Category Archives: Accountability

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hinkley C, Transparency

Hinkley C: experts say public has right to facts

“We strongly agree with Dr David Lowry’s well-reasoned criticism of the information commissioner who has refused public interest access to information on key EDF and DECC nuclear waste contracts (Report, 31 May).

There is no justifiable reason for the information commissioner, EDF or the DECC to keep secret these key facts from the people of the UK and north Somerset in particular.

In doing so, the commissioner has put EDF’s narrow commercial interests before the interest of the health and safety of the community. There is a key public interest in all of us knowing exactly the economic case for how or if radioactive waste from the proposed reactors at Hinkley Point C may be dealt with.”

Dr Paul Dorfman Founder, Nuclear Consulting Group, The Energy Institute, UCL
JRCT Nuclear policy research fellow
Dr Carl Iwan Clowes
Prof David Elliott
Emeritus professor of technology policy, The Open University
Dr Phil Johnstone
Research fellow, Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex
Jeremy Leggett
Founder and chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid, Author of The Carbon War and Half Gone
Jonathon Porritt
Founder, director and trustee, Forum for the Future, Co-director of the Prince of Wales’s business & sustainability programme
Pete Roche
Editor, No2NuclearPower, Policy adviser to the Nuclear Free Local Authorities
Prof Andy Stirling
Director of Science for SPRU, Co-director Centre on Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability, University of Sussex

http://gu.com/p/4k63q

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Voting

Who is most important to a Mayor – developers or voters

Sour grapes from Tudor Evans, former Labour Leader and Mayor of Plymouth City Council, who is still in the largest party but outnumbered by all the others:

“So what am I concerned about with this brave new mixture of Farageistas, Cameronites and the Borisistas?

Their manifesto, comprised of 17 things for a two-year programme, lacks any ambition for the city; the document is all about keeping the fragile coalition together.

For example, a central plank of the manifesto is scrapping the executive government of the city and reverting to a committee system.

This would be a disaster for Plymouth which has seen its planning and economic development functions become the most fleet-of-foot and entrepreneurial of any city in the country.

Developers are now used to, and enjoy, the speed of decision making, and certainty that they have been getting and that’s why our investment pipeline is so big.”

Article in Labour Progress magazine

He then goes on to bemoan the committee system in general and a new policy of turning off traffic lights in the city – and absolutely no mention of the voters of the city.

Could be why you lost, Tudor, putting developers first – just a thought.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Transparency

Whistle-blowers too scared to be identified

The UK government should do more to promote a “pro-whistleblower” culture across all departments, the Public Accounts Committee said, as new data reveals the vast majority of whistleblowers choose to come forward anonymously.

A report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warned that “shoddy treatment” experienced by staff who have come forward with allegations of wrongdoing may deter other employees from speaking out.

“Whistleblowers are on the frontline of defense against wrongdoing and bad practice,” PAC chair Meg Hillier said.

“They have a vital role to play in the day-to-day accountability of public spending and public service. This should be recognized by and enshrined in the culture of every government department. Where it isn’t, senior officials in those departments should be held properly to account.”

In response to the PAC report, the Cabinet Office has started collecting data on whistleblowing cases across departments.

The first batch of data showed more than half of the 68 reported cases between April and September of 2015 were made anonymously.

“At this stage, a common theme emerging is that the majority of complaints were made anonymously,” the Cabinet Office said.

Fourteen of the government’s 32 departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), reported cases of whistleblowing over the period.

The Cabinet Office said the findings indicate most officials do not “have the confidence in their departments to deal with their case appropriately.”

In light of the findings, the Cabinet Office urged departments to “provide assurance to employees to enable them to raise their concerns openly.”

However, the office acknowledged the project was a work in progress and that they would need to continue to collect further data sets.

“This is the first time whistleblowing data has been collated centrally and there are wide variations in the data being reported,” the Cabinet Office said.

“A well-evidenced assessment of systemic issues or concerns will take time to emerge, and will be possible once multiple data sets are available.”

https://www.rt.com/uk/345091-civil-service-whistleblowers-rights/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Electoral Commission, General Election, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Election expenses scandal – latest update from Channel 4

“… The new revelations come as the Conservative Party take the unprecedented step of trying to oppose a court extension to the police investigation into whether it correctly declared the money they spent in South Thanet. That hearing itself was in a closed court session not open to the public or press.

