Politics Iceland style – Pirate Party poised for victory

“A party that favours direct democracy, complete government transparency, decriminalising drugs and offering asylum to Edward Snowden could form the next government in Iceland after the country goes to the polls on Saturday.

Riding a wave of public anger at perceived political corruption in the wake of the 2008 financial crash and the Panama Papers scandal in April, Iceland’s Pirate party looks on course to either win or finish a close second.

The radical party, founded by activists and hackers four years ago as part of an international anti-copyright movement, captured 5% of the vote in 2013 elections, winning three seats in Iceland’s 63-member parliament, the Althingi.

This time around, analysts say it could win between 18 and 20 seats. This would put it in pole position to form a government at the head of a broad progressive alliance of up to five parties currently in opposition.

The party’s leader and figurehead is Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a 49-year-old feminist MP, poet, artist and former WikiLeaks collaborator. Jónsdóttir says she has no ambition to be prime minister, pointing to the Pirate party’s horizontal structure. Rather, she wants to sweep away what she sees as Iceland’s dysfunctional system.

“People in Iceland are sick of corruption and nepotism,” she has said. She likens Iceland to a chilly North Atlantic version of Sicily, ruled by a few “mafia-style families” plus their friends, whom she nicknames “the Octopus”.

Of her political movement, she says: “We do not define ourselves as left or right but rather as a party that focuses on the systems. In other words, we consider ourselves hackers – so to speak – of our current outdated systems of government.”

This anti-establishment message has resonated with large swaths of Iceland’s 320,000-strong population, especially the young. On Monday Jónsdóttir and two party colleagues took part in an AMA, or “ask me anything”, on Reddit. Their wide-ranging discussion covered the EU (the Pirates would put Iceland’s membership application to a referendum), fishing quotas, whaling, climate change and the party’s name.

“We’re called the Pirate party in reference to a global movement of Pirate parties that popped up over the last decade,” parliamentary candidate Smári McCarthy explained. “Despite our name, we’re taken fairly seriously in Iceland, in particular because of our very aggressive anti-corruption stance, [and] our pro-transparency work.” …

… All too often in Icelandic politics, the party says, electoral pledges are reneged on after elections, with “the parties forming a government … hiding behind compromises in coalition – enabling them to cheat voters again and again”.

Saturday’s election was prompted by the resignation of Iceland’s prime minister Sigmundur Davið Gunnlaugsson. He became the first major casualty of the Panama Papers in April after the leaked legal documents revealed he and his wife had millions of pounds of family money offshore. Gunnlaugsson hadn’t declared the British Virgin Islands company.

This was not illegal, but the news sparked outrage and some of the largest protests that Iceland has ever seen. The ruling coalition replaced Gunnlaugsson with the agriculture and fisheries minister Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson and promised elections before the end of this year.

Gunnlaugsson’s Progressive party is now languishing at about 8% in the polls, barely a third of its score in the 2013 elections. Support for the Independence party, the Pirates’ rival for the position of largest party, seems to be holding. …

… Built on the belief that new technologies can help promote civic engagement and government transparency and accountability, the Pirates also advocate an “unlimited right” for citizens to be involved in political decision-making. It wants voters to be able to propose new legislation and decide on it in national referendums.

The Pirate party is part of a global anti-establishment trend typified by parties on the left such as Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, and on the right such as Germany’s AfD and Britain’s Ukip. As well as promising to accept Bitcoin as legal tender, Iceland’s Pirates have pledged to maintain the country’s economic stability. …

… Unlike some other anti-establishment parties, the Pirates have made clear they have no intention of doing anything likely to upset the economy. Analysts say there is little panic at the prospect of the radical party entering government.

“Across Europe, increasingly many people think that the system that is supposed to look after them is not doing it any more,” Jónsdóttir said. “But we know we are new to this, and it is important that we are extra careful and extra critical of ourselves to not take too much on.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/26/iceland-election-could-propel-radical-pirate-party-into-power

More detail on Chief Constable conduct complaint

The complaint which led to an investigation into the conduct of Devon & Cornwall’s chief constable was made by defeated Devon Liberal Democrat MP Adrian Sanders, it has emerged.

Shaun Sawyer, the chief constable of Devon & Cornwall Police, has been placed under investigation for comments he made during an interview with the BBC – but denies any wrongdoing.

The investigation relates to comments about an inquiry into the declaration of general election expenses by Devon and Cornwall’s Police and Crime Commissioner Alison Hernandez.

Mrs Hernandez is currently being investigated following a complaint about alleged false accounting, relating to her role as the Conservative Party election agent in Torbay in May last year.

It was at the General Election that sitting Liberal Democrat MP Mr Sanders lost out to Conservative Kevin Foster, and Mrs Hernandez was the Tories’ election agent. She was elected as PCC in May this year.

In an interview with the BBC about the inquiry into Ms Hernandez, Mr Sawyer said that although “democracy is important” Parliament needed to consider procedures for dealing with complaints about the way elections are run.

He said: “This is taking up police time.

“It is taxpayers’ money.”

Mr Sawyer said in a statement on Tuesday: “I am aware that the OPCC (Office for the Police and Crime Commissioner) has received a complaint from a member of the public concerning comments I made in the course of a BBC interview regarding a police investigation into the Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez.

“This complaint has been considered by the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) and remitted back to the OPCC for resolution.

“I welcome an independent investigation into this complaint and look forward to hearing the outcome in due course.”

Gloucestershire Police has been brought in to carry out the investigation into Mr Sawyer, according to BBC Devon.

Read more: VIDEO – 89-year old Phyllis says next sting could be fatal in Bickleigh home wasp invasion battle

Mr Sanders welcomed the probe. He said: “You can’t make statements like that unless you have some background detail.

