Swire for May, Parish for Leadsom – strict nanny v naughty nanny

Remainer Swire votes for Remainer May but says she is “monochrome” and is he supports her because she is not privileged.

Remainer Parish, the animal rights supporter, votes for Brexiter Leadsom who wants to bring back fox hunting.

source: http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/tory-devon-mps-split-as-swire-backs-may-and-parish-backs-leadsom/story-29488578-detail/story.html

So, Swire backs strict nanny,the vicar’s daughter who has published her tax returns when he says MPs tax returns(ie his) are no-one else’s business, whereas Parish backs naughty nanny (who refuses to publish her tax returns, was bankrolled by her hedge fund brother-in-law and had the rather elaborate cv that was later amended).

And East Devon Tories have to choose one or the other.

It just gets stranger and stranger.

All we need now is Corbyn to defect to the Tories.

EDDC draft villages plan – broken link in Cabinet agenda

Note that in the agenda for the next cabinet the draft plan for villages, which must be added to the Local Plan cannot be accessed from the link provided.

Nor can the pdf link be accessed from the page which takes you straight back to the agenda in a circular link.

There are some details about the results of consultations here:

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/villages-plan/villages-plan-2016-consultation/

but it is suggested that each village checks what is being put before the Cabinet as it is not clear if each document is a summary of consultations or a recommendation – it simply labels documents “analysis”.

The villages involved are:

Beer
Broadclyst
Clyst St Mary
Colyton
East Budleigh
Feniton
Kilmington
Musbury
Newton Poppleford
Sidbury
Uplyme
West Hill
Whimple
Woodbury

Philip Skinner now Chairman of Exmouth Regeneration Board – we await his Christmas card …

See page 36:

RESOLVED; that Councillor Phillip Skinner be elected Chairman of the Board for the ensuing year.

Click to access cabinet130716combinedagenda.pdf

Councillor Skinner is probably best remembered for “Christmas card gate” when he was fired from his post as EDDC’s rural ” champion” during the reign of former EDDC Leader Chairman Sarah Randall-Johnson for sending her an inappropriate greeting:

CONSERVATIVE councillor has been stripped of his role as rural champion after off-the-cuff remarks in a Christmas card offended the leader of a Devon authority.

Philip Skinner, who represents Talaton, near Ottery St Mary, sent the card to Sara Randall Johnson, leader of East Devon District Council and headed it “My greatest adversary”. Mr Skinner heaped praise on her at the expense of other members, boasting: “The rest I can demolish in my sleep, but you are in a class of your own.”

Mr Skinner signed off with two footnotes, the last of which stated: “If only things had turned out different, we’d have made one hell of a team.”

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/tory-councillor-loses-role-greetings-card/story-11721863-detail/story.html

Unfortunately, we are not told what the first footnote was.

In the words of Tim Wannacott of Bargain Hunt: “Are you in charge of the sale today Philip? If so, we are in safe hands”.

Cabinet to rubber-stamp devolution deal with no consultation with members or public

“Heart of the South West Formal Devolution Bid (pages 52-56)

This report seeks approval to sign up ‘in principle’ to the pursuit of a Devolution Deal and the creation of a Combined Authority for the Heart of the South West sub- region to administer the powers devolved through the Deal. An ‘in principle’ agreement from all of the authorities, partners and MPs involved in the Heart of the South West devolution process will open up negotiations with Treasury to work towards a deal.”

Click to access cabinet130716combinedagenda.pdf

So, we got our “sovereignty” back …

“Education Secretary Nicky Morgan is to force through the appointment of her nomination for the next head of Ofsted, despite a cross-party committee of MPs saying they had “significant concerns”.

The Education Select Committee, scrutinising the appointment, rejected the choice of Amanda Spielman.

But Mrs Morgan is to override their finding and press ahead with her selection for the independent watchdog.

Mrs Morgan said Ms Spielman “will not shy away from challenging government”.
The education secretary said she was “disappointed that the committee underestimated Amanda’s vision, focus and leadership style. Her objectivity and openness are important strengths”.

Mrs Morgan said she was “100% confident” in her decision – and that “I am not seeking what one committee member described as a ‘crusader’.” …

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36737123

What happens when you put Oliver Letwin in charge of Brexit policy

“Reassuringly, the man in charge of the government’s ‘Brexit unit’ is the go-to guy for not having a clue.