The Conservative Party bought in James Laddie QC, one of the country’s top lawyers, to attend the closed session at Folkestone Magistrates Court on Tuesday May 24. …

… News
Channel 4 News understands that there are 18 police forces up and down the country that have been given or are seeking an extension to the time limit relating to election expenses.

The Conservative party is currently only attempting to block in South Thanet an extension to the legal time limit that the local police force has to investigate election returns.

Today, new evidence obtained by Channel 4 News reveals that an important battlebus visit on election day to South Thanet, up to a dozen promotional videos made for the local candidate, and a conference room used by a minister to campaign on local issues for the candidate appear to have never been declared.

Get caught up – and read the full story of Election Expenses Exposed here.
The Conservative Party told Channel 4 News: “The Party always took the view that our national Battlebus, a highly-publicised campaign activity, was part of the National Return, and declared it as such. All spending has been correctly recorded in accordance with the law.”

Beat Farage
In the South Thanet contest, UKIP Nigel Farage was defeated by the now Conservative MP Craig Mackinley – by 2,800 votes. He was assisted by tens of thousands of pounds of spending that appears to have been used to help local campaigning – enough to take him beyond the £15,000 cap.

The new revelations come as the Conservative Party take the unprecedented step of trying to oppose a court extension to the police investigation into whether it correctly declared the money they spent in South Thanet. That hearing itself was in a closed court session not open to the public or press.

The Conservative Party bought in James Laddie QC, one of the country’s top lawyers, to attend the closed session at Folkestone Magistrates Court on Tuesday May 24.

Battlebus – final stop
Channel 4 News understands that on 7 May – election day itself – was the biggest campaigning day for the Mackinlay campaign. Staff and activists on the bus appear to have taken part in local campaigning to get out the vote for Craig Mackinlay. He tweeted: “Thanks to @MrMark Clarke and his @roadtrip2015 #battlebus2015 — 60 people on the way to lead charge in #SouthThanet.”

We can reveal that none of the £400 costs incurred by this Battlebus visit appear to have been declared.

Team 2015
Channel 4 News has also obtained evidence of repeated visits by bus loads of Team 2015 activists who appear to have campaigned for Craig Mackinlay MP. These include visits on 4 April, 9 April, April 11 and 12, and 26 April.

We have obtained video footage of the Team 2015 visit on 9 April which shows the then-party’s chairman Grant Shapps encouraging the activists to campaign for the local candidate Craig Mackinlay, who thanks the activists for supporting him.

None of the costs incurred on these Team 2015 visits appear to be on Mr Mackinlay’s candidate spending return, despite clear guidance from the Electoral Commission that the costs of campaigning for the candidate must be declared by them in order to promote fairness.

Links to Conservative party headquarters
In the Broadstairs campaign office – the campaign schedule was photographed by Emily Ashton, from Buzzfeed.

It stated that on the 9 April, the Transport Minister John Hayes MP visited Manston Airport which was at the time considered a major local issue in South Thanet. It was not a matter considered to be of national significance.

Channel 4 News has obtained evidence that a conference room was booked at the airport Holiday Inn hotel for a Conservative Party event on April 9. The booking was made in the name of CCHQ staffer Marion Little OBE.

None of the costs associated with this event appear to have been declared in the South Thanet election spending return. Nor does it appear to have been declared nationally.

This appears to fit into a pattern of apparently undeclared spending involving senior figures at CCHQ that has been identified by Channel 4 News in previous investigations.

The Electoral Commission is already investigating three by-elections in 2014, which took place in a “regulated period” when all spending should have been declared.

In those by-elections and in South Thanet, Channel 4 News obtained hotel receipts in Newark, Clacton, Rochester totalling some 770 nights of accommodation which were booked under Marion Little’s name and home address.

We have also identified some £4,000 of bookings made by Ms Little at the Premier Inn in Margate.

The law says any money spent promoting the local candidate must be declared by the candidate and their agent on their local spending return. Failure to declare is a criminal offence.

The hearing on whether Kent Police will be given a time extension – already granted to 18 police forces up and down the country – is due to take place on Wednesday next week. …”

http://www.channel4.com/news/new-expenses-scandal-emerges-as-tories-fight-police-in-court

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Jun 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Battlebus-gate now Battlephone-gate!

