Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DCLG, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

“Surrey council received boost in budget after ‘sweetheart deal’ claims”

“Analysis by Labour shows that out of the £2bn of new money for social care in England announced in Wednesday’s budget, Surrey will see the biggest increase in the share of funding by the 2019/20 financial year.

The analysis says that Surrey will get 1.66% of the money, rising from 0.75% in 2017/18, an increase of 0.91 percentage points in the three-year period – more than double the increase of the second council, Hertfordshire.

Theresa May has repeatedly denied Surrey will receive any form of funding not available to other local authorities, after the council last month called off a planned referendum on increasing council tax by 15% to pay for what it said was a crisis in social care funding.

But soon after the postponement, leaked text messages about a supposed “memorandum of understanding” between the council and government prompted Jeremy Corbyn to accuse May of buying off Surrey with a special deal, which she denied.

The Labour leader reiterated the accusation this week after the release of an audio recording in which the council leader, David Hodge, told fellow Surrey Conservatives about a “gentleman’s agreement” with ministers.

Hodge revealed in the recording that there had been a “series of conversations” with the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, in a car outside Downing Street. That was followed by a second meeting with the chancellor, Philip Hammond, he said.

Later that day, documents released by Surrey under freedom of information rules showed Hammond was among a series of Surrey Conservative MPs who lobbied Javid over the issue.

A new set of correspondence released by Javid’s department shows that on the morning of 7 February, the day Hodge announced he was backing down from the referendum, frantic negotiations were still going on.

At 8.23am Surrey’s director of finance, Sheila Little, messaged Matthew Style, head of local government finance at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), one document showed.

“The leader [Hodge] has just shown me a note from a Surrey MP about a conversation late last night with SJ,” she wrote. SJ refers to Javid.

“Seems to indicate government are willing to get us some extra funding from 2018. V interested in whether this is sincere. As it stands isn’t enough to call the ref [referendum] off? But could it be?”

May’s official spokesman was adamant when asked whether the exchange indicated the prime minister might have misled the Commons over the issue. “No,” he said. “There is absolutely no change in our position.”

A DCLG note released with the freedom of information documents made the same point.

“Whilst the final settlement has yet to be approved, the government is not proposing extra funding to Surrey county council that is not otherwise provided or offered to other councils generally,” it read.

“There is no ‘memorandum of understanding’ between government and Surrey county council.”

However, Labour’s Teresa Pearce, the shadow communities secretary, said the analysis of the extra social care money showed ministers “are busy playing political games with funding allocations in a desperate attempt to hide their sweetheart deal”.

She said: “This week’s budget won’t fix the issues facing social care. What we need from the Tories is a long-term sustainable plan, rather than cosy deals for Tory councils.

“Theresa May has failed to come clean about the terms of the deal offered to Surrey, failed to apologise for her government’s misleading suggestion that there had been no such deal and would not give the assurance that other local councils will get the same treatment.”

Late on Friday night, Labour MP Andy Burnham tweeted that he would raise the question of whether the ministerial code had been broken.

A DCLG spokesman said: “To suggest that any local authority is being given preferential treatment is simply not true.

“The majority of the £2bn of additional funding for adult social care announced at the budget will be allocated in the same way as the Better Care Fund, ensuring those who can raise less through the social care precept benefit most. The remainder will be allocated according to relative need in recognition of the additional challenges which social care places on certain councils.

“This is entirely fair, transparent and consistent with how we already fund adult social care.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/10/surrey-council-received-boost-in-budget-after-sweetheart-deal-claims

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2017

Posted under

DCC, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Voting

East Devon Alliance’s Paul Arnott challenges Stuart Hughes

“A leading figure in the East Devon Alliance (EDA) is to challenge Sidmouth’s long-standing Tory representative for the town’s seat on Devon County Council (DCC) – with a Labour candidate also standing.

The alliance is fielding three independents to challenge seats in Sidmouth, Seaton and Colyton and Axminster – and the trio have presented a united voice in their promise to fight for transparency and NHS services.

Independents are hoping to see a repeat of their success in the district council elections of May 2015 – when they gained 10 seats across the region and ousted six Conservative councillors in the Sid Valley alone.

EDA Paul Arnott, former chaoorman of the group, will challenge Councillor Stuart Hughes for Sidmouth’s county council seat in the elections on May 4.

An East Devon resident of 20 years and former parish councillor, Mr Arnott is a father-of-four who runs a television production company, along with his wife Lydia, and has had three books published.

As a ‘passionate and outspoken’ defender of the NHS in East Devon, he promises to fight at county level to address the ‘major issues of health, social care and education’ which, he says, are ‘now a matter of urgent concern’.

The EDA says it supports independent candidates who are responsible, and answerable, to the electors, rather than a national party machine.

A spokesman said: “Like all local authorities, DCC is facing an unprecedented long-term loss of funding and jurisdiction. Once elected, Independent EDA county councillors will use their positions to campaign for fair funding for local services and ensure local democratic control – rather than allowing central government and corporations to increasingly privatise everything which affects our communities.”

Cllr Hughes – who is also the cabinet member for highways and represents Sidmouth at town and district level – confirmed he will stand for re-election as a Conservative. He pledged to provide a strong voice for the Sid Valley and give 100 per cent in his community leadership role, working with residents, groups and the town and district councils.

