A response to Councillor Shaw’s response to Councillor Allen’s response to Diviani’s vote at DCC!

Comment post to Councillor Shaw’s post:

“If councillors like Mike Allen want to distance themselves from Paul Diviani and regain some respect from the electorate, the first step will be to vote against him at today’s council meeting.

Any councillor voting against the motion of no confidence, then they are aligning themselves with Diviani’s anti-democratic approach of ignoring the electorate, his own council, and other councils he was supposed to represent, and they are showing everyone that they are no better than he is.

And if Mike Allen was relying on Hugo Swi[r]ne and Neil Pari[s]ah to fix the NHS issues in East Devon he was backing the wrong horse.”

Independent councillor challenges Councillor Mike Allen’s letter on Tories and NHS

Independent East Devon Alliance councillor Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton) makes this observation on EDDC Tory councillor Mike Allen’s attempt to distance other EDDC and DCC councillors from Leader Diviani’s actions which led to the vote of no confidence meeting at EDDC tonight.

(Assemble Knowle 5.30 pm if you wish to make your presence felt for this meeting)

“It is not credible to say that Diviani acted alone – he may not have consulted other district councils, but remember that three of the East Devon Tories on Health Scrutiny (Randall Johnson and Richard Scott as well as Diviani) voted for ditching the hospital beds, with only Twiss against and Jeff Trail absent. Even at the time of the County Council elections in May, E Devon Conservatives advocated ‘bedless hospitals’, so Mike Allen’s story doesn’t add up. If they back Diviani tonight they will be consistent with their party’s betrayal of Honiton and Seaton.”

Letter referred to in post below and above:

TOMORROW 6 PM: “Motion of No Confidence in EDDC Leader, this Weds 13 Sept, 6pm at Knowle. Considerable public presence expected.”

With the BBC Spotlight report (03/09/17)* and considerable coverage in the local press, most East Devon constituents will be aware of the Extra Ordinary meeting this Wednesday 13th September, to consider a motion of no confidence in Paul Diviani for voting against referring hospital closures to the Secretary of State.

The meeting will take place in the Council Chamber, Knowle, starting at 6pm. Good attendance of the public is anticipated. The first agenda item is public speaking . Those wishing to speak should register on arrival, by completing the speaker request slip ( with topic, name and contact details) available on table just inside Council Chamber, and handing it in to the secretary.

For precise details of the motion, see

‘Motion of no confidence lodged against district council leader’, reports today’s Sidmouth Herald

‘Motion of no confidence lodged against district council leader’, reports today’s Sidmouth Herald
* The Spotlight report, by Hamish Marshall, has been captured on https://www.facebook.com/eastdevonalliance/”

https://saveoursidmouth.com/2017/09/11/motion-of-no-confidence-in-eddc-leader-this-weds-13-sept-6pm-at-knowle-considerable-public-presence-expected/

“A civil servant has revealed that HS2 was a political vanity project”

… George Osborne wanted HS2 very much against the advice of his officials. Osborne saw a high-speed railway as a way of increasing the Tories’ appeal in the North, while his officials saw it as a vanity project which would bring far less benefit than smaller-scale improvements. Osborne pushed HS2 because he wanted to be able to boast that Britain had the fastest railway in the world (in spite of its geography not justifying that).

It is bizarre that the government has now cancelled electrification projects across the North of England, so that Trans-Pennine services will continue to be provided with dirty diesel trains (conflicting with its announcement of a ban on new diesel cars from 2040), while pushing ahead with a 225 mph railway between Manchester, Leeds and London.

It doesn’t make much economic sense, but, as Macpherson questioned, does it even make political sense? Build a fast railway from north to south while simultaneously ignoring commuter services in the North and you send a pretty powerful message to northerners: go south, young man. That’s where the big opportunities are. If it is all supposed to be about boosting the North why is so much of the budget allocated to rebuilding Euston station.

HS2 is really designed around ministers’ lifestyles: it enables them to travel to the North to make an announcement, cut a ribbon or close a factory, and still be back at Westminster in time to vote and have a subsidised dinner. Meanwhile, the public transport which Londoners take for granted continues to be denied to the North. …”

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/a-civil-servant-has-revealed-that-hs2-was-a-political-vanity-project/

What Swire’s mate Heffer thinks of local authorities

Just before the last general election, Swire made one of his very rare appearances at what he called a “hustings” in Exmouth. Except no other parties were invited to participate and his one guest was Telegraph journalist Simon Heffer.

