Category Archives: Transparency

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

10 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Sleaze, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

“Is the Prime Minister fake news”

From the blog of Peter Cleasby:

“Last week the Conservative Party – rebranded nationally as “Theresa May’s Team” – bought advertising space in a dozen local papers around the country to promote the Prime Minister’s general election campaign [1]. Nothing wrong in that in principle: it’s a long-standing habit of political parties to pay for advertising. The towns and cities in question appear to be Parliamentary seats which the Tories are targeting to win. So far, business much as usual.

The commentariat has tended to criticise the tactic as a way of getting around spending limits for constituency election campaigns. It’s a targeted national campaign which doesn’t mention the local candidates so it’s not local spending, and it’s all within Electoral Commission rules.

Frankly, that’s a second-order complaint. The Conservative Party is simply doing what any advertiser would do given the opportunity. If it’s an unintended loophole in the spending rules, it can be put right. Much more insidious, and an example of further erosion of any semblance of standards in corporate behaviour, is the way in which the newspapers allowed the ads to be designed and placed.

What the local papers did – or, probably more accurately, what they were told to do by their corporate owners – was to accept the advertisement in the form of a wrap-around, with each paper’s normal masthead integrated into the paid-for “front page”. In other words, a blatant attempt to mislead readers into thinking their local paper was supporting Mrs May’s election campaign.

Defenders of the scheme have argued that people would easily see that it was an advertisement. Really? Two points here. First, at least on the fake front page of the Exeter Express and Echo, the words “ADVERTISER’S ANNOUNCEMENT” are set in a white font on a pale grey background. This is invisible to anyone looking at the paper from a distance, on a newsstand for example.

Second, it’s not unheard of for national papers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail to trumpet their support for a political party as editorial matter on their front pages. If they can do it, why should people be surprised that the local papers are doing the same?

The advertising impact isn’t limited to people who buy the paper: indeed, they will soon discover the real front page inside and put Mrs May in the recycling. What the technique achieves is massive exposure of Mrs May’s slogans because the papers – typically weekly ones – are displayed on newsstands for a whole week. These stands are often to be found in prominent places in major retailers: in Exeter, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s have separate stands for the Echo in the entrance areas.

The edition of the Exeter paper that carried the fake front page also ran a leader article entitled “Delivering facts not fake news” [2]. The irony of this was lost on the paper’s editor. In response to my complaint to him about the fake front page, Mr Parker said:

“The material carried this week was part of a nationwide advertising initiative by the Conservative Party and the decision to publish it was made solely for business reasons as we are, after all, a business.

“It was made clear that this was an advertising arrangement with the Conservative party and is something we are at the moment exploring with other political parties.

“Again, any future decisions will be based on the commercial side of the business and will have absolutely no bearing on the way the Express and Echo covers editorially any news stories whether or not they are of a political nature.

“I cannot emphasise enough that we are a totally independent news operation and proud of that fact and will continue to be so.”

Taking advertisers’ money is one thing. Trying to mislead your readers – who may not be interested in the distinction between the commercial and editorial sides of the business – is quite another. And since the rules on political balance don’t apply to the press, we can assume that only those parties who can pay out hard cash for wrap-arounds will be included in the exploratory discussions Mr Parker refers to.

Up in Westmoreland, where the local paper also ran a fake front page, there is some community anger, threatening a boycott of the rag [3]. Something worth considering everywhere else, since even if local papers no longer care about their reputations, their owners do care about sales and profits.

Meanwhile Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and all other retailers giving prominence to local papers should move the newsstands carrying the fake front page to the nearest back room until normal service is resumed.”

NOTES

[1] For a list of papers and constituencies, see https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/how-the-conservatives-are-using-local-adverts-to-get-around

[2] A longer version of the article is in the online version at http://www.devonlive.com/8203-in-an-age-of-fake-stories-we-always-provide-trusted-news/story-30314208-detail/story.

