“Cronyism in the south west”

Something we all know about in East Devon!

“Cronyism in the South West”
The sheer amount of unsuitable and damaging development that has been pushed through against all objections in my home town of Totnes, but also throughout the south west, is making me question the role of cronyism in the deals made.

It starts at the very top of course in government, but appears to have sucked up many of our more august bodies that we are more used to seeing as our defenders and protection, into its net. The National Trust for example, now has a right wing business leader as its head. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that this is as a result of any wrong doing, but I question why he is there, when he comes with no history of interest or involvement in conservation or the heritage sector. It is a coincidence of course that the National Trust appear to be engaged recently in the development business themselves, aiming to sell land, given to them in trust in Bovery Tracey and also in Somerset, for housing. To say local people aren’t happy is a bit of an understatement.

Natural England also, is now headed up by a right wing business man, an ex-developer actually, with little to no interest up to now in the environment, or preserving the countryside, he was too busy working to concrete it over as head of Linden Homes. George Monbiot describes his appointment as, ‘The government wants a chairman who can flog nature and have chosen a Tory party donor with a background in investment banking and housing developments.’

So our conservation and heritage organisations appear to be headed by cronies, our secretive Local Enterprise Partnership appears to be also. This is the self-appointed group tasked with pouring vast amounts of public money into encouraging enterprise and business down here and with running our devolution bid. The fact that the majority of those on the board come from the construction and housing sector and a few who are involved in weapons manufacturing won’t come as a surprise when you see that our devolution bid, which they mostly engineered, is very heavy on giant construction projects, which the board’s companies appear to profit from and very weak on tourism, farming and sustainability. This bid is about growth. ‘I want to only build structures that you can see from space,’ the chair is quoted as saying. The fact that this undemocratically elected group hold their meetings in private, have no head office, very little accountability and have managed to keep the lid on their activities very successfully is worrying and the ultimate in cronyism.

This culture goes down the line; housing developments pushed through when they are so obviously damaging and ridiculous. In Totnes, Great Court Farm was sold to developers in very suspect circumstances in my opinion. It is the last dairy farm in Totnes, the home to a fourth generation of farmers, a totally unsuitable spot for yet more mass building in this beleaguered town. The access is terrible, the logistics ridiculous and yet it was pushed through by a combination of cronyism and mis-management. The people who suffer are the people who always suffer when cronyism is allowed to flourish and that’s us – everyone else and in this instance the farmer and his family and the people of Totnes, who see their landscape the plaything of those in power.

Across the county, across the country in fact, the same story is played out endlessly. Local people left shocked and devastated as those in power find the wherewithal to circumnavigate due process and make an absolute fortunes flogging nature and our land to line their own pockets.”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/comment-piece-for-western-morning-news-cronyism/

Tipton St John likely to lose its primary school due to flooding

Interesting how the article twists its fate from flooding to lack of housing development! Especially as various local vested interests made several attempts to move in on the area.

And many will recall Hugo Swire’s comments about his involvement in this. It now looks as though he might have realised its days on its current site were numbered at least as far back as September last year:

“A Devon village looks set to lose its thriving primary school because of a flooding threat.

Tipton St John Church of England Primary School is likely to move to a site within the campus of The King’s School Ottery St Mary.

The move comes after the primary school missed out on funds to relocate within the village.

The school, which has a split site , currently faces the a threat of flooding.

The majority of its pupils come from outside the village and there is no prospect of significant housing development to allow the catchment area.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/devon-village-set-to-lose-its-primary-school-amid-flood-worries/story-29416613-detail/story.html

Here is what Mr Swire said in January 2016:

“I am, as I have been for some time, deeply concerned about the effect of flooding on Tipton St John Primary School and the recent floods show just how vulnerable the school is. This is clearly an unsustainable situation and it is not only the pupils’ quality of education but also their safety which is being compromised.

‘I spoke to Lord Nash this afternoon and re-emphasised the urgency of finding a solution to this problem. Whilst the long-term solution remains under consideration, the Minister agreed that in the short-term he would contact the EA and ask them to look into possible measures which could mitigate further flooding to the school.

