What can you add to that headline? Except – can you imagine what May and her MPs would say if this was a politician from another party?
Category Archives: Scrutiny
DUP funding to stay secret
Owl says: What a surprise! Remind me – isn’t the DUP a fundamentalist “Christian” party? Oooohhhh … wait for the fire and brimstone – not.
“Labour has criticised an attempt by the government to allow the DUP to conceal details of past political donations, including during the EU referendum, despite a 2014 law that extended party transparency rules to Northern Ireland.
The government has announced it will bring into force new transparency rules for Northern Ireland’s political parties to allow the Electoral Commission to publish details of donations over £7,500.
The provision for the new rules, which will bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the UK, was first introduced in legislation in 2014, with the wide understanding it would be applied from that year.
However, the Northern Ireland secretary, James Brokenshire, said he intended the act to be applied from 1 July 2017, which would mean donations during the EU referendum in 2016 are not made public.
Campaigners have raised questions over the DUP’s spending on the EU referendum in June 2016 – including a £435,000 donation from a group called the Constitutional Research Council (CRC), chaired by Richard Cook, a former vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party.
The source of the cash was revealed by the DUP after a series of articles published by OpenDemocracy, though details of the CRC’s source of income are still opaque. …”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/19/labour-criticises-move-past-donations-dup-hidden
An A and E consultant speaks … and begs for our help
“Dear Journalists,
As an A&E consultant I am writing to ask for your help.
Up and down the country our A&E departments are in meltdown, our staff are at breaking point and we need your help.
Patients are being left in corridors because there are no ward beds for them to go to, staff are leaving shifts demoralised and exhausted and most importantly our patients are not getting the care they deserve.
We need the public to know about this, not to scaremonger, but for the truth to be out there – as the only way to get politicans to change – is by voters knowing the reality and prioritising the NHS at the ballot box.
But without the public understanding what is going on, we will continue to have this crisis year after year after year. This is where we need your help. We need you to report the reality and not peddle the propaganda from our politicians.
The crisis is much worse than what you report. We all talk about the 4 hour target and that we get around 90%. But that includes all the patients who don’t need admission. But for the ones who need admission, the % who get admitted within 4 hours is so so so much lower than that. And for those patients, it is crucial for their well being, that they get admitted within four hours.
Why are you not asking for these figures? That would help reveal the truth.
Then you report 12 hour breaches. But in England (but not the rest of the UK) the clock starts ticking when a specialist senior has seen them. So they can be in A&E for 18 hours and not be a 12 hour breach.
Why are you not asking for the figures of patients who stay in A&E for more than 12 hours? That would help reveal the truth
And what about asking how many patients are spending time in corridors?
Because if you did reveal these figures – you would soon see the real extent of the crisis. And it is a crisis. One which will lead to a breaking point soon unless something changes.
The fault does not lie with the patients. Yes a few inappropriately attend – but they are not the problem; they can be quickly turned around and discharged.
The fault is not with the staff. They are working tirelessly and doing an amazing job despite the conditions they are working in.
The fault does not lie wth managers and hospital executives. They are working relentlessly to make things work as well as they can.
And despite what the governmnet peddle it certainly is not the fault of the GPs. Although there is falling numbers of GP surgeries, they are doing an amazing job at reducing the number of A&E attendances. Most importantly, the fault does not lie with the ‘system’ of the NHS – a model of care which utilities its resources to maximal effect.
The fault lies with the government.
Years of failed austerity depriving NHS and councils of vital monies and investment is taking its toll. A&Es are struggling because of the frail elderly who need a ward bed but cant get one.
They can’t get one because there are not enough beds within our hospitals (we have one of the smallest numbers of bed per capita in the whole of Europe) and because those that need to get out of hospital can’t because of a lack of social care.
In addition some money which has been spent on the NHS had been wasted on pointless reorganisations designed to start the process of NHS privatisation.
Please start reporting that. Please start reporting the truth. Please start reporting how close we are to melt down and please help get the public worked up about what is going on.
Because sadly our government don’t seem that bothered. They and their friends can afford private health care and therefore don’t rely on it. Even worse many would be happy to see our NHS privatised.
But for everyone else we need the NHS. The staff will battle on (and it is a battle at the moment). We will continue to do everything we can. We will continue to adapt, modernise and reform. We will continue to provide the most amazing possible care despite the conditions. But there is only so much our staff can take. And if we lose our staff we lose the NHS.
Journalists -we need your help. Please help.
And if you are not a journalist reading this, please share (publicly), or tweet it or send onto your friends in the hope that journalists will pick this up and start reporting the truth.
Rob Galloway A&E Consultant
@drrobgalloway
Rank and file Tories fear for the end of their party
This appears to be a legitimate Conservative party group whichis highly critical of attempt to de-democratise their party. The views are their ownand are shown verbatim:
From the blog of:
http://copov.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/last-chance-to-save-conservative-party.html
CAMPAIGN FOR CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRACY
(COPOV: Conservative, One Person One Vote)
“Friday, December 15, 2017
Last Chance to save the Conservative Party
Changes to the Conservative Party Constitution
or
How to give more power to the hierarchy
At a meeting of the National Convention held on 25th November in Birmingham the following changes to the Conservative Party Constitution were discussed and passed to be formally proposed at the next National Convention meeting on 16th March 2018. About 100 members turned up on 25th November for this meeting out of the 1,000 members of the Convention. For only the second time in the last fifteen years ordinary Party members were excluded from the Convention even as observers.
