CORRECTION: The Tory hopeful with 3 homes who says he’s ordinary bloke is NEW HOUSING MINISTER
Tory hopeful with 3 homes says he’s just an ordinary bloke …
Swire in with a chance of a job as his choice for PM becomes Johnson’s right-hand man
“Dominic Raab has been appointed foreign secretary and first secretary of state.
First secretary of state is a title sometimes given to a minister by the PM. Damian Green was the last person to hold the post. It means Dominic Raab, who was Brexit secretary until he resigned at the end of last year because he was opposed to the withdrawal agreement, is effectively deputy prime minister (unless Boris Johnson surprises us all and appoints an actual deputy prime minister). …”
New unitary authorities … the criteria restated for counties AND districts
“The Communities Secretary, James Brokenshire, has set out the circumstances in which he would be prepared to issue a formal invitation to councils under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to submit proposals for the establishment of new unitary councils.
In what could be one of his last acts as Secretary of State, with the prospect of Boris Johnson becoming Prime Minister and choosing a Cabinet, Brokenshire said in a written ministerial statement yesterday that he would also set out how he intended to assess any unitary proposals councils make in response; and the Government’s continued approach to any proposals two or more district councils may make to merge in order to form a new larger district council.
The Secretary of State said: “Locally-led changes to the structure of local government, whether in the form of unitarisation or district mergers, can – with local support – be an appropriate means of ensuring more sustainable local government and local service delivery, enhanced local accountability, and empowered local communities. This statement …. continues the Government’s commitment to supporting those councils that wish to combine, to serve their communities better and will consider unitarisation and mergers between councils when locally requested.
“However, I recognise that unitarisation may not be appropriate everywhere. I also recognise that it is essential that any local government restructuring should be on the basis of locally led proposals and should not involve top-down Whitehall solutions being imposed on areas. The Government does not support top-down unitary restructuring. This has been the Government’s consistent approach since 2010.”
The Secretary of State said he also wanted to provide further clarity for those councils who might consider the possibility of restructuring, by setting out the factors councils should consider and the processes to be followed – including with regard to local support.
For councils wishing to restructure to form unitary local government, the first step of the statutory process as set out under the 2007 Act is for the minister to issue an invitation to councils to submit proposals.
Brokenshire said there were two circumstances in which he would consider issuing such an invitation.
The first circumstance, he said, is where the following two conditions are met:
There is a local request for an invitation.
That he considers that the request “demonstrates local opinion is coalescing around a single option which is reasonably likely to meet the existing publicly announced criteria for unitarization”.
The Secretary of State said, in forming his view, he would carefully consider the request, including the groups making and supporting it and their reasons for so doing. “Where I issue an invitation, I would do so to all those councils that I consider to have regard to the area concerned, whether or not they were among those who had made the original request.”
The minister said the second circumstance was where he considered that doing so would be appropriate given the specific circumstances of the area, including in relation to the long-term sustainability of local services. This was the situation in which his predecessor, Sajid Javid, issued an invitation to the councils in Northamptonshire, he said.
“Following such an invitation, it would be for the councils concerned to decide whether to develop and submit proposals for unitarisation, either individually or jointly by two or more councils.”
In the statement Brokenshire confirmed that he would assess any locally-led unitary proposal that he received against the criteria for unitarisation announced to Parliament in 2017.
These criteria state that subject to Parliamentary approval a proposal can be implemented, with or without modification, if the Secretary of State has concluded that across the area as a whole the proposal was likely to:
improve the area’s local government;
command “a good deal of local support across the area”; and
cover an area that provides a credible geography for the proposed new structures, including that any new unitary council’s population would be expected to be in excess of 300,000.
On district council mergers, the Secretary of State confirmed that where two or more district councils submit a proposal to merge, he would assess this against the criteria for mergers announced to Parliament in November 2017 and which had been used since then.
“The statutory process for such mergers does not involve my inviting proposals, and I recognise that particularly small district councils may wish to propose merging as a natural next step following a number of years of successful joint working, sharing of services and senior management teams,” he said.
