Radical Icelandic Pirate Party in pre-election lead: reinventing democracy

“One of Europe’s most radical political parties is expected to gain its first taste of power after Iceland’s ruling coalition and opposition agreed to hold early elections caused by the Panama Papers scandal in October.

Iceland PM steps aside after protests over Panama Papers revelations
The Pirate party, whose platform includes direct democracy, greater government transparency, a new national constitution and asylum for US whistleblower Edward Snowden, will field candidates in every constituency and has been at or near the top of every opinion poll for over a year.

As befits a movement dedicated to reinventing democracy through new technology, it also aims to boost the youth vote by persuading the company developing Pokémon Go in Iceland to turn polling stations into Pokéstops.

“It’s gradually dawning on us, what’s happening,” Birgitta Jónsdóttir, leader of the Pirates’ parliamentary group, told the Guardian. “It’s strange and very exciting. But we are well prepared now. This is about change driven not by fear but by courage and hope. We are popular, not populist.”

The election, likely to be held on 29 October, follows the resignation of Iceland’s former prime minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who became the first major victim of the Panama Papers in April after the leaked legal documents revealed he had millions of pounds of family money offshore.

In the face of some of the largest protests the small North Atlantic island had ever seen, the ruling Progressive and Independence parties replaced Gunnlaugsson with the agriculture and fisheries minister, Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, and promised elections before the end of the year.

Founded four years ago by a group of activists and hackers as part of an international anti-copyright movement, Iceland’s Pirates captured five per cent of the vote in 2013 elections, winning three seats in the country’s 63-member parliament, the Althingi.

“Then, they were clearly a protest vote against the establishment,” said Eva Heida Önnudóttir, a political scientist at the University of Iceland who compares the party’s appeal to Icelandic voters to that of Spain’s Podemos, or Syriza in Greece.

“Three years later, they’ve distinguished themselves more clearly; it’s not just about protest. Even if they don’t have clear policies in many areas, people are genuinely drawn to their principles of transforming democracy and improving transparency.”

Propelled by public outrage at what is widely perceived as endemic cronyism in Icelandic politics and the seeming impunity of the country’s wealthy few, support for the party – which hangs a skull-and-crossbones flag in its parliamentary office – has rocketed.

A poll of polls for the online news outlet Kjarninn in late June had the Pirates comfortably the country’s largest party on 28.3%, four points clear of their closest rival, Gunnlaugsson’s conservative Independence party.

That lead has since narrowed slightly but most analysts are confident the Pirates will return between 18 and 20 MPs to the Althingi in October, putting them in a strong position to form Iceland’s next government.

Jónsdóttir said the party was willing to form a government with any coalition partner who subscribes to its agenda of “fundamental system change” – something the Independence party has already ruled out.

“I look at us and I think, we are equipped to do this,” she said. “Actually, the fact we haven’t done it before and that we won’t have any old-school people telling us how, means we’ll do it more carefully. We will be doing things very differently.”

Built on the belief that new technologies can help promote civic engagement and government transparency and accountability, the party believes in an “unlimited right” for citizens to be involved in the political decisions that affect them, with ordinary voters able to propose new legislation and decide on it in national referendums.

It also wants no limit on individuals’ rights to express their views and share information, unless doing so violates others’ rights, and proposes to decriminalise drugs, raise taxes on the rich, and pursue internet freedoms and copyright reform.

Önnudóttir said she could “very easily see” the party winning 20-25% of the vote. “After that, their success will depend on what they can really deliver, how much they make of their first term,” she said. “With numbers like those, you risk becoming a part of the establishment.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/12/polls-suggests-icelands-pirate-party-form-next-government

Devolution – not in Derbyshire’s back yard if they can help it!

THAT’S HOW YOU DO IT! And Derbyshire doesn’t even have a Local Enterprise Partnership to muddy the waters even further:

“Derbyshire County Council has decided to launch legal action against Sheffield City Region (SCR) Combined Authority over proposals to put some county council services in the hands of the city-region’s new mayor.

The county council’s leader, Cllr Anne Western, said the authority is seeking permission from the High Court for a judicial review of these proposals, outlined in a SCR public consultation exercise that Derbyshire has branded “misleading, flawed and insufficient” – and therefore unlawful.

