“Anywhere but Westminster” newspaper column want to hear from us

Worried about the ever-widening democratic deficit in East Devon? Enraged by the secrecy and vagueness of our devolution deal? Fed up with an MP who will not speak about his constituency in Parliament and won’t even live in it? Celebrating the rise of independents at every level of local government in the district? Here is how you get it to a wider audience:

“Anywhere but Westminster is travelling the country to get a sense of British politics away from the Westminster bubble. During this period old fashioned two-party politics has been diminished and a palpable sense of unrest with the status quo has emerged.

For their new series, the pair are back on the road, hunting out radical new politics in some unlikely place. We would like you to tell us where you think they should go?

Share your views in the form linked on the webpage below or get in contact with John Harris (@johnharris1969) and John Domokos (@JohnDomokos) via Twitter.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/25/anywhere-but-westminster-where-should-we-go?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Devolution – the warts and dangers

Interesting talk by Professor Bob Hudson of Durham University who shares the fear of the type of devolution being forced on us in England.

Why was the LEP allowed to become business-heavy?

LEPs only have to have one-third business people, which would then leave councils in the driving seat of devolution. Ours ended up with two-thirds business and education (just another business these days) with councillors very much in the minority and in the back seat, or possibly even the boot.

How was that engineered and by whom?

We know that Paul Diviani has been an LEP board member since 2014 ( even though he did not tell other councillors about the LEPs role in devolution until September 2015), so he had to have been aware what was happening.

The selection process for ALL LEP members is shrouded in mystery … not a good way to conduct publicly funded business.

A mainstream newspaper finally sees flaws in devolution

“Bernard Jenkin’s new inquiry into the civil service doesn’t even mention devolution – yet it will determine the size and shape of Whitehall
Bernard Jenkin isn’t only the chair of a busy Commons committee, he is also a leading light of the out campaign to leave the EU – which isn’t going to pack up and go home, whatever the outcome on June 23. And now the public administration and constitutional affairs committee has just announced a mega inquiry into the civil service – structure, effectiveness and all – and is collecting evidence double quick, by early June.

Maybe Jenkin and fellow MPs will remedy this when they sit down to deliberate, but already they seem to have fallen prey to Whitehall’s chronic disease – myopic departmentalism. That’s odd because under Jenkin, the former public administration select committee singled out lack of strategic co-ordination as one of the centre’s besetting faults.

In 2016, to see the size and capacity of the civil service you have to look at what is happening to the rest of the public sector, including the devolved administrations. If English devolution goes further, Whitehall’s numbers, function (and culture) will be affected – yet the terms of reference for the Jenkin committee inquiry don’t mention the D-word.

Of course devolution isn’t a given. Localists have taken umbrage at the sceptical tone adopted in the National Audit Office’s (NAO) progress report on the devolution deals, especially its observation that there isn’t a great deal of rhyme or reason to some of the arrangements. The money being passed out to the (unaccountable) local enterprise partnerships far exceeds the supplementary investment grants going to the consortia of councils. Even in Greater Manchester, the most advanced and best favoured deal, the NAO can’t fathom what influence, if any, the new combined authority and mayor are going to have on NHS budgets. As for schools, the NAO notes dryly that proposals from councils to retain their role “have not been accepted by central government”.

Without clarity and local scrutiny we risk the prize of devolution
Here’s a paradox of devolution and one that really does get the localists foaming: handing over power (and even just promising to hand over power) requires the centre to have more bodies. The cities and local growth unit, run jointly by the communities and business departments, has 155 civil servants plus another seven in the Treasury dealing with devolution. All those departments are losing numbers, raising concerns about capacity to negotiate and implement deals.

