“Foreign aid spending to overtake council funding next year”

“Foreign aid spending will outstrip the amount given to councils to collect bins, install street lights and run local services for the first time next year, official government estimates show.

Forecasts buried in the Treasury’s Budget book reveal that spending on international development will hit £9.3bn in 2017/18 – overtaking local government spending of £8.2bn that year.

Tory MPs questioned whether at a time when councils are under “massive pressure” from cuts it was right to be spending “shedload of taxpayers’ money” on foreign aid. …

… Day-to-day spending at the Department for International Development [Dfid] will increase from £7.2bn to £10.4bn over the next five years, according to Treasury estimated released last month,

Over the same period spending on local government will drop from £10.8bn to £6.2bn as the government cuts central funding for councils. The crossover will happen in 2017/18.

Ministers justified the cut at the time by arguing extra council tax raising powers and the right to keep more money raised from business rates would counter the impact.

However council bosses have reacted with fury at the cuts from Treasury funding and said the new powers will not cover the financial black hole.

Tory MPs reacted with fury to the idea the government is prioritising foreign aid at a time when, bin collection, protection of the elderly and other council-run services are under pressure from the cuts.

Sir Gerald Howarth, a former Tory shadow minister, said: “We are at the point of facing a real crisis in local government where absolutely essential services, such as care for the elderly, are under massive pressure.

“By contrast Dfid is awash with cash and struggling to find ways of pushing this vast shedload of taxpayers’ money out of the door.

“Politics is about priorities. Surely after all the austerity we need to show the British people that we’ve got out priories right? The priority must be to look after the vulnerable citizens at home and to strengthen our defences in the face of very dangerous turbulent world out there.”

The majority of local authorities across the country have taken advantage of new powers to increase council tax by close to 4 per cent in the next financial year, partly to help fund social care.

However the Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils, said the new powers would not cover the major cuts in centralised funding from Whitehall.

An LGA spokesman said: “Councils are increasingly having to do more with less and to try and protect services, such as caring for the elderly, protecting children and reducing homelessness, in the face of growing demand. This means having less to spend on many of the other services people value, such as filling potholes and funding leisure facilities like pools, gyms and parks, libraries and museums.

“The next few years will continue to be a challenge. While extra council tax flexibilities will help some councils offset some of the funding pressures they face, it will not prevent the need for further cutbacks to local services. Many will continue to have to make significant reductions to local services to plug funding gaps.”

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman defended the decision to spend 0.7 per cent of foreign aid, noting how money had been used to help tackle the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Asked about the failure of other rich countries to reach the 0.7 spending level, the spokesman said they should “step up to the plate” and meet the commitment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/foreign-aid-spending-to-overtake-council-funding-next-year/

“Protecting beaches could save cliffs and homes, scientists say”

“A decade-long study of Westcountry coasts has revealed that protecting beaches could also help to stop the cliff erosion that is threatening homes, roads and coast paths around the region.

A dedicated team of scientists from the Plymouth Coastal Observatory has been painstakingly monitoring the tempestuous storms, devastating floods, 50ft-high waves and cliff falls along the coast.

The observatory is responsible for reporting on the effects of time and tide on 1,600 miles of coast from Beachley in Gloucestershire to Portland Bill in Dorset, via Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, including the Isles of Scilly.

Now the public is being given a chance to see for themselves how the processes which form our ever-changing coastline work, and how scientists study and measure the changes.

A free event is being held at Plymouth University – where the Plymouth Coastal Observatory is based – to showcase the work of the regional monitoring programme and its partners.

The link between beach and cliff erosion was established during nearly a decade of monitoring changes to cliffs at Sidmouth in East Devon. The Plymouth Coastal Observatory first commissioned aerial photography of the area in 2007.

The scientists are also regularly seen on the beaches of the region, physically charting the changes taking place due to erosion and deposition, natural coastal processes caused by the weather and tides.

At Pennington Point they found that the levels of the beach have fallen – in some places by more than a metre – since 2007.

Coastal process scientist Emerald Siggery from the Plymouth Coastal Observatory said: “There have been a number of cliff falls at Pennington Point in recent years.

“Our data, which includes aerial photography, topographic surveys and LiDAR, has given us accurate measurements of the changes.

“All our rich data also shows that erosion of the beach is contributing to the erosion of the cliffs, so if action is taken to manage the beach erosion that should contribute to managing erosion of the cliffs as well.”

