Category Archives: General Election

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

23 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Electoral Commission, General Election, Voting

Tories being formally investigated by police for election offences

“Labour MP Wayne David revealed in Parliament this week that the police are “formally considering” investigating the Conservative Party’s 2017 election campaign for illegal activities following a Channel 4 investigation:

Mr David said the Electoral Commission had written to him confirming the police were “formally considering the allegations”.

An undercover investigation by C4 News, broadcast last month, claimed call centre workers may have been carrying out paid canvassing, banned under electoral law, as they promoted key Conservative messages to undecided voters in the weeks before the election. [BBC]
Channel 4 first aired the results of its investigations in June, which included an undercover reporter working at the call centre in question:

The Conservative Party contracted a secretive call centre during the election campaign which may have broken data protection and election laws, a Channel 4 News investigation has found…

These allegations include:

Paid canvassing on behalf of Conservative election candidates – banned under election law.

Political cold calling to prohibited [i.e. TPS registered] numbers
Misleading calls claiming to be from an ‘independent market research company’ which does not apparently exist.

Investigations into the Conservative Party’s 2015 general election campaign found repeated law-breaking, resulting in a record-breaking fine. In addition, a Conservative MP and two senior officials are currently being prosecuted for allegedly breaking the law.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150845/police-considering-allegations-conservative-2017-campaign/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

20 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDDC, EDDC Monitoring Officer, Electoral Commission, EU Referendum, General Election, Monitoring Officer, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Voting processes need tightening (and scrutiny) urgently

Why shouldn’t our council’s Scrutiny Committee check in its Electoral and Returning Officer’s procedures – even if the Monitoring Officer doesn’t like the idea because it MIGHT be considered political (by him)? A clean bill of health would reassure voters surely?

“The list of Brexit campaigners done for breaking the rules is getting lengthy.

Following the record £12,000 fine for breaches of spending rules, the pair of £1,000 fines for other offences, the company fined £50,000 for illegal text messages and the 11 anti-EU campaign groups struck off for breaking referendum rules, there’s now another £1,500 fine on a different Brexit campaigner:

The Electoral Commission has fined Mr Henry Meakin, a registered campaigner in the EU referendum, £1,500 for failing to submit his spending return on time. It is an offence not to deliver a spending return by the due date.

Though Mr Meakin reported spending of £37,000 in the campaign, the return was received more than 5 months late.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150816/henry-meakin-european-referendum-fine/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Electoral/Returning Officer, General Election, Voting

“Electoral fraud is an affront to democracy. Those who commit it should be sent to prison” says Daily Telegraph

“The voting system in Britain has been heavily reliant on trust ever since an equal franchise was extended to women in 1928 and the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969. No one is checked or required to present identity documents. Postal votes are available, which can lead to people being pressed to back particular candidates. And proxy votes can be cast in one constituency without proper controls over whether the same person has voted in another.

In Northern Ireland, intimidation of voters was an issue during the Troubles and, latterly, postal vote fraud has been identified in some constituencies with large south Asian populations. In much of the country, however, this phenomenon has been largely absent and has probably had little influence on election outcomes. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/07/18/electoral-fraud-affront-democracy-commit-should-sent-prison/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, General Election, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC: (second) postal votes fiasco WILL be scrutinised

“East Devon District Council’s chief executive will be asked to include an explanation of how 9,000 postal votes were sent out without an official security mark ahead of June’s General Election,

The postal vote pack sent out on May 25 to 9,000 voters by the Acting Returning Officer for the East Devon Mark Williams, who is also the council’s chief executive, contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

East Devon District Council were responsible for printing the ballot papers but Mr Williams issued a statement reassuring voters that no postal votes had been affected as a result of the error.

The council’s ruling cabinet committee voted on Thursday to agree with the council’s scrutiny committee that his forthcoming report to Cabinet on his two priority areas after the Parliamentary Election must include the explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

Paul Arnott, the chairman of the East Devon Alliance, had previously raised concerns about the fact that the council’s scrutiny committee were not able to investigate what he called the postal voting ‘cock-up’.