If these rule changes go through you may as well bring down the final curtain on the Conservative Party and on it will the written:
The Tory Party. The End
1) “Constituency Associations” are abolished.
In future we will just have “Associations” which will consist of one or more Constituency Associations.
This is a sad day. For 150 years the Constituency Association has been the building block of the Conservative Party. No longer. This is the management of decline.
2) The Annual Meeting of the National Convention to be abolished.
Voting for Officers of the Convention will now be done “online”. Officers will give reports “online”
This means that there will be no hustings meeting at which the candidates will speak. It also means that there cannot be questions to the candidates. In the early days of the Convention a motion was passed calling for hustings at which the candidates were questioned. The motion was passed overwhelmingly. The Officers ignored it. Now there is no chance. Also no opportunity to question the Officers on their reports. This is North Korean style democracy.
Why don’t they just abolish the National Convention and have an Annual General Meeting to which every member is invited and at which the Party Chairman is elected by the members?
3) Selection of Candidates to be centrally controlled.
15 SELECTION OF CANDIDATES
15.1 The selection of all candidates, including Parliamentary, Police Commissioners, Elected Mayors and local government candidates shall follow a process in accordance with rules and guidance published from time to time by the Committee on Candidates of the Board of the Party (as established under Schedule 6 of the Party Constitution)
All further articles up to and including 15.2.5 to be removed
The entire section of the Constitution which spells out the way in which candidates are to be selected has been deleted. All selection will now be determined by the Committee on Candidates which will also determine the procedures for selecting candidates. So a small group of appointed people unaccountable to the membership will now determine all candidates. This small group of unaccountable people will effectively decide who shall become a Conservative Member of Parliament and from them who will be in Government. What happened to democracy? This is disgraceful. It shows complete contempt for the people. What have we come to?
By adopting this proposal the last vestiges of any rights for Party members has been eliminated. Now they have no rights at all!
4) Conservative Policy Forum
Under the existing Constitution:
65 The Board shall appoint a Director of the Conservative Policy Forum whose responsibilities shall include the formation of a structure to co-ordinate the activities of the Political Deputy Chairmen of the Area Management Executives and Constituency Associations.
This is to be replaced by:
65 The Board shall appoint a Director of the Conservative Policy Forum on the recommendation of the Chairman of the National Convention, whose responsibilities shall include co-ordinating the policy-related activities of the Associations and Area Management Executives.
Why should the Chairman of the National Convention recommend the Director of the Conservative Policy Forum – to increase his power or a nice bit of cronyism?
66.3 Three representatives elected by the Political Deputy Chairmen of the Area Management Executives in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5 .
This provision of the Constitution was never adhered to so instead of enforcing it what did they do? Delete it! So now, every member of the Council of the Conservative Policy Forum is appointed. Jobs for the boys!
5) Area Councils
The Constitution states:
4 Any member of an Association within an Area may stand for election within that Area to the Area Management Executive provided they are proposed and seconded by members of an Area Council in the Area in which they are standing for election.
5 The election shall take place at the meeting of the Area Council. The election shall be by secret ballot. The Returning Officer shall be a member of the professional staff of the Party, nominated for the purpose by the Board.
The only problem is that there is no requirement for members to be told when the date of the meeting of the Area Council is or indeed who are members of it, so they have become self perpetuating oligarchies.
6) National Convention
The existing Constitution states that:
5 Any nominee for any such office or post referred to in Paragraph 2.2 herein shall have been a Member of the National Convention for not less than two years.
This is now replaced by:
5 Any nominee for any such office or post referred to in Paragraph 2.2 herein shall have been a Member of the National Convention for not less than the two years preceding the date of close of nominations.
So you cannot stand for office until you are in the third year as a member and are currently a member The effect of this is that none of the officers will have any long term historical knowledge of the workings of the Convention
6 Any nominee for the office of President shall have been an elected member of the Board for one year.
This is changed to:
6 Any nominee for the office of President shall have been an elected member of the Board for one year preceding the date of close of nominations.
Same comment as above
It is time for the Conservative Members of Parliament to stop being so supine and get off sitting on their hands and oppose these changes. If they don’t, then at the next General Election the only activists left in their constituencies will be themselves!
Posted by John Strafford at 9:32 AM”
http://copov.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/last-chance-to-save-conservative-party.html
The disgraced ex-EDDC Tory Councillor Graham Brown “If I can’t get planning, nobody will” scandal refuses to die
Remember the disgraced ex-Councilor Graham Brown scandal?
Well, it refuses to die.