“He’s not in a position to know that detail, especially when it’s his boss who is the subject of investigation.”

The Devon & Cornwall force is investigating claims of false election expenses accounting by the Conservative Party at last year’s General Election.

In May this year magistrates approved an application from Devon & Cornwall Police to investigate four South West MPs, and the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner Ms Hernandez.

Because the investigation included Ms Hernandez, Devon & Cornwall chief constable Shaun Sawyer asked the West Mercia Constabulary to conduct inquiries on his behalf.

The inquiry is now being handled by the IPCC and is expected to be concluded by November.

Ms Hernandez denies any wrongdoing and has said she is ready to help with any inquiries.

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/defeated-mp-made-complaint-against-devon-cornwall-chief-constable/story-29838762-detail/story.html

“Journalism is finding out what someone else doesn’t want you to know – everything else is public relations

Mid-Devon is one of the four councils that makes up the secretive “Greater Exeter”.

“THEY say that journalism is finding out what someone else doesn’t want you to know – everything else is public relations, writes Katie French.

This week especially that distinction has felt rather relevant.

With the news that two prominent councillors had been removed from their high-profile positions at Mid Devon District Council, it was important to find out why.

But how can a reporter get to the bottom of a story when those involved are not speaking to you?

This paper is regularly inundated with requests from the council for photo opportunities and self-congratulatory coverage but in the last seven days, the phones have been nigh on silent.

In a quest to get to the bottom of the Tiverton Portas Company investigation, repeated attempts have been made to contact councillors Sue Griggs and Neal Davey.

Neither has answered calls nor responded to emails.

This would all be very well if they hadn’t chosen a life in public office. But when you begin to take an allowance from the taxpayer to stand as a councillor, your decisions as a public servant open you up to a reasonable expectation of scrutiny.

Through their roles at the Tiverton Portas Company – Cllr Griggs as chair and Cllr Davey as secretary – the pair have become the trusted faces responsible for the £100,000 of government money supplied to improve the town.

Both have enjoyed ample column inches celebrating their successes. Yet when asked to comment on this investigation they have been silent.

This refusal to respond to reasonable requests has infuriated the chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

John O’Connell said: “Local residents will be incensed. This repeated refusal to speak to reporters shows a shocking contempt for scrutiny and transparency.

“The individuals responsible must be held to account. This is an utter disgrace and the council needs to sort it out without delay.”

But the councillors are not the only ones who have been difficult to reach.

Mid Devon District Council carried out the investigation into the Tiverton Portas Company after a complaint was made by a member of the public.

Numerous sources told this paper that a deficit of £18,000 had been discovered. That claim turned out to be unfounded but had the findings of the investigation – as presented to the standards committee on October 6 – been held in public, the claim would have had no credibility in the first place.

This increasing trend for public-funded bodies to attend to matters in private is not good for anyone – and it is not good enough.

As taxpayers we have a right to learn how our money is spent. Press and public should stand together and challenge unreasonable attempts to keep private matters relating to the taxpayer’s purse.

Next week a meeting will be held at Tiverton Town Council to discuss the findings of Mid Devon District Council’s audit.

It has been hinted that it will be held in chambers – meaning the press and public will be excluded.

This is not acceptable and the Gazette will be challenging the motion.

After all – if it is deliberately being held away from a reporter it’s likely there is going to be something worth hearing.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/public-servants-have-an-obligation-to-keep-us-informed-comment/story-29838892-detail/story.html

3 or maybe 4 or maybe 7 organisations and 2 or maybe 5 individuals decided how to spend £82,000 S106 in Seaton – you work it out!

Except when you read the answer to this FoI request, it is SO contradictory!

It says in one part 2 individuals and 7 organisations responded, then it says 5 individuals and 4 organisations responded – and then it names only 3 organisations!

Whatever – it was a couple of individuals, the town council and 2 sports clubs that made the decision. That’s public consultation EDDC style!

Section 106 publicising for Seaton in 2014

Date submitted: 27 September 2016

Summary of request

On your website you state:

‘In 2014 we gathered in ideas from the community on how £82,000 of section 106 money from new homes in Seaton should be spent. We received nine eligible, affordable and possible ideas from the community and from sporting organisations.’

I would be grateful if you would detail:

1. How the community were asked for ideas?
2. What organisations were asked for ideas?
3. How organisations were asked for ideas?
4. How many individuals responded?
5. How many organisations responded?
6. Of the nine eligible ideas, how many were from individuals and how many from organisations/representatives of organisations?
7. The names of the organisations whose ideas were deemed eligible
Summary of response

1. How the community were asked for ideas? – Through press releases sent out to all media contacts; through social media and the councils website; local Councillors and Seaton Town Council were involved and were asked to publicise the opportunity. Also e-mails were sent to several relevant local organisations we were aware of, we asked them to publicise the opportunity
2. What organisations were asked for ideas? – We do not have a record of this
3. How organisations were asked for ideas? – See answer to question 1
4. How many individuals responded? – 2
5. How many organisations responded? – 7
6. Of the nine eligible ideas, how many were from individuals and how many from organisations/representatives of organisations? – 5 were from individuals and 4 from organisations/representatives of organisations
7. The names of the organisations whose ideas were deemed eligible – Seaton Town Council; Seaton Cricket Club; Axe Valley Runners
Date responded: 4 October 2016

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

How long do our MPs actually sit in the House of Commons?

Answer: not long at all. And MPs have no obligation to attend any sittings unless they are whipped to do so.

