World’s richest people discuss inequality in front of servants packed 5 to a bedroom!

“Amid sessions on inequality, hastily bussed-in hotel workers will pack five to a room on bunk beds to serve the super-rich and powerful delegates.

Hundreds of chambermaids, doormen and cocktail waiters have been flown to Davos to cater to every whim of world leaders, business executives and the super-rich who will descend next week on the Swiss Alps town for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) celebration of capitalism.

While WEF guests, including Theresa May, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and South African president Jacob Zuma, will spend their nights in some of the world’s most luxurious hotel suites, the staff brought in to serve them will be sleeping up to five to a room in bunk beds.

The manager of the fanciest hotel in Davos – the Grandhotel Belvédère – said he had flown in 200 extra staff to work in shifts around the clock during the annual jamboree of the rich and powerful. “We normally have about 100 employees, but this week we have 300 to help us out,” Thomas Kleber, general manager of the Belvédère, said.

Kleber said the extra staff have been flown in from partner hotels across the world to help out during the Belvédère’s busiest week of the year, but because the whole of Davos is packed out with forum visitors there isn’t much space to accommodate the additional workers.

“We have a staff house, but at this time of the year it is getting cosy,” he explained. “We do have some different places with four or five people in one room. We have set up high beds with one sleeping on top and one underneath.”

Despite the contrasting sleeping arrangements, a key theme of this year’s conference will be rising inequality, which the WEF has warned is the biggest problem facing the world. The forum said the growing gap between rich and poor, which it said had helped trigger the UK’s Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s presidential victory, had led the west to “a tipping point and might now embark on a period of deglobalisation”.

The WEF has organised six sessions for Davos visitors to discuss inequality, including one entitled “Combating rising insecurity and inequality”, to be introduced by the WEF’s chief economist, Jennifer Blanke. Another session will explore rising inequality through a “visual exploration that reveals the causes and consequences of fragility in cities now and through time”.

The extra Belvédère staff include “specially recruited people just for mixing cocktails”, as well as baristas, cooks, waiters, doormen, chambermaids and receptionists.

The Belvédère is the focus of most Davos action, including top-level diplomatic meetings, the signing of billion-dollar business deals and, of course, the best parties. The WEF organisers have taken control of 85% of the hotel’s rooms to host world leaders, business people and celebrities, who this year include Grammy award-winner Shakira and Jamie Oliver.

Not even Kleber knows the identities of his guests due to security concerns, but he said in previous years that Bill Clinton, David Cameron, Ban Ki-moon and John Kerry stayed at the hotel. “There are always a lot of big famous people, big business bosses and state visitors,” he said.

The Belvédère will host more than 300 functions over five days, with the first executive coffee bar meetings starting at 6am and the last of the late-night parties not turning out until 3am. “We have all kinds of functions from breakfast meetings, politician lunches to nightcaps and cocktail receptions in every corner of the hotel. Every company and every single party has its own individual needs,” he said. “Ice sculptures are always part of it.”

ILO warns of rise in social unrest and migration as inequality widens
Kleber declined to provide any details of what parties the hotel will be hosting this year, or how much the hotel charges for hosting events. Last year, a Silicon Valley tech company was reportedly charged £6,000 for a short meeting with the president of Estonia in a converted luggage room. The hotel has also previously flown in New England lobster, and provided special Mexican food for a company that was meeting a Mexican politician.

“I assume [the staff] get good tips,” Kleber said, but “most of them are not coming for the money – they are coming to be part of a once-in-a-year event … Of course it’s hard work, but it’s a lot of fun,” he added.

Theresa May will be the only G7 leader to attend this year’s summit, which clashes with Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th US president.

Downing Street refused to state which events or parties May plans to attend in her two-day Alpine sojourn. Last year, Cameron was photographed partying tie-less with Bono, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kevin Spacey, at a lavish party hosted by Jack Ma, the founder of internet group Alibaba and China’s richest man with a $34.5bn (£28.5bn) fortune. Tony Blair, who also attended the Ma party last year, is also a regular at the glitziest events.

Travelling to Davos and finding anywhere to stay next week is very expensive, but not nearly as costly as getting an all-access pass to the schmoozing. Basic membership of the WEF and an entry ticket costs 68,000 Swiss francs (£55,400), and that will only grant access to general sessions.

To get access to all areas, corporations must pay to become Strategic Partners of the WEF, costing SFr600,000, which allows a CEO to bring up to four colleagues, or flunkies, along with them. They must still pay SFr18,000 each for tickets. All Strategic Partners have been told that at least one of their invitees must be a woman.

Strategic Partners are given access to all private sessions, and a car and driver with a special sticker allowing door-to-door pickup. Just 100 companies are able to become Strategic Partners; among them this year are Barclays, BT, BP, Facebook, Google and HSBC. Companies have privately complained about the cost of the exclusive access, which helped the WEF bring in record revenue of SFr228m last year, according to its annual report.

The most exclusive invite in town is to an uber-glamorous party thrown jointly by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska and British financier Nat Rothschild at the oligarch’s palatial chalet, a 15-minute chauffeur-driven car ride up the mountain from Davos. In previous years, Swiss police have reportedly been called to Deripaska’s home after complaints about the noise of his Cossack band.

