Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Oct 2017

Posted under

Democracy, East Devon Tories, Hugo Swire, Labour ( Devon)

Swire’s recent preoccupations: bolshie young people and Nay Pyi Taw

Recent questions and comments in Parliament
see: theyworkforyou.com

It seems that Swire still thinks politics is mired in the Russian revolution and that he is still at the Foreign Office.

Or, is he just toadying up to Boris in case Bojo becomes Leader and has promised great things to (only a select few of) those who might support him in this aim?

Bolshie young people not thinking the Tory way:

“A hundred years ago this month saw the start of the Russian revolution, which unleashed misery and purges against millions of Russian people. Although we are right to remind future generations and younger people about the evils of the past, for example through Holocaust Memorial Day, does my right hon. Friend agree that we owe it to the younger generation to educate them about the warped and failed Marxist-Leninist ideology that continues to unleash misery across the world? People should be very worried about that.”
[Boris Johnson replied in whole-hearted agreement]

Myanmar – Muslims in Burma

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point about nationality, except that the British Government have shown to the Government in Nay Pyi Taw evidence kept in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office referring to a Muslim population in that part of what is now Burma going back many hundreds of years.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality

“You can’t be a Trot(skyite) and an allotment holder …”!

Ex Social Democrat/Lib Dem politician David Owen on Corbyn becoming PM:

I think it’s certainly a possibility. I believe he is different person from the old Trotskyist that people thought he was. Thirteenth law of British politics, you can’t be a Trot and an allotment holder. They share things; they share their seeds and their spades and they have this narrow strip of land. And I think he has shown a likeability.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/oct/11/pmqs-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-philip-hammond-rejects-calls-to-start-spending-on-preparing-for-no-deal-brexit-politics-live

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Minority Government

“Government accused of “sidelining” parliament by boycotting key votes”

“MPs will hold an emergency debate tomorrow in a bid to stop the Tories “sidelining” Parliament by boycotting key votes.

Theresa May was accused of “running scared” of democracy when she ordered her MPs to skip Labour bids to freeze tuition fees and give nurses a fair pay rise last month. Her majority of just 13 led to fears she would lose the non-binding votes in an embarrassing defeat. So instead she boycotted the ‘Opposition Day’ motions, meaning they passed but were not officially a defeat for the government.

Tonight Commons Speaker John Bercow granted an emergency debate on the tactic after a request by the Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael. Mr Carmichael said it had “long been the practice of governments” to respect Opposition Day debates, adding: “The government is seeking to treat this House as talking shop.”

He said the government having to prop itself up with the hard-right DUP was historic, adding: “It’s a moment for us to assert the will of Parliament, not to see it sidelined.”

The debate will last three hours and begin late tomorrow morning.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/mps-hold-emergency-debate-tories-11315164

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Paul Diviani, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

Fake News: “I have the support of my Cabinet”

This phrase is fake news at any level – let’s take it at national and local level as an example

1. As with the national government where May chose her Cabinet, so does the Leader of EDDC. They choose people closest to them and the ones most inclined to do their bidding – it would be foolish to do anything else.

2. Cabinets are not chosen for quality – they are chosen for obedience. It’s no use May saying she tolerates Boris for not being a “yes man” as it is precisely that which has endangered her. A foolish “strategy” to follow if, like her or any other Leader, you want to cling to power. See Trump and Kim Jong-Un. You upset Trump, he fires you; you upset Kim … let’s not go there.

3. It pays to choose weak and feeble Cabinet members if you are their Leader. It strengthens your position. The downside is that you then have to forge VERY close relationships with your civil servants and officers as they are the route to getting your agenda fulfilled (or, in the case of the current government, a very close relationship with the DUP forged with a £1 billion bribe).

4. As soon as anyone hits a Cabinet, they get a vastly increased taste for power – it’s like a drug. They spend days and nights thinking about how THEY could make a better job of things. There is no such thing as loyalty to a Leader in a Cabinet.

So, when any leader says they have the full support of their cabinet – FAKE NEWS!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish, Voting

Where’s Hugo and Neil? Hugo adored Boris’s speech and doesn’t think politically uneducated 16-year olds should be allowed to vote, Neil is worrying about farmers and plastic bottles

Anyone caught sight of Swire or Parish at the party conference? All we have from Hugo today are a couple of tweets on his Twitter account but they could have come from anywhere – Saudi, Maldives, Mid-Devon … and tweets on protecting farmers, plastic bottles and a desperate hope for a last-ditch meeting about Axe Valley college.

But we DO know Hugo adored Boris, as he re-tweeted:

“The most barnstorming speech of the conference so far. You’ve got to give it to him!”

and

He doesn’t like the idea of 16 year old voters unless they learn what’s best for them in school:

“Against 16 yrs old voting but might be prepared to look at it if politics and constitutional history were compulsory subjects in schools.”

So what’s different about 17 and 18 year old voters who didn’t get inculcated at school?

Looks like the education cuts and teacher shortages mean he won’t be changing his mind soon …!

And Neil?