Cllr Hughes added that he will continue to champion the cycle and footpath links across the Sid 
Valley, fast implementation of the town’s flood alleviation scheme and work on the traffic management plan and Alma Bridge.

Labour’s Ray Davison has also confirmed he will be standing as a candidate for Sidmouth and believes the Tories will be under fire in the upcoming county elections because of the ‘refusal’ by central Government to provide more social care funding.

The father-of-three has lived in East Devon for more than 30 years and pledges to focus on issues of education, transport and education investment in the region.

Further candidates were yet to 
be announced.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_alliance_s_paul_arnott_to_challenge_tory_stuart_hughes_for_county_seat_1_4926330

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Scrutiny, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Exeter court case with ramifications for EDDC HQ relocation

“Exeter City Council’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision that it should publish details of the business case for the controversial St Sidwell’s Point leisure complex on the current bus station site will be heard by an Information Tribunal.

Exeter resident Peter Cleasby used the Freedom of Information Act to ask the Council to release details of the business case for the development so that the assumptions contained in it – particularly about the running costs – could be open to wider scrutiny before contracts were signed.

The Council refused on grounds of commercial confidentiality, and Mr Cleasby complained about its refusal to the Information Commissioner.

The Commissioner ordered key information in the business case to be made public, but the Council appealed against the Commissioner’s decision.

The matter will now be decided by a judge-led Information Tribunal, in a public hearing at Exeter Magistrates Court on Monday 13 March starting at 10am.

Peter Cleasby said:”Exeter City Council is set to spend £26 million of public money – a sum that may well increase – on the leisure complex. It claims that the complex will make a profit, but only a handful of officers and councillors know what assumptions are made in support of these claims. If the Council get this wrong, the city could be saddled with an expensive liability for years to come, so wider scrutiny and challenge of the business case assumptions is vital.”

A City Council spokesman said: “The Council will make its case before the Tribunal. It would be inappropriate to comment further ahead of the hearing.”

The pool project was recently put on hold because the council had not appointed a contractor, despite having already spent a significant proportion of the £32.5million combined pot for St Sidwell’s Point and the bus station.”

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/exeter-city-council-taken-to-court-after-refusing-to-release-leisure-complex-details/story-30186062-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Election expenses scandal worsens thanks to whistleblowers

“Over the past year, a Channel 4 News investigations team has unearthed compelling evidence that the Conservative Party may have broken election laws to fight three by-elections in 2014 and win power in the 2015 General Election.

The Battlebus 2015 campaign sent a fleet of coaches filled with Conservative activists into 29 marginal seats in the final weeks of the 2015 General Election – to persuade voters on the doorstep.

The whole Battlebus campaign is now under investigation – after allegations that Conservative candidates may have broken election law by failing to declare the costs on their local spending returns.

The Party has repeatedly said the spending on the bus tour should have been declared nationally not locally.

But two Tory whistleblowers have spoken to Channel 4 News and cast doubt on that claim.

They say the party is “lying” about what happened on the Battlebus – and is now engaged in a “cover-up”.

Battlebus activists

Gregg and Louise Kinsell volunteered for the Conservatives in the final few days of the “Battlebus 2015” campaign in the South West, working in four key seats for the party.

Louise says that: “We worked for the local candidates and MPs to ensure that they won their seat and we were sent wherever they thought we would help.”

The Conservatives insist the Battlebus was a national event, with volunteers only promoting the party and not specific local candidates. As such the Battlebus was only declared in the Party’s national campaign expenses.

Last year, David Cameron said: “Lots of political parties have these bus tours – you know buses that go round different constituencies and this is a national expense.”

But the Kinsells say they were tasked with promoting local candidates,
including being given local briefing papers and seat-specific scripts, being furnished with specific voter data and distributing local leaflets.

Gregg said: “If people are saying, and the MPs concerned in these areas are saying it was part of a greater expense nationally for the Conservatives, that is a lie and an obvious falsehood. In that case I feel especially motivated to go to the police and go to the Electoral Commission.”

“So they are telling lies about what we did – and we duped people on the doors, it feels like cheating.”

All four seats visited by the Kinsells on the Battlebus tour were won for the Tories and the party took 14 seats in the South West in total, wiping out their Liberal Democrats coalition partners from the region.

Louise Kinsell said, “We went down and worked for individual candidates who then won their seat. If they hadn’t won their seat, the Conservatives may not have won the election.”

Police investigation

The Battlebus tour is currently under investigation. Under election laws, any costs incurred to promote a candidate, must be declared on local candidate spending returns. It’s a criminal offence for the candidate and agent to knowingly make a false declaration.

Channel 4 News has previously revealed that hundreds of thousands of pounds in Conservative campaign spending may not have been properly declared.

And the Kinsells have revealed more examples of what they believe are questionable campaign spending.

The Battlebus group stayed at the Jury’s Inn in Plymouth. Channel 4 News has seen a hotel bill for 29 rooms at the Jury’s Inn totalling £2,520. But that hotel does not appear to have been declared in the national expenses.

The Battlebus tour was then accommodated at the Premier Inn and Travelodge in Hayle, Cornwall. Again, these hotels do not appear to have been accounted for in the Conservative national returns.

The Conservative Party has previously stated that the failure to declare the hotels used on the Battlebus campaign as an “administrative error”.

In the nine seats visited by the Battlebus in the South West, the Conservatives candidates declared that they had spent below the legal limit, as governed by electoral law.

