Has DCC Leader John Hart just killed off Devon and Somerset devolution plans?

Agenda item
Councillor John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council

Meeting of Exeter Board, Monday 21st November 2016 5.30 pm (Item 31)

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed Councillor John Hart, Leader of Devon County Council who spoke on the future direction and plans of the County Council in light of Government policy and continued cuts to local government funding – 2017/18 set to be the 8th consecutive year since 2009 of further restrictions, the precise nature of cuts to become clearer as part of the budget setting process in the New Year.

Having recently met Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, Councillor Hart expanded on latest developments in the Devolution debate.

A number of areas such as Norfolk and Suffolk had withdrawn interest and, whilst the Secretary had urged a joint Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset bid, Councillor Hart outlined the disparity of views across the region for this approach.

Quarterly meetings for the Leaders of Devon, Cornwall, Torbay and Plymouth councils continued to be held and, although Somerset now also participated, within that County the views of districts diverged.

Whilst funding of £15 million per year associated with the adoption of the Mayoral system would be available there was no enthusiasm for an extra tier of local government and this sum represented a fraction of the overall County Council budget.

With regard to two independent studies looking into potential local government reorganisation in county areas for the County Councils Network, he asserted that County/District relationships in Devon were much improved since the previous ruling on re-organisation as evidenced by various joint initiatives with the Districts, the National Parks and the LEP. However, he suggested that some Devon Districts would face increased financial challenges with changes in New Homes Bonus rules.

In his meeting with the Secretary he had urged greater funding commitment for training and skills given the gap of some 20% between the SE and the SW in productivity and he emphasised the value of apprenticeships, including for small businesses.

He thanked the voluntary/community sector for the role played in supporting the County in the delivery of many of its services referring to Senior Voice, Age Concern and CAB which were valued and supported by the authority. He also referred to ICE where again the input of this sector was invaluable, this initiative being a pilot for the rest of the UK. Community self-reliance was a growing theme and he referred to County initiatives encouraging collaboration between parishes.

Members referred to the impact of the reshaped County Council services on areas such as youth, libraries, reduced rural transport funding of 1.7 million, day care, closure of residential homes, the sale of old people’s homes as well as responsibilities under the Care Act legislation.

Responding, Councillor Hart stated that the old people/residential homes had no longer been fit for purpose and that this was also being reflected in the private sector, the County was retaining its overall £4million County wide bus service subsidy and that the transfer of the library service to Charitable Trusts would facilitate business rate relief.

Responding to the concerns of Members regarding the changes emerging from the Care Act legislation and the shift to community based service delivery, he advised that the County Council’s Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee was leading on consultation and responses to the Wider Devon Sustainability and Transformation Plan which sought to achieve the NHS “Five Year Forward View”.

It was noted that the New Devon Clinical Commissioning Group had offered support towards the changes. The County Councils Network was reviewing changes at the national level. Devon’s older people population exceeded 170,000 – both over 65’s and over 85’s, with no specific Government funding for the latter.

It was noted that the Government had announced a £10 million investment to help strengthen the resilience of the railway line between Exeter and Dawlish and Teignmouth.

The Chair thanked Councillor Hart for attending.

http://committees.exeter.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=36263

More on the ” hidden” Hugo Swire

A commentator reacts to the post below on Hugo Swire:

A few more points that come out of this article:

He wishes that he had been more rebellious in his youth – we wish he was more rebellious now.

He says he doesn’t understand how business works!!!

He says he liked visiting Cuba – we wish he had stayed there.

He likes telling unprintable jokes – which goes well with being one.

His sense of humour is apparently a little more sophisticated than his best joke about Napoleon’s armies being up his sleevies – but we guess not much.

He really, really wants to meet Donald Trump. His hero?

His motto: “Confuse your enemies and confound your friends.” Well he certainly confounds his constituents.

He is INCREDIBLY VAIN because thinks he is better looking than both Robert Wagner and Sam Neil (both of whom he thinks are “mothy”), and as good looking and with the physique of Ross Poldark – by which I am guessing he means 33 year old Aidan Turner (dream on, Hugo) rather than 74 year old Robin Ellis. We know which one we think he is most like.

He likes hurling abuse at cyclists, and even stranger likes being abused by them in return. (Is that the most rebellious he can get? Pity he can’t rebel against his own parties lies and destruction of democracy and British institutions.)

He likes sticking things up chickens’ bottoms.

He thinks his mobile phone has been hacked by foreign powers (presumably before he was sacked as a Foreign Office minister) – but he hasn’t asked the security services to check it or got a new one. (Can anyone check his parliamentary receipts to see how recently he has claimed for one?)

He refuses to confirm that he is law abiding.