‘It is clear to me that we need to take a broader look at flooding in East Devon and I have invited Sir James Bevan, the new Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, to the constituency so that I am able to show him some of the areas which are most affected’.

and in September 2015:

“Very real concerns have been raised over the safety of the pupils at the school so it is essential that we find a solution to this problem. I am supportive of the proposal to move the school to a safer part of the village but securing the significant amount of funding required will always be a challenge.

‘I wanted to take this issue to ministerial level and impress upon Lord Nash the importance and urgency of this situation. I was very pleased that the Minister said he would look again at the school’s original PSBP2 application and send an official from the Department for Education to Tipton St John so that they can see for themselves the perilous situation in which the school finds itself in.

‘This is promising news but we still have a long way to go before finding a long-term solution to this problem’.

Doesn’t sound like he expected the school to survive in its current location and that he had a pretty good idea that the ” long-term solution” would be closure.

Our LEP’s “Strategic Plan” 2014-2030

Although it was published in March 2016, this is worth re-reading in the light of declining economic forecasts for which our LEP has no contingency plans.

Here is just a flavour of it with its “Executive Summary”. It is a masterpiece of spin over substance.

And who on earth thought up the “‘golden thread from the bottom up”!

“Our vision is to transform the reputation and positioning of our area nationally and globally by 2030.

We want the key strengths of the Heart of the South West to be seen as key assets of UK plc. We want our people, places and business to see the public and private sector work together for their benefit; capitalising on the opportunities on our doorstep, realising the potential for high growth in our knowledge economy, and securing more and higher value jobs.

However, addressing the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure and investing in strategic enablers are key to unleashing our growth potential.

Our Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) sets out our understanding of the challenges we have to overcome and our priorities for action. It has been developed in collaboration and consultations with partners from business, education, the public sector and the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sectors, ensuring a golden thread runs through it from the bottom up, taking into account local plans and aspirations; and top down, taking into account national policy objectives and guidelines.

Our SEP will be the base document for our approach to investment and funding opportunities until its review in 2020 and will be delivered through a number of mechanisms over its lifetime. The Plymouth and Peninsula City Deal, the European Structural and Investment Strategy and the Growth Deal 2015, submitted alongside our SEP, are key delivery strands agreed or negotiated in 2014. Others may follow.”

https://www.lepnetwork.net/modules/downloads/download.php?file_name=19

But the consultations referred to above did not include us – the voters. The ” golden thread” doesn’t actually start at the bottom!

More serious problems for Hinkley C: EDF managers not in board

And still we have seen no Plan B from our national government or our LEP, for which it is their main flagship (aka vested interest) project.

“Senior managers at EDF have told MPs that they remain convinced that the French state-controlled group should postpone the Hinkley Point project until it has solved a litany of problems, including the reactor design and multibillion-euro lawsuits over delays on similar schemes.

The letter from EDF managers to the UK parliament’s energy and climate change committee is the latest setback for the proposed £18bn nuclear plant, a flagship government energy policy that is intended to provide 7% of Britain’s electricity from about 2025, at a time when old coal and atomic plants are closing down.

In April, the French company said it was delaying a final investment decision (FID) until September while it consulted with trade unions, but engineers and other middle managers appear to remain implacably opposed.

A letter addressed to Angus MacNeil, the chairman of the committee, from the Fédération Nationale des Cadres Supérieurs de l’Énergie (FNCS) union “advises to delay the FID until better upfront industrial visibility is evidenced”.

Outstanding problems highlighted by the senior managers at EDF include:

Areva NP, the designer of the European pressurised reactor (EPR) planned for Somerset, “is currently facing a difficult situation”.

The French nuclear safety authority (ASN) may not give the green light to the EPR being constructed at Flamanville in north-west France due to various anomalies.

There may be “identical flaws” in an Areva EPR being built at Taishan 1 in China.

The scandal over falsification of parts from Areva’s Le Creusot that potentially put safety checks at risk.