His tweets today have been on:

Protecting farmers:

“My piece for @politicshome @housemagazinecz on food, farming & Brexit talks. @CommonsEFRA will be ensuring @DefraGovUK stands up for farmers”

Toadying to Gove on plastic bottle deposits

“90% of plastic bottles are recycled in Denmark & Germany. We need a bottle deposit scheme here too. @michaelgove is right to be in favour.”

and

Shutting the door after the 6th form horse has bolted at Axminster Academy which has announced closure of its 6th form:

“Urgent meeting set up with @AxeValleyCC & now writing to @JustineGreening . We must find a solution for A-Level Axe Valley pupils locally.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Tories

Comments

1 Comment

Conservative party severs links with all its university groups, tells you gsters to join with oldies

“The Conservatives are set to sever links with every Tory university group in the country in a bid to detoxify their brand.

A confidential internal Tory report seen by HuffPost UK calls for “risky student politics” to be moved completely out the party structures.

The recommendation comes after a series of embarrassing incidents involving student groups, including a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association burning a £20 note in front of a homeless person and Tories at St Andrews setting fire to an effigy of Barack Obama.”…

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-university-conservative-young_uk_59d2968de4b0f96298893b80

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Oct 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Standards Committee, Transparency

MP getting £3,000 per month from a lobbying, that’s fine – isn’t it?

David Mitchell nails it in The Observer:

“The Tory politician James Duddridge pockets £3,300 a month from a lobbying company, but don’t worry. If it were a problem, it wouldn’t be legal.

What is the advantage of letting sitting MPs work for lobbying firms? What are the pluses of that, for the country? Because we do allow it, so I’m assuming there must be some upside.

After all, there are clear advantages to many things we don’t allow: smoking on petrol station forecourts, for example. Allowing that would mean, if you’re addicted to smoking, or enjoy smoking, or think smoking makes you look cool, you could do it while filling your car with petrol, polishing its bonnet, going to buy snacks, checking the tyres and so on. You wouldn’t be inconvenienced by either the discomfort of nicotine withdrawal or a hiatus in the image of nonchalant suavity that having a fag in your mouth invariably projects.

And the same goes for those essaying auras of Churchillian defiance and grit, or Hannibal from The A-Team-style twinkly maverick leadership, to which a lit cigar clamped between the teeth can be vital, particularly if you’ve got a weak chin.

Similarly, if you’re a pipe-smoking detective of the Sherlock Holmes mould and are, perhaps, investigating a crime on a petrol station forecourt, or merely passing across one while contemplating the intricacies of a non-forecourt-related mystery, you wouldn’t have to suffer a lapse in the heightened analytical brain function that you’ve found smoking a pipe crucial to attaining. Interrupting such processes to buy petrol may cause murderers to walk free.

And then there’s the possibility that allowing smoking at petrol stations will marginally increase overall consumption, and therefore sales, of tobacco products – all the Holmeses and Churchills and Bonds will be able to get a few more smokes in before they die of cancer – which would slightly improve trade and GDP, and so create jobs.

Maybe Duddridge just pops in once a month and is a master of clearing photocopier jams.

Nevertheless, I am not, on balance, in favour of allowing smoking on petrol station forecourts. The manifold advantages are, in my view, outweighed by the several disadvantages: passive smoking for non-smoking users of the forecourt, nicotine staining of the underside of the canopy, and various others I can’t currently bring to mind.

But you’d think, in a system that flattered itself as non-mad, as I believe the British one still does, practices that are legal would be bristling with more boons for the community than those that aren’t. That’s got to be the vague rule of thumb, right? So then, what are the good things about allowing sitting MPs to take paid work from lobbying firms? What are the upsides to that?

The downsides are as hard to miss as a few hundred thousand litres of subterranean petrol suddenly exploding. Let’s take an example from the news last week. It was reported that James Duddridge, a Tory MP who was minister for Africa from 2014 to 2016, is being paid £3,300 for eight hours work a month by a lobbying company called Brand Communications.

It’s one of the few lobbying companies not to have signed up to the industry’s code of conduct, which prohibits employing sitting MPs. You may say that makes it a nasty firm, but I don’t blame it. Why would it sign up to extra rules if it doesn’t have to? That’s like volunteering to observe a lower speed limit than the one prescribed by law.

The law is absolutely fine with Duddridge’s little earner. Former ministers’ jobs just have to be approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, itself described by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee as a “toothless regulator” (these committees are so bitchy!), since it has no statutory powers of redress. Then again, as its rulings are almost invariably “That’s fine”, what powers does it really need?

Duddridge himself says it’s all legit because Brand Communications is “not a public affairs company”, but the company’s website says “James will bring his deep knowledge of Africa, experience of operating at the highest levels of government and extensive networks to Brand Communications”, which sounds a bit public affairsy to me.

But I don’t know: maybe it’s fine. We can’t know it’s definitely not fine. Admittedly, according to the Times, the head of one of Britain’s leading lobbying firms called it “an appalling example of bad practice”, and the chairman of the Association of Professional Political Consultants said, “MPs should not be lobbyists. It is wrong to be a lobbyist and make the law at the same time,” but maybe it’s still fine.