People have always called David Cameron a pragmatist, but the morning after the referendum he must have become a nihilist. Nothing else can explain the appointment of Oliver Letwin to lead the United Kingdom government’s Brexit unit. A prime minister who basically won an election by holding up Liam Byrne’s “I’m afraid there is no money” note has effectively dumped Oliver Letwin on to his successor’s desk – in all senses of that verb. I’m afraid there is no plan. I’m afraid there is Oliver Letwin.

Oliver Letwin! And come to that: unit! “Unit” implies a crack squad, an elite fighting force, a sort of A-Team meets Delta Force outfit whose moral grey areas are a trade-off with the extreme effectiveness best distilled in the famous Jack Nicholson speech in A Few Good Men. Deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want that unit on the wall. You need that unit on the wall.

Instead, you’ve got Oliver Letwin. To fully absorb the fact Oliver Letwin is our guy at the sharp end of Brexit planning is to realise that even as the pound was nose-diving that first morning, we hadn’t reached rock bottom. There was a very deep concealed basement, into which we are only now beginning our journey.

Our tour guide is Oliver Letwin, a man whose chief claim to fame was once being the victim of one of those idiosyncratic Tory burglaries (see also Liam Fox). You know the sort of thing: when you let two strange men into your house at 5am in your pyjamas because they ask to use the loo, only to find – in a development that could only have been predicted by a computer the size of Los Alamos – that they nick your wallet. Or at least, that was Letwin’s chief claim to fame until last year’s declassification of a 1985 report he wrote for Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the Broadwater Farm riot, in which he suggested that social malaise was down to “bad moral attitudes” among black people, who would only re-route regeneration funding into the “disco and drug trade”. (He apologised when this came to light 30 years later.) …

… What’s the plan? “I’m trying to give you the truth,” Letwin twinkled terrifyingly, “which is that I have a completely open mind.” “Which is that you haven’t a clue.” Well of course he hasn’t. Oliver Letwin is your go-to guy if you want someone not to have a clue about something. In 2003, he pledged that a Tory government would automatically deport all asylum seekers to a foreign island “far, far away”. Where? He conceded he did not have “the slightest idea”. He is one remove beyond even Captain Hindsight, the South Park superhero whose speciality is showing up to disaster scenes and explaining what could have been done to avert them. Letwin is Captain I-Haven’t-the-Slightest-Idea. That’s the guy running the Brexit situation room.

“Why was there no mention of Brexit in the national security strategy?” wondered Blunt. “Because,” reasoned Letwin wholly unreasonably, “the government’s firm intent was to remain part of the EU.” And yet, for a government whose firm intent is not to be involved in a nuclear war, it sure has a lot of nuclear weapons. Perhaps it wishes to move to a situation where we wait to be hit by an intercontinental ballistic missile, then appoint Oliver to scratch around for some kind of plan for how to build a nuclear deterrent from the ashes. After all, the ever-upwardly-failing Letwin may be surely added to the list of things that would survive a nuclear holocaust.”

http://gu.com/p/4z3nh

Cranbrook – “Virtual Town Council Consultation Group”

“VIRTUAL TOWN COUNCIL CONSULTATION GROUP

Do you have something to say, but don’t have the time to attend meetings?

Do you have ideas about how to improve Cranbrook?

Do you have ideas about how you would like to see services provided, changed or improved? …

Then join our Virtual Town Council Consultation Group – which we are setting up in response to residents who have indicated that they would like to be involved in the future of the town but are unable to attend meetings or are unable to become a councillor.

As a member of the Virtual Group we will send you emails asking you for your opinions on a range of topics which will help us and partner organisations make decisions. You decide how often and when you would like to answer.
By becoming a member you will help the Town Council to provide an accessible and responsive service and you will be amongst the first to hear about news and updates.”

If you want to be part of this exciting initiative please email us at clerk@cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjO-2O5Hmj8

But no mention of what happens when the “Virtual Consultation Group” overwhelmingly disagrees with the councillors!

The danger of whipping

Nathalie Bennett on the Chilcot Report:

“The government should immediately announce that all future military interventions will have unwhipped votes in the House of Commons. We must never again see MPs being cajoled into voting along party lines when their conscience tells them otherwise.”

