4TH UPDATE (30/12/20): PM Confirmed - UK MPs WERE "Bounced" Into Accepting Flawed UK-EU Trade Deal

 

The White Ensign on Board HMS Bulwark

4TH UPDATE (30/12/20) PM: MPs have resoundingly voted for the Deal, and have been bounced into doing so. The BBC reports:

"Post-Brexit trade deal between UK and EU approved by MPs by 521 votes to 73 ahead of 31 December deadline."

The Official Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, even stated that it was this Deal or No Deal. Except as Leader of the Scottish National Party, Ian Blackford, said: No Deal was not on the Order Paper.

Like we always say, LABOUR OR TORY, SAME OLD STORY.

---

3RD UPDATE (30/12/20) AM: We have confirmed the view expressed in this article. So don't take our word for it. Take the word of the Parliamentary Committee responsible for holding the Government (Executive) to account. Below are some extracts from their report, which has only been published TODAY, ON THE SAME DAY AS THE VOTE, titled:

"House of Commons
Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union
The UK-EU future relationship: the Trade and Cooperation Agreement
Fourth Report of Session 2019–21"

This proves that we were absolutely correct to say that MPs are being "bounced" into accepting the flawed UK-EU Trade Deal. They express "deep concern" about the timing and blame BOTH the Government and the EU Commission.

"Conclusions and recommendations

p.4, section 6:

... Members of the House are being asked to read the deal (published on 26 December),
to read the Bill brought forward by the Government to give the deal effect in UK law
(due to be made available on 29 December) and to form a judgement on its contents
in time to debate and vote on the Bill on 30 December. There is no alternative given
where we are but that both the Government and the EU Commission have put
parliaments in this position is a matter of deep concern. (Paragraph 31)"

and again, under the title "Scrutiny of the Agreements" on p.14, section 30:

"30.   One  of  the  consequences  of  only  reaching  agreement  on  
Christmas  Eve  is  that  Parliament and the European Parliament have
not been able to scrutinise the deal properly."

The Committee also brings our attention to the fact that the Government intends to ignore the law that applies to have due scrutiny of Parliamentary legislation. This was confirmed by the House of Commons Library and we will be checking whether this is what is actually done today.

Under the title "Ratifying the Agreement", the report says on p.14, Section 28:

"We expect that the Bill will disapply the requirements  in  the  
Constitutional  and  Governance  Act  2010  that  must  be  met  
before treaties can be ratified." 

Our Leader Andrew Pope says: 

Andrew Pope

"The Committee is right, but what can they do about it? Our so-called democracy  is set up so that the Legislature cannot properly hold the Executive to account. And since 2000, this system has been replicated across most councils in England, including in Somerset. Citizens are sidelined, and the Westminster parties call the shots.

Not only is this Tory and EU Deal rushed, botched and failing both remainers and leavers, it is very clear that neither the Tory Government, nor the EU Commission, respect due process and due scrutiny.

The EU Commission and EU Council have already signed it off! But the EU Parliament seems to be totally irrelevant to the process, as they will be expected to rubber-stamp the decision already made. It's no wonder that so many people view the EU as undemocratic.

And the Tory Government is treating Parliament and MPs - who are supposed to be there to hold the Government to account and - with contempt too!

This is a typical example of the Westminster parties letting the people of Somerset down. The Somerset MPs will vote with their party and do as they are told, just like they did on Free School Meals. And as with Free School Meals, they will even defend the Government.

Members and supporters of Somerset Independents will be watching, along with all other residents of Somerset, and will continue to challenge them and hold them to account."

---

2ND UPDATE (29/12/20) PM: Dr Stefano Fella at the House of Commons Library has replied to us this afternoon and confirmed:

"We are working on further analysis today"

What a relief! 

---

UPDATE (29/12/20): Since the below article was published, and one day prior to the vote by MPs, we have endeavoured to check whether the House of Commons Library has published any additional analysis.

All we have been able to find is a brief introduction added to an existing paper. We have asked the House of Commons Library directly whether there is any update.

But they appear to be on holiday.

So this begs the question - what will MPs be basing their vote on? What the whips tell them to do? Or the toss of a coin?

This is only one of the most important decisions ever taken for our country!

---

The photo shows the White Ensign, on board the Royal Navy's HMS Bulwark. It was taken by Somerset Independent's Leader Andrew Pope when he visited the ship on invitation as a Southampton City Councillor. Bulwark was docked in Southampton.

The Ensign includes the St. George's Cross, symbol of England and the Union Jack, symbol of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The History of the White Ensign is more involved than that, though space does not permit more detail here.

The image is pertinent now that the UK is leaving the EU. During the end of the UK-EU negotiations we were told that the Royal Navy will be "beefed up" in patrolling the UK's fishing waters.

Whether that happens or not, ITV reports that the nation's fishermen feel that that they have been "sacrificed" in the deal.

That is undoubtedly true. As reported by the BBC, a 25% cut in what EU boats can catch in our water, in over five-and-a-half years is a pathetic sell-out of our fishermen, who put their lives on the line every day.

Yet if the initial analysis of the deal, done by Somerset Independents, turns out to be true, the fishermen are not the only ones to be sold-out by Boris Johnson's flawed UK-EU Trade Deal.

Andrew says: 

Andrew Pope

"If our initial analysis is correct, we all will be sold out by this terrible botched and rushed deal, remainers or leavers.

It appears from our initial analysis - and we have to do it as volunteers because the House of Commons Library have nothing published just two days before the vote - that whether you voted Remain or Leave, this Deal does not deliver.

If you voted Remain, it is a bad deal.

If you voted Leave, it is a bad deal.

Yet it appears that MPs will be bounced into accepting it, because they have been presented with a massive document over the holiday season, and given precious little time to read it, understand it, scrutinise it and then vote on it - just days.

