“BBC acknowledges ‘mistake’ in Boris Johnson editing”

Fascinating that this article comes under the BBC’s “arts and entertainment” heading and NOT politics!

The BBC has said editing footage of Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a news bulletin was “a mistake on our part”.

The Prime Minister appeared on Question Time: Leaders Special on BBC One on Friday evening.

The audience laughed when he was asked a question about how important it is for people in power to tell the truth.

But the laughter and subsequent applause was absent from a cut-down version of the exchange on a lunchtime news bulletin the following day.

“This clip from the BBC’s Question Time special, which was played out in full on the News at Ten on Friday evening and on other outlets, was shortened for timing reasons on Saturday’s lunchtime bulletin, to edit out a repetitious phrase from Boris Johnson,” the BBC said in a statement.

“However, in doing so we also edited out laughter from the audience. Although there was absolutely no intention to mislead, we accept this was a mistake on our part, as it didn’t reflect the full reaction to Boris Johnson’s answer.

“We did not alter the soundtrack or image in any way apart from this edit, contrary to some claims on social media.”

On the original programme, an audience member asked the prime minister: “How important is it for someone in your position of power to always tell the truth?”

There was laughter and applause from the audience as Mr Johnson answered: “I think it’s absolutely vital.”

Mr Johnson then repeated the sentence once the laughter and applause had died down.

The second version was the one used in the BBC’s News at One bulletin on Saturday.

The BBC originally explained that the Saturday edit was “shortened for time reasons” in reply to a tweet later the same day, although did not acknowledge it was a mistake at that point.

The BBC’s statement follows an error on BBC Breakfast last month when out-of-date footage of Mr Johnson laying a wreath was broadcast due to “a production mistake”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50546115

Left-wing newspaper points out Swire’s extra income as MP

Will Swire find some nice part-time job for Jupp if he succeeds him? Will Dominic Raab (to whom he is said to be an adviser, though parlianmentary records do not show this) give his SPAD a leg up? As Swire organised Raab’s attempt for the Tory Leadership will they perhaps both offer Jupp their help?

Might we see even less of Jupp than Swire (if that’s possible?).

“TOP Tories stand to collectively lose more than £2.5 million a year under Labour’s plan to stop MPs moonlighting for extra money, the Morning Star can reveal.

Labour’s manifesto has set out plans to “tackle vested interests” in British politics — including a pledge to “stop MPs from taking paid second jobs” with limited exemptions to maintain professional registrations like nursing.

The move would hit around a fifth of Tory MPs, according to the Star’s analysis of the register of MPs’ interests.
More than 50 were topping up their £79,468 salaries with permanent second jobs on which they spent a combined 9,500 hours a year. …

… Mark Pritchard and Hugo Swire were also managing to hold down an extra four jobs outside of Parliament, making them £77,880 per annum and £104,996 (almost half of it in shares) respectively. …”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/top-tories-lose-more-ps25-mill-year-under-labours-plans-stop-mps-moonlighting

Tory “manifesto” – “transactional not transformative “

“Theresa May’s manifesto launch two years ago was famously the moment her election campaign imploded. After unveiling her ‘dementia tax’ plans in a marginal Labour seat in West Yorkshire, her poll lead began to evaporate. Instead of gaining seats, she ended up losing them. A few weeks later, her majority went up in smoke.

Every Tory is still scarred by the experience. And, for all his British bulldog bonhomie, Boris Johnson is no exception. So, when it came to his own manifesto launch today (in a marginal Tory seat), caution was the watchword. After May’s hubris in Halifax, what we got was temperance in Telford.

Even the timing of the launch, on a soggy Sunday with the public’s attention elsewhere, felt deliberately low-key, and risk-free. Johnson’s speech was short (a mere 15 minutes) and his manifesto was brief too (59 pages and many of those had big print and big photos). Its contents were as safe as an episode of Antiques Roadshow. What was remarkable was how unremarkable it was.

