Wednesday, July 02, 2025
An inadequate reform
The poll finds that just 3% of those surveyed backed the government’s plans, with 56% of respondents agreeing that ministers should additionally limit the number of peers the prime minister is able to appoint to the upper chamber for life.
The hereditary peers bill is due to enter its report stage in the House of Lords today after five days of debate with line-by-line consideration of more than 100 amendments during March and April:
The bill fulfils part of Labour’s manifesto pledge for “immediate reform of the House of Lords”. Labour described the Lords as “too big”, with changes “overdue and essential”, promising not just to remove the hereditary peers but also to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80, participation requirements, make it easier to remove disgraced members, and overhaul the appointments process to improve the quality of peers.
Despite these pledges, ministers argued against every amendment proposed to the bill that would have implemented these changes. Instead, the government said it needed more time to consider how to implement its commitments, and that the bill was “not the right vehicle”.
But “right now, the House of Lords has a legislative vehicle in front of it which is certain to pass. If peers want change, they should seize it,” according to Prof Meg Russell, the director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, which commissioned the polling by YouGov.
Russell said there would probably not be another opportunity to overhaul the Lords for decades. The last major bill was in 1999, in what was meant to be a two-stage reform starting with the removal of 667 hereditary peers.
“You just would not believe how slowly it moves,” she said. “Basically, it’s impossible to get agreement on anything, inside parties as well as across parties.
“No bill has reached the House of Lords coming from a government in 26 years and if you haven’t got a government bill it’s very hard to achieve any legislative change, which is why I’m saying seize it. These things come around on roughly a generational kind of cycle.”
A longstanding cross-party consensus exists that the House of Lords needs to be smaller, a position backed by the public, 71% of whom think it should be no bigger than the House of Commons’ 650 MPs.
But even as the 86 hereditary peers start to pack away their ermine, a steady flow of 76 newly ennobled life peers since the election will limit the effectiveness of the government’s changes in reducing the overall size of the chamber, which now has 859 members. Some hereditary peers may receive life peerages to allow them to stay.
“The problem here is that whenever a prime minister over-appoints, particularly to their own party, the PM that follows them feels the need to over-appoint to counteract those appointments,” said Russell. “And that’s how it gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and it’s completely unsustainable.”
My issue with this poll is that it is quite limited in what it reportedly asks, while the government's proposals are even more limited. The Lords needs more than cosmetic changes, it needs wholescale reform including being properly accountable by being elected.
Tuesday, July 01, 2025
Concessions not enough as Welfare Bill threatens to push 150,000 into poverty
Whether this will be enough to generate a revolt big enough to kill the bill has to be seen, but headlines like this are not going to help the government get the legislation over the line.
The Guardian reports that the government's own impact assessment has found that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by the welfare measures despite significant concessions to rebel MPs to protect those already on the benefits:
In an impact assessment written after the changes made in response to a threatened rebellion by more than 120 Labour MPs, officials said there would now be a “negligible” impact on child poverty, which had been one of the key concerns in the original measures.
But it found that an additional 150,000 people could be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 because of changes that would affect future claimants. The original cuts would have pushed an additional 250,000 into poverty, according to the previous assessment.
The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, will set out the changes to MPs later. A number of key rebels – including the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier – have been won over by promises to exempt current disability claimants from the changes and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation.
No 10 said the measures were still essential to change the system and to prevent the welfare bill from escalating – though the changes promised last week will cost the Treasury an extra £3bn.
It is not surprising that a number of MPs including the former government whip Vicky Foxcroft have said that even with the changes they are unlikely to support the bill
The Guardian reports that the government's own impact assessment has found that more than 150,000 people could still be pushed into poverty by the welfare measures despite significant concessions to rebel MPs to protect those already on the benefits:
In an impact assessment written after the changes made in response to a threatened rebellion by more than 120 Labour MPs, officials said there would now be a “negligible” impact on child poverty, which had been one of the key concerns in the original measures.
But it found that an additional 150,000 people could be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 because of changes that would affect future claimants. The original cuts would have pushed an additional 250,000 into poverty, according to the previous assessment.
The work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, will set out the changes to MPs later. A number of key rebels – including the Treasury select committee chair, Meg Hillier – have been won over by promises to exempt current disability claimants from the changes and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation.
