Our LEP’s “Strategic Plan” 2014-2030

Although it was published in March 2016, this is worth re-reading in the light of declining economic forecasts for which our LEP has no contingency plans.

Here is just a flavour of it with its “Executive Summary”. It is a masterpiece of spin over substance.

And who on earth thought up the “‘golden thread from the bottom up”!

Our vision is to transform the reputation and positioning of our area nationally and globally by 2030.

We want the key strengths of the Heart of the South West to be seen as key assets of UK plc. We want our people, places and business to see the public and private sector work together for their benefit; capitalising on the opportunities on our doorstep, realising the potential for high growth in our knowledge economy, and securing more and higher value jobs.

However, addressing the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure and investing in strategic enablers are key to unleashing our growth potential.

Our Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) sets out our understanding of the challenges we have to overcome and our priorities for action. It has been developed in collaboration and consultations with partners from business, education, the public sector and the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sectors, ensuring a golden thread runs through it from the bottom up, taking into account local plans and aspirations; and top down, taking into account national policy objectives and guidelines.

Our SEP will be the base document for our approach to investment and funding opportunities until its review in 2020 and will be delivered through a number of mechanisms over its lifetime. The Plymouth and Peninsula City Deal, the European Structural and Investment Strategy and the Growth Deal 2015, submitted alongside our SEP, are key delivery strands agreed or negotiated in 2014. Others may follow.”

https://www.lepnetwork.net/modules/downloads/download.php?file_name=19

But the consultations referred to above did not include us – the voters. The ” golden thread” doesn’t actually start at the bottom!

More serious problems for Hinkley C: EDF managers not in board

And still we have seen no Plan B from our national government or our LEP, for which it is their main flagship (aka vested interest) project.

“Senior managers at EDF have told MPs that they remain convinced that the French state-controlled group should postpone the Hinkley Point project until it has solved a litany of problems, including the reactor design and multibillion-euro lawsuits over delays on similar schemes.

The letter from EDF managers to the UK parliament’s energy and climate change committee is the latest setback for the proposed £18bn nuclear plant, a flagship government energy policy that is intended to provide 7% of Britain’s electricity from about 2025, at a time when old coal and atomic plants are closing down.

In April, the French company said it was delaying a final investment decision (FID) until September while it consulted with trade unions, but engineers and other middle managers appear to remain implacably opposed.

A letter addressed to Angus MacNeil, the chairman of the committee, from the Fédération Nationale des Cadres Supérieurs de l’Énergie (FNCS) union “advises to delay the FID until better upfront industrial visibility is evidenced”.

Outstanding problems highlighted by the senior managers at EDF include:

Areva NP, the designer of the European pressurised reactor (EPR) planned for Somerset, “is currently facing a difficult situation”.

The French nuclear safety authority (ASN) may not give the green light to the EPR being constructed at Flamanville in north-west France due to various anomalies.

There may be “identical flaws” in an Areva EPR being built at Taishan 1 in China.

The scandal over falsification of parts from Areva’s Le Creusot that potentially put safety checks at risk.

Multibillion-euro litigation between Areva and the Finnish energy group TVO over delays to an EPR scheme at Olkiluoto remains unsettled.

An EDF offer to purchase Areva expired on 31 March, leaving “governance uncertainties upon the implementation of the Hinkley Point C project”.

Many of the problems have been raised by other unions inside EDF, such as the CGT, which are worried that EDF’s soaring debts and growing financial commitments are a danger to its future stability.

But the letter from Norbert Tangy, the president of the FNCS, to MacNeil highlights once again the huge list of problems. Among others is concern expressed by the ASN at a hearing on 25 May that any resolution of EDF and Areva’s twin financial problems could take considerable time.

The energy and climate change committee is investigating the financing of new nuclear plants and has twice called Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF’s British subsidiary, EDF Energy, to explain the delays at Hinkley. …”

http://gu.com/p/4yjx2

“Elected mayors could be as remote from the public as Whitehall”

“Most areas in England will soon have a directly elected mayor, but without proper scrutiny mayors alone won’t solve the local accountability problem.

Before too long, most people living in England will find they have a directly elected mayor in their area, making big decisions on transport, economic development, skills, further education, and possibly public health and policing. These mayors will sit at the heart of devolution deals, agreed between central government and local areas, which will see accountability and responsibility decentralised.

