“Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme, UKIP chairman Paul Oakden said he would check with the Electoral Commission to see who the party leader was and admitted it could technically be Mr Farage.”
Author Archives: East Devon Watch
Where is the “centre ground”?
With the centre of the Tories now being much more to the right and the centre of Labour being much more to the left, Lib Dems not sure where they are except on Europe, UKIP – well, they can’t even get a new leader who can stick the job, and Greens tending towards Labour and with the major parties outdoing each other with spin, back stabbing and infighting – who do you vote for if you are a centre-left Tory or a centre-right Labour voter or Lib Dem Brexiteer or a disaffected Kipper or a non-left leaning Green or anyone else who doesn’t want to be button- holed?
Why, an independents, of course – who occupy the real centre ground by just doing what they believe is right by the communities they serve without allegiance to any of the parties and with no party whip!
Or, as Claire Wright would say: Free to speak, free to act.
Be careful what you sign (independent) councillors
“A Bath councillor was asked to step out of discussions about a multimillion care contract after the council found out she had signed a petition opposing Virgin Care’s bid to win it.
Lin Patterson, who has called the incident “spooky” and “heavy handed”, said she was asked by a council officer to remove herself from relevant committee discussions over fears Virgin Care would sue.
The Lambridge councillor said she was told that she had a “conflict of interest” because she had signed a private petition opposing Virgin Care’s bid to win the £700m community care contract.
But at the time she was asked to step outside when the “Your Care, Your Way” contract was being discussed by the Health and Wellbeing Select Committee the names of the signatories were private.
The petition, hosted by 38Degrees, was not handed to Bath and North East Somerset Council until July 21. But Ms Patterson said she was “pulled aside” a whole month beforehand on June 20.
She said she was denied an explanation about how the council had found out she had signed the petition, and the council has since refused to answer the Bath Chronicle’s questions about the matter.
Ms Patterson, who represents the Green Party, added that the request for her to leave the room was “a bit of a departure”.
Conservative councillor Paul May said he had voluntarily excused himself from any committee or council discussions about the contract ever since becoming a non-executive director of the board of Sirona care and health, the other major bidder. When asked whether he thought Ms Patterson should have done the same, he said: “I don’t think I’m really qualified to say. My situation is very clear; hers I don’t think was quite so clear.”
Ms Patterson said: “The fact that the petition had not been submitted is actually very spooky and the fact that I was asked to leave the room I think was heavy handed.”
One wonders how the matter would have been handled by her Party Whip had she been a majority party councillor …..
Sovereignty or dictatorship?
David Cameron did not discuss EU referendum with his Cabinet before he called it, claims Ken Clarke:
“David Cameron never discussed his decision to call a referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union with his Cabinet, former Tory Cabinet minister Ken Clarke has claimed.
The 76-year-old Tory veteran criticised how Mr Cameron ran his Cabinet meetings, which he said met for 90 minutes one morning each week.
In his book, which is being serialised by The Sunday Times, Mr Clarke wrote: “This was an almost comically inadequate time within which to discuss any important subject.”
In particular, he said Mr Cameron failed to adequately discuss “his startling and catastrophic decision to call a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in cabinet”.
“… In my opinion, this is a disastrous way to run the government of a complex modern nation state,” he said. “It is a reaction to the hysterical constant 24/7 chatter that now dominates political debate.
“Media handling and public relations are now regarded as the key elements of governing, and a small army of advisers who are supposed to be PR experts but who are of frankly variable quality have far too big a role in policy-making.
“Next week’s headlines are given more priority than serious policy development and the long-term consequences for the nation.”
Yet another example of EDDC’s similarity to national government – secrecy and spin much more important than transparency and proper discussion.
Swire’s puzzling parliamentary questions on retrospective planning applications
Owl thinks the third question is most interesting – where he asks about fees paid by developers. Why “developers” rather than “people” or “applicants” or “homeowners”?
Just who is he representing? Local residents or developer pals?
1. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate his Department has made of the cost of retrospective planning applications to local councils in (a) Devon and (b) the UK in the last five years.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44219.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44219.q0
2. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what proportion of the cost of a retrospective planning application is covered by the (a) applicant and (b) local authority.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44220.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44220.q0
3. To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether he plans to change the proportion of the cost of retrospective planning applications currently paid by developers.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-09-02.44221.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g44221.q0
NB The answers from the Secretary of State are pretty useless!
Exmouth beach huts: to be or not to be? Depends whether you think the Development Management Committee makes decisions!