The observatory’s scientists gather beach measurements accurate to around an inch, and commission and interpret high-resolution aerial photography and LiDAR (laser) imagery, as well as surveys which map the entire range of coastal habitats of the South West.

They also provide real-time information on the region’s waves and tides.

Coast South West 2016 will be open to the public from 10am to 3pm on Wednesday, April 20, in the Rolle Marquee on the main Plymouth University campus at Drake Circus. …

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Protecting-beaches-save-cliffs-homes-scientists/story-29110660-detail/story.html

Rural broadband – no guarantees people will ever get it

EDDC chose to remove itself from the Devon BDUK contract negotiations to go-it-alone with a government grant application which was recently refused.

“People living and working in isolated rural areas may miss out on taxpayer-funded broadband despite a Government pledge to roll-out “universal” superfast speeds, the UK minister responsible for the telecoms sector has warned.

Ed Vaizey told a gathering of MPs, “I’m not going to guarantee to you that every single premise is going to get 10 Mpbs but it should be potentially possible.”

Last year, the Government promised that everyone should have the legal right to request a 10 Mbps connection by the end of this Parliament, no matter where they live. Mr Vaizey said then that this could come into force as early as 2017.

But when MPs on the culture, media and sport committee asked if this could be truly universal, he suggested limiting the amount of public funding available on hard-to-reach properties.

Mr Vaizey also admitted to “significant delays” in the DCMS’ Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK ) unit, which hands out subsidies to make delivering superfast broadband in rural areas economically viable.

He said BDUK is currently “on track” with its target to cover 95pc of Britain’s geography with superfast broadband by 2017, which it defines as achieving minimum speeds of 10 Mpbs.

But he blamed delays in rolling out internet on local authorities, saying that councils took too long to negotiate contracts. Negotiations were “extremely time-consuming and significantly delayed the project,” he said. “I should’ve intervened much earlier.”

This latest hearing comes one day after Sharon White, Ofcom’s chief executive, faced the same group of MPs, who asked about the regulator’s plans to reform BT Openreach.

Ofcom has proposed sweeping changes to further distance Openreach from BT, for example, by giving the division control over its own finances, but Ms White said discussions with BT are still in their “early stages” and may not reach a voluntary agreement.

Ms White did not set a deadline on negotiations but said that a timescale of when to expect changes would be available later in the summer.

Gavin Patterson, BT’s chief executive, also faced a grilling from the cross-party committee last month during which he admitted that Openreach misses 1,000 repair appointments a week.

The committee is due to present its final report to the Government in the summer.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/13/minister-admits-broadband-blackspots-may-be-too-expensive-to-cov/

Failed Green Deal scheme cost £17,000 for every household that signed up

“Taxpayers have been left with a £17,000 bill for every household that signed up to the Government’s failed flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal.

Ministers wasted a total of £240 million on the ill-fated programme, which was launched in 2013 with the intention of upgrading Britain’s entire housing stock, a damning National Audit Office report found.

The Green Deal was supposed to encourage households to take out loans to fund the cost of installing measures such as insulation or double glazing, with the cost paid back out of the resulting savings on their energy bills.

Yet the scheme was eventually abandoned in July last year after just 14,000 households signed up, taking out loans worth just £50 million – on average less than £3,600 each.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/13/failed-green-deal-scheme-cost-17000-for-every-household-that-sig/

Persimmon: company doing badly, directors doing very well, thank you

“Fears over slowing sales at Persimmon, one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders, have caused a sharp drop in its share price.

In a trading update on Thursday morning ahead of its annual meeting at York Racecourse, which could involve protests over executive pay and other issues, Persimmon said sales revenues had risen 8% to £2.15bn since the start of the year. Weekly private sales per site were 6% ahead of last year as the company sold 7,598 new homes, with an average selling price of £220,000, up 5.8%.

Analysts said the numbers suggested sales had slowed in recent weeks. Charlie Campbell, of Liberum, said: “Persimmon has seen a good start to 2016, with sales rates up 6%, but this implies that growth has moderated in the last seven weeks, to around 2.5%, as comparatives have strengthened.”

AdvertisementHide
He added that margins were peaking “as selling price inflation moderates and build cost inflation persists”. Persimmon shares fell nearly 6% to £19.07 in early trading.

At the same time, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors warned that the EU referendum in June and recent changes to stamp duty had created a climate of uncertainty that could lead to falling sales and prices in the housing market.

Shares in other housebuilders were also down, with Berkeley Group falling nearly 4% and Barratt down 2%.

