Friday, January 28, 2022
More government extravagance
I have never flown to Australia, but if I did, I suspect that the cost of flights would be in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands of pounds. So what is it that makes our Foriegn Secretary so different that she cannot get a commercial flight like everybody else, rather than stiffing the taxpayer for a cool half a million pounds through the use of a private jet?
The Guardian reports that Liz Truss used the private government Airbus A321 for her flight from London’s Stansted airport to Sydney, via Dubai and Kuala Lumpur, arriving on 20 January. Once there, she held talks with her Australian counterpart and gave a speech on arguing global aggressors are “emboldened in a way we haven’t seen since the cold war”:
The Independent, which first reported the transport arrangement, quoted industry sources who put the cost at half a million pounds. One of the daily Qantas flights to Perth and on to Sydney would have been scheduled to get Truss there almost five hours earlier.
After two days in Sydney, Truss flew to Adelaide for a speech, using the same plane, on 22 January, then flew home, taking the same refuelling stops, the following day. A small ministerial and staff delegation would be expected to be onboard.
The A321 is leased by the Cabinet Office at a cost of £75m for two years, according to aviation expert and former pilot Andy Netherwood. Because the plane uses Boris Johnson’s “Global Britain” livery it spends much of its time on the tarmac because it cannot be used by non-governmental customers.
This latest extravagance comes on top of reports that Truss overruled the civil service to demand more expensive hospitality. She is said to have hosted a lunch with Joe Biden’s trade representative at a private club owned by a Tory donor despite civil service advice to look for a cheaper venue.
The paper points out that in the past, Truss has been a champion of eliminating government waste, writing a paper in 2007 for the Reform thinktank arguing for public servants to fly economy class. “Every public sector worker should feel personal responsibility for the money they spend and the money they save,” she wrote.
In this case, it sounds like she could have saved us a lot of money, and a lot of grief for the environment, by just using zoom.
The Guardian reports that Liz Truss used the private government Airbus A321 for her flight from London’s Stansted airport to Sydney, via Dubai and Kuala Lumpur, arriving on 20 January. Once there, she held talks with her Australian counterpart and gave a speech on arguing global aggressors are “emboldened in a way we haven’t seen since the cold war”:
The Independent, which first reported the transport arrangement, quoted industry sources who put the cost at half a million pounds. One of the daily Qantas flights to Perth and on to Sydney would have been scheduled to get Truss there almost five hours earlier.
After two days in Sydney, Truss flew to Adelaide for a speech, using the same plane, on 22 January, then flew home, taking the same refuelling stops, the following day. A small ministerial and staff delegation would be expected to be onboard.
The A321 is leased by the Cabinet Office at a cost of £75m for two years, according to aviation expert and former pilot Andy Netherwood. Because the plane uses Boris Johnson’s “Global Britain” livery it spends much of its time on the tarmac because it cannot be used by non-governmental customers.
This latest extravagance comes on top of reports that Truss overruled the civil service to demand more expensive hospitality. She is said to have hosted a lunch with Joe Biden’s trade representative at a private club owned by a Tory donor despite civil service advice to look for a cheaper venue.
The paper points out that in the past, Truss has been a champion of eliminating government waste, writing a paper in 2007 for the Reform thinktank arguing for public servants to fly economy class. “Every public sector worker should feel personal responsibility for the money they spend and the money they save,” she wrote.
In this case, it sounds like she could have saved us a lot of money, and a lot of grief for the environment, by just using zoom.
Thursday, January 27, 2022
Another day, another lie ?
The Mirror reports that Boris Johnson has once more been accused of lying after bombshell emails revealed he did personally intervene to get animals and staff from a charity airlifted out of Afghanistan after the Taliban took Kabul. The Prime Minister said at the time it was "complete nonsense" the Government stepped in to help Paul 'Pen' Farthing and members of his Nowzad charity flee Afghanistan:
The Government was accused of putting animals before people after Mr Farthing was able to evacuate 173 cats and dogs from the country in August using a plane funded by donations from a high profile campaign.
The PM rejected claims he had intervened and Downing Street said it was "entirely untrue".
But new evidence from a whistleblower, published by the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, contradicts the PM's repeated denials about the ex-marine's charity.
An email from an official in Lord Goldsmith's office to the special cases team on August 25 2021 said another charity was seeking help to get their staff out.
It stated: "Equivalent charity Nowzad, run by an ex-Royal Marine, has received a lot of publicity and the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated, [animal charity – name redacted] are hoping to be treated in the same capacity."
Another email sent between Foreign Office officials that day, said: “In light of the PM’s decision earlier today to evacuate the staff of the Nowzad animal charity, the [animal charity – name redacted] is asking for agreement to the entry of [details redacted] staff, all Afghan nationals."
The paper says that these emails cast fresh doubt on Johnson's integrity. No comment.
The Government was accused of putting animals before people after Mr Farthing was able to evacuate 173 cats and dogs from the country in August using a plane funded by donations from a high profile campaign.
The PM rejected claims he had intervened and Downing Street said it was "entirely untrue".
But new evidence from a whistleblower, published by the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, contradicts the PM's repeated denials about the ex-marine's charity.
An email from an official in Lord Goldsmith's office to the special cases team on August 25 2021 said another charity was seeking help to get their staff out.
It stated: "Equivalent charity Nowzad, run by an ex-Royal Marine, has received a lot of publicity and the PM has just authorised their staff and animals to be evacuated, [animal charity – name redacted] are hoping to be treated in the same capacity."
Another email sent between Foreign Office officials that day, said: “In light of the PM’s decision earlier today to evacuate the staff of the Nowzad animal charity, the [animal charity – name redacted] is asking for agreement to the entry of [details redacted] staff, all Afghan nationals."
The paper says that these emails cast fresh doubt on Johnson's integrity. No comment.
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
Can the Met redeem themselves?
The decision by the Metropolitan Police to finally investigate the incessant partying in Downing Street is welcome. As the Guardian reports, it was only on Sunday that the Met decided it had enough evidence to merit a criminal investigation into claims of parties in Downing Street and Whitehall, attended by those who made the onerous lockdown rules:
Discussions at the top of the Met continued throughout Monday, and it was only on Tuesday morning, just before Dick’s announcement before the London assembly, that the scope of those criminal inquiries was decided by the force. That included decisions about which “events” it would investigate, and which it would not.
Ever since Sue Gray’s inquiry started unearthing evidence of wrongdoing, the top civil servant’s team have been sharing information with the police.
By last week, the picture of alleged law-breaking it painted was becoming clearer. By Sunday 23 January, the Met assessed the evidence potentially showed “clear and flagrant” breaches, by people who should have known their actions were breaking the rules, and who were unlikely to have a reasonable excuse for their actions.
In short, the breaches, based on the evidence gathered by Gray’s team, looked clearcut.