There is currently a planning application submitted – 16/2087/DEM to demolish the DJ’s Diner building on Exmouth Seafront.
At the DMC on 8th March Cllr Williamson (Littleham) proposed the condition (which was agreed) for the road move application that the cafe and the beach huts should not be demolished, nor any start to be made on the road, until there was a timescale, etc. for the water sports centre.
No timescale yet exists, yet the planning application seems to be completely ignoring this decision.
Unfortunately, the working that went in the final planning application is ( surprise, surprise) rather vague (approval document listed under application – 15/2487/MRES). However for those who were at the DMC, they are quite certain that the proposed condition was for no work – including demolition.
And of course there is also the issue of the town poll being ignored and EDDC ploughing ahead with leaving the area derelict regardless.
Boundaries, election boundaries, constituency statistics and more: interactive election and statistical website
Lots and lots of useful information including AONB boundaries, parliamentary constituencies, census statistics, etc.
More on that “extra” money for “housing” and its ?(un)intended consequences
“… The £3bn fund will be made up of £1bn in short-term loan funding. This will be used for small builders, custom builders, and innovators, delivering 25,500 homes this parliament. A further £2bn of funding for infrastructure will be used to unlock sites for up to 200,000 homes over the longer term. Of this, £1.15bn is new money.
The action will see the government use surplus public land to build more homes more quickly by encouraging new developers with different models to enter the market, and to support small and medium-sized firms and constructors. This will help to close the housing supply deficit, ministers stated.
In addition, local planning authorities will be able to grant permission in principle on sites suitable for housing-led development, as well as turning abandoned shopping centres into new communities and increasing housing density around transport hubs.
Javid said that the government had made progress in boosting construction, with over 700,000 net additional homes delivered between April 2010 and March 2015, but it was now time to go further.
“We want to ensure everyone has a safe and secure place to live and that means we’ve got to build more homes,” he added.
“It is only by building more houses that we will alleviate the financial burden on those who are struggling to manage.”
Hammond stated there had been a housing shortage in this country for decades, and that the government was determined to tackle it.”
“We’ll use all the tools at our disposal to accelerate housebuilding and ensure that over time, housing becomes more affordable, that is why we are committing £2bn of additional investment towards this.”
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/10/chancellor-pledges-ps3bn-build-25000-homes-2020
So, it’s short-term loans, selling off “public land” that the public will never get back or probably be able to replace, subsidising infrastructure that developers are supposed to pay for, decreasing the number of shopping centres and building little boxes near bus stations and railway stations.
And that’s a PLAN? The small builders will have to pay back the loans, public realm will be flogged off to developer friends at rock- bottom prices, WE pay for infrastructure instead of developers who still charge the same or more for the housing it leads to – AND we won’t be able to shop nearer home OR park our cars near bus stations and railways!
How many hospital beds make 5?
Disquieting information here:
from ever-campaigning Claire Wright. It raises some very serious questions about where the “Success Regime” gets its ” numbers” from.
Well done Councillor Wright for not letting this slip through the net.
A Freedom of Information request needed here, methinks.
Developer meeting … somewhere in deep, dark Devon
£3 billion or £5 billion to be made available to build 25,000 houses by 2020:
“OK Hammond is giving us £3 billion to build 25,000 homes by 2020 – that’s £120,000 per unit, right? So, you know that site we’ve had our eye on in the Home Counties, that we were going to put the £350,000 houses on – let’s just go right ahead and charge £475,000 and claim the subsidy. Right. That’s a £120,000 extra profit for each house. Phil – that looks like a nice little earner for us, can you get Damien to buy them all with those Panama shell companies he set up for us? Sweet!”
Hammond wants to “emphasise” brownfield sites:
“Phil I found a rotten brownfield site – it’s absolute rubbish – literally, built on an old landfill site the council is offering us for £1 – I know, I know – old Bill came up trumps, well worth that deal we did for his daughter. What do you think about slapping up a few ticky-tackies at about £50,000 a pop, claiming the brownfield subsidy of £120,000 each and flogging ’em off fast at a bargain price of, oh, let’s say £250,000? In, out, bosh, bosh, a donation to the party and bob’s my knighthood. Get on to it Phil – and keep a couple back, I hear Bill has a couple of other kids he needs to set up”.