The criteria for district council mergers are that, subject to Parliamentary approval, a proposal to merge would be implemented if the minister had reached a judgement in the round that if so implemented it would be likely to:
improve the area’s local government;
command local support, “in particular that the merger is proposed by all councils which are to be merged and there is evidence of a good deal of local support”; and
the area is a credible geography, consisting of two or more existing local government areas that are adjacent, and which, if established, would not pose an obstacle to locally-led proposals for authorities to combine to serve their communities better and would facilitate joint working between local authorities.
Brokenshire said: “This statement is intended to provide clarity to councils and communities and help ensure that time and effort are not wasted on pursuing proposals which are unlikely to get the go ahead. It is important that those seeking to pursue locally led proposals are confident that there is a broad basis of common local support for the proposals to avoid unnecessary local conflict and distraction from the delivery of quality public services. The statement underlines the need for any proposals to be innovative, improve services, enhance accountability, have local support and deliver financial sustainability if they are to be taken forward.
“Moreover, restructuring is only one of the different ways that councils can move forward. Joint working with other councils and partners could also be an appropriate and sustainable way forward. Such joint working can take a variety of forms ranging from adopting joint plans, setting up joint committees, and sharing back office services, to establishing Combined Authorities, and may extend across county boundaries. Those in an area will know what is best – the very essence of localism to which the Government remains committed.”
“Make environmental damage a war crime, say scientists”
“International lawmakers should adopt a fifth Geneva convention that recognises damage to nature alongside other war crimes, according to an open letter by 24 prominent scientists.
The legal instrument should incorporate wildlife safeguards in conflict regions, including protections for nature reserves, controls on the spread of guns used for hunting and measures to hold military forces to account for damage to the environment, say the signatories to the letter, published in the journal Nature.
The UN international law commission is due to hold a meeting with the aim of building on the 28 principles it has already drawn up to protect the environment in war zones.
Prof Sarah Durant of the Zoological Society of London, one of the signatories to the letter, said the principles were a major step forward and should be expanded to make specific mention of biodiversity, and then adopted across the world.
“The brutal toll of war on the natural world is well documented, destroying the livelihoods of vulnerable communities and driving many species, already under intense pressure, towards extinction,” she said.
“We hope governments around the world will enshrine these protections into international law. This would not only help safeguard threatened species, but would also support rural communities, both during and post-conflict, whose livelihoods are long-term casualties of environmental destruction.” …”
“Businessman who lent Boris Johnson his £9.5 million flat given job as government adviser”
Here we go …
“LONDON — Boris Johnson has been accused by opponents of allowing friends to “buy influence” after a business executive who loaned the incoming prime minister his lavish £9.5 million home was offered a job in Johnson’s new administration.
Andrew Griffith has stepped down from his role as chief financial officer at broadcasting giant Sky to work as a “corporate adviser” to Johnson.
It came after Johnson and his campaign team were handed Griffith’s lavish Westminster property for the past few weeks as he fought Jeremy Hunt in the Conservative leadership contest, according to a Guardian report.
Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Office minister Jon Trickett said: “Before he is even appointed Prime Minister, one of Boris Johnson’s first acts is to dish out a powerful job in Number 10 to his super-rich pal who lent him his luxurious house in Westminster for the Tory leadership campaign.”
“The public would be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that Johnson’s friends can buy influence within the new administration.”
“It’s blindingly obvious — Boris Johnson and his government will act only in the interest of the wealthy elite.”
Johnson previously worked from the flat belonging to his partner Carrie Symonds located in Camberwell, south London. But the pair were forced to move out of the flat after police were called to the property following a row from the pair, which drew protests outside.
The couple have been living in Oxfordshire but Johnson’s sizeable campaign team reportedly needed a property near Westminster from which they could operate.
Griffith is a former Conservative election candidate who worked at Sky for twenty years, before standing down.
Chief executive Jeremy Darroch told Sky News: “Over the course of his twenty years at Sky and since 2008 as a member of the Board as CFO (chief financial officer) and then as chief operating officer, Andrew has played a fundamental role in many of our proudest collective achievements.”
