This is why:
http://makingitontheoutside.com/2015/02/20/making-the-case-for-independents/
We have written extensively about this year’s Tory Fundraising Ball (where Hugo Swire, Foreign Office Minister, made a tasteless joke about Greece)but pause awhile and recall last year’s event – which cost only £12,000 per head compared to £15,000 this year (we thought the cost of living (it up) was supposed to be going down).
Last year Hugo Swire was also auctioneer and a jar of his wife’s honey went for £15,000 – 9,000 times its actual cost. Wonga numbers.
Here for your delectation is a report of the ball from the Socialist Workers Party:
Tory ministers declined to say who they were dining with at a fancy nosh-up last week. The party refused to release the guest list for the event at the private Hurlingham members’ club in Fulham, west London.
But the gleaming Rolls-Royces and Jaguars streaming through the gates told their own story.
Tory ministers attending including Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, Matthew Hancock and David Gauke. The dress code was “glamorous” but invitees were instructed to avoid black tie. A pot of honey made by the wife of foreign office minister Hugo Swire, the evening’s auctioneer, went for £15,000—almost 9,000 times the recommended retail price.
We know a little more about last year’s event.
Almost 450 attendees at last summer’s glittering fundraising dinner had a combined wealth of more than £11 billion. They sat at tables costing up to £12,000 each.
It is not known how much was raised from last year’s event. But Electoral Commission figures show that since the ball those present have donated £5 million to the Conservatives. Of this, £1.1 million was registered in the week after the event. Table sales raised at least £250,000. There were some cheap seats available for a mere £400.
The guest list last year saw six billionaires and 15 people with a personal wealth above £100 million. The main sponsor was Shore Capital, an investment bank led by Howard Shore.
Shore has donated £450,000 to the Tories. He booked three “premier tables” and on one hosted David and Samantha Cameron.
The table also included investor Nicolas Berggruen, Slovenian tycoon Darko Horvat and property magnate Sir John Ritblat.
London mayor Boris Johnson shared a table with Andrei Borodin, an exiled Russian banker. Borodin is wanted in Russia on charges of “aggravated swindling” over an alleged £220million bank fraud.
With Claire Wright continually drawing the (largely positive) crowds to her meetings, there is still time to place your bet at Ladbrokes (with the usual caveat of being over 18 and betting responsibly).
At the moment, she is neck and neck with UKIP at 10/1. With UKIP drawing much smaller audiences and with their candidate only recently having moved into the district, maybe it’s time to show your faith in the local lady and improve her odds!
Not to mention making a bit of money for yourself in time for summer!
Online go to: Ladbrokes/Politics/General Election/Constituencies/Devon East
(NOT East Devon)
See today’s post on http://www.saveoursidmouth.com
September – December 2014
Conservative: £8,345,687
Labour: £10,888,480
Lib Dem:£3,048,434
UKIP: £1,505,055
or will you vote for the Independent parliamentary candidate (Claire Wright) and local prospective Independent councillors whose campaigns run on a shoestring with no mega-corporate donors or union contributions.
Swire (finally, after four-and-three-quarter years of avoiding the issue) meets parishioners of Clyst St Mary at the Village School o
Lots to ask him, such as:
Why has he only just expressed an interest in planning matters?
Why did he vote for the National Planning Policy Framework and its definition of sustainable?
Why has he not voiced his opposition to the developer-led planning free-for-all in East Devon encouraged and stimulated by East Devon District Council?
Why has he not stood up for areas in his constituency under threat the way Neil Parish did at Feniton?
How can he keep his eye on the East Devon ball if he is always away on Foreign Office business?
Affordable housing: why is EDDC allowing developers to drop affordable housing on their developments?
Why has the right for the public to speak at Development Management Committee meetings been vastly reduced?
What input has he had into getting EDDC’s Local Plan into being?
What effect will the “co-operation” between East Devon, Exeter and Teignbridge have on East Devon?
What is his view on “green wedges”?
I’m sure you can think of MANY more questions for him!