Hammond has also suggested developing derelict shopping centres for housing:
“Now, about Middletown Shopping Centre. Yes, I KNOW it’s fully let, yes I KNOW it’s popular, yes, I KNOW there’s a waiting list for vacancies, yes, I KNOW it’s been a nice little earner for us over the years. But that new Hammond idea is the way to go. So, Damien – cut down the maintenance to bare bones, bung up the bogs and start telling the papers about the terrible drug problems there. Yes, I KNOW there isn’t a drug problem – it’s your job to make sure there is, Damien. … Now how many units can we cram in there with a £120,000 each subsidy. Yes, I KNOW they will have to go 5 miles to shop, but that isn’t my problem. (Starts to sing): “We’re in the money, we’re in the money…”
Housing: a sticking plaster on gangrene
“Key measures announced today include the launch of a new £3 billion Home Building Fund to help small and “custom” builders deliver 25,500 homes by 2020.
This will be used to unlock a pipe line of up to 200,000 homes over the longer term – with the emphasis on development on brownfield land.”
1. It will not stop land banking or developers dribbling out new houses to keep prices up.
2. Large builders will now create small offshoots to sponge up the money.
3. DEFINITELY no social or truly-affordable houses.
4. So far, no help for low and mid-income people to truly be able to afford deposits and mortgages without the bank of mum and dad.
5. Many of the new homes will probably be buy-to-let.
6. No INSISTENCE on brownfield sites, just am ” emphasis”.
Nice one. Just 25,000 more houses … a drop in the ocean …
Tory MP says only proportional representation will fix our broken political system
An interesting comment, too, below about how MPs act like sheep for their Whips …
” … “Mr Howlett was the only Conservative MP to vote dfor Green MP Caroline Lucas’s bill in support of introducing proportional representation for elections, which she previously tabled as a private members bill.
He suggested that though few Tories supported electoral reform, some MPs appeared to be open to persuasion.
“I know a number of MPs who I spoke to just outside the lobbies who were asking ‘Is this a whipped vote, or not a whipped vote? Oh it’s not a whipped vote, I’m not going to go through.’” They did think ‘you know what, it would be quite interesting to be thinking about that’.”
Mr Howlett also threw his support behind a petition organised by the Make Votes Matter campaign group calling on the Constitution Minister to look at the possibility of changing the voting system.
Labour supported queued around the block at the party’s conference in Liverpool last weekend to hear about proportional representation in what is understood to be the biggest rally in favour of the policy in the party’s recent history.
MPs from across the opposition party’s factions – including John McDonnell, Clive Lewis, Chuka Umunna, and Stephen Kinnock threw their weight behind the policy. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn has yet to decide on the issue, however. …”
“Tory housing minister says building more council homes will increase inequality”
“Jeremy Corbyn’s pledge to dramatically increase the construction of council homes will actually increase inequality, the Conservative housing minister today claimed.
Gavin Barwell told the party’s conference that the Labour plan to build at least 500,000 council homes as part of an increase overall housebuilding to a million would increase inequality between people who owned homes and those that did not.
He told a fringe event at the Birmingham gathering on Sunday afternoon that far from solving the housing crisis, the plan and would widen “the divide in society”.
“If we carry on building at the current rate then by 2020 the average house in the south east of England will increase by about £1000 a week. That will mean normal people’s homes in Kent or Hampshire, or wherever, are going to be earning more than they’re earning,” Mr Barwell said.
“Think about the consequences of that in terms of the equality in society between people that are lucky enough to have or inherit a property – and those that don’t have property.
“That was what I think was so remarkable about what Jeremy Corbyn envisaged last week – because he envisaged a future where half of us live in council homes.
“If you’re going to build at the current rate – which is what he’s talking about – and half the people are going to go in council homes and half of them are going to own, the divide in society is only going to get wider and wider. I would have thought he cares about that.”
However, the new Minister is a NIMBY in his own constituency:
“The new Housing Minister that Theresa May tasked to increase home-building has been accused of taking a “not in my back yard” approach, after it emerged he fought against the construction of hundreds of properties in his own constituency.
Gavin Barwell was appointed by Theresa May last month as the incoming Prime Minister pledged to “get more houses built” and solve the housing crisis plaguing parts of Britain.
But plans opposed by Mr Barwell in his own constituency of Croydon Central, despite a huge housing shortage there, would have potentially provided homes for more than 500 families in the area. …”
“Theresa May defends her plan to keep Brexit negotiation details secret from Parliament”
“Theresa May has defended her plan to keep key details of the EU exit negotiations secret from Britain’s Parliament.
