Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny

Comments

Essex council switches to ‘more democratic’ committee system

“Councillors at Basildon last week (25 May) voted to switch to a committee system to run the council in place of the Leader and Cabinet.

Following a vote at the council’s annual general meeting, councillors were appointed to various committees and other positions.

The committees include: policy and resources; housing and community; regeneration and environment; infrastructure, growth and development; planning; licensing; and audit and risk.

Cllr Gavin Callaghan, Policy and Resources Committee Chairman, said: “We have taken a very important step to change the way that decisions are made because we believe it will make the council more democratic and more effective. It is now down to us to prove it.

“All of us need to commit ourselves to listening to what our constituents and our communities are saying and to making sound decisions based on good evidence and careful consideration. We will need to work together and listen to each other too.”

The council has resolved that no one should use the title of Leader of the Council but that the chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee shall assume the responsibilities of a Leader of the Council in a committee system.

Basildon councillors had resolved on 15 December 2016 to cease operating the Leader and Cabinet form of governance and start operating a committee system from the earliest permitted time, which was the AGM in 2017.

The authority cannot resolve to make another change to its governance arrangements, including a return to the Leader and Cabinet form of governance, for five years, except if approved in a referendum.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31324%3Aessex-council-confirms-switch-to-committees-in-bid-to-be-more-democratic&catid=59&Itemid=27

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Claire Wright, Democracy, General Election, Hugo Swire, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Comments

International observers choose to oversee fairness of East Devon General Election

Returning Officer Mark Williams, EDDC CEO must be delighted.

“An international mission to ensure elections are fair has chosen East Devon among eight UK constituencies to be monitored on June 8.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has announced that the constituency will be one of its target seats for the general election.

Tory Sir Hugo Swire is bidding to retain the seat – one of the safest in the county – and see off a challenge from popular local independent candidate Claire Wright.

Ms Wright, who finished second in 2015, has been selected by a tactical voting website as the best option for non Tories to topple the long-serving former cabinet minister, the only independent to receive such an endorsement.

An Election Assessment Mission (EAM) will be conducted in the area from June 4 to 9 by Phillip Paulwell, an MP from Jamaica who will lead a team of Observers from the Commonwealth.

The Mission, which is being arranged by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch (CPA UK) as it did in the 2015 and 2010 general elections, will also observe elections in seven other UK constituencies to oversee:

polling
counting
post-election complaints or appeals

The team will compromise of three parliamentarians and one election official from Tonga who will monitor Election Day procedures at polling stations, meet with candidates, returning officers, local officials, community groups and other relevant stakeholders in order to assess the conduct of the election.

Head of Mission Sebastian Pillay an MP from the Seychelles, said: “Exercising the right to vote is a fundamental part of democracy.

“CPA UK’s Election Assessment Mission will seek to ensure the UK election process is legitimate and representative of the electorate.

“On behalf of the team, we look forward to engaging with the democratic process in the UK.”

Chief Executive of CPA UK, Andrew Tuggey added: “This third UK Election Assessment Mission is a vital element of CPA UK’s commitment to enhance openness and transparency in parliamentary democracy across the Commonwealth. Assessing elections upholds the core values of the Commonwealth.

The following will observe events in East Devon:

Phillip Paulwell CD MP (lead observer) – Jamaica
-Hon. Yvette D’ath MP – Australia
-Hon. Ichungw’ah Antony Kimani MP – Kenya
-Rt Hon. Lord Dalgety QC – Tonga”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-the-focus-of-international-mission-to-ensure-fair-elections/story-30346585-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Cornwall, DCC, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, East Devon Tories, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Scrutiny, Somerset, Transparency

Local politics: no change unless WE the voters change it

Another local blog (Facebook – Devon United) republished this article from East Devon Watch originally blogged 3 YEARS AGO

“What a GREAT time to be an Independent candidate!

Grassroots rebellion over arrogant leadership in Devon and Cornwall
By Western Morning News | Posted: October 05, 2014
By Phil Goodwin

Westcountry councils face a growing rebellion from a grassroots movement weary at being ruled by an out-of-touch and “arrogant” leadership, the Western Morning News on Sunday reports today.

Campaigns have sprung up across the region in opposition to a perceived centralisation of power which has left many voters feeling removed from the democratic process.

A revolt in Cornwall has seen parish councils form an alliance against the “emerging dictatorship” of the unitary “super council” and threaten to picket County Hall in protest. [Last week, Cornwall’s Lib Dems and Independents again formed a ruling coalition]

In Mid-Devon, a petition has been launched against the cabinet-style of government, where decision-making power is confined to a handful of senior Conservative figures. [Conservatives majority refused to make the change]

In East Devon a quasi-political pressure group has been formed to unify opposition after a series of controversial planning issues. Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, said chief executives and unelected officers wield excessive influence and are answerable only to a powerful political elite. [EDA had its first county council success this month and Independents at EDDC now number 16].

“What we see now is a kind of corporate CEO mentality which is just not appropriate at a district council,” he added. “This not Wall Street – it is East Devon, and we are supposed to be following a localism agenda.

“The effect is setting a tone of unelected arrogance – we would like to see a return to the wise and kindly town clerk approach of days gone by.”

Labour’s Local Government Act of 2000 introduced modifications to the old committee system, including the cabinet and leader model, which is common throughout Devon and Cornwall. This allows the ruling party to populate the cabinet with its own members, regardless of the make-up of the council. [Still the case in East Devon]

In Mid-Devon, where the Conservatives hold a 57per cent majority of the 42 seats, the Liberal Democrats and Independents have no representation and all of the senior power is concentrated in nine Tory councillors. [Still the case in Mid Devon]

The same set-up can be seen at Devon County Council, where Tories hold 61per cent of the seats but all the cabinet posts, and at East Devon District Council, where a 71per cent majority holds 100per cent of the cabinet posts. [No change]

The Campaign for Democracy in Mid-Devon hopes to collect the 3,000 signatures required to force a referendum on the style of governance. [Didn’t happen]

Nick Way, a Lib Dem member at the authority, supports a return to the committee system. “I think it is more democratic, particularly for a small authority like us,” he said.

“The current system is almost like a dictatorship of the majority – at the end of the day they have a majority but a change would make it easier for their back-benchers to have more of a say and influence policy.”