Then ask the same questions of the Independent Parliamentary candidate Claire Wright – his major challenger!
“Mr Osborne said: ‘There are some pretty clever financial products which enable you to – in effect – pass on your home, or the value of your home, to your son or daughter and then get personal care paid for by the state.
‘I probably shouldn’t be advocating this on television.'”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955919/I-probably-shouldn-t-advocating-Video-young-George-Osborne-advising-voters-dodge-taxes-unearthed.html
Came across this gem today from July 2013:
and the EDDC “Ribbon Fairy” staking out its land grab in November 2013:
https://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/ribbon-fairy-at-knowle/
Thanks to the correspondent who sent in two related pieces of news: firstly, that South Somerset’s Local Plan has just been declared sound: and secondly, that the Conservative parliamentary candidate has adopted a stance that would get him elected here!
‘SOMERSET: District reaches ‘major milestone’ in Local Plan process
BUT CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE QUESTIONS WHETHER HIGH HOUSING FIGURES ARE NEEDED
SOUTH Somerset District Council’s Local Plan, which will act as a guideline for development up until 2028, has been deemed “sound” by a government inspector, subject to a series of modifications.
The council’s received the inspector David Hogger’s report on the Local Plan (2006-2028) on January 8th, marking a “significant point” in the process of formally adopting the plan.
The necessary modifications listed in the report are the same as those consulted upon by the council in March and November 2014, and the document can be read in full online at http://bit.ly/17GNjCz
The report ratifies the council’s objectives to deliver 15,950 homes and 11,250 jobs by 2028, and confirms the council’s ambition for how towns, villages and rural areas will grow and change. It also endorses the policies against which the council will judge planning applications for homes, businesses, community facilities and infrastructure provision across the district.
The next step is for the council to make the proposed changes and present the final Local Plan to a meeting of full council on March 5th. Councillors will be asked to approve and adopt the plan and allow the policies to come into full effect.
Councillor Tim Carroll, deputy leader and portfolio holder for Finance and Spatial Planning, whose responsibilities include the Local Plan, emphasised the importance of the conclusions in the Inspector’s Report.
He commented: “This is a major milestone for the council. The overall conclusion of the inspector is that the SSDC Local Plan and the 12 modifications that were incorporated during the process are sound and therefore the plan itself is capable of adoption without any further change.
“It has been a lengthy process and I would pay tribute to everyone’s hard work over the last few years. We have reacted positively to the inspector’s requests to make changes and it is pleasing that these have now been confirmed. These changes have been fully debated and subject to extensive consultation.
“The plan focuses on bringing much needed homes and jobs to the district in the right number and place and having the formal sign-off by the Inspector puts the council in a stronger position to make better decisions about the future of South Somerset and to resist inappropriate or speculative applications. We will now move quickly to formally adopt the plan and that date has now been set for March 5th for a meeting of all councillors”.
Despite the inspector finding the Local Plan “sound”, Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Yeovil constituency, Marcus Fysh, has questioned the process the council has followed over the past eight years to reach this point.
He said he has “mixed feelings” about the report, as many good things are at risk from the bad, and claimed the proposed housing figure was too high, which he fears will “do a huge disservice to our district”.
‘Not as simple as it seems’
Mr Fysh commented: “It’s now about eight years and over £2.8million of public money which have been spent by South Somerset District Council attempting to make and adopt a Local Plan, a document with power in law to direct how much housing should be built and where it will go in our area.
“Having found the initial plan submitted in 2013 unsound, the planning inspector sent to our area by the Planning Inspectorate to assess the proposals has now issued his decision on a plan revised and resubmitted by South Somerset District Council last year.
“In that decision he has found the amended plan sound, although the decision has some peculiar reasoning and assertions that suggest he may not have properly applied his mind, which may tempt opponents of the plan to challenge it, and it is not as simple a matter as it seems.
“A lot appears to have been left to the concept of ‘early review’, in which the housing figures will be looked at bi-annually.
“And that gets to the nub of the problem with this plan and the process the council has followed to get to this stage: sadly, it may not be the last we hear about controversial planning decisions in our area.