“The Conservative election expenses scandal threatens to plunge the government into crisis, as police forces across the country investigate its candidates’ election spending. Now The Canary has uncovered exclusive new evidence that points to a fresh Conservative election scandal – one that has links right to the top of the party, and raises questions not just over election expenses, but also over whether the Conservatives broke other campaign laws that exist to ensure free and fair elections.

A whistleblower who worked for a telephone research agency hired by the Conservative party in the run-up to the 2015 general election has made several serious allegations. They have told The Canary they were instructed to deny links to the Conservatives when conducting telephone surveys of voters. They have said the questions they were instructed to ask were misleading, pushing answers in favour of the Conservative party. And, while the calls they made targeted voters in specific, marginal constituencies, The Canary has found evidence that the expenses were declared as national party spending – and some do not appear to have been declared at all.

If true, this evidence suggests that the Conservatives may have broken the law on election expenses, and a law that prohibits paying canvassers to support a candidate’s election may also have been breached.

We have also discovered that a separate polling company worked on “local campaigns” in key seats for the Conservatives, but that spending was also declared nationally rather than locally – again, potentially in breach of election expenses laws.”

A whistleblower exposes a major new allegation in the Tory election fraud scandal (EXCLUSIVE)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Feniton/ Talaton, Wainhomes

Wainhomes, Feniton: another second chance, and another and another …

Where and when do ” second chances” end? From a correspondent:

“You may recall the following item published some time ago:

https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/patience-wears-thin-as-another-breach-of-condition-notice-is-slapped-on-wainhomes/

Today the time allowed for some of the work to be done expires and yet, as expected by many of the villagers, nothing has even been started. The question is: will EDDC planning now actually throw the legal book at Wainhomes or, as I suspect, give them yet more time.

A heavy hand surely is now required since being ‘nice’ clearly doesn’t work.”

EDDC, heavy hand, developers – dream on!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Cornwall, Devolution

Cornwall Council: scrutiny, what scrutiny?

“An internal report, seen by the BBC, shows Cornwall Council has issued more than 500 contracts with a value of £145m without tendering them .” …

… An internal report seen by the BBC reveals that, since 2009, the authority has granted more than 500 so-called “exemptions” with a contract value in excess of £145m. There are strict rules on exempting contracts from tendering – and the document suggests these aren’t always being properly followed.

The council said that, ideally, it limited the use of exemptions and it recognised their use retrospectively should be avoided. It added it was taking steps to address this.”

BBC Devon Live website headlines today.

Doesn’t auger well for devolution scrutiny in The Dutchy!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Environment (local), Freedom of Information Act, Hinkley C, Transparency

Hinkley C: what happens to nuclear waste? We are not allowed to know

“A furious row has broken out after the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) refused to disclose the arrangement with EDF for dealing with radioactive waste at the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear plant.

The information commissioner’s office has turned down a freedom of information (FoI) request for state aid arrangements between the UK and the European commission to be made public.

The FoI complainant, David Lowry, has launched an appeal, claiming it is in the public interest for British citizens to be able to judge whether their government had made the right decision about the new reactors in Somerset.

Lowry, a British-based senior research fellow with the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in the US, said: “I do not believe the balance of judgment should be in favour of a foreign company, EDF Energy, who will potentially make huge multibillion-pound financial gain from the continued non-disclosure, and hence non scrutiny, over myself as a British tax and electricity bill payer.”

The government said that anyone building new reactors in Britain must manage and pay for the cost of handling waste products, unlike the existing situation where all radioactive materials are effectively dealt with through the public purse via the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

However, although the operator must agree to take responsibility for the spent fuel and other radioactive waste, the cost is expected to be passed on to the domestic electricity user through higher bills. …

… “If Hinkley is such a good deal, it should be no problem for the government to release the information to prove it. Their failure to do so leaves us to believe that their assumptions are correct – it’s a terrible deal for bill payers and they simply don’t know what to do with the nuclear waste.” …

http://gu.com/p/4jev8

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy

This is a long article about the democratic deficit in the United States, but its conclusion could be said to apply to us all:

” … It is time to start talking seriously again about a grassroots politics that aims to build a broad consensus, give priority to long-term face-to-face projects with physical communities offline, and recruit skillful and honest politicians to connect people to places where decisions are made – [Bernie] Sanders is one of them. We can use social media and the momentum built by his campaign for this, but the main goal should be to harness the unprecedented explosion of anger and hope into political actions that will bring tangible change in people’s lives.