A former assistant to economist Nouriel Roubini has described Deripaska’s parties as “endless streams of the finest champagne, vodka, and Russian caviar amidst dancing Cossacks and beautiful Russian models”. Sandra Navidi, who was Roubini’s director of research, recalled her trip to Deripaska’s party in her book Superhubs: How the Financial Elite and their Networks Rule our World.

Many of this year’s guests, who include outgoing US vice-president Joe Biden, China’s two richest men, and London mayor Sadiq Khan, will travel on private jets to nearby airports before transferring by helicopter to escape the traffic on the approach to the picturesque town. So many jets are expected that the Swiss government has opened up Dübendorf military airfield, an 85-mile helicopter flight away, to accommodate them.

Adam Twidell, chief executive of private jet booking service PrivateFly, said there were 1,700 private jet flights in and out of nearby airports last year, and he expected about 10% more this year.

The increase in private jet flights – which each burn as much fuel in one hour as typical use of a car does in a year – comes as the WEF warns that climate change is the second most important global concern. In its annual global risks report the WEF noted that environmental concerns were more prominent in the paper, drawn from 700 experts, than ever before.

Twidell said a last-minute flight to Davos from London on a small private jet would cost about £7,860. “Clients we have booked so far include business leaders, heads of state and government individuals,” he said. “[But] it’s not just pure politicians and business people who are wanting to be seen at Davos. The parties there have become a place to be. Davos is now on ‘the circuit’ along with the Superbowl, the Champions League final and the Monaco Grand Prix. … ”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/army-of-staff-descends-on-davos-to-serve-wef-super-rich

Some lessons in democracy

Some comments about the health service crisis which equally apply to every parish, town, district and county council, and every public servant, including MPs:

“The Whitehall machine works best when civil servants defer to elected politicians and their mandate from the public, while ministers defer in turn to officials’ specific expertise. It seizes up when the servants worry that their masters aren’t acting in the public interest.”

If the government is NOT acting in the public interest, just whose interest are they acting in?

“Nobody serious denies now that the NHS is being squeezed remorselessly by three separate forces: an ageing population, medical advances putting doctors under constant pressure to do more, and a threadbare social care system that stops existing patients leaving hospital and raises the risk of vulnerable people needing to come in.”

Nobody denies this – except of course the two most important people i.e. the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health who seem determined to keep their fingers in their ears and their heads buried in the sand and deny that the problem exists even when people are dying because of the crisis.

“It’s disappointing that Labour has rejected a cross-party coalition to produce lasting answers. But it’s more worrying that Downing Street can’t even admit to the existence of a question.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/12/ministers-silence-brexit-fears-nhs-unravelling-simon-stevens

Mark Williams refuses to answer questions – because (he says) they were not questions

As if you needed evidence of stonewalling and lack of transparency, here is an extract from minutes of Full Council meeting last week.

Although the Chairman (Stuart Hughes) could see that the speakers were questioning officers and councillors – indeed he asked the CEO to respond to questions, CEO Mark Williams neatly sidestepped the request by calling what people had said as “statements.

MORAL OF THIS STORY: MAKE SURE YOU ASK CONCRETE CLEAR QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT ANSWERS – AS OTHERWISE THE CEO WILL ACT AS IF YOU DON’T WANT ANY ANSWERS!

And would developers who give statements at Development Management Committee meetings be told they would not get answers as they had not asked a specific question in their submission?

“*46 Public speaking
The Chairman welcomed those present and invited members of the public to speak to the Council.

Sally Galsworthy spoke on the Queen’s Drive development making reference to the one remaining developer involved in the project and commenting on the risks should that developer pull out. She spoke of the anger of the residents in Exmouth towards the project expressed at meetings, the town poll and on a recent march, which had been attended by some 400 people.

Laura Freeman made reference to the outcome of the recent town poll seeking additional independent consultation on the redevelopment of Queen’s Drive. She considered that despite the restricted opening times of the poll, there had been a good turnout and that the outcome should be honoured and not ignored. She requested that the whole project be reviewed with a new outline application reflecting what the people of Exmouth wished to see for the area.

Jane Ashton spoke on the costs relating to both the Queen’s Drive development and relocation and also made reference to the collection of Section 106 and CIL contributions. She considered that the failure to foresee the additional costs involved in both projects was the result of the incompetence of those involved and that they should be removed from their positions. In respect of Queen’s Drive she commented that it would cost the Council less if it was to start the whole project from scratch.

Alec Huett advised that he had attended many meetings in the past regarding the regeneration of Exmouth and that Queen’s Drive had never been seen as a priority. He queried why the masterplan had changed so much from what had first been envisaged and commented that the plans would split the town into two leisure and retail zones. He advised that he was against any large development on the sea front when it should be the town centre that was the priority for regeneration works.

Richard Thurlow spoke on the increased costs relating to the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall – which would now cost more that refurbishing the Knowle. He advised that there was no detail or adequate rationale to explain the reasons for the increased costs and therefore did not consider that Members could make their decision based on fact.

Tony Green spoke on the Development Management Committee meeting held on 6 December and congratulated the Committee on their decision regarding the Knowle site. He stated that the Committee had to make their decision on material planning considerations only and therefore any comments relating to the relocation project or the adequacy of the existing building for its purpose should have been disregarded to avoid the appearance of bias. He asked for confirmation that this was the case and if so, asked that members of the committee be reminded of this.

