Andrew Marr show this morning:
Question to Prime Minister:
“Is the Foreign Secretary unsackable?”
Mrs May’s A:
“Lets be quite clear. What we have is a government determined to deliver a Brexit for everyone.”
Owl says: if BBC journalists cannot call out a politician for failing to answer a question – then perhaps they should be working at any job but interviewing!
Bring back Paxman!!!
(Well, at least she DIDN’T say “Brexit is Brexit”!)
David Mitchell nails it in The Observer:
“The Tory politician James Duddridge pockets £3,300 a month from a lobbying company, but don’t worry. If it were a problem, it wouldn’t be legal.
What is the advantage of letting sitting MPs work for lobbying firms? What are the pluses of that, for the country? Because we do allow it, so I’m assuming there must be some upside.
After all, there are clear advantages to many things we don’t allow: smoking on petrol station forecourts, for example. Allowing that would mean, if you’re addicted to smoking, or enjoy smoking, or think smoking makes you look cool, you could do it while filling your car with petrol, polishing its bonnet, going to buy snacks, checking the tyres and so on. You wouldn’t be inconvenienced by either the discomfort of nicotine withdrawal or a hiatus in the image of nonchalant suavity that having a fag in your mouth invariably projects.
And the same goes for those essaying auras of Churchillian defiance and grit, or Hannibal from The A-Team-style twinkly maverick leadership, to which a lit cigar clamped between the teeth can be vital, particularly if you’ve got a weak chin.
Similarly, if you’re a pipe-smoking detective of the Sherlock Holmes mould and are, perhaps, investigating a crime on a petrol station forecourt, or merely passing across one while contemplating the intricacies of a non-forecourt-related mystery, you wouldn’t have to suffer a lapse in the heightened analytical brain function that you’ve found smoking a pipe crucial to attaining. Interrupting such processes to buy petrol may cause murderers to walk free.
And then there’s the possibility that allowing smoking at petrol stations will marginally increase overall consumption, and therefore sales, of tobacco products – all the Holmeses and Churchills and Bonds will be able to get a few more smokes in before they die of cancer – which would slightly improve trade and GDP, and so create jobs.
Maybe Duddridge just pops in once a month and is a master of clearing photocopier jams.
Nevertheless, I am not, on balance, in favour of allowing smoking on petrol station forecourts. The manifold advantages are, in my view, outweighed by the several disadvantages: passive smoking for non-smoking users of the forecourt, nicotine staining of the underside of the canopy, and various others I can’t currently bring to mind.
But you’d think, in a system that flattered itself as non-mad, as I believe the British one still does, practices that are legal would be bristling with more boons for the community than those that aren’t. That’s got to be the vague rule of thumb, right? So then, what are the good things about allowing sitting MPs to take paid work from lobbying firms? What are the upsides to that?
The downsides are as hard to miss as a few hundred thousand litres of subterranean petrol suddenly exploding. Let’s take an example from the news last week. It was reported that James Duddridge, a Tory MP who was minister for Africa from 2014 to 2016, is being paid £3,300 for eight hours work a month by a lobbying company called Brand Communications.
It’s one of the few lobbying companies not to have signed up to the industry’s code of conduct, which prohibits employing sitting MPs. You may say that makes it a nasty firm, but I don’t blame it. Why would it sign up to extra rules if it doesn’t have to? That’s like volunteering to observe a lower speed limit than the one prescribed by law.
The law is absolutely fine with Duddridge’s little earner. Former ministers’ jobs just have to be approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, itself described by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee as a “toothless regulator” (these committees are so bitchy!), since it has no statutory powers of redress. Then again, as its rulings are almost invariably “That’s fine”, what powers does it really need?
Duddridge himself says it’s all legit because Brand Communications is “not a public affairs company”, but the company’s website says “James will bring his deep knowledge of Africa, experience of operating at the highest levels of government and extensive networks to Brand Communications”, which sounds a bit public affairsy to me.
But I don’t know: maybe it’s fine. We can’t know it’s definitely not fine. Admittedly, according to the Times, the head of one of Britain’s leading lobbying firms called it “an appalling example of bad practice”, and the chairman of the Association of Professional Political Consultants said, “MPs should not be lobbyists. It is wrong to be a lobbyist and make the law at the same time,” but maybe it’s still fine.
Maybe James just pops in once a month and is incredibly helpful in ways that don’t conflict with his public duties. Maybe he’s full of creative ideas, a huge boost to office morale and a master of clearing photocopier jams. And then he pops back to parliament and doesn’t think about Brand Communications until the next month, no matter what issues concerning their interests cross his desk as an MP and member of the Commons International Development Committee. Yes, maybe it’s fine.”
Summary: Rees-Mogg doesn’t mind at all if his investments are unethical and it’s ok to lie about what pills can be used for – the Vatican would find that ok.
“Multi-millionaire Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted his investment firm profits from abortion pills – even though he wants to deny rape victims the right to terminations.
His company has nearly £5million-worth of shares in the Indonesian firm Kalbe Farma, which produces the pills to prevent ulcers.
They also trigger terminations, can be bought in pharmacies and are used widely in Indonesia – where there are an estimated two million illegal abortions each year.
Father-of-six Mr Rees-Mogg defended the investments and said he would not resign his investment post.
But he admitted: “It would be wrong to pretend that I like it but the world is not always what you want it to be. …
The staunch Catholic, who is tipped to succeed PM Theresa May, is a partner in Somerset Capital Management, the investment firm he co-founded in 2007.
The North East Somerset MP, 48, is paid more than £14,500 a month for 30 hours of work for the company.
He will not reveal the dividend payments he receives for his 15 per cent share in the firm, based in London’s upmarket Belgravia.
But partners have trousered nearly £60million between them since 2010.
According to this year’s interim report, two of Somerset Capital Management’s investment funds hold £4.8million in shares in Jakarta-based Kalbe Farma.
The pharmaceutical firm make misoprostol, a generic abortion drug sold under the brand name Invitec. They also manufacture oral contraceptives.
Invitec is marketed under its other use as a gastric ulcer preventer because abortion, other than in cases of rape or to save a mother’s life, is illegal in Indonesia.
But the international women’s rights organisation Women on Waves say it is available in Indonesian pharmacies.
The Dutch-based organisation advises women in Indonesia on how to obtain the drug and the circumstances in which terminations are legal in the country.