Johnson twice used the phrase “sensible, moderate One Nation Conservatism”. Sensible is not a word you’d normally associate with the self-styled swashbuckler of the Tory party. If felt like this great gambler, having bet his career on a December election, was doing everything he could to avoid any slip-ups that could leave him as one of the shortest-lived prime ministers in our history.

In spending terms, this blueprint for government paled in comparison to Labour’s splurge. It would increase spending by a mere £2.9bn per year by 2023-24, (Labour’s plan is for £82.9bn over the same period). Compared to recent Tory administrations, there would be more borrowing and more state intervention. The IFS called the fiscal plans ‘very modest’ and the whole thing felt like an Autumn Statement rather than a vision of sunlit uplands.

On the toxic topic of social care, there was no detail at all, despite the fact that this is a huge generational challenge and despite Johnson’s famous summer pledge (“I am announcing now – on the steps of Downing Street – that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared”.) The tax cuts were tepid and the childcare offer was timid. Aides said that only £22bn out of their £100bn ‘headroom’ for spending has been allocated, and hinted more was to come. But no one was splashing the cash today.

Johnson himself tried to claim his would be “a new government, a very active and dynamic government”. Yet when you flick through his blueprint for government for the next five years, this doesn’t feel like a new departure from the May or Cameron eras. In fact, it feels like what it is: a third-term Tory administration that is not exactly brimming with ideas.

Yes more cash for potholes is important, but it still sounded as exciting as John Major’s motorway cones hotline. The ‘Australian-style points-based immigration system’ had virtually no detail. There’s no big bang to tackle the housing crisis, and (as future generations may remember most of all) nothing radical to tackle the climate emergency.

The contrast between the piecemal prospectus today and Johnson’s flamboyant usual rhetorical flourishes was striking. On today’s evidence, to paraphrase the insult once lobbed at Clement Attlee, he’s an immodest man with much to be modest about.

Of course, Johnson is undeniably a better salesman than May ever was. The usual gags were there (“let’s go carbon neutral by 2050 and Corbyn neutral by Christmas!” “Bonjour monsieur Corbyn comment allez vous?”), plus the linguistic gymnastics (in Telford 200 years ago “the phlegethontian fires of Coalbrookdale created the first industrial revolution”). There was also some neat phrasemaking (“from free trade to free speech to the freedom to love whomsoever you choose”).

He even tried his best to do The Vision Thing. “I want you to imagine what the country could be like in just 10 years,” he said. In fact he said “in ten years’ time” (scientists would benefit from more R&D cash, we’d have 40 new hospitals, the UK would still be the UK) so many times that it felt like this was a prospectus for a two-term, not a one-term, prime minister.

One reason Johnson likes talking about the future is because it’s so much easier for him than talking about the past. Holding an election before delivering Brexit has turned out to be an inspired move, simultaneously keeping attention on Corbyn’s confusing position while stressing only the Tories can get it ‘done’.

As many times as he says he’s only been PM for three months, in many places the manifesto only reverses cuts made in the past 10 years. From replacing 20,000 police officers to restoring the student nurse bursary, Johnson is hoping the public will forget he signed up to austerity as both an MP and as a member of the Cabinet. His sense of political responsibility feels like a Westminster remix of Shaggy’s ‘It Wasn’t Me’. Vowing never to extend the UK’s transition period beyond 2020 may prove to be a mistake, but that’s not his pressing concern. Winning this election is.

Simon Fletcher, Ken Livingstone’s former chief of staff, is someone who knows better than most how effective Johnson is as a politician. He warned earlier this year that Johnson “will obfuscate, avoid accountability, brazenly steal policies, play to the gallery and close down as many attack lines as he can.” And the Tory 2019 manifesto does all of those things.