We hear a lot about all kinds of experiments to address the democratic deficit in decision-making mechanisms – from direct action to digital democracy and more. But few talk about a more profound crisis: our lives are filled with alienation and isolation, our communities have been broken, and impersonal forms of social interaction are replacing personal ones. Meeting with other citizens outside our close circles is good for democracy. But we should be skeptical of impromptu mass gatherings and social media debates as the only places to make vital decisions that will affect our lives for years to come.

We need to develop democratic spaces that address common national and global challenges, but are grounded in local interactions and foster bonds among people in the physical world. New technologies can hugely improve our lives, but ultimately society is made of humans. The kind of human interactions we foster make all the difference in this world – and the next.”

https://www.opendemocracy.net/vito-laterza/democracy-after-sanders

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Top business people running our LEP … er, perhaps not!

Agusta Westland not doing too well according to this article. One of our Local Enterprise Partnership board members is Simon Barker, Business Director of Agusta Westland.

And no doubt, if the Government does mount a rescue package via a ” ministerial directive” for Agusta Westland, it will be via our Local Enterprise Partnership and Simon Barker ….

Westlands burnt by Boeing

thetimes.co.uk, May 29 2016

“American giant Boeing is set to win the contract to rebuild the army’s Apache helicopters, in a blow to Westlands in Somerset.

The defence secretary Michael Fallon is expected to rubber-stamp the £2bn contract ahead of the Farnborough air show in July. Britain’s Apache fleet was built in Yeovil by what was then AgustaWestland, under licence from Boeing, but 50 of the attack helicopters will be rebuilt by the American defence company in Arizona.

Westlands is understood also to have missed out on a contract to make gearboxes and blades for Apaches used by armed forces around the world. Negotiations are ongoing about giving the company support work on the British Apache revamp, but sources said that may require a ministerial direction from Fallon. The government is considering handing Westlands a contract to develop an unmanned military helicopter, in an effort to be seen to be keeping helicopter manufacturing alive in Britain.”

Easy to see what benefits our LEP brings to its board members (including Midas, see post yesterday) but not at all easy to see what is in it for the rest of us.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Local Enterprise Partnership, Somerset County Council, Transparency

John Osman – Councils lead on Local Enterprise Partnership

“One of John’s proudest achievements was being elected Leader of Somerset County Council in May 2012 and has made it his number one priority to listen and consult with residents on the future of the County.”

http://www.somersetconservatives.org.uk/person/councillor-john-osman

That’s your number one priority down the pan then, John, but, of course, that won’t worry you.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Chair of LEP – proud of a conflict of interest?

The staggering arrogance leaves Owl stunned (but not for long). Though, no doubt the Government, Mr Hindley and the LEP see no problem.

“The Millfields Trust’s state-of-the-art Genesis building received the Community Benefit award at the prestigious RICS South West Awards 2016 held at Cheltenham Racecourse. …

… The pioneering, ERDF and Heart of the South West LEP’s Growing Places funded building was designed to create employment and serve the local community in one of the most deprived areas of Plymouth. It comprises of flexible workspaces, meeting rooms, a full height internal atrium and Plymouth’s first living walls. …

… “Steve Hindley, Chair of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSW LEP) said: “Genesis is a great example of development that benefits the local environment as well as the community by providing much-needed employment space with and original and eye-catching architectural design. The project is an exemplar of the LEP’s Growing Places Fund, which is designed to unlock growth and create new jobs.

“As Chair of Midas – the contractor for the project – as well as being Chair of the LEP – which has the strategic mission to generate funding – I am doubly proud to be part of this new asset to Plymouth’s city-scape.”

http://www.midasgroup.co.uk/news/?id=658

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Electoral Commission, General Election, Voting

Calderdale Tory Association has accounts seized

The chair of the Calderdale Conservatives Association has resigned after growing internal controversy over its accounts being submitted to the Electoral Commission.

A sourced leaked the resignation emails to Political Scrapbook this morning.

In an email sent yesterday afternoon by Charles Moran, ex-chair of the CVCA, said he was resigning after a “breakdown in relations” with the MP and two officers of the Association.

But the main reason for his resignation seems to be launch of a criminal investigation into financial irregularities at the Association.

An email from Councillor Rob Holden, Deputy Chair of the Calder Valley Conservatives, leaked to Political Scrapbook, says that West Yorkshire police seized the accounts in connection with their enquiries.

