Posted by

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Transparency

Comments

(First and second) jobs for the boys – easy when watchdog has no teeth

“A Whitehall watchdog was accused of an extraordinary cover-up last night over the lucrative investment job given to George Osborne’s former top aide.

Rupert Harrison, nicknamed ‘the real Chancellor’ when he was Mr Osborne’s chief-of-staff, got a six-figure salary to work for asset management firm BlackRock two years ago.

But now it has emerged that the official appointments committee, Acoba, was reprimanded for approving the job without disclosing meetings he held with the firm while he worked for the ex-chancellor.

An investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office into the apparent cover-up denounced Acoba for a ‘shortfall in public interest transparency’. And last night Labour MP John Mann said: ‘The advisory committee is not fit for purpose and its chair must now resign.

‘There is far too much cosying up to banks. It is as if BlackRock had taken shares in the Treasury.’

The row comes as Mr Osborne himself faces controversy over his new job with BlackRock, which will pay him more than £200,000 a year to work as an adviser while he is still an MP.

His appointment was also waved through by Acoba and there are growing calls for reform of the committee and the rules surrounding MPs and second jobs.

Acoba is supposed to vet ministers and senior civil servants when they take jobs in the private sector. In the past eight years it has looked at more than 370 appointments without blocking a single one. …”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4162438/Heads-roll-Osborne-storm.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

27 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Economy, Inequality, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Tax avoidance, Transparency

One tax for the rich and one for the poor … and guess who wins out

“Britain’s wealthiest people appear to get preferential treatment from HM Revenue & Customs and are not being properly pursued for outstanding tax bills, parliament’s spending watchdog has concluded.

HMRC’s failure to clamp down on rich tax dodgers is undermining confidence in the whole system, the public accounts committee said.

The highly critical report released on Friday examined HMRC’s specialist unit, which collects tax from high net-worth individuals with more than £20m. It found that “the amount of tax paid by this very wealthy group of individuals has actually fallen by £1bn since the unit was set up” in 2009 – even as tax receipts rose to £23bn.

Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said HMRC’s claims about the success of its strategy to deal with the very wealthy did not add up.

“Cosy terms such as ‘customer relationship manager’ and HMRC’s reluctance to be open add to the picture of arrangements that, while beyond the reach of ordinary taxpayers, are also ill-suited to the increasingly sophisticated methods the super rich can use to reduce the tax they pay,” she said.

“If the public are to have faith in the tax system then it must be seen to have fairness at its heart. It also needs to work properly. In our view, HMRC is failing on both counts.”

Tax officials calculated that there were about 6,500 high net-worth people in 2015-16, about one in every 5,000 taxpayers. In 2009, a specialist unit was set up to bring in more money from them.

MPs questioned the role of the specialist unit and some of its practices.

“We were not convinced by [HMRC’s] assertion that there is a clear line between giving its view on potential transactions and giving tax advice and we do not think there is enough clarity about what customer relationship managers can and cannot do,” the report says.

The committee pointed out that advice from officials to wealthy taxpayers was not recorded. “While calls from most taxpayers to HMRC call centres are recorded routinely, meetings and phone calls with high net-worth individuals are not recorded,” the report says.

The committee also highlighted concerns about “potential abuse” of image rights by top footballers and entertainers to minimise their tax liabilities. It confirmed that HMRC had “open inquiries” relating to the use of image rights by 43 footballers, 12 clubs and eight agents.

Committee members said they were appalled to learn that not all clubs were providing HMRC with the data it required under the terms of a voluntary agreement with the Premier League.

However, they praised HMRC’s managers for trying take action against the clubs. “We were encouraged by the evidence HMRC’s senior management gave to the committee on image rights and we look forward to news of meaningful action in this area.”

HMRC said the pursuit of high net-worth individuals had resulted in the collection of an additional £2.5bn in revenues. But it was unable to explain why the income tax they paid fell by 20% – from £4.5bn in 2009-10 to £3.5bn in 2014-15 – when the overall income tax take rose to £23bn.

The committee said about a third of the individuals concerned were likely to be under inquiry by HMRC for unpaid tax – with cases with a potential value of £1.9bn currently under investigation.

However, the report found HMRC had a “dismal record” when it came to prosecuting the very wealthy for tax fraud in the criminal courts.