“It is true that an adopted plan should give certainty to residents and developers alike, and on the face of it we should welcome that the inspector has not sent the district council right back to the drawing board.
“But the housing figure is a key problem. The council has been obsessed with keeping the overall housing requirement high, despite good evidence that it is too high, to the extent that many aspects of the plan have changed over the years, but the one thing that strangely has not, has been the 15,950 house building figure they have ‘aspired’ to over 20 years. Some say it is because they get extra revenue as a ‘New Homes Bonus’, which allows them to avoid cutting their spending cloth to suit in other areas (this amounted to £3million last year).
“Somehow they seem to have persuaded the inspector, against the evidence and legal precedent, to keep this number, which I fear will do a huge disservice to our district in the medium term.
“The problem is that the housing figure means that over 1,000 new houses per annum will need to be built in the district in each of the next five years if the district is not to be adjudged at planning appeals as not having met its target. Were the target not met, in planning law the Local Plan would be regarded as not up to date and would not apply at appeal hearings, therefore it would be ‘open season’ for developers again.
“There is only one year in the last 20 in which more than 1,000 houses were built, when the district grabbed money on offer from Gordon Brown and fast tracked developments with a mixed record at at Wyndham Park and Wincanton. The rest of the time the district has built around 500 houses per year, which gives an idea just how far short we could fall behind.
“So, it is with mixed feelings that I look at the inspector’s report. A lot of the good things in the plan are sadly at risk from the bad things. I am not against all development, but it has to be in the right place and have the right infrastructure and facilities.
“In Chard, for example, we want to get the regeneration scheme in place and not overload the roads through the town, and the plan looks to do that, but this will not apply if the district’s housing target is missed.
“In Ilminster we want development to complement the existing town, not turn the town into an over-built dormitory. Over-development is a risk if the housing target is missed, a recipe for even more unhappiness on all sides of the town’s development issues.
“Crewkerne and Wincanton have been told they may get more housing, depending on early review by the council, and would lose control if the housing target is missed.
“And Yeovil, which needs to get more people living downtown to regenerate and support its businesses, shops and restaurants, but doesn’t on the real numbers require yet more big urban extensions, faces yet more bolt-on green field developments that do little to upgrade the town’s infrastructure. That process would just accelerate and be even less controlled if the house build target is not met, with consequent problems for school places, traffic and health care availability.
“South Petherton faces similar pressures that could get even worse.
“One thing is clear to me; the old thinking about development in our area is stale. A huge opportunity has been missed locally to plan for development in many areas that will solve problems rather than create them.
“I do hope later this year local Conservative councillors may be in a position to review these matters and put proper solutions in place, in control of the district council. To do that we need to vote for them though. I will certainly give them my full support.” ‘
William Hill confirmed that a customer in Devon has placed 23 bets totalling £23,400 on a hung parliament and will win £51,000 if he’s right.
Now, wouldn’t that make an Independent East Devon MP a powerful figure!
General principles:
Publicity by local authorities should:
• be lawful
• be cost effective
• be objective
• be even-handed
• be appropriate
• have regard to equality and diversity
• be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity
Publicity during periods of heightened sensitivity
33. Local authorities should pay particular regard to the legislation governing publicity during the period of heightened sensitivity before elections and referendums – see paragraphs 7 to 9 of this code. It may be necessary to suspend the hosting of material produced by third parties, or to close public forums during this period to avoid breaching any legal restrictions.
34. During the period between the notice of an election and the election itself, local authorities should not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views or proposals in such a way that identifies them with any individual members or groups of members. Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published by local authorities during this period unless expressly authorised by or under statute. It is permissible for local authorities to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.
35. In general, local authorities should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters. However this general principle is subject to any statutory provision which authorises expenditure being incurred on the publication of material designed to influence the public as to whether to support or oppose a question put at a referendum. It is acceptable to publish material relating to the subject matter of a referendum, for example to correct any factual inaccuracies which have appeared in publicity produced by third parties, so long as this is even-handed and objective and does not support or oppose any of the options which are the subject of the vote.