Maybe James just pops in once a month and is incredibly helpful in ways that don’t conflict with his public duties. Maybe he’s full of creative ideas, a huge boost to office morale and a master of clearing photocopier jams. And then he pops back to parliament and doesn’t think about Brand Communications until the next month, no matter what issues concerning their interests cross his desk as an MP and member of the Commons International Development Committee. Yes, maybe it’s fine.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/01/lobbying-firms-mps-james-duddridge-brand-communications

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Sep 2017

Posted under

Democracy, Sleaze

Tory MP doesn’t want to pay maintenance for his kids and asked questions in Parliament about his matrimonial issues

“With a taxpayer-funded MP’s ­salary of £80,000 a year, Andrew Bridgen is hardly poor. But the bleating Tory moaned to a judge about having to pay for ­Remembrance Sunday wreaths out of his own pocket so he can honour Britain’s war dead. And he reckons a bitter divorce battle with ex-wife Jacqueline, 40, has left him virtually penniless – while it is claimed he manages to pay high rent on a £2million property and lavishes gifts on new partner Nevena Pavlovic.

The 52-year-old asked a court to stop a monthly £1,100 maintenance payment to Jacqueline for their two children. He said: “On Remembrance Sunday I buy five wreaths for the five main services, I will attend three and I will read the names at all of them. “It is now de rigeur that MPs can’t put in claims for wreaths or travel. £175 on wreaths it will cost me, £200 [including travel] to be the MP of North West Leicestershire on that ­Remembrance Sunday. “Something I do gladly but which is not appreciated by the general public. “So the remuneration of an MP is not the same as if I was working for the Co-op. There are huge costs to being an MP which can never be claimed for. I have not had a holiday this year.”

But his griping sparked fury at a time when the Tory party has plunged millions of ordinary people into poverty with crippling austerity and cuts to public services and the military.

Labour MP John Mann said: “He should stop moaning. It’s a privilege to be an MP. His attitude just brings all MPs into disrepute. “He’s an embarrassment and a disgrace. I’d call on Theresa May to withdraw the Tory whip, for him to make a public apology and announce
he’s resigning.”

Colleague and Afghan war veteran Clive Lewis added: “Tory cuts have hit the armed forces hard, our servicemen and women who are suffering under the public sector pay cap probably won’t have a lot of sympathy with a Tory MP who voted for austerity having to pay for a wreath. “This just adds insult to injury.”

Bridgen, of Coleorton, Leics – who married 38-year-old Serbian opera singer Nevena in April – made his pleas of poverty during a family court hearing to try to stop ­maintenance. He claimed the split from trainee teaching assistant Jacqueline cost him more than £1million in payments to her and he had to sell his £2.2million mansion at a cut price. And he said he has forked out more than £500,000 in legal fees on the divorce.

The court heard Bridgen’s brother has frozen him out of his family farm ­business, which had netted the MP £110,000 a year. And his income fell after he lost ­chairmanship of a select committee. He said: “My personal assets run to less than £20,000 and that would be if I sold all the furniture in the house I rent. I have no car, no house and a bad credit rating. Until I am paid I have less than £200 in the bank. “My income has dropped by 70%. I fought two general elections in the last two years, where I could have lost my job, and, who knows, we might be fighting another one soon. “There is no more insecure ­employment than politics.” But that won no sympathy from District Judge Richard MacMillan who told him: “You chose to go into ­politics, Mr Bridgen.”

And Jacqueline told the hearing at Nottingham crown court her ex “chooses to live a luxury lifestyle to the detriment of our children” and she cannot bring them up properly without ­maintenance payments. She also claimed he recently bought a £3,000 ring for Nevena, transferred £2,500 to her account and spent thousands visiting her in Serbia.

She added: “The court should put the needs of our ­children above his needs. His income is ­approximately £4,000 a month and he chooses to spend over half on rent for a property that is way beyond his means. “My income is £8,000 a year while his is 10 times that. Frankly without that money I don’t know how I’m going to manage each month.

“I have spent the last 20 years being bullied and controlled by Mr Bridgen, there is no one more desperate than me to be out of his control. However, I still need the support of spousal ­maintenance payments so I can meet the needs of our children. “I have to sit here and fight and listen to the foul things Mr Bridgen has to say because I have no ­alternative to provide for my children.”

Throughout the two-hour hearing, Bridgen continually interrupted his ex-wife’s evidence. Judge MacMillan finally lost patience with his outbursts and told him: “We are not in the Commons now.” Bridgen even tried to stop the Mirror attending the hearing on Friday. But the judge said he saw no reason to exclude the press “however embarrassing it may be”.

The MP had applied to have around £5,000 in maintenance payments given back to him by his ex. Judge MacMillan refused but agreed he was not obliged to hand over £7,673 of payments he had missed this year.

The couple married in 2000 but had an acrimonious split around five years ago. The court heard Jacqueline is now living with a Mr Gittins at an address in Packington, Leics, meaning her circumstances had changed.