Web page saved for posterity at
https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/house/81121/unparliamentary-language-sir-hugo-swire

Privatisation: some things to think about

1. Your services get worse

Private companies have a legal duty to reward their shareholders, so they have to prioritise making a profit. This means they may end up cutting corners, or underinvesting in your public services. Water companies ignore leaks instead of investing in infrastructure, while private company involvement in the NHS has been bad for patients. Private companies also have ‘commercially confidential’ contracts, so they don’t share information with others; this makes it harder for them to work in partnership to make services better.

2. Your costs go up

You pay more, both as a taxpayer and directly when you pay for public services. Value for money goes down because private companies must make a profit for their shareholders and they also pay their top executives more money. This means either we the people, or the government, or both, end up paying more. Fares on our privatised railways and buses are the most expensive in Europe, while people are also being hit with high energy bills. 57% of 140 local authorities surveyed in 2011 said they had brought outsourced public services back in-house or were considering it, with 60% saying that the main reason was the need to cut costs.

3. You can’t hold private companies accountable

If the local council runs a service, you know where to go to complain. But if a private company runs a service, they are not democratically accountable to you. That makes it harder for you to have a voice. Academy schools are less accountable to parents. Private company Atos tried to silence disability campaigners instead of responding to their concerns about work capability assessments. A report by the Institute of Government reveals problems in outsourcing public services, including a lack of transparency, manipulation of contracts by suppliers and a reluctance to sack underperforming providers.

4. Staff are undermined

If you work in public services, privatisation will make your life harder. A Europe-wide study found that privatisation has had ‘largely negative effects on employment and working conditions’. There are often job cuts and qualified staff are replaced with casual workers, who are paid less and have worse conditions. This has a knock-on effect on the service being provided – for example, in the cases of care workers or court interpreters.

5. It is risky and difficult to reverse

Once our public services are privatised, it’s often difficult for us to get them back. Not only that, we lose the pool of knowledge, skills and experience that public sector workers have acquired over many years. We also lose integration both within and across different public services. A Deloitte report finds that many large companies are bringing services in-house because of the costs, complexity and risks of outsourcing.

But wait!

Aren’t private companies supposed to be better than the public sector? Doesn’t competition reduce costs and improve quality and customer care? No, because there is often very little competition; public services tend to be natural monopolies so there isn’t much choice for consumers. Instead, government (local or national) asks private companies to bid for contracts running our services – but there’s no real opportunity for our voices to be heard.

https://weownit.org.uk/privatisation

Labour will not back a progressive alliance – the proof

“… Labour has stuck with the usual protocol. Its candidate is campaigning hard in Richmond Park, leading to fears that he will split the anti-Tory vote. At the local party’s meeting to select the candidate on 4 November, a member called Mike Freedman suggested that proceedings ought to be abandoned. He says he was interrupted by an official sent from the Labour party’s London HQ. “He said: ‘You can’t do that,’” Freedman tells me. “I said: ‘I can.’ He said: ‘Well, I won’t let you. I’ll stop you.’ And he said if we didn’t choose a candidate the party would impose one.” …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/28/is-progressive-alliance-only-way-stop-hard-right-populism

“False, flawed and fraudulent” says “Save Our Hospital Services” of NHS plans for Devon

SAVE OUR HOSPITAL SERVICES DEVON PRESS RELEASE
ON THE NATURE OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY

The ‘Success Regime’/STP Team in Devon

“Save Our Hospital Services Devon (SOHS Devon) is today calling for the abolition of NHS England’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) for Wider Devon and the suspension of the so-called Success Regime for North, East and West Devon that is now an integral part.

“These two programmes are false, flawed and fraudulent,” says Dave Clinch, a spokesperson for SOHS in North Devon. “They are riddled with public-private, professional-personal conflicts of interest.”

SOHS Devon points out that the Case for Change document on which both the Success Regime and the STP are based was produced by a private-owned health service consultancy, Carnall Farrar. One of the consultancy’s founding partners, Dame Ruth Carnall, is now the ‘Independent’ Chair of the Success Regime pushing through the STP in Devon.

“SOHS Devon believes that there is a pre-determined agenda in Devon to cut services, limit access and reduce demand by redefining medical need to ensure that government cuts are carried out. How can Ms Carnall, who produced the blueprint for the STP, be considered remotely independent in assessing our needs or services to meet them?” asks Mr Clinch.

SOHS Devon points out that to push their agenda for cuts to NHS services and staff, the Success Regime/STP team will have been allocated £7.4 million between 2015 and 2017. Some of this funding has been used to recruit senior staff from those same services they plan to cut; for example, Andy Robinson, who left his role as Director of Finance at the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust to join the Success Regime in Exeter. What is more, Mr Robinson happens to be the partner of the Chief Executive of the Trust, Alison Diamond.