However, Channel 4 News has calculated the cost of the buses, hotels, and staff for the Battlebus tour in the region amounts to £2,460 for each seat visited. If the activists took part in local campaigning, this cost should have been declared on local spending returns.

The Kinsells say there is now a “code of silence” amongst Party activists about what took place on the Battlebus tour.

“It has shocked me that they have been this arrogant and think they can get away with it.”

The Kinsells say they feel betrayed by the Conservatives. “We were on the bus. We know what happened. We know what we were doing. And they know what we were doing.

Gregg Kinsell said: “I feel like there’s been a betrayal. We were unwitting participants in a huge betrayal. That’s how I feel.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.”

None of the candidates responsed to requests for comment.

https://www.channel4.com/news/tory-whistleblowers-election-expenses-conservative-party-battlebus

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, DCC, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ fight at DCC for local hospital beds – winner and losers

The observations of a member of the public (Chris Wakefield) at the meeting. Note: whoever voted for Councillors Brook (Chudleigh) and Diviani (Honiton St Pauls) at the last election – hang your heads in shame.

Brook tried to stop Claire Wright’s tough motion (which was carried) because she wrote it down!!!!! Diviani, also Leader of East Devon District Council) said and did NOTHING to help Honiton hospital to stay open. Others who voted against are named below.

The vote (which should have been unanimous) went 7-5 in Claire Wright’s favour. Those voting against were: Jerry Brook (Chudleigh), Paul Diviani (Honiton St Pauls) Chris Clarance (Teign Estuary), Debo Sellis (Tavistock)and Rufus Gilbert ( Salcombe).

“Having watched the Health & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee webcast it is easy to see why we are where we are with this. Here’s a selective personal account for anyone who missed the live action.

CCG’s team was out in force, with a front bench of four, bolstered by some invisible ‘friends’ mentioned by the chairman but never seen by us, to urge them on.

They kicked off with a slightly nervy CCG presentation mainly to tell us why the consultation was such a remarkable achievement – an award-winning consultation – endorsed by all sorts of benchmarks, quality marks, kite marks, hall marks and all; and it is hard to fault it against the measures offered to us. The only down side is that everyone else thought it was a ready-made decision seeking a post-facto endorsement. Neil Parish MP called it a ‘sham’ and few would disagree with him.

The councillors on the committee, in the main, then laid into them, and voiced what the feeling was among their constituents, which was justifiably murderous, and which prompted CCG’s Rob Sainsbury to launch into vigorous technicalities, emphasising his case with staccato hand movements, and showing the clear strain of casting his carefully modeled pearls before such porcine auditors.

There were questions, to which most answers were inadequate, and others not given. There was talk, (threats possibly) of FOI demands, which is alarming given that all these people are in public employment, and I have never worked out why any information is not forthcoming simply for the asking.

Anyway, a few highlight will cheer us up – first the pleasure of watching old hands in action – Cllrs Westlake and Greenslade in particular, the latter quite chirpy considering the doleful nature of the business at hand, leaping on Simon Kerr’s foot-in-mouth remark about the complete absence of responsive social care in Axminster, and brazenly cutting to the chase, asking how much the Success Regime was costing us. (An interim cost was £2.6m I thought I heard, but I could be wrong – that seems like an awful lot of cutter for a man-and-a-dog outfit like Carnell Farrer).

No one in fact was inclined to give wholehearted support to the CCG in their plans; there were a few limp equivocations – cllr Diviani told us (once he could get his voice going – the key is turned but the engine always takes ages to actually start) that he’d been in hospital and it was brilliant, and one or two others wrung their hands over the clear lack of social care provision, while not condemning the process that brought us the crisis.

Claire was invited to make her proposal for the committee to vote on, whereupon the snappily dressed cllr. Brook, clearly confused that Claire has prepared for the meeting by writing down her proposal, suggested that people who wrote things down were clearly trying to subvert the democratic process. (Tories have traditionally held that teaching the working classes to read and write had been a mistake – and that tendency has played into our education system ever since 1872, which is why legislation has studiously avoided any education in matters of politics, in order to forestall indiscipline in the ranks. There is a cracking story on that topic, but I’ll skip it for the moment).

Cllr Westlake, from the chair, reminding cllr Brook that writing was OK, proposed that Claire’s proposal was put to the vote. Result 7 – 5 in favour. That’s OK, good even – but what is there to vote against one wonders, the proposal is merely to make sure we do the utmost to get things right before trashing the existing local health infrastructure. And when you hear ‘We are very cautiously optimistic that the new model of care can be implemented’ from the CCG, then caution seems eminently sensible.

Just watched the budget in the commons. Must pack this in – politics is infuriating enough without hours of watching it on the telly as well. Except that it is primary data, and bypasses the media, so it does help us to see what actually is going on.

