Monday, May 31, 2021
Boris Johnson's gunboat diplomacy
It is one thing to promote Brexit by appealing to the Tory backwoodsmen who long for the glory years of empire (and yes they are mostly men and no, beneath the surface there was not much glory in the way British colonies were ruled) but surely things have gone too far once the Prime Minister starts to spend taxpayers' money on his own version of 'gunboat diplomacy'.
Johnson has long sought to model himself on Churchill, has wrapped himself in the union jack flag at every opportunity and unashamedly uses the trappings of power to promote himself as a British nationalist but can he really justify spending £200 million on replacing the royal yacht?
The Guardian reports that the Prime Minister has commissioned a new national flagship, the successor to the Royal Yacht Britannia, which he says will be used to promote British trade and industry around the world.
He says the vessel would be used to host trade fairs, ministerial summits and diplomatic talks as the UK seeks to build links and boost exports following Brexit. It is being touted as the first national flagship since Britannia, which was decommissioned in 1997, but the new vessel would be a ship rather than a luxury yacht.
The real self delusion though comes when Johnson says: “This new national flagship will be the first vessel of its kind in the world, reflecting the UK’s burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation.”
It is arguable that two world wars and Brexit put paid to us claiming such a status.
Johnson has long sought to model himself on Churchill, has wrapped himself in the union jack flag at every opportunity and unashamedly uses the trappings of power to promote himself as a British nationalist but can he really justify spending £200 million on replacing the royal yacht?
The Guardian reports that the Prime Minister has commissioned a new national flagship, the successor to the Royal Yacht Britannia, which he says will be used to promote British trade and industry around the world.
He says the vessel would be used to host trade fairs, ministerial summits and diplomatic talks as the UK seeks to build links and boost exports following Brexit. It is being touted as the first national flagship since Britannia, which was decommissioned in 1997, but the new vessel would be a ship rather than a luxury yacht.
The real self delusion though comes when Johnson says: “This new national flagship will be the first vessel of its kind in the world, reflecting the UK’s burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation.”
It is arguable that two world wars and Brexit put paid to us claiming such a status.
Sunday, May 30, 2021
A huge opportunity for the Liberal Democrats
I have spent the last two days in Chesham and Amersham helping my good friend, Sarah Green, who is the Liberal Democrats' candidate in the by-election there, and have to say that things look promising.
The Independent reports that discontent in the southern Tory shires over the government’s planning reforms and Boris Johnson’s focus on the northern “Red Wall” could put this rock-solid Conservative seat at risk in the upcoming by-election.
They say Liberal Democrats are preparing to flood Chesham and Amersham with volunteers after internal polling showed Ed Davey’s party making inroads into the Conservative vote in a leafy commuter-belt constituency in affluent Buckinghamshire which has been Tory since it was created in 1974.
Well I have news for them, we are here already and there is all to play for. This is an opportunity for the party to re-establish itself after a very difficult decade where we have suffered the consequences of a very difficult coalition government, and I for one, am not prepared to miss it.
The Independent reports that discontent in the southern Tory shires over the government’s planning reforms and Boris Johnson’s focus on the northern “Red Wall” could put this rock-solid Conservative seat at risk in the upcoming by-election.
They say Liberal Democrats are preparing to flood Chesham and Amersham with volunteers after internal polling showed Ed Davey’s party making inroads into the Conservative vote in a leafy commuter-belt constituency in affluent Buckinghamshire which has been Tory since it was created in 1974.
Well I have news for them, we are here already and there is all to play for. This is an opportunity for the party to re-establish itself after a very difficult decade where we have suffered the consequences of a very difficult coalition government, and I for one, am not prepared to miss it.
Saturday, May 29, 2021
Thought for the day
According to Marina Hyde in the Guardian, a government that came to power promising to control our borders has allowed 1.59 million – ONE POINT FIVE NINE MILLION – travellers to fly into the UK in the four lockdown months from January to April alone, two-thirds of whom were not UK nationals. If we don’t open up fully in three weeks, then that may be the cause.
Discuss
Friday, May 28, 2021
Tories reinforce island Britain
In Boris Johnson's post-Brexit world it is becoming clear that the government do not just want to leave the EU, they want to shut us off fropm Europe altogether. Such isolationism cannot be good for trade, education, our society nor forour economy.
The Guardian reports that Home Office figures show the number of EU citizens being prevented from entering the UK has soared over the past three months despite a massive reduction in travel because of Covid.
They say a total of 3,294 EU citizens were prevented from entering the UK, even though post-Brexit rules mean they are allowed to visit the country without visas. That compares with 493 EU citizens in the first quarter of last year, when air traffic was 20 times higher. Visitors can be stopped or detained and expelled if they are suspected of travelling to Britain to work or settle without meeting the new visa requirements.:
Passenger air traffic from the EU is expected to jump almost 20-fold again once Covid-19 restrictions are fully lifted, with experts warning that the number of expulsions and detainees will also grow as a result.
Most EU citizens were turned back at British-run frontier controls at European ferry ports or the Eurostar rail terminal in Paris, with 738 expelled after landing at airports or UK ferry terminals.
Passengers arriving at airports and ports are routinely held in detention centres in the UK before being expelled.
The published numbers confirm a trend that has shocked some EU travellers who, after making honest mistakes about the new rules, have found themselves locked up for days at detention centres.
Many others have been forced to spend hours, or sleep the night, locked up at airports until they are put on return flights.
Since reports of EU citizens being locked up appeared in the Guardian and elsewhere, the Home Office has ordered that, where possible, such travellers be given bail so that they can stay with friends or relatives until they get on a return flight.
The Home Office has also since made it clear that people who have job interviews should not be expelled, despite several recent cases of that happening.
What they do not seem to have factored in is that such measures can be reciprocated. No doubt the tabloids will go into a frenzy once UK travellers find themselves detained, but we reap what we sow.
The Guardian reports that Home Office figures show the number of EU citizens being prevented from entering the UK has soared over the past three months despite a massive reduction in travel because of Covid.
They say a total of 3,294 EU citizens were prevented from entering the UK, even though post-Brexit rules mean they are allowed to visit the country without visas. That compares with 493 EU citizens in the first quarter of last year, when air traffic was 20 times higher. Visitors can be stopped or detained and expelled if they are suspected of travelling to Britain to work or settle without meeting the new visa requirements.:
Passenger air traffic from the EU is expected to jump almost 20-fold again once Covid-19 restrictions are fully lifted, with experts warning that the number of expulsions and detainees will also grow as a result.
Most EU citizens were turned back at British-run frontier controls at European ferry ports or the Eurostar rail terminal in Paris, with 738 expelled after landing at airports or UK ferry terminals.
Passengers arriving at airports and ports are routinely held in detention centres in the UK before being expelled.
The published numbers confirm a trend that has shocked some EU travellers who, after making honest mistakes about the new rules, have found themselves locked up for days at detention centres.
Many others have been forced to spend hours, or sleep the night, locked up at airports until they are put on return flights.
Since reports of EU citizens being locked up appeared in the Guardian and elsewhere, the Home Office has ordered that, where possible, such travellers be given bail so that they can stay with friends or relatives until they get on a return flight.
The Home Office has also since made it clear that people who have job interviews should not be expelled, despite several recent cases of that happening.
What they do not seem to have factored in is that such measures can be reciprocated. No doubt the tabloids will go into a frenzy once UK travellers find themselves detained, but we reap what we sow.
Thursday, May 27, 2021
Cummings delivers a broadside but is anybody listening?
A few days ago I posited the question as to whether Dominc Cummings' evidence would be a smoking gun or a damp squib. I suggested that Boris Johnson's popularity appears to be immune to the sort of accusations Cummings was making.
It will be a few more days before that theory can be tested, but by any normal political convention, the Prime Minister should be on the ropes taking an eight-count.
It will be a few more days before that theory can be tested, but by any normal political convention, the Prime Minister should be on the ropes taking an eight-count.
The Guardian says Dominic Cummings laid bare the “surreal” chaos in Downing Street in March last year as the government grappled with the Covid pandemic, portraying the prime minister as obsessed with the media and making constant U-turns, “like a shopping trolley smashing from one side of the aisle to the other”:
During an extraordinary evidence session to MPs at Westminster on Wednesday, Boris Johnson’s former chief aide targeted the prime minister for personal criticism, accusing him of being “unfit for the job”.
He claimed that Johnson regretted the first lockdown and held out against imposing later restrictions, despite the advice of many people inside Downing Street, and that overall, “tens of thousands of people died who didn’t need to die”.
Cummings told MPs the prime minister had repeatedly said in respect of the first lockdown, “I should have been the mayor of Jaws and kept the beaches open,” and confirmed reports that in October, Johnson said he would see “bodies pile high” rather than order a third lockdown.
The general situation in Downing Street was described as “an out-of-control movie” and, in particularly incendiary claims about Matt Hancock, Cummings said the health secretary had lied to the public and fellow ministers, arguing that amounted to “criminal” behaviour.
He said that in January and February 2020, as news of the pandemic emerged from Wuhan, ministers and senior officials fell victim to what he described as “literally a classic historical example of groupthink in action”.
He said the prime minister himself had repeatedly played down the seriousness of the disease, calling it a “scare story” and comparing it to swine flu. Cummings even claimed officials had deliberately kept Johnson out of emergency Cobra meetings.
“Certainly, the view of various officials inside No 10 was if we have the PM chair Cobra meetings, and he just tells everyone, ‘Don’t worry about it, I’m going to get [England’s chief medical officer] Chris Whitty to inject me live on TV with coronavirus, so everyone realises it’s nothing to be frightened of,’ that would not help, actually, serious planning.”
He claimed that only in mid-March was an initial plan to pursue “herd immunity”, by allowing the virus to spread but delaying the peak of the outbreak, belatedly abandoned. Herd immunity “was the whole logic of all the discussions in January and February and early March”, Cummings told the committee.
Cummings' testimony was certainly damaging, but if Boris Johnson appears unconcerned then maybe the reason lies in a YouGov poll published last month in which 22% of those asked said they believe the PM, while only 16% believe Cummings. Forty six percent believe neither of them.
During an extraordinary evidence session to MPs at Westminster on Wednesday, Boris Johnson’s former chief aide targeted the prime minister for personal criticism, accusing him of being “unfit for the job”.
He claimed that Johnson regretted the first lockdown and held out against imposing later restrictions, despite the advice of many people inside Downing Street, and that overall, “tens of thousands of people died who didn’t need to die”.
Cummings told MPs the prime minister had repeatedly said in respect of the first lockdown, “I should have been the mayor of Jaws and kept the beaches open,” and confirmed reports that in October, Johnson said he would see “bodies pile high” rather than order a third lockdown.
The general situation in Downing Street was described as “an out-of-control movie” and, in particularly incendiary claims about Matt Hancock, Cummings said the health secretary had lied to the public and fellow ministers, arguing that amounted to “criminal” behaviour.
He said that in January and February 2020, as news of the pandemic emerged from Wuhan, ministers and senior officials fell victim to what he described as “literally a classic historical example of groupthink in action”.
He said the prime minister himself had repeatedly played down the seriousness of the disease, calling it a “scare story” and comparing it to swine flu. Cummings even claimed officials had deliberately kept Johnson out of emergency Cobra meetings.
“Certainly, the view of various officials inside No 10 was if we have the PM chair Cobra meetings, and he just tells everyone, ‘Don’t worry about it, I’m going to get [England’s chief medical officer] Chris Whitty to inject me live on TV with coronavirus, so everyone realises it’s nothing to be frightened of,’ that would not help, actually, serious planning.”
He claimed that only in mid-March was an initial plan to pursue “herd immunity”, by allowing the virus to spread but delaying the peak of the outbreak, belatedly abandoned. Herd immunity “was the whole logic of all the discussions in January and February and early March”, Cummings told the committee.
Cummings' testimony was certainly damaging, but if Boris Johnson appears unconcerned then maybe the reason lies in a YouGov poll published last month in which 22% of those asked said they believe the PM, while only 16% believe Cummings. Forty six percent believe neither of them.
It is a plague on both their houses, and nobody knows if the seven hours of testimony from the former Prime Ministerial advisor will change anything.
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Tories whitewash Islamophobia in their party
The Guardian says a long-awaited review into Islamophobia within the Conservatives has been condemned as a whitewash by Muslim Tories despite it including criticism of the language used by Boris Johnson and the mayoral campaign run by Zac Goldsmith for insensitivity.
The paper quotes Lady Warsi, the party’s former chair who first demanded an inquiry into anti-Muslim sentiment within its ranks, who disagrees with the review’s conclusion that there was no evidence of institutional racism, saying there were issues “from the top ... to the bottom” of the party:
The report found that anti-Muslim sentiment was still present at local association and individual levels, but claims of “institutional racism” were not borne out by evidence.
Warsi said that the party’s “processes, attitudes and behaviour” were at fault from its leadership to its grassroots. “The report concludes that from the top – from the prime minister at one level – to local associations at the bottom, there is an attitude issue and a problem and a behaviour issue in terms of Islamophobia,” she told Sky News.
“So on each of those counts it satisfies the definition of institutional racism ... the way I see it, if it looks like institutional racism, feels like institutional racism, fits the definition of institutional racism, then I’m afraid it is institutional racism.”
Sajjad Karim, who was a Tory MEP for 12 years and chaired the European parliament’s working group on Islamophobia, said the report had failed to identify endemic party prejudice aimed at Muslims.
“The manner in which this inquiry has been conducted means it is nothing but an attempt to whitewash deep-rooted issues out of sight.
“It is difficult to identify any basis upon which this has been a serious attempt to address credible and serious matters or deliver on Boris Johnson’s leadership election pledge.
“If anything it acts as an illustration of an attitude inclined to view Islamophobia as an irritant best pushed to one side, when not being utilised in promoting culture wars, rather than as a serious, systemic issue which needs to be rooted out.”
Another senior Muslim Tory said: “This report is a sad reflection of how little the party cares about inclusivity.”
In a pointed message to Johnson, the review said the leadership of the party “ought to set a good example for appropriate behaviours and language”.
The report called on the Tories to introduce sweeping changes to the complaints process, and to publish an action plan within six weeks to set out how it would respond, followed by a six-month progress report and a one-year review carried out by an appropriate body.
The question though is whether those recommendations will be implemented and if they will be sufficient to tackle the problems at grassroots level within the Tory party.
The paper quotes Lady Warsi, the party’s former chair who first demanded an inquiry into anti-Muslim sentiment within its ranks, who disagrees with the review’s conclusion that there was no evidence of institutional racism, saying there were issues “from the top ... to the bottom” of the party:
The report found that anti-Muslim sentiment was still present at local association and individual levels, but claims of “institutional racism” were not borne out by evidence.
Warsi said that the party’s “processes, attitudes and behaviour” were at fault from its leadership to its grassroots. “The report concludes that from the top – from the prime minister at one level – to local associations at the bottom, there is an attitude issue and a problem and a behaviour issue in terms of Islamophobia,” she told Sky News.
“So on each of those counts it satisfies the definition of institutional racism ... the way I see it, if it looks like institutional racism, feels like institutional racism, fits the definition of institutional racism, then I’m afraid it is institutional racism.”