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to respond to QUESTIONS [Owl’s capitals] raised by the speakers. In response to the first five speakers, the Chief Executive advised that no questions had been asked and therefore they would be noted as statements, however he advised that some of the issues raised were covered in the Cabinet minutes.

In response to the last speaker, the Chief Executive advised that information was often submitted by the applicant giving reasons for a proposal – the key issue was that when the Committee came to vote they only did so on relevant material planning considerations and not immaterial planning considerations.”

Click to access 211216-council-mins.pdf

“Brexit negotiations will fire the starting gun on the decade – so understanding these changes key for negotiations”

New IPPR report shows an accelerating wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape 2020s Britain

In a landmark report, leading think tank the IPPR has analysed factors shaping the UK up to 2030. It sets out the choices that must be made now if these changes are to lead to a fairer and more equal society.
The report highlights key facts that will change the way we live in the 2020s:

As the population grows, the UK is set to age sharply and become increasingly diverse. The 65+ age group will grow by 33% by 2030.

The global economy and the institutions that govern it will come under intense pressure as the Global South rises in economic and political importance.

Half of all large companies will be based in emerging markets;

Due to demographic trends, a structural deficit is likely to re-emerge by the mid-2020s, with adult social care funding gap is expected to hit £13 billion – 62% of the expected budget – in 2030/31;

Up to two-thirds of current jobs – 15 million – are at risk of automation.

These changes in technology have the potential to create an era of widespread abundance, or a second machine age that radically concentrates economic power;

The income of high-income households is forecast to rise 11 times faster than for low income households in the 2020s;

Climate change, biodiversity degradation, and resource depletion mean we will increasingly run up against the limits of the physical capacity of the Earth’s natural systems;

The UK has the richest region in Northern Europe but also 9 of the 10 poorest regions.

Mathew Lawrence, IPPR research fellow and report author said:

“By 2030, the effects of Brexit combined with a wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape the UK, in often quite radical ways.

“In the face of this, a politics of nostalgia, institutional conservatism and a rear guard defence of the institutions of 20th century social democracy will be inadequate.

For progressives, such a strategy will not be robust enough to mitigate against growing insecurity, ambitious enough to reform Britain’s economic model, nor sufficiently innovative to deliver deeper social and political transformation. They would be left defending sand castles against the tide of history.

Britain’s progressives should be ambitious, seeking to shape the direction of technological and social change. We must build a ‘high energy’ democracy that accelerates meaningful democratic experimentation at a national, city and local level, and also in the marketplace by increasing everyone’s say over corporate governance, ownership and power.”

http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-ippr-report-shows-an-accelerating-wave-of-economic-social-and-technological-change-will-reshape-2020s-britain

The full report is here:

Click to access future-proof_Dec2016.pdf

“Exmouth regeneration board chief threatens to ignore key community group”

A press release from “Save Exmouth Seafront”:

“Councillor Skinner’s initiative with the previously unknown ‘Exmouth Creative Group’

Councillor Skinner, Chair of the secretive Exmouth Regeneration Board has threatened to ignore both the Save Exmouth Seafront (SES) Group and the Exmouth public as he goes to a previously unheard of group of elites for their opinion on the seafront.

In recent months Cllr Skinner has repeatedly avoided engaging with the Exmouth public. He has been avoiding a public Q&A meeting and stated at the East Devon District Council (EDDC) Full Council meeting of 21/12/16 that independent consultation with the public, as requested in the Town Poll, will not happen.

It has now come to light that while Cllr Skinner consistently refuses to engage with the Exmouth public he has meanwhile been in contact with the previously unheard of ‘Exmouth Creative Group’ and asked them to ‘create a vision for Exmouth’, and ‘develop proposals to deliver this vision’. Spokesperson for SES, Louise MacAllister reacted to this news:

“When I heard that Cllr Skinner was seeking the opinion of Exmouth residents regarding the future of the Exmouth Seafront I was really pleased. This is exactly what SES have been requesting through an open and independent consultation.

However I soon learned that Cllr Skinner is liaising only with a group called the ‘Exmouth Creative Group’. There are many established community groups in Exmouth with an interest in the seafront who have not been asked for their opinion.

The ‘Exmouth Community Group’ does not appear to pre-exist Cllr Skinner’s contact with the group. This is concerning as the Exmouth public made themselves very clear through the Town Poll that they want to be consulted, and yet the public are now being ignored in favour of this unknown group.

It is an incredibly disappointing stance from the Chair of the Exmouth Regeneration Board who consistently ignores my emails and fails to live up to the responsibility of his role”.

SES asked the following questions of Cllr Skinner with regards to the Exmouth Creative Group:

– What criteria did you use when selecting potential groups to communicate with?
– Why does this one group get to play a role when you are so dismissive of majority opinion?
– Who is in this group and how does one become a member?
– Why did you select a previously unknown group for this important task?
– With whom in the ‘Exmouth Creative Group’ did you broker your links?

In response Cllr Skinner rudely dismissed the questions posed with the bizarre statement that he is:

“Not a delegate, I am a councillor and am certainly not in the business of responding to you within your time scales or even at all if I so choose.”

