Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Voting

Comments

4 Comments

General Election – “also rans” – a raggle-taggle bunch!

Interesting collection standing for General Election in East Devon hoping to represent us.

THE FRONT RUNNERS

Hugo Swire: mostly absentee incumbent, spends large amounts of time on work with his Conservative Middle East Committee, lives (when not in London or travelling the Middle East) in Mid-Devon. Voted for Health and Social Care Act 2012 that broke up the NHS, knighted by old Etonian friend David Cameron, sacked soon after from his Foreign Office job by Theresa May. Famed for slurs on the less well off and being mischievously touched on the bottom by David Cameron at a State Dinner. Words (supportive) and actions (voting for cuts) at odds when it comes to the crunch on major issues affecting East Devon.

Claire Wright (Independent)
Was EDDC councillor for many years, instrumental in opening up the planning process for public scrutiny. DCC Councillor, recently re-elected in a landslide victory (c. 75% of the vote for the second consecutive time). Lives in Ottery St.Mary. Tireless campaigner for the NHS, schools and the environment. Her General Election result in 2015, was more than Labour and Lib Dem combined. A Google search (“Claire Wright” Devon) has well over 100 links about her campaigning on issues.

THE ALSO-RANS

Michael Van Davies (Independent)
Stood as Independent Candidate for MP for Barnsley Central in a 2011 By Election (despite living in Exmouth) and got 60 votes (0.2%). A Google search (“Michael Val Davies” OR “Michael Davies” Devon) pretty devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues.

Alison Eden (Lib Dems)
Teignmouth Town Councillor, and TeignBridge District Councillor since a by-election in Sep 2016. Proposed by Eileen Wragg and some local Lib Dems
She is quoted as saying she wants to put Teignmouth high on the tourist map. (well that’s helpful for us in East Devon!!). A Google search (“Alison Eden” Devon) is pretty devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues

Peter Faithfull (Independent)
EDDC Councillor since May 2015, Ottery St. Mary Town Councillor. Lives in Ottery. A Google search (“Peter Faithful” Devon) pretty devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues except his strong feelings against West Hill having its own parish council.

Brigitte Graham (UKIP)
A basket weaver lives in East Budleigh and stood unsuccessfully in Exmouth for the county earlier this month, got circa 800 votes, with 2,700-2,800 for the two Conservatives who won seats and around 2,200 for the Independent Ben Ingham. A Google search (“Brigitte Graham” Devon) is utterly devoid of any track record of campaigning on any issues local or national.
 
Jan Ross LAB. Lives in Exmouth and stood for DCC in Broadclyst Division in May 2017 DCC elections with c. 410 votes cf. c. 1,500 – 1,600 votes for the two Conservatives elected. According to the election notice, she doesn’t live in the constituency – officially her address is Central Devon – though her Labour Party page says she lives in Exmouth. A Google search (“Janet Ross” Devon) is utterly devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues.

So, who is going to get YOUR vote?

And remember Hugo Swire last time only got 47% of the votes cast.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Sleaze, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

“Is the Prime Minister fake news”

From the blog of Peter Cleasby:

“Last week the Conservative Party – rebranded nationally as “Theresa May’s Team” – bought advertising space in a dozen local papers around the country to promote the Prime Minister’s general election campaign [1]. Nothing wrong in that in principle: it’s a long-standing habit of political parties to pay for advertising. The towns and cities in question appear to be Parliamentary seats which the Tories are targeting to win. So far, business much as usual.

The commentariat has tended to criticise the tactic as a way of getting around spending limits for constituency election campaigns. It’s a targeted national campaign which doesn’t mention the local candidates so it’s not local spending, and it’s all within Electoral Commission rules.

Frankly, that’s a second-order complaint. The Conservative Party is simply doing what any advertiser would do given the opportunity. If it’s an unintended loophole in the spending rules, it can be put right. Much more insidious, and an example of further erosion of any semblance of standards in corporate behaviour, is the way in which the newspapers allowed the ads to be designed and placed.

What the local papers did – or, probably more accurately, what they were told to do by their corporate owners – was to accept the advertisement in the form of a wrap-around, with each paper’s normal masthead integrated into the paid-for “front page”. In other words, a blatant attempt to mislead readers into thinking their local paper was supporting Mrs May’s election campaign.

