Sink, Britain, Sink! – the cost of privatising water management

Tags

co-operation, co-ordination, commercial, companies, company, competition, cost, council, DEFRA, delay, Department, disease, divert, drain, drought, environment, extraction, farm, firm, flood, food, government, healthcare, house, housing, integrate, land, local authority, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, money, National Health Service, NHS, overcrowding, plain, plan, planning, policy, possessions, private, profit, rain, reservoir, river, rural affairs, sewer, storage, Vox Political, water

– This is a song by a local musician, here in Mid Wales, written during the last serious flooding. I make no apologies for opportunistically linking to it as it says a few choice words about the situation and the government.

“And the rains came down, and the floods came up” – The Wise Man and the Foolish Man (Southern Folk Song).

Some of you may have noticed we’ve had a few spots of wet weather recently. This is nothing new to our island nation.

The trouble is, having fallen on us all, the water hasn’t had the decency to clear off and drain away. Instead, it has built up and up and caused a huge amount of flood damage to land and houses that were not built in a safe place, as in the song lyric quoted above, but in flood plains.

This is a result of bad planning – by water and sewerage companies that have failed to implement successful drainage schemes or to divert floodwater from rivers in order to prevent overflow, and by planning authorities that have allowed housing to be built in the wrong place.

What were they thinking?

My guess is that the water companies were thinking about the money, and planning authorities wanted to ease overcrowding.

We live in a country where management of the water supply went into private hands several decades ago. When that happened, it became impossible to have any kind of integrated plan to deal with the supply of water, droughts, floods and storage. Water supply became a commodity to be bought and sold by rich people according to the golden rules of capitalism: Invest the minimum; charge the maximum.

So reservoirs have been sold off to foreign water companies, meaning we have no adequate response to droughts. None have been built, meaning we have no adequate response to floods. Concerns about river flooding have been neglected. There has not been the investment in extraction and storage of floodwater that repeated incidents over the last few years have demanded.

The government is reducing its budget for handling these issues. Not only that, but it is delaying implementation of a new policy on drainage.

This would be regulated by local authorities, who have responsibility for planning approvals. Some might say these authorities should have had a little more forethought before granting applications to build on flood plains, or for adaptations to existing properties that have prevented water from draining into the soil and sent it down drains instead, to overload the sewer system.

Some of these are matters of necessity: Planning officers may have gone to the limit of what is allowed, in order to allow housing developments that relieve the burden of overcrowding; in other matters, they may have been unable to apply any legal restrictions on applications.

In short, there is no joined-up thinking.

There will be no joined-up thinking in the future, either – unless the situation is changed radically.

Meanwhile, the cost racked up by the damage is huge – in ruined farmland, in ruined homes and possessions, and blighted lives. And what about the risk of disease that floodwater brings with it? The NHS in England is ill-equipped to deal with any outbreaks, being seriously weakened by the government-sponsored incursions of private, cheap-and-simple health firms.

Something has to give beneath the weight of all this floodwater. Change is vital – from commercial competition to co-operation and co-ordination.

Privatisation of water has failed. It’s time to bring it back under public control.

Is anyone opposed?

Support Vox Political before it sinks without trace!
The site needs YOUR help to continue.
You can make a one-off donation here:

Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book,
Strong Words and Hard Times
in either print or eBook format here:

Osborne update: Standards commissioner ignores the facts

Tags

account, code, commissioner, conduct, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, harrop fold, house, inquiry, Interest, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, Parliamentary, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Vox Political

Oily Osborne has slithered away from any chance of a fraud investigation by the standards commissioner, but he will have to live with the allegation for the rest of his career.

I believe I am one of many who received an email from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards yesterday, turning down the call for an inquiry into possible expenses fraud by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Those of you who received it will be familiar with the wording. For those who didn’t, the relevant parts run as follows:

“The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.   “As you know, before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.”