“Professional or personal? How can this relationship avoid directly impacting on the life-and-death decisions now being made?” says Mr Clinch.

Meanwhile, the proposed relocation to Exeter of acute services based at North Devon District Hospital (NDDH) is being overseen by the Success Regime’s Lead Chief Executive Angela Pedder, the former CEO of the Royal Devon & Exeter Foundation Trust.

“How can she be considered unbiased given her former role?” says Mr Clinch. It’s no coincidence that RD&E needs to cover a much bigger deficit than NDDH in Barnstaple.”

On top of this, the two leads on the STP’s Acute Services Review programme are both from hospitals in South Devon, namely Derriford in Plymouth and Torbay in Torquay. SOHS Devon can find no evidence that they are talking to the clinicians working in acute services at NDDH. And the fact is, if the proposed acute services cuts go ahead, people here in North Devon will suffer and die”.

ENDS

East Devon ward boundary changes- days left to comment

“Professor Colin Mellors, Chair of the Commission, said: “We will consider every submission we receive from local people before we draw up draft recommendations. We will then open another phase of consultation on those proposals in February.

He added: “Don’t miss this chance to have your say on how your council is run.”

This phase of public consultation closes on December 5.
Consultation responses should be sent to:The Review Officer (East Devon), Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Floor 14, Millbank Tower, London SW1P 4QP”

More information at:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/it-s-the-last-call-for-views-on-ward-boundary-changes-in-east-devon/story-29936690-detail/story.html

Destruction of the NHS planned in Thatcher era National Archive documents show -‘The Omega Project’

“… Another document in the National Archives outlines radical plans to end universal free healthcare.

The document stamped “secret” was called, in keeping with films and books of that era, “The Omega Project”.

Civil servants noted that “for the majority it would represent the abolition of the NHS”.

But in spite of what was described as the nearest thing to a Cabinet riot in the history of the Thatcher administration, the prime minister secretly pressed ahead with the plans – before later backing down”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38101020

The choice of name is chilling – Omega being the last letter of the Greek alphabet, Alpha being the first. So the phrase ‘Alpha and Omega’ came to mean ‘the beginning and THE END’.

It appears that it has been resurrected.

NHS underfunded? No, just wonderful say Tory MPs

Blog comment reposted verbatim:

How ironic – on the same day that the UKSA says the figures are wrong and misleading the HoC Tory majority debates NHS funding and makes a formal statement.

In yesterdays NHS funding debate neither Neil Pariah nor Hugo Swine said anything. See

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-11-22a.820.0&s=speaker%3A25120

But there was a vote about what the HoC wanted to say about the funding crisis. The original text was:

That this House notes with concern that the deficit in the budgets of NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England at the end of the 2015–16 financial year was £2.45 billion; further notes that members of the Health Committee wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about their concerns that Government assertions on NHS funding were incorrect and risked giving a false impression; and calls on the Government to use the Autumn Statement to address the underfunding of the NHS and guarantee sustainable financing of the NHS.

However the Conservatives voted to change this to:

That this House welcomes the Government’s investment, on the back of a strong economy, of significant additional funding and resources each year for the NHS during the 2015 Parliament; notes that this settlement was frontloaded at the specific request of the NHS in NHS England’s own plan to deliver an improved and more sustainable service, the Five Year Forward View; and further notes that the NHS will receive a real terms increase in funding in each year of the Spending Review period, while the Labour Party’s Manifesto at the last election committed to only an extra £2.5 billion a year by 2020, far less than the NHS requested.

And both Neil Pariah and Hugo Swine voted for the revised text, turning a call for increased funding into a sycophantic statement about how wonderful the Government is funding the NHS.

So next time either of our MPs say how concerned they are about the NHS and how they will fight for extra funding (like Hugo Swire said in Pulman’s only yesterday) you should consider carefully whether they are really fighting for extra funding or simply paying lip service (or as we commoners might say “lying”) in order to keep your votes.

English devolution: 4 deficits and “unelected dictatorship”

In an article on the London School of Economics website by Bob Hudson, a Professor in the Centre for Public Policy and Health, University of Durham, he argues that the current process has four major deficits and goes i to detail about each one. The four are:

Democratic Deficit
Constitutional Deficit
Financial Deficit
Strategic Deficit

An interesting comment on the article from Malcolm Bell reads:

The whole trend in contemporary government is to suppress democracy and impose control by unelected elites. The principle is established in the EU where the commission trumps the elected Parliament. Devolution to the regions is intended to develop this theme. The British government is rapidly changing to decision-making in the increasingly remote “executive” as the House loses control. It used to be said that we had an elected dictatorship, that is rapidly being replaced by an unelected dictatorship of the elite. Accountability is almost entirely a thing of the past, this is not accidental but deliberate policy.”

So much for sovereignty of Parliament!