In today’s Sunday Telegraph Heffer calls for privatisation of everything that currently makes any semblance of profit, or which might make profits in future, and hiving off the loss-making tasks to unitary authorities or, in our case, the unelected, unaccountable and opaque business-run Local Enterprise Partnership.

Oh to be a fly on the wall when Swire and Heffer have their fireside chats …

He says:

“… There is too much local government. Pointy-headed theorists have banged on about localism, but all that is missing is evidence that “local” people are either capable or motivated enough to deliver “local” services. The best way to deliver “localism” is to take councils out of the equation altogether, as has been done in many cases by removing schools from their control. …

But local government will not work well until it is stripped of duties that individuals or the private sector can provide for themselves: which brings us back to social care … the government must … develop an insurance scheme that will encourage private providers to take over what threatens to become a crippling state responsibility …”

Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Comment, page 16

Unfortunately Mr Heffer neglects to explain how private providers, with shareholders mouths to feed, will be able to do it more cheaply.

Minority government fixes majority committee posts – learned from DCC and EDDC perhaps!

Note that the DUP – which is keeping this government in power – isn’t getting representation either!

Though, of corse, it would just take some honourable Tories to unstick this – lol!

Oh, for another party to win the next election outright and shove this back at them!

Democracy? Yes, Owl remembers that …

“Theresa May has been accused of ‘tearing up’ her disastrous election result and rigging Parliament for the Tories.

In an “unprecedented power grab”, the government is trying to give itself the power to dominate the committees which scrutinise laws – despite having failed to secure a majority in the election.

It means it will be harder for opposition MPs to block legislation and laws which adversely affect people’s lives will get steam-rolled through Parliament.

A motion tabled yesterday by Tory Commons leader Andrea Leadsom today seeks to overturn the rule that the Government of the day has a majority on committees only if they have the majority of MPs. …

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tweeted: “An unprecedented attempt to rig parliament and grab power by a Conservative government with no majority and no mandate.”

Rules introduced in 1995 state that the Government only gets a majority on standing committees if they have a majority in the House of Commons.

Theresa May failed to secure a majority in June’s election, finding herself eight seats short of controlling the house outright.

She was forced to cut a billion pound deal with the hardline Democratic Unionist Party in return for them lending her their support in key votes.

MPs will vote on the rule change on Tuesday.

Downing Street insisted the Government wanted a balanced situation in Parliament.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-accused-tearing-up-election-11132453

Swire: working for firemen but not for nurses

Written Answers – Department of Health: Fire and Rescue Services: Cancer
(8 Sep 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-09-04.7823.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g7823.q0

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many fire fighters have developed cancer in the first 10 years after retirement since 1967.

Wow – local MP does something for his community and attacks “jobsworths” at his local council

Relax! It isn’t Swire or Parish – it’s MP Kevin Foster in Torbay! Can you honestly see Parish doing something similar for cut-off Seaton or doing anything that isn’t about the A 303? Or Swire bringing up the fact that in Sidmouth the council has also declined a petition about the future of Port Royal? Get a grip!

Torbay Council has been blasted during a debate in the House of Commons for a ‘Jobsworth’ attitude to a local bus campaign. As reported by DevonLive, residents in Torquay are dismayed at the axing of the number 65 bus.

They have prepared a petition containing more than 1,200 signatures, but Torbay council has declined to accept it at its next meeting.

Torbay MP Kevin Foster duly took the petition to the House of Commons and presented it there, at which point the Deputy Speaker Lindsay Hoyle told him: “You need to have another word with that local authority.

Mr Foster joined a group of 30 residents battling to get the 65 bus route reinstated after it was axed in April. The route covered some of the hilliest areas of the town including Hele, Babbacombe and Ellacombe.

Campaigner Val Baker said: “Since the bus was axed, many of the most vulnerable and elderly members of the community have been left cut off and isolated. People say they feel cut off from the outside world now and their only alternative is to use a taxi, which they can ill afford.”

The nationwide Campaign for Better Transport is urging Torbay Council to rethink its transport plan and consult with the community. They say the misery of the bus cuts is an all-too-common story all over the country.