Harvey Siggs, a Somerset county councillor and vice chairman of South West Councils, says he understands the frustration given the cuts but disagrees with claims of a democratic deficit.

“In Somerset we spend a lot of time trying not to be remote,” he added.

“A good cabinet does its absolute best to be as transparent as possible and we still have to be accountable to the full council.

“With the pace of life and all the things that need to be dealt with, I don’t think the committee system is fit for purpose.

“All too often the disaffected people are around planning. There are winners and losers but mostly, the losers don’t complain.”

[Somerset’s Leader, Conservative John Osman was deposed by a Lib Dem this month but Tories still have a stranglehold on the council]

In Cornwall, representatives of 15 parish councils packed a hall in Chacewater last week in a bid to rally all 213 town and parish councils to join a revolt against Cornwall Council. [unsuccessfully]

The gathering came in response to the infamous “Chacewater Letter” which branded the unitary authority an “emerging dictatorship”.

The letter, in July, criticised Cornwall Council’s lack of communication, its savings plans, planning policy, arms lengths organisations and highly paid officers.

At the highly charged meeting on Tuesday, fellow parish councillors agreed and declared change at Cornwall Council must happen.

More militant members called to draft in the local government ombudsman, for the formation of an alliance of parish councils and even for protests at the doors of County Hall.

Truro City councillor Armorel Carlyon, who chaired the meeting despite her own council not endorsing the criticism, told those gathered she could see the “democratically elected members being airbrushed out of the picture” by non-elected council officers.

Read more at http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Grassroots-rebellion-arrogant-leadership-Devon/story-23044099-detail/story.html

When posted: https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/10/05/the-peasants-of-devon-are-revolting/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Freedom of Information Act, Scrutiny, Transparency

“Ministers could have to lay bare their private Whitehall diaries after Freedom of Information win”

Owl says: bet there are a lot of interesting diaries at EDDC!

“Ministers could be forced to reveal details of their ministerial diaries after the Government failed in a bid to block disclosure of a diary kept by former Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley.

The ground-breaking case marks the first time the courts have considered the public right to see entries contained in a ministerial diary under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Transparency campaigners say the case is of importance because the diary covers the time Mr Lansley was working on the Health and Social Care Act and allegedly subjected to extensive lobbying by private healthcare interests.

A journalist, Simon Lewis, made a request to the Department of Health under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to see diary contents for the period May 12 2010 to April 30 2011.

Mr Lansley was health secretary in David Cameron’s Government from 2010 to 2012.

Only a redacted version was produced but in March 2013 the Information Commissioner required the department to disclose the majority of the withheld information.

The Government has now lost a series of legal challenges to the commissioner’s decision, ending in a unanimous three-judge appeal ruling yesterday in favour of disclosure.

It was handed down by Sir Terence Etherton, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Davis.

In the lead ruling, Sir Terence said the FOI Act created a general right of access to information held by public authorities but allowed for exemptions from disclosure.

The Government attacked two earlier tribunal decisions allowing disclosure of the Lansley diary.

Government lawyers argued the tribunals were wrong to find the relevant balancing exercise between disclosure and non-disclosure came down in favour of disclosure.

Sir Alex Allan, a former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, had been among Government witnesses who gave evidence that disclosure “would not assist the understanding of the processes of government and would be liable to mislead and misinform the public as to the efficiency and extent of the work of the minister”.

Dismissing the Government appeal, Sir Terence said there were “11 particular types of benefit” from disclosing the information, including “general value of openness” and “transparency in public administration”.

The judge also rejected the Government’s claim that the Department of Health did not hold the diary information “for the purposes” of the FOI Act.

He declared that while Mr Lansley was a minister in the department the diary entries “were held by the department for itself even if they were also held – in the case of personal and constituency matters – for Mr Lansley as well”.

The judge added: “I cannot see that the termination of Mr Lansley’s ministerial position made any difference to that position.

“In particular it seems to me clear that it remained relevant or potentially relevant to the department to know, as a matter of historical record, where Mr Lansley had been and with whom on particular occasions, should there be a political, journalistic or historical interest raised with the department in relation to those matters.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “The Government is considering the decision of the Court of Appeal and will respond in due course.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/ministers-could-have-lay-bare-private-whitehall-diaries-freedom/

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Colyton, EDDC, Independent Councillors, Planning System, Scrutiny, Spin

Midweek Herald manages 2 sentences on Colyton Village Plan story that took half a page in Western Morning News!

No boat-rocking investigative journalism here! Actually, no journalism at all! See if you can spot it:

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Police (local), Scrutiny

PCC Hernandez can’t cope and says she needs a deputy and the deputy might want an assistant!

She already has a Chief Executive Officer (salary £103,602 who seems to spend more time on TV than she does), a treasurer (salary £92,697), more than 20 full-time equivalent staff ten of whom earn more than £33,000 each and three community support workers.

“The embattled Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner is considering appointing a deputy.

Ms Hernandez, who is under investigation over 2015 election expenses when she was the agent for Torbay MP Kevin Foster, said: “This is normal practice.”

She would not say how much the deputy would be paid, but a source said it could be in the region of £50,000.

It is not the first time she has mentioned the possibility of a second-in-command – during her campaign she briefly considered recruiting a running mate.

According to sources, the post will attract a salary of £50,000 a year.

Ms Hernandez, who was elected to the position only last year, denied the appointment would be connected to an investigation of her role in an election expenses scandal in Torbay.

Devon county councillor Brian Greenslade said: “It suggests she is preparing the ground in case she is charged with election offences.”

“A deputy would presumably come at a cost so if this happened and she suspended herself while any charges were dealt with would she be suspending receiving her salary?”

However, Ms Hernandez said: “Any decision I make on a deputy will have nothing to do with the ongoing investigation. My intention is to stay in post as being under investigation does not affect me in being able to carry out my duties.”

Tony Hogg, Ms Hernandez’s predecessor, did not appoint a deputy but did receive strategic support from a special adviser.

Ms Hernandez told the WMN: “Half of all police and crime commissioners, of all political colours, have appointed deputies – some also have assistant PCCs as well.”

http://www.devonlive.com/crime-czar-considers-appointing-50k-deputy-but-not-as-placeholder-is-she-is-charged/story-30296747-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny

Swire’s mate Osborne one of the fattest of fat cats

“George Osborne is close to earning £1m for making speeches since being sacked as chancellor. His latest entry on the MPs’ register of interests shows he is set to be paid more than £150,000 for talks delivered last month.