Cllr Western acknowledged that the council might be criticised for the decision, but stressed it is important to “act now and send out a strong message to help put a stop to these proposals, or risk Chesterfield spending the next 30 years living in South Yorkshire’s shadow”.

SCR’s consultation, which closes on 12 August, could transfer responsibility over some of the county council’s services to the Sheffield mayor, including decisions over major roads, funding for maintenance and road safety on all roads in the borough, public transport and travel concessions, skills for employment and major planning and investment projects.

“If these proposals go ahead, it will affect the people of Chesterfield and Derbyshire for generations to come and yet the consultation doesn’t tell the full story or ask the right questions − so how can people give an informed view?” Cllr Western said.

The county council has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all its residents and we could not sit idly by and watch South Yorkshire break up Derbyshire without a proper consultation.

“The fact is that if Chesterfield becomes a full member of SCR it will undoubtedly be at a huge financial cost to Derbyshire County Council − and therefore Derbyshire taxpayers − in making our services fit in with new arrangements for Chesterfield, not to mention around £1m in business rates from Markham Vale which would all be transferred to SCR.”

She stressed that if the plans – which the county council is asking to be legally quashed – go ahead, it would be a “big decision with no easy way back” should Chesterfield join the SCR Combined Authority. This would be despite the county council’s own online poll, which received 4,000 responses, showing that 92% of residents reject proposals to join the city-region’s authority.

As well as being a “leap in the dark” given no other council in the country has joined a combined authority outside their county border, which Derbyshire would be forced to do, plans are raising concerns of representation.

The county council said that because Chesterfield is better off than most of Sheffield and South Yorkshire, the new mayor could push its needs to the back of the queue. The mayor could also end up having “little regard” for residents in neighbouring Derbyshire districts, resulting in a potential change to transport services and therefore general borough connectivity.

It also criticised the fact that Derbyshire and Chesterfield councils would only have one vote each in joint decisions, while Sheffield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster – the members of SCR – would have two each.
The future of Chesterfield would also inevitably be tied to SCR’s 30-year devolution plan, despite only the first few years of investment in the borough having been outlined so far.

“We’ve got a moral duty to fight for our residents and protect them against things we believe will put them at a disadvantage,” Cllr Western continued.
“Chesterfield is Derbyshire’s biggest town, most people who live there also work in Derbyshire and they don’t want to become a suburb of Sheffield − which is effectively what will happen if these plans go ahead.”

According to SCR’S Twitter, the combined authority has received over 2,200 responses to the consultation so far.”

http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/sheffield-facing-legal-action-over-flawed-and-unlawful-devolution-consultation

EDDC Freemasons: get that Caribbean spirit and smile!

We know that there are several Freemasons at East Devon District Council. Current declarations of interest show four Freemason councillors: Ian Hall (Axminster), John Humphries (Exmouth), Andrew Moulding (Axminster) and Tom Wright (Budleigh). Officers are not obliged to make Declarations of Interest.

So, EDDC Freemasons – loosen up, smile and go to visit Caribbean or West Africa Lodges to feel the joy! It’s what your Pro Grand Master wants!

“Older freemasons are being told to smile, look like they are enjoying themselves, and avoid criticising as the movement seeks to keep millennial masons happy and halt a decline in membership that has seen lodges closing at a rate of nearly 100 a year for the past decade.

Pro Grand Master Peter Lowndes, second only to the Grand Master the Duke of Kent, the Queen’s cousin, told senior brethren gathered in the Grand Temple, wearing white gloves, aprons and, if suitably qualified, the Royal Arch Breast Jewel: “I am not for one minute suggesting we try to turn our meetings into a pantomime, but most certainly I am saying there is no harm in being seen to enjoy ourselves.” …

… “We can probably all cite instances when a more senior member of a lodge is less than sympathetic to a newer member who has, perhaps, had a few lapses during the ritual. In my view exactly the opposite reaction has the right effect. …

… It’s important in masonry to retain the dignity of what we are doing, but that shouldn’t stop the charity steward making some little quip about old Fred, and everybody laughing …

… “I am in absolutely no doubt, brethren, that, if we encourage and congratulate, rather than routinely castigate our new members we will go a long way to retaining them as members and finally turn around our drop in numbers, which, incidentally, is already happening in some provinces and districts.”

The Pro Grand Master also told the brethren inside the Grand Temple in Freemasons’ Hall that lodges with dwindling numbers could learn from the jollity of members in affiliated districts abroad.

