Our local NHS in crisis

Blogged by Independent DCC Councillor Claire Wright. We await Hugo Swire’s response.

Claire Wright and MP Hugo Swire with protesters at Ottery St Mary hospital on Saturday Ref sho 21-16SH 4964. Picture: Simon Horn.

Claire Wright and MP Hugo Swire with protesters at Ottery St Mary hospital on Saturday Ref sho 21-16SH 4964. Picture: Simon Horn.

Anyone who is keeping up with the news will realise that a growing and serious crisis is enveloping the NHS.

And Devon is at the very heart of it.

It is a crisis that is borne out of many years of successive governments messing about with our health service. In the 10 years that I worked in the NHS under the Labour government, there were two major wasteful reorganisations.

Since I left the health service in 2008, the difficulties in recruiting and retaining clinical staff has rapidly escalated. And funding has been steadily eroded.

GPs are leaving the profession in their droves, there is a mass exodus of nurses – and now junior doctors are said to be reconsidering their positions, with many of those who previously wanted to pursue a career in medicine said to be thinking again.

The government will now (disastrously) remove nurse training bursaries, which is bound to discourage further trainees from applying.

The annual growth funding increase, which used to be around 6 per cent each year has, under the last two conservative governments, flatlined. It comes at a time of more pressure than ever before with more older people who have complex health needs among us. This is especially so in Devon.

On top of this, the conservative government has demanded £22bn of so called efficiency savings. Or cuts, of course. The much vaunted £8bn promised to the NHS will only be supplied if NHS trusts slash £22bn first.

Where from you might wonder? Ask the staff, many of whom are tearing their hair out trying to do an immensely demanding job without adequate resources.

Nationally, alarming and damaging cuts are already taking place, which could easily be replicated in Devon, as we live in one of the top three financially health areas in the country.

Accident and Emergency departments are being closed overnight as a result of staffing problems, with potentially catastrophic consequences as people will need to travel further for life saving treatment.

Across the health service, a deficit of £460m was racked up in the first quarter of 2016/17. But this was only possible thanks to a cash injection of £450m over the same period.

Last year the NHS nationally reported a record deficit of £2.45bn. The disastrous health and social care act, which sold our health service down the river, cost £3bn.

Locally, across Devon if financial problems are not addressed by 2020, our health service will be in debt to the tune of around £440m.

The RD&E NHS Trust alone, has a £20m deficit.

The Royal Cornwall Hospital’s director of finance Karl Simkins told the Western Morning News earlier this year that the financial landscape was “challenging”.

He said: “We planned for a £5.5 million deficit and have ended the year with a £6.9 million deficit,” “The financial position is as challenging as it has ever been.”

A government task force has been drafted in to Devon to radically reduce the debt by cutting services.

As a member of Devon County Council’s health and wellbeing scrutiny committee, I am anxiously awaiting what is on the agenda. Plans are set to be published and consulted on shortly. Councillors are expecting there to be some significant and worrying cuts proposed.

Last month a public consultation was launched in South Devon on closing and selling off four community hospitals.

The team running the Success Regime already seem to be diminishing the role of community hospitals in their documentation I have seen so far. They claim that community hospitals, such as at Sidmouth, Ottery St Mary, Seaton, Exmouth, Honiton and Axminster, do not alleviate bed pressures at the Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital! This is counter intuitive and completely contrary to everything I have heard from medics and nurses up until now.

Ottery St Mary and Axminster Hospitals have already lost their beds of course and Exmouth Hospital looks like it will lose its overnight GP out of hours service.

All of this (and whatever else is to come) is at a time of unprecedented pressure – on beds – on staffing – and on services in general.

A major injection of funding is required to avoid major and widespread closures of services and hospital departments.

This government is, in my opinion, using the austerity argument to deliberately weaken our NHS for their own ideological reasons. They simply don’t believe in the state provision of public services.

Ministers have made a clear choice on how they spend our money. Public services are being slowly and steadily dismantled, while big business continues to enjoy preferential treatment.

David Cameron said in 2010 that he would protect the NHS.

