Tim Jones and Andrew Ledbetter get the wrong end of the stick

“Frustration is mounting about the lack of Government support for Devon and Cornwall rail improvements, as ministers pledge billions of pounds for schemes in London.

Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw accused ministers of having “absolutely no intention” to keep its promises to invest “record” amounts in the region’s rail.

While businessman Tim Jones warns South West firms are losing confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver. …

… Chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council, Tim Jones, added that local businesses are growing “frustrated” with the Government’s “regurgitated” assurances. “Business people are saying: we’ve read this all before, we’re bored of this… we do not have confidence,” he said.

The Peninsula Rail Task Force, which is overseeing the region’s bid for rail investment, has now published its draft consultation outlining proposals for the network. Chairman Andrew Leadbetter said the group has have been “pressing the point” that the South West has the lowest investment per head of all regions.

“But that in itself is not a compelling reason to invest. We have to demonstrate investment in the rail network will yield a return,” he said. “We are competing against other regions so I would urge everyone to support the Task Force in making the case and securing our rightful share of funding.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Devon-Cornwall-losing-confidence-Government/story-29299207-detail/story.html

Er, actually Tim and Andrew it’s YOU and your pals of the Local Enterprise Partnership we don’t have confidence in. You are just as guilty – perhaps more so – for having your cosy jobs for you (development and nuclear) pals and keeping everything you do, spend and acquire secret.

Criticising your pals further up the greasy pole ( or the old excuse that it’s all the previous government’s fault) doesn’t absolve you – you are just a bit lower down on that same pole and just as responsible for the mess we are in.

Cornwall Local Plan Inquiry starts in chaos

Police and security guards were in evidence on the first day of the Cornwall Local Plan inquiry yesterday with vocal protesters inside and outside the meeting room giving vent to their anger.

PA systems were turned odd when the chairman of “Kernow Matters to Us” made a very long public speech ( where he said the Inspector was running the inquiry like it was in old East Germany. The only non-developer allowed at the table at the meeting when it finally kicked off had this to say about the experience”

INSULT IS BEING PILED UPON INJURY BY THE MINUTE.

A mail from Armorel Carlyon today.

Dear All, I have been relegated to the bottom of the table. On the right hand side, 14 developers, and 7 more on my left. I did have Mr David Pollard sitting next to me, and he was allowed to speak on two occasions. I have NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO SPEAK ALL DAY!! I felt the Inspector was extremely disparaging towards me in front of all these people – I feel totally humilated – probably due to my outspoken contributions yesterday.

The housing figures for Truro were 3900 and the developers were trying to increase this figure. The Inspector said that I must find something in my responses to justify my speaking. I protested that I was the only person around the table that had any knowledge of Truro, but I was roundly refused.

I am the ONLY obvious Cornish person around the table. They are sitting here just carving up Cornwall in front of my eyes. I have just found a response I made in March 2013 on Policy 3 which stated that the allocations for Truro had been allocated and agreed to in the Neighbourhood Plan. I have written a note to the Inspector referring to my original response. I am feeling very sad and very angry.”

With best wishes
Armorel C.

Crunch time for NHS

“Tory Eurosceptic MPs are threatening to rebel on the Queen’s Speech unless David Cameron agrees to exempt the NHS from any EU-US free trade deal.

In an extraordinary challenge to the Prime Minister’s authority, more than 25 Tory MPs are set to join Labour to back an amendment giving the health service special status in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Vote Leave sources pointed out to HuffPost UK that the last time a Government was defeated on a Queen’s Speech amendment was 1924 – and then premier Stanley Baldwin had to quit.

The crunch vote is set for next Wednesday – just a month before the EU referendum on June 23. …

… Signatories include Labour’s Paula Sherriff, Jon Cruddas and Ian Mearns. Tories include Peter Lilley, Anne Marie Trevelyan and Steve Baker.

To underline the threat to Cameron’s 17-strong majority, Chris Stephens from the SNP has signed it too.

Labour and trade unions have long argued that the EU-US trade deal needs to specifically exempt the NHS from threat posed by private American healthcare companies.

Lilley, a former Trade and Industry Secretary, said: “I support free trade. But TTIP introduces special courts which are not necessary for free trade, will give American multinationals the right to sue our government (but not vice versa) and could put our NHS at risk. I cannot understand why the government has not tried to exclude the NHS.

“I and other Tory MPs successfully lobbied to bring a failing private Surgicenter serving our constituencies back into the NHS. It would have been impossible or hugely costly under TTIP had there had been an American owner who could have sued the NHS in a TTIP Court.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/queens-speech-tory-rebels-nhs-ttip-amendment_uk_573d7c47e4b058ab71e63f1c

Something rotten in the state of Cornwall?

Another new Cornish protest group:

Cornwall for Change
Facebook Group

A non politically aligned group looking for a change of local government in Cornwall so that we have well-informed elected members working in a system that allows them to stand up for all who live here (Ethical Governance for One and All).”

which joins

Your Kids Future Cornwall
Facebook page

Highlighting the greed and political ineptitude that threatens our children’s Cornish Futures because of uncontrolled hyper-development.”

and It’s Our Cornwall
Facebook Page:

“It’s Our Cornwall is a site dedicated to safeguarding Cornwall’s environment and defending its Cornishness. It stems from the dismay and frustration felt at the suburbanisation of Cornwall that has steamrollered over us since the 1960s. Its aim is first to make people in Cornwall more aware of what’s happening to our land. Its second aim is to help campaigning groups see the bigger picture. Its third aim is to encourage communities to resist the future mapped out for us by the developers, aided and abetted by most of our elected ‘representatives’. Its fourth aim is to stimulate discussion on how best to organise this resistance.”

YOU NEED TO BE TALKING TO EACH OTHER PEOPLE! A CORNISH INDEPENDENT ALLIANCE COULD ACHIEVE EVEN MORE THAN INDIVIDUAL SMALL GROUPS. ALTHOUGH ITS ACRONYM WOULD BE CIA!