“I have often thought,” said Mr Lowndes, “that if a lodge in this country has lost its way, it could do a lot worse than to get some members to visit some of our districts, particularly, dare I say in West Africa and the Caribbean, to see how much enjoyment can be derived from their meetings.”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/freemasons-masons-decline-freemasonry-millennial-masons-united-grand-lodge-of-england-conspiracy-a7175966.html

Sharia law may stop MPs subsidised boozing completely

“MPs considered nationalising a Whitehall pub to avoid a drinking ban while they are relocated to the Department of Health’s offices for the duration of refurbishment works at the Palace of Westminster.

Richmond House, which hosts the department, is one of three government buildings owned by Middle East financiers who have bought into an Islamic bond issued by the government. One of its stipulations is that no alcohol will be sold on the premises.

To get around the restriction, some MPs proposed taking the Red Lion pub, located between parliament and Richmond house, into public ownership and banning entry to the general public. However, according to the Times, the move was opposed by Fuller’s Inns, the Red Lion’s owners, and a parliamentary subcommittee eventually ruled out the proposal.

Alternative drinking arrangements will still need to be made for MPs and peers – who at Westminster can choose from 10 licensed bars and restaurants – when they are moved out for the building’s renovation from 2020 onwards.

David Cameron, the former prime minister, unveiled the Islamic bond, known as a Sukuk, in 2013, as part of a drive to raise cash from Islamic investors, who cannot buy into interest-paying government bonds because of religious rules against usury.

Instead, the £200m bond sees investors effectively take ownership of three government buildings – Richmond House, Wellington House and a third Whitehall property – and take rent from the UK government for their use.

However, the small print of the deal means that the buildings must be run according to the principles of sharia law. Any attempt to serve alcohol in the buildings could lead to a conflict with investors. …

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/06/mps-wanted-to-nationalise-westminster-pub-for-their-own-use

“No other prime minister will hand out resignation honours after Cameron debacle, head of sleaze watchdog says”

“No future prime minister will publish a resignation list of honours after the “public outcry” over David Cameron’s controversial choices, Theresa May’s ethical standards adviser has said.

Lord Bew, who chairs the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told the Sunday Telegraph that the idea of prime ministers handing out honours to friends when they leave office is “over”.

He also appeared hit out at some people who enter the House of Lords but fail to contribute, insisting that a peerage must be a “job” and not an “honour”.

The criticism comes as Mrs May attempts to draw a line under the row by insisting she wants a more accountable honours system than the one pursued under her predecessor. … “

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/06/no-other-prime-minister-will-hand-out-resignation-honours-after/

Widespread “disgust” at Swire “honour”

Owl is not at all surprised that Swire accepted the “honour” as unless and until his cronies get back into power, it is his only opportunity. Presumably, after pledging allegiance to his Eton cronies and having served only briefly as Mrs May’s PPS in Parliament a few years ago, she was quite certain she did not want him around.

Remember, this is the chap who “went to” St Andrews University but did not get a degree, “joined” the army but served only very briefly, had a couple of non-jobs in family-owned firms before becoming an MP, made fun of people on benefits and spent nearly £500 on a Mulberry iPad cover that he expected us to pay for (but which he ended up having to pay for himself.

In a widely-derided and disparaged honours list, he fits right in with all the others!

The Express and Echo and Claire Wright’s view:

Hugo Swire, wealthy politician and close chum of David Cameron has been criticised after being awarded a knighthood.

Devon County Councillor Claire Wright called the move “jaw-dropping”.

Hugo Swire, East Devon MP, has come under fire for being named in the former prime minister’s controversial honours list. The reasons for his knighthood are cited as “for political and public service”.

But dozens of his constituents are challenging the decision, asking what Swire has actually done to deserve the title.

County Councillor Claire Wright, who stood against Swire in the 2015 General Election, said she found it ironic the politician was knighted just weeks after he was resigned to the backbenches. She said: “On July 19 Mr Swire blogged that he was joining his “close friends” David Cameron and George Osborne on the back benches.

“Ironically, just two weeks later Mr Cameron announces that our MP will be knighted. Quite a few people have been asking what Mr Swire has done to deserve this. To my knowledge he has never voted against the party line to support his constituents.