Persimmon reiterated that housebuilding was being held back by planning delays. So far it has opened 75 of 100 new sites planned for the first half of the year.

The company’s AGM is one of the first of the AGM season.

Shareholder groups have issued warnings over a share scheme set up in 2012 that could hand an estimated £600m to 150 directors by 2022 – one of the most generous bonus schemes in the City. A retiring senior executive, Nigel Greenaway, who has led Persimmon’s southern division, could pocket up to £9.4m.

Some are also unhappy over Persimmon’s appointment of Nigel Mills as a non-executive director, questioning his independence due to his links with the housebuilder’s financial advisers, Citi.

The company sought to defend the share plan by saying that since the launch of its new strategy in early 2012, it had delivered a 56% increase in new homes built, invested more than £2.2bn in new land, and returned £1.071bn to shareholders – £550m more than was originally planned.”

http://gu.com/p/4tbcp

Final details of Exmouth poll – at last!

“… The poll will be on Wednesday, April 20, between 4pm and 9pm.

All Exmouth residents on the electoral register can vote. There are no polling cards for the poll.

Most voters should go to their usual polling station – if they are unsure where this is, recently sent out polling cards for May’s unrelated Police and Crime Commissioner election should have the details.

There are the following exceptions to this. Voters who usually go to Liverton Copse Community Centre should go to St John the Evangelist Church Hall, Withycombe. Voters who usually go to Littlemead Methodist Church Hall should go next door to the church itself.

There is also a new station for the poll at the Kennaway Centre, 10-12 Victoria Road, which is for voters who live in Alexandra Terrace, Alston Terrace, Beacon Hill, Beacon Place, Bicton Street, Bicton Place, Camperdown Terrace, Chapel Hill, Church Street, Cleveland Place, Clinton Square, Criterion Place, Elm Grove, Esplanade, Fore Street, Harbour Court, High Street, Imperial Road, King Street, Little Bicton Place, Lower Fore Street, Magnolia Walk, Mamhead View, Manchester Road, Manchester Street, Montpelier Road, Morton Crescent, Morton Crescent Mews, Morton Road, Pier Head, Point Terrace, Pound Street, Queen Street, Queens Court, Rolle Road, Rolle Street, Rolle Villas, Sharps Court, Shelly Reach, Shelly Road, South Street, St Andrew’s Road, The Beacon, The Strand, Tower Street, Trinity Road, Union Street, Upper Church Street and Victoria Road.

Other polling stations are All Saints Church Hall, Brixington Community Church, Clayton House Community Centre, Holy Ghost Church Hall, Littleham Community Hall, Palmer House, and Withycombe Rugby Club.”

http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/final_details_released_for_exmouth_seafront_poll_1_4492528

Less than a week before the poll and still confusion. Head(s) rolling? Hmmm.

Suspected Paris attacker possessed information on German nuclear plant

“Authorities found documents in Salah Abdeslam’s apartment referring to a nuclear facility in Germany. The report, which officials have denied, comes amid growing concern over terrorists’ use of nuclear weapons. …

… The public revelation of the discovery comes amid renewed concerns over the possibility of members of the so-called “Islamic State” terrorist organization obtaining access to nuclear weapons. Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama spoke at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, where he called on world leaders to ensure nuclear security in the face of a growing international terrorist threat. …”

http://www.dw.com/en/suspected-paris-attacker-possessed-information-on-german-nuclear-plant/a-19185813

Devon and Somerset Devolution: a brief primer

By Georgina Allen, South Devon Watch, Facebook

“Devon and Somerset are in the middle of a Devolution process.

The word Devolution sounds as though it will increase and support local democracy, but in fact the opposite is true. What we are experiencing looks more and more like the privatisation of local authorities and local democracy – our devolution bid has been written and is being led by a group called the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership, or the HoSWLEP for short.

This is a quango made up mainly of business men, a couple of women and a few councillors. The business people are primarily property developers, construction CEOs and arms manufacturers. There are 24 of them and they are self-appointed, un-transparent, unaccountable and hold their meetings in secret. They publish minutes, but these are so opaque as to make them pointless. These people have written a bid for the future of Devon and Somerset, which is full of grandiose aspirations for growth.

They want to create 123,000 jobs, build business parks and growth hubs and most worryingly 179,000 houses.

They have no public mandate for this other than the fact that all our local councils have signed up to this bid.

