The Conservatives have produced an all-female shortlist for next month’s Tiverton and Honiton by-election in the wake of scandals involving several male MPs.

www.telegraph.co.uk (Extract)

Party members in the Devon constituency will on Sunday be presented with three candidates from which they will be asked to select a prospective MP to stand in the by-election on June 23.

The Telegraph understands all three of the candidates are women from the area………

Boris Johnson is expected to scapegoat the head of the civil service Simon Case this week in a desperate effort to save his own job, as both men face stinging criticism in a report into lockdown-breaking parties in Downing Street.

Boris Johnson to sacrifice top official over Partygate to save himself

Toby Helm www.theguardian.com 

The long-awaited findings of the senior mandarin Sue Gray will, according to several sources, lay particular blame on Case, the UK’s most senior civil servant, for allowing a drinking culture to develop in which rule-breaking parties became commonplace during lockdowns.

One senior Whitehall figure who has seen sections of the report said it could also prove more damaging for Johnson than the fine he was given in April for attending his own birthday party, because it will make clear the PM’s involvement in several other events which may have breached rules, but for which he was not fined.

“From my expectation of what I know it will be the real deal. There will be detail. There will be evidence. She is going to say this is under your watch, this is your house, all that kind of stuff,” the source said.

Senior officials are braced for Case to be so heavily criticised that he will have to offer his resignation, or be sacked by Johnson, in order for Johnson to be able to say he has acted decisively and learned lessons.

“That is probably why he [Case] is still there [and not moved from his post already],” said one source. “Because Johnson needs a body.” If Case were to be lose his job, however, it would mean that a civil servant who has not been fined would have lost his job, while the prime minister, who has been fined, keeps his.

A friend of Gray who has worked at a high level with her in the civil service said the report would make “gruesome” reading for both the prime minister and his most senior civil servants and that Gray was in no mood to be forced into watering down her findings.

Sections of the report may prove more damaging for the PM than the fine he was given for attending his own birthday party, according to a senior Whitehall figure. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/10 Downing Street/AFP/Getty Images

The friend said that before the Johnson era, the only party that was ever held among staff in Downing Street was the annual Christmas one. “We didn’t have karaoke machines and suitcases to bring in drink in those days. I think it will be very difficult for Simon Case.”

Gray was appointed to take over the investigation into parties last December from Case himself, after he was revealed to have hosted an event in his own office on 17 December 2020, for which invitations were sent out saying “Christmas Party!” A government spokesman said at the time that officials in Case’s office took part in a “virtual quiz”.

It is expected that Johnson and Case, along with about a dozen other officials, will be named by Gray.

While it is not expected that she will reveal a new “smoking gun” detail or photograph that will on its own inflict terminal damage on the PM, the overall impression of those with knowledge of the report is that its criticism of leadership failings at the very top will be hard to survive without someone senior falling on their sword.

Another source with knowledge of Gray’s thinking said: “Sue is in a very good place to give judgments. She has worked at the heart of government for a very long time. I think there is a genuine question.

“What the hell was it about this time and this place that all this was allowed to go on? She has worked with any number of prime ministers so I think it will be an element of ‘What was that? Was it a broader culture?’”

He added: “What has been said to me is no one is going to come out of this looking good. So there will be damage for Johnson. In many ways it could be more damaging for him than the fine because the fine was for a relatively minor thing [his birthday party] that people were surprised he got fined for. So he was able to excuse himself.

“Whereas what is actually going to come out in Sue’s report is detail of some of the other incidents which perhaps are more difficult for him to explain. So even though he wasn’t fined for them the detail that comes out won’t look good.”

Gray has contacted about two dozen people who she intends to identify, either directly or indirectly, over their involvement in events at Downing Street. They have until the end of Sunday to respond, and many are said to be fighting to maintain their anonymity. “There is a huge issue around publicity and anonymity,” said one insider.

When Gray has considered these late representations she will take them into account before submitting her report to Downing Street. Johnson has promised to publish it in full and without delay. Publication is now expected this week, along with a statement to the Commons by Johnson.

The prime minister was under pressure on Saturday to explain a recent meeting he held with Gray. It has led to claims that No 10 had tried to interfere and water down her findings.

It is understood Gray and Johnson met earlier this month, although a Whitehall source said the report’s contents were not discussed at any point. Downing Street said that the meeting had taken place at Gray’s request, although accounts differed yesterday.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, called on the PM to “urgently explain” why the “secret meeting” had taken place. She said public confidence in the process had already been damaged.

“Boris Johnson must urgently explain why he held a secret meeting with Sue Gray to discuss her report despite claiming her investigation was completely independent,” she said. “Public confidence in the process is already depleted, and people deserve to know the truth.

“This is a prime minister incapable of taking responsibility for the rotten culture he has created in Downing Street or of doing the decent thing. The Sue Gray report must be published in full and with all accompanying evidence.”

Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine also called on the PM to throw light on the meeting. “Any whiff of a stitch-up would make an absolute mockery of the report,” she said.

Nearly 100 East Devon households have come forward to offer homes to Ukrainian refugees, potentially enough to accommodate up to 300 people.

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

Speaking at East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) annual meeting, chair of the council Cllr Ian Thomas (Independent, Trinity) announced that approximately 95 households have now offered homes as part of the government’s ‘Homes for Ukraine’ scheme.

EDDC, which is responsible for assessing the suitability of the accommodation, has completed 56 property inspections and has a further 29 scheduled.

Twenty-two families in East Devon have applied for a government support payment of £350 per month to help pay for the costs of hosting.

The council will work with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau to support the refugees. It is also in talks with Devon County Council to formulate a policy for finding new hosts for refugees should a housing sponsorship arrangement break down.

Cllr Thomas said: “We recognise the need to do everything we can to prevent homelessness.”

Almost 13 million people are believed to have fled their homes in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion began in April, according to the United Nations (UN).

More than six million have left for neighbouring countries and at least another 6.5 million people are thought to be displaced inside Ukraine itself.

Council Chair, Ian Thomas was re-elected and Council Leader, Paul Arnott, was re-elected for new terms at East Devon District Councils Annual meeting yesterday (Thursday, 19 May). In the coming year fresh impetus would be given to address the shortage in the supply of homes, deliver an improved service for housing tenants and encourage new projects to build attainable homes.