Some residents are also challenging the decision, asking what Swire has done for their constituency. One man challenged the decision publicly, and wrote to Swire: “Can I ask why you have received this?” One woman said: “I am disgusted. He has continually voted for cuts to welfare and benefits and yet he has the nerve to accept this,” Another wrote, on learning the news: “You have got to be taking the Michael.” Ian Humphries, who lives in Exmouth, wrote on Facebook: “He certainly doesn’t deserve it, he’s done nothing for East Devon.”

Swire himself said he would now have more time for his constituency after he was sacked from his ministerial post last month.

Beforehand he served as Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Minister of State for Northern Ireland which meant, he said, that he had less time for his constituency area.

Cllr Wright said she had seen no evidence that Swire had voted in favour of his constituency against his party in the past. She shamed the list as being “filled” with Cameron’s “old boy network of friends and Tory party donors.

She said: “The former prime minister’s honours list which is filled with his old boy network friends and Tory party donors corrupts the entire system of honours and reflects badly on the conservative government. I firmly believe that knighthoods, peerages and other honours should only be bestowed on people who have given exceptional public service for the greater good.”

Cameron has been widely criticised in the national press for showering a total of 46 former aides, advisers and ministers with honours in a resignation list. Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, said it was embarrassing.

“David Cameron’s resignation honours list is so full of cronies it would embarrass a medieval court. He is not the first Prime Minister to leave office having rewarded quite so many friends, but he would be the last.”

A Devon man who was keen to point out bizarre appointments of honours was Paul Baker. He wrote on Facebook: “Worst still, Sam Cam’s sister just for being her sister and the woman who suggested George Osborne went on a diet. True one nation Conservatism.”

Some on social media were not so critical of Swire’s knighthood. He also received dozens of tweets from those happy with his news. Ahmed Naseem, former foreign minister for the Maldives, wrote: “Congratulations sir, we in the Maldives value your efforts to bring back democracy we lost in the last four years.”

While Tony de Brum, former foreign minister for the republic Marshall Islands, shared a joke. He said: “Congratulations Hugo, you are a friend of the islands – even when our dry cleaners shrunk your suit.”

Former city councillor John Harvey congratulated him and said it was well deserved.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/disgust-as-hugo-swire-mp-is-awarded-knighthood-by-chum-david-cameron/story-29589285-detail/story.html

Would YOU accept an honour described as ” a very British corruption”?

Hugo Swire is widely rumoured to be on David Cameron’s resignation honours list to receive a knighthood. The two Old Etonians are such good friends David Cameron felt able to give him a playful slap on the bottom at a recent government reception:

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11946721/David-Cameron-caught-on-camera-giving-minister-slap-on-bottom-at-State-banquet.html

Here is what another (former) pal of the PM says:

“resignation honours list a “very British corruption”, says ex-PM’s pal Steve Hilton.

David Cameron’s bid to dish out gongs to Tory donors is “a serious type of very British corruption” – according to one of his oldest political pals.

Former Downing Street strategy guru Steve Hilton hit out at his chum’s attempts to reward party backers, which has triggered huge public anger.

The former Tory leader wants to hand accolades including knighthoods and peerages to 48 cronies .

But Mr Hilton, who was the PM’s director of strategy from 2010-12, launched a scathing attack on the plan.

He said: “ David Cameron ‘s resignation honours list is a symptom of a wider problem: our corrupt and decaying democracy. …”

Bring back regular public meetings with politicians and public servants!

An article in today’s Guardian suggests that we need more accountability and transparency from those in public office and suggests that one way to do this is to ensure that our public servants and politicians are put on the spot more often by being expected to attend regular public meetings to explain themselves.

Not the carefully scripted and whipped official committee meetings, where the agenda is tightly controlled and policed, when many of them keep quiet and vote or act like sheep – but situations where they must think on their feet and tell us what they REALLY think (if they think at all).

Imagine if, say once a month, an individual councillor or officer or MP had to be available in the community to answer questions from local electors without warning of what those questions might be!

A few would definitely acquit themselves well – but a great majority in East Devon would definitely be floundering at the first question and thereafter!

An intriguing idea!

” … But social media have not destroyed the public meeting. They have done the opposite. Twitter, Facebook and the rest are indirectly responsible for the glorious revival of the gathering where real people meet in a physical place. For some of us, sitting behind a computer is not enough. We need to get out. What is beyond doubt is that the old-fashioned forum of the public meeting is back and is the perfect counter to social media.