Beyond elections, there will be quite limited local mechanisms for holding these mayors to account. True, combined authorities – bodies made up of elected councillor leaders from across the area – will have a role in decision-making. These combined authorities in turn must establish overview and scrutiny committees of local councillors, to hold decision-makers to account – mirroring the arrangements which apply to most local authorities.

But the existence of these new structures is not in itself a guarantee of accountability. There needs to be an active effort by mayors and local councils to ensure these arrangements really work in the way intended.

Poor accountability will lead to services feeling and looking just as remote as they do when directed from London
Nationally, the systems for accountability seem, oddly, rather stronger. Devolution deals give government significant powers to hold local areas to account for their delivery under the deal.

Funding comes with strings attached and can be withheld if expectations are not met. Whitehall is keen to continue to assert its authority – and parliament is keen to support it. Recently, the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) placed devolution deals alongside major national schemes like e-borders in highlighting the risks of huge amounts of public money being spent without parliamentary oversight. But this fails to take account of the fact that effective oversight will work best if it works at local level. …

… What will happen if we fail to develop robust systems for accountability at local level? The first risk is that devolution will be anything but – a decentralisation of responsibility while power remains firmly at the centre. A tussle of power and responsibility between those at local and national level will only ever be won by Whitehall, which has the interest and the power to maintain the status quo.

The second is that devolution will fail to deliver the outcomes which have been promised. The only way that devolution will be a success is if local politicians are able to take more power to develop and implement creative, exciting ways to improve local people’s lives. Poor or non-existent accountability will lead to services feeling and looking just as remote as they have done when directed from London. …

… Areas with devolution deals in place will have to take it upon themselves to develop systems that will give local people confidence that deals will be implemented in their interests, and that they will have an opportunity to influence this implementation. …”

http://gu.com/p/4yvp8

Cheshire devolution deal stumbles

… “Whilst the benefits of devolution are extremely favourable for our residents, the Government’s insistence on an elected mayor has made it difficult for all politicians to come to an agreement.

“The majority of councillors in Cheshire West and Chester were likely to support a consultation to seek the views of residents.

Housing concerns

Michael Jones, the former leader of Cheshire East Council, has said he is in favour of devolution – but not a deal which could involve more than 100,000 new homes in mid and south Cheshire.

A report on the LEP website talks of an aim to build a “constellation new city through the expansion and linkage of the cluster of towns and villages in mid-Cheshire with an expanded Crewe at its heart.”

But Cllr Jones says this was not the deal on the table when he was discussing devolution.

“The Northern Gateway which I put forward in 2014 – the aim was to work with our neighbours, Stoke, Newcastle, Staffordshire Moorlands and Shropshire, to get them to have houses,” he said.

“But they’re no longer talking about [them]… it’s all about what is going in Cheshire East and Crewe city, which was never agreed.”

Hinkley C – more complications

“Areva, one of the French companies at the heart of the controversial Hinkley Point C nuclear project, has unveiled plans to break itself up into three parts in a bid to stem huge losses.

The 87% state-owned atomic engineering and uranium mining company is hoping to raise €9bn (£7bn) from the government and from selling off assets after running up losses of €2bn last year.

Areva, a 10% equity participant in the £18bn planned new Hinkley scheme, is also using the split to isolate financial commitments to a hugely delayed project at Olkiluoto in Finland.

“The two [restructuring of the group and the Hinkley scheme] are not intrinsically linked,” said a spokeswoman for Areva. “The company’s restructuring programme, which includes the sale of [Areva] NP’s operations to EDF, is a positive step forward that will make the whole business and industry stronger.”

EDF, which is also part-owed by the French state, has its own massive debt problems and had refused to buy part of Areva, as ministers wanted, unless it could take the business without any financial commitments for the Olkiluoto 3 scheme.

Areva, which is providing the same European pressurised water reactor for Olkiluoto as is planned for Hinkley, is currently in a standoff over competing legal claims with the Finnish utility TVO relating to the project in Finland.

Areva said it was fully committed to sorting these issues out and completing the reactor, which is currently nine years behind schedule. The problems in Finland and the financial issues facing Areva and EDF have been seized on by Hinkley’s critics as reasons why the British government should pull the plug on the Somerset scheme.

They are unlikely to draw much comfort from the latest restructuring, which they may feel only points up once again the scale of the difficulties being faced by Areva and EDF.

