Elizabeth Truss


LIZ TRUSS MP South West Norfolk



Mary Elizabeth Truss, popularly known as Liz Truss, is a British Conservative Party politician and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She has been the member of parliament for South West Norfolk since 2010. Liz was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the cabinet re-shuffle by PM Theresa May and will attend Cabinet meetings.



Liz is Trussed by controversial statement as to council cuts





The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, was a popular speaker among delegates at this year’s Conservative Party Conference.

She generated a fair bit of publicity with attacks on Labour’s plans for the media, and a call to increase speed limits to 80mph to boost the economy.

We think she slipped up when she told the BBC’s Newsnight programme that the government was “not making cuts to local authorities”.

In fact, local authorities in England have experienced historic funding cuts under the Conservatives.

The main public spending watchdogs say the government is still cutting the money it gives to councils.

And figures from the Treasury suggests real-terms reductions in councils’ overall spending power will continue until 2020.


There can’t be any serious dispute that since 2010, Conservative-led governments have made deep cuts to the money that local authorities get from central government.

Earlier this year, the National Audit Office put out this report, which says Whitehall funding for councils in England fell by 49 per cent in real terms between 2010/11 and 2017/18.

Councils raise money from council tax, as well as the grant from central government, but rises in council taxes have not offset the cuts.

The NAO calculates that if you take into account council tax rises, local authorities have still seen a fall in their “spending power” of 28.6 per cent in real terms between 2010/11 and 2017/18.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has done a slightly different calculation: it says councils spent 24 per cent less on services per person in 2017/18 than in 2009/10.

These are national figures and they hide significant differences between types of council.

The IFS says: “The most deprived authorities, including Barking & Dagenham, Birmingham and Salford, made an average cut to spending per person of 32 per cent, compared to 17 per cent in the least deprived areas, including Warwickshire, Wiltshire and Dorset.”

This reflects the way the cuts were introduced in 2010.

Poorer councils tended to get a bigger slice of their money from central government (because their residents were less affluent and paid less council tax).

Wealthier councils did better from council tax and were less reliant on money from Whitehall.

So a cut in the money from central government tended to have a bigger effect on more deprived local authorities.

The politics of this was not lost on opponents of the Conservatives. Look at the examples the IFS quoted. Barking and Dagenham, Salford and Birmingham – the hardest hit – are all staunchly Labour inner-city councils. Warwickshire, Wiltshire and Dorset – which took a smaller hit – are Conservative-run counties.

Both the IFS and the NAO say that overall council budgets may have flatlined over the last two years or so.

But this is explained by the government allowing local authorities to raise council taxes, ring-fencing money for adult social care and allowing councils to keep part of the local business rates, they say.

The NAO says “reductions in spending power have largely levelled off” thanks to council tax rises.

The IFS agrees, saying: “Central government funding for councils is still falling – it is above-inflation increases in council tax that mean overall budgets are just about treading water.”

And both point out that this is in the context of rising demand for services and rising costs for councils, so a flat budget is having to be stretched further.

We asked the Treasury for a response to this story, and they said: “The 2018/19 Local Government Finance Settlement confirmed the third of a four-year settlement for local councils over the Spending Review 2015 period.

“This settlement ensures a 2.1 per cent increase in cash terms in local government Core Spending Power between 2015/16 and 2019/20 – £44.7 billion in 2015/16 and £45.6 billion in 2019/20.”

An increase of 2.1 per cent in cash terms (not allowing for inflation) over five years will almost certainly mean a real-terms cut, depending on future rates of inflation.



There can be little doubt that Conservative-led governments have presided over deep cuts to the money they gave to councils since 2010.

The only defence of Liz Truss’s comments we can think of is that councils’ spending power has stabilised in recent years.

But the Treasury still appears to expect real-terms cuts to council budgets until 2020, according to the figures they gave us. And budgets are still way down compared to 2010.

It is true to say that the government has increased councils’ power to raise money for themselves – although this is still limited.

There is still a cap on council tax rises, even if it was relaxed in 2017, and the government still sets business rates centrally, even if it is allowing councils to keep more of the money raised locally.







If you cut grants to local government, any local authority that already has a track record of impropriety is likely to cut more legal corners and abuse more human rights than before as they scramble to justify staying in their highly paid jobs.


In the past enforcement departments were artificially exaggerating budgets to boost their coffers. Once the Government knew about this practice they began to think of ways of preventing such fraud to the taxpayer, and of course this led to cuts which any honest council would not notice. Lord Nolan was brought in to look at cozy relationships between councils and developers, but nothing much changed as to employment practices.


Perhaps the Government should consider capping salaries for council officers, including limiting retirement packages and payoffs for corrupt officers who should have been sacked, but instead can now demand big settlements where councils keep them on in different positions to qualify for enhanced pensions.


So-called affordable housing is far removed from the reality of the proposed housing mix that actually benefits fat-cat landlords and encourages foreign investors to sponge off our benefits system like leaches, making the next generation financial slaves to investors who benefit other countries.


The Government of the day should be encouraging genuinely low cost housing, such as flatpacks with energy harvesting features that could sell for as little as £60,000 if land prices were capped and purchased in advance using compulsory purchase powers. This was proposed by Cherry Homes in 2012, but at that time every council approached declined such proposals. Why? Because their planners are anything but and were milking their then developers, a practice that you cannot trace without a transparent system. Corruption in United Nations terms is most prevalent in the Judiciary and police, according to SDG16.