It is a totally unacceptable situation, that could have been avoided if we had a competent Government and competent Opposition. 

So many deadlines have been missed and so many promises broken.

Instead of promises made, we have Tory Boris Johnson at the helm with Labour's Keir Starmer as his First Officer, driving the UK into even stormier waters when we already have Covid-19 to deal with. It is difficult to think of sterner challenges to our country.

The only resistance from MPs seems to be from the Scottish National Party, who once again appear to be the ACTUAL opposition in the House of Commons. They will vote against the deal.

In contrast, Labour's Starmer says that although Labour does not like the Deal, that Labour will still vote for this terrible deal! 

Whenever I was in opposition as a councillor, I abstained or voted AGAINST what I thought was wrong. 

Perhaps it is too early to tell if Starmer is even more incompetent than his predecessors Corbyn and Miliband.

But as he has backed Johnson on Covid and now on Brexit, so Somerset residents will ask what is the point of the Tories or Labour when it comes to standing up for Somerset?

They've just caved in.

Once again at Westminster, it is Labour or Tory, same old story.

And it is the people of Somerset who will suffer.

That is why Somerset Independents was formed, to work hard for Somerset residents, even during the holiday season, and to stand up for Somerset residents.

Join us to stand together against the Westminster parties."

 

Standing Up For Somerset Residents

VICTORY UPDATE (30/4/21): Somerset Independents FORCES Mendip Council To Change

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope

UPDATE (30/4/21): It has taken a long time for Mendip District Council's External Auditor Ernst and Young to take the issue to the Council's own Audit Committee.

It has been reported by Daniel Mumby for SomersetLive here, with quotes by Somerset Independents officer Denise Wyatt.

Denise Wyatt
Nominations Officer
Somerset Independents

Denise Wyatt says: 

"Somerset Independents had to take action because the councillors, council officers and the auditors did not. It is their duty but the councillors, council officers and the auditors failed.

Instead of doing their jobs and being paid a lot of public money, to do it, it was Somerset Independents and volunteers doing their jobs for them! It's just wrong.

So we had to use the law against them. And make Mendip District Council listen, even though they had their fingers in their ears. This is usual for Mendip, sadly.

Somerset Independents has also proved that Mendip broke the law of meetings in how it allowed a Chair to preside over his own election.

And their lack of openness and transparency has meant they have had to re-issue minutes of meetings. It sounds boring. But it isn't. Why?

Because those meetings considered the spending of millions of pounds of taxpayers money. And public money MUST be accounted for. It's the law.

Mendip councillors and officers HID WHAT THEY DID, and tried to get away with it! Somerset Independents stands up for residents and public money."

---

 

UPDATE (28/12/20): We are signing off 2020 with another victory for Somerset residents, and celebrating our other recent victories.

Our Leader Andrew Pope says:

"Ever since we were formed during Lockdown 1, Somerset Independents has been telling Mendip District Council that they need to change.

We told the councillors and officers at many meetings that they had to listen, and act, on residents' concerns.

But they refused to listen.

And they refused to act. 

We carried on regardless.

Now, after months of campaigning with Somerset residents on a wide range of campaigns, we have discovered that because of the actions of our members, that they have been forced to change - on Easthill, on how they run meetings, on how they listen to the public, on how they should act for the public, and now on how the Council is run.

These are big victories, and we have done it by working with Somerset residents, and acting for Somerset residents and the environment.

We don't just SAY we do it. We actually do it. Join us to help us to make Somerset's councils listen to residents, instead of doing bad things to residents using taxpayers' money."

We will be providing more updates, as and when the Council's External Auditors Ernst and Young take action, and when the Council make material changes.

At a recent public meeting, councillors have been forced to commit to "review" the Constitution - something that we asked them to do many months ago. During the virtual meeting, the Chief Executive was forced to explain to councillors and the public what had gone wrong.

As we have previously reported, members of Somerset Independents raised a number of serious concerns, including a formal Objection to the Mendip District Council Accounts, with Ernst and Young.

Ernst and Young accepted part of our objections and is investigating further. They did not accept other parts. We still maintain that those parts of our Objection are correct.

In early December, Ernst and Young informed our lead on Governance, Denise Wyatt, that and we quote:

"Our investigation of the issues we accepted within your objection is ongoing.  As a quasi-judicial process it would not be appropriate for me to provide any detail of the status at this time.  I do not have a timescale when it will be completed, as I need to ensure that the process is properly followed."

This was in response to further concerns that Denise raised on Mendip District Council's Governance, on top of those raised in the formal Objection to the Council's accounts.

We are concerned with how long the investigation by Ernst and Young is taking, and how Mendip District Council are acting in hindsight to try to cover up the Council's failings. 

This now includes "revised" versions of minutes of meetings of the Phoenix Sponsorship Board, which were put through on the hush-hush on 23rd December 2020, in response to our formal objection. 

This Board has been making decisions on property and has met behind-closed-doors for years. Yet under the Liberal Democrat Administration that came in during May 2019, it became even more secretive than it was under the previous Conservative Administration. Like we say regularly because it is true - Lib Dem or Tory, same old story.

As well as a range of other failings in openness and transparency, Denise showed that the minutes of the meetings were unlawful. Denise raised this with Ernst and Young and directly with the Council's officers, including the new Chief Finance Officer, so-called "Section 151 Officer" Richard Bates.

Denise also showed again to them that other aspects of Mendip's governance were also unlawful, including the lack of Background Papers cited in reports to councillors. While this may seem trivial, it is like an academic paper not citing who has been quoted, or whose work has been used, in the paper. In the academic world, it would be unethical and plagiarism.