A formal decision to go ahead with the investment at Hinkley has been put off until September amid internal opposition at EDF from unions and others about the wisdom of taking on such a major financial commitment.”

http://gu.com/p/4y8fg

Dorset, devolution and democracy

Although this is about Dorset, much of it applies to Devon and East Devon. At least in Dorset, councillors (for now) remain in charge of their own destiny. In Devon and Somerset they have abdicated their responsibilities to local (and national and international) business interests, including developers and those with nuclear and arms interests.

And Dorset is making a token attempt to consult residents (although, as typical in these cases, they seem to be trying to keep it under their radar) unlike Devon and Somerset which have hijacked the process from under our noses amid secrecy and subterfuge.

“You are probably aware that Dorset County Council (DCC) is considering changing the way it is structured and moving to a Unitary Authority.

This means the district / borough level of local government would be abolished. It will likely mean fewer elected councillors making decisions and reduce overall capacity to deal with the needs of local residents.

Power is already far too removed. Instead of moving towards a vision of localisation, the proposed changes have the potential to create an even bigger gap in local democracy.

There will be a public consultation on this through July – September, a decision will be made by DCC, and should they wish to proceed with a Unitary Authority, a proposal to central government in early 2017.

It is currently uncertain if DCC will apply to postpone the 2017 County Council elections, but this has been voiced in DCC meetings as a possibility.

You are probably NOT aware of a separate plan for a Dorset Combined Authority (DCA) to cover:

· Dorset County Council
· Bournemouth Borough Council
· Poole Borough Council
· Purbeck District Council
· East Dorset District Council
· Christchurch Borough Council
· West Dorset District Council
· North Dorset District Council
· Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

In essence this is a body of 10 members, 9 drawn from elected councillors (a sort of super-cabinet) and 1 Local Enterprise Partner (someone appointed from “big business”).

The Dorset Combined Authority will have specific decision-making power, covering economic growth, regeneration / infrastructure and transportation. We are concerned there will be no environmental voice on this Authority. There is worry that a programme of road building that would literally pave the way to support oil & gas exploration and production (e.g. fracking) would go unchallenged:

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/421876/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-Dorset-Combined-Authority

Why are we telling you this?

The public “consultation” for the DCA is happening right now! Our apologies we did not become aware of this earlier. But even with our eyes and ears open across Dorset, Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch this proposal and process was not on our radar until very recently. But it is now!

What can you do?

There are 3 key things we would ask you to engage in:

1. Participate in the consultation survey on the Dorset For You website. The closing date is

Friday 17th June

(yes, we know, it is a very hurried and low-key consultation). Just click on the link below to take part in the quite short survey:

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/422462/Give-us-your-views-on-the-Dorset-Combined-Authority-proposals

You may wish to say that for changes as serious as this, you would expect a referendum, and not just a short consultation exercise.

2. Write to your local town / parish, district / borough, county Councillor(s)and ask them one, some or all of the following:

Ask them to explain to you what the Dorset Combined Authority is all about. Ask them if they are aware of the consultation process, and if so why they have not done more in your ward to inform you about it and encourage engagement.

Ask them for their opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of the Dorset Combined Authority. Ask them if they think this is increasing or decreasing democracy at the local level.

Ask them if there will be a representative on the Authority focused on ensuring decisions around growth, infrastructure and transportation will be evaluated for their impact on the local environment (e.g. air pollution, wildlife protection, open spaces, etc.) and on the consequences for Climate Change.

Ask them how the 10 members will be selected or appointed. Ask them how those members will be held accountable for their decisions and by whom.

There may be other things you will want to ask them, but the above are a few ideas. If you are not familiar with the names and email addresses of the local councillors, a list of the councillors at all levels by each area / ward / division for West and South Dorset can be found within the article on our website:

https://westandsouthdorset.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/06/14/changes-to-dorset%E2%80%99s-democracy-and-council-structure/

Many thanks for taking an interest and we hope you will take some action if you can.

Caz Dennett

Campaign Manager, West & South Dorset Green Party”

Our LEP and its “decisions” and “minutes”

At its last board meeting (18 May 2016) the Heart of the Southwest LEP “discussed” and ” noted” several things but doesn’t appear to have decided or actually done anything:

http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/board-minutes-0

Unfortunately, minutes don’t appear until the next agenda is produced in July 2016.