He had already declared expected earnings of £786,450 for a series of speeches since losing his cabinet job when Theresa May took office.

The latest update shows he is set to receive a payment of £51,842 for a speech to the New York University in Abu Dhabi on 4 March. A further £51,754 is expected from the Hungarian central bank for two speeches, on 1 and 2 March, while £51,540 is expected from asset management firm Insight Investment for a speech on 17 March. These sums take his earnings from speeches up to £941,586.

As well as the speech income, Osborne is set to earn £650,000 a year working as an adviser to the US asset management fund, the BlackRock Investment Institute.

The register shows Osborne expects to be paid £162,500 a quarter for 12 days working as an “adviser on the global economy” and £120,000 this year to be a Kissinger fellow at the McCain Institute in Washington DC.

Osborne is yet to take up his most eye-catching appointment, as editor of the London Evening Standard, so details of his earnings from the role have not been entered in the register.

Despite his other interests, he has vowed to continue as MP for Tatton – a job which pays £74,000.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/14/george-osborne-racks-up-almost-1m-for-public-speaking

Swire much admires his pal having so many irons in the fire. Here are a few comments on George’s jobs from his recent blog post:

“The reality is that in all George’s Osborne’s positions he is being employed as a figure head rather than the man that gets his hands dirty. …

Sometimes we just can’t win! I remember the days when George Osborne (who had never had a job outside politics) was accused of being a member of the political class, a ‘professional politician’ who had no understanding of the real world because he only operated in the Westminster bubble. Ironically now he is a mere backbencher he is being criticized for going out to work! …

If an MP uses his time efficiently he has plenty of room for other interests. I, for example, have some paid outside interests but I’m also Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council (CMEC) and Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council (CWEIC); both these posts keep my interest in foreign affairs active and enable me to ask informed questions to the executive on foreign matters. …

I fear much of the uproar surrounding Mr Osborne’s new jobs tells us more about salary envy than anything else, and that is not a good basis for an argument. …”

https://www.hugoswire.org.uk/news/blog-greed-george-osborne

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny

Toshiba’s nuclear mistakes – a warning for the UK

“The roots of Toshiba’s admission this week that it has serious doubts over its “ability to continue as a going concern” can be found near two small US towns.

It is the four reactors being built for nuclear power stations outside Waynesboro, in Georgia, and Jenkinsville, South Carolina, by the company’s US subsidiary Westinghouse that have left the Japanese corporation facing an annual loss of £7.37bn.

Construction work on the units has run hugely over budget and over schedule, casting a shadow over two of the biggest new nuclear power station projects in the US for years.

Events came to a head last month when Westinghouse was forced to file for bankruptcy protection to limit Toshiba’s losses.

Experts said the delays and cost problems were due to America’s lack of recent experience in building atomic power plants.

“I don’t think it is necessarily because of an inherent issue of US skills but rather the lack of practice,” said Richard Nephew, a professor at the Centre on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University. “There simply have not been as many new reactor builds in the US and this has reduced the overall pool of skilled labor, no question.”

The absence of a mass production supply chain, due to the small number of the Westinghouse-designed reactors being built, played a part too, he added. Regulatory issues had also delayed construction. …

Richard Morningstar, chairman of the Global Energy Centre at the international affairs thinktank Atlantic Council, said: “What is happening to Westinghouse and Toshiba only emphasises the need to double down on research on new, safe, nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors. If we do not do so in the US, leadership will be ceded to other countries.” …

One such aspiring atomic leader is the UK, where the government wants to build a new generation of nuclear power stations to help satisfy the country’s power needs for decades to come.

But there are obvious parallels between the two countries on the issues of recent experience and supply chains. The UK has not completed a new nuclear power station since Sizewell B on the Suffolk coast started generating power in 1995.

EDF, the French state-owned company which has started pouring concrete at Hinkley Point in Somerset, where it plans to have two reactors operational by 2025, maintains it has had plenty of recent practice.

The EPR reactor design for Hinkley is the same as that for the reactors it is building in Finland, and at Flamanville, in France, though both of those are running late and over budget.

The other new nuclear projects proposed around the UK, all by foreign companies, look less certain and all are still years from construction starting in earnest.

Toshiba said this week it would consider selling its shares in the consortium behind another plant planned at Moorside, in Cumbria, which would utilise three of the same AP1000 Westinghouse reactors being built for the two crisis-hit US plants.

The South Korean power company Kepco last month expressed an interest in buying into the project, and the business secretary , Greg Clark, went to South Korea last week for talks on collaboration on nuclear power. …

Justin Bowden, GMB national secretary, said: “The big moral of the story is what on earth we are doing as a country, leaving our fundamental energy requirements to foreign companies or foreign governments?”

While the government has argued that it has plans in place to keep the lights on if new nuclear projects do not materialise, others said the deepening crisis at Toshiba this week showed the need for ministers to consider a new energy policy.

“It’s time to come up with a new plan A,” said Paul Dorfman, of the Energy Institute, at University College London, who believes the Moorside project is dead. “It’s time for a viable strategy that talks about grid upgrades, solar, energy efficiency, and energy management.”

A report published on Thursday highlighted another alternative: a U-turn on the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to block new onshore windfarms. Analysis for the trade body Scottish Renewables suggested wind turbines on land had become so cheap they could be built for little or no subsidy, compared to the lucrative contract awarded to EDF for Hinkley.

But the prospect of a rethink by the government on wind power looks about as likely as new nuclear power stations being built on time.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/14/toshiba-us-nuclear-problems-uk-cautionary-tale

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Police (local), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Comments

Devon Police and Crime Commissioner election expenses case will be referred for prosecution

“The investigation into Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Alison Hernandez and election spending will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has confirmed it intends to pass the file to the CPS after an investigation by West Mercia Police.

The CPS will consider whether any charges should be brought along with the cases of other MPs connected to spending on an election “battle bus” said to have exceeded the limit.

Andrew White, chief executive for the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon & Cornwall, said the commissioner would not step down even if charges follow.