So just as Cllr Skinner has dismissed the opinions of the wider Exmouth public, he has made it clear he will respond to a key community group only if he so chooses, and in doing so makes it clear that he does not value the group, or the wider public that SES strive to represent. Meanwhile, he has gone to an unknown group with a brief to design a vision for Exmouth Seafront.

SES strongly welcome the opportunity for the people of Exmouth to feed into ideas on the future of the seafront but not when it is conducted behind closed doors and solely with a previously unknown group who are seemingly as secretive as the Exmouth Regeneration Board members themselves.”

“The 2017 local elections: time to bury councillors, or to praise them?” asks Cornwall blogger

“We are now less than five months away from one of our infrequent four-yearly opportunities to express our democratic view of Cornwall Council. As the Council’s leadership desperately clings on to the tiger of housing growth, no doubt people will be asking themselves as local elections near, ‘what have councillors ever done for us?’ Others won’t ask; they’ll be loudly calling down a plague on all of them.

This may be a bit blunt. I’m sure most councillors believe they’re doing their best for Cornwall and its communities and are not, as so many assure me, in the pay of upcountry developers and determined to transform our land into a Little England by the Sea as quickly as possible. The more proper question therefore becomes ‘why have councillors been unable to raise credible opposition to population growth policies and developer-led planning?’

While not actually wishing to bury councillors, it’s surely time to remind some of them of a few home truths. Many councillors are clearly beyond redemption, uncritically swallowing wholesale the advice of their officers, kowtowing to London’s orders with scarcely a whimper, or perhaps not possessing the wit or wisdom to challenge conventional ‘mainstream’ policies.

It’s the others I worry about.

Over the past month or so I’ve heard from three Cornwall Councillors (from different party groups), all genuinely concerned for the future of their land, all deeply worried by the lemming-like drive for massive building projects and renewed people-led growth that threatens to transform the landscapes around our towns and villages. Yet none of them seemed to have discussed their concerns much with fellow councillors across party lines who might share their views. None seemed fully aware of campaigns outside their particular patch. Intra-councillor communication is one problem, while external communication is the second.

Why are councillors unwilling to take a lead and organise? Why can’t those who rightly question the Council’s direction of travel forget their party labels and coordinate their opposition? Instead of moaning about the constraints imposed by central government, constraints that are all too real, why don’t they do more to publicise their dilemma? Is it not possible to oppose central government diktats publicly, while educating Cornish voters about the straitjacket the Government imposes? Can’t they do more to point out how the Council’s leadership complies too readily with those diktats?

At MK’s [Mebyon Kernow – The Party for Cornwall] recent Annual Conference for example, their councillors admitted that they ‘did too much without shouting about it’. So why not do more to shout about it? First, they could surely make more effort to publicise what they’re doing. Second, they could pro-actively disseminate information they come across that illustrates the absurdities of the current Council strategy or the various ways in which Cornwall is being treated unfairly. Look at the MK website and you’ll find surprisingly little such information.

Surely MK and other councillors could build more bridges to campaign groups and campaigners outside, who can then spread this information through the grassroots. There’s a huge amount of energy and anger building up in local campaign groups as people see the changes unfolding around them and begin to realise what the elites have in store for us. But there’s also a lot of confusion and ignorance as well as anger.

The danger is that people take a blanket view and blame ‘the council’ and all councillors for what’s happening. We’ve seen over the past year where this can lead, if left to stew unfocused in this way. People will vote for the first demagogue that comes along. They end up protesting against the establishment by electing slightly more marginal members of the same establishment, some just chancers and others who deliberately fan anger and fear into racism and bigotry and offer simplistic solutions but no substantial remedy for a system that’s unfit for purpose.

To prevent that, we need a grassroots populism, also anti-elitist, but confident in its ability to replace the failed elites, not with a set of chancers from similar backgrounds but with genuine and credible voices of localism and community democracy.

Councillors who can see through the Council’s corporate agenda need to stand up, join with campaigners and begin to discuss how to make the future of Cornwall an issue in next year’s local elections. We can’t let things go on the way they are. So how do we best challenge the people-led growth consensus that grips our policy-makers and replace it with a more sustainable vision of Cornwall? Who’ll make the first move?”

https://cornwalldevelopersparadise.wordpress.com/2016/12/12/the-2017-local-elections-time-to-bury-councillors-or-to-praise-them/

Could this sort of protest persuade our Tory MPs to back the NHS?

Conspiracy theorists and fake news enthusiasts are already saying that this was organised to make Trump look good – hhhm! And can we see parallels here – nationally and locally?

“WASHINGTON ―

After a torrent of bad headlines, countless phone calls to member offices, and two tweets from President-elect Donald Trump, House Republicans dropped their plans to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics Tuesday, just minutes before the House was set to gavel in for the 115th Congress and adopt their rules package for the next two years.

The amendment ― authored by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) ― would have placed the independent congressional ethics office under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee, changed the OCE’s name and barred the office from releasing reports to the public. In effect, it would have neutered Congress’ most aggressive watchdog.