The REAL-LIFE Devon NHS cuts

“The proximity of North Devon district hospital to Anne-Marie Wiles’ home – it is less than five minutes away – is crucial.

Her twin sons, Jed and Peirce, were given just six months to live after being born with multiple complex health needs. They are now doing well, aged 16, thanks in large part to the efforts of a loving family, but also the dedicated staff at the hospital in Barnstaple.

“I intentionally live opposite the hospital because when the boys stop breathing there is not enough time to call an ambulance,” said Wiles. Jed has been resuscitated three times at the NDDH and both have been nursed countless times at the Caroline Thorpe children’s ward.

“If these services end then my boys will for certain die once they become ill,” said Wiles. “I am fearful of losing my children.”

She is one of thousands who have joined marches, written to local MPs, organised benefit gigs, signed petitions over the Wider Devon STP – sustainability and transformation plan – which is proposing radical changes to healthcare in the county.

If the plan comes to fruition in its present form, 600 community and acute beds across this sprawling, largely rural county will be gone within five years.

Cherished community hospitals at Honiton in the east – nicknamed the Honiton Hilton because it so beloved – Okehampton in central Devon and Paignton and Dartmouth in the south would go. There have been howls of protest everywhere – but nowhere more than in and around Barnstaple.

Here there is deep alarm that the plan may lead to the shutting down of maternity, neonatology and paediatric services as well as triggering the loss of other departments, including A&E. The Royal Devon and Exeter hospital is 50 miles away – an hour and 10 minutes by car down a winding road if conditions are good, much more if not.

Tina Day’s son, Jaiden-Lee, was born at the NDDH with a collapsed lung and spent a week in the special care baby unit for a week before developing type 1 diabetes. “It terrifies me if services like maternity and A&E are re-located. People will die, guaranteed,” said Day.

John Tate claimed his wife and daughter would both have died had the NDDH not been near. “My daughter had her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck. She had breathing problems and was trapped head down. This caused my wife life-threatening problems. An emergency cesarean saved their lives. Both would have died if Barnstaple was not there.”

Crystal Steinberg said the closure of the maternity department would make her think twice about having a second child. She underwent an emergency caesarean section because her unborn baby, Dylan, was in distress. “I do not want to be stranded at the side of the road while my uterus ruptures and my baby and I die.”

It is not just mums who are worried. Tracy, 46, suffers from a mental health condition that leaves her suicidal. “I have been to A&E three times this month after being picked up by police.” Should the A&E close she believes she would be held in a cell or have to head to Exeter. “I’d have no way of getting there but to walk or hitch. Both are a scary.”

Jacob Egan, seven, was so concerned when he got wind of the proposals that he dictated a letter to Theresa May. He has brittle asthma, which can result in severe attacks, and has been admitted to the NDDH around 10 times.

“Dear prime minister,” he said. “Just think about it, every time any child in our area of north Devon needed to go to hospital they would have to go to Exeter. Exeter is a long distance away and if your heartbeat stopped you couldn’t just wait for a train or car to get you there.”

At the heart of the plan is a “new model of integrated care” that will “reduce reliance on bed-based care and enable people to live healthy independent lives for longer, closer to where they live”. In other words the idea is to look after people at home rather than in hospital.

According to the latest draft of the report, which is up for consultation, every day more than 600 people in Devon are medically fit to leave hospital beds but do not.

The plans argues change must take place. Health and social care services in Devon are likely to be £557m in deficit in 2020/21 if nothing is done, the plan says. It also says the system as it stands isn’t working. The 95% standard for patients being seen in A&E within four hours is not being met – the Devon system is currently achieving 91.6%.

Devon’s demographics also have to be taken into account. There are more elderly people here than in other parts of the UK – in one area of Torquay almost one in 10 are aged over 85. Some need a lot of care – in north, east and west Devon, 40% of people use almost 80% of health and social care.

Angela Pedder, lead chief executive for the plan, said she understood people’s concerns. “But if we sit back and say let’s just let things happen, that’s a much bigger risk not just for the whole of Devon.

“We have to be pro-active. We have responsibilities to make sure the service is safe and sustainable two, five, 10 years down the line. That’s what we’ve got to plan for. That’s the framework we are trying to put in place.”

Politicians, activists and patients are not impressed.

The East Devon Tory MP Hugo Swire said: “We are in danger of putting the cart before the horse. Until we can absolutely ensure that we have got social care right, we should not look at unnecessarily closing community beds.”

Jan Goffey, the mayor of Okehampton, called the proposals cruel and claimed the NHS was being “dismembered”. If the people who actually live in Barnstaple are worried, those that live even further north – and so even further from Exeter – are even more concerned.