It will be interesting to see how much of the £1bn for top performing STP planners comes Devon’s way. Probably in proportion to the extent of fawning the local MPs can summon for Mrs May’s other tricky issues on the government’s agenda. Well done Claire.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/hospital_bed_cuts_to_be_referred_to_secretary_of_state_for_health_unless_ra

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Councillor Cathy Gardner EDA, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Health and Social Care (local), Independent Councillors, NHS (local)

East Devon Alliance Public Meeting on hospital bed cuts

EDA Public Meeting
Saturday, 18th March at 4.30,
Colyford Memorial Hall

Independents’ Way Forward on Hospital Beds

Speakers:

Claire Wright
fresh from her success on the DCC Health Scrutiny Committee,
together with the Independent East Alliance candidates for

Seaton and Colyton (Martin Shaw)
Axminster (Paul Hayward)
Sidmouth (Paul Arnott)

and

Leader of the EDA, Cllr Cathy Gardner,

to discuss the next steps in the fight for our community hospital beds and to save the NHS in Devon from widespread cuts.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Business Rates, Corruption, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

Councils to administer a discretionary business rate relief fund

“Local authorities are to share a £300m pot for discretionary business rate reliefs to help firms facing higher bills due to next month’s revaluation of the levy, chancellor Philip Hammond has announced.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/03/councils-share-ps300m-business-rate-relief-fund

Question: How will this be monitored to ensure that officers and councillors do not favour their mates?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

How to make electoral registration easier (if your electoral registration officer plays fair)

Owl is not convinced that this government or even EDDC – wants a more inclusive electoral register – students were mostly against Brexit and they often vote for minority parties.

It will be interesting to see what efforts our electoral registration officer (CEO Mark Williams) will make to ensure that East Devon registers more voters – after the fiasco at the last election, where frantic efforts had to be made at the last-minute to find 6,000 voters who had dropped off the electoral roll due to changes in procedures authorised by Mr Williams but which very much displeased the parliamentary committee to which he was summoned to explain his unilateral changes.

“Before the Lords voted against Brexit yesterday in the House of Lords, the government was defeated on another important democratic issue: voter registration. This passed largely without comment by the media (and went unmentioned in the BBC’s Yesterday in Parliament, for example). It is unsurprising that voter registration rarely receives the same level of coverage as Brexit, but it is nonetheless a vital issue.

Up to 8 million people were thought to be missing from the electoral register in 2015. Research shows that citizens were turned away from the polls at the Brexit referendum because they were not registered to vote.

Registration levels have been declining for a long time. It was long forecasted that this decline would continue under individual electoral registration (IER). The introduction of online voter registration and voter outreach work from organisations such as Bite the Ballot did much to address this in the run-up to the EU referendum. But now the referendum is past, we should expect the completeness of the register to slide away again.

One group that research predicted would be hardest hit was students. Under the old household electoral registration system, they were automatically enrolled by their university administration. Although data on the number who have fallen off the register is hard to track, we know that young people were especially affected by IER. It was therefore a mistake that the Electoral Administration Act of 2013 did not provide for a suitable student registration to be put in place when the old system of household registration was abolished.

Yesterday, an amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill was introduced to require universities to offer students the opportunity to register to vote at the point of enrolment or re-registration as a student at their university. A successful example of a scheme like this was piloted at Sheffield University, where student registration rates soared to a quoted 76% of its eligible students registered, compared to 13% at similar-sized institutions. The amendment offers an opportunity to save significant funds too. The head of registration services at Sheffield Council has confirmed that the cost of registering a student with this model is just 12p, rather than £5. Cardiff Council calculates that using this scheme for combining enrolment with electoral registration has saved it some £63,000.

The amendment was passed, against the government, by a majority of 200 to 189.

Beyond students: towards a more inclusive democracy

The principle behind the amendment is a simple and powerful one. Make voter registration easy and convenient and more people will register. If you combine registration with other administrative jobs, such as paying council tax or renewing a driving licence, the paperwork-adverse citizen will be more likely to complete it. It is important that measures therefore go beyond supporting student registration and that the idea is extended to other public services to engage the wider public.

There is a powerful research and international practice to suggest that this works. In the US, a federal Act was passed in the 1990s to expand the number of locations and opportunities whereby eligible citizens could apply to register to vote. In particular, citizens were to be given a voter registration application when they applied for or renewed a driver’s licence (hence it became known as the ‘Motor Voter Act’), or when applying for (or receiving) services at certain other public offices. Nearly one third of registrations are submitted in the US at motor vehicle agencies. Some studies suggest it raised turnout by around 2 percentage points and some have argued that the results could have been even better with improved implementation.

Support for making registration easier dates back to 2014, when a select committee report on Voter Engagement proposed making it automatic. This became the basis of some party manifestos. There is now a growing cross-party consensus about a set of measures that could be used to address the problem of the Missing Millions, with a report on the issue published last year and backed by members of all political parties in Westminster. After all the divisions the Brexit debate has opened up, the effort to build a complete and inclusive democracy is more important than ever before. …”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/03/08/now-theyre-on-a-roll-how-to-get-the-missing-millions-onto-the-electoral-register/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Democracy, Voting

“Grumpy Old Man Political Party” abolished

“The Electoral Commission maintains the official register of political parties and regularly culls defunct entries from it.

Amongst the parties removed from the list in the latest updates were:

British Unicorn Party, who wanted to abolish BBC South East Today, soared to four group members on Facebook and whose founder issued death threats to magistrates.

The Grumpy Old Men Political Party, whose policies included creating Whack a Munchkin day and restoring not only corporal punishment but also the death penalty.

Everyone’s Party, which possibly inaccurately called itself on Facebook, “The Largest Political Party On The Planet” (84 likes at last time of checking).