Multibillion-euro litigation between Areva and the Finnish energy group TVO over delays to an EPR scheme at Olkiluoto remains unsettled.

An EDF offer to purchase Areva expired on 31 March, leaving “governance uncertainties upon the implementation of the Hinkley Point C project”.

Many of the problems have been raised by other unions inside EDF, such as the CGT, which are worried that EDF’s soaring debts and growing financial commitments are a danger to its future stability.

But the letter from Norbert Tangy, the president of the FNCS, to MacNeil highlights once again the huge list of problems. Among others is concern expressed by the ASN at a hearing on 25 May that any resolution of EDF and Areva’s twin financial problems could take considerable time.

The energy and climate change committee is investigating the financing of new nuclear plants and has twice called Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF’s British subsidiary, EDF Energy, to explain the delays at Hinkley. …”

http://gu.com/p/4yjx2

The housing crisis … a crisis of failing capitalism

” … across Britain, people are facing a crisis in housing and in basic pay. Headlines about the collapse of BHS and the horrific conditions at Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct have understandably shocked people, but these aren’t mere consequences of one or two rogue businessmen, but the symptoms of rapacious capitalism. The women in the Sports Direct warehouses who went into labour at work did so because work has become precarious, and zero-hours contracts have been allowed to bloom, because of government attacks on workers’ rights both under Labour and, to an increased degree, under the Tories.

If you’re on a zero-hours contract, you’re forced to scrabble for any work possible to pay your rent, accepting conditions most salaried people would walk out over. If you want to take your employer to court for sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or for forcing you out when you announced your pregnancy, you now have to pay to do so. The poorest have been denied justice, as well as decent pay and conditions.

Cuts to benefits, the cataclysmic farce of the universal credit rollout, and the assault on support for disabled people mean that, post-recession, people who struggle to earn a decent wage are denied basic support. The housing crisis is an affordability crisis, but not one that solely lies in the cost of London flats: people across the country simply can’t afford to live. Rents in the north west are lower, but pay is lower still. Geographic inequalities have worsened post-recession, and many areas feel as though they’ve been left behind.

The housing crisis is everywhere, because pay, benefits and working conditions have worsened or been cut. Attacks on unionisation and government defences of zero-hours contracts will do nothing but fuel an already blazing fire. This is a nationwide crisis, because it’s a crisis of capitalism: as long as we subsidise companies for paying poverty wages, whilst blaming low earners for their own poverty, nothing will change.”

http://gu.com/p/4ydh7

“Elected mayors could be as remote from the public as Whitehall”

“Most areas in England will soon have a directly elected mayor, but without proper scrutiny mayors alone won’t solve the local accountability problem.

Before too long, most people living in England will find they have a directly elected mayor in their area, making big decisions on transport, economic development, skills, further education, and possibly public health and policing. These mayors will sit at the heart of devolution deals, agreed between central government and local areas, which will see accountability and responsibility decentralised.

Beyond elections, there will be quite limited local mechanisms for holding these mayors to account. True, combined authorities – bodies made up of elected councillor leaders from across the area – will have a role in decision-making. These combined authorities in turn must establish overview and scrutiny committees of local councillors, to hold decision-makers to account – mirroring the arrangements which apply to most local authorities.

But the existence of these new structures is not in itself a guarantee of accountability. There needs to be an active effort by mayors and local councils to ensure these arrangements really work in the way intended.

Poor accountability will lead to services feeling and looking just as remote as they do when directed from London
Nationally, the systems for accountability seem, oddly, rather stronger. Devolution deals give government significant powers to hold local areas to account for their delivery under the deal.

Funding comes with strings attached and can be withheld if expectations are not met. Whitehall is keen to continue to assert its authority – and parliament is keen to support it. Recently, the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) placed devolution deals alongside major national schemes like e-borders in highlighting the risks of huge amounts of public money being spent without parliamentary oversight. But this fails to take account of the fact that effective oversight will work best if it works at local level. …

… What will happen if we fail to develop robust systems for accountability at local level? The first risk is that devolution will be anything but – a decentralisation of responsibility while power remains firmly at the centre. A tussle of power and responsibility between those at local and national level will only ever be won by Whitehall, which has the interest and the power to maintain the status quo.