Bovis and Seaton affordable housing – a long and winding road

Below is a report of the original discussion EDDC had in July 2013 about affordable housing on the (then) Tesco site. It should be notec that, though “overage” was discussed and apparently agreed at this meeting, the requirement was subsequently dropped, though no explanation was given for this:

“… Tesco has petitioned for the removal of all the affordable housing on its site to make it more saleable, as it has many problems associated with the infilling of the site which mean that only certain types of houses can be built and fewer of them.

“What I say below is a personal opinion only and reflects my layperson understanding of the debate.

The DMC heard from myself [Sandra Semple] and Paul Arnott: there were no representatives of the town council in attendance. District Councillor Peter Burrows was in attendance earlier in the day as a member of the DMC but left before this item. District Councillor Steph Jones appeared in her capacity as Deputy Portfolio Holder for Housing.

Members of the committee appeared strongly of the view that Tesco was going a step too far. They particularly disliked the comment from the company’s agent that if EDDC did not agree to what they wanted, they would appeal. Some thought this was unacceptable pressure. One member of the committee noted that no affordable housing has been built in Seaton for many, many years and if this reduction was allowed other developers in the town would think they should have the same treatment.

Mr Freeman (I forget what title he has these days) pointed out that there was a mistake in calculations in the documentation (not sure whose fault) and that whereas it had been stated that the company might sustain a loss of over £2 million if affordable housing were included, the real amount on the figures provided was more like £750,000.

It was suggested that this application was a good candidate for EDDC’s new policy of “overage” and here I get a little fuzzy about what they mean – and to be fair so did some of the members of the committee. However, what it appears (to me) to be is that yes, Tesco will be allowed to take out the affordable housing BUT EDDC will put in place an overage clause which says that when the potential loss has been recovered (i.e. after the £750,000 loss has been taken into account – or whatever the correct figure is) then EDDC will take a percentage of the profit thereafter. This means, as I understand it, that, say, Tesco sells the site for £5 million, then they ignore the first £750,000 and the remaining profit is then split between EDDC and Tesco. The EDDC lawyer in attendance could not remember what the percentages agreed were but I have looked it up and the default allowed in the new policy is 50% each but EDDC has the option to increase this percentage if it sees paperwork which shows that the profit could be extremely high.

This only applies to the current planning application. If the site is still vacant when the current planning application runs out then everything has to be renegotiated including the S106 agreements and percentage of affordable housing.

Throughout the afternoon several members of the committee (perhaps with an eye to the next election) said that the economic climate was improving and that this meant that Tesco has less to worry about.

https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/seaton-eddc-votes-to-share-the-profits-with-tesco-but-no-affordable-housing-on-the-site/

The legal requirements of consultation … watch out, EDDC!

“Clearly in austerity times the moment of reckoning approaches where traditional well tried strategies and tactics of keeping posts vacant, business process/organisation design, efficiencies, productivity improvement, mergers and outsourcing will not alone balance the budget and services will need to be rationed or cut entirely.

Furthermore take it as read if you are cutting a service that will have a detrimental effect on a current service user, it cannot be done without consulting those affected.

At the same time understandably your clients [written for lawyers dealing with local authorities] may be tempted to carry out a low-profile consultation for a number of reasons, not least the cost and fear of agitation of organised and political objections.

Well that’s local government.

[The paper goes on to set out current case law on consultation]

… what does this mean in a nutshell? It means that where there is a duty to consult going through the motions will not do. If there is a prescribed method such as set out in the primary or secondary legislation or by a code it must be followed and at the stage where the consultation feedback can be taken into account in the final decision making. Furthermore the case made clear that while there is no general common law duty to consult persons who may be affected by a measure before it is adopted an obligation to consult may arise because of the common law duty of fairness.

This year (February 2016) the Cabinet Office published guidelines on consultation. These are to be treated as expectations for local government too.

What this now means for consultation

The Courts have made a restatement as to who should be consulted and on what basis for consultation. This is of general application for all consultation. The key message is that consultations must be carried out fairly.

This can be summarised as Who, How, When, What and an Evidence Based Analysis:

1. Who do you consult? – In broad terms it is to let those who have a potential interest in the subject. In terms of who must be consulted the demands of fairness are expected to be somewhat higher when an authority contemplates depriving someone of an existing benefit or advantage than when the claimant is a bare applicant for a future benefit.

