Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Spin, Standards Committee, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

What happens when you have a multi-tasking absent MP

Relax, Mr Swire – it’s your pal not you – yet! But it does make us think …

“MP George Osborne has refused to meet with a group of local constituents as he is too busy writing his book.

Wilmslow resident Stuart Regard recently contacted the Tatton MP to request a meeting to discuss the future of Britain after Brexit.

Mr Redgard, along with some other local residents is a member of the campaign group 38 Degrees, whose 300 members have drawn up a document entitled ‘The People Powered Vision for Brexit’.

He wrote to George Osborne on 20th February saying “We’ve voted on our main hopes and concerns for when we leave the EU casting over ten million votes between us. We would really welcome the opportunity to discuss this document with you and get your opinion on the views of hundreds of thousands of people.”

38 Degrees members across the UK have been meeting their MPs to discuss the ‘People Powered Vision for Brexit’. We understand Liam Fox, Jeremy Hunt and Philip Hammond are among the MPs who have read and discussed the document with their own constituents.

Mr Redgard continued “We are happy to meet with you at a regular surgery appointment, but would also welcome having a longer meeting with you if you’re able to accommodate this. Ideally there will be between four and five of us in attendance with an even split of Leave and Remain voters.”

Zoë Lord, from George Osborne’s office, responded on 7th March saying “Thank you for contacting Mr Osborne. Sadly, his diary is very committed as he is writing his book to a deadline. Unfortunately, we cannot arrange a time for you to meet just now.”

Mr Regard commented “I think this just represents his severe under performance in representing his constituents.” …”

http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/15405/george-osborne-too-busy-writing-his-book-to-meet-with-constituents

and here is how he explains himself to his hapless constituents:

“After all that you have read over the recent days about my new role as editor of the Evening Standard, I want to talk directly to you, my constituents.

It is the greatest honour to be your Member of Parliament, elected by you to represent our community here in Cheshire and take part in the national debate about the great issues Britain faces.

For sixteen years I have done that – thanks to your growing support at each election – and with your help we have achieved some major successes. We’ve stopped the closure of the A&E Department at Macclesfield District Hospital, not once but twice. We’ve got the Alderley Edge bypass built, after people had been trying for 70 years. We’ve improved the direct train services, got great new facilities for our academy schools, and brought new businesses and new jobs to the area. Throughout that time I’ve been able to help countless local people privately with their individual problems in the surgeries I’ve held and the efforts of my hard-working team in the office.

For almost all of those sixteen years, I have also held prominent positions in the public life of the country. For five years I was Shadow Chancellor. For these last six years I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a real privilege to hold one of the great offices of state but it is also one of the most demanding jobs in the country – working dawn to dusk, and on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Throughout that time I was there for you as your local MP.

Now I have left Downing Street I want to continue to take part in the debate about the future direction of our country. No longer being Chancellor gives me time to do that in other ways – yes, in the Chamber of the House of Commons; but also as the editor of a major newspaper, the Evening Standard. There is a long tradition of politics and journalism mixing. One of the greatest newspaper editors ever, CP Scott, combined editing the Manchester Guardian with being an MP. In our age, politicians from Iain Macleod and Richard Crossman to, of course, Boris Johnson have combined the role of editor and Member of Parliament.

Meanwhile the hard work in the constituency continues unaffected. Take this week alone. I’ve been helping the schools in Cheshire get a fairer deal out of the proposed new funding formula. I’ll be helping to officially open the new A556 link road – badly needed for decades, yet only delivered now because of my campaign and our collective hard work. I’ll be at the opening of another new business here, speaking at a fundraising dinner for a great local charity and holding my regular constituency surgery. It is all in a week’s work as your MP.

I will also be in Manchester to promote our efforts to build the Northern Powerhouse – a concept I launched two years ago and which it is one of my jobs now to promote through the new partnership we have created. Nothing has greater potential to improve the opportunities for the future in this area than that Northern Powerhouse

I believe this diversity of experience makes our Parliament stronger. I hope you agree and I look forward to continuing to hear what you have to say and to work with you on the problems we face and the great future we can all build.

