Category Archives: Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish

Parliament break cancelled – except for Tory MPs who want to go away with family!

Will Swire be off to the Maldives … or Saudi … with Parish on the Somerset farm?

“The cancellation of MPs’ two-week break to deliver Brexit on time has been branded a PR stunt after Conservatives were told they could still go away if they had “family” commitments.

On Thursday commons leader Andrea Leadsom formally ditched the half-term recess so more “progress” can be made on preparing to leave the EU.

But following a backlash from MPs who had apparently already booked holidays, chief whip Julian Smith informed Tories they are not obliged to attend the commons if they have pre-existing engagements. …”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tory-mps-pr-stunt-commons-recess-parliament-eu-andrea-leadsom-julian-smith-a8757341.html

Meanwhile, cleaners have to stay:

“Tory MPs jet off on ski holidays while parliamentary cleaners continue to work”:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/parliamentary-cleaners-forced-scrap-holidays-13935427

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

31 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality

MP tells it as it is …

Owl has a sneaky feeling it may know who she is talking about …

“Labour MP Jess Phillips takes aim at politicians considering imposing a £30,000 pay threshold for EU workers to be considered skilled, saying: ‘I have met many people who earn way more than £30,000 and have literally no discernible skills, not even one.’

The MP for Birmingham Yardley says the post-Brexit immigration proposal was ‘insulting’ to the care workers, nurses and teachers who live in her electorate. ‘I have definitely met some very rich people who earn huge amounts of money who I wouldn’t let hold my pint if I had to go and vote while in the bar,’ she says.”

See the speech here:

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2019/jan/31/jess-phillips-on-skilled-workers-ive-met-high-earners-with-literally-no-discernible-skills

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Local authorities should be able to suspend councillors for up to six months says watchdog

Talk about reinventing the wheel! Before the system was changed local authorities were able to suspend councillors for the rest of the full council term, however long that might be or could ban them from office for years.

THIS government changed the rules now it wants to change them back – albeit
in a very, very lily-livered, watered-down way.

This lack if ability to censure councillors in any meaningful way is highlighted by the ongoing scandal of the disgraced ex-Mayor in Seaton, Councillor Peter Burrows. The rest of the council unanimously voted to urge his resignation from town and district posts but he has so far ignored all requests for him to go:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2019/01/25/hat-gate-disgraced-seaton-ex-mayor-peter-burrows-scandal-update/

but it is unlikely the EDDC Monitoring Officer will conclude an investigation into his case before local elections on 2 May 2017, leaving voters in the dark as to any action to be taken.

“Local authorities should be given the power to suspend councillors without allowances for up to six months, the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) has recommended.

In a report, Local Government Ethical Standards, the CSPL said: “The current sanctions available to local authorities are insufficient. Party discipline, whilst it has an important role to play in maintaining high standards, lacks the necessary independence and transparency to play the central role in a standards system.

“The current lack of robust sanctions damages public confidence in the standards system and leaves local authorities with no means of enforcing lower level sanctions, nor of addressing serious or repeated misconduct.”

The Committee said councillors, including parish councillors, who are suspended should be given the right to appeal to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, who should be given the power to investigate allegations of code breaches on appeal. The decision of the Ombudsman would then be binding.

The CSPL meanwhile described the Monitoring Officer as “the lynchpin” of the current standards arrangements, but accepted that the role was “challenging and broad”, with a number of practical tensions and the potential for conflicts of interest. Local authorities should put in place arrangements to manage any potential conflicts, it said.

However, the Committee concluded that the role was not unique in its tensions and could be made coherent and manageable with the support of other statutory officers.

It called for employment protections for statutory officers to be extended, and for statutory officers to be supported through training on local authority governance.

Other key findings and recommendations in the report include:

There is considerable variation in the length, quality and clarity of codes of conduct. This created confusion among members of the public, and among councillors who represent more than one tier of local government.

Many codes of conduct failed to address adequately important areas of behaviour such as social media use and bullying and harassment.

An updated model code of conduct should therefore be available to local authorities in order to enhance the consistency and quality of local authority codes.

The updated model code should be voluntary and able to be adapted by local authorities. The scope of the code of conduct should also be widened, with a rebuttable presumption that a councillor’s public behaviour, including comments made on publicly accessible social media, was in their official capacity.

The current arrangements for declaring and managing interests are “unclear, too narrow and do not meet the expectations of councillors or the public”.

The current requirements for registering interests should be updated to include categories of non-pecuniary interests. The current rules on declaring and managing interests should be repealed and replaced with an objective test, in line with the devolved standards bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The current criminal offences relating to disclosable pecuniary interests are “disproportionate in principle and ineffective in practice, and should be abolished”.

Local authorities should maintain a standards committee. This committee may advise on standards issues, decide on alleged breaches and sanctions, or a combination of these. Independent members of decision-making standards committees should be able to vote.

The safeguard provided by the Independent Person should be strengthened and clarified: a local authority should only be able to suspend a councillor where the Independent Person agrees both that there has been a breach and that suspension is a proportionate sanction. Independent Persons should have fixed terms and legal protections. The view of the Independent Person in relation to a decision on which they are consulted should be published in any formal decision notice.

Parish councils should be required to adopt the code of their principal authority (or the new model code), and a principal authority’s decision on sanctions for a parish councillor should be binding.

Monitoring officers should be provided with adequate training, corporate support and resources to undertake their role in providing support on standards issues to parish councils, including in undertaking investigations and recommending sanctions. Clerks should also hold an appropriate qualification to support them to uphold governance within their parish council.