There’s also accountability. When Lord Bob Kerslake was permanent secretary for the department of communities and local government, he asked some wide-ranging questions about who was in charge, as public services are contracted out and fragmented. The NAO comptroller and auditor general, Amyas Morse, recently refused to sign off the accounts of the Department for Education due to his opinion that “the level of error and uncertainty in the statements to be both material and pervasive”, which bears out Kerslake’s concern: Morse says he simply does not know whether academy schools are spending public money well enough.

The newly appointed permanent secretary for the Department of Education, Jonathan Slater, will have his work cut out. It’s not clear whether his previous experience as a senior officer in Islington council will be a help or hindrance. But his boss, education secretary Nicky Morgan, is adamant that forcing all schools to become academies will cut central interference – which ought to mean Slater will need even fewer civil servants.

The NAO poses a big question for Jenkin: what effect will devolution have on Whitehall’s departmental structure?

Another big question is what happens to the wider field of public management? If city regions and combined authorities are now doing things formerly dealt with in Whitehall, will their managers need different skills; will they be a different breed? To find out about the future of the civil service, the MPs will have to look outside Whitehall.”

http://gu.com/p/4thgx

Broadband (orlack of) for East Devon – the never-ending story

Recall that EDDC decided to pull out of the Devon and Somerset broadband bid citing the reason that the bid was not transparent!!!  They then applied for funding from another government source, assuring us that this would be successful, and it was refused – because, in part, it duplicated the bid that EDDC had decided to withdraw from!

Scrutiny Committee Minute 14 April 2016:

“The Portfolio Holder Central Services and the Portfolio Holder Finance continued to work with a number of providers to encourage as many as possible to come forward in filling the gap of service that phase 2 of the CDS project would leave , even though this authority does not control the budget for broadband delivery.

…..

RESOLVED

  1. That the committee supports the Portfolio Holder Central Services [Councillor Phil Twiss]  in his endeavours for alternative solutions to meet the needs of the areas not covered by the CDS project;
  2. That a progress report and revised timetable is requested from CDS;
  3. That the committee receives a further update from the Portfolio Holder Central Services in approximately six months time or as soon as there are further significant developments.

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1674827/140416-scrutiny-minutes.pdf

 

 

It isn’t just Knowle where civil servants refuse to provide taxpayers information – MPs suffer too!

” The chairs of two parliamentary select committees have accused the top civil servant at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) of misleading MPs over the closure its biggest office outside London.

Iain Wright, chair of the business committee, and Meg Hillier, chair of the public accounts committee, have written to Martin Donnelly, the BIS permanent secretary, calling on him to release information on the department’s estimate of the costs of the closure of its St Paul’s Place office in Sheffield, which employs around 240 people. …

… this week the department was forced to admit that employing people in its Sheffield office costs less than a third of what it costs in London.

In an answer to a written question from the MP for Sheffield Central, Paul Blomfield, the universities and science minister, Jo Johnson, said the annual cost of rent, rates and maintenance for an employee at the office in Sheffield was £3,190, compared with £9,750 at the headquarters on Victoria Street in London. …

… In the letter, the two committee chairs said the information relating to the reorganisation of the department that the permanent secretary had provided was “wholly unsatisfactory” and his answers in oral evidence to their committees had been “obfuscatory, if not misleading”.

“Your refusal to disclose the information we have sought is unhelpful, unjustified and is impeding our ability to fulfil our scrutiny functions,” they said.

“[We] are asking for precise information about the work done to estimate the costs of different scenarios in relation to the closure of the Sheffield office and transfer of posts to London. Specifically, could you please provide us with a copy of the document entitled BIS 2020 Finance and Headcount Outline, and any other document which has informed decisions relating to the Sheffield office.”

The letter asked that the information be provided before Donnelly appears before the public accounts committee on 27 April. …

… “Taxpayers deserve better from those working on their behalf. We expect the permanent secretary to respond swiftly and with clarity on the points of concern raised by our committees, which includes releasing the information we have requested. Only then can the decision to close the BIS Sheffield office be properly scrutinised.”