We need to hold our conservative MPs to account on this.

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/a_growing_and_serious_crisis_is_enveloping_our_nhs

Redrow profits up for third year in a row, revenue up 20% to £1.38 billion

” … FTSE 250 housebuilder Redrow continues to shrug off fears of a post-Brexit slowdown, looking forward to ‘another excellent year’ in 2017 after clocking up its third straight year of record results in the 12 months to June 30.

Redrow is the FTSE 250’s top riser this morning, with shares up 6.45 per cent or 24.80p to 409.10p.

The Flintshire-based firm reported a 23 per cent surge in pre-tax profits to £250 million for the year to June 30 after revenues rose 20 per cent to £1.38 billion, with average selling prices of homes up 7 per cent to £288,600.

Redrow said it had £807million worth of private orders at the start of the financial year, up 54 per year-on-year.

Steve Morgan, Redrow’s chief executive, told the BBC today he had ‘not seen any blip whatsoever’ from Britain’s Brexit vote.

Chris Millington, an analyst at Numis, said: ‘Redrow’s full year results are marginally ahead of Numis’ estimates and we are leaving our forecasts for 2017 unchanged.

‘The company has seen strong trading post the EU Referendum and the private forward order book stands 54% up yoy, which gives a good underpinning to 2017. Whilst Redrow’s shares have recovered much of the reduction seen post Brexit and now only trade c.10% below 23/06, they still look good value.’ ”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-3775641/Housebuilder-Berkeley-slams-stamp-duty-hikes-liquidity-crunch-UK-property-market.html

How developers avoid social housing – employ a specialist company

On a depressing note, see the following, a company based in Sevenoaks:

image

http://www.affordablehousing106.com/casestudies.html

“Affordable housing 106” is anything but helping the affordable housing situation in this country.

This case study page boasts about recent victories for clients, including:

– negotiating down from 50% to 25% the proportion of affordable housing for a project in South London: while the local Council wanted a 70/30 split between rent and shared ownership, the company facilitated 100% shared ownership tenure;

– facilitated commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing for a proposed care home development in the South East

– negotiated a Deed of Variation for an existing 106 Agreement in East London, whereby the owner/developer secured ownership/management of the affordable housing units.

Of course we have a similar company in Exeter:

http://www.section-106.co.uk/

image

To take but one local example from their case studies:

“Acting as both principals and in collaboration with Somerfield Food Stores in connection with a planning application to redevelop a 50 dwelling brown field site. Torridge District Council Planning officers sought a Section 106 agreement providing 20% affordable housing. Using a viability appraisal we were able to negotiate a reduction to 12%, saving circa £150,000.”

Presumably the families of employees of these companies have no need of sich housing themselves – lucky people.

Estate agent or developer?

Interesting advertisement in a recent Midweek Herald. Estate agent Greenslade Taylor Hunt is seeking assist in to influencing the draft East Devon Villages Plan by persuading landowners in turn to “to influence planning policy in the villages of East Devon”.

And if landowners don’t want to ‘influence’ planning by turning land into housing estates themselves, GTH will facilitate interaction with a house builder to help to get planning permission.

Seems that it is no longer enough to be an estate agent you have to be a “land and planning specialist” too.

And begs the question: what if an estate agent (or land and planning agent) is assisting with selling a house that he or she knows is next to a possible development site being handled by the same firm? Will they declare an interest?

EDDC Cabinet Meeting – 14 September 2016: highlights

Agenda here:

Click to access combined-cab-agenda140916final.pdf

Highlights:

Forward plans: discussion on public toilets at Cabinet in November 2016. Closing them or charging for them?

Next relocation update: 21 December 2016 Cabinet meeting
in line with burying bad news at the start of a long holiday.

Business Support and Thelma Hulbert Gallery reviews – no dates set.
Obviously a new grouping to take the place of the East Devon Business Forum and giving the Gallery longer to lose its (subsidised by us) money. Perhaps it will be relocated to the new HQ (wonder how much costs are increasing on that?)