Kitten Independence Party, which intended to stand Sheena Gael Hunt in Torbay in the 2015 general election but did not manage it. It alas never registered a party logo.”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148702/british-unicorn-party/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin

Comments

1 Comment

It’s best to live in Surrey if you want favours from the government

“Philip Hammond was among a series of Conservative MPs who lobbied on behalf of Surrey county council in a row over social care funding, correspondence released under freedom of information laws has shown, reviving claims the council received a special deal from ministers.

Hours after Theresa May insisted at prime minister’s questions that Surrey had enjoyed no preferential treatment, one of the released letters and emails showed the chancellor had spoken to the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, on the council’s behalf.

Hammond, who represents the Surrey constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge, wrote to the council’s deputy leader, Peter Martin, in September to sympathise about funding difficulties, saying he would “take this up with Sajid Javid”.

The correspondence shows that another Surrey MP, Jonathan Lord, wrote to the council in November saying he had discussed the issue with Javid and “he’s doing something for us”.

In an email to the council’s leader David Hodge and fellow Surrey Tory MPs in January, Lord suggested Javid might have “£40m hidden under the departmental sofa” for the council, and suggested other councils’ budgets could be trimmed to help.

The correspondence, released following a freedom of information request from the BBC, follows a long and public standoff between by the Conservative-run council and Javid’s department over what Hodge said was a funding gap to pay for social care.

Hodge promised to hold a referendum of Surrey residents on imposing a 15% rise in council tax to make up the shortfall. However, last month this was called off at the last moment.

Leaked text messages passed to Labour last month prompted Jeremy Corbyn to accuse May at prime minister’s questions of buying off Surrey with a special deal, something she denied.

Following the release of a recording in which Hodge told fellow Surrey Conservatives about a “gentleman’s agreement” with ministers, Corbyn reiterated the accusation at PMQs on Wednesday. May again denied Surrey had received special treatment.

The new documents show a concerted lobbying effort by Surrey MPs, among them Hammond. Other Surrey MPs to lobby for the council included Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, Michael Gove, Crispin Blunt and Dominic Raab, the correspondence showed.

It also highlights the extent of anger felt by Hodge over the funding issue. In one letter, he accuses Javid of “some seriously muddled thinking”, and warns of the political consequences if an agreement is not reached. “We will see the largest Conservative group in the country pitted against a Conservative government, and we will be blunt about where we think the blame lies,” he warned.

Writing to Hodge, Hammond had said: “I recognise the challenges you are facing in Surrey, and the apparently harsh treatment that the funding formula delivers, and I will take this up with Sajid Javid.”

An email from Lord in November suggested Javid and Hammond were seeking to help the council. “I have spoken to Sajid J, and he says he’s doing something for us,” Lord wrote. “Won’t be drawn on exactly what. Says that Philip H is being supportive and will be signing off on things for us.”

But a subsequent email from Lord in January said he was “extremely unimpressed” Javid had not “come up with the goods”.

He wrote: “If Saj was imprudent enough to not have £40m hidden under the departmental sofa just for this sort of emergency/problem/‘outlier’ emerging from his department’s draft settlement, then I assume, if he is a man of his word, that he must have done his best to put a strong case to the Trreasury

“If all his local government settlement money is really allocated, if the Treasury is refusing to help out, and if he can’t find a pot of money for the ‘missing’ learning disability grants, then Saj still has the option of adjusting all the other council settlements down very slightly in order to accommodate the £31m needed for Surrey – and I think he should be encouraged to do this.”

The shadow communities secretary, Teresa Pearce, said May should “come clean” over the deal. “Despite Theresa May’s claims to the contrary, this is more evidence of the Tories’ secret deal with the leadership of Surrey county council,” she said.

“We need full disclosure of the terms of the deal and reassurance that all councils will be treated the same way, not just the lucky few the Tories favour.”

However, a government spokesman said the discussions were nothing exceptional.

“As we have repeatedly made clear, there was no special deal for Surrey county council and they will not receive any extra funding that would not otherwise be provided or offered to other councils. To imply the opposite is simply untrue,” he said.

Javid’s department discussed funding settlements “with councils across the country, of all types and all political parties”, he added. “This happens every year, involves councils making representations to the government, and has always been the process.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/08/philip-hammond-among-mps-lobbying-for-surrey-county-council-in-funding-row

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Mar 2017

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Democracy, EDDC, Greater Exeter

“Greater Exeter”: concerns voiced

With Cranbrook pretty much now considered an Exeter suburb maybe East Devon should be voicing its concerns.

” … speaking at a [Mid Devon] full council meeting on Wednesday, February 22, Liberal Councillor Jenny Roach who represents Silverton expressed fears that Mid Devon District Council would be ceding powers.

She said: “We’re looking like we could be ceding power to this planning partnership, and I know people will shake their heads and say no, but there are several points which worry me.

“Exeter needs land and you can imagine where I sit in my ward, Exeter City Council could be looking at developing the swathe of land that is between Silverton and Exeter and similarly between Thorverton and Newton St Cyres. If you look at the East Devon side there are huge estates marching across that land, so this worries me.

“It worries me that it’s being done by degree and almost by stealth. When we went to the public to talk about the sort of governance the district wanted, they didn’t like the cabinet, but unfortunately we didn’t get the 3000 signatures we needed in that period of time.

“There are a tremendous amount of people who were not happy with the governance of this authority as it is now, they don’t like the cabinet system, and it is the cabinet system that is sleepwalking us into a unitary authority.

“I’ve seen this happen before and I would really like to know that the very least we would do is have a state of the district debate on this Greater Strategic Exeter Plan.”