Mine continued: “I am afraid I am unable to say what the police meant by their comments,” referring to my complaint to the Metropolitan Police and the strange response that it was being investigated elsewhere.

My first reaction was: How much evidence does the commissioner need? If he’s a villain, he’s hardly likely to sign a confession! We know Osborne claimed against his mortgage on the property in Cheshire and we know that the mortgage was for three land titles, not one. Therefore we deduce that he claimed money for Parliamentary duties taking place on at least two pieces of land where such duties could never have taken place, and the prima facie evidence (as the police would say) suggests further investigation is required.

Do we even have proof that Osborne ever actually used the Cheshire farmhouse to carry out Parliamentary duties? Whenever I have claimed expenses for a job, I have always had to produce proof of it. How has he used that house? When did he use that house? Where is the proof? If he met constituents, my understanding is that he used the Conservative office in the same building as the local Conservative Club (which is to close through lack of funding; interesting that Osborne is making out like a bandit while his local party suffers). Could he have travelled up from London, held those meetings, and travelled back within the same day? If so, then the farmhouse and the two pieces of land are now looking increasingly like long-term investments, maintained at cost to the taxpayer, that were to be sold at a later date for huge profit (as, in fact, they were).

Second reaction was: If the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner cannot investigate an open-and-shut fraud case (which is what this is) then what is the point of the office as it currently stands? On balance, it seems likely that Members of Parliament can continue to commit abuses of public money – and trust – and get away, free as a bird, in the current system. Therefore, with this decision it seems the commissioner, who only took up the post this month, is attempting a tacit resignation from it.

Let’s have a standards watchdog that actually investigates and prevents abuses, shall we? Maybe I’ll start an e-petition.

Third reaction was: Without a full and frank investigation, Osborne will always stand accused of expenses fraud and of abusing the trust placed in him as a member of Parliament. So, in fact, the commissioner has done him a great disservice. Mud always sticks, as the old saying goes. There’s no smoke without fire.

There’s no stink without a stinker, and in this case the odour can emanate from nobody else but Osborne.

He’ll never be able to live it down. And he’ll never be able to say that nobody raised the issue, because we have.

I think I might have a bit more work to do. For Osborne himself, as Churchill once said, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Osborne update – are they kicking his paddock into the long grass?

Tags

account, code, commissioner, conduct, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, harrop fold, house, inquiry, Interest, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, Parliamentary, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Vox Political

Is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards going to let Osborne get away with using taxpayers’ money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits? Only you can make him think again. It seems clear that if he committed fraud he should be jailed.

Efforts to find out exactly why George Osborne was allowed to make up to £1 million by using taxpayers’ money to pay mortgage interest on three properties in Cheshire, while fraudulently claiming he needed it to pay expenses for his use of just one of them for Parliamentary duties, appear to have run into difficulty.

I received this letter from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards:

“Thank you for your letter… to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.

“I hope it will be helpful if I explain the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach of both the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House only if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry.

“Your letter suggests that criminal conduct may have occurred. Any allegations of criminal behaviour would be a matter for the police, not for the Commissioner, and I note that you have reported this matter to them. Any police investigation would take precedence over the Commissioner’s inquiries.”

That’s not good enough, is it?

It makes no mention of what the commissioner is doing about the complaint and merely runs over ground that has been covered already, via email.

I decided to try again, as follows:

“Thank you for your letter… regarding my complaint.

“I notice that you do not mention anywhere in your reply whether the commissioner is going to investigate this matter or not. However you do, helpfully, state that the commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach “if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry”.

“You will know that a previous inquiry was made into the status of Mr Osborne’s former property in Cheshire after concern was raised about his claim for expenses regarding Parliamentary duties he allegedly carried out at a house there.

“This is a separate complaint.