Perjury query weeks before court date

Andrew Bridgen wasted Government time asking questions about family courts weeks before his maintenance hearing. On September 4 he asked the Justice Secretary David Lidington : “How many people have been prosecuted for perjury in the family court in each year since 2007, by gender?”

When told the answer could only be got “at disproportionate cost”, he asked on September 14: “How many (a) men and (b) women were prosecuted for perjury in the family court in 2016?”

Outside court we asked the MP whether tabling Government questions on personal matters called into question his impartiality. He said: “It’s perfectly appropriate. I have a personal and professional interest.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mp-moans-spending-175-11231238

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Democracy, EDDC, NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Sarah Randall Johnson, Scrutiny

Comments

2 Comments

Q: who does Diviani represent on the NHS? A: Jeremy Hunt

How does Owl know?

Well, he DOESN’T represent East Devon District Council – they told him to vote to keep local community hospital beds and maternity services open. He went to a DCC scrutiny meeting and voted to close them.

He DOESN’T represent the eight district councils he is supposed to represent at DCC [as a co-optee NOT a full member of the committee – and he was only allowed to vote because the badly-worded DCC constitution does not make the voting power of a co-optee clear] because he admitted in public that he did not consult any of the other councils before voting.

He DOESN’T represent DCC because he has not stood for election to that council and been successful.

WHAT was his reason/excuse/pathetic flim flam for his vote then?

That other attempts to refer the closure to the Secretary of State had failed, so this one would also fail.

How did he know that? Does he have a direct line to Hunt’s office or what passes for Hunt’s brain? He must have one or the other because he KNEW in advance what would happen and chose to vote on what he says he KNEW.

But if he KNEW what would happen (and he says he did) then why not vote as EDDC told him to do? The letter would have failed and he could still say he had voted as instructed at EDDC (though not as other councils wanted as he had no idea about that.

BUT – as he again admitted – it would have slowed down the closure. It would have given councils, the staff and supporters of the hospitals, the patients and their carers, more time to put alternative plans into action. More home care staff, more suitable plans for hospital buildings, better care for patients at home.

He did none of these things. He and Sarah Randall-Johnson consigned community hospitals to the rubbish heap.

And all because, he says, he knew what Jeremy Hunt would do.

So, now we know, he has a direct line to Jeremy Hunt and does what Jeremy Hunt wants him to do.

But why? Owl can only guess that he wants a gong from this despicable government to add to his only other qualification – an innkeepers certificate.

And the only way to do that is do the bidding of those who hand them out.

And if that isn”t his rationale, Owl would welcome a comment from him which would be published on the blog in full.

And what of his “representation” of the other councils? Who voted for him to be their representative? Was there a vote at all?

Or conversations in dark corners of County Hall?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Sep 2017

Posted under

Democracy, Fracking, Police (local)

Comments

1 Comment

“FIFTY police officers sent to a few dozen aging protesters”

”They drink tea, eat cake and from time to time burst into song.
The few dozen, predominantly retired, professionals at this very English protest hardly add up to a formidable force.

But on the fracking front line police are taking no chances.

At a time when forces up and down the country complain that they are struggling to cope because of budget cuts, North Yorkshire Police are facing accusations of mounting a ‘disproportionate’ and expensive show of strength.

Usually outnumbering – and certainly outmuscling – the grey-haired demonstrators, up to 50 police officers at a time are dealing with the protest.

The start of work to prepare for fracking at the Third Energy well at Kirby Misperton, near Pickering, has prompted the protests.

This week 12 people have been arrested, mainly for obstruction of the highway or a police officer.

Many of the protesters are pensioners who gather daily outside the site gates cum rain, cum shine to express their displeasure. They fear fracking – the controversial method of mining for gas and oil – poses a threat to this beautiful and unspoilt rural area. …

On Thursday around 30 were walking up the path to deal with protesters, although up to 50 are on site. Anyone who sits on the road to try to block the entrance gate risks being picked up by a uniformed officers and arrested. The trucks are escorted on to the site by two patrol cars and a police van packed with officers.

Sue Gough, 62, a retired teacher, said: ‘I have never protested before in my life. It is awful the way the policing has escalated. One of us was chased through Kirby Misperton by police and all he was doing was riding his bike.’
Jackie Brooks, 77, a great grandmother, was serving tea and cake from a stall beside the gates where protesters sang songs and strummed guitars. The former nurse said: ‘I don’t want this beautiful countryside poisoned by the chemicals they use.’

Another protester was Annabel Holt, 76, daughter of war hero Lieutenant Colonel Percy Legard, commander of the No 4 Commando strike force. ‘My father fought to save Britain from 1939 to 1945 and would have been against fracking,’ she said. ‘He fought for his country and I’m trying to do the same.’

Monica Gripaios, 66, claimed the force used by police has been ‘utterly disproportionate to the mood and actions of the peacefully assembled people’.

This week police have been dealing with between 30 and 60 protesters. Nine have been charged and a further two have accepted cautions. They include an 18-year-old woman, who has been charged with assaulting two officers.

Police insist they are acting responsibly. Superintendent Lindsey Robson said: ‘We have a duty to ensure people who want to assemble and protest do so safely, balanced against a duty to ensure that businesses can go about their lawful commercial activity.’