The second is that devolution will fail to deliver the outcomes which have been promised. The only way that devolution will be a success is if local politicians are able to take more power to develop and implement creative, exciting ways to improve local people’s lives. Poor or non-existent accountability will lead to services feeling and looking just as remote as they have done when directed from London. …

… Areas with devolution deals in place will have to take it upon themselves to develop systems that will give local people confidence that deals will be implemented in their interests, and that they will have an opportunity to influence this implementation. …”

http://gu.com/p/4yvp8

Cheshire devolution deal stumbles

… “Whilst the benefits of devolution are extremely favourable for our residents, the Government’s insistence on an elected mayor has made it difficult for all politicians to come to an agreement.

“The majority of councillors in Cheshire West and Chester were likely to support a consultation to seek the views of residents.

Housing concerns

Michael Jones, the former leader of Cheshire East Council, has said he is in favour of devolution – but not a deal which could involve more than 100,000 new homes in mid and south Cheshire.

A report on the LEP website talks of an aim to build a “constellation new city through the expansion and linkage of the cluster of towns and villages in mid-Cheshire with an expanded Crewe at its heart.”

But Cllr Jones says this was not the deal on the table when he was discussing devolution.

“The Northern Gateway which I put forward in 2014 – the aim was to work with our neighbours, Stoke, Newcastle, Staffordshire Moorlands and Shropshire, to get them to have houses,” he said.

“But they’re no longer talking about [them]… it’s all about what is going in Cheshire East and Crewe city, which was never agreed.”

Hinkley C – more complications

“Areva, one of the French companies at the heart of the controversial Hinkley Point C nuclear project, has unveiled plans to break itself up into three parts in a bid to stem huge losses.

The 87% state-owned atomic engineering and uranium mining company is hoping to raise €9bn (£7bn) from the government and from selling off assets after running up losses of €2bn last year.

Areva, a 10% equity participant in the £18bn planned new Hinkley scheme, is also using the split to isolate financial commitments to a hugely delayed project at Olkiluoto in Finland.

“The two [restructuring of the group and the Hinkley scheme] are not intrinsically linked,” said a spokeswoman for Areva. “The company’s restructuring programme, which includes the sale of [Areva] NP’s operations to EDF, is a positive step forward that will make the whole business and industry stronger.”

EDF, which is also part-owed by the French state, has its own massive debt problems and had refused to buy part of Areva, as ministers wanted, unless it could take the business without any financial commitments for the Olkiluoto 3 scheme.

Areva, which is providing the same European pressurised water reactor for Olkiluoto as is planned for Hinkley, is currently in a standoff over competing legal claims with the Finnish utility TVO relating to the project in Finland.

Areva said it was fully committed to sorting these issues out and completing the reactor, which is currently nine years behind schedule. The problems in Finland and the financial issues facing Areva and EDF have been seized on by Hinkley’s critics as reasons why the British government should pull the plug on the Somerset scheme.

They are unlikely to draw much comfort from the latest restructuring, which they may feel only points up once again the scale of the difficulties being faced by Areva and EDF.

A formal decision to go ahead with the investment at Hinkley has been put off until September amid internal opposition at EDF from unions and others about the wisdom of taking on such a major financial commitment.”

http://gu.com/p/4y8fg

Hernandez

Why hasn’t she stood down now she is under investigation? Officers in the police force would have to do so. It is not an admission of guilt, it is to ensure that investigations are clear of any influence.

In her job she will be meeting with other PCCs and Chief Constables from other areas, including the area investigating her.

Muddy waters and our Police and Crime Panel should be clearing them, otherwise, with a Conservative majority on the Panel, they could be accused of protecting one of their own.

Ministerial “code”?

How come a Minister can’t talk about his constituency in Parliament but CAN say which side he supports in a referendum that will affect his all his constituents for decades to come?

Budleigh Hospital – the, somewhat hazy, future?

These are notes written by an attendee at the recent meeting about the future of Budleigh Hospital. It represents the attendee’s personal views.