“Whilst Andrew will be missed, he leaves behind a business that is performing well, has an ambitious set of growth plans and a strong team of colleagues,” he said. …”
“State schools choose ‘posh’ uniforms to exclude poor pupils, says MP”
“Some schools are deliberately pricing school uniforms beyond the means of poorer families so “only posh kids go there”, MPs have been told.
Emma Hardy, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, has written to the education secretary, Damian Hinds, asking him to tell schools to stop forcing parents to buy branded school uniforms.
She said that academies in particular were “emulating grammar schools and private schools” in prescribing prohibitively expensive uniforms – including branded blazers and even socks.
She had also been told that some academies deliberately chose expensive suppliers in order to put off parents of lesser means, and that some schools received a cut from suppliers given the exclusive contract for their uniforms.
“People have told me confidentially that schools get money from suppliers,” said Hardy. …
A survey from the Children’s Society last year found families were shelling out more on school uniforms with an average of £340 per year for each child at secondary school – an increase of 7% or £24 since 2015. Parents of primary school children spent on average £255, an increase of 2% since 2015.
The research found nearly one in six families said school uniform costs were to blame for them having to cut back on food and other basic essentials compared to one in seven in 2015.
In England, local authorities and academy trusts may choose to provide school clothing grants or to help with the cost of school clothing in cases of financial hardship.
In Wales, a Pupil Development Grant can provide £125 to buy school uniform, equipment, sports kit and kit for activities outside of school. In Scotland, parents may be able to get financial help with their child’s school clothing and shoes through a school clothing grant, available from local councils.”
Talk: The Impact of Climate Change on East Devon Wildlife (Seaton)
The Impact of Climate Change on East Devon Wildlife
Hosted by Extinction Rebellion Seaton
Wednesday, 14 August 2019 from 19:00-21:00
Tickets by Eventbrite
No venue stated and tickets seem not yet to be available.
“Sidmouth rated as one of the most expensive holiday spots in UK”
Midweek Herald asks: where IS Cranbrook town centre?
Good question!
https://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/cranbrook-town-centre-investigation-part-one-1-6175614
Made all the more relevant by Exeter City Council refusing ALL THREE applications for out-of-town developments aroundHoniton Road last night,citing, in part, the need not to stand in the way of the development of a town centre in Cranbrook.
Sick, elderly people ripped off – government pockets £31 million fine for it
“Standard Life Assurance Limited has just been fined £30,792,500 by city watchdog the Financial Conduct Authority.
What did they do to deserve it? Sold people the wrong pensions that would have seen them miss out on money every single year for the rest of their lives.
Worse, it was the people with health problems that were mis-sold.
Announcing the fine, the FCA’s Mark Steward said staffs were offered incentives to sell policies over the phone without checking they were suitable “which led to unfair outcomes for some customers”.
Significant numbers of staff received bonuses that doubled their salary for making these sales, which saw thousands of customers miss out on an average of more than £1,500 each as a result. …”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-firm-fined-31million-mis-18668642
Read and weep – unless maybe you live in Kingston (London) or Kingston-upon-Hull
Ivanka Trump, Twitter:
Congratulations @BorisJohnson on becoming the next Prime Minister of the United Kingston.
— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) July 23, 2019
New Lib Dem leader voting record – not what you might expect
Presumably, this information in a Guardian comment comes from the theyworkforyou website which tracks all parliamentary votes by MPs. She has already bedn dubbed “Yellow Tory” – oh dear!