Mondays 2.30-10.30pm

Tuesdays and Wednesdays 11.30am-7.30pm

Thursdays 9.30am-5.30pm

Sitting Fridays 9.30am-3pm
(There are only 13 “sitting Fridays” in this Parliament)

Commons Hansard: Sittings of the House

http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/business-faq-page/

MPs (such as Neil Parish) who sit on committees have slightly more work, though his committee has no current scheduled meetings arranged:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environment-food-and-rural-affairs-committee/

If you want to see exactly what is happening day by day here is the daily diary of Parliamentary activities:

http://calendar.parliament.uk/

The website of the Conservative Middle East Council, of which Hugo Swire is Chairman, does not give details of its meetings:

https://cmec.org.uk/

Oh, oh – Government says we have to have an elected Mayor!

Must be a credible figure … now, THAT is going to take some finding! From Devon or Somerset? Career councillor or business person? Nuclear interests or not? LEP member or not? Brexiter or not? Developer or not? Ruralist or Urbanist? And where is DCC, Greater Exeter and EDDC in all this? …

AND Sajid Javid manages to disparage tourism and older people in one paragraph.

“Ambitious devolution plans for Devon and Somerset need an elected mayor, the region’s economic leaders have been warned. Sajid Javid, secretary of state for communities and local government said there has to be a credible figurehead for economic growth for the Government to be prepared to hand over powers for investment, transport and infrastructure.

He made the stark statement at the South West Growth Summit, a major meeting of business leaders, politicians and academics from across all sectors in the South West.

The assertion comes as all 17 Devon and Somerset councils reach a critical stage in their bid for devolved powers – and the sticking point is the need for an elected mayor.

Mr Javid said that only an elected mayor could bring the kind of ambitions devolution that the region is calling for. To a packed Reed Hall at the University of Exeter, the minister, who is an alumni, said: “If you want an ambitious devolution deal then you have got to have a mayor.”

And he argued that Cornwall’s Devolution Deal without an elected mayor was not ambitious and did not involve any hand over of money. “What’s the point of going down that route?” he said.

Mr Javid called for the region to have one voice on its plans for economic prosperity. In a region that is challenged by disparate communities and historical rivalries, he said: “If you are going to make a success of the south-west that whole attitude has to change.”A region of collaboration and co-operation can make a difference. It has to happen,” he said.

The beauty of the region means as strong reliance on tourism, but it is a double-edged sword, he warned. “It perpetuates the idea that this is a low skill and part-time economy. It is not just a sunny playground for the rest of the country nor a retirement community for Britain’s pensioners.”

He said the 3 million population of Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset were leading the way in aerospace and creative industries and it is a question of taking that message to the rest of the country and the world.

The South West Growth Summit was hosted by the Pennon Group in conjunction with the Western Morning News and the region’s Local Enterprise Partnerships. The debate held at the event will go on to help form a Growth Charter for the South West, a document that will be presented to the Government ahead of next month’s Autumn Statement.

The region’s MPs joined business leaders to discuss a number of key issues facing the region, including keeping the brightest talent and attracting investment.
Connectivity in terms of mobile and broadband coverage and investment in the road, rail and air routes continue to be high on the agenda.

Chris Loughlin, Chairman of the Pennon Group called for the region to embrace the digital revolution, the kind of business that makes a virtue of working in remote communities.

He said that the region must decide what the South West is and formulate a concept to rival the Northern Powerhouse or Midlands Engine to capture the collective consciousness. “It is essential that we have a clear unified voice to stand up strong for the South West.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/an-elected-mayor-is-the-answer-to-devolution-ambitions-warns-javid/story-29829580-detail/story.html

“‘Within hours of arriving, I was on a yacht with some investors, being asked to join the Freemasons’ “

“This week, the UK’s largest property event, the MIPIM conference, has opened in London. “#MIPIMUK is waiting for you,” tweeted @MIPIMWorld, the Twitter handle of the international organisation. Underneath was an image of exploding paintballs, overlaid with the words: “THE POST BREXIT BOOM – Are you ready?” …

… The conference this week will be a fairly sedate affair: property magnates with lanyards in expensive suits, stalls dedicated to the Midlands Engine and the Northern Powerhouse, tired corporate phrases like “driving innovation and diversification in the market” (tweeted out from that same MIPIM handle this morning), and so on.

The real fun is had at their annual event in Cannes, scheduled for mid-March, where estate agency professionals and wealthy investors cavort around five-star hotels and champagne receptions in the sunshine, while ruminating about the housing crisis many of them benefit from directly.

“Within hours of arriving, I was on a yacht with some investors, being asked to join the Freemasons,” one MIPIM attendee told me about his experience last year. Another described it as a “nonstop party” where she woke up one morning and couldn’t remember the name of the hotel she was staying in “until I looked at the monogram on my bespoke dressing gown”.

You meet some people who are involved in things that feel dodgy,” another property professional admitted.

“I work in property and I didn’t know about the layers of middlemen and secret deals that go on, particularly where London is concerned. Investors buy up flats before they’re built, then sell them on to other investors, but they don’t want the public to know they’re selling them again because that would drive down the price of the other units they own. So they pay off middlemen to do private deals with people they know, just to keep knowledge of the deals out of the public domain.” …

… Estate agents were happy to tell me that they’re seeing more foreign investors than ever offer to buy London flats traditionally expected to be taken by UK-based first time buyers “because their money goes twice as far now”, which is “great for business”. This is the “Brexit bubble” people feared would make the housing crisis worse after leaving the EU, and it’s fast becoming a reality. One presumes it’s why one of MIPIM’s main events this week is titled: “Extraordinary times, extraordinary returns?”.

Cast your eye over the speakers at MIPIM this week and there’s little to feel optimistic about. There’s Navid Chamdia, the UCL-educated head of real estate at the Qatar Investment Authority. He focuses “on direct acquisitions, joint ventures and co-investments in Europe” after spending 12 years at Ernst & Young “advising on the financing and delivery of over $10bn of global real estate and infrastructure projects”.