“Saving devolution from itself”

Post in Oxford University Political blog. This is specifically about the north of England but could be about anywhere where “devolution” is being rushed through at break-neck speed:

“From the beginning, it seems that both the term ‘devolution’ and the processes behind it – in contrast to the more bottom up approach in Scotland – have been conceived by and for Oxbridge politicians, local authorities and suited-and-booted business representatives. This has served to exclude and disengage the public, as the agenda is often seen and perceived as something remote from our daily lives. Indeed, it is fair to say that a lot of citizens have never even heard about the Northern Powerhouse, City Deals or devolution.

Like too many things in this country, these are policies conjured up in the corridors of Westminster, in local authorities’ offices, behind closed doors, or at exclusive events attended by the few. Imagine: attending the ‘Northern Powerhouse Conference’ held in February 2016, costing only £450: a real bargain for a programme which focussed only on business, with no inputs from civil society and third sector organisations, minority groups, or young voices.

Beyond this, the way in which City Deals have been put on the agenda seems only to reinforce the idea that devolution in the North has little to do with democracy, and more with the needs and wills of politicians. Indeed, none of the Deals that have been signed so far in Northern city regions such as Greater Manchester and Sheffield have been involved in any real process of consultation with the public from the outset. Of the elites, by the elites, for the elites, one would be tempted to dare say. …

… STOP TALKING TO EACH OTHER, START TALKING WITH EVERYONE ELSE

If we are truly devolving power to local people, where are the people? Charities and the third sector have been almost entirely excluded. Grassroots groups have been ignored. Minority groups, communities of colour, young people – not at the table.

From the beginning, there has been a politics of division and neglect – dividing rural voters from urban ones or squabbling between northern local authorities, or everyone from the political elite doing their best to either ignore outside voices or proclaim their own powerlessness in the face of Whitehall and Osborne.

This is not to say that local authorities in the North are to be ‘blamed and shamed’. They have been between a rock and hard place, with the government snapping at their heels, all the way through the process that led to City Deals, and in the end they did what they had to do: accept what was on offer, so as to avoid their cities and economies falling further behind the rest of the country.

However, at the end of the day, in order to work the new structures that will emerge from the Deals (including elected City Region mayors) will have to take root in the local communities, and have the people behind them—at the polls in local and city region elections; but also on a daily basis.

Local politics could, and should, play a key part in this, as an agent of change—but to achieve such a goal local authorities need to turn their attention not only to what the government wants, but also to their citizens’ voices. In many ways, last week’s local elections were a warning, shining light on how a continuing disconnect at local level could undermine the whole devolution agenda from within.

So we need more people involved, not because it is more just, or out of fairness, but because it is the only way to make sure the new processes actually function in the long term, and regional democracy – and the systems and communities it is supposed to improve – becomes a reality rather than a dream.

Changing the North can’t be done without the people who live and work there getting involved and participating in such a process. We need organizations and institutions to come together and imagine a new style of politics, one which is pluralist and inclusive, and trusts and empowers communities.

We need to engage young people, working people and communities of colour in new and exciting ways. The real ‘revolution’ of devolution as a means to achieve regional democracy ultimately rests in this, and not in the politics of catchphrases heralded by the Chancellor.”

Saving devolution from itself: Building regional democracy in the North of England

More pigs … more snouts … more troughs

The affairs are private but the money is public.

An MP in a Westminster love triangle charged taxpayers thousands of pounds for the luxury hotel where he had an affair with a journalist.

Angus MacNeil, a senior figure in the Scottish Nationalist Party, repeatedly claimed expenses for a room at the four-star Park Plaza near the House of Commons. His lover – 36-year-old Serena Cowdy – claims that she frequently spent the night there with him.

She is now having an affair with the 45-year-old’s fellow SNP MP Stewart Hosie.

Mr MacNeil, who like Mr Hosie has split from his wife, billed taxpayers for the hotel room while also letting his flat in the capital for more than £10,000 a year. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3595659/Love-tangle-MP-s-trysts-hotel-paid-taxpayer-Senior-SNP-figure-repeatedly-claimed-expenses-luxury-room-indulged-extra-marital-affair-lover.html

Pigs … snouts … troughs …

Extracts in today’s Guardian from:

Parliament Ltd by Martin Williams is published on 26 May by Hodder & Stoughton (rr £20

” … Since David Cameron became prime minister, the amount that MPs claim each year [for expenses] has risen by 43%. Total business costs and expenses rose from £79m in 2010/11, to £113m in 2014/15. Parliamentarians are claiming more and more on things such as air travel and rent.

Flight expenses have gone up 50%, now standing at more than £1m a year. Expenses for renting second homes have risen from £6.2m before, to £9.3m in 2014/15. As for the great transparency push? In fact, the data that Ipsa now publishes with great pride online would not, in itself, be enough to expose the worst abuses of the 2009 scandal. Many of those – the trick of “home flipping”, for instance – were only uncovered because the Telegraph got hold of the original, uncensored files.

Crucial details – such as the full names of every company that politicians have paid money to – are not included in Ipsa’s prized new database. There is one way around this: the original documents can sometimes be accessed by making a request under the Freedom of Information Act and waiting four weeks for Ipsa to respond. But, even then, the documents often arrive in your inbox redacted with black ink.

Although some MPs are happy with the new system, a great many resent the restrictions over what they can claim. “They get very touchy about things called taxis,” a Tory MP tells me. “MPs aren’t allowed taxis because it’s emotive. Ipsa aren’t interested in what’s fair – they’re only interested in the rules. MPs call it “I’m Paid Sod All”.’

An anonymous survey of MPs that Ipsa conducted in 2014 revealed some remarkable attitudes from a Parliament that is meant to have moved on from the expenses scandal. One MP called for a return to “paper-based claims”, saying: “I work 60/70 hours a week and resent being used as your unpaid data-entry clerk.” Another called for transparency to be curbed so that she could travel first class without the press finding out. “It’s very difficult to work in standard class,” she complained. “But if you go first … Ipsa still publishes it as first-class travel and the papers love ‘greedy MP’ stories … It really annoys me.”