“On The Environment
Consistently voted for selling England’s state owned forests
Generally voted against financial incentives for low carbon emission electricity generation methods
Generally voted against greater regulation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract shale gas
On Education
Voted for raising England’s undergraduate tuition fee cap to £9,000 per year
Almost always voted for academy schools
Consistently voted for ending financial support for some 16-19 year olds in training and further education
Consistently voted for university tuition fees
Generally voted for reducing central government funding of local government
Economic Policies
Almost always voted for increasing the rate of VAT
Consistently voted against increasing the tax rate applied to income over £150,000
Generally voted against a banker’s bonus tax
Almost always voted against an annual tax on the value of expensive homes (popularly known as a mansion tax)
Almost always voted for reducing the rate of corporation tax
Almost always voted against restricting the provision of services to private patients by the NHS
On Austerity
Almost always voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the “bedroom tax”)
Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices
Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability
Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support
Almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits
Almost always voted against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
Democratic Policies
Generally voted against a more proportional system for electing MPs
Generally voted for fixed periods between parliamentary elections
Generally voted for requiring the mass retention of information about communications
Others
Consistently voted against slowing the rise in rail fares
Generally voted against greater regulation of gambling
Generally voted for the privatisation of Royal Mail
Generally voted for restricting the scope of legal aid
Generally voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas”
How has Devon fared under Theresa May?
Badly – crime, education, homelessness and health and social care have all got much worse, only unemployment has improved with the gig econony and zero hours contracts:
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/how-devon-changed-under-theresa-3123246
Government agrees plan with EDF for cost overruns on nuclear plants – we lose, French and Chinese win
It’s OK – our Local Enterprise Partnership (for whom it is their flagship project) will just pump more of our Devon and Somerset funds into it. After all, after many if them were chosen for their nuclear business connect, they at least will be amongst the few who prosper.
“Energy consumers and taxpayers could have to pay for cost overruns at new nuclear plants after the government backed a funding model proposed by EDF.
The business department said last night it believed the “regulated asset base” model that the French energy giant wants for its proposed Sizewell plant in Suffolk could reduce consumer bills compared with the subsidy contract used to back the £20 billion Hinkley Point plant EDF is building in Somerset.
A consultation document published last night confirms that consumers would, however, be asked to start paying for the plants on energy bills while they were still under construction and to share in the risks of cost overruns.
In the case of an extreme overrun, the government — effectively the taxpayer — could either have to step in and pay the extra cost or scrap the project and pay compensation to investors.
Nuclear power provides about a fifth of the UK’s electricity needs but all bar one existing plant is due to close by 2030. Hinkley Point is the only new project under construction and over the past year developers have abandoned plans for new plants in Cumbria, Anglesey and Gloucestershire amid difficulties securing financing.
Under the regulated asset base model, the developer would receive a regulated price to give it a return on its investment expenditure, including during the construction period, and this would be levied on energy bills.
By contrast, EDF and its Chinese partners CGN are paying upfront to build Hinkley in return for a guarantee that consumers will pay them a fixed price for electricity when it eventually starts generating. The contract, well above current market prices, was widely criticised as poor value for money.
The government said the subsidy contract had been “appropriate” for Hinkley because at the time it was awarded, the reactor technology “was not operational anywhere in the world” and similar projects had suffered from significant delays and cost overruns.
The government said that construction at Hinkley, due to start operating in 2025, was on schedule and the same design of reactor had started up in China. It said that financial investors remained unwilling to put money in “during the construction phase”.
Source:Times (pay wall)
Report on Sidford Business Park Planning Inquiry
Owl says: an excellent summary – but particularly pay attention to one interesting point in it:
QUOTE: …it transpires that after their 2016 application was refused by the District Council the appellants representatives met with the Council’s Chief Executive where he encouraged them to appeal the decision. UNQUOTE
Since when did the CEO give planning advice to appelants – and who (if anyone) was with him at that meeting. And to whom, who, if anyone did he/they subsequently disclose it?
“Apologies for this lengthy Update but we wanted to provide the full flavour of the Planning Inquiry.
As we are sure you all are aware last week there was the Planning Inquiry into the appeal lodged by Tim and Mike Ford, trading as OG Holdings Retirement Benefits Scheme, into the planning application to build a Business Park in Sidford that was refused by East Devon District Council at the end of last year. The Inquiry was held in public in front of a Planning Inspector.
The District Council was represented by a very competent barrister and had one of its planning officers and a highways officer from Devon County Council as their witnesses. On the other side, the Fords, known throughout the Inquiry as the appellants, were represented by a QC and had a plethora of witnesses.