“This referral does not prevent the commissioner from holding the position of PCC,” he added. “If a charge is brought this remains the case – it would not prevent her from remaining in office.” To ensure absolute independence, in circumstances such as these, there is a clear legal process to be followed,” he said.

West Mercia police carried out the investigation into Ms Hernandez in her position as election agent to Torbay MP Kevin Foster in 2015, rather than Devon and Cornwall, to avoid any suggestion of bias.

The force is also considering whether to refer a second, linked investigation into spending locally to the CPS. A decision on this is expected soon and could see the commissioner face two charges in court.

“Although the case is being referred to the CPS, at this time, no decision has been made about whether charges will be laid against Ms Hernandez,” Mr White added. “There is no presumption that their consideration will lead to a charge and even if the CPS decide to charge it may be many months before any case comes to court.”

Mr White also clarified how the development affects Ms Hernandez’ position as PCC. “I am certain that some will see this as a significant stage in the investigation but in British justice an individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. “There is no charge, no trial and no verdict, and neither is there any impediment to the commissioner carrying out her duties as an elected representative of the people of Devon and Cornwall.”

Read more at http://www.devonlive.com/crime-czar-s-election-expenses-case-referred-to-cps-for-charging-decision/story-30266031-detail/story.html

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency, Voting

MPs and conflict of interest: there’s no conflict if it is in their interests!

Hugo Swire says in his most recent blog that we should not worry about his mate George Osborne’s £650,000 job with a gigantic hedge fund (Blackrock). He says:

“… At Blackrock, his main job will be to advise on economic matters and to represent the company in a social capacity. As for abandoning his constituents, I shouldn’t think the hours he puts in will be any less than those of when he was Chancellor which, I might add, was also a second job and quite a considerable one at that! …”

https://www.hugoswire.org.uk/news/blog-greed-george-osborne

However, the Guardian newspaper has a different take on the matter:

” …the potential for conflicts of interest are enormous. Here is just one obvious example: BlackRock owns about 10% of AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical firm at the centre of a political storm when US rival Pfizer launched an unsuccessful £69bn bid in 2014. If, for example, BlackRock had wished the takeover to go ahead, who better to have on board to assess the potential political reaction – and advise on ways around it – than the former chancellor?

Add in the fact that the same man is now editor of the Evening Standard – the City’s evening newspaper – and his influence is magnified further. When deals that can generate profits measured in hundreds of millions are on the table, Osborne’s £650k is a mere trifle. …

…
BlackRock … by numbers

BlackRock has a stake in every FTSE 100 company, worth a total of £145bn.
That means it owns nearly 8% of the UK’s leading share index. Its investment in the FTSE 100 accounts for around 3.5% of its total assets of £4trn. Its biggest stake by value is its £9bn investment in HSBC, its smallest a £9.3m shareholding in medical group Convatec.

Other shareholdings worth more than £5bn are AstraZeneca, British American Tobacco, GlaxoSmithKline, and the two classes of Royal Dutch Shell shares.

In percentage terms, its top holdings are Next (nearly 14%), BHP Billiton (13.29%), information group Relx (12.88%), Land Securities (12.46%), building materials group CRH (12.46%), cruise company Carnival (12.19%), gold miner Randgold Resource (nearly 12%), easyJet (11.83%), technology group Johnson Matthey (11.83%), and Severn Trent (11.55%).

It is the biggest shareholder in more than half of the FTSE 100’s companies: Ashtead, Aviva, AstraZeneca, British American Tobacco, British Land, BHP Billiton, BP, Burberry, Centrica, Compass, Croda, CRH, Diageo, Direct Line, Experian, GKN, GlaxoSmithKline, Hammerson, HSBC, 3i, Imperial Brands, Intertek, Johnson Matthey, Kingfisher, Land Securities, Legal & General, Lloyds Banking Group, London Stock Exchange, Marks & Spencer, Mondi, National Grid, Next, Persimmon, Royal Dutch Shell A and B shares, Relx, Royal Mail, Randgold Resources, Sage, Shire, St James’s Place, Standard Life, Smiths Group, Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, Smith & Nephew, Severn Trent, Tesco, Unilever, Vodafone, Worldpay, and WPP.
(Source: Thomson Reuters)

Its joint venture infrastructure investments include a business park at Heathrow, windfarms bought from Centrica, solar farms in Derbyshire and Essex and a £75m loan to Trafford Housing Trust.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/06/why-worlds-largest-fund-manager-paying-george-osborne-650000-pounds

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Devolution, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

Public ‘not excited by devolution’ says firm of consultants

Owl says: They missed the main point: we have sussed out that finance and decisions are being moved from elected, accountable local authorities to groups of unelected and unaccountable, greedy (and sometimes shady) business people. But then again this is a report from a consultancy firm – which probably is getting, or hopes for, los of business from Local Enterprise Partnerships!

“The public is becoming increasingly disengaged with devolution despite its political priority for the government, research from consultancy firm GK Strategy has found.

A state-of-the-nation report on devolution in England found that whilst the agenda continues to be a political priority for the government, the prospect of further powers and accountability being shifted to a local level has failed to capture the public’s attention.

Yesterday’s report states “devolution has so far failed to win over the hearts and minds of people” because of a consistent reluctance by Whitehall to relinquish control over public spending.

Researchers explain that where local authorities do have greater control, they are working with smaller budgets and having to do more with less.

The perception that devolution is “merely passing the buck” of spending cuts to local authorities may be another reason why the concept has failed to capture public interest. …

… According to the researchers, there are two likely reasons for the level of disengagement with the concept of devolution, both of which are closely associated with the specific roles of elected mayors.

Firstly, the two largest English cities outside of London – Manchester and Birmingham – both voted against having an elected mayor less than five years ago in a referendum in each city.

Secondly, the public lacks a clear understanding over the role of the mayor in relation to the devolution process and the elected councils.

Chief executive of GK Strategy, Emily Wallace, said: “Our research clearly shows that whilst devolution in England has been a project of successive UK governments and been broadly supported by all major parties, it has failed to capture people’s interest in the way other issues have.