Here is their last set of “minutes”:

Click to access LEP%20Board%20Agenda%2C%2015%20March%202016_3.pdf

Note there is no list of attendees and ” decisions” were to

“approve an approach” to “Growth Deal 3″

” agree to amend a funding allocation” followsing a “recent information from DCLG about changes to European (ERDF) funding for Nuclear build and decommissioning projects”

“note increased risk” to fund the Tiverton Urban extension and the mitigation actions being taken

“agree to delegate management decisions” about its budget to a sub-committee noting “Any variances in budget lines (singly or in aggregate) of more than 10% or £100,000 would require reference back to the board.”

“Greater Exeter” – not so great? Show yourselves “Greater Exeter Visioning Board”!

This article from May 2016 asks: what happened to the “vision for Greater Exeter” which, as the writer says, was a partnership between East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge, set up in November 2014. Nothing at all exists to show what it did, does or might do in future.

It is interesting to note that, at that time, Cabinets and senior officers of all three authorities must have aware of devolution plans.

Whose Vision is it anyway

It’s a truism that politicians (and not only politicians) love making good news announcements. Even when they have to announce bad news, it’s always presented as positively as the spin doctors can manage. Announcements which are then followed up by nothing at all are not unheard of – after all, it’s the fact of announcing something that generates the media coverage, and then the circus moves on.

But what barely figures in the spin doctors’ handbook is the announcement which is then followed not so much by nothing as by a veil of secrecy. And here in Devon, we have a fine example.

On 24 November 2014, three district councils – East Devon, Exeter City and Teignbridge – announced that there were setting up a partnership to be called Greater Exeter, Greater Devon [1]. The stated aim is “to drive forward economic growth” through “joined-up decision making on planning, housing, resources and infrastructure”. A Greater Exeter Visioning Board would meet every month “to define work priorities”. The Board’s membership would be the leaders, chief executives and economic development lead councillors of each of the councils.

Leaving aside the question of whether economic growth is the right objective, this seems a potentially useful measure. The three councils cover adjacent areas and face transport and land use pressures, particularly in Exeter and its surroundings.

In the course of keeping up to date with local initiatives I recently trawled the councils’ websites for news of the monthly meetings of the Visioning Board. Nothing at all. So, focussing on Exeter City Council, I looked for minutes of meetings that approved the setting up of the Board and received reports from it. Nothing at all.

Next step, ask the council. After the usual 20 days had elapsed, an Exeter City Council officer sent me a reply confirming the Board’s membership and setting out the dates each month on which it had met since its inception . However, the reply stated that the minutes of the Board’s meetings were not available to the public, though no reason for this was given.

So, here we are. A local authority body, promoted as a driver for economic growth and coordinating policies and planning on key issues, is announced with much fanfare and then vanishes into a cloak of secrecy.

Open government, indeed. I’ve asked the City Council a series of questions about the Board’s authority, functions and accountability. Watch this space for their response.”

https://petercleasby.com/tag/greater-exeter-visioning-board/

Scottish cities want radicall different devolution deals

Interesting that, in England, only London has solo devolution – seven Scottish cities want individual devolution deals.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/06/scottish-cities-set-out-devolution-proposals

Campaign for Free [Independent] Parliament response to Hugo Swire

Dear Mr Swire,
Many thanks for devoting space on your website to the subject of independent candidates. You mount a stout defence of the party system and many of the points you raise, single issue candidates, rejects from other parties, lack of policies and so forth are valid.

However as you might expect, before committing over six million pounds to this project, on a one way ticket, we
thought long and hard about these factors and how to mitigate them.

Our guiding principle is that all policies and major decisions should be made in Parliament by the best people that can be found.

As you know, politics is in a state of flux throughout the Western world with extreme parties and extreme politicians emerging. From Golden Dawn in Greece, Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and Donald Trump in America
the writing is on the wall for the establishment.

Electorates are now looking for an alternative to parties that have long marginalised them and treated them with contempt.

However, the future lies not with new parties;
tribal politics has been tested to destruction. The future will be politicians hand-picked for their ability and accountable only to their constituents.

These people will become accomplished politicians who will
work collegiately with their colleagues towards the best possible decisions.

The end result will be policies arrived at by consensus in a powerful yet democratic parliament, rather than being used as electoral bait on the doorstep.

As you point out, independents are often regarded as political misfits or as being obsessed by single issues. However, all the candidates we endorse will have at least three things in common. They will all have signed up to
the Bell Principles, which set out clear standards of conduct; they will support parliamentary reform to stop politicians accepting promotion in return for unquestioning support; and they will have agreed to recall by their constituents if they fail to perform.