But when it is councillors making decisions that affect people's lives and spending millions of pounds of taxpayers money, including on shady and risky property deals it is vital that councillors and the public are informed. But it is also the law, under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

Mendip District Council has been breaking the law on this Phoenix Sponsorship Board. And also on another property-related committee, the Asset Management Group.

And we have discovered from local residents, via the Frome Facebook Group, that our work has been picked up by Private Eye, although sadly our article on Sandys Hill Lane and Mendip District Council was not credited:

 

Cutting from Private Eye
taken from Frome Facebook Group

 

It is good that Private Eye has picked this up. But what matters most is that we are helping to shine a light on the grubby dealings of Mendip District Council, and that local residents are made aware of it.

Throughout 2020, ever since Somerset Independents was formed, the poor Governance at Mendip District Council has been raised directly with councillors and officers - on very many occasions.

We will be providing further updates. To see them, please Like our Facebook Page by looking for our username @SomerInds (Somerset Independents) and our Twitter feed @SomerInds.

If you would like to help our work, please get in touch via email at somerinds [at] gmail.com.

Standing Up For Residents

VICTORY UDPATE (19/12/20) : Galmington Playing Fields SAVED (for now) from Lib Dems at Somerset West and Taunton Council

 

Somerset Lib Dems
Wasting YOUR Money

FURTHER VICTORY UPDATE (19/12/20):

Now that we have actually been able to view the meeting (see below), we are happy to report that 44 councillors did indeed vote against the LEASE of the land at the Playing Fields. This included Independent, Conservative, Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. 

Although there was a free vote (no whip) in the Liberal Democrat Group, this was a massive slap in the face for the Leader and cabinet, who brought this report.

Only 5 councillors voted for the lease of the land on the Playing Fields: 

1. Benet Allen (Liberal Democrat member of the Cabinet who described opponents as "NIMBYs"), 
2. Hazel Prior-Sankey (Liberal Democrat and Chair of the Council who abused her position to criticise opponents of the plan), 
3. Vivienne Stock-Williams (Conservative), 
4. Anthony Trollope-Bellew (Conservative Group Leader) and 
5. Keith Wheatley (Liberal Democrat).
   

But it is only a temporary victory, because the Lib Dem councillors employed dodgy tactics to move the goalposts on the vote DURING THE MEETING.

The report that was sent out to the public and councillors prior to the meeting related to the disposal and sale of the land - not a lease.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Leader of the Council, Lib Dem Councillor Federica Smith-Roberts moved the goalposts for it to be a lease, not a sale. The Council's legal advisers backed them up on this.

And when councillors repeatedly questioned what they were were voting on, they were prevented on voting on the sale, which they and the public had been led to believe was the substantive proposal - because it was there in black and white prior to the meeting.

Councillor Smith-Roberts said that they could not say whether any further plans might come forward. Again, she was backed up by the legal advisers.

Smith-Roberts has now made a series of allegations against campaigners, which we understand are now the subject of a formal complaint with the Council's Monitoring Officer.

Smith-Roberts voted against her own proposal for the lease. 

This is not only peculiar, but it shows a spectacular failure in leadership and authority amongst her own Liberal Democrat Group, which is also shown by allowing a free vote on an issue that she brought up in the report to councillors.

Following the meeting, we learned from Daniel Mumby of SomersetLive that Councillor Sue Buller left the Liberal Democrats and now sits as an Independent councillor. This was confirmed at the next Full Council, which members of Somerset Independents observed. 

At the Full Council meeting, Councillor Buller made a series of telling contributions to hold her former party's councillors to account.

---

UPDATE (10/12/20) VICTORY at Galmington Playing Fields!

As reported by the Somerset County Gazette, and by us on our live-tweet (subject to serious problems caused to reporters and members of the public by the Council's live feed - see below), the campaign to save Galmington Playing Fields from more development has been won!

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope says:

Campaigner Andrew Pope

"We are delighted with the result, as we have supported the Friends for some time after they contacted us earlier this year. We have congratulated them on their victory, and how they conducted their campaign.

The Liberal Democrat Leadership of Somerset West and Taunton Council have a lot of questions to answer - about how this happened and about their failing Council as we have laid out on this website.

They should never have brought this up and even their own councillors voted against this terrible proposal. In total, 44 councillors voted against!

But the way the meeting was conducted was shocking. I and other members of the public could not observe or hear what was happening. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

Not only must justice be done. It must be seen to be done."

The Chair of the Friends Campaign Andrew Sharman - who spoke at the meeting but then like us, other members of the public and Local Democracy Reporter Daniel Mumby from SomersetLive could not hear the debate - told us this morning:

"The debacle of the tech and the bizarre behaviour of the leadership was incredible, I’ve never seen anything like it! They have to step down, they’re completely out of their depth!

Thank you for your advice and support on this, keep on keeping on!"

 

UPDATE (8/12/20): Fib Dems Fibbing AGAIN!

Prior to tonight's crunch Council meeting, Somerset West and Taunton Liberal Democrat councillors have refused to give Somerset Independents any commitment to meet their manifesto and leaflet pledges to protect Galmington Playing Fields in the 2019 District Council elections. 

Here is a shocking example of their failure to meet their election promises, and how they are feeling the heat, from Lib Dem Councillor Sarah Wakefield, councillor for Trull, Pitminster and Corfe. When we asked her how she would vote, the leaflet promises seem to be irrelevant:

"Why don’t you just listen to the debate and stop trying to intimidate full and reasoned consideration of the matter by all Councillors this evening on an issue on where we have all been given a free vote."

And Somerset West and Taunton Tories, who were in control of both predecessor councils, have criticised the Lib Dem Administration but given no indication of how they will vote either!