“A number of factors lie behind this, but a common view is that devolution in England has been delegation of blame at a time of public spending consolidation, rather than delegation of power and responsibility.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2017/04/public-not-excited-devolution

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, East Devon Tories, Scrutiny, Stuart Hughes, Transparency, Voting

Tory election expenses

Owl assumes that Mr Sajid Javid’s expenses for his trip to Devon will be appropriately accounted for – particularly his help to the DCC Tory councillors who did the photo op with him today …..

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Council tax, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, PegasusLife, Scrutiny, Sustainability

EDDC relication costs £10.3 million and counting …

Owl says: are these audited costs or still on

“District chiefs are being advised to press ahead with their £10million relocation from Sidmouth – despite having no guaranteed buyer for their ‘not fit-for-purpose’ Knowle HQ.

East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) cabinet is being asked to sign off nearly £8.7million to press ahead with building work at Honiton’s Heathpark, on top of the approved £1,7million pot to refurbish Exmouth Town Hall.

If approved, the relocation project’s total budget will stand at £10.36million, up from £9.2million in March 2015.

Members will also be asked if they support a further £225,000 cost for an improved access road to the Honiton base when they meet next week.

EDDC originally promised that the relocation would be ‘cost neutral’, that it would not borrow money and the project would not progress before Knowle was sold.

But after refusing PegasusLife’s £7.5million bid to redevelop Knowle into a 113-home retirement community, the authority now has to decide how to proceed with the relocation.

According to cabinet agenda papers, members have three options to choose from:

• ‘Go now’ – press ahead with building in Honiton in anticipation of an acceptable combination of cash for Knowle and prudential borrowing. Work could be completed as soon as December 2018.

• Delay relocation for one to two years, or more, so planning permission for Knowle can be secured to fund the project. EDDC understands PegasusLife is preparing an appeal, which would have to be lodged before June 9.

• A ‘do minimum’ option of giving up on the new-build Honiton HQ, completing the refurbishment of Exmouth Town Hall and modernising a section of Knowle. Essential repairs to Knowle would cost £1.9million, but there is no capital receipt for this expenditure.

Councillors have been recommended to pursue the ‘go now’ option. EDDC maintains that the move will save money in the long-run.

Its development management committee refused PegasusLife’s application because it represented a departure from Knowle’s 50-home allocation in the authority’s Local Plan and due to the lack of ‘affordable’ housing.

EDDC has considered various re-marketing options for Knowle – if a PegasusLife appeal is unsuccessful – that could fetch between £3.22million and £6.8million. One scheme proposes 50 homes, half of which would be ‘affordable’, and could bring in £4.2million.

Critics have long said EDDC could remain at Knowle rather than relocate. The cabinet papers say modernising the former hotel would cost nearly £11.3million, or, for the newer offices, the bill is expected to be more than £5.9million.

The relocation project has cost £1,784,884 to date.

Cabinet members will meet to discuss the options at Knowle at 5.30pm on Wednesday (April 5).”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/budget_for_eddc_s_relocation_tops_10_3million_1_4955207

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Environment (local), Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Comments

How you explain snout in trough when you are a Tory MP

“A Conservative MP advocated in favour of subsidies for the biomass industry after accepting more than £50,000 in political donations and hospitality from companies in the sector.

Nigel Adams, who has accepted tens of thousands of pounds in hospitality and political donations from biomass firms both in and outside his constituency, has called parliamentary debates, tabled questions, written opinion pieces, and written to the prime minister in support of subsidies for the industry.

But records compiled by Energydesk, the journalistic arm of Greenpeace, and shared with BuzzFeed News, show that on a number of occasions he did not mention the donations when he advocated for biomass – a sustainable form of energy generation based on burning wood pellets or other materials instead of coal and gas – over other forms of renewable energy such as onshore wind.

Parliamentary rules allow MPs to accept donations and hospitalities from businesses and others provided they are declared on official registers, as Adams’ contributions were. The rules also require MPs to “open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees”.

Adams told BuzzFeed News he referred to his hospitality and donations from biomass companies in parliamentary proceedings when his interventions were “substantively” about the industry.

Hospitality he accepted includes an £8,578 three-night trip to the Ritz-Carlton hotel in New Orleans to speak at a biomass conference. Adams accepted a further four trips to the same conference in following years, held at the five-star Fontainebleau on Miami Beach, a holiday spot beloved of America’s elite.

Adams’ trips to the resort from 2013 to 2016, worth £5,460, £7,177, £4,210, and £4,950 respectively, were funded by Eggborough Power Limited and Draw Power Limited, both of which operate biomass plants in Adams’ Selby and Ainsty constituency.

Adams also accepted auction prizes worth a total of £17,800 from another biomass producer from outside his constituency, Simec, as well as a trip to Dubai worth £2,850 to attend a pro-Brexit event in the city for UK expats.

In 2015, Adams held a debate on scrapping subsidies for onshore wind, during which he described it as being “about as much use as a chocolate fireguard”, claiming it was inferior to biomass in handling spikes in demand – naming Drax and Eggborough in his speech – and stating that cutting wind subsidies would “allow other, more efficient technologies to benefit from government support”. He made no mention of his contributions from the sector in that debate.

Similarly, in March 2016 Adams urged Andrea Leadsom, then an energy minister, to increase deployment of biomass, without making any mention of his contributions from Drax, Simec, or Eggborough.

Adams heads parliament’s all-party group on biomass, which is funded by the industry, and in 2012 urged then prime minister David Cameron to prioritise biomass subsidies over onshore wind. He also held a further debate on biomass, in which he declared he had received contributions from the sector.

Adams has declared all of these donations on the official registers of MPs’ interests as required and said he believes he has not breached any parliamentary rules because he has declared his interests in parliamentary proceedings. However, his failure to declare these interests on some occasions has drawn criticism.

Tamasin Cave of the lobbying transparency group Spinwatch told BuzzFeed News Adams risked the appearance of conflicts of interest – likening his situation to that of recently appointed Evening Standard editor George Osborne.

“Who does Mr Adams think he is working for?” she said. “A few transatlantic trips and fine dining could leave someone a bit muddled.

“And as George Osborne has just demonstrated, it’s clear that some in parliament don’t take their public role that seriously. With all eyes on Brexit, we also arguably have less scrutiny of what our MPs are up to.”

Greenpeace told BuzzFeed News that Adams raised concerns about conflicts of interest.

“As an MP, he has some serious questions to answer about whose interests he’s been looking after – the common good or the biomass industry funding his trips to Miami Beach,” said Greenpeace campaigner Hannah Martin.

