Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

Community Hospital bed cuts: public consultation doesn’t give answers CCG wanted

Public consultation – ok for Brexit, not ok for NHS!

“A public consultation over which community beds health commissioners will axe in Exeter or East Devon has seen the majority of people vote for different oppositions, rather than the four being proposed.

NHS Northern, Eastern and Western (NEW) Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) is planning to close 72 community hospital beds in Devon, and is due to make its decision this Thursday. In the options Tiverton hospital will definitely remain open, and Honiton and Okehampton will close. The fate of beds in Seaton, Exmouth, Sidmouth and Whipton remains uncertain.

The aim of the consultation document called Your Future Care is to provide care and support at home and in the community for the elderly and frail, where the various providers of services work together to promote the health and wellbeing of residents, preventing unnecessary hospital admissions and supporting a faster return home.

The Your Future Care survey results show 624 people voted for other options such as suggesting different three site hospitals such as Okehampton, Tiverton and Exmouth; having four site options such as Tiverton, Sidmouth, Seaton, and Exmouth; and retaining all existing beds which accounted for 168 of responses.

The second most popular choice was option A – 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Exmouth – with 554 votes, followed by option B with 159 votes, and option C – 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Whipton – with 65 votes. The least popular was option D – 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 in Sidmouth and 16 beds in Whipton – with 50 votes.

During the consultation, the CCG’s governing body received five petitions. They included one from Sidmouth Victoria Hospital Comforts Fund which was signed by 5,497 to prevent the closure of Sidmouth Hospital’s inpatient ward; a petition signed by 3,579 people to save Okehampton Hospital beds, and 3,227 people signed a Hands off Honiton Hospital petition.

Also opposing proposals to reduce community beds is Community Hospitals Association (CHA), and Devon County Council has called for a halt in the plans while it calls on the government and NHS England to provide fair funding for health services in Devon.

Hard to reach groups were consulted during focus groups organised by Healthwatch Devon. No one option was most preferred, and people said they wanted services to be as close to home as possible. Many people felt enabling patients to remain at home and avoid a hospital stay is a good thing.

During the consultation a significant number of questions relating to how the New Model of Integrated Care (NMOC) will work in practice was raised, including concerns about a possible decline in patient safety for vulnerable groups such as the frail, elderly, and dementia patients.

While there was noticeable support for the principle of care at home, many correspondents felt the NMOC had not been suitably or clearly explained, so they were unable to support the proposal.

A high number of people raised topics such as fear of isolation, strain on carers and worsening patient outcomes for individuals with more seriousness illness.

The final decision will be made by NEW Devon CCG’s governing body at a publicly held meeting of NEW Devon CCG’s governing body at Exeter Racecourse at 1pm. It has previously stated its preferred choice as being option A.

More changes are also on the way. Devon’s acute hospital stroke, maternity and urgent care services are the latest to come under scrutiny as part of ongoing plans to transform the regions health care. By this summer, NEW Devon CCG and South Devon and Torbay CCG aims to have drawn up proposals for the future delivery of the three services.”

http://www.devonlive.com/devon-residents-vote-for-other-options-than-those-proposed-over-community-beds-cuts/story-30168539-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

When and how does devolution become a scam?

Georgina Allen:


“Looking at the papers at the moment, there is a stark contrast to be witnessed – on the one hand, local people out in the rain and cold, holding bedraggled posters, begging for hospitals to be saved, for school funds not to be cut, for councils to hold strong against insistent developers – while on the other hand, the self-congratulations of business people and the LEP, the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, on winning yet another enormous handout from the government – £43.56 million this time. This brings their total budget to over £200 million.

Where has this £43 million come from? If the government can’t find money to help keep local hospitals open, how can they suddenly produce this huge windfall? Council budgets here in the South West have been reduced on average by about 40%, forcing councils to cut back on essential services.

Local councils are having to make some very difficult decisions. They are being kept afloat by income from the New Homes Bonuses, money which they are given for every house built. This however, puts them at odds with their constituents, who see thousands of unaffordable new houses spreading over their fields, damaging agriculture, tourism and local infrastructure. Council taxes have gone up, business rates have gone up, services are being cut, yet suddenly this huge windfall has appeared.

The LEP, who have been given this bonanza to share out, are an interesting organisation to be responsible for this amount of public money. They are a self-elected group of business people and councillors. The majority of business represented are from the construction industry. There are also representatives from the arms industry, cyber technology, the nuclear industry and people with financial interests in house building. Their meetings are held in private, they are unaccountable and are not required to be transparent. They are responsible for the division of an enormous amount of public money and yet their board represents the construction industries who benefit the most from the windfall, leading to many awkward conflicts of interest.