Future reforms may include the replacement of general elections, which have become time-wasting, immoral
and unaffordable festivals of bribery, with a permanent parliament. Rather than holding a general election every five years to change from one self-serving party to the next, it would make more sense to hold MPs accountable by recall instead.

The parliamentary term would become a
settled and productive continuum marked only by the periodic check and refreshment of its Members.

By habitually bribing voters to gain power, political parties have caused Western countries to live far beyond their means. Not only do political parties routinely bribe the electorate with their own money, they are now
bribing us with our children’s money as well.

We are imposing a truly immoral burden on future generations and every baby born in the UK today is already £24,000 in debt. Given the parlous state of our economy, by the time
they are sixteen this debt could have more than doubled.

Those who find work will face punitive levels of taxation; those who cannot will suffer an ever-decreasing level of support and opportunity. It has been known for
parents to cut up an offspring’s credit card, one day our children may well wish that they could have cut up ours. The prospect of a happy ending is fading fast as paper currencies, government bonds and quantitative easing
lose their charm in lockstep with stocks and commodities which are now also crumpling under the pressure.

With a clean sheet of paper, no sane person would replicate our present political system. Less than one percent of the electorate is now a member of a political party and seventy-six percent of that same electorate have not voted for the present government.

However, the system will not cure itself; the electorate will have to force reform by voting only for people
with a record of achievement rather than skilful orators. Staffed by MPs chosen for their ability rather than their political affiliation, parliament will have the views, needs and aspirations of the electorate woven into its
fabric rather than being cynically exploited for votes.

The political parties are now trapped by the very system they created and are condemned to keep on promising the earth to cling on to power. It is now up to the electorate to break this destructive cycle by voting only for people we
trust and respect.

You mention that most people are not political obsessives and may find it difficult to stay the distance. We would say that many have become fatalistic about their inability to control their own circumstances, institutionalised, confused by bureaucracy and demotivated by a system that only gives them a restricted choice of options to vote for once every five years.

You also correctly refer to the independents lack of resources in comparison to the big parties. Whilst this is true, crowdfunding will change that dynamic, not only in financial terms but by giving people a stake in their chosen candidate.

It has to be said that the ‘resources’ of the big parties have often been provided in exchange for influence and favours.

You mention that we have a position on the EU, we have and it is on our website;

“Brexit and Remain are both right in what they say. Brexit is correct about the inability to control our borders, red tape and the restriction on global trading by the EU.

Conversely, Remain is right to point out that there would
be damage to trade and that our ability to stand up to major players such as Russia and China would be weakened.

This tells us that the referendum will solve nothing.

However, no middle way is on offer and we are stuck with a
blunt Yes or No choice, neither of which will be in our best interests. The EU has made many mistakes but it has also got some things right and must be reformed rather than blown asunder.

However, it will take a concentrated
effort by all its member states to bring about the changes that will be required.”

The Free Parliament campaign is a philanthropic effort to replace a political system that is well past its sell-by date with one that is designed to work for us rather than against us.

We are now getting serious approaches from all round the UK not just from the West Country. I hope that this goes some way to assuage your concerns and there is also an
extensive FAQ section that you may find of interest.

However, I would be delighted to answer any further questions you may have.
Yours sincerely
Martyn Greene
Campaign Director.

Another devolution difficulty part 2

See also post directly below this one:

“The [Parliamentary] Committee also said councils need reassurances that they will not be required to take on new responsibilities that are or will become unaffordable. The report lists principles by which decisions on new responsibilities should be based, such as giving local government genuine discretion over how services are provided.

The Committee also calls for:

a review into whether Local Enterprise Partnerships should play such a key role in deciding whether to raise the infrastructure premium, following concerns that some are not representative of all business

consideration of whether, by making the infrastructure premium available only to those areas with a directly-elected mayor, it is placing areas without such a post at a disadvantage, in conflict with the aims of the new scheme

Cart … horses ..stable doors …

Another devolution difficulty … Part 1

See also post directly above this one – what a mess.

Councils are said to be getting 100% of business rates in 2020 ( though our Local Enterprise Partnership will gobble up all those due in Enterprise Zones such as the Exeter and East Devon Growth Point).

Looks like that may be 100% of very little … or nothing.