In the five years to 31 March 2016, it completed just 72 fraud investigations into high net-worth individuals, with all but two having been dealt with using its civil powers. Only one case resulted in a successful criminal prosecution.

Of the 850 penalties issued to the very wealthy since 2012, the average charge was £10,500 – a figure the committee said was likely to be too small to act as a deterrent.

The problem was likely to become more acute because wealthy people were moving from off-the-peg tax avoidance schemes – the “high street equivalent of Primark or Next” – to bespoke “made-to-measure Savile Row” arrangements, the report says.

An HMRC spokesperson denied there was preferential treatment for the rich: “There is absolutely no special treatment for the wealthy and, in fact, we give them additional scrutiny, with one-to-one marking by HMRC’s specialist tax collectors to ensure that they pay everything they owe, just like the rest of us do. We have secured an additional £2.5bn from the very wealthiest since 2010.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/uks-super-rich-appear-to-get-special-deal-from-hmrc-says-watchdog?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality, Post-Brexit Adjustments

“We’re taking back control – but who is going to wield it?”

“Britain voted to ‘take back control’ from the EU, and Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech made the repatriation of power to Westminster a priority. But it is far from clear what kind of Brexit Britons want, nor how many of these powers will go to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather than the UK Parliament. Katie Ghose argues that with direct democracy on the rise, citizens’ assemblies would help people grasp the trade-offs at stake and have a voice in these monumental decisions”.

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/01/24/were-taking-back-control-but-whos-going-to-wield-it/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

13 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

World’s richest people discuss inequality in front of servants packed 5 to a bedroom!

“Amid sessions on inequality, hastily bussed-in hotel workers will pack five to a room on bunk beds to serve the super-rich and powerful delegates.

Hundreds of chambermaids, doormen and cocktail waiters have been flown to Davos to cater to every whim of world leaders, business executives and the super-rich who will descend next week on the Swiss Alps town for the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) celebration of capitalism.

While WEF guests, including Theresa May, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and South African president Jacob Zuma, will spend their nights in some of the world’s most luxurious hotel suites, the staff brought in to serve them will be sleeping up to five to a room in bunk beds.

The manager of the fanciest hotel in Davos – the Grandhotel Belvédère – said he had flown in 200 extra staff to work in shifts around the clock during the annual jamboree of the rich and powerful. “We normally have about 100 employees, but this week we have 300 to help us out,” Thomas Kleber, general manager of the Belvédère, said.

Kleber said the extra staff have been flown in from partner hotels across the world to help out during the Belvédère’s busiest week of the year, but because the whole of Davos is packed out with forum visitors there isn’t much space to accommodate the additional workers.

“We have a staff house, but at this time of the year it is getting cosy,” he explained. “We do have some different places with four or five people in one room. We have set up high beds with one sleeping on top and one underneath.”

Despite the contrasting sleeping arrangements, a key theme of this year’s conference will be rising inequality, which the WEF has warned is the biggest problem facing the world. The forum said the growing gap between rich and poor, which it said had helped trigger the UK’s Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s presidential victory, had led the west to “a tipping point and might now embark on a period of deglobalisation”.

The WEF has organised six sessions for Davos visitors to discuss inequality, including one entitled “Combating rising insecurity and inequality”, to be introduced by the WEF’s chief economist, Jennifer Blanke. Another session will explore rising inequality through a “visual exploration that reveals the causes and consequences of fragility in cities now and through time”.

The extra Belvédère staff include “specially recruited people just for mixing cocktails”, as well as baristas, cooks, waiters, doormen, chambermaids and receptionists.

The Belvédère is the focus of most Davos action, including top-level diplomatic meetings, the signing of billion-dollar business deals and, of course, the best parties. The WEF organisers have taken control of 85% of the hotel’s rooms to host world leaders, business people and celebrities, who this year include Grammy award-winner Shakira and Jamie Oliver.

Not even Kleber knows the identities of his guests due to security concerns, but he said in previous years that Bill Clinton, David Cameron, Ban Ki-moon and John Kerry stayed at the hotel. “There are always a lot of big famous people, big business bosses and state visitors,” he said.

The Belvédère will host more than 300 functions over five days, with the first executive coffee bar meetings starting at 6am and the last of the late-night parties not turning out until 3am. “We have all kinds of functions from breakfast meetings, politician lunches to nightcaps and cocktail receptions in every corner of the hotel. Every company and every single party has its own individual needs,” he said. “Ice sculptures are always part of it.”