Ever since media revelations started in December, the Met has been under fire for its decision not to investigate. Some felt it was hiding behind a policy of not usually investigating Covid rule breaches retrospectively. With each revelation and grudging government admission about parties, the Met’s insistence it was not scared of tangling with those in power was increasingly doubted.
Breaches of Covid rules normally result in a fine. But since they were first introduced in March 2020, the rules have changed more than 70 times. Thus the starting point for the Met special inquiry team who are now investigating is establishing what laws were actually in place. Then they will be looking for any physical evidence Gray may have acquired, such as CCTV showing who was where at certain times, data from security cards also showing the locations of individuals, and emails. Acquiring photos from mobile phones may also help speed up matters.
On Tuesday Dick hinted Gray may already have strong evidence of wrongdoing: “I don’t anticipate any difficulty in obtaining the evidence that it is ... necessary, proportionate and appropriate for us to obtain in order to get to the right conclusions.”
Any fines issued via fixed penalty notices can be paid immediately, or an individual can fight them at a magistrates court. Those who pay up do not get a criminal record, but those who choose to fight the matter in court risk getting one if the magistrates so decide.
One senior police insider said the Met’s strategy had been to wait for the official inquiry’s emerging findings to be shared with them before deciding to launch its own investigation: “It would be wise to wait for Sue Gray.”
One reason for this was that it would prove embarrassing if the Met started an investigation into Johnson’s closest officials, if not the prime minister himself, and then Gray concluded nothing seriously wrong had taken place.
Another factor has been the Met’s past experiences of painful run-ins with politicians – to which Dick has had a ringside seat.
Irrespective of this reasoning, it is my view that the Met has been applying different standards in its decision-making on this controversy, over those it has applied to ordinary citizens. That is an unacceptable approach to policing, Will they be able to redeem themselves now they have the evidence gathered for them by Sue Gray? We will have to wait and see.
Discussions at the top of the Met continued throughout Monday, and it was only on Tuesday morning, just before Dick’s announcement before the London assembly, that the scope of those criminal inquiries was decided by the force. That included decisions about which “events” it would investigate, and which it would not.
Ever since Sue Gray’s inquiry started unearthing evidence of wrongdoing, the top civil servant’s team have been sharing information with the police.
By last week, the picture of alleged law-breaking it painted was becoming clearer. By Sunday 23 January, the Met assessed the evidence potentially showed “clear and flagrant” breaches, by people who should have known their actions were breaking the rules, and who were unlikely to have a reasonable excuse for their actions.
In short, the breaches, based on the evidence gathered by Gray’s team, looked clearcut.
Ever since media revelations started in December, the Met has been under fire for its decision not to investigate. Some felt it was hiding behind a policy of not usually investigating Covid rule breaches retrospectively. With each revelation and grudging government admission about parties, the Met’s insistence it was not scared of tangling with those in power was increasingly doubted.
Breaches of Covid rules normally result in a fine. But since they were first introduced in March 2020, the rules have changed more than 70 times. Thus the starting point for the Met special inquiry team who are now investigating is establishing what laws were actually in place. Then they will be looking for any physical evidence Gray may have acquired, such as CCTV showing who was where at certain times, data from security cards also showing the locations of individuals, and emails. Acquiring photos from mobile phones may also help speed up matters.
On Tuesday Dick hinted Gray may already have strong evidence of wrongdoing: “I don’t anticipate any difficulty in obtaining the evidence that it is ... necessary, proportionate and appropriate for us to obtain in order to get to the right conclusions.”
Any fines issued via fixed penalty notices can be paid immediately, or an individual can fight them at a magistrates court. Those who pay up do not get a criminal record, but those who choose to fight the matter in court risk getting one if the magistrates so decide.
One senior police insider said the Met’s strategy had been to wait for the official inquiry’s emerging findings to be shared with them before deciding to launch its own investigation: “It would be wise to wait for Sue Gray.”
One reason for this was that it would prove embarrassing if the Met started an investigation into Johnson’s closest officials, if not the prime minister himself, and then Gray concluded nothing seriously wrong had taken place.
Another factor has been the Met’s past experiences of painful run-ins with politicians – to which Dick has had a ringside seat.
Irrespective of this reasoning, it is my view that the Met has been applying different standards in its decision-making on this controversy, over those it has applied to ordinary citizens. That is an unacceptable approach to policing, Will they be able to redeem themselves now they have the evidence gathered for them by Sue Gray? We will have to wait and see.
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
Party People
As the rap artist, Nelly might have sung on entering No 10 Downing Street:
The latest controversy to overtake Boris Johnson is his own birthday party, organised by Carrie Johnson in the middle of lockdown, involving up to 30 staff on 19 June 2020 despite Covid rules banning indoor social gatherings and when outdoor gatherings were limited to groups of six. It was attended by the prime minister, and the interior designer Lulu Lytle, who was not a member of No 10 staff, was also there.
The Guardian reports that the room was laid out with Marks and Spencer party food and a birthday cake, with staff singing “Happy Birthday” and staying for 20-30 minutes.
Of course, those seeking to defend the Prime Minister are trying to downplay the event, but it was clearly more than a small group of staff, and it was obviously more than a piece of cake and a glass of sherry. There was a buffet for goodness sake. And can thirty people really social distance in the cabinet room?
If this was an isolated event, then perhaps people would shrug and move on, but it is part of a pattern of what appears to have been endless partying at the heart of government when everybody else was being told they could not celebrate their own birthday, could not visit sick relatives, attend the funerals of loved ones, or take much-needed holidays.
The arrogance and contempt shown by those involved in these parties is appalling. We are well past the last straw, why are they still being allowed to run the country?
Just walked through the door
What's it gonna be?
Take it to the floor
Girls all over me
Where my party, pa- party
Party, pa- party people at?
Where my party, pa- party
Party, pa- party people at?
The latest controversy to overtake Boris Johnson is his own birthday party, organised by Carrie Johnson in the middle of lockdown, involving up to 30 staff on 19 June 2020 despite Covid rules banning indoor social gatherings and when outdoor gatherings were limited to groups of six. It was attended by the prime minister, and the interior designer Lulu Lytle, who was not a member of No 10 staff, was also there.
The Guardian reports that the room was laid out with Marks and Spencer party food and a birthday cake, with staff singing “Happy Birthday” and staying for 20-30 minutes.
Of course, those seeking to defend the Prime Minister are trying to downplay the event, but it was clearly more than a small group of staff, and it was obviously more than a piece of cake and a glass of sherry. There was a buffet for goodness sake. And can thirty people really social distance in the cabinet room?
If this was an isolated event, then perhaps people would shrug and move on, but it is part of a pattern of what appears to have been endless partying at the heart of government when everybody else was being told they could not celebrate their own birthday, could not visit sick relatives, attend the funerals of loved ones, or take much-needed holidays.
The arrogance and contempt shown by those involved in these parties is appalling. We are well past the last straw, why are they still being allowed to run the country?