With many other expenses curbed by Ipsa’s new rules, hotels are one of the few things remaining that MPs can really go to town on. In one year alone, they claimed more than £700,000. The vast majority of this bill was for places in London, rather than overseas travel. I visit one glitzy hotel, not far from the Houses of Parliament, where dozens of MPs choose to spend the night. Their bills are claimed on expenses and charged to the taxpayer. This is by no means the most luxurious hotel in the world, but guests get free access to a swimming pool, sauna, steam room and gym. There’s also a “paradise” spa, where you can get full beauty treatments.

One MP in particular has maxed his bills at this hotel: the Conservatives’ Andrew Bridgen. When his marriage broke down a few years ago, Bridgen ditched his Westminster flat and adopted the hotel as his new pad. One year, he stayed here for 45% of the time – a total of 165 nights. Inevitably, Bridgen racked up a huge bill, amounting to nearly £25,000. Then he claimed it back on expenses. This is the same Andrew Bridgen who proudly told me: “I used to earn £1m a year.” His bills have gone down somewhat lately, but he still frequents the place.

When I ask Bridgen if it is acceptable for MPs to claim £150 a night for hotels, I hit a nerve. “I mean, what do you want?” he snaps. “We could get some cardboard boxes and kip out on the bridge at Waterloo station. That would be handy, although we might look a bit of a mess when we arrive to work the next morning… Where do you want us to go?”

“Is it a nice hotel?” he laughs. “No, it’s bloody awful. I’d rather be at home.”

Bridgen sees nothing distasteful about the fact that he – and many of his colleagues – charge taxpayers for his second life in a hotel. He reckons it’s “cheaper than having a flat”, and adds: “I stay at the [hotel] because it’s a quick walk. When we finish late at night – [I can] just walk home.”

A close look at Ipsa’s files reveals that MPs claimed more than £156,000 on hotels in the first two months after the 2015 general election. Among them were two Tory MPs – Mike Wood and Andrew Turner – who enjoyed nights at London hotels owned by the Ritz-Carlton chain, together claiming more than £500 on expenses.

The Ritz-Carlton group owns three places in London, all of which describe themselves as “luxury” hotels: the Bulgari, the London Edition hotel and the Ritz hotel itself. In another case, the disgraced former Labour minister Eric Joyce racked up a £426 bill for two nights in a hotel in Glasgow, before he left Parliament in 2015. It was just 40 minutes’ drive from his own constituency.

The Hotel du Vin describes itself as a “luxury boutique hotel with that little bit more”, adding: ‘The most famous of Glasgow’s hotels has an enviable reputation for service and style, with 49 stunning bedrooms and suites, bistro, bar, cigar shack and whisky room.” Afterwards, Joyce kept hold of his receipt and tried to claim back part of it on expenses. He was rebuffed by Ipsa, who told him it did not fall under the scheme.

Most MPs don’t live their lives out of hotels. But that doesn’t mean their lifestyles aren’t still fuelled by taxpayer cash. Rents in London are notoriously expensive. In summer 2015, the average monthly rent in the capital hit £1,500. But MPs need to live somewhere convenient for work, and we shouldn’t expect it to come cheap. Still, if they already have a main home in the constituency, maybe a one-bedroom flat would be sufficient for weekdays. But no. Dozens treat the average as the bare minimum.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, I unearthed copies of some of the housing contracts that politicians have signed. At the top of the pile of big spenders are MPs such as Simon Danczuk, who has claimed £2,142 per month for rent. In a letter to Ipsa, he said this was “within my budget”. But it wasn’t him who was paying – it was the taxpayer.

Another MP, Ian Paisley Jr, used to claim £2,592 a month on rent, which you might think was enough. But in September 2015, he signed a new contract, worth £2,925 a month. Government minister George Freeman has been charging taxpayers £2,817 per month for his room in Bloomsbury. Meanwhile, his colleague in the Home Office, Karen Bradley, moved into a shared property in Little Venice, west London. She claimed the £2,167 monthly rent on expenses. One new Labour MP, Marie Rimmer, managed to fix up her accommodation before she was even elected. Documents suggest she was given the keys to her Westminster flat a month before the 2015 general election. Her set-up meant she would not miss a day of expenses. Indeed, one of Rimmer’s rent claims is dated for the very next day after the election.

If MPs’ rent claims aren’t excessive enough, it turns out that some of them are cashing in twice. Many own properties in London, but rent another place out on expenses, regardless. This allows them to operate a double-rent system: flat one is where the MP lives, with rent covered by expenses; flat two is the place they actually own, where they act as a landlord and rent it out to other people.

Research by Channel 4 News in 2015 found that at least 46 MPs had this kind of system in place – a move that one Labour backbencher described to me as “a new fiddle”. Channel 4 reported: “Our investigation found many of the MPs bought their London properties with the help of the taxpayer, when the previous expenses system allowed them to claim back mortgage payments. But when those claims were banned, following the expenses scandal, they switched to letting out their properties, in some cases for up to £3,000 a month. They then started claiming expenses for rent and hotels in the capital.”

Among those identified was Chris Bryant, the shadow leader of the House of Commons. He had already bought a penthouse in London back in 2005 and claimed around £1,000 a month in mortgage claims under the old system. But after the expenses scandal, he started renting the property out. It’s since been advertised by estate agents as having a private lift and a porter, with rent at about £3,000 a month. Meanwhile, Bryant moved into a new flat and claimed his own rent on expenses.

Gloriana is an opera by Benjamin Britten. Originally written to celebrate the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, it is now considered one of the composer’s finest operatic works. When it was performed at the Royal Opera House recently, the speaker of the House of Lords, Baroness D’Souza, decided to go. She was accompanied by the chairman of Russia’s Federation Council.