No 10 said the measures were still essential to change the system and to prevent the welfare bill from escalating – though the changes promised last week will cost the Treasury an extra £3bn.
It is not surprising that a number of MPs including the former government whip Vicky Foxcroft have said that even with the changes they are unlikely to support the bill
Monday, June 30, 2025
Welfare cuts could strand disabled women with abusers
The paper says that the charities have issued a stark warning over the reforms, saying that in the long term, the cuts to vital funding for daily living costs for disabled people – which will impact all new claimants – will make it difficult for those at risk to flee abusive relationships:
Thousands of disabled women could find themselves trapped with abusers as a result of the government’s upcoming welfare cuts, campaigners have warned, despite Sir Keir Starmer offering significant concessions on the reforms late on Thursday.
In the face of a growing rebellion, the prime minister announced adjustments to his welfare bill, including protecting personal independence payments (PIP) for all existing claimants – a move that is expected to ensure the legislation passes its second reading on Tuesday.
But domestic violence charity Refuge and the Women’s Budget Group (WBG) have issued a stark warning over the reforms, saying that in the long term, the cuts to vital funding for daily living costs for disabled people – which will impact all new claimants – will make it difficult for those at risk to flee abusive relationships.
Even with the concessions, the welfare cuts will be “devastating for disabled women”, WBG said, noting that disabled women are twice as likely to be victims of domestic abuse.
For many, PIP is the only income they receive, WBG warned, so not having access to this source of individual support elevates the risk of coercive control and makes it harder to escape abusive situations.
As a result, Refuge argued, Sir Keir will struggle to reach his target of halving violence against women and girls (VAWG).
A scathing report, published jointly by WBG and disabled women’s collective Sisters of Frida, claims the cuts will deepen disabled women’s “economic insecurity, increase their vulnerability to violence and abuse, push them out of the labour market, and make parenting harder”.
Their analysis, seen by The Independent, shows that women who are future claimants will be disproportionately affected by stricter eligibility rules for PIP.
Currently, 52 per cent of female PIP claimants don’t score four points in any one activity compared to 39 per cent of male claimants. This is likely due to the higher prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions and arthritis among women, conditions which are less likely to score four points in one indicator.
Although current claimants will be protected, it indicates a broader gender imbalance that will leave women more significantly impacted by the cuts in the longer term.
The government estimates that under the current rules, around 1,000 new people are signing on for PIP every day.
Dr Sara Reis, WGB’s deputy director, warned it would make women more vulnerable to abuse, while Refuge said the cuts would have “devastating impacts on disabled survivors”.
Gemma Sherrington, CEO of Refuge, told The Independent that the cuts present a “truly terrifying prospect for disabled survivors”, warning that they would “severely undermine the government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls”.
“At Refuge, nearly one in three [29 per cent] of the survivors we support have a disability or mental health condition. For PIP claimants, this support is vital for covering essential living costs – and can mean the difference between fleeing to safety or remaining with an abusive partner”, she said.
“Further restricting the financial resources of disabled survivors could leave thousands trapped with abusers – and that could have fatal consequences.
“If the government is serious about tackling VAWG, it cannot afford to neglect disabled survivors. We strongly echo the report’s recommendation to scrap these cruel reforms and provide disabled survivors with the protection and support they deserve.”
Dr Reis added: “The proposed changes will be devastating for disabled women, cutting away income that grants many of them independence.
“The government already knows that it will push more people into poverty, but it also needs to be aware that these changes will make disabled women more vulnerable to abuse, make it harder for them to parent, and shut them out of jobs.
“We are glad to see the government reconsidering the reforms and to consult on changes to PIP – disabled people should be at the centre of designing any changes to the disability benefit system.
“However, as reforms stand, they will bring more and more people into poverty as new claimants will not have access to the same support as exists now.”
Even with the concessions, the impact of these cuts will be horrendous. Let's hope that those Labour rebels who are now considering backing the government will look at this again and vote the bill down.
Sunday, June 29, 2025
Home Office staff concerned about ‘absurd’ Palestine Action ban
On Monday the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, announced plans to ban the group, which would make membership of it, or inviting support for it, a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
It would be the first time a direct action protest group has been classified as a terrorist organisation, joining the likes of Islamic State, al-Qaida and National Action. The move has been condemned as draconian by many other protest groups, civil society organisations and politicians of different stripes.