The decision to strip the Goodlatte amendment came just before noon on Tuesday as Republicans planned to begin the 115th Congress. Earlier in the day, responding to numerous news reports about Republicans gutting the OCE, Trump asked in a tweet whether Republicans really had to make the “weakening” of the ethics office their first order of business, though he also didn’t necessarily come out against the idea of eventually overhauling the OCE.

Ethics groups were quick to criticize House Republicans for the effort. A coalition of groups including the Campaign for Accountability, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the League of Women Voters sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday calling for the reauthorization of the OCE.

Several other groups, including the conservative Judicial Watch, called the move “shameful.” The nonpartisan group Common Cause even pointed out that exactly 11 years ago, lobbyist Jack Abramoff ― whose crimes helped lead to the creation of the OCE ― pleaded guilty to charges including fraud conspiracy and tax evasion. (Abramoff told Politico Tuesday that Republican’s efforts to gut the ethics watchdog are “exactly the opposite of what Congress should be doing.”)

Members reported that they had started getting a flood of phone calls from constituents concerned that Congress was neutering a key ethics watchdog.

“The calls we’ve gotten in my district office and here in Washington has surprised me, meaning the number of calls,” said Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who noted before the amendment was stripped that he would vote against the rules package if it remained in the measure. “People are just sick and tired.”

Some Republicans, including South Carolina Reps. Trey Gowdy and Mark Sanford, were reporting Tuesday that they would vote against the typically party-line rules package.

Facing public pressure and an internal mutiny, GOP leadership called a special meeting and told Republicans they needed to strip the OCE amendment.

Leaders told members they would instead work with Democrats to come up with a proposal to reform the OCE before the August recess, though a number of Republicans were unsatisfied by the promise.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he would now work to completely abolish the Office of Congressional Ethics, citing concerns over anonymous whistleblowers making accusations against members and the OCE leaking information to the press.

Asked to provide an example of the OCE leaking information to the press, King failed to come up with one and got testy.

“Just google it,” he said.

Pelosi issued a statement after the amendment was dropped, noting the “clear contempt for ethics in the People’s House” that she said Republicans showed with their plan.

“Once again, the American people have seen the toxic dysfunction of a Republican House that will do anything to further their special interest agenda, thwart transparency and undermine the public trust,” she added. “Republicans should remember the strength of public outrage they faced in the space of 12 hours as they scheme to do lasting damage to the health and economic security of millions and millions of hard-working families.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-republicans-ethics_us_586bdb14e4b0de3a08f99e66?

“Us versus Them – The New World” – tomorrow, 9 am, Radio 4

“Us Versus Them – The New World”, Radio 4, tomorrow 9 am:

Political movements which proclaim themselves as anti-elitist challengers to the mainstream establishment have been achieving success, from Brexit campaigners to Donald Trump and various European parties.

John Harris explores the reasons behind this international phenomenon, examines the motivating forces for the anxiety and anger of voters, and considers the response of the political establishment in this new era.”

To be followed same time next week by:

“It’s the Demography, Stupid!
The New World

How is population change transforming our world?

Think of a python swallowing a pig: a big bulge makes its way slowly down the snake from the head end to the other end. That’s a bit like what’s happened to the UK demographically.

The baby boom generation – which has changed Britain politically, culturally and economically – is now retiring. That means a large bulge of pensioners with big implications for the generations that come behind them. Other advanced economies face a similar challenge and emerging economies – most notably China – will be dealing with an ageing bulge themselves soon.

But in Africa, the bulge is at the other end. A very young generation is about to make its way through the snake.

Former government minister David Willetts, now executive chair of the Resolution Foundation, wrestles with this python of population change.

What will these challenges of both ageing and very young populations mean for the world?
What are the implications for future migration patterns, for geopolitics and for global economic growth?

This programme is part of a special week of programmes for the first week of 2017, examining major forces which are changing the world around us.”

Lib Dem revival in south-west?

“The picture-postcard villages in the Blackdown Hills are not normally the scene of political upheaval, but this corner of south-west England could be the scene of an unlikely political revival for the Liberal Democrats.

The countryside electorate here on the Somerset-Devon border are historically staunchly Conservative, but just before Christmas the Lib Dem Ross Henley took 71% of the vote with a swing of more than 40% from the Tories in a Taunton Deane borough council byelection with a respectable local turnout.

“To be honest I thought we would run the Tories close, I never ever dreamt we would get this vote,” Henley laughed, sitting in the tiny village shop cafe. “But now morale is really high. People helped in this byelection from all over the country.”

Lib Dem strategists are pinning their hopes for rebuilding after the dire results in 2015 on a resurgence in the south-west, their former heartland, where the party lost all 10 of its seats in the last election. Since then, the party has been quietly notching up its best council byelection results in 20 years, with a net gain of 28 seats compared with net losses for Labour of four seats, Ukip of three and the Conservatives of 33 seats.

On paper, this part of the country does not look like a happy hunting ground for the fervently pro-remain party, because of the high number of leave voters in the south-west. Yet more than half of those byelections gains were in the west country, most recently in Taunton and Teignbridge in early December, with the seats all seeing swings upwards of 20%.

Henley, who is also the county councillor, said he thought local leave voters had still backed him because of a personal relationship, but that his party was consistently winning over Tory remainers. “People did actually want to talk about Brexit on the doorstep,” he said.