Andrew Pope says:

"It's the notorious fibbers, the Fib Dems, fibbing again and being non-committal! Like the Tories and Labour, they make whatever promises they want to get elected, and then go back on them!

Like we have said many times before - in Somerset, whether it is a Lib Dem, Labour or a Tory, it is the same old story. And it's local residents who are let down by these Westminster parties.

Somerset Independents members are also investigating how officers at this Council have gone about this process. Councillors are uneasy about how this process has been handled.

We have asked all councillors to support local residents and protect the Playing Fields from even more development. It's been carved up enough!

We will be watching them very closely at tonight's meeting, and noting how they vote and reporting it back to residents."

More to follow...

---

The disastrous Council merger of West Somerset District Council and Taunton Deane Borough Council went ahead without a Referendum of local residents. But it is us residents that they are supposed to listen to, and to serve!

Eighteen months later, and with the Lib Dems with the number of councillors elected to be "in control" of the resulting Somerset West and Taunton Council, the Council is still failing and has already lost millions of taxpayers' money - YOUR money. It appears that they are no better than the previous Tories.

As reported by The Leveller:

"The savings that were supposed to come from the merger now look increasingly unlikely... with an extra cost of £2.7m... There would be no choice but to employ additional staff and use agency staff that would then offset the anticipated on-going revenue savings"

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope, says:

 

Andrew Pope

"So millions that could have been spent on the RIGHT things, such as public services for the benefit of local residents, have instead been spent on the WRONG things - the redundancy of public servants.

 

Not only has public money been lost, services to the public have also been lost and jobs have been lost.

And it was all done under the pretence and lies by the Somerset Tories who led the abolished councils of the "savings" of the merger. Yet the Lib Dems are no better.

 

As stated in The Leveller article, the Lib Dem Council Leader of Somerset West and Taunton Council, Councillor Federica Smith-Roberts, is "sanguine" about it. She has made the usual statement about lessons being learned - does she really mean it? 

Let's hope so, but the continuing failures of her Council - on Tonedale Mill, on building on Galmington Playing Fields and on opposing DBS checks for councillors - suggest that she is carrying on making the same mistakes as the Tories.

Does the story of false claims by Lib Dems or Tories sound familiar? Yes, it's another case of Lib Dems or Tory, same old story. And it's Somerset's residents that pay!

Somerset Independents has been campaigning loudly for a Referendum before any further changes are made to the councils in Somerset, and how we as Somerset residents are governed.

But neither the Somerset Tories at the County Council nor the Somerset Lib Dems on the District Councils have backed our call for a public vote.

In fact, they have stood in the way of having a public vote.

 

This is because they don't want to ask us residents - because they can't defend what they want to do to us!

The Lib Dems, when in control of the County in 2007, wanted a unitary authority - but didn't want to ask residents. But the other Lib Dems in the districts back then - used taxpayers money to ask taxpayers what they think - and 82% of residents voted AGAINST a unitary authority in the postal poll in 2007.

The Tories, who are now in control of the County, want a unitary authority. They recently voted to extend their election terms and keep you paying their councillors allowances - all without any public vote and to also cancel the 2021 County Council elections. The Tories are running scared because they know they are going to take a beating like they did in 2019.

And the Lib Dems on the districts also want a unitary authority - or rather two. But the Tories on Sedgemoor District Council also say they want two unitary authorities.

BUT NONE OF THEM WANT TO ASK YOU WHAT YOU THINK IN A PUBLIC VOTE. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU AND SAYING THAT ANY POLL IS NOT ALLOWED BY GOVERNMENT.

They need to exercise some leadership and do a poll - whether by post or online.

Or they need to delay any changes until a public poll can be held.

There are local elections in May 2021. That is the time when the public can be asked.

The public MUST be asked in a public vote.

If the public aren't asked then, and a repeat of the disastrous council merger is made, with more public services lost, local democracy lost and more taxpayers' millions lost, then all those councillors need to be removed by the public who they are supposed to serve.

 

And it really will be another case of Lib Dems or Tory, same old story."

Standing Up For Residents

UPDATED (25/3/21): PCC Responds - Does the Police Commissioner think the Nolan Principles Are Optional?

Police Commissioner Sue Mountstevens
on her Office's website

UPDATE (25/3/21): Ms Mountstevens' answers are now on the article here.

We are about to publish more details of what the PCC said, when we asked her those questions late in 2020. Quite a bit has happened since then, including the increases to the Police Budget and the council tax including increases which our Leader Andrew Pope opposed, but which the Police and Crime Panel of party politicians approved. 

We know that John Smith, Ms Mountstevens' endorsed "Independent" candidate to replace her at this May's PCC election, is reading our publications, because he is now following our Twitter account.

So far, Mr Smith has not provided any response on the complaints or the situation facing the PCC and the PCC's office. An office which he headed as Chief Executive. He was appointed under a cloud of controversy, by Ms Mountstevens.

Let us not forget, Ms Mountstevens has repeatedly claimed that she wanted to keep politics out of policing.

That has not happened. Ms Mountstevens has brought politics into policing.

We will be asking ALL declared PCC candidates to respond.

---

UPDATE (19/12/20): We have now received a written response from Sue Mountstevens. At first glance, many of the issues that we have raised, have not been properly answered or addressed. This includes the investigation but also many other important and urgent items. Many of the answers are evasive and employ passing the buck.

We will be reviewing the response again, and will provide a further update.

Because of this, we are now seriously considering whether to stand a candidate against Sue Mountstevens' endorsed candidate, John Smith. If he is reading this, perhaps he might like to let us know what he thought of the situation.

Update to follow...

---

Somerset Independents was formed because the Westminster parties - Lib Dems, Tories, Labour and Greens - continue to let Somerset down.