At a time of rapid change in local government, decision-making in local councils was getting more complex, with increased commercial activity and partnership working. “This complexity risks putting governance under strain.

Local authorities setting up separate bodies risk a governance ‘illusion’, and should take steps to prevent and manage potential conflicts of interest, particularly if councillors sit on these bodies. They should also ensure that these bodies are transparent and accountable to the council and to the public.”

An ethical culture required leadership. Given the multi-faceted nature of local government, leadership was needed from a range of individuals and groups: an authority’s standards committee, the chief executive, political group leaders, and the chair of the council.

Political groups have an important role to play in maintaining an ethical culture. “They should be seen as a semi-formal institution sitting between direct advice from officers and formal processes by the council, rather than a parallel system to the local authority’s standards processes. Political groups should set clear expectations of behaviour by their members, and senior officers should maintain effective relationships with political groups, working with them informally to resolve standards issues where appropriate.”

An ethical culture starts with tone. “Whilst there will always be robust disagreement in a political arena, the tone of engagement should be civil and constructive.” Expected standards of behaviour should be embedded through effective induction and ongoing training.

Political groups should require their members to attend code of conduct training provided by a local authority, and this should also be written into national party model group rules. “Maintaining an ethical culture day-to-day relies on an impartial, objective monitoring officer who has the confidence of all councillors and who is professionally supported by the chief executive.”

An ethical culture will be an open culture. “Local authorities should welcome and foster opportunities for scrutiny, and see it as a way to improve decision making. They should not rely unduly on commercial confidentiality provisions, or circumvent open decision-making processes. Whilst local press can play an important role in scrutinising local government, openness must be facilitated by authorities’ own processes and practices.”

In a letter to the Prime Minister, contained in the introduction to the report, Lord Evans of Weardale, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said: “It is clear that the vast majority of councillors and officers want to maintain the highest standards of conduct in their own authority. We have, however, identified some specific areas of concern. A minority of councillors engage in bullying or harassment, or other highly disruptive behaviour, and a small number of parish councils give rise to a disproportionate number of complaints about poor behaviour.

“We have also identified a number of risks in the sector: the current rules around conflicts of interest, gifts, and hospitality are inadequate; and the increased complexity of local government decision-making is putting governance under strain.”

The CSPL chair added: “The challenge is to maintain a system which serves the best instincts of councillors, whilst addressing unacceptable behaviour by a minority, and guarding against potential corporate standards risks.
“It is clear from the evidence we have received that the benefits of devolved arrangements should be retained, but that more robust safeguards are needed to strengthen a locally determined system. We are also clear that all local authorities need to develop and maintain an organisational culture which is supportive of high ethical standards. A system which is solely punitive is not desirable or effective; but in an environment with limited external regulation, councils need the appropriate mechanisms in place to address problems when they arise.”

Lord Evans said the Committee’s recommendations would enable councillors to be held to account effectively and would enhance the fairness and transparency of the standards process.

A number of the CSPL’s recommendations involve legislative change which it believed the government should implement. The Committee has also identified ‘best practice’ for local authorities, “which represents a benchmark for ethical practice which we expect that any authority can and should implement”. …

Source: Local Government Lawyer

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

25 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Voting

Party discipline? Not in our party’s backyard!

A little bird tells Owl that an East Devon resident is having trouble making a complaint about a local councillor who represents a mainstream political party in East Devon.

The councillor’s party seems to want to wash its hands of any involvement by saying that, as it has no whip (smirk) at a local level, so its hands are tied, and suggests waiting out a Monitoring Officer complaint before even thinking about action within its own party at a higher regional or national level.

But, as we all know, Monitoring Officers can take months and months to investigate complaints.

How convenient then that waiting several months for a Monitoring Officer report would allow any councillor who is the subject of a serious complaint to stand for their party in the next district election in May 2019 – with voters unaware that a such complaint is being investigated …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Councillor AND an ex-councillor headache for Seaton Town Council on social media

Statement by recently-elected town mayor Ken Beer:

“I am issuing the statement below on behalf of Seaton Town Council and it’s staff because of recent comments on social media

Complaints have been made to the Monitoring Officer at EDDC about both former Councillor Richard Webster and Councillor Peter Burrows. There are no double standards, since the Monitoring Officer is investigating the complaints against both individuals. Seaton Town Council has made it very clear that it does not condone Cllr Burrows’ behaviour towards Mr Gary Millar of The Hat Micropub. Equally it deplores Mr Webster’s behaviour towards the Town Clerk and Council staff who have behaved in a wholly professional manner, and his latest comments only seem to aggravate his offence. The Council is concerned about councillors misusing social media and will be discussing new proposals to ensure that all members use social media in a responsible manner.

Ken beer-TOWN MAYOR”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Tories, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish

Brexit: East Devon – a district divided.

So, Swire voted against May’s Brexit deal, Parish voted for it.

Just where does this leave East Devon?

Piggy-in-the-middle.

Not a good place to be!

The no confidence vote later today will be interesting. If Swire votes to retain May after voting down her deal will that make him a hypocrite?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Sleaze, Spin

MP who earns (possibly massively) over £350,000 gets loan from lobbyist for office and staffing costs

Pigs, snouts, troughs – though with this income and STILL needing a loan maybe he needs some help or counselling?