Julie Green www.eastdevon.radio

Council Chair, Ian Thomas, re-elected for new year

“Last year I was honoured to be elected the first non-aligned Independent Chair.  

To be unanimously re-elected at Annual Council, with support from Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and Independent colleagues is a humbling experience I will never take for granted.  

I recognise this unique trust brings with it additional responsibilities and will continue to perform all my duties to the best of my ability, with an even hand and open mind.”

Council Leader, Paul Arnott, re-elected for new term

Councillor Paul Arnott was re-elected at the Annual Council meeting yesterday (Thursday, 19 May) for his third consecutive year. In his acceptance speech Councillor Arnott highlighted some of the achievements of his administration which included securing the finances to enable the completion of Cranbrook’s Town Centre, the great collaboration work that has taken place in the Enterprise Zone, and the analytical work that has been carried out in Tourism, Cultural and Leisure by the council to help create growth in these important sectors.

In the coming year fresh impetus would be given to address the shortage in the supply of homes, deliver an improved service for housing tenants and encourage new projects to build attainable homes. There will also be an increased focus on climate change with joined up policy making and engagement on this important topic.

New Council Cabinet

Cabinet 2022/23:

Nomination papers must be delivered to the Acting Returning Officer, Phoenix House, Phoenix Lane, Tiverton, Devon, EX16 6PP on any day after the date of this notice between the hours of 10am and 4pm but no later than 4pm on Wednesday 25 May 2022.

Might be worth name checking candidates against Sasha Swire’s ‘Diary of an MP’s wife’ (aka ‘The secret diaries’). Her waspish insider account of the Tory ruling clique included descriptions of several East Devon activists. Her memorable epithets included describing those who kept popping up and down at meetings as “toilet seats”.

On the other hand, do you want to select a complete unknown?

Having been delayed and delayed for so many months, will the “full” Sue Gray report into widespread lawbreaking in Downing Street be worth the wait? In other words, will it exonerate the prime minister? Or will it confirm, not only that he broke the law, but that he also encouraged others to do so?

Sean O’Grady www.independent.co.uk 

The spin is that the report will make for very uncomfortable reading for Boris Johnson, whatever the Metropolitan Police made of his witness statement. Unless that spin is misguided, or the product of some attempt to massage expectations, and the reality will merely be gruesome rather than appalling, it seems reasonable to assume that the conclusions Ms Gray reaches will turn out to be just as damaging as any number of fixed penalty notices.

From what is known so far about the parties – and other unnecessary, unlawful social gatherings – including the details conveyed in Ms Gray’s interim report, it’s reasonable to assume that the prime minister knew about many of these events, even if he did not attend all of them. Most importantly, he created an accommodating atmosphere in which they could take place.

This is consistent with the sense that even if he didn’t directly encourage people to break the rules, his was an indulgent attitude that allowed those around him to “let off steam” and relax after a tough day. Hence customs such as “wine Fridays”, and the notorious wheelie case ferrying booze from the Co-op. Though he dare not admit it, the PM obviously thought it acceptable that he and his colleagues decide for themselves the risks to their health against their need for a glass of wine and some agreeable company. But that allowance was not extended to the rest of the population, for whom such personal discretion was banned.

No matter how it is dressed up, this attitude is tantamount to collaboration in lawbreaking, and treating with contempt the very laws that the government was imposing on others. It was as if those in No 10 did not believe in all the carefully defined rules about social distancing and indoor gatherings, and thought them only for the little people outside.

It is remarkable that they could do so even as Professor Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance regularly attended with solemn updates about “excess” deaths and variants of concern. But it seems they did, and the chief culprit in these episodes of screaming hypocrisy was none other than the prime minister himself. It is even odder that Mr Johnson could treat Covid with such insouciance after his own dose of it amounted to a brush with death.

The charge against Mr Johnson – and against very senior officials such as the cabinet secretary, Simon Case – is not so much that they busted the public health laws, but rather that they were massive hypocrites. They did things, said things, tolerated things and failed to stop things happening in Downing Street that the public were banned from doing.

Even the Queen was visibly obeying the rules (and even when Downing Street offered exemptions for the funeral of Prince Philip). The fact is that Mr Johnson was at many of these gatherings, and even if his presence wasn’t strictly unlawful, it was wrong. Ms Gray’s report will, at last, confirm what has been assumed since Partygate broke last December: that those in Downing Street partied while others died and grieved, and Mr Johnson was responsible for allowing them to do so. In the court of public opinion, he was convicted long ago.

Richard Murphy is Professor of Accounting Practice, Sheffield University Management School, a chartered accountant and economic justice campaigner. He blogs at Ways to tackle inflation – all that needs to be said in a couple of minutes and tweets @RichardJMurphy .

Professor Richard Murphy says politicians are doing almost nothing to help people who are struggling because they believe the market can solve a problem better than anything the government can do www.mirror.co.uk

High inflation, record energy prices, and a shortage of workers. We are facing an economic crisis.

Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, said this week it has several causes – War, Brexit, Covid, all one-off shocks. But what Bailey did not say is the government is making things very much worse with their Tory beliefs driving their response to this crisis.

They are sitting back and doing almost nothing because they believe the market can solve a problem better than anything the government can do.

They’re wrong, of course. We need strong government right now. Their inaction is costing us all, dearly.

Here’s where they are getting it wrong:

1) They’ve got the cause of inflation wrong

Inflation is a general increase in the level of prices. Electricity, gas, diesel and petrol, food and other basics are all going up in price. The government thinks that we have 1970s type inflation. However, that inflation was fuelled by pay rises bigger than growth in the economy so people had too much to spend. We have the exact opposite now though. People haven’t got the money to pay for the basics needed to live.

Despite this, the Bank of England is raising interest rates to try to push net wages down – because that’s what Tory ideology tells them they must do. And the Bank follows the government line on this – because if they don’t the Chancellor has the power to overrule them.

Interest rate rises make life for many much harder. That’s what happens when you put up the price of money. We need interest rate cuts instead, now.