It steals policies like free hospital parking (both from Labour itself and Tory backbencher Rob Halfon) and more nurses, albeit watered down version of both. It plays to the gallery on immigration and crime. It tries to shut down the NHS and schools cuts rows that caused Tories to lose seats two years ago. As with the Boris Bus £350m pledge, there’s less to many of the promises than meets the eye (50,000 ‘more nurses’ turns out to include current staff, just like 40 new hospitals means six fully funded projects).

Two years ago, Theresa May got indignant when asked whether her manifesto was a variation of Thatcherism. “There is no May-ism,” she said sternly. There is no ‘Borisism’ either. In fact the phrase is used to describe his one-liners, his scripted ‘unscripted’ gaffes, his un-PC jokes, rather than a political philosophy,.
But if there is a Johnsonism, it’s as old as conservatism itself: a recognition that Britons prefer evolution to revolution.

The Conservative party also has a knack for renewing itself in office as well as out of it. Johnson chose the seat of Leave-voting Telford today because it is a marginal the Tories hope to turn into a safe seat. But he also hopes to take nearby Labour seats in Stoke, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Wolverhampton and West Bromwich.

That’s the most important point about the Tory manifesto. It’s not transformational, it’s transactional. It offers an ‘oven ready’ Brexit to Labour Leavers, ‘no extension’ to Nigel Farage and slowly-does-it spending for everyone tired of austerity. And for a nation exhausted by the past three years, and those who just want to get on with their Christmas shopping, it may work.”

Source: Paul Waugh: Huffington Post

Questions for the Tory candidate as he rushes around East Devon

Claire Wright has been clear with her manifesto – protecting what is best about East Devon, standing up for the NHS am]nd social care, conserving the environment and improving education and inequality.

Click to access GEManifesto2019FINAL5.pdf

Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has not been so clear.
Other party manifestos are unimportant in East Devon.

A vote for anyone other than Claire Wright is a vote for the Tories.

Our parachuted-in, Tory apparatchik candidate is throwing himself around the constituency like a whirling dervish (mostly accompanied by the same old 5-6 people – who must be finding it quite tiring) But has anyone asked him these questions and, if so, has he given any answers?

If not, maybe hustings will provide a platform for him to answer.

What do you think of the Tory fake-news “factcheck uk” Twitter account? Is that acceptable?

What do you think of the “50,000 more nurses” which includes 19,000 that you think you might be able to persuade NOT to leave? Is this acceptable?

What do you think about the “20,000 more police” when you got rid of 21,000. Is this acceptable?

What do you think of the “60 new hospitals” when itis actually only 6 – the others to get minimal funding to plan new hospitals, not build them? Is this acceptable?

Why has social care been left out of the manifesto? Is this acceptable?

All the above is said to be taking 10 years to achieve – if at all? Is this acceptable?

“Boris Johnson under fire over ‘vague’ social care funding plans”

Yet millions of over 65’s will vote for them over an issue (Brexit) that will affect their children and grandchildren much more than them, and where those people often have very different views to them. THIS, and the state of the NHS, should be their main worry.

“Nicky Morgan has defended Boris Johnson over his decision to shelve plans to overhaul social care funding in the Conservatives’ manifesto launch.

The Conservative party has pledged to allocate an extra £1bn a year for the social care sector as part of a cautious manifesto, while guaranteeing that no one should have to sell their home to meet the costs.

But it falls short of Johnson’s rallying cry on the steps of Downing Street when he took office, claiming “we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all … with a clear plan we have prepared”.

Theresa May was forced into a U-turn when her 2017 manifesto social care plan was labelled a “dementia tax”, and Johnson has now committed only to saying the party will “build a cross-party consensus” on how it should be funded in the long term.

Sir Andrew Dilnot, the former chair of the commission on funding of care and support, said the Tory plans were “very vague”. And the head of a thinktank has said Johnson’s pledge is too little to plug the gap needed to cater for the country’s ageing population. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/25/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-vague-social-care-funding-plans?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

No-one cares about social care: 74,000 over 65s have died while waiting for social care since last election

Covert euthanasia?