Sarah Vander, who runs a shop in the cliff-top village of Lynton, 20 miles north-east of Barnstaple, said her mother had been saved from a stroke and her husband from a diabetic hypo – a drop in blood glucose level – because they got to the NDDH quickly. “We are incredibly remote and we must be able to rely on the excellent services of NDDH otherwise the simple fact is, people will die unnecessarily.”

The seaside town of Ilfracombe, 12 miles north of Barnstaple, suffers a double whammy. The town is isolated and some areas are deprived: life expectancy in central Ilfracombe is 75 compared with 90 in parts of east Devon.

Rebecca McGarry, from Ilfracombe, the mother of daughters aged two and three, said she felt sick thinking about the prospect of losing services. Both her children have received excellent treatment in Barnstaple including for severe croup, which makes it difficult for them to breathe.

McGarry’s husband is a carer and needs the car for work so she often has to take her children to the hospital on the bus. “I honestly don’t know how we would manage if these appointments were moved even further away. The idea that such a remote region should lose these vital services is totally absurd. People will lose their lives if these closures do happen.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/18/nhs-cuts-in-devon-if-these-services-end-my-boys-will-for-certain-die

May’s right-hand man implicated in election expenses scandal?

This is the same scandal that our Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez is involved in as an election agent in Torquay just prior to becoming PCC.

“Michael Crick over at Channel 4 news has kept on digging into the series of Conservative election expense scandals which have seen more of Theresa May’s MPs implicated than the size of her majority:

Theresa May’s Downing Street aide is in the spotlight amid questions over the Conservatives, campaign to stop Nigel Farage winning a seat in Parliament at the last election.

Channel 4 News, which has been investigating the party’s election spending since February, has obtained new evidence suggesting a “crack team” of Tories including Mr Timothy were involved in Craig Mackinlay’s local campaign from a hotel in Ramsgate.

Kent Police and the Electoral Commission are currently investigating whether the Conservative Party broke the law by failing to properly declare tens of thousands of pounds in hotel bills, including approximately £14,000 at the Royal Harbour Hotel in Ramsgate where Mr Timothy stayed.

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

It’s the same explanation the Conservatives have given to the police (which ups the stakes about it being true rather):

Any national Conservative Party staff based in the Royal Harbour Hotel were part of a national campaign team and were engaged in activities at the direction of Conservative Central Headquarters.”

Other Conservative staff has been further implicated too as Channel 4 further reports:

The new evidence obtained by Channel 4 News also suggests that Conservative staff staying at the Royal Harbour Hotel were working on Craig Mackinlay’s local campaign.

The programme has obtained a large number of press releases sent out on behalf of Mr Mackinlay by the former Conservative Party Head of Press, Henry Macrory. Mr Macrory was part of the team who were guests at the Royal Harbour.

The press releases are branded “Craig Mackinlay – Conservative Candidate for South Thanet”. They contain Mr Mackinlay’s twitter handle and Facebook page. All say “For further information please call Henry Macrory”. The press releases were promoted by his local agent.

The programme has also obtained emails showing Mr Macrory acting as Mr Mackinlay’s press officer. In one email sent in March 2016, Mr Macrory told local journalists: “I will be helping out with Craig Mackinlay’s media during the election campaign.

“Please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can assist in any way. In the next few days or so I will start sending you a regular e-mail giving you an outline of what Craig will be up to during the week ahead.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/146484/nick-timothy-election-expenses/

Whatever happened to ….. EDDC councillor ” champions”?

A year or two ago, you couldn’t move for EDDC councillor “champions” – Tory councillors without cabinet portfolios but with “special responsibilities” for specific tasks. Now, without fanfare, they seem to have disappeared without trace.

Those recently memorable to Owl were Councillor Phil Twiss, who had special responsibility for broadband services in East Devon and a councillor who had “special responsibility” for tourism who seems never to have said anything meaningful about it – ever. And who could forget the councillor with “special responsibility” for construction design – whose legacy is … er … perhaps best not go there!

History tells us that at least two councillors in the past declined these “champion” roles, having been awarded championships without even being consulted, of what might be perceived as “poisoned chalices – “beaches and foreshores” (Councillor Wragg) and “affordable housing” (then EDDC councillor Claire Wright)

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/councillors-reject-role-champions/story-12682633-detail/story.html

And who could forget Councillor Philip Skinner being stripped of his role as “rural champion” by then EDDC leader Sarah Randall-Johnson when he sent her what she perceived to be offensive Christmas greetings:

http://www.cornwalllive.com/leader-sacks-rural-champion-christmas-card-message/story-11517317-detail/story.html

Oh, and finally, perhaps the “creme de la creme” of champions, disgraced ex- councillor Graham Brown who was excommunicated and stripped of his “business champion” role (and his Chairmanship of the notorious East Devon Business Forum”) after a Daily Telegraph front page sting in which he asserted:

“If I turn a green field into an estate, I’m not doing it for peanuts”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921333/If-I-turn-a-green-field-into-an-estate-then-Im-not-doing-it-for-peanuts.html

Ah, perhaps Owl has accidentally solved its own conundrum!