It was only later, when the Press Association made enquiries under an FOI request, that it was revealed the baroness had charged taxpayers £230 for her night at the opera. A chauffeur-driven Mercedes took D’Souza to the event in Covent Garden, just one mile from Parliament. The driver then sat outside for four hours waiting for the concert to finish, before taxiing her back to Parliament again. If she had caught the Tube, it would have cost £4.60.

The night at the opera was just one of a catalogue of D’Souza’s controversial expenses receipts that the Press Association had got hold of. Others included a £627 chauffeur bill to drive to the enthronement of Archbishop Justin Welby in 2013. She attended with John Bercow, the speaker of the House of Commons, but the pair took separate cars for the same trip. Bercow claimed an additional £525 for the journey.

Perhaps the most politically embarrassing small expense that politicians have claimed repeatedly is for poppies and wreaths. During the expenses scandal, Boris Johnson and ex-shadow chancellor Ed Balls were both exposed for claiming money to cover Remembrance Sunday wreaths. More recently, in 2015, Labour MP Sarah Champion was also caught claiming £17 for a poppy wreath.

And when they are talking anonymously, political insiders will happily defend such expenses claims. One senior special adviser says: “I spent a bloody fortune over the last couple of years on poppies … You’ll get a kicking if you’re not wearing a poppy – like in the press, or wherever. So you always have to make sure you’re wearing one. But then, you change your suit the next day and you forget. You’re getting on the tube in and you think: ‘Oh for fuck’s sake, I’ve left the poppy on the other suit.’ So you’ve got to go and buy another one. It’s not very much money, but over the course of bloody November, or whatever … it’s going to add up.”

Ridiculous claims are even filed by top government figures. Among the many receipts I uncovered was one from the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt. In 2014, he used his expenses to buy expensive designer glasses for his staff. Official work guidelines say that employers should contribute to the cost of spectacles, if staff need them to use a computer. But the health secretary filed claims on behalf of his staff covering the entire cost. Documents show that one of his staff visited Chandlers Opticians in Surrey and bought a £275 pair of glasses, which Hunt then billed to taxpayers. A second opticians’ bill for another staff member was also filed on Hunt’s expenses. This time, it covered a £25 eye test and a £180 pair of glasses.

It seems Hunt was fully aware that the expenses claim was being made. He told me: “In advance of submitting the claim, my office checked it specifically with Ipsa to ensure that everything was being done in the proper way – and we would contest any allegation to the contrary.”

It may have been within the rules, but the health secretary ducked my question: was it appropriate? Of course, Hunt was only following in the footsteps of his predecessor at the Department for Health, Andrew Lansley, who claimed £229 for prescription glasses and eye-test costs for an adviser in 2013.

Expenses claims such as this leave some insiders less than impressed. “When you employ staff in a business, you don’t pay for their f…ing glasses,” one ex-MP says. ‘Literally unbelievable!’

So what is the best way to police an expenses system? The dilemma may be familiar to any business manager: set up a system that relies on trust and some people will be untrustworthy (most of them, in this case); but go the other way and impose strict rules and they will play those rules. Tell them they can claim up to a maximum, and that maximum soon becomes a target to be aimed at.

Even the most cynical of us would probably agree that our democratic representatives should be held to a higher standard. This is not a business – it is parliament. Surely we can expect them to stick to the rules, and exercise some degree of personal judgment as well?”

http://gu.com/p/4jad9

Do voters use their vote to oust corrupt politicians and, if not, why not?

“Fighting corruption is a vital aspect of good governance. Yet, it is also a highly persistent phenomenon, indicating that tackling corruption is not always at the top of an incumbent politician’s agenda. One way to solve this problem is to engage in “corruption performance voting”; that is, to use elections to punish incumbent politicians for high levels of corruption.

But do voters actually engage in this kind of voting behavior? Alejandro Ecker, Konstantin Glinitzer and Thomas M. Meyer show in the linked post that while some voters do engage in “corruption performance voting”, the segment of voters that are willing to hold incumbents accountable is limited by their partisan preferences, their expectations about future government, and by the characteristics of the country they live in.”

Source: http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=21766

In orher words, corrupt politicians receive a “get out of jail” free card from voters who put their allegiance to parties first.

What MPs think about their expenses watchdogs

“Furious MPs have lashed out at the ‘rubbish’ watchdog that handed them a 10 per cent pay rise in a serious of extraordinary private rants.

Staff at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) were told to ‘grow some’, and condemned for publishing information that embarrassed politicians.

One MP lambasted the body for failing to increase their pay to more than £200,000 a year to replace expenses, and said they were preparing champagne to toast the departure of chairman Sir Ian Kennedy.

The messages have been released following a freedom of information request by MailOnline.

Ipsa handed MPs a bumper salary increase from £67,000 to £74,000 last year, despite the rest of the public sector being limited to 1 per cent.

They busted the cap again last month with a 1.3 per cent rise.

However, many MPs were angry about the timing of the increases and way they were handled, while the watchdog has also come under fire for publishing details of expenses debts.

Ipsa agreed to disclose the ‘free text’ responses from a recent survey of satisfaction levels among members and their staff, which was carried out anonymously.

One MP who was re-elected at the general election accused the watchdog of locking them in a ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’.
‘You are rubbish at acting on behalf of the Members of Parliament – you serve yourselves and are so far from ‘helping us do our job’ the complete opposite. Everyone feels the same – new and older MPs,’ they wrote.

The same politician insisted the expenses system should be ‘replaced completely by an allowance system rolled up with our salary’. That could see them handed around £140,000 a year on top of their current salary of just under £75,000. There would be no obligation to file receipts but they would have to fund their own offices.

‘No forms just £10-12k per month to go and do the job we want to do, freed up from your Kafkaesque nightmare of a system,’ the MP wrote. ‘Office/staff costs run as now but freeing us up from the bureaucratic bullying of Ipsa and allowing us to get on with doing the job we were elected to do – not form filling, looking over our shoulder and dealing with the media storm that Ipsa wonderfully conjures up for us…

‘And you wonder why you aren’t popular… ‘

Adding £12,000 per month to MPs’ salaries would leave them earning nearly £220,000 a year.