“A charity has blasted the government for the time it has “wasted” on drawing up a social care paper that still has not materialised.

Age UK called on the next government to spend £8bn over the next two years to prevent further decline in the adult social care sector.

The charity pointed out since the 2017 election 74,000 over-65s in England have died while waiting for the care they asked for, equating to a rate of 81 deaths per day, in analysis released yesterday.

Caroline Abrahams, director at Age UK, said the political system has “completely failed” to reform social care, despite it featuring heavily in the 2017 election campaign.

She said the last third months waiting for the promised social care green paper, which has now been delayed six times had been “effectively wasted ..waiting for the social care green paper that never was”.

“Social care is not some kind of nice-to-have optional extra, it’s a fundamental service on which millions of older and disabled people depend every day,” Abrahams said.

“Good care provided by kind and committed people, enriches lives and makes it possible to have dignity and hope. The reverse is also true: if you need care and you can’t get it then there are very serious implications for your health and your wellbeing – as the NHS knows all too well.”

Age UK estimates that between the 2017 and 2019 elections 1,725,000 unsuccessful requests have been – or will be made – by older people for care.

“It is appalling that one and a half million older people in our country now have some unmet need for care, one in seven of the entire older population. This is a shameful statistic, and older people are developing new unmet needs for care every day.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2019/11/charity-demands-action-social-care
(pay wall)

Founder of World Wide Web attacks Tory dirty tricks – don’t trust people who impersonate he says

“The inventor of the World Wide Web has accused the Conservatives of spreading misinformation during the general election campaign.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee described the renaming of a Tory Twitter account as a fact checking body as “impersonation”.
“That was really brazen,” he told the BBC. “It was unbelievable they would do that.”

During a live TV leaders’ debate on Tuesday the Tory press office account @CCHQ was rebranded “factcheckuk”.

The renaming remained for the duration of the hour-long debate between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives have said “no one will have been fooled” by the move.

But Sir Tim said the renaming “was impersonation. Don’t do that. Don’t trust people who do that.”

He went on to compare what happened with someone impersonating a friend for the purpose of defrauding them. “What the Conservative Party has done is obviously a no no. That’s amazingly blatant,” Sir Tim said. …”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50539795

Urgent flood warning for River Clyst

Environment Agency:

Flood warning

Areas affected: River Clyst from Broadclyst to Clyst St. Mary
ACTIVEStarted at: 16:20 GMT on Sun 24 November

Flooding is expected – immediate action required

Flooding is expected. Heavy rain has in the River Clyst area will continue into Monday morning. This is causing the River Clyst to remain high.

Properties and low lying areas around Ashclyst Farm, Burrow Bridge, there is likely to be deep road flooding in the Burrow area, Broadclyst Bridge, Clyston Mill, Dymond’s Farm, Sowton Barton and properties and farms between Clyst St. Mary and Topsham including Newcourt Barton and Cotts Farm will start to flood first.

Flood waters may be deep and fast flowing in these areas. Residents are strongly urged to take action now. Remain safe and be aware of your local surroundings.

We will be closely monitoring the situation and this message will be updated as the situation changes.”

First-time voters – your chance to change history

  • First-time voters could unseat their MP in 56 marginal seats across the country, according to analysis of the 1.2m new electors who have come of age in England and Wales since the 2017 general election.

If you haven’t yet registered, do so here before 5pm on 26 November:

https://www.gov.uk/voting-in-the-uk

 

50,000 more nurses? Of course not!

“Breakdown of that Tory 50k new nurses pledge. Party sources say 14k from students, 12.5k from overseas 5k from new nurse apprenticeships. But bulk of increase will come from better ‘retention’ of existing staff (better childcare/management support)…..So 31,500 “new” nurses then and a pipe-dream about retaining staff who are growing more unhappy in their roles each day due to the 40,000 nurse vacancies that can’t currently be filled. This man really has a problem with the truth…….”