2) They won’t spend to help out

The government could help by increasing benefits and pensions. They could also increase the pay of their own lowest paid employees. And they need not wait. They could do this now. But they won’t. They’re ideologically opposed to benefits, including pensions. Cutting government spending is all they believe in.

And how could they pay for this? Actually, this policy would pretty much pay for itself because every penny spent on these extra benefits and pay would go straight back into the economy as those receiving them spend all the money they get to survive. That would support businesses, jobs and taxes paid. But this might also create government short-term government debt and they’d rather those with low incomes suffer than ever take the risk of creating a penny more of government debt. They don’t care if a pensioner freezes or starves if government spending is saved as a result. We need those increases and that logic out of politics for good.

3) They won’t tackle price increases

The government could tackle some of the big price rises we’re facing right now if it wanted to stop inflation. 20p or more out of every £1 spent on gas, electricity, diesel and petrol goes to the government. As their prices have risen so has the amount the government gets from them in tax, so they’re profiting as people struggle to pay their bills. If the government simply fixed the actual amount they get from each unit of energy sold at their 2020 rate by cutting VAT and duties they could cut prices right now.

But they won’t because they want to pay off the government’s debts and pass the burden on to the public. People are losing so the government can balance its books. That’s the price of ideology. We need them to cut fuel and energy prices now.

4) They won’t help people back to work after Covid

According to the government we have had a labour crisis in the UK since the end of the Covid epidemic. That’s because the number of people working since Covid began is down 482,000 whilst vacancies have increased by 427,000. The Bank of England say we need interest rate rises to tackle this to force wages down. I say we need decent ventilation, workplace protection and support for older people to get them back into the workforce after Covid. But the government says that Covid is over, and this is more important than helping real people get jobs. We need those Covid protections now.

5) They aren’t helping people get pay rises

The real problem we have is that millions of people in the UK don’t have enough to live on. The so-called national living wage is useful, but it’s not enough to really live on and it’s become a base level pay rate that far too many employers now choose to pay. The government ideologically wants to keep it that way because this maximises employer’s profits. But what the government should be doing is pushing up wages.

Until the 1990s there were pay boards in the UK that set the wage rates for about 20 industries from construction, to agriculture, to hairdressing. Their job was to make sure that when unions could not protect people’s pay they still got a fair deal. We need those boards back, now. We’d have more, better paid jobs – and less zero hour, gig economy jobs – as a result and what is more, employers would have to train their staff to get value for money from them, which would be a real bonus. But the government hates such interventions, thinking them left-wing. Their ideology is costing the country fair pay that we need now.

6) They won’t impose windfall taxes

It goes without saying that if people are paying more for the electricity, gas, diesel, petrol, food and other things they’re buying and those things cost no more to make (and so far, they, by and large, don’t) then someone, somewhere is making a lot more profit as a result. The oil companies are. So too are the banks because of interest rate rises. But the government is objecting to taxing them more because their ideology is that all profit is good, even if it comes from forcing people into poverty. They even voted against a Labour plan for windfall taxes, but we need them now.

New powers for the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities over local government finances, announced in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, is of significant concern for local authorities.

Paul Dennett, Labour Mayor of the City of Salford. www.politicshome.com 

These new powers appear to allow for the Secretary to cap borrowing and force any council to “divest itself of a specified asset” – powers which have traditionally been reserved for local authorities placed in special measures.

Britain is already considered to be amongst the most centralised of any state structure in the world – with vanishingly few powers for local authorities to raise or levy local taxes, to determine the areas priorities for expenditure or effectively plan for growth and development. All of these are increasingly determined by one-size-fits-all national frameworks, ring-fenced funding (often top-sliced from other pots with fewer restrictions on its usage) and an un-hypothecated formula for their distribution.

On top of this, 12 years of austerity have seen core Revenue Support Grant funding for local authorities cut by over 50 per cent – putting many areas onto the breadline.

In this situation, many councils (including my own) have made ambitious steps to become more fiscally independent – primarily through borrowing, the creation of revenue streams through the commercialisation of services, capital investments and rental services.

Salford’s capital programme is substantial and has been used in part to finance the creation of MediaCity, a huge asset for our city and country as well as a great source of employment growth and business rates, driving population growth and increased council tax. MediaCity is the largest hub for digital and tech businesses in the UK outside of London – a prime example of a project helping to level-up a post-industrial city, attract international investment in R&D and develop the industries of the future.

Wise investments are a key component in shielding local services from the impact of austerity, increasing fiscal self-reliance and fuelling growth.

The Secretary’s new powers seem to provide no distinction between good and bad council borrowing or investments. And we know that the Treasury and central government has a rigid and fiscally conservative approach to book-keeping, with a hugely constrained vision for local authorities still educated by the outdated “new public management” mantra – expected simply to preside over an ever-diminishing list of services, making cost savings by selling off those services and assets to bargain-basement private providers.

Local authorities have huge potential in the levelling up agenda, possessing a wealth of intricate and detailed knowledge of their local areas often overlooked by top-down Whitehall mandarins, in addition to a wealth of expertise in the delivery of services which is near universally overlooked and undervalued within our Westminster-centric politics.

The logic of this position appears to be formally accepted in the corridors of power – with a welcome focus on devolution being a central part of the levelling up conversation. Yet time and time again, when new policy announcements are brought forward, the same instinctive drive towards relentlessly restricting local government’s powers and reducing discretion over its spending continues to cut the rug from under our feet.

If more central funding is not an option for councils, then borrowing and growing asset bases must be an essential component of successful local government policy moving forward. Without it, we will see the condemnation of local authorities to a future of decline.

A couple who have lived in Devon for 60 years say they are at the end of their tether because of the housing shortage. Even though they have £500,000 plus to spend they say they may be forced out of the area they know and love after a nightmare two years of searching for a home.

Colleen Smith www.devonlive.com

The couple who have been tenant farmers have saved all their lives for a retirement home but now find the property shortage in East Devon means they may end up having to move to Wales or Scotland.

The couple are in their 60s and were looking for a property in East Devon so that they could be close to work and carry on farming. They have told of being gazumped, viewings being cancelled at the last minute and finding estate agents refusing to let them even view.