Agenda Item 12 – Port Royal, Sidmouth – Scoping Study and Project Brief.
Whose scope, whose project?

Are rural bus users Labour voters? Is that why new transport bill is only for towns and cities?

“The government must amend the Bus Services Bill to include rural transport and ensure services outside urban centres are protected from cuts, the Campaign for Better Transport has said.

The bill, currently in the House of Lords, contains measures to improve buses in towns and cities but offers little help or opportunities to improve bus services outside urban centres.

Stephen Joseph, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, highlighted that cuts to public transport can have a “devastating” impact on areas that are out of the way.

“If you don’t have access to a car, the chances are you’re reliant on buses to get you to school, to hospital, to friends or to the shops. If that bus service disappears, it can leave whole villages completely isolated.”

The campaign recommended several measures that should be included in the bill to get rural transport “on a proper long term footing”.

First, the campaign said, would be more funding and new powers for local authorities. Communities should also be given powers to require councils to protect important services from loss or change, as they already can do for land and buildings.

Local authorities should be required to carry out needs assessments for public transport in their areas to allow for better strategic, long-term planning.

Finally, the campaign said, councils, schools and hospitals should combine transport budgets and planning to achieve greater efficiencies.

“Those most likely to rely on public transport are older people, low income groups, disabled people and young people,” the campaign highlighted. “Supporting these groups helps facilitate access to education and jobs and services, and supports independent living and many other benefits.”

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2016/09/change-bill-protect-rural-bus-services-demand-transport-campaigners

Sidmouth Town Council – change of venue for Sidfotd Business Park discussion on Wednesday 8 September 2016

“Sidmouth Town Council is set to consider Fords of Sidmouth’s revised application, which it submitted to offer ‘additional reassurance’.

More than 100 people attended the last meeting on the plans, when concerns included the impact on the roads, flooding and a lack of demand locally for employment land.

Wednesday’s meeting will be held in St Peter’s Church Hall from 6.30pm.

Fords’ revised documents have triggered a second consultation, so it means residents can have their say on the proposals until Friday, September 16, by visiting the district council website.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/second_meeting_to_discuss_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4680606

“Law Commission consults on reform to law on misconduct in public office”

Consultation is from

5 September 2016 to 28 November 2016

Owl guesses that many comments will emanate from East Devon!

“… The Law Commission has issued a consultation paper

Click to access cp229_misconduct_in_public_office.pdf

on a new statutory offence aimed at tackling the problems with the existing law.

It has put forward two forms that the offence would take and invites consultees to say whether either or both should be taken forward into legislation.

Option 1 is described as a ‘breach of duty model’ and would involve the creation of a new offence of breach of duty by a public office holder with a particular duty concerned with the prevention of harm. …

… Option 2 is meanwhile described as a ‘corruption based model’. The consultation proposes the creation of a new offence that borrows some elements from the existing offence of police corruption under section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, but applies to all public office holders and improves, the Law Commission said, upon the section 26 offence in a number of ways.

The offence under Option 2 would be committed when:

a public office holder (as defined in statute);

abuses his or her position or a power or authority held by virtue of that position;
by exercising that position, power or authority with the purpose of achieving an advantage for the office holder or another or causing detriment to another; and
the exercise of that position, power or authority for that purpose is seriously improper.

A third option discussed in the consultation paper is that the current law should be abolished without replacement. However, the Law Commission’s provisional proposal is that this step should not be taken.

Law Commissioner Professor David Ormerod QC said: “It is vital that the public have confidence in their public officials and in the legal framework that sets the boundaries of their conduct. The offence of misconduct in public office is increasingly being used to bring public officials to account but recent high-profile investigations and prosecutions have brought the problems with this offence into sharp focus.

“The existing law relating to misconduct in public office is unclear in a number of fundamental respects. There is urgent need for reform to bring clarity and certainty and ensure that public officials are appropriately held to account for misconduct committed in connection with their official duties.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28243%3Alaw-commission-consults-on-reform-to-law-on-misconduct-in-public-office&catid=59&Itemid=27

Government to offer developers £3 billion to build more houses

And now watch for our large housebuilders spinning off smaller companies.