“As you will know from my previous letter, Mr Osborne claimed expenses, not only for the house but for two other land titles which were also part of his mortgage. These pieces of land could not have anything to do with his Parliamentary business and yet his claim included them. Therefore, his claim was fraudulent – he was stating that it was for one thing – Parliamentary duties – when in fact it was for another – to pay off, at the taxpayers’ expense, a mortgage he had taken out for a considerable amount of money. We have subsequently discovered that Mr Osborne has sold all three properties for an amount that could be more than double the price he originally paid for them – up to £1 million – and kept the entire amount. I have provided ample evidence to support the above statements.

“This is a scandalous matter. A member of the Cabinet – the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no less! – diverting taxpayers’ money under false pretences in order to gain a pecuniary advantage of up to £1 million. And at a time when millions of people are having to make the choice between staying warm and eating!

“It may interest you to know that many right-thinking citizens of the UK are also scandalised by this matter and wish to see it resolved and justice done. Articles I have written have attracted the support of around 5,000 readers and they all want to know what will be done about this. I appreciate that, in the context of a nation of 60 million people, 5,000 is not a great number. However you should bear in mind that I occupy only a very small corner of the UK’s media. If my platform had been more high-profile, you can be assured that many more people would be calling for justice in this matter.

“You also refer to the fact that I have reported this matter to the police. This is true. But I must inform you that I received a strange telephone call from the Metropolitan Police, stating that they could not investigate the matter directly as an investigation was already in progress, being handled by others. They declined to explain what they meant. Can you tell me what they meant? I wrote to my MP, seeking clarification, but he has not yet responded.

“Taken as a whole, and writing as a right-thinking person myself, I have to wonder whether attempts are being made to obscure this matter – cover it up, hide it away. Your letter is a case in point. Why do you not tell me outright what the commissioner has decided?

“It all seems very suspicious to me.”

Does anyone feel like supporting this complaint? Just email standardscommissioner@parliament.uk and say you are aware a complaint has been made about George Osborne’s expenses claims for the property in Cheshire he recently sold, and that you wish to know when the inquiry will be set up and how matters are progressing. If enough people shout about it, maybe they’ll shift.  

Osborne update: Information sent to Standards Commissioner

Tags

account, code, commissioner, conduct, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, harrop fold, house, inquiry, Interest, land registry, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, paddock, Parliamentary, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Vox Political

He thinks he can get away with using taxpayers’ money in a get-rich-quick property scheme, and then pocketing the profits. It seems clear that he committed fraud. He should be jailed.

Dear ——- —-,

Thank you for your email of December 20, and for replying to my complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP so promptly.

Herewith please find copies of Land Registry documents relating to the properties in question. These may be obtained from the Land Registry on request. It is clear from them that both properties were owned by Mr Osborne and were sold together – as a single transaction – to the new owners. Under those circumstances it is unreasonable to expect that the valuation of £445,000, which appears on both documents for the period when Mr Osborne owned those properties, relates to those properties individually; it is the value of both properties, taken together. That is how Mr Osborne bought them, and it is how he sold them. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to believe there are separate valuations for the land and the building.

It must follow, therefore, that Mr Osborne’s claim for mortgage expenses towards use of the building in the pursuance of his Parliamentary duties also went towards payment of mortgage expenses on the paddock, and I understand it is now a belief that is widely held by the public, that Mr Osborne did not spend a single penny of his own money on the mortgage for the properties in question.

There are questions that I cannot answer for you. I do not hold details of the single mortgage he held, that covered both the land west of Macclesfield Road (the paddock) and at Harrop Fold Farm – that would be a private document and its details would be a matter for him to divulge. Therefore I cannot say for certain whether he claimed for all of the mortgage interest or just a percentage covering the house. As a reasonable man, however, I can say that it seems unlikely he would put forward an arbitrary figure – and how would he know the correct valuation for the building alone, when he bought it and the paddock as a single package?

You rightly state that the Commissioner has already inquired into Mr Osborne’s claims for his second home over the relevant period. The only conclusion I can draw from this, in the light of the above information, is that Mr Osborne may have misled the Commissioner about the true nature of his mortgage interest payments. I would imagine this is a serious offence against the Commissioner’s office; if it is not, I am sure that the general public would be as shocked as I would.

