has changed Britain politically, culturally and economically – is now retiring. That means a large bulge of pensioners with big implications for the generations that come behind them. Other advanced economies face a similar challenge and emerging economies – most notably China – will be dealing with an ageing bulge themselves soon.

But in Africa, the bulge is at the other end. A very young generation is about to make its way through the snake.

Former government minister David Willetts, now executive chair of the Resolution Foundation, wrestles with this python of population change.

What will these challenges of both ageing and very young populations mean for the world?
What are the implications for future migration patterns, for geopolitics and for global economic growth?

This programme is part of a special week of programmes for the first week of 2017, examining major forces which are changing the world around us.”

Hernandez thinks ” negative press” on election expenses allegations were good for her!

When does spin become bovine excrement? AND she says she is “not nationally media trained” yet was employed as a campaign manager for the Tories!

” … Back in October last year, when Ms Hernandez had not been contacted by West Mercia Police regarding the investigation, she spoke about the impact the negative press has had on her.

“This negative publicity has been a very helpful process because it’s made me approachable, it means that people will ask for help,” she said at the time. “It’s got to the point actually where I’m not seeing it as a bad thing.

“When I’ve gone out in the public domain I’ve had a lot of people come and say I feel sorry for you, and I’ve never felt more loved in my life.

“It was like a baptism of fire. I’m not nationally media trained, I don’t want people to think I’m shying away from them.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/crime-chief-interviewed-by-police-investigating-election-expenses-allegations/story-30027908-detail/story.html

Council sells land for £1 for affordable housing

Is it East Devon District Council? Of course not – it’s Teignbridge:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/council-sells-land-for-1-so-affordable-housing-can-be-built/story-30027839-detail/story.html