Many local councillors have publicly stated that they are very unhappy with the way the devolution bid is shaping up. In the South Hams, the leader of the council said that they had been coerced into signing up. When questioned further about this, he explained by saying that councils had had their budgets slashed to such a point that they could hardly function.

The government has taken money away from councils and given it to the LEP, unless local councils sign up to the Devolution Bid, they will not get this funding. A simple privatisation practice, but a very effective one. With councils forced to sign up, the LEP have the illusion of a public mandate. There has been incredibly little press about the LEP and they have not consulted with the public, this Bid is going on behind closed doors and is therefore, very concerning.

Where housing is concerned – how did the LEP come up with the figure of 179,000 houses?

This is not based on any known survey. There is no mention of social, affordable or sustainable housing in the bid, just an enormous amount of market housing the LEP want to build.

As the board is mainly made up of developers this raises the question of conflict of interest, which the LEP acknowledge, but which has not stopped them from making the Devolution Bid almost entirely about growth. There is little to no mention of farming, the environment, tourism, all the industries that are most important down here, instead the Bid is about building and growth hubs and IT. It sounds more like a Bid for a northern powerhouse than it does the rural west country.

Most of the growth projections described in the Bid are reliant on Hinkley C going ahead. As there are very real worries about the viability of this, so there should be questions raised about the LEP, who are lacking a plan B. Councillors, MPs, the National Audit Office and many others are becoming increasingly concerned about the process of devolution and the LEP themselves and as a local person, I am also worried at seeing local issues like planning being passed to a quango of business people, who have financial interests in pushing the type of development that is least needed down here.”

Comment: “Hugo Swire donor linked to Panama Papers”

… so it is interesting to note that a businessman who funds East Devon MP Hugo Swire has been linked to a company set up in an offshore tax haven.

The MP received a £5,000 donation from a company owned by the head of the family-owned JCB group, Anthony Bamford. In the register of MPs’ interests, Mr Swire declares the donation from JCB Research, based at Uttoxeter, Staffordshire. The company is used as a vehicle for political donations, and director Lord Bamford is one of the Tory Party’s biggest donors. It has emerged he was the sole shareholder in a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.

He dissolved the company called Casper Ltd in 2012, according to documents from the Panama law firm Mossack Fonseca seen by The Guardian, one of the media outlets studying the leaked Panama Papers. …

… There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing by Lord Bamford or Mr Swire. …

… Lord Bamford is believed to have given the Conservatives more than £4m personally and through JCB companies.

Old Etonian Mr Swire, 56, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, which comes with a salary of £98,740, also lists donations of:

£3,000 from his relative Sir Adrian Swire, a billionaire businessman and former chairman of the Swire Group, a global transport and trading conglomerate with major interests in the Far East;

£3,000 from John Lewis OBE, a director of the company Photo-Me International, of which Mr Swire was a director from June 2005 to May 2010.

The Panama Papers are a cache of 11.5 million leaked records from law firm Mossack Fonseca exposing the financial dealings of the wealthy.

Mossack Fonseca said the firm had no control of how its clients might use offshore vehicles created for them.

It is right that elected members of Parliament are transparent about their financial affairs, particularly members of the government which formulates tax law. And it is right that they are held to account through questions from the media on behalf of the electorate, and through the ballot box when the time comes.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Comment-Devon-MP-s-donor-linked-Panama-Papers/story-29111371-detail/story.html

The 1% and why they pay most tax – nailed!

Following on from Hugo Swire telling us the top 1% (of which he is almost certainly a member) pay 27% of tax, a comment on South Devon Watch Facebook page:

“The only reason the 1% pay 27% of all income tax take is because they don’t pay their workers enough for them to have to pay any tax. All those part-time/zero hours workers on the minimum wage. Sanctimonious meretricious b*****d.”

Not to mention if that 1% paid ALL their taxes we might still have a proper, functioning national health service AND no potholes!

We are NOT in it together and the 99% know it.

Neil Parish gets pompous (and evasive) about his tax affairs too

Note: MP Mel Stride represents a small part of the East Devon area. Mr Parish was an MEP from 1999 to 2007.

THREE out of four Devon MPs would not answer questions about wjhether they have benefited from offshore accounts, the Echo can reveal.

Hugo Swire, Neil Parish and Mel Stride chose not to respond to questions from the Echo about their tax affairs.