Wright, the business, innovation and skills committee chair, said: “The permanent secretary is accountable for the use of public funds and needs to demonstrate the financial rationale and evidence-based business case for the decision to cut jobs in Sheffield and centralise policymaking in London. The permanent secretary has a responsibility to enable us to scrutinise the running of his department and disclose this information.” …

… Donnelly stressed that the department had not yet reached final decisions about the number of roles in the Sheffield office that would be made redundant and the number that would be moved to London. He said there had, therefore, been no formal cost-benefit analysis of the decision to close the Sheffield office.”

http://gu.com/p/4tgdh

Devolution – not all it is cracked up to be

There are significant accountability implications arising from ‘devolution deals’ which central government and local areas will need to develop and clarify, the National Audit Office has said.

In a report, English devolution deals, the spending watchdog said these implications included “the details of how and when powers will be transferred to mayors and how they will be balanced against national parliamentary accountability”.

The NAO noted that the ten deals agreed so far involved increasingly complex administrative and governance configurations.

It stressed that, as devolution deals were new and experimental, “good management and accountability both depend on appropriate and proportionate measures to understand their impact”.

The watchdog said that to improve the chances of success, and provide local areas and the public with greater clarity over the progression of devolution deals, central government should clarify the core purposes of the arrangements as well as who will be responsible and accountable for devolved services and functions.

Central government should also ensure it identifies and takes account of risks to devolution deals that arise from ongoing challenges to the financial sustainability of local public services, the NAO added.
HM Treasury and the Cities and Local Growth Unit are responsible for managing the negotiation, agreement and implementation of devolution deals on behalf of central government as a whole.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “Despite several iterations of deals, the Government’s approach to English devolution still has an air of charting undiscovered territory. It is in explorer mode, drawing the map as it goes along.

“Some of the opportunities and obstacles are becoming clearer, but we still do not have a clear view of the landscape or, crucially, an idea of the destination.”

Morse added: “Devolution deals provide important opportunities to reform public services. As with any experiment, some elements will work better than others. As we have said before, it is in the interests of both local areas and the government to know which programmes have the biggest impact for the money invested. Localism is not a reason for failure to learn from experiences or to spread best practice.”

Responding to the NAO report, a Local Government Association spokesman said: “Councils are working hard on implementing agreed deals and are working with government to finalise those deals which are still to be signed.

“It is imperative that the momentum is maintained to secure deals, especially in non-metropolitan areas whose economic potential is just as significant as that of big cities.”

“In terms of accountability, devolution has the potential to improve the democratic process by allowing decisions to be made closer to local people to best meet their needs. But councils should be free to put in place the appropriate model of governance for their communities and not have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model imposed on them where significant new responsibilities are devolved.”

The LGA spokesman added: “The report rightly recognises the possible complications arising from differing geographies for service delivery and councils, particularly for the recently announced sustainability and transformation plans. Councils and their partners will continue to take a pragmatic approach to designing and delivering services that best meet the needs of their communities.

“We support the study’s findings that devolution needs to be accompanied by fair and sustainable funding by Whitehall to manage risk and ensure devolved areas can run services successfully.

“This will help to ensure that the opportunities provided by devolution – delivering economic growth, building more homes, creating jobs and a skilled workforce, and joining up health and care services – will be actively embraced by both local and central government.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26690%3Aspending-watchdog-warns-on-devolution-deals-and-accountability&catid=59&Itemid=27

‘One in four executives believes ‘corruption and bribery is rife in UK’ ‘

“More than one in four business leaders believe bribery and corruption is rife in the UK, according to survey conducted by accountants EY.

Twenty-eight per cent of UK respondents said corruption was widespread – an increase from 18% a year earlier – although lower than the 39% average of respondents to the survey conducted in 62 countries.

“Our survey finds that more than one in four executives in the UK believe that bribery and corrupt practices happen here, a worryingly high number in a country that prides itself on its strong corporate governance,” said EY’s Jim McCurry.