Somerset Independents works with residents to promote independent candidates and independent representatives.

Somerset Independents will do this, as long as candidates are properly vetted and uphold certain values and principles.

True Independents Or Not?

Sadly, since our formation in 2020, we have had to challenge so-called independents who are not. Our definition of what is an independent representative and what is not is at this link here. This definition has stood up to challenge well, but if you disagree, please get in touch.

Councillors such as Mendip District Councillor Helen Sprawson-White, whose independence we challenged over several months, told us in writing that she had no intention of joining a political party, including the Lib Dems who she had left. This was despite claiming to be an "independent" councillor, yet endorsing in writing Adam Boyden, the Liberal Democrat Candidate for Somerton and Frome. 

Soon after our challenges to her, Sprawson-White joined the Lib Dems which handed control of the Council to the Lib Dems. Then she was rewarded with remaining as Chair of the Council, a position of power which attracts extra money in her allowance from the Council. Usually a Chair is only for one year. How convenient.

Another councillor that we have challenged is Somerset West and Taunton Councillor Mike Rigby, who was an independent, and then joined the Lib Dems. Soon after, he was elevated to the Cabinet of the Council, a position of power and which also attracts extra money in his allowance from the Council. How convenient.

What are the Nolan Principles?

Recently, our Leader Andrew Pope spoke at the Full Council of Mendip District Council, on the Nolan Principles. These are also known as "The Seven Principles of Public Life" and are now 25 years old. Andrew's speech is on this website and it lists the principles. More information on the Nolan Principles is on the website of the Committee for Standards in Public Life.

As reported on this website, Mendip District Council is being investigated by the External Auditor, Ernst and Young, for breaching "openness and transparency", in relation to its property investment. This investigation was began after members of Somerset Independents provided evidence to Ernst and Young.

All public servants are supposed to be bound by the Nolan Principles. Yet at Mendip District Council, it appears to be optional. And elsewhere too, as noted by Lord Evans, the Chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life.

So what of so-called "independent" elected representatives? How can you tell whether they are what they claim to be?

One of the Nolan Principles is selflessness.

Being rewarded financially and with power, after joining a political party, is not only the opposite of selflessness, it disobeys other of the seven Nolan Principles.

Where Somerset Independents sees those Principles being breached, we will challenge those who we think are responsible. If they are party politicians, then we will challenge them. If they are so-called independents, we will challenge them too. 

We are consistent and when residents contact us with information or concerns, we will listen and we will act.

So What About the Police and Crime Commissioner?

So we now turn to Sue Mountstevens, the "independent" Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Avon and Somerset.

We have become increasingly concerned at her performance in overseeing the Police.

We have become increasingly concerned at the potential for the reputations of "independents" being tarnished.

And we have seen and heard that a large number of Somerset residents are pretty clear that they are dissatisfied with the performance of the Police.

Ms Mountstevens is supposed to be accountable for this, as an elected representative of the people of Somerset.

Ms Mountstevens was elected twice as an independent candidate for PCC.

But as we have pointed out to her in a letter this week, Ms Mountstevens was NOT a Somerset Independents candidate. Somerset Independents did not even exist when she was elected.

Earlier this week, our Leader Andrew Pope wrote formally to Ms Mountstevens with a long letter, asking a series of questions and challenging her robustly.

We await her answers. We also copied in all members of the Police and Crime Panel, who are there to hold the Police and Crime Commissioner to account.

One of the questions is copied, verbatim, below:

"Parliament postponed the 2020 PCC Elections, leading to you staying on. Residents and members of the Police and Crime Panel have expressed concern regarding the appointment of the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner as reported by the BBC¹. We share the concerns expressed about the Chief Constable appearing to endorse the Deputy, especially as you also endorsed Mr Smith as a candidate for the postponed 2020 PCC elections.

Please could you explain how and why you allowed this chain of events to occur, and whether and why you think that you have upheld the Nolan Principles in doing so, including reference to your Joint Governance Framework Policy document mentioned above?

1 BBC, “Boundaries 'blurred' over Avon and Somerset deputy PCC appointment”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-52527988, 6^th May 2020

 

Then later during the week, a source close the Police and Crime Panel brought our attention to  the BBC reporting "'Transparency failings' in Avon and Somerset deputy PCC appointment".

Our Leader and Spokesperson for Police and Crime, Andrew Pope, says:

Andrew Pope

"Does the PCC think the Nolan Principles Are Optional? It appears so.

Somerset Independents is extremely concerned at the contents of the BBC report this week, and the findings against Sue Mountstevens.

In the BBC report, it states that: "Avon and Somerset PCC Sue Mountstevens controversially appointed John Smith, who had previously worked in her department, to the post in May."

We were alerted by a Somerset resident to the BBC report, after we had stated publicly, via our Twitter account, that we were asking questions of Ms Mountstevens.

We are also extremely concerned at the report by the Sub-Group of the Police and Crime Panel of three people - one Liberal Democrat councillor, one Conservative councillor, and an Independent Panel member. It mentions serial breaches of transparency. This is not a once-off.

We do not know whether our letter triggered the BBC report. But it does seem to be a remarkable coincidence that it was published this week when the report by the Sub-Group, which was dated September 2020, was quietly published two months ago, in the backwaters of the World Wide Web.

We will await the answers to our letter from Ms Mountstevens. We will give her a chance to respond.

However, on the face of the findings by the Sub-Group, it appears that Ms Mountstevens needs to be reminded of the Nolan Principles.

That is not a position in which a truly independent public servant should be.

Therefore if Ms Mountstevens stands in the postponed PCC elections, or Mr Smith, who she has endorsed as her successor, stands in the postponed 2021 PCC elections instead, we will be forced to consider whether to stand a Somerset Independents candidate against them as a truly independent candidate for PCC.