There’s Simon Mower, associate director at KPMG Debt Advisory who “has particularly strong experience in the real estate market… navigating the sector’s lender universe… structuring investment and development financing transactions for his clients.” There’s even one entertainingly named Mark Bourgeois.

Then, of course, there’s our astonishingly out-of-touch housing minister Gavin Barwell, who famously suggested that the solution to generational inequality was everybody’s rich grandparents skipping a generation with inheritance and giving the millions they’ve squirrelled away to their grandkids.

Barwell also made a speech two weeks ago in which he suggested the housing crisis could be tackled by making young people live in smaller rooms. “We want people to innovate – there are things the private sector is doing,” he told a fringe event at the Conservative conference. “I don’t know if anyone’s seen any of the schemes that Pocket [Living] have done where they’ve basically done a deal with the GLA [Greater London Authority] to get some flexibility on space standards. As a result they can offer a product well below market price.” A tarted-up way, of course, of saying Pocket Living has managed to twist the standards on what usually would be considered habitable.

For a government minister to openly celebrate this isn’t just irresponsible; it’s downright bizarre.

Britain has the smallest homes in Europe at an average of 500sqft for a one-bedroom flat and Pocket Living sells 400sqft flats – about the size of the average American sitting room, or the average UK hotel room – starting at £250,000.

This week, Gavin Barwell will speak at MIPIM alongside Marc Vlessing, chief executive of Pocket Living, whose background is “in City corporate finance”. If that doesn’t speak volumes about the housing crisis, the Government and the property professionals who pull the strings across the UK, I don’t know what does.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mipim-housing-crisis-markets-insiders-what-they-say-london-conference-property-magnates-a7369621.html

“Commons watchdog chair Sir Kevin Barron ‘breached’ MPs’ code of conduct “

“The Labour MP in charge of overseeing ethical standards for MPs has been found to have breached a committee’s code of conduct.

Sir Kevin Barron, the chairman of the standards committee, accepted payment for hosting events for a drug company in Parliament.

However, the committee has recommended that no further action is required against Sir Kevin after they concluded that the breach had been “minor” and “inadvertent”.

In March he announced that he had referred himself to Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, over the disclosures which were first revealed in the Telegraph.

The fees received by Sir Kevin after sponsoring three events in Parliament were donated to charity, and Ms Hudson concluded the breach of the rules was “at the least serious end of the spectrum” because the MP did not personally benefit.

The report recommended that no further action was required against the Labour MP, who stood aside while the committee examined his case, and the inquiry had raised “no doubts over Kevin Barron’s integrity and honesty”.

Parliamentary rules prohibit MPs from using Commons resources to “confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else”.

Sir Kevin said that his fees from the organisation had all been paid to charity, and therefore he had not breached the Code of Conduct.

But Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that members of the committee needed to be “whiter than white” and even if Sir Kevin had not personally received the money, the arrangement was still a breach of the rules.

Lord Bew, the chairman of the committee on standards in public life, has called for an overhaul of the Commons standards committe, warning that it looks like an “insider’s game” in which MPs are “marking their own homework”.

Sir Kevin said: “The report published today has found no serious breaches as I always maintained. The inquiry has found a ‘minor’ and ‘inadvertent’ breach of a banqueting rule. I felt that I had taken all the steps I could to check the rules, but acknowledge my mistake.

“Just to make it absolutely clear, this arrangement led to no personal financial gain as payment was made, as a donation, to a local children’s hospice in my constituency.

“I would like to thank Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, for her very thorough investigation into this matter and the Committee on Standards for their judgment.

“I will be resuming my duties as chair of the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges. It has always been a huge honour to chair these committees and I am delighted to return to this role.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/20/commons-watchdog-chair-sir-kevin-barron-breached-mps-code-of-con/

Government savings of £90 million cost £94 million to make!

“Ongoing failures of leadership and governance must be urgently addressed if shared service centres are to deliver expected savings, the Public Accounts Committee said today.

The PAC assessed the progress of a government scheme to cut costs through sharing departmental back office functions that has been running for four years, publishing its findings in a report out today.

It found the two schemes evaluated have delivered savings of £90m but at cost of £94m, incurring a net cost to the taxpayer of £4m.

Moreover, the committee concluded that government was “failing for much the same reasons” as identified by a 2012 PAC probe, principally weak governance and leadership, and poor departmental collaboration.

Today’s report found that, at the outset, the Cabinet Office did not have leaders in place with appropriate shared services experience. Also, while the Cabinet Office managed the framework agreements between government and suppliers, departments had individual contracts with suppliers. Consequently, when problems arose the Cabinet Office did not always have a clear mandate to intervene. This exacerbated the issue of departments acting independently rather than collaboratively.

Critically, the committee found there was no overall business case for the two shared service centres. While business cases were prepared, these were found to be partial, incomplete and out of date.

It was also too easy for departments to pull out of the programme, which some have done to “protect their own interests.” …”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/10/leadership-and-governance-failures-jeopardise-shared-services-scheme-pac-finds

External auditor holding up EDDC final accounts

“Whilst our audit work on the financial statements and VFM conclusion is almost complete, as set out above, we have received a formal objection from a local elector.

We are in the process of considering this objection, which relates to the Council’s approach to recording and obtaining receipt of monies due to it from developers through agreements under s106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

If we are able to conclude this work before the end of the month then, subject to the outcome of this, we anticipate issuing our audit report by the 30th September for the Council to publish audited financial statements.

If, however, the work extends beyond this timescale then we will have to withhold our audit certificate within the audit report until the work on the objection has been completed.”