He was told that the current legal assessment is that the remit of the Scrutiny Committee does not extend to Parliamentary elections, which is the remit of the Electoral Commission. He queried this and was told that there is nothing laid down about where electoral matters can or can’t be discussed within the framework of local authority governance, and ultimately it is up to the Council and its operation of its scrutiny function as to whether any or all elections or electoral related matters are included in that scrutiny.

He has written to the council, asking them to take on board this advice and for scrutiny to investigate the matter, but in response, Henry Gordon Lennox, the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) and Monitoring Officer of East Devon District Council, said that Mr Arnott had misinterpreted the advice he had been given and said that his query was ‘politically driven’.

Mr Gordon Lennox in a statement said: “In my view, Mr Arnott has misinterpreted the advice from the Electoral Commission, who said that there were no legislative provisions dealing with the role of Scrutiny and elections and therefore it is down to the rules of each authority that will dictate whether or not there is a role for Scrutiny.

“Mr Arnott has taken this to say that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee should be reviewing the conduct of elections. However, what they are saying, and it is my view too, is that effectively it is the Council’s Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Committee that determine whether they can consider elections or electoral related matters.

“In general terms the role of Scrutiny is to review the actions relating to the various functions of the Council (in whatever form that takes). The role of Returning Officer is not part of the Council, save for the elections relating to towns and parishes and the district. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee do not have the authority to consider the actions and conduct of the Acting Returning Officer / Deputy Returning Officer in the Parliamentary / County elections respectively.

“I think it important to also address the political side of this. I note that Mr Arnott says this is not political. However, Mr Arnott refers to the East Devon Alliance (EDA) report submitted to East Devon District Council following the May 2015 elections.

“Mr Arnott was at the time the Chair of the EDA and therefore a part of the Executive Committee who produced and submitted the report. At the County elections, Mr Arnott was an appointed election agent for the EDA.

“In the correspondence arising out of the postal vote issue during the Parliamentary election, Mr Arnott, when officially signing off his emails, referred to himself as the Chairman and Nominating Officer of the EDA.

“So my perception, notwithstanding what Mr Arnott says, is that his query is politically driven. To that end, the role of Scrutiny is supposed to be apolitical and I would be concerned that even if it were permissible for Scrutiny to be considering this matter, that the purpose for them so doing would be questionable.

“I have explained this matter in some detail in order to ensure that the correct context is understood and to give clarity on the issue. I would further confirm that, despite the above, it is my understanding that the Returning Officer will be presenting a report to Scrutiny at its next meeting on the key priorities he is working on, following what will now be the standard practice of a review process taking place after each election.”

In response, Mr Arnott said: “The independents who campaign under the protective umbrella of the East Devon Alliance have both a right and a civic duty in the public interest to ask questions about this matter without fear of partial criticism from the council’s legal chief.

“Nothing is more serious than questionable practices in a general election, and Mr Gordon Lennox’s boss, Mark Williams, has had since June 6 to the present day to simply explain why he printed the postal ballot papers sent out with no watermark or QR code himself and did not commission them from a professional printers. He has disdained to give a much-needed open answer and his team have focussed on giving reasons why he shouldn’t have to be questioned about it at Scrutiny. Why?

“Mr Gordon Lennox’s time would be better spent persuading his employer to answer councillors about their election concerns than taking swats at me. I am a volunteer while he and his boss are both handsomely paid by council tax payers.

“This matter, and the arrogant manner in which it continues to be dealt with is the essence of why the East Devon Alliance had to be constituted. When we say this issue is not political, what we mean is that Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independents alike at EDDC should all be equally alarmed about yet another badly-run election paid for by local people. If they aren’t, they should be.”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-chief-executive-will-be-asked-to-explain-postal-vote-error/story-30443902-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, East Devon Alliance, EDDC, EDDC Monitoring Officer, General Election, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

EDDC officer accuses East Devon Alliance chairman of “point scoring” over (second) postal vote cockup

Owl says: if the point IS scored, surely that speaks for itself! And anyone reading this supposedly “neutral” officer’s report is bound to wonder if it is, er, political!

“East Devon District Council’s monitoring officer has accused the chairman of the East Devon Alliance of political point-scoring after he raised concerns that the council’s scrutiny committee were not able to investigate a postal vote ‘cock-up’ ahead of the General Election.

Packs that were issued on May 25 contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper were issued to more than 9,000 voters in the constituency.