However, we will await the answers to our questions and see what transpires now at the Police and Crime Panel. We believe that Ms Mountstevens should be given the opportunity to respond in writing to us, before making our decision."

Standing Up For Somerset Residents

 

Mendip District Council Thinks The Nolan Principles Are Optional!

Andrew Pope
Mendip South Candidate
for Somerset County Council

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope, is also our Candidate for the Mendip South division on Somerset County Council at the 2021 Elections.

Andrew spoke at the 9th November 2020 Mendip District Council Full Council meeting, to remind them of their obligations under the Nolan Principles. All public servants are required to adhere to the Principles, which were originally stated 25 years ago.

Andrew also attacked Mendip District Council for not adhering to the Nolan Principles in relation to its property investment and the proposed development of social housing at Easthill, From. The chief legal officer wrote to Andrew this year to say that the Nolan Principles were not part of the code of conduct. An incorrect and outrageous assertion.

His speech can be heard on the recording on the Mendip District Council website here.

The speech is also transcribed below.

"Good Evening! I am Andrew Pope, Leader of Somerset Independents, Somerset’s newest and only dedicated and registered political party.

I speak tonight on the 7 Principles of Public Life, also known as the Nolan Principles, which councillors and officers in public life, should live, breath and practice. They are:

    selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership

Lord Jonathan Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, recently reflected on the 25th Anniversary of the Nolan Principles, by saying:

“It’s clear that some of these elements are more developed in some areas of public life than others.”

So how “developed” are the Nolan Principles at Mendip District Council, and do you know what the expected standards of behaviour are? I suggest to you that behaviour and culture are not developed, in light of the fact that both the Deputy Monitoring Officer and Monitoring Officer have told me in writing, and I quote in response to a Formal Complaint I submitted on a Mendip District Councillor.

They said: “With regard to the Nolan Principles, they are exactly that and underpin the code of conduct but are not part of the code.”

A bit of a surprise to me that was. That might explain perhaps that the investigation was not conducted properly because of this, and the Councillor escaped the sanctions that should have followed a proper investigation. Let’s be absolutely clear – the Nolan Principles ARE part of all councils’ codes of conduct. They relate to ALL public servants.

Allow me to give you an example of why the Nolan Principles are so important to the people of Somerset – indeed across England, as the law is the same, yet councils like yours think that it isn’t!

In 2013, I was a Councillor in Southampton City Council and the Leader of the Council had to resign because he breached the Nolan Principles after an investigation.

So, if you haven’t understood why I tell you that story and you still ask what has this got to do with you, then you have been misled by Mendip District Council and its poor quality of organisational culture and behaviour. It is a culture and behaviour which, as a result of investigations under the 2014 Regulations by members of Somerset Indepedents, has now resulted in an investigation by the External Auditor Ernst and Young into two of the Nolan Principles – openness and transparency, in relation to the Council’s policy of property investment.

And as we’ve heard this evening, just look at the Easthill development in Frome, the decision happening behind closed doors.

What makes Mendip District Council so special, councillors? What do you have to hide? A lot, it seems.

You need to make sure that those Nolan Principles are at the heart of everything you do.

And that needs to start now.

Thank you very much for listening."

UPDATE (6/2/21): Easthill Frome - Councillor Resignation at "Farcical" Mendip District Council Meeting

 

Lib Dems "Run" Mendip Council

UPDATE (6/2/21): Now includes links to Somerset Independents, SomersetLive and Private Eye articles relating to Mendip District Council and Frome.

Members of Somerset Independents attended last night's Mendip District Council Scrutiny meeting (Monday 16th Nov 2020). The meeting was run virtually (link here to the Microsoft Teams recording). 

The meeting may well go down in history as one of the most chaotic in a Somerset council.

The Scrutiny Board is supposed to hold the Lib Dem-run "Cabinet" or "Executive" to account. But it does not, and it has not. During the meeting, even the Chair and former Chair (Lib Dem Councillor Damon Hooton) admitted that it does not do this - whether Lib Dems or Tories are in control of the Council.

Then the Chair, Councillor Philip Ham, quit, saying it was "ludicrous" and "farcical". It is the same Cllr Ham mentioned by Private Eye in relation to his planning application and land near Sandys Hill Lane, also in Frome.

Easthill, Frome
Isn't this beautiful?
(pictures used with permission of owner)

Residents local to Easthill spoke at the meeting. Somerset Independents is standing with them against this disgraceful development.

Denise Wyatt

Our County Council Candidate for Frome Denise Wyatt spoke to support them in their campaign to stop the Lib Dem-controlled Mendip District Council from building 77 dwellings on this prized haven for flora and fauna. Denise's speech is at this link here.

What Denise said has also been reported by Daniel Mumby via the Somerset County Gazette here. In response to Denise and the local residents who also spoke, the Council Leader, Lib Dem Councillor Ros Wyke, spouted her usual meaningless platitudes such as: "My administration wants to listen and reflect" and "We welcome transparency".

Councillor Wyke's claims go against the evidence. The Council's External Auditor Ernst and Young is conducting an investigation into the evidence that Somerset Independents has provided that Mendip District Council's property investment is lacking openness and transparency!

Leader of Somerset Independents, Andrew Pope, who spoke against the development at last week's Full Council meeting, to support local residents (speech at this link here), says now:

Andrew Pope

"Somerset Independents was formed to stand up for Somerset residents, and to stand up for wildlife. Since we learned of Mendip District Council's plans and local residents' outrage and surprise, we have supported the residents in their fight.

Somerset Independents live-tweeted from the meeting, so you can go and read what happened on our Twitter feed here.