£275,000 from Daily Telegraph, his MP’s salaryand expenses AND staffing costs. AND his Register of Interests (in full after the article) shows another £100,000+ from other sources.

“Boris Johnson received £23,000 in loans and donations last month from a company run by the Australian political strategist Lynton Crosby, official documents have revealed.

The former foreign secretary, who is widely regarded as a potential Conservative leadership contender, declared he had been given an interest-free loan of £20,000 from CTF Partners, in the latest register of MPs’ interests.

Earmarked for “office and staffing costs”, the loan is due to be repaid by 20 January. Johnson also received a £3,000 donation from CTF Partners before Christmas. …

[Johnson] He has since become a regular columnist for the Daily Telegraph, using the platform to to offer a strident critique of the government’s Brexit strategy. According to the register of MPs’ interests, Johnson receives £275,000 a year for the column, which he has estimated takes him 10 hours a month to write.

Johnson was criticised in December after it emerged he had accepted a £14,000 trip to Saudi Arabia from the country’s foreign affairs ministry only a few days before the journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in Istanbul.

Crosby was closely involved in May’s disastrous 2017 general election campaign. The £4m the Conservative party paid for his company’s services was its single biggest outlay. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/11/boris-johnson-received-23000-from-lynton-crosby-strategy-firm

BORIS JOHNSON REGISTER OF INTERESTS (in full as of today):

Johnson, Boris (Uxbridge and South Ruislip)

Johnson, Boris (Uxbridge and South Ruislip)
1. Employment and earnings
Payments from Hodder and Stoughton UK, Carmelite House, 50 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y 0DZ, via United Agents, 12-26 Lexington St, London W1F 0LE:
29 September 2017, received £15,372.17 for royalties on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 20 December 2017) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

17 October 2017, received £1,167.40 for Bulgarian and Hungarian subrights and royalties on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 20 December 2017) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

8 February 2018, received £499.49 for Czech subrights on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 12 March 2018) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

30 March 2018, received £6,013.27 for royalties on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 17 April 2018)

17 April 2018, received £560.13 for Czech subrights on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 09 May 2018)

10 July 2018, received £11,290.17 for French and US royalties on books already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 22 August 2018) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

28 September 2018, received £8,968.27 via United Agents, 12-26 Lexington St, London W1F 0LE, for royalties on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 02 November 2018)

12 December 2018, received £525.12 for Hungarian subrights on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 17 December 2018)
Payments from HarperCollins UK, 1 London Bridge Street, London, SE1 9GF via United Agents, 12-26 Lexington St, London W1F 0LE:

26 September 2017, received £1,382.58 for advance on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 20 December 2017) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

11 January 2018, received £5,970.76 for US and Dutch royalties on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 05 February 2018)
5 July 2018, received £37.82 for French royalties on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 22 August 2018) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

23 October 2018, received £491.75 via Rogers, Coleridge and White Ltd, 20 Powis Mews, London W11 1JN, for royalties on books already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 02 November 2018)

Payments from HarperCollins UK, 1 London Bridge St, London SE1 9GF, via Rogers, Coleridge and White Ltd, 20 Powis Mews, London W11 1JN:
30 September 2017, received £42.79 for royalties on books already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 20 December 2017) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

30 April 2018, received £244.91 for royalties on books already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered 09 May 2018)

5 September 2017, received £63.72 from Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, via United Agents, 12-26 Lexington St, London W1F 0LE, for royalties on book already written. Hours: no additional hours. (Registered

20 December 2017) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.
From 11 July 2018 until 10 July 2019, articles for the Telegraph Media Group Ltd, 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0DT, for which I expect to receive £22,916.66 a month. Hours: 10 hrs a month. First payment received on

13 August 2018. I consulted ACoBA about this appointment. (Registered 17 September 2018) This is a late entry which was the subject of a Report, published on 6 December 2018, by the Select Committee on Standards.

28 September 2018, received £800 from The Spectator (1828) Ltd, 22 Old Queen Street, London SW1H 9HP, for an article. Hours: 2 hours. (Registered 15 October 2018)

9 October 2018, received £2,000 from Associated Newspapers Ltd, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT, for an article. Hours: 2 hrs. (Registered 02 November 2018)

2 November 2018, received £94,507.85 from GoldenTree Asset Management, 300 Park Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022 via Chartwell Speakers, 14 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8HN, for a speaking engagement on 8 November 2018. Travel and accommodation also provided. Hours: 2 hrs. (Registered 09
November 2018)

2. (b) Any other support not included in Category 2(a)
Name of donor: Jon Wood
Address of donor: private
Amount of donation, or nature and value if donation in kind: £50,000 for office and staffing costs
Date received: 1 October 2018
Date accepted: 1 October 2018
Donor status: individual
(Registered 17 October 2018)

Name of donor: CTF Partners Limited
Address of donor: 4th Floor, 6 Chesterfield Gardens, London W1J 5BQ
Amount of donation: Interest free loan of £20,000 for office and staffing costs, to be repaid by 20 January 2019.
Date received: 20 December 2018
Date accepted: 20 December 2018
Donor status: company, registration 07196537
(Registered 04 January 2019)

Name of donor: CTF Partners Limited
Address of donor: 4th Floor, 6 Chesterfield Gardens, London W1J 5BQ
Amount of donation: £3,000 for office and staffing costs.
Date received: 21 December 2018
Date accepted: 21 December 2018
Donor status: company, registration 07196537
(Registered 04 January 2019)