In the House of Commons Mr Foster handed in the petition and said: “Some Jobsworths at Torbay Council have decided they wish to reject this petition, so it’s welcome that this House is more responsive to my residents’ views than some officers at their local council.

“The petition declares that the cancellation of the 65 bus will have detrimental impact on local residents and in particular elderly residents. The petition therefore requests that the House of Commons urges Torbay Council to commit to providing a similar service to the previous 65 service for the sake of the local residents as soon as possible.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/mp-blasts-jobsworth-torbay-council-442106

“Council calls for new powers to discipline councillors”

Relax Diviani and Randall-Johnson – it isn’t EDDC or DCC and never will be while you and your mates are in charge!

“Thurrock Council has written to the Communities Secretary Sajid Javid to request legislation for a new ‘Right to Recall’ councillors in the event of significant conduct or ethical breach, similar to that put in place for Members of Parliament by the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

The council said that it is also looking into the possibility of introducing its own recall scheme and has asked its monitoring officer to investigate ways that this could be established without new legislation.

Deputy Leader, Cllr Shane Hebb said: “The council’s Monitoring Officer has been looking into the legalities of such a change, and I’m pleased there were many voices across the council chamber who were in favour of a higher form of accountability.

“If changes were to be implemented then, should a councillor fall foul of an agreed set of criteria – like not attending meetings, conviction of a crime or breaching the members code of conduct – voters would have the choice to recall their representative and go to the ballot box to choose another candidate.

“As councillors, we are effectively immune from our residents calling time on any bad practices until a future election. It is the belief of this council that significant lapses of judgement and behaviour do warrant sanction far sooner in some instances, and that our bosses – the electorate – should have a say in calling time on such elected representatives.”

The Localism Act 2011 removed many of the sanctions available to councils to discipline misbehaving members and a number of surveys of monitoring officers since then have found that the standards regime introduced by the act is considered inadequate to deal with code of conduct breaches.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php

Progressive politics – voters want it, the two main political parties don’t

“Whispers of collaboration waft through the air. Rumours of a new political entity emerging into the light. Stories of politicians ready to cast aside tribal instinct and join something new.

But that is quite enough about the political intrigue in Germany where, weeks before the general election, there is no doubt breathless discussion in the cafes near the Bundestag about who Angela Merkel may end up working with if she’s returned as chancellor again.

I talk of the occasional chat here, among those who describe themselves as forced to sleep on the political streets: homeless in the era of Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn.

Destitute, desperate and with a desire for something different, the story goes, they are smooching their way discreetly towards an immaculate political conception.

They are searching for the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of France’s En Marche, the miracle birth over the water.

President Emmanuel Macron built his own political kit car widget by widget, and, fuelled by the French electorate, drove it straight to the Elysee Palace.

So this political correspondent peeled himself away from the feverish summer squalls over the Big Ben bong ban, and instead made some inquiries.
‘Militant, muscular moderates’

One household name had already told me privately that they frequently passed colleagues from other parties in the corridors here, and thought that they had much more in common with them than plenty of their own supposed political brethren.

Another well-known politician told me of their desire to “create a home for those deeply politically engaged people who I call the ‘militant, muscular moderates'”.

“On the surface, there is the two-party system, but it is more complex than that,” I was told.

“There is a lot of voter churn – the electorate is soft and fluid.”
That’s Westminster speak for: “No-one’s quite sure what’s going on, so anything’s possible.” Possibly.

Look closely and what could be the embryonic beginnings of a new party are there.

There was what was called the Progressive Alliance at this year’s general election.

There were 42 seats across the UK where candidates broadly of the left stood aside with the intention of helping another candidate on the left beat the Conservatives.

In 38 of them, the Green Party didn’t put up a candidate. In two, the Liberal Democrats didn’t bother. And in one, the Women’s Equality Party didn’t. Not one Labour candidate stood aside. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41096500

However, the article concludes that there is no taste amongst Tory and Labour MPs to tinker with the status quo.

Each side assuming they would lose power and votes to another party.

Warning bell on power-grab by Ministers excluding Parliament after Brexit

More than 70 charities, NGOs and trade unions have joined a formal alliance to scrutinise the “great repeal bill”, as major rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Liberty and Friends of the Earth say they are determined to halt a “power grab” by ministers.

Members of the alliance say it will be a platform to campaign for open and accountable lawmaking after the bill is presented. It will push for clear limits on the powers given to ministers by the bill and aim to ensure standards are maintained after the UK leaves the EU.