“Sacked ministers warn Theresa May: Promote us in a year or there will be ‘trouble’ “

Does this include our own dear Hugo?

Theresa May has been warned by sacked ministers that she must promote them back into Government within a year or face “trouble” in Parliament.

Senior Tories dismissed by the Prime Minister in the summer have privately warned their “loyalty” only stretches so far after being sent to the backbenches.

Some are ready to increasingly rebel over Mrs May’s grammar schools ban and Brexit priorities unless they are put back on the Government payroll soon.

The ultimatum, made in conversations with The Sunday Telegraph, is designed to make sure Mrs May makes good on indications there is a route back to the Government for those who behave.

… Some 29 ministers left the Government after Mrs May took over as PrimeMinister – a far higher number then her working majority in the House of Commons of around a dozen.

The unexpectedly brutal reshuffle saw Mrs May accused of “purging” allies of Mr Cameron and Mr Gove, who ran against her in the Tory leadership race.

At the time there were warnings that creating new enemies on the backbenches when the Tories only have a slim majority risked undermining her ability to win votes.

It is understood Tory whips and intermediaries for Mrs May’s team have let it be known there are paths back to Government for those former ministers who behave themselves.

However some have grown impatient and are warning that unless they are promoted by July 2017 they will begin to cause “trouble”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/sacked-ministers-warn-theresa-may-promote-us-in-a-year-or-there/

How many tiers can “Local” Government take before it collapses?

Owl has lost count of the number of tiers and organisations and partnerships currently interfering in so-called “local” government, see:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/11/03/unitary-councils-save-money-yet-a-few-years-ago-they-didnt/

Which leads to the question: just how many tiers of government do we NEED and how many can we AFFORD? And how many is too many?

For example, the savings by eliminating district councils, regional super-authorities and makeshift arrangements such as Greater Exeter would almost certainly be huge. You could still have flexible cooperative arrangements such as Strata, without having all the paraphernalia and bureaucracy.

Anyone campaigning for the County Council who includes on their platform local government reorganisation, with County and Parish Councils as the only tiers of local government might well be very popular. It would be possible to combine such a package with maximum localism/subsidiarity. For example, if the District Council was dissolved, all its responsibilities, where practicable, could be transferred to the lower tier councils for truly local management.

Removing two or three tiers of government would almost certainly produce enough savings to eliminate local NHS cuts and debts at a stroke. “Save the NHS by cutting local government bureaucracy” would be a heck of a slogan!

And the elimination of all that bureaucracy and repetitive form-filling and buck-passing could bring enormous efficiency savings and productivity.

In East Devon we would probably be immediately £15-20 million better off just with the cancellation of the new HQ at Honiton.

Whilst many staff would be transferred to town councils to continue to do the jobs that they presently perform, there would probably be a loss over time through natural wastage of perhaps 100 to 200 jobs, representing a cost saving of £3-5 million per annum. Plus reduced operational running costs of around £2 million.

This means a cash windfall of about £300-400 per household to everyone in the District, and average council tax bills would be about £130 lower.

But the big benefit would be in greater efficiency and local connectivity. A huge democratic boost.

Discuss!

Devolution: centrally-driven, centrally led, locally worthless

A report of a meeting of local Green Party and Devon United groups in south Devon:

“DEMOCRACY – LOCAL:

The meeting in Kingsbridge last week demonstrated, through the participation of a small, engaged and knowledgeable group, that the topic of Devolution has yet to excite a broader segment of the local population.

The group present, largely drawn from Totnes and Dartington with a majority representing the Open Democracy group, Devon United, engaged in a serious and considered debate of the merits and limitations of the present Devon County Council devolution prospectus.

The discussion was greatly facilitated by a thoughtful and grounding presentation from Professor Chris Balch who was able to set the present proposals in a broader historical and geographic context as well as highlighting some of the conclusions from his research on the role of the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

The group, which included County and District Councillors from Green, LibDem and Tory parties, worked towards a conclusion which suggested action on two fronts:

1. The Constitutional Question – at some stage, if the present proposals are supported by Government in the Autumn statement, Devon and Somerset County Councils are bound to consult their resident populations more directly on their intention to create a Combined Authority for Devon and Somerset to incorporate the interests of County and District Councils and Unitary Authorities.

This consultation exercise is unlikely to lead to a local referendum, but there will be an opportunity, probably in the Spring 2017, for a concerted campaign by progressive parties and independent groups to express concerns about the formation of another tier of local Government and one which seeks to combine two Counties for the convenience of an unelected LEP.