Monday, January 24, 2022
You've got to love the irony
The Independent says that police officers who guard No 10 have reportedly been interviewed as part of Sue Gray’s inquiry into parties held at Downing Street during Covid restrictions, and, according to one source, their statements to the civil servant in charge of the probe were “extremely damning”.
Ms Gray is looking into allegations of a number of parties held at Downing Street while the country was under Covid restrictions. She is expected to publish her findings in the next week.
Officers who were on duty outside No 10 at the time of alleged rule-breaking parties have now reportedly been spoken to for the inquiry.
Access to Downing Street is controlled by the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary and diplomatic protection command. According to The Telegraph, members of this branch have given detailed testimonies about what they saw to Ms Gray.
Asked how significant their information was, a source told the newspaper: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still prime minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
These officers of course, are members of the Metropolitan Police, which force has refused to investigate potential law-breaking at these parties, preferring instead to rely on the findings of the inquiry by Sue Gray, a civil servant, with no powers to compel testimony, no effective comeback against perjury, no background in criminal investigations and who is working to limited terms of reference.
If the officers guarding No. 10 Downing Street give evidence that laws were broken by those partying behind its door, then legitimate questions must be asked as to why they did not intervene, why they did not report back to senior officers so that a proper investigation could take place, and what exactly the Commissioner knows of their experiences, and why she has declined to take action?
The irony in this case is that it should be these police officers questioning civil servants, not the other way around. Tell me again, why we should believe that the Met is fit for purpose?
Ms Gray is looking into allegations of a number of parties held at Downing Street while the country was under Covid restrictions. She is expected to publish her findings in the next week.
Officers who were on duty outside No 10 at the time of alleged rule-breaking parties have now reportedly been spoken to for the inquiry.
Access to Downing Street is controlled by the Metropolitan Police’s parliamentary and diplomatic protection command. According to The Telegraph, members of this branch have given detailed testimonies about what they saw to Ms Gray.
Asked how significant their information was, a source told the newspaper: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still prime minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”
These officers of course, are members of the Metropolitan Police, which force has refused to investigate potential law-breaking at these parties, preferring instead to rely on the findings of the inquiry by Sue Gray, a civil servant, with no powers to compel testimony, no effective comeback against perjury, no background in criminal investigations and who is working to limited terms of reference.
If the officers guarding No. 10 Downing Street give evidence that laws were broken by those partying behind its door, then legitimate questions must be asked as to why they did not intervene, why they did not report back to senior officers so that a proper investigation could take place, and what exactly the Commissioner knows of their experiences, and why she has declined to take action?
The irony in this case is that it should be these police officers questioning civil servants, not the other way around. Tell me again, why we should believe that the Met is fit for purpose?
Sunday, January 23, 2022
New accusations reawaken claims of Islamophobia within the Conservative Party
Claims by the Wealden MP, Nusrat Ghani, in an interview with the Sunday Times, that, when she lost her job as a transport minister, she was told, at a meeting in Downing Street, that “Muslimness” had been raised as an problem has reopened a deep wound within the Conservative Party, who had hoped to have put claims it was institutionally Islamophobic behind it.
The Guardian reports that Mark Spencer, the chief whip, has said the MP was referring to him when she accused a member of government of telling her she had been sacked from her ministerial post because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”, tweeting a few hours after the story was published:
The Guardian reports that Mark Spencer, the chief whip, has said the MP was referring to him when she accused a member of government of telling her she had been sacked from her ministerial post because her Muslim faith was “making colleagues uncomfortable”, tweeting a few hours after the story was published:
“To ensure other whips are not drawn into this matter, I am identifying myself as the person Nusrat Ghani MP has made claims about. These accusations are completely false and I consider them to be defamatory. I have never used those words attributed to me.”
Ms Ghani has a different version:
“It was like being punched in the stomach,” said the MP for Wealden, who was sacked in a mini-reshuffle in February 2020 after the resignation of Sajid Javid as chancellor. “I felt humiliated and powerless. I was told that at the reshuffle meeting in Downing Street that ‘Muslimness’ was raised as an ‘issue’, that my ‘Muslim women minister’ status was making colleagues uncomfortable and that there were concerns that I wasn’t loyal to the party as I didn’t do enough to defend the party against Islamophobia allegations.
“When I challenged whether this was in any way acceptable and made clear there was little I could do about my identity, I had to listen to a monologue on how hard it was to define when people are being racist and that the party doesn’t have a problem and I needed to do more to defend it.
“It was very clear to me that the whips and No 10 were holding me to a higher threshold of loyalty than others because of my background and faith.”
The Guardian reported back in May 2021 that the long-awaited review into Islamophobia within the Conservatives was 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.
At that time Lady Warsi, the party’s former chair who first demanded an inquiry into anti-Muslim sentiment within its ranks, disagreed 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 prime minister’s comments, in which he compared women wearing the burqa to letterboxes, were singled out for criticism in the inquiry headed by Prof Swaran Singh.
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.”
These latest allegations, whether true or not, will blow this issue wide open once more. The fact is that the Tories never satisfactorily dealt with the allegations, and now it has come back to bite them.
“It was like being punched in the stomach,” said the MP for Wealden, who was sacked in a mini-reshuffle in February 2020 after the resignation of Sajid Javid as chancellor. “I felt humiliated and powerless. I was told that at the reshuffle meeting in Downing Street that ‘Muslimness’ was raised as an ‘issue’, that my ‘Muslim women minister’ status was making colleagues uncomfortable and that there were concerns that I wasn’t loyal to the party as I didn’t do enough to defend the party against Islamophobia allegations.
“When I challenged whether this was in any way acceptable and made clear there was little I could do about my identity, I had to listen to a monologue on how hard it was to define when people are being racist and that the party doesn’t have a problem and I needed to do more to defend it.
“It was very clear to me that the whips and No 10 were holding me to a higher threshold of loyalty than others because of my background and faith.”
The Guardian reported back in May 2021 that the long-awaited review into Islamophobia within the Conservatives was 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.
At that time Lady Warsi, the party’s former chair who first demanded an inquiry into anti-Muslim sentiment within its ranks, disagreed 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 prime minister’s comments, in which he compared women wearing the burqa to letterboxes, were singled out for criticism in the inquiry headed by Prof Swaran Singh.
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.”
These latest allegations, whether true or not, will blow this issue wide open once more. The fact is that the Tories never satisfactorily dealt with the allegations, and now it has come back to bite them.
Saturday, January 22, 2022
Brexit blamed for Dover queues
The Independent reports that huge lorry queues building up at the Port of Dover have been blamed “entirely” on extra controls which have come into force from Brexit, with port chiefs urging the UK government to hold talks with the EU on ways to ease further checks set to come in later in 2022 which could cause “disastrous” disruption to trade:
One courier told The Independent he had been caught up in queues of up to 15km (9 miles) since full customs controls came into force at the beginning of January.
The British haulier said it was taking 15 to 20 minutes for each driver to clear checks needed for the UK government’s new Goods Vehicle Movement Service (GVMS) system and other export paperwork at Dover.