3. Gifts, benefits and hospitality from UK sources

Name of donor: Surrey County Cricket Club
Address of donor: The Kia Oval, Kennington, London SE11 5SS
Amount of donation, or nature and value if donation in kind: Two tickets with hospitality to Test Match at the Oval, value £1,800
Date received: 8 September 2018
Date accepted: 8 September 2018
Donor status: company, registration IP27896R
(Registered 01 October 2018)

Name of donor: Democratic Unionist Party
Address of donor: 91 Dundela Avenue, Belfast BT4 3BU
Amount of donation, or nature and value if donation in kind: Hospitality and travel to Belfast for myself and a member of staff, estimated value £355.94
Date received: 24 November 2018
Date accepted: 24 November 2018
Donor status: registered political party
(Registered 20 December 2018)

4. Visits outside the UK

Name of donor: American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Address of donor: 1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): For myself, flights £6,666.09, hotel accommodation £1,459.52 and other costs of £1,059.56; for my staff member, flights £6,666.09, hotel £994.82; total £16,846.09
Destination of visit: Washington DC, USA
Dates of visit: 13-15 September 2018
Purpose of visit: To receive Irving Kristol Award at AEI Annual Dinner.
(Registered 15 October 2018)

Name of donor: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Address of donor: PO Box 55937, Riyadh 11544
Estimate of the probable value (or amount of any donation): Travel, food and accommodation, estimated value of £14,000
Destination of visit: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Dates of visit: 19 – 21 September 2018
Purpose of visit: Meeting with regional figures to promote education for women and girls.
(Registered 17 October 2018)

6. Land and property portfolio: (i) value over £100,000 and/or (ii) giving rental income of over £10,000 a year
From 1 November 2016, house in London, owned jointly with my wife: (i) and, from 1 March 2017, (ii). (Registered 20 March 2017)

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/190107/johnson_boris.htm

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Comments

3 Comments

Seaton disgraced ex-Mayor Peter Burrows: town council responds, names names

“Seaton Town Council has revealed the details behind the resignation Mayor Peter Burrows.

He stood down last week after it was revealed he used his position to make an ‘offensive’ remark on social media about a local business.

In an official statement issued today (Friday January 11) the town council says:

“On Monday evening, January 7, at the Seaton Town Council meeting, councillors were advised by Cllr Burrows that he had been involved in an altercation on Facebook which resulted in him referring to himself as Mayor and using a Twitter account named “Seaton TIC” to ask members of the public to ‘avoid’ The Hat micropub.

“However, Mr Gary Millar, proprietor of The Hat, had not been involved in the altercation and was therefore an entirely innocent party.

“Seaton Town Council wishes to make it clear that despite using the term Mayor and using what purported to be a Tourist Information Centre account, Cllr Burrows was not authorised to use his title for personal matters, nor was he authorised to represent the TIC.

“He was acting in a purely private capacity and the council dissociates itself from his actions. Nevertheless, we apologise unreservedly to Mr Millar and The Hat for the impression which Cllr Burrows gave that he was acting on behalf of the council.

“On Monday Cllr Burrows tendered his resignation as chairman and Town Mayor because he recognised that his behaviour had brought his office as Town Mayor and the council into disrepute. The council will now report Cllr Burrows to the Monitoring Officer for breaching our Code of Conduct.

“The council will also be considering a motion at a meeting on Monday January 21, calling for Cllr Burrows to resign as a town and district councillor. The council has also asked Cllr Burrows to close the Twitter account involved and he has done this.

“Seaton Town Council enthusiastically supported the opening of The Hat and recognises the distinctive contribution this attractive, well-run establishment has already made to the town’s life.

“The Council is keen to support the town centre and The Hat is exactly the kind of new business we want to see in Seaton. Mr Millar has conducted himself with dignity throughout this affair and we deeply regret the harm Cllr Burrows attempted to cause to The Hat. We wish it and Mr Millar the very best for the future.”

** Cllr Burrows confirmed to the Midweek Herald that he had stepped down after offering his ‘unreserved apologies’ to the business concerned. He said he would be making a statement to The Herald shortly.”

https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/cllr-peter-burrows-brought-the-authority-into-disrepute-1-5848139

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Jan 2019

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton

Update on Seaton ex-Mayor Peter Burrows situation

As reported here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2019/01/07/breaking-news-seaton-mayor-peter-burrows-resigns-after-bringing-the-office-into-disrepute/

Owl hears that the aggrieved party has made a formal complaint to the EDDC Monitoring Officer and is taking legal advice on possible further action.

Owl is awaiting an official statement from Seaton Town Council, which would be usual in these circumstances.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Dec 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Post-Brexit Adjustments

“Brexit deadlock ‘is blocking vital domestic policy reforms’ ” says cross-party group of MPs

“A powerful cross-party group of MPs today warns Theresa May that Brexit is “sucking the life” out of her government – as cabinet sources admit that the crisis is forcing vital domestic business off the government’s timetable.

With the deadlock over May’s Brexit deal unresolved, and a key vote in parliament postponed until mid-January, the chairpersons of six all-party select committees have signed a statement saying long-drawn-out arguments over Brexit are having a “serious detrimental effect” on wider domestic policy.

The MPs, who include the Tory chairs of the treasury and education select committees, Nicky Morgan and Robert Halfon, add that: “Rather than continuing to drag out the Brexit process for months more, we must bring it to a close if we are to prevent serious damage to our country”.