Their choices on where to spend this money reflect their own interests too closely in my opinion. Money, which it can be argued, has been taken from council funds, is being sent to fund an upgrade to the train station in Plymouth, to help a proposed new town on the edge of Newton Abbot, to build a high technology centre in Torbay.

All of this investment is good of course, but if it comes at the expense of our hospitals, schools and roads, then questions need to be asked about who is making the decision on where that money goes. If money is being drained from council funds and the public purse to build massive new developments, developments which benefit the businesses that the people making the decisions are in charge of, then the public need to be a lot more informed than they are.

In light of the recent scandals shaking LEPs in other areas, as reported by the Times and the Mail, it would make a lot of sense to ask for a great deal more transparency. To quote the Times article, “Millions of pounds have been spent, however, on businesses run by board members of the partnerships or on the companies of people close to them.” I’m sure our LEP have done nothing wrong, so a little more openness in the way they function cannot hurt.

The lack of openness is especially worrying when you see how fundamentally the changes that the LEP are behind, are changing the face of Devon and Somerset. Housing for example – the LEP have come up with a figure of 169,000 new houses needed for Devon and Somerset.

How have they come up with this figure?

Nobody seems to know – several councillors in my local area of the South Hams have asked and as they put it, ‘have been fobbed off’. The LEP don’t need to answer questions and you can’t do a freedom of information on them as they are not a public body. It’s mentioned that this figure is possibly based on local housing needs assessments – so where do these housing assessments come from? How does a town like Newton Abbot, which has had a static or declining population for many years, suddenly need to double in size according to a ‘local housing need assessment’? I was told by a chief planning officer that he didn’t understand the way they were calculated. I would argue that they are based on market needs not local needs.

Who will benefit then from having a high housing figure? Well the people who develop the land will and it is unfortunate that so many of them are sitting on the board of the LEP. It doesn’t inspire confidence. Many of the houses that have been built are not selling, but that doesn’t seem to stop the LEP and various councils represented on its board, from producing larger and larger plans – the one for a Greater Exeter has just come out.

If they want local people to support them, they must explain where the money is going and why. They must put the money into supporting agriculture, tourism, the environment and services instead of just endless, huge infrastructural projects. They must consult and discuss properly and answer freedom of information requests, otherwise like the other scandal-ridden LEPs, it will just resemble a scam. A scam whereby local services are cut and public money is diverted into supporting private industry and how does that really help any of us.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC Councillors – tell us about your secret acres – so we can put them in our next plans says senior officer!

Extract from an unclassified (i.e. not confidential) email sent out to all councillors by Ed Freeman, Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management, East Devon District Council on the lead-in to the “Greater Exeter Strategic Plan” consultation:

“… The consultation paper is attached for you to get an advanced preview and we would welcome your comments by 10th April. Alongside this will be a call for sites to land owners and developers for housing and employment land across the area which can then be considered for allocation to meet the needs of the area for homes and jobs in the future.

So if you are secretly sat on a few acres of land and would like to put it forward for development now is the time to tell us! …”

Yes, you read that right.

Let us know about any secret land holdings you are sitting on.

NOT so we can report you to the Monitoring Officer for not listing them on your declarations of interest – but so that we can do our best to help you to get them developed.

Owl, for once, hootless!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Man who ran for Police and Crime Commissioner convicted of electoral fraud

From the blog of Dr Mark Pack – who is assiduously following the cases of electoral fraud from the 2015 elections:

“Last year I covered the odd case of a man facing trial on electoral fraud charges who managed to get the trial delayed… because he was running for Police and Crime Commissioner.

When I published that earlier post, he commented on this site, saying, “with complaints about the investigating Policeman, the behaviour of the Judge, the incompetence of the Court, and the fact that the CPS have only circumstantial evidence, it is most unlikely that this case will ever go to trial”.

Well, the trial has now happened and Steve Uncles of the English Democrats found guilty:

“A disgraced far-right activist is facing jail for cheating the election system by submitting fraudulent nomination forms.

English Democrats regional leader Steven Uncles dreamt up fictitious names such as Anna Cleves and Rachelle Stevens – referred to by a judge as “the lady from S Club 7”.

The 52-year-old local politician, who has since resigned but remained an official in high office, was convicted of seven charges of using a false instrument with intent and two of causing or permitting a false statement to be included in a nomination form…

The case faced several delays caused by Uncles applying for adjournments – one being because he ran for the post of Police Commissioner in May last year.