“It’s entirely Brexit – you can’t blame it on anything else but Brexit,” said the driver, who has had to push back some deliveries.
The haulier added: “People will get to grips with GVMS and the new paperwork in the weeks ahead. But even if they don’t take as long, checks still take time. So the queues are bound to get worse when traffic flows pick up next month.”
Recent disruption has been even more significant around the French port of Calais since new customs controls were introduced on goods imported into the UK at the start of January.
Lorry drivers have reported queueing for up to eight hours to get through controls, partly because UK firms have struggled with complex new customs declarations and rules-of-origin forms.
But the GVMS system is also creating longer checks for lorries heading to the EU at Dover. There was a queue of 7km leading up to Dover port on Friday morning, according to the Sixfold traffic tracker used by the logistics industry which has recorded “higher than usual” build-up this week.
The congestion at Dover in recent days has seen the Operation TAP temporary traffic system being implemented – with all vehicles restricted to 40mph and lorries asked to queue in one lane until there is space.
It is not as if the government were not warned. Perhaps they should have struck a deal with the EU after all.
One courier told The Independent he had been caught up in queues of up to 15km (9 miles) since full customs controls came into force at the beginning of January.
The British haulier said it was taking 15 to 20 minutes for each driver to clear checks needed for the UK government’s new Goods Vehicle Movement Service (GVMS) system and other export paperwork at Dover.
“It’s entirely Brexit – you can’t blame it on anything else but Brexit,” said the driver, who has had to push back some deliveries.
The haulier added: “People will get to grips with GVMS and the new paperwork in the weeks ahead. But even if they don’t take as long, checks still take time. So the queues are bound to get worse when traffic flows pick up next month.”
Recent disruption has been even more significant around the French port of Calais since new customs controls were introduced on goods imported into the UK at the start of January.
Lorry drivers have reported queueing for up to eight hours to get through controls, partly because UK firms have struggled with complex new customs declarations and rules-of-origin forms.
But the GVMS system is also creating longer checks for lorries heading to the EU at Dover. There was a queue of 7km leading up to Dover port on Friday morning, according to the Sixfold traffic tracker used by the logistics industry which has recorded “higher than usual” build-up this week.
The congestion at Dover in recent days has seen the Operation TAP temporary traffic system being implemented – with all vehicles restricted to 40mph and lorries asked to queue in one lane until there is space.
It is not as if the government were not warned. Perhaps they should have struck a deal with the EU after all.
Friday, January 21, 2022
A bridge too far
I have posted a couple of times about Boris Johnson's rather bonkers idea of a white elephant bridge between Scotland and Northern Ireland, most recently, here. The latest news on this though is not good for taxpayers.
The Guardian reports that nearly £900,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent on a study commissioned by the Prime Minister that found it would be too expensive to build a bridge or tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The paper says that the research into the feasibility of a fixed link cost £896,681:
The Network Rail chair, Sir Peter Hendy, led the investigation, which found that a bridge would cost £335bn, while a tunnel would require a budget of about £209bn.
His report concluded that the project “would be impossible to justify” as “the benefits could not possibly outweigh the costs”.
In addition to the huge expense, the inquiry also noted that the necessary work would be incredibly challenging.
The report described how Beaufort’s dyke – an underwater trench on the most direct route between Scotland and Northern Ireland – would need to be “carefully surveyed” due to 1m tonnes of unexploded munitions being dumped there between the first world war and the 1970s.
Of course this is small change compared to the £135 million that was written off by the Welsh Government on the M4 relief road, a project that was never likely to be built in my opinion. It just goes to show that the whims of politicians can be as expensive as their mistakes.
The Guardian reports that nearly £900,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent on a study commissioned by the Prime Minister that found it would be too expensive to build a bridge or tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The paper says that the research into the feasibility of a fixed link cost £896,681:
The Network Rail chair, Sir Peter Hendy, led the investigation, which found that a bridge would cost £335bn, while a tunnel would require a budget of about £209bn.
His report concluded that the project “would be impossible to justify” as “the benefits could not possibly outweigh the costs”.
In addition to the huge expense, the inquiry also noted that the necessary work would be incredibly challenging.
The report described how Beaufort’s dyke – an underwater trench on the most direct route between Scotland and Northern Ireland – would need to be “carefully surveyed” due to 1m tonnes of unexploded munitions being dumped there between the first world war and the 1970s.
Of course this is small change compared to the £135 million that was written off by the Welsh Government on the M4 relief road, a project that was never likely to be built in my opinion. It just goes to show that the whims of politicians can be as expensive as their mistakes.
Thursday, January 20, 2022
Is river pollution being neglected in Wales?
The BBC reports on the view of Gail Davies-Walsh, chief executive of Afonydd Cymru, which represents Wales' rivers' trusts, who asserts that thousands of small-scale water pollution spills are not being looked into in Wales, adding up to a "massive issue".
Her statemnet follows criticism of a leaked document suggesting staff at England's Environment Agency (EA) should ignore low-impact pollution events:
Described as an "appalling scandal" by the UK Rivers' Trust, an internal briefing to EA staff on how to handle pollution was leaked to the media.
The Guardian newspaper and Ends Report found that bosses had shown support for "no response" to low-impact environmental incidents because of a lack of funding to investigate them.
Now campaigners in Wales have accused NRW of taking a similar approach for years and said a change in culture at the watchdog was needed.
A guidance note from 2017 on NRW's website suggests the majority of low-level impact incidents would not "merit attendance" by officials, nor an immediate response.
Examples of river pollution cases that fall into this category include those that cause "minor loss of fish habitat" or kill a small number of fish from species that are not rare.
The same applies to incidents that give rise to minor public health problems, including "a few individuals with temporary sore throats".
Spills that kill one or two adult salmon or sea trout could also be classed as low-impact, though fisheries officers would need to be consulted.
Stocks of the fish have hit such "unprecedented lows" in recent years that NRW has introduced new bylaws forcing anglers to throw back their catch for a decade.
The document notes that media interest or a risk to NRW's reputation should be one factor used to weigh up whether an incident merits a response.
...
NRW figures from 2019 show it received 7,423 incident reports, of which 29% were related to water pollution.
"The problem with smaller cases is that on their own they're not being considered a major issue, but added together they're having more of an effect on our rivers than any one big incident," said Richard Garner Williams from the South East Wales Rivers Trust.
NRW has repeatedly warned about funding pressures in recent years, and Ms Davies-Walsh agreed that lack of resources was part of the problem but said "a change in culture" was also needed, to focus on strong enforcement.
Hugo Tagholm, chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said environmental watchdogs like NRW were lacking "sufficient capacity" to properly do their job.
"We've seen regulators defunded over the last couple of decades, less money available to investigate farming pollution and water company misbehaviour," he said.
A decade of "radical action" was needed to hold polluters to account and force investment in cleaning up rivers and seas to help fight climate change, he added.
Funding is clearly at the heart of this problem, and it is up to Welsh Ministers to put this right.