East Devon District Council who were responsible for printing the ballot papers but Mark Williams, the council’s returning officer, issued a statement reassuring voters that no postal votes had been affected as a result of the error.

The ‘cock-up’ has left Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, furious, and said that he would have more confidence in a village raffle than in Mr Williams running the forthcoming election and asked the council’s scrutiny committee at their last meeting in June to interrogate the reasons why 9,000 unmarked Parliamentary ballot papers were issued to postal voters.

But in response, he was told that the current legal assessment is that the remit of the Scrutiny Committee does not extend to Parliamentary elections, which is the remit of the Electoral Commission.

Mr Arnott queried this advice with the Electoral Commission, and says he was told that there is nothing laid down about where electoral matters can or can’t be discussed within the framework of local authority governance, and ultimately it is up to the Council and its operation of its scrutiny function as to whether any or all elections or electoral related matters are included in that scrutiny.

He has written to the council, asking them to take on board this advice and for scrutiny to investigate the matter, but in response, Henry Gordon Lennox, the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) and Monitoring Officer of East Devon District Council, said that Mr Arnott had misinterpreted the advice he had been given and said that his query was ‘politically driven’.

The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

Mr Gordon Lennox in a statement said: “In my view, Mr Arnott has misinterpreted the advice from the Electoral Commission, who said that there were no legislative provisions dealing with the role of Scrutiny and elections and therefore it is down to the rules of each authority that will dictate whether or not there is a role for Scrutiny.

“Mr Arnott has taken this to say that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee should be reviewing the conduct of elections. However, what they aresaying, and it is my view too, is that effectively it is the Council’s Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Committee that determine whether they can consider elections or electoral related matters.

“In general terms the role of Scrutiny is to review the actions relating to the various functions of the Council (in whatever form that takes). The role of Returning Officer is not part of the Council, save for the elections relating to towns and parishes and the district. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee do not have the authority to consider the actions and conduct of the Acting Returning Officer / Deputy Returning Officer in the Parliamentary / County elections respectively.

“I think it important to also address the political side of this. I note that Mr Arnott says this is not political. However, Mr Arnott refers to the East Devon Alliance (EDA) report submitted to East Devon District Council following the May 2015 elections.

“Mr Arnott was at the time the Chair of the EDA and therefore a part of the Executive Committee who produced and submitted the report. At the County elections, Mr Arnott was an appointed election agent for the EDA.

“In the correspondence arising out of the postal vote issue during the Parliamentary election, Mr Arnott, when officially signing off his emails, referred to himself as the Chairman and Nominating Officer of the EDA.

“So my perception, notwithstanding what Mr Arnott says, is that his query is politically driven. To that end, the role of Scrutiny is supposed to be apolitical and I would be concerned that even if it were permissible for Scrutiny to be considering this matter, that the purpose for them so doing would be questionable.

“I have explained this matter in some detail in order to ensure that the correct context is understood and to give clarity on the issue. I would further confirm that, despite the above, it is my understanding that the Returning Officer will be presenting a report to Scrutiny at its next meeting on the key priorities he is working on, following what will now be the standard practice of a review process taking place after each election.”

The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

East Devon District Council’s Cabinet committee will consider the recommendation on Thursday, July 13.”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-alliance-chairman-accused-of-politically-driven-query-over-postal-vote-scrutiny-request/story-30434940-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DUP, General Election, Lobbying, Post-Brexit Adjustments, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency, Voting

DUP funding secrecy to be stopped – but not for massive Brexit loan

Owl says: Two parties working together, both using dirty money to buy votes and manipulate power – are East Devon Tory voters happy with this?

“When the law over political donations was overhauled (or rather, introduced – as it had previously been pretty much a secret free-for-all), an exception was made for Northern Ireland. The requirements for transparency of donations in the rest of the UK* was not applied to Northern Ireland as, still fresh from its years of bloody violence, it was felt by many that forcing political donors to be named was not yet appropriate.

That secrecy has, however, come under recent sustained criticism as it has opened up a loophole for secret donations to impact not only elections in Northern Ireland but also UK-wide contests. In particular, a secret £435,000 donation to the DUP went on campaigning in favour of Brexit across the whole UK.

Now, however, the government has announced that donations in Northern Ireland will be subject to the same transparency rules as in the rest of the UK.