Answering a question about how communications from the watchdog could be improved, the politician replied: ‘Grow some and put your full name on there.’

WHAT MPS SAID TO THE WATCHDOG

‘You are rubbish at acting on behalf of the Members of Parliament – you serve yourselves and are so far from “helping us do our job”, the complete opposite…

‘Can’t wait till the discredited bully Ian Kennedy receives his marching orders – 650 glasses of self-funded champagne will be raised on that great day that can’t come soon enough.’

‘To be reduced to tears due to attitude and being ignored, left me very upset and vulnerable…

‘Just sort out basic incompetence and bad attitude. I have never used a more customer unfriendly service EVER.’

‘The decision to name and shame MPs with written off claims with an Ipsa press release was disgusting, unprofessional and as it turned out erroneous in too many cases.’

‘The justification for the large pay increase was appalling.
‘In essence Ipsa took the view that at the time when some (perhaps many) MPs were submitting claims that were permitted but publicly indefensible, the total amount claimed was acceptable.

‘They therefore took the combined value of all the indefensible claims, averaged them out, and added them to everybody’s salary – thereby implicitly condoning what had happened before.’

The MP added: ‘Can’t wait till the discredited bully Ian Kennedy receives his marching orders – 650 glasses of self-funded champagne will be raised on that great day that can’t come soon enough.’

They went on: ‘Trust you have enjoyed reading the responses as much as I enjoyed writing them!… I wonder when they will be published…’

Other re-elected MPs were similarly scathing.

One wrote: ‘The decision to name and shame MPs with written off claims with an Ipsa press release was disgusting, unprofessional and as it turned out erroneous in too many cases.’

Another complained that Ipsa was not covering all the costs it should.

‘Your ‘cost neutral’ payrise will for all MPs do further damage to our reputation as no one in the media seems to mention that it is not a raise in the package at all,’ they added.

Newly-elected politicians did not hold back in their criticism either.

One commented: ‘Too complicated. Too bureaucratic. Sloppy administration of paperwork in support. Guidance unclear. Online system cumbersome and complicated.’

Another respondent said they had been reduced to tears by ‘abysmal’ treatment from Ipsa.

‘I have submitted five official complaints due to the attitude I have received,’ they said.

‘I find the Ipsa service extremely unhelpful, arrogant, and choose not to listen. The behaviour meted out towards me has left me very upset on occasion and highly stressed.

‘To be reduced to tears due to attitude and being ignored, left me very upset and vulnerable. Dealing with Ipsa has been a completely frustrating and upsetting experience. I just don’t trust them.

‘Just sort out basic incompetence and bad attitude. I have never used a more customer unfriendly service EVER.’

Among the new-intake MPs taking aim at the pay hike was one who said: ‘The justification for the large pay increase was appalling.

‘In essence Ipsa took the view that at the time when some (perhaps many) MPs were submitting claims that were permitted but publicly indefensible, the total amount claimed was acceptable.

‘They therefore took the combined value of all the indefensible claims, averaged them out, and added them to everybody’s salary – thereby implicitly condoning what had happened before.’

Another more experienced politician complained that Ipsa’s approach meant they were under ‘constant pressure’ to refuse the increase.

‘Ipsa announced MPs one off pay rise very frequently, against the wishes of the public we serve, and failed to highlight the offsetting savings being made elsewhere,’ they said.

‘As a result, colleagues were under constant media pressure to refuse their pay rises, as the public were unaware of the offsetting reductions. It did nothing to help the reputation of politicians.

A spokesman for Ipsa said today: ‘We recognise that there is room for improvement and we are committed to working with MPs and their staff to continue to improve our services and systems, to make them more efficient, whilst still regulating MPs’ business costs and expenses effectively.
‘From the survey feedback, we are developing a new website that will be launched later this year.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3592539/Grow-200-000-year-MPs-private-rants-watchdog-awarded-bumper-10-pay-rise.html

David Cameron on devolution and mayors – shows he hasn’t got a clue!

“On devolution:

This is devolution by consent. This is not a top-down dictatorial decision from Westminster about how areas should be considered.
“It is saying to areas: you come forward with the best plan that local people support and local councils support, and the faster you do that, the faster we can act. But we don’t want to crowbar people into something against their will.

So, Dave doesn’t even know that we can’t support something that

(a) we haven’t been consulted about – ever
and
(b) happens in secret anyway.

Bottom of the class there, Dave

On mayors as a condition of devolution deals:

If you’re going to have extra powers and extra resources, you need to have the governance in place so that local people feel they can control it.

“There’s a strength in having mayors because you can re-elect a mayor that is doing a good thing, and chuck out a mayor that is doing a bad thing. So we do believe in reforming governance at the same time as doing devolution.”

Er, same again Dave: we are just wheeled in at the last-minute as voting fodder – and four years is a hell of a long time to wait if we find we have Local Enterprise Partnership backed dimbo – or worse, an opportunist out to make a quick buck for a bunch of very close mates.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Q-PM-dictatorship/story-29270503-detail/story.html

“Decentralisation: Issues, Principles and Practice
University of Newcastle

“… The ad hoc, piecemeal and rapid process of decentralisation in England is generating a new institutional landscape.

Since 2010, institutions have been abolished as the regional tier was dismantled, new institutions have emerged, existing institutions reformed and new areas of public policy been brought together creating new arrangements involving Combined Authorities and LEPs with metro mayors to come as well as connections between new policy areas, for example health and social care (Figure 6). Echoing historical experience in England, this further episode of institutional churn, disruption and hiatus has reproduced many longstanding issues including loss of leadership, capacity and momentum as well as instability and uncertainty with negative impacts on growth and development.

The new institutional landscape is raising serious questions of accountability, transparency and scrutiny – the ‘achilles heel’ of decentralisation. Decisions are being made by a narrow of cadre of actors behind closed doors, involving a mix of elected politicians, appointed officials and external advisors.