Councillor Nikki Woollatt, Independent for Cullompton North added: “Members of the public may well see this as a step towards unitary. To reassure everybody, I don’t think there’s any problem with having a consultation with the public prior to ceding any powers that we have held.

“People are going to start putting two and two together and if we’re open and say we will consult, I think that would be for the benefit of the public.”

Councillor Polly Colthorpe, Conservative for Way expressed concerns regarding the name.

She said: “The name of this outfit is misleading and I do think that it would be helpful it weren’t called the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan because it makes the whole of the rest of the districts which are involved, subordinate to Exeter.

“None of those districts will want that and they don’t see it like that and I think it would be helpful if you could perhaps consider giving it another title.”

http://www.devonlive.com/council-leaders-welcome-plans-to-work-together-for-greater-exeter-strategic-plan/story-30188639-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Standards Committee, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

“Surrey council leader ‘had gentleman’s agreement’ with ministers”

David Hodge, the leader of Surrey council, told Conservative colleagues that he had secured a “gentleman’s agreement” with senior cabinet ministers that persuaded him to cancel a threat to raise council tax by 15%.

In a secret recording of a Conservative group meeting on 7 February, the politician revealed there had been a “series of conversations” with the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, in a car outside Downing street, followed by a second meeting with the chancellor, Philip Hammond.

Hodge told those in the room not to email or tweet any details as he shared details of meetings that appeared to take place between an MP acting as an intermediary and the cabinet members.

He said the MP was “looking for assurances, looking for clarification, looking for help basically on how we could stop the referendum” from Javid in the car.

“He [the MP] then went inside and spoke to the chancellor – I think I can say that. He went inside and spoke to the chancellor, his spad was waiting – spad being his political whatever they call it [special adviser] – he was with him and then the spad rang me with what we can and cannot say,” Hodge added, according to a transcript of the meeting passed to the Guardian.

Hodge implied that the outcome of the meeting was for him to withdraw the decision to push for a referendum that day, which would allow the council to raise the tax to 15%, and instead stick with the 4.99% allowed without asking voters for permission.

The question over whether Surrey was subject to a sweetheart deal was raised in the House of Commons by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a day later, on 8 February after he received leaked texts from Hodge that suggested an agreement had been reached.

But this recording goes much further – with Hodge talking about his major worries about finances, particularly disability funding. He talked about the government pushing forward with some form of funding review.

“We’ve agreed this morning that, subject to them agreeing, that if it’s possible, we will become part of that process going forward,” he said, before adding that he was not giving up the fight over disability funding or the Better Care Fund for social care.

“We listened carefully to the information that was being relayed back to us from government. Yes, on one hand Tony is absolutely right, we should get something in writing. But on the other hand I do actually have something in writing, that Helen knows I have in writing, Sir Paul Beresford knows I have in writing, which gives me a certain amount of comfort but I’m not going to release that information for obvious reasons,” he added.

“There may come a time that if what I call gentleman’s agreements, that the Conservative party often does, are not honoured, we will have to revisit this in nine months or a year’s time. If we do, let me assure you, you’ll have to drag me kicking and screaming not to go for a referendum next year.”

The shadow communities minister, Gareth Thomas, said: “Sajid Javid and Philip Hammond should come to the House of Commons and explain what the gentleman’s agreement that they’ve done – explain why they are offering it to Surrey council and not the rest of English councils trying to manage budgets that are at tipping point.”

The meeting of the council’s Conservative group took place on a Tuesday, the same day that the council announced plans to cancel the referendum. The issue was then raised by Corbyn at prime minister’s questions in the House of Commons the next day following texts referring to a “memorandum of understanding” between the government and council.

A day later, on Thursday 9 February, it emerged that Surrey county council had been chosen to take part in a new government pilot scheme under which the local authority would retain 100% of business rates raised in the county.

But both Javid and the council strongly denied there was any sweetheart deal. A spokesman for Surrey county council said they could not comment on a meeting of the Conservative group, but said there had been no shift from a statement issued when the controversy first emerged.

Hodge said at the time: “Surrey’s decision not to proceed with a 15% council tax increase was ours alone and there has been no deal between Surrey county council and the government.

“However, I am confident that the government now understands the real pressures in adult social care and the need for a lasting solution.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/07/surrey-council-leader-had-gentlemans-agreement-with-ministers

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Tories, EDDC, EDDC HQ, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation

Pots call kettles dirty in Exeter – vice versa in East Devon!

Tories call for transparency from Labour over bus station vanity project gone wrong in Exeter whilst in Tories try to block transparency on Knowle relocation gone wrong in East Devon. Tories demand answers in Exeter, Tories refuse to give answers in East Devon!

“Exeter Tory leader Cllr Andrew Leadbetter has blasted the city council for “biting off more than it can chew” with their unrealistic “passion project.

In his 20 years on the council he claims he has never seen “such disarray” on a development.

He said: “The whole thing so far has been shrouded in secrecy. And we want a proper explanation about what is happening.

“For instance, is it a long-term delay? Is it a cancellation? How much has been spent so far? What is the secrecy and why can’t all members be told?

“If the Labour council is getting this so wrong, what else can they get wrong?

“We want to talk to the people about what cheaper option they would want there. We are certainly not adverse to the idea of a theatre or a hotel and conference centre.”