The alliance, which launched on Wednesday and is coordinated by Unlock Democracy, says it intends to scrutinise the legislation and offer legal and technical expertise from its members, who range from human rights lawyers to environmental scientists.

The European Union (withdrawal) bill will be the first major piece of Brexit legislation before the House of Commons, with its second reading next Thursday.

One of the most complex pieces of legislation in recent history, the bill ostensibly aims to transpose EU law on to the UK statute book via secondary legislation, which could then be gradually repealed or replaced as governments see fit.

Critics of the bill say it confers significant extra powers to ministers to make changes without parliamentary scrutiny, using so-called delegated powers.

Labour’s Hilary Benn, chair of the Brexit select committee, has previously suggested this could amount to a “blank legislative cheque”, although the government has insisted the powers will only be used to make technical corrections to make the laws translatable.

Concerns have been heightened because of the number of times ministers have used delegated powers to make highly controversial changes, including the so-called rape clause requiring women who have been raped to provide verification if they wish to claim tax credits for more than two children.

Lord Judge, the former lord chief justice, has been among those raising questions about the complexity of the repeal bill and its repercussions, calling Brexit “a legislative tsunami … the greatest challenge ever faced by our legislative processes”.

Funded by a range of charitable trusts including the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Lloyds Bank Foundation, the alliance has a permanent member of staff in place to coordinate public campaigns, although it insists it is neutral on Brexit. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/31/brexit-charities-join-forces-against-repeal-bill-power-grab-by-ministers

Tories funded by rich few, Labour by poorer many!

Tories funded by big donations from the (very, very rich) few, Labour funded by the (very, very much poorer) many!

“Labour generated 10 times more in party membership fees than the Tories in 2016

Labour received ten times more than the Tories in party membership fees in 2016 as the scale of the difference between the number of rank and file supporters for each was laid bare.

The Conservatives generated £1.5 million in membership fees last year while Labour coffers were boosted to the tune of £14.4 million, according to new figures published by the Electoral Commission.

Meanwhile, the Tories brought in £800,000 through membership in 2015 while the Labour figure was £9.5 million.

The size of the membership money gap between the two parties is likely to reignite speculation about the current size of the Tory party membership after previous claims that it may have dipped below 100,000.

Membership figures for the Conservatives have not been made available since 2013 when the party had about 150,000 paid up supporters.

That figure represented a sizeable reduction on the size of the membership during the 2005 leadership contest when it stood at a reported 253,000.

In stark contrast the most recent estimate of Labour Party membership from March of this year was 517,000.

The cost of standard membership of the Conservative Party costs £25 and £48 for Labour but both parties offer other, less costly membership packages for certain groups of people like young people and armed forces personnel.

The Conservative Party declined to comment on the current size of its membership.

A Labour Party spokeswoman said: “Labour is a mass membership party, proud to be funded by our members and working people.

“It is this broad funding base that makes us the party of ordinary working people, while the Tories increasingly rely on a small pool of super-rich donors.”

While Labour enjoys a huge financial advantage over the Tories on the issue of membership income, it is the Conservatives who are ahead when it comes to donations.

The Tories received almost £19 million in donations in 2016 while Labour received £14.7 million.

In 2015, a general election year, the Tories received about £32 million in donations compared to about £19 million for Labour.

Both Labour and the Tories spent less than what they generated in income in 2016.

Labour’s total income was just shy of £50 million with the party spending about £43 million while the Tories’ total income was just over £28 million with expenditure totalling just under £28 million.

The Liberal Democrats ranked third on the list of party expenditure, spending £7.7 million, followed by the SNP on about £6 million and Ukip with just shy of £3 million.

The SNP spent more than it brought in, recording income of just under £5 million.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/31/labour-generated-10-times-party-membership-fees-tories-2016/

Nothing happening in Cornwall

“Cornwall Council says it won’t be having a full council meeting in September because there are “no substantive agenda items”.

In a statement, the council said: “The full council meeting planned for September has been cancelled as there were no substantive agenda items and the only standing items related to member and public question time.

“The council’s meetings are run so that its business can be carried out efficiently; considering the interests of the community, the importance of using members’ time effectively and the cost of holding a meeting.” …

The decision means there has been no full council meeting since 25 July, and the next one is scheduled for 21 November.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-england-devon-41041118

Scrutiny in Parliament: “party loyalty inhibits criticism and evidence-based reasoning”

Owl’s summary: From top to bottom – party loyalty trumps common sense. And we, the voters, pay the price.

The author’s summary:

“Conclusions

Where once Parliament lurked almost completely impotently on the sidelines of policy-making, recent revisionist accounts have ‘talked up’ MPs’ collective influence, with some justification.

Yet the Commons is still far from having the ‘full spectrum’ and decisive influence that democratic criteria suggest are needed.

Party loyalties inhibit criticisms and evidence-based reasoning.

Budgetary consideration is largely a joke.

And legacy procedural practices plus MPs’ traditionalist attachment to inefficient and ineffective ways of working (like the witness system for select committees, instead of developing proper investigative staffs) have limited the legislature’s role, despite some positive recent developments.”

Anyone taking bets on Diviani and/or Randall-Johnson’s future plans?

Could our two most notorious local councillors Paul Diviani (Leader, EDDC but sitting as a co-optee on the controversial Devon County Council Health Scrutiny Committee) and/or its chairman, Sarah Randall-Johnson (see article below on secret DCC Standards Committee meeting on her conduct) perhaps be lining themselves up for lucrative and/or powerful jobs with our local Clinical Commissioning Group (or whatever its next incarnation will be)?

After all, they have ably demonstrated where their sympathy lies and there will no doubt be many opportunities over the coming months to put their sympathies into action.

Diviani already has form, being a councillor member of our Local Enterprise Partnership responsible for extra housing throughout Devon and Somerset and the many, many other pies in which he has his fingers. Including a leading role in “Greater Exeter” plans.

Randall-Johnson was Diviani’s predecessor as Leader of EDDC (until being ignominiously trounced by Claire Wright in local elections) but has failed to rise to such a dizzy height again at DCC (and may – or may not – have scuppered her chances of ever doing so with her recent behaviour).

Until her recent appointment as Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee she had to content herself with appointments to the DCC Pensions Board, East Devon Highways and Traffic Orders Committee, East Devon Locality (County) Committee and the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority.

And few of us can forget that she was the unsuccessful “Cameron’s Cuties” competitor for the Tory Totnes seat won by Sarah Wollaston?

Where better for both of them to spread their wings than our CCG?

Or, is Owl hooting up the wrong tree? Is Randall-Johnson’s behaviour designed to show her Tory councillor colleagues what a “strong and stable” leader she might make for DCC?

Or, and here Owl’s eyes widen to bulging, might she be gearing up for yet another bid to become an MP and flexing her muscles for such a bid?

RandallJohnson scrutiny behaviour – whitewash or justice today?

Owl’s prediction: a tiny, tiny tap on the wrist – barely contacting – then back to business as usual for her and her party.

“A standards committee is today meeting behind closed doors to consider whether a senior Tory broke the county council code of conduct, Devon Live understands.

Conservative county councillor Sara Randall Johnson, chair of the authority’s health scrutiny committee as well as the Devon and Somerset fire authority, angered campaigners at a public meeting last month.

The former leader of East Devon District Council was jeered by the public gallery when she ignored a tabled motion by independent councillor Claire Wright designed to halt hospital bed closure plans by making a referral to the Secretary of State.

Instead, she allowed party colleagues to seize the momentum by kick starting the debate and swiftly proposing the exact opposite, a motion which narrowly won the day by just one vote.

Ms Wright protested at the meeting and after the meeting, which attracted around 80 members of the public, a dozen people are thought to have complained.

The council’s cross-party Standards Committee met on Tuesday, August 29 to debate the issue but invoked a so-called Part 2 exemption which allows proceedings to be held in secret.

A formal report is expected to be published by the group, which also includes former councillors, after the meeting revealing, explaining the decision.

Ms Wright said she did not complain formally but submitted a statement of her concerns and has been interviewed by the committee chairman.

Ms Randall Johnson and Ms Wright clashed at the bad-tempered and at times rowdy Health and Wellbeing committee meeting in July.

Randall Johnson used her new power of chairmanship to thwart her long-time opponent, whose first electoral success at district level in 2011 cost Randall Johnson her seat and leadership of the council.

Some observers claimed the move was a settling of old scores.

In the months prior to the meeting, protestors had been opposing plans by the Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group to axe 71 beds across four cottage hospitals in the Eastern locality.

Campaigners, angry that the case had not been made for the Your Future Care model of home visits, labelled the consultation a sham and turned to the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Group for help.

Under the previous chairmanship of veteran Labour councillor Richard Westlake, the scrutiny group was poised to refer the plans to the Secretary of State if 14 documented points were not addressed.

But he stepped down at the election and Ms Randall Johnson took up control.

At the first meeting of the newly constituted committee in June, it became clear that she did not support the move.

She refused to put Ms Wright’s proposal to the last vote at the June meeting and eventually members were persuaded to defer a decision to get more information.

Ms Wright again proposed that the plans be sent back to the Health Secretary, submitting a written motion before the meeting began.

She cried foul when her tabled motion was ignored, claiming she had never seen it happen in six years of committee meetings.

Unfortunately for her, the legal advice from the council backed Randall Johnson, stating that motions needed to be proposed and seconded in the meeting.

She then dismissed Ms Wright’s protest by telling her the power to choose was entirely at her discretion as chair, before moving to a vote against referring the proposals, which was won by a majority of one, with one abstention.

Former Lib Dem county council leader and respected political veteran Brian Greenslade remarked after the meeting that the move had been highly unusual.

He considered that not mentioning or circulating a table motion – one submitted before the meeting begins – was rare: not against procedure but definitely a departure from protocol.

The committee is now expected to rule on whether this departure from protocol breached the members’ Code of Conduct.

A council spokesman said the minutes will be published within the next few days.

“It’s too early to say whether this is a subject that will be discussed or raised by elected members at a future full council meeting,” he added.”

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/tory-chairman-faces-standards-inquiry-396146

A chance to show Diviani exactly what you think of him for destroying our community hospital beds

Remember, anyone who votes AGAINST this motion, or ABSTAINS or is not at the meeting for spurious reasons, is guilty of destroying our local health service and killing off Axminster, Ottery, Seaton, Budleigh and Honiton community hospital beds – and cares not one jot what you may think.

“13 September 6pm, EDDC extraordinary meeting:

Motion – Vote of no confidence in the Leader

“On Tuesday 25th July 2017, Cllr Diviani chose not to represent the opinions of this Council or the people we represent at the DCC Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee meeting when he was clearly expected to do so. This Council no longer has confidence in Cllr Diviani’s commitment to represent our collective interests nor lead our East Devon communities as the figurehead for local government. We call for his resignation.’

Proposed by Councillor Ben Ingham, seconded by Councillor Val Ranger and supported by Councillors Cathy Gardner, Matt Coppell, Marianne Rixson, Rob Longhurst, Dawn Manley, Geoff Jung, Peter Faithfull, Susie Bond, Roger Giles, Matt Booth, Peter Burrows, Steve Gazzard, Megan Armstrong and Douglas Hull.”

Please attend to show how you feel and speak if you want to.”

Source: East Devon Alliance, Facebook

Tory donor and tax avoider – go together like a horse and carriage

The Canary has provided a handy copy-and-keep list of the top Tory election donors, and it’s a real rogues’ gallery. Check out these creeps:

The Tories’ top donors included:

JCB Service – £1.5m. It’s owned by Anthony Bamford, who was not only named in the Panama Papers, but who operates JCB out of tax haven Bermuda.

John C Armitage – £1.1m. Armitage is the founder of Egerton Capital, a hedge fund that enables [xml] tax avoidance for investors.

John Griffin – £1.03m. Griffin and his private hire firm Addison Lee were caught up in a lobbying scandal in 2012.

Mark J. C. Bamford – £750,000. The younger brother of Anthony Bamford, owner of JBC Service, he was caught up in a row over a JCB subsidiary, JCB research, which, while only worth £27,000, was the biggest Tory donor in the run-up to the 2010 general election.

Andrew E Law – £525,000. Law is a hedge fund owner [paywall] whose firm Caxton Associates is registered in the US tax avoidance state of Delaware.
David J Rowland – £312,500. The Canary conducted a major investigation into Rowland in 2016, and described his offshore tax affairs as “mind blowing”.
Lord Michael Ashcroft – £500,000. Ashcroft has been involved in several tax avoidance scandals. He also co-authored the book at the centre of the David Cameron ‘Pig gate’ scandal.