At a time when housebuilders are announcing bigger and bigger profits and fewer and fewer housing starts, this is said to be the government’s solution:

“The British government is set to announce a 3 billion pound house building fund to provide developers with cheap loans to boost the sector following the vote to leave the European Union, the Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported.

Finance minister Philip Hammond, who has talked of the need for a “fiscal reset”, is due to set out the government’s fiscal response to the June 23 vote in an autumn budget statement, although no date has yet been set for it.

The fund is expected to combine several existing schemes, including a 525 million pound builders fund and a 1 billion pound large sites infrastructure programme, but will also include new money to encourage developers to build new homes, the newspaper said, citing government sources.

It said the fund would be targeted at small and medium-sized developers, offering cheap loans or financial guarantees. It also reported the fund would be designed to reduce red tape which has hampered previous schemes.” …

http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/UKDomesticNews/~3/Lwi_-foBXX8/uk-britain-eu-housing-idUKKCN11A0KI

Bet that doesn’t include affordable or sicial housing for Labour supporters.

Private is private but public is scrutiny – but by whom?

Owl thinks private lives should be private – but if you have a public life that puts you in direct conflict with that private life (such as heading an inquiry into drugs and prostitution) then you should be prepared to be held to account. But who does that accounting?

The Daily Telegraph explains the difficulty:

“The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament is clear: “Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity …”

During a parliamentary career that has lasted almost 30 years so far, Keith Vaz has faced many questions about how well he lived up to that standard. …

… His chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs committee does not just give him a prominent public position and an additional salary, it also gives him regular direct contact with senior ministers and officials, and privileged access to some of the most sensitive official information about matters of crime and national security.

In short, Parliament has chosen to ignore all of the questions about Mr Vaz’s conduct over many years and reward him with a position of great power and responsibility.

Time and time again, serious concerns have been raised about the “integrity and probity” of Mr Vaz. Every time, the parliamentary authorities have failed to investigate those concerns with the tenacity or objectivity requited to give the public full confidence in their findings and in Parliament as a whole.

This newspaper has argued over many years that MPs sadly cannot be trusted to police their own conduct, calling instead for independent oversight, perhaps from a body similar to the US Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog solely composed of non-politicians.

Mr Vaz is living proof of why politicians cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/04/keith-vaz-is-living-proof-that-mps-cannot-be-trusted-to-regulate/

“Hinkley Point deal out of date and too expensive, says energy chief “

The head of energy giant ScottishPower has waded into the row over Hinkley Point, insisting that the controversial subsidy deal for EDF’s proposed nuclear plant should be renegotiated because it is too expensive.

Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief corporate officer, said the deal, provisionally agreed by the Government in 2013 following lengthy negotiations, no longer made sense in the light of lower gas and offshore wind costs.

“It looks like a contract that was written five years ago on a business case that was probably pulled together 10 years ago. It looks out of line with what’s going on in the market now,” he said. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/hinkley-point-deal-out-of-date-and-too-expensive-says-energy-chi/

The article raises very serious concerns about the business sense of our Local Enterprise Partnership, which seems blind to the economic realities of the Hinkley C project.

We know, of course, that many members of our LEP have enormous direct and indirect investment in the project and presumably need it to continue to allow their own interests to thrive.

But is it in OUR interest to allow them to trouser likely profits from such an unbalanced deal?

They will say that they are doing this for our benefit, of course – more jobs, more houses, etc. But with Brexit we now look towards having fewer people coming to this country from the EU (though exceptions would doubtless be made for French and Chinese workers) and much higher import costs if we do not have free trade in the EU. Plus the business case for renewables is strengthening all the time, especially as battery storage research and implementation has made enormous progress.

Our LEP members know all this but only last week its CEO was telling us how hard he and his members are battling to keep the project going:

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=4e59660292bd6b4a5c7d7b8a7&id=a36a037523&e=fa5cdb1f1

We have to ask: who are they battling for – and why?