He added: “I also have strong concerns about the Crown Estate’s Princesshay Leisure part of the scheme. They do not need much to walk away from this, and we’ll be left with a bomb site.”

http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-bus-station-redevelopment-in-deep-water-as-tories-hit-out-at-council-passion-project/story-30182392-detail/story.html

You can see why (Tory) politics gets a bad name in Devon!

Remmber this when you vote in the May 2017 county elections and vote Independent!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), Hugo Swire, Neil Parish, NHS (local)

Comments

1 Comment

MP who voted for Act that led to closure of community hospital beds “slams” bed cuts!

MP Neil Parish (and MP Hugo Swire) voted for the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which created the “internal market” in the NHS which added millions in costs to NHS budgets and paved the way to the recent bed cuts.

It also led to the creation of NHSProperty Services, which took control of all East Devon community hospitals, which started charging market rents AND will profit from the sell-off of any local hospital land and other assets.

NOW he’s surprised that Seaton and Honiton hospitals are closing (after those in Axminster closed some time ago).

Not impressed, Mr Parish!

And why do you think hospitals in Sidmouth and Exmouth are staying open? Well, pal of Jeremy Hunt Swire can enlighten people – perhaps.

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/mp_slams_hospital_bed_cuts_at_honiton_and_seaton_1_4916895

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Downing Street worried about election expenses scandal

“The police probe centres around allegations that the Conservatives spent more than legally allowed in marginal constitutencies during the 2015 General Election, and did not declare full expenses.

Up to six local constituencies could be forced into hurried by-elections following a police investigation into expenses fraud, senior Tories fear.
It is possible that party officials could face charges.

The police probe centres around allegations that the Conservatives spent more than they were legally allowed campaigning for marginal seats during the 2015 General Election, and did not declare full expenses.

Files are set to be passed to the CPS within the next few weeks, The Times reports, and it is believed half a dozen seats could be affected.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280950/Downing-Street-deeply-worried-police-probe.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Consultation, Democracy, Health and Social Care (local), Neil Parish, NHS (local)

Comments

2 Comments

Seaton GP slams hospital bed cuts

Today Dr Mark Welland, chairman of Seaton hospital’s League of Friends told The Herald: “A very unfortunate decision has been taken by the NEW Devon CCG, to press ahead with the further closures of community hospital beds in East Devon.

“The culling of 71 more beds out of a current total of 143 is devastating for the whole area, and especially sad for those towns to be left with no inpatient services at all.

“Seaton has been singled out for the particularly cruel act of only being informed at the eleventh hour that the CCG had changed their mind on the initial proposal, and decided to close Seaton beds in favour of Sidmouth.

“Whilst there is no appetite for wishing to see beds shut in Sidmouth, it is right to question the process taken to arrive at this decision.

“The CCG governing body were given at their meeting a presentation covering the feedback from the 13 week consultation process. This concluded that there was general support for the planned new model of care (care at home), although no detail was given to support this.

“The public responses showing clear majority support for the option to maintain beds in Tiverton, Exmouth, and Seaton was apparently ignored, as was the feedback that Axminster needed to be taken into consideration when siting the beds. This latter point was reiterated by the East Devon subcommittee of the CCG, who made particular mention of Axminster, but with no discernible effect.

“The reason given for the change from the initial plan of having beds in Seaton was the slightly larger and older population of Sidmouth. This again takes no account of the fact that Seaton Hospital has been very effectively serving the populations of Seaton and Axminster since the Axminster beds were closed. If such is the genuine basis for the decision, it is entirely baffling why this was not presented initially. What is clear is that the impact of the consultation exercise was precisely zero.

“The CCG are moving forwards with their new model of care, planning to deliver more effective health and social support in a timely fashion to prevent the need for patients to be in hospital. We wish them every success with this part of their plan.

“However, they have chosen to resource this by raiding the local hospitals for funds and staff. The Seaton and District Hospital League of Friends will again be seeking the support of Neil Parish MP to apply political pressure to reverse this tragic decision on hospital beds in East Devon. We would encourage all those similarly minded to do likewise.

“The Seaton and District Hospital League of Friends, with the generous support of its volunteers and donors, will continue its work supporting all the services in our hospital, which include outpatient clinics, physiotherapy, and acting as the centre of operations for community nursing, community therapies, and the complex care team. In addition the League has an ongoing commitment to community projects, including Friends in the Community, and the outstanding Seaton Friends Hospiscare at Home team.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/seaton_gp_slams_hospital_beds_cull_1_4915186

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership

Comments

1 Comment

Will our Local Enterprise Partnerships be running our counties soon?

The unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable small groups of business people will soon be the only groups with money to spend. Perhaps this was the plan all along.

“Town halls are facing a £4.1bn a year black hole in their budgets that not even the closure of every children’s centre, library, museum and park could fill, council leaders have warned.

George Osborne’s decision to axe the central government grant to councils over the next four years came in a comprehensive spending review that the Local Government Association (LGA) chairman, Gary Porter, a Conservative peer, described as a tragic missed opportunity to protect the services “that bind communities together, improve people’s quality of life and protect the most vulnerable”.

The chancellor had announced “a revolution in the way we govern this country” by giving town halls far greater fundraising powers, allowing them to keep 100% of business rates, rather than the current 50%, and increase council tax bills by 2% to pay for rising social care bills. But they will lose the grant worth £18bn across councils in England, according to the LGA.