AdvertisementHide
Others who signed off on the statement are the chair of the work and pensions select committee, Frank Field; the Tory chair of the digital culture media and sport committee, Damian Collins; the Labour chair of the environmental audit select committee, Mary Creagh; and Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat chair of the science and technology committee.

While the six have very different views on Brexit they agree that the government is letting people down with its near-total preoccupation with the issue at a time of crisis in the NHS and social care, rising knife crime, failing public transport, chronic homelessness and environmental challenges. Labour members including Creagh say government austerity has made neglect of poorer communities by government even more shocking.

Their intervention follows news on Friday that chaos over Brexit has forced NHS leaders to postpone a new long-term plan for the NHS and put back, yet again, a long-awaited green paper on the future of social care until January. Both decisions dismayed MPs and organisations across the health and social care sectors.

Asked why the social care green paper had been delayed, a government source told the Observer the crisis over Brexit had “wiped the grid clean and meant we have had to push stuff back. So social care won’t be until January.”

Underlining the sense of national crisis, Church of England bishops said yesterday that they would pray this weekend for national unity and “courage, integrity and clarity for our politicians” after a week of turmoil.

Nadra Ahmed, chair of the National Care Association, which represents small and medium-sized care providers, said: “If the matter wasn’t serious it could be farcical. Clearly, the government recognised in 2017 that there was an ‘urgent’ need to review the funding of long-term care to ensure we can predict a sustainable service which will meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. We have become used to the fact that creating solutions in the growing crisis in social care is not really that urgent after all.”

Field told the Observer he had been urging May for months to allow legislation to be brought forward by select committees or through private members bills if the government could not find the time itself. But he had had no response to his idea.

Other areas of policy that MPs say have been subject to Brexit-related delays include the fair funding review, intended to reform and improve how local government financing is organised, and a government strategy on internet safety. Labour says the results of government consultations on housing issues such as longer tenancies and consumer rights – which concluded months ago – have not materialised. The domestic abuse bill, championed personally by May, also has yet to be introduced. The Missing Persons Guardianship Act, which was meant to allow the families of people who have gone missing to take control of their affairs, has not yet come into force even though it became law over a year ago.

In their statement the six select committee chairs say: “Long-drawn-out arguments over Brexit and delays in reaching an agreement on our future relationship with the EU are having a serious detrimental effect on the conduct of wider domestic policy. MPs of all parties and ministers should be addressing the most urgent challenges facing our country: safeguarding our NHS, improving social care for the elderly; stepping up the fight against crime and knife crime; sorting out our benefits system; improving our public transport and safeguarding the environment for future generations. The Prime Minister should return to addressing burning social injustices which she insisted, on entering Downing Street, would be her main priority. Instead, Brexit is sucking the life out of government at a time when our towns, cities and citizens face serious spending restraints. Rather than continuing to drag out the Brexit process for months more, we must bring it to a close if we are to prevent serious damage to our country.”

Charities, too, expressed exasperation at the government’s failure to address domestic issues, pointing to the housing crisis and chaotic rollout of universal credit. Campbell Robb, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, says that low-income families that backed Leave in 2016 have since been hit by price rises, spiralling housing costs and tax credit reductions. He called on the government to “get a grip and deliver for people on low incomes”. “Failing to meet their expectations of a better life after Brexit would be costly for the political parties. We need a bold package of domestic reforms, not just favourable trade terms.”

Greg Beales, who campaign director at the housing charity Shelter, said vital reforms were still needed to tackle the housing crisis and bolster renters’ rights. “But too much is currently stuck in the mire while Brexit crowds out everything else.”

Yet another policy area that has been neglected is transport, as the government has struggled to address months of timetabling chaos and pushed back the electrification of railways in the north. Darren Shirley, who heads the Campaign for Better Transport, said that there was “a bandwidth problem across government” with key domestic issues “dropping down the agenda” because of Brexit.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/15/mps-warn-brexit-deadlock-sucking-life-out-of-government

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Dec 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Sleaze, Transparency

Fake news on Labour Party being manufactured by secretive group in Scotland funded by Foreign Office

Owl says: the UK becoming more like Russia every day!

“Secret Scottish-based office led infowars attack on Labour and Jeremy Corbyn.

Explosive leaked documents passed to the Sunday Mail reveal the organisation’s Integrity Initiative is funded with £2million of Foreign Office cash and run by military intelligence specialists.

A secret UK Government-funded infowars unit based in Scotland sent out social media posts attacking Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

On the surface, the cryptically named Institute for Statecraft is a small charity operating from an old Victorian mill in Fife. But explosive leaked documents passed to the Sunday Mail reveal the organisation’s Integrity Initiative is funded with £2million of Foreign Office cash and run by military intelligence specialists.

The “think tank” is supposed to counter Russian online propaganda by forming “clusters” of friendly journalists and “key influencers” throughout Europe who use social media to hit back against disinformation. But our investigation has found worrying evidence the shadowy programme’s official Twitter account has been used to attack Corbyn, the Labour Party and their officials.

One tweet quotes a newspaper article calling Corbyn a “useful idiot”, that goes on to state: “His open visceral anti-Westernism helped the Kremlin cause, as surely as if he had been secretly peddling Westminster tittle-tattle for money.”

A message from the UK Government-funded organisation promotes an article that states: “Unlike Galloway (former MP George Galloway) Corbyn does not scream conspiracy, he implies it,” while another added: “It’s time for the Corbyn left to confront its Putin problem.”