A senior Home Office official, who requested anonymity as they are not allowed to speak to the press, said concerns about proscribing Palestine Action extended into the home secretary’s own department.
“My colleagues and I were shocked by the announcement,” they said. “All week, the office has been a very tense atmosphere, charged with concern about treating a non-violent protest group the same as actual terrorist organisations like Isis, and the dangerous precedent this sets.
“From desk to desk, colleagues are exchanging concerned and bemused conversations about how absurd this is and how impossible it will be to enforce. Are they really going to prosecute as terrorists everyone who expresses support for Palestine Action’s work to disrupt the flow of arms to Israel as it commits war crimes?
“It’s ridiculous and it’s being widely condemned in anxious conversations internally as a blatant misuse of anti-terror laws for political purposes to clamp down on protests which are affecting the profits of arms companies.”
The paper reports the response of Palestine Action, who argue that “proscription is not about enabling prosecutions under terrorism laws – it’s about cracking down on non-violent protests which disrupt the flow of arms to Israel during its genocide in Palestine”.
They have a valid point about the government seeking to stifle non-violent protest. There are already laws in place that can punish those who destroy or damage government property. Instead, the Labour government has planted both feet onto a very slippery slope.
On the publicly available criteria for this action, they would also have proscribed the suffragettes, Greenpeace, the Greenham Common women and a host of other groups, including farmers protesting fuel prices and the Country Landowners Association, all intent on changing public policy through direct, non-violent action. That is not a democratic approach.
Saturday, June 28, 2025
The Accidental Pilgrim
The renovation work inside the cathedral is very impressive. There are also a number of poems displayed by Sion Aled Owen. I particularly enjoyed this one called the Accidental Pilgrim:
I don’t know why you’ve arrived
Whether just because we’re there,
Or out of faith’s determination,
Like the myriads who came before
To earn celestial favour.
But no, it can’t have been always have that, a frigid spiritual transaction,
The miles, the blistered steps, from horizon to horizon
To pay for paradise
There had to be a frissioning of souls
In tired haste
The last mile to Glyn Rhosyn,
Surprised by the sudden sight
Of journey’s end almost at journey’s end.
At least the last mile was down hill.
And here you are
Diverted by curiosity from the Coastal Path,
Seeking some solace on a vacation rainy day
Or on a taster tour from your ship
Granted an hour to inherit centuries.
Or coming with heart already aflame
To claim the shrine’s promise.
No matter.
Here you will find croeso
And a whiff of heaven,
Not for sale,
Not to be auctioned for your deserving deeds,
But free
As in truth it ever was.
Welcome, pilgrim,
By intent or ‘just looking’ chance.
Friday, June 27, 2025
Starmer performs u-turn but the disabled will still suffer
It is long-standing tactic by governments through the ages when faced with serious rebellions, making changes without altering the thrust of the legislation.
The Guardian reports that leading rebels told the paper that they had been promised significant changes to the planned cuts that could cost the government several billion pounds over the next few years but look set to shore up the prime minister’s precarious authority:
The compromises, which are understood to include moderating the bill to make it easier for people with multiple impairments to claim disability benefits, were offered during a tense day of talks in Downing Street.
They would mark a major reversal from Starmer, who had insisted for weeks he would not change course, but appears to have been forced to back down after more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to kill the bill.
One of those leading the opposition to the bill said: “They’ve offered massive concessions, which should be enough to get the bill over the line at second reading.”
Other, more hardline rebels were urging their centrist colleagues not to drop their objections, but with ministers insisting they would hold the vote on Tuesday, more moderate MPs were understood to be backing the government’s proposals.
However, these MPs salve their conscience, the reality is that the watered down bill will still hit those in receipt of PIP hard, many of them in work and reliant on the benefit to make ends meet. It is not a good look for a Labour government.
The Guardian reports that leading rebels told the paper that they had been promised significant changes to the planned cuts that could cost the government several billion pounds over the next few years but look set to shore up the prime minister’s precarious authority:
The compromises, which are understood to include moderating the bill to make it easier for people with multiple impairments to claim disability benefits, were offered during a tense day of talks in Downing Street.