Prof Tony Travers from the London School of Economics said Osborne’s changes were radical because they meant councils will only be able to increase revenues in the future by attracting more businesses to benefit from the changes to rates. He said it transformed town halls from “being a mini-welfare state into a local economic growth agency”.

But some of the most stretched councils warned that the changes would hit the poorest parts of the country hardest, where there were fewer businesses and taxpayers to make up for lost Whitehall grants.

The Labour leader of Newcastle city council, Nick Forbes, said the move would leave a £16m hole in his budget.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/25/local-government-councils-funding-gap-critical-budget-cuts-social-care-spending-review

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, EDDC, Health and Social Care (local), Independent Councillors, NHS (local), Paul Diviani, Spin

Hypocrisy of EDDC Leader and the disgrace of whipping

From the blog of Claire Wright.

The moral of this story: believe nothing a Tory councillor says, draw your views from what they do and vote Independent if you want the best for your town or village!

“Honiton councillor attempts to defend his silence over hospital bed closures

Yesterday’s front page of the Ottery/Honiton View From Series caught my eye – http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/Launch.aspx?PBID=03a901df-0b77-4e35-90e6-93ca8d117094

It features Honiton Conservative Devon County Councillor (and EDDC leader) Paul Diviani attempting to defend his silence over plans to close all Honiton Hospital’s beds.

A town campaign group – Save Hospital Services Honiton – has asked a series of questions of him, including why he voted down two of my proposals at health scrutiny, which would have helped Honiton Hospital’s case.

Unable to deny he hasn’t attended a single meeting in the town about the bed closures, spoken out against them, or voted down my two proposals at health scrutiny in November and January, Cllr Diviani cites a whipped vote at Devon County Council full council meeting, where he voted in favour of two motions that opposed health cuts, in his defence.

But this admission simply raises more questions. Why, if Cllr Diviani was concerned enough to vote in favour of a motion in December, objecting to health service cuts, did he not also vote consistently at the November and January health scrutiny meetings?

Cllr Diviani claims the committee has no power to dictate to the NHS. Of course, we do not have the power to order things to be done, but the committee is the only legal check on health services in Devon and it definitely does have the power to make recommendations which the NHS would be unwise to ignore.

Finally, Cllr Diviani says he “fully supports” the Devon County Council budget which provides more money for social care.

What he doesn’t say is that this budget has been massively cut every year for seven years due to government austerity measures and if you read the smallprint of the January joint budget scrutiny papers any increase in funding is a drop in the ocean and fewer people will be entitled to receive social care. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.“

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency, Voting

PM’s aide linked to election fraud allegations

Michael Crick is on the case again about the evidence showing how one of Prime Minister Theresa May’s top aides was closely linked with activities now being investigated by the police.

At the heart of the matter is the Conservative election campaign in South Thanet during the 2015 general election campaign. The party saw off Nigel Farage and Ukip in that seat, but there are many questions over whether the Conservatives hid campaign spending such as accommodation costs for those working on the campaign so that its official return could show the party kept within the legal limit.

In particular, Michael Crick has highlighted how hotel costs for Nick Timothy were excluded from the expense return because, as I covered previously:

“Rather oddly, the Conservative Party’s explanation as given to Channel 4 is that Nick Timothy was working on the national campaign from the hotel in Ramsgate. Not working on it from his home, or from the Conservative Party’s national HQ where the national campaign was being run. But from a hotel in Ramsgate.”

Now Crick and Channel 4 has unearthed evidence suggesting Nick Timothy was indeed working on the constituency campaign:

A cache of secret documents obtained by Channel 4 News reveal the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Nick Timothy played a central role in a controversial election campaign now under police investigation…

They also appear to directly contradict a previous statement issued by the Party which, when asked about Mr. Timothy’s role in South Thanet, said Mr Timothy “provided assistance for the Conservative Party’s national team”.

The Conservative Party has consistently denied that Mr Timothy worked directly on Craig Mackinlay’s local campaign against Nigel Farage in South Thanet in the 2015 General Election.

But emails seen by this programme appear to show Mr Timothy devising strategy and campaigning messages that were used by Mr Mackinlay’s local campaign.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148541/nick-timothy-thanet-south-election-expenses/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Green (local), Labour ( Devon), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Exeter councillor goes Green because of “lack of transparency”

Swap Labour for Conservative and East Devon Alliance for Green in East Devon and you have a similar situation – an entrenched old-boys-and-girls power base that needs removing.

“Exeter has its first ever Green Party city councillor following the defection from Labour of Alphington councillor Chris Musgrave. And Cllr Musgrave says he has made the decision as he has become increasingly disillusioned with a ‘small clique making decisions behind closed doors’ and a refusal by the Labour group to accept proper scrutiny in decision making.

Cllr Musgrave says he has been drawn to the Green Party because of their deep-seated commitment to openness and transparency in local government, something he says is ‘in short supply with the current Labour administration.’

He added: “Openness and transparency is in short supply in the local Labour Party. Major decisions are increasingly made by a small clique behind closed doors with the majority of councillors locked out of the process. Whenever I have challenged the Labour Party and Labour-led council on major decisions – which is exactly what I believe I should be doing as an elected Councillor – I have been told in no uncertain terms to be quiet. …”

http://www.devonlive.com/exeter-city-councillor-defects-from-labour-to-join-the-green-party/story-30168791-detail/story.html