He failed to appear on the first day of his trial on February 8 and was arrested on a warrant outside the court when he turned up the next day. He has denied breaching his bail. [Kent Online]

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148525/steve-uncles-english-democrats/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Claire Wright, Council tax, DCC, Democracy, Hugo Swire

Comments

1 Comment

“All bar one Devon Conservative MPs vote in favour of massive cuts to councils AGAIN”

From the blog of Claire Wright – the MP we needed and should have had.

“Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Every Devon Conservative MP voted in favour of massive cuts to councils this afternoon, except Anne Marie Morris who abstained.

This includes Hugo Swire, who today rather ironically tweeted an article starting with the sentence: “I’m not very rebellious by nature and I don’t think I have ever defied the party whip…”

Devon County Council had written to Devon MPs last month, urging them to vote against the crippling cuts for the third year running and I had written to Hugo Swire also for the third year running, with exactly the same request.

Last night, Devon County Council leader, Cllr John Hart told the BBC he thought the government handling of the local government finance arrangements was a “shambles” because the council was legally forced to set its budget before even receiving the details of the latest round of funding from government.

Then the funding news was received at 11pm on Monday night just 36 hours before MPs would be examining the information for debate and vote in parliament.

John Hart although a conservative council leader, has the guts to stand up to his party seniors at Westminster and openly criticise them. Something he does often and he should be given credit for this.

What a shame our MPs aren’t made of similar stern stuff.

On a more serious note, and this is serious, I was pretty shocked at the paltry numbers of MPs who were present for the debate this afternoon. I think I counted about 30, for what should have been an absolutely key parliamentary sitting as its impact on constituents, especially vulnerable people, is likely to be significant.

Local government secretary of state, Sajid Javid uttered a few warm but empty words about what a fine job councils do, before explaining that they will get no government funding whatsoever after 2019. They will be expected to survive on business rates and council tax income only after this.

This is the seventh year of austerity and Devon County Council has now lost over half of its budget to government cuts. It has coped as best it can but studying the risk assessments in the budget scrutiny papers last month made for sobering reading.

Read here for more detail: http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/fewer_devon_people_to_receive_social_care_as_23m_is_slashed_from_budgets

Returning to the subject of the sadly expected but weak-willed vote by East Devon’s MP, Hugo Swire, how can he justify on the one hand complaining about underfunding for social care – the responsibility of Devon County Council and underfunding of our schools – also under Devon County Council – and then be absent during the parliamentary funding cuts debate, sneaking to the lobby only afterwards to vote in favour of the cuts?

The answer is he can’t. He has simply proved once again that he puts his party before his constituents.

Every time.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, Hugo Swire

Comments

3 Comments

Swire: man of the (East Devon) people?

For most of the time we have had Hugo Swire as MP he has had other jobs that appear to take up most of his time – a Minister at the Foreign Office under former school pal Cameron and now Chairmanship of the Conservative Middle East Council. Both jobs involve international travel and lots of London schmoozing.

Is it time for East Devon Tories to think about what they REALLY want from OUR MP?

Not just someone who turns up in East Devon on the odd Friday then retires to his home in mid-Devon. Who turns up for as many photo opportunities as can be squeezed in to a few hours or sets up so-called debates on subjects he knows are emotive for electors but where said debates lead precisely nowhere.

Owl assumes Swire’s re-selection will be a shoo-in, not least because our Tory councillors like to bask in the reflected glory of a “Sir” – even if the meaningless title is handed out by a croney pal.

Isn’t it perhaps time now that we had an MP whose time is spent fighting our corner rather than accompanying arms salesmen to the Middle East?

Or maybe it’s time for an Independent MP who knows the constituency inside out and has tirelessly campaigned for local health services, local education, the local environment and local justice.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, Democracy

Comments

7 Comments

“Tory Councillor ferried in from France to vote for cuts”

“Despite living in France, Eve Barisic, Conservative Devon County Councillor for Newton Abbot North, managed to make it to County Hall… to help scrap school crossing patrols – including one in her own division.

It’s not that often that Eve does make it over The Channel, and in fact she missed the meeting about changes to Devon’s children’s centres – including one in her own division.

Of course, living in a different country (let alone county) to her constituency and not turning up to meetings hasn’t stopped her picking up the £10,000 that goes with the role.

But staying in her county councillor position also means that she can be rolled out to vote for cuts. Not least because the rest of her Tory chums have kept quiet about how poor her behaviour in the role has been.