Defenders of the scheme have argued that people would easily see that it was an advertisement. Really? Two points here. First, at least on the fake front page of the Exeter Express and Echo, the words “ADVERTISER’S ANNOUNCEMENT” are set in a white font on a pale grey background. This is invisible to anyone looking at the paper from a distance, on a newsstand for example.

Second, it’s not unheard of for national papers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail to trumpet their support for a political party as editorial matter on their front pages. If they can do it, why should people be surprised that the local papers are doing the same?

The advertising impact isn’t limited to people who buy the paper: indeed, they will soon discover the real front page inside and put Mrs May in the recycling. What the technique achieves is massive exposure of Mrs May’s slogans because the papers – typically weekly ones – are displayed on newsstands for a whole week. These stands are often to be found in prominent places in major retailers: in Exeter, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s have separate stands for the Echo in the entrance areas.

The edition of the Exeter paper that carried the fake front page also ran a leader article entitled “Delivering facts not fake news” [2]. The irony of this was lost on the paper’s editor. In response to my complaint to him about the fake front page, Mr Parker said:

“The material carried this week was part of a nationwide advertising initiative by the Conservative Party and the decision to publish it was made solely for business reasons as we are, after all, a business.

“It was made clear that this was an advertising arrangement with the Conservative party and is something we are at the moment exploring with other political parties.

“Again, any future decisions will be based on the commercial side of the business and will have absolutely no bearing on the way the Express and Echo covers editorially any news stories whether or not they are of a political nature.

“I cannot emphasise enough that we are a totally independent news operation and proud of that fact and will continue to be so.”

Taking advertisers’ money is one thing. Trying to mislead your readers – who may not be interested in the distinction between the commercial and editorial sides of the business – is quite another. And since the rules on political balance don’t apply to the press, we can assume that only those parties who can pay out hard cash for wrap-arounds will be included in the exploratory discussions Mr Parker refers to.

Up in Westmoreland, where the local paper also ran a fake front page, there is some community anger, threatening a boycott of the rag [3]. Something worth considering everywhere else, since even if local papers no longer care about their reputations, their owners do care about sales and profits.

Meanwhile Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and all other retailers giving prominence to local papers should move the newsstands carrying the fake front page to the nearest back room until normal service is resumed.”

NOTES

[1] For a list of papers and constituencies, see https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/how-the-conservatives-are-using-local-adverts-to-get-around

[2] A longer version of the article is in the online version at http://www.devonlive.com/8203-in-an-age-of-fake-stories-we-always-provide-trusted-news/story-30314208-detail/story.

[3] See https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/05/09/northern-community-boycotts-local-paper-over-tory-wrap-around-ad/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Comments

3 Comments

Northern community boycotts local paper over Tory wrap-around ad

The Express and Echo was also guilty of publishing this ad, which coincidentally covered over the REAL front page detailing a local planning scandal!

“Hundreds of people have signed a petition demanding a weekly newspaper apologises for running a front page wraparound promoting the Conservative Party as the row over the adverts rumbles on.

The Westmorland Gazette was one of many regional newspapers to run the wrap last week ahead of Thursday’s local elections, but has now come under fire from readers who have demanded a full front page apology and threatened to boycott the paper until it complies.

The petition’s Avaaz page reads: “As regular readers of the Westmorland Gazette we are dismayed to see OUR community paper being misused for party political purposes.

“Whilst we would welcome balanced representation of all LOCAL candidates within the paper, we feel strongly that a front page advert for a single national party is not acceptable (especially when published on a polling day (4/5/17)!).

“We request that you publish a full front page apology in your next issue. Please note that many of us will be boycotting the paper until this occurs.”

The adverts coincided with the local elections, as readers went to the polls for council and mayoral elections.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westmorland-gazette-newspaper-front-page-tory-advert-local-elections-conservatives-apology-readers-a7725816.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCC, Democracy, Devolution, EDDC, General Election

“Austerity has made local government financially unviable. Radical reorganisation may be the only answer”

Owl says: But alas not before EDDC has spent £10 million plus of our money on a new HQ which may be redundant before they move into it!

“Tory councillors popping celebratory corks after last week’s haul of seats should bear in mind the old adage: be careful what you wish for. Now they occupy council leadership positions from Maidstone to Morpeth, it is they alone who must now carry the can for sorting out local government’s two Rs, revenue and reorganisation. The latter is going to haunt county halls for the next political cycle.