One catch – up until now, the source of large secret donations has still had to be recorded even if not published. The government’s plan is for those records to remain secret despite the Electoral Commission’s calls for transparency over donations made in recent years too. So the full story of that £435,000 for the Brexit referendum may never be known.

* This transparency is not perfect, as continuing disputes over unincorporated associations in particular demonstrates, but it is pretty widespread.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150676/northern-ireland-political-donations-transparency/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Jul 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Hugo Swire

Swire backs Hammond for PM: says he’s “an homme serieux” and has “bottom”

Owl says: bottoms are obviously a particular interest for Swire:

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

… “There is a sense that, in the present febrile climate, whoever is the next leader must be highly experienced. Davis qualifies; so does Hammond, who before his present job was foreign secretary and defence secretary, and who has belatedly displayed a mind of his own since May was hobbled.

Hugo Swire, a minister of state under Hammond in the Foreign Office, said of him: “He’s got bottom. He was very good to work for. He is an homme sérieux. I liked him very much and he would calm things down.” …

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/06/humbling-theresa-may

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Inequality, Sleaze

Tory MP hates that social media is available to all – then retweets a picture of a pink penis!

“After a tumultuous day of U-turns and PR disasters in Parliament yesterday, Theresa May probably thought things couldn’t get much worse.

However, one of her Tory MPs has just gone and said something on social media that a huge section of Britain will find highly offensive.

In typical sneering Tory fashion, the Conservative MP for South West Devon, Gary Streeter, in a heated exchange with journalist Paul Mason, said:

“This is why i (sic) hate social media. It gives a voice to people who dont (sic) deserve one”.

Yes, you read that right. A Conservative MP doesn’t think ordinary people deserve to have a voice.

In a further display of how little this particular Tory MP understands about the real world, he promptly proceeded to retweet one of the numerous responses to his elitist outburst – a response which just so happened to be a GIF of a pink penis running through a forest.

One can only imagine the thought process that an elected representative must go through when deciding that retweeting a set of galloping gonads is a good idea.

To Mr Streeter’s peculiar retweet, another Twitter user replied:

“Gary… you retweet a penis running through a forest but won’t answer a polite question from one of your constituents… #confused”

We have contacted Gary Streeter for comment on his elitist comments, but presumably his head is still firmly inserted up his own backside, because he has not as yet had the good grace to respond.”

http://evolvepolitics.com/sneering-tory-mp-says-hates-social-media-gives-voice-people-dont-deserve-one/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, General Election

“CHAIRMAN OF GOVERNMENT’S NEW GRENFELL PANEL PUSHED MINISTERS TO CUT FIRE SERVICE FUNDING BY £200M”

If Owl asks nicely do you think we can get the Nasty Party out? No? OK Plan B it has to be – not nicely!

“The man advising the Government on its response to the Grenfell Tower disaster argued in favour of cuts to fire service funding and against fitting sprinklers to tower blocks.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid announced last night that Sir Ken Knight will chair an “independent expert advisory panel” to advise on new fire safety measures.

It has been pointed out that Knight advised the Government against retrofitting sprinklers to high rise residential buildings in his report on the Lakanal House fire in Camberwell, in which six people died.

He wrote: “It is not considered as practical or economically viable to make a requirement for the retrospective fitting of fire suppression systems to all current high-rise residential buildings.”

Scrapbook has also found that Knight was the author of a 2013 report which advocated £200 million worth of cuts to the fire service.

The report’s recommendations included cutting the number of firefighters. In a BBC interview at the time, Knight said:

“The protection of services is not just about jobs, it’s about redefining what we want firefighters to do, what we want the fire service to do.

“So it is right, there will be an adjustment to numbers, of jobs, of people, of people doing different jobs, but that’s right in any business, in any industry, in any area of the public sector. …”

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/06/chairman-of-governments-new-grenfell-panel-pushed-ministers-to-cut-fire-service-funding-by-200m/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, General Election, Housing (local), Inequality

No magic money tree for high rise blocks with failed cladding

Grenfell Tower cladding scandal could cost councils millions after Government says no guarantee of extra funding.

‘There is no way we can afford to reclad our tower blocks. If we have to find that money, it will come from other projects’

But despite emergency fire safety checks being carried out nationwide under central government direction, councils will not be reimbursed for refurbishment work carried out.