A further message refers to an “alleged British Corbyn supporter” who “wants to vote for Putin”.

It is not just the Labour leader who has been on the receiving end of online attacks. His strategy and communications director Seumas Milne was also targeted.

The Integrity Initiative, whose base at Gateside Mill is near Auchtermuchty, retweeted a newspaper report that said: “Milne is not a spy – that would be beneath him. “But what he has done, wittingly or unwittingly, is work with the Kremlin agenda.”

Another retweet promoted a journalist who said: “Just as he supports the Russian bombardment of Syria, Seumas Milne supported the Russian slaughter of Afghanistan, which resulted in more than a million deaths.”

The Integrity Initiative has been accused of supporting Ukrainian politicians who oppose Putin – even when they also have suspected far-right links.

Further leaked documents appear to show a Twitter campaign that resulted in a Spanish politician believed to be friendly to the Kremlin being denied a job. The organisation’s “Spanish cluster” swung into action on hearing that Pedro Banos was to be appointed director of the national security department.

The papers detail how the Integrity Initiative alerted “key influencers” around Europe who launched an online campaign against the politician.

In the wake of the leaks, which also detail Government grant applications, the Foreign Office have been forced to confirm they provided massive funding to the Integrity Initiative.

In response to a parliamentary question, Europe Minister Alan Duncan said: “In financial year 2017-18, the FCO funded the Institute for Statecraft’s Integrity Initiative £296,500. “This financial year, the FCO are funding a further £1,961,000. Both have been funded through grant agreements.”

Politicians and academics have reacted with fury to news a covert Government-funded unit had been attacking the official opposition in Parliament.

Labour MSP Neil Findlay said: “It would appear that we have a charity registered in Scotland and overseen by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator that is funded by the UK Government and is spewing out political attacks on UK politicians, the Labour Party and the Labour movement. “Such clear political attacks and propaganda shouldn’t be coming from any charity. We need to know why the Foreign Office have been funding it.”

David Miller, a professor of political sociology in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol, added: “It’s extraordinary that the Foreign Office would be funding a Scottish charity to counter Russian propaganda which ends up attacking Her Majesty’s opposition and soft-pedalling far-right politicians in the Ukraine.

“People have a right to know how the Government are spending their money, and the views being promoted in their name.”

Source: Scottish Daily Record

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Dec 2018

Posted under

Democracy, Disability issues, Independent Councillors, Inequality

Grants to facilitate people with disabilities to put themselves forward for office

“People with disabilities are to be offered thousands of pounds to help them run for elected office in next year’s council elections as part of an effort to tackle under-representation in town halls.

Grants averaging £4,000 will be made available to some to cover costs of campaign expenses including specialist transport, screen reader software, sign language interpretation and braille transcription.

Only 10% of councillors have a disability, compared with about 20% of the UK population. The government is offering £250,000, which is expected to fund around 60 candidates. [The Guardian]

The Access to Elected Office fund provided such grants since its launch as a pilot in 2012 under the Coalition government, but after the 2015 general election the Conservatives put it into limbo.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/156796/access-to-elected-office-fund-returns/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Dec 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish

Swire and Parish – more on those votes

A comment on the original post:

“Let’s make sure that everyone is clear what this was all about and why Swire’s & Parish’s votes were fundamentally important.

The issues that these votes related to were as follows:

1. Should the government keep the Attorney General’s legal advice secret so that MPs debate and vote about Brexit could not be an informed vote, but instead would be based on a political interpretation of this legal advice by the Government, in other words an interpretation by government politicians with all the bias towards the outcome they want to see rather than an independent assessment? [Swire and Parish voted to keep the advice secret]

2. Should the Government be allowed to ignore a decision by Parliament that the legal advice should be published in full? In other words, is Government the servant of our MPs or the other way around? Remember, that the only group able to hold the Government to account between general elections is Parliament i.e. MPs – and if Government doesn’t need to be accountable to them, then they are effectively an absolute autocracy, without needing to be accountable to anyone. Scared yet? [Yes, said Swire and Parish – it should ignore the vote]

3. Should the Government – and specifically Mrs May – be allowed to control the Brexit debate in order to give MPs only two choices – a very bad one or an even worse one, and not allow them to debate or vote on the other legally available choices? And to do this to the detriment not only of Parliament but also the people of the UK who have to live with the consequences for at a minimum several decades? [Yes, they voted: only Mrs May and her cabinet of cronies should be allowed to decide what happens next]

In other words, these three votes were not about some minor technicality relating to publication of a specific letter from the Attorney General to the Prime Minister – instead they were about THE FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRACY – that the Government should be able to be held accountable by MPs, and that in the end it is our MPs who take the decisions on behalf of us. [Remember “sovereignty”!]

And that is why both Neil Parish and Hugo Swire’s votes against these motions are so important and so wrong. By now we are all pretty used to Swire and Parish putting Party before People – just look at the awful laws they have voted for which have it the poorest and most vulnerable in our society the hardest. Is it any wonder that the Conservative Party is called “The Nasty Party” by a large proportion of the population?

But these votes were different – they were about putting Party before Democracy itself. Swire and Parish effectively voted for the Government to be unaccountable, and for an absolute autocracy where the Government can do absolutely what they like, regardless of whether MPs agree with it or not. These votes were simply anti-democracy. PERIOD.