The blue tide isn’t going to wash away any of local government’s fundamental problem of a lack of money. Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, has said he hopes “emboldened county leadership” could campaign for sustainable funding for social care and children’s services; he’s an optimist.

Residents may be willing to pay more for looking after older people. But how? Council tax won’t provide enough, so it will be down to central grants. Whoever is communities secretary after June 9 (and Theresa May looks unlikely to keep Sajid Javid) must now devise a distribution and needs formula for England that will protect Tories in the north as well as those in the heartlands of the south.

Short of May tearing up the spending plans set out by Philip Hammond barely a couple of months ago, financial pressure isn’t going to ease. So, come June 9 we’re back to the Christchurch question. A month ago, councillors in the solidly Tory Dorset district decided to defer a referendum on an outline plan to reorganise local government in that county, getting rid of two tiers and replacing the county council, districts and existing Poole and Bournemouth unitary councils with two new, big unitaries. Without reorganisation, the story goes, austerity has made local government financially unviable.

Reorganisation details are different in the various, but the same kinds of argument have been playing in Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, Kent, Bucks, Essex, Hampshire and the other shires. If you notice something similar about those names, gold star: they are all Tory. What’s in prospect is largely an intra-Tory party argument which, in Kent, for example, is already pitting Tory MPs against councillors, as well as setting up massive squabbles between councillors themselves.

We’ve been here before, several times. Those with long memories will recall the long hours and bitter debate within the John Major government in the 1990s over reorganisation. The fruits of that included the demise of Avon county council in 1996, which the West of England combined authority is a bodged attempt at recreating.

Reorganisation is back because consultants’ reports say it should in principle be cheaper to run services over bigger areas with a single tier council and county executives usually agree. But those reports perennially underestimate transitional costs and rarely factor in the hard-to-quantify but vital element of the identification of residents and staff with particular places and local history.

Besides, most reorganisations turn into messy compromises. Take Christchurch. A “rational” reorganisation based on economic geography would align it with Southampton and the Solent, with the New Forest a sort of park in between urban areas. But few Tories are willing to abandon entirely the historic boundaries of Dorset even if the county council goes, just as few Tories want to see the (non-Tory) urban areas of Oxford and Cambridge being allowed to swallow the districts around them.

And all that is just local government. Summing up the costly and largely ineffective debates of the 1990s, Michael Chisholm, chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission, complained of the folly of reorganising without simultaneously considering council powers and finance – which these days has to include the interrelationship of councils and the NHS as well as the fraught consequences of councils’ keeping the proceeds of business rates and the end of central grants.

There’s trouble ahead but at least reorganisation would weaken the political hegemony the Tories have now established across a wide swath of English local government.”

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/may/09/english-local-government-tory-revenue-reorganisation

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Police (local), Voting

Election expenses fraud decision “late May/early June”

Whose betting on 9-15 June! With no prosecutions, of course, including our own Police and Crime Commissioner – “insufficient evidence”, “minor mistakes”, “must be more careful in future”, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb:

“Today The Independent has the latest on when that CPS news will come:

If it decides to launch criminal proceedings, the investigation could have a dramatic impact on a snap election which was called by Theresa May last month when she was top of the polls.

A spokesman for the CPS told The Independent, “We have nothing to add to our previous position which is that we are working to various deadlines in late May and early June.”

The CPS is under pressure to make a decision due to legal time limits around when cases have to be brought over election-related wrongdoing.
Note that “late May” reference in particular. General election polling day is in June.

The fraud allegations centre on claims that the Conservatives evaded constituency election expense limits by wrongly declaring items as national expenditure (and so subject to another, more generous limit) rather than as local expenditure.

The Electoral Commission has already levied a record-breaking fine on the Conservative Party, in part for wrongly including in its national expenditure limit items which should have been included in the local expenses limit.

The Commission, however, does not, however, have enforcement powers over those local limits. Hence the additional police and CPS process looking at the Conservative MPs and officials responsible for the local expense returns. Whilst the Commission fined the Conservative Party, this second legal process, if it goes ahead, puts individuals in the legal firing line.”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/149737/cps-conservative-election-expenses-announcement-timing/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Honiton/ Gittisham

Honiton’ new mayor sensationally quits the role and the council immediately after election

“HONITON Town Council elected a new mayor this evening in Cllr Ashley Delasalle, who stunned the chamber by immediately quitting the role – and the council – with a sensational statement.