For at least two decades, politicians assumed that a soundbite on the TV news bulletin was what mattered. Oratory as a part of the repertoire disappeared. Politics became technocratic rather than the art form it partly must be. The glory of the public meeting is that there is no escape. A speaker must deliver. The audience is composed of real people. The speaker cannot hide away tweeting alone in a room. People want to be there and need to be there, to be together out of curiosity or as part of what they see as a cause. … ”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/03/new-big-thing-politics-old-style-public-meeting-labour-battleground-live-events

Conservatives come last at South Hams District Council by-election

John Birch – Lib Dem 812 votes
Alan White – Green 499 votes
Alex Mockridge – Ind 391 votes
Andrew Barrand – Con 137 votes

“Post-truth’ politics are a debasement of standards in public life”

“Verbal dexterity, inconsistency and ‘spin’ are part and parcel of normal politics but the exaggerations and distortions of the EU referendum campaign has led to concerns about ‘post-truth’ politics.

Nicholas Allen and Sarah Birch write there is a need for someone to provide a moral lead, and argue the Committee for Standards in Public Life could play a valuable role by establishing some relevant basic markers. …

… current trends, first identified in the context of US politics and more recently in the context of British politics, risk stretching beyond breaking-point a basic commitment to truth and honesty that is essential for liberal democracy. Without it, citizens cannot hope to achieve ‘enlightened understanding’ and learn about what best serve their interests, one of five criteria identified by Robert Dahl that define modern democratic government. Someone in government, or at least in officialdom, needs to take note. Someone needs to provide a moral lead. …

… Morality in politics needs to come from somewhere. The CSPL [Committee for Standards in Public Life] is charged with overseeing standards in public life. The new prime minister should give it the resources and remit to do just this.

‘Post-truth’ politics are a debasement of standards in public life

Swire may be free to speak “as I see fit” but NOT free to act!

Swire pinched the first part of Claire Wright’s election slogan (“free to speak, free to act”) in recent press coverage about his recent demotion to the back benches but, tellingly, he did not pinch the second part.

Swire is NOT, of course, free to act. He is bound by the devices and desires of his national party policies and subject to a very firm whip to ensure that he behaves himself now and in the future.

It rather circumscribes his ” freedom”.

Hugo Swire’s parliamentary interventions 2006-2010

This comment is re-posted here, beginning this time with its final sentence:

…. my biggest overall impression is that there was nothing, NOTHING [during the years that Swire felt free to speak in Parliament] requiring any substantial expertise that a new Independent MP like Claire Wright couldn’t have done just as well if not better.

Hugo Swire became a minister in 2010, so we should get some indication of how he behaves as a back bencher from his time as an MP prior to 2010 – though in opposition at this point of course. I guess we should expect that, as an opposition MP charged with holding the Labour government to account, we should be seeing a far more questioning approach. Fortunately, his contributions are available online as part of the Hansard archive for us to review, as follows:

2006-2007: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cmallfiles/mps/commons_hansard_4192_os.html

In 2006/2007 session, Hugo spoke in the commons on only 15 occasions – that’s 15 occasions out of several hundred sitting days and several thousand hours of debate, though of course not all of these 15 occasions actually contained anything of any significance. For example on one of these occasions he only said “Will the right hon. Lady give way?” to Tessa Jowell – not exactly earth shattering. He did speak about the lottery funding of the 2012 Olympics, the BBC and drugs in prisons on several occasions.

He started rehearsing his role as a Foreign Office minister by asking asking about Gaza, but did manage to mention East Devon a couple of times – on one occasion pleading for better protection against wrecks like the Napoli at Branscombe, and on another occasion to congratulate Devon Air Ambulance on backfilling for shortcomings of the NHS. However he did not secure a single debate on issues of serious import to East Devon.

So that is two mentions of East Devon in 2006-2007 but without securing any specific debates about issues affecting East Devon. Not IMO exactly good value for money – several hundred thousand pounds in salary and expenses for one short plea for support for the coastline after a shipwreck.