Her statemnet follows criticism of a leaked document suggesting staff at England's Environment Agency (EA) should ignore low-impact pollution events:
Described as an "appalling scandal" by the UK Rivers' Trust, an internal briefing to EA staff on how to handle pollution was leaked to the media.
The Guardian newspaper and Ends Report found that bosses had shown support for "no response" to low-impact environmental incidents because of a lack of funding to investigate them.
Now campaigners in Wales have accused NRW of taking a similar approach for years and said a change in culture at the watchdog was needed.
A guidance note from 2017 on NRW's website suggests the majority of low-level impact incidents would not "merit attendance" by officials, nor an immediate response.
Examples of river pollution cases that fall into this category include those that cause "minor loss of fish habitat" or kill a small number of fish from species that are not rare.
The same applies to incidents that give rise to minor public health problems, including "a few individuals with temporary sore throats".
Spills that kill one or two adult salmon or sea trout could also be classed as low-impact, though fisheries officers would need to be consulted.
Stocks of the fish have hit such "unprecedented lows" in recent years that NRW has introduced new bylaws forcing anglers to throw back their catch for a decade.
The document notes that media interest or a risk to NRW's reputation should be one factor used to weigh up whether an incident merits a response.
...
NRW figures from 2019 show it received 7,423 incident reports, of which 29% were related to water pollution.
"The problem with smaller cases is that on their own they're not being considered a major issue, but added together they're having more of an effect on our rivers than any one big incident," said Richard Garner Williams from the South East Wales Rivers Trust.
NRW has repeatedly warned about funding pressures in recent years, and Ms Davies-Walsh agreed that lack of resources was part of the problem but said "a change in culture" was also needed, to focus on strong enforcement.
Hugo Tagholm, chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, said environmental watchdogs like NRW were lacking "sufficient capacity" to properly do their job.
"We've seen regulators defunded over the last couple of decades, less money available to investigate farming pollution and water company misbehaviour," he said.
A decade of "radical action" was needed to hold polluters to account and force investment in cleaning up rivers and seas to help fight climate change, he added.
Funding is clearly at the heart of this problem, and it is up to Welsh Ministers to put this right.
Wednesday, January 19, 2022
Government needs to do more to prepare for climate change
The Independent reports on the government’s UK Climate Change Risk Assessment which argues that ministers must go “further and faster” to prepare for the impacts of warmer temperatures caused by the climate crisis.
The new report says “stronger or different” government action was needed to tackle more than 30 climate-related risks in the next few years, including over coastal flooding, public water supplies and health, adding that it would cost billions every year to deal with the impacts of the climate emergency by the mid-century:
“We have clear evidence demonstrating the pace of warming in recent decades and the impacts we will face should this continue,” the report - published on Monday - said.
“As we redouble our efforts to achieve net zero, we must also continue to raise ambitions on adaptation to ensure the UK is resilient to the challenges of a warming world.”
The report laid out how even a small shift in the average climate can lead to “major changes in extreme events”, including increasing the frequency of severe flooding event, and said preparations needed to be made for the possibility of a 4C rise in temperatures.
The Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government, identified eight priority areas which require the most urgent action over the next two years.
These included the health risk of warmer temperatures in buildings, the impact on people and the economy of a power system failure linked to the climate, and the threat of a supply chain collapse linked to the crisis.
More action was needed over the next five years to protect the UK from 34 potential impacts of the climate emergency, such as damage from flooding, threats to wildlife and people taking ill from rising temperatures.
The risk assessment was published on the same day Office for National Statistics analysis found the climate crisis was already having a negative impact on health in the UK - and this was expected to get worse over time.
The new government report said it recognised the scale of the challenge posed by the climate crisis, but added: “We must go much further and faster to truly prepare for the impacts of a warmer world.”
Isn't it time the government started to take this crisis seriously?
The new report says “stronger or different” government action was needed to tackle more than 30 climate-related risks in the next few years, including over coastal flooding, public water supplies and health, adding that it would cost billions every year to deal with the impacts of the climate emergency by the mid-century:
“We have clear evidence demonstrating the pace of warming in recent decades and the impacts we will face should this continue,” the report - published on Monday - said.
“As we redouble our efforts to achieve net zero, we must also continue to raise ambitions on adaptation to ensure the UK is resilient to the challenges of a warming world.”
The report laid out how even a small shift in the average climate can lead to “major changes in extreme events”, including increasing the frequency of severe flooding event, and said preparations needed to be made for the possibility of a 4C rise in temperatures.
The Climate Change Committee (CCC), which advises the government, identified eight priority areas which require the most urgent action over the next two years.
These included the health risk of warmer temperatures in buildings, the impact on people and the economy of a power system failure linked to the climate, and the threat of a supply chain collapse linked to the crisis.
More action was needed over the next five years to protect the UK from 34 potential impacts of the climate emergency, such as damage from flooding, threats to wildlife and people taking ill from rising temperatures.
The risk assessment was published on the same day Office for National Statistics analysis found the climate crisis was already having a negative impact on health in the UK - and this was expected to get worse over time.
The new government report said it recognised the scale of the challenge posed by the climate crisis, but added: “We must go much further and faster to truly prepare for the impacts of a warmer world.”
Isn't it time the government started to take this crisis seriously?
Tuesday, January 18, 2022
Lucky fourteen
At last some good news as the House of Lords has delivered a major rebuff to the government by amending significant clauses in their Police Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
The Guardian reports that amongst the changes was a vote to make misogyny a hate crime in England and Wales. The law change would enable judges to impose stronger penalties if prejudice against women is proved to be the motivation, and would also require the police to record whether crimes were motivated by a hatred of someone’s sex or gender.
They add that the vote came during a debate in the House of Lords on the Police Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, in which the government lost 14 divisions, including plans to make people locking themselves on to objects punishable by up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment, suspicion-less stop-and-search and introduction of “serious disruption prevention orders” against protesters.
Peers also voted to block proposals to give police new powers to stop noisy and disruptive protests in England and Wales, with Green peer Jenny Jones calling the plans “oppressive” and “plain nasty”. Four other amendments including one aiming to protect Parliament Square as a place to protest, one that would require police officers to tell the truth in public inquiries, and one demanding an inquiry into the prevalence of drink-spiking offences were also passed.
~
The onus is now on the government to think again about these changes and hopefully concede defeat on them. If that doesnt happen then it is important that the Lords remain resolute in their opposition. The irony that an unelected body is now our main bulwark against measures to undermine democracy and individual rights should not be lost on us.
The Guardian reports that amongst the changes was a vote to make misogyny a hate crime in England and Wales. The law change would enable judges to impose stronger penalties if prejudice against women is proved to be the motivation, and would also require the police to record whether crimes were motivated by a hatred of someone’s sex or gender.
They add that the vote came during a debate in the House of Lords on the Police Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, in which the government lost 14 divisions, including plans to make people locking themselves on to objects punishable by up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment, suspicion-less stop-and-search and introduction of “serious disruption prevention orders” against protesters.