Cllr Delasalle, who had served Honiton Town Council since 2015, said the council was “broken” and “limping from one crisis to the next”. She also said it is “diseased with negative energy” and “personal battles of ego”.

Cllr Delasalle’s statement read: “Firstly and most importantly I would like to thank those of you [that] have supported me over the past few weeks. If this process has taught me anything is that I have great friends. “I would also like to thank my family, especially my husband for his inspiration and for teaching me I can make a positive difference to people’s lives.

“35 years ago my teacher told me to steer clear of my husband because he was trouble. I now live with a man who receives invitations from the Prime Minister to dine at Number 10 and who proposed to me at the High Sheriff of Devon’s private garden party. “Clearly some teachers are poor judges of character.”

“I have said that I will endeavour to secure funds to reinstate the Gissage Bridge and the toll gates. I have many ideas and I will pursue those aims. I will also fund raise to provide the de-fibrilators (sic) for the town that the council failed to provide last year.

Pre-occupied with the past

“This will be difficult to achieve as we have been so pre-occupied with the past that we have failed to set a proper budget for the coming year.

“This Council exists to serve the people of the town, it does not exist to boost our ego’s (sic) or fulfil our personal ambitions. “Sadly we do not all hold that opinion.

Harassment and bullying

“In the past 4 months it is my view that I have witnessed the harassment, bullying and intimidation of our fellow councillors and council employees.

“I feel a victim of this treatment myself and the treatment of our temporary RFO (Responsible Financial Officer] [Cllr David Perkins, who is filling in for town clerk Chetna Jones) can only be described a appalling.

“Despite the best efforts of some of us this bullying and harassment has remained uncontrolled and unreported.

Lack of mutual respect

“It is my opinion that Honiton Town Council is broken, it is limping from one crisis to the next, it is diseased with negative energy, with personal battles of ego, with personal ambition; there is a lack of mutual respect and sense of common decency among its peers, and is fixated with the past.

“This type of behaviour affects the health of our employees, our members and our members’ families and is at best immature.

“We should be ashamed.

“I promise the town of Honiton that I will do all I can to achieve the aim’s (sic) I have set out above to the best of my ability. I will welcome all the co-operation and help I know I will receive from many of you and from the people of the town.

“I feel that my efforts will be most effective without the influence of the Town Council, and for that reason it is without regret or apology that I resign from the council with immediate effect.”

https://www.viewnews.co.uk/honitons-new-mayor-sensationally-quits-council-evening-theyre-elected/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, General Election, Hugo Swire

Comments

1 Comment

Independent Claire Wright to challenge Hugo Swire again

“Claire to stand for East Devon seat

Since the snap election was announced I have been inspired by hundreds of emails and calls urging me to stand and offering help. Following my decisive win in the county council elections, I have decided to say YES to my army of supporters by once again challenging the sitting Conservative MP.

In the 2015 parliamentary election I came second, with a 24 per cent share of the vote – more than Labour and the Lib Dems combined.

People are telling me that they are angry and frustrated with the current government’s policies. East Devon residents are looking for someone different, someone who will work solely for them, without being tied to a political party.

As a direct result of this government’s policies local NHS provision is under threat, education budgets face massive shortfalls, local businesses will suffer hikes in business rates, local council services have diminished under massive government cuts – and national debt has actually increased.

As well as this there are real fears of a damaging hard Brexit if the Conservative government is re-elected with a substantial majority, as is predicted.

In 2015, although a long-standing and hard-working local councillor, I was a parliamentary newcomer.

Now I have a track record that shows how local people are prepared to back me. I am the only candidate who can win this seat from the Conservative MP.

I am calling on everyone in this constituency from the youngest to the oldest voter to join in a campaign based on progressive values and to return me as their MP.

As an Independent MP I would be free from the party whip and I would campaign on the issues that local people tell me are important to them. I would be free to speak and free to act.

If every resident who would like to see change in East Devon votes for me, history can be made in East Devon.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Voting

Government will not fund young voter registration drive

“Youth vote campaigners are warning of a democratic deficit in the general election as it emerged that the Cabinet Office will not provide funding to groups focused on increasing turnout among young and marginalised people.

As the electoral commission launches a campaign to increase voter registration before the deadline on 22 May, the Guardian has learned that funding provided by the Cabinet Office in past general elections will not be available this time because the pre-election period has already begun.