This week one of the country’s top officers warned that the police service is under unsustainable pressure due to the resources required to fight terrorism.

Sara Thornton, head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, warned that officer numbers are at 1985 levels, crime is up 10 per cent on last year and police work has become ‘ever more complex’.

John Dewar, of Third Energy, said: ‘We look forward to running a safe and successful operation [at the site] that will be carried out with minimal impact on local residents and the environment.’

… When a lorry arrives, about every half hour at peak times, police advance up the remote country lane towards the protesters and force them on to the verge.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4911634/FIFTY-police-officers-sent-dozen-aging-protesters.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, General Election, Independent Councillors, Proportional representation, Scrutiny, Voting

“Do we need political parties?”

A view from a German writer:

“In many Western countries, party structures are dissolving. Traditional political organisations are disintegrating, being swept away by new movements, or infiltrated by fresh members. There is not much left of the once-defining role of classical parties. And the examples are abundant.

In France, the traditional party system has decayed. The Socialists, after being the governing party in Paris until spring, have practically ceased to exist. Other traditional parties have also been hit hard, replaced by movements such as Emmanuel Macron’s “En Marche!” and Jean-Luc Melenchon’s “La France insoumise”.

The US’ once-lofty Republicans – the self-proclaimed “Grand Old Party” – have now disintegrated into separate wings, whose positions differ to the extent that a common programme is hardly recognisable. And the party organisation is so weak that it could be captured by a non-politician like Donald Trump.

Until recently in the UK, the Labour Party, which had been positioned in the pragmatic centre, has moved vehemently to the left. It was infiltrated by an influx of often young new members, who celebrate the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn – formerly a marginal figure in the political life of the island – as a pop star.

In Italy, the populist Five Star Movement of former comedian Beppe Grillo has been unsettling the political system for some years. On the right, the former regional party “Lega Nord” is expanding with new national-populist content.

There’s an evolving pattern. Traditional political structures are breaking up, liquefying political systems. People are becoming more important than parties, and posing seems more relevant than policies.

Politicians who have served their time and worked their way up through party ranks are ousted by outside figures with star attributes – cheered along by citizens, who suddenly behave like fans. [Watch out Hugo!]

Still, there’s a prominent exception: Germany.

Or so it would seem. Large parties and their established top figures still dominate the political scene. At the top are well-tempered characters like Angela Merkel, the chancellor, and Martin Schulz, the Social Democratic contender. And, above all, both of them promise that as little as possible is going change.

But this is just the visible surface. In Germany, like elsewhere in Europe, the political system is being transformed. Anger and frustration are on the rise – sentiments which parties like the far-right AfD are only able capture to a small extent.

The next federal government will likely be formed by a coalition that promises stability on the verge of boredom. However, this does not preclude the possibility of unexpected turns in regard to specific topics.”

https://euobserver.com/opinion/138989

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Sleaze

Minister criticises her own government on charity gagging

“A minister today took a swipe at her own Government for refusing to relax rules restricting the campaigning charities can do the year before elections.

The Government last week revealed it will not amend the controversial Lobbying Act – despite a government commissioned review calling for major changes.

And in a move suggesting division in the heart of government over the decision, civil society minister Tracey Crouch retweeted an article criticising the decision.

The article warned the decision will fuel concerns that Theresa May’s administration is a ‘weak minority Government that largely only has eyes for Brexit’.

And it questioned what influence Ms Crouch ‘genuinely has within Government’ if she has not been able to convince her fellow ministers of the need for change.

‘A divided government bogged down by Brexit doesn’t have the time or the inclination to push through sensible changes to poorly-drafted legislation.
‘Tracey Crouch deserves credit for speaking out but the truth is the country is suffering as a result’. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4895914/Tracey-Crouch-s-swipe-government-charity-lobbying.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Midweek Herald, Scrutiny, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

Newspapers and their dependence on council advertising revenues

Owl says: Recent research and Freedom of Information requests revealed that around 90% of EDDC’s advertising budget goes to Archant titles (Midweek Herald, Sidmouth Herald, Exmouth Journal), up to 5% with Express and Echo and up to 5% to View from … titles.

Most major controversial or contentious news stories involving EDDC seem to emanate from the Express and Echo and View from … titles (though the Daily Telegraph revealed the explosive story of disgraced ex-Councillor Graham Brown’s conflicts of interest on its front page in March 2013).

“853 exclusive: Greenwich borough’s newest local paper scrapped its news coverage after Greenwich Council objected to “negative” stories and considered withdrawing its advertising, sources have told 853.
The free Greenwich Weekender launched in May this year after publisher Southwark Newspaper successfully bid for a contract to carry the council’s public notices – official notifications about planning applications, traffic restrictions and other council functions.

Public notices used to appear in the council’s own weekly, Greenwich Time, which closed in June 2016 after government restrictions were put on “council Pravdas”.

33,500 copies of the what’s-on paper are delivered door-to-door across Greenwich borough, with a further 8,500 available at collection points across the area.