Best wishes, George.”

http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/15407/osborne-issues-statement-to-constituents-following-his-appointment-as-evening-standard-editor

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), Honiton/ Gittisham, NHS (local), Ottery St Mary, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Honiton/Ottery/Seaton: Red Lines around community hospitals on 1 April

“HEALTH campaigners say “you can’t fool us” as they prepare for a dramatic Devon-wide demonstration on April 1 against plans to reorganise health services in Devon. Save Our Hospital Services activists plan to form a red line of people around hospitals in Ilfracombe, Bideford, South Molton, Barnstaple, Exeter Honiton, Ottery St Mary, Seaton and Torbay.

Demonstrators are opposing the Devon Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP), a plan to reduce the area’s NHS deficit, which will be more than £550m by 2020/21. In North Devon for example the Northern Devon Healthcare Trust is using a consultation to decide on the future of acute health services at North Devon District Hospital. …”

Red Lines at hospitals across Devon on April 1:

Honiton – Activists will assemble at St Paul’s on the High Street before marching to the hospital, EX14 1EY, at 11am.

Ottery St Mary – Activists will gather outside the Ottery St Mary Hospital, EX11 8ER, at 2pm.

Seaton – Demonstrators will gather outside Seaton Hospital at 10am.

http://www.devonlive.com/protesters-to-put-red-lines-around-hospitals-across-devon/story-30217902-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

Closing community hospitals – local GP speaks truth to power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Sleaze, Spin, Standards Committee, Voting

MPs and the stinky swamp some of them inhabit

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Councillor Cathy Gardner EDA, Developers/ Development, East Devon Alliance, EDDC

Comments

2 Comments

Independent councillor points out flaws in new EDDC housing company project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Rural communities

Rural health concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, County councillors, DCC, Democracy, General Election, Spin, Voting

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

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

You can find a useful guide here:

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

From this guide:

“This means that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

Council Notice Boards:

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local)

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

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

Front cover: Austerity for GPs must end

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Standards Committee, Voting

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

The above quote from Labour MP, Jess Phillips.

But why only Tatton?

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

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

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

But people vote for them again and again.

As Ms Phillips says:

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Environment (local), Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership

United Nations asks UK to pause Hinkley C for assessment

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire

George Osborne and his pals

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Economy, EDDC, Local Enterprise Partnership, Small and Medium businesses

99% of businesses in East Devon are small businesses

So why is our Local Enterprise Partnership made up of a handful of big business people, property developers and speculators? How do they represent East Devon

“4.4 We know that 99% of East Devon businesses are either micro or small enterprises. This is comparable with Exeter at 97%. This places our area in the top 30% of districts nationally for the number of micro businesses. The average business size is 6.4 employees which is below the Devon and Cornwall average of 8.1 and the national average of 9.9 employees.

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

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

page 38

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Scrutiny, Voting

Election spending (2) … just to make it crystal clear where the buck stops

“Managing campaign spending

Authorising and paying campaign spending

Only the ‘responsible person’ registered with us and people authorised in writing by the responsible person can incur campaign spending.

For example, someone may be authorised to spend money on particular items, or up to a particular amount.

These rules are in place to make sure that spending can be controlled and accurately recorded and reported.

You should make sure that your volunteers and campaigners know who can and cannot incur costs.”

Click to access to-campaign-spend-rp.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Police (local), Transparency

Elections: Campaign spending rules for dummies

Presumably, Ms Hernandez read this:

“The types of election spending

There are two types of spending by or on behalf of parties at elections. These are:

Party campaign spending on campaigning to promote the party and its policies generally.

For example, national newspaper adverts for the party, or leaflets explaining party policy.

It also includes spending on promoting candidates at elections where the party nominates a list of candidates for a region, instead of individual candidates for local areas.

Candidate spending on campaigning to promote a particular candidate or candidates in their local area.

For example, leaflets or websites that focus on one or more candidates and their views.

Different rules apply to the two types of spending.

This guidance covers party campaign spending only.

Allocating spending between the party and the candidate

If you are not immediately sure whether something is promoting the party or the candidate, you must make a fair and honest assessment of the facts.

This will help you decide how to allocate the item’s costs against the right spending limit.

Spending will usually fall into one category or the other.

You should only divide the costs of an item between different spending limits if you are sure that it is reasonable to do so.

You should not split costs if an item is produced mainly to promote a candidate, and uses the party’s name or refers to the party’s policies purely in support of that aim.

For example, if a leaflet focuses on a candidate but includes some of the party’s key policy pledges as a way of telling voters what the candidate stands for.