Remember, power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So I ask you – yes you, the person reading this comment – do you really want your MP to be voting to give Government ministers absolute power, because that is the first step towards a tyrannical government? Or do you think that above all else, your MP should be voting to preserve democracy? In other words, which is more important to you in the long run – today’s vote or having a genuine democracy? I certainly know my own priority on this.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Dec 2018

Posted under

Democracy, Hugo Swire, Neil Parish, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Both East Devon MPs voted three times against transparency and parliamentary sovereignty yesterday

Swire and Parish:

Voted that May was NOT in contempt of Parliament to refuse to publish full Brexit legal advice.

Voted AGAINST allowing full publication instead referring the matter to a committee.

And voted AGAINST allowing Parliament a say if May’s deal falls through.

Moral of this story: use your vote wisely next time these men stand for Parliament.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Dec 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Lobbying, Sleaze

“Rightwing thinktank deletes offer of access to ministers for donors”

“One of the UK’s most influential rightwing thinktanks has deleted passages from its website promising access to government ministers in exchange for donations after the Guardian began making inquiries about its funding.

The Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal thinktank credited with inspiring some of the most controversial privatisations of the Thatcher and Major governments, offered invitations to “power lunches and patrons dinners with influential figures, including politicians, ministers, journalists and academics” to anyone donating £1,000 a year.

The regulator, the Charity Commission, said on Friday that it had started examining the institute’s accounts for “potential areas of non-compliance” with accounting rules.

It is the second rightwing thinktank whose conduct is being examined by the commission for possible breaches of the rules.

Earlier this year the chief executive of the Institute of Economic Affairs was filmed by an undercover reporter appearing to promise a potential donor access to a minister in exchange for funding a report on agribusiness. The group says it is “spurious to suggest that the IEA is engaging in any kind of ‘cash for access’ system” and denies wrongdoing.

The Adam Smith Institute is made up of three different entities: a British company, a British charity and an American non-profit foundation, each with different rules on tax and the ability to carry out political activity.

In a 2012 book, Madsen Pirie, one of the institute’s founders, said: “It was a very messy patchwork and it took us years to sort it out. We used the term ‘Adam Smith Institute’ loosely to cover all our activities, no matter which heading they occurred under.”

Charities, which enjoy support from the British taxpayer, are required to be genuinely independent from other entities.

There are strict rules on how charities can spend their funds. Research and education are acceptable as long as they do not set out to promote a particular viewpoint, but political campaigning is banned. …

… The Charity Commission said: “All trustees of all charities must ensure they preserve their charity’s independence and make decisions that are solely in furtherance of their charity’s purposes.

“The public rightly expect trustees of charities to take these responsibilities seriously, and demonstrate accountability to the public for the way in which their charity is governed, and the work their charity undertakes.

“An important factor in demonstrating transparency is ensuring financial accounts are compliant with the accounting framework. We can confirm that we are examining the Adam Smith Research Trust’s financial accounts to examine potential areas of non-compliance with that framework.”

The development comes amid questions about the political campaigning activities of a network of thinktanks and groups linked to an address in Tufton Street in Westminster.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/01/rightwing-thinktank-deletes-offer-of-access-to-ministers-for-donors

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality

12-year old Jacob Rees-Mogg on his ambitions and how he loves money

Here he is at 12 years old talking about his love for money and his hero:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43922740/the-voice-of-the-12-year-old-jacob-rees-mogg

Owl says:

Matthew 21:16 (King James version)

“And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?”

Don’t think Jesus meant praise for the Conservative Party!

Oh, and his hero Arnold Weinstock?

“Arnold Weinstock spent 40 years building the General Electric Company into a British industrial powerhouse encircling the globe, selling power plants to China, locomotives to America and advanced radar systems to the Gulf. Weinstock’s style of management was frugal and unique. He prided himself on the company’s dingy headquarters at Stanhope Gate in the heart of London. Walls were never painted until they peeled. Visitors were offered water, not tea or coffee.

He would work in his sixth-floor office until late in the night, checking management accounts from dozens of subsidiary companies line by line. Managers lived in dread of the late-night call from the boss who insisted that every screw be properly accounted for.”

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1551157/The-16311bn-wreckers.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, NHS (local), Ottery St Mary

Ottery Town Council has very oddly-timed meeting (2.30 pm, 29 November)on future of its hospital … under very unusual circumstances …

Ottery Town Council is behaving VERY strangely ……….

“An Extraordinary Town Council meeting to ‘re-examine’ a decision to set up a working group to retain Ottery Hospital, will take place next Thursday (29 November) at the unusual time of 2.30pm.

Four councillors – Dobson, Holmes, Gori and Edwards have signed the paperwork required to trigger the meeting, at which councillors will decide to ‘support or rescind’ the decision made earlier this month to set up the working group.

At the Ottery Town Council meeing on Tuesday, a proposal 6 November for a working group to help retain Ottery’s community hospital was approved by three votes to eight abstentions.

Next Thursday’s meeting is convened on the grounds of not having enough information, despite myself, Cllr Geoff Pratt, Roger Giles and Dr Margaret Hall (chair of West Hill Parish Council) explaining at length the proposal.

I’m kind of speechless at the apparent determination of some town councillors to thwart plans to save our hospital.

And I have never known an Ottery Town Council meeting in public to take place in the middle of the day either.

Dr Hall’s letter to Mayor, Paul Bartlett, setting out the background to why there is a need for a working group, was published on this blog earlier this week, here – http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/west_hill_parish_council_chairs_letter_to_ottery_mayor_explaining_working_g

Members of the public are able to make representations at the beginning of next Thursday’s meeting.