The Sunday Times today (page 29, main paper) mentions it in passing in an article entitled “Bricks, Bribery and Planning – the flaw built into our planning rules” (full text to follow shortly).
“But the depressing truth is that corruption is endemic in Britain’s bureaucratic planning system. In every corner of the country, you can fund stories of bribery, with local councillors and officials rigging the planning system for their own gain.
Doncaster, Enfield, Greater Manchester, EAST DEVON – these are just a handful of local authorities where corrupt practices have been discovered in planning departments. In other words, the corruption is systemic and it’s caused by the inadequacy of Britain’s property rights”. …”
Brown, at various times, headed up the East Devon Business Forum, was also highly influential in the early stages of the Local Development Plan (which wasted two years or more mostly visiting big development sites owned by prominent businessmen and which had to be abandoned and re-started under the later chairmanship of Councillor Philip Skinner).
Brown held many other posts throughout his long career as an EDDC councillor, mostly related to planning, while running his local planning consultancy business – a fact of which other Tory majority party councillors and officers were very well aware, but did not perceive as not being a conflict of interest – until the Daily Telegraph sting.
His only censure was to be kicked out of his local Tory party – local police refused to be involved with an inquiry due to insufficient evidence. Were local planners and councillors – or even the Daily Telegraph or Anna Minton – asked for evidence? We have no idea.
Brown features (as does East Devon generally – a whole chapter) in the Anna Minton expose “ Scaring the Living Daylights Out of People: The Local Lobby and the Failure of Democracy” (Section 3: The Local Mafia: Conflicts of Interest in East Devon”) :
Click to access scaring-the-living-daylights-final.pdf
As a final insult to injury, after his departure from EDDC he attempted to get the agricultural tie lifted from the farmhouse in which he lived (which would have greatly increased its value by up to 40%) until a local investigation (led by East Devon Alliance) uncovered the fact that he had been receiving EU farming subsidies to the tune of at least £850,000 throughout the period he said he was no longer farming:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/09/22/ex-councillor-browns-facts-disputed-2/
Accountable Care Organisations: angels or devils?
Owl says: if you believe that Accountable Care Organisations are a good thing you will believe anything. Back-door privatisation a la USA and a ruthless way of enforcing rationing and post code lotteries rather than proper funding.
“Accountable care organisations have many strengths but should be openly debated before being implemented.
The war over the future of the NHS is being fought on multiple fronts. Campaigners, the Labour party, the government, NHS England and even Stephen Hawking are locked in combat over the structure, funding, transparency, accountability and legality of the current wave of reforms, along with the never-ending fight about privatisation – real or imagined.
The famous physicist has joined campaigners in a high court bid to block the introduction of accountable care organisations to oversee local services without primary legislation, arguing they could lead to privatisation, rationing and charging.
Meanwhile, the shadow health secretary, Jon Ashworth, has tabled a Commons early day motion after the government announced plans to amend regulations to support the operation of accountable care organisations. Ashworth argues that they are a profound change to the NHS that should be debated in parliament.
Accountable care – a term imported from the US, where it plays a key role in Obamacare – can take many forms, but it typically involves an alliance of providers with a fixed budget collaborating to manage the health needs of their local population. NHS England wants to see sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) evolving into accountable care systems in which integrated care supports good physical and mental health.
In June, NHS England announced that eight areas would be leading the accountable care drive. Greater Manchester is also adopting this approach, and many others are starting to use the accountable care language.
Accountable care has the potential to address many of the criticisms the most vociferous supporters of the NHS have made for many years. It goes a long way to replace competition with collaboration, and the NHS England chief executive, Simon Stevens, said it could mark the end of the infamous purchaser/provider split, which weighs down the health service with costly and often pointless bureaucracy.
Locally led, integrated systems are essential if we are going to shift the NHS from a 1970s-style hospital service to one that provides a community-based health and wellbeing service. Pooling budgets across the local area is not a ruse to disguise cuts. It is the most effective way to manage public money, irrespective of the level of funding.
The court case confuses the issue of how the NHS is organised with its funding and the role of the private sector. These are three different issues.
But the legal basis for accountable care is shaky. Faced with the wreckage left by Andrew Lansley’s infamous 2012 reforms, NHS England introduced STPs because trying to plan services through more than 200 clinical commissioning groups was never going to work.
As demand climbed, funding flatlined in the aftermath of the 2008 crash and managing long-term conditions became the dominant challenge; it was imperative to move from competition to collaboration and set a long-term goal of population health management. That is where accountable care comes in.
STPs and accountable care are operating under legislation meant for clinical commissioning groups – so collaborative systems typically serving 1.2 million people in which local government and all parts of the NHS have a say are underpinned by a legal framework for GP-managed competition overseeing populations of 250,000.
This is such a precarious legal balancing act that the 2017 Conservative manifesto promised to tidy up the legislation and regulations. But introducing an NHS bill now would be political harakiri for Theresa May, and most health service staff would prefer legal ambiguity to yet another round of organisational upheaval that would inevitably follow legislation.