2. How? – So if a person is likely to lose something or be worse off, then they should be specifically identified and consulted. In Haringey all those affected were written to and the letters were hand delivered. This is considered to be sound practice. So if you know that an individual or household will be adversely affected an attempt must be made to contact them by preferably personal calling and hand delivered letters or by phone call and this be re-enforced by press releases and street and notice poster media.

Twitter “tweets” or council web pages augmented with Survey Monkey are not good enough on their own. If there are partners involved in the services such as health authorities or the third sector, get them involved and seek their view on the consultation and its message even if they may one day turn out to be objectors better you are on cordial or respectful terms with them.

3. When do you consult? – So when should consultation take place? You have to do it with sufficient time to let people know what you are thinking of doing, telling them what your options are and giving them time to reflect upon it and give their views to you that you can take them into account so:
Firstly – consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage and give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit a person to in the court’s words “give an intelligent consideration and response”.

Secondly – adequate time must be given for consideration and response, and,

Finally – the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory required proposals. This should be evidenced by a briefing document presented to the decision making body

4. On what basis? – The purpose of a statutory duty to consult is to ensure public participation in the local authority’s decision-making process. In order for the consultation to achieve that objective, it must fulfil certain minimum requirements.

Meaningful public participation in the decision-making process, in a context with which the general public cannot be expected to be familiar, requires that the consultees should be provided not only with information about proposals such as a draft scheme or policy, but also with an outline of the realistic alternatives, and an indication of the main reasons for the authority’s adoption of its preferred option.

The courts say that there is an obligation to let consultees know, “what the proposal is and exactly why it is under positive consideration”, and telling them enough (which may be a good deal) to enable them to make an intelligent response”.

5. An Evidence Based Analysis – Consultation will only be of use if the data collected from the consultation is properly handled and objectively managed.

This means there must be a sound methodology for data collection, processing and analysis. Responses must be clearly presented and not cherry picked so as to support a particular preferred approach.

This means the findings of a consultation are backed by evidence and where assumptions are made reasons for doing so are identified such as for example statistics supplied by other accredited organisations such as Government sources.

Consultation plans

What does this mean for services particularly in the context of austerity?

The key message is that the quantity and quality of information may need to be re-examined. Thus any strategy or policy likely to have an impact on the community needs to be founded on proper consultation. This is best done by drawing up a consultation plan.

Methodology of qualitative and quantitative collection handling and analysis needs to be stated. While judges are not expecting a full scale committee report to be sent to the public at large, effective consultation plans will need to have anyone likely to be affected specifically identified and targeted to receive information on the subject matter of the consultation and a strategy worked up on how they can be enabled to take part. …

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27528%3Aconsultation-in-austerity-2016-a-practical-guide&catid=59&Itemid=27

Development Management Committee defers Bovis Seaton affordables decision to study viability figures

East Devon’s Development Management Committee has refused to approve an application from Bovis to build extra houses on the Tesco regeneration site at Harbour Road. It decided instead to bring the matter back to its next meeting to look more closely at the viability assessment for Affordable Housing.

Members were surprised when officers said that they were free to look at the viability assessment, although it will not be made publicly available.

This setback for the developers came after the DMC’s chairman, David Keys, and the Council’s Development Officer, Ed Freeman, recommended approval of an extension of the ‘zero relaxation’ for affordable housing (which means NONE at all in the huge project) in March, without bringing the matter to the Committee or informing the town council of the application.

However, it transpires that Bovis had already applied for extra houses on the site, and said no affordable housing should be included because the scheme overall was still £6 million in the red.

But as Seaton ward member Jim Knight asked the DMC, why would they be building these additional houses if the site was not profitable?

The issue came to DMC only because of the persistence of Seaton Town Council, supported on the DMC by Councillor Peter Burrows who insisted that the matter be on the DMC agenda.

The Chair of Seaton’s planning committee, Martin Shaw, argued that the viability assessment for the new application, which linked it to the viability of the scheme as a whole, was flawed because it did not take account of the improved density of the development. He questioned whether the District Valuer had been fully informed when he signed off the viability assessment.

DMC members on all sides expressed concern. Independent leader, Ben Ingham, said that for a long time Seaton had not had enough new housing, but now that it was coming on stream, Seaton people could not afford to buy the houses being built.