“It seems to be redefining British politics in the same way the Scottish referendum did, it completely shook up the way people voted. Parties that have a muddled view on the big issues of the day generally tend to struggle. And we know where we stand.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/03/morale-is-really-high-lib-dems-scent-revival-in-south-west

East Devon Alliance organising coach to London Save NHS demo

East Devon Alliance (EDA) will be organising a coach bound for London on March 4, 2017, and people from the district are invited to present a united front of opposition.

More details will be released in the new year. Book via coach@eastdevonalliance.org.uk.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidmouth_campaigners_to_join_mass_protest_against_dismantling_of_nhs_1_4832538

“Outcry after Republicans vote to dismantle independent ethics body”

Well, we know all about this in Devon – we could probably give Trump some tips!

“House Republicans have gutted an independent ethics watchdog, putting it under their own control, in a secret ballot hours before the new Congress convened for the first time.

The unheralded vote severely weakens the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), which was set up after a lobbying scandal in 2008 to investigate corruption allegations against members of Congress. The move, led by the head of the House judiciary committee, defied the Republican congressional leadership and was reportedly supported by several legislators currently under OCE scrutiny.

The amendment was voted through by the House Republican conference over the New Year’s holiday with no prior notice or debate and inserted in a broad rules package the House will vote for on Tuesday. It turns the formerly independent OCE into the Office of Congressional Complaint Review, a subordinate body to the House Ethics Committee, which is currently run by the Republican majority and has a long history of overlooking charges of malfeasance by lawmakers.

The new body will not be able to receive anonymous tips from members of Congress or make its findings public.

The vote comes at a time when the Republicans control all three branches of government and are seeking to remove some of the residual constraints on their powers. The rules package to be voted through on Tuesday, for example, will limit the ability of the Democratic minority to block legislation like the repeal of Obama’s Affordable Care Act by staging a filibuster.

It also comes at a time when president-elect Trump is attempting to fend off scrutiny over multiple conflicts of interests questions arising from his bid to keep his business empire in his family’s hands even after he takes office on 20 January.

The House Republican vote triggered a wave of outrage from Democrats and government ethics specialists.

“Undermining the independence of the House’s Office of Congressional Ethics would create a serious risk to members of Congress, who rely on OCE for fair, nonpartisan investigations, and to the American people, who expect their representatives to meet their legal and ethical obligations,” Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, ethics counsels to Barack Obama and George W Bush respectively, argued in a joint statement.

“If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining OCE it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated.”

The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, said: “Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Pelosi said in a statement.

“Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”

Goodlatte defended the vote.

“The amendment builds upon and strengthens the existing Office of

Congressional Ethics by maintaining its primary area of focus of accepting and reviewing complaints from the public and referring them, if appropriate, to the Committee on Ethics,” the judiciary committee chairman said in a statement.

Goodlatte did not explain how the OCE had been strengthened by being stripped of its independence and stopped from making public statements.

The OCE was set up in 2008 after a string of corruption scandals involving two Republican politicians and a Democrat. Former congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a California Republican, served more than seven years in prison on bribery and other charges.

Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney pleaded guilty to corruption charges and a Louisiana Democrat and former congressman, William Jefferson, was convicted on corruption in a separate case.”

“Musical Council Boundaries”

“When the music stops, your local council leader will be here to tell you a story [1]

First, there was “devolution” for the Heart of the South West, which wasn’t devolution at all because it would have sucked powers upwards from localities to a vast “combined authority” covering all of Devon and Somerset, including Plymouth and Torbay [2].

Then came the idea for a Greater Exeter Growth and Development Board (the GEGDB), which would be a joint strategic authority made up of Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge Councils [3]. Joint authorities are in practice run by their officers, not councillors, because the officers negotiate a common acceptable position on a given issue and then serve it up the councillors as the only available option that the four councils will agree on.

Finally (or perhaps not), proposals for a “South Devon” unitary council leaked out last week. This would be an all-purpose council covering East Devon, Exeter, Teignbridge, Torbay and Plymouth and, possibly, South Hams (sorry, Mid Devon, you’re out), discharging all existing district council functions plus those of Devon County Council within the new unitary area. Such evidence as is there is suggests the prime movers appear to be Exeter and Plymouth, if only because they refused to back further moves to support the “devolution” proposals.

The Exeter Green Party has written to the leader of Exeter City Council asking the following questions:

What mandate does the City Council have from the residents it serves to:
(a) attempt to reorganise local government decision-making structures?

(b) propose arrangements which would suck key decisions upwards from the elected representatives

of the people of Exeter to a new superior authority – the GEGDB – which would not be directly elected?

(c) propose a strategic authority – the GEGDB – which on the evidence of the 8 November paper would focus solely on economic growth to the exclusion of social and environmental considerations?

When does the City Council plan to publicise its thinking and actively consult residents and businesses on whether they actually want new local government arrangements and, if so, on the form they should take and how any new body might be fully accountable to local people?

It seems clear that the option favoured by Exeter and Plymouth is the South Devon unitary authority. Central government is believed to be offering £1 billion if the unitary is established, complete with an elected mayor. We don’t know what the money would be targeted at – improving public services, infrastructure, or grants to businesses? But a bribe’s a bribe.