2007-2008: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cmallfiles/mps/commons_hansard_4192_os.html

In 2007/2008 session, he spoke on 27 occasions. He rehearsed further for his ministerial role with questions about Zimbabwe, Afghanistan & Serbia, Muslim law, bank support for South American exports, and relationships between Harriet Harman and foreign oligarchs (perhaps he felt this was something he should research in case he needed to know about it in his future role). He also spoke about art collectors (presumably based on his expertise as a fine art auctioneer), female genital mutilation (not sure about his expertise on this subject), the sale of Shackleton barracks, casinos / gambling (again), election funding (oh, the irony considering the current scandals), called for hard evidence in support of government arguments about foetal abnormalities (oh, irony again given the lack of hard facts during the referendum), farmers growing eco-fuel, and against the EU Lisbon Treaty.

But to his credit he did speak very briefly about Job Centre closures in Sidmouth, Exmouth and Axminster, about cut-backs in care for the elderly, about the Waterloo-Exeter rail link, about funding for community power and heat generation in Cranbrook, pensions funding for Devon & Somerset Fire Service. More notably he secured two debates about the closure of Post Office Counters in small communities, and about the sell off “to the highest bidder” of Rolle College, Exmouth and more generally about education funding in East Devon cf. UK averages. (Of course, the Conservative government of which he was a minister made education funding in East Devon even lower cf. UK average, but surely that should not detract from his stance when in opposition, should it?)

For 2007/8, having secured two debates for East Devon issues I would mark Hugo as delivering better value-for-money than the previous year, though undoubtedly there were many more occasions where he could have spoken about issues of importance to East Devon and 27 occasions in several thousand hours of debate is not exactly a major contribution to political thinking. So, still poor value-for-money.

2008-2009: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cmallfiles/mps/commons_hansard_4192_od.html

IN 2008/9 Hugo spoke on about 40 occasions. He continued his rehearsals for a ministerial role for a 3rd year running with comments on Afghanistan, Iran and Gaza, and drew on his expertise of army life (a very short experience indeed – a bit like his university experience) to ask questions about reductions in the strength of the TA, equipment shortages, and armoured vehicles held up in Israeli customs. He also spoke about transparency for MPs expenses (whilst his position on transparency was unclear on this occasion, we know from his outburst re his families use of tax havens that he is not that keen on transparency), on reducing the number of MPs (but funny how the government he was a minister in failed to make this happen), on getting more people registered to vote, on Labour economic disaster, Swine Flu, funding for local councils for heritage archives (of course later made made MUCH, MUCH worse under his own government), banks privatised after the financial crisis, Lyme disease, that we should join the Euro (yes – really!), and the perception of MPs having their “noses in the trough at a time of an economic recession if not a depression” (irony again). But he also spoke very briefly about tourism and taxes on furnished holiday lettings, road links to Exeter Airport and funds for mitigating its environmental impact, marine conservation cf. MV Napoli, Samurai Sword crime in East Devon, SW educational funding (again), fuel poverty (particularly in Exmouth), the EDDC judicial review into boundary changes, and secured debates on much higher than average sewerage charges in the SW, and about the MSC Napoli shipwreck.

So again, Hugo secured debates on two areas of interest to East Devon, by 40 comments in several thousand hours of debate is hardly stunning. Still terrible value-for-money.

2009-2010: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cmallfiles/mps/commons_hansard_4192_od.html

Hugo spoke 28 times this year. He spoke on Gaza/Hamas/Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, USA/Argentina/Falklands, EU regulations, on restricting freedom of protest (in Parliament Square), on Lyme disease (again), on treatment for wounded armed servicemen, TA funding (again), bovine tuberculosis, pensioners cold weather payments, dementia, lottery funding, and unitary government in Devon, educational funding for Devon, upper gastro-intestinal surgery (based on a complaint by a constituent), water charges in the SW (though this time for drinking water rather than sewerage), Met Office redundancies, raising a 69 signature petition about home education (but of course later being a minister in a government that ignored petitions with several thousand times as many signatures) and securing a debate on Seaside Town Regeneration to discuss tax changes for furnished holiday letting.

Whilst this was perhaps a shortened parliamentary year (because of the election), 28 comments including securing one debate is still a pitiful result. Conclusion: Still poor VFM.

I should add that with the exception of the debates he secured which he introduced with a substantial speech, most of these were short comments or questions rather than making any serious points.

Should political lobbyists be allowed to become MPs?

“Owen Smith, who now faces Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership battle, worked as a lobbyist in the pharmaceutical industry for five years before becoming the MP for Pontypridd in 2010.