Four representatives from this Campaign were present continuously at the Inquiry from the very moment when it commenced and over three days until the moment that it concluded. Indeed, three of the Campaign’s representatives gave evidence to the Inquiry, were cross examined by the appellants’ QC and were able to direct questions to be put to witnesses, as well as participating in several “round table” discussions on specific issues related to the matters under consideration.
The three Campaign representatives who gave evidence were District Councillor Marianne Rixson, Keith Hudson and John Loudoun. There were also three other witnesses, all speaking against the proposed Business Park. These were – Town Councillor Jeff Turner, County Councillor Stuart Hughes and Sidford resident Jackie Powell. In reality, and for all other appearances, this Campaign’s representatives were treated as, and able to participate as, full participants alongside the Council and the appellants.
At all stages of the Inquiry it was pleasing to have a number of members of the public in attendance for what on a number of occasions must have been a rather dry affair, particularly when legal arguments were being exchanged and technical data argued over.
The bulk of all of the evidence and legal arguments centred primarily, as one would expect, around the issue of the suitability and safety of the highway (the A375 through Sidford and Sidbury) as this had been the grounds upon which the District Council had refused the latest planning application. Its worth recalling that for the appellants the planning application which was the subject of this Inquiry was the latest on for that site, with the first one being back in 2012, whilst the Fords submitted their first in 2016, which as we know was refused in the same year.
On the final day of the Inquiry this Campaign’s representatives were able to make strong interventions on what could become an important set of issues. As in any such Inquiry the Inspector, whilst they have all the parties together, go through what planning conditions would apply should the Inspector uphold the appeal. None of this is meant to signify that the Inspector has made a decision one way or another, but rather makes good use of everyone’s time.
We were able to put arguments on behalf of local residents for some of the main planning conditions. These conditions include important matters such as the days and hours when noisy machinery could be operated, the days and times when deliveries or collections could be made to businesses using the Business Park, having an agreed site lighting scheme which would include the use of illuminated advertising, the days and times of when the construction can take place and when construction vehicles can access the site.
Both parties agreed that if the site becomes operational there will be provision made at it for a cycle/footpath through it. This would link to the existing cycle/footpath that goes from Two Bridges Road down to the Byes and is meant to be an additional link to join through to the centre of Sidbury. The only problem here is that the County Council appears to have made no progress in developing the route into Sidbury.
This Campaign argued that the appellants, if successful at the appeal, should agree to fund the full cost of the cycle/footpath from Sidford to Sidbury and that such a condition should remain for the next 10 years. The appellants, not unsurprisingly, did not accept that this should be a condition that either legally or voluntarily should be applied!
We were very pleased to hear from the Inspector that the day before the Inquiry started, he had visited the site, as well as key areas within Sidford and Sidbury.
At the end of the Inquiry the Inspector invited both parties and this Campaign to identify sites that we wanted him to revisit. We are pleased that our proposed locations were accepted by the appellants representatives.
During the Inquiry we were able to persuade the Inspector to pay five videos that we had submitted as part of our evidence. These videos, we argued illustratively show the effects on the A375 in both Sidford and Sidbury of traffic problems given the current level of traffic, and we argued that with the additional traffic that would be generated by the Business Park this would only get worse. Links to each of these videos are set out at the end of this Update.
Interestingly, three new pieces of information came from evidence provided on behalf of the appellants.
The first is that the appellants argued that the planning application as it currently stands is the least that would make the site financially viable for them. In other words, if the appeal is lost then there is no point in the appellants submitting another application as it wouldn’t make them enough money.
Secondly, it transpires that after their 2016 application was refused by the District Council the appellants representatives met with the Council’s Chief Executive where he encouraged them to appeal the decision.
The third was that even if the appeal is successful and the appellants are able to build the Business Park, they would not be intending to build a phase two development in the neighbouring field as was expected.