“At this rate we could end up in a tent in a field,” the wife said. “The last straw was today when we had a viewing cancelled. The agent said the executors had taken an offer. How do they know we weren’t going to make a higher offer? I thought this morning ‘It’s a good job I’m not the suicidal type because I’m at the end of my tether and that cancellation would have finished me off’.

“I have phoned about houses in Sidmouth and been told ‘Sorry we’ve got 20 viewings and we’re not taking any more’. Other times you book an appointment and at the last minute they cancel it.

“My husband has lived here for nearly 60 years and farmed in East Devon all his life. We lived in the farmhouse and now we need to find a home for our retirement and we’ve not got a chance of finding a house here,” she said. “I’ve heard of gazumping happening where people accept an offer and then somebody else ups the offer by £25,000 to £30,000. It’s laughable.

“We looked at a house in Newton Poppleford that was £650,000 and found out that it had huge cracks and subsidence and needed gutting.”

Estate agents in East Devon said demand was 100 times higher than the number of houses available. At Stags in Honiton, partner Kevin Clarke confirmed the shortage: “I really do feel for this couple. There’s a lot of stressed buyers out there. We try and make a point of honouring all the viewings that are booked in because we know people are quite stressed. Our job is to achieve the best price for our client and to do that we need to market a house for a while. It’s easy to sell quickly but we need to sell it for the best price.

“There just aren’t that many properties available to buy at the moment, although this is improving now at the time of the year. The number of buyers is very high. We live in a beautiful part of the country and lots of people want to live here.”

At Wilkinson Grant in Topsham, Jenny Pickford said: “I have absolutely nothing to offer in that price range. Most of what we are dealing with is in the £700,000 plus price range. The demand is 100 times higher than it was and there just isn’t the housing stock available for people to buy.

“Prices do vary depending on where you are. In Exmouth you could get a lovely detached family home for £700k. In Topsham for the same price it would be more like a terrace with no parking in the part of the town with all the character properties.

“The market is still very good for sellers. High prices are being achieved and selling in excess of the guide prices. The good news is that we are seeing more new instructions coming in.”

She explained that vendors are often overwhelmed by the demand: “Some get 20 viewings booked in and they don’t want that amount of traffic through their house. It’s a really stressful experience having to sell your home. “

Good news for the region? More cash being poured into our “Golden Opportunity” for longer.

How many more of these is Boris building? – Owl

Alan Jones www.independent.co.uk

The new nuclear power station being built at Hinkley Point will start operating a year later than planned and will cost an extra £3 billion, it has been announced.

French energy giant EDF published the findings of a review into the cost and schedule of the power station taking account of the continuing impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The revised operating date is June 2027 and the budget has increased by £3 billion.

EDF said this will have no cost impact on British consumers or taxpayers.

The delay means the first reactor unit will start operating in June 2027, a year later than planned and costs are now estimated in the range of £25bn to £26bn.

A reduction in workers allowed on the site in Somerset due to pandemic safety measures resulted in the loss of more than half a million days of critical work in 2020 and 2021, said EDF.

Stuart Crooks, managing director of Hinkley Point C said in a message on Thursday evening: “You will all have experienced the severe impact of Covid-19 on the project over the last two years. You will remember how we suddenly had to cut numbers on site from more than 5,000 to around 1,500.

“For many months after that, we remained far below our plan for site numbers as our ability to fully ramp up activity was thwarted by the need for measures to prevent infection.

“Keeping workers safe with social distancing in canteens, buses and at work meant we had no choice but to become less efficient.

“In civil construction alone, having fewer people than planned means we lost in excess of half a million individual days of critical work in 2020 and 2021.

“Our supply chain was also hit hard and is still impacted now. In April 2020, 180 suppliers were fully shut down, but even as late as February this year, more than 60 suppliers were operating with reduced productivity due to Covid.”

Mr Crooks said that in January 2021, EDF estimated a six-month Covid impact, assuming an imminent return to normal conditions, but the second second wave of Covid-19 stopped that happening.

“In total, the start date for Unit 1 has gone back 18 months since construction started in 2016. In such a complex project, it wouldn’t be credible to say we can measure exactly how much of this is due to Covid-19 impact, but it is clearly in excess of 12 months.

“Other factors have affected the schedule and costs.

“Marine works have also cost more, although they are now in a good position – with legal hurdles finally cleared to allow the team to get on with the job.

“Running the site for longer and less efficiently during the pandemic also adds cost. We are facing the same issues as other major projects with UK-wide supply and labour shortages and inflation.”

Lib Dems announce former Army Major for Tiverton and Honiton by-election

Lewis Clarke http://www.devonlive.com

Ed Davey declares by-election a two-horse race between “Boris Johnson’s Conservative party and hard-working local champion”

Richard Foord will be Lib Dem candidate for the upcoming Tiverton & Honiton by-election

The Liberal Democrats have announced that Richard Foord will be their candidate for the upcoming Tiverton & Honiton by-election sparked by Neil Parish’s resignation in the wake of the ‘porn gate’ scandal.

Richard lives in Uffculme with his wife and family. He grew up in the West Country and served for ten years in the army after graduating from Sandhurst, reaching the rank of Major and receiving three campaign medals for service in Iraq and the Balkans.

Living locally, Richard is active across the community. He volunteers at two scout groups in the area and has raised thousands of pounds for charities, including running the London Marathon for the Royal British Legion.

Richard has pledged to be a strong local voice for Devon if elected, by fighting for urgent action on the cost of living, cutting ambulance and GP waiting times, and getting a fairer deal for Devon farmers.

In April, the Liberal Democrats won the Cullompton South by-election against the Conservatives. They have also been winning across the UK, gaining neighbouring Somerset Council at the local elections and winning two successful parliamentary by-elections against the Conservatives, including the rural constituency of North Shropshire.

Announcing his candidacy, Richard said: “Boris Johnson’s Conservatives are taking rural communities in Devon for granted. Towns and villages across the constituency are being hit hard by unfair tax hikes and receiving no help with spiralling energy bills and rising prices at the fuel pump.

“This Conservative Government has run our local health services into the ground. Ambulance waiting times across Devon are soaring, and thousands are left waiting for weeks in pain, for a GP or dentist appointment.