ILO warns of rise in social unrest and migration as inequality widens
Kleber declined to provide any details of what parties the hotel will be hosting this year, or how much the hotel charges for hosting events. Last year, a Silicon Valley tech company was reportedly charged £6,000 for a short meeting with the president of Estonia in a converted luggage room. The hotel has also previously flown in New England lobster, and provided special Mexican food for a company that was meeting a Mexican politician.

“I assume [the staff] get good tips,” Kleber said, but “most of them are not coming for the money – they are coming to be part of a once-in-a-year event … Of course it’s hard work, but it’s a lot of fun,” he added.

Theresa May will be the only G7 leader to attend this year’s summit, which clashes with Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th US president.

Downing Street refused to state which events or parties May plans to attend in her two-day Alpine sojourn. Last year, Cameron was photographed partying tie-less with Bono, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kevin Spacey, at a lavish party hosted by Jack Ma, the founder of internet group Alibaba and China’s richest man with a $34.5bn (£28.5bn) fortune. Tony Blair, who also attended the Ma party last year, is also a regular at the glitziest events.

Travelling to Davos and finding anywhere to stay next week is very expensive, but not nearly as costly as getting an all-access pass to the schmoozing. Basic membership of the WEF and an entry ticket costs 68,000 Swiss francs (£55,400), and that will only grant access to general sessions.

To get access to all areas, corporations must pay to become Strategic Partners of the WEF, costing SFr600,000, which allows a CEO to bring up to four colleagues, or flunkies, along with them. They must still pay SFr18,000 each for tickets. All Strategic Partners have been told that at least one of their invitees must be a woman.

Strategic Partners are given access to all private sessions, and a car and driver with a special sticker allowing door-to-door pickup. Just 100 companies are able to become Strategic Partners; among them this year are Barclays, BT, BP, Facebook, Google and HSBC. Companies have privately complained about the cost of the exclusive access, which helped the WEF bring in record revenue of SFr228m last year, according to its annual report.

The most exclusive invite in town is to an uber-glamorous party thrown jointly by Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska and British financier Nat Rothschild at the oligarch’s palatial chalet, a 15-minute chauffeur-driven car ride up the mountain from Davos. In previous years, Swiss police have reportedly been called to Deripaska’s home after complaints about the noise of his Cossack band.

A former assistant to economist Nouriel Roubini has described Deripaska’s parties as “endless streams of the finest champagne, vodka, and Russian caviar amidst dancing Cossacks and beautiful Russian models”. Sandra Navidi, who was Roubini’s director of research, recalled her trip to Deripaska’s party in her book Superhubs: How the Financial Elite and their Networks Rule our World.

Many of this year’s guests, who include outgoing US vice-president Joe Biden, China’s two richest men, and London mayor Sadiq Khan, will travel on private jets to nearby airports before transferring by helicopter to escape the traffic on the approach to the picturesque town. So many jets are expected that the Swiss government has opened up Dübendorf military airfield, an 85-mile helicopter flight away, to accommodate them.

Adam Twidell, chief executive of private jet booking service PrivateFly, said there were 1,700 private jet flights in and out of nearby airports last year, and he expected about 10% more this year.

The increase in private jet flights – which each burn as much fuel in one hour as typical use of a car does in a year – comes as the WEF warns that climate change is the second most important global concern. In its annual global risks report the WEF noted that environmental concerns were more prominent in the paper, drawn from 700 experts, than ever before.

Twidell said a last-minute flight to Davos from London on a small private jet would cost about £7,860. “Clients we have booked so far include business leaders, heads of state and government individuals,” he said. “[But] it’s not just pure politicians and business people who are wanting to be seen at Davos. The parties there have become a place to be. Davos is now on ‘the circuit’ along with the Superbowl, the Champions League final and the Monaco Grand Prix. … ”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/13/army-of-staff-descends-on-davos-to-serve-wef-super-rich

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

5 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Democracy, Economy, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local), Post-Brexit Adjustments, Progressive Alliance, Scrutiny

“Brexit negotiations will fire the starting gun on the decade – so understanding these changes key for negotiations”

New IPPR report shows an accelerating wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape 2020s Britain

In a landmark report, leading think tank the IPPR has analysed factors shaping the UK up to 2030. It sets out the choices that must be made now if these changes are to lead to a fairer and more equal society.
The report highlights key facts that will change the way we live in the 2020s:

As the population grows, the UK is set to age sharply and become increasingly diverse. The 65+ age group will grow by 33% by 2030.