The way in which ” rent” is being tackled is very novel but, as always, the devil is in the detail.

Owl hopes the League of Friends has access to good lawyers!

“Budleigh Hospital League of Friends AGM followed by Wellbeing Hub Q&A 16/06/16

Chair’s perspective

• According to Chair, Dr David Evans, Swire and Toby Williams have been ‘very helpful in ironing out problems’ – more info on this would be interesting – eg what has Swire actually done (probably just enabling the roll out of Tory ideological destruction of the NHS at a local level?!).

• Dr David Evans also reported that he thinks the wellbeing hub is a pioneering project, one that he believes will be a model of success that other community hospitals in Devon will want to follow. There was a confusing and bizarre message that we should be proud of what we have (an empty building?!). Perhaps he was referring to the work of the League of Friends who do seem to put a lot of work into something that must be very incredibly frustrating.

NHS Property Services

• A contract will be signed between the League of Friends and the RD&E FT that will allow the Wellbeing Hub to ‘overcome’ the commercial rent issue for charitable organisations.

• The League of Friends described this lease as a ‘compromise’. In practice all rent will still be commercial (as they kept saying, this is ‘a legal requirement’), however as the League of Friends has money (raised locally) that they want to invest into the building, they have agreed (verbally at this point), that the money invested by the League of Friends will be converted into a lease – so a £100,000 investment in the property will be translated into a reduction (% unclear) for charitable sector users.

Sustainability, administration, etc all unclear, my question was about clarifying what was initially just a mention of this lease/compromise, but the answer didn’t go far enough.

• However a local alternative therapies practitioner (eg I know of one who wanted to rent space) would probably be charged commercial rent and therefore unlikely to be feasible for them to work from/offer services from the wellbeing hub.

The wellbeing hub

• In September they hope to have some example services available. But then this was contradicted with no access to building until 2017.

• Building is still in reasonable condition and a report of the work done while closed has been issued to the League of Friends (cost of work maintaining the empty building could be an interesting FOI as the League of Friends did not specify).

• It was suggested that the closure has allowed time to consider and test what ideas will work for the hub. Not convinced by this logic – I am pretty sure the hospital demonstrated that.”

“Councils or company bosses, those in power have a duty of stewardship”

Letter in Guardian:

“Aditya Chakrabortty (Opinion, 14 June) compared my appearance before a Tottenham magistrate [for refusing to pay council tax in protest against cuts to social security] with Philip Green’s appearance before MPs. It is an apt comparison. In both cases the authorities failed to take steps to prevent the kind of disasters facing the pensioners of BHS or the benefit claimants of the London borough of Haringey.

In my case, I asked Grant Thornton, Haringey’s auditors, to take into account the damage done to the wellbeing of many benefit claimants by welfare “reform” when auditing the enforcement costs, now £115, added by the council to the council tax arrears of more than 20,000 households a year. It is a last straw that breaks many hearts already struggling with rent and utility arrears and benefit sanctions .

Grant Thornton replied: “We have no remit … to opine on the impact of this policy on the wellbeing of those required to pay council tax.” Why not? Why didn’t Haringey tell them that the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Communities and Local Government have issued guidance specifically drawing the attention of courts and councils to the vulnerable circumstances of residents. Or Lord Freud tell them that “Four principles have underpinned welfare reforms. First the welfare system should support the elderly, vulnerable and disabled people…”

Reverend Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty”

http://gu.com/p/4yenj

Natural England newly- designated sites – only one in Devon

… and that is the South West Coast path works only.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/natural-england-designations-programme-for-areas-sites-and-trails/natural-englands-designations-programme-to-march-2017

Dorset, devolution and democracy

Although this is about Dorset, much of it applies to Devon and East Devon. At least in Dorset, councillors (for now) remain in charge of their own destiny. In Devon and Somerset they have abdicated their responsibilities to local (and national and international) business interests, including developers and those with nuclear and arms interests.