You’d think that the MP would have said something, but Newton Abbot’s Anne Marie Morris is not about to throw stones about being an effective politician, now is she?

So the lollipop people are scrapped, Devon faces cuts to services and an increase in Council Tax and Eve trundles back to France.

(There was a rumour that Eve would be standing for election again in May – we tweeted her the question in December 2015, but still haven’t heard back. We’ll let you know what we find out.)”

http://www.theprsd.co.uk/2016/02/20/tory-councillor-ferried-in-from-france-to-vote-for-cuts/

ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATES FOR HER AREA URGENTLY NEEDED!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency

“Support for public ownership” – greater than Brexit

Buses

57% want councils to be allowed to set up new public bus companies – 22% oppose this (Survation, 2016)
46% want more public ownership of buses – 11% want more private ownership (Survation, 2016)

Energy

68% want public ownership (YouGov, 2013)

NHS
84% want public ownership (YouGov, 2013)
65% of the public would not feel comfortable using GP services provided by a private company like Atos, Capita, G4S or Serco (Survation, 2014)
74% want hospitals in public ownership (YouGov, 2015)

Parks
70% of the public want public ownership (Survation, 2016)
75% believe councils should have a statutory duty to protect public parks (Survation, 2016)

Prisons
62% want prisons in public ownership (YouGov, 2015)
28% of people think it is appropriate for private companies to run prisons
25% think it is appropriate for private companies to provide court services (Survation, 2014)

Rail
66% want public ownership (YouGov, 2013)
59% want public ownership of Network Rail (Survation, 2015)
20% were in favour of reprivatising the East Coast line (Survation, 2013)

Water
71% want public ownership (Sunday Express, 2012)

Public assets
49% want the Green Investment Bank in public ownership
20% want it to be privatisated (Survation, 2015)
70% want the Land Registry in public ownership (Survation, 2015)
60% want National Air Traffic Services in public ownership (Survation, 2015)
64% want the student loan book to be in public ownership (Survation, 2015)
67% want the Royal Mail in public ownership (YouGov, 2013)

In-house services
61% of the public think that local and central government should try to run services in-house first – before outsourcing (Survation, 2015)
50% are against the current outsourcing trend and want more public services run in-house, 22% want more outsourcing (Survation, 2015)
80% believe that when a public service is put out to tender, there should always be an in-house bid (Survation, 2013)

Accountability
73% of the public think they should be consulted before any outsourcing decisions (Survation, 2015)
68% believe they need a legal right to consultation and information on outsourcing (Survation, 2015)
88% support a right to recall private companies when they do a bad job of running public services (Survation, 2013)
54% think the public sector is more accountable than the private sector (Survation, 2013)

Transparency
67% think that public service contracts and performance data of private companies should be publicly available (Survation, 2015)
60% think Freedom of Information laws should apply to private companies running public services (YouGov, 2016)
48% (mistakenly) believe private contractors are legally obliged to respond to Freedom of Information requests (Survation, 2013)

Outsourcing companies
64% distrust outsourcing companies
21% trust outsourcing companies – compared to NHS (79%), the police (65%) and the armed forces (79%) (Survation, 2014)
69% of the public think Atos, Capita, G4S, Serco are motivated by maximising profit
38% think this should be important (Survation, 2014)
80% think providing the best service to the public should motivate Atos, Capita, G4S and Serco
22% of the public think this is the case (Survation, 2014)
59% think more regulation of private companies running public services is needed
16% think there is adequate regulation already (Survation, 2014)
58% believe G4S and Serco should be banned from all government contracts if found guilty of fraud (Survation, 2013)

https://weownit.org.uk/public-solutions/support-public-ownership

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Feb 2017

Posted under

DCC, Democracy, Dorset, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

Dorset to have two unitary councils if government agrees

Owl says: how long can Devon resist the change to one (or two) unitary councils in a county, entirely cutting out the district tier? Economies of scale now seem to require mergers or abolition of districts.

Will we be part of “Greater Exeter” or “Devon Unitary” by the next election – or both!

And where will headquarters be? Honiton isn’t exactly the centre of the Greater Exeter or Devon unitary universes!

“Based on the weight of public opinion, financial data and evidence of the likely benefits of change to the county as a whole, councillors have agreed that the two new unitary councils should comprise of the following existing local authority areas:

• Unitary A: Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.

• Unitary B: East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland – including the services currently provided by Dorset County Council in this area.