The documents that both parties, this Campaign and members of the public have submitted to the Inquiry, and which the Inspector assured us he has diligently all read are available via this link –
NHS privatisation : follow the money – £9.2 billion to be precise
On the back of this article saying £9.2 billion has already gone from the NHS to private companies:
It’s good to be reminded of this oldie:
Adult social care vastly underfunded in Devon
“A new report has found that Devon County Council to be one of the lowest spenders on adult social care.
Most adult social care spending in England is paid for by local councils.
The report, commissioned by the Salvation Army, examined nationwide social care spending of rural and urban councils and concluded that Devon was among the worst.
The charity calculated the “spending potential” for over-65s with a disability of every local council and unitary authority.
In Devon, the theoretical per person spending was approximately £6,900, a fraction of the £32,000 that Lambeth Council in London can spend.”
“Dorset council faces a legal fight over housing development in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”
“DORSET Council is facing a legal battle over plans to build a large housing estate on countryside immortalised in Thomas Hardy novels, after locals complained of its “devastating” impact on rural communities.
The proposals would result in almost 1,000 homes on Vearse Farm in Bridport, the largest ever development permitted on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England.
But residents now hope to overturn the council’s decision in the courts after raising more than £30,000 through crowdfunding to finance a judicial review.
The challenge is backed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Thomas Hardy Society, whose members described the plans as a “nail in the coffin” of Hardy Country, an area named in honour of the Victorian author.
Outline planning permission was first approved by West Dorset District Council, which has since amalgamated to Dorset Council, in November 2017 but proposals were only finalised in April.
The development, which covers an equivalent of 63 football pitches, would see the population of Bridport increase by an estimated 25 per cent.
But residents objected on the grounds the scale of the housing estate was “inappropriate” and raised fears the surrounding countryside would be spoiled.
A specifically-created campaign group, called ADVEARSE, was created to set up a crowdfunding campaign to raise £34,000 in order to fund a solicitor and barrister to launch a judicial review.
Barry Bates, chairman of the group, said: “If we do not take this action now, nothing further can ever be done to challenge a development of this devastating scale on this site.”
Overlooking the development site is the distinguishable Colmer’s Hill, a beloved landmark in Dorset that is said to be an inspiration for artists and novelists including Hardy, who mentioned it in his 1880 short story Fellow Townsmen.
Dr Tony Fincham, chairman of the Hardy Society, said: “This proposal is just the kind of over-development which irretrievably destroys part of Hardy’s Wessex.
“So often West Dorset (Council) doesn’t realise the value of its very special landscape in both literary and tourism term.
“This plan is just another nail in the coffin of Hardy Country.”
Elizabeth Sims, the widow of eminent violinist Neville Marriner, known as one of world’s greatest conductors, has also put her name to the cause. …
Dorset Council is under pressure to build over 15,000 new homes in west Dorset – one of the worst areas in Britain for affordable housing – by 2036.
The average price of property in the area now stands at £318,000, well beyond the means of most people born and brought up there.
David Walsh, Dorset Council’s head of planning, said: “We are confident in the way the Vearse Farm application was considered.
“As this is a legal process, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this moment in time.”
Swire’s old job opens up as current occupant resigns rather than work with Johnson
No such qualms for Old Etonian Swire, one assumes, working with yet another Old Etonian boss, and Old Etonian Cameron having appointed him and knighted him. Swire did support unsuccessful candidate Raab, who has since sucked up to Johnson – but he’s not an Old Etonian!
“Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office minister, has resigned today because he is not willing to serve under Boris Johnson, the Times’ Steven Swinford reports. Number 10 has confirmed that Duncan has indeed gone.
That is not especially surprising. Duncan has been fiercely critical of Johnson in public, including recently accusing Johnson of “contemptible negligence” for his failure to back Sir Kim Darroch, at the time the US ambassador to Washington, in the face of attacks from President Trump. If Duncan was not resigning, he would almost certainly be sacked later this week.
But what is unusual is the way Duncan, along with the cabinet ministers Philip Hammond and David Gauke, have decided to resign pre-emptively rather than let Johnson dismiss them. This is unusual, and illustrates quite how strong the opposition to Johnson is in some parts of the parliamentary Conservative party. …”
East Devon Watch 