A DCLG spokesperson said there was “no guarantee” of central government funding and that it would be “up to local authorities and housing associations to pay” for the work needed to ensure residents’ safety.

The spokesperson said financial support would be considered on a “case by case” basis for those that could not afford to carry out the necessary work, but did not clarify what the criteria for that consideration would be.

The announcement was met with severe criticism from some of the councils affected, with local authorities already having their budgets severely squeezed after years of austerity measures.

Julie Dore, leader of Sheffield City Council, which is among the authorities to have discovered unsafe cladding, said “starved” councils would be forced to make cuts to other areas, including schooling, if central government did not help with costs.

“Local authorities have been starved of money over the past seven years. Our spending power has decreased,” she said. “There is no way we can afford to reclad our tower blocks. If we have to find that money, it will come from other projects, from investing in the fabric of our schools, capital investment in our infrastructure, the money has to come out of that. And it can’t really be done.

“I say absolutely, categorically that the Government should pay. If they can find £1bn to send to Northern Ireland, that gets more spending per capita than anywhere else, to buy 10 votes, then these people, living in high-rise towers, deserve better.” …

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grenfell-tower-cladding-scandal-council-funding-government-no-guarantee-local-government-budgets-a7809216.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, DUP, East Devon Tories, General Election

What does £1 billion buy?

Owl says: just remember, if you voted Conservative in June, these are the kind of things things you stopped us having.

“During her disastrous election campaign Theresa May kindly reminded us that there is “no magic money tree” to fix the country’s cash problems.

But this week the struggling prime minister has managed to find a spare £1billion to make a deal with the DUP to prop up her minority government.

That’s enough to fund 26,000 nurses.

Or free school meals for all primary school children for a year.

Or sprinklers on 600 tower blocks.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/everyone-asking-theresa-ridiculous-presents-10695091

OR

A billion pounds will buy 147,000 state pensions or 300,000 jobseeker’s allowances for a year.

Alternatively it could fund 2.3 million people’s disability living allowance per annum – three quarters of the total.

It would cover all diagnostic imaging – MRI scans, x-rays – for a year with a bit left over for other jobs.

Or another way would be to fund 26,000 nurses or 12,000 hospital doctors for a year.

It could pay for 167,000 hip replacements or 1.4 million hospital day cases.

A billion pounds could also pay for two flagship hospitals, such as Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth Hospital which opened in 2010.

A billion pounds would provide an 8hr course of talking therapy for 2.5m people. Or 750,000 eight-session courses of mindfulness therapy.

Or the army could pay for 40 Challenger 2 tanks. The basic production cost in 2002 of each tank was £6m.

£1bn could fund 8,500 troops.

With £1bn the government could, for a year, fund 27,000 primary or 22,000 secondary school teachers.

Or give free school meals to 2.5m children.

The average cost of a free school is £6.6 million – so that would mean about new 150 free schools.

With £1bn the government could build 16,600 new social homes or 50,000 shared ownership homes, according to Shelter.

£1bn could make universal the offer of 15 hours a week of childcare for 37 weeks of the year.”

Facts courtesy of this tweet https://twitter.com/CerianJenkins/status/879332594839687170

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, East Devon Tories, General Election

Comments

1 Comment

Just how much can you rip voters off before they reject you?

“Ask any returning or new MP what the big issues were during the election campaign and I bet most would have school cuts and police cuts top of the list. Indeed, at the beginning of the campaign, before the manifestos which changed the course of the election, I felt our school gates campaign was our strongest card and it would only be a matter of time before the Tories closed it down, as they did in 2015 on the NHS, with a promise to meet the shortfall.

Yet, with the arrogance and complacency that became the hallmark of their campaign, the Tories continued with their defensive line that school budgets were protected in cash terms (not real terms).

The Tories then adopted a similar (and wrong) strategy when police numbers took centre stage in the wake of the Manchester and London terror attacks, with Theresa May completely unable to say she’d “give the police the resources they need.”

In today’s Daily Mail, Tory MPs complain that headteachers lost them the election. Wrong. It was their own policies (and inability to change) which lost them the election. Polls after the election estimated that over three quarters of a million people changed the way they voted because of school funding cuts.