If approved, the new council would ‘go live’ in April 2019.

Leader of Dorset County Council Robert Gould said: “This is absolutely the right decision for Dorset County Council to have made. The final decision lies with the Secretary of State, but Dorset county councillors have made an historic decision which will help protect the frontline services and is in the best interests of all our residents.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/dorset_councils_vote_for_change_1_4888091

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Feb 2017

Posted under

Democracy, Exmouth

“Lack of interest sees Exmouth Mayor’s Ball cancelled”

“The Mayor of Exmouth, Councillor Brian Cole, said: “Due to a lack of support, I regretfully have to announce that the 2017 Mayor’s Ball has been cancelled. Despite receiving support from local businesses, there has not been enough interest to enable me to ensure that I could hold the ball without running at a loss.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/lack_of_interest_sees_exmouth_mayor_s_ball_cancelled_1_4883355

Might it also be that many people in Exmouth are none too happy with the council and the Mayor’s recent decisions and therefore feel unable to support their extra-curricular activities?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Feb 2017

Posted under

Andrew Moulding, Bovis, DCC, Democracy, EDDC, Paul Diviani

Diviani steps down from DCC “to concentrate on being Leader of EDDC”

Honiton and Tiverton Conservative constituency has announced its candidates for DCC elections:

“We have now completed the selection of our candidates to stand for the Conservative Party at the Devon County Council elections in May 2017. Paul Diviani has withdrawn his candidacy to concentrate solely on Leading East Devon District Council.

Therefore the candidates are as follows:-

Axminster, Ian Hall
Seaton and Colyton, Helen Parr
Feniton and Honiton, Phil Twiss
Whimple and Blackdown, Iain Chubb
Tiverton East, Colin Slade
Tiverton West, Polly Colthorpe
Willand and Uffculme, Ray Radford,
Cullompton and Bradnich, John Berry”

https://www.tivertonhonitonconservatives.co.uk

Oh poor, unlucky DCC to be missing out on all his experience …

And Councillor Moulding presumably needs to keep his eye on those Bovis builders in Axminster, some of whose purchasers are none too happy with the quality of their homes.

Still, with his work on increasing housing numbers for the Local Enterprise Partnership AND all the developments going on all over East Devon, those developers will be needing a firm hand … AND there is “Greater Exeter” to be sorted too …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Feb 2017

Posted under

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

Has EDDC’s new Manstone depot satellite office block been included in relocation costs?

The following Freedom of Information request implies that the cost may not have been included, but we shall see, we hope.

Owl wonders why just one set of employees has been left in Sidmouth in brand new offices and why they could not be accommodated on the Honiton site or the Exmouth site. Surely, THREE sets of offices will be MUCH more expensive to run than one HQ? But cost barely seem to concern Tory councillors, who seem to feel there is little need to scrutinise them.

“Laissez les bons temps rouler!”

“Dear Ms Symington,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am also making this request under the Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on the part of Local Authorities.

On 22nd December, I corresponded with the Planning Department with regard to the Council’s planning application for offices for its Estates Department at the Manstone Depot in Sidmouth: https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online…

Several of my questions were answered, but not the following:

“The site is now clearly part of the District Council’s relocation project. This application represents the relocation of one of the key departments from the Knowle site – and yet there has been no mention in the Moving and Improving site pages: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/moving-and-impro…
“And I am unable to find any other information about this relocation of the Estates Department elsewhere.”

Could you provide me with any such references to this project (other than the planning application itself), either as documentation or weblinks.

And could you provide me with the full and exact costings for this planning application: the building costs of the new offices and where the finance for this project will be coming from.

On 9th January, the District Council stated the following to the press:

“The transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project and, as such, included within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.”
http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/dis…

Could you provide me with the documentation which shows how the transfer of depot activities is an existing costed element of the relocation project.

And could you indicate exactly where this information is located within the independent and positive cost modelling of relocation.

I would be grateful if you could answer the four stipulated questions above.

Thank you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully,
Jeremy Woodward
Sidmouth”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/costing_the_relocating_of_the_es

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

“BBC commits £8m for 150 local democracy reporters to cover council meetings”

Well, the need for a BBC-paid journalist to work for a newspaper that already has “a previous track record of public service journalism” should knock out the odd newspaper group in our area! Perhaps there should be a further qualification that the newspapers should receive less than 50% of that area’s council advertising budget too! And a shame that they won’t be allowed to attend Local Enterprise Partnership board meetings which are held in secret.