As Julian Brazil so clearly stated in his opposition to this proposal, the Combined Authority would be directly in support of the highly problematic nuclear power station, Hinkley Point C as well a significant defence industries unidentified within an Aerospace label, both located in Somerset.
SDGP members are encouraged to join with Devon United and other progressive groups to mount an effective campaign of education and mobilisation once the consultation is announced.

The Economic Prospectus

– it is clear that DCC has no intention of consulting on the content of the Devolution Prospectus.

As Chris Balch pointed out, this is essentially aimed at meeting central Government’s requirements for economic growth through ‘high value added’ industrial sectors. The whole basis of the highly optimistic outcomes of the prospectus in terms of jobs and wages is assumed through growth of large scale enterprise in Exeter and Plymouth, in Data Analytics and Marine Industries respectively, and significant growth in housing.

The group agreed that an ‘alternative prospectus’, based on a broader understanding of the economy of the County and on progressive values and concerns could provide the basis for an election campaign by Green parties across Devon along with Independents and other progressive candidates.
At present a small group of Green party members from across Devon is working on such a prospectus and Robert Vint, for the LibDems, proposed that a broader alliance might engage with this work recognising established topics with democratic legitimacy.

Subsequent to the meeting Alan White and Georgina Allen, initiator of Devon United, have published a set of ideas on the South Devon Watch facebook page.

Common themes to emerge so far include:
Affordable Housing
Renewable Energy
Farming, fishing and food
Support for Micro- small and medium sized enterprises
Health and social services to recognise the population and geography of the County.

As one would expect from the Green Party’s core values, each of these topics combines economic with social and environmental implications, and that has to be emphasised in the alternative prospectus.

While there were a number of points of view expressed in the meeting towards differing geographical areas that might constitute an effective location for devolution of fiscal responsibilities and services, it was unanimously recognised that England is, by far the European country with the most centralised form of government. As the present proposals for devolution really do not address this issue, with primary negotiations clearly being with Government on their terms, the alternative prospectus also need to consider how we would intend to engage the relevant population in a discussion that could affect their lives far into the future.

The group at the meeting responded to a number of questions suggested by the notion of ‘Resilient Community’ fundamentally based on the recognition of identity with Place and People as the foundation for local politics. It was clear from the attendance at the meeting and many of the comments made that a politics based on Place and People needs to be rebalanced with the present politics based on party positions and power.

Members are encouraged to engage in the development of campaign strategy and support through attending relevant meetings and engaging in the growing discussion on social media.”

Government reject former Cabinet MP’s FoI request for report he commissioned!

“As Energy Secretary, he was a target for journalists wielding the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, after being ousted from Parliament in the May 2015 general election, Sir Ed Davey has been forced to resort to using the transparency legislation himself – in an attempt to read a report he commissioned.

But, in a dark twist, civil servants, who just 18 months ago worked with him, have rejected his FOI request asking them to publish a study on the true costs of different electricity sources.

The former Lib Dem cabinet member has accused the Government of “an abuse of power” after it rejected his FOI request to publish the Frontier Economics study into the true costs of different electricity sources, which was submitted to ministers by the consultancy at the start of this year.

Responding to Sir Ed’s requests, the Government acknowledged a public interest in publishing the report but said it would do so “in due course” when it could provide “sufficient context”.

“The excuse for this delay is clearly self-serving nonsense,” Sir Ed said. “It’s an independent report that can stand alone without any spin from Conservative ministers.”…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/05/access-denied-government-rejects-sir-ed-daveys-request-for-energ/

People in glass houses would be well advised not to throw stones

An EDDC district councillor recently talking about NHS bed cuts:

The CCG uses inaccurate logic and biased consultation questions, therefore it’s not a real consultation – it’s an act of manipulation.”

An independent councillor? No – true blue Honiton Tory councillor Mike Allen,

Come on, Mike – you’ve been a Tory councillor at EDDC for years – surely you shouldn’t start complaining about these tactics now!

Biased questions – go to any regeneration area or anywhere Section 106 funds are being discussed: “You can have this or that”, “But we want the other!”, “Well, you can’t have it – it’s not on the form and we don’t want it.”

Real consultation? Name one EDDC consultation that didn’t have people up in arms.

Manipulation includes bending with the wind … remember the good old days when you were Chair of the Local Plan panel and refused to let the Ottery (independent) councillor speak about his ward on a crucial part of the plan? Biased? Maybe, maybe not – though Owl recalls you were rapped on the knuckles for that one.

Remember the good old East Devon Business Forum meetings that you attended?

Oh, and you can’t have inaccurate logic – it’s either logical or it isn’t.

Time to wake up and smell the … well, it certainly isn’t coffee.