As well as covering culture and leisure items, early editions of Weekender devoted space to straight news stories, following a template set by its sister paper in Lambeth. Ahead of its launch, reporter Kirsty Purnell made contact with local community groups to introduce herself and get stories.

An editorial introducing issue one, signed by managing directors Chris Mullany and Kevin Quinn, promised “local news, town hall events and all your community events and campaigns”. And Purnell’s efforts paid off, with Weekender featuring many stories missed by other outlets.

But this didn’t go down well with Greenwich Council.

The first edition gave space to people concerned about Greenwich Council’s plans to redevelop the old Woolwich covered market and neighbouring buildings. Later editions saw traders in Greenwich Market get space for their fears over business rates, while residents in Woolwich grumbled about council staff taking their parking spaces. …

In short, Greenwich Weekender was doing the job of a proper local paper. Indeed, it even planned to run columns from local political leaders, again echoing a feature in Lambeth Weekender. Hartley was among those approached, but the columns never apeared.

This website understands leading figures in the council were angry about the paper covering “negative” news stories – and were also unhappy about Efford’s coverage in the paper during June’s general election campaign.

A proposal to scrap Greenwich Weekender‘s ad contract – which would effectively close the paper – was discussed. But councillors voted down the measure at a meeting of the council’s Labour group in mid-June, which is said to have descended into a “huge row”. One idea discussed was to place the ads in the London Evening Standard instead, 853 has been told.

Instead, it was decided that the council would tell Weekender to stop covering news stories.

News stories disappeared from the title at the end of June, and the only “news” in Greenwich Weekender – which still bills itself as “an independent weekly newspaper” – since have been advertorial pieces paid for by Greenwich Council. …

The three-year Greenwich Weekender deal is worth up to £1.2 million to Southwark Newspaper. It also means the paper can be distributed from libraries and other council-affiliated locations.

But in the council report recommending taking up the contract, it said it wanted its public notices to be “published… in the context of engaging local editorial content which helps to positively inform local residents about the measures that their neighbours and local service providers are undertaking to make the borough a great place to live, work, learn and visit”.

It would appear that Greenwich Council believes this means snuffing out scrutiny of its actions in any outlet that carries its ads. …

Greenwich’s newest local paper drops news coverage after council pressure

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, Electoral Commission, General Election, Voting

“Five areas in England to pilot voter ID checks” – unfortunately ours isn’t one of them

“Voters in five areas in England will be asked to take identification to polling stations at local elections next year as part of a pilot scheme.
People in Woking, Gosport, Bromley, Watford and Slough will be asked to take different forms of ID with them to see which works best.

The Electoral Commission recommended three years ago that voters be asked to prove their identity.

Minister Chris Skidmore said the aim was to ensure the system was “secure”.
Reports of “personation” in polling stations – votes cast in someone else’s name – increased from 21 in 2014 to 44 in 2016.

Mr Skidmore said the current situation meant it was harder to take out a library book or collect a parcel than it was to vote in someone else’s name.
He told the BBC: “We currently have a situation where people can go into the ballot station, point out their name on the register, don’t need to provide any information to prove who they are.”

He said it was corrosive to democracy if people did not believe the system was secure.

“At the moment we simply don’t know if people are impersonating one another or not. We just need to make sure that the system is secure enough.”
For some years, voters in Northern Ireland have had to prove their identity at polling stations.

But Tom Brake, for the Liberal Democrats, described the latest proposals as “a completely unnecessary move that risks undermining our democracy by preventing millions of people from voting”.

“Evidence from around the world tells us forcing voters to bring ID won’t stop determined fraudsters, but is likely to led to even lower turnouts amongst young people and minority groups.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41287240

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Scrutiny, Sleaze

Comments

1 Comment

Charities politically gagged by Tory government

Note that professional lobbyists have no restrictions – only charities and non-governmental organisations.

“Charities have condemned ministers for rejecting changes to the Lobbying Act which were made by a government-commissioned review body. Campaign groups say they will be left unable to speak out for vulnerable and marginalised people in society because the law has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The Lobbying Act restricts what non-governmental organisations can say in the year before a general election.

As a result of an outcry from the charities sector, the government commissioned a review of the recommended amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts called for the scope of the act to be reduced to include only activity intended to influence how the public vote. The Conservative peer also called for the period during which its rules apply to be reduced from a year.

But the Cabinet Office has said in a statement it would make no changes to the law. In a statement the Cabinet Office said: “The rules on third-party campaigning in elections ensures that activity is transparent and prevents any individual, company, or organisation exerting undue influence in terms of an election outcome.

“We recognise and value the role that charities play in our society and are keen to work with voluntary bodies to ensure the rules are well understood.”

Charities and NGOs said this amounted to a blanket rejection of recommendations made by by Hodgson’s review.

The Cabinet Office decision comes a few weeks after more than 100 charities sent a letter to the civil societiy minister Tracey Crouch to put pressure on ministers to overhaul the act.

The charities and campaign groups who signed the letter represented a wide range of domestic and global issues including health, social care, global poverty, human rights, environment, and vulnerable groups. They included Greenpeace, Girlguiding, Deafblind UK and Action for Children.