So the choice is to either continue to find legal bodges to allow the NHS to collaborate and plan or – if the high court challenge succeeds – to return to the Lansley dream-turned-nightmare of full-blooded competition.
But although the thinking behind the legal challenge is muddled, that campaign and Labour’s early day motion highlight the major problem: a profound change in the management and leadership of the NHS is being introduced without informed public and parliamentary discussion.
The new approach has many strengths, but introducing it under the radar only serves to feed anxieties and misconceptions about the objective. NHS England needs to get the discussion about accountable care out in the open.”
“DAVID DAVIS WENT FOR DINNER WITH DAILY MAIL EDITOR AFTER BAILING EARLY ON FIRST ROUND OF BREXIT TALKS”
“Remember when David Davis ran out on the first round of Brexit negotiations after less than an hour? Now we know a bit about what he was doing instead.
The Brexit Secretary had declared it was “time to get down to business” ahead of the talks – but then skipped the majority of the discussions.
He turned up in Brussels at 8am on July 17, spent 15 minutes having a “friendly chat” with EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier and another 45 minutes in a meeting with their respective officials.
After being photographed without any papers and a quick press conference, he was on the Eurostar back to London.
A Government spokesperson told the media at the time that Davis had planned to leave early but denied that the decision was connected to a vote in Parliament.
So what did he get up to upon his return to London? Something more useful than dealing with the nitty gritty of Brexit negotiations?
Transparency documents published by DExEU last night offer us an interesting insight.
They show that on July 18 – while talks were still ongoing in Brussels – Davis had dinner with Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre. …
The Brexit Secretary only reappeared in Brussels when talks finished on July 20 for a press conference which didn’t go well.
Davis was criticised by Barnier over a “lack of clarity” in the Government’s position over the divorce bill.
That’s unsurprising given the extraordinary but real possibility that he may well have spent more time speaking to Dacre than Barnier about Brexit that week.
And it might also explain why, 18 months after the referendum, he’s only just made “sufficient progress” in negotiations.
Proud of yourself, Davis?”
Local Enterprise Partnerships: The buck should stop at Devon and Somerset County councils
As it stands, those councils could not even veto or scrutinise a 26% salary increase which went through on the nod by the LEP this year! So, don’t hold your breath (especially as many councillors have close affinities with many other LEP board members).
Be thankful for small mercies that the scrutiny is at county level where there is a better representation of parties. Though, of course, the scrutiny can only be as good and as fair as its chairman, as we have found to our cost with DCC Health Scrutiny Committee!
“In light of our concerns regarding public oversight of LEPs, we call on the Government to make clear how these organisations are to have democratic, and publicly visible, oversight.
We recommend that upper tier councils, and combined authorities where appropriate, should be able to monitor the performance and effectiveness of LEPs through their scrutiny committees. In line with other public bodies, scrutiny committees should be able to require LEPs to provide information and attend committee meetings as required.”
House of Commons Council (and LEP) scrutiny report – tough new measures recommended
Recall that East Devon Alliance submitted in March 2017 a wide-ranging report on the situation in East Devon, which was considered by this committee:
and
that this report calls for pilot projects of strengthened scrutiny arrangements. Wouldn’t East Devon District Council AND our LEP make wonderful pilots!
”The Government must encourage a culture change at local authorities to ensure overview and scrutiny is truly independent of the executive and can properly contribute to improving services for taxpayers, the Communities and Local Government Committee concludes.
“Lack of constructive challenge
The Committee’s report on overview and scrutiny in local government, warns that scrutiny is often not held in high enough esteem, leading to a lack of constructive challenge to improve services for residents.
It recommends measures to strengthen the independence of overview and scrutiny committees and for increased scrutiny of combined authorities, Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) and arm’s length bodies.
Scrutiny marginalised at too many local authorities
Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, said:
“Scrutiny is marginalised at too many local authorities, which in extreme cases can contribute to severe service failures, letting down council taxpayers and those that rely on services.
Scrutiny of those in power is a vital part of any democratic system and has huge benefits for all. We are calling on the Government to strengthen guidance to make overview and scrutiny committees truly independent of those they are charged with holding to account and to make sure the process is properly funded and respected.
Only by rebalancing the system and ensuring scrutiny is held in high esteem will we see better decisions and the outcomes that residents who pay for council services deserve.”
Report recommendations
That overview and scrutiny committees should report to an authority’s Full Council meeting rather than to the executive, mirroring the relationship between Select Committees and Parliament.
That scrutiny committees and the executive must be distinct and that executive councillors should not participate in scrutiny other than as witnesses, even if external partners are being scrutinised.
That councillors working on scrutiny committees should have access to financial and performance data held by an authority, and that this access should not be restricted for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
That scrutiny committees should be supported by officers that are able to operate with independence and offer impartial advice to committees. There should be a greater parity of esteem between scrutiny and the executive, and committees should have the same access to the expertise and time of senior officers and the chief executive as their cabinet counterparts.
That members of the public and service users have a fundamental role in the scrutiny process and that their participation should be encouraged and facilitated by councils.