If you are still not sure how you should allocate an item of spending, please call or email us for advice.

Click to access to-campaign-spend-rp.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, General Election, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Comments on record fine for Conservative expenses scandal

“… Four aspects of this record fine are worth noting, especially in terms of what it means for forthcoming decisions on legal action against more Conservative MPs than makes up Theresa May’s majority in the House of Commons.

In short – it’s bad news for the Conservatives as the Electoral Commission has found repeated evidence of spending missing from constituency expense returns. That’s with the police, who have started interviewing MPs under caution, and the Crown Prosecution Service, which has received files from a dozen police forces now.

1. Conservative Party repeatedly hindered the Electoral Commission

The Conservative Party repeatedly refused to cooperate fully with the Electoral Commission investigation, requiring the Commission to go to court to get access to relevant evidence. Even after that, two further legal notices were issued in response to the party failing to provide information requested. The Electoral Commission also had to issue a legal order against a Conservative Party campaigner who “had chosen not to provide information voluntarily”.

“The Party hindered and caused delay to the investigation”, the Electoral Commission’s report concludes. This is notable different from its conclusions on other parties it has investigated recently, where cooperation was forthcoming and sustained.

2. When parties split costs, they must keep good evidence

It is a normal and legal part of election expenditure to split some costs between different legal areas. For example, a leaflet might both promote a local election candidate and a general election candidate and as a result its costs are split between the two candidate’s different expense limits.

One area where the Electoral Commission found against the Conservative Party was over its splitting of staff costs where staff were located in a constituency at the time of a by-election but were also continuing with their normal party roles as well as helping on the by-election.

“The Party could provide no record of how those proportions were determined for any of the by-elections. It did not have any written record of the formula at all, either generally or in relation to any of the three by-elections,” the Electoral Commission reports.

3. Police investigations into Conservative MPs are continuing

As the Electoral Commission’s report says, “The Commission does not have specific powers to investigate and enforce incomplete candidate returns”. The fines and police referral by the Electoral Commission are all about national record keeping and expense limit compliance, not what MPs and their agents got up to.

4. Electoral Commission’s conclusions worsen the legal risk faced by Conservative MPs

All the accommodation costs for national staff relocated to constituencies during three Parliamentary by-elections which the Electoral Commission investigated should have been included in local constituency returns even if the staff were spending some of their time on non-constituency campaigning.

That’s because otherwise they would have been based in their normal offices without accommodation being paid: “There is no reason the Commission can see as to why only an unspecified proportion of the accommodation costs for staff was included in the invoices to candidates. The Commission is satisfied that the entire accommodation costs, for staff and volunteers, were incurred for the purpose of basing individuals in Newark, Clacton and Rochester and Strood, to facilitate those individuals’ work on the respective by-election campaigns. This money would not have been spent otherwise.”

Moreover, when it comes to the Thanet South general election contest, the Electoral Commission has concluded that some of the expenses put on the party’s national expense return should have been included in the constituency return instead as they were for constituency campaigning: “The Commission is satisfied that a proportion of the costs included in the Party’s campaign spending return associated with the team based in South Thanet did not relate to Party campaign spending and should not have been included in the Party’s spending return. In particular, a proportion of the £15,641 included in the Party’s 2015 UKPGE spending return in relation to the Royal Harbour Hotel constituted candidate campaign expenses and should not have been included in the return.”

Likewise on the Conservative battlebus tour, the Electoral Commission has found that the Conservative Party wrongly claimed that all its costs were national election expenditure because in reality the battlebus operation often promoted constituency candidates and so a proportion of its costs should have counted against their limits.

Because the Electoral Commission doesn’t have direct jurisdiction over constituency returns, the question therefore of under-declaring costs on constituency returns has not been followed up by them in this report. That, however, is a matter for the ongoing police investigations. For example, on the question of the Conservative battlebus, the Electoral Commission concludes: “The Commission has not sought to identify the extent to which any affected candidates may have underreported their campaign spending, which is an RPA [Representation of the People Act] matter and therefore a matter for the police.”