Peers also voted to block proposals to give police new powers to stop noisy and disruptive protests in England and Wales, with Green peer Jenny Jones calling the plans “oppressive” and “plain nasty”. Four other amendments including one aiming to protect Parliament Square as a place to protest, one that would require police officers to tell the truth in public inquiries, and one demanding an inquiry into the prevalence of drink-spiking offences were also passed.
~
The onus is now on the government to think again about these changes and hopefully concede defeat on them. If that doesnt happen then it is important that the Lords remain resolute in their opposition. The irony that an unelected body is now our main bulwark against measures to undermine democracy and individual rights should not be lost on us.
Monday, January 17, 2022
Has the BBC become the government's latest dead cat?
Looking back over past blogposts it was actually twelve and a half years ago that the then-Labour Government published a report that suggested using income from the licence fee to support public service broadcasting on other channels, namely ITV.
This was followed a few years later by a complete revamp of the way S4C was funded, effectively abolishing the direct grant from DCMS by bringing the Welsh language broadcaster under the auspices of the BBC, and making it reliant on licence fee funding.
Back in 2009, I asked was the licence fee still fit for purpose? Further questions were: 'Does the rise of digital inclusion, broadband and satellite TV stations outside of UK jurisdiction mean that it has become an obsolete way of funding public service TV? Should the licence fee be abolished altogether and the BBC funded by direct taxation instead?'
Back in 2009, I asked was the licence fee still fit for purpose? Further questions were: 'Does the rise of digital inclusion, broadband and satellite TV stations outside of UK jurisdiction mean that it has become an obsolete way of funding public service TV? Should the licence fee be abolished altogether and the BBC funded by direct taxation instead?'
Given what has happened in those twelve years with the rise of Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney Plus, Apple TV, Britbox and goodness-knows how many more subscription services, these questions seem more relevant than ever.
It is not clear what exactly Nadine Dorries has in mind to replace the licence fee, but what seems certain is that she does not have the future of public service broadcasting at the forefront of her mind.
It is not clear what exactly Nadine Dorries has in mind to replace the licence fee, but what seems certain is that she does not have the future of public service broadcasting at the forefront of her mind.
Raising the abolition of the licence fee now, at a time when the government is in crisis and the Prime Minister's own position is under threat, creates the appearance of a very large dead cat being thrown on the table in an attempt to get us to focus on other issues.
What is more the stated rationale, that 'The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over' is less than honest. It was the Tory Government who abolished free TV licences for the over-75s in the first place, putting elderly people in this position.
What is more the stated rationale, that 'The days of the elderly being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on doors are over' is less than honest. It was the Tory Government who abolished free TV licences for the over-75s in the first place, putting elderly people in this position.
This government, like many before it, has been very critical of the BBC's impartiality, continuing to seek ways to monitor and control the way the channel reports on political affairs. There have of course, been issues with the way management interprets impartiality, often pitching fringe figures against experts in an effort to put more than one side of the argument, when there is no justification for giving both points of view equal weight, but that is something that should be sorted out by the guidelines the BBC operates to. Instead, this latest move by the Secretary of State looks more and more like a vendetta.
The short term impact of Dorries' decision to freeze the licence fee for the next two years will be hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cuts to BBC services. It is not yet clear what that will mean for S4C and Welsh language broadcasting, never mind other valuable services. And let us not forget that channels such as the BBC World Service actually complement UK Government foreign policy. I wonder how Ministers would react if the main cut was to abolish that service.
What is important now is that the debate that Dorries says she wants to initiate is not dominated by ideological considerations. A sustainable means of funding public service broadcasting has to be found that avoids lumping the BBC in with the Amazon Primes of this world, that preserves the principles and mission on which the BBC was founded and does not add substantially to the cost for the British public, including those pensioners Dorries says she is so concerned about.
Personally, I think direct government funding from taxation, although fairer, would be a wrong turn, leaving the corporation open to ministerial coercion, especially from this government, which is already set on limiting our traditional democratic freedoms.
The short term impact of Dorries' decision to freeze the licence fee for the next two years will be hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cuts to BBC services. It is not yet clear what that will mean for S4C and Welsh language broadcasting, never mind other valuable services. And let us not forget that channels such as the BBC World Service actually complement UK Government foreign policy. I wonder how Ministers would react if the main cut was to abolish that service.
What is important now is that the debate that Dorries says she wants to initiate is not dominated by ideological considerations. A sustainable means of funding public service broadcasting has to be found that avoids lumping the BBC in with the Amazon Primes of this world, that preserves the principles and mission on which the BBC was founded and does not add substantially to the cost for the British public, including those pensioners Dorries says she is so concerned about.
Personally, I think direct government funding from taxation, although fairer, would be a wrong turn, leaving the corporation open to ministerial coercion, especially from this government, which is already set on limiting our traditional democratic freedoms.
I was surprised on reading the Richard Crossman Diaries to find that Harold Wilson's first government was exploring allowing the BBC to supplement its income through advertising. That is one possible solution. Let's see what others emerge now.
Sunday, January 16, 2022
Protests against authoritarian agenda
It is an irony that will undoubtedly not have been lost onany of the thousands of protestors attending rallies yesterday, that if the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill they were opposing becomes law, then they could well have been arrested for taking to the streets and expressing an opinion. The stakes really are as high as that, as Boris Johnson's government subverts the demcratic process in it's own interests, an action that has been central to the playbook of many dictators down the ages.
As the Guardian reports, sections of this bill have been condemned by human rights activists as an attack on the right to protest. The House of Lords will be considering it on Monday, hence the actions of “kill the bill” protesters rallying in London on yesterday, while demonstrations also took place in cities including Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Plymouth:
In the capital, demonstrators marched from Holborn to Parliament Square carrying signs reading “defend the right to protest”, while one protester carried a coffin with the words “UK democracy – murdered by the Tories” printed on its side. Many also carried Extinction Rebellion flags.
Terry Matthews, 69, from south London, told PA Media: “I think we’re facing a really vitriolic attack on our rights to protest and our freedoms to show our dissatisfaction with the status of the government and the country. And it’s a really dangerous step to try to take.”
Addressing the crowd in Parliament Square, the Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti said the bill’s anti-protest provisions “represent the greatest attack on peaceful dissent in living memory”. “This rightwing, authoritarian government used to encourage pro-Brexit demos and statue defenders when it suited them,” she said.
Chakrabarti accused the government of hypocrisy, saying it “bangs on about free speech and whinges about cancel culture” and other countries “where fundamental rights are under attack” while clamping down on rights in the UK. “Free speech is a two-way street. And you know what? The ultimate cancel culture, it doesn’t come with a tweet – it comes with a police baton and a prison sentence for nonviolent dissent,” she said.
The bill’s anti-protest measures grant police the power to ban marches and demonstrations that they consider to be “seriously disruptive”, including those deemed too noisy. Gypsy, Roma and traveller communities would effectively be criminalised by measures against residing on land without authorisation, while police would also be granted expanded stop and search powers and sentences of up to 10 years could be handed down for damage to memorials or statues.
Up until now, it has been the Liberal Democrats who have been leading the charge against this bill in the Lords. They have now been joined by Labour peers. Let's hope the opposition can do something to avert this major attack on liberty and democracy.
As the Guardian reports, sections of this bill have been condemned by human rights activists as an attack on the right to protest. The House of Lords will be considering it on Monday, hence the actions of “kill the bill” protesters rallying in London on yesterday, while demonstrations also took place in cities including Bristol, Cardiff, Coventry, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Plymouth:
In the capital, demonstrators marched from Holborn to Parliament Square carrying signs reading “defend the right to protest”, while one protester carried a coffin with the words “UK democracy – murdered by the Tories” printed on its side. Many also carried Extinction Rebellion flags.
Terry Matthews, 69, from south London, told PA Media: “I think we’re facing a really vitriolic attack on our rights to protest and our freedoms to show our dissatisfaction with the status of the government and the country. And it’s a really dangerous step to try to take.”
Addressing the crowd in Parliament Square, the Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti said the bill’s anti-protest provisions “represent the greatest attack on peaceful dissent in living memory”. “This rightwing, authoritarian government used to encourage pro-Brexit demos and statue defenders when it suited them,” she said.
Chakrabarti accused the government of hypocrisy, saying it “bangs on about free speech and whinges about cancel culture” and other countries “where fundamental rights are under attack” while clamping down on rights in the UK. “Free speech is a two-way street. And you know what? The ultimate cancel culture, it doesn’t come with a tweet – it comes with a police baton and a prison sentence for nonviolent dissent,” she said.
The bill’s anti-protest measures grant police the power to ban marches and demonstrations that they consider to be “seriously disruptive”, including those deemed too noisy. Gypsy, Roma and traveller communities would effectively be criminalised by measures against residing on land without authorisation, while police would also be granted expanded stop and search powers and sentences of up to 10 years could be handed down for damage to memorials or statues.
Up until now, it has been the Liberal Democrats who have been leading the charge against this bill in the Lords. They have now been joined by Labour peers. Let's hope the opposition can do something to avert this major attack on liberty and democracy.
Saturday, January 15, 2022
The real scandal of Baglan Energy Park
As the BBC report that Baglan Energy Park, where 1,600 people are employed, faces months without electricity, with "potentially catastrophic consequences, it is worth reflecting on the controversial way the project got approval in the first place. The full story is set out in Rhodri Morgan's autobiography:
What I was most sceptical of was the Baglan Energy Park. On my first day's tour around the project sections, the team responsible told me with confidence that the energy park would produce 6,000 new jobs. I asked them how they could be so sure - it sounded an awful high figure to me - but they said it was a middle estimate. I could rely on the 6,000 jobs figure.
Actually, it became clear that no jobs would arrive at the Baglan Energy Park, but I eventually found out why the estimate was so unrealistically high. Helen Liddell, by then the UK's High Commissioner in Australia, told me the background story. In 1997, the incoming Blair Government had issued a moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. The American multi-national industrial behemoth GE had wanted to build their first ever H series combined cycle gas turbine power station at Baglan, on a site vacated by BP. It had been part of BP's exit strategy from South Wales to secure GE's brand new and revolutionary design of power station on the former BP Baglan site. Then along came the moratorium.
US President Bill Clinton received a phone call from 'Neutron' Jack Welch, the legendary boss of GE, asking for his help in getting around the moratorium. Clinton rang his good friend Tony Blair, and asked (or maybe told) the PM to lift the moratorium for GE. That's how things are done in the US, I suppose. I could imagine Clinton smooth-talking Tony Blair over this - 'For God's sake, Tony, lift the moratorium for this power station, I've got Jack Welch on my back!' Anyway, GE got their permit to build the power station, but the exemption case from the moratorium had to be very special. Electricity from the power station could be supplied over the fence directly, and without paying a grid charge, into energy-intensive industries which could all go on the empty Baglan Bay site (now renamed the Baglan Energy Park). Hence the need for the 6,000 jobs estimate.
Before the power station actually opened, I asked to visit the project site (I was First Minister by this point). I was curious about why the US President had phoned the British PM about it - had to be on a par with a moon shot, didn't it? Bill Cooney, GE's site director, took me around - a lot guys in overalls with spanners sticking out of every pocket, trying to tweak the turbine blades to get them to run in perfect harmony. With the tour over, I walked back with Cooney to the car park past a row of Portakabins stacked four-high - he said that was where all the design engineers worked. I replied to say that I ought to go in there, as the tour wouldn't really be complete without meeting his engineering team.
Cooney said, 'Very sorry, sir, you can't go in there. You don't have an American passport!' 'Hang on a minute', I riposted, 'we are in Port Talbot, in Wales!' 'I'm afraid you cannot go in there without breaching the US Export Control Act', Cooney replied, 'this is sensitive technology, only US citizens allowed in there.' I wasn't giving up. 'So you're telling me that since those Portakabins were put there, no non-US citizen has been in there?' 'Absolutely right,' he said, 'nobody ... oh, hang on a minute, nobody except the delivery boys from Domino's Pizza!' Now, I knew where the First Minister of Wales stood - somewhere beneath Domino's Pizza delivery boys.'
A good example of how the wheels of government are oiled.
What I was most sceptical of was the Baglan Energy Park. On my first day's tour around the project sections, the team responsible told me with confidence that the energy park would produce 6,000 new jobs. I asked them how they could be so sure - it sounded an awful high figure to me - but they said it was a middle estimate. I could rely on the 6,000 jobs figure.
Actually, it became clear that no jobs would arrive at the Baglan Energy Park, but I eventually found out why the estimate was so unrealistically high. Helen Liddell, by then the UK's High Commissioner in Australia, told me the background story. In 1997, the incoming Blair Government had issued a moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. The American multi-national industrial behemoth GE had wanted to build their first ever H series combined cycle gas turbine power station at Baglan, on a site vacated by BP. It had been part of BP's exit strategy from South Wales to secure GE's brand new and revolutionary design of power station on the former BP Baglan site. Then along came the moratorium.
US President Bill Clinton received a phone call from 'Neutron' Jack Welch, the legendary boss of GE, asking for his help in getting around the moratorium. Clinton rang his good friend Tony Blair, and asked (or maybe told) the PM to lift the moratorium for GE. That's how things are done in the US, I suppose. I could imagine Clinton smooth-talking Tony Blair over this - 'For God's sake, Tony, lift the moratorium for this power station, I've got Jack Welch on my back!' Anyway, GE got their permit to build the power station, but the exemption case from the moratorium had to be very special. Electricity from the power station could be supplied over the fence directly, and without paying a grid charge, into energy-intensive industries which could all go on the empty Baglan Bay site (now renamed the Baglan Energy Park). Hence the need for the 6,000 jobs estimate.