Sajjad Karim, who was a Tory MEP for 12 years and chaired the European parliament’s working group on Islamophobia, said the report had failed to identify endemic party prejudice aimed at Muslims.
“The manner in which this inquiry has been conducted means it is nothing but an attempt to whitewash deep-rooted issues out of sight.
“It is difficult to identify any basis upon which this has been a serious attempt to address credible and serious matters or deliver on Boris Johnson’s leadership election pledge.
“If anything it acts as an illustration of an attitude inclined to view Islamophobia as an irritant best pushed to one side, when not being utilised in promoting culture wars, rather than as a serious, systemic issue which needs to be rooted out.”
Another senior Muslim Tory said: “This report is a sad reflection of how little the party cares about inclusivity.”
In a pointed message to Johnson, the review said the leadership of the party “ought to set a good example for appropriate behaviours and language”.
The report called on the Tories to introduce sweeping changes to the complaints process, and to publish an action plan within six weeks to set out how it would respond, followed by a six-month progress report and a one-year review carried out by an appropriate body.
The question though is whether those recommendations will be implemented and if they will be sufficient to tackle the problems at grassroots level within the Tory party.
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Legal system failing rape victims
The Guardian reports that fewer than one in 60 rape cases recorded by the police last year resulted in a suspect being charge. They say that of the 52,210 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in 2020, only 843 resulted in a charge or a summons – a rate of 1.6%, leading to increased pressure on the government to deliver radical proposals to overhaul the treatment of rape by the criminal justice system:
According to Guardian analysis, more than 100,000 rapes have been reported to police since the review was announced in March 2019, following concerns about a precipitous drop in the volume of rape cases being prosecuted. Separate independent judge-led reviews in Northern Ireland and Scotland have already published their findings and made hundreds of recommendations.
The England and Wales review, overseen by the Criminal Justice Board, includes input from, among others, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the attorney general’s and the Cabinet Office, Downing Street, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary as well as police, charities and relevant inspectorates.
The victims’ commissioner, Vera Baird, said: “Bearing in mind that independent reviews in both Scotland and Northern Ireland have called for radical measures, we now can’t have anything less in a review in large part produced by the very agencies whose performance is in question.”
The Home Office figures are the latest in a downward trend in the volume of rape prosecutions. For every 10 cases the CPS prosecuted in 2016-17, it now pursues only three. The volume of prosecutions declined 71% between 2016-17 and the calendar year to December 2020, from 5,190 to 1,490.
The drop in prosecutions has led to fewer convictions. There were 1,917 fewer rapists convicted in the year to December 2020 than in 2016-17, a decline of 64%, as the CPS secured 2,991 convictions four years ago compared with 1,074 last year.
The figures come as fears mount about the growing backlog of cases in the criminal courts, with experts warning that the already high drop-out rate for rape victims is likely to increase. The number of victims dropping out of increasingly lengthy investigations and trial processes have rocketed from 25% five years ago to 43% in 2020.
These figures have led to an increasing demand for reform with the Gillen review, published in May 2019, which examined the treatment of serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland making about 250 recommendations, including legal representation for rape complainants, while the Dorrian review in Scotland recommended the introduction of specialist rape courts in March 2021.
According to Guardian analysis, more than 100,000 rapes have been reported to police since the review was announced in March 2019, following concerns about a precipitous drop in the volume of rape cases being prosecuted. Separate independent judge-led reviews in Northern Ireland and Scotland have already published their findings and made hundreds of recommendations.
The England and Wales review, overseen by the Criminal Justice Board, includes input from, among others, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the attorney general’s and the Cabinet Office, Downing Street, the Crown Prosecution Service, the judiciary as well as police, charities and relevant inspectorates.
The victims’ commissioner, Vera Baird, said: “Bearing in mind that independent reviews in both Scotland and Northern Ireland have called for radical measures, we now can’t have anything less in a review in large part produced by the very agencies whose performance is in question.”
The Home Office figures are the latest in a downward trend in the volume of rape prosecutions. For every 10 cases the CPS prosecuted in 2016-17, it now pursues only three. The volume of prosecutions declined 71% between 2016-17 and the calendar year to December 2020, from 5,190 to 1,490.
The drop in prosecutions has led to fewer convictions. There were 1,917 fewer rapists convicted in the year to December 2020 than in 2016-17, a decline of 64%, as the CPS secured 2,991 convictions four years ago compared with 1,074 last year.
The figures come as fears mount about the growing backlog of cases in the criminal courts, with experts warning that the already high drop-out rate for rape victims is likely to increase. The number of victims dropping out of increasingly lengthy investigations and trial processes have rocketed from 25% five years ago to 43% in 2020.
These figures have led to an increasing demand for reform with the Gillen review, published in May 2019, which examined the treatment of serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland making about 250 recommendations, including legal representation for rape complainants, while the Dorrian review in Scotland recommended the introduction of specialist rape courts in March 2021.
An England and Wales review is expected to recommend allowing rape victims to provide pre-recorded evidence before trial, barring the public from the courtroom more often and ensuring police return mobile phones to victims within 24 hours.
The paper quotes Wera Hobhouse, justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, who carried out the analysis on charging rates, said the figures made clear that the criminal justice system was failing women.
The paper quotes Wera Hobhouse, justice spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, who carried out the analysis on charging rates, said the figures made clear that the criminal justice system was failing women.
She said: “Through its inaction, this Conservative government is letting down survivors of sexual violence and allowing criminals to walk free. Ministers must publish the end-to-end review of rape cases without any more delay. We urgently need improvements across the whole justice system, including specific training for police, prosecutors and judges on how to handle these cases sensitively.”
It is time for reform.
It is time for reform.
Monday, May 24, 2021
Cummings exposes misleading ministerial denials
For those of us who had started to doubt our memory when UK Tory Ministers denied that the government had ever had a herd immunity approach to containing Covid, it is good to see that at least one prominent government advisor shares our view that those Ministers were misleading us, even if that advisor is Dominic Cummings.
The Guardian reports Cummings reiterated his argument that herd immunity was the UK government’s initial plan to respond to coronavirus, saying public documents back up his claims despite ministers’ dismissals:
In a likely curtain-raiser to a much-anticipated appearance next week before a Commons committee, Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser said the plan was changed only after ministers believed it would bring mass deaths and an economic “implosion”.
In an earlier contribution to a lengthy Twitter thread begun nearly a week ago, Cummings had on Saturday dismissed as “bullshit” the insistence of Matt Hancock, the health secretary, and other ministers, that herd immunity was not considered.
Herd immunity means enough people within a population gaining resistance to a virus such that it no longer spreads unchecked, and this can happen through vaccination. But Cummings’ contention was that ministers believed it should take place by enough people contracting Covid and getting natural immunity.
Priti Patel dismissed Cummings’ claims during TV interviews on Sunday. “Not at all, no. Absolutely not,” the home secretary told the BBC. Colleagues who were in top-level meetings on Covid at the start of the pandemic “will absolutely recognise that from the discussions that we had”, she added.
She was supported by Dr Jenny Harries, who was deputy chief medical officer for England at the start of the pandemic. Harries told the BBC: “I can categorically say I have never been in any government meeting where herd immunity was put forward at that point of the pandemic as a mechanism of control.”
Before the first lockdown in March last year, Sir Patrick Vallance, England’s chief scientific adviser, spoke openly about delays to measures potentially helping to create herd immunity. Vallance subsequently denied this was an official policy.
In a new series of tweets, Cummings pointed to government-released graphs from the start of the pandemic showing projections for a single, prolonged but flattened wave of infections and deaths, with herd immunity described as “the optimal single-peak strategy”.
In the week of 9 March last year, Cummings wrote, Hancock and Michael Gove’s Cabinet Office belatedly “understood herd immunity effects: 100s of 1000s choking to death + no NHS for *anybody* for months + dead unburied + econ implosion; so we moved to Plan B: suppression + Manhattan Project for drugs/vaccines + test and trace etc”.
He added: “Critical as I am of the PM in all sorts of ways, it’s vital to understand the disaster was not just his fault: the official plan was disastrously misconceived, [the Department of Health and Cabinet Office] did not understand this or why, and a PlanB had to be bodged amid total and utter chaos.”
No doubt this will be explored further in Cummings' Commons appearance this week and also in the official inquiry, but at least we can now see that Ministers have been attempting to rewrite what actually happened, and in doing so vindicated our own flawed memory of events over a year ago.
The Guardian reports Cummings reiterated his argument that herd immunity was the UK government’s initial plan to respond to coronavirus, saying public documents back up his claims despite ministers’ dismissals:
In a likely curtain-raiser to a much-anticipated appearance next week before a Commons committee, Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser said the plan was changed only after ministers believed it would bring mass deaths and an economic “implosion”.
In an earlier contribution to a lengthy Twitter thread begun nearly a week ago, Cummings had on Saturday dismissed as “bullshit” the insistence of Matt Hancock, the health secretary, and other ministers, that herd immunity was not considered.
Herd immunity means enough people within a population gaining resistance to a virus such that it no longer spreads unchecked, and this can happen through vaccination. But Cummings’ contention was that ministers believed it should take place by enough people contracting Covid and getting natural immunity.
Priti Patel dismissed Cummings’ claims during TV interviews on Sunday. “Not at all, no. Absolutely not,” the home secretary told the BBC. Colleagues who were in top-level meetings on Covid at the start of the pandemic “will absolutely recognise that from the discussions that we had”, she added.
She was supported by Dr Jenny Harries, who was deputy chief medical officer for England at the start of the pandemic. Harries told the BBC: “I can categorically say I have never been in any government meeting where herd immunity was put forward at that point of the pandemic as a mechanism of control.”
Before the first lockdown in March last year, Sir Patrick Vallance, England’s chief scientific adviser, spoke openly about delays to measures potentially helping to create herd immunity. Vallance subsequently denied this was an official policy.
In a new series of tweets, Cummings pointed to government-released graphs from the start of the pandemic showing projections for a single, prolonged but flattened wave of infections and deaths, with herd immunity described as “the optimal single-peak strategy”.
In the week of 9 March last year, Cummings wrote, Hancock and Michael Gove’s Cabinet Office belatedly “understood herd immunity effects: 100s of 1000s choking to death + no NHS for *anybody* for months + dead unburied + econ implosion; so we moved to Plan B: suppression + Manhattan Project for drugs/vaccines + test and trace etc”.
He added: “Critical as I am of the PM in all sorts of ways, it’s vital to understand the disaster was not just his fault: the official plan was disastrously misconceived, [the Department of Health and Cabinet Office] did not understand this or why, and a PlanB had to be bodged amid total and utter chaos.”
No doubt this will be explored further in Cummings' Commons appearance this week and also in the official inquiry, but at least we can now see that Ministers have been attempting to rewrite what actually happened, and in doing so vindicated our own flawed memory of events over a year ago.
Sunday, May 23, 2021
Will the Bashir scandal trigger a new assault on the independence of the BBC?
I suppose it was inevitable. The Tories have long sought to rein the BBC in and force the corporation to be more supportive of them, including imposing a more sympathetic chair who has restricted the twitter freedoms of its broadcasters and evens suggesting they employ more right-wing comedians, as if such a thing exists. Now, in the light of the scandal over how Martin Bashir obtained his interview with Princess Diana it looks as if they have the opening they've been looking for.
The Observer reports that Home Secretary, Priti Patel has said, giving the clearest indication yet that ministers are considering potentially sweeping changes to how it is run.
They say that in an interview with Sky’s Trevor Philips on Sunday show, Patel repeatedly characterised the already scheduled mid-point review into the BBC’s charter, due to begin early next year, as likely to involve significant changes to its structures:
“Next year is an opportunity when it comes to the mid-term review of the BBC charter for government and the BBC to absolutely look at new ways of governance of the institution, the organisation,” she said.
“My colleagues in government will absolutely make sure that that is used as the right opportunity not just for reflection but to enhance governance and accountability of the BBC.”
“There will be a very, very significant moment now, there’s no question about this, where lessons have to be learned. Yes, within the BBC itself, within the leadership of the BBC, journalists, and people who work for the BBC too, but ultimately, for governance and accountability that would lead to public trust and confidence in the way the BBC operates and the way in which is conducts its business.”
Patel’s comments mark a significant apparent hardening of attitudes in the days since the publication of a report by the former supreme court judge John Dyson, which found journalist Martin Bashir used “deceitful behaviour” to secure the interview with Diana.
Dyson found Bashir had commissioned fake bank statements that falsely suggested people were being paid to monitor Diana so as to gain access to her, and that the BBC had sought to cover up what had happened for many years.
It prompted a barrage of criticism of the corporation, with princes William and Harry condemning what they called a deception that had heightened the paranoia of their mother.
Culture department sources initially played down the expectation of wholesale changes to the BBC’s structure, noting that its governance had already been radically altered in the 26 years since the interview, and that ministers would firstly try and assess if the new systems were sufficiently robust.
Patel took a notably more robust line, saying it was “a very, very important time for the BBC to look at itself and learn some important and significant lessons”.
She said: “It’s important to recognise the criticism and the deep concern associated with the report that was published by Lord Dyson.
“The BBC, one of our great institutions, its reputation has been compromised. They will have to reflect on the report and spend a great deal of time, I think, looking at how they can regain and rebuild the trust and confidence of the British public.
The culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, would use the mid-charter review “as an opportunity to review governance and accountability structures”, Patel said, adding: “And post-this report, that’s going to be a very, very important moment.”
So much for an independent state broadcaster.
The Observer reports that Home Secretary, Priti Patel has said, giving the clearest indication yet that ministers are considering potentially sweeping changes to how it is run.
They say that in an interview with Sky’s Trevor Philips on Sunday show, Patel repeatedly characterised the already scheduled mid-point review into the BBC’s charter, due to begin early next year, as likely to involve significant changes to its structures:
“Next year is an opportunity when it comes to the mid-term review of the BBC charter for government and the BBC to absolutely look at new ways of governance of the institution, the organisation,” she said.
“My colleagues in government will absolutely make sure that that is used as the right opportunity not just for reflection but to enhance governance and accountability of the BBC.”
“There will be a very, very significant moment now, there’s no question about this, where lessons have to be learned. Yes, within the BBC itself, within the leadership of the BBC, journalists, and people who work for the BBC too, but ultimately, for governance and accountability that would lead to public trust and confidence in the way the BBC operates and the way in which is conducts its business.”
Patel’s comments mark a significant apparent hardening of attitudes in the days since the publication of a report by the former supreme court judge John Dyson, which found journalist Martin Bashir used “deceitful behaviour” to secure the interview with Diana.
Dyson found Bashir had commissioned fake bank statements that falsely suggested people were being paid to monitor Diana so as to gain access to her, and that the BBC had sought to cover up what had happened for many years.
It prompted a barrage of criticism of the corporation, with princes William and Harry condemning what they called a deception that had heightened the paranoia of their mother.
Culture department sources initially played down the expectation of wholesale changes to the BBC’s structure, noting that its governance had already been radically altered in the 26 years since the interview, and that ministers would firstly try and assess if the new systems were sufficiently robust.
Patel took a notably more robust line, saying it was “a very, very important time for the BBC to look at itself and learn some important and significant lessons”.
She said: “It’s important to recognise the criticism and the deep concern associated with the report that was published by Lord Dyson.