Ninety-eight per cent of UK respondents to its 14th annual global fraud survey also said they recognised the importance of being able to establish the ownership of entities with which they are doing business – a factor highlighted in the publication of the Panama Papers earlier this month.

Overall, 91% of the 3,000 senior executives from 62 countries who took part in the survey supported enhanced beneficial ownership transparency.
Last week in Washington, George Osborne and his counterparts from France, Germany, Spain and Italy announced new rules that will lead to the automatic sharing of information about the true owners of complex shell companies and overseas trusts.

The chancellor said the enhancing regulations were “a hammer blow against those that would illegally evade taxes and hide their wealth in the dark corners of the financial system”.

The survey, conducted before the details of 11.5m files from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca were made public, also found that half of all respondents were prepared to justify unethical behaviour to meet financial targets. This was a greater proportion than the 36% that could justify such behaviour to help a company survive in an economic downturn.

The EY report said: “Worryingly, deeper analysis of our survey results identifies that many respondents who are [chief financial officers] and finance team members, individuals with key roles in protecting companies from risks, appear ready to justify unethical conduct. The apparent willingness of these respondents to act unethically when under financial pressure is concerning. Could certain compensation arrangements be encouraging such behaviours?”

The survey found that respondents, though, believed that bribery and corruption did not take place in their own sectors. While 39% globally said they believed it happened in their country, only 11% said they thought it was the case in their sector.

“Bribery and corruption continue to represent a substantial threat to sluggish global growth and fragile financial markets,” the report said. “Despite increased regulatory activity, our research finds that boards could do significantly more to protect both themselves and their companies.”

Respondents in the UK also regard cybercrime as a high risk, with 80% of respondents citing it as a concern – more than elsewhere in the world.
“With the continuing enforcement of anticorruption measures, coupled with recent revelations about the misuse of offshore financial structures, business leaders here need to be focused on securing a deeper understanding of their clients, partners and suppliers. Enhanced transparence is only likely to rise up the political and public agenda, both here and in the rest of the world,” said McCurry.

He said EY, which itself has a tax practice, complied with ethical standards.

EY conducted 2,825 interviews 62 countries with executives responsible for tackling fraud – 50 of them were in the UK.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/19/one-in-four-executives-believes-corruption-bribery-rife-uk

Remind you of anything?

Should anyone find this disgraceful and wish to draw it to the attention of the council’s MP, then write to George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whose constituency this is taking place.

Perhaps he and Hugo Swire could have a little chat about their experiences.

“Councillor Sam Gardener, who was initially the Conservative-run [Cheshire East] council’s deputy cabinet member for finance and assets, resigned after revelations that he failed to disclose that he was barred from being a company director when CEC gave him responsibility for the local authority’s finances in May 2015.

The ban relates to charity donations that failed to reach the intended charity but were transferred into the account of a company in which Mr Gardener was a director. That company subsequently went into liquidation owing creditors £440,000.

You might think it prudent for any prospective cabinet member, let alone one involved in finance, to be closely vetted for any fiscal irregularities but apparently Cheshire East did not.

“I was not obliged under Council rules to disclose the matter of my disqualification as a company director when interviewed for my Cabinet position and the disqualification is in no way incompatible with my duties as a portfolio holder,” said Councillor Gardener.

Mmm… let me consider that for a moment: disqualification from being a company director for financial irregularities is ‘in no way incompatible with my duties as a portfolio holder.’

Councillor Gardener may have had some difficulty selling that to taxpayers (had they known).

So how did CEC react on discovering his disbarment?

“The Council and the residents of Cheshire East have lost the services of a highly talented, sensitive and dynamic young man who has chosen to step down,” said Council Leader Rachel Bailey.

It sounds somewhat reminiscent of the statement made by managing director of the CEC loss-making CoSocius who claimed the company ‘made progress in a number of areas and contributed to the success of other areas.’