They would mark a major reversal from Starmer, who had insisted for weeks he would not change course, but appears to have been forced to back down after more than 120 Labour MPs threatened to kill the bill.
One of those leading the opposition to the bill said: “They’ve offered massive concessions, which should be enough to get the bill over the line at second reading.”
Other, more hardline rebels were urging their centrist colleagues not to drop their objections, but with ministers insisting they would hold the vote on Tuesday, more moderate MPs were understood to be backing the government’s proposals.
However, these MPs salve their conscience, the reality is that the watered down bill will still hit those in receipt of PIP hard, many of them in work and reliant on the benefit to make ends meet. It is not a good look for a Labour government.
Thursday, June 26, 2025
What Reform's pandering to the rich will cost the rest of us
The Spectator reports that the party's attempt towin over ‘non-doms’ allegedly by Labour and Conservative governments will let wealthy foreigners pay a £250,000 fee to move to the UK, and live here exempt from all tax on their foreign assets.
Reform says that the policy will raise between £1.5 and £2.5 billion annually, but the Spectator's anaysis of the data suggests it is more likely to cost around £34 billion over five years:
To understand why the policy will cost so much, it is important to look at the recent history of ‘non-doms’. For many years, anyone moving here paid tax on their UK income and assets but were exempt from tax on foreign income and assets (unless they brought them into the country). There were then a number of reforms which introduced a £30,000 fee to keep this benefit – a fee which increased over time. Finally, in 2024 the Tories scrapped the non-dom regime and replaced it with a four-year exemption from tax on foreign earnings. Labour slightly tightened that exemption this year.
Reform is proposing to go back to the pre-2017 position for the very wealthy, with a new fee structure. Non-doms will be able to pay a one-off £250,000 for a ‘Britannia card’ and become tax-exempt on foreign earnings and assets forever. There’s then a cute bit of populist politics: the £250,000 payments will be redistributed Robin-Hood style as a cash payment to the approximately 2.5 million workers earning a full-time salary of less than £23,000.
The party’s ‘low end’ estimate is that 6,000 people will buy a ‘Britannia card’ each year – and on that basis the policy will generate £1.6 billion, meaning a £600 payment to each low-paid worker. Farage went further when he introduced the policy, saying ‘tens of thousands’ would be tempted to move to the UK and the payment would be ‘just the tip of the iceberg of what these people will pay if they come back’ because of the likes of VAT and Stamp Duty.
There are several big problems with this.
First, whilst the proposal makes the UK more attractive to the very wealthy who can afford £250,000, it makes the UK much less attractive to the highly skilled and highly paid professionals we want to attract from abroad – such as doctors, coders, senior scientists and entrepreneurs.
Many other countries have special tax arrangements to attract these kinds of expats. Under Reform’s proposal, the UK would be very uncompetitive by comparison. Those unable or unwilling to pay the £250,000 upfront cost would suddenly have to pay full UK tax, and also any tax in their home country. Often these expats will have savings in their home country which benefit from a favoured tax treatment – much like an ISA. The prospect of those savings suddenly being subject to UK tax will not be appetising for them. Farage may think his policy will attract ‘talented people’ from around the world, in reality it is more likely to deter them. Farage forgot about the Laffer curve.
Second, Reform is planning to hand a windfall to a relatively small number of very wealthy people who were already planning to stay here and pay tax. They will now just have to pay a one-off £250,000, with the rest of their tax revenue disappearing.
The amounts involved are very large. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests recent Conservative and Labour non-dom reforms will raise £33.9 billion from 2026-30, with most of this revenue coming from the Conservative’s 2024 reforms. When wealthy individuals stop paying tax after they buy a Britannia card, this money will be lost – and will have to be funded by tax cuts or spending rises, especially as any Britannia card revenue will be given directly to those on low incomes. The OBR figure takes ‘behavioural response’ into account, and the OBR’s record of tax projections is solid (their 2023 projection was just 4 per cent out).
Could this cost be overcome by attracting lots of very wealthy people to the UK?
That seems pretty unlikely. When the £30,000 annual non-dom fee was first introduced in 2008, only 5,000 people were willing to pay it. The idea that more than 6,000 people will pay £250,000 upfront is very optimistic. The idea that 6,000 will pay every year is almost inconceivable.