It wasn’t the fault of headteachers, nor the Chief Constables of the Met Police and Greater Manchester Police who also cited resource pressures, it was the Tory government’s own record on these issues.

The public can cope with a certain amount of “efficiencies” and necessary cost-cutting, but when their kids are in oversized classes without text books, and their hot lunches are being scrapped for a cold breakfast, or when our streets and communities become unsafe because of unsustainable cuts to the police, that’s when people get rightly very concerned.

The Tories failure to get this, is the biggest failure of their campaign and their government. It made Theresa May look remote and shifty on the campaign trail, unable to answer a straight question with a straight answer.

The Queen’s Speech shows that they’ve completely failed to learn the lessons of their election losses with no new money for schools or the police.

What an irony then that their own “magic money tree” has produced £1billion for their grubby deal with the DUP. This same billion pounds used at the start of the campaign to meet the shortfall in schools’ budgets and to give the police the resources they need with extra police officers, could have won them a majority, probably quite comfortably. Instead they are now going to have to find at least another £1billion to deal with the ever growing, and legitimate, calls of senior police officers and head teachers for adequate resources. The NUT has estimated that if English schools were given the same proportion of funding under this bung to the DUP as Northern Irish schools head teachers would receive over half a billion pounds.

The Tories key lines against Labour so effectively used in 2015 now all look in tatters, for the long term. It’s a common view that this election was a disaster for them, their dodgy deal with the DUP will only lead to more pain unless they learn the lessons of the election campaign.

Lucy Powell is the Labour and Co-operative MP for Manchester Central”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lucy-powell/general-election-2017-public-services_b_17304168.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

27 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DUP, East Devon Tories, General Election

DUP will be back for more

Meanwhile the West Country deteriorates.

“The Democratic Unionist Party’s £1 billion deal to prop up the Conservative government may end up costing the country far more because the DUP will be “back for more”, it emerged last night.

The Tories finally sealed a historic deal with the Northern Irish party which guarantees its 10 MPs will vote with the Government on key legislation, in return for which cash will go to Belfast for infrastructure, broadband, schools and hospitals.

But the £1billion payment – the equivalent of £33 for every taxpayer in the UK – could be only the start after DUP sources hinted that they will ask for more cash when the deal is “reviewed” in two years’ time. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/26/dup-deal-prop-minority-tory-government-set-cost-billions-party/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, General Election

Guardian letters on regulation, health and safety and austerity

“• The elephant in the room not mentioned in Steven Poole’s excellent article on deregulation was the de facto deregulation facilitated by the government’s savage cuts in local authority spending. Councils were inevitably going to respond to these cuts by reducing the resources available for statutory duties where cuts would be less likely to create an immediate outcry, such as regulation enforcement. It would be naive to think that a government obsessed with deregulation would not have been fully aware of this. This week’s news of tower block cladding investigations provides grim evidence of the effects of this strategy, if any were needed.
Jim Hooker
Chichester, West Sussex

• As long ago as 1840, when rapid expansion forced government at least to consider some degree of regulation of buildings, Thomas Cubitt gave evidence to the select committee on the health of towns. He warned that, without rules and regulations, builders would put up houses crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. “I am afraid a house would become like a slave ship, with the decks too close for the people to stand upright.”

Polly Toynbee was right to insist on the need for regulation (They call it useless red tape, but without it people die, 20 June). And they couldn’t, in 1840, even imagine 24 storeys high.
Enid Gauldie
Invergowrie, Perthshire

• Steven Poole provides an excellent account of the right’s professed hatred of regulation and red tape, but this ideological hostility only seems to apply to big business and the private sector.

By contrast, the last three decades have seen the public sector crushed under regulatory burdens and tied up in red tape, often in a bizarre attempt at making schools, hospitals, the police, social services and universities more efficient, business-like and accountable. Talk to most doctors, nurses, police officers, probation officers, social workers and university lecturers, and one of their biggest complaints will be the relentless increase in bureaucracy imposed by Conservative (and New Labour) governments since the 1980s.

Instead of focusing on their core activities and providing a good professional service, many frontline public sector workers are compelled to devote much of their time and energy to countless strategies, statutory frameworks, regulations, codes of practice, quality assurance procedures, government targets, action plans, form-filling, box-ticking, monitoring exercises, and preparations for the next external inspection.