(What he didn’t say was that his company somehow managed to lose £800K of taxpayers’ cash in only eleven months trading and notch up a pension deficit of £8.5M.)

Only in Cheshire East could the resignation of a cabinet member disqualified from being a company director for financial irregularities be described as a ‘highly talented, sensitive and dynamic young man.’

Clearly Councillor Bailey was not one of those creditors left with debts of £440K who I suspect would have an altogether different opinion.

I really don’t know what point of reference the CEC leadership uses for evaluating its performance. Undeterred by its mammoth losses at CoSocius they launch two new identical trading companies and describe a disbarred company director as a ‘dynamic young man.’

Residents financing this political circus may use another vocabulary.”

http://www.wilmslow.co.uk/news/article/13509/barlows-beef–another-monumental-blunder-from-cheshire-east

A scary description of the state we are in (and a manifesto for Local Enterprise Partnerships?)

“Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers. …

… The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.” …

… Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics. …

… The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised”. …

… The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation. …

… These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.”

• George Monbiot’s How Did We Get into This Mess?

extracts from
http://gu.com/p/4tbfb

New book lifts lid on what it is like to be a council officer

“Local government worker ROB TAPE decided to write a book based on the experiences of his council work career. He called it Sorry, It’s Not My Department. …

… Response to the book to date has been mixed. The public seem to actually quite like it and are positive about the messages it contains. On the other hand, councillors and council managers seem to be somewhat quieter. For example after sending information to more than 10,000 councillors across the country, most – including all 70 of Croydon’s councillors – have ignored my correspondence entirely.

That being said the number of independent and smaller party councillors who have been in touch has been impressively high in comparison to those from the main two parties. Read into that what you will.

But given that it is the public who deserve a clearer picture about council management, it is the public that I want to read the book.”

https://insidecroydon.com/2016/04/12/whistleblowers-book-ignored-by-all-croydons-councillors/

Devon and Somerset Devolution: a brief primer

By Georgina Allen, South Devon Watch, Facebook

“Devon and Somerset are in the middle of a Devolution process.

The word Devolution sounds as though it will increase and support local democracy, but in fact the opposite is true. What we are experiencing looks more and more like the privatisation of local authorities and local democracy – our devolution bid has been written and is being led by a group called the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, or the HoSWLEP for short.

This is a quango made up mainly of business men, a couple of women and a few councillors. The business people are primarily property developers, construction CEOs and arms manufacturers. There are 24 of them and they are self-appointed, un-transparent, unaccountable and hold their meetings in secret. They publish minutes, but these are so opaque as to make them pointless. These people have written a bid for the future of Devon and Somerset, which is full of grandiose aspirations for growth.

They want to create 123,000 jobs, build business parks and growth hubs and most worryingly 179,000 houses.

They have no public mandate for this other than the fact that all our local councils have signed up to this bid.

Many local councillors have publicly stated that they are very unhappy with the way the devolution bid is shaping up. In the South Hams, the leader of the council said that they had been coerced into signing up. When questioned further about this, he explained by saying that councils had had their budgets slashed to such a point that they could hardly function.

The government has taken money away from councils and given it to the LEP, unless local councils sign up to the Devolution Bid, they will not get this funding. A simple privatisation practice, but a very effective one. With councils forced to sign up, the LEP have the illusion of a public mandate. There has been incredibly little press about the LEP and they have not consulted with the public, this Bid is going on behind closed doors and is therefore, very concerning.

Where housing is concerned – how did the LEP come up with the figure of 179,000 houses?

This is not based on any known survey. There is no mention of social, affordable or sustainable housing in the bid, just an enormous amount of market housing the LEP want to build.

As the board is mainly made up of developers this raises the question of conflict of interest, which the LEP acknowledge, but which has not stopped them from making the Devolution Bid almost entirely about growth. There is little to no mention of farming, the environment, tourism, all the industries that are most important down here, instead the Bid is about building and growth hubs and IT. It sounds more like a Bid for a northern powerhouse than it does the rural west country.