The Prime Minister said that though MPs would be informed at “various stages”, they would not be privy to precisely what her negotiators were doing.
Last month Brexit Secretary David Davis told a Parliamentary Committee that he would “not be able to tell you everything, even in private”.
The approach is a stark contrast to the course being set by the EU, with plans reportedly being formed to keep the European Parliament informed with regular updates.
Questioned on the secrecy ahead of the Conservative party conference in Birmingham, the Prime Minister said transparency could jeopardise Britain’s negotiating position.
“First of all, of course parliament will be involved in this process. The Great Repeal Bill, Parliament will be having its say on that,” she told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.
“Of course at various stages we will be keeping parliament informed. This is not about keeping silent for two years but its about making sure that we are able to negotiate, that we don’t set out all the cards in our negotiation.”
“Because as anybody will know who’s been involved in these things, if you do that up front, or if you give a running commentary you don’t get the right deal. What I’m determined to do is get the right deal for Britain.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is sovereignty.
It seems she has learned well from EDDC Jedi-masters!
Just substitute Diviani for May and Morai or “Greater Exeter” or devolution deals withe the LEP for Parliament and local democracy for sovereignty and it is exactly the same situation. We don’t tell you anything at all during negotiations, we tell you almost nothing at all after negotiations and then we tell you all how to vote about the negotiations! Or maybe we don’t allow you to vote at all!
Stuart Hughes suggests residents and businesses should pay to lure Tour of Britain back
“Would you pay for Tour of Britain to return to Devon
“Residents and businesses are being asked if they would like to see the Tour of Britain come back to Devon – and if they would put their hand in their pocket for its return.
The county council said this month’s stage, which set off from Sidmouth, drew record crowds, with an estimated 250,000 people lining the route.
But it said hosting the race again will require financing – and one option being considered is crowd-funding.
Councillor Stuart Hughes said: “With local government budgets increasingly being squeezed, it is prudent to investigate all opportunities. In 2010, when we hosted a stage in Exeter, we worked with local businesses. After talking with other towns, local authorities and stage partners, this appears to be an increasingly-common funding model. Any future Devon stage would likely need a similar cocktail of funding and we wanted to understand whether there was an appetite from the public for this. We’ve had a positive response so far, with over 90 per cent saying they’d like to see the Tour return to Devon.”
Residents can have their say by visiting https://surveys.devon.gov.uk/s/ToBftr/
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/would_you_pay_for_tour_of_britain_to_return_to_devon_1_4717076
What if Honiton raised more money than Sidmouth? What if the Blackdown Hills raised less money than Broadclyst?
Sport being sold to the highest bidder.
Is that even allowed?
And here’s another £285 million squandered in Austerity Britain
“New claims have emerged that the government was warned the airport in St Helena, in the South Atlantic would be dangerous because of strong winds.
It is claimed that the Department for International Development (DfID), which approved the project, ignored a report by consultants a decade ago revealing serious concerns about the cliffside airport on the remote island.”
Lies, damned lies and retweets about housing figures from Hugo Swire
Swire retweeted this:
“Gavin Barwell MP @GavinBarwellMP
New figures released today show since 2010 government schemes have helped 330,000 people buy a new home #OwnYourHome”
NO! NO! NO! It has not helped 330,000 people to buy new homes!
When you follow the link it says: 185,000 people have bought new houses BUT, when you read further, actually it only talks about 91,000 of those homes having used various government schemes.
The press release says ”
The government is committed to helping people achieve their aspiration of home ownership, through the range of Help to Buy schemes, including: ISA, Shared Ownership, Equity Loan, London Help to Buy and Mortgage Guarantee.”
Remember that some of these schemes allow wealthy people to buy homes worth up to £650,000 for their children with huge discounts, that the ISA was revealed to only be helpful AFTER you had bought a home AND paid a deposit when people thought they were signing up for help WITH deposits, and equity loans grab a share of your home as does shared ownership.
Nowhere does Mr Barwell, or Mr Swire, explain where the figure of 330,000 comes from – except to say that it is “since 2010” when ?some ?all, ?most of these schemes did not exist!
Donald Trump, eat your heart out – post-truth politics flourishes here in the UK!
Devon NHS cuts: no need to worry says Matron May
Clinton Devon Estates in top ten for Devon and Cornwall farm subsidies
At number 8 they received £267,923.98
If devolution is the answer – what was the question?