Click to access 220916-agenda-item-8-combined-reports.pdf

(pages 121 and repeated on page 131)

Almost certainly related to this:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/09/13/eddc-and-its-section-106-black-hole/

Two mid-Devon Conservative councillors removed from committees following investigation

News announced in a press release, presumably from the council, that very carefully excludes the reasons why they were removed:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/two-mid-devon-conservative-councillors-removed-from-committees-following-investigation/story-29809275-detail/story.html

How to kill a town

This is about Totnes, but could be any town, anywhere:

“There are three easy ways to destroy a town.

First – relax the planning laws so that developers can build what they want, where they want.

Two – build huge amounts of houses all at once, all over the fields surrounding the town; infill any green space inside; make sure the houses obscure everyone else; make sure they are all unaffordable to local people, but attractive to second home owners and buy to let investors; make sure you don’t provide any new infrastructure, no new schools, hospital places, improvements to roads, to sewers; make sure that local industries; the marina, the last dairy farm are closed down and covered in new, ugly boxes with no gardens and in regimented rows.

[Three] You’re nearly there now! Make sure that the roads are so congested with new cars that traffic can’t move and then for your final flourish, sell off its most treasured, vital area, in the case of Totnes, the market and the garden and the central car parks without which a town such as Totnes cannot function.

Wonderful, you’re there. You have successfully choked an ancient and very special place to death; you look at the million pound houses replacing the marina and it looks good; you look at the tacky tacky boxes spreading out over the hillside along the river and you smile to yourself, who needs farmers, they’re mucky – we can buy all we need from the huge industrial intensive farming block in Hampshire. Who needs a market?

The Black Prince may well have given this ancient town a charter, but that was such a long time ago, who needs history? Who needs tourism, there must be other jobs these people can do, well it doesn’t really matter, once we’ve got the locals out and replaced them almost entirely with second home owners, then we won’t be bothered with their complaints – black windows all winter are a bonus.

Look at Salcombe, 70% second homes and no trouble at all. All those ridiculous transition people with their big ideas and their trying to live responsibly, there’s no money to be made in that, what’s the matter with them.

No, lets make sure we do to Totnes what we have done so successfully in the past to Torbay and towns like Newton Abbot, there’s nothing quite so satisfying as ripping the heart out of a marvellous old place and replacing that heart with concrete…”

https://allengeorgina.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/how-to-kill-a-town-a-how-to-guide/

Take control …

“Take control” are two of the most potent words in our language that have come to mean just one thing in the weeks since the Brexit vote.

But the desire for more control over our lives is not the exclusive preserve of Leave voters – and nor can it or should it be confined to the issue of immigration.

Our polling shows that people from all backgrounds and with every kind of belief now feel they have lost control over what matters most to them, whether it is the price of a home, the pace of technological change or the poisoning of our planet.

Far from being supporters of the status quo, a clear majority of remain supporters specifically identify big business and corporate elites as having “too much power over their lives”.

By an even bigger margin of 62%, those who voted remain in the referendum say that only a few people in power take all the big decisions, adding that there is not much the average citizen can do about it.

Those decisions now seem further out of reach than ever for millions of people after the party conference season. The government has confirmed its determination to pursue a hard Brexit, even though that risks making matters worse for people who already feel left behind in this economy.

At the same time, many people see opposition parties as being in disarray and deeply divided, leaving some to despair at the prospects for progressive politics ever providing answers, let alone getting the chance to put them into practice.

A storm in our economy and our democracy that has been gathering for decades is now firmly upon us. A torrent of wealth of power is washing away even the fragile footholds people had established in the economy. Many more now face losing control all together in the face of global, technological and climate change.

Yet, even in the midst of all this upheaval, a surge of energy is being generated that can crack open new possibilities for people to take more control right now – not at some distant point in the future.

The New Economics Foundation seeks to give people the tools to take control and change their lives for the better
Today, the New Economics Foundation is setting out ways to shift debate beyond secret negotiations over Brexit in the capitals of Europe, seemingly endless party infighting in Westminster’s opposition, or literal fights in Brussels over whose turn it is next to lead Ukip.

Instead, we are setting out an agenda for people to take control themselves, without having to wait for government to do it for – or to – them.

Our agenda for people draws on real experiences, ranging from those in seaside communities who feel abandoned by the political elite, taxi drivers in London trying to make a living in an Uber-ised economy, small businesses starved of finance, consumers overcharged for energy, and young families hoping for their first home or worried about the cost of childcare.

It seeks to give all of them the tools they need to take control and change their lives for the better. Coastal communities will find ways to revive a clean marine economy which brings together people who care about the environment with those who care about getting decent jobs. We are helping to develop a new taxi app owned and controlled by drivers themselves, from London to Leeds, to give them the chance to share in the vast new digital value being created around us.

The foundation is also drawing up plans to turn the scandal-torn RBS into 130 stakeholder banks that serve local firms rather than expecting them to serve it. We have teamed up with the Switched On London campaign to help communities generate renewable and affordable energy that gives them a real stake in a low-carbon future.

Furthermore, in a project with Citizens UK, we are creating the first maps of vacant public land available for the houses that need to get built. And we are helping parents expand the number of childcare co-operatives so they can not only afford a service fundamental to modern working lives, but also exercise more control over it.

This is not an agenda merely for clicktivists who think change happens on a smartphone screen on the way to a rally. We recognise that the tools people need to take control must be fashioned in partnership with institutions wielding real power, ranging from devolved government, city mayors and forward-looking businesses to trade union and community-led campaigns across the country.

But this is the first time a major thinktank has set itself a bigger ambition than merely influencing ministers or future legislation, or getting included in a political party’s manifesto.

The New Economics Foundation will focus on helping people and communities take control by engaging with new partners – from the Mayor of London and Google DeepMind to the GMB and Citizens UK – to explore new possibilities for change right now.