There’s another problem here for Reform. Because the rules around non-doms have changed so much in recent years, few billionaires will truly believe they will be forever exempt from tax if they purchase a Britannia card. After all, no parliament can bind its successors. Unless you think Reform are going to win two or more elections in a row, you’re unlikely to move here to benefit from the tax regime. That’s particular the case after other countries have rescinded their previously generous tax offers for expats. Spain lured highly paid foreigners with its ‘Beckham’s law’, but in the 2020s began to aggressively target people who’d used it. Portugal recently restricted its generous non-habitual residence regime.
High-net-worth individuals crave stability and predictability when making long-term decisions about where they are going to live. It’s unlikely many will be attracted by a ‘Britannia card’ that could be cancelled in a few years anyway.
So essentially, the proposal is to give huge tax breaks to the very rich, at the cost of tens of billions of pounds to public finances, leading to higher taxes for the rest of us and huge costs to services. It's almost as if Donald Trump and Elon Musk had concocted this policy for them.
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Labour continue Tory marginalisation of Welsh Government
The site says that when the Conservatives were in power at Westminster, Welsh Labour Ministers were angry when they were excluded from the process of choosing projects and allocating funds to them, with local authorities receiving money directly from the UK Government’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, initially headed by Michael Gove.
This was directly contrary to the arrangements in place when the UK was an EU member state. In those days European aid money came directly to the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO), a branch of the Welsh Government. WEFO decided which projects to take forward and how much money they would receive.
Welsh Labour ministers felt that the decision of Tory Ministers to bypass them undermined the devolution settlement. However, despite claims of a much closer partnership between the two Labour governments, it has now become apparent that the Welsh Ministers are still not being trusted to manage these funds:
Last week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the details of her Spending Review. In it she stated: “The government is providing targeted, long-term local growth funding to support regional growth across the UK, completing the transition from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund … In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Offices for the Nations will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to implement the new local growth fund; and, investing in up to 350 deprived communities across the UK, to fund interventions including community cohesion, regeneration and improving the public realm.
“For 2026-27 to 2028-29, funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland across these schemes will be at the same overall level in cash terms as under the UK Shared Prosperity Fund in 2025-26.”
In Wales, the relevant “Office for the Nation” is not the Welsh Government, but the Wales Office, headed by Secretary of State for Wales Jo Stevens.
We asked the Welsh Government how it viewed being bypassed again, this time by a Labour UK government.
A spokesperson for the Welsh Government said: “We will ensure this £630m funding has greater impact than the legacy Shared Prosperity fund. We will continue to discuss the detail of this funding with the UK Government and will decide how it is used to support our economic ambitions and bring prosperity to all parts of Wales.”
Plaid Cymru Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts MP said: “The UK Labour Government’s decision to retain control over Welsh regional funds is a deeply disappointing repeat of Tory policy: centralised, top-down, and dismissive of Wales.
“Wales was promised we wouldn’t lose a penny. Instead, we’ve lost over £1.1bn, and now Labour is making things worse by choosing to sideline Wales from key decisions.
So much for the Labour dream team.
Last week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the details of her Spending Review. In it she stated: “The government is providing targeted, long-term local growth funding to support regional growth across the UK, completing the transition from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund … In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Offices for the Nations will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to implement the new local growth fund; and, investing in up to 350 deprived communities across the UK, to fund interventions including community cohesion, regeneration and improving the public realm.
“For 2026-27 to 2028-29, funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland across these schemes will be at the same overall level in cash terms as under the UK Shared Prosperity Fund in 2025-26.”
In Wales, the relevant “Office for the Nation” is not the Welsh Government, but the Wales Office, headed by Secretary of State for Wales Jo Stevens.
We asked the Welsh Government how it viewed being bypassed again, this time by a Labour UK government.
A spokesperson for the Welsh Government said: “We will ensure this £630m funding has greater impact than the legacy Shared Prosperity fund. We will continue to discuss the detail of this funding with the UK Government and will decide how it is used to support our economic ambitions and bring prosperity to all parts of Wales.”
Plaid Cymru Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts MP said: “The UK Labour Government’s decision to retain control over Welsh regional funds is a deeply disappointing repeat of Tory policy: centralised, top-down, and dismissive of Wales.
“Wales was promised we wouldn’t lose a penny. Instead, we’ve lost over £1.1bn, and now Labour is making things worse by choosing to sideline Wales from key decisions.