It comes after leaked documents showed politicians, footballers and celebrities had benefited from offshore investments designed to avoid UK taxes. Following calls for greater transparency amongst politicians, the Echo asked the MPs if they had ever used offshore accounts and whether they were prepared to publish their tax returns.

But Mr Swire, whose family was listed at 42 in the most recent Sunday Times Rich List, mounted robust defence of MPs’ right to keep their tax affairs private, which the Echo is publishing in full [see Owl’s post below for Swire’s letter].

His family’s business, which owns a stake in Cathay Pacific, has scores of subsidiaries operating from Panama, Bermuda and the British Virgin Isles.

A county councillor has criticised the 56-year-old foreign office minister for failing to answer the questions posed to him and said he should reveal his tax affairs.

Councillor Claire Wright, who represents Ottery St Mary Rural, said: “Hugo needs to be open and transparent about whether he has offshore investments or not.”

Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP for Exeter, was the only politician in the Echo’s circulation area to respond to all five questions.

He answered “no” to questions one, two and three, meaning he and his family to the best of his knowledge had not benefited from any offshore investments.

Mr Bradshaw said: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I have no problem with MPs who, after all, make the laws, being required to publish their tax returns and perhaps the same should apply to our tax-exiled newspaper proprietors too.”

Meanwhile an assistant to Mel Stride, MP for Central Devon, said he was not prepared to make a statement on whether Mr Stride had benefited from offshore accounts at the moment.

The assistant said: “All I can state is he has no offshore trusts.”

The office for Neil Parish, MP for Tiverton and Honiton, did not respond to any of the questions, but came back with the following statement.

Mr Parish said: “This Conservative Government has done more than any other Government to close tax loopholes, a move which I welcome and I voted in favour of these measures.

“All of the items where I have a pecuniary interest have been registered in the Register of Members’ Interest which can be found online.”

Cllr Wright, however, said she believed MPs should be open following the scandal.

She said: “Tax avoidance has been a growing public concern and after the release of the Panama papers, it has reached a point where it is a top story on the news every day.”

“It is beholden on every MP to be open and transparent. They are in a position of public trust if they do have money in off-shore accounts,” Cllr Wright said.

“Hugo is a government minister and as the government make attempts to try and tighten up tax avoidance, the public needs to have confidence in its MPs so we know that they are practicing what they preach.”

Jonathan Isaby, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, however said he thought it would be unfair for MPs to have to publish their tax returns.

He said: “David Cameron made a rod for his own back by moralising about the legal tax arrangements of others in the past and was clearly clumsy in his handling of questions about the Panama papers.

“But it would be unfair to start forcing politicians into publishing their tax returns. MPs already have to declare external sources of income, significant shareholdings and so on in the publicly-available Register of Members’ Financial Interests but enforced publication of full tax returns would be an undue invasion of privacy.

“Our politicians’ energy would be far better spent simplifying our labyrinthine tax code instead of pontificating about the tax arrangements of those abiding by the very laws which they have written.”

Our questions

The questions put to the four Devon MPs were:

1. Have you used a tax haven, tax incentive or deliberate means of avoiding tax in the past to your knowledge?

2. To the best of your knowledge has anyone in your immediate family?

3. Have you ever benefited from any offshore investments?

4. Are you prepared to publish your tax return?

5. What are your thoughts on the PM and Chancellor’s connections to the tax havens in Panama?

A letter from East Devon MP Hugo Swire in response to The Echo’s Offshore Tax questions

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/asked-MPs-simple-questions-tax-returns-just/story-29106254-detail/story.html

Hugo Swire’s tax affairs

“This week The Express and Echo went to East Devon MP Hugo Swire requesting answers to four questions sent out to each of the four MPs in the paper’s patch.

The questions put to the four Devon MPs were:

1. Have you used a tax haven, tax incentive or deliberate means of avoiding tax in the past to your knowledge?

2. To the best of your knowledge has anyone in your immediate family?

3. Have you ever benefited from any offshore investments?

4. Are you prepared to publish your tax return?

5. What are your thoughts on the PM and Chancellor’s connections to the tax havens in Panama?

Mr Swire chose not to answer the questions but instead asked us to print the following letter.”

“This media feeding frenzy is distasteful

I have found this media feeding frenzy around the personal tax affairs of the Prime Minister somewhat distasteful, writes East Devon MP Hugo Swire.

What exactly is the accusation? Has our PM done anything illegal? No. Immoral? I don’t think so. He has benefited from his late father’s will.