Most of the growth projections described in the Bid are reliant on Hinkley C going ahead. As there are very real worries about the viability of this, so there should be questions raised about the LEP, who are lacking a plan B. Councillors, MPs, the National Audit Office and many others are becoming increasingly concerned about the process of devolution and the LEP themselves and as a local person, I am also worried at seeing local issues like planning being passed to a quango of business people, who have financial interests in pushing the type of development that is least needed down here.”

Comment: “Hugo Swire donor linked to Panama Papers”

… so it is interesting to note that a businessman who funds East Devon MP Hugo Swire has been linked to a company set up in an offshore tax haven.

The MP received a £5,000 donation from a company owned by the head of the family-owned JCB group, Anthony Bamford. In the register of MPs’ interests, Mr Swire declares the donation from JCB Research, based at Uttoxeter, Staffordshire. The company is used as a vehicle for political donations, and director Lord Bamford is one of the Tory Party’s biggest donors. It has emerged he was the sole shareholder in a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.

He dissolved the company called Casper Ltd in 2012, according to documents from the Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca seen by The Guardian, one of the media outlets studying the leaked Panama Papers. …

… There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Lord Bamford or Mr Swire. …

… Lord Bamford is believed to have given the Conservatives more than £4m personally and through JCB companies.

Old Etonian Mr Swire, 56, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, which comes with a salary of £98,740, also lists donations of:

£3,000 from his relative Sir Adrian Swire, a billionaire businessman and former chairman of the Swire Group, a global transport and trading conglomerate with major interests in the Far East;

£3,000 from John Lewis OBE, a director of the company Photo-Me International, of which Mr Swire was a director from June 2005 to May 2010.

The Panama Papers are a cache of 11.5 million leaked records from law firm Mossack Fonseca exposing the financial dealings of the wealthy.

Mossack Fonseca said the firm had no control of how its clients might use offshore vehicles created for them.

It is right that elected members of Parliament are transparent about their financial affairs, particularly members of the government which formulates tax law. And it is right that they are held to account through questions from the media on behalf of the electorate, and through the ballot box when the time comes.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Comment-Devon-MP-s-donor-linked-Panama-Papers/story-29111371-detail/story.html

Hugo Swire’s tax affairs

“This week The Express and Echo went to East Devon MP Hugo Swire requesting answers to four questions sent out to each of the four MPs in the paper’s patch.

The questions put to the four Devon MPs were:

1. Have you used a tax haven, tax incentive or deliberate means of avoiding tax in the past to your knowledge?

2. To the best of your knowledge has anyone in your immediate family?

3. Have you ever benefited from any offshore investments?

4. Are you prepared to publish your tax return?

5. What are your thoughts on the PM and Chancellor’s connections to the tax havens in Panama?

Mr Swire chose not to answer the questions but instead asked us to print the following letter.”

“This media feeding frenzy is distasteful

I have found this media feeding frenzy around the personal tax affairs of the Prime Minister somewhat distasteful, writes East Devon MP Hugo Swire.

What exactly is the accusation? Has our PM done anything illegal? No. Immoral? I don’t think so. He has benefited from his late father’s will.

Is this not one of the most fundamental of human instincts, to help your children, whatever your income bracket? Was he even responsible for his father’s investments? Hardly. Yes, he did benefit from his father’s estate and yes it transpires that some of that money came from a perfectly legal overseas investment vehicle. Knowing the PM as I do, his entire approach to these ‘revelations’ will have been to protect his late father, his family (who have not chosen to be in the public eye) and importantly his widowed mother who is very much alive. We can all debate as to what he should have said and when but I think most of us would have had similar instincts.