And Dorset is making a token attempt to consult residents (although, as typical in these cases, they seem to be trying to keep it under their radar) unlike Devon and Somerset which have hijacked the process from under our noses amid secrecy and subterfuge.

“You are probably aware that Dorset County Council (DCC) is considering changing the way it is structured and moving to a Unitary Authority.

This means the district / borough level of local government would be abolished. It will likely mean fewer elected councillors making decisions and reduce overall capacity to deal with the needs of local residents.

Power is already far too removed. Instead of moving towards a vision of localisation, the proposed changes have the potential to create an even bigger gap in local democracy.

There will be a public consultation on this through July – September, a decision will be made by DCC, and should they wish to proceed with a Unitary Authority, a proposal to central government in early 2017.

It is currently uncertain if DCC will apply to postpone the 2017 County Council elections, but this has been voiced in DCC meetings as a possibility.

You are probably NOT aware of a separate plan for a Dorset Combined Authority (DCA) to cover:

· Dorset County Council
· Bournemouth Borough Council
· Poole Borough Council
· Purbeck District Council
· East Dorset District Council
· Christchurch Borough Council
· West Dorset District Council
· North Dorset District Council
· Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

In essence this is a body of 10 members, 9 drawn from elected councillors (a sort of super-cabinet) and 1 Local Enterprise Partner (someone appointed from “big business”).

The Dorset Combined Authority will have specific decision-making power, covering economic growth, regeneration / infrastructure and transportation. We are concerned there will be no environmental voice on this Authority. There is worry that a programme of road building that would literally pave the way to support oil & gas exploration and production (e.g. fracking) would go unchallenged:

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/421876/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-Dorset-Combined-Authority

Why are we telling you this?

The public “consultation” for the DCA is happening right now! Our apologies we did not become aware of this earlier. But even with our eyes and ears open across Dorset, Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch this proposal and process was not on our radar until very recently. But it is now!

What can you do?

There are 3 key things we would ask you to engage in:

1. Participate in the consultation survey on the Dorset For You website. The closing date is

Friday 17th June

(yes, we know, it is a very hurried and low-key consultation). Just click on the link below to take part in the quite short survey:

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/422462/Give-us-your-views-on-the-Dorset-Combined-Authority-proposals

You may wish to say that for changes as serious as this, you would expect a referendum, and not just a short consultation exercise.

2. Write to your local town / parish, district / borough, county Councillor(s)and ask them one, some or all of the following:

Ask them to explain to you what the Dorset Combined Authority is all about. Ask them if they are aware of the consultation process, and if so why they have not done more in your ward to inform you about it and encourage engagement.

Ask them for their opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of the Dorset Combined Authority. Ask them if they think this is increasing or decreasing democracy at the local level.

Ask them if there will be a representative on the Authority focused on ensuring decisions around growth, infrastructure and transportation will be evaluated for their impact on the local environment (e.g. air pollution, wildlife protection, open spaces, etc.) and on the consequences for Climate Change.

Ask them how the 10 members will be selected or appointed. Ask them how those members will be held accountable for their decisions and by whom.

There may be other things you will want to ask them, but the above are a few ideas. If you are not familiar with the names and email addresses of the local councillors, a list of the councillors at all levels by each area / ward / division for West and South Dorset can be found within the article on our website:

https://westandsouthdorset.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/06/14/changes-to-dorset%E2%80%99s-democracy-and-council-structure/

Many thanks for taking an interest and we hope you will take some action if you can.

Caz Dennett

Campaign Manager, West & South Dorset Green Party”

Hernandez now formally under investigation

She has always maintained that she should not stand down because she was not under investigation.

Well, now she is.

“Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Alison Hernandez is formally under investigation as part of the general election expenses row, it has been confirmed.

Ms Hernandez faces allegations she failed to properly declare election expenses when employed as the election agent for Conservative MP Kevin Foster.

Since she was elected on May 5, she has faced questions over her role in the financing of Tory campaigning but has insisted she has yet to be questioned or even contacted.

Now, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has confirmed a joint inquiry with a neighbouring force will take place to ensure independence for Devon and Cornwall police.