[3] See https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/05/09/northern-community-boycotts-local-paper-over-tory-wrap-around-ad/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Comments

3 Comments

Northern community boycotts local paper over Tory wrap-around ad

The Express and Echo was also guilty of publishing this ad, which coincidentally covered over the REAL front page detailing a local planning scandal!

“Hundreds of people have signed a petition demanding a weekly newspaper apologises for running a front page wraparound promoting the Conservative Party as the row over the adverts rumbles on.

The Westmorland Gazette was one of many regional newspapers to run the wrap last week ahead of Thursday’s local elections, but has now come under fire from readers who have demanded a full front page apology and threatened to boycott the paper until it complies.

The petition’s Avaaz page reads: “As regular readers of the Westmorland Gazette we are dismayed to see OUR community paper being misused for party political purposes.

“Whilst we would welcome balanced representation of all LOCAL candidates within the paper, we feel strongly that a front page advert for a single national party is not acceptable (especially when published on a polling day (4/5/17)!).

“We request that you publish a full front page apology in your next issue. Please note that many of us will be boycotting the paper until this occurs.”

The adverts coincided with the local elections, as readers went to the polls for council and mayoral elections.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westmorland-gazette-newspaper-front-page-tory-advert-local-elections-conservatives-apology-readers-a7725816.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), Honiton/ Gittisham, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

What is going on at Honiton Town Council (and the Beehive)?

THREE more resignations since yesterday’s shock resignation of the Mayor only minutes after she had been elected:

“Honiton Town Council has been dealt a double blow after two more councillors quit the authority.

Former mayor Peter Halse and Luke Harvey-Ingram tendered their resignation today, meaning one fifth of the council has quit in the last 48 hours.

Yesterday evening, the council was rocked after new mayor Ashley Delasalle attacked the authority before dramatically resigning on the spot and leaving the meeting.

Her exit was followed by David Perkins quitting as a member, the council-appointed director of Honiton Community Complex Ltd and temporary responsible financial officer.

His resigned after councillors voted to remove him from a committee investigating the finances around the Beehive build.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/two-more-honiton-town-councillors-resign-1-5009960

The Beehive community centre has been surrounded by controversy since its inception, when it was given a massive amount of money by EDDC (unlike most other similar centres in other towns) and got into much financial difficulty from the start, see here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/02/10/honiton-beehive-problems-started-long-ago/

and here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/06/16/if-honiton-town-council-is-deemed-a-financial-high-risk-for-beehive-what-will-skypark-do-to-eddc/

and here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/06/17/matters-of-financial-high-risk/

and a previous resignation here:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/04/15/pots-kettles-councillor-mike-allen-resigns-from-honiton-town-council-saying-it-is-undemocratic/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Spin, Transparency

Why voters must think for themselves

The focus of this article is Brexit but it could be anything – the NHS, education, the environment, foreign policy.

It’s about how shady companies manipulate news and advertising to serve the ends of those who employ them and how together they can create a fake world that people can be influenced by without realising it is happening, so good are they at the job.

Don’t let social media or newspapers or politicians with particular allegiances tell you what to think – don’t even let East Devon Watch tell you what to think! Look around you, see for yourself, listen to different views (the more different to yours the better), think about how your life is now and how you would wish it to be for yourself and others in future – then put your cross in the box that fits best with that vision.

“ …the capacity for this science [data analytics] to be used to manipulate emotions is very well established. This is military-funded technology that has been harnessed by a global plutocracy and is being used to sway elections in ways that people can’t even see, don’t even realise is happening to them,” she says. “It’s about exploiting existing phenomenon like nationalism and then using it to manipulate people at the margins. To have so much data in the hands of a bunch of international plutocrats to do with it what they will is absolutely chilling.

“We are in an information war and billionaires are buying up these companies, which are then employed to go to work in the heart of government. That’s a very worrying situation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency

The law on disclosable pecuniary interest

“What happens if I don’t follow the rules on disclosable pecuniary interests?