We are rooted outside the traditional boundaries of politics. We care most about people’s everyday experience. And we will work with communities of all kinds to give them the tools they need to build a better future because there has never been a more urgent need for a new economy than right now.”

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/politicians-housing-employment-childcare-control-new-economics-foundation

“Greater Exeter” and its impact on housing and infrastructure in East Devon

We learned recently that the current Stagecoach depot opposite the bus station in Exeter is going to be turned into a massive block of student housing – 557 units.

Now we hear that there are plans for the site of the Honiton Inn, on the roundabout opposite the bus station to be another student block of 101 flats with their own private gym and cinema – opposite a public gym and cinema!

http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/plans-in-for-huge-exeter-city-centre-student-block-on-honiton-inn-site/story-29794670-detail/story.html

What effect will this have on East Devon?

Well, “Greater Exeter” – whose “Visioning Board” like all such development and regeneration boards in “Greater Exeter” meets in secret – is making arrangements to do the next revision to its 3 Local Plans (Exeter, East Devon and Teignbridge) together.

It will be totally evident (in fact it is already) that Exeter’s main growth in housing will remain student housing. So, where will housing for other people go? Obviously East Devon and Teignbridge.

Cranbrook has natural boundaries beyond which it will soon make its further expansion much more difficult than heretofore. Therefore, it will be towns such as Exmouth, Honiton and Sidmouth – and the green fields in-between – that must be expanded to take in the commuters into Exeter, with a possible massive impact.

None of this is being put before the general public in any of the three areas nor is adequate infrastructure being planned for this big change (or at least we cannot be allowed know of any). And, of course, our Local Enterprise Partnership will “own” the business rates of the Exeter “Growth Area” and will have its fingers in the many development pies.

Time to start talking about the NEXT revision of the Local Plan which may well see even more massive development in East Devon on a much bigger scale than we could ever have imagined and could dwarf the extra numbers already agreed..

“MPs to be forced to drop lucrative second jobs if they stop them serving their constituents”

Aw, come on, since when did some MPs (and others in positions of influence nearer home) keep to the rules when extra money was on offer? They will say there is no conflict and blithely carry on – unless they get caught in a sting, of course.

“MPs will be forced to drop lucrative outside jobs if they “conflict” with their jobs serving their constituents, according to a proposed new code of conduct.

The MPs’ second jobs will be scrutinised by the Parliamentary standards watchdog for the first time in a major crackdown on politicians’ lucrative work away from the House of Commons.

A new code of conduct will require MPs to ensure that any outside work “does not conflict” with their day jobs representing constituents in Parliament.

The change in the rules – which are still to be approved by MPs – will radically cut back the amount of time MPs will be allowed to spend away from their constituents.

It could also make it easier for the Standards Commissioner Kathryn Hudson to stop MPs using their positions to win paid consultancy work outside the House of Commons.

An undercover investigation last year by the Telegraph found Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind had offered to use their positions as MPs to win contracts. However they were cleared of wrongdoing by Mrs Hudson.

The new code of conduct for MPs proposes an additional rule, which have been introduced following “recent changes to other rules or issues that have become apparent during investigations”.

It says: “A member who undertakes outside employment must ensure that it does not conflict with his or her responsibilities under the Code of Conduct.”

The new draft code – the first for four years – has been signed off by members of the House of Commons standards committee ahead if a six week consultation.

It comes after a study last year from Transparency International found that scores of MPs are being paid millions of pounds a year for outside jobs.

The research found that 73 MPs were paid £3.4million in the past 12 months for “external advisory roles”, including in some cases board positions.

Tommy Sheppard, a member of the committee, said: “Most members of the public will take umbrage when MPs suggest doing this job is not a full time, or your principle, job.

“You should not be doing this on a part time basis; it is a full time wage and if you are doing the job properly it is well more than a 40 hour week.

“There needs to be some clarity in the system that when you are elected as an MP it is expected that it is a full time job and you do it on a full time basis.”

Mr Sheppard said the new presumption would be that MPs “usually” should not take second jobs but there could be exceptions such as for medical professionals or doctors.

He said: “There needs to be some a limit on any outside employment, either by remuneration or by hours undertaken. So that the second job is clearly seen as secondary.

There are people in this place who in terms of remuneration it would be hard to describe this any anything other than a part time job.”

Mr Sheppard said that the change to the code – which is open to comment from members of the public until November 30 – could be expanded to include MPs who are accused of using their positions to try to consultancy work.

Last year a Telegraph investigation showed how Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw had offered to use their positions as politicians on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company in return for at least £5,000 a day while they were MPs.

Mrs Hudson cleared Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw of wrongdoing”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/10/mps-to-be-forced-to-drop-lucrative-second-jobs-if-they-stop-them/

MPs who hire family must prove they are the best people for the job says watchdog

MP Hugo Swire has employed his wife Alexandra (Sasha) at a salary of between £30,000-£39,995 a year for many years.

Has anyone ever seen Mrs Swire or spoken to her in a parliamentary rather than political or personal capacity? If so, it would be great to know.

MPs who hire their wives and children as staff will be made to prove they are the best candidate available, the new head of the expenses watchdog has indicated.

In her first interview in the job, Ruth Evans, chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority [IPSA], said the public now expects “equal opportunity employment” in MPs’ offices.

Around 150 MPs – close to one in four – have a family member working in their office, while a number of prominent politicians have faced complaints about their arrangements.

Currently MPs face few limits to hiring partners or children. They are limited to hiring just one at a time and must publicly declare the situation.

“We would want to see the best possible person for the job being recruited in order to provide public value for money.

But Ms Evans hinted that when a consultation ends later this month she will decided to tighten the rules so MPs in the future must prove other better candidates were not available.