“I was proud to serve my country in the Armed Forces for ten years and now want to serve my community in Westminster. We need politicians who listen to the needs of local people and work tirelessly to deliver for our area.

“This by-election is a chance to send a message that it’s time for a change. Towns and villages in our areas have been ignored for far too long. If elected, I pledge to take no-one for granted and stand up for our local communities in Parliament.”

Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey said: “Richard is an incredible candidate, whose dedication to others has shone not only through his career, but also in his voluntary roles in the community.

“This by-election will be a two-horse race between Boris Johnson’s Conservatives and hard-working Liberal Democrat local champion, Richard Foord. This Conservative government has taken Devon for granted with local health services being neglected and botched and with trade deals undercutting farmers at every turn.

“The Liberal Democrats are the clear challengers to the Conservatives in Tiverton & Honiton. On June 23, you can elect a strong local champion who will stand up for our communities and help kick Boris Johnson out of Number 10.”

“It’s a joke,” one No 10 source told The Independent. “He told people to ‘let their hair down’ and enjoy their drinks which they’d earned for ‘beating back the virus’.”

Anna Isaac www.independent.co.uk 

Downing Street staff who received fines for attending the same lockdown parties as Boris Johnson have reacted with fury after the prime minister escaped further sanctions on Thursday.

There was anger inside No 10 as the Metropolitan Police concluded its Partygate investigation, leaving the prime minister with just one fixed penalty notice (FPN) compared to some junior staff who amassed as many as five – despite insider accounts that they had attended the same events.

The full findings of Sue Gray, the senior civil servant carrying out a wider report into the scandal, are now expected as soon as next week.

Police said a total of 126 fines were issued to 83 people over events spanning eight dates between May 2020 and April 2021.

Mr Johnson’s wife, Carrie, also received just one penalty linked to her husband’s birthday party on 19 June 2020.

“It’s a joke,” one No 10 source told The Independent. “He told people to ‘let their hair down’ and enjoy their drinks which they’d earned for ‘beating back the virus’.”

They said the prime minister had participated in socialising with officials and advisers in a manner that had been regarded as an endorsement of partying after work.

“He’s a man of little or no integrity,” they added, referring to his handling of the Partygate affair.

A former No 10 official who worked there during the pandemic said that the moment an official line was issued denying parties, “I gasped at the audacity of the lie”.

A spokesperson for No 10 declined to comment.

Legal experts have suggested that Mr Johnson may have escaped fines for attending lockdown-busting parties as his workplace and home are combined within the Downing Street complex.

Covid-19 legislation, which changed numerous times during the period when the parties took place, means that Mr Johnson may have had a “reasonable excuse” in law that prevented him from being fined.

However, the police may have taken a more lenient approach in the Partygate probe, compared to other examples of enforcement.

Kirsty Brimelow QC, a human rights barrister who has represented people fighting Covid fines, told The Independent: “What I saw in cases up and down that country is that the ‘reasonable excuse’ part was never applied – police would only look at exemptions around the gathering itself.”

She added that the police’s approach in the No 10 investigation, of only issuing fines when confident of defending them in court, was different too: “FPNs would be issued if there was a reasonable belief of a breach, rather than having all the evidence shipshape if it went to court.

“The Met has applied the regulations, but applied it in a way which is setting the police a higher bar before issuing an FPN,” Ms Brimelow said.

One Whitehall source said the investigation might have been “legally correct” but it was “morally ridiculous” as given the long hours many officials worked during the height of the pandemic, “we were all living at the office”.

The sense that the investigation had revealed one rule for bosses and another for workers was shared in 70 Whitehall Place, where a fine was issued for an event on 17 December, which cabinet secretary Simon Case was aware of, sources claimed.

Mr Case, the most senior civil servant in the UK, had not suggested the event was inappropriate and chatted to attendees, they said.

The Cabinet Office did not respond to a request for comment.

There was bewilderment among Westminster critics of the PM that he had escaped with only one fine when so many No 10 staff were more harshly punished.

“Some of us don’t understand the police logic on the fines,” said one Conservative MP who has already sent a letter of no confidence in Mr Johnson. “Avoiding fines for events where staff have been fined seems extraordinary.”

Rebels were hopeful that the publication of Ms Gray’s report, expected next week, will trigger a fresh slew of letters to the chair of the backbench 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady, who must call a vote on Mr Johnson’s future if requested by 54 Tory MPs.

“Sue Gray might be a flashpoint next week,” one told The Independent. “It’s still a big moment. The fact that he hasn’t been fined again doesn’t necessarily change public anger.

“There are people who are unhappy with him over Partygate who haven’t put letters in. They’ve said they are waiting for Sue Gray. So the time is now.”

But there was a sense among some of Johnson’s critics that the absence of further fines has taken a lot of the momentum out of the drive to oust him.

They urged colleagues who have so far held back from calling for Johnson’s removal to do so if he is admonished by Ms Gray.

Still, one senior Tory MP opposed to Mr Johnson’s leadership was downbeat on the chances of her report triggering a leadership contest, arguing that the biggest point of danger will come in the autumn if Tory poll numbers haven’t improved.

“I don’t think Sue Gray is the be-all and end-all,” said the backbencher. “It’s not a judgement about parties any more – the judgement among colleagues will come in the months ahead on whether he is an election winner or loser.”

Sir Charles Walker, who previously suggested that Mr Johnson should consider his position, said on Thursday he had been “wrong” to think the PM would have to go over Partygate.

“Love him or loathe him Boris Johnson is an extraordinary politician,” the former vice chair of the 1922 Committee told the BBC’s Newsnight.

“Four months ago, people thought he was down and out. I was one of those people. And he just rewrote the script. The prime minister is going to continue at No 10.”

Close Johnson ally Conor Burns appeared to suggest that the Gray report could result in further sanctions for No 10 officials rather than Mr Johnson.

“I think when the Sue Gray report comes there will be questions to be answered in terms of accountability for others, other than the prime minister, for some of the things that happened in No 10,” said the Northern Ireland minister.

Home Office minister Kit Malthouse said it was now time to “move on” from Partygate. “I’m pleased that it’s done … I hope now we can now move on to the really pressing issues,” the policing minister told the BBC’s World at One.