“[A government]Committee found the impact of appeals by ratepayers is dwarfing increases in business rates revenue and affecting growth incentives, with local authorities setting aside substantial sums of money, often for long periods of time, in case an appeal is successful.

The interim report – focusing on plans to bring in the reformed scheme in 2020 – also states that without RSG [Rates Support Grant] it will prove difficult to provide a system which gives incentives to growth and looks after those authorities with particular need.

It calls on the Government to specify how it will protect councils which rely on redistributed business rates and are worried that they will lose out under the new system.

The Committee hopes the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) will consider the report ahead of its consultation on business rates proposals this summer. Once this is complete, the Committee will invite DCLG Ministers to give evidence before making a final report.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/communities-and-local-government-committee/news-parliament-2015/business-rates-report-published-16-17/

Devolution: the ultimate powers of a unitary mayor

Given that Hinkley C is the primary focus of our devolution deal, it would be almost certain that a Somerset-centric Mayor would be elected.

Where they exist, the elected mayor will chair the combined authority, and will appoint the combined authority’s ‘members’ (the leaders of the participating local councils) to portfolios in their ‘cabinet’.

The members will be able to overrule the mayor by a two-thirds majority on certain matters, such as the budget and mayoral strategies. On other matters, such as spatial plans, unanimity will be required.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2016-0122/CDP-2016-0122

Spatial plans = housing, commercial and industrial development in the whole of Devon and Somerset in the hands of one person unless every other cabinet member disagrees.

Thus, the Mayor only needs to have a close understanding with one person within the Cabinet to make the whole of the rest of the Cabinet impotent on decisions about development – and, on other matters, the Mayor only has to carry one-third plus one with him or her to overrule the remaining two- thirds minus one.

Modern democracy!

Warrington doesn’t like the idea of devolution either

” … An imminent agreement between ministers and council chiefs is now highly unlikely but Warrington North MP Helen Jones said the Labour group made the ‘right decision’ for the town.

She added: “The Tories are trying to force us into an alliance with councils with whom we have little community of interest.

“Warrington spent a long time trying to get out of Cheshire to run its own affairs, now there are attempts to force us back in.

… If anyone really believes that this is not a prelude to future local government reorganisation, they are in cloud cuckoo land.

“This deal offered us very little and almost nothing for my constituency. In fact, some parts of it would transfer money from Warrington to elsewhere in Cheshire.

“I am glad that the Labour group wants to explore other options. If the Government was really serious about devolution it would offer it to recognised communities like Warrington instead of trying to force us into a one size fits all formula.”

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/14549677

North Somerset council overwhelmingly rejects devolution deal

“One of Bristol’s neighbouring councils has given a resounding thumbs-down to a devolution deal which could see £1 billion of Government funding pumped into the Bristol region.

At an extraordinary meeting held tonight, North Somerset councillors voted overwhelmingly against the devolution deal which would see the four local authorities – Bristol, South Gloucestershire, North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset, come together as a combined authority under an elected ‘Metro Mayor.’

North Somerset leaders had previously said they were against the deal, arguing the new money would do nothing for the area.

They fear Government funding allocated to the region as part of the devolution deal would be sucked away by Bristol, leaving the area they represent, which includes Portishead, Clevedon and Weston-super-Mare, as the poor relation.

Council leader Nigel Ashton said a combined authority and elected mayor was ‘unwanted’ and ‘unnecessary.’

Mr Ashton said: “North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath & North Somerset are some of the best performing councils in the country.

“I wonder why anyone would want to get rid of them?

“We have an excellent relationship with our councils and this will continue.

“Local residents are overwhelmingly against a centralised mayor. Eighty five per cent of responses from residents and town and parish councils were against the devolution proposal.

“People do not want another level of government which could lead to North Somerset becoming a poor relation to Bristol.

“It didn’t work when it was Avon, Now it would be worse

” I love Bristol but it has different priorities to North Somerset.

“If the deal goes through there are no guarantees that North Somerset will get any significant money.

“All future power and resources will be devolved to an elected mayor.”

Councillors said that North Somerset already had excellent relationships with other councils and local businesses.

Many said that if the current arrangements were not broken, why fix them.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/North-Somerset-Council-rejects-devolution-deal/story-29372319-detail/story.html

Conservative devolution Mayoral candidate resigns from Conservative Party to run as Independent

Hot on the heels of former Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Hogg resigning from the Tory Party comes this spectacular defection.