The global economy and the institutions that govern it will come under intense pressure as the Global South rises in economic and political importance.

Half of all large companies will be based in emerging markets;

Due to demographic trends, a structural deficit is likely to re-emerge by the mid-2020s, with adult social care funding gap is expected to hit £13 billion – 62% of the expected budget – in 2030/31;

Up to two-thirds of current jobs – 15 million – are at risk of automation.

These changes in technology have the potential to create an era of widespread abundance, or a second machine age that radically concentrates economic power;

The income of high-income households is forecast to rise 11 times faster than for low income households in the 2020s;

Climate change, biodiversity degradation, and resource depletion mean we will increasingly run up against the limits of the physical capacity of the Earth’s natural systems;

The UK has the richest region in Northern Europe but also 9 of the 10 poorest regions.

Mathew Lawrence, IPPR research fellow and report author said:

“By 2030, the effects of Brexit combined with a wave of economic, social and technological change will reshape the UK, in often quite radical ways.

“In the face of this, a politics of nostalgia, institutional conservatism and a rear guard defence of the institutions of 20th century social democracy will be inadequate.

For progressives, such a strategy will not be robust enough to mitigate against growing insecurity, ambitious enough to reform Britain’s economic model, nor sufficiently innovative to deliver deeper social and political transformation. They would be left defending sand castles against the tide of history.

“Britain’s progressives should be ambitious, seeking to shape the direction of technological and social change. We must build a ‘high energy’ democracy that accelerates meaningful democratic experimentation at a national, city and local level, and also in the marketplace by increasing everyone’s say over corporate governance, ownership and power.”

http://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/new-ippr-report-shows-an-accelerating-wave-of-economic-social-and-technological-change-will-reshape-2020s-britain

The full report is here:

Click to access future-proof_Dec2016.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

3 Jan 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Independent Councillors, Inequality, Progressive Alliance, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

“Us versus Them – The New World” – tomorrow, 9 am, Radio 4

“Us Versus Them – The New World”, Radio 4, tomorrow 9 am:

“Political movements which proclaim themselves as anti-elitist challengers to the mainstream establishment have been achieving success, from Brexit campaigners to Donald Trump and various European parties.

John Harris explores the reasons behind this international phenomenon, examines the motivating forces for the anxiety and anger of voters, and considers the response of the political establishment in this new era.”

To be followed same time next week by:

“It’s the Demography, Stupid!
The New World

How is population change transforming our world?

Think of a python swallowing a pig: a big bulge makes its way slowly down the snake from the head end to the other end. That’s a bit like what’s happened to the UK demographically.

The baby boom generation – which has changed Britain politically, culturally and economically – is now retiring. That means a large bulge of pensioners with big implications for the generations that come behind them. Other advanced economies face a similar challenge and emerging economies – most notably China – will be dealing with an ageing bulge themselves soon.

But in Africa, the bulge is at the other end. A very young generation is about to make its way through the snake.

Former government minister David Willetts, now executive chair of the Resolution Foundation, wrestles with this python of population change.

What will these challenges of both ageing and very young populations mean for the world?
What are the implications for future migration patterns, for geopolitics and for global economic growth?

This programme is part of a special week of programmes for the first week of 2017, examining major forces which are changing the world around us.”

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

18 Dec 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Freedom of Information Act, Inequality, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Life to get harder for (some) EDDC officers and (some) councillors?

“Every worker employed in public office will have to swear an oath of allegiance to British values under plans to defeat extremism.

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid said it was impossible for people to play a ‘positive role’ in public life unless they accepted basic values like democracy, equality and freedom of speech. …”

…Mr Javid’s loyalty pledge would be expected to cover elected officials, civil servants, and council workers. …

…The oath could include phrases such as ‘tolerating the views of others even if you disagree with them’, as well as ‘believing in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from abuse … a belief in equality, democracy, and the democratic process’ and ‘respect for the law, even if you think the law is an ass’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4045902/Everyone-employed-public-office-swear-oath-allegiance-British-values-plans-fight-extremism.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Nov 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Austerity cuts, Inequality, Infrastructure

Budget reality check: housing and infrastructure

Interesting that when talking about geographical inequities in the budget, the writer speaks only of the north and not the south-west.