“It is a controversial area. On the one hand, public expectations have shifted and there is an expectation for equal opportunity employment. On the other hand, you do have MPs who have specific requirements,” Ms Evans said.

“It all comes down to what the job is and could we define more clearly what the responsibilities and roles are.

“Because it may be that if you can more clearly define specific roles, the answer becomes apparent as to who can take on that role.

“We would want to see the best possible person for the job being recruited in order to provide public value for money. That’s the key.”

Earlier this summer, Ms Evans became only the second ever chair of the IPSA, a watchdog created after The Telegraph’s investigation into MPs’ expenses.

During her 35-year career she has helped regulate the police, lawyers, doctors and broadcasters as well as chair two independent inquiries into healthcare, before beating around 30 rivals to get her new role.

“This isn’t about regulation, this is about encouraging them to account for the work that they’re doing in order that their constituents can be reassured.

Ms Evans is urging MPs to publish a yearly explanation about how their expenses are spent so voters better understand what is being funded.

The more that MPs can tell their constituents how they use the public’s money and what they do in their jobs, so much the better,” she said.

“It makes sense for MPs to provide as much information as they can. We don’t want to burden them with excessive regulation.

“This isn’t about regulation, this is about encouraging them to account for the work that they’re doing in order that their constituents can be reassured.”

The first ever “annual account of expenditure” by MPs will be published in November and is designed as a way of them to get on the front foot.

For example MPs could explain how many constituents’ cases were dealt with from the salaries paid to staff or explain that unusually high office costs came only because of a change of address.

“MPs should be paid a fair wage for a job and in return MPs, in Ipsa’s view, should be accountable for the work that they do,” she said.

Ms Evans also defended allowing MPs to claim for first class travel, saying: “There’s no issue here because they only take first class travel if they can get it at the same rate as second class travel by booking ahead.

“We do not pay for first class travel that costs more than standard.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/08/mps-who-hire-family-must-prove-they-are-the-best-candidates-says/

Councillors to be told about devolution ” myths” – though some of them seem to be reality!

According to this week’s EDDC Knowledge newsletter, all councillors have been invited to a meeting on Thursday 20 October at 5 pm to hear a presentation on a “Devolution – ‘myth busting’ briefing”.

This presentation has already been given to DCC councillors and here is one Councillor’s report (Robert Vint):

“On Monday Devon County Councillors were presented with a “Myth Busting” training session on Devolution. On Thursday there was a repeat session for South Hams District Councillors.

The “Myths” they were attempting to “bust” were that the Devolution process was led by the LEP, was undemocratic, would result in local government reorganisation / centralisation etc.

The explanations – or non-explanations – only strengthened my concerns. It was confirmed that there would be no public consultation on the economic development plan but only on the Combined Authority proposal and that the LEP had played a central role.

I asked why the plan did not start by identifying local needs such as rural unemployment and affordable housing then consult communities and small businesses on how to tackle these problems. They said not to worry as this was an outline economic plan – but later they confirmed that there would be no consultation on the economic plan or any opportunity to change it.

We have a Devolution Prospectus written by the few big businesses in the LEP to serve their own needs rather than those of the wider community of Devon and Somerset. This has then been rubberstamped by local authorities who did not have the staff, time or vision to rewrite it to meet our real needs and who failed to consult residents and small and family businesses. As a result we will be subjected, without any opportunity to comment, to a local economic development strategy that will serve the wealthy rather than the majority and that will fail to provide jobs where they’re needed or houses to the people who need them most.

In contrast the RSA – Royal Society of Arts – outlines how we should be delivering genuine, fair and inclusive devolution.

The UK’s economic status-quo has resulted in huge sections of our population being ‘left behind’. So the RSA are proposing a radical programme of devolution, inclusive industrial strategies and investment in human capital to create a more inclusive, equal society.”

Devon and Somerset devolution on governments “back burner”

Owl has two questions:

if it IS on the back burner, should we be hanging on Somerset’s coat tails, hoping for Hinkley C breadcrumbs and an elected Mayor who will be Hinkley-centric?

and

should we be employing LEP staff and shovelling out expenses to our LEP while things are re-evaluated – or should we cut our losses, scrap it and look to sustaining our own Devon economy in what will possibly be rocky post- Brexit times?

The region’s devolution bid appears to have been shoved onto the back burner this week, following a Government U-turn on the need for elected mayors.

Earlier this year council leaders were optimistic of securing a deal by the autumn, after agreeing on proposals to establish a combined-authority.

But the Treasury now looks to have ruled this possibility out, after revealing its “priority” will be areas with directly elected mayors.

Speaking to the Herald, Treasury minister David Gauke claimed this model provides local authorities with “maximal” opportunities for devolved powers.

“To get the most powers you need the best accountability and that’s delivered by directly-elected mayors,” he said.

“We think [it’s] the best model… so we continue to encourage local authorities to go down that route.

“Those areas that don’t want to go down that route, we will of course still look at the devolution options there.

“I think the priority is delivering the directly elected mayor model.”

This renewed focus on mayors appears to contradict messages from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which has previously indicated support for a combined authority model.

Earlier this year, councils in Devon and Somerset voted in favour of creating a combined authority for the region, on the understanding this would improve the area’s chances of a devolution deal.

Critics of the mayoral model express concern about the ability of a single leader to effectively represent areas as economically and geographically diverse as Plymouth and the Mendips.

Responding to Mr Gauke’s comments, leader of Somerset County Council, John Osman, said his understanding “is that the Prime Minister does not think a mayor is essential for devolution”.

“Some initial public engagement this summer suggests that is a view shared by Somerset residents,” he added.

“We have a compelling case for devolved powers and budgets which has the potential to drive productivity, address challenges and capitalise on our many opportunities.