Martin added that Greenpeace had concerns about biomass because in its view it has question marks over sustainability not shared by other energy sources.

“Ministers have spent millions of taxpayers’ money on controversial biomass when they could have invested it in far cleaner and more mature technologies like onshore and offshore wind. As a staunch advocate of biomass and a fierce critic of onshore wind, Nigel Adams bears at least some responsibility for a policy whose environmental and economic benefits remain in doubt.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/a-conservative-mp-has-been-criticised-after-accepting?utm_term=.ymgj7VPY#.ro7rGP9l

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Lobbying, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Tax avoidance, Voting

The tax woes of a big Tory donor

“Lycamobile, the international phone call business and a major donor to the Conservative party, is embroiled in a £26m tax dispute with HMRC over VAT.

Accounts filed with Companies House show that Lycamobile’s UK division nearly doubled its pre-tax profits to £10.9m last year on turnover of £194m.

But the company, owned by Sri Lankan-born tycoon Allirajah Subaskaran, also revealed that it could face a bill of £26m from HMRC, including “potential penalties”, due to a dispute over VAT. …

… Auditors from KPMG have revealed that they are unable to form an opinion on the accounts due to a lack of “sufficient appropriate audit evidence”.

Last year, the accounting firm flagged up its confusion over £134m in funds owed to Lycamobile UK by related companies, adding that the knock-on effect on this year’s accounts meant it was still lacking information.

“Because of the significance of the matter […] we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion,” said KPMG. “Accordingly we do not express an opinion on the financial statements.”

It added: “We were unable to determine if adequate accounting records have been kept by the parent company.”

Lycamobile UK’s own directors’ report admitted that the tax dispute and complex structure create “material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

The Labour party and tax experts said the accounts raised questions for the Conservative party, which accepted £614,300 from Lycamobile in 2016 and nearly £1m the year before.

Tax accountant Richard Murphy said KPMG’s audit report and the VAT dispute raised “massive uncertainty” about Lycamobile’s financial position.

He said: “In the circumstances anyone dealing with the company has been given notice as to the risk they take. And the Conservative party is especially vulnerable. Taking donations from a company subject to this level of doubt as to its true financial position looks unwise. They’d do themselves a favour by saying no to further offers for the time being.” …

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/03/tory-donor-lycamobile-in-26m-tax-dispute

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Greater Exeter, Scrutiny, Transparency

A warning for “Greater Exeter” as London council backs out of 3- council agreement due to lack of transparency and conflicts of interest

“The high-profile Tri-borough shared service arrangements are to set to come to an end with Westminster City Council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea deciding to serve notice.

Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea said they had “reluctantly” taken the decision “in the face of uncertainty caused by.… Hammersmith & Fulham appearing to make alternative in-house plans without any formal engagement with the other two local authority partners about key services”.

The two authorities claimed this was causing anxiety to shared staff and placing potential risks to the joint services for vulnerable people in each borough.

In response the Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham, Cllr Stephen Cowan, said the council had had concerns about the value of Tri-borough and conflicts of interest.

Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea’s decisions will terminate the shared staffing arrangements in respect of Tri-borough Children’s Services, Tri-borough Adult Social Care and Tri-borough Public Health Services.

According to a paper on the Westminster website, the decision was urgent “because the tri-borough agreements require a year’s notice to terminate the shared arrangements; and ideally any new arrangements need to be in place before the next financial year beginning April 2018; and as soon as possible so that staff can be clearer about their future options”.

Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea said they were determined to continue to work together. They also maintained that the Tri-borough project, which was established in June 2011, had improved services and realised £43m in savings.

The two authorities stressed that Tri-borough’s legal agreements “set out that with any termination of the arrangements all parties are obliged to minimise disruption to delivery of services and to staff during the period of notice”. They called for a joint project team with Hammersmith & Fulham to oversee the transition.

The Leader of Westminster City Council, Cllr Nickie Aiken, said: “We would not have chosen to end the Tri-borough arrangements which we believe have been a great success. When it was established in 2011 it was quite rightly lauded as an innovation in local authority service delivery.

“However, both the Leader of Kensington and Chelsea and I feel we are unable to continue with tri-borough when we have a partner that we do not believe is committed to it as we are and appears to be making their own plans to leave, without any formal discussions. We can’t have that uncertainty for staff and these vital services which is why, with much regret, we have taken the very reluctant decision to terminate the joint arrangements for children’s services, adult social care and public health.”

Cllr Aiken added: “We are confident that the future remains stable and positive for the continued sharing of services between Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea and our door remains firmly open should Hammersmith & Fulham wish to come and discuss a review of the current arrangements and find alternative ways of working together.”

Hammersmith & Fulham’s Cowan said: “We’ve had concerns for some time about the value of the ‘Tri-borough’, its lack of transparency and its built-in conflicts of interest.

“In our last two budgets, Hammersmith & Fulham Council found £31m in savings but the ‘Tri-borough’ contributed no more than £200,000 of that, less than 1%.”

Cllr Cowan claimed that problems with Tri-borough contracts had cost Hammersmith & Fulham more than £5m, including a contract for special needs transport that he argued had put its disabled children at risk.

He added that “senior Tri-borough officers have had to balance Hammersmith & Fulham’s determination to keep Charing Cross Hospital open with Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea’s support for closing it.”

Cllr Cowan said: “Triggering withdrawal is evidently a long-planned move by the two councils. I look forward to having sensible discussions with them about how we can all move on in the best way for our residents.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30560%3Atri-borough-shared-service-set-to-end-as-two-councils-serve-notice&catid=59&Itemid=27

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Devolution, Hinkley C, Local Enterprise Partnership, Scrutiny, Transparency

Irregularities at French firm manufacturing Hinkley C components

“Inspectors find safety irregularities at Creusot nuclear forge in France.

Evidence of doctored paperwork found at Areva-owned forge, which has made parts for Hinkley Point.

An international team of inspectors has found evidence of doctored paperwork and other failings at a forge in France that makes parts for nuclear power stations around the world.

The UK nuclear regulator said the safety culture at the site, which has produced forgings for British plants including Sizewell B and the planned new reactors at Hinkley Point, fell short of expectations.