“… As for housing, Whitehall policies remain dictated by the all-powerful builders’ lobby, craving state subsidies to increase demand and push up prices in the south-east. Hammond pledged £1.4bn for 40,000 “affordable” homes, which appears to be just £35,000 each. This is despite overwhelming evidence that Britain’s key housing resource is buried in the inefficient distribution of what is already built. The need is for smarter regulation of the existing housing stock, not more subsidy. On that, the modest new controls on rental fees are at least welcome.

Hammond had sadly inherited his predecessor’s infatuation with the great god, infrastructure. To George Osborne it was nothing short of Stalin’s “electrification of the Soviet Union”. This is despite the fact that most infrastructure is code for investment demanded by the private sector from the public sector. It is a welfare state for capitalist fast-learners.

To any chancellor, infrastructure is a gift. It is headlines today, and postpones payment until tomorrow – if not the day after. A Centre for Policy Studies report excoriates the wildness of this spending. It points out that half of China’s boom in infrastructure is now reckoned to harm growth. In Britain state capital spending is virtually uncontrolled, because it is buried in future debt. Hospital PFIs have saddled the nation with a staggering £200bn in debt. The McKinsey consultancy estimates rail projects on average go 44% over budget, and exaggerate their benefits by 50%.

Hammond this week boasted he would spend £1.1bn on roads, a genuinely pressing need. But it is ludicrously paltry, at one fiftieth of what he is about to spend on a single, upmarket railway line, the glamorous HS2. There are a dozen more worthwhile rail projects languishing. How can Hammond possibly tell health carers or the poor he is penniless? Infrastructure is political eye candy.

In his speech the chancellor rightly drew attention to the “damaging imbalance in economic growth across the whole country”. He went further, adding that “no developed economy has such a gap between its capital city and its second and third cities”. So what does he mean to do about it?

The latest Legatum prosperity index puts Britain near the top at creating prosperity, but not so good at sharing it. This is despite a not ungenerous welfare state. The reason is that sharing is not just about fiscal transfers. It reflects a deep imbalance of the country’s economic geography.

Nothing the government does is relieving this imbalance. Cities in the north of England are among the most poverty-stricken in western Europe. Their jobs flee to the south-east, followed by their young. Their local government is as indigent as their population. Media hysteria about housing and health is in reality about housing and health in the capital.

If the northern economy is depressed, London’s must be the most overheated in Europe. Yet Hammond heats it even more. He tips housing subsidies into the south-east. He spends ever more on transport in the south-east. He does nothing to decentralise public sector employment to the north. Subsidies for universities, charities and the arts are concentrated on London.

The government’s four megaprojects – Heathrow, HS2, the Oxford-Cambridge expressway and the forthcoming Crossrail 2 – are massive, and all in the south-east. They hurl public money at the wealthiest parts of the country. This merely piles pressure on housing, schools and welfare in the south-east. As for HS2, every study of high-speed rail indicates that it benefits the richer end of the corridor.

Britain’s greatest historical investment in housing and welfare is in the towns and cities of the north of England, Wales and Scotland. Houses lie empty, schools unused. Unless the government intends this to go to waste, rotting into a dependency culture and dragging down the rest of the economy, it must find ways to revive it.

Making it easier for Birmingham to get to London is not a national priority, getting fast from Manchester to Leeds is. Crossrail is not a priority, cross-Pennines is. Boosting London’s outbound tourism with more runways is not a priority, boosting northern tourism is. London does not need more bridges, the north’s ports most certainly do.

Hammond should tax London more heavily and the north more lightly. He should move London’s universities and research institutes to the provinces. He should beautify northern cities. This has nothing to do with Brexit, except that rebalancing the economy is an essential response to Brexit’s challenge. Relying on London as the nation’s workhorse is fair neither on London nor on the provinces. It is certainly not sensible.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/24/philip-hammond-britain-regional-imbalance-risky-autumn-statement

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

25 Oct 2016

Posted under

Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, NHS (local)

Care at home – only if you are well-off and pay directly

An admission that “care in the community” is failing miserably – at a time when care in community hospitals is being slashed beyond the bone.