In other words, the Electoral Commission has found a number of issues which directly mean that constituency expense returns were wrong. They haven’t issued fines or taken other action over them as those matters are with the police.”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148784/conserative-party-electoral-commission-fine/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Cranbrook, Developers/ Development, Greater Exeter, NPPF, Paul Diviani, Planning System, Sustainability, Transparency

“New Cranbrook” and creeping unitisation worry Greater Exeter councillors

Owl says: Read with the post below Owl thinks there will be more than one “New Cranbrook” in the Greater Exeter area!

“Consultation events held in Devon this week shed light on the creation of a major strategic blueprint, which could lead to new settlements on the same scale as Cranbrook.

Mid Devon, East Devon, Teignbridge and Exeter City Council, in partnership with Devon County Council, are teaming up to create a Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) which focuses on the creation of jobs and housing until 2040.

Hundreds visited Exeter’s Guildhall today to see early Greater Exeter plans between 2pm and 8pm. Similar consultations were held at Phoenix House, Tiverton yesterday and at Mackarness Hall, Honiton on Wednesday, March 8.

Andrew Robbins, city development manager for Exeter, said: “We need to provide more houses for the population and more jobs. What we’re looking to do is plan for the next 20 years, with Exeter City Council working with its neighbours because we see the influence of Exeter outside its boundaries. We’re looking at the best places for new housing and the best places for new jobs.

“For example, the new settlement at Cranbrook has been developed in recent years. One of the things we’re thinking of is ‘do we need another settlement outside of the city.'”

“What we want to do is get people involved in the process at what we call the issues stage. This is the absolute beginning of the process and its asking people for their ideas for how they see the region developing, before consulting on a draft plan at the beginning of 2018.”

Cllr Jeremy Christophers, Leader of Teignbridge said: “The creation of a strategic plan across a wider geography responds to how people actually live their lives. Combining housing options with job opportunities and providing the proper transport will support our ambition for local people to live the lives they wish for. As councils, we need to work together to deliver better results for the future – clearly, this is the way forward.”

Cllr Paul Diviani, Leader of East Devon said: “It has been clear for some time that there was a significant gap left with the demise of the Devon Structure Plan and without wishing to re-invent the wheel, we should be establishing a strategic plan for our Greater Exeter area which has input from Exeter, Mid Devon, Teignbridge and ourselves, alongside the County Council. We are the epi-centre of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership and we need to ensure we have a central, aligned, significant role to play as we take our well-established partnership forward.”

Cllr Pete Edwards, Leader of Exeter City said: “Every weekday 37,000 people commute into Exeter and 11,000 people head out of Exeter. These volumes are second only to Cambridge and it is imperative that we address housing, transport and infrastructure in a joined-up way to respond to this reality.”

Cllr Clive Eginton, Leader of Mid Devon, said: “This is an excellent opportunity to reflect on how our residents and businesses live their lives across council administrative boundaries and to start embedding our shared aspiration for a successful future in plans for the Greater Exeter area.”

Cllr John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council, said: “The emerging relationship between the four local authorities in preparing a single Strategic Plan for the area is a very positive step and will help the planning system to work efficiently to boost the supply of housing and growth required. We are pleased and well-placed to be part of this collaborative way of working, which will improve and streamline our planning system.”

However the plans have raised fears that councils are “sleepwalking” into becoming unitary authorities. Liberal Councillor Jenny Roach who represents Silverton expressed fears that Mid Devon District Council would be ceding powers.

She said: “We’re looking like we could be ceding power to this planning partnership, and I know people will shake their heads and say no, but there are several points which worry me.

“Exeter needs land and you can imagine where I sit in my ward, Exeter City Council could be looking at developing the swathe of land that is between Silverton and Exeter and similarly between Thorverton and Newton St Cyres. If you look at the East Devon side there are huge estates marching across that land, so this worries me.

“It worries me that it’s being done by degree and almost by stealth. When we went to the public to talk about the sort of governance the district wanted, they didn’t like the cabinet, but unfortunately we didn’t get the 3000 signatures we needed in that period of time.

“There are a tremendous amount of people who were not happy with the governance of this authority as it is now, they don’t like the cabinet system, and it is the cabinet system that is sleepwalking us into a unitary authority. I’ve seen this happen before and I would really like to know that the very least we would do is have a state of the district debate on this Greater Strategic Exeter Plan.”

An online consultation form can be found at http://www.gesp.org.uk/issues”

http://www.devonlive.com/greater-exeter-plan-could-lead-to-a-new-cranbrook/story-30209261-detail/story.html