“Poor urban councils bear majority of Tory funding cuts, study shows”

“Drastic cuts to local government funding have seen the UK’s most deprived metropolitan areas “shoulder the burden of austerity” while some more prosperous counties have flourished, according to new research.

Analysis by the TUC and public service union Unison of central government funding for local councils in England since 2010 highlights a yawning chasm between urban and rural areas. It shows that , overall, councils in England are spending £7.8bn a year less on key services than they did in 2010, which equates to a cut of £150m a week.

The analysis reveals that the 20 councils with the biggest funding gaps are overwhelmingly metropolitan boroughs in London and the north of England. Of these 18 are controlled by Labour; only one is Conservative-run.

In contrast, the 20 councils with the smallest funding cuts are overwhelmingly all Conservative-controlled county councils. Of these, 16 are controlled by the Conservatives and just two are Labour-run.

The analysis – using methodology employed by both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Cities – found that Labour-run Salford Council is spending 38% – or £99m a year – less on key local services than a decade ago. That works out to £479 a year less per resident. …”

The Local Government Association estimates that in the past eight years, councils in general have lost 60p out of every £1 the government used to provide prior to the funding cuts. This has left councils increasingly reliant on raising income through council tax, business rates and other charges and fees. Urban councils in more deprived areas have found this task more difficult than their rural counterparts.

“Poorer parts of England have suffered most from the Conservatives’ local government cuts,” said TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady. “By slashing central government funding, they have made deprived areas shoulder the burden of austerity. We need fair and sustainable funding for all of our communities. Key services have been cut to the bone.”

Unison general secretary Dave Prentis agreed: “Local services hold communities together, but nine years of austerity has put paid to that. We’ve seen libraries shut, care visits reduced, allotments and parks sold off, youth centres closed, subsidised bus services scrapped and public conveniences axed. The government’s funding squeeze has forced councils to charge residents more, reduce key services or cut them altogether. Now the cupboard is virtually bare and some local authorities can no longer provide the legal minimum.”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government said it could not comment as it is currently in election purdah.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/24/deprived-urban-areas-shoulder-burden-of-funding-cuts?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

How to submit a question to Sidmouth hustings

From Vision Group for Sidmouth:

This is your ‘red button’ to leave a question:
https://visionforsidmouth.org/contact/
Otherwise questions can be submitted on the night at the door by 7.30pm.
Note: At the last general election hustings held by the Vision Group in Sidmouth, quite a few people turned up late to attend because there had been an important council meeting that same evening. In other words, it’ll be no problem to arrive after 7.30pm and after the Late Night Shopping, as candidates will be giving short presentations in the first half and taking questions in the second.
A seat cannot be guaranteed though!

Sidmouth hustings 6 December slight delay to start time (now 7.30 pm)

“The General Election Hustings planned for Sidmouth on December 6 has been put back half an hour due to the town’s Late Night Shopping event.

The event will now run from 7.30pm to 9pm.

Peter Murphy, chair of the event, said, “We wanted to complement the shopping event in Sidmouth and not compete with it. And so we decided to move the start time from 7pm to 7.30pm, to allow people to take part in both events.”

The Vision Group for Sidmouth, which is hosting the hustings, says that the calling of the snap general election left little time for organization and there were limited dates for the use of halls to hold the event.

Friday, December 6, had already been chosen by the Chamber of Commerce for its annual Late Night Shopping – so in order to avoid a clash, the Vision Group has pushed its own event to start a little later.

As Peter commented: “This way, we hope that people will be attracted to the centre of town with a double bill that evening!”

The hustings will be attended by all six parliamentary candidates and will be held at All Saints’ Hall, All Saints’ Road, near the hospital in Sidmouth.

All are welcome to come along.

To put a question to the candidates, click the red button below and write to the group’s secretary.