“Nine out of 10 councils in the UK are failing to pay realistic prices to support older and disabled people in their own homes, the industry says.

The UK Home Care Association calculated the minimum price councils should be paying was £16.70 per hour, but the average was over £2 less.

Councils said they had been left with little choice given the squeeze on their finances by the government.
But the UKHCA said the situation was threatening the future of the market.

It warned agencies were struggling to recruit staff and maintain quality, noting growing numbers of organisations were handing back contracts to councils.

It comes after the Care Quality Commission said earlier in the month the sector was at “tipping point” with cuts leading to more pressure on hospitals and deteriorating performance.

Kimberley Hassall works for Somerset Care, a social enterprise which provides home care for councils across the south of England.

She says because of the pressures in the system, there is simply not enough time to do everything she wants to do, and so she has to prioritise things like medication.

“I do feel with some people you would want an extra half an hour just so you can put the washing on, change the bed or change their clothes.”

She says there is constant “juggling” to make sure she can see all her clients. “You have to be clock-watching,” she added.

Her bosses agree. Currently 80% of the work Somerset Care does is council-funded, but it is looking to shift the balance much more towards private clients in the future as the agency feels it cannot maintain the quality of care with the fees being offered. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37756433

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Oct 2016

Posted under

Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), Inequality, Rural communities, Transport (local)

“Buses make people healthier and wealthier”

Improving local bus services can boost employment and improve income, helping to reduce social deprivation, Greener Journeys has found.

It revealed that a 10% improvement in local bus services is linked to a 3.6% reduction in social deprivation across England, taking into account employment, income, life expectancy and skills.

Greener Journeys, a coalition of the UK’s leading public transport organisations, user groups and supporters, commissioned KPMG and the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds to carry out the research. It is the first to measure the impact of bus services on deprivation.

It found that if the bus services in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods across England were improved by 10%, there would be significant, tangible improvements to that area.

In this case, the improvements as estimated in the report would be: 9,909 more jobs, as a consequence of a 2.7% fall in employment deprivation; increased income for more than 22,647 people, as a consequence of a 2.8% drop in income deprivation; and 2,596 fewer years of life lost.

Also, 7,313 more people would have adult skills and there would be an increase in post-16 education of around 0.7%.

The report, The Value of the Bus to Society, considered the impact that bus services have on the ability of households to participate in economic and social activities and, ultimately, on levels on economic, social and environmental deprivation. ….

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/10/buses-make-people-healthier-and-wealthier-research-finds

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

24 Oct 2016

Posted under

Environment (local), Flooding, Inequality

Comments

1 Comment

“Flood defences ‘skewed towards wealthy families and regions’ “

“The system for allocating taxpayers’ money to flood defence schemes favours protecting wealthy families and those in the south-east, analysis suggests.

The government has said it applies a strict economic formula to deciding where funding should be spent. But an investigation by the Press Association reveals the methods to determine where funding goes focus on the value of assets protected – which could tilt the system towards richer households and those in parts of the country where house prices are higher.

It has prompted calls for a fairer system to prevent the poor being worst hit by flooding events, which are set to increase as the climate changes.

To secure funding, a flood protection scheme has to demonstrate that it delivers more in benefits than it costs to implement and maintain the defences – by calculating the economic losses avoided through protecting property and infrastructure.

The calculation looks at direct damages for homes and other buildings and their contents, clean-up costs, loss of agricultural production and commercial stock as well as indirect damages such as disruption to transport links, water, electricity or access to amenities.

To calculate losses from homes, properties are divided into 28 standard categories based on age, size and type, according to the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management manual, which along with an online handbook advises appraisers on how to assess flood defence schemes.

The costs of a given level of flooding for larger properties – for example a detached Victorian house – are considered to be up to several times greater than for smaller homes such as a 1970s semi.

People who are in a higher social class, such as upper-middle or middle class, in professional or managerial roles, are considered to have better-quality household items than working-class families, so losses from their properties are greater.

Treasury guidelines also require appraisers to “cap” or limit the value of the damages expected so they do not exceed the market value of the property – which is likely to be much higher in London and the south-east than other parts of the country.

This means the losses from properties in the south-east could be calculated as higher than elsewhere, making a flood defence scheme that protects those homes look more attractive.