The oldest working well in a Sussex village could be poisoned by developers


HERITAGE FOR SALE - Councils that are strapped for cash may be cutting corners and granting consents where they would never have contemplated doing so before. Wealden District Council are an example of a council that is known for corrupt practices in cahoots with Sussex police. Since 2015 they have been dishing out consents to developers in the rush to generate additional rates and Community Infrastructure Levy payments. The is regardless of the appropriateness of mass developments around villages of character and charm and urban sprawl. In the case of the proposed development above, this council is likely to be complicit in poisoning a public water supply from the only surviving well in Herstmonceux village in Sussex.


Recently, the developers (Thakeham, Latimer and Clarion Group) admitted that they did not know that the well provided water to the public. But said that this was the proposal that the council wanted to see. Does that not smack of a done deal? Surely the committee make that decision, but where a proposal is for up to seventy houses on green belt, we would expect to see alternative scenarios.


Two grants from this council that were challenged in the High Court were overturned by way of Judicial Review. These grants were by the same planning officer and committees as the above application. A water level management board has advised that the proposed surface water run off solution is not sound and will lead to flooding at a point where a sewage pump sub-station is to be located, potentially leading to foul water pollution to add to the misery of slowly poisoning those drinking from this well (they do not have a mains water supply) and destroying a heritage asset in the process.


The access to the site is also substandard, not being wide enough for a safe visibility line on exit to the A271, a narrow road that is potholed along its length because this council keeps spending money on things like doing favours for those in the fold. If the road had been wider and in good condition with the right width access, then they'd only have the pollution issue to contend with. But there is also a lack of schools in the area and the proposed houses will add to climate change in denial of the 2008 Act, when they should have micro energy generating features at the very least and electric vehicle charging points.


From the comments of walkers on this field, it is alleged that the Parish council may have voted for this development as a favour to a retired local estate agent, Tim Watson, when they have always fiercely opposed development on this hill. Hence, have about-faced, ignoring National Planning Policies that are designed to protect heritage assets adjacent to proposed development.






Theresa May


Theresa May - Prime Mnister

MP for Maidenhead


Damian Green


Damian Green

MP for Ashford


Philip Hammond


Philip Hammond

MP Runnymede & Weybridge


Boris Johnson


Boris Johnson

MP Uxbridge & South Ruislip


Amber Rudd


Amber Rudd

MP Hastings & Rye


David Davis


David Davis

MP Haltemprice & Howden


Gavin Williamson


Gavin Williamson

MP South Staffordshire


Liam Fox


Liam Fox

MP North Somerset


David Lidlington


David Lidlington

MP for Aylesbury


Baroness Evans Bowes Park


 Baroness Evans

MP Bowes Park Haringey


Jeremy Hunt


Jeremy Hunt

MP South West Surrey


Justine Greening


Justine Greening

MP for Putney


Chris Grayling


Chris Grayling

MP Epsom & Ewell


Karen Bradley


Karen Bradley

MP Staffordshire Moorlands


Michael Gove


Michael Gove

MP Surrey Heath


David Gauke


David Gauke

MP South West Hertfordshire


Sajid Javid


Sajid Javid

MP for Bromsgrove


James Brokenshire


James Brokenshire

MP Old Bexley & Sidcup


Alun Cairns


 Alun Cairns

MP Vale of Glamorgan


David Mundell


 David Mundell MP

Dumfriesshire Clydes & Tweeddale


Patrick Mcloughlin


Patrick McLoughlin

MP Derbyshire Dales


Greg Clark


 Greg Clark

MP Tunbridge Wells


Penny Mordaunt


Penny Mordaunt

MP Portsmouth North


Andrea Leadsom


Andrea Leadsom

MP South Northamptonshire


Jeremy Wright


Jeremy Wright

MP Kenilworth & Southam


Elizabeth Truss


 Liz Truss

MP South West Norfolk


Brandon Lewis


Brandon Lewis

MP Great Yarmouth



Nus Ghani

MP Wealden





 Huw Merriman

MP Battle










The Independent reporting on Michael Gove and air pollution


CONSERVATIVE CLIMATE - Michael Gove has been summoned to Brussels because of his party's failure to meet air pollution targets despite warnings about which the Prime Minister was aware of.




The United Kingdom has many political parties, some of which are represented in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Below are links to the websites of the political parties that were represented in the House of Commons after the 2015 General Election:















Conservative Party

Co-operative Party

Democratic Unionist Party

Green Party

Labour Party

Liberal Democrats

Plaid Cymru

Scottish National Party

Sinn Féin

Social Democratic and Labour Party

UK Independence Party

Ulster Unionist Party





We are concerned with how the make up of the above parties and (reasonably) popular policies may affect the Wealden district, because we are all brothers on two islands in the Atlantic Ocean and what we do or fail to do is likely to rebound on ourselves and our fellow man in other nations around the world. How we act today influences policies in other countries in our global community. It is not just about us and our patch.




East Sussex has five District and Borough Councils, each with a border on the coast. From west to east they are: 


Eastbourne Borough Council

Hastings Borough Council

Lewes District Council 

Rother District Council 

Wealden District Council


There is also East Sussex County Council as the provider of services to the 5 East Sussex districts.


As near neighbours and with councils now sharing facilities and working together, these area of Sussex are included in our remit and an area where climate change and affordable housing are issues that need urgent attention. Where the coastline is a feature in every Council, Blue Growth is a food security issue, especially where this side of of our local economy is under-exploited.






Client Earth wins against Conservative Party