Swire pokes his nose in … no doubt there will be selfies …

Home Secretary Amber Rudd will come to Exeter to thank the emergency services for their hard work. The announcement follows an invite by East Devon MP Hugo Swire.

She said in the Commons: “We all saw over the weekend the dreadful scenes in Exeter and indeed I would be delighted to come with him and thank the police and the fire rescue teams that did such fantastic work dealing with such a difficult situation.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exeter-fire-day-five-live-blog-giant-demolition-machine-has-arrived-in-exeter/story-29857157-detail/story.html

1. Exeter is the constituency of Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and is nothing to do with Swire.

2. Theresa May presided over massive cuts to the police and fire services which her successor Rudd is now continuing.

Yet another example of Swire’s arrogance. Not to mention Rudd’s hypocrisy.

Will Alison Hernandez turn up? You bet!

Politics Iceland style – Pirate Party poised for victory

“A party that favours direct democracy, complete government transparency, decriminalising drugs and offering asylum to Edward Snowden could form the next government in Iceland after the country goes to the polls on Saturday.

Riding a wave of public anger at perceived political corruption in the wake of the 2008 financial crash and the Panama Papers scandal in April, Iceland’s Pirate party looks on course to either win or finish a close second.

The radical party, founded by activists and hackers four years ago as part of an international anti-copyright movement, captured 5% of the vote in 2013 elections, winning three seats in Iceland’s 63-member parliament, the Althingi.

This time around, analysts say it could win between 18 and 20 seats. This would put it in pole position to form a government at the head of a broad progressive alliance of up to five parties currently in opposition.

The party’s leader and figurehead is Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a 49-year-old feminist MP, poet, artist and former WikiLeaks collaborator. Jónsdóttir says she has no ambition to be prime minister, pointing to the Pirate party’s horizontal structure. Rather, she wants to sweep away what she sees as Iceland’s dysfunctional system.

“People in Iceland are sick of corruption and nepotism,” she has said. She likens Iceland to a chilly North Atlantic version of Sicily, ruled by a few “mafia-style families” plus their friends, whom she nicknames “the Octopus”.

Of her political movement, she says: “We do not define ourselves as left or right but rather as a party that focuses on the systems. In other words, we consider ourselves hackers – so to speak – of our current outdated systems of government.”

This anti-establishment message has resonated with large swaths of Iceland’s 320,000-strong population, especially the young. On Monday Jónsdóttir and two party colleagues took part in an AMA, or “ask me anything”, on Reddit. Their wide-ranging discussion covered the EU (the Pirates would put Iceland’s membership application to a referendum), fishing quotas, whaling, climate change and the party’s name.

“We’re called the Pirate party in reference to a global movement of Pirate parties that popped up over the last decade,” parliamentary candidate Smári McCarthy explained. “Despite our name, we’re taken fairly seriously in Iceland, in particular because of our very aggressive anti-corruption stance, [and] our pro-transparency work.” …

… All too often in Icelandic politics, the party says, electoral pledges are reneged on after elections, with “the parties forming a government … hiding behind compromises in coalition – enabling them to cheat voters again and again”.

Saturday’s election was prompted by the resignation of Iceland’s prime minister Sigmundur Davið Gunnlaugsson. He became the first major casualty of the Panama Papers in April after the leaked legal documents revealed he and his wife had millions of pounds of family money offshore. Gunnlaugsson hadn’t declared the British Virgin Islands company.

This was not illegal, but the news sparked outrage and some of the largest protests that Iceland has ever seen. The ruling coalition replaced Gunnlaugsson with the agriculture and fisheries minister Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson and promised elections before the end of this year.

Gunnlaugsson’s Progressive party is now languishing at about 8% in the polls, barely a third of its score in the 2013 elections. Support for the Independence party, the Pirates’ rival for the position of largest party, seems to be holding. …

… Built on the belief that new technologies can help promote civic engagement and government transparency and accountability, the Pirates also advocate an “unlimited right” for citizens to be involved in political decision-making. It wants voters to be able to propose new legislation and decide on it in national referendums.

The Pirate party is part of a global anti-establishment trend typified by parties on the left such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, and on the right such as Germany’s AfD and Britain’s Ukip. As well as promising to accept Bitcoin as legal tender, Iceland’s Pirates have pledged to maintain the country’s economic stability. …

… Unlike some other anti-establishment parties, the Pirates have made clear they have no intention of doing anything likely to upset the economy. Analysts say there is little panic at the prospect of the radical party entering government.

“Across Europe, increasingly many people think that the system that is supposed to look after them is not doing it any more,” Jónsdóttir said. “But we know we are new to this, and it is important that we are extra careful and extra critical of ourselves to not take too much on.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/26/iceland-election-could-propel-radical-pirate-party-into-power