Deals and deal-making are being conducted, negotiated and agreed in private by a small number of selected participants in closed and opaque circumstances and in a technocratic way. Decisions involving large sums of public money and long-term financial commitments are being taken without appropriate levels of accountability, transparency and scrutiny.

Although uneven in different places, many institutions and interests in the wider public, private and civic realms feel left out and marginalised. These include business and their representative associations (alongside the uneven involvement of LEPs), environmental organisations, further and higher education, trade unions, and the voluntary and community sector.

Equalities and representation concerns are evident in relation to gender and diversity. The wider public knows little about decentralisation of the governance system and is becoming increasingly disengaged and lacking faith in the ability of politics, public policy and institutions to make their lives better. Those better informed and engaged worry that power and control has simply shifted a little from elites in central national government to those at the local level.

Concerns that the decentralisation efforts in England failed in the early 2000s due to the limited nature of decentralisation on offer and lack of public engagement and support are mixed with fears that the current process risks repeating this mistake.

Accountabilities are lacking, weak and under-developed. Wider discussion, scrutiny and challenge by the public and/or relevant institutions have been largely absent. Anxieties are being articulated that the exclusive, opaque and technocratic way decentralisation is being conducted is reinforcing such concerns.

More inclusive, transparent and accountable ways of doing decentralisation need to be found, developed and adapted to local circumstances. Means need to be explored to allow and enable a wider set of voices to be heard and more interests and opinions considered in order to make decentralisation accountable and transparent and more sustainable.

International evidence illustrates that inclusive deliberation and dialogue supports better and more robust decision-making for public policy and more effective and lasting outcomes27. Decentralisation must not be seen as an end in itself but as a means to better economic, social and environmental outcomes for people and places across England and the UK. …”

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/curds/publications/documents/DECENTRALISATIONIssuesPrinciplesandPractice.pdf

Accountability: the problem

” … When a public body focuses upwards to the paymasters and policymakers, rather than downwards to the people it serves, it’s obvious who will suffer, however much the policymakers believe they have the best interests of the people at heart.

One answer is to sort out the architecture of accountability so that priorities are transparent and unchallengeable. That may matter just as much, perhaps more, than holding people to account for failings after the event. It may stop disasters happening.”

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

Nine police forces investigating Conservative election expenses

West Mercia is to investigate the Devon and Cornwall PCC case to keep a “cordon sanitaire” around Ms Hernandez’s conflict of interest with her own chief Constable.

Lincolnshire becomes latest force to launch inquiry into allegations that Conservatives incorrectly categorised 2015 election costs

Nine police forces have launched inquiries into whether the Conservative party breached spending rules during the 2015 general election campaign.

Lincolnshire police became the latest force to confirm on Thursday that they were investigating the claims as the Tories handed over evidence regarding the controversy to the Electoral Commission.

The allegations regarding breaches of spending rules centre on claims that the party listed the costs of bussing activists into key marginal seats under national spending accounts, rather than as local spending.

Lincolnshire appears to be the ninth police force examining the allegations, which were first broadcast by Channel 4 News. The others are Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and West Mercia, and Devon and Cornwall.

Any candidate found guilty of an election offence could face up to one year in prison and being barred from office for three years.

A statement from Lincolnshire police said: “We are aware of recent media reporting regarding allegations of irregularities in the election expenses of the Conservative party and some of their candidates in the general election 2015, and three byelections in 2014.

“We can confirm that we are carrying out general enquiries, but we will not be commenting further until they are complete.”

The Electoral Commission went to the high court on Thursday for an information disclosure order to seek the documents.

Within hours, the commission said it had received the documents from the Conservatives and was reviewing them.

Senior Tories insisted that the legal action was not necessary as they had always intended to hand the details over.

“We advised the Electoral Commission on 29 April that we would comply with their notices by 1pm today, and have done so. There was no need for them to make this application to the high court,” a spokeswoman said.

The party acknowledged that due to an “administrative error”, some accommodation costs for the activists were not properly registered, but insisted that the bus tour was part of the national campaign organised by Conservative campaign headquarters and as such, it did not have to fall within individual constituency spending limits.”

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=4&articleid=64278297

Moulding new Chairman of Devon County Council

How ever will he find the time to regenerate Axminster?

And remember Stuart Hughes was sacked from an EDDC committee because he was deemed “too busy” with his EDDC and DCC jobs!

Still, he has got Cloakham Lawn sorted to his satisfaction.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Devon-County-Council-appoints-new-chairman/story-29265721-detail/story.html

Hernandez interview on Spotlight tonight as Police and Crime Committee gets special meetin

Hernandez interview announced this afternoon for this evening on the 6.30 pm edition on BBC 1. In the meantime, in spite of its Chair (Councillor Croad, Con) saying on television that he sees no reason for it, there WILL be an emergency meeting of the Police and Crime Panel, the local watchdog to which Hernandez is responsible (and which, presumably could suspend her?) within the next couple of weeks.

Members of the panel according to its website is below:

Yvonne Atkinson (Co-Optee (voting)
Councillor Stuart Barker (Committee Member)
Councillor Chris Batters (Vice-Chair)
Councillor Betty Boundy (Committee Member)
Councillor Geoff Brown (Committee Member)
Councillor Roger Croad (Chair)
Councillor Philippa Davey
Councillor Robert Excell (Committee Member)
Phil Martin (Committee Member)
Councillor John Mathews (Committee Member)
Councillor E W Moulson (Committee Member)
Councillor Vivien Pengelly
Councillor Mike Saltern (Committee Member)
Councillor Philip Sanders (Committee Member)
Mrs Margaret Squires (Committee Member)
Councillor Rachel Sutton (Committee Member)
Councillor A Toms (Committee Member)
Sarah Wafker (Co-Optee (voting))
Derris Watson (Committee Member)
Councillor Tom Wright (Committee Member)

http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/dcpcpmembership

Time to lobby?