Greenpeace was the first NGO to be fined under the Lobbying Act.

Tamsyn Barton, chief executive of Bond, the UK network of organisations working in international development, said: “How are charities supposed to speak up for the most vulnerable and marginalised people in society, both here and globally, when they are at risk of being penalised by the Lobbying Act? The government is legislating the sector into silence at a time when our voices are needed the most. This is a terrible day for British democracy.”

Greenpeace fined under Lobbying Act in ‘act of civil disobedience’
The Conservative government led by David Cameron passed the act as a result of high-profile corporate lobbying scandals. It amended existing rules on non-party organisations introduced in 2000, requiring groups to register with the electoral commission if they plan to spend more than £20,000 in England or £10,000 in the rest of the UK on so-called “regulated activities”.

Critics say the government’s definition of these activities is so broad it can include any activity that could be interpreted as political.

Vicky Browning, chief executive of the charity leaders network Acevo, said of the government’s decision: “Charity leaders will be dismayed by the Cabinet Office’s decision to ignore wholesale Lord Hodgson’s recommendations to reduce campaigning restrictions. This decision is in direct contradiction with the views of not only Lord Hodgson but the cross-party Lords select committee on charities and over 100 charity leaders from across the country.

“Lord Hodgson insisted that his reforms would ensure the clarity and definition of campaigning boundaries. Without them, the Lobbying Act’s restrictions remain deeply intimidating.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Democracy, Devolution, Exeter City Council, Local Enterprise Partnership, NHS (local), Spin, Transparency

Devon and Somerset devolution deal goes wrong on Day One

“The leader of Exeter City Council has complained that he was left out of talks in London to secure devolution for Devon and Somerset.

Devon county council leaders as well as those from Plymouth and Torbay council chiefs were invited to the Westminster meeting this week with Jake Berry, the Minister responsible for devolution and coastal communities.

Following the meeting, it was announced by Devon County Council Tory leader John Hart that an agreement had been reached to devolve powers to an economy estimated to be worth £34 billion, more than Birmingham.

Peter Edwards, leader of the Labour-controlled city council, warned that the deal had no “mandate” from Exeter and revealed he had not been invited nor even told about the planned announcement.

Tory MP Gary Streeter, who organised the meeting and drew up the guest list, said he had never heard of Mr Edwards but offered an assurance that he would be “pleased” with the deal being struck.

Mr Hart emerged from the gathering on Thursday to declare that a plan had been agreed by “the two county councils, the two unitaries, all the district councils, the Local Enterprise Partnership, the two national parks and NHS representatives”.

“We have 17 local authorities working closely together on this plan with our other partners,” he added in a statement.

But hot on the heels on the press release came a strong response from Cllr Edwards.

He said: “Mr Hart went to this meeting without my knowledge. I would be interested in knowing if any other district councils took part or knew about it.

“He met me the day before and didn’t feel the need to mention it, let alone say he intended to indicate we were all signed up. I don’t have that mandate from my council – and he certainly doesn’t.

“We agree there is a need to go to Government and to unlock funding. We have been eager to see this happen and to see what is on offer.

“But we don’t agree that you should be offering up a new combined authority for Devon and Somerset blindly without knowing what any deal is. Councils could be giving up all their powers – without knowing that the prize is.

“Exeter has a strong economic agenda – it would be madness to jeopardise that without knowing what any benefits could be – or even if there are any benefits.

“My council’s position is that we could welcome devolution – but only once you know what any benefits are.”

Mr Streeter, MP for South West Devon, told Devonlive.com that there had been no snub and said “none of the districts” had been invited.

“I invited the county and unitary councils,” he added. “It was just a meeting to find out where we are in the devolution process with ministers, post election, with councils to report back.

“It was a lively successful meeting – the others will find out next week when a full report is made.”

Asked if Cllr Edwards, a longstanding councillor and city leader since 2010, was right to feel aggrieved, Mr Streeter added: “I don’t know him but I am sure he is a wonderful person.

“We don’t have dealings with Exeter or North Devon – it is very parochial. I know know who this gentleman is but once he gets the full story he’s going to be very pleased.” …”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/council-leader-angry-exeter-snub-483839

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, EDDC, General Election, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Voting

Plymouth postal votes fiasco gets fierce criticism; EDDC’s SECOND postal vote fiasco still awaiting scrutiny

Our fiasco here:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/07/17/eddc-second-postal-votes-fiasco-will-be-scrutinised/

Plymouth fiasco here:

“Plymouth City Council has received a report into electoral issues that led to problems at the last general election.

Between 150 and 200 people were unable to vote, and about 2,000 postal ballots were not sent out.

An independent report headed by Dr Dave Smith, the former chief executive of Sunderland City Council, looked into all aspects of the way the election was managed.

He will present it to full council on 25 September.