It said a managed investigation will be undertaken by West Mercia Police under the direction and control of the IPCC, and overseen by its deputy chair Sarah Green.

The probe will form part of a “wider investigation being undertaken by Devon and Cornwall Police” the IPCC added, in reference to separate allegations relating to other MPs implicated.

Deputy Chair Sarah Green said: “As Ms Hernandez is now a Police and Crime Commissioner, the IPCC will manage an investigation looking at whether she properly declared election expenses whilst acting as an election agent during the 2015 General Election.

On completion of the investigation we will decide whether any matters should be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for its consideration.”

The inquiry will look into claims that more than two dozen Tory MPs failed to declare the costs of “battle buses” and hotel bills during last year’s General Election campaign.

The accused Devon and Cornwall MPs are Scott Mann in North Cornwall, George Eustice in Camborne and Redruth, Oliver Colvile in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport and Kevin Foster in Torbay.

Devon and Cornwall Police later announced that the investigation would be transferred to another police force.

The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) made a referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) immediately after the PCC election.

Andrew White, OPCC chief executive, said arrangements had been put in place to protect Devon and Cornwall Police from any suggestions that they may be subject to undue influence, and to ensure that any individuals who form part of this investigation will be treated impartially by an independent police force.

Ms Hernandez, who was summoned to an emergency meeting by the Police and Crime Panel amid anger over her comments on the issue, has faced calls to step aside.

The panel warned her not to make any more “political statements”.

Exeter’s Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and former Lib Dem MP for Torbay Adrian Sanders have added to calls for Ms Hernandez to step aside.

She said she had not yet been approached but was prepared to comply with any inquiry. “I stand ready to give evidence and answer any questions and am more than ready to assist,” she added.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Crime-Commissioner-Alison-Hernandez-officially/story-29395964-detail/story.html

Moirai – another coincidence?

Update: check out the comments on this post for further interesting information.

One of the people said to be a director of Moirai is Sarju (aka Bobby) Rach.

Could it be this person:

BobbyRach

The player on the right is identified in the image as “Bobby Rach”

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=94242

Well, it is one way to raise money (or lose it)!

Our LEP and its “decisions” and “minutes”

At its last board meeting (18 May 2016) the Heart of the Southwest LEP “discussed” and ” noted” several things but doesn’t appear to have decided or actually done anything:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/board-minutes-0

Unfortunately, minutes don’t appear until the next agenda is produced in July 2016.

Here is their last set of “minutes”:

Click to access LEP%20Board%20Agenda%2C%2015%20March%202016_3.pdf

Note there is no list of attendees and ” decisions” were to

“approve an approach” to “Growth Deal 3″

” agree to amend a funding allocation” followsing a “recent information from DCLG about changes to European (ERDF) funding for Nuclear build and decommissioning projects”

“note increased risk” to fund the Tiverton Urban extension and the mitigation actions being taken

“agree to delegate management decisions” about its budget to a sub-committee noting “Any variances in budget lines (singly or in aggregate) of more than 10% or £100,000 would require reference back to the board.”

Academies: can we afford (many of) them?

“The man in charge of the Cornwall College Group has rejected calls from unions for him to take a pay cut.

Amarjit Basi earns £200,000 a year. The college is currently £9m in debt and around 60 staff face losing their jobs.

The University and College Union has suggested that he and other senior managers could take a drop in salary. In a statement, the college said the principal’s salary was in line with national pay scales..”

From BBC Spotlight news page today

And, yes, it is privately owned and run:

“Cornwall College is a further education college situated on various sites throughout Cornwall, England, United Kingdom, with its main centre in St Austell. The college is a member of the 157 Group of [wait for it …] high performing schools. “

Wikipedia

Er, may be high performing but someone at the top can’t do their sums. Or, perhaps they can …

Hugo Swire replies to less than 25% of constituents’ letters within 2 weeks

according to statistics here:

https://www.writetothem.com/stats/2015/mps?o=n

Perhaps he should ask (one of) his Parliamentary Assistant to pull up her socks. It shouldn’t be too difficult, as it is his wife Sacha.