West Yorkshire Police released a statement to Political Scrapbook this afternoon:

“Police in Calderdale have been made aware of an allegation of financial irregularity. A criminal investigation has now been launched to examine this allegation, and is its early stages.”

In a phone conversation with Political Scrapbook this afternoon, deputy chair cllr Rob Holden confirmed the resignation and the email. He added:

“All I can say right now is that West Yorkshire police have mine and the Association’s full cooperation.
The blog Impolite Conversation claims that Craig Whittaker MP’s office is to be investigated next, but we could not confirm that.”

The emails below give more insight into why the chair resigned, and why West Yorkshire Police is now investigating.

More on this developing story soon…

LEAKED EMAILS

———-

Subject: Resignation CVCA
Sent: 26 May 2016 14:03
From: Charles Moran
To: Rob Holden, Jasbir Singh
Cc:
Dear Rob

It is with regret that I am writing to you to tender my resignation as Chairman of CVCA as of today’s date.

As you are aware, it has taken some time to get to the bottom of the Association’s finances, a task you requested be carried out last October.

Whilst there are still outstanding issues with the accounts I have submitted to the Electoral Commission,it is a best estimate and I have also copied it to Andy Stedman at Compliance.

The reason I have been unable to accurately finalise the accounts is as a result of missing records that have been requested from the Treasurer on several occasions and have not been supplied.

Attached to this email is a copy of a Chartered Accountant’s report which states that the accounts are not being kept as they should be. There are issues regarding the recording of cash receipts, lack of cash recording with no receipts issued for payments received, missing invoices and a lack of authorisation for expenditure. Clearly the Executive has a responsibility to correct these shortcomings.

You will also be aware of the toxic nature of my tenure as Chairman, due to the breakdown in relations with the MP and two officers of the Association. This situation is unacceptable and steps need to be taken to separate the Parliamentary Party from the Voluntary Party.

The fact that the MP is able to not only access the Association’s funds without authority from the Chairman or the Executive is a matter of grave concern. The Constitution is clear that all funds are controlled by the Association and its Executive, the fact that two officers are able to withdraw funds without authority is clearly in breach of the rules.

The fact that I, as Chairman, am not on the mandate and neither are you, the Deputy Fund Raising and Membership, is also a matter which I consider to be unacceptable.

Whilst it has been difficult for me as Chairman for the past year, I can’t help feeling disappointed that once again we have failed to take outright control of Calderdale Council, largely as a result of resources being diverted to a safe seat at the expense of target seats. We lost one of the target seats by less than a100 votes.

Above attached is a schedule of missing information, Chartered Accountant’s report and a copy of the estimated accounts that have been sent to Compliance and the Electoral Commission. Would you mind ensuring that these documents together with my email to you are circulated with the AGM calling notice to all members when you decide to call it please?

Regards

Charles

———-

Subject: FW: Resignation CVCA
Sent: 26 May 2016 14:27
From: Rob Holden
To: Brighouse Campaign Centre
Cc:

Dear member.

I am writing to you further to receiving the resignation of Mr Charles Moran as Chairman of the Calder Valley Conservative Association. I feel saddened that he has felt the need to stand down but thoroughly understand his reasons following his extremely poor treatment by certain members of the Association. The accounts (albeit incomplete) have finally been filed with the Electoral Commission.

Attached are the findings of the financial review that I requested back in October 2015 and I have to say that they do not make great reading as far as record keeping and propriety are concerned.

Yesterday the accounts of the Association were seized by the Police in connection with enquiries they are currently undertaking; the officer from the fraud and financial irregularities team has been assured that they will receive the ongoing co-operation of the Association with their investigation.

I am currently in discussions with the Area Chairman regarding the next steps concerning the AGM etc. and as soon as possible I will provide everyone with an update.

I would like to thank Charles for the considerable contribution that he has made to both the Association and the party as a whole and hope that now the financial review has been completed, lessons will be learned and we can move the Association forward.

Kindest regards

Councillor Rob Holden
Deputy Chairman, Calder Valley Conservatives.

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/05/calderdale-conservatives-chair-resigns-after-police-investigation-over-election-expenses-emails-leaked/

Further information on MP and missing invoices here:

http://www.impoliteconversation.co.uk/police-seize-calder-valley-conservative-association-accounts

Local Lib Dems view:
http://calderdalelibdems.focusteam.org/2016/05/27/grave-concern-following-the-seizure-of-calderdale-conservatives-accounts-by-the-police-and-the-resignation-of-the-chair-of-the-conservative-association/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Democracy, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Devolution, councillors, secrecy and scrutiny

Councillor involvement generally

It is surprising that engagement with local councillors seems to have been so patchy.