So much for the Labour dream team.
Monday, June 16, 2025
Wales set to lose most from disabled benefit cuts
However, it is becoming clear that Wales is going to suffer more than the rest of the UK, having a higher proportion of people receiving support for health conditions than in England. As a result, these cuts will be particularly harmful, with 91% of recipients of standard daily living and 16% of enhanced daily living rate recipients set to lose their Personal Independence Payment:
In Denbighshire, home to some of the most deprived wards in Wales, this means almost half the people currently in receipt of Personal Independence Payment will no longer be eligible for daily living support.
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a non means-tested health benefit. This means that you’re entitled to financial support because of the way your health affects your daily life and mobility, regardless of your income or savings.
The assessment for the daily living element of PIP asks questions such as “tell us about the difficulties you have with preparing food and how you manage them”.
Research by Scope UK suggests that, on average, disabled households need an extra £1,010 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households.
PIP – a standard daily living payment of £73.90 per week and an enhanced rate of £110.40 per week – is designed to go some way to help meet the cost of disability on day-to-day life.
Universal Credit health top-ups – worth an additional £423.27 each month – are based on your ability to do work-related activity, with a separate and more prescriptive assessment asking questions such as “can you safely get around a place that you have not been to before without help?”.
The reforms considered in the parliamentary vote will tie Universal Credit health top-ups to daily living PIP and change the eligibility criteria for this element of PIP, making it much more difficult to prove eligibility and, therefore, making it much harder to qualify for Universal Credit support.
Somebody entitled to both the highest rate of daily living PIP and the Universal Credit health top-up will be entitled to £1,324.10 per month.
Following an investigation by Citizens Advice Denbighshire, through Freedom of Information requests to the Department for Work & Pensions (DWP), the scale of the changes on which Members of Parliament are voting has been revealed.
16% of people receiving the highest rate of support in Denbighshire (compared to 13% in Great Britain as a whole) will lose their health-related benefits. For those receiving both daily living PIP and Universal Credit health top-ups, this will mean a 68% reduction in their monthly income from £1,324.10 per month to £421.14 per month.
91% of standard daily living claimants in Denbighshire as a whole are set to lose all their health-related benefits (compared to 87% in Great Britain as a whole).
These percentages – 16% for enhanced and 91% for daily living recipients – are the same for Wales as a whole, according to the DWP.
It is no surprise that there is so much pressure on Welsh MPs to vote against these changes. They should listen and vote accordingly.
Sunday, June 15, 2025
Reform data grab to be probed
They have called on the information watchdog to launch an investigation into their Reform, who have asked for a mountain of data from the councils they control,including information on whistleblowers and the names and addresses of people who receive meals on wheels:
The Tories also accuse Mr Farage's underlings of risking private data on the amount of cash foster carers receive. In a letter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake lashed out at "unauthorised data transfers".
He warned taxpayers could be landed with massive bills if Reform is fined for breaking the law. It comes after Mr Farage's party said it would use a "unit of software engineers, data analysts and forensic auditors" to trawl council finances to find waste.
Mr Hollinrake wrote: "I believe that the scale of such unauthorised data transfers across local government is a cyber-security disaster waiting to happen.
"There is a strong public interest in the Information Commissioner taking pro-active steps to investigate and, if necessary, issue enforcement notices against the public authorities and Reform UK Ltd.
"I also suspect that council staff would welcome the support of the Information Commissioner, given the clear threats to sack them if they sound the alarm on breaches of the law. It is also not in the financial interests of local taxpayers for their council to be exposed to the liability of fines for breaching the law."
The Tories went on to claim there is a "lack of legal basis" for Reform's data requests. Reform has launched its own Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) modelled on the chaotic department Elon Musk headed in the US.
In a letter to Kent County Council signed by Mr Farage, Reform's head of Doge Zia Yusuf and its new council leader Linden Kemkaran, the party said its team of analysts was "bound by data protection obligations and professional standards".
It also warned: "Should you resist this request, we are ready to pass a council motion to compel the same and will consider any obstruction to be gross misconduct. We trust this will not be required."
Reform need to understand that the law in the UK is very different to that in the USA. The relevant agencies must ensure that they cannot get away with the sort of abuses we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic.