As you will have noticed, the East Devon Alliance has grabbed the headlines, and been prominently featured in the local press and radio over the past week or so.
Now this invitation has come from EDA, for any EDWatchers who might like to follow EDA news for themselves:
There are 4 options:
a. Subscribe to emails on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
b. Subscribe to RSS on the site – http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk
c. Like EDA on Facebook – EastDevonAlliance
d. Follow on Twitter – EDevonAlliance
And if anything specially grabs EDWatchers’ attention, it can be shared with neighbours and local friends by:
a. Forwarding the email
b. Clicking the share buttons on the EDA website
c. Sharing EDA posts with friends on facebook.
d. Re-tweeting.
……There seems to be lots going on!!
The quote from Cllr Susie Bond comes from this post on her blog: https://susiebond.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/local-plan-update-well-sort-of/
But strangely no mention of the Local Plan (nor of the precise costs of EDDC’s planned move from Knowle ) from Cllr Bond’s colleagues representing Sidmouth, in their current leaflet to residents (mentioned on our website yesterday) . EDWatchers can view the leaflet’s two pages here: In Touch Feb 2015 and here In Touch East Devon residents’ survey. Feb 2015
MPs constituencies can be a very puzzling thing and can lead to strange results in elections, and especially the forthcoming district and Parliamentary elections which appear to be the most volatile for decades.
For example:
The East Devon constituency (current MP Hugo Swire) includes a chunk of inner Exeter (St Loyes) which comes under Exeter City Council and where your neighbours directly across the street have Ben Bradshaw (Labour) as their MP.
If you live somewhere like Stoke Cannon then your district council is East Devon but your MP is Mid-Devon’s Mel Stride.
If you live in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, your MP (Neil Parish, farmer) has a totally rural community except for the coastal town of Seaton (with Axmouth and Beer) which has quite different problems to the rest of the constituency.
Uplyme, in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency and under East Devon District Council is geographically and psychologically closer to Lyme Regis (West Dorset)
Could be very interesting!
Two thorough articles in today’s Midweek Herald, on some burning East Devon issues, in case readers missed them in our earlier posts:
In an article entitled “Labour closes its eyes and pinches its nose”, published in yesterday’s Sunday Times, Camilla Cavendish wrote principally about the problems of poor leadership in Rotherham Council. A Council she describes as an uncountable, one-party state, which has now had to be taken over by Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary. She goes on, however, to make this more general observation on the disconnect between local and national politics:
“This [the takeover] is a massive intervention in democratic institutions. But there has been no outcry. For local democracy is getting thinner and thinner. Fewer and fewer people vote in local elections, especially if the outcome is a foregone conclusion. And fewer and fewer MPs sit on local councils. In 1960 about a quarter of British MPs’ were also local councillors; now it is fewer than 1% . This is at odds with France, Finland and Spain, where most national politicians sit on their local authority. This gives them both a greater stake and more say. Working in Lambeth, I saw how hard the indefatigable MP Kate Hoey had to work sometimes to exert leverage over the council on behalf of voters.”
“The disconnect between local and national politics has made councils defensive and MPs reluctant to interfere……. “
You are old enough to pay tax, old enough to join the armed forces, paying back your student loans for many years and may want to get on the property ladder.
If you don’t vote you won’t be influencing your future hopes and aspirations.
According to the Demos think-tank, England’s safest seats (of which East Devon is considered to be one) are mostly men and by people from outside area they represent. Out of 97 MPs with a 15,000 plus majority, 15% are women and only 39 have any previous close connection to the area they represent.
Hugo Swire: Conservative – not one of the 97 but a significant majority (6,000 plus)
Male
No previous connection to East Devon before becoming its MP – but was at Eton at the same time as David Cameron
Clare Wright Independent:
Female
Born, raised, educated and worked in the area all her life and with family settled here and child in local state school, currently a district and county councillor
Andrew Chapman UKIP
Male
Moved into the area a few months ago to contest the seat – no previous connection (retains family home in Shropshire)