That overview and scrutiny committees should be given full access to all financial and performance information, and have the right to call witnesses, not just from their local authorities, but from other public bodies and private council contractors. They should be able to follow and investigate the spending of the public pound.
That the DCLG works with the Local Government Association and the Centre for Public Scrutiny to identify councils to take part in a pilot scheme where the impact of elected chairs on scrutiny’s effectiveness can be monitored and its merits considered.
Local Economic Partnerships
The Report also recommends that the scrutiny committees of combined local authorities have a role in monitoring the performance of Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs) and that the Government commits more funding to the scrutiny of mayoral combined authorities.
The inquiry was set up to examine whether the overview and scrutiny model is meeting its objectives and how decision-makers can best be held to account.
Read the report summary:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/36903.htm
Read the report conclusions and recommendations:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/36913.htm
Read the report: Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/369/36902.htm
Full report:
Commons committee urges greater council scrutiny
A subject close to this East Devon’s heart and the cause of many sleepless days …
“A report by the Commons Communities and Local Government Committee has warned that a lack of effective scrutiny of the decisions of council leaders and elected mayors risks contributing to “severe” failures in public service provision.
The study found that funding cuts have reduced the resources and staff available to help councillors examine and challenge their activities.
The committee urges changes to Government guidance and increased funding to ensure proper oversight arrangements are in place. It also says a change of culture in local authorities is needed to prevent executives using issues of “commercial sensitivity” to hide details of deals with private companies from councillors.”
Source: Yorkshire Post, Page: 1
More political fallout from general election voting blunders
Some very familiar failings.
“The continuing fallout from the general election blunders in Newcastle-under-Lyme seem to have caused the fall of the Labour administration on the council:
Elizabeth Shenton stood down as the leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council after losing the support of independents. The Conservatives have now taken control from Labour.
Almost 1,500 people were unable to vote in a constituency that saw the successful MP win by just 30 votes.
Two council officials were suspended last month.
Chief executive John Sellgren and Elizabeth Dodd, head of audit and elections, were criticised for a number of issues. [BBC]
The problems covered people being left off the electoral register, postal votes not being sent out and also two people being able to vote when they were not legally qualified.
Despite the confirmation of major errors in how the election was run, this won’t result in any MP being unseated or election being re-run as no election petition was filed within the tight post-election deadline.
If any Liberal Democrat readers from other parts of the country think the name of the Labour now ex-council leader is familiar, they’d be right. Elizabeth Shenton used to be a Liberal Democrat, standing in the 2008 Crewe and Nantwich by-election.”
https://www.markpack.org.uk/153058/elizabeth-shenton-newcastle/
“British elections at risk from perfect storm of threats, says watchdog”
“The head of the elections watchdog has demanded urgent reform of the UK’s electoral laws and warned that the country faces a “perfect storm” of threats that could put the integrity of the system at risk.
Sir John Holmes, the chair of the Electoral Commission, also confirmed to the Guardian that the body has launched an inquiry into possible Russian interference in the EU referendum and is waiting for evidence from Facebook, Google and Twitter.
The regulator said that in order to police the electoral system properly, and hold politicians and campaigns to account, wholesale changes were necessary.
“We must avoid complacency to stop a perfect storm from forming which would put out democratic processes in peril,” he said.
In an interview with the Guardian, Holmes outlined a set of reform proposals which include:
New rules to require political campaigners to identify themselves on online advertising to combat Russian or other external interference in elections.
Increases in fines for political parties that find ways around election spending laws or fail to declare the source of their funding.
A new system requiring all voters to show photographic ID in polling stations.
A move away from only conducting votes on Thursdays and in schools or community halls. …
… “Electoral legislation is old, complicated and needs changing. There are proposals to do that. The government needs to give it legislative time,” Holmes said. …
… Following investigations into how the Conservative party moved campaigners and staff from its national headquarters to boost local party efforts in 2014 and 2015 – without properly declaring their hotel bills and expenses – the party was fined £70,000.
However, Holmes said the level of fines has to be increased to stop parties from taking such risks.
“Our ability to fine £20,000 for any single offence is not enough as an effective deterrent,” he said.
“Looking at the fines other regulators can apply, £20,000 looks fairly minimal. We think it should be bigger.”
Holmes also said the government should consider extending the use of photo identification at polling stations.
This suggestion follows allegations of widespread voting fraud, particularly around Asian communities in Birmingham, Bradford and east London.
The commission recommended in 2014 that voters should be required to prove their identities before casting a ballot, in the wake of widespread voter fraud in Tower Hamlets.
Critics of the plan say it potentially disenfranchises large numbers of people on low incomes who do not have photo ID.
Voting laws should also be reformed to allow new ways of voting, Holmes added.
“We should look at changes for a new generation of millennials who are the digital generation.
“We are not saying that we should move now to online voting because of the risks of hacking but that doesn’t mean that nothing ought to change.
“We need to ask ourselves whether voting on a Thursday in an old school building is the only way we can do this.”
The commission will release a report on Wednesday into the performance of returning officers at this year’s general election, with Holmes set to outline his proposalsin a speech to the Institute for Government later in the day.”