Other Tory donors [pdf p3-5] during the election period included:

Sir Henry and Lady Keswick – £150,000. Keswick’s company Jardine Matheson was linked to tax avoidance via Luxembourg and has numerous subsidiaries in tax haven Bermuda.

Charles ‘Julian’ Cazalet – £10,000. Cazalet is a non-executive director of NHS private provider Deltex Medical Group.

Malcolm Healey – £100,000. Healey was fined by HMRC in 2015 for making £8.6m [pdf] by using a tax avoidance scheme.

Bruce Hardy McLain – £100,000. McLain’s private investment firm CVC Capital Partners is currently embroiled in a £5m bribery and tax avoidance scandal involving Formula One.

Ayman and Sawsan Asfari – £100,000. Ayman is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. He also runs oil company Petrofac, which avoids tax via Jersey.

Rainy City Investments – £100,000. Owned by Peter and Fred Done, who were fined £800,000 by the Serious Fraud Office over money laundering allegations.

Investors in Private Capital Ltd – £150,000. Co-owned by James ‘Jamie’ Reuben, family friend of George Osborne, it paid no UK corporation tax in 2014 [pdf p13], despite a turnover [pdf p17] of £35m.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/08/27/top-tory-election-donors-appear-to-be-tax-avoiders-money-launderers-and-private-health-bosses/

Transparency: can’t see it

“Claims that this government would be the most transparent in history have been exposed as a sham after it emerged that nearly half the papers it was supposed to release for public scrutiny have been held back.

Departments are expected to publish details of spending as well as information on the gifts, hospitality, meetings and travel of ministers and officials.

But research shows that 92 out of the 202 “transparency” publications that ministers pledged to release are either late or missing.

Only three departments have met a new requirement to publish the gender pay gap between male and female officials.

Nine out of 22 departments are late publishing lists of civil service staff moving to business appointments or have never published them. These rules are designed to prevent abuse of the “revolving door” between Whitehall and business.

Nineteen out of 22 are late to publish lists of civil servants who are in “off-payroll arrangements”, often used to reduce tax.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has never released details of its spending, even though Whitehall has been told to cut waste by publishing records of items costing £25,000 or more, or more than £500 if purchased on a government credit card.

Liam Fox’s international trade department has not published six out of the nine transparency publications it should have released since it was formed in July 2016.

Jon Trickett, the shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, said: “The Tories promised us ‘the most transparent government ever’, but Theresa May has broken that promise. The prime minister has failed to ensure proper scrutiny of government business. This risks breaching public trust.

“The government is doing all it can to hide their actions from the public. The question which people will naturally ask themselves is ‘What has Mrs May got to hide?’ ”

A government spokesman said: “We are releasing more information than ever before.The World Wide Web Foundation recently ranked the UK government first on its global Open Data Barometer, putting the UK at the forefront of open government.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

Tory general election call centre being investigated by police

“Police say they are carrying out an investigation of “scale and significance” into allegations the Conservative Party broke the law during the election campaign with its use of a call centre in Wales.

The investigation into the contracting of the business in Neath was confirmed in a letter from South Wales Police to Labour MP Wayne David.

Secret footage obtained by Channel 4 News suggested the Tories may have broken data protection and election laws by using Blue Telecoms to directly contact voters in marginal seats.

The Conservative Party has said it did not break the law by using the company, which it said was hired to carry out legal market research and direct marketing.

The CPS statement on charging an MP in Tory electoral fraud in full
In a letter to Mr David, South Wales Police confirmed the investigation is being carried out by its economic crime unit, who have experience in dealing with “electoral integrity investigations”.

It adds there is no timescale for the investigation because it is of “sufficient scale and significance that South Wales Police are unable to offer any specific timescale”.

“Rest assured that the officers within this department have the required specialist skills and expertise for this often challenging area of business and will, as with all investigations, act in a diligent and expeditious manner,” the letter said.

The Information Commissioner’s Office also confirmed it is “currently investigating the Conservative Party in relation to a possible breach of Regulation 21 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003”.

“The allegations that the Conservative Party and Blue Telecoms broke electoral law during a general election campaign are extremely serious and the public need to have confidence in our electoral process. That is fundamental to our democracy.”

A spokesman for South Wales Police said: “South Wales Police is currently reviewing information received in regards to Blue Telecoms.

“It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are unable to comment on an ongoing investigation.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/marketing/apps