After working for the US giant Pfizer, Smith moved to the controversial biotech firm Amgen in 2008. At the time, Amgen was battling an investigation into one of its most successful anaemia drugs, Aranesp.

Amgen was ultimately fined $762m for illegally promoting the drug to cancer patients in a way that increased the likelihood of their deaths. Amgen was hit with the fines after it emerged that the California company was “pursuing profits at the risk of patient safety” as it promoted a non-approved use of Aranesp.

Smith was in charge of corporate affairs, corporate and internal communications and public affairs at the British division of Amgen while the biotech company was being investigated.

The main whistleblower on Aranesp filed her case against Amgen in 2006, sparking a US investigation that took several years to conclude. The whistleblower also claimed that Amgen systematically overfilled vials of the drugs, when selling them in America, which enabled doctors to “pool” the excess amounts.

The doctors were then encouraged to bill Medicare and private insurers for the use of the excess drug, creating a system of “liquid kickbacks” according to one lawyer on the case.

Amgen also produces a drug called erythropoietin – better known as EPO – which it produced under its Epogen brand name. Epogen was connected to the international cycling scandal, which involved cyclists such as Lance Armstrong. …”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/owen-smith-worked-as-pr-chief-for-biotech-firm-hit-by-762m-fine

David Cameron was “Director of Corporate Affairs” at Carlton TV (i.e. a lobbyist):

In July 1994, Cameron left his role as Special Adviser to work as the Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Communications. Carlton, which had won the ITV franchise for London weekdays in 1991, was a growing media company which also had film-distribution and video-producing arms. Cameron was suggested for the role to Carlton executive chairman Michael P. Green by his later mother-in-law Lady Astor. Cameron left Carlton to run for Parliament in 1997, returning to his job after his defeat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron#Carlton

and our own dear Hugo Swire had a similar job at the National Gallery:

“He was a financial consultant, then became of Head of Development for the National Gallery, then Director of the auction house Sotheby’s directly before his election from 1996.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Swire#Career

Swire will talk about East Devon in Parliament as he sees fit

“Some of my detractors locally consistently point to my not mentioning East Devon in Parliament although I have repeatedly pointed out that as a Government Minister I was only able to speak to my brief. Of course it didn’t suit some to believe that but that is the case. But now no such restrictions apply and I am free to question and debate anything I choose. Liberated from office I can mention East Devon as much as I see fit.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_mp_hugo_swire_back_to_the_back_benches_1_4623156

How about not just mentioning East Devon when you see fit (translation: much more in an election year than at any other time) but REPRESENTING EAST DEVON and talking about the district when it is needed, not just when it suits YOU.

Oh, and we look forward to seeing you have surgeries on a weekly basis.

EDDC: cost of officer time – selective monitoring and double standards for the Standards Committee

Isn’t it interesting that, in just about every area of EDDC’s work, the cost of officer time is not included. Take the Knowle relocation – officer time is NEVER costed. Take planning applications and the production of the Local Plan – officer time is NEVER costed.

Yet, when it comes to monitoring the behaviour of councillors, somehow officer time can be costed. Why? Because EDDC wants to subtly suggest that it costs an awful lot of money and really people should not be wasting their precious time as most complaints are dismissed by the Monitoring Officer anyway!

“The annual cost for assessing Monitoring Officer type complaints remains at approximately £40,000, which has been calculated based on an estimate of officers’ time spent assessing, investigating and administering complaints as part of their job role. Officers dealing with the Code of Conduct complaints process are:
Monitoring Officer; Deputy Monitoring Officer, PA to Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Officer, statutory Independent Person role (of which EDDC has used two on an alternate basis) and Investigating Officer when required.”

Click to access 190716standardscttecombinedagenda.pdf

Advice for the new Communities Minister on Devolution

So many instututions are now seeing what is wrong with devolution deals – but does the newly-constituted government care? Does it have the time or the will to care? Great words on inequality and a government that failed to understand ordinary people from Mrs May but will actions follow?

But the final sentence below on “networks and influence” is chilling, and just about negates the rest of the advice and may be pointing another, more worrying, way.

” … Grasp the democratic opportunity of devolution. With mayoral elections due next spring in the devolution deal areas, a more devolved system of governance will soon have new faces and voices, which will contribute to a shift in the political centre of gravity away from Westminster.