The great scandal of LEPs now lies before us: small (very small) groups of business people who look to their own interests before those of the residents where they live. Often in secret and with minimal or no scrutiny. And who pursue their own interests even when they put them at odds with the majority of people in the areas they purportedly represent.

Our East Devon Business Forum seems to have been a practice run for our Local Enterprise partnership, and we all know how that ended – also coincidentally in the Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921333/If-I-turn-a-green-field-into-an-estate-then-Im-not-doing-it-for-peanuts.html

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’


“This letter, copied with the author’s permission, was published in today’s Sidmouth Herald:

Dear Sir,

I was delighted to read, on page 4 of last week’s Herald, that residents have got a second opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed business park between Sidbury and Sidford.

Then on page 10, I read that the County Council have withdrawn it’s proposal for a path between Sidbury and Sidford, because Ford’s have offered to pay for it, should they get permission for the business park.

The proposed path is now part of a section 106 agreement between the District Council (as the planning authority) and Fords. Such an agreement is described as a ‘ a DEAL to mitigate the impact of development’. I wonder if the use of the word ‘deal’ indicates what is really happening here- that the offer to fund the path is being used as a “bargaining chip”, to quote Stuart Hughes. As the business park has yet to receive the go ahead and another period of public consultation is in progress, I wonder how the council can justify their decision?

I have written to them to ask for an explanation and I suggest others do likewise. Meantime, may I urge readers with concerns about the proposed business park, to write or email the District Council. The reference number to quote in correspondence is: 16/0669/MOUT. The deadline for comments is 16 September and not 2 September, as is given in the EDDC website.”

Yours sincerely
Alison Kerruish,
Sidford

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’

So now we know why there are no affordable homes! Only Labour supporters live in them so Tories won’t build them!

“David Cameron and George Osborne refused to build more council houses because it would “create Lab­­­­our voters”, Nick Clegg has revealed.

In a tell-all interview on Coalition life, the former Deputy PM also accused cynical Osborne of shamelessly slashing benefits simply to boost Tory popularity.

Speaking ahead of the publication of his memoirs, Mr Clegg said: “Welfare for Osborne was just a bottomless pit of savings and it didn’t really matter what the human consequences were.

“Focus groups had shown the voters they wanted to appeal to were very anti-welfare and therefore there was almost no limit to those anti-welfare prejudices.”

Mr Clegg said this vote-chasing approach was also behind the Coalition’s dismal failure to build more much-needed social housing.” …

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-george-osborne-wouldnt-8759040

Well, it makes a sort-of sense in the mad, mad world of Tory politics.

Wonder what Swire has to say about it?

“‘Rabbit hutch’ homes should be consigned to the past, say architects”

“Barratt and Persimmon singled out as worst offenders in survey of new homes on 100 developments”

More than half of family homes under construction by private housebuilders in the UK are too small, architects have said.

The typical new three-bedroom home is missing space equivalent to a bathroom while many are missing as much as a double bedroom when judged against minimum reasonable space standards launched by the government in October.

Homes outside London are the worst affected by what the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) attacked as “rabbit hutch” homes after it measured a sample of new homes on 100 developments.

RIBA singled out two of the leading housebuilders as the worst offenders. From a sample of new three-bedroom homes surveyed, it found Barratt homes were on average 6.7sq metres smaller than minimum space standards and Persimmon homes were on average 10.8sq m too small – about the size of a double bedroom.

“Tiny rabbit-hutch new-builds should be a thing of the past,” said RIBA president Jane Duncan. “But, sadly, our research shows that, for many people, a new home means living somewhere that’s been built well below the minimum space standard needed for a comfortable home. The government must take action to ensure a fairer minimum space standard is applied to all new homes across the country …”

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/02/rabbit-hutch-homes-should-be-thing-of-the-past-say-architects?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Promises, promises …

“Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will today promise to pump billions into towns in the south east of England if he wins power.

Mr Corbyn, who is fighting a leadership challenge from Owen Smith, is to pledge a £30 billion investment bank for the area, more emphasis on renewable energy for seaside towns and better broadband.