Last December regulators from the UK, US, China, Finland and Canada visited the Creusot forge run by the French state-owned nuclear builder Areva, to address their concerns after the country’s regulator ASN discovered quality-control problems and falsification of records in 2014.

A report of the inspection by the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), obtained via a freedom of information request, concluded the improvement measures ordered by ASN were not yet effective.

The visit uncovered an example of an employee at the forge “amending a manufacturing record in an uncontrolled manner” as recently as September 2016, two years after similar problems were uncovered. The doctoring went undetected by Areva’s on-site quality control, Areva’s independent third-party body and inspectors from EDF.

The international inspectors also discovered the use of correctional fluid – like Tipp-Ex – at the forge’s operational control room. Correctional fluid is banned at the site, where a manager told the inspection team she regularly searched workstations for it.

Experts said the report was worrying and would damage Areva. Paul Dorfman of the Energy Institute at University College London, who obtained the document, said: “Given nuclear regulation is all about safety, this kind of language is extraordinarily damaging coming, as it does, from the UK nuclear regulator.”

Areva is already suffering serious financial problems. The company recently reported a €665m (£575m) net loss for 2016, though that is smaller than the €2bn net loss it posted in 2015.

The ONR said there was a greater quality control presence “on the shop floor” of the Creusot, and much of the top management had been replaced since ASN told it to improve. But it said the international team of inspectors “were not confident that the improvement programmes and associated remedial actions … were sufficiently resourced, prioritised and integrated in order to bring about sustained improvements in manufacturing performance and nuclear safety culture”.

The report said the UK regulator should reflect on whether EDF’s oversight of Areva was up to scratch, given it is a key supplier to the Hinkley Point C power station that EDF is building in Somerset.

The ONR told the Guardian that since the visit to Creusot it had put in place plans to ensure any forgings destined for UK reactors, including Hinkley, met UK standards.

A spokeswoman said: “Since this multinational inspection, ONR has developed its intervention plans to ensure that the licensee has in place and implements adequate management and assurance arrangements to clearly demonstrate that all components are manufactured to the required standards.

“These plans will include a series of targeted inspections and other assessments of both the licensee and the supply chain, specification of appropriate regulatory hold-points, and a targeted regulatory review at an appropriate time in the next year to assess the progress and performance of both the licensees oversight and assurance activities and the expected improvements within the supply chain.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/areva-creusot-nuclear-forge-france-hinkley-point

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, EDBF, EDDC, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Spin, Transparency

East Devon Alliance provides evidence on poor scrutiny at EDDC to Parliamentary Inquiry; EDDC provides woeful response ignoring major problems

Owl says: EDA submission – explosive and incisive; EDDC submission – spin and fluff.

Executive Summary of longer submission:

“Executive Summary

East Devon Alliance understands that encouraging economic development is a crucial task in local government. However, we are concerned that the increasing influence of unaccountable business interests on council decisions damages the health of local democracy, and can threaten the wider interests of local communities. The climate of unhealthy cynicism about politics, and a failure to engage in the democratic process, is reinforced whenever there is an apparent failure of scrutiny to make councils transparent and accountable.

Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) can too easily be rendered ineffectual by a dominant majority party in a cabinet-led-executive.

Government advice that members of a majority party should not chair O&S dcommittees must be made mandatory.

Chief Executives must not be able to have inappropriate influence on O&S committees.

Scrutiny Officers need to be independent of influence and interference from senior officers or members of cabinet.

The scrutiny role needs to be strengthened to be able to call witnesses. It should be a legal requirement for officers and members of Council and associated bodies to cooperate.

With increasing privatisation, commercial confidentiality must not be used to shield public expenditure from scrutiny.

Scrutiny should “reflect the voice and concerns of the public” by giving local people more say in what issues are chosen for scrutiny.

There is no scrutiny mechanism of the new tier of local government created by the unelected and self-selecting Local Enterprise Partnerships who now control over £2 billion a year in England. Proposals made in 2013 by the Centre for Public Scrutiny could form the basis for scrutiny of such devolved bodies.”

EDDC’s full submission to the Inquiry, by contrast, seems woefully inadequate, when all you can find to boast about is your Tree Task and Finish Forum:

“Written evidence submitted by the Scrutiny Committee of East Devon District Council [OSG 035]

The committee considered the terms of reference set down by the CLG inquiry and responded as follows:

The committee discussed the terms of reference for submission:
Whether scrutiny committees in local authorities in England are effective in holding decision makers to account:

o Meetings are publicised and open to public, with responses to Cabinet as needed. Some question as to whether these comments are heeded, not just ‘noted’; if only noted, there are no reasons fed back to the Scrutiny committee to further work on or refine recommendations.

The extent to which scrutiny committees operate with political impartiality and independence from executives
o The committee were comfortable that they are independent and impartial.
Whether scrutiny officers are independent of and separate from those being scrutinised

o Democratic Services have high integrity
How chairs and members are selected

o Independent Chairman. Politically balanced committee but little attention paid
to individual skills, knowledge and aptitude. Consideration could be given to further training to hone scrutiny skills.

Whether powers to summon witnesses are adequate

o Inadequate for external organisations, with a recent example of the repeated request to NHS Property Services to attend but still failed to appear to answer questions. Some reluctance by members and officers to attend.

The potential for local authority scrutiny to act as a voice for local service users
o This was already being undertaken by the committee, with recent examples
covering superfast broadband delivery, NHS revision of service delivery, and the Police 101 service.

How topics for scrutiny are selected
o Committee Members (and other councillors) invited to be involved. There
may be work that the Cabinet require more detailed analysis of and a request made to the Scrutiny committee to carry out that examination – to date this has not occurred. There was often a frustration in not being able to investigate topics because of limitations of the constitution or on issues where so much time had passed that it was not deemed viable to look into.

The support given to the scrutiny function by political leaders and senior officers, including the resources allocated (for example whether there is a designated officer team)
o Shared service of an officer within Democratic Services, no dedicated officer. No dedicated budget for scrutiny work, no designated lead officer. Officers are called to committee as best fits the topics for discussion.
What use is made of specialist external advisers
o To date mostly witnesses not advisers invited to attend. A suggestion was
made to approach the Local Government Association for a scrutiny advisor. Unclear where such specialist external advisors could be sourced from or what cost that would entail, particularly as the committee has no budget.