“The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is to fund 150 news reporters to cover council and public meetings across the UK to enable better scrutiny of council proceedings and decisions.

The journalists will work for “qualifying” regional publishers rather than the BBC, with the remit of covering full council and committee meetings, and will share the information gained with the BBC. To qualify, local news organisations will need to demonstrate that they have a “previous track record” of public service journalism, as well as the ability to employ staff.

James Harding, director of BBC News and Current Affairs, said: “As more power is devolved across the UK, it’s more important than ever that we cover, understand and hold to account local politicians and public services,” he said.

The initiative forms part of the BBC’s new charter which commences this year and is aimed at filling the growing gaps in local news reporting as local newspapers have suffered from declining revenues.

So far, the BBC has allocated 20 reporters in Scotland, three in Northern Ireland, 11 in Wales and 104 in England, with plans to place the full 150 journalists by 2018.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29922%3Abbc-commits-p8m-for-150-local-democracy-reporters-to-cover-council-meetings&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Devolution, EDBF, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Is Trump using the Local Enterprise Partnership model?

This is spookily like the way our Local Enterprise Partnerships (and before that, the East Devon Business Forum) were created – with business people in the driving seat and councils as passengers without seatbelts!

“President Donald Trump met with a roomful of top CEOs at the White House – and says he tried to install other titans of industry on his executive council only to have them nixed as ‘corporate raiders.’

Trump met with a group that included Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink, retired GE CEO Jack Welch – whom he called ‘legendary’ – and other business bigs.

As if that weren’t enough financial firepower, Trump said that he tried to get other financial bigs onto the panel, which meets about once a month to advise him the economy, taxes, and regulations.

‘So many people have called – friends of mine in big business,’ Trump said, ‘and that wanted to be on the committee.’

Billionaire Stephen Schwartzman of Blackstone private equity firm, who serves on the council, acted as gatekeeper. “I said, ‘Steve, can we get so and so?’ Trump said, with the CEOs gathered around him.

‘Nope,’ Schwartzman replied. ‘What do you mean no, it’s big business, massive business,’ Trump pleaded, in his telling.

‘How about this one?’ Trump would ask.

‘He’s a corporate raider, these people don’t want to be sitting with corporate raiders,’ was Schwartzman’s reply.

‘He’s been very very selective,’ Trump said, adding: ‘We’ll be putting a couple more on this.’

Introducing the group, Trump hailed BlackRock investment company CEO Larry Fink for having boosted his personal bottom line through investments.

Trump displayed no reservations about asking some of the world’s most influential bankers about their preferences for peeling back bank regulations enacted after the financial crisis.

‘We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody to tell me better about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it, but we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank.

The White House billed the event as a strategy and policy forum.
The group’s official title is the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum. It has 16 members.

Absent from the event was Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick, who announced just hours before that he had quit, following pressure from consumers over Trump’s new immigration order.

Trump didn’t mention Kalanick during his public comments.

The Uber boss quit the council, even as the company is facing blowback for its decision to drop its congestion pricing during a taxi boycott meant to oppose the immigration order.

He made his decision known in an email to employees, where he argued against Trump’s new immigration ban.

‘Earlier today I spoke briefly with the president about the immigration executive order and its issues for our community,’ Kalanick wrote. ‘I also let him know that I would not be able to participate on his economic council. Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the president or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that,’ he added.

Trump hailed another attendee, his Commerce Secretary nominee, billionaire Wilbur Ross.

‘When I campaigned for office I promised the American people that I’d ask for our country’s best and brightest, and we have that. Wilbur is representing us,’ Trump said.

Trump said of close confidante and business magnate Carl Icahn, ‘Carl Icahn called up and he goes, ‘I heard you got Wilbur. Everybody calls him Wilbur. I’ve never heard him called – we just know him as Wilbur, right?”

Trump met the business honchos as he prepared to sign executive actions asking the Treasury and the Labor Departments to examine reforms to roll back regulations intended to make markets safer and protect consumers.
The actions would examine the ‘Volcker Rule,’ meant to curb speculation, AFP reported.

‘(We) believe that Dodd-Frank in many respects was a piece of massive government overreach,’ a senior administration official told the outlet. ‘It imposed hundreds of new regulations on financial institutions, it established an enormous amount of work and effort for financial firms.'”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4188962/Trump-meets-CEOs-says-ll-slash-bank-regs.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Transparency

Trump takes a leaf out of EDDC’s book!

“Public-interest advocacy groups say the White House appears to be deliberately structuring Trump’s growing roster of business-focused advisory groups in order to avoid becoming subject to a federal transparency law that requires such meetings be formally announced in advance and open to the public.