Devolution doesn’t always mean taking back control
Since Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997, successive UK governments have fiddled around with ways of devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall. The most radical has been Scottish devolution, which continues to evolve. The least coherent has been the patchwork of schemes developed across England, ranging from a well-thought out arrangement for London, with a directly elected mayor and assembly, to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along “devolution deals” for the rest.
The coalition government of 2010-15 abolished – wisely – the regional governance bureaucracies. The first big replacement idea was Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), intended as “business-led” mechanisms for spending public money. The areas covered by LEPs were in some cases obvious, based for example on established city regions or former metropolitan counties. In others the rationale was less clear, perhaps nowhere more so than the Heart of the South West (HotSW) LEP, covering a massive area from Plymouth to the south of Bristol [1]. It’s tempting to think that after Cornwall decided to go their own way and Bristol wasn’t having any truck with its Somerset neighbours, that HotSW was the “bit left over”.
The performance of these fundamentally secretive and undemocratic bodies is not the focus of this post [2]. They are relevant because the LEP areas have in some cases – including HotSW – formed the basis of the subsequent devolution proposals in England.
The government has been inviting groups of local authorities to submit proposals for devolving decision-making in certain functions, particularly infrastructure and economic development, but not limited to these.
The rationale behind this approach is that increasing productivity, a key goal of government policy, is best achieved by local targeting of support measures through local authorities and business interests working together.
The government has made it clear that access to some central funding is dependent on devolution deals being agreed. Invariably, local authorities across the area commit to setting up a “combined authority” to take the decisions. Unlike London, this would not be directly elected but would be made up of the leaders of the constituent councils plus non-elected representatives of the NHS and the LEP. Initially, agreement to having a directly-elected mayor was a condition of a devolution deal but the government now seems to be less rigid on this.
One of the problems with this approach is that it was designed for large urban areas. Greater Manchester, for example, has operated as a partnership of councils across a coherent area since the 1960s when Passenger Transport Authorities were set up. Manchester is the trail-blazer in the current devolution game, and it clearly works for them.
What is less clear is that the combined authority structure will work well in those areas of England that aren’t part of a conurbation. A pretentious-sounding body called The Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England produced a report last year arguing for devolution deals for the rest of England [3].
It does make the useful point that LEP areas do not in most cases coincide with functional economic areas (a conclusion which should be enough to discredit the whole idea of LEPs), but is otherwise a typical product of this debate in that it focusses on structures and “partnerships” from which communities are largely excluded.
The councils within the HotSW area have submitted a devolution bid to the government [4]. The bid identifies 6 challenges for the area (low productivity growth, limited labour market, patchy performance in innovation and enterprise, an ageing population, health and care integration, infrastructure and connectivity) and 6 “Golden Opportunities” for improving growth and productivity (marine, nuclear, aerospace and advanced engineering, data analytics, rural productivity, health and care). The bid has a wholly economic focus: other than in references to care, the word “social” does not appear in the document, and there is no acknowledgement of the impacts of the plans on the natural environment.
If the bid succeeds – and at least some of the councils are treating the whole exercise with a degree of caution – decision-making on the plans and services covered by the bid will be sucked upwards from the councils and the people they represent. How the combined authority will balance the interests of, say, Plymouth with those of people in the Mendips will be discussed in officer-led groups behind closed doors – because that is the only way “partnership” working can be made to operate in practice. The need to prepare for joint meetings gives authority officers huge influence over agendas and decisions because of the need to coordinate positions and identify common solutions in advance of meetings.
The combined authority itself will be made up of leaders of the constituent councils and others. It will not be directly elected. Trying to influence its decisions will be next to impossible for individuals and community groups. The bid’s economic focus ignores environmental and community questions completely, so being able to provide a counter-balance is hugely important. As it is, the bid’s environmental credentials are defined by the partnership’s LEP-led role as a cheerleader for the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station.
Other devolution bids across England generate similar challenges. At a time when disillusion with our politics is at an all-time high, it is puzzling – to put it mildly – that decision-making is to move even further away from the people most affected
NOTES:
[1] The map of LEP areas at http://www.lepnetwork.net/the-network-of-leps/ shows just how large the area is.
[2] An excellent House of Commons briefing note (July 2016) provides a concise guide to LEPs including reviews of their performance – see http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05651.pdf
[3] See http://www.local.gov.uk/non-met-commission
[4] The bid document is at https://new.devon.gov.uk/democracy/files/2016/01/Heart-of-the-South-West-Devolution-Prospectus.pdf
https://petercleasby.com/2016/09/30/devolution-is-not-control/