Is this not one of the most fundamental of human instincts, to help your children, whatever your income bracket? Was he even responsible for his father’s investments? Hardly. Yes, he did benefit from his father’s estate and yes it transpires that some of that money came from a perfectly legal overseas investment vehicle. Knowing the PM as I do, his entire approach to these ‘revelations’ will have been to protect his late father, his family (who have not chosen to be in the public eye) and importantly his widowed mother who is very much alive. We can all debate as to what he should have said and when but I think most of us would have had similar instincts.

Besides people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones. When Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell called on the PM to answer if he had “benefitted directly or indirectly” from offshore funds he might have forgotten that £14,000 of his own pension, which he gets a year from his Westminster City Council, was in 2014 invested with Longview, an active global equity manager, that is based, yes, you have guessed it, offshore in Guernsey. McDonnell has been quoted as saying: “There has been one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us,” which is a bit rich coming from him!

Now as a reaction – I would argue an overreaction – the PM has published his Tax Return, and the Chancellor has followed suit. I think this creates a difficult precedent. Is this the moment that people with private means, self made or otherwise, turn their backs on public life? And where does it stop? Do we finally get to see the tax returns of local councillors, BBC presenters, doctors even, after all they are funded by the taxpayer as well? And while we are at it why don’t we demand to see the tax affairs of those who influence public life, journalists, multi millionaire newspaper editors like Paul Dacre of the Mail, and newspaper proprietors like the Barclay brothers and Lord Rothermere.

The hypocrisy of the Guardian, the BBC and the Mirror Group (owners of the Express & Echo) is also worth noting, all of whom have used elaborate measures to minimise their tax liabilities, as have the unions. Can we see their tax returns? If we are going to have them then let’s have them all. And then no doubt in a sanctimonious way we can all condemn those with an income or savings or investments worth over a certain amount and ‘celebrate’ those who earn far less.

Because the logical extension of this argument is that by definition there is something wrong with the rich. Why don’t we conveniently forget – as some do – that the richest 1 per cent in Britain today pay 27 per cent of all income tax, while the top 10 per cent pay well over half, at 55 per cent. Without their effort and enterprise of course, a huge burden would fall on the 12 percent of workers who pay no income tax at all, while the welfare state would collapse.

But let’s anyway smash the wealth creators who employ us all and fund our public services. Let’s drop this terrible idea that we want to give a leg up in life to our children after we die and take away a key driving force of wealth creation. Let’s all join Momentum and ride with the hounds of class warfare and demonstrate against globalisation, GM crops and Trident while we are at it. Let’s make sure that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn achieve the highest office in the land and squander all our hard earned cash. Wouldn’t we all feel smug and so much better as a result?”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/8203-letter-East-Devon-MP-Hugo-Swire-response/story-29105022-detail/story.html

So, Hugo, back to the four questions ….

There truly is one law for the rich and another for the poor

“David Cameron was confronted in the Commons on Wednesday with figures showing that thousands more government inspectors are employed to tackle benefits fraud than deal with tax evasion by the wealthiest UK residents.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party’s leader in Westminster, asked the prime minister why 3,250 department of work and pensions (DWP) staff have been assigned to investigate welfare fraud, while 300 specialise in dealing with the rich.

“Surely we should care equally about people abusing the tax system and those abusing the benefit system?” Robertson asked during prime minister’s questions. “Why has this government had ten times more staff dealing often with the poorest in society abusing benefits than with the super-rich evading their taxes?”

In fact the government confirmed on Wednesday that the ranks of DWP benefits investigators have swelled to 3,700 – a higher number than the one quoted by Robertson, and up from 2,600 in February last year.

That compares with 700 people who work at HM Revenue and Customs in the two units whose job it is to investigate the wealthiest 500,000 people living in the UK.

David Cameron was jeered when he admitted the figures cited by Robertson would need to be examined, but retorted “they sound to me entirely bogus”. He added: “The predominant job of the DWP is to make sure that people receive their benefits. The predominant job of HMRC is to make sure people pay their taxes”.

Benefits fraud costs the government £1.3bn a year, according to official statistics, while the gap between tax owed and tax paid is put at £34bn a year by officials.”

http://gu.com/p/4tb4b

“Politicians don’t know the price of milk – but they do know how to set up a shell company”

“… In the old days, courtiers aped the style of the monarch. Modern politicians aspire to be like today’s rulers – our corporate overlords. If you spend a sizeable chunk of your career making sure corporations can take their money offshore, and hope to work for those companies later in your career with some title like Non-Executive Director Of Thanks For All The Favours, and if corporations actively court political influence through massive lobbying operations, then you will end up with a certain level of symbiosis. …

… In the end, as a senior politician having spent a career in what is the PR wing of corporatism, offshore tax arrangements might well be one of the few things you know anything about. I mean that quite literally. Politics is full of people who don’t know the price of a pint of milk but do understand the incorporation of a shell company. Why wouldn’t they have a trust in Panama?