A major reason for public sector workers quitting their profession, taking early retirement or suffering from stress-related illnesses is the sheer volume of bureaucracy that Conservatives (and New Labour) have imposed during the last 35 years. This bureaucracy, almost as much as underfunding, is destroying the public sector, impeding efficiency and innovation, and driving frontline staff to despair.
Pete Dorey
Bath, Somerset”

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jun/22/health-and-safety-is-no-laughing-matter

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, General Election

Corbyn: is housing a right or a marketing opportunity?

” … Speaking to NME [New Musical Express] backstage at Glastonbury after his speech on the Pyramid Stage earlier this afternoon (June 23), the Labour leader said: “I think we have to recognise that what happened at Grenfell Tower is a game changer in our society. It’s a game changer about safety. it’s a game change about attitudes to housing – do we treat housing solely as a marketing opportunity or do we treat it as something that’s a human right and a necessity?

He continued: “I don’t think the fifth richest country in the world should see predominantly poor people burning to death in a towering inferno any more than it should tolerate people sleeping on the streets around stations. We can and should do a lot better. I hope this is a massive wake up call for the entire community and I’m calling on people to campaign like never before for housing justice. …”

http://www.nme.com/festivals/jeremy-corbyn-says-hes-calling-people-campaign-like-never-housing-justice-following-grenfell-tower-tragedy-2093330

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, General Election

Comments

2 Comments

Government is NOT making u-turns on safety but to desperately buy votes for the next election

“Controversial government proposals to relax fire safety standards for new school buildings as a cost-cutting measure are to be dropped by ministers in a major policy U-turn following the Grenfell Tower fire. ...”

NO it isn’t about Grenfell Tower, or safety – it’s about saying and doing ANYTHING that might stop a Labour victory at the next election.

Should they regain a majority, they will U-turn on their U-turn just as fast as they can.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/government-u-turn-over-fire-safety-controls-for-new-schools

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2017

Posted under

Developers/ Development, Economy, EDDC, General Election, Infrastructure

East Devon bursting at the seams – official!

Owl says: all these extra residents accessing fewer and fewer services. Let’s hope most of them are young and going to Cranbrook, Exmouth and Sidmouth – because there will be no maternity services or community hospitals in Axminster, Seaton, Honiton or Ottery St Mary.

“People moving to East Devon increased the population by almost 2,500 people – more than almost anywhere else in England and Wales.

An estimated 8,316 people moved to East Devon from elsewhere in the UK between July 2015 and June 2016.

This compared to 5,848 who went the other way during this time, new figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

This meant that an extra 2,468 people moved to East Devon than left – the second highest figure anywhere out of almost 350 counties and districts around England and Wales.

As of June 2016 there were 139,908 people in East Devon, meaning that 1.8 per cent of the population was made up of people who had just moved to the county from elsewhere within Britain.

This was the highest share out of anywhere in England and Wales.

The most popular destination for people to move to East Devon from was Exeter.

… A total of 700 people were estimated to have moved from East Devon to Exeter after subtracting those that went the other way, more than anywhere else.

On the other hand, Taunton Deane was the number one destination away from the area.

A net total of 54 people moved to Taunton Deane from East Devon in 2015/16.”

http://www.devonlive.com/more-people-move-to-east-devon-than-nearly-anywhere-else-in-the-uk/story-30405338-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, General Election, Transparency, Voting

Another Tory dirty trick during the general election campaign?

“The Conservative party allegedly operated a secret call centre during the election campaign that may have broken data protection and election laws, according to an investigation by Channel 4 News.

An undercover investigation by the programme has found that the party used a market research firm to make thousands of cold calls to voters in marginal seats in the weeks before the election.

Call centre employees working on behalf of the party used a script that appeared to canvass for support rather conduct market research. On the day of the election, call centre employees contacted voters to promote individual candidates, which may be a breach of electoral law, the investigation claimed.

At the start of the election campaign, the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, wrote to all the major political parties reminding them of the law around telephone calls and data protection. She said that calling voters to promote a political party was “direct marketing” and was regulated by law.

The government also announced during the campaign that it wanted to tighten up the laws on nuisance calls and a bill on the issue was included in the Queen’s speech.