Lucy Caldicott, chief executive of the youth leadership organisation UpRising, said: “We are in an environment where many charities are already working really hard to get our campaigns to encourage young people to vote up and running but we are asking just how much of an impact we can make in such a short time.

“There is a real risk of there being a democratic deficit in this election due to the lack of notice and short campaign. Do we continue to focus on our core long-term activity or throw our assets behind getting a few thousand more votes out, as important as that is? We will of course encourage all those young people we work with to take part by voting on the 8 June.”

Young people could be left feeling ignored and marginalised as charities have to choose between risking their long-term financial stability and ploughing resources into getting out the youth vote. Campaigners say that as the election falls in the middle of the exams period, some students are unsure whether to register at their university address or at home.

The election also coincides with the Muslim month of Ramadan, ranising questions about a further potential barrier for ethnic and faith minorities who are already under-registered.

After a huge push to get voters to register for the EU referendum, some organisations have been left with little in reserve to engage young people in an election that will shape their futures for the next five years and beyond.

Young people have been repeatedly accused of moaning about Brexit despite failing to vote in the EU referendum, with one estimate soon after the referendum claiming that only 36% of 18- to 24-year-olds had taken part.

But analysis by the London School of Economics of detailed polling conducted since the referendum by Opinium suggests turnout was as high as 64% among young people registered to vote, and that more than 70% of young voters choosing to remain in the EU.

Elisabeth Pop, voter registration campaign manager at the anti-fascism group Hope Not Hate, said: “The big question at this snap general election is: who will decide Britain’s future? With less than a month to go until voter registration ends, there is a real risk that students and certain other vulnerable groups will miss out on their chance of a voice.

“Our research clearly shows that traditionally underrepresented communities and social groups – such as students and young people, ethnic minorities and renters – remain at risk of not having a say come 8 June.”

In a series of emergency meetings in recent days, groups have been devising urgent action plans and putting themselves on a battle footing despite time and financial pressures.

The youth voter movement Bite the Ballot promises “weeks’ worth of unconventional activities” to get out the youth vote, and will be partnering with high-profile companies to reach as many young people as possible.

Hope Not Hate and Bite the Ballot will team up for TurnUp – eight days of concentrated action and a digital push in the run-up to the voter registration deadline; while UpRising will work with young people on its programmes to ensure they are registered and encourage them to get involved in the debate.

“The main thing we will be up against is voter fatigue,” said Kenny Imafidon of Bite the Ballot. “A lot of people don’t understand why we are going to the polls again. Our message is that there is power in participation. This election is not just about Brexit, it’s about big issues facing young people like housing, employment, education reform. Our role is not to tell people who to vote for, but get them to ask critical questions.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/08/snap-election-raises-risk-of-democratic-deficit-say-youth-vote-campaigners

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Spin

Comments

3 Comments

How to manipulate local “news”

“The Conservatives have spent tens of thousands of pounds buying wraparound adverts on local newspapers across the country, pushing deep into Labour-held constituencies with a tactic that shows both the ambition of their election campaign and the party’s ability to make the most of legal loopholes in campaign spending rules.

More than a dozen titles across the country owned by major newspaper publishing companies – including Johnston Press and Daily Mirror owner Trinity Mirror – carried the wraparound adverts on Wednesday and Thursday. The four-page adverts, which replace the newspapers’ own front pages, barely mention the word “Conservatives” and instead focus on Theresa May’s leadership and the promise of Brexit.

As long as the adverts in local papers do not reference the local candidate or local issues, they are considered to be exempt from strict local constituency spending budgets, which can be as low as £12,000 per candidate for the entire campaign. Instead the Conservatives are able to count the adverts as “national spending”, which comes under the party’s central campaign spending limit of around £19 million.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/how-the-conservatives-are-using-local-adverts-to-get-around

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality, Lobbying

Comments

1 Comment

“Loads of Britain’s 100 richest people have donated more than £19 million to the Tories and nobody’s at all surprised”

“Some 35 of the richest 100 people in Britain have given £19 million to the Tories, it was revealed today.

More than a third of the Sunday Times Rich List, published today, are Conservative donors, according to a Labour party analysis.

The wealthy backers, who include property moguls, financiers and retail CEOs, have a combined net worth of more than £123 million. …”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/loads-britains-100-richest-people-10375139

Image

Posted by

Posted on

7 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality

Food banks: an interesting statistic

To which one can add this:

“Britain’s has more billionaires than ever, as the super-rich reap the benefits of a “Brexit boom”, according to this year’s Sunday Times Rich List.