The embattled leader will announce the plans at a re-election campaign rally in Ramsgate in Kent today.

Mr Corbyn is expected to say he wants to bring back pride and prosperity in “so-called left-behind Britain”.

He will say: “For Ramsgate, like other coastal towns, that commitment to invest means opening up the opportunities that are there.” …

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-pledges-30-billion-for-leftbehind-towns-in-southeast-england-a3335801.html

“Make health material consideration in planning and licensing law: MPs”

“The Government must make good on its commitment to health in all policies by enshrining health as a material consideration in planning and licensing law, MPs have said.

In a report on Public health post-2013, the Health Committee said it had heard evidence that this would help local government to directly improve the health of their local communities and reduce health inequalities.
“Local authorities need the levers to be able to take effective action to protect local communities and this is especially important given the cuts to their budgets,” the MPs added.

The report noted how local authorities had been dealt an in-year cut of £200m last year and now faced further real terms cuts to public health budgets.

But the MPs warned that cuts to public health and the front line services they delivered were a false economy “as they not only add to the future costs of health and social care but risk widening health inequalities”.
The committee highlighted Theresa May’s comments in her first speech as Prime Minister, where she put a reduction of health inequalities at the top of her list for action.

The committee called on the Government to recognise that tackling health inequalities and improving public health would not primarily happen in hospitals, even though hospitals received the lion’s share of health funding. “Rather, it requires a whole life course approach, tackling the wider determinants of health in local communities, effective action on prevention and early intervention, and through joined-up policy making at a national level.”

The MPs also claimed there was a “growing mismatch” between spending on public health and the significance attached to prevention in the NHS 5 Year Forward View.

The report called for a Cabinet Office minister to be given specific responsibility for embedding health across all areas of Government policy at national level.

It concluded that while there was evidence of progress locally, there was less evidence of such an approach becoming embedded across Government departments.

Health Committee Chair, Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, said: “The disappointing watering down of the childhood obesity strategy, published in August, demonstrates the gap in joined-up evidence-based policy to improve health and wellbeing. Government must match the rhetoric on reducing health inequality with a resolve to take on big industry interests and will need to be prepared to go further if it is serious about achieving its stated aims.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28225%3Amake-health-material-consideration-in-planning-and-licensing-law-mps&catid=174&Itemid=99

Heart of the South West LEP member doing well in the arms trade

?Good to see LEP board member Nick Ames doing well with his company’s new range of military arms vehicles:

“Dunkeswell-based Supacat is unveiling the Logistic Support and Recovery variants at the DVD2016 show, a two-day event at Millbrook Proving Ground, on Wednesday and Thursday, September 7 and 8, which brings together army staff and industry representatives from the land equipment sector.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/supacat-to-unveil-new-military-vehicles-at-dvd2016-show/story-29679072-detail/story.html

Supacat has also moved into the nuclear sector and is, unsurprisingly backing Hinkley C along with other nuclear-invested board members:

https://www.nsan.co.uk/news/supacat-ltd-expand-nuclear

How long before we see a Nuclear Supercat?

image

Source: http://tetrahedral.blogspot.com/2009/11/newsflash.html

Franksy returns to Exmouth!

image

image

Pictures with the following statement:

“Franksy represents a group of Exmouth residents who are concerned about further unsustainable overdevelopment of the seafront and loss of public facilities subsidised by taxpayers money.

Franksy will be back to gently express the value of green open spaces and free access to what is left of the uninterrupted seafront along with a concern for longstanding and much loved local businesses who have already lost jobs and been closed down. Franksy welcomes appropriate conservation and development and has the heart of the people. Franksy will be back .

Franksy came back on the front of the once popular closed down railway cafe next to Jungle Fun on Exmouth sea front.

Franksy asks “Is this the road to nowhere ?” as local residents have voiced concern over the proposed change of route of the road to make way for the planned water sports centre.

This would be a massive seafront development the size of a supermarket on the seafront side of the road. It could be a centre for kite surfing but does not seem to offer any water play for residents- no Lido pool, play fountains or paddling pools- and is sited directly opposite the red flag dangerous water area.

Popular local businesses have been closed down to make way for this dream which may never happen. More are to go in the Fun Park area. The email above is just an associate of the Franksy group and not Franksy’s own email but a contact address for this anonymous group.”

“Bonanza of Brexit Lobbying” including £3,000 to be in Theresa May’s company

“The Conservatives are selling access to Theresa May and other ministers for more than £3,000 a head to corporate executives and lobbyists at their party conference this autumn.

The executives will pay for the chance to attend a lunch session with the prime minister and a dinner with the chancellor, as well as more intimate “round table” sessions with ministers relevant to their industry.

The practice of charging corporate executives for access to ministers emerged under David Cameron, with the “business day” originally priced at around £1,000 a head for a session with the former prime minister and chancellor.

A new corporate brochure for the Tory party conference shows the price for attending the business day and dinner has now surged to £3,150 per person for the chance to be in the presence of May and her new government ministers.

The prime minister is listed as giving a question and answer session over lunch, with pictures of past events showing ministers mingling on tables with businesspeople.

In separate sessions, three Treasury ministers will host a talk billed as “Treasury insights” and business ministers will host a “partnering with business” session.

The website advertising the event features a picture of May, along with the claim that business day “offers representatives from the business community the opportunity to engage in discussion with senior Conservative politicians”.

May’s decision to participate in the event hints that she is not intending to break from Cameron’s previous approach to lobbying, despite her claims to want to run a country for the many not the few and tackle “vested interests” in the corporate world.

Tamasin Cave of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Spinwatch, said it was “very concerning and worrying” that May was planning to “continue with politics as normal under David Cameron”.

She said there is a “bonanza of Brexit lobbying” coming down the tracks for May to deal with at a time when the public has little faith that politicians will stand up to powerful corporate interests.

“People do not trust establishment politicians on this issue of lobbying. She has a big problem on her hands, which she does not seem to understand,” Cave said.

Asked about the event selling access to May and other ministers, a Conservative spokesman said: “This is an important opportunity to engage directly with businesses and to highlight how, as part of our plan to create an economy that works for everyone, we will continue to back business and enterprise.”

Labour also has a “business forum” founded at around the same time, charging around £899 for a ticket and giving access to unspecified “politicians and leading businesspeople”.

The Lib Dem corporate event has gone down in price since the party declined in influence and left government, with a ticket costing just £240 to attend compared with £800 for their business day and £350 for their business dinner in 2014.

May will face calls to clamp down on lobbying next week, when Lord Brooke, a Labour peer, tables a private member’s bill arguing for the replacement of the current ineffective lobbying register with a genuine register that records who people are lobbying, their client, the type of influence they are seeking and how much they are spending.

Unlock Democracy, a campaign group, said the bill would bring the UK into line with other institutions such as the US, EU and Scotland.

“It’s time for Theresa May to put clear blue water between her and Cameron. She can set the tone for her premiership by backing real lobbying transparency,” it said.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/01/lunch-with-theresa-may-thatll-will-be-3150

“Progressive Alliance only alternative to Tories”

“… It is going to be very hard to get a progressive pact to happen. Jeremy Corbyn, who one might have expected to have been sympathetic to the idea, has seemingly ruled it out – even for the specific case of Caroline Lucas, the Green Mp for Brighton, who is much closer to Corbyn politically than the great majority of Labour MPs.

But to be fair to Corbyn, he is in the middle of a bruising leadership election. It would be challenging for the Leader of the Opposition, in the middle of such an election campaign, to come out in favour of acting with other parties. It would have required great vision and bravery.

Corbyn is highly likely to win the leadership election. Once he has done so, and with Labour almost certainly continuing to struggle internally and in the opinion polls, then my bet is that he will think again, and start to face reality: without a progressive alliance, Labour will be destroyed by the Conservatives. But with such an alliance, a better future is possible.” …

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2988069/progressive_alliance_is_now_the_only_alternative_to_the_tories.html