The meeting was a shambles. As we live-tweeted, and as reported by BBC Radio Somerset today, the Chair of the Scrutiny Board, Tory Councillor Philip Ham, resigned as Chair. The former Chair Lib Dem Damon Hooton, who is now Chair of the Planning Board, told him to "suck it up"! What a disgrace!

There was very little proper order or control, with Vice-Chair Councillor Chris Inchley forced to chair the meeting when Councillor Ham quit.

Councillors spoke over each other and there was no proper debate because Lib Dem Councillor Sam Phripp and other councillors supported his bad idea that there be no debate at this meeting.

The whole point of the meeting was to listen to residents' concerns. Instead of doing that, the Lib Dem, Tory and Green councillors bickered amongst themselves and the Lib Dem councillors tried to stop debate. That's why we don't like the Westminster parties - the Lib Dems and Greens put themselves ahead of residents in their dodgy backroom deals. The Mendip Tories' form of opposition is also pathetic.

Why don't the Mendip Greens and Tories provide proper opposition?

What was the "informal" arrangement between the Lib Dems and Greens that Green Group Leader Councillor Shane Collins admitted to the BBC's David Garmston live on TV in 2019, just after the Mendip Council elections?

Was it a coincidence that in so many Mendip wards, the Lib Dems and Greens did not stand against each other? NO!

It was another dodgy backroom deal, just like Easthill, but this time, instead of the integrity of the elections, its residents and wildlife who are losing out! I thought the Greens were supposed to fight for wildlife, not have housing built on it! All the while, brownfield sites like Saxonvale remain derelict! We've spoken out on that too!

All the evidence points towards an electoral pact, and hidden deals between the Lib Dems and Greens, but did they tell the public? No. We've asked them to but they have refused. 

Did they tell the local residents that a vote for a Green was a vote for Lib Dem and vice versa? NO!

The public need to know what the Lib Dem-Green deal was! Since then, the Greens have gone easy on the Lib Dems - with all Green councillors even voting for the Lib Dem budget.

They've gone easy on the Lib Dems on Easthill too. Why? They are supposed to be in opposition, not in a cosy cartel!

Councillor Philip Ham summed the Scrutiny meeting up when he said it was "Farcical". He quit because he said that the Scrutiny Board was once again being stopped from doing its job of scrutinising the Council. He was right!

The Somerset Lib Dems don't like being challenged and they have regularly ignored members of the public, including members of Somerset Independents, when they have spoken at their meetings. Green and Tory councillors at those meetings also ignored our representations on behalf of Somerset residents. We even chased them up.

So it's no surprise that the Lib Dems don't want to listen to Easthill residents either.

We will continue to stand up and stand with these residents and with the wildlife. As Denise said when she spoke, this development must be stopped by Mendip District Council.

Denise has confirmed with the Council directly that the land has NOT been sold yet. They must not sell it. It must be saved for Frome."

 

Easthill, Frome

 

Denise Wyatt Speaks Up for Frome Residents

 

Denise Wyatt

At last night's Mendip District Council Scrutiny meeting, our Frome County Council Candidate Denise Wyatt spoke.

Denise stood up for residents of Easthill who are opposed to 77 social housing dwellings being built on the beautiful wildlife haven there. Somerset Independents is standing up for them.

Easthill, Frome

The Lib Dem-run Mendip District Council Cabinet already agreed to sell the land to Aster, the social housing provider.

We agree with residents that this site is the wrong place for social housing, especially whilst sites like Saxonvale remain derelict.

Denise's speech is below:

"What took Mendip District Council so long to spend this funding? They've had two years! Why the secrecy?
Members of Somerset Independents have been investigating Mendip District Council.  Our investigations have led to the External Auditor, Ernst and Young investigating this Council’s lack of openness and transparency in its purchase of commercial properties.
The Councils Monitoring Officer, as my colleague Andrew Pope said at the last Council meeting, does not even think that the Nolan Principles are part of the councillor’s code of conduct.
So it comes as absolutely no surprise that this Council is not being open in its decision-making at Easthill. No wonder residents are so unhappy.
I was astonished when watching the Cabinet meeting, that Cllr Janine Nash, did not raise questions at Cabinet, about local residents concerns, and on wild life at Easthill. Was this because as someone said to me, she is probably worried about being “drummed out of the brownies”- the Liberal Democrats?
You can resign from the Liberal Democrats Cllr Nash and still remain a councillor.
The main reason that the Council are pushing for this site to progress so quickly and without proper process and openness, is because they will lose funding.   


I quote from a Cabinet Report of July this year.
“ Approximately £570,000 of Land Release Fund,  grant remains unspent, and Mendip could be at risk of losing this money, if a programme to deliver housing is not agreed, implemented and demonstrable progress, made by the end of 2020. “
The Council have had two years to spend this money. So why hasn’t it?  The Council is now in a panic to spend the money by the end of December.
So the environment and wildlife of Easthill is to be sacrificed and built on because of the incompetence of the Council.
This is why the rush and lack of consultation and why the Council has failed to be open and transparent.
I had it confirmed by the Monitoring Officer just before 5pm this evening that the land at Easthill has not yet been sold. The land is still within the Councils ownership.
So I ask councillors, that you, tonight amend the proposed recommendations on the report, which you can, as you can ask Cabinet anything.

Ignore Councillor Wyke, and request the Cabinet to reverse its decision on Easthill and remove it from the house building programme.

What took Mendip District Council so long to spend this funding? They've had two years! Why the secrecy?
Because this Council is incompetent and
Because this Council appears to disregard the Nolan principles."

Leader of Somerset Independents and Mendip South Council Candidate Andrew Pope also spoke in support of local residents at last week's Full Council meeting of Mendip District Council. His speech is here.