It is a criminal offence if, without a reasonable excuse, you fail to tell the monitoring officer about your disclosable pecuniary interests, either for inclusion on the register if you are a newly elected, co-opted or appointed member, or to update the register if you are re- elected or re-appointed, or when you become aware of a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not recorded in the register but which relates to any matter;

– that will be or is being considered at a meeting where you are present, or
– on which you are acting alone.

It is also a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information, or to participate in the business of your authority where that business involves a disclosable pecuniary interest. It is also a criminal offence to continue working on a matter which can be discharged by a single member and in which you have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

If you are found guilty of such a criminal offence, you can be fined up to £5,000 and disqualified from holding office as a councillor for up to five years.”

Click to access Openness_and_transparency_on_personal_interests.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Colyton, Councillor Helen Parr, Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Planning System, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton, Transparency, Voting

Comments

2 Comments

Express and Echo names EDDC Vice-Chair Helen Parr as councillor under police investigation at Colyton

Councillor Parr is standing for the DCC Seaton and Colyton seat at elections tomorrow.

“The vice-chairman of East Devon District Council is under investigation over an allegation she influenced plans to develop her area while failing to declare an interest.

Councillor Helen Parr will be speaking to police officers on a voluntary basis, the Express & Echo understands.

The investigation into the councillor for Coly Valley regards late changes to the East Devon Villages plan made after she was among those who spoke at the meeting of the East Devon District Council strategic planning committee on February 20.

Cllr Parr is a director of a company which owns land next to the former Ceramtec factory site in Colyton. The factory was due to be slated for housing until Cllr Parr spoke at the planning meeting and it was decided to recommend that it remains for employment.

She told the committee: “The main concern and why people are not at all happy about what is proposed in the document is that the built up area boundary line now has suddenly, after the consultation, gone out round the built section of the Ceramtec site.

“It is a very large site and will accommodate, if it went only to houses, about 80 houses. It would be a large development for Colyton which nobody, until now, had any inkling of, in that the built-up area boundary excluded this site.

“There is concern because the bottom line for Colyton is that we lost 80 jobs when this factory closed and we would like to retained as much as possible for employment land.

“I would ask the committee to agree or to propose that the wording should make it clear that on the preamble to the plan that on page 20 it includes words that show that this is protected as an employment site and it should be retained for employment use.”

The East Devon Alliance – a group of independent district councillors – has raised concerns about Cllr Parr’s conduct with Devon & Cornwall Police.

Members say she should have declared and interest and not spoken on the issue.

Cllr Parr and her husband are directors of J & FJ Baker & Company Limited, which owns land at Turlings Farm, next to the Ceramtec site.

East Devon Alliance Councillor Cathy Gardner, at last week’s East Devon District Council meeting, revealed that there was an ongoing police investigation into the council’s handling of the matter.

A spokesperson for Devon & Cornwall Police said it could not confirm or deny the scope of the police investigation. Cllr Parr was asked for comment, but said that due to purdah – rules brought in before an election – she could not say anything.

Last year J & FJ Baker & Company Limited bought land on the south side of Turlings Farm which connects the Ceramtec site to the farm that the Parrs own. They paid £1 for the strip of property.

Cllr Gardner said at last week’s meeting of East Devon District Council: “It may be proven that undue influence has distorted the content of the plan. If that does turn out to be the case, do you agree that it is the responsibility of this council to rectify the result of this influence – in order to ensure the residents of Colyton are not adversely affected and to do so before the plan goes to the (Planning) Inspector?”

In response, Cllr Paul Diviani, the council’s leader, said: “In terms of the village plan, I can’t see a reason why we should be inclined to second guess what an inspector or other authority or otherwise is going to do and in that respect I will reserve judgement as to when we actually do take action.”

An East Devon Alliance source told the Echo: “She is the vice-chairman of the council and has been the chairman of the planning committee for years, so she knows what she is doing, so we have got to pursue this.”