Corporations may hire celebrity spokesmodels, personify themselves as mascots, and in the US, demand that they have the constitutional rights of people, but they are not people. They are blueprints for making money, and they don’t address their social obligations because they don’t care. I suspect before long we’ll see corporations donating to space exploration in the hope that they’ll be able to take advantage of a zero per cent tax rate by screwing their “Company Headquarters” plaques to the surface of the moon. In a decade, it’ll be covered with so much tessellating brass, it’ll shimmer like a distant glitterball through the gaps in the roofs of their employees’ shacks.

http://gu.com/p/4t9n2

“Tory MP Stewart Jackson Says Academies Plan Is ‘Rushed, Ill-Thought Out And Flawed’ “

“A Tory MP has criticised the Government’s plan to turn all schools in to academies, labelling the plan “rushed, ill-thought out and flawed”.

Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, said he was willing to defy the party line as the reform was a “million miles from what a Conservative Party in office should be doing”.

His comments come as Labour today forces a vote in the Commons on the plan announced by Chancellor George Osborne in his Budget last month.

Jackson’s withering criticism of the “compulsory academisation” of primary and secondary schools underlines growing unease among some Tory backbenchers at the flagship plan being taken forward by Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan.

Writing in a column for his local newspaper the Peterborough Telegraph, seen by HuffPost UK, the MP argues the move is a “recipe for upheaval as well as muddle and costly confusion” and that there is “no evidence (as yet)” that the move will improve schools.

He says: “Do we really believe that remote civil servants or ‘local’ Regional Schools Commissioners will be adequate substitutes for the real local knowledge, expertise, passion, teamwork, skills and shared history of local councillors, dedicated education officers and parents ‘on the ground?’

“The difference is obvious: at least the latter are accountable to their electorate, whilst the former are accountable only to their hierarchy – namely the Secretary of State, rather than pupils, parents, teachers or governors.”

The MP goes on that the plan will risks “squashing local choice, differentiation and expertise” and “rightly irritates local councillors”.

In recognition of many Tories feeling ill at ease with state control, he argues: “It’s because I’m a Conservative that I can see that something like this is a million miles from what a Conservative Party in office should be doing.”

Meanwhile, one senior Tory told HuffPost UK: “I don’t believe in ‘compulsory freedom’. There’s lots of us who aren’t comfortable with this.”

Under the reform, all state schools must become academies by 2020 or have plans to do so by 2022.

Jackson questions whether academy chains – so-called Multi Academy Trusts that run more than one school – can “run and turnaround not just high performing schools but those which are struggling”, and references the troubles of the Voyager academy in his constituency.

He continues the prospect of “nationalising” education and handing down a “top down system” to a Jeremy Corbyn Labour government “fills me with horror”.

“I will not be supporting this rushed, ill thought out and flawed policy and I suspect the government will dump it before too long,” Jackson finishes.

Labour today leads an Opposition Day debate having tabled a motion claiming there is “no evidence that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement”. The vote is not binding but could prove embarrassing for the Government.

Academies are state-controlled but free of local authority control.

For any school that fails to have a plan in place, the Government will take on radical new powers to intervene and ensure academy conversion takes place.

Unions have hit out at the Government was moving to “undo over 50 years of comprehensive public education at a stroke”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/schools-academies-labour_uk_570e1011e4b01711c612ab4a

Buy your town’s community hospital from the NHS or else …

From the blog of Claire Wright, DCC Independent Councillor:

Yesterday’s BBC Good Morning Devon programme yesterday morning covered the potential fallout of NHS Property Services taking over 12 community hospitals in Devon, in June.

The community hospitals that will transfer ownership to NHS Property Services include: Axminster, Budleigh Salterton, Crediton, Exeter Community Hospital (Whipton), Exmouth, Honiton, Moretonhampstead, Okehampton, Ottery St Mary, Seaton, Sidmouth and Tiverton.