By and large, councillors have been shut out of the process, with even overview and scrutiny members having to rely on periodic (and infrequent) updates from of officers to keep themselves up to speed.

This is the fault of the system, and the framework (or lack of it) for negotiation between local government and central Government, designed as it is to dissuade the wider sharing of information beyond a carefully selected group.

Even where attempts have been made to engage backbench councillors in a more consistent way (for example, in Norfolk and Suffolk, the LGiU was contracted to travel the area convening awareness-raising seminars) this has principally been about information-sharing rather than dialogue.

Occasional reports to OSCs [Overview and Scrutiny Committee(s)] clearly have not been enough, merely for non-executive councillors to note progress, rather than being part of discussions, negotiation or provision of checks and balances. The role of O&S has been marginalised through perceptions around the complexity, secrecy or urgency of deal making.

This is dangerous for three reasons.

Firstly, the buy-in of a wider range of councillors is crucial to success.

Secondly, the involvement of councillors – beyond receiving updates – is important in ensuring that deals, once they are done, are robust enough to succeed. This robustness is something that can only be tested through effective scrutiny and oversight.

Thirdly, changes in personnel can have a significant effect on the direction of negotiations. Without wider buy-in and dialogue, following an election (or even a by-election) resulting in a change in political control, or any other internal group matter that could result in a new leader, carefully constructed agreements or negotiations could begin to unravel.

It is instructive to bear in mind that in our own engagement with the public, and through the Citizens’ Assemblies, members of the public expressed the strong view that councillor scrutiny should play a critical role in the devolution process.

There are probably a range of different mechanisms that councils, individually and collectively, need to deploy to involve their councillors. Importantly, such involvement needs to be planned – following the sequence set out in the main body of the report above – to ensure that councillors have a stake at every stage in the process. These mechanisms are likely to be:

Engagement within Cabinet. Because negotiations are being led by Leaders, Cabinet members are likely to need frequent updating;

Engagement by leaders within political groups. To secure political buy-in from members of the same party;

Engagement between political groups. Frequent discussion between the leaders of majority and minority parties in local councils to share information, discuss concerns and head off disagreement and discord;

Engagement with scrutiny.

Sharing information, inviting comment and brokering discussion

– as we have discussed, this also provides a formal check and balance on the development and implementation of devolution deals;

Engagement amongst all members.

Other than at full Council, there needs to be sustained engagement with all members – at member briefings, a discussion event specifically convened for discussion of devolution issues, or similar.

All the forms of engagement listed above are probably required, and need to be planned for, for each stage in the sequence of the devolution process. If this seems time-consuming or resource intensive, it has to be placed against the risks of devolution deals or negotiation processes unravelling for want of broad buy-in.

This engagement needs to be underpinned through the provision and use of high-quality evidence. Significant amounts of data will exist between the wide range of stakeholders involved in discussions. Councillors can use this to consider what they suggest about the outcomes that are planned to be delivered, and what this might mean about how governance works on the ground.”

Click to access CfPS-Devolution-Paper-v4-WEB-new.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Consultation, Devolution, Transparency

Devolution: “Cards on the table” report

The report quoted in the post below is here:

Cards on the table: English devolution and governance

It is a thorough and far-reaching document which most councillors should have read BEFORE they made decisions.

It makes the point that much has not been done and makes these points about what needs to be done:

WHAT ALL AREAS CAN DO RIGHT NOW

Consider at what stage in the devolution process they currently stand; Evaluate and reassert what outcomes devolution will deliver to the area;

Agree on what characteristics / principles good governance will need to embody in order to achieve these outcomes;

Check whether effective governance systems are in place that meet those characteristics

– whether those systems are transitional (to manage the process of negotiation and design) or permanent (intended to apply when devolution deals are fully in place);

Ensure that strong data and information sharing – essentially, arrangements for meaningful transparency – is in place to support governance;

Ensure that governance builds in opportunities for meaningful accountability and for the transmission of views and opinions between those in the wider public sphere, and decision-makers.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Independent Councillors, Transparency

A national policy framework for independent candidates?