It says: “Abortion is permitted to save a woman’s life, in cases of foetal impairment and in cases of rape. Spousal authorisation is required. Misoprostol is available in pharmacies under the names Chromalux, Citrosol, Cytostol, Gastrul, Invitec and Noprostol.”
Mr Rees-Mogg defended the investments.
He said: “Kalbe Farma obeys Indonesian law so it’s a legitimate investment and there’s no hypocrisy. The law in Indonesia would satisfy the Vatican.”
In an earlier phone call, Mr Rees-Mogg said he had been unaware the company made the drug.
But he added: “I don’t manage the funds and haven’t done so since I became an MP. But the funds have to be run in accordance with the requirements of the investors and not according to my religious beliefs.
“This is not something I would wish to invest in personally but you have a duty as an investment manager not to impose constraints on investors.”
Mr Rees-Mogg accepted he did profit “in a very roundabout way”.
He went on: “This company does not procure the abortion of babies. It’s not my money in these investments and I profit from the total amount of client money we hold, not the investments we make.”
The Eton and Oxford educated MP caused uproar this month when he was interviewed on ITV’s Good Morning Britain by Susanna Reid and denounced abortion as “morally indefensible” in all circumstances.
That, he said, included cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest. He added: “Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception.”
The MP said this was not government policy, but his own personal view based on Catholic teachings.
… Misoprostol can be prescribed to prevent stomach ulcers, or induce labour in pregnant women by causing contractions.
But when used with another drug, mifepristone, it ends pregnancy in NHS medical abortions to avoid surgical procedures.
Misoprostol is often used alone to bring about an abortion, particularly in countries where termination is illegal.”
Source: Daily Mirror
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/pro-life-tory-multi-millionaire-11267331
We’ve had the Heart of the South West LEP!
We’ve had the “Golden Triangle” LEP (Exeter, Plymouth, Torquay)
We”ve even had the “Golden Quadrangle” LEP (Owl’s suggestion for adding in Cornwall or Dorset)
NOW we have the “Golden Pentangle” (adding in Cornwall AND Dorset)
yet ANOTHER unelected, unaccountable and non-transparent quango:
THE GREAT SOUTH WEST LEP!
first reported by Owl in August 2016 here:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/08/26/forget-heart-of-the-south-west-hello-great-south-west/
An update …
It seems plans are well-advanced for the “super” Local Enterprise Partnership of Local Enterprise Partnerships! They now even have a (very poor) website!
Those who remember life BEFORE our own LEP will recall that it was preceded by the much-derided South-West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) – so despised by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition that one of its first actions was to dispose of it and replace it with business-led, business-dominated, business-driven LEPs.
In our case it didn’t exactly work that way as OUR LEP (Heart of the South West – ie Devon and Somerset) decided to employ at a vast salary ex-SWRDA senior manager Chris Garcia – who is so beloved of our LEP that they raised his salary 26% last year!
However, he will perhaps be miffed that the job of CEO of the CEOs of all these LEPs has not gone to him but to Rozz Algar, a former Human Resources Manager:
http://herne.org.uk/pages/about-us/rozz-algar-cmgr-fcmi/101
Want to know what this “super” LEP is planning for us? Go to their NEW (riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes – OWL has spotted SIX spelling mistakes on its home page alone!) website at:
And hear LEP-speak like you’ve never heard it before! Including that old chestnut about how many hospitals it COULD (but won’t) build!
“AN INTRODUCTION TO GREAT SOUTH WEST?
[Yes there really IS a question mark at the end of that heading!!!]
The South West of England is a great place. It is poised for a step change in prospertiy and productivity. When the productivity in the South West of England matches that currently in the South East we will add over £18bn a year to the UK’s economy. That’s enough to build a new NHS hospital every week.
Our economy is already bigger than that of Manchester and more than two and a half times that of Birmingham – with the single largest infrastructure project in Europe already underway (generating billions of pounds of business opportunities) and the best natural capital in the country (attracting more visitors than anywhere else outside London).
[Just in case you don’t realise it, they are talking about Hinkley C nuclear power plant – that great white elephant in North Somerset]
The pubication of the SW Growth Charter in 2016 started our journey to promote our great region and we welcome the continuing support of stakeholders across the region to hlep in shaping our opportunities and building the momentum.
Our strategy for greater prosperity is to collaborate to promote
a self-sustaining and resillient South West ….
with innovation, enterprise and infrastructure ….
with productive people and rewarding careers …
utilising our natural and entreprenurial capital …
and sharing the benefits for all
We are focused towards having a clear and consistent strategy in time for the Autumn Statement.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN PRACTICE?
Great South West looks to build on existing good practice and collaborative working such as the science and innovation audit
By working together as a region will ensure that the South West has a strong voice to highlight investment opportunities to national and international private and public investors; as well as projecting a positive and progressive image for all
It will help to support the economic growth and prosperity of the whole region by linking up programmes and ensuring that the asks and priorities are consistent and reflect the strengths of the region
The Great Southwest does not intend to impede individuals or groups from their own initiatives or joining with others. We will not be a bureaucracy; but look to support and add value where it can.
It aims to support a flourishing private sector and a highly skilled population able to make the most of the great opportunities that the South West has to offer
Note: The name Great South West is a working title at present and may alter as the intiative gains momentum in order to be appropriate and resonate with all parties. This is not a brand used by the West of England LEP for their local authority areas.”
Yep, all on the back of Brexit!
As the article says: The NHS spends 1.02% of its budget on agency staff where the Cabinet Office has spent nearer 8% of its budget on such staff. But that is a mere drop in the ocean … read on …
“While all eyes were on the Labour Party conference, Theresa May’s Cabinet Office (CO) quietly published its accounts. And buried in the 114 pages was the fact that it spent a whopping £43.8m on agency staff in 2016/17.
But this was just the tip of a half a billion pound spending iceberg – with the CO blowing £8.86m on staff perks, and even giving [pdf, p89] former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg £114,982 from the public purse. …
Excruciating figures
Some of the most notable spending compared to 2015/16 was:
£43.8m on agency staff, up 54%.
£2.47m on staff “termination benefits” when they left the CO, up 162%.
£8.86m on staff travel, food and “hospitality”, up 63%.
£196.8m on total staff costs, up 20%.
£50.2m on Police and Crime Commissioner elections.
£1.54m on Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts, up 387%.