The council said his recommendations included telling it to:

Act swiftly to permanently recruit enough suitably experienced electoral registration staff to ensure the elections team is up to recommended staffing levels

In the meantime, ensure there are enough interim staff with sufficient operational experience to manage the team, build capacity and ensure focus

Make sure sufficient resources and properly documented systems, procedures and processes are put in place to ensure a successful election canvass and prepare for local elections in 2018 and plan for a future general election

Develop a more detailed communications plan with key stakeholders to ensure effective election communications especially when unusual situations arise

Carry out an independent review in January 2018 to ensure the council is suitably prepared for elections in May 2018″

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-41161495

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Inequality, Minority Government, Police (local), Spin

When is a question not a question? When you ask it of Theresa May!

“Ian Blackford, the SNP Westminster Leader, said it all when he quipped: “I was under the impression that this was questions to the PM.”

At PMQs this week, Theresa May failed to answer almost every question that was put to her, which leaves one wondering why this theatrical spectacle is still continued.

Asked about the worry felt by the constituents of Oxford West and Abingdon about leaving the single market and how this would affect the local economy, Theresa May decided to accuse MP Layla Moran of providing misinformation to her constituents about Brexit. May claimed that the Tories are seeking a deal that “gives us access to the single market” – not something that has been announced as part of the Government’s confusing position on Brexit, but presumably that doesn’t matter.

When quizzed on the damning UN report detailing that the UK actively discriminates against disabled people through cuts, Theresa May claimed that “those who are most in need” are receiving help, and that the support they are providing has “actually increased”. Must all be in the UN’s imagination, then – not to mention the imaginations of disability charities, my esteemed colleague James Moore, and those processing Freedom of Information requests. The fact that the DWP was told to “discriminate” against claimants with mental health conditions is obviously part of May’s utopian plan to help out those in need.

On the next question, Theresa May refused to accept that a 1 per cent pay increase for police officers and prison officers, with 2.9 per cent inflation, was in fact a real terms pay cut. She went on to say that, actually, police officers had actually enjoyed a 32 per cent increase over the past seven years.

I’m sure it will come as a shock to many police officers on the beat that they’ve “never had it better”, particularly considering over 20,000 of their jobs have been slashed (as well as there being 7,000 fewer prison officers). She then failed to guarantee that there would be no further police and prison officer cuts. Transparency really isn’t one of May’s fortes.

Corbyn continued by asking what has happened to the average person’s bank account over the past seven years, which, to her due, she did answer. May detailed that the average person is £1,000 better off due to tax allowances. I’m sure many people will be sitting at home wondering if their extra grand has gotten lost in the post.

Getting a proper answer or some form of acknowledgement that there may be an issue for even one single person in the country during a period of protracted austerity and a skydiving pound has become a rarity for Theresa May. She seems to be under the impression that she is not accountable to the people in this country, and that she can continue to hide what the Government is doing behind rhetoric while the public sit at home and nod.

Criticism is justified on both sides of the benches when it comes to the lack of discussion on Brexit. One wonders if they think by not talking about it, we will forget that it’s happening. With talks being stalled for an extra week and two major votes through Parliament this week, you would think it would be worth mentioning.

Alas, only Layla Moran got a brief word in edgeways on the subject.

During the general election, it was widely publicised that Theresa May rarely engaged with a member of the public who wasn’t a paid-up member of the Conservatives – you’d think that perhaps, after all of that criticism, she’d have changed her tune. This is how Corbyn swiped many of her votes, after all. But it appears that the Prime Minister has simply retreated further into her shell, with her fingers firmly wedged in her ears.

If Theresa May does remain in her position until 2022, then we have an awful lot of answer-free PMQs to sit through until the next general election.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech

It didn’t take long for the police union to call her a liar!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/police-union-accuses-theresa-may-of-telling-a-downright-lie-about-pay-rise_uk_59b920bfe4b02da

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Exmouth, Grenadier, Regeneration, Tourism

Exmouth Fun Park WILL close – even though there is no developer for the site

A VOTE WILL BE HELD NOW ON THE MOTION TO GIVE THE FUN PARK THE SAME TERMS OF THE LEASE AS THE HARBOUR VIEW CAFE
KEY EVENT
For – 21
Against – 26
Abstain – 0

Notice of motion is not agreed – it is the end of the debate – the fun park will close.

For full summary of what residents and councillors said, see:

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/vote-no-confidence-east-devon-470930

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Sep 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Honiton/ Gittisham, NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Comments

1 Comment

Diviani no confidence vote defeated – Tories stand by their man, even though he ignored them in DCC health vote

THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE FAILS KEY EVENT
For – 18
Against – 31
Abstain – 1
shouts of shame from the public

Diviani’s statement show in photographs in the article along with councillors comments

Mayor of Seaton said:

“The stance of the closure of the hospital beds is well-known in trying to get them saved. On April 1 at a meeting, Cllr Diviani attended a meeting and was vociferous in wanting the beds to remain open.

But I don’t know what evidence that he has seen that supports the closures, particularly about supporting the care at home model.

I don’t see evidence that rapid response is working 24 hours a day.

I was disappointed with how the DCC meeting was chaired, but I couldn’t listen to Cllr Diviani as his microphone was switched off for the whole meeting.

CCG still not provided any compelling evidence about the new model”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/vote-no-confidence-east-devon-470930