“Whether it’s hastily drafted executive orders put together in the dead of night and riddled with errors and not consulting the pertinent government agencies or putting together other proposals that are shocking to many Americans, nothing that has been done so far has been inclusive, so it’s not a surprise his small working groups of CEOs would be just the same,” said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen.

A 1972 law aimed at limiting back-room influence by special interests, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulates the operation of federal government advisory council. Normally, the meetings of such groups are announced at least ten days in advance in the Federal Register and the sessions are open to the public. Advisory committees are also required to have an official charter, records available to the public and a federal official present during all deliberations. Presidential advisory panels are also typically set up through executive orders.

So far, there have been no official notices of any meetings and no executive orders laying out the duties of the “Strategic and Policy Forum” or any other groups Trump is convening.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-transparency-law-advisory-boards-234583

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Feb 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Dorset

Dorset Local Government reorganisation goes ahead despite 3 councils dropping out

Interesting that the Secretary of State for Local Government can force the three recalcitrant councils to join the others …

“Six councils are to press ahead with asking communities secretary Sajid Javid to reorganise local government in Dorset, despite the remaining three opposing the idea.

A plan to create two unitary councils in the area at present covered by Dorset County Council and unitaries Bournemouth and Poole borough councils has now been voted on by all involved.

Christchurch, East Dorset and Purbeck have opposed the idea, though it was supported by the two unitaries, the county council and districts North Dorset, West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland.

The six are now expected to ask Mr Javid to reorganise the area into two unitaries. One would cover Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and the other East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland.
Matt Prosser, chair of the Dorset Chief Executives Group, said: “We now have a mandate from our councils [for reorganisation] and we have the backing of the public and other stakeholders. That is clear from the consultation results.

“Now, we have a duty to respond to that mandate and secure a sustainable and even brighter future for Dorset.”

The dissident trio face the problem that Mr Javid has powers to enforce the reorganisation even against their objections.

Christchurch leader Ray Nottage said: “Changes to the structure of local government in Dorset present an historic opportunity to transform our services at a time when budgets are being cut and our priority must be protecting frontline services.

“The secretary of state submission made by those councils that have agreed the recommendation might see the final decision regarding local government reorganisation taken out of our hands.”

Spencer Flower, leader of East Dorset, said: “If other councils in Dorset choose to make a submission to the secretary of state, the final decision regarding local government reorganisation will not be ours to make.”
Purbeck rejected reorganisation only on the chair’s casting vote, with councillors tied 11-11 on the proposal.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29888%3Agroup-of-dorset-councils-press-ahead-with-unitary-plan-despite-rejection-by-other-county-authorities&catid=59&Itemid=27

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Economy

Comments

1 Comment

“Is our democracy OK?”

by Peter Cleasby

“The behaviour of Trump and May over the past few days should make us ask some hard questions about our governance.

I don’t normally go to public demonstrations. Yesterday evening I made an exception, and joined in one of the many rallies around the country provoked by President Trump’s travel ban. Even more out of character, I stood up on a bench, took the proffered microphone and spoke to the crowd.

The speakers before me had concentrated, rightly, on the impact of Trump’s travel ban and the damage and hurt it was already doing to individuals and families. They spoke movingly, based on personal experience and knowledge. I spoke to highlight the other spectre in the room – the UK Prime Minister, who failed to condemn the ban when first asked about it, and has since made only mild disapproval known through other ministers and her spokespersons. This is further evidence that Mrs May is not keen on human rights – during the EU referendum campaign, her most memorable intervention was to favour withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (which is nothing to do with the EU).

Mrs May has steered our country into a position where our government is in effect begging the United States for an early post-EU trade agreement, as if that were the only priority in international relations. Trump had barely paused for breath after being sworn in as President, before she was on a plane to see him. And Trump knows we are the supplicant: the pointed refusal at the press conference to confirm his “100% backing” for NATO that May claims to have extracted from him; the hand-holding; and the executive order for the travel ban as soon as she was on the plane home (he clearly couldn’t have tipped her off, otherwise she would not have been so equivocal when asked about it in Turkey – wouldn’t she?)

What we’re seeing is the two leaders of the “special relationship”– both novices in their own way – practising bad government. Trump is rushing out executive orders on hugely controversial topics, firing anyone he can who disagrees with him (the acting US Attorney General has just been removed), and allowing his press secretary to use inflammatory language: the Attorney-General was guilty of “betrayal”, the senior US diplomats who are protesting against Trump’s policies should “either get with the programme or they can go.” No respect, no acknowledgement that others may have a point.