£21.7m on renting buildings, up 38%.
Writing off £2.3m of “bad debt”, up 5,342%.
But the £43.8m spent on agency staff (7.8% of the CO’s entire budget) does not tell the whole story. Because another set of CO figures reveals that it only employed 299 agency, interim, or consultant staff in 2016/17. Meaning the average cost of one of these, including agency fees, was £146,488.
The CO spent, overall, £558.58m in 2016/17; down £1.24m or 0.22% on 2015/16. The spending increases listed above were mostly offset by savings from not having the cost of a general election, reductions in pension costs, and less being paid out for “professional services”.
But delve a little deeper into the figures and some of the CO spending is even more questionable.
Nudging paper
The full CO accounts reveal that it paid out [pdf, p89] £538,067 in total to all living former Prime Ministers as “public duty costs”. But this also included £114,982 to former Deputy PM Clegg; a 12.8% increase on his payment in 2015/16.
The CO has [pdf, p99] £210.6m worth of agreements with private contractors to pay out over the course of their durations. It also holds [pdf, p101] £64m of investments in six private companies that operate within the public sector/government. One of these is Behavioural Insights Ltd, also known as the controversial ‘Nudge Unit’. As writer Sue Jones noted in 2015, the Nudge Unit is:
aimed at ‘changing the behaviours’ of citizens perceived to ‘make the wrong choices’ – ultimately the presented political aim is to mend Britain’s supposedly ‘broken society’ and to restore a country that ‘lives within its means’, according to a narrow, elitist view, bringing about a neoliberal utopia built on ‘economic competitiveness’ in a ‘global race’.
The Canary approached the CO for comment on its accounts, but at the time of publication had not received a response.
May’s money for nothing
John Manzoni, Chief Executive of the Civil Service, said [pdf, p9] in his introduction to the CO accounts that:
This year the Cabinet Office celebrated 100 years… ensuring that government works efficiently and effectively for citizens across the UK.
Manzoni’s hopes of the CO “ensuring efficiency” are laughable, at best, when you have a government department that happily spends £43.8m on agency staff and nearly £9m on ‘perks’ for its employees.
But the CO’s seemingly frivolous spending should contrast with other government departments. Because during 2016/17, the DWP cut Personal Independence Payments (PIP) for 164,000 people living with mental health issues. It reduced their payments from the enhanced to the standard rate, saving it £27.45 per person, per week. So, this saved the DWP £234m, or 0.11% of the welfare budget.
Also, the NHS spends around 1.02% of its budget on agency staff, but is criticised for doing so. So, when the CO claims “efficiency” but sees fit to spend 7.8% of its budget on agency staff, yet the DWP cuts crucial support from some of the poorest in society to save it a mere 0.11%, we have a truly broken government.”
”City administrations in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow and seven others decline to outline the spread of privately owned public areas, or their secret prohibitions – which may include protesting or taking photos.
Many of Britain’s largest cities are refusing to reveal information regarding the private ownership of seemingly public spaces, the Guardian has discovered, fuelling concerns about a growing democratic deficit within local city government.
A Guardian Cities investigation earlier this summer revealed for the first time the spread of pseudo-public space in London – large squares, parks and thoroughfares that appear to be public but are actually owned and controlled by developers and their private backers – and an almost complete lack of transparency over secret restrictions imposed by corporations that limit the rights of citizens passing through their sites.
The Guardian has since requested data on pseudo-public spaces, which are sometimes known as privately owned public spaces (Pops), from the country’s biggest urban centres beyond the capital. …
… Following the Guardian’s initial investigation, national political leaders including Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, the Liberal Democrats’ Vince Cable and Caroline Lucas of the Green Party all spoke out on the subject.
Shortly thereafter, a motion was passed in the London Assembly urging Khan to take a firm stance on the issue.
“Being able to know what rules you are being governed by, and how to challenge them, is a fundamental part of democracy,” said Sian Berry, a London Assembly member for the Green Party who proposed the motion.
“Increasingly, London’s public space is in private hands and there is very little transparency around which individuals and groups can have access,” added Labour’s Nicky Gavron. “These are Londoners’ outdoor living rooms and it is appalling that access can be restricted.”
Several assembly members pointed out that City Hall itself is located on open but private land controlled by the sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait, which refuses to allow journalists to operate in the area without corporate permission.
The Mayor of London has vowed to establish new guidelines covering privately-owned “public” sites, designed to “maximise access and minimise restrictions, as well as enabling planners to establish potential restrictions at the application stage for new developments.” …
… Ultimately, some experts conclude, any widespread challenge to the spread of pseudo-public spaces may come from citizens themselves rather than top-down institutional leaders.
“The planning process is supposed to be democratic,” Adam Fineberg, an expert adviser on public services, observed. “The people responsible for drawing up planning policies and sitting on planning committees are elected representatives. So if citizens are concerned about this issue in their local areas, they can campaign and put pressure on representatives through the ballot box and try to ensure that future planning applications by developers are required to meet clear and strong conditions regarding public access and open governance. There’s nothing stopping planning authorities making approval dependent on those conditions being met. It’s a question of local democracy.” “
“Eddie Duller OBE, a director at Healthwatch Oxfordshire, the county’s watchdog on health and social services matters, asks why the authorities are not more open about the big changes ahead
IT may sound bizarre but the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is the UK’s independent authority set up to promote openness by public bodies, appears to be saying it is alright to plan changes to health and social care in Oxfordshire and neighbouring counties in secret.
At least, that is my interpretation of a ruling as a result of Healthwatch Oxfordshire’s attempt to find out what was happening in the biggest health and social services shake-up for many years.
We raised the query in July last year under the Freedom of Information Act with the Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (OCCG), which has been tasked by the NHS to save money and change the way services are delivered.
The main reason for this was that a new authority was introduced by the NHS: the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West (BOB) area, which was supposed to create savings by joining up services from several areas.
Secondly, our view was – and is – that the public should have been involved earlier in the detail of the plans.
However, our request was turned down by the OCCG on the grounds that ‘releasing the information into the public domain at this time would be likely to inhibit the ability of public authority staff and others involved to express themselves openly, honestly and completely…..’
But what really got me going was the fact that the OCCG claimed that the new BOB organisation was not a statutory organisation and therefore the Freedom of Information Act did not apply.
That means that BOB could – and still can – take decisions in secret. I still think that is wrong.