RDE rushes ahead with unaccountable “Accountable Care Organisation” plans
[By total coincidence, of course, Tiverton has the only local 24 bed PFI-funded community hospital which cannot therefore be closed].
NEWS RELEASE
Tuesday 5 December 2017
“Tiverton GP practice due to join hospital trust – pioneering the way for Devon’s first primary and secondary health care integration
On 2 January 2018, Tiverton’s Castle Place Practice and its 50 members of staff*, including GPs, plan to join the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (RD&E). This new venture will be the first of its kind in Devon and will provide locally-led seamless care for the Tiverton community
This move fits with the direction of the NHS Five Year Forward View and offers better integrated working by removing organisational barriers. Castle Place is already co-located with Tiverton Community Hospital and has an established close working relationship with the Trust’s community teams so it was a pragmatic option for the practice to approach the RD&E with the proposal to explore a fully integrated model. Whilst offering the opportunity to work differently for the benefit of all the local community, it will also help address some of the challenges faced by primary care, particularly the difficulty in recruiting new GP partners and balancing time for clinical care with the demands of running a business.
Dr James Squire, GP Partner at Castle Place, explains: “This is an exciting new venture for us and one in which our patients’ best interests are central to our rationale for pursuing this change. I’d like to reassure our patients that in the short-term there will be no changes to the services we offer and in the longer-term will only provide better care.
“The ever increasing challenges and pressures are resulting in necessary changes right across the healthcare system. Thankfully, due to our focus on person-centred, continuity of care we have managed to fare some of these challenges well but we know that to maintain this for our current patients and future generations we need to explore new ways of working. There are a number of different ways GPs could adapt but it was important for us that we secured a future which was true to our core values and principles. Joining the RD&E gives us an opportunity to concentrate our efforts on leading and providing excellent clinical care in a way that’s right for our community”.
“This is a bold step for us but the whole team here is motivated to test new ways of working, not only between the practice and the hospital but also with the community services for our population, and we are really keen to share our experiences and learning for the wider benefit.”
Suzanne Tracey, RD&E Chief Executive, said: “At the RD&E we are prioritising working more closely with local health and care partners to support a move towards ‘place-based care’. This is the future of healthcare and we want to help create the conditions which enable communities to take the lead. To achieve this, we envisage working with our partners in a number of exciting and different ways and this proposal initiated by the Castle Place Practice in Tiverton is a great opportunity to put this into practice.
“Whether in primary or secondary care, all of us want to do what’s right for the person and right for a community but sometimes competing demands, targets and finances can get in the way or slow the pace of change. The partnership with Castle Place Practice is a great opportunity for us to work together with GPs to develop more proactive care which keeps people well and independent in their own communities.”
Castle Place Practice’s 15,000 registered patients, which is around half of Tiverton’s population, will see no immediate changes. Staff will continue in their existing roles, patients’ named GP will not change and access to appointments and services will continue in exactly the same way. However, in the longer term it will enable and increase the opportunities for better management of long term conditions plus improve access to care at home and in the community.”
Hinkley C gets its own posh hotel thanks to OUR LEP
Anyone know of any hotel that got LEP funding in Devon? Seaton, Honiton Premier Inns perhaps? Certainly not!
From an LEP report:
“In October Deepak Chainrai of DC Hotels (Bridgwater) Ltd welcomed representatives from HotSW LEP, Bridgwater Town Council and Sedgemoor District Council to the site of the new Mercure Bridgwater Hotel, which is visibly taking shape, as an opportunity for all to see the work and progress behind the construction hoarding.
Before touring all five floors, the group was shown around the lobby area, meeting rooms, lounge and bar, leading to the destination restaurant that will be operated by The Marco Pierre White Steakhouse Bar & Grill.
The new hotel was partly financed by a loan from the LEP’s Growing Places Fund, which aims to get projects off the ground that would otherwise not be immediately served by the commercial marketplace. The site is strategically placed as an asset for the area with the development of the nearby Hinkley Point C. The establishment of a modern hotel with an international restaurant chain and commercial units is an important amenity that will boost the local economy and generate new jobs.”
DCC Corporate Infrastructure and Regulatory Services Scrutiny Committee savages HOTSW Growth Strategy
NOW THAT’S HOW YOU DO SCRUTINY!
(Thanks to Independent East Devon Alliance DCC Councillor Martin Shaw for bringing to the committee 10 of the 11 points and Budleigh resident David Daniel for his succinct 3 minute take-down of the original document)
at:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/11/30/watch-eda-councillor-shaw-and-budleigh-resident-david-daniel-make-most-sense-on-lep-strategy/
Heart of the South West Joint Committee and Draft Productivity Strategy (Cabinet Minute 77/8 November 2017)
Minute 31:
“The Committee received the Joint Report of the Head of Economy, Enterprise and Skills and the Head of Organisational Development (EES/17/5) providing information on the Heart of the South West Joint Committee and the draft Productivity Strategy, which was currently being consulted on and which highlighted a number of challenges facing the Heart of the South West area.