Sir Iain Duncan Smith said the Partygate affair had undoubtedly been “damaging” for Mr Johnson and the No 10 operation.

“It was wrong, he has apologised a lot for it – and so he should – because they lost control of what was happening in Downing Street,” said the former Tory leader.

With the dust settling on the Metropolitan police’s long investigation into Covid breaches inside Downing Street, one big question remains: how did Boris Johnson escape with just one fine?

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

Legal experts say it defies logic – and to many voters, it defies common sense too.

This is, however, a mystery that appears unlikely to be solved any time soon.

It’s not that the PM and his wife got off scot-free. Johnson and Carrie did break Covid laws.

Last month, they received fixed-penalty notices (FPNs) for attending the prime minister’s birthday celebration in June 2020, as did Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, who reportedly made just a fleeting appearance.

But while Johnson is known to have been at up to five other events for which FPNs have been issued, and reportedly poured drinks at one of them, he has escaped further punishment.

What appeared most anomalous, according to Adam Wagner, the Doughty Street Chambers barrister who is an expert on Covid rules, is how Johnson attended gatherings deemed to have breached the rules without himself being fined.

“We still don’t know very much about how the regulations work, because the higher courts haven’t looked at this,” Wagner said. “But generally, the decision is difficult to understand. The way the regulations are drafted is that the gathering itself has to be reasonably necessary, and the reason why somebody participates is not really relevant.”

To escape a fine, Wagner added, Johnson would have needed to provide a reasonable excuse: “But I don’t understand how you could ever reasonably attend an illegal gathering, unless you attended by accident, realised and left very quickly. I don’t see why, if the prime minister had a reasonable excuse for attending, the other people attending wouldn’t.”

One possible escape would be if the police viewed events as more than one gathering – for example as reasonably necessary for work when Johnson was there, but descending into socialising after he left. However, Wagner noted, this would appear to be contradicted by reports such as Johnson pouring drinks.

Another get-out raised by Johnson allies is the fact that Downing Street is both his workplace and home.

However, a change to Covid regulation at the end of May 2020 specifically ended being in your own home as a potential loophole.

Ultimately, without knowing what evidence the police received, it is impossible to be certain why Johnson was fined for the one event and not others.

And given the nature of the Met’s inquiry, this evidence will not be aired in public, beyond whatever necessarily anonymised summary appears in the report of the senior official, Sue Gray, next week.

It is one of the several curiosities of Partygate that it involved huge stakes, not least the political survival of a prime minister, while simultaneously being centred on what are, in strictly legal terms, relatively low-level offences.

“Yes, this was people breaking rules they had made themselves, which is important,” one criminal lawyer noted, speaking anonymously. “But at that the same time, you can very easily be fined more for parking on a double yellow line.”

The nature of the offences meant they fell into the system of FPNs, which are investigated and levied entirely by the police, with courts only becoming involved if the fine is challenged.

Having been forced into an inquiry it had not wanted to undertake by the sheer volume of material gathered by Gray, the Met’s infrequent updates were parsimonious, even opaque, even by the standards of police investigations.

While the force was at times criticised for its approach to openness, there is no obligation for someone to declare an FPN; and if they do not challenge it in court, there is no public record of one being received.

The Met did have a significant amount of evidence to go through: the team of 12 detectives had access to 345 documents, among them witness statements, emails and door logs for one of the UK’s most secure addresses, as well as more than 500 photographs and CCTV images.

However, no one suspected of wrongdoing was formally interviewed. Instead, police received 204 questionnaires filled out by people identified as connected to the gatherings.

This was another complicating factor – some people would have been notably more open and voluble with their answers than others.

“If someone was sent one of those questionnaires and they went to me, I’d say: don’t answer it,” the criminal lawyer said. “You’ve got no obligation to fill it in. You’re not under arrest. You’ve not even been cautioned. If you tell the truth, you might be fined, and if you lie, you’re potentially committing another offence. So why risk it?”

Overall, Wagner said, the lack of transparency from a police-only investigation was “unsatisfactory”.

“The reality of it is that the Metropolitan police have decided there were at least eight illegal gatherings over the course of a year,” he said. “And the prime minister appears to have attended six of them. You think about how careful other workplaces were being, and the actual people who were writing the rules were treating them with a wanton disregard.”

A more legally comprehensible outcome, he said, would have been if police had fined Johnson just for the birthday party while decreeing that the only other illegal gatherings were three others he did not attend – a Christmas party in December 2020 and the two events on the same night in April last year, the night before Prince Philip’s funeral.

“It’s right that they take a cautious approach. And if they had said the other gatherings were on the borderline, so we’re not going to act, I would have thought that was quite liberal of them, but it would have an internal logic,” Wagner said.

“But they have given people criminal penalties for a series of illegal gatherings, just not the prime minister. I think he’s lucky to have got away with it.”

Under the headline:

Tory councillor compared to Jimmy Savile kept role for three years after child sex abuse arrest

On Wednesday, the inews.co.uk carried an investigative report uncovering evidence that:

“The council knew Humphreys was being investigated for sex offences from 2016 but did nothing to prevent him continuing with his duties, which involved him coming into contact with children”

Also:

“A senior council official knew about the police investigation into Humphreys in 2016 because Devon and Cornwall Police asked him, in a formal meeting, if Humphreys’ continuing role as a councillor would bring him into contact with children, i has learned.”

And:

“A leaked memo from East Devon District Council (EDDC) chief executive Mark Williams, which was sent to all 60 councillors earlier this month, states: “An officer knew something dating back to 2016 but was under a duty of confidentiality.”

“A second councillor is also alleged to have told a fellow member that he knew Humphreys had a court hearing coming up but it is not clear if he knew details of the charges.”

The article describes the twists and turns in the history of the investigation dating back to 2004 and earlier. Only after a second victim came forward in 2015 was Humphreys arrested the following year (2016).

It describes how Humphreys spent decades positioning himself at the heart of a powerful network of local politicians and people of influence (see Exmouth Journal prints “No comment” photos). During the 2019 election campaign, Humphreys offered Sir Hugo’s successor, East Devon MP Simon Jupp, the use of a flat he owned in Exmouth where some of his crimes had taken place. Later that year, in December 2019, Humphreys was made an Alderman.  In 2021 he was convicted and jailed for 21 years.