They appear to want their cake and eat it by claiming it is not a statutory authority but at the same time giving it enormous powers to change the health service over a large area of the country.
The final version of the plan was published and the first explanations were made available just before Christmas last year – six months after we asked for information.
The Information Commissioner’s Office backed up the OCCG just a few days ago, 14 months after we queried their secrecy.
In effect it rather belatedly backed up the OCCG by saying it was alright to consider matters in secret as long as the proposals were published at a later date.
So what was the problem in giving out the information earlier?
When it was finally published the BOB transformation plan, which includes Oxfordshire, promised that there would be “meaningful engagement and consultation activity on services, such as those at the Horton General Hospital in Banbury and community hospitals in Berkshire West to help inform commissioning of future services”.
So why did it take so long to get round to it? Why not involve the public earlier?
The outcome of some of the changes in services at the Horton is that the question over the downgrading of the maternity department has been referred to the Secretary of State for Health after pleas from thousands of people to keep it as a consultant led service were ignored, and there is still no detail about what is to happen to the rest of the hospital site.
In effect the resulting judicial review is holding up the whole of the other services referred to in the first phase of consultation, although some of them are not contentious.
I hope the OCCG will learn from this and tell the public what it is thinking about in relation to the rest of the county much sooner.
In fact, now would do.
They should, in my view, form advisory bodies in each market town and Oxford as they did when creating the new “health campus” in Henley so that local people can have a greater say in designing the services.
It is an opportunity to involve the public through voluntary organisations and GP practices participation groups among others.
The BOB plan talked about the risks involved in changing the services, among them public sensitivity and cynicism.
It says grandly that “people view the programme as a money saving exercise which has no positive effect on health services in their community. “
It adds: “Stakeholders need to be openly engaged and involved in the process so that they are able to develop a proper understanding and can become ambassadors for the programme.”
I think it follows that if they practised what they preached and told us what is going on at an earlier stage they would stand more chance of getting a reasoned reaction and discussion for a plan which may have some potential merits.”
EDDC must be feeling VERY positive about the outcome of the PegasusLife Planning appeal as the sale of Knowle land, at around £7.1 million, is meant to contribute to the £10,361,000 cost (at last years costing – who knows what it is this year).
And does it include the £1m plus cost of Exmouth town hall?
Next year’s council tax deliberations will be interesting!
Oh, how different it will be if (when) Tories lose control of DCC. We will then hear Twiss and his party colleagues saying EXACTLY what Claire Wright is saying!
Party politics sucks. More Independents needed – urgently.
From the blog of Claire Wright:
“.. And the County Solicitor will be called to address the committee to remind it of its responsibilities.
Devon County Council conservatives blocked my proposal yesterday to record significant concerns over the biggest cuts facing Devon’s health service in living memory.
Sonja Manton from NEW Devon Clinical Commissioning Group gave an update on the plans to slash around £500m by 2020, as part of Devon’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP).
The county’s STP is one of 44 across the country and is the government’s main programme of major cost cutting and centralisation in the NHS, to stem a £30bn shortfall by 2020.
I asked a number of questions mainly on staffing, budgets and buildings, along the following lines:
What are the vacancies and how do you plan to fill them and when do you plan to make redundancies (which has been previously hinted at)?
The answer was woolly (and no amount of pushing would encourage Dr Manton to reveal more). It contained no information on numbers, but she did mention that there is a 30 per cent turnover rate across Devon, in home care staff and that 75 per cent of the NHS budget is spent on staffing.
Next I asked whether pregnant women would still have a genuine choice where to give birth, as three community maternity units at Okehampton, Tiverton and Honiton were set to close (two have already closed temporarily due to staffing issues).
The answer was that the new service would meet national guidelines, so I pushed and asked whether pregnant women would be able to have a choice of a midwife led unit and how far they would have to travel. The answer was that there will be a new midwife led unit at the RD&E, adjacent to the consultant led unit.
So essentially women from all over Devon will soon have to either have a home birth, or travel to Exeter to give birth, whether that’s at a midwife led unit or a consultant led unit. There was a bit of a disagreement about me saying the current midwife led units were closed, despite the announcement having already been announced that this was the intention and two being temporarily closed due to staffing pressures.
Next I asked how many more beds were planned to be cut.
More prevarication.
I pushed. Was the figure of 600 bed cuts recognised, which was the broad figure in the first draft of the STP?
Yes this figure was recognised but it depended on a raft of issues.
Finally, I asked about the selling off of redundant estate. How many, where and when? Another non answer ensued. It was the next piece of work.
Entirely frustrated at the refusal to answer questions, not because I believe, the answers are not known but because there is a total refusal to get into any detail whatsoever, I expressed my complete frustration and disappointment at the answers. It made no difference.
Other councillors asked other questions.
At the end of the debate I proposed a resolution that the committee express significant concerns over the STP, its potential effect on patient care and the lack of transparency so far.
I called for urgent information on staffing, beds, buildings and budgets, in particular.
The proposal was seconded by Chair, Sara Randall Johnson, who added that a piece of work would be done on this.
Unfortunately, my wording appeared to upset the conservative group. Cllr Philip Sanders said he didn’t like that I had said the process appeared not to be transparent and wanted this word deleted. I replied that that it was entirely justified and refused to amend my proposal.
But fellow Conservative, Phil Twiss, wanted ANY mention of concerns deleted.
He said: “We don’t need the emotional language.”
Three years ago, Cllr Twiss reported me and this blog to the police cyber crime unit. You can read about it here, if you like – http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/eddc_tory_whip_reports_me_to_the_police_for_a_comment_on_this_blog
Cllr Twiss then proposed that ALL my words were deleted, simply retaining the section that relating to a task group being set up.
This was voted through by the vast majority of the Conservative group.
Letting down every single resident in Devon who relies on the NHS.
Yes, I think that’s everyone.
Ambulance Trust response targets are failing and RD&E unable to discharge its patients in good time
Later in the meeting we were examining the performance review.
The South West Ambulance Trust which used to meet the national target of eight minutes largely without a difficulty, are now significantly under target. Only 59 per cent of calls were answered within eight minutes, across Northern, Eastern and Western Devon, in July of this year. The target is 75 per cent.
Lives are surely being put at risk. Certainly news of the failures are hitting the local media.