If you have a view, please do go along and express it.

If you have no view but wish to attend the meeting, please try and be there.

It will be held at the town council offices, just off The Square.

It is only by seeing the strength of feeling in the town to protect the hospital that councillors may relent and allow this vital work to happen.

Unfortunately, I am in London that day, so will be unable to be there.

The agenda will appear here shortly – http://www.otterystmary-tc.gov.uk/Ottery-St-Mary-Town-Council/Default-24395.aspx

Pic: Over 200 people who attended mine and Cllr Giles meeting in October 2014 when Ottery Hospital’s beds were first threatened.”

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Inequality, Local Enterprise Partnership, Martin Shaw (Seaton)

Local Enterprise Partnership “scrutiny” committee – an oxymoron

Minutes (for what little they are worth) here:

https://democracy.devon.gov.uk/documents/g3417/Public%20minutes%2002nd-Nov-2018%2014.15%20Heart%20of%20the%20South%20West%20HotSW%20Local%20Enterprise%20Partnership%20L.pdf?T=11

REAL scrutiny by DCC Independent East Devon Alliance Councillor Martin Shaw of this laughable attempt to continue to hoodwink us here:

An inauspicious start for new Scrutiny Committee for the Heart of the South West Local Economic Partnership

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Nov 2018

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny

What has happened to our politics and politicians (of all three main parties)?

Letter in Independent”:

“Can any UK government get it right? Politicians appear unable to achieve good outcomes on the things that really matter. Only the most self-compromising and self-serving appear to get to the more senior positions and stay there – Gove, Hunt, Johnson, Grayling, Williamson et al. Most are able to add plain vicious or nasty to their approach.

Labour appears unable to pull a robust, costed, action plan together and are more tainted than most with the brush of incompetent fiscal policy and business/financial management. The Lib Dems are just irrelevant most of the time as their “good” policies are undeliverable.

Most government ministers engage in cynical fiscal and financial sleight of hand while smiling wolfishly and proclaiming, yet again, that we have, or will never have had it so good. (The latter may be true, but we need to feel good for it to ring true.)

We keep being promised good politics and yet it never seems even close. Even MPs are abandoning PMQs. The disgraceful budget fix on betting machines, promises of looking after hard-working people, of proper funding for everything from the NHS to schools and social care; building houses, roads, and railways; and dealing with drugs, street crime, hate crime, and illegal immigrants, all suffer from saying one thing and doing another to avoid or reduce the perceived benefit – or, simply, the truth.

Conning the public appears to be seen as acceptable practice. Under-promising and over-delivering appears to have been deemed a mugs game. Decades of this attitude and action has seen the public and public institutions respond in kind – becoming cynical, self-serving, immoral and quasi-criminal, if not actually so. Politics, while supposedly championing fair treatment, has become covertly immoral and promotes hatred instead of tolerance, extremism instead of compromise.

The politics of a UK-style Brexit, when compared to the calm, clear and firm EU approach, is symptomatic – we are combative and threatening when intelligent, cool, calm and pragmatic heads are needed.

I am a Remainer, but could be persuaded by sensible and reasoned argument to Leave (much as I would prefer the EU to change a bit) except for the bile spouted by the “just (expletive deleted) do it” Brexiteers. It’s the ignorance and seemingly blind self-serving stupidity of UK politics that exasperates me.

Our car industry and other industrial productivity is in decline (not wholly due to external strategic decisions in the case of Jaguar Land Rover) and the financial and services sector is going to be damaged by any deal, no matter how “good”.

We refuse to act with moral strength over any matter, citing financial necessity. Instead of acting to remove the stranglehold, we shrug and let it continue while that further degrades our standing. Nowhere can be far enough away to let these things slide in this modern world – you are either decent, or not.

We are told, authoritatively, that we have 12 years to act before millions suffer dreadfully from climate change, with hardly a comment from our leadership and the departments concerned. Same old kick-it-down-the-road, let-someone-else-deal-with-it “leadership”.

We are told that domestic energy prices will be capped, when poorer users just need some help to swap and the companies concerned are making reasonable margins, while the fossil fuel industry is allowed to fleece us and make record profits as the government freezes fuel tax again – enabling further profit to made, just as lifting stamp duty thresholds made no difference to house costs for buyers.

Fiscal policy should be promoting less profit in bad things and making good things worth doing. Throwing money at public institutions is not the answer I seek. Every part of society should be fairly treated against sensible outcomes, and efficiency and improvement rewarded. Taxes must rise, but as little as possible. Gold-plated public service packages and pensions have to go, along with private sector executive super-deals. Free market economics are good, but with sensible limits to provide a balanced reward system for everyone in profitable companies, and a decent safety net for those that need it.

Companies where principals take most of the cake without sharing can simply be taxed to avoid eight figure payouts. No one needs more than £10m over the life of a contract or period of employment without sharing.

On a positive note, politicians such as Tracey Crouch who treat their brief seriously and honourably are to be applauded. If more politicians and civil servants acted honourably we wouldn’t run out of good politicians and managers, we would develop better practices. You reap what you sow.

As the centenary of the First World War is played out it seems not much has changed in practice – the British people are being led by some of the most donkey-like and immoral leaders imaginable, while our “lions” are sacrificed for principles that are being overtaken by wiser countries, and we fail to deliver on our talk of global leadership.

Time for a change.

Michael Mann Shrewsbury”