Here is its remit:

The Police and Crime Panel supports and challenges the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). The panel has the power to request reports and call the PCC to attend its meetings.

Panels will not replace police authorities and will not have a role in scrutinising the performance of the police force (that is the role of the PCC).

The panel will:

review the police and crime plan and annual report
scrutinize (and potentially veto) the PCC’s proposed council tax precept* for policing
hold confirmation hearings for the PCC’s proposed appointment of a Chief Constable and senior support staff (the panel may veto the Chief Constable appointment)
scrutinise the actions and decisions of the Commissioner (but not the performance of the police force)
consider complaints against the PCC of a non-criminal nature
*the money collected from council tax for policing

Meetings are held in the Council House, Plymouth City Council, Armada Way, Plymouth.

DEFINITELY time to lobby!

The solution for devisive politics: more independents, says EDA

“Last week, elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (P&CC) were held across the country, including ours in Devon and Cornwall.

We would be grateful if you would allow us to propose that two key lessons must be learned.

The first, sadly, is negative. After the 2012 P&CC when the turnout here was 15 per cent, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) said: “From the start, the P&CC elections were marred by controversy, with the government shirking its responsibility to provide voters with even the most basic information that the elections were taking place.” One of the ERS’s three key recommendations was: “Never leave voters in the dark about who or what they are voting for – ensure information on candidates is provided in mailings to voters.”

Cut forward to last week, and in Devon and Cornwall the 2016 turnout was still a lowly 22.8 per cent, artificially boosted by elections held on the same day in the major settlements of Exeter and Plymouth. We consider it has greatly damaged the reputation of the Cabinet Office (that little understood organ of control at Downing Street’s right hand) that they simply refused in the four years since 2012 to implement the ERA’s urgent suggestion for even a single mailshot, and hundreds of thousands of West Country voters remained in the dark in May 2016. Why?

However, on a more hopeful theme, there is in our view an immense positive to be found.

The Conservatives polled roughly 69,000 and Labour roughly 66,000.

But the aggregate vote of the two Independent candidates (Devon’s Bob Spencer taking about 41,000 and Cornwall’s William Morris about 22,000) shows us that even at an election when the party machines were cranking hard, a similar share could be gained by two Independent individuals working entirely from their own initiative, with slim resources, and having to operate across an immense area.

The country knows that we are stuck now with an increasingly divisive party political context until the general election fixed for May 2020. However, the more extreme parts of the Conservative agenda – from academies to planning, junior doctors to refugees – are being repeatedly confronted now by collective independent voices uniting outside the parliamentary system.

Last week, in our part of the country, the South West showed that even on a low turnout, the Independent cause is more than about just protest – we too can score in substantial numbers at the ballot box.

The question we now ask the region is this: how, for the sake of the next generation do we harness all this Independent goodwill and spirit to convert sentiment into candidates and candidates up to office at county elections in 2017 and for Parliament in 2020?

It seems to us that without an organised coming together of all independent-minded reformers as soon as possible, the Conservatives will ‘get the vote out’ in 2017 and 2020 too. Surely if ever there was a time for the Independent-minded to take up the challenge, it is now.

Paul Arnott, Chairman
Ben Ingham, Leader
East Devon Alliance”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/in-the-press/20160512/midweek-herald-independents-need-to-take-up-challenge/

Electoral Commission takes Conservative Party to court over election expenses

“It’s awkward timing for David Cameron, who launches his anti-corruption summit today in London:

he Electoral Commission is taking the Conservative Party to the High Court over the election spending scandal.

The Mirror [ but at the instigation of Channel 4 News] revealed two months ago that at least 24 Tory MPs had help from notorious battle buses ferrying hundreds of volunteers to marginal constituencies during the 2015 general election but didn’t declare any of the spending as required by law.

Breaching spending limits is a criminal offence and could lead to calls for by-elections.

It comes at an awkward time for David Cameron, who today kicks off an anti-corruption summit in London.

The slowly-unfolding scandal has led to several MPs and one Police and Crime Commissioner coming under criminal investigation by police.

The Electoral Commission are taking the Tories to the High Court to force them to reveal documents detailing the spending on Battle Buses ahead of the 2015 general election.

The Commission have already asked the Tories twice for the documents, but they have only provided “limited” disclosure.

Political parties have a legal obligation to provide full spending disclosures to the Commission on request.

Bob Posner, Director of Party and Election Finance and Legal Counsel at the Electoral Commission said: “If parties under investigation do not comply with our requirements for the disclosure of relevant material in reasonable time and after sufficient opportunity to do so, the Commission can seek recourse through the courts.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/electoral-commission-takes-tories-high-7952712

And here isn’t the news

Tiny, tiny piece of “In Brief” news on page 2 of Midweek Herald covering the news about the bad behaviour exhibited by some long-serving councillors at Axminster during the recent council meeting where a new mayor (Paul Hayward) was chosen. Alongside big spreads for future opportunities to paddle canoes down the River Axe and dog mess on a playing field. ….

And a slightly larger piece welcoming our new Police and Crime Commissioner with not a mention of the controversy surrounding her appointment.

Oh, and a letter from the EDA Chairman Paul Arnott about the PCC elections together with a very strangely placed photo, completely out of context of a 3 year old child meeting Star Wars Chewbacca.

Journalism?

Why is Exeter not represented at the LEP yet East Devon is?

As long ago as March 2011 Exeter City Council CEO Karime Hassan knew exactly how our LEP would be constituted and who would be on it and was making this complaint and prediction:

The Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, which is currently awaiting government approval, has come under fire at an Insider panel debate for failing to properly represent Exeter and its economy in its proposed form.

Speaking at an Insider breakfast debate held the University of Exeter’s Reed Hall, Exeter City Council’s economic development director Karim Hassan pointed out that his council does not have a seat at the table of the Heart of the South West LEP. “I don’t see how Exeter and its growth point can therefore get the messages out there to government that can make a difference,” said Hassan.