The narrative attached to the graph claimed that the reason was the rural nature of the South West. Yet the South West has been rural for years and this wasn’t a problem previously. Of course there have been cuts to budgets, and reductions in the number of ambulances so that is more likely to be the cause of the failure.
Problem with delayed discharges at the RD&E
Similarly, the RD&E was shown to have a significant problem with delayed discharges.
In June this year a daily average of 66 beds were occupied by patients who were well enough to go home.
It was obvious from the graph that the problem was clearly way out of kilter with other local NHS trusts.
This was largely to do with major staffing problems in the care sector, an officer confirmed.
of course it is these staff among others that we will rely on, to look after people in their own homes following community hospital bed cuts.
I proposed a resolution that the committee record its concerns at the ambulance response rates and the high level of delayed discharges at the RD&E and invite both trusts to the next committee meeting.
I had to argue with the chair that the proposal should retain the bit about recording concerns, before it was seconded by Cllr Brian Greenslade.
One of the Labour councillors was unhappy with me mentioning the RD&E at all in my resolution because she was chairing a piece of work looking at delayed discharges. I tried to point out that the resolution supported her work but she was adamant …
Then Cllr Twiss started up again. He said he didn’t like my wording and that I was simply making a statement that “looks good in the press.”
I reminded Cllr Twiss that the committee is legally constituted to scrutinise health services on behalf of the people and our job is to hold the health service to account. In fact such words had been used recently in a standards committee hearing minutes.
Anyone who is familiar with the basic requirements of an audit trail will recognise the importance of the committee recording concerns about service failures in this way.
I told Cllr Twiss that I intended to ask in the work programme agenda item, that the county solicitor attends the next committee meeting and outlines our responsibilities.
The final amendment removed my words about concerns about the RD&E’s delayed discharges but retained the words about the ambulance trust target failure.
So Ambulance Trust representatives will be invited to the next meeting.
I have certainly heard anecdotally that things are very challenging indeed within the Trust, with too few ambulances and low staff morale.
I duly asked in the final agenda item for the County Solicitor to attend the next meeting to remind the committee of its remit.
Some councillors appear to be in sore need of training.
Playing political games with health scrutiny resolutions is a dirty and unacceptable game.
NHS Property Services and buildings
Cllr Martin Shaw spoke to a report he submitted to the committee on this. The upshot will be that a sub group will examine the future of community hospital buildings.
The speaker itemised webcast can be viewed here – https://devoncc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/301904”
“Reading Borough Council (RBC) invited residents to give feedback after the Education Funding Agency (EFA) offered to invest £1.36m in exchange for five per cent of some school land it owns.
One objector, John Heaps, accused the council of manipulating the outcome by removing the ‘strongly disagree’ option from the online survey to add weight to the EFA’s proposal.
He claimed: “I have attended all of the action group meetings and the wording on the feedback forms has changed since the original consultation started.
“Negative responses have been altered and the council have changed their stance midway through the process.
By making this change, it allows them to say all consultation respondents agreed that the granting of the lease to the EFA would enhance the amenity value of the ground.
“It is a very serious offence and it is evidence that a governing body is manipulating a legally required consultation process.”
Residents were asked if the EFA offer would enhance the amenity value and the latest form gives three options, including ‘very likely, more likely and less likely’.
Mr Heaps said there was no way for people to strongly reject the EFA bid due to the absence of the ‘not likely’ option and accused the council of distorting the outcome of the consultation.
RBC cited ‘human error’ and apologised, adding: “A human imputing error on the website means the ‘less likely’ and ‘not likely’ options were accidentally combined into one option for people responding to question 2 of the online survey.
“To address this point, and any subsequent concerns raised, the Trustees will be asked to consider that all responses given to this question should be in the ‘not likely’ category.
“We apologise for the error and will of course advise Trustees of the error when reporting back the consultation results.”
Owl has spotted a disclosure by EDDC in relation to a FOI on the loss of income and business rates on closed Exmouth seafront businesses:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lost_council_income_from_queens#comment-80255
EDDC effectively admit that council rental income from those properties on Queens Drive, which they closed a while back, mean a loss at a rate of over £18,300 pa. On top of the rent, they will have lost an as yet unspecified amount of council business rates and beach hut hire income. Oh, and the area now looks derelict.
Though there were claims that the Fun Park site was needed in connection with works on phases 1 and 2, there are plans in existence (see on Save Exmouth Seafront Facebook page) which show no such need for access as yet to the Fun Park.
It seems clear that EDDC have done little or nothing about arrangements for ‘temporary attractions’ on the Fun park site next year – at least as far as the public can determine.
So, we know that already part of the seafront is looking run down and desolate, and is losing money into the bargain. Further, the case for getting rid of the Fun Park seems much more to do with EDDC taking offence at a long established family business having the sheer gall to take EDDC on in pursuit of that families legitimate rights, than allowing them to continue to provide a much-loved service to the community – including thousands of tourists.
No, rather EDDC take a chance that something “might” come up by way of temporary attractions if only it hopes hard enough.
And surely EDDC is breaking its own (well-honed) rules on confidentiality when it voluntarily gives information that one owner allegedly had an outstanding unpaid bill – again.
PRESS RELEASE from DCC Councillor Martin Shaw (Seaton and Colyton):
“Tomorrow I am asking the committee to consider a proposal on ‘Ownership, Community Stakeholding and the Governance of Community Hospitals’, the briefing note for which is copied below and is self-explanatory:
Ownership, Community Stakeholding and the Governance of Community Hospitals
Community hospitals in Devon have always been built and maintained with a high degree of community involvement and support. In many cases, local communities took the initiative to build the hospitals and raised a substantial part of the original funding, or even the entire funding of additional wings and facilities, as well as contributing to staff and other running costs, the introduction of new specialist services, etc.
Unlike Private Finance Initiatives undertaken in partnership with private companies, these ‘community finance initiatives’ – which sought no profit from their investments other than the improvement of the facilities and services they enabled – appear not to have secured their interests in the hospitals they helped to build. The Leagues of Friends and others who raised funds for hospitals trusted that their investments would continue to be used for the benefit of place-based health services in their local area.
Since the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, however, the organisation of the NHS has changed and the ownership of NHS buildings is in the process of being transferred to a new company, NHS Property Services, wholly owned by the Secretary of State and charged with managing the NHS estate in line with national priorities. NHS Property Services is enabled to sell off parts of the estate and to charge NHS organisations market rents for their use of NHS buildings.
This change creates dilemmas for local communities which have invested in Devon community hospitals. Clearly Leagues of Friends and other local bodies, including town and parish councils as representatives of communities which have raised large amounts of funding, can be considered ‘stakeholders’ in community hospitals. However these community stakeholders appear not to possess formal rights in the ownership and governance of the hospitals.
The proposal is that the Health and Adult Care Scrutiny undertake an investigation into
1. The changing ownership and governance of community hospitals in Devon and its implications.
2. The historic and ongoing contributions of local communities and Leagues of Friends to funding the hospitals.
The purpose of this investigation would be to address the question of
3. How community stakeholders’ interests should be secured in the future governance of community hospitals.
It is envisaged that in the course of this investigation, the Committee would both collect evidence and invite expressions of views from all stakeholders, including both local community organisations and NHS bodies, including NHS Property Services.
Martin Shaw
Independent East Devon Alliance County Councillor for Seaton & Colyton”
Owl is intrigued by just how much oxygen there is in Oxygen House, Grenadier Road, Exeter Business Park, Exeter EX1 3LH
Click to access Exeter-Business-Park-brochure.pdf
and whether it will be enough to allow everyone working there to breathe it in.
The building is shown here as home to 16 companies:
https://www.companieshousedata.co.uk/a/18713
Of course, it is the headquarters of Grenadier, the preferred developer of the Exmouth watersports centre and Grenadier is shown as having, or having had, no less than eight companies there.
Grenadier Exmouth has five directors, who share 37 directorships of other companies also based at Oxygen House and more companies in different parts of the country (for example head honcho Mark Dixon has 17 of his 20 directorships based in the building and other directorships of other companies in nearby properties on the same business park).
The building’s blurb says:
“The Oxygen House group invests in environmental rebalance on which building a prosperous society depends. A dynamic mix of established companies and start-ups, our specialities include venture capital & private equity, impact investment, property, renewable energy & clean tech, education technology, city planning and data analytics.
Our business model mobilises financial, scientific, mathematical and engineering expertise to address the following urgent goals:
A carbon-neutral society. This will be based on MWs of both renewable energy produced and demand reduced by more prudent energy consumption.
An overhaul in educational standards through shrewd, patient investment in radical data technology.”
AND it is a friendly place for all based there:
“Oxygen House enables individuals and our partner companies to develop and flourish. Literally we’re a shared physical space. Conceptually we’re a mutually supportive value system. Emotionally we’re a family of likeminded companies and individuals. And our commitment to common goals is unshakeable.”
But less obvious is the “shared physical space” and individual connections with “Greater Exeter” and, through that link, to other interests pertinent to East Devon.
For example, “Exeter City Futures” is also shown as having its base there:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09891138
and one of its directors is Exeter City Councillor, Rosie Denham.
“Exeter City Futures” describes itself laudably thus:
“Exeter City Futures goal is to make the Exeter region congestion free and energy independent by 2025.”
However, Councillor Denham is also an Exeter City Council signatory to one of the major “Greater Exeter” documents, “Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership Strategy 2017-2020”:
Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf
Exeter City, East Devon, Mid Devon and Teignbridge are the partners in that. (Quite how Councillor Denham will make Exeter energy independent without pushing its problems on to the other areas of the partnership, including East Devon, in which she is involved will be very challenging for her)!
Shown also as a director of “Exeter City Futures” is Glen Woodcock. He is a director of no less than NINE companies registered at Oxygen House (plus 5 others elsewhere). He shares several of these directorships with Grenadier boss Mark James Dixon – director of Grenadier Exmouth.
Mr Woodcock is also a director of “City Science Corporation” also based at Oxygen House which includes a description as “Management consultancy activities other than financial management”
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09801932
Owl feels it would be possible to go on and on almost infinitely with these “six degrees of separation” links that bind the individuals popping in and out of Oxygen House and the companies that exist, parallel and overlapping in the building.
But suffice to say, there must be an awful lot of oxygen (and possibly hot air) in the building!
“Pragmatic in its focus, the strategy sets out how our economic development teams are working effectively on the areas where our respective council/corporate plans overlap.
The strategy also sets out our collective growth ambitions, priorities and future approach that we will take to support economic growth and development for the greater Exeter area.
No new resource or structural changes are being put forward in this strategy – only an assurance that EHOD authorities continue to dedicate the existing economic officer resource to the four key EHOD economic initiatives where we can show collaborative working to be more effective and efficient in delivering outputs for our local authority areas beyond what we could achieve in isolation. …
… We will use the Shared Economic Strategy to communicate to partners our ambitions and plans, with a view of improving collaboration and maximising leverage.”
The strategy will address the key themes of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HoTSW LEP) Devolution Prospectus and support the delivery of the emerging Single Productivity Plan, maximising the effectiveness of the group’s work with the HoTSW LEP. …”
Signature here Cllr Paul Diviani Leader
Signature here Cllr Philip Skinner Economy PFH Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Pete Edwards Leader, Exeter City Council
Signature here Cllr Rosie Denham Economy and Culture PFH, Exeter City Council
Click to access S0031_EHOD%20shared%20strategy_lowres.pdf
So, no resources except officer time … a very expensive resource, the hourly cost of which is never counted by our councils and comes out of our pockets.
Diviani and Skinner … a marriage made in … ! Still, our Tory councillors do so trust each other, so that’s … er … fine?
“The leader of Exeter City Council has complained that he was left out of talks in London to secure devolution for Devon and Somerset.
Devon county council leaders as well as those from Plymouth and Torbay council chiefs were invited to the Westminster meeting this week with Jake Berry, the Minister responsible for devolution and coastal communities.
Following the meeting, it was announced by Devon County Council Tory leader John Hart that an agreement had been reached to devolve powers to an economy estimated to be worth £34 billion, more than Birmingham.
Peter Edwards, leader of the Labour-controlled city council, warned that the deal had no “mandate” from Exeter and revealed he had not been invited nor even told about the planned announcement.
Tory MP Gary Streeter, who organised the meeting and drew up the guest list, said he had never heard of Mr Edwards but offered an assurance that he would be “pleased” with the deal being struck.
Mr Hart emerged from the gathering on Thursday to declare that a plan had been agreed by “the two county councils, the two unitaries, all the district councils, the Local Enterprise Partnership, the two national parks and NHS representatives”.
“We have 17 local authorities working closely together on this plan with our other partners,” he added in a statement.
But hot on the heels on the press release came a strong response from Cllr Edwards.
He said: “Mr Hart went to this meeting without my knowledge. I would be interested in knowing if any other district councils took part or knew about it.
“He met me the day before and didn’t feel the need to mention it, let alone say he intended to indicate we were all signed up. I don’t have that mandate from my council – and he certainly doesn’t.
“We agree there is a need to go to Government and to unlock funding. We have been eager to see this happen and to see what is on offer.
“But we don’t agree that you should be offering up a new combined authority for Devon and Somerset blindly without knowing what any deal is. Councils could be giving up all their powers – without knowing that the prize is.
“Exeter has a strong economic agenda – it would be madness to jeopardise that without knowing what any benefits could be – or even if there are any benefits.
“My council’s position is that we could welcome devolution – but only once you know what any benefits are.”
Mr Streeter, MP for South West Devon, told Devonlive.com that there had been no snub and said “none of the districts” had been invited.
“I invited the county and unitary councils,” he added. “It was just a meeting to find out where we are in the devolution process with ministers, post election, with councils to report back.
“It was a lively successful meeting – the others will find out next week when a full report is made.”
Asked if Cllr Edwards, a longstanding councillor and city leader since 2010, was right to feel aggrieved, Mr Streeter added: “I don’t know him but I am sure he is a wonderful person.
“We don’t have dealings with Exeter or North Devon – it is very parochial. I know know who this gentleman is but once he gets the full story he’s going to be very pleased.” …”
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/council-leader-angry-exeter-snub-483839
“… In all of the instances I have dealt with, there have been at least two reasonable positions that could be taken, one of which involves less disruption to the draft accounts than proposed by the auditor. In such circumstances, you would expect the auditors to be finding themselves a comfortable seat on the fence, from where to take in the admirable views available on both sides. Not standing on one side throwing stones. …
… Threats of audit qualification are usually fairly empty. They rely on the auditor being able to summarise their case against the authority succinctly, definitively and with quantification in the audit report and on the matter in hand being truly material (ie, that it might influence a decision to be taken by a user of the accounts). Most of the firms will also require qualified audit reports to be approved by a senior technical panel, so they are not at the discretion of the individual auditor.
Many accountants will at this point settle for what they judge the easier option and make the changes demanded. But there can be greater advantage in pushing back, asking the auditors to:
explain why your approach is not acceptable, rather than just different from theirs
provide comprehensive technical support for any counterarguments they put
be clear that the issue might have a properly material impact.
Sometimes the view of the auditor will need to be accommodated. But on many occasions issues are resolved simply by persuading the auditor to appreciate the authority’s approach to an area where there is room for differences of opinion.
So, two key messages. Auditors: retain your independence by avoiding dogmatic demands and engaging directly with what the authority has done. Accountants: don’t believe that an argument is necessarily stronger because it comes with the promise of a clean audit opinion.”
http://www.room151.co.uk/blogs/stephen-sheen-troubles-with-the-auditor-maybe-its-not-you/
A far cry from when he led a protest against the 27% salary increase for the LEPs CEO last year and led calls for greater accountability and transparency for the quango, which has so far not materialised.
What’s happened since then one wonders?
“Devon County Council leader John Hart is in London today to press the case for devolution for Devon and Somerset with Ministers.
The two counties currently have an annual economy worth over £34 billion – more than Britain’s second city, Birmingham.
Mr Hart is being joined by other council leaders at the meeting with Jake Berry, the Minister responsible for devolution and coastal communities.
An agreement has been reached by the two county councils, the two unitaries, all the district councils, the Local Enterprise Partnership, the two national parks and NHS representatives – with a plan for devolution submitted to the Government. Mr Hart said he recognised that the Government was currently focusing attention on the Brexit negotiations but he wanted to get devolution back firmly on the agenda.
“I do not want our very strong bid for greater autonomy to get bogged down in Brexit,” he said. “In fact, one of the key planks of our devolution plan is how we can improve training and skills in the region and boost productivity. “That actually complements Brexit because it will help greatly strengthen the economy of our region and help boost trade. “At the moment training and skills comes from a fragmented budget delivered by a whole host of organisations.
“We’ll be telling the Minister: ‘Give us the power and we will create a better skilled workforce to enhance our whole economy’. “We can upskill our people, increase inward investment and provide the skilled workforce that employers need to prosper.” One of the ways this would be achieved is by streamling the way young people are provided with careers advice and education information and guidance in schools and colleges.
Mr Hart continued: “We have 17 local authorities working closely together on this plan with our other partners. “We have worked together as a team in producing the productivity plan and we have the united will to get on and succeed.
“We’re not holding out a begging bowl. The £30 million a year for 30 years that we could receive is a useful sum of money but ultimately we want the powers to get on and do what needs to be done so that the people of our region can get better jobs and have a better life in a thriving economy.”
Alongside the skills agenda, the partnership is also focused on improving road and rail links to the South West and creating more housing that is available to local people.
The South West currently receives only about 90 per cent of the public spending that goes into other regions and some areas, such as Torridge, Torbay and Newton Abbot, have some of the lowest earnings in the country.”
http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/freedom-devon-delegation-goes-london-467776
“Training company Learndirect should face an investigation after it was rated “inadequate” by Ofsted, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee says.
The firm is estimated to have received more than £600m of public funding since 2011, but Meg Hillier said the government must demonstrate there were consequences for failure.
Ofsted has told the BBC no training provider should be beyond scrutiny.
Learndirect said it had made strong progress in improving its provision.
Ofsted’s report, which the company tried to prevent being made public, rated Learndirect inadequate overall, with failings in apprenticeships and lesser problems in adult learning.
No termination of contract notice has been issued, which would normally follow a similar rating.
Officials have told the BBC that because there is a need to “protect learners and maintain other key public services run by Learndirect Ltd”, the contract will run its course until next summer with intensive monitoring.
But those officials will face questions about their handling of the contract when they next appear before the influential Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
‘Real slap’
Labour MP Ms Hillier MP said: “It’s a very big contract and we’re concerned the way Learndirect is treated is a sign the government considers it is too big to fail, which raises wider issues about how we contract these things out.”
She said she had asked the National Audit Office to consider looking into the contract. “If something is failing, the government needs to take action,” Ms Hillier continued. “It needs to show there are consequences, and it’s a real slap in the face to providers out there doing a good job, who are rated good or excellent by Ofsted, who then see a failing provider seemingly getting away with it.”
Learndirect Ltd has dozens of subcontractors, and takes a share of the contract value in return for passing the work on. But this case raise may wider questions about the scrutiny of major public contracts.
The head of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, spoke exclusively to the BBC and FE Week in a joint interview about the lessons that need to be learned.
“We have to make sure that we say what we have to say about quality, no matter what,” she said. “We have to do that as early on as possible in the life of providers so we don’t end up with more Learndirects where there are 20,000 apprentices not getting what they should be getting.” She refused to be drawn on her view of the response by the Department for Education (DfE) following the Ofsted report, saying: “It is not for us to decide what happens to Learndirect.”
But she added: “I hope that the lessons from Learndirect will really focus people’s minds on what can be done up front, especially with very large providers. “In any system there are always going to be some problems, some providers with difficulty, and making sure the system can cope with the failure of any provider is an essential part of a functioning market.”
There is a risk for Ofsted that if robust action isn’t seen to be taken following a critical report, its own authority is undermined.
‘Act swiftly’
In a BBC interview, Skills Minister Anne Milton said Learndirect Ltd was not seen by the government as too big to fail. “It is most certainly not untouchable, we have the learners’ interests at heart. “We will continue to act swiftly with Learndirect and any other provider that fails to do as their contract specifies.” She also gave an undertaking to recoup any public money for training not delivered – the first time the government has said this publicly. “We will claw back from Learndirect any bit of their contract they have failed to fulfil.” That could only happen after an audit of the contract, if it was found that some training had not been delivered.
This criticism of Learndirect comes at a time when a significant expansion of apprenticeships is about to unfold.
The prospect of the new employer-funded apprenticeship levy has led to around 2,000 potential providers joining a new government register.
Ms Spielman said: “There are very clear risks. One is about people who shouldn’t be providing training at all, making sure they don’t get onto the register, or recognising that at the earliest possible moment before lives are disrupted.
“One is about making sure that people who have the potential to do it well stay in control of their business model and don’t lose sight of apprentices through layers of subcontracts that aren’t managed well.”
The new system will be very different, because employers will commission as well as fund the training.
Learndirect said it was making improvements to its adult training. “We remain committed to working with current employers and apprentices to ensure they receive the training and skills they need to succeed,” it said.
“Our focus is on delivering the highest levels of service and outcomes, and we will continue working closely with the DfE and ESFA [Education and Skills Funding Agency] to ensure its requirements around quality measures are met.”
A separate company Learndirect Apprenticeships Limited has been set up for business under the new apprenticeship levy.
A spokesman for that company said Ofsted had recognised it had prepared well for the new system and that corporate apprenticeship customers were happy with the standard of learning.”
“The Conservative government “cannot yet confirm” whether nearly £1bn of money it was supposed to have given to charities has been “spent as intended”. And even worse, £200m of funding, which former prime minister David Cameron promised would go to young people, has seemingly been lost altogether.
Promises, promises
In the wake of the Libor rate rigging scandal, then chancellor George Osborne promised in 2012 that the £973m the banks were fined would “go to the benefit of the public”. And Cameron went further in 2015, saying the money from a specific £227m fine on Deutsche Bank would be used to create 50,000 apprenticeships. He said at the time:
“We’re going to take the fines from the banks who tried to rig markets – and we’re going to use it to train young people and get them off the dole and into work.”
But now, the National Audit Office (NAO), which is responsible for checking how the government spends public money, has investigated the £973m fund. And it found a catalogue of errors, mismanagement and lax behaviour by the Tories.
Dodgy dealings
The NAO found that:
The government is “is unable to demonstrate” if it actually spent £200m on 50,000 apprenticeships.
It gave £196m to groups, without any “terms and conditions” on how they should spend it.
The government “cannot yet confirm that charities spent all grants as intended”.
It has not evaluated whether the money actually benefitted the public, or not.
Some of the money went directly into an internal Ministry of Defence project.
Missing millions
The office said, specifically in relation to the apprenticeships, that:
although the money was used to fund apprenticeships in general, the government did not report any increase in its already announced 3 million target. The Department for Education, now responsible for apprenticeships, was not directed to use the £200 million to pursue a specific policy to deliver apprenticeships for unemployed 22-24 year olds and cannot demonstrate whether 50,000 new apprenticeships for this group have been provided.
But what is most revealing is just which charities the government gave £973m to.
The NAO said that:
The majority of this money has gone towards Armed Forces and Emergency Services charities. The Treasury and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) have distributed £592 million of the fund to a range of different causes.
Tories: cutting to the bone
Meanwhile, since 2010, the Tories have:
Cut defence spending to 5% of all public spending.
Left around 7,000 ex-military personnel homeless in the UK.
Presided over more service personnel taking their own lives than actually dying in battle.
And, also since 2010:
The NHS has seen a real terms cut in the amount of money given to it per patient.
The government has cut the number of people getting social care by 26%. And it has cut the equivalent of almost £50m from children’s mental health services.
20,000 police officers have lost their jobs and £2.3bn has been cut from police budgets.
10,000 firefighters have lost their jobs and budgets have been cut by a third.
As sneaky as sneaky can be
So, essentially, the government has used the £973m from the bank’s fines to paper over the cracks created by their austerity, via charities. And as The Canary reported only this week, the blowback from austerity is beginning to severely show, with the police dealing with more cases of mental health issues than ever before. We knew that Cameron couldn’t be trusted with the public purse. And now we know that the Tories will use it to try and cover their disastrous tracks, too.”
https://www.thecanary.co/2017/09/08/tories-just-lost-1bn-charity-money-back-sofa/
How many examples of OUR council doing these things can YOU think of from these examples from the Consultation Institute!
Loaded questions on reducing the number of councillors:
https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/council-accused-using-loaded-question-consultation/
Consultation described as “deplorable” on future delivery of services:
https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/councils-engagement-consultation-communities-described-deplorable/
Telephone consultation had leading questions on Local Plan:
https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/draft-local-plan-telephone-survey-criticised-leading-questions/
“Shambolic consultation” on police station closures:
https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/lib-dems-slam-mayors-shambolic-consultation-over-police-station-closures/
“Shoddy” consultation on mental health cuts:
https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/mental-health-public-consultation-branded-shoddy/
East Devon Watch 