Back on our side of the pond, the Prime Minister is unmoved by a petition of over 1.5 million signatures protesting against a state visit by Trump – note that the objection is to a state visit involving the Queen, not to a working political visit. Statements from May and her office completely fail to recognise the strength of feeling on the issue: she’s issued the invitation and that’s that, is the line. Even though it’s unprecedented (I think) for a state visit invitation to be issued no more than a week after the invitee has taken office – but then there’s that trade deal to be thought about, isn’t there? A deal, by the way, that will almost certainly favour the US more than the UK, and will resurrect the objectionable elements of the now-defunct TTIP [1].

Our Prime Minister also has scant regard for Parliament. It took a decision of the Supreme Court to reassert the need for Parliament’s authority to approve the decision to give our Article 50 notification to the EU.

It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that the behaviour of May and Trump highlights the fragility of the arrangements for representative democracy, here and in the US. Government is, at the end of the day, a series of negotiated settlements between competing interests, and the purpose of elections is to redefine from time to time what the “public interest” is in those negotiations. Ministers need to be sensitive to the views of others, open to change where that seems to be in the public interest, and ready to acknowledge and respect other views even where they do not agree with them.

It would be ironic if the two countries who perhaps more than any others stood firm in the defence of freedom, tolerance and democracy during the 20th century were now to be debased by leaders who prefer diktat to persuasion. But that is what seems to be happening. In the UK, Parliament needs to remember that it is the source of all legitimate authority – and start acting on it. And a critical appraisal of our governance should be high on its list of priorities.

NOTES:

[1] The TTIP – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – was being negotiated behind closed doors between the EU and the US until talks broke down last year. In the name of “free trade” the TTIP would have led to some weakening of EU rules on the environment, food standards and employee rights; and would have ensured that once a public service had been privatised it could never be returned to the public sector. It was drafted as, in effect, a charter for big business to do pretty much what it liked.”

Is our democracy OK?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jan 2017

Posted under

Asset sweating, Austerity cuts, Budleigh Salterton, Democracy, EDDC

Comments

1 Comment

“Budleigh fishermen’s fury at 350% shed rent hike”

If any of the fisherman voted Tory at district elections, they really should have expected this!

“Users of the sheds, used by many to store vital equipment and petrol for their boats, have been told they face having to pay more than four times their usual ground rent.

Landowner East Devon District Council (EDDC) has written to the fishermen to inform them that, when their current annual licence expires in April, renewal will cost £450 instead of £100.

Former town mayor Roger Pym, 72, has been fishing on the seafront for 50 years and still helps his son Sam, 43, with the business.

He said: “I’m furious – we’re being ripped off. It appears to me that they are trying to price all the fishing fraternity out for extra beach huts.
f
“You don’t need to have a beach hut. If you have one, it’s for pleasure. We need to have a shed as we have a 16ft boat with crab pots.”

Dave Perkins, 60, has been fishing full-time on Budleigh beach for 12 years.

He said: “I expected prices to go up, but to suddenly get a jump of that amount is silly.

“The thing is they’re trying to put it down as commercial ground rent to be in line with all commercial rents, but not all the huts are used by commercial fishermen.

“Nothing is supplied with the sheds – no water, no electricity, no amenities.

“With everything else, with trying to fish on the beach, to get this thrown at us is ridiculous.”

Current Budleigh town mayor Chris Kitson said: “I support the fishermen that have been there on our beach for years and this is not acceptable to have these hikes in rent imposed on them.”

An EDDC spokeswoman said: “As with all our commercial transactions, we prefer to deal directly with our tenants and we would therefore ask Mr Pym to write to our property services team or to telephone them to discuss the matter of his rent.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/budleigh_fishermen_s_fury_at_350_shed_rent_hike_1_4864134

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire

Comments

1 Comment

NHS crisis? Not in Swire’s backyard!

Our MP’s questions in the House this week:

“Written Answers – Foreign and Commonwealth Office: North Korea: Politics and Government (26 Jan 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-01-18.60636.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g6

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what plans he has to discuss the political and human rights situation in North Korea with the incoming US administration.

Written Answers – Foreign and Commonwealth Office: North Korea: Politics and Government (26 Jan 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-01-18.60631.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g60631.q0

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with his counterparts in (a) Japan,
(b) South Korea and (c) China on the political and human rights situation in North Korea.”