Mr Swire – read and learn.

North East mayoral hopeful Jeremy Middleton has quit the “Conservative Party after becoming disillusioned with political point scoring in regional politics, he has said.

In a shock move, the former parliamentary candidate and former chairman of the Conservative National Convention has turned his back on the party after 30 years and said he wants to put the interests of the region first as he stands as an independent candidate.

North East mayoral hopeful Jeremy Middleton has quit the Conservative Party after becoming disillusioned with political point scoring in regional politics, he has said.

In a shock move, the former parliamentary candidate and former chairman of the Conservative National Convention has turned his back on the party after 30 years and said he wants to put the interests of the region first as he stands as an independent candidate.

Mr Middleton said: “This is not about party politics, it is about the North East. This region needs candidates focused exclusively on its interests and not people with one eye on their party careers.”

The businessman, who was awarded a CBE in 2012 for services to politics and charities, said the London Mayoral race and Andy Burnham’s announcement as Labour’s candidate for the North West showed the regional elections are being taken over by Westminster.

“I am disillusioned with Westminster squabbles,” he said. “It is clear the big parties will use these elections as platforms to fight national battles and internal arguments, but we need to put the people’s interests first.

“We need to end the factionalism and childish Westminster arguments that dominate our local politics.”

The North East has had a “raw deal” from successive governments for decades, Mr Middleton added.

“The political leaders in the North East have let the region down, the North East needs better leadership.

“Councillors have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make a devolution deal, while Manchester has become a great success story.”

Mr Middleton also accused local councils in the North East of “empire building” and failing to put the needs of the area first.

He said: “Labour assume they will have a meeting and pick a mayoral candidate who will back their little empire and local leadership.”

The former Tory said the problems with the Labour leadership in the North East have not manifested themselves with the Labour party in Greater Manchester.

“The difference between the North East and the North West is that political leaders in the North West have realised they can do business with the exchequer,” he said.

“They have gone to the Chancellor with a plan on how to grow the economy and become self-sustained, an offer he couldn’t refuse. The North East has just gone to the Government with their hands out and asked how much money can we get?”

After a failed bid to become a Tory MP in the 2004 Hartlepool by-election, Mr Middleton said he wouldn’t have considered running for office again – until the regional Mayor role became a reality.

He said: “Do I think I can win it? I believe I can win it.

My time will be spent fixing the problems our region faces not arguing with other politicians. People have told me they don’t believe that any party politician in the North East can or will deliver that.”

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/north-east-mayoral-hopeful-jeremy-11423859

Fabian Society on devolution

A notable feature of the 2015 general election campaign was the degree of apparent unanimity across all parties that Britain has an overcentralized governmental structure, which is ripe for devolution.

In the wake of the Scottish independence referendum, and the desperate resort to ‘devo -max’ to save the day for Better Together, this was hardly a surprise.

But the superficial unanimity of the narrative concealed a gaping void in the intellectual underpinnings of what a devolved governmental structure might look like. From both the Tory and Labour camps, the message was a fuzzy ‘make it up for yourselves and we’ll discuss it with you’ – in effect, ducking any intellectual engagement with the tricky issue of taking fiscal and social policy responsibility out of the hands of Whitehall and Westminster and into the hands of local communities and their elected representatives.

That political and intellectual evasiveness continues to dominate both Labour and Tory thinking.

The government’s policy since the election has justifiably been described as incoherent and inconsistent by the Local Government Select Committee, and Labour-led local authorities have been ploughing their own local furrows without any coherent party policy to refer to.

In practice, the government’s approach has been a travesty of genuine devolution. Their policy is best described as an incremental extension of the City Deal/Local Growth Fund policies inherited from the Coalition period. Local authorities are encouraged to come together to propose expenditure plans (notably for transport, housing and skills infrastructure) that will promote economic growth over a medium-term period.

In return for a multi-year capital funding allocation, the local authorities are expected to create a different and more unified decision making structure across their chosen area, preferably with an elected mayor at the helm of the new structure.

Three things are notable about this policy:

it takes powers away from local communities and places them in the hands of more distant combined authorities and their elected mayors;

no fiscal devolution is being offered;

the capital allocations are timebound, while the new structures of local government are permanent. In brief, it’s a policy of local government reorganisation by stealth. Devolution is not on offer.

This conclusion is reinforced by the simultaneous stream of massively centralising government measures which have drained even more powers out of local community control, such as the Housing and Planning Act, which spells the death of social housing and dictates how local housing markets should work, the nationalising of schools through academisation, and central control of Council Tax levels.

Labour’s policy is unclear. The innovative work that was undertaken by the LGA Labour Group and the Local Government Innovation Taskforce before the 2015 Election and published in ‘People, Power and Public Services’ has been forgotten, and the centralising instincts that come from the worthy desire to ensure that all our citizens get equal treatment regardless of where they live, have revived. The party remains strong in local government and there needs to be more policy engagement with the issues of devolution, community involvement, local government structure and local democracy.

From discussions with other Labour local authority leaders, a framework for rethinking the party’s approach to devolution is emerging:

The old two tier local government structures are no longer appropriate and the basis for devolution has to be new unitary authorities. A rational approach to the creation of new unitaries which respect community loyalties and pride in ‘place’ is required. This process should be overseen by an Independent Commission and undertaken within a defined time period.

A wide measure of freedom for local authorities to set their own levels of taxation, and service charging structures, allowing them to raise and control a large proportion of their income locally.

A transfer of business rate income to local authorities with a redistribution mechanism which recognises the differential capacities and needs of different communities and is not skewed by government bias towards their own councils – whatever the colour of the government in power.

A re-establishment of local education authorities with strong links to the skills agenda and to children’s services.

A national structure merging adult social care and local health services, managed through an Expert Group that can bring about the necessary transformation of service structures within a defined period.

A revived public scrutiny system based on panels drawn from large ‘colleges’ of scrutineers, whose composition reflects the social and demographic make-up of the area.

No requirement for directly elected mayors which run directly counter to the aim of drawing local communities closer to the decision making processes which affect them.

As the new party leadership develops the agenda for the next election we should be endorsing genuine devolution of power to local communities. Place-based unitary authorities should be reflective of, and responsive to, their residents and services should be delivered by ward-based political leaders open to regular scrutiny and challenge.


http://www.fabians.org.uk/decentralising-britian/

Greater Lincolnshire has devolution doubts – one councillor feels like a “used car salesman”

“I have a gut feeling that this is not right,” warned portfolio holder for the rural economy Councillor Adam Grist (Con, Legbourne).

It seems like an attempt to transplant a metropolitan solution on a shire county. …

… Councillor Terry Knowles (Ind, Grimoldby) described the 67-page proposal document as being “heavy on fine words but almost empty of content”.

He continued: “I am not at all impressed – the creation of an elected mayor would simply provide an easy blame-channel when things go bump. …

…also came from Councillor Sarah Dodds (Lab, Louth Primary and St James) and Councillor Stephen Palmer (Ind, Sutton-on-Sea), with the latter demanding: “How much will this cost?”

He asked: “Is the drive for a new authority coming from the people of Lincolnshire or from the Government? Why should we have forced on us something we don’t want?”

There were plaudits at the meeting for council leader Craig Leyland (Con, Woodhall Spa) for his hard work in liaising with counterparts at other authorities, including North East Lincolnshire Council leader Ray Oxby, to move the initiative forward.

But even Mr Leyland admitted to doubts on the project.

“I feel like a car salesman just praying that the customer doesn’t ask to look under the bonnet,” he quipped.

“We need to seek the views of electors,” insisted the leader.

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Doubts-Greater-Lincolnshire-devolution/story-29342843-detail/story.html

East Devon Alliance Chairman on devolution

Paul Arnott was filmed on 25th May 2016 outside the Guildhall in Totnes, just prior to a public meeting on the encouragement and support of independent councillors in local democracy.

The meeting hosted a number of people from across the region (and beyond) and invited them to discuss ideas and exchange strategies. Here Paul Arnott, the Chairman of the East Devon Alliance, talks about a couple of the issues that motivated the group of independents he represents to take action.

Independence in Democracy Interviews: Paul Arnott

Old people are a “tension” for devolution – and so is happiness!

From a slide on a devolution workshop:

Tensions

Local and national government perspectives eg business rates reform and what must central government continue to lead

Small family businesses and ambition (lifestyle businesses) and do they have a role in transformation?

Productivity at what cost – not sacrificing the environment

Backing the ‘winners’ v spreading the jam

Other measures – e.g. happiness

Dealing with retirees

Click to access 060416-combined-cabinet-agendasm.pdf

page 91