Conservative councillor Simon Grundy said ‘We need to stop being treated like children over this matter. The Town council seem to have got a lot closer on this than we did.’

Local Enterprise Partnership scrutiny: Owl says “I told you”!

From Conclusions and Recommendations of Public Accounts Committee Report on Cities and Local Growth:

9. It is alarming that LEPs are not meeting basic standards of governance and transparency, such as disclosing conflicts of interest to the public.

LEPs are led by the private sector, and stakeholders have raised concerns that they are dominated by vested interests that do not properly represent their business communities.

There is a disconnect between decisions being made by local business leaders and accountability working via local authorities. It is therefore crucial that LEPs demonstrate a high standard of governance and transparency over decision making, at least equal to the minimum standards set out by government in the assurance framework.

It is of great concern that many LEPs appear not be meeting these minimum standards. The scale of LEP activity and the sums involved necessitate that LEPs and central government be pro-active in assuring the public that decisions are made with complete probity.

The fact that 42% of LEPs do not publish a register of interests is clearly a risk to ensuring that decisions are made free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

The varying presentation and detail of financial information across LEPs also makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions or make comparisons across LEPs on how they spend public money.

Recommendation: The Department should enforce the existing standards of transparency, governance and scrutiny before allocating future funding to LEPs. LEPs themselves also need to be more transparent to the public by, for example, publishing financial information.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubacc/296/29605.htm

“exmouth shows opposition to big seafront development”

The strength of feeling among those against the large scale development of Exmouth seafront was apparent when more than 200 people packed All Saint’s Church Hall in the town for a public meeting.

Organised by Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) the aim was to update residents and seafront users on the group’s actions and enable questions to be asked.

People put forward many relevant and knowledgeable arguments to support their thoughts and feelings, and expressed particular frustration that EDDC have continued to fail to engage with residents.`

Laura Freeman, an Exmouth resident who attended the meeting said “The fact that so many people came to SES’s public meeting shows that people do want to do something to force East Devon District Council to reconsider their plans to develop on Queen’s Drive, they just aren’t really sure how they can achieve that, but meetings like this are great for people to feel connected and share ideas”.

SES spokesperson Louise MacAllister would like to thank all who gave up a sunny Saturday afternoon to attend and contribute to the meeting, especially those who had to stand throughout.

Members of the public who were unable to attend the meeting are welcome to contact SES by email: exmouthsplashdiscussion@gmail.com.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exmouth-shows-opposition-to-big-seafront-development/story-29476988-detail/story.html

Public Accounts Committee sees BIG problems with devolution scrutiny

FINALLY MPs WAKE UP TO MAJOR FLAWS IN DEVOLUTION PLANS! BUT IS IT TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?

MPs on the Public Accounts Committee have stated they have little confidence in scrutiny arrangements being put in place around the government’s flagship devolution deals, and called for these to be improved in order to protect taxpayers’ interests.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee published on 1 July, warned that, following the abolition of the Audit Commission, the existing arrangements for local scrutiny of devolved functions must be made more robust.

Examining devolution agreements in 10 areas – Greater Manchester, Cornwall, Sheffield City Region, the North East, Tees Valley, Liverpool City Region, the West Midlands, East Anglia, Greater Lincolnshire, and the West of England – the PAC said local authority scrutiny was constrained.

The devolution deals for these areas, while all bespoke, share a number of elements, including devolved responsibilities in areas of local transport, business support and further education.

Committee chair Meg Hillier said English devolution represented a big change to the way large sums of taxpayers’ money is spent. “It is therefore alarming to report that, as we hurtle towards mayoral elections planned for next year [in these combined authority areas], so many questions still hang over the process,” she added.

“Parliament and the public must be assured that devolved spending is subject to effective scrutiny and there are clear lines of accountability for delivering value for money. “These vital arrangements are still very much work-in-progress and must be confirmed as a matter of urgency.”

The committee recommended that government should set out by November how it intends to ensure local scrutiny of devolved functions and funding will be well supported.

The Cities and Local Growth report highlighted that, currently, local auditors focus on individual bodies’ financial statements and arrangements for securing value for money.