Yet democratic engagement through devolution should not begin and end with mayors. The speed of the process has created little space for democratic innovation to accompany reform, but there is an opportunity now for a richer democratic discussion, already being led by councillors, to take place. The next phase should be much more directly shaped by local people who need to feel more connected to the tangible opportunities reform can bring – open policymaking, citizens juries and using digital tools to reach people in new ways.

Above all, the new secretary of state shouldn’t think of devolution as giving power away, but as enhancing his own ability to get results. We live in an age that respects networks, not hierarchies. Some of the shocks convulsing through the institutions of Westminster and Brussels are the effects of this. The traditional clunking levers of Whitehall machinery struggle for impact in a complex, interdependent world. So use devolution as an opportunity to create a different model of governance – where influence and relationships are prime.

We look forward to seeing where Javid takes devolution next.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/opinion/2016/07/five-priorities-new-communities-and-local-government-secretary

Back bench – influence or toe the party line?

A correspondent below has raised the question as to why, if Swire as a commom-or-garden back bench MP would be ineffective, should an Independent MP not be just as ineffective.

Good question.

It is Swire himself who told us that he was MORE effective on our behalf as a Minister as, though he maintained that he could not speak for us in Parliament, as a Minister he said had direct access to other Ministers instead. The mover and shaker could easily have quiet words with other movers and shakers.

And now he has one major difference compared to an independent MP – having to follow the Whip of someone in his party who sacked him and whose leadership, it appears from his tweet, does not inspire him. HE sees it as relegation (albeit with his mates).

Not the case for Independents – free to speak, free to act, as they say.

He could, of course, become an Independent and free himself from his shackles!

Swire: between a rock and a hard place this weekend

Junior ministerial appointments such as Swire’s will probably be sorted out next week.

What an awful long weekend it will be for him, worrying about whether he will be left to try to keep Boris under control or demoted to ordinary constituency MP.

Or perhaps Mrs May might have some other post in mind for him – back to Northern Ireland or Culture, Media and Sport – under some younger, grammar-school-educated boss.

It’s a hard life.

Jo Cox, MP

Jo Cox’s funeral took place today.

Her husband’s message:

Jo would ask us not to fight hate with hate but draw together to drain the swamp that extremism breeds in. Thinking of all victims of hatred today”

Jo’s fund is just £15,000 short of its £1.5 milion target for three charities she supported: Royal Voluntary Service, Hope Not Hate and The White Helmets, each of which will get one-third of the funds raised.

It would be a fitting tribute to her to see that target achieved today.

https://www.gofundme.com/jocox

West Hill: new parish council boundary “compromise”

Independence day as West Hill splits

11:01 15 July 2016 Eleanor Pipe
Proposed new West Hill parish council boundary
Proposed new West Hill parish council boundary
Compromise reached over divisive boundary issue

“West Hill looks set to form its own parish council after a contentious bid to gain independence was given the green light.

A long and acrimonious battle came to an end on Wednesday (July 13) when members of East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) cabinet voted in favour of the village breaking away from the governance of Ottery.

The bid was launched by the West Hill Parish Campaign Group (WHPCG), which argued the community has its own identity.

During the consultation process, a bitter row broke out over the proposed boundary.

Speaking at Wednesday’s meeting, WHPCG chairman Margaret Hall said: “Our primary objective has always been to establish a parish council for West Hill. We know we have overwhelming support for this from residents of West Hill. We are disappointed by the boundary, however, we do recognise the need for compromise. We do look forward to working positively with all our neighbouring councils in the future.”

The compromised boundary option means the new parish will be far smaller than the current West Hill ward, but it does incorporate some households in Higher Metcombe, who strongly objected to being included in the Ottery ward.

Mayor Glyn Dobson – not speaking on behalf of the town council – said: “I will be sorry to see West Hill go, because the parish of Ottery will lose approximately 25 per cent of its precept. However, if it’s the will of the majority of West Hill residents, I respect that.”

District councillor Peter Faithfull said the issue should be postponed entirely – as the level of acrimony did not allow for constructive debate. However, Councillor Phil Twiss argued there is a clear case for West Hill forming its own parish council.

EDDC needs to issue a final go-ahead before the proposal will come into legal effect on April, 1, 2017. The first elections could be held in May 2017.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/independence_day_as_west_hill_splits_1_4617573