“The BBC, one of our great institutions, its reputation has been compromised. They will have to reflect on the report and spend a great deal of time, I think, looking at how they can regain and rebuild the trust and confidence of the British public.
The culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, would use the mid-charter review “as an opportunity to review governance and accountability structures”, Patel said, adding: “And post-this report, that’s going to be a very, very important moment.”
So much for an independent state broadcaster.
Saturday, May 22, 2021
Smoking gun or damp squib?
The Guardian speculates that Dominic Cummings' evidence to MPs on Wednesday about Boris Johnson’s role in making key decisions that critics say may have cost many thousands of lives promises to be the parliamentary event of the year so far – and may yet determine the fate of the prime minister.
They say that hurt by the manner of his departure from No 10, alongside Johnson’s longtime aide Lee Cain, and by the briefing war that then ensued, Cummings seems intent on doing maximum damage to his former boss:
“He doesn’t like the way he left: he thinks he should still be there,” said one senior Tory who knows Cummings well. Asked about Cummings’ intentions, he added: “I think he wants to get Boris out.”
So febrile is the mood at Westminster about the eagerly anticipated hearing that Downing Street was forced to deny on Friday that Johnson is planning a reshuffle on Wednesday, solely to draw attention away from his former aide. “We are not doing a reshuffle,” insisted a No 10 source.
One cabinet minister fretted that Cummings could use the cloak of parliamentary privilege to disclose confidential information about key discussions last year – including potentially handing over documents, something Cummings has suggested he is prepared to do.
The timing of the decisions to implement the lockdown in March 2020 and again in October – weeks after it was recommended by the Sage committee – are likely to come under close scrutiny.
In a recent tweet highlighting the health impact of Covid, Cummings wrote: “Many thousands will have serious health problems for years because of our failure to act faster/harder in Feb/March and Sep”.
The government’s border policies throughout the pandemic are also likely to be examined: Cummings recently described them as a “joke”.
Border restrictions remain contentious, with MPs questioning why Johnson waited until 23 April to put India on the red list – a decision that appears to have been a factor in allowing the variant first identified in India, B.1.617.2, to take hold.
If Cummings delivers as some hope then it may well be spectacular, the question though, must be if it will actually damage Johnson in the polls. So far his popularity appears to be immune to these sort or revelations. How long can that immunity last? We will have to see.
They say that hurt by the manner of his departure from No 10, alongside Johnson’s longtime aide Lee Cain, and by the briefing war that then ensued, Cummings seems intent on doing maximum damage to his former boss:
“He doesn’t like the way he left: he thinks he should still be there,” said one senior Tory who knows Cummings well. Asked about Cummings’ intentions, he added: “I think he wants to get Boris out.”
So febrile is the mood at Westminster about the eagerly anticipated hearing that Downing Street was forced to deny on Friday that Johnson is planning a reshuffle on Wednesday, solely to draw attention away from his former aide. “We are not doing a reshuffle,” insisted a No 10 source.
One cabinet minister fretted that Cummings could use the cloak of parliamentary privilege to disclose confidential information about key discussions last year – including potentially handing over documents, something Cummings has suggested he is prepared to do.
The timing of the decisions to implement the lockdown in March 2020 and again in October – weeks after it was recommended by the Sage committee – are likely to come under close scrutiny.
In a recent tweet highlighting the health impact of Covid, Cummings wrote: “Many thousands will have serious health problems for years because of our failure to act faster/harder in Feb/March and Sep”.
The government’s border policies throughout the pandemic are also likely to be examined: Cummings recently described them as a “joke”.
Border restrictions remain contentious, with MPs questioning why Johnson waited until 23 April to put India on the red list – a decision that appears to have been a factor in allowing the variant first identified in India, B.1.617.2, to take hold.
If Cummings delivers as some hope then it may well be spectacular, the question though, must be if it will actually damage Johnson in the polls. So far his popularity appears to be immune to these sort or revelations. How long can that immunity last? We will have to see.
Friday, May 21, 2021
Bringing in the builders
It isn't just Boris Johnson who has been busy renovating his 'grace and favour' flat, though in his case there are still legitimate and unanswered questions as to who paid and whether any loans were properly declared. The Guardian reports that a secret plan to renovate five “grace and favour” flats on the parliamentary estate for senior House of Commons staff has cost nearly £700,000 of public money:
Emails released under the Freedom of Information Act show that officials were initially given a budget of £280,000 for the refurbishment.
But after installing new kitchens, bathrooms, carpets and floors, receipts released to the Guardian show that more than £693,000 has been spent so far on outside contractors. Some of the work is yet to be completed.
The House of Commons commission, a powerful committee chaired by Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, decided in March 2020 to push through plans to transform existing flats and converted offices into modern apartments.
The flats, whose location has been withheld by the Guardian on security grounds, have easy access to sites including the Commons’ chamber and Portcullis House, where many MPs have offices.
Officials who will live in the flats include Helen Wood, the Speaker’s key adviser and chief of his staff, head of governance and the secretary to the commission Marianne Cwynarski, and the clerk of the house John Benger.
Parliamentary sources confirmed that some staff were invited to choose their own decor and fittings within an agreed budget.
Hoyle has been living in one of the flats, parliamentary sources confirmed. They claim that he is doing so while fire safety work is carried out on his official residence in the Palace of Westminster.
The paper says that neither the renovation plan nor its costs are referred to on the House of Commons Commission’s website and, in keeping with the committee’s rules, was not approved by parliament. So much for transparency and accountability.
Emails released under the Freedom of Information Act show that officials were initially given a budget of £280,000 for the refurbishment.
But after installing new kitchens, bathrooms, carpets and floors, receipts released to the Guardian show that more than £693,000 has been spent so far on outside contractors. Some of the work is yet to be completed.
The House of Commons commission, a powerful committee chaired by Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, decided in March 2020 to push through plans to transform existing flats and converted offices into modern apartments.
The flats, whose location has been withheld by the Guardian on security grounds, have easy access to sites including the Commons’ chamber and Portcullis House, where many MPs have offices.
Officials who will live in the flats include Helen Wood, the Speaker’s key adviser and chief of his staff, head of governance and the secretary to the commission Marianne Cwynarski, and the clerk of the house John Benger.
Parliamentary sources confirmed that some staff were invited to choose their own decor and fittings within an agreed budget.
Hoyle has been living in one of the flats, parliamentary sources confirmed. They claim that he is doing so while fire safety work is carried out on his official residence in the Palace of Westminster.
The paper says that neither the renovation plan nor its costs are referred to on the House of Commons Commission’s website and, in keeping with the committee’s rules, was not approved by parliament. So much for transparency and accountability.
Thursday, May 20, 2021
The French strike back over Brexit
I don't tend to look at the websites for the reactionary press such as the Mail and Express, so I have no idea whether or not there are English 'gentlemen' spluttering over breakfast coffee at the news that their ability to travel to their pied-à-terre in Paris or holiday cottage on the Côte d'Azur has been compromised by Brexit. But if they did vote for Brexit, or supported it like the Express and Mail, then what did they expect would happen?
The Guardian reports that British visitors to France and Spain may be asked to show proof of their accommodation, including an official certificate obtained in advance if they are staying with friends or family, once Covid travel restrictions are lifted:
Since Brexit, anyone in France hosting non-EU nationals is expected to complete an attestation d’accueil (accommodation certificate) form and submit it for approval to their town hall, a process that can take up to a month.
Once stamped, the form, which costs €30 (£26) and requires supporting documents such as proof of address, income and right of residence, must then be forwarded to the guest so they can show it at the border, where officials are entitled to ask for it.
Second homeowners and holidaymakers staying in hotels or rented accommodation will not need the certificate, but may equally be asked to provide evidence of where they will be staying in France, such as a utility bill or confirmation of their booking.
In Spain, residents hosting non-EU friends or family are expected to apply to the national police, with similar supporting documentation, for a carta de invitación (letter of invitation) costing €74.
The paper says it is not clear to what extent the requirements, which are consistent with Schengen zone border regulations for some third-country nationals, will be enforced for British travellers. However, accounts of mistreatment of EU citizens in the UK suggest the chance of tougher border checks in the future cannot be excluded and the British government has advised travellers, including those staying with friends or family, to err on the side of caution.
You reap what you sow I suppose.
The Guardian reports that British visitors to France and Spain may be asked to show proof of their accommodation, including an official certificate obtained in advance if they are staying with friends or family, once Covid travel restrictions are lifted:
Since Brexit, anyone in France hosting non-EU nationals is expected to complete an attestation d’accueil (accommodation certificate) form and submit it for approval to their town hall, a process that can take up to a month.
Once stamped, the form, which costs €30 (£26) and requires supporting documents such as proof of address, income and right of residence, must then be forwarded to the guest so they can show it at the border, where officials are entitled to ask for it.
Second homeowners and holidaymakers staying in hotels or rented accommodation will not need the certificate, but may equally be asked to provide evidence of where they will be staying in France, such as a utility bill or confirmation of their booking.
In Spain, residents hosting non-EU friends or family are expected to apply to the national police, with similar supporting documentation, for a carta de invitación (letter of invitation) costing €74.
The paper says it is not clear to what extent the requirements, which are consistent with Schengen zone border regulations for some third-country nationals, will be enforced for British travellers. However, accounts of mistreatment of EU citizens in the UK suggest the chance of tougher border checks in the future cannot be excluded and the British government has advised travellers, including those staying with friends or family, to err on the side of caution.
You reap what you sow I suppose.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
The climate crisis getting too close to home
For many people the climate crisis is a remote phenomenon that has little bearing on their lives. Granted the weather is a bit more extreme and unpredictable, but for those of us living in the UK we have not yet seen the crop failures, famines and destructive weather patterns that have emerged elsewhere in the world as a result of global warming. That though, may change some time soon.
The Guardian reports that new data from the British Geological Survey (BGS) suggests millions of homes are at increased risk of subsidence due to hotter and drier summers being driven by global heating causing the ground under houses to shrink and crack.
They say the key areas affected are London, Essex, Kent, and a swathe of land from Oxford up to the Wash. This is because the clay formations underlying these areas are most vulnerable to losing moisture:
In a medium scenario for future emissions, the area of Great Britain that is highly or extremely likely to see increased risk of clay-related subsidence increases by a third from 2020 to 2030 and triples by 2050.
The projections are similar in a separate high emissions scenario, but this dataset allows the number of homes at risk of subsidence to be calculated. About a million homes were at risk in 1990 and this rises to 2.4m in 2030 and 4m in 2070. London is the most affected, with nearly half of the capital’s homes at increased risk in 2030 and 57% in 2070, according to BGS.
“It is a very clear message that repeats in both projections,” said Anna Harrison, at BGS. “The south-east gets a double whammy, in that they’ve got susceptible geology and much drier, warmer summers are projected there.”
The subsidence risk projections could be used as a planning tool, she said, to highlight areas where the foundations of new houses may need to be deeper to avoid future problems. Subsidence is estimated to have cost £3bn in the last decade.
“Dry weather and high temperatures are going to be a major factor in the emergence of future shrink-swell subsidence,” said Lee Jones, a geological engineer at BGS. “The longer drought you get, and the higher the temperature is, the more moisture that’s going to be driven off.”
“In the south-east, many of the clay formations are too young to have been changed into stronger mud rocks, leaving them vulnerable to absorb and lose moisture,” he said.
The big question is whether the UK government and local authorities are geared up to deal with this issue. In my view that is unlikely.
The Guardian reports that new data from the British Geological Survey (BGS) suggests millions of homes are at increased risk of subsidence due to hotter and drier summers being driven by global heating causing the ground under houses to shrink and crack.
They say the key areas affected are London, Essex, Kent, and a swathe of land from Oxford up to the Wash. This is because the clay formations underlying these areas are most vulnerable to losing moisture:
In a medium scenario for future emissions, the area of Great Britain that is highly or extremely likely to see increased risk of clay-related subsidence increases by a third from 2020 to 2030 and triples by 2050.
The projections are similar in a separate high emissions scenario, but this dataset allows the number of homes at risk of subsidence to be calculated. About a million homes were at risk in 1990 and this rises to 2.4m in 2030 and 4m in 2070. London is the most affected, with nearly half of the capital’s homes at increased risk in 2030 and 57% in 2070, according to BGS.
“It is a very clear message that repeats in both projections,” said Anna Harrison, at BGS. “The south-east gets a double whammy, in that they’ve got susceptible geology and much drier, warmer summers are projected there.”
The subsidence risk projections could be used as a planning tool, she said, to highlight areas where the foundations of new houses may need to be deeper to avoid future problems. Subsidence is estimated to have cost £3bn in the last decade.
“Dry weather and high temperatures are going to be a major factor in the emergence of future shrink-swell subsidence,” said Lee Jones, a geological engineer at BGS. “The longer drought you get, and the higher the temperature is, the more moisture that’s going to be driven off.”
“In the south-east, many of the clay formations are too young to have been changed into stronger mud rocks, leaving them vulnerable to absorb and lose moisture,” he said.
The big question is whether the UK government and local authorities are geared up to deal with this issue. In my view that is unlikely.
The Guardian says that in 2019, the UK’s official advisers, the Climate Change Committee, said it was shocked at the lack of proper plans for protecting people from heatwaves, flash flooding and other impacts of the climate crisis. I suspect nothing much has changed since then.
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
More Home Office failures
A letter in the Guardian four days ago from Home Office Permanent Secretary, Matthew Rycroft sought to deal with some of the bad publicity being experienced by his department as a result of the inhumane and cruel policies being advocated by his political masters.
Mr Rycroft argued that those working under him are committed to public service, determined to have a positive impact and are focused on doing the right thing. I have no argument with that statement. His staff are non-political public servants carrying out the policies of an elected government.
Mr Rycroft argued that those working under him are committed to public service, determined to have a positive impact and are focused on doing the right thing. I have no argument with that statement. His staff are non-political public servants carrying out the policies of an elected government.
Where I do take issue is over the professed values which, Mr Rycroft characterises as 'compassionate, respectful, courageous, collaborative.'
Those values may be evident in the individuals working in the Home Office, but they are not reflected in the actions of the department as a whole, something that is abundantly clear from this article in yesterday's Guardian.
The paper reports a number of long-term British citizens have expressed alarm at receiving letters from the Home Office telling them they risk losing the right to work, benefits and free healthcare unless they apply for UK immigration status in the next six weeks:
Campaigners said they were concerned that the “scattergun” mailshot, which was sent out to thousands of people instructing them to apply for EU settled status before the end of June, revealed weaknesses in the Home Office’s databases, and a lack of bureaucratic clarity about who has the right to live in the UK.
The letter, which was wrongly sent to numerous people who have lived in the UK for over 40 years, states: “The United Kingdom has left the European Union, so to carry on living in the UK after 30 June 2021, you and your family members need to have a UK immigration status,” the letter states.
Among those who received the letter were several people with dual citizenship, including retired nurse Marianne Howard, 82, originally from Germany, who has been a British citizen for over 50 years; retired structural engineer George Smid, who was born in what was then Czechoslovakia and became a British citizen in 1987; Isabella Moore, originally from Poland, who has had citizenship for over 40 years and spent 33 years working as an NHS doctor; academic Jan Culik, who holds a Czech passport and naturalised in the UK 36 years ago; and architect Eva Apollo-Crawshaw, originally from Poland, who has been a British citizen for 40 years.
Several expressed their unease about the insensitivity of the letter’s wording, which highlighted that urgent action was required if the recipient and their family were to continue to be eligible for benefits, free healthcare and the right to work in the UK. Some, but not all, versions of the letter include a paragraph on the second page, telling recipients to ignore the notification if they already have citizenship. Anyone confused by the letter was invited to call a helpline, and several of those who tried to do so over the weekend and on Monday were directed to an answerphone message which stated: “We are experiencing a high demand for our services and currently have no more space in our call queue.”
Some recipients said they were disturbed to discover that they remain classified as foreigners on internal Home Office databases, despite having been British for decades.
These are not the actions of a compassionate and respectful department.
Those values may be evident in the individuals working in the Home Office, but they are not reflected in the actions of the department as a whole, something that is abundantly clear from this article in yesterday's Guardian.
The paper reports a number of long-term British citizens have expressed alarm at receiving letters from the Home Office telling them they risk losing the right to work, benefits and free healthcare unless they apply for UK immigration status in the next six weeks:
Campaigners said they were concerned that the “scattergun” mailshot, which was sent out to thousands of people instructing them to apply for EU settled status before the end of June, revealed weaknesses in the Home Office’s databases, and a lack of bureaucratic clarity about who has the right to live in the UK.
The letter, which was wrongly sent to numerous people who have lived in the UK for over 40 years, states: “The United Kingdom has left the European Union, so to carry on living in the UK after 30 June 2021, you and your family members need to have a UK immigration status,” the letter states.
Among those who received the letter were several people with dual citizenship, including retired nurse Marianne Howard, 82, originally from Germany, who has been a British citizen for over 50 years; retired structural engineer George Smid, who was born in what was then Czechoslovakia and became a British citizen in 1987; Isabella Moore, originally from Poland, who has had citizenship for over 40 years and spent 33 years working as an NHS doctor; academic Jan Culik, who holds a Czech passport and naturalised in the UK 36 years ago; and architect Eva Apollo-Crawshaw, originally from Poland, who has been a British citizen for 40 years.
Several expressed their unease about the insensitivity of the letter’s wording, which highlighted that urgent action was required if the recipient and their family were to continue to be eligible for benefits, free healthcare and the right to work in the UK. Some, but not all, versions of the letter include a paragraph on the second page, telling recipients to ignore the notification if they already have citizenship. Anyone confused by the letter was invited to call a helpline, and several of those who tried to do so over the weekend and on Monday were directed to an answerphone message which stated: “We are experiencing a high demand for our services and currently have no more space in our call queue.”
Some recipients said they were disturbed to discover that they remain classified as foreigners on internal Home Office databases, despite having been British for decades.
These are not the actions of a compassionate and respectful department.
Monday, May 17, 2021
UK Labour shortage looms
The Guardian reports that Britain’s employers are struggling to hire staff as lockdown lifts amid an exodus of overseas workers caused by the Covid pandemic and Brexit:
According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the recruitment firm Adecco, employers plan to hire at the fastest rate in eight years, led by the reopening of the hospitality and retail sectors as pandemic restrictions are relaxed in England and Wales on Monday.
However, in a sign of growing pressures in the jobs market amid rapid growth in consumer spending, the professional body for HR and people development said there had been a sharp decline in the numbers of EU workers, fuelling the risk of labour shortages.
Separate figures from Adzuna showed rapid growth in hiring, with almost 1m vacancies listed on the jobs website, up 18% on six weeks ago amid a rise in jobs in hotels, restaurants and in the events and leisure sector. But it warned there had been a steep decline in overseas jobseeker interest.
The jobs website, which is tracked by government officials for early warning signs from the labour market, found the number of overseas job searches from western Europe and North America had halved – a decline of about 250,000 – since February 2020, just before Covid-19 spread to the UK.
It said the decline was being led in particular by overseas interest in typically lower-paid service-led sectors, while some towns and cities have up to 20 jobs on offer per jobseeker. According to the research, Maidstone in Kent is the hardest place to hire, followed by Manchester, Cambridge and Oxford.
The problems with COVID are of course not the fault of the government, but going ahead with Brexit in the middle of a pandemic and against all the warnings not to is their responsibility. These are the consequences.
According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the recruitment firm Adecco, employers plan to hire at the fastest rate in eight years, led by the reopening of the hospitality and retail sectors as pandemic restrictions are relaxed in England and Wales on Monday.
However, in a sign of growing pressures in the jobs market amid rapid growth in consumer spending, the professional body for HR and people development said there had been a sharp decline in the numbers of EU workers, fuelling the risk of labour shortages.
Separate figures from Adzuna showed rapid growth in hiring, with almost 1m vacancies listed on the jobs website, up 18% on six weeks ago amid a rise in jobs in hotels, restaurants and in the events and leisure sector. But it warned there had been a steep decline in overseas jobseeker interest.
The jobs website, which is tracked by government officials for early warning signs from the labour market, found the number of overseas job searches from western Europe and North America had halved – a decline of about 250,000 – since February 2020, just before Covid-19 spread to the UK.
It said the decline was being led in particular by overseas interest in typically lower-paid service-led sectors, while some towns and cities have up to 20 jobs on offer per jobseeker. According to the research, Maidstone in Kent is the hardest place to hire, followed by Manchester, Cambridge and Oxford.
The problems with COVID are of course not the fault of the government, but going ahead with Brexit in the middle of a pandemic and against all the warnings not to is their responsibility. These are the consequences.
Sunday, May 16, 2021
Another day, another Tory lobbying controversy
The Guardian reports that Home Secretary, Priti Patel has been accused of a “flagrant breach” of the ministerial code by allegedly lobbying Michael Gove over a £20m deal.
The paper refers to documents that show Patel attempted to secure a personal protective equipment (PPE) deal for the healthcare firm Pharmaceuticals Direct Ltd (PDL) in May 2020. Her efforts failed after the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the masks were “not suitable for the NHS”, according to disclosure in a legal case. But PDL was awarded a £102.7m contract weeks later in July to provide a different type of mask. On both occasions, Samir Jassal was Patel’s contact at PDL.
They add that Jassal has stood as a Conservative candidate at two general elections and has met Boris Johnson and David Cameron:
Disclosure from the government – in response to a pre-action letter from the Good Law Project campaign group – revealed a letter Patel wrote to Gove in May last year. The Daily Mail, which first reported on the documents, said the possible deal was worth £20m.
In the letter, Patel expressed disappointment that the government no longer required supplies of KN95 masks from PDL, saying “they have committed stock and secured supply, exposing them to considerable financial risk and pressures”.
“The late stage in which the government has decided not to use them has caused these problems,” the home secretary wrote on 3 May last year.
She went on to say she would be “most grateful” if Hancock could review the matter urgently and urged him to “work with the company to distribute and supply these masks”.
Hancock wrote back 10 days later to say that “KN95 face masks are Chinese standards” and that UK officials have concluded that they are “not suitable for use in the NHS”.
We can only hope that the public inquiry into the government's handling of Covid includes a special section on procurement and its transparency.
The paper refers to documents that show Patel attempted to secure a personal protective equipment (PPE) deal for the healthcare firm Pharmaceuticals Direct Ltd (PDL) in May 2020. Her efforts failed after the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the masks were “not suitable for the NHS”, according to disclosure in a legal case. But PDL was awarded a £102.7m contract weeks later in July to provide a different type of mask. On both occasions, Samir Jassal was Patel’s contact at PDL.
They add that Jassal has stood as a Conservative candidate at two general elections and has met Boris Johnson and David Cameron:
Disclosure from the government – in response to a pre-action letter from the Good Law Project campaign group – revealed a letter Patel wrote to Gove in May last year. The Daily Mail, which first reported on the documents, said the possible deal was worth £20m.
In the letter, Patel expressed disappointment that the government no longer required supplies of KN95 masks from PDL, saying “they have committed stock and secured supply, exposing them to considerable financial risk and pressures”.
“The late stage in which the government has decided not to use them has caused these problems,” the home secretary wrote on 3 May last year.
She went on to say she would be “most grateful” if Hancock could review the matter urgently and urged him to “work with the company to distribute and supply these masks”.
Hancock wrote back 10 days later to say that “KN95 face masks are Chinese standards” and that UK officials have concluded that they are “not suitable for use in the NHS”.
We can only hope that the public inquiry into the government's handling of Covid includes a special section on procurement and its transparency.
Saturday, May 15, 2021
Is Johnson a teflon Prime Minister?
I am starting to lose count of the potential scandals that are currently circling the Prime Minister and his party. There has been the controversy over Tory donors winning massive contracts for PPE, issues around preferential lobbying, inquiries into who paid to refurbish the Downing Street flat, a County Court Judgement being issued against Boris Johnson for an outstanding debt, and now questions as to whether a holiday in Mustique costing between £15.000 and £30,000 was properly declared as a gift in kind.
Despite all of this Johnson appears to be as popular as ever and according to the last poll, the Tories are 15 points ahead in public support.
The Independent reports that the Parliament’s standards watchdog is said to believe Boris Johnson’s holiday to Mustique was worth more than double the £15,000 he declared in the Commons register. Kathryn Stone, the commissioner for standards, has also said the bill had not been met by Tory donor David Ross as the prime minister has insisted:
The revelation will heap further pressure on Mr Johnson as he faces various investigations into whether he properly declared any donations to cover the lavish refurbishments of his official flat.
Downing Street insisted the PM “transparently declared the benefit in kind” of the luxury Caribbean holiday, and noted that Mr Ross confirmed the declaration is “correct”.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards confirmed this week she is still investigating whether Mr Johnson properly declared the holiday on the private island 16 months ago
In the Register of Members’ Interests, the prime minister declared the trip with fiancee Carrie Symonds as a “benefit in kind” from the Carphone Warehouse founder who has a villa on the island. But the Daily Mail reported that Ms Stone believes the break was worth more than twice the declared £15,000.
Mr Johnson was said to have refused to accept the ruling and is trying to have it overturned to avoid the risk of being suspended as an MP.
A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The PM transparently declared the benefit in kind in the Commons Register of Interests. The Cabinet Office was aware of the declaration and was content it was appropriate.
“A spokesman for Mr Ross confirmed the PM’s declaration is correct and the accommodation was facilitated as a donation in kind.”
What is it exactly about Boris Johnson that sets him apart from other politicians and appears to make him untouchable when it comes to accusations that would be career-ending for anybody else? Will these latest accusations be the ones that finally do for his stint as Prime Minister? We can only wait and see.
The Independent reports that the Parliament’s standards watchdog is said to believe Boris Johnson’s holiday to Mustique was worth more than double the £15,000 he declared in the Commons register. Kathryn Stone, the commissioner for standards, has also said the bill had not been met by Tory donor David Ross as the prime minister has insisted:
The revelation will heap further pressure on Mr Johnson as he faces various investigations into whether he properly declared any donations to cover the lavish refurbishments of his official flat.
Downing Street insisted the PM “transparently declared the benefit in kind” of the luxury Caribbean holiday, and noted that Mr Ross confirmed the declaration is “correct”.
The parliamentary commissioner for standards confirmed this week she is still investigating whether Mr Johnson properly declared the holiday on the private island 16 months ago
In the Register of Members’ Interests, the prime minister declared the trip with fiancee Carrie Symonds as a “benefit in kind” from the Carphone Warehouse founder who has a villa on the island. But the Daily Mail reported that Ms Stone believes the break was worth more than twice the declared £15,000.
Mr Johnson was said to have refused to accept the ruling and is trying to have it overturned to avoid the risk of being suspended as an MP.
A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The PM transparently declared the benefit in kind in the Commons Register of Interests. The Cabinet Office was aware of the declaration and was content it was appropriate.
“A spokesman for Mr Ross confirmed the PM’s declaration is correct and the accommodation was facilitated as a donation in kind.”
What is it exactly about Boris Johnson that sets him apart from other politicians and appears to make him untouchable when it comes to accusations that would be career-ending for anybody else? Will these latest accusations be the ones that finally do for his stint as Prime Minister? We can only wait and see.
Friday, May 14, 2021
Hostile environment or police state?
The more I read about the so-called 'hostile environment' being imposed by this conservative government, the more disturbed and uncomfortable I become. I do not want to be associated with these policies, which are more akin to a police state than the democratic country I grew up in.
In its latest incarnation the 'hostile environment' is now targeting European citizens arriving in the UK for job interviews and other legitimate business reasons. The Guardian reports that Europeans with job interviews are among those being denied entry and locked up, in some cases they are being sent to immigration removal centres and held in airport detention rooms.
Victims have spoken of being subjected to the traumatic and humiliating experience of expulsion, despite Home Office rules that explicitly allow non-visa holders to attend interviews. The paper says that confusion about whether EU citizens can explore the UK job market and then go home with an offer in order to apply for a work visa has added to the growing number of detentions. In other cases, visitors are clearly breaking rules, such as those now barring EU citizens from taking up unpaid internships:
At least a dozen European citizens – mostly young women – were detained and expelled at Gatwick airport alone over 48 hours last week, two female Spanish detainees told the Guardian. Some were sent two hours’ drive away to Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire, where a Covid scare meant they were confined to their rooms.
Other countries whose citizens have been held at a UK airport or detention centre include Italy, France, Bulgaria and Greece. It is understood one French man was held at Edinburgh airport for 48 hours recently, while the Bulgarian ambassador to the UK confirmed a number of his nationals had been held at immigration removal centres.
The two Spanish women were detained at Gatwick on 2 and 3 May after arriving on separate flights from Valencia and Bilbao.
María, 25, from Valencia, said that like many of those detained, she thought she was free to explore the job market at least until October, especially since she had lived and worked in the UK before. María said that when Border Force officials at Gatwick said they would expel her, she offered to pay for a flight home the same day. Instead, she was sent to Yarl’s Wood, where she spent three anxious days. “I’m still in shock,” she said.
When the Guardian first spoke to María on Friday she was at Yarl’s Wood and scared that she had been exposed to Covid. Later that day she was released and ordered to quarantine at her sister’s home in Bexleyheath, in south-east London, until 17 May. Border Force officials kept her passport.
“So much time is being wasted,” she said. “The worst thing was that no one at Yarl’s Wood could tell me what was going to happen. My freedom had been taken away and I couldn’t get legal advice.”
Eugenia, a 24-year-old woman from the Basque region of northern Spain, reached Gatwick on Sunday 2 May on a flight from Bilbao. She planned to look for a job offer, go home to apply for a visa and then return to live with her Spanish boyfriend, an NHS worker who has been in the UK for four years. “I had a return ticket and had filled out an online travel form in which I explained all that,” she said.
At Gatwick, Eugenia had her mobile phone taken away and was locked in a holding room for 24 hours, sleeping on a fold-out bed with half a dozen others. Then she was put on a flight to Barcelona along with another Spanish woman who had arrived for a job interview.
Between them, María and Eugenia (who asked that their real names not be used) said they met a dozen other European citizens detained for similar reasons, accounting for half of the people in Gatwick’s detention rooms. They included two Spaniards with job interviews, a French woman with an internship and a Czech woman who had flown in from Mexico and was being sent back there.
“The Czech girl was desperate,” said Eugenia, who spent part of her 24 hours locked up in tears. “Like me, she knew we couldn’t start work immediately, but understood that you could look for jobs and come back to the UK later after obtaining a visa. When she offered to pay for a flight back to Prague, they said no – that they were expelling her to Mexico.”
Other travellers with Italian, Portuguese and eastern European passports were also being expelled.
Araniya Kogulathas, a barrister with the NGO Bail for Immigration Detainees, sums it up when she says EU citizens were experiencing Britain’s hostile environment for immigration:
“The Home Office need to explain why exploring the job market or attending an interview justifies refusing EEA nationals entry at the border when immigration rules specifically allow visitors to – among other things – attend meetings, conferences and interviews,” she said. “It seems to be detaining people despite being unclear of its own position. This is yet another illustration of the normalisation of immigration detention in the UK and the Home Office’s disdain for the right to liberty.”
Detainees complained that they were not informed of their right to seek legal assistance. María only learned about the Yarl’s Wood Covid scare from her sister, who was barred from visiting because of it. The Home Office denied there had been an “outbreak”.
There is some hope for the country though as the Guardian reports elsewhere that two men detained by UK Immigration Enforcement were released back into their community after a day of protest in Glasgow. This is not typical however. Maybe if Europe retaliates and treats UK citizens visiting the EU in the same way the Home Secretary will see the error of her ways. I am not holding my breath.
In its latest incarnation the 'hostile environment' is now targeting European citizens arriving in the UK for job interviews and other legitimate business reasons. The Guardian reports that Europeans with job interviews are among those being denied entry and locked up, in some cases they are being sent to immigration removal centres and held in airport detention rooms.
Victims have spoken of being subjected to the traumatic and humiliating experience of expulsion, despite Home Office rules that explicitly allow non-visa holders to attend interviews. The paper says that confusion about whether EU citizens can explore the UK job market and then go home with an offer in order to apply for a work visa has added to the growing number of detentions. In other cases, visitors are clearly breaking rules, such as those now barring EU citizens from taking up unpaid internships:
At least a dozen European citizens – mostly young women – were detained and expelled at Gatwick airport alone over 48 hours last week, two female Spanish detainees told the Guardian. Some were sent two hours’ drive away to Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire, where a Covid scare meant they were confined to their rooms.
Other countries whose citizens have been held at a UK airport or detention centre include Italy, France, Bulgaria and Greece. It is understood one French man was held at Edinburgh airport for 48 hours recently, while the Bulgarian ambassador to the UK confirmed a number of his nationals had been held at immigration removal centres.
The two Spanish women were detained at Gatwick on 2 and 3 May after arriving on separate flights from Valencia and Bilbao.
María, 25, from Valencia, said that like many of those detained, she thought she was free to explore the job market at least until October, especially since she had lived and worked in the UK before. María said that when Border Force officials at Gatwick said they would expel her, she offered to pay for a flight home the same day. Instead, she was sent to Yarl’s Wood, where she spent three anxious days. “I’m still in shock,” she said.
When the Guardian first spoke to María on Friday she was at Yarl’s Wood and scared that she had been exposed to Covid. Later that day she was released and ordered to quarantine at her sister’s home in Bexleyheath, in south-east London, until 17 May. Border Force officials kept her passport.
“So much time is being wasted,” she said. “The worst thing was that no one at Yarl’s Wood could tell me what was going to happen. My freedom had been taken away and I couldn’t get legal advice.”
Eugenia, a 24-year-old woman from the Basque region of northern Spain, reached Gatwick on Sunday 2 May on a flight from Bilbao. She planned to look for a job offer, go home to apply for a visa and then return to live with her Spanish boyfriend, an NHS worker who has been in the UK for four years. “I had a return ticket and had filled out an online travel form in which I explained all that,” she said.
At Gatwick, Eugenia had her mobile phone taken away and was locked in a holding room for 24 hours, sleeping on a fold-out bed with half a dozen others. Then she was put on a flight to Barcelona along with another Spanish woman who had arrived for a job interview.
Between them, María and Eugenia (who asked that their real names not be used) said they met a dozen other European citizens detained for similar reasons, accounting for half of the people in Gatwick’s detention rooms. They included two Spaniards with job interviews, a French woman with an internship and a Czech woman who had flown in from Mexico and was being sent back there.
“The Czech girl was desperate,” said Eugenia, who spent part of her 24 hours locked up in tears. “Like me, she knew we couldn’t start work immediately, but understood that you could look for jobs and come back to the UK later after obtaining a visa. When she offered to pay for a flight back to Prague, they said no – that they were expelling her to Mexico.”
Other travellers with Italian, Portuguese and eastern European passports were also being expelled.
Araniya Kogulathas, a barrister with the NGO Bail for Immigration Detainees, sums it up when she says EU citizens were experiencing Britain’s hostile environment for immigration:
“The Home Office need to explain why exploring the job market or attending an interview justifies refusing EEA nationals entry at the border when immigration rules specifically allow visitors to – among other things – attend meetings, conferences and interviews,” she said. “It seems to be detaining people despite being unclear of its own position. This is yet another illustration of the normalisation of immigration detention in the UK and the Home Office’s disdain for the right to liberty.”
Detainees complained that they were not informed of their right to seek legal assistance. María only learned about the Yarl’s Wood Covid scare from her sister, who was barred from visiting because of it. The Home Office denied there had been an “outbreak”.
There is some hope for the country though as the Guardian reports elsewhere that two men detained by UK Immigration Enforcement were released back into their community after a day of protest in Glasgow. This is not typical however. Maybe if Europe retaliates and treats UK citizens visiting the EU in the same way the Home Secretary will see the error of her ways. I am not holding my breath.
Thursday, May 13, 2021
Councils may have to issue 3.5 million ID cards
An illustration of the impact of proposed UK voter suppression measures is provided in yesterday's Guardian, where it is reported that local authorities could have to issue up to 3.5 million identity cards as part of plans for mandatory voter ID, prompting warnings over potential high costs and disruption for councils.
The government has estimated that only 2 million cards will need to be issued but experience in Northern Ireland indicates that this is an underestimate. They introduced mandatory voter ID in 1985 after sectarian-based attempts to rig elections through multiple votes. When a photo requirement was introduced in 2003, as well as being allowed to use a wide range of existing documents, people could apply for an electoral identity card:
In the first two years of the scheme, about 97,000 cards were issued, with an average of more than 19,000 a year since. Extrapolated to the population of the rest of the UK, this could mean close to 3.5m voter cards being requested at the start of the scheme and almost 700,000 a year after that.
Stuart Wilks-Heeg, an expert on election processes at the University of Liverpool who carried out the analysis, said it would “represent a huge challenge”, particularly as the work would be carried out by under-resourced local election teams.
He said: “The government needs to be clear about how the issuing of such cards will be funded and how common standards of service will be guaranteed for electors across the country.”
The Cabinet Office, which is responsible for elections, notes that the Northern Ireland cards can be used for proof of age and other purposes, whereas the GB ones will not, which will mean demand for them will be lower. It says central government will cover the costs of the scheme, but has not yet said how.
Labour and Conservative council leaders have told the Guardian they have received no information yet on how the voter card scheme will work, or who would pay for it. One Labour leader said: “It’s another case of the government just doing things to us.”
The fact is that many people will not bother applying for these cards, meaning even lower turnouts than at present. There has been no indication who will pick up the tab for the higher administrative and clerical costs that will be incurred by councils, while no thought appears to have been given to the well-being and safety of polling station staff who are likely to end up turning voters away.
This is a solution looking for a problem and so far the only apparent beneficiaries are the Tory Party.
The government has estimated that only 2 million cards will need to be issued but experience in Northern Ireland indicates that this is an underestimate. They introduced mandatory voter ID in 1985 after sectarian-based attempts to rig elections through multiple votes. When a photo requirement was introduced in 2003, as well as being allowed to use a wide range of existing documents, people could apply for an electoral identity card:
In the first two years of the scheme, about 97,000 cards were issued, with an average of more than 19,000 a year since. Extrapolated to the population of the rest of the UK, this could mean close to 3.5m voter cards being requested at the start of the scheme and almost 700,000 a year after that.
Stuart Wilks-Heeg, an expert on election processes at the University of Liverpool who carried out the analysis, said it would “represent a huge challenge”, particularly as the work would be carried out by under-resourced local election teams.
He said: “The government needs to be clear about how the issuing of such cards will be funded and how common standards of service will be guaranteed for electors across the country.”
The Cabinet Office, which is responsible for elections, notes that the Northern Ireland cards can be used for proof of age and other purposes, whereas the GB ones will not, which will mean demand for them will be lower. It says central government will cover the costs of the scheme, but has not yet said how.
Labour and Conservative council leaders have told the Guardian they have received no information yet on how the voter card scheme will work, or who would pay for it. One Labour leader said: “It’s another case of the government just doing things to us.”
The fact is that many people will not bother applying for these cards, meaning even lower turnouts than at present. There has been no indication who will pick up the tab for the higher administrative and clerical costs that will be incurred by councils, while no thought appears to have been given to the well-being and safety of polling station staff who are likely to end up turning voters away.
This is a solution looking for a problem and so far the only apparent beneficiaries are the Tory Party.
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
Another broken promise by Boris Johnson
Well, I suppose nobody really expected the Prime Minister to deliver on his election promises, but the latest one missing in action is actually quite important and was a key part of the reassurances behind Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.
The Guardian reports that Boris Johnson has been accused of backtracking on a promise to boost workers’ rights after leaving out landmark reforms to zero-hours contracts and the gig economy from the Queen’s speech:
Employers’ groups and trade unions said the prime minister risked “levelling down on jobs” after the setpiece event used to open parliament did not include proposals for an employment bill among his government’s priorities.
First pledged in December 2019, the bill was supposed to be the government’s main vehicle for raising workplace protections after Brexit while also acting to safeguard gig economy workers from abusive employers and exploitative contracts.
Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said the government was rowing back from its commitments at a pivotal moment for workers.
“This pandemic has brutally exposed the terrible working conditions and insecurity many of our key workers in retail, care, and delivery face,” she said. “We need action now to deal with the scourge of insecure work – not more dithering and delay."
Warren Kenny, the acting general secretary of the GMB union, said workers had been “fobbed off repeatedly” by ministers promising to boost employment protections, leaving bosses free to use underhand tactics with impunity.
“Warm words on workers’ rights are betrayed by this government’s abject lack of leadership. This is an historic missed opportunity at a time when unscrupulous employers are exploiting the pandemic to attack good quality jobs,” he said.
The Guardian reported earlier this year that the bill could be delayed until at least the autumn or early 2022 amid concern that ideological opposition within the Conservative party around employment rights was standing in the way of progress.
The fact that many of us expected this particular promise to be broken does not undermine the significance of the decision. Workers rights were a key part of the compact we had with the EU and promises to protect them persuaded many people to vote for Brexit. Those voters have now been sold down the river.
The Guardian reports that Boris Johnson has been accused of backtracking on a promise to boost workers’ rights after leaving out landmark reforms to zero-hours contracts and the gig economy from the Queen’s speech:
Employers’ groups and trade unions said the prime minister risked “levelling down on jobs” after the setpiece event used to open parliament did not include proposals for an employment bill among his government’s priorities.
First pledged in December 2019, the bill was supposed to be the government’s main vehicle for raising workplace protections after Brexit while also acting to safeguard gig economy workers from abusive employers and exploitative contracts.
Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said the government was rowing back from its commitments at a pivotal moment for workers.
“This pandemic has brutally exposed the terrible working conditions and insecurity many of our key workers in retail, care, and delivery face,” she said. “We need action now to deal with the scourge of insecure work – not more dithering and delay."
Warren Kenny, the acting general secretary of the GMB union, said workers had been “fobbed off repeatedly” by ministers promising to boost employment protections, leaving bosses free to use underhand tactics with impunity.
“Warm words on workers’ rights are betrayed by this government’s abject lack of leadership. This is an historic missed opportunity at a time when unscrupulous employers are exploiting the pandemic to attack good quality jobs,” he said.
The Guardian reported earlier this year that the bill could be delayed until at least the autumn or early 2022 amid concern that ideological opposition within the Conservative party around employment rights was standing in the way of progress.
The fact that many of us expected this particular promise to be broken does not undermine the significance of the decision. Workers rights were a key part of the compact we had with the EU and promises to protect them persuaded many people to vote for Brexit. Those voters have now been sold down the river.
Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Minister admits there is no evidence to support voting ID
Plans by the government to suppress voter turnout by forcing electors to bring ID to the polling station are based on just six cases of ballot fraud at the last election, a government minister has admitted.
The Independent reports that today's Queen’s Speech will include a Bill to introduce the requirement at polling stations – despite warnings that large numbers of poorer and ethnic minority voters will be turned away:
Quizzed on that criticism – and on the tiny number of fraud cases at the last election – Mr Hancock replied: “Well, I think that’s six cases too many.”
On Sky News, the health secretary was warned that 47 per cent of black people do not have a driver’s licence, compared with only 26 per cent of white people.
“There is a real danger, isn’t there, that you could ultimately prevent key constituents in society from having their say?” he was asked.
But Mr Hancock said: “No know it’s about fairness, it’s about making sure that when people do something as important as voting, then they are who they say they are.
“We piloted this, we’ve looked at it in great detail, we are committed to making it happen – and I think people across this country want to know for sure that elections are fair.”
The civil rights group Liberty has condemned the shake-up, expected to kick-in before the next general election in either 2023 or 2024.
“Our current voting system is safe and secure,” said head of policy Sam Grant. “It feels like an opportunistic attack on the rights of some of the most marginalised people in society.”
Trials in 2019 suggested many tens of thousands of people could be turned away from polling stations because they don’t have the ID required.
The Electoral Commission warned young people, people from ethnic minorities, women and the elderly were most likely to be penalised.
Here is an example of evidence-free legislation designed to serve the interests of the Tory Party.
The Independent reports that today's Queen’s Speech will include a Bill to introduce the requirement at polling stations – despite warnings that large numbers of poorer and ethnic minority voters will be turned away:
Quizzed on that criticism – and on the tiny number of fraud cases at the last election – Mr Hancock replied: “Well, I think that’s six cases too many.”
On Sky News, the health secretary was warned that 47 per cent of black people do not have a driver’s licence, compared with only 26 per cent of white people.
“There is a real danger, isn’t there, that you could ultimately prevent key constituents in society from having their say?” he was asked.
But Mr Hancock said: “No know it’s about fairness, it’s about making sure that when people do something as important as voting, then they are who they say they are.
“We piloted this, we’ve looked at it in great detail, we are committed to making it happen – and I think people across this country want to know for sure that elections are fair.”
The civil rights group Liberty has condemned the shake-up, expected to kick-in before the next general election in either 2023 or 2024.
“Our current voting system is safe and secure,” said head of policy Sam Grant. “It feels like an opportunistic attack on the rights of some of the most marginalised people in society.”
Trials in 2019 suggested many tens of thousands of people could be turned away from polling stations because they don’t have the ID required.
The Electoral Commission warned young people, people from ethnic minorities, women and the elderly were most likely to be penalised.
Here is an example of evidence-free legislation designed to serve the interests of the Tory Party.
Monday, May 10, 2021
Government to introduce ID cards by the back door
American-style voter suppression is alive and well and about to come to the UK, at least that is what is now being proposed to appear in the Queen's Speech tomorrow, as the Tories are poised to insist that Britons will have to show photo ID to vote in future general elections.
This proposal is being mooted in the absence of any evidence of electoral fraud in the UK, in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. That does not seem to deter Ministers, especially as a major consequence of this 'reform' is likely to be deterring poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in our democracy, a group of individuals that rarely support the Conservatives anyway.
But what if you do not have any ID? About a quarter of voters – often younger voters – do not have either a passport or driving licence. According to the Guardian,the government plans to overcome this by allowing people to apply for a voting ID card from their local council, although this would have to be done before polling day - so cheap ID cards by the back door, without the expensive database and all the paraphanalia that goes with them. Early trials in some areas led to hundreds of voters being turned away.
The paper points out that American civil rights groups have already warned Britons that such measures are often used to disfranchise voters who do not have the required paperwork. The changes would affect UK-wide and English elections, while voters in Northern Ireland are already required to show identification before voting.
It is only a matter of time before stop and search regimes will be stepped up for certain groups, requiring them to produce these ID cards.
This proposal is being mooted in the absence of any evidence of electoral fraud in the UK, in 2019 there was just one conviction and one police caution for impersonating another voter. That does not seem to deter Ministers, especially as a major consequence of this 'reform' is likely to be deterring poorer and ethnic minority voters from taking part in our democracy, a group of individuals that rarely support the Conservatives anyway.
But what if you do not have any ID? About a quarter of voters – often younger voters – do not have either a passport or driving licence. According to the Guardian,the government plans to overcome this by allowing people to apply for a voting ID card from their local council, although this would have to be done before polling day - so cheap ID cards by the back door, without the expensive database and all the paraphanalia that goes with them. Early trials in some areas led to hundreds of voters being turned away.
The paper points out that American civil rights groups have already warned Britons that such measures are often used to disfranchise voters who do not have the required paperwork. The changes would affect UK-wide and English elections, while voters in Northern Ireland are already required to show identification before voting.
It is only a matter of time before stop and search regimes will be stepped up for certain groups, requiring them to produce these ID cards.
Sunday, May 09, 2021
The sound of the silent majority
In the Guardian letters page a reader argues that the 42,000 electors who did not vote in Hartlepool have secured a massive win for the silent majority.
It seems to me they have only won their own silence. Those who did participate had their say on who represents their area and on the governance of the country.
It seems to me they have only won their own silence. Those who did participate had their say on who represents their area and on the governance of the country.
Saturday, May 08, 2021
Are the 'woke social media warriors' running Starmer's Labour
I can't quite motivate myself to comment on Thursday's elections just yet, but the one trend that is clear is that voters lined up in their thousands to endorse the current governments, in what ever country they lived, and the way that the pandemic has been handled, thus accounting for the good results for the Tories in England, the SNP in Scotland and Labour in Wales. It was slightly more complicated than that of course, but in the face of countless lockdowns and restrictions on individual liberties most voters appeared to feel that we are beginning to move on and expressed their appreciation for the vaccine programme that has put us in that position.
The corollary of all that of course is worse than expected outcomes for the opposition, who might have otherwise expected to have capitalised on a mid-term Tory Government mired in allegations of sleaze. That was highlighted in particular in the Tories gaining Hartlepool, a Labour stronghold, defying all previous history and precedent to do so.
Of course not every Labour MP and Plaid Cymru MS will see it that way. One in particular has already quit the Labour frontbench in protest. The Independent reports that Labour MP Khalid Mahmood has resigned, warning that the party has been taken over by “a London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors”:
The Birmingham Perry Barr MP announced his decision in the wake of the party’s crushing defeat in the former safe seat of Hartlepool, and made clear that he expected Labour also to lose the election for West Midlands mayor.
Labour sources said he had left the frontbench some weeks ago, but no announcement was made at the time.
In an article for the Policy Exchange think tank, Mr Mahmood said that Labour had moved away from working-class voters’ priorities under the leaderships of not only Starmer, but also Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband.
“In the past decade, Labour has lost touch with ordinary British people,” he said.
“A London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors, has effectively captured the party.
“They mean well, of course, but their politics – obsessed with identity, division and even tech utopianism – have more in common with those of Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday.
“The loudest voices in the Labour movement over the past year in particular have focused more on pulling down Churchill’s statue than they have on helping people pull themselves up in the world.
“No wonder it is doing better among rich urban liberals and young university graduates than it is amongst the most important part of its traditional electoral coalition, the working class.”
Mr Mahmood quoted Peter Mandelson’s account of a former Labour voter who told him on a Hartlepool doorstep: “Sort yourselves out. You picked the wrong brother and you ended up with Corbyn so that’s goodbye to you. When you’ve sorted yourselves out, we’ll look at you again.”
And he said: “It would be easy for Labour MPs and members to whinge about the unfairness of this summary of the past decade.
“But we must recognise that is how we are seen by so many people in the places that were once unfailingly loyal to us – as a party that has lost its way.
“It is only by engagement on a local level, meeting eye to eye with voters and hearing their concerns, that we will fix that. I will be doing so not from the Labour front bench, but walking the streets of my constituency as a backbencher and talking face to face with the people I have the honour to serve.”
Mr Mahmood warned that “superficial flag-waving” by the party leader would not convince voters that the Labour Party shares their sense of patriotism.
“They are more alert to rebranding exercises than spin doctors give them credit for,” he warned. “Their patriotism is about historic pride in their places, the heritage and stories of those places, and the Britishness and Englishness of the people and families that call them home.”
And he said voters’ priorities were job security, a bright future for their children and grandchildren, a well-functioning NHS, and investment in infrastructure and transport.
“There is a need for humility, to begin with,” he said.
“If Labour is to win back seats like Hartlepool it will have to change the minds of people who yesterday chose to vote Conservative.
“Is there a danger that our party, in its opposition and confusion over Brexit, has veered towards an anti-British attitude? I certainly worry that some of our previous supporters will see it that way.”
Mr Mahmood certainly has a point, and it's not my place to argue with his analysis, but whether his dissatisfaction leads to a wider meltdown within the Labour Party has yet to be seen.
The corollary of all that of course is worse than expected outcomes for the opposition, who might have otherwise expected to have capitalised on a mid-term Tory Government mired in allegations of sleaze. That was highlighted in particular in the Tories gaining Hartlepool, a Labour stronghold, defying all previous history and precedent to do so.
Of course not every Labour MP and Plaid Cymru MS will see it that way. One in particular has already quit the Labour frontbench in protest. The Independent reports that Labour MP Khalid Mahmood has resigned, warning that the party has been taken over by “a London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors”:
The Birmingham Perry Barr MP announced his decision in the wake of the party’s crushing defeat in the former safe seat of Hartlepool, and made clear that he expected Labour also to lose the election for West Midlands mayor.
Labour sources said he had left the frontbench some weeks ago, but no announcement was made at the time.
In an article for the Policy Exchange think tank, Mr Mahmood said that Labour had moved away from working-class voters’ priorities under the leaderships of not only Starmer, but also Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband.
“In the past decade, Labour has lost touch with ordinary British people,” he said.
“A London-based bourgeoisie, with the support of brigades of woke social media warriors, has effectively captured the party.
“They mean well, of course, but their politics – obsessed with identity, division and even tech utopianism – have more in common with those of Californian high society than the kind of people who voted in Hartlepool yesterday.
“The loudest voices in the Labour movement over the past year in particular have focused more on pulling down Churchill’s statue than they have on helping people pull themselves up in the world.
“No wonder it is doing better among rich urban liberals and young university graduates than it is amongst the most important part of its traditional electoral coalition, the working class.”
Mr Mahmood quoted Peter Mandelson’s account of a former Labour voter who told him on a Hartlepool doorstep: “Sort yourselves out. You picked the wrong brother and you ended up with Corbyn so that’s goodbye to you. When you’ve sorted yourselves out, we’ll look at you again.”
And he said: “It would be easy for Labour MPs and members to whinge about the unfairness of this summary of the past decade.
“But we must recognise that is how we are seen by so many people in the places that were once unfailingly loyal to us – as a party that has lost its way.
“It is only by engagement on a local level, meeting eye to eye with voters and hearing their concerns, that we will fix that. I will be doing so not from the Labour front bench, but walking the streets of my constituency as a backbencher and talking face to face with the people I have the honour to serve.”
Mr Mahmood warned that “superficial flag-waving” by the party leader would not convince voters that the Labour Party shares their sense of patriotism.
“They are more alert to rebranding exercises than spin doctors give them credit for,” he warned. “Their patriotism is about historic pride in their places, the heritage and stories of those places, and the Britishness and Englishness of the people and families that call them home.”
And he said voters’ priorities were job security, a bright future for their children and grandchildren, a well-functioning NHS, and investment in infrastructure and transport.
“There is a need for humility, to begin with,” he said.
“If Labour is to win back seats like Hartlepool it will have to change the minds of people who yesterday chose to vote Conservative.
“Is there a danger that our party, in its opposition and confusion over Brexit, has veered towards an anti-British attitude? I certainly worry that some of our previous supporters will see it that way.”
Mr Mahmood certainly has a point, and it's not my place to argue with his analysis, but whether his dissatisfaction leads to a wider meltdown within the Labour Party has yet to be seen.
Friday, May 07, 2021
Home Secretary criticised over changes in asylum seeker policy
As the results of yesterday'z elections start to emerge over the course of the next 72 hours, it is already clear that votes that had previously gone to small racist parties on the right are now switching to Boris Johnson's Conservatives. There is nothing to indicate that the Tories are uncomfortable with that trend, indeed it seems tha in their policies on immigration and asylum they are actively courting these voters.
There is a good example of this in the Guardian, who report that a high court judge has criticised the British home secretary in court and said he found it “extremely troubling” after one of her officials admitted the Home Office might have acted unlawfully in changing its asylum accommodation policy during the pandemic.
The paper says Mr Justice Garnham raised concerns in court on Thursday that the home secretary, Priti Patel, could have been distributing public funds without legal authority:
He was hearing four linked cases from asylum seekers challenging the lawfulness of the home secretary’s policy to evict some refused asylum seekers during the pandemic. During the hearing the Home Office was accused of unlawfully altering parts of the accommodation policy.
In a witness statement to the court the Home Office official said: “At the time we did not consider what power, or whether we had the power, to implement what we saw as administrative changes. This was a response to the urgency of events and the immediate concern about keeping people in the same accommodation.”
Garnham said: “The secretary of state is saying that she was acting without lawful authority. It seems to me a most serious submission to be making in court, if that is what she is saying.”
He added that it was “extremely troubling” if correct that the home secretary was acknowledging “that she was acting without power when she set up this system for distribution of public funds she did so without legal authority”.
The judge said that the position the home secretary had put the court in was “extraordinary” and that the way she has acted was “a singularly serious position for her to find herself in” and “unfortunate in the extreme”.
The judge added: “The circumstances in which a department of state acts without clear knowledge of its powers to act, it raises issues of genuine significance.”
The legal challenge to the evictions – which had been paused for almost a year due to the pandemic – focuses on the public health risks attached to evicting asylum seekers who are likely to end up rough sleeping or sofa surfing during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It emerged last month that the Home Office was planning to resume the evictions process “with immediate effect”.
The court heard that Public Health England’s view was that it could not advise that anyone “should be enabled to become homeless from a public health perspective” during the pandemic.
The judge agreed to adjourn Thursday’s hearing to give the Home Office time to identify the legal basis for its policy. He made an order halting the evictions until the case had concluded. It is scheduled to resume on 27 and 28 May.
An apology has been issued to the judge by the home secretary. Her counsel, Alan Payne QC, apologised to the judge for the situation the Home Office put the court in “as well as passing on the apology of my client” (Patel).
As the solicitors representing the claimants say: “The home secretary has been trying to evict thousands of migrants during the pandemic despite the risks to the communities they live in from doing so. She has been unable to properly defend these claims in court today, despite being told in clear and strong terms by a high court judge on 23 April 2021 to do so.”
An apology is not enough, there needs to be a more humane approach from the Home Office.
There is a good example of this in the Guardian, who report that a high court judge has criticised the British home secretary in court and said he found it “extremely troubling” after one of her officials admitted the Home Office might have acted unlawfully in changing its asylum accommodation policy during the pandemic.
The paper says Mr Justice Garnham raised concerns in court on Thursday that the home secretary, Priti Patel, could have been distributing public funds without legal authority:
He was hearing four linked cases from asylum seekers challenging the lawfulness of the home secretary’s policy to evict some refused asylum seekers during the pandemic. During the hearing the Home Office was accused of unlawfully altering parts of the accommodation policy.
In a witness statement to the court the Home Office official said: “At the time we did not consider what power, or whether we had the power, to implement what we saw as administrative changes. This was a response to the urgency of events and the immediate concern about keeping people in the same accommodation.”
Garnham said: “The secretary of state is saying that she was acting without lawful authority. It seems to me a most serious submission to be making in court, if that is what she is saying.”
He added that it was “extremely troubling” if correct that the home secretary was acknowledging “that she was acting without power when she set up this system for distribution of public funds she did so without legal authority”.
The judge said that the position the home secretary had put the court in was “extraordinary” and that the way she has acted was “a singularly serious position for her to find herself in” and “unfortunate in the extreme”.
The judge added: “The circumstances in which a department of state acts without clear knowledge of its powers to act, it raises issues of genuine significance.”
The legal challenge to the evictions – which had been paused for almost a year due to the pandemic – focuses on the public health risks attached to evicting asylum seekers who are likely to end up rough sleeping or sofa surfing during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It emerged last month that the Home Office was planning to resume the evictions process “with immediate effect”.
The court heard that Public Health England’s view was that it could not advise that anyone “should be enabled to become homeless from a public health perspective” during the pandemic.
The judge agreed to adjourn Thursday’s hearing to give the Home Office time to identify the legal basis for its policy. He made an order halting the evictions until the case had concluded. It is scheduled to resume on 27 and 28 May.
An apology has been issued to the judge by the home secretary. Her counsel, Alan Payne QC, apologised to the judge for the situation the Home Office put the court in “as well as passing on the apology of my client” (Patel).
As the solicitors representing the claimants say: “The home secretary has been trying to evict thousands of migrants during the pandemic despite the risks to the communities they live in from doing so. She has been unable to properly defend these claims in court today, despite being told in clear and strong terms by a high court judge on 23 April 2021 to do so.”
An apology is not enough, there needs to be a more humane approach from the Home Office.
Thursday, May 06, 2021
Call for more transparency on Covid contracts
The Guardian reports that the government has been urged to publish details of up to £2bn in Covid-19 contracts awarded to private healthcare companies, including some that have helped fund the Conservative party.
They say contracts to provide extra capacity during the pandemic have been handed to 17 firms since March 2020, leading to the Good Law Project, which has repeatedly raised concerns about cronyism and opacity in public procurement, to comment that a lack of transparency about the terms of the contracts is concerning:
The government has not published full details about the contracts, while data on how much the NHS has spent on them is also yet to be released.
The first of two groups of contracts, running from March to December 2020, had 26 firms initially enlisted to provide extra capacity, to a value of £1.6bn.
The government said it did not pay for beds and staff that were not needed, adding that in the end only 17 firms provided services, at cost price.
Accounts for Practice Plus Group, which won £76.3m of work under the contract, raise questions about this assertion. They state that it worked on a “cost plus” basis, using a “cost plus pricing formula”,
The company declined to comment, and referred queries to its trade association, the Independent Healthcare Provider Network.
Accounts for Ramsay Health Care, which won work worth up to £271.1m from March to December 2020, say it worked at cost price plus an extra 8.6% in infrastructure costs. The company said it did not profit from the contract and had made losses during the pandemic.
A second set of contracts for January to March 2021, as peaking case numbers placed huge strain on the NHS, was worth up to £474m. Unlike the first set of contracts, these included minimum payments for making capacity available, as well as for services that were actually used.
Jo Maugham, the director of the Good Law Project, said: “Billions of pounds of public money has been handed to private healthcare firms with hardly any transparency – many of which happen to have links to the Conservative party.
“No one would fault government for doing what was necessary to increase capacity to ensure people could still get the care they needed at the height of the pandemic, so what it is that government has got to lose from publishing these contract details?”
While there is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of the companies, Maugham stressed the importance of transparency, particularly given that many of them, or their directors, had either donated money to the Conservatives in the past or worked in the government.
This is the sort of transparency that is essential in a democracy.
They say contracts to provide extra capacity during the pandemic have been handed to 17 firms since March 2020, leading to the Good Law Project, which has repeatedly raised concerns about cronyism and opacity in public procurement, to comment that a lack of transparency about the terms of the contracts is concerning:
The government has not published full details about the contracts, while data on how much the NHS has spent on them is also yet to be released.
The first of two groups of contracts, running from March to December 2020, had 26 firms initially enlisted to provide extra capacity, to a value of £1.6bn.
The government said it did not pay for beds and staff that were not needed, adding that in the end only 17 firms provided services, at cost price.
Accounts for Practice Plus Group, which won £76.3m of work under the contract, raise questions about this assertion. They state that it worked on a “cost plus” basis, using a “cost plus pricing formula”,
The company declined to comment, and referred queries to its trade association, the Independent Healthcare Provider Network.
Accounts for Ramsay Health Care, which won work worth up to £271.1m from March to December 2020, say it worked at cost price plus an extra 8.6% in infrastructure costs. The company said it did not profit from the contract and had made losses during the pandemic.
A second set of contracts for January to March 2021, as peaking case numbers placed huge strain on the NHS, was worth up to £474m. Unlike the first set of contracts, these included minimum payments for making capacity available, as well as for services that were actually used.
Jo Maugham, the director of the Good Law Project, said: “Billions of pounds of public money has been handed to private healthcare firms with hardly any transparency – many of which happen to have links to the Conservative party.
“No one would fault government for doing what was necessary to increase capacity to ensure people could still get the care they needed at the height of the pandemic, so what it is that government has got to lose from publishing these contract details?”
While there is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of the companies, Maugham stressed the importance of transparency, particularly given that many of them, or their directors, had either donated money to the Conservatives in the past or worked in the government.
This is the sort of transparency that is essential in a democracy.
Wednesday, May 05, 2021
Are the government failing on social care again?
After the trauma of the last year under the pandemic one would have thought that the UK government might show some signs of valuing the health and social care workers who have helped us get through it.
However, that sort of gratitude appears to be beyond them. First they decide that health workers are worth no more than a one per cent pay rise and now it seems that they have now postponed much needed reform of the social care sector.
The Independent reports that charities and campaign groups have reacted angrily to news ministers are expected to delay an announcement on plans to fix the broken social care system until after next week’s Queen’s Speech:
Caroline Abrahams, the director of Age UK and co-chair of the Care and Support Alliance (CSA), accused ministers of “putting up with a grossly underfunded apology for a system that went past its sell-by date years ago”.
Others warned the government would “fail” millions of families if they delayed.
When Boris Johnson entered Downing Street, he promised to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all”.
Last month he said it was “highly likely” that his plan would be in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May.
But yesterday Downing Street would only say ministers would set out their plans shortly, fuelling expectations there will be no social care bill in the government’s programme for the coming year when it is set out by the Queen on Tuesday.
The 2019 Conservative manifesto pledged to seek cross-party consensus to reform how people pay for adult social care.
The party also promised that a prerequisite for any new scheme would be that “no one needing care has to sell their home to pay for it”.
But there are thought to be concerns over how much a new system would cost, especially after the government spent billions battling the coronavirus crisis.
Everybody knows that the social care system is underfunded, that those working in it are underpaid and that it is struggling to cope with the demands on it. Politicians have been failing to get to grips with this for decades, and yet here we are again.
The Independent reports that charities and campaign groups have reacted angrily to news ministers are expected to delay an announcement on plans to fix the broken social care system until after next week’s Queen’s Speech:
Caroline Abrahams, the director of Age UK and co-chair of the Care and Support Alliance (CSA), accused ministers of “putting up with a grossly underfunded apology for a system that went past its sell-by date years ago”.
Others warned the government would “fail” millions of families if they delayed.
When Boris Johnson entered Downing Street, he promised to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all”.
Last month he said it was “highly likely” that his plan would be in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May.
But yesterday Downing Street would only say ministers would set out their plans shortly, fuelling expectations there will be no social care bill in the government’s programme for the coming year when it is set out by the Queen on Tuesday.
The 2019 Conservative manifesto pledged to seek cross-party consensus to reform how people pay for adult social care.
The party also promised that a prerequisite for any new scheme would be that “no one needing care has to sell their home to pay for it”.
But there are thought to be concerns over how much a new system would cost, especially after the government spent billions battling the coronavirus crisis.
Everybody knows that the social care system is underfunded, that those working in it are underpaid and that it is struggling to cope with the demands on it. Politicians have been failing to get to grips with this for decades, and yet here we are again.
Tuesday, May 04, 2021
Call for Covid 19 fines in England to be reviewed
I missed this when it came out last week, but this article in the Guardian from 27th April is well-worth a look.
The paper reports on the conclusions of the joint committee on human rights that all 85,000-plus Covid fines issued in England during the pandemic should be reviewed, after more than a quarter of prosecutions in the first two months of the year for breaching the regulations were shown to have been wrongly brought.
The joint committee believe the coronavirus regulations, which have been changed at least 65 times since March last year, were muddled, discriminatory and unfair:
As well as a review of all fixed penalty notices (FPNs), its members suggest no criminal record should result from Covid FPNs, the income of those hit with big fines – the maximum is £10,000 – should be assessed, and there should be a mechanism to challenge future fines.
Harriet Harman, the chair of the cross-party committee, said: “Swift action to make restrictions effective is essential in the face of this terrible virus. But the government needs to ensure that rules are clear, enforcement is fair and that mistakes in the system can be rectified. None of that is the case in respect of Covid-19 fixed penalty notices.
“This means we’ve got an unfair system with clear evidence that young people, those from certain ethnic minority backgrounds, men and the most socially deprived are most at risk. Whether people feel the FPN is deserved or not, those who can afford it are likely to pay a penalty to avoid criminality. Those who can’t afford to pay face a criminal record along with all the resulting consequences for their future development. The whole process disproportionately hits the less well-off and criminalises the poor over the better-off.”
She acknowledged that the police have a difficult job but noted that “since January there have been greater numbers of FPNs as police move more quickly to enforcement action, and because of a lack of legal clarity, likely greater numbers of incorrectly issued FPNs”.
Out of 325 cases reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service in the first two months of the year, which were brought under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations and reached open court, 86 (26%) were found to have been incorrectly charged, the committee found in a report. But this is likely to have underestimated the scale of the problem, as many people are likely to have been put off challenging an FPN in court because of the risk of a criminal conviction. The committee says people should instead be able to challenge fines by way of administrative review or appeal.
The number of FPNs issued by the police was at its highest during the January to March 2021 lockdown period, the report states. It says the government should commission analysis of who FPNs have been issued to because they have “disproportionately penalised some groups over others”.
Large fixed penalties awarded irrespective of the individual’s circumstances “risk being inherently unjust” and the current system “criminalises the poor over the wealthy”, the committee members warn.
They say there should a graduated approach to FPN amounts and people should not face a criminal record for non-payment, questioning “why a breach of the coronavirus regulations would be relevant to someone’s future employment prospects or ability to travel to certain countries”.
The committee also says it is “astonishing” that every single criminal charge brought under the Coronavirus Act has been found to have been brought incorrectly. Unlike the regularly updated and amended regulations, the act has not changed since March last year, moving the members to say: “There is no reason for such mistakes to continue.”
Clearly this area of law is a mess and needs to be reviewed urgently.
The paper reports on the conclusions of the joint committee on human rights that all 85,000-plus Covid fines issued in England during the pandemic should be reviewed, after more than a quarter of prosecutions in the first two months of the year for breaching the regulations were shown to have been wrongly brought.
The joint committee believe the coronavirus regulations, which have been changed at least 65 times since March last year, were muddled, discriminatory and unfair:
As well as a review of all fixed penalty notices (FPNs), its members suggest no criminal record should result from Covid FPNs, the income of those hit with big fines – the maximum is £10,000 – should be assessed, and there should be a mechanism to challenge future fines.
Harriet Harman, the chair of the cross-party committee, said: “Swift action to make restrictions effective is essential in the face of this terrible virus. But the government needs to ensure that rules are clear, enforcement is fair and that mistakes in the system can be rectified. None of that is the case in respect of Covid-19 fixed penalty notices.
“This means we’ve got an unfair system with clear evidence that young people, those from certain ethnic minority backgrounds, men and the most socially deprived are most at risk. Whether people feel the FPN is deserved or not, those who can afford it are likely to pay a penalty to avoid criminality. Those who can’t afford to pay face a criminal record along with all the resulting consequences for their future development. The whole process disproportionately hits the less well-off and criminalises the poor over the better-off.”
She acknowledged that the police have a difficult job but noted that “since January there have been greater numbers of FPNs as police move more quickly to enforcement action, and because of a lack of legal clarity, likely greater numbers of incorrectly issued FPNs”.
Out of 325 cases reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service in the first two months of the year, which were brought under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations and reached open court, 86 (26%) were found to have been incorrectly charged, the committee found in a report. But this is likely to have underestimated the scale of the problem, as many people are likely to have been put off challenging an FPN in court because of the risk of a criminal conviction. The committee says people should instead be able to challenge fines by way of administrative review or appeal.
The number of FPNs issued by the police was at its highest during the January to March 2021 lockdown period, the report states. It says the government should commission analysis of who FPNs have been issued to because they have “disproportionately penalised some groups over others”.
Large fixed penalties awarded irrespective of the individual’s circumstances “risk being inherently unjust” and the current system “criminalises the poor over the wealthy”, the committee members warn.
They say there should a graduated approach to FPN amounts and people should not face a criminal record for non-payment, questioning “why a breach of the coronavirus regulations would be relevant to someone’s future employment prospects or ability to travel to certain countries”.
The committee also says it is “astonishing” that every single criminal charge brought under the Coronavirus Act has been found to have been brought incorrectly. Unlike the regularly updated and amended regulations, the act has not changed since March last year, moving the members to say: “There is no reason for such mistakes to continue.”
Clearly this area of law is a mess and needs to be reviewed urgently.
Monday, May 03, 2021
Johnson's overseas aid cuts hitting the world's poorest children
The Independent reports on a warning by the United Nations children’s agency that the UK’s massive overseas aid cuts, will lead to the world’s poorest youngsters suffering the consequences.
They say that funding to Unicef will be slashed from £40m to just £16m. This is just the latest in a series of dramatic spending reductions on key projects that have sparked criticism around the world.
“We were hoping that these cuts would not fall on the shoulders of the world’s children,” said Joanna Rea, director of advocacy for Unicef in the UK.
“There is never a good time to cut support for children but doing so in the middle of a pandemic makes it much harder for children around the world,” she told Sky News.
The agency is “very worried” about expected further cuts to UK funding on specific areas such as access to water, sanitation and hygiene and education, Ms Rae said.
In an official statement, Unicef added: “We worry that children living in some of the world’s worst crises and conflicts will suffer the consequences.”
The criticism came as it emerged that vital coronavirus research, including a project tracking variants in India, has seen its funding reduced by up to 70 per cent.
Oliver Pybus, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Oxford, described the impact of that cut as “devastating”.
Among other cuts that have now been revealed – after being “hidden” from MPs – are:
* Humanitarian aid to war-torn Yemen – by 60 per cent from £197m to £87m
* Polio eradication – funding for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative down from £100m to just £5m
* Girls’ education funding – by 40 per cent compared with previous four years
* Sexual health programmes – the UN agency supplying contraceptives and medicines says it has lost 85 per cent of UK funding
* Malaria treatments – including a cut to research funding at Imperial College London
* Water and sanitation – funding for water, sanitation and hygiene projects expected to fall by more than 80 per cent
No wonder the government is doing its best to prevent a debate in the House of Commons on this illegal cut in overseas aid.
They say that funding to Unicef will be slashed from £40m to just £16m. This is just the latest in a series of dramatic spending reductions on key projects that have sparked criticism around the world.
“We were hoping that these cuts would not fall on the shoulders of the world’s children,” said Joanna Rea, director of advocacy for Unicef in the UK.
“There is never a good time to cut support for children but doing so in the middle of a pandemic makes it much harder for children around the world,” she told Sky News.
The agency is “very worried” about expected further cuts to UK funding on specific areas such as access to water, sanitation and hygiene and education, Ms Rae said.
In an official statement, Unicef added: “We worry that children living in some of the world’s worst crises and conflicts will suffer the consequences.”
The criticism came as it emerged that vital coronavirus research, including a project tracking variants in India, has seen its funding reduced by up to 70 per cent.
Oliver Pybus, a professor of infectious disease at the University of Oxford, described the impact of that cut as “devastating”.
Among other cuts that have now been revealed – after being “hidden” from MPs – are:
* Humanitarian aid to war-torn Yemen – by 60 per cent from £197m to £87m
* Polio eradication – funding for the Global Polio Eradication Initiative down from £100m to just £5m
* Girls’ education funding – by 40 per cent compared with previous four years
* Sexual health programmes – the UN agency supplying contraceptives and medicines says it has lost 85 per cent of UK funding
* Malaria treatments – including a cut to research funding at Imperial College London
* Water and sanitation – funding for water, sanitation and hygiene projects expected to fall by more than 80 per cent
No wonder the government is doing its best to prevent a debate in the House of Commons on this illegal cut in overseas aid.
Sunday, May 02, 2021
Is the Prime Minister really a pauper?
When it was decided in 1911 to start paying MPs, it was done partly to keep the Labour Party onboard as part of a left-leaning Liberal government, but also to ensure that ordinary men and women could take up positions in Parliament.
There is an interesting history of payment for MPs here, including the fact that MPs had been paid in medieval and Tudor times with Dunwich in 1463 paying one of its MPs in herrings. The blog says that serving in Parliament was perceived as an inconvenience needing recompense, but as the prestige of being an MP grew, so payment became purposeless:
The main reason advanced for introducing payment was, as Thomas Attwood said in 1839, to have ‘that class of men introduced into the House, men of that station and character which would enable them to be competent representatives of the wants and wishes of the Commons of England.’ This concern grew as the franchise expanded after 1867. In 1870 Peter Taylor, Liberal MP for Leicester, proposed restoring the payment of MPs. Alongside the importance of helping working men into Parliament, he emphasised the historical precedent of payment; its near universality in other countries’ legislatures; how it would put MPs on a par with other professions and with ministers who were already paid. These arguments remained the staple justifications through a series of debates up to 1911.