“It is not yet clear whether there will be any sort of independent institutional scrutiny of devolution deals as a whole, or what form this might take,” it stated. “As more powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved to the local level, we are therefore concerned that a gap in the scrutiny of value for money might be appearing.”

The report, which the committee acknowledged was being carried out in an evolving policy context, highlighted this was an untested policy area. There were already clear tensions emerging in the deals, with evidence that some deals may disintegrate. There should be greater clarity from ministers about what they are hoping to achieve, Hillier added.

“The government has set an ambitious timetable to implement devolution deals but it must not skip over crucial details in a blinkered race to the tape. “The interests of taxpayers are paramount and we urge the government to act on our recommendations now to ensure devolution fully serves those interests.”

A DCLG spokesman said the report “misses the point of devolution, which is to end the one-size-fits-all approaches of the past and hand power from Whitehall to local people who know their areas best”.

He added: “We’ve agreed 10 landmark devolution deals covering nearly 30% of the country, with local leaders accountable to their residents including through the election of mayors to oversee the new powers.

“This is a voluntary, bottom-up process based on local proposals demonstrating strong local agreement and clear accountability.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/07/pac-raises-doubts-about-devolution-scrutiny

Osborne has a 5 point plan …

Chancellor George Osborne has come up with one [plan] and his also has five points [see Johnson, Boris], key among them a proposal to cut corporation tax to below 15% – the lowest of any major economy – to encourage businesses to invest in post-Brexit Britain. The others, as revealed in an interview with the Financial Times, are:

Ensuring support for bank lending.

A push for more investment in China.

A focus on delivering the Northern Powerhouse.

Maintaining Britain’s fiscal credibility.

No word from the chancellor on the brightness of the future, though he does urge everyone to stop “moping around”.

Source: Guardian Live blog

If that’s the plan, where does it place devolution outside the “Northern Powerhouse”?

And did he mean investment IN China or FROM China?

Whatever, our LEP members – all hit hard by Brexit implications in their individual sectors (nuclear, arms dealing, housing development and universities) – must surely be taking time out from their LEP duties to spend more time with their own businesses, now in dire need of their expertise.

Torbay council Scrutiny Committee being blocked from seeing report on cuts

Bet they don’t get to see devolution reports either!

How similar to East Devon.

“ANGRY councillors who say ‘the future of Torbay council is at stake’ claim they are being blocked from seeing a vital new report.

A row erupted over the timescale of the efficiency plan which will give details of cutbacks and savings, enabling the council to receive the next four years’ funding from central government.

The overview and scrutiny committee demanded mayor Gordon Oliver keeps them updated with the detailed efficiency plan after hearing they would not have sight of it until eight days before final decisions are made.

The council is required to have an efficiency plan in place by September 2016, to receive a four-year revenue support grant settlement from the Department for Communities and Local Government. It has to published and sent to DCLG by October 14.

However, the overview and scrutiny committee were angry when they were told they would have just eight days to scrutinise the plan before making recommendations to full council.

Cllr Chris Lewis said: “The future of Torbay Council is at stake. We are making lots of cuts and we should have started this work months ago. How can we have just eight days to look at it?”

Mayor Oliver told the committee: “We have spent months working on this. Officers have been left to make their judgement as to how to balance the books correctly.”

However, the report would not be ready before July.

Then, before the full report can be shared by councillors, it would have to go to the mayor’s executive group in August, before coming to overview and scrutiny eight days before full council has to vote on it.

But councillors are asking for the report to be ‘drip-fed’ to them to enable them to scrutinise the details of cutbacks.

Cllr Alan Tyerman said: “We are going around in circles here. After the August meeting it needs to come to overview and scrutiny as soon as it can so we can understand what is in the plan. I feel we are getting muddled here, but we need to know what is in the plan. We have to have involvement in this vital piece of work. If we only have sight of it at the last minute it won’t work.”

Torbay Council chief executive Steve Parrock said there were 42 pieces of work involved.

But, Cllr Nick Bye replied: “It feels like there is some political blockage in sharing this important work.

“It is going to be a pile of poo anyway, but the danger is we won’t be allowed to have an impact.” Cllr Bye felt there was a political reason why councillors were being blocked, but mayor Oliver said: “There is no Agatha Christie plot here I am aware of.”