An East Devon District Council spokesman said: “Only the three statutory officers at the council together with one other officer were aware that there was a police investigation prior to the meeting of council on Wednesday and these officers have kept the matter confidential.

“Given that there is an active police investigation, and the sensitivities around purdah for both the county and General Election, it would be wholly inappropriate for the council to comment on the investigation at this time. The council also cannot comment on how Cllr Gardner became aware of the police investigation, and the chief executive and monitoring officer were surprised that she raised this matter at a public meeting.

“The process that has been followed for the village plan and the representations made/considered by officers and reported to the strategic planning committee, can be found on the East Devon District Council website.”

The East Devon Villages Plan – a blueprint for development in the area – is currently out for consultation”.

REPRODUCEABLE IMAGES:

UNFORTUNATELY SOME IMAGES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE NOT REPRODUCEABLE HERE – SEE LINK TO FULL ARTICLE AT END OF THIS POST WHICH IS REPEATED VERBATIM FROM THE DEVON-LIVE WEBSITE. FOR FULL STORY AND ALL EVIDENTIAL IMAGES SEE:

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-council-vice-chairman-to-speak-to-police-over-plan-changes/story-30310460-detail/story.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 May 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Transparency

CPS criteria for election fraud prosecutions

“Proceedings for major infringements will normally be in the public interest.

Proceedings for other infringements may not be in the public interest in situations where:

the offence is of a “technical” nature which does not infringe the spirit of the legislation;

the offence was committed as a result of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding;

the offence could not have influenced the result of the election process; or
the offender has remedied any breach of the law.

If the offence falls to be considered under one or more of the criteria above, the matter may be dealt by way of a caution administered by the police or, where appropriate, the provisions of advice as to an individual’s future conduct.

In practice, it may be difficult to prove that the result of an election has been affected by an infringement. However, the fact that a breach has or may have affected the result of an election is a factor to be taken into consideration in deciding whether proceedings should be instigated.

Whilst every case will of course turn on its own facts, where there is clear evidence that a breach has affected the result or is likely to have done so, the public interest is more likely to require a prosecution – even if the infringement itself is relatively minor.”

Dr Mark Pack notes:

“It’s worth in particular noting that a few of the more common reasons that crop up on online chatter either from Conservatives, or reported as being said by Conservatives, do not feature in the criteria.

In particular, the fact that someone might have secured re-election before a court case could proceed against them is not a factor.

Moreover, prosecutions are not restricted to proceeding only on the basis that the offence altered the election result. That’s only required for one very specific set of legal action, which isn’t what’s at stake in the current cases involving so many Conservative MPs.”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/149609/cps-prosecution-guidelines-election-offences/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Councillor Marianne Rixon EDA, DCC, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Stuart Hughes, Sustainability, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Sidford hustings: strong performance from Councillor Rixson (Independent EDA)

Best candidate for County Council? It’s your choice. Voting’s on 4th May!

The Devon County Council hustings at Sidford on Wednesday evening (19 April),brought together five of the six candidates vying for the Sidmouth division, which now covers the whole of the Sid Valley.

They are Jeannie Alderdice (Green), Ray Davison (Labour), Stuart Hughes (Conservative), Marianne Rixson (Independent East Devon Alliance) and Richard Wright (UKIP). Only Lewis Ragbourn (Lib Dem) was unable to attend the event, which was Chaired by Cathy Debenham of the Sidford-Sidbury Residents’ Group.

A common thread for most candidates was “transparency, accountability and listening to residents”; concerns about cuts to NHS, social care, and education; and inappropriate development. Despite passionate speeches from Jeannie Allerdice (“EU environmental rules should apply post-Brexit”); Ray Davison (“Conservative austerity policy is past its sell-by date”);and Richard Wright (“countryside not concrete”), just two serious candidates emerged based on their respective records as serving councillors: Marianne Rixson, and Stuart Hughes.

Cllr Rixson has a solid reputation for thoroughness and efficiency, much appreciated by local people in the successful fight against the planned Sidford business park. Long-serving Cllr Hughes offered promises such as “the long-awaited Sidmouth traffic management plan”, and “funding for Alma Bridge” this year.

On the basis of this hustings, Caroline Lucas’ suggestion this week of an informal coalition of e.g. Greens, Labour and Lib Dems, against the Conservative Party machine, sounds a sensible idea.

A second hustings, arranged by the Vision Group for Sidmouth, is scheduled for 28th April , 7pm, in the cellar bar at Kennaway House. For details, see futuresforumvgs.blogspot.com Voting for this DCC election is 4th May, 7am-10pm.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Transparency, Voting

Britain “drifting to elective dictatorship”

A pessimistic but hard-to-argue-with view of “democracy” as it stands. Note this is NOT about the Conservative Party, it embraces every government – New Labour, Coalition, Conservative – since 1997.

“Since 1997, simple parliamentary majorities have been used to radically alter the constitutional make-up of the UK. Devolution and the creation of the Supreme Court have transformed the country’s institutions. Nat le Roux argues that this is evidence of a growing imbalance of power. The executive can change the institutions of state at will – often for politically-motivated, short-term gain. The extent of the democratic mandate has been exaggerated, as the Coalition government shows.

There is a very widespread view in Britain that our political culture is dysfunctional. According to the survey carried out for the Hansard Society’s 2013 Audit of Political Engagement, two out of three citizens believe that the present system of governing Britain is in need of significant improvement. When asked how this might best be achieved, a large majority of respondents favoured action to increase the transparency of politics and the popular accountability of elected representatives.

It is easy to see why many people believe that a disjunction between citizens and elected politicians is the primary problem in an increasingly dysfunctional, and disrespected, political system. However this is at best a partial diagnosis. In reality, British politics are considerably more transparent than a generation ago: proceedings in parliament are televised, it is much easier to access many types of government information, and the public and private activities of the political elite are subject to relentless media scrutiny. From the perspective of the ordinary citizen, Westminster culture may appear introverted and opaque, but this is an inadequate explanation for the current malaise felt towards British politics and government.

Less evident to outsiders, but equally debilitating, is the growing and dangerous imbalance of power between the institutions of the state itself. Lord Hailsham coined the term elective dictatorship in 1976, and it is a more accurate description of the political landscape today than was the case forty years ago.

Two developments have taken us further down that road. The first is the increasing unwillingness of the executive to respect the independent authority of the judiciary, the civil service, local government and parliament itself. The second is the willingness of governments, especially after 1997, to introduce fundamental constitutional changes, many of them effectively irreversible. Perversely, it is the over-representation of democratic legitimacy as the dominant contemporary political virtue which arguably bears a large measure of responsibility for our current predicament. …

The reality of the democratic mandate

It is often argued by the proponents of executive supremacy that a government effectively enjoys a direct democratic mandate because most voters in general elections believe they are voting for a party manifesto and a prime minister at the same time as selecting a constituency MP. Political history suggests that this argument is a very weak one. Two of the last four prime ministers were installed by their parties between general elections, and this has always been an entirely normal route to No 10. Voters in 2010 did not choose to have a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government (under the current electoral system there is no mechanism which would have allowed them to express such a preference). Many of the policies of that government were foreshadowed in the election manifesto of only one of the coalition partners, and some policies were in neither. The coalition’s policy platform was the coalition agreement, negotiated by the party leaders after the 2010 election and never endorsed by the electorate.

If democratic legitimacy implies substantial popular endorsement, then the democratic mandate of recent British governments rests on weak foundations. In the 2005 general election, Labour secured an absolute majority of parliamentary seats but only 35.2 per cent of the national vote. The turnout was 61.4 per cent of registered electors. Thus the Labour government which was in power between 2005 and 2010 enjoyed the active endorsement of less than one in four potential electors. …

The sovereignty of Parliament

The reality of party politics, in Britain as in other mature democracies, is that a government’s ability to sustain a majority is not based on an ability to convince legislators by reasoned argument of the merits of particular proposals.

Although backbench revolts are more frequent than a generation ago, nearly all divisions are along party lines. Bills are introduced and passed into law irrespective of their objective merit because, tout court, the government commands a majority in the House. Most MPs, most of the time, support their own party leadership for a combination of principled and self-interested reasons.

Despite the Wright reforms of 2010, it is government rather than the Commons itself which largely determines the Parliamentary timetable and enjoys a near-monopolistic control of legislative processes. At best, party loyalty severely muffles effective legislative constraint on executive action, except in those rare cases where a backbench rebellion is large enough to overturn the government’s majority. None of this is especially surprising or – arguably – objectionable in itself: that is how parliamentary democracies work. However, given the realities of parliamentary behaviour, government claims to an untrammelled and generalised authority may ring rather hollow.
…

Drifting towards instability?

A pessimist could easily believe that we are drifting towards institutional instability. Governments have become increasingly willing to alter very long-standing constitutional settlements for reasons which often appear short-term and politically self- interested. It seems likely that, even if the Scots vote No, the independence referendum will accelerate the breakup of the United Kingdom. A serious clash between government and the senior judges over the extent of the courts’ powers of judicial review seems increasingly likely. The constitutional position of the civil service is being challenged by the current government in a way which would have been unthinkable a generation ago. Government ministers are increasingly bold in asserting their democratic mandate – or rather an over-representation of it – to trump all opposition. All of this is taking place against a background of the general breakdown of public confidence in the political elite. Not so long ago, Britain was widely admired across much of the world as a model of strong constitutional democracy. It is hard to believe that is the case today.”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/04/13/over-mighty-executive-since-1997-britain-has-been-drifting-towards-elective-dictatorship/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Audit (EDDC), EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Transparency

“Revolution in council lending could tackle irresponsible borrowing”

“Most coverage of local government finances falls into two categories of story. The first concerns the egregious rewards paid to “town hall fat cats” for often mediocre performance. The other concerns “savage cuts” being made to this or that service due to a reduction in central government grants.
There is truth in both of these. What has not gone reported so much is that a genuine revolution in local government finance is under way.

The traditional model of financing, in which grants are doled out by central government, is gradually being replaced by a system in which councils, collectively, are self-funding and individual councils bear more risk as a result of their own spending and revenue-raising decisions.

Some of these reforms have already attracted attention, chiefly the changes to business rates, over which individual councils will have greater, but still limited, autonomy in future.

Another big change coming has attracted surprisingly little attention. The UK Municipal Bonds Agency (UKMBA) was launched in 2014 with the aim of helping councils to finance their spending. The agency, a public limited company owned by 57 local authorities and the Local Government Association, aims to issue bonds with maturities of between ten and twenty years. Because it is backed by a number of councils who have pooled their borrowing requirements, the theory is that it should be able to create “benchmark” size issues for which there should be greater demand from institutional investors. And because more than one party is responsible for repayment of the bond and servicing the interest payable on it, a “joint and several guarantee” in the jargon, in theory the bonds should be less risky to investors. That should also, in theory, lower borrowing costs for councils.

The idea is common elsewhere. Kommune Kredit has been operating in Denmark for more than a century, while BNG in the Netherlands has been going since 1914. Kommunalbanken has been funding local authorities in Norway for 90 years; other such funding agencies exist in Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland, among others.

One of the key aims of UKMBA is to allow local authorities to borrow more cheaply than the existing lender of choice, the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB), a 224-year-old body that currently accounts for about three quarters of local authority borrowing. Traditionally, the board has charged 20 basis points above the prevailing gilt rate but in October 2010, in an attempt to discourage borrowing by local authorities, the coalition government raised this to a 100 basis points premium.

The board now, in most cases, lends to local authorities at 80 basis points over the gilt rate. It was when the cost of borrowing from the board was increased that leading figures in the local government world began to talk about an alternative finance provider.

Aidan Brady, the former Deutsche Bank chief operating officer who is chief executive of the UKMBA, is on record as saying: “Clearly, we have to beat the Public Works Loan Board [in terms of offering a cheaper rate], that’s as simple as it gets.”

The irony is that just as the new agency is about to offer some proper competition to the board disquiet is growing about the extent to which local authorities have been borrowing from the latter.

The Sunday Times reported last weekend that a number of local authorities had gone on a “£1.3 billion binge” of buying commercial property with the aim of using rental incomes from those assets to supplement spending or reduce the extent of budget cuts they would otherwise be making. The danger is that these authorities have exposed themselves and future generations of council tax payers to swings in the commercial property market. Traditional property market buyers have been astonished at the prices paid for assets such as some sub-prime shopping centres, grumbling that local authorities are distorting the market.

This has been made possible over recent years because by linking the PWLB loan rate to the gilt rate and allowing the latter to be depressed by the Bank of England’s asset purchase scheme the government has created a “carry trade” opportunity for local authorities in which they can borrow at about 2 per cent and invest the proceeds in an asset yielding between 6 per cent and 8 per cent.

None of this has made the job of the fledgling UKMBA any easier. The agency was reported as long ago as June last year to have signed up nine local authorities to participate in the first debt issue, which was expected by the end of 2016, with a panel of eight banks, including three to act as “lead runners”, in place to run it. But no issues have yet taken place. Market sources suggest that this is because the agency is still waiting on one more council to sign off on its participation.

This ramp-up in local authority activity could be because the PWLB, which is currently an arm of the Debt Management Office — the Treasury agency that issues gilts and manages the national debt, is about to be absorbed into the Treasury, which may lead to more control being exerted on its future lending. That was certainly suggested in a government statement last year noting that transferring the PWLB back into the Treasury would “secure greater accountability to ministers and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of central government lending to local authorities”.

In other words, local authorities are borrowing now, while they can. The sooner they are subjected to either greater Treasury scrutiny on the one hand or the superior credit checks being promised by the UKMBA on the other, the better.“

The Times Comment (paywall)

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Apr 2017

Posted under

Cranbrook, Inequality, Transparency

Cranbrook Town Council: ex- councillors give reasons for leaving

Having their hands tied on many matters
Inability to influence matters affecting Cranbrook residents
Frustration that information was not shared with all councillors
Not open, transparent or inclusive

The page detailing the current council’s response to these allegations is in the current e-edition of the Cranbrook Herald on page 4 here:

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Apr 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

1 Comment

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Apr 2017

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Apr 2017

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Apr 2017

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 …..

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

3 Apr 2017

Posted under

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

Comments

2 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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Developers/ Development, EDBF, EDDC, Exmouth, Regeneration, Transparency

Exmouth Regeneration “Business Forum” (2) – the rules!

“The voting membership of the Board may invite additional non-voting members as detailed above to join the Board as they deem appropriate. The may also remove non-voting members from the Board as they deem appropriate.

Eligibility for non-voting membership of the Board will be subject to a protocol that ensures that members are fit and proper persons eg covering matters of criminal record, bankruptcy, not being subject to planning enforcement etc.

To assist the Board they may invite any individuals with particular expertise (including other elected Members) and/or representatives of organisations to attend.

Officers of the District Council, County Council and the Exmouth Town Clerk will attend in an advisory capacity only. The District Council will provide the secretariat service for the Board.”

Click to access combinedcabagenda050417publicversion.pdf

“Fit and proper persons” … fit for what and proper for what?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Apr 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, EDBF, EDDC, Exmouth, Licensing Committee, Philip Skinner, Regeneration, Transparency

Comments

1 Comment

Exmouth Regeneration Board: an East Devon Business Forum clone?

“Board Structure

Voting Members

 EDDC Portfolio Holder for Economy (who shall be the Chair)
 EDDC Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Homes and Communities (Vice Chair)
 EDDC Exmouth Champion
 EDDC Tourism Champion
 2 x Devon County Councillor (one who shall represent Exmouth)
 2 x Exmouth Town Councillor

And then one representative from each of;

 Clinton Devon Estates
 Exmouth Chamber of Commerce
 Exmouth Licensed Victuallers Association
 Exmouth Community Organisations Liaison Panel
 Exe Estuary Partnership representative

Non-Voting Members
 Alderman Tim Wood

And then one representative from each of;
 Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group representative
 Leisure East Devon representative
 Exmouth tourism business (eg holiday accommodation)
 Food and drink business (eg restaurateur)
 Exmouth landowner
 Exmouth commercial developer”

Click to access combinedcabagenda050417publicversion.pdf

page 89

SO reminiscent of the East Devon Business Forum!!!

And why Clinton Devon Estates when EDDC bought out their restrictive covenant on the site? What exactly is their interest?

Why a licensed victualler – don’t we have enough of them at EDDC already!

Alderman Tim Woods – don’t go there, Owl. So reminiscent of … no, no, no do NOT go there!

All the usual suspects, many of whom have, or will have, vested interests in the final outcome. No-one with REAL scrutiny teeth.

Peter Halse as Chairman!!!

Same old … same old … same Old Boys …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

28 Mar 2017

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

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

26 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Health and Social Care (local), NHS (local), Sleaze, Spin, Transparency

Surprise! Government says one thing and does exactly the opposite – this time rural pharmacies

“Ministers are planning to allow hundreds of rural chemists to close across the country despite repeated assurances to MPs this would not happen, The Telegraph can disclose.

In private letters to Theresa May, last August Philip Hammond and Jeremy Hunt warned that pharmacies would have to close because of the cut in a subsidy worth hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the hard-pressed pharmacies.

The Cabinet ministers’ warnings appear to be at odds with ministers’ repeated public claims in Parliament and in official documents that no closures are likely.

They also appear to confirm that Mrs May is concerned about the plans and had to seek reassurances from Mr Hammond, the Chancellor, and Mr Hunt, the Health secretary.

Campaigners said the letters amounted to a “smoking gun” which laid bare the Government’s indifference to saving rural pharmacies. …

… According to letters disclosed in a High Court challenge to the plans, and seen by The Telegraph, Mr Hammond and Mr Hunt warned that the cut will result in the closure of pharmacies.

Mr Hunt told Mrs May on August 2 the cut would mean that “500-900 pharmacies will close”, in a letter that was copied to Mr Hammond.

Mr Hunt said: “We cannot know exactly how individual pharmacies will be affected by the funding reductions and there is a risk that some pharmacies may close as a result of these changes, although this has never been our objective.”

Mr Hammond went further in a second letter on August 11, telling Mrs May he supported the subsidy cut to what he described as an “inefficient and over-subsidised market” to move chemists “away away from the traditional bricks-and-mortar business model”.

He told the Prime Minister: “Longer-term I would like the community pharmacy market to follow trends we have witnessed in other retail markets.

“This might include a shift away from the traditional bricks-and-mortar business model towards scaled-up, innovative supply solutions employing digital technology, where Government expenditure is minimised.”

The Government announced revised plans in October that increased the number of chemists that can access a special fund from 900 to 1,300, only half as many as the up to 900 that Mr Hunt expected to close.

Weeks later Pharmacies minister David Mowat told MPs three times that no closures were likely. He told MPs on October 17: “We do not believe that community pharmacies will necessarily close as a result of these cuts.”

The department’s own impact assessment was based on a scenario “a scenario where no pharmacy closes” as a result of the cut.

Labour’s shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said Mr Hunt should explain to MPs “why he was saying one thing to the Prime Minister while Mr Mowat was telling the House of Commons something different”.

He said: “Someone in Government needs to get a grip and clarify the future of these hundreds of community pharmacies, the staff who work in them, and the patients who depend upon their services.” …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/26/exclusive-philip-hammond-jeremy-hunt-tell-theresa-may-secret/