A directly elected authority – which is what the unitary would be – is certainly preferable in democratic terms to the other options. But it would be a huge area, currently represented by 237 councillors elected by 105 wards (and that’s without South Hams). So a workable sized council will require a massive cull of elected members (no wonder the leaderships have been playing their cards close to their chests), leading to a weakening of the links between people and their councillors. On present ward boundaries, based on the most recent election results, 123 of the councillors would be Tories – a small majority, which gives pause for thought as to why Labour-run Exeter is so keen on the idea? Of course the new council could be a pathfinder, to be elected by proportional representation, which would change the political balance considerably. Look it’s a pig up there.

Many, many more questions. And meanwhile energy is being diverted away from service improvements into a potentially massive reorganisation. It still feels like the “old politics”. For the time being, we have to await the answers to the Green Party’s highly pertinent questions.

NOTES

[1] You have to have been an aficionado of BBC Radio Children’s Hour in the 1950s to understand the reference!

[2] See my post https://petercleasby.com/2016/09/30/devolution-is-not-control/

[3] The proposals adopted by Exeter City Council’s Executive are at http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/documents/g4903/Public%20reports%20pack%2008th-Nov-2016%2017.30%20Executive.pdf?T=10, page 73.”

https://agreeninexeter.com/2016/12/14/musical-council-boundaries/

“Company boss who gave £930,000 to Tory party receives knighthood”

Owl wonders if it wins Euromillions it might be able to call itself “Croney Owl”? Hugo’s croney knighthood from old pal and Eton schoolfriend David Cameron is looking grubbier and grubbier.

“David Ord, who becomes a knight in the new year, is a co-owner of Bristol ports and a member of the Conservative party’s Leaders’ Group, who were granted exclusive access to cabinet ministers under David Cameron and George Osborne. He has given more than £930,000 to the party since 2013.

Ord, a major opponent of the Severn Barrage, was once embroiled in a donations row after it emerged in 2014 that Bristol North West MP Charlotte Leslie had failed to declare the port owner’s donations to her local party on time, despite making numerous parliamentary interventions about the project. She apologised and was cleared of wrongdoing by the parliamentary watchdog.

Jeremy Corbyn said the honours for Tory donors were an insult to those who had been rewarded for charitable work or achievements. “The Conservatives are making a mockery of our honours system,” the Labour leader’s spokesperson said. “Every crony appointment is an insult to the incredible people from right across Britain who are rewarded for the great contributions they make to our national life”.

A Downing Street source defended the honours for Conservative donors, saying: “Being involved in political parties is generally considered to be an important part of civic society, and the alternative is having state funding for political parties, which is not where the consensus lies. When people dedicate their time and service to civil society it’s appropriate they can be honoured.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/30/company-boss-david-ord-tory-donor-receives-knighthood

Heart of the South West LEP: where is OUR money going now?

It appears that the “Heart of the South West LEP is dead in the water now that three of its original members have refused to continue to back it and instead are considering their own grouping – the south-west “Golden Triangle” LEP.

Which brings us to that age-old concern: the money. Where did the HOTSW LEP money come from, where was it spent and now, more importantly, what is happening to it now that several big players – who originally underwrote it – have pulled out?

How do we find out [what little there is] – where is the paper trail and where does its “accountability” reside?

This correspondence with the National Audit Office gives some clues:

[Concerns have been raised] about lack of transparency around contracts and spending.

As part of the assurance framework each local enterprise partnership has a nominated local authority that acts as its accountable body, and Somerset County Council (the Council) is the accountable body for the Heart of the South West LEP.

You could therefore consider bringing the matters to the attention of the Council themselves.

Alternatively you may wish to consider bringing the matters to the attention of the Councils external auditor. For this Council, the appointed auditor is Grant Thornton UK LLP.

The engagement lead for the audit is Peter Barber, who can be contacted at peter.a.berber@uk.gt.com or on 0117 305 7897. You should be aware, however, that the NAO has no powers to direct the auditor take further action, as that is a matter of professional judgement to be exercised by the external auditor themselves.

If you are a local elector for the [Somerset?] Council, you also have rights in relation to inspecting and objecting to the Councils accounts, if you feel this appropriate. The NAO has produced Council accounts: A guide to your rights, which sets out these rights in more detail. The guide can be accessed from the link or from our website home page”.”

Council tax payers of Somerset – arise. You, and we, surely have many questions of the council (or better still its external auditors) as to where your (Somerset) and our (Devon and, in particular for us, East Devon) money is going now that the HOTSW LEP has had at least one of its legs cut off.

Have its fingers been cut off? Is the till snapped shut and locked?

Unlikely.

“‘Cameron’s Cronies’ backlash: Nominated peers could have to prove they have ‘record of significant achievement’ “

(Un)fortunately, this will not include Hugo Swire – Cameron’s Old Etonian contemporary and holiday companion – who was only given a knighthood. OK for impressing social climbers but offering no further political influence.

“Theresa May’s ethics adviser has suggested aides and party donors nominated for peerages should be forced to prove their suitability in the wake of the ‘Cameron’s Cronies’ scandal.

Lord Bew, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told The Telegraph the idea of putting political appointments through rigorous interviews should be considered.