The consultation period had been extended to 14 December 2017 and an Action Plan would be shared with the Committee at a future meeting.
RESOLVED that
the Committee note the work to develop a Joint Committee and that, to enable a bid for devolved powers and funds to be successful, revisions were suggested to be made to the Heart of the South West Productivity Strategy, taking the following comments into account, namely:-
(a) the ambition to double the size of the economy in 18 years, involving an annual growth rate of 3.94%, was unrealistic given that the regional annual rate over the last 18 years had been 1.5% and the national growth rate, which had not exceeded 3% in a single year during that period, was now forecast to average less than 1.5% per annum in the next five years;
(b) the early ambitious aim of moving from less than average to above average productivity was not credible since the Strategy lacked the wide range of specific proposals needed to raise productivity across the board and contained little detail on how gaps in higher skills level would be filled;
(c) the Strategy did not adequately address the obstacles to higher than average productivity in sectors with endemic low pay and casual working, like social care and hospitality, which were disproportionately represented in the local economy, by our older than average population, and by under-employment;
(d) the Strategy said little about rural Devon and needed to include the key recommendations of the South West Rural Productivity Commission;
(e) the Strategy did not emphasise sufficiently the shortfall in broadband provision and the radical investment needed if Devon were not to fall further behind other regions;
(f) the Strategy did not provide details of the opportunities of Brexit, which it mentioned, nor did it take account of risks such as a decline in investment due to uncertainty, issues for firms exporting to Europe if the UK was not part of a customs union, and threats to the knowledge element of our economy due to universities losing EU staff and research opportunities;
(g) the Strategy needed to show how Devon would respond to automation and Artificial Intelligence;
(h) the Strategy needed to indicate clear performance indicators through which success could be measured;
(i) the Strategy needed to align more explicitly with the Government’s new Industrial Strategy and ‘Sector deals’ which may provide funding;
(j) the Strategy needed to explain what kind of devolution would help meet aspirations and articulate clear, realistic selling points and questions of Government; and
(k) the Strategy needed to include proposals to bring forward all forms of transport, including rail, which improved accessibility to the Peninsular.”
Watch EDA councillor Shaw and Budleigh resident David Daniel make most sense on LEP “strategy”
Jump to 2 hours into the meeting to see these two local people talk total sense to a bunch of mostly Tory councillors most of whom seem to understand beggar-all about why they are there!
Mr Daniel – a former government strategic analyst is at around 15 minutes into the meeting and speaks persuasively about why the Heart of the South West LEP strategy is totally unachievable. Independent East Devon Alliance DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (whose forensic report was totally accepted with one additional point added) is at around 2 hours into the meeting speaking on why the report before the councillors is style over substance and dangerous to go along with in its current form.
In Owl’s opinion, they run rings around the rest of the committee!
Although one councillor did make a point (Owl is paraphrasing here!} that this is an 18 year “strategy” and could well be redundant in a few years – when some other crazy idea might replace it!
https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/303464
CEO and Head of Audit suspended after irregularities in voting at General Election
Here in East Devon there were numerous mistakes made by our election officers but, so far, they have avoided examination or censure.
Nothing will change till electoral officers have to legally submit budgets of exactly how much money they spent (or did not spend), how much extra they were paid to do the job (average £10-20,000 per election, some got much more) AND they come under the Freedom of Information spotlight (they are currently exempted).
“Almost 1,500 voters were unable to take part in a general election contest which was won by just 30 votes, an independent inquiry has concluded.
Two senior officials in Newcastle-under-Lyme were suspended today following damning investigation into the June 8 election.
Newcastle Borough Council chief executive John Sellgren and Elizabeth Dodd, head of audit and elections, have been criticised for a number of issues by the Association of Electoral Administrators.
It found 500 postal voters were disenfranchised, nearly 1,000 potential electors were not included on the voting register and two people were able to vote who were not eligible to.
Labour’s Paul Farrelly held off a charge from Tory Owen Meredith to hold Newcastle-under-Lyme with a reduced majority.
The election cannot be re-run because complaints about the running of a poll must be made within 21 days.
But the probe concluded the result could have been different if the wrongly excluded voters had been allowed to take part.
The investigators it was ‘impossible not to question the result’ and detailed a ‘complex picture of administrative mistakes around registration and postal voting processes’.
There was an ‘inadequate performance by inexperienced and under-resourced elections office staff’, the report found.
Mr Farrelly described the election arrangements as a ‘shambles’ in the aftermath of the poll.
Mr Meredith said today: ‘It is vital lessons are learnt from this experience and that the recommendations of the report are implemented in full.
‘Urgent action must be taken by Newcastle Borough Council to ensure the credibility of upcoming council by-elections in December and the all-out elections in May.
‘Voters will be rightly horrified by the details of the report’s findings and trust in the democratic process in Newcastle-under-Lyme has been badly undermined. Urgent action is needed to restore that trust.
‘Voters have been truly let down by the Council officers and leadership and those involved must consider their positions.’