Devon and Cornwall Police refused to confirm or deny if it was investigating other potential crimes committed by Humphreys, or whether any further victims have come forward.

Mr Williams, EDDC CEO, and the official told of the investigation into Humphreys were approached for comment.

A spokesman for EDDC said that Mr Williams will provide “a report to cabinet at the earliest opportunity to enable it to consider commissioning an independent investigation or enquiry by an appropriate independent body”.

A spokesperson for the Conservative Group on EDDC said its councillors “will fully engage with this investigation”.

This latest exposure has prompted Tim, a regular correspondent, to offer the following comments to Owl

(Given added relevance by the current suspension of an MP, arrested following allegations of rape, from parliament).

So,  David Parsley’s piece in the inews suggests that Mark Williams, CEO of EDDC, has apparently admitted to councillors that a single senior EDDC staff member knew, in 2016, that the member of his council, John  Humphreys,  was being investigated for  paedophile crimes. The EDDC officer who gained this information apparently decided against telling others on the grounds of confidentiality!

Unfortunately the inews item is now sadly subscription only so I write largely from my memory of reading it several times.

We are not told how the unnamed officer came by the information – though the suggestion would appear to be that it was from the police. The police would, I believe, only officially pass it to one of three office holders at EDDC: the CEO; the deputy CEO; or the Monitoring Officer. Does Williams include himself when he spoke of a senior EDDC officer? I think the public are entitled to know who the officer concerned was and if it came from police sources – otherwise there are even more questions..

I would also like to know more about the ‘confidentiality’ argument that was apparently put forward for taking no action. Is someone seriously suggesting that the correct course of action, when advised that a councillor is being investigated for the most serious of sexual offences is to keep silent? That officer should have been deeply worried about Humphreys offending again and against the most vulnerable; he should have known he was a school governor (it would be on his declarations of interest) and last of all, he would have known his background when there was discussion about offering alderman status. To stay silent may not be unlawful, but to me it almost rings of aiding and abetting. Am I alone in thinking we should be deeply concerned and demand the fullest of explanations for such a decision? Was nothing learned from the Saville and Harris cases?

I am aware that all too often matters can be misreported, and lose, or gain, in transmission as well as there being another side to the story – but what we know of this demands enquiry and explanation.

I may have old fashioned values but seriously, who would place ‘confidentiality’ above the risks that a free to roam Humphreys placed everyone in? I feel deeply uneasy about any council officer, council member or employee of any grade who would be comfortable with such a decision. If it was kept to the officer receiving the information well it is very short sighted for any such person to believe they were wise enough to make such a decision entirely on their own and without seeking advice from the many external quarters available. Unwise and perhaps arrogant!

But much of this is conjecture and assumes the knowledge came to the unnamed officer in the way of proper business. We need, I think, for that to be confirmed promptly.

Some of us have long suspected that one or more officers were well aware of the investigation, and a few past and present Tory councillors too. Why has it taken so long to get this  awareness by an EDDC officer even partially released? The new council and its members have been pushing for an enquiry by local Tories but it seems they are unwilling to take it on. Tory head office also has no comment I gather.

Why, on top of local efforts, has it taken a national newspaper investigative reporter to get even a basic admission out of the CEO?

I am pleased that there is a call for a full investigation as in times past one suspects a bucket of whitewash would have been ordered. But I must express concern about who might be appointed as the investigative authority. It is my firm belief, from experience, that nobody but the police can ask the appropriate questions and expect answers. ‘Private’ investigators can be readily ignored – and we already have signs that some in the local Tory party seem unwilling to cooperate – I believe the report they were asked for has never appeared.

I most firmly believe that Devon and Cornwall Police are not the force to investigate. They have already been asked about their role, yet appear to have done nothing. Their chief has made it known that he is leaving this year, and this needs resolving before he leaves. They have also been criticised by the main witness.

One candidate has been announced, with the Reform UK party being the first to name who will be standing. A post from the party on Twitter stated: “We are pleased to announce Andy Foan as our candidate in the Tiverton & Honiton By-Election. Andy was born near Tiverton, serving in the Royal Navy and RAF before becoming a pilot and flying instructor. He is standing to tackle the cost of living & to restore trust in politics.”

Source: www.devonlive.com 

Six of Devon’s Conservative MPs have voted against a Labour amendment to The Queen’s Speech to impose a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. Only Jonny Mercer for Plymouth Moor View and disgraced porn watching MP Neil Parish did not vote down the proposed amendment, which the opposition party claimed could have saved hard-up families struggling to heat their homes £600 a year. Mr Parish, having resigned over watching pornography in Parliament, was unable to vote.

(They can tuck in to their taxpayer subsidised House of Commons Members Dining Room – Owl)

Olivier Vergnault www.devonlive.com

Gary Streeter, for South West Devon, Selaine Saxby, for North Devon, Anthony Mangnall, for Totnes, Kevin Foster, for Torbay, Anne Marie Morris, for Newton Abbot, and Simon Jupp, for East Devon, all voted with the Government. Last night as MPs voted against the move by 310 votes to 248.

Earlier in the day shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband tore into Chancellor Rishi Sunak over his failure to act earlier during a heated debate in the Commons. He told the House of Commons: “The Chancellor wants us to believe that his measures in response are the best we can do. But they are not. Not by a long shot. The government ‘always try and blame someone else’ when cost of living concerns are raised.”

The shadow minister said he would have “no idea” how he would cope with soaring energy bills if he was on the basic level of Universal Credit. He added: “The truth is, they have run out of excuses, and amidst the chaos and confusion about what their position is, I think a massive U-turn is lumbering slowly over the hill. But I say this to the Chancellor: swallow your pride and get on with it.”

Mr Sunak repeated his claim that “no option is off the table” and that only if oil and gas giants do not invest their profits back into “growth, job and energy security” could the policy could be introduced. The Conservative Party rejected calls to do anything about it immediately.

As reported by the Mirror shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “Last night, every Conservative MP who voted against a windfall tax on oil and gas producer profits has sent a clear message. They will not put working people first, and they have no answer on the cost of living crisis.”