Daily Telegraph sees Claire Wright as potential winner in East Devon

“East Devon doesn’t seem like a natural place for a revolution. Its gentle landscape, retirement communities and well-kept seaside towns don’t suggest a predilection for insurrection.

Indeed, in its various guises, the seat has been represented by a Conservative MP for 150 years. Yet next month, voters across Exmouth and its surroundings could be the first to elect an independent first-time MP in England for nearly two decades.

Claire Wright is standing in the seat for the third time, having come second at both previous attempts. Her share of the vote surged in 2017, leaving her with 21,000 votes to Sir Hugo Swire’s 29,000. …”

(Remainder of article behind paywall)

Retirement flats – the big con

Tens of thousands of families have seen their inheritances decimated after elderly relatives paid inflated prices for new retirement homes that have collapsed in value, an investigation by The Times has found. Prices of retirement flats in developments built by some of Britain’s biggest housebuilders have plummeted by up to 90 per cent in the face of costly annual management charges and ground rents.

Analysis of Land Registry data suggests that £3 billion could have been wiped from the value of retirement homes built between 2001 and 2015. In one case, a flat bought for £197,000 in 2009 from builder McCarthy & Stone, a FTSE 250 company, was sold for only £26,000six years later. The owner, Miriam Savage, was paying £8,200 a year in service charges and ground rent to the managing agent.

The losses often become apparent to families only when their loved ones die and they try to sell their home. There are 150,000 retirement flats in the UK. They don’t have full-time nurses but most have communal areas and features to help residents live independently. There is often 24-hour telephone support or wardens on site.

The properties are sold as leaseholds with the freeholds bought by the highest bidder. The freeholder collects an annual ground rent and appoints an agent to run the development. These companies have been accused of levying excessive fees and charges and leaving facilities to fall into disrepair.

Sebastian O’Kelly, of betterretirementhousing.com, said: “These flats routinely plummet in value and the reason is the leasehold system. The freeholder and property manager still get their ground rent and service fees irrespective of price. It’s deplorable that families are pouring money into these purchases, often in desperation, only to see their value evaporate.”

Retirement home builders say the value of the properties is not just financial. They say they reduce loneliness and the burden of maintenance and increase safety and security. McCarthy & Stone points out that since 2010 it has not allowed outside companies to manage its sites and this is protecting values.

Some families have concerns about how properties are sold. One complained that a 88-year-old relative was sold a flat while her daughter was on holiday. When the woman died, the flat wouldn’t sell. Land Registry data shows the average loss of value for flats in the block is £74,000.

The Times looked at nearly 500 retirement flats in 15 developments built between 2001 and 2015. Almost 80 per cent of the homes sold since their first purchase had fallen in value with an average loss of £38,846. The analysis suggests that flats built since 2010 have fared better with only 37 per cent experiencing losses. But one McCarthy & Stone flat built in 2015 lost £45,000 in value when it was sold this year. In the past four years McCarthy & Stone has made profits of £383 million.

Mr O’Kelly said: “The situation may be improving as builders move to being service providers but these companies successfully lobbied government to retain ground rents on retirement sites, which doesn’t encourage the belief they have a long-term interest.”

This week Churchill Retirement Homes donated £150,000 to the Tories. The company is run by Spencer and Clinton McCarthy, the sons of John McCarthy, the co-founder of McCarthy & Stone. There is no suggestion that the donation was linked to the decision to exempt retirement home providers from a ban on ground rents. Spencer and Clinton McCarthy have been Tory supporters for ten years.

The industry says the sale of freeholds funds communal areas and without this system flats would cost more.

Sources at McCarthy & Stone insist it is a different company to the one that developed homes pre-2010. FirstPort is responsible for maintaining the developments built before 2010. It said that nine out of 10 customers say its properties improve their quality of life. It added: “Independent research by the Elderly Accommodation Counsel in 2019 found that new retirement properties typically increase in value. The vast majority of our managed properties increase in price on resale and they are more than just places to live.”