Bear in mind also that the sum of money concerned in this affair is around £1 million. This is not a paltry amount and, if the taxpayers of the UK have been unwittingly subsidising a profit-making scheme for this man, it would be unreasonable to deny them knowledge of the matter and recompense for the misuse of their tax pounds.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response. I understand that your office would not, in any case, proceed with an investigation without a written complaint, so I will put the necessary documents in the post at my earliest convenience.

Osborne paddock update: Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Tags

2006, account, Act, Channel 4, code, commissioner, conduct, Dispatches, duty, evidence, expense, farm, fraud, George Osborne, Guardian, harrop fold, house, Independent, inquiry, Interest, land registry, libel, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Mirror, mortgage, newspaper, paddock, Parliamentary, police, profit, report, responsibility, rules, standards, taxpayer, Telegraph, Vox Political

Shady: Why will the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards NOT investigate the new evidence that has come to light about George Osborne’s expenses?

It seems the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is reluctant to examine the case of George Osborne, who paid mortgage interest on his paddock with taxpayers’ money before selling it off with a neighbouring farmhouse for around £1 million and pocketing the cash.

Mr Osborne, as is now well-documented, claimed mortgage interest on both properties as an allowable expense, stating that he needed the house to perform his duties as an MP. The paddock was registered separately with the Land Registry and was not mentioned in his expenses claim, but thanks to newspaper reports earlier this month, the nation understands that the money he received was used to pay for it.

Apparently this is not good enough for the Standards Commissioner. After I requested an inquiry, I received an email from Heather Wood, registrar of members’ financial interests. She wrote: “The Commissioner is able to inquire into complaints of a breach of both the Code and the rules of the House only if they are supported by sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry.

“Since the Commissioner has already inquired into Mr Osborne’s claims for his second home over the relevant period, there would need to be evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct and the Rules of the House, other than that he had already investigated, before he could consider this matter further. That evidence would need to be sufficient to justify an inquiry.”

She went on to provide a link to the result of the previous inquiry. I read it very thoroughly but could find no mention whatsoever of the paddock at Harrop Fold Farm.

From the evidence provided by the commissioner’s office, I can only conclude that Mr Osborne did not tell the authorities that the money he claimed – in order, let’s remember, to discharge his Parliamentary responsibilities – would also partly pay for an empty field that he planned to sell for an exorbitant profit, years later.

To me, this is clearly accounting fraud, which is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

The only reason I can find for the reluctance shown by the Commissioner is that my evidence comes from newspaper reports, and the guidance on submitting complaints does make it clear that such evidence may not be enough.

However, it seems clear that there is substance behind the allegations. Firstly, the evidence was transmitted in a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on TV; then the Telegraph, Guardian, Mirror and the Independent all came out with corroborating reports. They would not do this without being able to back up what they were saying; if the details were false, then they would all have been guilty of libel, which is itself an offence – and I am sure Mr Osborne would be quick to pursue them through the courts in such circumstances.

He has not done so. What does this suggest to you?

My next step will be to write to the reporters concerned. I’ll need to ask them if the evidence to support their stories is publicly available and, if so, where I can find it. Then I’ll have another crack at the Commissioner. If any of the reporters concerned are reading this, please get in touch and provide any illumination you can – I think we would all be genuinely delighted to see your contribution.

Oh – there is one last line from the registrar, as follows: “Your e-mail also suggests that criminal conduct may have occurred. Any such allegations would be a matter for the police, not for the Commissioner, and I note that you have already raised this matter with them.”

That’s right – they said they couldn’t investigate because an inquiry was already taking place, and I’m still awaiting a response from my MP on that subject. Isn’t it interesting that the responses I’m getting are starting to go around in circles?

I’ll keep you all informed of progress.