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Conservative MPs have chosen to side with profiteering oil and gas companies over working people. Millions are being walloped by soaring bills and prices having been left badly exposed to this crisis after more than a decade of standstill wages and cuts to social security, overseen by successive Tory governments, all the while the likes of Shell and BP are registering eye-watering profits.

“Enough is enough. The Chancellor must bring forward an emergency Budget to give households grants to help with energy bills – funded by a windfall tax on oil and gas giants – and immediately increase Universal Credit and the minimum wage.”

This week Owl has posted two articles critical of the government response to tackling sewage pollution. “Raw sewage in rivers to go unchecked”; and “Water giants should be made to pay for spilling sewage”.

In Monday’s edition of the Western Morning News, Defra minister Rebecca Pow, MP for Taunton Deane claimed that the government was “cracking down on those water companies that are not playing their part in delivering the clean water that the people of this country want to see”.

“We’ll crack down on sewage pollution” Minister tells WMN enforcement is a priority

ENVIRONMENT Minister Rebecca Pow has vowed to get tough on the pollution of our rivers and coastal waters and ensure water companies clean up their act when it comes to sewage discharges.

Writing in today’s WMN, Ms Pow said water quality was a top priority for the Government, which was “cracking down on those water companies that are not playing their part in delivering the clean water that the people of this country want to see”.

She argued the South West, like many parts of the country, “has long suffered from an excessive and unacceptable use of storm overflows”, and added: “I have said time and again that the amount of sewage discharge by water companies into our rivers is unacceptable. They need to raise their game and those that do not meet expectations will be held to account.”

The Government says it has reinforced its commitment to taking tough action to improve water quality. Under its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, out for consultation, water companies will face strict limits on when they can use storm overflows and must eliminate the harm any sewage discharge causes to the environment.

Water firms are investing £3.1billion in storm overflow improvements by 2025.

Since 2015 the Environment Agency has brought 48 prosecutions against water companies, securing fines of over £137 million. Last year, the Environment Agency and Ofwat launched a major investigation based on evidence that some water companies in England may not be complying with their permits, resulting in excess sewage spills into the environment, even in dry periods. Some of the biggest fines were imposed last year – including a record £90 million fine for Southern Water in July for thousands of illegal discharges.

Additional action on water quality includes almost doubling the budget for Catchment Sensitive Farming. Grants support farmers to develop environmentally sustainable methods that limit the contamination of nearby bodies of water from things like manure or pesticides. The new annual budget will be £30 million, up from £16.6 million in 2020-21. This means it will cover 100% of England’s farmland, up from 40% of its current coverage, with every farmer able to access advice and support by March 2023.

Last October, South West Water defended its record after reporting 200 pollution incidents in 2020 and 42,000 discharges of sewage into waterways due to heavy rain.

Chief executive Susan Davy told the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 210 pollution hotspots had been identified for improvements.

They fail to answer questions about sex offender.

The longer the silence, the greater the reputational damage – Owl

Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk

The Conservative Party has failed to answer questions about whether it has conducted an enquiry into a former Tory councillor who has been convicted of sex crimes against children.

Former East Devon District and Exmouth town councillor John Humphreys is serving 21 years in prison after being convicted of historic sexual offences against two boys in the early 1990s and early 2000s.

The Conservative group at East Devon District Council (EDDC) insists that any party-led enquiry into the case is a matter for the national party.

However, Conservative central office won’t say if such an enquiry has taken place.

Humphreys was originally arrested in May 2016 but it took over four years for the case to come to court and become publicly known.

A statement read out on behalf of one of Humphreys’ victims last year at a full council meeting said that Humphreys knew that the case was live between  2016 and 2021, during which time he was a councillor.

“This leaves me wondering,” said the victim in his letter, “‘who else knew and how was he allowed to carry on as usual being a councillor at Exmouth and East Devon?’

Council leader Paul Arnott (Independent East Devon Alliance and Democratic Alliance Group, Coly Valley) later wrote to secretary of EDDC Conservatives Phil Twiss (Honiton St. Michael’s), asking if the group had launched an enquiry  into the matter.  He copied senior members of the Conservative Party, including East Devon’s MPs, prime minister Boris Johnson and co-chair of the Conservative party Oliver Dowden.

Cllr Arnott says he has received no response to the letter.

At EDDC’s cabinet meeting earlier this month, councillors raised the lack of response from the Conservative Party, either locally or nationally, on the Humphreys case.

Councillor Jess Bailey (Independent, West Hill and Aylesbeare) said: “The Conservative Party must have practices and procedures around candidates, particularly when they come forward for election, that make declarations.”

Commenting on the Humphreys’s case she added: “Were those declarations not made, or were the declaration made but not true? We just don’t know. We’ve had no information from the party in the past eight-plus months.”

However, Mr Humphreys was already a councillor when he was arrested in 2016, and did not stand for election again.

Councillor Phil Twiss (Honiton St. Michael’s), secretary of EDDC Conservative Group was asked later what practices East Devon Conservatives have for candidates declaring information before elections, and whether the party, locally or nationally, has conducted an investigation into the case and, if so, why it has not been made public.

Unable to answer, Cllr Twiss said: “matters such as this and are dealt with by The Conservative Party and not the EDDC Conservative Group.”

But the Conservative Party has not answered specific questions on the matter,  including whether any enquiry has taken place, despite being asked several times.

A spokesperson said that the party was not aware of the allegations against Mr Humphreys before they became public and that at that point, Mr Humphreys was no longer a member of the party. 

The police investigation into Mr Humphreys, which started in 2016, became public when he appeared in court in November 2020, although he was a councillor until May 2019.

He had previously been questioned about offences connected to one of the teenagers in 2005 but no charges were brought.

There have been allegations that some members of the council knew Mr Humphreys was under investigation while he was still serving at the council before this was public knowledge, between 2016 and November 2020. These allegations have been categorically refuted by EDDC’s Conservative group.

A Liberal Democrat councillor, Eileen Wragg, told a council meeting earlier this month that she “certainly knew.”

In December 2019, whist under investigation, the council gave  Mr Humphries, along with severl other former councillors, the honorary title of alderman. He was stripped of the title last year following his conviction.

East Devon District Council is now establishing an independent investigation into how Humphreys came to be given the award.