“We aim to continue these with the new relevant minister, Sajid Javid, in the near future to maintain the momentum and take our plans forward.”

Conservative MP for Wells, James Heappey, acknowledged that the recent change in Government leadership has resulted in changes to devolution policy.

He suggested this could provide the region with an opportunity to “take [its] foot off the accelerator” and review its proposals.

“If there is value in doing it, if it’s going to allow public services to be more efficient…. Then clearly we should go ahead [with a combined authority bid],” he said.

“[But] it makes no sense to change things just for the sake of changing things.”

Kevin Foster, the MP for Torbay – which recently voted to scrap its mayoral system – said many residents “won’t be itching” to have another elected mayor.

But he suggested the option is worth considering if it means “getting transport powers and an ability to deliver for local people”.

Mr Gauke did stress that the Government is still keen to extend devolution beyond the high profile city regions.

He said “a lot of focus has been on cities” but it would be good to “show how devolution can work in all parts of the country”.

Read more at http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/ministers-send-devon-devolution-deal-to-the-back-of-the-queue/story-29780812-detail/story.html

LEP creates its own “Business Forum” – but it’s independent, honest guv!

Owl’s view: Unfortunately, it still walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and is still one hundred percent an LEP duck! Oh, and who is on it’s board – LEP Board member Tim Jones – quack, quack!

“A new business group has been formed to advise Government decision makers – but stressed it is not in competition with other South West business organisations.

B4SW will provide information and reports to the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSW LEP) and ensure businesses across the region have a strong voice in discussions over Government investment.

“We have no intention of competing with other business groups,” Mr Marrow said. “They are doing good stuff.”

He explained that B4SW may be new, but is actually a “restructuring” of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership’s (HotSW LEP) business forum.

That body was set up by the LEP, but was nevertheless independent of it, in order to provide business engagement.

But the forum was often mistaken as being part of the LEP, Chris Marrow, B4SW chairman, explained.

So, he said, B4SW has been formed as a community interest company (CIC), a type of social enterprise, to provide “a better structure to that of the forum, which had been “an informal group”.

Mr Marrow said the new organisation would report to the LEP, the organisation created by the coalition Government in 2011 to determine investment priorities, but is not constrained by the HotSW area of Devon and parts of Somerset.

“We meet around the region and will cover Cornwall,” Mr Marrow said, at an early meeting held in Plymouth.

“It’s a forum in which business people can come together and explore ideas and put their expertise back into the community for the advantage of the region.”

Mr Marrow said B4SW is composed of business people with vast experience in sectors such as maritime, supply chain, education, rural development and overseas trade.

“We have business people with particular expertise, a lot of experience in international affairs, with overseas contacts, and work with people in Africa and China,” he said.

He said the executive board has links to various other organisations such as universities and colleges, Chambers of Commerce, and the Federation of Small Businesses.

“The objective is to help businesses develop in the South West,” he said. “That includes improving exports, productivity, and job creation.”

He said B4SW would provide “blue sky thinking” and supply reports to the LEP.

He gave examples of studies into biofuels, ballast water management and kelp (seaweed) farming.

B4SW has also arranged a visit from transport training experts in South Africa and had discussions with Plymouth University and Flybe about maritime and aviation training.

Tim Jones, a B4SW board member, said the aim is also to bring together all business organisations across the HotSW and Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LEPs.

He said it was vital businesses shared a unified voice in order to push for Government investment, especially as political devolution is on the agenda.

“A combined business voice is essential, and becoming more so as we move down the devolution agenda and anther round of Government austerity,” he said. “So the cooperation of the business community is crucial.

“With devolution, although there is talk about business engagement, there’s a fear the voice of business will diminish.

“Combine that with the problems Whitehall has about infrastructure investment in the South West, it’s vital we have a single voice coming from the business community.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new-business-group-set-up-to-push-for-government-investment-in-south-west/story-29775868-detail/story.html

Information Commissioner says Council business plans cannot be secret

Repercussions for EDDC? You can bet Exeter City Council will appeal!

“Exeter Green Party has clashed with Exeter City Council over secret information about the financial viability of St Sidwell’s Point.

The Greens made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to access parts of the business case for the planned council owned leisure complex.

They say the council has “persistently refused” to give them the information.

Green Party member Peter Cleasby complained to the Information Commissioner, the independent authority set up by Parliament to uphold public access to documents.

Mr Cleasby said the public had a legitimate right to see information shared privately to councillors about the financial viability of the leisure complex project.

The commissioner agreed, and has ordered the council to publish its estimates of income from the leisure centre.

The council are seeking advice regarding an appeal against this decision.

Mr Cleasby said: “The public were not consulted about whether we wanted the leisure centre or not. We were simply told that £26 million of the Council’s money would be spent on building it.

“We were not offered the chance to suggest other uses for £26 million, and we were not allowed to see the assumptions made by the Council about whether the leisure centre could be run without being a drain on public finances.

“So as an individual I asked for this information to be made available for scrutiny by others who could form an independent view on whether the numbers added up. The Council refused, three times changing their reasons for not releasing it.”

A council spokesperson hit back, saying: “The public were consulted multiple times in accordance with the open and transparent planning process for what will be one of the greenest schemes of its kind anywhere in the country.

“As Mr Cleasby has pointed out, we are entitled to appeal the Information Commissioner’s decision and we are taking appropriate advice.”

Diana Moore, former parliamentary candidate for the Green Party in Exeter, said: “Exeter Green Party are not opposed to a new leisure complex in principle, but openness and real public engagement are essential in major projects of this sort.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exeter-council-clash-with-greens-ahead-of-st-sidwell-s-point-planning-decision/story-29781273-detail/story.html