There are now 134 billionaires based in the UK, 14 more than the previous highest total. Fifteen years ago, there were 21. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/07/brexit-boom-creates-record-number-of-uk-billionaires-sunday-times-rich-list

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Spin, Transparency

Why voters must think for themselves

The focus of this article is Brexit but it could be anything – the NHS, education, the environment, foreign policy.

It’s about how shady companies manipulate news and advertising to serve the ends of those who employ them and how together they can create a fake world that people can be influenced by without realising it is happening, so good are they at the job.

Don’t let social media or newspapers or politicians with particular allegiances tell you what to think – don’t even let East Devon Watch tell you what to think! Look around you, see for yourself, listen to different views (the more different to yours the better), think about how your life is now and how you would wish it to be for yourself and others in future – then put your cross in the box that fits best with that vision.

“ …the capacity for this science [data analytics] to be used to manipulate emotions is very well established. This is military-funded technology that has been harnessed by a global plutocracy and is being used to sway elections in ways that people can’t even see, don’t even realise is happening to them,” she says. “It’s about exploiting existing phenomenon like nationalism and then using it to manipulate people at the margins. To have so much data in the hands of a bunch of international plutocrats to do with it what they will is absolutely chilling.

“We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That’s a very worrying situation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Democracy, Exmouth, Regeneration

Exmouth: this is the sort of County Councillor you have elected

This is an extract of a Facebook page of County Councillor Richard Scott, who you have just chosen to represent you at county level, giving us his unique view on his colleague and regeneration. Here is its transcript verbatim:

“Waste of time Town Poll over and valuable money lost. Lets see what the outcome is and whether or not the Town Council has to, which it doesn’t, have to write a letter to, thats right a letter to EDDC. I bet they are shitting themselves. I wonder if the chief exec of EDDC will read it or put it in the bin, which should be a recycle bin by the way as they are a sustainable council. I wonder why our esteemed district councillor and leader of SES didn’t try to influence the district council in her role rather than abuse the town council, our money and a retarded local ‘referendum’ regulation that effectively has no force or power over the landowner, or is it just about causing trouble because and trust me on this they do not want consultation they just don’t want any development in [Exmouth]”

IMG_1624

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, Voting

Same old, same old … with one or two exceptions

Well, the bad news is that Paul Hayward and Marianne Rixson (East Devon Alliance)were unsuccessful in Axminster and Sidmouth but good news is Claire Wright (Ottery, Independent) was re-elected with her usual stonking majority and Martin Shaw (EDA) pipped nearest rival Helen Parr to the post in Seaton.

For Devon four years of mainly same old, same old but with the added twist of massive cuts, privatisation and bec closures in the health service, the decimation of environmental controls and increase in air pollution and an education system cut well beyond the bone.

Add our expensive Local Enterprise Partnership and Brexit to this mix and the air could get really toxic!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire

Swire just scraped in his knighthood

“Theresa May has signalled an end to cronyism in the honours system by becoming the first prime minister not to publish a dissolution honours list in more than 60 years.

MPs who have chosen not to stand for re-election in June have been told not to expect an award, The Telegraph can disclose.

Mrs May wants a clean break from the tradition of prime ministers using honours lists to reward close aides and advisers.

Her predecessor, David Cameron, was accused of degrading the honours system last year when he showered awards on party donors and Downing Street staff including his wife Samantha’s stylist and two of his former drivers. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/04/theresa-may-breaks-away-cameron-cronyism-mps-standing-told-will/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

Undemocratic mayors, undemocratic scrutiny

“The mere election of a mayor … does not mean these new mayoralties are automatically democratic. Mayors work within combined authorities, with cabinets made up of council leaders – all of whom are indirectly elected through a broken First Past the Post voting system.

But there is no directly elected assembly to hold them to account, like that of the London mayoralty. Instead, the Mayor is scrutinised by Overview and Scrutiny Committees made of councillors and within the council chambers themselves. This means who sits on those committees really matters.

At the Electoral Reform Society, we want to see a better democracy. And the metro mayors are the biggest change to the governance of England in decades. They are an exciting opportunity to change the way our cities are governed to be more inclusive, more local and more visible.

But we are concerned that this structure passes up existing legacies of problems in local government to the new mayoralties, as we point out in our new report From City Hall to Citizens’ Hall: Democracy, Diversity and English Devolution.