The crossbench peer said his committee was “very interested” in tighter safeguards to ensure that only those suitable to enter the House of Lords are picked.

However he warned that peers selected by the Prime Minister should not face identical criteria to those picked for the crossbench and said parties must be consulted on any change.

The reforms – which would amount to the biggest shake-up in the selection of peers for a generation – have been gaining traction in Parliament in recent weeks. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/27/camerons-cronies-backlash-nominated-peers-could-have-prove-have/

Bend those rules till they break, Mrs May – get YOUR cronies into top jobs

“Theresa May’s government has been accused of changing the rules on public appointments to make it easier in future for ministers to pick their political allies for senior jobs at the BBC and regulators such as Ofsted.

The new code on public appointments will give ministers greater powers over who oversees a raft of agencies, watchdogs and advisory committees, while weakening the involvement of the independent commissioner for public appointments, who scrutinises the system.

Labour said the changes, which will come into force on 1 January, represent a “power grab” by ministers and risk returning to the days of patronage and cronyism in public life.

Ministers have always had the final say over appointments to senior public sector jobs, advised by a panel that shortlists “appointable” people. However, independent assessors, chosen by the commissioner to oversee the most important competitions, will be abolished in favour of independent senior panel members picked by ministers.

Labour warns of return to cronyism amid public appointments review
The members will have to be independent of the departments and not currently politically active, but the commissioner will only have a consultative role.

Ministers will also be able to overrule the panel by choosing candidates not deemed to be appointable and have the right to dispense with an open competition without the permission of the commissioner, although they will have to consult with the watchdog and openly justify the decision. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/27/government-accused-power-grab-new-public-appointment-rules-bbc-ofsted

Totnes resident objects to planning application due to LEP board member involvement

Response to the resubmission of planning application 0412/15/F Brimhay by SDRHA.

Community, Consultation and Land

We strongly object to this application on the following grounds:

” … 2/ This application cannot be considered in an unbiased way for the following reasons.

This application was developed under the authority of Tim Jones, in his position as director in charge of property at Dartington Hall Trust. Tim Jones, or the Heart of the South West L.E.P., has not publicly disclosed any relationship or links to this Brimhay application.

Tim Jones was a founder, chairman and is a current a director or the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership. In this role he oversees creation of plans for “devolution” of powers to Devon County Council and South Hams District Council. In this position, Mr Jones has significant influence over both councils and their officers. In his other roles as major property developer, financer, founder and controller of Devon and Cornwall Business Council, vice chair of PACB, prominent with the chamber of commerce as well active in a number of non-transparent organisations, he exerts yet more influence. These influence are not disclosed, transparent, or accountable in this application.

The HOSW LEP documentation repeatedly states that they wish to “overcome barriers to planning”. However they do not give details on which barriers or how they intend to overcome them. Barriers to planning include local communities wishes, protected species laws, and environmental protection laws, and quotas for lower cost housing, to name but a few.

Therefore, due to the above mentioned, this application cannot be considered by officers in this council in an unbiased way. …”.

Awkward.

Exmouthians and the recent full council meeting – not happy …

Reports say …

Laura Freeman accused them of letting the people of Exmouth who voted in Town Poll and the March down. She promised they would see more action until they listened.

Sally Galsworthy said that East Devon strap line was “an area of outstanding natural beauty”. Yet they wanted to destroy the natural beauty of the Seafront. She said they ran the risk of building a road to nowhere that was now costing over £3m. She said they couldn’t be sure that Mark Dixon would stay the course. He was a rich man in his prime why would he want to be associated with incompetence, bad PR and spiralling costs? She said as someone who was born and bred in the town and whose parents and grandparents had businesses in the town she understood the temperament well. Exmouth likes to grumble but rarely takes action. She congratulated the council that they had managed to get nearly 5000 people to vote in the Poll and 400 to March. That they might well find if Dixon dropped out, they had built a road to nowhere.

Alex Huett reminded the Council when the Regeneration Board was set up in 2010 their main target was to regenerate the Town and the town was enthusiastic. Queens Drive was never mentioned.

Oh dear … and more than 2 years to go before people can show what they think by their votes …

Ukip fined by EU for election expenses scandal – no sign of Tories in UK being settled

So, that’s Labour, Lib Dems and Ukip sorted (and even an independent candidate fined by the Electoral Commission for forgetting to put an imprint (“published by”) on one leaflet).

Tory election voting scandal that was the first to be reported and includes investigation of our Police and Crime Commissioner?

Zilch, nada, nothing. Funny that.

Lamest resignation excuse of 2016!

img_1393

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2016/dec/21/steve-bell-ojamie-reed-quitting-labour-cartoon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“One of Jeremy Corbyn’s most persistent critics is to quit as a Labour MP and take a job in the nuclear industry, triggering a three-way fight for his marginal northern seat with the Conservatives and Ukip.

Jamie Reed, the MP for Copeland in west Cumbria since 2005, told the Guardian he was resigning because he believed he could achieve more for his community in his new job, working for the nuclear processing site Sellafield, than on the backbenches.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/21/corbyn-critic-jamie-reed-quits-labour-mp-byelection-copeland?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Translation?: I am being offered shedloads of money in my new job and so stuff you lot!