The committee unanimously voted information be shared to them as early as possible on elements of the plans which are non-controversial. And that as soon as it is complete and gone to the mayor’s executive group, it be shared with them formally.

http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/councillors-anger-over-time-span-to-study-vital-new-report/story-29452846-detail/story.html

Leadsom, Remainer in 2013 does not rule out working with Farage

This is what Andrea Leadsom, leading Brexiter and Tory candidate for PM (backed by our MP Neil Parish) said about the EU in 2013 and her current ideas:

” … Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom has refused to rule out giving Nigel Farage a position on the government’s EU negotiating team if she becomes Prime Minister.

The admission comes despite the Ukip leader drawing boos and shouts of rage from MEPs in his ‘victory’ speech last week as he declared many of them had never had a proper job.

Asked if she’d appoint Mr garage to help lead Brexit negotiations, Ms Leadsom – who has painted herself as the heir to Margaret Thatcher – said: “I don’t want to get into who would do what.” …

… ,Ms Leadsom was forced to confront claims of hypocrisy today after a tape emerged of her saying Brexit would be a “disaster”.

She said in 2013: “I’m going to nail my colours to the mast here: I don’t think the UK should leave the EU.

“I think it would be a disaster for our economy and it would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates of global success are moving.

Like the rise and fall of the Roman and Greek empires, we are seeing the rise of the Asian or South American economies at a time when our own future is less certain.

“And to be honest, economic success is the vital underpinning of every happy nation. The wellbeing we all crave goes hand in hand with economic success.”

Asked to respond to the remarks, Ms Leadsom told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show: “It’s been a journey”. …”

She also did not rule out employing Nigel Farage, or possibly offering him a knighthood if she gets the power to do so.

Source: Andrew Marr Show, 3 July 2016

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/no10-hopeful-andrea-leadsom-refuses-8338756

As Mr Parish has also changed his mind about Brexit a couple of times, one can perhaps understand why she is so attractive a candidate to him.

5 independent MPs hold the balance of power in Australian general election

Who said independent MPs can’t influence government?

“Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten have begun courting the five lower house independents who will be kingmakers if the 2016 election delivers another hung parliament, although the prime minister insists he is “quietly confident” of a narrow majority after postal votes are counted.

After suffering an unexpected nationwide 3.4% swing and losing 11 seats to Labor, with at least six more in doubt, Turnbull has begun contingency planning for the minority government he has long argued would be chaotic and disastrous for the nation.

While he insisted he was “quietly confident” of a majority Coalition government, the prime minister – in a sharp contrast to his election campaign warnings about the dangers of a vote for minor parties – emerged on Sunday afternoon to promise to “work constructively” with the crossbench to deliver a stable government “without division or rancour”.”

http://gu.com/p/4nj7c

Hold your breath in Sidford, the HGVs are coming

Imagine the increase in particulate discharge, particularly its effect on the health of the children of the village.and the integrity of the structure of those beautiful old houses on the route, most built with shallow foundations. And in a flood-prone area of an AONB. Wouldn’t happen in the Blackdown Hills!

“Campaigners have branded Sidford and Sidbury’s ‘bottleneck’ roads ‘too narrow’ to handle the increased transit of lorries.

Councillor Marianne Rixson said traffic is predicted to increase by a third along ‘pinch point’ roads if plans for a business park in Sidford go ahead.

She said the roads are already congested – particularly School Street, near Sidbury Mill and through Sidbury – and branded claims that the site ‘is well served by highway access’ as misleading.

Cllr Rixson, who represents the Sidmouth-Sidford ward on East Devon District Council, said: “The roads are too narrow yet they are predicting a 32 per cent increase in traffic through School Street if the development is approved – Sidbury, too, has various ‘pinch points’ where two vehicles cannot pass.” She added that there needed to be a ‘duty of care’ to pedestrians on roads where there are no pavements.

And with HGVs nearly three metres wide, Cllr Rixson fears two lorries could not pass each other in School Street – which is just 4.8 metres wide.

She said: “The A375 is an upgraded B road and is essentially still a B road. Already lorries drive on the pavement in School Street and, in Sidbury, there are stretches where there are no pavements at all.”

Devon County Council’s highways team is being consulted on the application and said it is considering its response.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/in-the-press/20160702/sidmouth-herald-hgv-increase-issue-on-narrow-roads/