The effectiveness and importance of local authority scrutiny of external organisations o Mostly a lobbying role passed to MPs and others. Perhaps more relevant for scrutiny at a county level, but the committee does the best it can to communicate to external organisations.

The role of scrutiny in devolution deals and the scrutiny models used in combined authorities
o Need to have scrutiny involvement throughout the process, not after the deal has been completed

Examples where scrutiny has worked well and not so well
Effective internally on aspects such as the Tree Task and Finish Forum, which produced a number of recommendations taken on board to protect trees and support the business case for an additional staff member; and changes to how press releases are handled by staff; less effective on having an impact on proposed increases in beach hut charges. With limited powers, difficult to have an impact on other outside bodies.”

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/communities-and-local-government-committee/overview-and-scrutiny-in-local-government/written/48581.html

Click to access 48556.pdf

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Scrutiny, Spin, Standards Committee, Voting

Comments

What happens when you have a multi-tasking absent MP

Relax, Mr Swire – it’s your pal not you – yet! But it does make us think …

“MP George Osborne has refused to meet with a group of local constituents as he is too busy writing his book.

Wilmslow resident Stuart Regard recently contacted the Tatton MP to request a meeting to discuss the future of Britain after Brexit.

Mr Redgard, along with some other local residents is a member of the campaign group 38 Degrees, whose 300 members have drawn up a document entitled ‘The People Powered Vision for Brexit’.

He wrote to George Osborne on 20th February saying “We’ve voted on our main hopes and concerns for when we leave the EU casting over ten million votes between us. We would really welcome the opportunity to discuss this document with you and get your opinion on the views of hundreds of thousands of people.”

38 Degrees members across the UK have been meeting their MPs to discuss the ‘People Powered Vision for Brexit’. We understand Liam Fox, Jeremy Hunt and Philip Hammond are among the MPs who have read and discussed the document with their own constituents.

Mr Redgard continued “We are happy to meet with you at a regular surgery appointment, but would also welcome having a longer meeting with you if you’re able to accommodate this. Ideally there will be between four and five of us in attendance with an even split of Leave and Remain voters.”

Zoë Lord, from George Osborne’s office, responded on 7th March saying “Thank you for contacting Mr Osborne. Sadly, his diary is very committed as he is writing his book to a deadline. Unfortunately, we cannot arrange a time for you to meet just now.”

Mr Regard commented “I think this just represents his severe under performance in representing his constituents.” …”

http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/15405/george-osborne-too-busy-writing-his-book-to-meet-with-constituents

and here is how he explains himself to his hapless constituents:

“After all that you have read over the recent days about my new role as editor of the Evening Standard, I want to talk directly to you, my constituents.

It is the greatest honour to be your Member of Parliament, elected by you to represent our community here in Cheshire and take part in the national debate about the great issues Britain faces.

For sixteen years I have done that – thanks to your growing support at each election – and with your help we have achieved some major successes. We’ve stopped the closure of the A&E Department at Macclesfield District Hospital, not once but twice. We’ve got the Alderley Edge bypass built, after people had been trying for 70 years. We’ve improved the direct train services, got great new facilities for our academy schools, and brought new businesses and new jobs to the area. Throughout that time I’ve been able to help countless local people privately with their individual problems in the surgeries I’ve held and the efforts of my hard-working team in the office.

For almost all of those sixteen years, I have also held prominent positions in the public life of the country. For five years I was Shadow Chancellor. For these last six years I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a real privilege to hold one of the great offices of state but it is also one of the most demanding jobs in the country – working dawn to dusk, and on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Throughout that time I was there for you as your local MP.

Now I have left Downing Street I want to continue to take part in the debate about the future direction of our country. No longer being Chancellor gives me time to do that in other ways – yes, in the Chamber of the House of Commons; but also as the editor of a major newspaper, the Evening Standard. There is a long tradition of politics and journalism mixing. One of the greatest newspaper editors ever, CP Scott, combined editing the Manchester Guardian with being an MP. In our age, politicians from Iain Macleod and Richard Crossman to, of course, Boris Johnson have combined the role of editor and Member of Parliament.

Meanwhile the hard work in the constituency continues unaffected. Take this week alone. I’ve been helping the schools in Cheshire get a fairer deal out of the proposed new funding formula. I’ll be helping to officially open the new A556 link road – badly needed for decades, yet only delivered now because of my campaign and our collective hard work. I’ll be at the opening of another new business here, speaking at a fundraising dinner for a great local charity and holding my regular constituency surgery. It is all in a week’s work as your MP.

I will also be in Manchester to promote our efforts to build the Northern Powerhouse – a concept I launched two years ago and which it is one of my jobs now to promote through the new partnership we have created. Nothing has greater potential to improve the opportunities for the future in this area than that Northern Powerhouse

I believe this diversity of experience makes our Parliament stronger. I hope you agree and I look forward to continuing to hear what you have to say and to work with you on the problems we face and the great future we can all build.

Best wishes, George.”

http://www.alderleyedge.com/news/article/15407/osborne-issues-statement-to-constituents-following-his-appointment-as-evening-standard-editor

Posted by

East Devon Watch

Posted on

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

“The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised to such a level that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win”

“In poor democracies, votes are bought directly. In rich ones, money is spent to secure votes. Instead of being bribed, voters are subjected to a deluge of advertising, rounds of door-knocking and incessant social media messaging. Laws in richer democracies are meant to be tightly enforced. A check on UK election spending is that contributions have to be declared correctly. That is why the decision to fine the Conservative party a record £70,000 for “numerous failures” in accurately reporting campaign spend at the 2015 general election and three by elections in 2014 is so important. It is a wrong compounded by cover-up. The Tories “unreasonably” failed to cooperate with the Electoral Commission, which acted after a Channel 4 News report.

Foolishly, David Cameron displayed not a hint of contrition, claiming he had won “fairly and squarely”. He ran a shambolic operation. It’s too early to say whether a criminal offence has been committed. Any prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is dishonesty not just non-compliance. The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised so that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win. Money buys access to shape policies. Without strict rules and harsh penalties, politicians will be tempted to win office by mortgaging the future to an investing elite.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/the-guardian-view-on-tory-election-spending-its-a-scandal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other