The Channel 4 News investigation, which ran over several weeks, found that a team employed by the Conservatives rang voters from a call centre in Neath, south Wales.

Operating from a script, the staff carried out calls for “market research” and “polling”. Identifying likely Tory voters in marginal seats could be important for the get-out-the-vote operation on election day, and also enable a political party to better direct its canvassing operation.

On election day, undecided voters were told that “the election result in your marginal constituency is going to be very close between Theresa May’s Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party”.

They were then asked:

“So does knowing that you live in a marginal constituency that will determine who is prime minister for the Brexit negotiations, does that make you a lot more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate or a little more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate, or are you still unsure, or does it not make a difference?”

At an earlier stage of the campaign, the call centre staff said they were calling from a company called Axe Research, which does not appear to exist. Under the Data Protection Act, callers must disclose who they are and how the data will be used.

Asked what Axe Research was, one supervisor told Channel 4 News: “It’s just the name we do these surveys under, basically. I did a Google search, nothing comes up. But as far as anyone’s concerned, yeah, we’re a legit independent market research company.”

A week before the election, the same call centre staff started saying they were calling on behalf of Theresa May’s Conservatives.

The Conservative party said the call centre was conducting market research on its behalf, and was not canvassing for votes. The call centre confirmed it was employed by the party, but denied canvassing on its behalf.

A Conservative spokesman said: “Political parties of all colours pay for market research and direct marketing calls. All the scripts supplied by the party for these calls are compliant with data protection and information law.”

Evidence obtained by Channel 4 News suggests that on the day of the election, staff called voters in 10 marginal seats, including Bridgend, Gower, Clwyd South and Wrexham.

According to the Representation of the People Act, it is illegal to employ someone “for payment or promise of payment as a canvasser for the purpose of promoting or procuring a candidate’s election”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/22/conservative-party-call-centre-may-have-broken-election-law

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jun 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, General Election, Minority Government

The DUP, corruption, transparency

“The government needs to get its business through parliament – that’s what governments do. So it’s no surprise that the prime minister is looking to bolster her reduced number of MPs with the support of others, specifically the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). But at what cost to the government’s reputation for fighting corruption?

Northern Ireland doesn’t currently have an elected government. Four months ago the devolved administration collapsed in acrimony following controversy about the ‘Cash for Ash’ scandal over the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme. The assembly election which followed didn’t change the fact that politicians from both nationalist and unionist traditions needed to agree to work together to restore devolved government. This hinged on demands for the DUP’s leader Arlene Foster to stand aside for the duration of the independent public inquiry into RHI scheme, which she has refused to do.

To re-cap: the UK’s prime minister is seeking support for her government in negotiations with a party leader who lost her hold on government over serious questions about the use of public funds.

There have been several recent corruption concerns in Northern Ireland. The National Crime Agency has opened an investigation, at the request of the local police, into the sale of Northern Ireland assets owned by the Republic of Ireland’s National Assets Management Agency (NAMA). Other issues relate to the management of public contracts for housing maintenance. Meanwhile, the funding of most of Northern Ireland’s political parties remains unusually opaque. All of this is hard to assess, but we have a responsibility not to just shrug and accept such things as a normal part of modern politics.

A possible deal to support the new UK government in parliament is not the only reason why transparency over who funds Northern Ireland’s political parties now matters to British politics. The DUP was used as a channel for hundreds of thousands of pounds to support the Leave campaign during last year’s EU referendum.

In the past five years, the UK has established itself with a reputation for global leadership in the fields of tackling corruption and its counterpart, promoting open government. The UK has risen to be in the top ten of Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index, the Serious Fraud Office has acquired one of the better anti-bribery enforcement records around the world, and this country has been a leader in the Open Government Partnership.

As the curtain fell of the last parliament, the previous government passed the Criminal Finances Act, with its ground-breaking provision for Unexplained Wealth Orders to freeze the assets of kleptocrats using the UK as a safe haven. Much remains to be done but worryingly, some of the gains of recent years could now be at risk. The long road to the arrival of the Bribery Act reminds us that there are those who will seize any opportunity to lobby to weaken it, and others who in difficult times for the economy will argue we should seek to attract foreign cash irrespective of its origin. …”

https://t.co/xarFNV5EDn