The flood manual says: “This capping at market values creates regional distribution issues (eg houses within the M25 are significantly more expensive than comparable houses in the north of England) for which there is, at present, no official counter-mechanism.”

The system does have measures to level the playing field, with a greater ratio of funding from the government for schemes that reduce flood risk for homes in deprived areas than in wealthier areas, and ways in the appraisal to look at vulnerable households.

And analysis should be done where necessary or practical to give more weight to poorer households, according to Treasury guidelines.

But MP Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, said it seemed the funding formula was not “fit for purpose”.

“Whether you are rich or poor, having your home damaged by flooding is devastating – and a postcode lottery to decide who gets protection simply isn’t fair. It’s simply wrong for richer areas to get more protection than poorer ones.

“The government should urgently review this policy, and repurpose the formula to give equal protections to people’s homes no matter what their value.

“With climate change accelerating and flooding expected to become a more regular occurrence it’s crucial that the government gets this right.”

Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Guy Shrubsole said: “This is further evidence of how the poorest are hit hardest by floods – something that will only get worse as climate change worsens flooding.

“All communities at risk of flooding must be adequately defended. As climate change worsens extreme weather, communities have every right to press the government for a fairer approach to protect their families, homes and livelihoods.”

An Environment Agency spokesman said: “We know the devastating impact that flooding has on lives and livelihoods.

“We invest in flood defences where the risk is highest, wherever it is across the country and wherever it will benefit the most people and property.

“We give each scheme careful consideration – and this includes additional weighting for regional economic differences.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/24/flood-defences-skewed-towards-wealthy-families-and-regions

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

12 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Affordable and Social Housing, Democracy, Developers/ Development, Inequality, Planning System, Rural communities, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

How to kill a town

This is about Totnes, but could be any town, anywhere:

“There are three easy ways to destroy a town.

First – relax the planning laws so that developers can build what they want, where they want.

Two – build huge amounts of houses all at once, all over the fields surrounding the town; infill any green space inside; make sure the houses obscure everyone else; make sure they are all unaffordable to local people, but attractive to second home owners and buy to let investors; make sure you don’t provide any new infrastructure, no new schools, hospital places, improvements to roads, to sewers; make sure that local industries; the marina, the last dairy farm are closed down and covered in new, ugly boxes with no gardens and in regimented rows.

[Three] You’re nearly there now! Make sure that the roads are so congested with new cars that traffic can’t move and then for your final flourish, sell off its most treasured, vital area, in the case of Totnes, the market and the garden and the central car parks without which a town such as Totnes cannot function.

Wonderful, you’re there. You have successfully choked an ancient and very special place to death; you look at the million pound houses replacing the marina and it looks good; you look at the tacky tacky boxes spreading out over the hillside along the river and you smile to yourself, who needs farmers, they’re mucky – we can buy all we need from the huge industrial intensive farming block in Hampshire. Who needs a market?

The Black Prince may well have given this ancient town a charter, but that was such a long time ago, who needs history? Who needs tourism, there must be other jobs these people can do, well it doesn’t really matter, once we’ve got the locals out and replaced them almost entirely with second home owners, then we won’t be bothered with their complaints – black windows all winter are a bonus.

Look at Salcombe, 70% second homes and no trouble at all. All those ridiculous transition people with their big ideas and their trying to live responsibly, there’s no money to be made in that, what’s the matter with them.

No, lets make sure we do to Totnes what we have done so successfully in the past to Torbay and towns like Newton Abbot, there’s nothing quite so satisfying as ripping the heart out of a marvellous old place and replacing that heart with concrete…”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/how-to-kill-a-town-a-how-to-guide/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

8 Oct 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Inequality, Transparency

Comments

2 Comments

MPs who hire family must prove they are the best people for the job says watchdog

MP Hugo Swire has employed his wife Alexandra (Sasha) at a salary of between £30,000-£39,995 a year for many years.

Has anyone ever seen Mrs Swire or spoken to her in a parliamentary rather than political or personal capacity? If so, it would be great to know.

“MPs who hire their wives and children as staff will be made to prove they are the best candidate available, the new head of the expenses watchdog has indicated.

In her first interview in the job, Ruth Evans, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority [IPSA], said the public now expects “equal opportunity employment” in MPs’ offices.

Around 150 MPs – close to one in four – have a family member working in their office, while a number of prominent politicians have faced complaints about their arrangements.

