“One of John’s proudest achievements was being elected Leader of Somerset County Council in May 2012 and has made it his number one priority to listen and consult with residents on the future of the County.”
http://www.somersetconservatives.org.uk/person/councillor-john-osman
That’s your number one priority down the pan then, John, but, of course, that won’t worry you.
The staggering arrogance leaves Owl stunned (but not for long). Though, no doubt the Government, Mr Hindley and the LEP see no problem.
“The Millfields Trust’s state-of-the-art Genesis building received the Community Benefit award at the prestigious RICS South West Awards 2016 held at Cheltenham Racecourse. …
… The pioneering, ERDF and Heart of the South West LEP’s Growing Places funded building was designed to create employment and serve the local community in one of the most deprived areas of Plymouth. It comprises of flexible workspaces, meeting rooms, a full height internal atrium and Plymouth’s first living walls. …
… “Steve Hindley, Chair of the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership (HotSW LEP) said: “Genesis is a great example of development that benefits the local environment as well as the community by providing much-needed employment space with and original and eye-catching architectural design. The project is an exemplar of the LEP’s Growing Places Fund, which is designed to unlock growth and create new jobs.
“As Chair of Midas – the contractor for the project – as well as being Chair of the LEP – which has the strategic mission to generate funding – I am doubly proud to be part of this new asset to Plymouth’s city-scape.”
“Environmental protections on EDF’s troubled Somerset construction site are excellent, apparently. Very little else about the project is.
Have you heard about the terrific bat houses and hedgehog tunnels down at Hinkley Point in Somerset? Energy minister Andrea Leadsom has been to inspect them herself and raved about them last week to a select committee of MPs. They were evidence, she suggested, of the depth of commitment of French firm EDF to the £18bn nuclear power station due to be built on the site.
Well, maybe. Talk of bats and hedgehogs at least provided some relief from the familiar crop of Hinkley news. French economy minister Emmanuel Macron said he was “fully behind” the project but EDF’s unions confirmed that they weren’t. Jean-Luc Magnaval, secretary of EDF’s workers’ committee, told the BBC that the unions “have reservations about several aspects of the project: organisation, supply chain, installation and procurement”. That’s a long list.
Meanwhile, EDF Energy chief executive Vincent de Rivaz, appearing before the same committee as Leadsom, had to adopt a humbler tone than on his last outing two months ago. Then he had promised a final investment decision “very soon”; this time he wouldn’t speculate about a date.
This farce – which has been running since last October, when the final sign-off was due within weeks – could yet roll on and on. The UK government is disinclined to set a deadline: it’s a “commercial decision” for EDF.
Meanwhile, the current French government could have a radically different shape this time next year – there is a presidential election in 2017 and the incumbent, François Hollande, is the least popular leader in modern French history. French union opposition to Hinkley Point appears entrenched and the workers’ representatives have six seats on an 18-strong board.
In theory, management and government can proceed regardless; but to embark on an £18bn venture with a divided boardroom would invite trouble down the line. That is especially so when you remember EDF’s last finance director, Thomas Piquemal, resigned over concerns that Hinkley could threaten the company’s future.
The best thing the UK government could do at this point is to stop and consider whether the obstacles facing Hinkley are simply too big.
Nervousness in France is understandable. EDF’s two current attempts to built a European pressurised reactor – the model to be used at Hinkley – are agonising; one is four years late, the other nine years. And the financial arithmetic was always challenging. Hinkley could take 10 years to build, and the owners receive nothing during the construction phase; the cash only arrives when electricity starts to be generated. And, while the returns on capital under the 35-year contract are theoretically enormous, the penalties for failure to hit a 2029 deadline are stinging, and ratchet up.
That is why the UK government had to make the 35-year contract so generous – struck at almost three times today’s wholesale price. That contract now looks to belong to another era given the subsequent fall in the oil price, and thus energy costs. The only weak support holding Hinkley in place is its capacity to provide 7% of the UK’s electricity in a low-carbon fashion.
But there are other ways to meet the legally binding emissions targets. Offshore wind is expanding with no Hinkley-style fuss, and its costs are falling. More importantly for the UK’s requirement for secure baseload supplies, other builders are waiting to pursue projects that use different nuclear technology.
In theory, planning and appraisal can continue in parallel; in practice, confidence in the UK’s commitment to its new-nuclear programme will drain away.
There is not – yet – a crisis in UK energy policy because it is always possible to build a few gas-fired stations to avert an emergency. But the Hinkley show is becoming an embarrassment. The project is expensive, uses unproven technology and its builder is a disunited and over-borrowed company that requires constant financial assurances from an ever-changing cast of politicians.
The UK government should set EDF a deadline and be ready to enforce it. We can do better – much better – than Hinkley.”
“A ‘highly unpopular’ and ‘damaging’ 52-home development plan in Ottery has reached the end of the road as an appeal against its refusal was dismissed.
An application by Blue Cedar Homes to build at Slade Farm received 410 formal objections and was rejected by East Devon District Council last year in a move hailed a ‘victory for people power and common sense’. …
… Blue Cedar specialises in providing homes for over-55s and its plans included provision of ‘age-restricted’, open market and ‘affordable’ properties at Slade Farm. …
… In his report, planning inspector Jonathan Manning cited several reasons for dismissal, including the harm it would cause to the character of the area, loss of the most versatile agricultural land and the fact it does not represent sustainable development.”
“Andy Burnham, who wants to be Labour’s Manchester mayoral candidate, has called on George Osborne to take action over what he called a £1bn black hole in the northern powerhouse initiative.
Analysis of public services finances across Greater Manchester has found that a £1bn shortfall would emerge over the course of this parliament. Central government grants to the region’s 10 councils will fall by £836m between 2015 and 2020, and Manchester city council is set to lose £163m by 2019/20, according to Burnham.
The region’s NHS trusts face a combined deficit of £115m, the budget of Greater Manchester police will fall by an estimated £34m over the five years, and post-16 education funding has been cut by £2m this year.
Burnham told Osborne: “You have one more budget before the new mayor takes office to fix this hole in our roof and balance the books. Your legacy as chancellor can go in two ways: as the one who truly changed the fortunes of the north; or one who perpetrated the most elaborate con in British political history. I urge you to choose the former and work with me to make it a success.”
The former health secretary said that given the north’s overcrowded roads and poor rail links, it was impossible to conclude that Crossrail 2 – which would run diagonally across London – was the UK’s highest strategic transport priority.
“I call on you to look again at this and urgently allocate the funding for a modern, high-speed rail system linking the cities of northern England,” Burnham said.
“I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that your commitment to the north is real. But people here are not daft – they now want actions, not clever slogans.”
In his budget in March, Osborne committed £60m to develop an improved east-west rail link to reduce journey times from 50 minutes to about 30 minutes between Leeds and Manchester, as well as £75m to develop plans for an 18-mile road tunnel under the Peak District to cut journey times between Manchester and London.
However, funding has only been put forward to draw up plans rather than as any commitment to building either project.”
If so, fill in the Gittisham Housing Needs Survey
More information here:
Government Response to CLG Select Committee Report: “Devolution: the next five years and beyond”
Many, many recommendations, few of which the government is taking on board.
Worth the read.
For example:
“Recommendations 15 / 16:
for devolution to take root and fulfil its aims, it needs to
involve and engage the people it is designed to benefit. There has been a consistent very significant lack of public consultation, engagement and communication at all stages of
the deal-making process. This is due to areas having limited time in the run up to the 4 September deadline. The Government drove the first wave of devolution deals through
at a rapid pace (considered in more detail in the next section) which meant there was no opportunity for engagement with residents, or for residents to have their say on the principle of devolution or the framework of the specific deal proposed in their area.
Despite this, we believe that local leaders could have communicated more effectively and extensively with their residents about the deal process, the contents of the deal and how it would affect them. It should, for example, have been clear to any citizen what their elected leaders were seeking to secure for the area in negotiating a devolution deal with the government.
In addition, deals involving complex negotiations between national and local politicians do not lend themselves to public engagement However, from now on, efforts should be made to engage, consult and communicate with the public at all stages of the process—in the preparation of proposals, their negotiation and following agreement.
Strategies to involve the public may include citizens’ juries, public meetings and, within the NHS and local government, staff engagement sessions. Once a deal is entrenched and its reforms have had the chance to take effect, the public should be consulted on their experience of its practical effects.
We think it is too late to engage the public only once a deal has been agreed. While it is reasonable that the actual negotiations are not open to the public, steps should be taken to inject more openness into the process by publishing on the relevant authorities’ websites:
• Devolution proposals and the Government’s counter-offers, within a reasonable time of them being made;
• An outline of what is being negotiated; and
• Drafts of the deal, and the text of the final deal.
The Government should also publish the criteria it uses to assess and agree proposals so local areas can refer to these when drawing up their devolution bid. A similar level of transparency should continue to be maintained once the deal has been agreed.”(Paragraph 56)
(Paragraph 53)
and here is the government response:
“The Government agrees that devolution needs to involve and engage the public, and would see continued value in engagement once a deal has been agreed. Deals are iterative (as evidenced by the progress made by Greater Manchester) and the Government’s expectation would be that elected representatives in the local area should seek the views of their constituents through whatever means they deem appropriate.
The Government would expect devolution deals, negotiated between locally elected leaders and central government, to reflect what people in the local area want and need. Additionally, when establishing, or amending, a Combined Authority there is a statutory requirement to hold a public consultation, while local authorities in deal areas also remain subject to the Best Value Duty with its associated requirements around consultation related to commissioning in particular.
The Government does not share the Committee’s view that there should be assessment criteria to agree deals. This is because there is no blueprint for devolution proposals; the only stipulation is that the governance arrangements should be commensurate with the powers being devolved. All devolution deals are bespoke and will vary depending on the asks from local areas.
All of the devolution deals agreed to date include clear commitments from Government and local areas on implementing, monitoring, evaluating and ensuring accountability, and the text of all agreed deals has been published online. The Government is committed to continuing to publish deals as more are agreed.”
Click to access CM9291-_Select_Comittee_Response.pdf_-_Print.pdf
It appears from the press release (link below) that the recommendation is that Straitgate Quarry should be reduced in size but the Inspector raised many issues about access and alternative sites to which he did not receive adequate answers.
Much centred on lack of consultation, and the amended report must now go out to public consultation again from August 1 to September 23,
Report from the Straitgate Quarry Action Group here:
Because it sued the wrong company … who were their lawyers?
“HM Revenue & Customs has lost its bid to recover up to £50m in stamp duty from the sale of the Chelsea Barracks in 2007.
Three Court of Appeal judges decided that the tax office had pursued the wrong party for the tax.
The purchaser, a firm owned by the Qatar Investment Authority, had used a type of Islamic finance that meant a bank actually owned the property.
HMRC said it was “disappointed” by the ruling.
“The Court of Appeal ruling supports our view that SDLT [stamp duty land tax] is payable. We are disappointed that the decision makes that tax much harder to collect so we are considering an appeal,” HMRC said.
The judges’ decision is likely to reignite criticism of the complexity of the UK tax system, if HMRC itself can be caught off guard. It will also expose alternative financing arrangements to more scrutiny from tax campaigners.”
“A strong warning that austerity policies can do more harm than good has been delivered by economists from the International Monetary Fund, in a critique of the neoliberal doctrine that has dominated economics for the past three decades. In an article seized on by the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, the IMF economists said rising inequality was bad for growth and that governments should use controls to cope with destabilising capital flows. …”
DEVELOPERS have met with the people of Axminster face-to-face to discuss plans on a massive development to the east of the town.
Persimmon Homes had plans for a large development turned down in January 2015 and are now attempting to right that wrong by consulting with local residents over their plan for the land between Sector Lane and Chard Road.
Persimmon Homes said: “East Devon District Council have a newly-adopted Local Plan – Persimmon submitted proposals in the form of a planning application in January 2015 to commence the process of implementing the council’s strategy. EDDC refused the applications.
“We are aware that Axminster Town Council is preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and wish to hear how Persimmon’s proposal might contribute to that. We wanted to hear views in the issues that are important to Axminster.”
The application site forms part of the Local Plan and is allocated for mixed use. The site is available for the delivery 650 dwellings, employment land, community and open space facilities, a primary school and a north/south relief road. A road linking through the scheme would act as a relief road to traffic from the A358 Chard Road to the north and Lyme Road to the south.
At the public meeting Persimmon laid out some of the positives of the site and also how they will deal with some of the constraints.
They stated that the site benefits from its green surroundings, there are good existing road links to provide access, an existing public footpath provides walks to the countryside, plenty of views to the surrounding hills and a provision of a relief road would ease congestion in the town.
Persimmon said: “Existing significant trees and hedgerows on the site boundary will need to be protected; Weycroft Hall and Mill Brook at the north of the site both require sensitive treatment. Residential edges would be dealt with carefully and industrial edges of the site will need buffers.”
The Crown Estate, who owns around 50 per cent of the land Persimmon hopes to build on, were also at the public consultation and explained their role.
The Crown Estate said: “We are committed to working with the local community, other landowners including Persimmon and the district and town council to deliver the vision set out in the Local Plan.
“We understand there are realistic concerns about traffic levels and are looking at options to address this, including a possible relief road. We will look to carry out further public consultations on our emerging proposals later this year and will announce more details nearer the time.”
Plans for the original development were turned down in January last year for several reasons, including an unacceptable masterplan that had not been subjected to meaningful consultation.
There was also a failure to provide an acceptable level of affordable housing.
Persimmon Homes will look to re-submit plans for the new development later this year factoring in details that have arisen from meeting with local residents.
The chair of the Calderdale Conservatives Association has resigned after growing internal controversy over its accounts being submitted to the Electoral Commission.
A sourced leaked the resignation emails to Political Scrapbook this morning.
In an email sent yesterday afternoon by Charles Moran, ex-chair of the CVCA, said he was resigning after a “breakdown in relations” with the MP and two officers of the Association.
But the main reason for his resignation seems to be launch of a criminal investigation into financial irregularities at the Association.
An email from Councillor Rob Holden, Deputy Chair of the Calder Valley Conservatives, leaked to Political Scrapbook, says that West Yorkshire police seized the accounts in connection with their enquiries.
West Yorkshire Police released a statement to Political Scrapbook this afternoon:
“Police in Calderdale have been made aware of an allegation of financial irregularity. A criminal investigation has now been launched to examine this allegation, and is its early stages.”
In a phone conversation with Political Scrapbook this afternoon, deputy chair cllr Rob Holden confirmed the resignation and the email. He added:
“All I can say right now is that West Yorkshire police have mine and the Association’s full cooperation.
The blog Impolite Conversation claims that Craig Whittaker MP’s office is to be investigated next, but we could not confirm that.”
The emails below give more insight into why the chair resigned, and why West Yorkshire Police is now investigating.
More on this developing story soon…
LEAKED EMAILS
———-
Subject: Resignation CVCA
Sent: 26 May 2016 14:03
From: Charles Moran
To: Rob Holden, Jasbir Singh
Cc:
Dear Rob
It is with regret that I am writing to you to tender my resignation as Chairman of CVCA as of today’s date.
As you are aware, it has taken some time to get to the bottom of the Association’s finances, a task you requested be carried out last October.
Whilst there are still outstanding issues with the accounts I have submitted to the Electoral Commission,it is a best estimate and I have also copied it to Andy Stedman at Compliance.
The reason I have been unable to accurately finalise the accounts is as a result of missing records that have been requested from the Treasurer on several occasions and have not been supplied.
Attached to this email is a copy of a Chartered Accountant’s report which states that the accounts are not being kept as they should be. There are issues regarding the recording of cash receipts, lack of cash recording with no receipts issued for payments received, missing invoices and a lack of authorisation for expenditure. Clearly the Executive has a responsibility to correct these shortcomings.
You will also be aware of the toxic nature of my tenure as Chairman, due to the breakdown in relations with the MP and two officers of the Association. This situation is unacceptable and steps need to be taken to separate the Parliamentary Party from the Voluntary Party.
The fact that the MP is able to not only access the Association’s funds without authority from the Chairman or the Executive is a matter of grave concern. The Constitution is clear that all funds are controlled by the Association and its Executive, the fact that two officers are able to withdraw funds without authority is clearly in breach of the rules.
The fact that I, as Chairman, am not on the mandate and neither are you, the Deputy Fund Raising and Membership, is also a matter which I consider to be unacceptable.
Whilst it has been difficult for me as Chairman for the past year, I can’t help feeling disappointed that once again we have failed to take outright control of Calderdale Council, largely as a result of resources being diverted to a safe seat at the expense of target seats. We lost one of the target seats by less than a100 votes.
Above attached is a schedule of missing information, Chartered Accountant’s report and a copy of the estimated accounts that have been sent to Compliance and the Electoral Commission. Would you mind ensuring that these documents together with my email to you are circulated with the AGM calling notice to all members when you decide to call it please?
Regards
Charles
———-
Subject: FW: Resignation CVCA
Sent: 26 May 2016 14:27
From: Rob Holden
To: Brighouse Campaign Centre
Cc:
Dear member.
I am writing to you further to receiving the resignation of Mr Charles Moran as Chairman of the Calder Valley Conservative Association. I feel saddened that he has felt the need to stand down but thoroughly understand his reasons following his extremely poor treatment by certain members of the Association. The accounts (albeit incomplete) have finally been filed with the Electoral Commission.
Attached are the findings of the financial review that I requested back in October 2015 and I have to say that they do not make great reading as far as record keeping and propriety are concerned.
Yesterday the accounts of the Association were seized by the Police in connection with enquiries they are currently undertaking; the officer from the fraud and financial irregularities team has been assured that they will receive the ongoing co-operation of the Association with their investigation.
I am currently in discussions with the Area Chairman regarding the next steps concerning the AGM etc. and as soon as possible I will provide everyone with an update.
I would like to thank Charles for the considerable contribution that he has made to both the Association and the party as a whole and hope that now the financial review has been completed, lessons will be learned and we can move the Association forward.
Kindest regards
Councillor Rob Holden
Deputy Chairman, Calder Valley Conservatives.
Further information on MP and missing invoices here:
http://www.impoliteconversation.co.uk/police-seize-calder-valley-conservative-association-accounts
Bad luck those of you who voted for a Tory Police and Crime Commissioner because she was … well … a Tory because now she can’t talk about politics.
“A newly-elected police and crime commissioner under investigation over election expenses can continue in her role, a panel has ruled.
Alison Hernandez faced allegations she failed to declare expenses as election agent in Torbay in the 2015 Election.
At an emergency meeting, the Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Panel said she was still able to discharge the functions required of her role.
It would continue to scrutinise decisions made by Ms Hernandez.
The panel also told her to stop making political statements.
In its recommendations, the panel said: “The panel notes that whilst the commissioner is subject to allegations she has not been charged with a criminal offence.”
It says that the functions of the police and crime commissioner are able to be discharged by Ms Hernandez.
Read more on this story as it develops throughout the day on our Local Live pages.
The meeting heard a series of hostile questions from the public and councillors into how Ms Hernandez could continue in office with investigations into undeclared election expenses ongoing.
Miss Hernandez told the panel she had done nothing wrong and there was no legal requirement for her to stand aside while the investigation was ongoing.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission will also review the allegations.
The referral to the watchdog was made by the chief executive of the office of the police and crime commissioner, Andrew White.
The watchdog will decide whether to investigate, or refer the matter to another police force.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-36399080
Should have voted Independent!
“Businesses and communities across the Great British Coast could be sailing towards a cash windfall, ministers announced today (23 May 2016).
Creative coastal entrepreneurs can from today bid for a share of £90 million government funding available UK-wide over the next 4 years to support their plans to reel in jobs and revitalise our much-loved seaside areas.
This latest cash boost for coastal communities is all part of the government’s efforts to rebalance the economy and help all areas of the country thrive.
Communities Secretary Greg Clark said:
Our Great British Coast has enormous economic potential and we are determined to see it thrive all year round.
That’s why today we’re investing £90 million in exciting new business ideas across our much-loved seaside areas – bringing not just a wave of enthusiasm but also creating thousands of good new jobs too.
And with grants of up to £4 million each available, I’d urge our coastal entrepreneurs and communities to get involved.
Communities Minister Mark Francois said:
Over the past few years we’ve seen a sea-change in investment across our Great British Coast – with today’s £90 million building on the £120 million we’ve already pumped in.
This money is all about generating jobs and boosting businesses, so if you’ve got a good idea we want to hear from you.
We’re rightly proud of our country’s seaside past but this new money means that we can also look forward to its bright future. …”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/90-million-boost-for-the-great-british-coast
Hinkley Point: French unions put nuclear plant’s future in doubt
The future of the planned new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point remains in doubt as key French unions still oppose the project, BBC Newsnight has learned.
EDF, which would build the plant, had delayed a decision on the project in Somerset until the summer while it consulted French union representatives.
The company, which is 85% French state-owned, had hoped to win support from a committee of workplace representatives.
But the committee said staff had not been reassured about the plant’s costs.
Trade union representatives hold six of the 18 seats on EDF’s board.
‘Several reservations’
Jean-Luc Magnaval, secretary of the Central Works Committee that EDF consulted with, told Newsnight that staff feared the cost of the project would cripple EDF.
He said: “We have reservations about several aspects of the project: organisation, supply chain, installation, and procurement.
“The trade unions are unlikely to give their blessing to the project in its current state.
“We are not reassured by the documents we have received. We have been given a marketing folder, not the full information we require.
“We got the documents on 9 May – we are sending EDF a request for more explanations.”
On Monday French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron wrote to MPs on Westminster’s energy select committee to reassure them the French government remained committed to the project.
But Mr Macron added: “It is also necessary, in the interests of all, that EDF follows due process before committing itself to an investment of this magnitude.
“The consultation of the Central Works Committee brings legal robustness on the decision.”
Chinese backing
EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz also told MPs on the committee that he did not know when a final decision on the project would be made.
Earlier this month, French President Francois Hollande said he would like the project to go ahead.
Hinkley Point C, which would provide 7% of the UK’s total energy requirements, had originally been meant to open in 2017.
But it has been hit in recent months by concerns about EDF’s financial capacity to handle the project.
While one third of the £18bn capital costs of the project are being met by Chinese investors, Hinkley Point would remain an enormous undertaking for the stressed French company.
In March, Thomas Piquemal, EDF’s chief financial officer, quit after his proposal to delay the project by three years was rejected by colleagues.
In April, French Energy Minister Ségolène Royale also suggested the project should be delayed.
Much of this scepticism is the consequence of problems in constructing nuclear power stations to similar designs elsewhere.
A plant being built by EDF at Flamanville in Normandy, northern France, has been hit by years of delays and spiralling costs.
‘Red line’
Furthermore, since the company is nationally owned, the decision is also subject to political pressure.
A former energy adviser to the French government told Newsnight that while EDF did not technically need the backing of the trade union representatives, it would be very difficult, politically, to go ahead without it.
Yves Marignac said: “Going for it would for the government be crossing a red line in their relationship with the trade unions, which would make it really difficult for the government, particularly with the perspective of the next general election when they will need to get some support of the trade unions.
“Making a decision for the project is not possible right now. The political costs and the costs for EDF’s financial situation are too high right now.”
Councillor involvement generally
It is surprising that engagement with local councillors seems to have been so patchy.
By and large, councillors have been shut out of the process, with even overview and scrutiny members having to rely on periodic (and infrequent) updates from of officers to keep themselves up to speed.
This is the fault of the system, and the framework (or lack of it) for negotiation between local government and central Government, designed as it is to dissuade the wider sharing of information beyond a carefully selected group.
Even where attempts have been made to engage backbench councillors in a more consistent way (for example, in Norfolk and Suffolk, the LGiU was contracted to travel the area convening awareness-raising seminars) this has principally been about information-sharing rather than dialogue.
Occasional reports to OSCs [Overview and Scrutiny Committee(s)] clearly have not been enough, merely for non-executive councillors to note progress, rather than being part of discussions, negotiation or provision of checks and balances. The role of O&S has been marginalised through perceptions around the complexity, secrecy or urgency of deal making.
This is dangerous for three reasons.
Firstly, the buy-in of a wider range of councillors is crucial to success.
Secondly, the involvement of councillors – beyond receiving updates – is important in ensuring that deals, once they are done, are robust enough to succeed. This robustness is something that can only be tested through effective scrutiny and oversight.
Thirdly, changes in personnel can have a significant effect on the direction of negotiations. Without wider buy-in and dialogue, following an election (or even a by-election) resulting in a change in political control, or any other internal group matter that could result in a new leader, carefully constructed agreements or negotiations could begin to unravel.
It is instructive to bear in mind that in our own engagement with the public, and through the Citizens’ Assemblies, members of the public expressed the strong view that councillor scrutiny should play a critical role in the devolution process.
There are probably a range of different mechanisms that councils, individually and collectively, need to deploy to involve their councillors. Importantly, such involvement needs to be planned – following the sequence set out in the main body of the report above – to ensure that councillors have a stake at every stage in the process. These mechanisms are likely to be:
Engagement within Cabinet. Because negotiations are being led by Leaders, Cabinet members are likely to need frequent updating;
Engagement by leaders within political groups. To secure political buy-in from members of the same party;
Engagement between political groups. Frequent discussion between the leaders of majority and minority parties in local councils to share information, discuss concerns and head off disagreement and discord;
Engagement with scrutiny.
Sharing information, inviting comment and brokering discussion
– as we have discussed, this also provides a formal check and balance on the development and implementation of devolution deals;
Engagement amongst all members.
Other than at full Council, there needs to be sustained engagement with all members – at member briefings, a discussion event specifically convened for discussion of devolution issues, or similar.
All the forms of engagement listed above are probably required, and need to be planned for, for each stage in the sequence of the devolution process. If this seems time-consuming or resource intensive, it has to be placed against the risks of devolution deals or negotiation processes unravelling for want of broad buy-in.
This engagement needs to be underpinned through the provision and use of high-quality evidence. Significant amounts of data will exist between the wide range of stakeholders involved in discussions. Councillors can use this to consider what they suggest about the outcomes that are planned to be delivered, and what this might mean about how governance works on the ground.”
The report quoted in the post below is here:
It is a thorough and far-reaching document which most councillors should have read BEFORE they made decisions.
It makes the point that much has not been done and makes these points about what needs to be done:
WHAT ALL AREAS CAN DO RIGHT NOW
Consider at what stage in the devolution process they currently stand; Evaluate and reassert what outcomes devolution will deliver to the area;
Agree on what characteristics / principles good governance will need to embody in order to achieve these outcomes;
Check whether effective governance systems are in place that meet those characteristics
– whether those systems are transitional (to manage the process of negotiation and design) or permanent (intended to apply when devolution deals are fully in place);
Ensure that strong data and information sharing – essentially, arrangements for meaningful transparency – is in place to support governance;
Ensure that governance builds in opportunities for meaningful accountability and for the transmission of views and opinions between those in the wider public sphere, and decision-makers.
“The Centre for Public Scrutiny has just launched a new paper on devolution in England, writes Ed Hammond.
Our report, Cards on the table suggests the different stages that local areas will have to go through in agreeing and implementing a devolution deals – highlighting the fact that there is a sequence to the process, with each stage in that sequence demanding its own unique governance response. Many of these responses focus on the need to bring in the wider member corps, and the public, to discussions on devolution and its outcomes.
Member and public involvement is critical to the success of English devolution, but it is an element that until now many areas have filed away as “too difficult”. It never seems to be quite the right time to do it. Too early, and plans and proposals may be too vague. Too late, and the decisions may already have been made. In between, many of the negotiations with government are required – by government – to be private. What space is there?
We think that there is more space than you might think, but to take advantage of the opportunities requires a different mindset to that which has been prevalent up until now. Primarily, there are big opportunities to engage non-executive councillors and the public at the earliest stage – to talk to them about “the place” and what they want it to look like in the future. Having discussions with a wide group of people about the future, and their place in that future, helps to do three things:
It places those aspirations front and centre when it comes to working up more concrete plans for devolution;
It frames the future debate and the way that proposals can be presented to government. A proposal for devolved powers which ultimately derives from a local conversation about what devolution might be able to achieve could end up more robust than one which is based on a discussion amongst a comparatively small number of elected councillors and officers;
It engages with the art of what is politically possible. Early discussion of proposals – even using those discussions to frame what the proposals look like – makes it more likely that they will be grounded in reality. Such discussions will highlight where a gap may exist between public expectations and reality – allowing politicians to act to bridge this gap.” …
http://www.lgiu.org.uk/2016/05/23/viewpoint-public-involvement-strengthens-the-devolution-hand/
The Conservatives have raked in nearly £9 million than Labour in donations in the past 12 months – amid mounting speculation there could be a snap general election. …
… According to the official data, most of the Tories’ money came from companies and wealthy individuals.
They include a £569,300 cheque from telecommunications firm Lycamobile, £150,610 from Sun Mark Ltd, more than £500,000 from former stockbroker Alexander Fraser, and £333,000 from Tory peer Lord Glendonbrook.
The Conservatives also received £554,000 from the National Conservative Draws Society – a weekly fundraising prize draw for party members.
Trade union Unite were Labour’s largest single donors, giving the party around £3.5 million in the past year. They were followed by the GMB, who donated £2.7 million.
In total, the main unions gave the party £11.4 million in 2015/16.
“Wednesday’s meeting in Totnes, organised by South Devon Watch to discuss strategies for political change, was inspiring and challenging in equal part. The inspiration came from so many committed people, all seeking to bring authentic democracy to a system widely seen as unaccountable, if not corrupt. The challenge is to find a way of beating the current system without repeating its manifest failings.
The meeting focused on independent candidates, both at local and national level. Among the speakers was Claire Wright, the independent Devon county councillor who came a good second in East Devon at the general election last year. Also present was Martyn Greene of the Free Parliament campaign, which is putting up serious money to support independent candidates at the next national election.
There can be little doubt that the tribal, adversarial party system typifies much that is wrong with our current politics. If independent candidates are to challenge the party stitch-up, however, they need to work together and show unity of purpose. The distinction between an organised group of independents, working together, and a new party, may not be easily observable to a electorate conditioned to the party system.
What comes first in politics, people or policies? If parliament were filled with independent members all operating under the Bell principles, it is likely that the quality of discourse and deliberation would be far higher than at present, but would effective policy, leadership and decision-making necessarily emerge?
One approach would be to elect government and parliament separately, the former on the basis of its policies, the latter on an independent, non-party basis. The current framework, however, doesn’t work like that: when people go to the polls they suppose that they are voting for the government they want. Government means a combination of policy solutions and the people with the leadership qualities to put those policies into effect.
In response to this, independent-minded political reformers could work together to draw up a national policy framework in they key areas of the economy, health, education, etc., which independent candidates could use as part of their campaigning message. Instead of supporting a party, they would be advocating for a coherent set of policies, the essence of which they would undertake to support in parliament.
In the trade-off between independence and coherence, it makes no sense for every stand-alone candidate to have to reinvent the national policy wheel. A shared set of policies could give national traction, provide a clear story for the media and ensure that the electorate have a better idea of what they are getting.”
http://www.martinwhitlock.co.uk/2016/05/a-national-policy-framework-for.html