Ottery Hospital’s League of Friends members Adrian Rutter and David Roberts were interviewed expressing serious concern about the government owned company charging local NHS organisations commercial rents after acquiring them – and the possibility of the buildings being sold off if the NHS cannot afford the rents.

However, Hugo Swire seemed (after claiming such concerns were alarmist – I also wrote to him last week about this very issue) – to dismiss the idea, instead suggesting that it was up to the community to take out a lease on the buildings.

This is unbelievable. Ottery’s community raised around £250,000 to help fund a new hospital building just 20 years ago. Now the government is helping themselves to what they see as a profitable asset, charging the local NHS huge rents … and the solution… says our MP – is for the community to pay for a long term lease?

Just what planet does Mr Swire live on?

It is Mr Swire’s government that is perpetrating this plan which amounts to blatant theft and extortion. As a government minister he tells us he has considerable influence with other ministers and secretaries of state. It’s about time he used this influence to protect our precious hospitals for future generations.

Here’s the interview. Tune in at 39 mins to hear Adrian Rutter and David Roberts interview which precedes Mr Swire’s at 42 minutes – link – http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03nx07c

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

“The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do”

“We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer ‘To hell with them.’ The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do.”

Michael Foot
Speech before the 1983 General Election.

Report of the Rural Housing Review: “Affordable Housing: A fairer deal for Rural Communities”

As referred to on “Farming Today”‘

http://view.pagetiger.com/RHPR/issue1

“More than half of MPs want to be able to spend more on their taxpayer-funded credit cards”

“More than half of MPs want to be able to spend more on their taxpayer-funded credit cards, with scores demanding the right to use them to pay for food and drinks.

MPs can currently spend a maximum of £1,000 on a single transaction and a total of £4,000 each month on the credit card.

However, when question by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, as many as 51 per cent of MPs said they wanted looser rules on use of direct payment and charge cards.

Ipsa issues MPs with the cards to pay for a variety of items such as travel, accommodation and stationery.

The politicians then have to prove the spending was allowed within the month, or they build up debts to the watchdog.

The sums are recouped by suspending the cards and not paying out valid expenses claims, or in installments from the MP’s salary.

MPs have said they believe food and drink should to be reintroduced as an allowance on the card and that they should be allowed to use the cards when travelling on public transport in London.

It comes after more than a dozen MPs had their Commons credit cards blocked last month after running up expenses debts of up to £27,000.

Five SNP politicians – including Westminster leader Angus Robertson and his deputy Stewart Hosie – were among those subject to action by the watchdog.

The fresh calls were made in response to a 2015 survey of politicians and their staff by the expenses watchdog, which found that 34 per cent of MPs chose not to submit a claim because they were “concerned about the claim being published”.

Overall, Ipsa received 312 responses, of which 44 were MPs, 113 were MP proxies – nominated to act on behalf of an MP – and 155 members of staff.

The report states: “There are some clear signs that MPs, their proxies, and their staff think that there have been many improvements in the support and services that we offer, but, of course, there remains more for us to do.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/more-than-half-of-mps-want-to-be-able-to-spend-more-on-their-tax/

Tory MPs worry that revealing their tax affairs might cause problems for their divorces!

“MPs do not want to publish their tax returns because it could cause problems for those going through a divorce or with a complicated family life, the Telegraph understands.

Senior Conservatives have warned that making politicians publish their tax returns could put some off standing for parliament and force others to quit because of the impact on their personal relationships.

One senior backbench MP told the Telegraph: “You would have to look at some of the implications for family life and I’m thinking of people with step-families or people who might have been involved in complex divorces.

There are lots of things which might become apparent from someones’ tax return which makes it easy to see why people might not want to have that in the public domain.”

A second MP, Mark Garnier, claimed forcing MPs to disclose what they earn and pay in tax could ultimately force other family members to publish their income to avoid money being shifted between partners.

He said: “There are a number of issues; what are you trying to achieve out of publishing tax records that you’re not already achieving through the register of members’ interests?

“If you do want more clarity you’re going to have to look at the family’s tax returns.

“You may well have an MP who basically shovels everything that they want to hide into their partner’s name in order to avoid having to disclose it on their own return, so you then have to ask does it apply to their family too?”

During divorce proceedings where financial remedies are requested by either party partners must provide information about their income and shareholdings.

But some MPs are concerned that final settlements made as a result, how much they pay to former partners and their total income could be disclosed and used against them if forced to reveal their income and tax affairs.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/mps-fear-tax-transparency-could-spell-trouble-for-family-life/