Currently MPs face few limits to hiring partners or children. They are limited to hiring just one at a time and must publicly declare the situation.

“We would want to see the best possible person for the job being recruited in order to provide public value for money.

But Ms Evans hinted that when a consultation ends later this month she will decided to tighten the rules so MPs in the future must prove other better candidates were not available.

“It is a controversial area. On the one hand, public expectations have shifted and there is an expectation for equal opportunity employment. On the other hand, you do have MPs who have specific requirements,” Ms Evans said.

“It all comes down to what the job is and could we define more clearly what the responsibilities and roles are.

“Because it may be that if you can more clearly define specific roles, the answer becomes apparent as to who can take on that role.

“We would want to see the best possible person for the job being recruited in order to provide public value for money. That’s the key.”

Earlier this summer, Ms Evans became only the second ever chair of the IPSA, a watchdog created after The Telegraph’s investigation into MPs’ expenses.

During her 35-year career she has helped regulate the police, lawyers, doctors and broadcasters as well as chair two independent inquiries into healthcare, before beating around 30 rivals to get her new role.

“This isn’t about regulation, this is about encouraging them to account for the work that they’re doing in order that their constituents can be reassured.

Ms Evans is urging MPs to publish a yearly explanation about how their expenses are spent so voters better understand what is being funded.

“The more that MPs can tell their constituents how they use the public’s money and what they do in their jobs, so much the better,” she said.

“It makes sense for MPs to provide as much information as they can. We don’t want to burden them with excessive regulation.

“This isn’t about regulation, this is about encouraging them to account for the work that they’re doing in order that their constituents can be reassured.”

The first ever “annual account of expenditure” by MPs will be published in November and is designed as a way of them to get on the front foot.

For example MPs could explain how many constituents’ cases were dealt with from the salaries paid to staff or explain that unusually high office costs came only because of a change of address.

“MPs should be paid a fair wage for a job and in return MPs, in Ipsa’s view, should be accountable for the work that they do,” she said.

Ms Evans also defended allowing MPs to claim for first class travel, saying: “There’s no issue here because they only take first class travel if they can get it at the same rate as second class travel by booking ahead.

“We do not pay for first class travel that costs more than standard.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/08/mps-who-hire-family-must-prove-they-are-the-best-candidates-says/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

2 Oct 2016

Posted under

Affordable and Social Housing, Developers/ Development, Inequality

“Tory housing minister says building more council homes will increase inequality”

“Jeremy Corbyn’s pledge to dramatically increase the construction of council homes will actually increase inequality, the Conservative housing minister today claimed.

Gavin Barwell told the party’s conference that the Labour plan to build at least 500,000 council homes as part of an increase overall housebuilding to a million would increase inequality between people who owned homes and those that did not.

He told a fringe event at the Birmingham gathering on Sunday afternoon that far from solving the housing crisis, the plan and would widen “the divide in society”.

“If we carry on building at the current rate then by 2020 the average house in the south east of England will increase by about £1000 a week. That will mean normal people’s homes in Kent or Hampshire, or wherever, are going to be earning more than they’re earning,” Mr Barwell said.

“Think about the consequences of that in terms of the equality in society between people that are lucky enough to have or inherit a property – and those that don’t have property.

“That was what I think was so remarkable about what Jeremy Corbyn envisaged last week – because he envisaged a future where half of us live in council homes.

“If you’re going to build at the current rate – which is what he’s talking about – and half the people are going to go in council homes and half of them are going to own, the divide in society is only going to get wider and wider. I would have thought he cares about that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-council-housing-housebuilding-gavin-barwell-conference-live-2016-a7341946.html

However, the new Minister is a NIMBY in his own constituency:

“The new Housing Minister that Theresa May tasked to increase home-building has been accused of taking a “not in my back yard” approach, after it emerged he fought against the construction of hundreds of properties in his own constituency.

Gavin Barwell was appointed by Theresa May last month as the incoming Prime Minister pledged to “get more houses built” and solve the housing crisis plaguing parts of Britain.

But plans opposed by Mr Barwell in his own constituency of Croydon Central, despite a huge housing shortage there, would have potentially provided homes for more than 500 families in the area. …”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-council-housing-housebuilding-gavin-barwell-conference-live-2016-a7341946.html

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: