Good to see EDDC Independents Leader Ben Ingham talking today at the Green Party South-West conference on the Local Enterprise Partnership devolution fiasco and at a workshop about Green and Independent co-operation.
This is the way politics should and will go.
A few things to note:
Three-quarters of the video (3 of its 4 minutes) were taken up by the LEP’s “experts” talking about themselves or to each other.
Although three non-experts spoke in the video, one of them may have been the cafe owner as she seemed somewhat non-committal about the event and the video cut to someone making coffee which implied it might have been her.
Of the two customers interviewed, one was pleased that she had got 2 hours of advice, even though she had apparently booked a single one-hour session, as another “expert” was “unexpectedly free” to talk to her.
The other customer remarked how the “experts” were “all over me when I walked in” – presumably as they had a lot of spare time!
A quick glance at the video (at about the 2 minute 47 sec point) shows 7 people, of whom at 4 are earlier identified the “experts”, and two of the customers whom were featured in the interviews with one other unidentified person.
Oh, and the size of the watch on the right wrist of one of those experts has to be seen to be believed – it weighed him down!
Agusta Westland not doing too well according to this article. One of our Local Enterprise Partnership board members is Simon Barker, Business Director of Agusta Westland.
And no doubt, if the Government does mount a rescue package via a ” ministerial directive” for Agusta Westland, it will be via our Local Enterprise Partnership and Simon Barker ….
Westlands burnt by Boeing
thetimes.co.uk, May 29 2016
“American giant Boeing is set to win the contract to rebuild the army’s Apache helicopters, in a blow to Westlands in Somerset.
The defence secretary Michael Fallon is expected to rubber-stamp the £2bn contract ahead of the Farnborough air show in July. Britain’s Apache fleet was built in Yeovil by what was then AgustaWestland, under licence from Boeing, but 50 of the attack helicopters will be rebuilt by the American defence company in Arizona.
Westlands is understood also to have missed out on a contract to make gearboxes and blades for Apaches used by armed forces around the world. Negotiations are ongoing about giving the company support work on the British Apache revamp, but sources said that may require a ministerial direction from Fallon. The government is considering handing Westlands a contract to develop an unmanned military helicopter, in an effort to be seen to be keeping helicopter manufacturing alive in Britain.”
Easy to see what benefits our LEP brings to its board members (including Midas, see post yesterday) but not at all easy to see what is in it for the rest of us.
“One of John’s proudest achievements was being elected Leader of Somerset County Council in May 2012 and has made it his number one priority to listen and consult with residents on the future of the County.”
http://www.somersetconservatives.org.uk/person/councillor-john-osman
That’s your number one priority down the pan then, John, but, of course, that won’t worry you.
The staggering arrogance leaves Owl stunned (but not for long). Though, no doubt the Government, Mr Hindley and the LEP see no problem.
“The Millfields Trust’s state-of-the-art Genesis building received the Community Benefit award at the prestigious RICS South West Awards 2016 held at Cheltenham Racecourse. …
… The pioneering, ERDF and Heart of the South West LEP’s Growing Places funded building was designed to create employment and serve the local community in one of the most deprived areas of Plymouth. It comprises of flexible workspaces, meeting rooms, a full height internal atrium and Plymouth’s first living walls. …
… “Steve Hindley, Chair of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSW LEP) said: “Genesis is a great example of development that benefits the local environment as well as the community by providing much-needed employment space with and original and eye-catching architectural design. The project is an exemplar of the LEP’s Growing Places Fund, which is designed to unlock growth and create new jobs.
“As Chair of Midas – the contractor for the project – as well as being Chair of the LEP – which has the strategic mission to generate funding – I am doubly proud to be part of this new asset to Plymouth’s city-scape.”
“Andy Burnham, who wants to be Labour’s Manchester mayoral candidate, has called on George Osborne to take action over what he called a £1bn black hole in the northern powerhouse initiative.
Analysis of public services finances across Greater Manchester has found that a £1bn shortfall would emerge over the course of this parliament. Central government grants to the region’s 10 councils will fall by £836m between 2015 and 2020, and Manchester city council is set to lose £163m by 2019/20, according to Burnham.
The region’s NHS trusts face a combined deficit of £115m, the budget of Greater Manchester police will fall by an estimated £34m over the five years, and post-16 education funding has been cut by £2m this year.
Burnham told Osborne: “You have one more budget before the new mayor takes office to fix this hole in our roof and balance the books. Your legacy as chancellor can go in two ways: as the one who truly changed the fortunes of the north; or one who perpetrated the most elaborate con in British political history. I urge you to choose the former and work with me to make it a success.”
The former health secretary said that given the north’s overcrowded roads and poor rail links, it was impossible to conclude that Crossrail 2 – which would run diagonally across London – was the UK’s highest strategic transport priority.
“I call on you to look again at this and urgently allocate the funding for a modern, high-speed rail system linking the cities of northern England,” Burnham said.
“I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that your commitment to the north is real. But people here are not daft – they now want actions, not clever slogans.”
In his budget in March, Osborne committed £60m to develop an improved east-west rail link to reduce journey times from 50 minutes to about 30 minutes between Leeds and Manchester, as well as £75m to develop plans for an 18-mile road tunnel under the Peak District to cut journey times between Manchester and London.
However, funding has only been put forward to draw up plans rather than as any commitment to building either project.”
Government Response to CLG Select Committee Report: “Devolution: the next five years and beyond”
Many, many recommendations, few of which the government is taking on board.
Worth the read.
For example:
“Recommendations 15 / 16:
for devolution to take root and fulfil its aims, it needs to
involve and engage the people it is designed to benefit. There has been a consistent very significant lack of public consultation, engagement and communication at all stages of
the deal-making process. This is due to areas having limited time in the run up to the 4 September deadline. The Government drove the first wave of devolution deals through
at a rapid pace (considered in more detail in the next section) which meant there was no opportunity for engagement with residents, or for residents to have their say on the principle of devolution or the framework of the specific deal proposed in their area.
Despite this, we believe that local leaders could have communicated more effectively and extensively with their residents about the deal process, the contents of the deal and how it would affect them. It should, for example, have been clear to any citizen what their elected leaders were seeking to secure for the area in negotiating a devolution deal with the government.
In addition, deals involving complex negotiations between national and local politicians do not lend themselves to public engagement However, from now on, efforts should be made to engage, consult and communicate with the public at all stages of the process—in the preparation of proposals, their negotiation and following agreement.
Strategies to involve the public may include citizens’ juries, public meetings and, within the NHS and local government, staff engagement sessions. Once a deal is entrenched and its reforms have had the chance to take effect, the public should be consulted on their experience of its practical effects.
We think it is too late to engage the public only once a deal has been agreed. While it is reasonable that the actual negotiations are not open to the public, steps should be taken to inject more openness into the process by publishing on the relevant authorities’ websites:
• Devolution proposals and the Government’s counter-offers, within a reasonable time of them being made;
• An outline of what is being negotiated; and
• Drafts of the deal, and the text of the final deal.
The Government should also publish the criteria it uses to assess and agree proposals so local areas can refer to these when drawing up their devolution bid. A similar level of transparency should continue to be maintained once the deal has been agreed.”(Paragraph 56)
(Paragraph 53)
and here is the government response:
“The Government agrees that devolution needs to involve and engage the public, and would see continued value in engagement once a deal has been agreed. Deals are iterative (as evidenced by the progress made by Greater Manchester) and the Government’s expectation would be that elected representatives in the local area should seek the views of their constituents through whatever means they deem appropriate.
The Government would expect devolution deals, negotiated between locally elected leaders and central government, to reflect what people in the local area want and need. Additionally, when establishing, or amending, a Combined Authority there is a statutory requirement to hold a public consultation, while local authorities in deal areas also remain subject to the Best Value Duty with its associated requirements around consultation related to commissioning in particular.
The Government does not share the Committee’s view that there should be assessment criteria to agree deals. This is because there is no blueprint for devolution proposals; the only stipulation is that the governance arrangements should be commensurate with the powers being devolved. All devolution deals are bespoke and will vary depending on the asks from local areas.
All of the devolution deals agreed to date include clear commitments from Government and local areas on implementing, monitoring, evaluating and ensuring accountability, and the text of all agreed deals has been published online. The Government is committed to continuing to publish deals as more are agreed.”
Click to access CM9291-_Select_Comittee_Response.pdf_-_Print.pdf
Hinkley Point: French unions put nuclear plant’s future in doubt
The future of the planned new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point remains in doubt as key French unions still oppose the project, BBC Newsnight has learned.
EDF, which would build the plant, had delayed a decision on the project in Somerset until the summer while it consulted French union representatives.
The company, which is 85% French state-owned, had hoped to win support from a committee of workplace representatives.
But the committee said staff had not been reassured about the plant’s costs.
Trade union representatives hold six of the 18 seats on EDF’s board.
‘Several reservations’
Jean-Luc Magnaval, secretary of the Central Works Committee that EDF consulted with, told Newsnight that staff feared the cost of the project would cripple EDF.
He said: “We have reservations about several aspects of the project: organisation, supply chain, installation, and procurement.
“The trade unions are unlikely to give their blessing to the project in its current state.
“We are not reassured by the documents we have received. We have been given a marketing folder, not the full information we require.
“We got the documents on 9 May – we are sending EDF a request for more explanations.”
On Monday French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron wrote to MPs on Westminster’s energy select committee to reassure them the French government remained committed to the project.
But Mr Macron added: “It is also necessary, in the interests of all, that EDF follows due process before committing itself to an investment of this magnitude.
“The consultation of the Central Works Committee brings legal robustness on the decision.”
Chinese backing
EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz also told MPs on the committee that he did not know when a final decision on the project would be made.
Earlier this month, French President Francois Hollande said he would like the project to go ahead.
Hinkley Point C, which would provide 7% of the UK’s total energy requirements, had originally been meant to open in 2017.
But it has been hit in recent months by concerns about EDF’s financial capacity to handle the project.
While one third of the £18bn capital costs of the project are being met by Chinese investors, Hinkley Point would remain an enormous undertaking for the stressed French company.
In March, Thomas Piquemal, EDF’s chief financial officer, quit after his proposal to delay the project by three years was rejected by colleagues.
In April, French Energy Minister Ségolène Royale also suggested the project should be delayed.
Much of this scepticism is the consequence of problems in constructing nuclear power stations to similar designs elsewhere.
A plant being built by EDF at Flamanville in Normandy, northern France, has been hit by years of delays and spiralling costs.
‘Red line’
Furthermore, since the company is nationally owned, the decision is also subject to political pressure.
A former energy adviser to the French government told Newsnight that while EDF did not technically need the backing of the trade union representatives, it would be very difficult, politically, to go ahead without it.
Yves Marignac said: “Going for it would for the government be crossing a red line in their relationship with the trade unions, which would make it really difficult for the government, particularly with the perspective of the next general election when they will need to get some support of the trade unions.
“Making a decision for the project is not possible right now. The political costs and the costs for EDF’s financial situation are too high right now.”
Councillor involvement generally
It is surprising that engagement with local councillors seems to have been so patchy.
By and large, councillors have been shut out of the process, with even overview and scrutiny members having to rely on periodic (and infrequent) updates from of officers to keep themselves up to speed.
This is the fault of the system, and the framework (or lack of it) for negotiation between local government and central Government, designed as it is to dissuade the wider sharing of information beyond a carefully selected group.
Even where attempts have been made to engage backbench councillors in a more consistent way (for example, in Norfolk and Suffolk, the LGiU was contracted to travel the area convening awareness-raising seminars) this has principally been about information-sharing rather than dialogue.
Occasional reports to OSCs [Overview and Scrutiny Committee(s)] clearly have not been enough, merely for non-executive councillors to note progress, rather than being part of discussions, negotiation or provision of checks and balances. The role of O&S has been marginalised through perceptions around the complexity, secrecy or urgency of deal making.
This is dangerous for three reasons.
Firstly, the buy-in of a wider range of councillors is crucial to success.
Secondly, the involvement of councillors – beyond receiving updates – is important in ensuring that deals, once they are done, are robust enough to succeed. This robustness is something that can only be tested through effective scrutiny and oversight.
Thirdly, changes in personnel can have a significant effect on the direction of negotiations. Without wider buy-in and dialogue, following an election (or even a by-election) resulting in a change in political control, or any other internal group matter that could result in a new leader, carefully constructed agreements or negotiations could begin to unravel.
It is instructive to bear in mind that in our own engagement with the public, and through the Citizens’ Assemblies, members of the public expressed the strong view that councillor scrutiny should play a critical role in the devolution process.
There are probably a range of different mechanisms that councils, individually and collectively, need to deploy to involve their councillors. Importantly, such involvement needs to be planned – following the sequence set out in the main body of the report above – to ensure that councillors have a stake at every stage in the process. These mechanisms are likely to be:
Engagement within Cabinet. Because negotiations are being led by Leaders, Cabinet members are likely to need frequent updating;
Engagement by leaders within political groups. To secure political buy-in from members of the same party;
Engagement between political groups. Frequent discussion between the leaders of majority and minority parties in local councils to share information, discuss concerns and head off disagreement and discord;
Engagement with scrutiny.
Sharing information, inviting comment and brokering discussion
– as we have discussed, this also provides a formal check and balance on the development and implementation of devolution deals;
Engagement amongst all members.
Other than at full Council, there needs to be sustained engagement with all members – at member briefings, a discussion event specifically convened for discussion of devolution issues, or similar.
All the forms of engagement listed above are probably required, and need to be planned for, for each stage in the sequence of the devolution process. If this seems time-consuming or resource intensive, it has to be placed against the risks of devolution deals or negotiation processes unravelling for want of broad buy-in.
This engagement needs to be underpinned through the provision and use of high-quality evidence. Significant amounts of data will exist between the wide range of stakeholders involved in discussions. Councillors can use this to consider what they suggest about the outcomes that are planned to be delivered, and what this might mean about how governance works on the ground.”
A report by Totnes (Green) DCC councillor Robert Vine
“Here’s the webcast of the County Council Annual Meeting where the Leader, John Hart, has a serious rethink about whether to keep supporting the Devolution Bid. Watch from 01:04:00 to 01:12:45 or click “13: Cabinet Member Reports” in the right margin.
In the Minutes it says “Councillor Hart commented, as requested by Councillor Greenslade, on progress with the HOSW devolution bid and advised that a response to repeated requests for a meeting with the Minister to discuss the HOSW bid was still awaited. He recognised the increasing concerns expressed over the imposition of a Mayoral system about which as yet there was no clarification and reiterated his view that any final proposal must be beneficial to Devon.”
In the webcast he is a lot more outspoken…
Council – Thu, 12th May 2016 – 2:15 pm – Devon County Council Webcasting
http://www.devoncc.public-i.tv/core/share/open/webcast/0/0/0/222091/222091/webcast/0/0/0
Indeed Councillor Hart is scathing about current devolution deals – he calls them “an absolute shambles”, says he can see nothing good in current deals that ALL require a Mayor to release money (around £30 million) which is guaranteed only for 5 years [though documents are drafted for 30 years].
He said he had three times asked for a meeting with the Minister and only after doing TV interviews about his concerns, was he telephoned by one of the Minister’s Special Advisers ( who was, he said, probably about 25 and with two degrees and nothing else) offered a 15 minute meeting in London. He refused it and said he would not make the journey for less than a 30 minute meeting.
He did a good resume of devolution deal fiascos from Derbyshire to Bristol via East Anglia, all of them falling at hurdles that Owl, and many others, had seen coming as soon as we learned what was going on.
He mentioned business rates – the raising of which was another carrot being dangled at LEPs, but pointed out they could only be raised by a maximum 2p in the pound and only if the business community agreed.
It seems Councillor Hart will proceed no further without much more assurance about what’s in it for Devon.
One glaring omission from his statement was public engagement, which he did not mention at all.
Let’s hope he cannot be bought off by “weasel words”.
Unlike our own council leader who, given responsibility for housing (i.e developers) couldn’t sign us away quick enough.
Could it be that jobs-for-the-boys really IS jobs for the boys?
“Although Manchester city council now has more female councillors than men for the first time in its history, nine out of 10 leaders in Greater Manchester’s constituent councils are men. The lonely woman is Jean Stretton, who took over Oldham in January. She is the first Labour leader of a Greater Manchester council since Baroness Bev Hughes ran Trafford for two years in the 90s.
“I think it does matter that no women seem to want to be mayor,” she said, while ruling herself out on the grounds that she has only just got her dream job. “I suppose we still might get someone putting herself forward, but it’s very late in the day [nominations for Labour in Greater Manchester close on 10 June]. I think that, while we do have some very good women MPs in Greater Manchester, they are mostly quite new to their seats and perhaps feel their futures lie in Westminster.”
In the 2015 general election, 191 women MPs were elected, 29% of all MPs and a record high. As of 2013, 32% of local authority councillors in England were women.
Stretton is optimistic that change is afoot. “When I first became a councillor in 2003, frequently the only other woman at a meeting would be taking the minutes. Now, my cabinet is fairly evenly split on gender. I’ve actually been criticised in the local paper for relying on an ‘old girls’ network’. Things are definitely changing for the better. It will just take time for those changes to filter up to the top.”
Jones and Ledbetter … again, now taking charge of local transport, including rail and road. Is there no pie these two people don’t now have their fingers in? Will all roads and rail end up at Hinkley Point? Will there be anything left for county and district councils to decide?
http://www.heartofswlep.co.uk/ltb-membership
Here is Jones’s Register of Interests:
Click to access ltb%20declaration%20of%20interesttj.pdf
Unfortunately the link to Ledbetter’s interests is not live and it took 10 minutes of digging through the DCC website to find this scrawled document:
http://democracy.devon.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=159&T=6
Can people be too involved in too many things?
“Frustration is mounting about the lack of Government support for Devon and Cornwall rail improvements, as ministers pledge billions of pounds for schemes in London.
Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw accused ministers of having “absolutely no intention” to keep its promises to invest “record” amounts in the region’s rail.
While businessman Tim Jones warns South West firms are losing confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver. …
… Chairman of Devon and Cornwall Business Council, Tim Jones, added that local businesses are growing “frustrated” with the Government’s “regurgitated” assurances. “Business people are saying: we’ve read this all before, we’re bored of this… we do not have confidence,” he said.
The Peninsula Rail Task Force, which is overseeing the region’s bid for rail investment, has now published its draft consultation outlining proposals for the network. Chairman Andrew Leadbetter said the group has have been “pressing the point” that the South West has the lowest investment per head of all regions.
“But that in itself is not a compelling reason to invest. We have to demonstrate investment in the rail network will yield a return,” he said. “We are competing against other regions so I would urge everyone to support the Task Force in making the case and securing our rightful share of funding.”
Er, actually Tim and Andrew it’s YOU and your pals of the Local Enterprise Partnership we don’t have confidence in. You are just as guilty – perhaps more so – for having your cosy jobs for you (development and nuclear) pals and keeping everything you do, spend and acquire secret.
Criticising your pals further up the greasy pole ( or the old excuse that it’s all the previous government’s fault) doesn’t absolve you – you are just a bit lower down on that same pole and just as responsible for the mess we are in.
Post in Oxford University Political blog. This is specifically about the north of England but could be about anywhere where “devolution” is being rushed through at break-neck speed:
“From the beginning, it seems that both the term ‘devolution’ and the processes behind it – in contrast to the more bottom up approach in Scotland – have been conceived by and for Oxbridge politicians, local authorities and suited-and-booted business representatives. This has served to exclude and disengage the public, as the agenda is often seen and perceived as something remote from our daily lives. Indeed, it is fair to say that a lot of citizens have never even heard about the Northern Powerhouse, City Deals or devolution.
Like too many things in this country, these are policies conjured up in the corridors of Westminster, in local authorities’ offices, behind closed doors, or at exclusive events attended by the few. Imagine: attending the ‘Northern Powerhouse Conference’ held in February 2016, costing only £450: a real bargain for a programme which focussed only on business, with no inputs from civil society and third sector organisations, minority groups, or young voices.
Beyond this, the way in which City Deals have been put on the agenda seems only to reinforce the idea that devolution in the North has little to do with democracy, and more with the needs and wills of politicians. Indeed, none of the Deals that have been signed so far in Northern city regions such as Greater Manchester and Sheffield have been involved in any real process of consultation with the public from the outset. Of the elites, by the elites, for the elites, one would be tempted to dare say. …
… STOP TALKING TO EACH OTHER, START TALKING WITH EVERYONE ELSE
If we are truly devolving power to local people, where are the people? Charities and the third sector have been almost entirely excluded. Grassroots groups have been ignored. Minority groups, communities of colour, young people – not at the table.
From the beginning, there has been a politics of division and neglect – dividing rural voters from urban ones or squabbling between northern local authorities, or everyone from the political elite doing their best to either ignore outside voices or proclaim their own powerlessness in the face of Whitehall and Osborne.
This is not to say that local authorities in the North are to be ‘blamed and shamed’. They have been between a rock and hard place, with the government snapping at their heels, all the way through the process that led to City Deals, and in the end they did what they had to do: accept what was on offer, so as to avoid their cities and economies falling further behind the rest of the country.
However, at the end of the day, in order to work the new structures that will emerge from the Deals (including elected City Region mayors) will have to take root in the local communities, and have the people behind them—at the polls in local and city region elections; but also on a daily basis.
Local politics could, and should, play a key part in this, as an agent of change—but to achieve such a goal local authorities need to turn their attention not only to what the government wants, but also to their citizens’ voices. In many ways, last week’s local elections were a warning, shining light on how a continuing disconnect at local level could undermine the whole devolution agenda from within.
So we need more people involved, not because it is more just, or out of fairness, but because it is the only way to make sure the new processes actually function in the long term, and regional democracy – and the systems and communities it is supposed to improve – becomes a reality rather than a dream.
Changing the North can’t be done without the people who live and work there getting involved and participating in such a process. We need organizations and institutions to come together and imagine a new style of politics, one which is pluralist and inclusive, and trusts and empowers communities.
We need to engage young people, working people and communities of colour in new and exciting ways. The real ‘revolution’ of devolution as a means to achieve regional democracy ultimately rests in this, and not in the politics of catchphrases heralded by the Chancellor.”
So easy when you have the will. Alas, our councils and our Local Enterprise Partnership put developers well before local people and pay lip-service to affordable housing, mostly letting developers off-the-hook to build the most expensive homes in the most expensive (green) places.
“… At the start of his second week in office, the Labour mayor told the Guardian he wanted more than 50% of homes on some new housing developments to be affordable. He said that did not mean 80% of market rent, as affordable is defined by the government, but far lower social rents or “London living rent”, which is pitched at a third of average incomes.
Khan also announced he was considering making it a condition of planning permission that new homes were marketed locally for at least six months before they could go on sale to foreign investors.”
A Devon County Council website cites two recent avenues for funding:
“Learning and Skills: Developing Higher Level Skills (European Social Fund)
Posted on 11 May 2016
A total of £2.8m ESF funding is available in the Heart of the South West LEP area to develop and deliver a range of activities to support those least likely to enter higher education. There is also an expectation that … Continue reading →
Skill for Growth: supporting SME Development (European Social Fund)
Posted on 11 May 2016
ESF funding is available for projects in the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area for projects which support high-level skills and higher-value employment in the Smart Specialisation areas of economic activity through improving the labour market … Continue reading →
Now, doesn’t that rather give you the impression that our LEP has at least £2.8m – and maybe more at its disposal, thanks to the EU, to dispense in Devon and Somerset and that you should negotiate with them for a share of it?
Unfortunately, not.
Reading on you see that, yes, these funds are available from the European Union – but you can go direct to the EU to apply for them – with no guarantee of success and without ever involving the LEP or Devon County Council.
It seems that, increasingly, wherever funds are available that just happen to include Devon and Somerset, from whatever source and whatever the wider geographical area, it is attributed to somehow being available thanks to our Heart of the Southwest Local Enterprise Partnership and gives the impression that they are somehow involved in both acquiring and disseminating said moolah.
Whereas the reality is that they, and Devon County Council, are simply acting as publicists of grant funding information via their web pages from third parties with no direct links at all to the LEP. Something anyone can do.
Owl could advertise that X amount of money is available in Owl’s hunting ground …
But is this added value? Is it transparent?
“On devolution:
“This is devolution by consent. This is not a top-down dictatorial decision from Westminster about how areas should be considered.
“It is saying to areas: you come forward with the best plan that local people support and local councils support, and the faster you do that, the faster we can act. But we don’t want to crowbar people into something against their will.”
So, Dave doesn’t even know that we can’t support something that
(a) we haven’t been consulted about – ever
and
(b) happens in secret anyway.
Bottom of the class there, Dave
On mayors as a condition of devolution deals:
“If you’re going to have extra powers and extra resources, you need to have the governance in place so that local people feel they can control it.
“There’s a strength in having mayors because you can re-elect a mayor that is doing a good thing, and chuck out a mayor that is doing a bad thing. So we do believe in reforming governance at the same time as doing devolution.”
Er, same again Dave: we are just wheeled in at the last-minute as voting fodder – and four years is a hell of a long time to wait if we find we have Local Enterprise Partnership backed dimbo – or worse, an opportunist out to make a quick buck for a bunch of very close mates.
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Q-PM-dictatorship/story-29270503-detail/story.html
“Decentralisation: Issues, Principles and Practice
University of Newcastle
“… The ad hoc, piecemeal and rapid process of decentralisation in England is generating a new institutional landscape.
Since 2010, institutions have been abolished as the regional tier was dismantled, new institutions have emerged, existing institutions reformed and new areas of public policy been brought together creating new arrangements involving Combined Authorities and LEPs with metro mayors to come as well as connections between new policy areas, for example health and social care (Figure 6). Echoing historical experience in England, this further episode of institutional churn, disruption and hiatus has reproduced many longstanding issues including loss of leadership, capacity and momentum as well as instability and uncertainty with negative impacts on growth and development.
The new institutional landscape is raising serious questions of accountability, transparency and scrutiny – the ‘achilles heel’ of decentralisation. Decisions are being made by a narrow of cadre of actors behind closed doors, involving a mix of elected politicians, appointed officials and external advisors.
Deals and deal-making are being conducted, negotiated and agreed in private by a small number of selected participants in closed and opaque circumstances and in a technocratic way. Decisions involving large sums of public money and long-term financial commitments are being taken without appropriate levels of accountability, transparency and scrutiny.
Although uneven in different places, many institutions and interests in the wider public, private and civic realms feel left out and marginalised. These include business and their representative associations (alongside the uneven involvement of LEPs), environmental organisations, further and higher education, trade unions, and the voluntary and community sector.
Equalities and representation concerns are evident in relation to gender and diversity. The wider public knows little about decentralisation of the governance system and is becoming increasingly disengaged and lacking faith in the ability of politics, public policy and institutions to make their lives better. Those better informed and engaged worry that power and control has simply shifted a little from elites in central national government to those at the local level.
Concerns that the decentralisation efforts in England failed in the early 2000s due to the limited nature of decentralisation on offer and lack of public engagement and support are mixed with fears that the current process risks repeating this mistake.
Accountabilities are lacking, weak and under-developed. Wider discussion, scrutiny and challenge by the public and/or relevant institutions have been largely absent. Anxieties are being articulated that the exclusive, opaque and technocratic way decentralisation is being conducted is reinforcing such concerns.
More inclusive, transparent and accountable ways of doing decentralisation need to be found, developed and adapted to local circumstances. Means need to be explored to allow and enable a wider set of voices to be heard and more interests and opinions considered in order to make decentralisation accountable and transparent and more sustainable.
International evidence illustrates that inclusive deliberation and dialogue supports better and more robust decision-making for public policy and more effective and lasting outcomes27. Decentralisation must not be seen as an end in itself but as a means to better economic, social and environmental outcomes for people and places across England and the UK. …”
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/curds/publications/documents/DECENTRALISATIONIssuesPrinciplesandPractice.pdf
“Your editorial (Local parties should grab the chance to reshape politics, 4 April) misses a very important trend in local government. Ordinary voters have been effectively disenfranchised by the cabinet system operated by local authorities, to the extent that dissent, even within members of majority parties, has been crushed. Residents are now looking to independent parties to represent their views in an open, non-partisan approach as illustrated by the “Flatpack Democracy” movement.
Creating even larger local government bodies, with elite “super-cabinets”, means that our rulers will be even more remote and less accountable. Promoting local government leaders to the “premier league” will have only one result: they will stop listening.
Richard Gilyead
Saffron Walden, Essex
• Imposing mayors on English cities, and the highly politicised “northern powerhouse”, are typical politicians’ solutions to their own economic failure. In sundry policy papers since the mid-80s, I sought to show that the problem with regional development is a voracious central government, as capital, income and the educated have been taxed and fiscally seduced to the south-east. The last thing we in the northern regions need is more political interventions.
Osborne is responsible for the most pernicious attack on the poorest regions, as the business rate revaluation was postponed for two years, massively subsidising London and taxing the poorest regions. Taxes continue to be applied less to profits and more to mere activity (rates, VAT, duties, unindexed capital gains), thus attacking further the poorest and subsidising the richest areas.
Rodney Atkinson
Stocksfield, Northumberland
• English devolution might transform local government leadership but it will have been diminished by the loss of its education services.
John Bailey”
“French utility EDF (EDF.PA) warned on Thursday that the cost of building two nuclear reactors in Britain could reach nearly 21 billion pounds, about three billion more than it said in October.
The equity commitment on the Hinkley Point project includes a contingency margin which could reach 13.8 billion pounds for EDF and 6.9 billion for Chinese partner CGN, for a total of 20.7 billion pounds, EDF said in a statement ahead of its annual shareholders’ meeting.
In October, EDF put the equity financing at 12 billion and 6 billion, respectively, or 18 billion pounds.
EDF also said it would commit to provide “limited” financial guarantees to CGN, particularly in the case of cost overruns related to delays, or in the event that European authorities challenge EDF’s “Contract for Difference” negotiated with the UK government.
It did not specify the size of these guarantees.
Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy said that without Hinkley Point, EDF would have no credibility in trying to win other nuclear export markets.
“This project is essential for the credibility of the entire French nuclear industry,” he told shareholders.
EDF said in its statement that since signing its agreement with CGN in October, talks with CGN had continued and that it had now finalised stable contract documents.
EDF, which is 85 percent state-owned, confirmed that the projected rate of return (IRR) on Hinkley Point is estimated at around 9 percent over the life of the project.
It said every six months of delay would reduce the IRR by about 20 basis points.
“We will do everything we can to make sure there is no delay,” Levy told shareholders.
EDF also said it expects it to take 115 months (9.5 years) between a final investment decision until commissioning of the first reactor.
The final investment decision has been delayed several times. Last month, French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron said he expected a decision by September.
This means that if the decision is taken in September, Hinkley Point would start up at the earliest in spring 2026.
In October, EDF said the first operation of Hinkley Point C was scheduled for 2025, which was already a two-year delay from its 2013 estimate for a 2023 start.
Levy also said that a planned 4 billion euro capital increase would be launched by year-end or at the start of 2017 if market conditions are favourable.”
East Devon Watch 