Council leader Elizabeth Shenton, said: ‘I sincerely apologise on behalf of the council for that situation but we can’t turn the clock back and right any wrong that occurred at that time.’
An Electoral Commission spokesman said: ‘Good planning and open communication are vital to ensure voters can receive the quality of service they deserve.
‘Both our guidance and this independent report recognise these factors.
‘We will now consider this report’s findings as part of our assessment of how Returning Officers performed at June’s election.
‘The Commission will continue to support and challenge the performance of the electoral services department at Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council to ensure forthcoming elections are well-run.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5125083/1-500-people-STOPPED-taking-election.html
More bad news for ineffective Local Enterprise Partnerships!
The Industrial Strategy is also offering what it calls “Sector Deals”. Partnerships between Government and groups of industries and businesses focussed on specific industrial sectors such as Nuclear Power.
To unlock Government money here are the sort of things Government will require (page 210):
“Deal proposals should have a demonstrable and analytically rigorous impact on the productivity and earning power of the sector.
We expect credible analysis of the impact of any proposals to accompany each specific proposal showing expected increase in GVA, employment or increases in skilled workers, exports or specific investments (including foreign direct investment) resulting from the deal. Tangible commitments are likely to be the most convincing.
Sector Deal proposals need to be realistic and achievable. We are looking for evidence that industry commitments can be delivered and that clear governance arrangements will be set up. Any arrangements should be proportionate to the scale of ambition of the deal itself and designed to ensure commitments will endure. To be credible, deal proposals should include specific delivery plans covering each component of the proposal.”
Click to access industrial-strategy-white-paper.pdf
Demonstrable and analytically rigorous impact on productivity; credible analysis; tangible commitments; realistic and achievable proposals; clear governance: specific delivery plans …
HotSW, our LEP, is going to have to up its game or we shall lose out on each and every one of these.
Government industrial strategy: Local Enterprise Partnerships have to pull up their socks
Unfortunately, we have heard this all before – words do not seem to get translated into actions:
Page 223:
“… We remain firmly committed to Local Enterprise Partnerships. From next year, the Prime Minister will chair a biannual ‘Council of Local Enterprise Partnership Chairs’. This will provide an opportunity for Local Enterprise Partnership leaders to inform national policy decisions.
While Local Enterprise Partnerships across the country have played an important role in supporting local growth, feedback suggests that their performance has varied.
We are reviewing the roles and responsibilities of Local Enterprise Partnerships and will bring forward reforms to leadership, governance, accountability, financial reporting and geographical boundaries. We will work with Local Enterprise Partnerships to set out a more clearly defined set of activities and objectives in early 2018. These will be driven by influential local leaders, acting as figureheads for their area’s economic success, and a clear strategy for local and national partnership.
We will agree and implement appropriate structures for holding Local Enterprise Partnerships to account. We will work with Local Enterprise Partnerships to review overlapping geographies and ensure people are clear as to who is responsible for driving growth in their area. We recognise that in order to deliver their role effectively, Local Enterprise Partnerships need financial support. We will make additional financial resources available to Local Enterprise Partnerships that demonstrate ambitious levels of reform following the review. …”
Casino Capitalism comes to Sidmouth?
The recently-leaked ‘Paradise Papers’ on tax havens seem to have revealed an interesting side to the activities of the billion-dollar US equity giant behind Pegasus Life the developer currently appealing EDDC’s refusal to give it planning permission to build 113 luxury flats for old people at Knowle in Sidmouth.
As the Pegasus Life website proudly proclaims, Oaktree Capital Management founded the company in 2012:
https://www.pegasuslife.co.uk/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIrLb85_bZ1wIVz7vtCh0bLAZkEAAYASAAEgKf3fD_BwE
The Paradise Papers suggest that, at about the same time, Oaktree was setting up a joint venture with Australian and Chinese billionaires to fund a 3.2 billion dollar casino in Macau through the offices of legal firm Appleby in the the British Virgin Islands tax haven:
Appleby became alarmed about the refusal of Oaktree and its partners to allow identity checks on its shareholders – the cornerstone of global efforts to stop money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
Oaktree and the others allegedly threatened to take their business elsewhere if Appleby insisted on the checks. Appleby didn’t, and the joint venture was duly incorporated in the British Virgin Isles with the shareholders remaining secret! The Casino opened in 2015.
All this is literally thousands of miles from the fond hope expressed by Philip Hammond in this week’s budget speech that local homes should be provided by small local companies with a real stake in their community.
Howard Phillips, current CEO of PegasusLife, was, until 31/08/2012, CEO of McCarthy & Stone. He led the restructuring of McCarthy & Stone’s £900M debt and under his watch the company is alleged to have engaged in the dubious practices exposed by Ch 4 Dispatches that year.
On 24 September 2012 a Channel 4 Dispatches programme on retirement leasehold was a brilliant example of television journalism that was extremely damaging to both McCarthy and Stone, and to Peverel, including their effect on this site:
https://www.betterretirementhousing.com/channel-four-dispatches-exposes-retirement-leasehold/
East Devon Watch 