Due to our electoral system, Britain has a multitude of local ‘one-party states’, with almost no opposition in the council chamber. Many of these abound in the areas electing metro-mayors, with some councils having just one member from outside the controlling party.

Previous work for the ERS has shown that these councils risk an extra £2.6bn on public procurement each year, due to a lack of scrutiny.

Concerns around scrutiny are particularly strong in some of the metro-mayor areas because the council leaders – who will make up the cabinets – lack any diversity whatsoever. Only two of the council leaders of the six areas electing combined authorities are women. Only one is from a BAME community. This carries with it risks within the policymaking process, narrowing the experience and knowledge-base around the cabinet table.

So far the combined authority scrutiny committees have also demonstrated a lack of diversity, both political and demographic. On the West Midlands Overview and Scrutiny Committee, for instance, ten of twelve political members are drawn from one party, and ten are men.”

Who’s going to hold the new metro mayors to account?

Owl says: Should Devon and Somerset EVER become a combined authority, our councillors and the Mayor will bend their knees to the nuclear and property vested interests of the majority of businessmen (men) who run our Local Enterprise Partnership – forget scrutiny. It didn’t help when the self-same people gave their CEO a 24% payrise and there was NOTHING councils could do about it.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Democracy

Colyton issue makes Express and Echo front page, our other MP makes it a double for Private Eye

Here’s Mrs Parr (you can find her today making the rounds of Seaton and Colyton polling stations in her bid to become the area’s Devon County Councillor):

and, coincidentally, Conservative MP Neil Parish appears in this week’s Private Eye:

only one edition later than our other Conservative MP Hugo Swire appeared in the publication:

And who can forget 2013 when disgraced Conservative councillor Graham Brown made this headline:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9920971/If-I-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-says-Devon-councillor-and-planning-consultant.html

There’s no such thing as bad publicity, they say.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency

The law on disclosable pecuniary interest

“What happens if I don’t follow the rules on disclosable pecuniary interests?

It is a criminal offence if, without a reasonable excuse, you fail to tell the monitoring officer about your disclosable pecuniary interests, either for inclusion on the register if you are a newly elected, co-opted or appointed member, or to update the register if you are re- elected or re-appointed, or when you become aware of a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not recorded in the register but which relates to any matter;

– that will be or is being considered at a meeting where you are present, or
– on which you are acting alone.

It is also a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information, or to participate in the business of your authority where that business involves a disclosable pecuniary interest. It is also a criminal offence to continue working on a matter which can be discharged by a single member and in which you have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

If you are found guilty of such a criminal offence, you can be fined up to £5,000 and disqualified from holding office as a councillor for up to five years.”

Click to access Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, NHS (local), Voting

Make your vote count in tomorrow’s county council election

Vote only for those whose ACTIONS show their dedication to causes such as the NHS, education and the environment.

Independent – Claire Wright
Claire’s committment to these values at DCC has been shown on a weekly basis
Save our Hospital services speaker and supporter
Standing against Tory Tim Venner, who said Ottery Hospital was just a geriatric home
Garnered more than 13,000 votes when she stood in the last General Election against Hugo Swire, East Devon’s mostly absentee MP.

Independent East Devon Alliance:

Paul Hayward:
Axminster Town Councillor,
Clerk to 3 parish councils
Save our Hospital Services activist and supporter

Martin Shaw – Seaton and Colyton
Town councillor, Seaton planning committee chairman who puts the area first – spoke out against development of Green Wedge adjacent to Wetlands
Save our Hospital Services activist and supporter

Marianne Rixson
Sidmouth Sidford Town Councillor
Fighting to stop massive industrial development in Sidford
Save our Hospital Services activist and supporter

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Spin, Voting

Voters beware personalised Facebook spam from political parties

“A tool exposing how voters are targeted with tailored propaganda on Facebook has been launched in response to what is likely to be the most extensive social media campaign in general election history.

Experts in digital campaigning, including an adviser to Labour in 2015, have designed a program to allow voters to shine a light into what they describe as “a dark, unregulated corner of our political campaigns”.

The free software, called Who Targets Me?, can be added to a Google Chrome browser and will allow voters to track how the main parties insert political messages into their Facebook feeds calibrated to appeal on the basis of personal information they have already made public online.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/03/free-software-reveal-facebook-election-posts-targeted-chrome-extension