Besides people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones. When Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell called on the PM to answer if he had “benefitted directly or indirectly” from offshore funds he might have forgotten that £14,000 of his own pension, which he gets a year from his Westminster City Council, was in 2014 invested with Longview, an active global equity manager, that is based, yes, you have guessed it, offshore in Guernsey. McDonnell has been quoted as saying: “There has been one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us,” which is a bit rich coming from him!

Now as a reaction – I would argue an overreaction – the PM has published his Tax Return, and the Chancellor has followed suit. I think this creates a difficult precedent. Is this the moment that people with private means, self made or otherwise, turn their backs on public life? And where does it stop? Do we finally get to see the tax returns of local councillors, BBC presenters, doctors even, after all they are funded by the taxpayer as well? And while we are at it why don’t we demand to see the tax affairs of those who influence public life, journalists, multi millionaire newspaper editors like Paul Dacre of the Mail, and newspaper proprietors like the Barclay brothers and Lord Rothermere.

The hypocrisy of the Guardian, the BBC and the Mirror Group (owners of the Express & Echo) is also worth noting, all of whom have used elaborate measures to minimise their tax liabilities, as have the unions. Can we see their tax returns? If we are going to have them then let’s have them all. And then no doubt in a sanctimonious way we can all condemn those with an income or savings or investments worth over a certain amount and ‘celebrate’ those who earn far less.

Because the logical extension of this argument is that by definition there is something wrong with the rich. Why don’t we conveniently forget – as some do – that the richest 1 per cent in Britain today pay 27 per cent of all income tax, while the top 10 per cent pay well over half, at 55 per cent. Without their effort and enterprise of course, a huge burden would fall on the 12 percent of workers who pay no income tax at all, while the welfare state would collapse.

But let’s anyway smash the wealth creators who employ us all and fund our public services. Let’s drop this terrible idea that we want to give a leg up in life to our children after we die and take away a key driving force of wealth creation. Let’s all join Momentum and ride with the hounds of class warfare and demonstrate against globalisation, GM crops and Trident while we are at it. Let’s make sure that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn achieve the highest office in the land and squander all our hard earned cash. Wouldn’t we all feel smug and so much better as a result?”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/8203-letter-East-Devon-MP-Hugo-Swire-response/story-29105022-detail/story.html

So, Hugo, back to the four questions ….

“More than half of MPs want to be able to spend more on their taxpayer-funded credit cards”

“More than half of MPs want to be able to spend more on their taxpayer-funded credit cards, with scores demanding the right to use them to pay for food and drinks.

MPs can currently spend a maximum of £1,000 on a single transaction and a total of £4,000 each month on the credit card.

However, when question by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, as many as 51 per cent of MPs said they wanted looser rules on use of direct payment and charge cards.

Ipsa issues MPs with the cards to pay for a variety of items such as travel, accommodation and stationery.

The politicians then have to prove the spending was allowed within the month, or they build up debts to the watchdog.

The sums are recouped by suspending the cards and not paying out valid expenses claims, or in installments from the MP’s salary.

MPs have said they believe food and drink should to be reintroduced as an allowance on the card and that they should be allowed to use the cards when travelling on public transport in London.

It comes after more than a dozen MPs had their Commons credit cards blocked last month after running up expenses debts of up to £27,000.

Five SNP politicians – including Westminster leader Angus Robertson and his deputy Stewart Hosie – were among those subject to action by the watchdog.

The fresh calls were made in response to a 2015 survey of politicians and their staff by the expenses watchdog, which found that 34 per cent of MPs chose not to submit a claim because they were “concerned about the claim being published”.

Overall, Ipsa received 312 responses, of which 44 were MPs, 113 were MP proxies – nominated to act on behalf of an MP – and 155 members of staff.

The report states: “There are some clear signs that MPs, their proxies, and their staff think that there have been many improvements in the support and services that we offer, but, of course, there remains more for us to do.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/more-than-half-of-mps-want-to-be-able-to-spend-more-on-their-tax/

Tory MPs worry that revealing their tax affairs might cause problems for their divorces!