“Wednesday’s meeting in Totnes, organised by South Devon Watch to discuss strategies for political change, was inspiring and challenging in equal part. The inspiration came from so many committed people, all seeking to bring authentic democracy to a system widely seen as unaccountable, if not corrupt. The challenge is to find a way of beating the current system without repeating its manifest failings.

The meeting focused on independent candidates, both at local and national level. Among the speakers was Claire Wright, the independent Devon county councillor who came a good second in East Devon at the general election last year. Also present was Martyn Greene of the Free Parliament campaign, which is putting up serious money to support independent candidates at the next national election.

There can be little doubt that the tribal, adversarial party system typifies much that is wrong with our current politics. If independent candidates are to challenge the party stitch-up, however, they need to work together and show unity of purpose. The distinction between an organised group of independents, working together, and a new party, may not be easily observable to a electorate conditioned to the party system.

What comes first in politics, people or policies? If parliament were filled with independent members all operating under the Bell principles, it is likely that the quality of discourse and deliberation would be far higher than at present, but would effective policy, leadership and decision-making necessarily emerge?

One approach would be to elect government and parliament separately, the former on the basis of its policies, the latter on an independent, non-party basis. The current framework, however, doesn’t work like that: when people go to the polls they suppose that they are voting for the government they want. Government means a combination of policy solutions and the people with the leadership qualities to put those policies into effect.

In response to this, independent-minded political reformers could work together to draw up a national policy framework in they key areas of the economy, health, education, etc., which independent candidates could use as part of their campaigning message. Instead of supporting a party, they would be advocating for a coherent set of policies, the essence of which they would undertake to support in parliament.

In the trade-off between independence and coherence, it makes no sense for every stand-alone candidate to have to reinvent the national policy wheel. A shared set of policies could give national traction, provide a clear story for the media and ensure that the electorate have a better idea of what they are getting.”

http://www.martinwhitlock.co.uk/2016/05/a-national-policy-framework-for.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution

Lords Select Committee: Piecemeal approach to devolution has put Union under threat

“The Constitution Committee today publishes a major report on the Union and devolution. It warns that successive UK Governments have taken the Union between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for granted, without giving proper consideration to the cumulative impact of devolution on the UK as a whole. The time has come to change that.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/news-parliament-2015/union-devolution-report/

If we can’t get this right, how can we get English devolution deals sorted?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, General Election, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

David Cameron admits election expense “mistakes”

“David Cameron appeared to acknowledge that some expenses may not have been declared in compliance with the letter of the law. …

… Asked if Lord Feldman would have to resign, Mr Cameron told ITV’s Peston on Sunday programme: ‘Well, I don’t believe we have done anything wrong. If there were mis-declarations or things left out we have to put those in place, but I’m confident we can answer all the questions that are being put to us.’

An investigation by Channel Four News and the Daily Mail has revealed concerns about whether the accommodation costs of activists bussed around the country by the Tories to campaign in key constituencies were recorded properly.
In many cases, expenses appear to have been recorded as national expenses, or not recorded at all, rather than added to the costs in the constituencies where the campaigning took place.

Deliberate breach of spending limits by individual candidates – usually around £15,000 – is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or even a one-year jail term.
Any MP found guilty would be barred automatically from holding public office for three years, triggering a new election. In theory, the Conservatives could lose their 12-seat majority if cases are proved. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603526/David-Cameron-hints-time-Tory-chairman-mis-declared-left-vital-General-Election-expenses-SNP-calls-Met-Police-investigate.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, General Election, Transparency, Voting

28 Conservative MPs now under investigation for election fraud

“10 police forces are now investigating whether the Tories breached election spending by failing to record accommodation costs for activists”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-national-party-call-for-met-police-to-investigate-tory-election-fraud-a7042396.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 May 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Andrew Leadbetter, Local Enterprise Partnership, Rural communities, Tim Jones, Transport (local)

Comments

1 Comment

LEP grabs local transport

Jones and Ledbetter … again, now taking charge of local transport, including rail and road. Is there no pie these two people don’t now have their fingers in? Will all roads and rail end up at Hinkley Point? Will there be anything left for county and district councils to decide?

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/ltb-membership

Here is Jones’s Register of Interests:

Click to access ltb%20declaration%20of%20interesttj.pdf

Unfortunately the link to Ledbetter’s interests is not live and it took 10 minutes of digging through the DCC website to find this scrawled document:

http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=159&T=6

Can people be too involved in too many things?