Easthill, Frome

Independents across England Raise Alarm on "Stalinist" Government Trojan Horse

 

England's Green and Pleasant Land
UNDER THREAT

 

Denise Wyatt, Planning Spokesperson for Somerset Independents says:

Denise Wyatt

"The Conservative Government has put forward a Planning White Paper. What this means is that they want to change how planning works in England. The proposals look disastrous, and are a blatant Stalinist attack on residents' democratic rights under the Trojan Horse of promoting those very same rights.

Our friends in Lincolnshire at Lincolnshire Independents have submitted their response and published it on their website. 

Somerset Independents is now publishing its response, submitted before the deadline two weeks ago. It includes our promotion of MORE, not LESS democracy, including the right of appeal for residents on planning applications, I have long thought that it is wrong that developers have this right but residents do not.

We have no doubt that other independent groups share our concerns. Whilst all independents will not agree on every aspect, there is a great amount of common ground, and the excellent Lincolnshire response covers that common ground.

Will the Tory Government listen? I doubt it, but it is worth a try!

Let us know what you think of our response by contacting us."

"Response to Planning White Paper Consultation from Somerset Independents

29^th October 2020

This Planning White Paper is a Trojan Horse for development without local democracy and without local accountability. It is a cynical ploy to exploit Covid-19 and to blindside the public. It must be scrapped without delay. If it is not, then the public will know that this Government wants to centralise decision-making in a Stalinist coup.

This Planning White Paper is a manifesto for development and developers that claims that more of the public will be involved in the planning process. Yet more public involvement is a pretence of this Planning White Paper. The White Paper is a smokescreen for dishing out contracts to PropTech and GIS firms (p.26 et al) that have already failed to provide mapping systems for the public to be able to participate in the planning process.

The current local plan process does not involve the public. There is more than enough evidence here in Somerset. Putting more emphasis on the local plan part, and less emphasis on the individual applications, would exclude even more people than is the case now. It is unacceptable already.

Somerset Independents agree with our colleagues in Lincolnshire Independents that house-building targets are too high to protect our environment and too high to tackle climate change. Such high targets already mean that the local plans are regularly ignored or sidelined by the councils, because the pressure is too much. And these targets being “nationally-determined, binding” (p.23) is wrong. They should be locally-determined in a democracy. The proposals smack of the Soviet Union, not the UK. Yet this Government seems to enjoy promoting its autocratic and centralising tendencies (we reference Lady Hale’s recent comments on this) that have failed our country on Brexit, on the Supreme Court judgement on suspending Parliament, and on Covid-19. It should not make the same mistakes with the planning system.

The problems that already exist with the current planning system that exclude over 90% of residents would be exacerbated by this Planning White Paper. Power must not be taken away from local residents. They need to be given more power. But this Planning White Paper does not do that. Instead, it pretends that “going digital” will magically fix this, but the same people will continue to be involved and the very large majority will continue to be ignored or excluded.

The claim in the White Paper that it is the planning system that puts “delay” in, is just nonsense. The current involvement of the public is appropriate and time deadlines are appropriate (8 or 13 weeks) but public participation needs to be increased, not decreased as proposed in this anti-democratic White Paper. The vast majority of applications are approved without committee and without public participation. If anything, the number with public participation needs to be increased, with more involvement of the public, not increased. Yet this White Paper excludes the public more.

Site notices, notices in newspapers and notifications of local residents need to be expanded at the application stage, because public participation is already not enough. Any new digital methods of involvement need to be done as well as the existing arrangements, not instead of (p.24). How many times have residents complained that they were not told about a development? This is the normal feeling in the current system. We have had to fill in for the failing planning process, in order to involve the public but such public participation should be part of the system, not an adjunct to it.

Any involvement of the public must now allow for virtual meetings in the planning process (p.24). With safeguards on thresholds, any change to the planning system must now also allow for groups of residents to send applications to the Planning Inspectorate as an appeal. This would make the system fairer than it is now, with only applicants being able to appeal.

The centralising tendency of this Government is clear again (p.24) when it says “The Infrastructure Levy will be more transparent than Section 106, and local communities will have more control over how it is spent.” Yet it is not clear how a nationally-determined Levy, which appears to be suggested in the White Paper, can be locally-decided.

Again, we agree with our colleagues in Lincolnshire Independents that “the Government’s squeeze on local councils now extends to centralising planning in a framework where local decision-making could become a thing of the past and leave local residents without a proper voice on applications”. This is why we have described this Planning White Paper as “Stalinist”. It would suit the Soviet Union command economy, instead of a democracy where local residents are listened to and their concerns acted upon.

On the environment, on food security and on climate change, brownfield sites plus wildlife corridors plus agricultural sites must be prioritised. Already in the current system, they are not. And this White Paper does not address this.

For example, Mendip District Council has approved the Sandys Hill Lane development in Frome on farm land, but still the Saxonvale brownfield site remainsderelict. There are many other examples of divergence from the local plan. So this White Paper, by excluding even more of the public from the entire process, would make this problem even worse, when it should be ensuring that it is made better.

Conflicts of interest amongst councillors are not managed in the current system. Somerset Independents has made representations to the LGA on their consultation on Councillors Code of Conduct. And developments that local residents do not want, are given the go-ahead by councillors that are closely linked with developers. Is this what the Government wants? If this White Paper goes ahead, it will confirm that the Government does want an anti-democratic system to be promoted and made worse.

This Planning White Paper is a Trojan Horse for development without local democracy and without local accountability. It is a cynical ploy to exploit Covid-19 and to blindside the public from what they entitled to – greater involvement in their local area and local democracy.

For the above reasons, now is not the time to be changing the planning system. This Stalinist Planning White Paper should be scrapped and more democratic alternatives that address the real issues brought forward instead."