“MPs do not want to publish their tax returns because it could cause problems for those going through a divorce or with a complicated family life, the Telegraph understands.

Senior Conservatives have warned that making politicians publish their tax returns could put some off standing for parliament and force others to quit because of the impact on their personal relationships.

One senior backbench MP told the Telegraph: “You would have to look at some of the implications for family life and I’m thinking of people with step-families or people who might have been involved in complex divorces.

There are lots of things which might become apparent from someones’ tax return which makes it easy to see why people might not want to have that in the public domain.”

A second MP, Mark Garnier, claimed forcing MPs to disclose what they earn and pay in tax could ultimately force other family members to publish their income to avoid money being shifted between partners.

He said: “There are a number of issues; what are you trying to achieve out of publishing tax records that you’re not already achieving through the register of members’ interests?

“If you do want more clarity you’re going to have to look at the family’s tax returns.

“You may well have an MP who basically shovels everything that they want to hide into their partner’s name in order to avoid having to disclose it on their own return, so you then have to ask does it apply to their family too?”

During divorce proceedings where financial remedies are requested by either party partners must provide information about their income and shareholdings.

But some MPs are concerned that final settlements made as a result, how much they pay to former partners and their total income could be disclosed and used against them if forced to reveal their income and tax affairs.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/mps-fear-tax-transparency-could-spell-trouble-for-family-life/

Ex-Leader and Tory MP William Hague tells us how we should deal with the Panama papers

To extend transparency in careful stages”

Evening Standard, Quote of the Day

Careful for whom? So careful that nothing changes, perhaps, Mr Hague?

Bet your tax returns are interesting …

Another new political movement – this time in the USA

HUNDREDS FLOCK TO US CAPITOL TO PROTEST MONEY IN POLITIC

“Hundreds of protesters flocked to the U.S. Capitol Monday for a demonstration against the role of money in politics, prompting mass arrests by the Capitol police force.

The peaceful demonstration is part of a series of protests in Washington this week by a coalition of groups and is called “Democracy Spring.”

The demonstrators chanted slogans like “one person, one vote” and “money out of politics” as they sat on the East Front of the Capitol.

Many of the protestors marched from Philadelphia to Washington over the past week. One sign read “Things go better without Koch,” a reference to the billionaire businessmen David and Charles Koch, who have promised to lead an almost $900 million campaign to back favored candidates this election cycle.

The demonstrators also protested state voter ID laws, saying they suppress voter participation. Another chant protested about Democratic “super delegates” — party figures such as members of Congress who are given votes at the Democratic National Convention but are not elected by primary elections or at party caucuses.

Police led dozens of protesters away in plastic handcuffs into a bus and shuttle vans, prompting cheers from the two groups of protestors, which were separated by a large police response.

Source: Associated Press

“The 1% hide their money offshore – then use it to corrupt our democracy”

” … What have the super-rich got for their investment in British politics since 2010? Cuts in personal taxes, invitations from George Osborne to advise on overhauling corporation taxes, the security of knowing that their tax havens will be treated with due leniency.

In my politics lessons, we were taught that Britain was a representative democracy. But what 30 years of plutocracy have brought is an era of un-representative democracy.

With a few exceptions, our politicians no longer resemble, nor do they work for us. Amid a crisis in the rental market, you have a housing minister, Brandon Lewis, who runs a private rental portfolio. You have a former investment banker, Sajid Javid, now claiming to do his best by the steel industry. And you have a super-rich prime minister who vows he’ll take on tax havens, all the while blocking any serious attempt to do so.”

http://gu.com/p/4t8t8

Tax returns

Owl looks forward to seeing the tax returns of senior councillors and officers and is sure … well, almost sure … well, hopeful … that none of them have offshore accounts on Treasure Islands … or magnificent properties beyond their pay grades in London or warmer climates.