He went on: “LEPs need to work effectively, but the prospects aren’t necessarily good. The Heart of the South West LEP already looks like it holds tensions in it, because the needs of cities like Exeter are different from the needs of the rural market towns of Devon and Somerset. It is hard to tell one story to central government because there are so many different localised agendas built into an LEP like this.”

Hassan also said the South West had to work at getting better at arguing its case for a slice of the national cake. “We have lost out many times to others elsewhere, who have been better organised. But the region has not always worked well together, with too much internal competition and rivalry, so this new LEP structure is a real challenge. We have already seen the competitive element surface, with Cornwall’s decision to go it alone with its LEP.”

Others on the panel also saw gaps in the proposed LEP arrangements. Ben de Cruz, senior partner at accountancy firm Haines Watts, said: “It certainly looks like the Heart of the South West LEP proposal will be accepted by the government, but the biggest problem with LEPs is that the funding they will have is still unclear.”

And de Cruz said it would be harder to make strategic decisions in the basis of more local interests. “The South West RDA, for all its shortcomings, was able to look at the bigger picture when assessing projects or funding proposals. Once things are divided up – into Cornwall, Devon and Somerset combined, the West of England, and so on – the question is how wider issues will be tackled. It feels like co-operation will be required, but no-one knows quite how that will work.”

Hassan added that he wanted LEPs to work well but was unsure whether this would happen in practice. “Whitehall needs intelligence, and the LEPs could be that vehicle,” he said. “But equally I’m fearful that the LEP won’t deliver the information it needs to.

“A LEP should be able to prioritise investments, but it will need to work in a clear, transparent way. Potentially it could make a big difference. But first we need to grab the opportunity – partly by getting Exeter fully involved in the planning for the Heart of the South West LEP.”

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southwest/50007-

Now, it could be argued that Cranbrook (officially in East Devon and just getting off the ground) was the dealmaker – but, in fact, the town is much closer to Exeter than most other East Devon towns.

Why was there not a seat for Exeter as the county town?

A tale of two local newspapers …

Both reporting on the democratic election of Councillor Paul Hayward as Mayor of Axminster:

First, the Midweek Herald – a local newspaper owned by one of the small number of powerful regional chains:

Axminster elected a new town mayor and deputy tonight (Monday May 09)

Paul Hayward won a secret ballot to deny veteran councillor Douglas Hull the customary second term in office.

Cllr Lara Rowe was elected unopposed as his deputy – replacing Graham Godbeer who said he was not prepared to accept Cllr John Jeffery’s nomination to serve a second term.

Meanwhile two members of the council have resigned – Joy Raymond and Chris Tipping.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/change_of_leaders_at_axminster_town_council_1_4528621

and here the totally local and very independent View from Axminster:

A “NEW generation” took over the reins of Axminster Town Council tonight (Monday) as Councillor Paul Hayward was elected mayor of the town.

Councillor Hayward takes over the role from the council’s longest-serving member, Councillor Douglas Hull.

Councillor Hull was nominated to serve another year by his deputy, Councillor Graham Godbeer, seconded by Councillor Andrew Moulding who pointed out that it was tradition for mayors to serve two years and said Councillor Hull should be offered his second year.

However, Councillor Jeremy Walden nominated Councillor Hayward for the position, seconded by Councillor Carol Doherty.

Members then carried out an anonymous ballot and Councillor Hayward was announced as the new mayor.

He then received the mayoral chains from Councillor Hull, who commented: “Thank you to all those who supported me. I now have time to do lots of other things and will enjoy my future time on the town council.”

Councillor John Jeffery said that the town owed “a great deal of gratitude” to Councillor Hull and his wife, fellow councillor Joy Hull, for their long service.

“Time moves on and it’s sad to see Councillor Hull go from the top stop, but he’s still got lots of good work to do on the council,” he added.

“We now move to a new generation with younger people with lots of new ideas, but we owe Douglas and Joy a great deal of gratitude.”

Councillor Hayward thanked Councillor Jeffery for his comments, saying he “wholeheartedly agreed”.

Nominations were then taken for deputy mayor with Councillor Jeffery nominating existing deputy mayor, Councillor Godbeer. However, Councillor Godbeer said he was not prepared to accept his nomination.

Councillor Lara Rowe was then nominated by Councillor Walden, and with no other nominations was elected.

Councillor Hayward thanked Councillor Godbeer for his tenure as deputy mayor and said he hoped he could call on him and Councillor Hull for advice during his first term.

Open and transparent

Speaking later in the meeting during the town forum, the new mayor was questioned over the council and Guildhall’s finances and administration by a resident, and said it was his “heartfelt promise” to be as open and transparent as possible.

“I won’t say there will be changes, but there will be progress,” he added.

Councillor Mervyn Symes added: “We hope that it will be more transparent and that we will know what’s going on in that council office rather than not knowing.”

Councillor Hull asked Councillor Symes to give an example of what he was referring to, adding that he had made a “slanderous comment”.

Councillors Symes replied: “It was not a slanderous comment. We don’t all know what is going on in the office.”

Councillor Hayward said that all councillors were equal and no one councillor should have more power than others.

He added: “All councillors need to be fully aware of all decisions and discussions. Without that information we are acting blind which is not constitutionally correct.

“I will be working with our administrative staff to ensure all members have the information they need to do their job legally and to the satisfaction of the public.”

Resignation

It was also announced at the meeting that Councillor Joy Raymond had tendered her resignation.

Councillor Hayward said that Councillor Raymond had announced her resignation that morning, adding to the vacancy already caused by the recent resignation of Chris Tipping.

He said that due process would be followed to fill the two vacancies and urged people to step forward for by-election, asking: “What can you do for your town?”

Town clerk Hilary Kirkcaldie added that if no candidates came forward the vacancies would be filled by co-option.

‘New generation’ takes over as Paul Hayward elected Mayor of Axminster

Owl would say again, pays yer money takes yer choice, but they are both free newspapers!