.....
Further enfranchisement in 1884 seemingly reconciled Gladstone to payment, which he cautiously endorsed in 1888. The issue became decidedly partisan, predominantly supported by Liberal MPs (as official government policy from 1893), and opposed by Conservatives. Meanwhile Irish Home Rule MPs were provided with basic salaries by their supporters. Trade unions replicated this by subsidising MPs in the 1890s and 1900s, culminating in the Labour Representation Committee begun in 1904. To opponents this showed that compulsory payment was unnecessary; to supporters it exposed the underlying unfairness of non-payment. As today, supporters argued that the increased workload for MPs, thanks to increased legislation and greater interaction with constituents’ necessitated reform.
In line with other Parliamentary reforms it was party politics which settled the matter. The Osborne Judgment, a judicial ruling which banned political contributions by trade unions, infuriated the Labour party. The Liberal government of Asquith, lacking a Parliamentary majority after 1910, decided to placate Labour anger by introducing the payment of members in 1911 (ministers had hitherto pleaded lack of money to avoid reform). Yet reform was instituted cautiously. MPs would only be paid only £400. Lloyd George argued this was equal to a junior clerk in the civil service. He even called the payment ‘not even a salary. It is just an allowance’. The difficulty that distinction poses is still being grappled with over a century later.
This of course brings us to the present day and this article in the Times, where astonishingly it is reported that the British Prime Minister, who is on £157,372 a year, cannot afford to live on his ministerial salary:
Johnson has told friends that he needs to earn about £300,000 a year — twice his salary — to keep his head above water. A former No 10 insider said it was “received wisdom” that he is permanently broke.
Johnson’s salary puts him close to the top 1 per cent of UK earners. Yet he makes less than Angela Merkel’s £267,000 or Joe Biden’s £290,000. Luxembourg, with a population roughly equivalent to that of Sheffield, pays its prime minister £200,000.
The income tax and national insurance bill on Johnson’s salary amounts to about £63,000, which would leave him with about £95,000 a year. But his salary is topped up with royalties for his books, which have amounted to about £25,000 since he became prime minister.
In addition, he has received £28,000 in personal gifts and donations in that time, according to his register of interests. That includes a £15,000 trip to Mustique in December 2019, courtesy of the Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross, which is the subject of an inquiry by Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards.
However, there are other costs associated with the role of prime minister. While he and his family can live rent-free in the No 11 Downing Street flat, he must pay a tax liability for heating, lighting and maintenance, which comes to about £7,000 a year. He also pays a council tax bill of £1,655 a year. Johnson covers the cost of any food and drink for personal consumption, even if it comes from the Downing Street kitchens.
As a “protected person”, he receives taxpayer-funded travel, and can stay free at Chequers, the prime minister’s official country residence in Buckinghamshire. However, whenever Johnson or Symonds entertain guests at the house who are not on official visits, Johnson must pay for their food and drinks, which a guest once estimated to cost £75 per head.
These are hardly poverty-levels, nor has it caused much difficulty for others. And yet for some reason Boris Johnson has to be the exception:
Senior Conservatives say donors have been approached about funding other aspects of the couple’s lifestyle. A prominent MP received a complaint from a Tory donor that they were asked to foot the bill for a nanny for Wilfred, Johnson’s son with Symonds, who turned one last week. The donor is alleged to have said: “I don’t mind paying for leaflets but I resent being asked to pay to literally wipe the prime minister’s baby’s bottom.”
It has also been claimed that Elliot paid for Johnson’s personal trainer, Harry Jameson, who charges £165 an hour. Elliot is also alleged to have paid for a personal chef for the prime minister after he was hospitalised with the coronavirus last year. Elliot denies both claims.
No 10 says Johnson has paid the cost of Wilfred’s childcare and his own personal trainer, but did not respond to queries about whether he paid the original bill or reimbursed someone else. A full-time nanny or nursery in London is likely to cost at least £2,000 a month.
Friends say Johnson rarely spends money on himself and is often careless with his financial affairs. “He was often the sort of person who would forget to pay at the end of a meal or would leave lots of money on the table and then forget to pick up the change,” said one former aide. He once left a tip for a hairdresser in euros not pounds, to her dismay. Johnson’s one indulgence is a pair of Church’s shoes, which can cost £750. However, they were often full of holes, according to friends, because he used them to brake as he rode around London on his bike.
“He gives a lot of control over his affairs to staff in his office, including his tax return, which is why it sometimes blows up in his face,” the former aide said.
Johnson has been reprimanded in the past for failing to register financial interests in parliament as required. The concern in No 10 is that the commissioner for standards, who is considering whether to investigate the redecoration of the flat, in addition to the inquiry into the Mustique holiday, could recommend that he is suspended from the Commons.
He also faces an inquiry by the Electoral Commission, which says there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” the party’s payment for the flat may have broken the law. Some MPs and old friends of Johnson blame Symonds — whom they call “Carrie Antoinette” — for the excessive spending on the flat, saying Johnson has little regard for opulent furnishings or clothing. “Boris didn’t really know anything about it until Carrie handed him the bill,” said one Downing Street insider. “She has champagne tastes and a lemonade budget.”
But others say the problem is Johnson’s secrecy with senior aides who might challenge him. Three senior Conservatives say Rosenfield — who was brought in to steady the ship after Cummings’ departure — is voicing doubts about how long he will remain in No 10.
The affair has led to a “bunker mentality” and swirling suspicion in No 10. Senior officials are concerned leaks have emerged from Johnson’s private office.
This is not the lifestyle of a man-of-the-people, as Johnson likes to portray himself. Not only is he apparently flouting rules designed to prevent undue influence being exerted on him and his office but, in my opinion, he is bringing the whole office into disrepute. It isn't so much that Johnson is a pauper, but that he is living beyond his means and is dependent on others to keep his head above water.
The main reason advanced for introducing payment was, as Thomas Attwood said in 1839, to have ‘that class of men introduced into the House, men of that station and character which would enable them to be competent representatives of the wants and wishes of the Commons of England.’ This concern grew as the franchise expanded after 1867. In 1870 Peter Taylor, Liberal MP for Leicester, proposed restoring the payment of MPs. Alongside the importance of helping working men into Parliament, he emphasised the historical precedent of payment; its near universality in other countries’ legislatures; how it would put MPs on a par with other professions and with ministers who were already paid. These arguments remained the staple justifications through a series of debates up to 1911.
.....
Further enfranchisement in 1884 seemingly reconciled Gladstone to payment, which he cautiously endorsed in 1888. The issue became decidedly partisan, predominantly supported by Liberal MPs (as official government policy from 1893), and opposed by Conservatives. Meanwhile Irish Home Rule MPs were provided with basic salaries by their supporters. Trade unions replicated this by subsidising MPs in the 1890s and 1900s, culminating in the Labour Representation Committee begun in 1904. To opponents this showed that compulsory payment was unnecessary; to supporters it exposed the underlying unfairness of non-payment. As today, supporters argued that the increased workload for MPs, thanks to increased legislation and greater interaction with constituents’ necessitated reform.
In line with other Parliamentary reforms it was party politics which settled the matter. The Osborne Judgment, a judicial ruling which banned political contributions by trade unions, infuriated the Labour party. The Liberal government of Asquith, lacking a Parliamentary majority after 1910, decided to placate Labour anger by introducing the payment of members in 1911 (ministers had hitherto pleaded lack of money to avoid reform). Yet reform was instituted cautiously. MPs would only be paid only £400. Lloyd George argued this was equal to a junior clerk in the civil service. He even called the payment ‘not even a salary. It is just an allowance’. The difficulty that distinction poses is still being grappled with over a century later.
This of course brings us to the present day and this article in the Times, where astonishingly it is reported that the British Prime Minister, who is on £157,372 a year, cannot afford to live on his ministerial salary:
Johnson has told friends that he needs to earn about £300,000 a year — twice his salary — to keep his head above water. A former No 10 insider said it was “received wisdom” that he is permanently broke.
Johnson’s salary puts him close to the top 1 per cent of UK earners. Yet he makes less than Angela Merkel’s £267,000 or Joe Biden’s £290,000. Luxembourg, with a population roughly equivalent to that of Sheffield, pays its prime minister £200,000.
The income tax and national insurance bill on Johnson’s salary amounts to about £63,000, which would leave him with about £95,000 a year. But his salary is topped up with royalties for his books, which have amounted to about £25,000 since he became prime minister.
In addition, he has received £28,000 in personal gifts and donations in that time, according to his register of interests. That includes a £15,000 trip to Mustique in December 2019, courtesy of the Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross, which is the subject of an inquiry by Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards.
However, there are other costs associated with the role of prime minister. While he and his family can live rent-free in the No 11 Downing Street flat, he must pay a tax liability for heating, lighting and maintenance, which comes to about £7,000 a year. He also pays a council tax bill of £1,655 a year. Johnson covers the cost of any food and drink for personal consumption, even if it comes from the Downing Street kitchens.
As a “protected person”, he receives taxpayer-funded travel, and can stay free at Chequers, the prime minister’s official country residence in Buckinghamshire. However, whenever Johnson or Symonds entertain guests at the house who are not on official visits, Johnson must pay for their food and drinks, which a guest once estimated to cost £75 per head.
These are hardly poverty-levels, nor has it caused much difficulty for others. And yet for some reason Boris Johnson has to be the exception:
Senior Conservatives say donors have been approached about funding other aspects of the couple’s lifestyle. A prominent MP received a complaint from a Tory donor that they were asked to foot the bill for a nanny for Wilfred, Johnson’s son with Symonds, who turned one last week. The donor is alleged to have said: “I don’t mind paying for leaflets but I resent being asked to pay to literally wipe the prime minister’s baby’s bottom.”
It has also been claimed that Elliot paid for Johnson’s personal trainer, Harry Jameson, who charges £165 an hour. Elliot is also alleged to have paid for a personal chef for the prime minister after he was hospitalised with the coronavirus last year. Elliot denies both claims.
No 10 says Johnson has paid the cost of Wilfred’s childcare and his own personal trainer, but did not respond to queries about whether he paid the original bill or reimbursed someone else. A full-time nanny or nursery in London is likely to cost at least £2,000 a month.
Friends say Johnson rarely spends money on himself and is often careless with his financial affairs. “He was often the sort of person who would forget to pay at the end of a meal or would leave lots of money on the table and then forget to pick up the change,” said one former aide. He once left a tip for a hairdresser in euros not pounds, to her dismay. Johnson’s one indulgence is a pair of Church’s shoes, which can cost £750. However, they were often full of holes, according to friends, because he used them to brake as he rode around London on his bike.
“He gives a lot of control over his affairs to staff in his office, including his tax return, which is why it sometimes blows up in his face,” the former aide said.
Johnson has been reprimanded in the past for failing to register financial interests in parliament as required. The concern in No 10 is that the commissioner for standards, who is considering whether to investigate the redecoration of the flat, in addition to the inquiry into the Mustique holiday, could recommend that he is suspended from the Commons.
He also faces an inquiry by the Electoral Commission, which says there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” the party’s payment for the flat may have broken the law. Some MPs and old friends of Johnson blame Symonds — whom they call “Carrie Antoinette” — for the excessive spending on the flat, saying Johnson has little regard for opulent furnishings or clothing. “Boris didn’t really know anything about it until Carrie handed him the bill,” said one Downing Street insider. “She has champagne tastes and a lemonade budget.”
But others say the problem is Johnson’s secrecy with senior aides who might challenge him. Three senior Conservatives say Rosenfield — who was brought in to steady the ship after Cummings’ departure — is voicing doubts about how long he will remain in No 10.
The affair has led to a “bunker mentality” and swirling suspicion in No 10. Senior officials are concerned leaks have emerged from Johnson’s private office.
This is not the lifestyle of a man-of-the-people, as Johnson likes to portray himself. Not only is he apparently flouting rules designed to prevent undue influence being exerted on him and his office but, in my opinion, he is bringing the whole office into disrepute. It isn't so much that Johnson is a pauper, but that he is living beyond his means and is dependent on others to keep his head above water.
Saturday, May 01, 2021
The exclusive WhatsApp group and PPE deals
Just when you thought the Tory government's awarding of Covid PPE contracts coouldn't get any more chummy, a High Court judge has ordered Matt Hancock to hand over texts and WhatsApp messages that could shed light on how they were administered.
The Mirror reports the court was told that the Government used an exclusive WhatsApp group to give "VIP" company CEOs information about its PPE requirements:
The Good Law Project has been pursuing the government in the High Court to reveal details of the 'VIP' fast lane for Covid contracts.
Evidence brought up in court today suggests the government used a WhatsApp group of 200 company CEOs to "provide special communications (apparently unavailable to other suppliers) about its forecast PPE requirements."
The existence of the group was revealed for the first time today, in a meeting agenda from last April, disclosed to the court by the Government.
It reads: "[Redacted] to connect with [Redacted] and confirm preferred way forward to sharing communications with CEOs and CPOs (Chief product officers)
"Note: There is a WhatsApp group with [circa] 200 CEO and this is informal way to communicate. There is also a separate channel to CPOs)"
But Government lawyers have so far failed to disclose any text or instant messages to the court.
Today the court ordered Mr Hancock to search for and disclose "texts and WhatsApp messages for some selected civil servants.”
The Government were also ordered to pay the Good Law Project’s legal costs.
A spokesperson for the Project said: "We believe we are left in a position of being unable fairly to interrogate and challenge the account given by Government in its evidence."
Once more there is a lack of transparency in how these contracts were awarded and in particular how various acquaintances of Government Ministers and Tory Party donors succeeded in winning these contracts. It is time that all the facts were in the public domain.
The Mirror reports the court was told that the Government used an exclusive WhatsApp group to give "VIP" company CEOs information about its PPE requirements:
The Good Law Project has been pursuing the government in the High Court to reveal details of the 'VIP' fast lane for Covid contracts.
Evidence brought up in court today suggests the government used a WhatsApp group of 200 company CEOs to "provide special communications (apparently unavailable to other suppliers) about its forecast PPE requirements."
The existence of the group was revealed for the first time today, in a meeting agenda from last April, disclosed to the court by the Government.
It reads: "[Redacted] to connect with [Redacted] and confirm preferred way forward to sharing communications with CEOs and CPOs (Chief product officers)
"Note: There is a WhatsApp group with [circa] 200 CEO and this is informal way to communicate. There is also a separate channel to CPOs)"
But Government lawyers have so far failed to disclose any text or instant messages to the court.
Today the court ordered Mr Hancock to search for and disclose "texts and WhatsApp messages for some selected civil servants.”
The Government were also ordered to pay the Good Law Project’s legal costs.
A spokesperson for the Project said: "We believe we are left in a position of being unable fairly to interrogate and challenge the account given by Government in its evidence."
Once more there is a lack of transparency in how these contracts were awarded and in particular how various acquaintances of Government Ministers and Tory Party donors succeeded in winning these contracts. It is time that all the facts were in the public domain.