Before the power station actually opened, I asked to visit the project site (I was First Minister by this point). I was curious about why the US President had phoned the British PM about it - had to be on a par with a moon shot, didn't it? Bill Cooney, GE's site director, took me around - a lot guys in overalls with spanners sticking out of every pocket, trying to tweak the turbine blades to get them to run in perfect harmony. With the tour over, I walked back with Cooney to the car park past a row of Portakabins stacked four-high - he said that was where all the design engineers worked. I replied to say that I ought to go in there, as the tour wouldn't really be complete without meeting his engineering team.
Cooney said, 'Very sorry, sir, you can't go in there. You don't have an American passport!' 'Hang on a minute', I riposted, 'we are in Port Talbot, in Wales!' 'I'm afraid you cannot go in there without breaching the US Export Control Act', Cooney replied, 'this is sensitive technology, only US citizens allowed in there.' I wasn't giving up. 'So you're telling me that since those Portakabins were put there, no non-US citizen has been in there?' 'Absolutely right,' he said, 'nobody ... oh, hang on a minute, nobody except the delivery boys from Domino's Pizza!' Now, I knew where the First Minister of Wales stood - somewhere beneath Domino's Pizza delivery boys.'
A good example of how the wheels of government are oiled.
Friday, January 14, 2022
Yet more parties
Was there a day in 2020 when staff in 10 Downing Street were not having a party? The Guardian reports on allegations that Staff inside Downing Street held two staff leaving events featuring alcohol, and one with loud music, on the evening before Prince Philip’s funeral in April last year, when such social contact remained banned.
They say eyewitnesses have told the Daily Telegraph that a combined total of about 30 people took part in what appeared to be social events in different parts of Downing Street, before both gatherings combined in the garden:
According to one attender, a staff member was sent with a suitcase to the Co-op on the Strand, a short walk away, returning with the case filled with bottles of wine.
Philip’s funeral took place in the private chapel at Windsor Castle the next day, Saturday 17 April, with the Queen sitting alone to maintain social distancing.
Boris Johnson was not at Downing Street that evening, having gone to the prime ministerial country retreat, Chequers, on the Thursday evening and remaining into the weekend.
At the time, England was in stage two of the government’s gradual relaxation from lockdown. Up to six people or two families could meet outside, while indoors, people could only socialise with their household or support bubble.
...
One of the events last April marked the departure from government of James Slack, who was the prime minister’s official spokesperson under both Theresa May and Johnson, before becoming Johnson’s director of communications, according to the Telegraph. He is now deputy editor of the Sun.
The other leaving event was for one of Johnson’s personal photographers, the paper said. Witnesses told the Telegraph that the event to mark the photographer’s departure mainly took place in the basement area of No 10, with loud music playing.
Both groups reportedly moved outside around midnight, with drinking carrying on into the early hours of the morning. While in the garden one attender broke a swing belonging to Johnson’s infant son, Wilfred, a witness told the paper.
Remember that this is one of the most secure buildings in the UK, with a 24 hour, seven day a week police presence. Why did they not intervene? Did one of the officers hold the door open to allow the suitcase full of booze to be brought on the premises? Will the Metropolitan Police investigate that?
They say eyewitnesses have told the Daily Telegraph that a combined total of about 30 people took part in what appeared to be social events in different parts of Downing Street, before both gatherings combined in the garden:
According to one attender, a staff member was sent with a suitcase to the Co-op on the Strand, a short walk away, returning with the case filled with bottles of wine.
Philip’s funeral took place in the private chapel at Windsor Castle the next day, Saturday 17 April, with the Queen sitting alone to maintain social distancing.
Boris Johnson was not at Downing Street that evening, having gone to the prime ministerial country retreat, Chequers, on the Thursday evening and remaining into the weekend.
At the time, England was in stage two of the government’s gradual relaxation from lockdown. Up to six people or two families could meet outside, while indoors, people could only socialise with their household or support bubble.
...
One of the events last April marked the departure from government of James Slack, who was the prime minister’s official spokesperson under both Theresa May and Johnson, before becoming Johnson’s director of communications, according to the Telegraph. He is now deputy editor of the Sun.
The other leaving event was for one of Johnson’s personal photographers, the paper said. Witnesses told the Telegraph that the event to mark the photographer’s departure mainly took place in the basement area of No 10, with loud music playing.
Both groups reportedly moved outside around midnight, with drinking carrying on into the early hours of the morning. While in the garden one attender broke a swing belonging to Johnson’s infant son, Wilfred, a witness told the paper.
Remember that this is one of the most secure buildings in the UK, with a 24 hour, seven day a week police presence. Why did they not intervene? Did one of the officers hold the door open to allow the suitcase full of booze to be brought on the premises? Will the Metropolitan Police investigate that?
Thursday, January 13, 2022
Metropolitan Police kow-towing to the powerful
If we were annoyed about the rule makers in 10 Downing Street breaking the rules they insisted everybody had to comply with, then surely the failure of the Metropolitan Police to take action must be the final straw.
The Manchester Evening News reports that rather than carry out their own investigation, Scotland Yard have said they will wait until a Cabinet Office inquiry concludes before deciding whether to launch a criminal probe.
A statement released by the Met Police said: “The Metropolitan Police Service is aware of widespread reporting relating to alleged breaches of the Health Protection Regulations at Downing Street and Department for Education on various dates and has received correspondence in relation to this reporting.
“Throughout the pandemic the Met has followed the national four Es approach of enforcing the Coronavirus Regulations.
“Where live ongoing breaches of the restrictions were identified, officers engaged with those present, explained the current restrictions, encouraged people to adhere to them, and only as a last resort moved to enforcement.
“In line with the Met’s policy, officers do not normally investigate breaches of Coronavirus Regulations when they are reported long after they are said to have taken place. However, if significant evidence suggesting a breach of the regulations becomes available, officers may review and consider it.
“The Cabinet Office is conducting an inquiry into gatherings at Number 10 Downing Street and the Department for Education.
“The Met has ongoing contact with the Cabinet Office in relation to this inquiry. If the inquiry identifies evidence of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence it will be passed to the Met for further consideration.”
This is the same force that vigorously enforced lockdown regulations against citizens across London, but who had officers based outside 10 Downing Street, apparently unaware that a breach was happening just metres from where they were stationed, a force that physically removed women holding a peaceful vigil for a woman murdered by one of their own officers and a force whose senior management has consistently failed to be accountable for its actions.
None of these people were given the option of investigating themselves and then advising the police whether they had broken the law or not. Maybe all the money taken in fines for breaches of lockdown regulations should now be reimbursed.
The Manchester Evening News reports that rather than carry out their own investigation, Scotland Yard have said they will wait until a Cabinet Office inquiry concludes before deciding whether to launch a criminal probe.
A statement released by the Met Police said: “The Metropolitan Police Service is aware of widespread reporting relating to alleged breaches of the Health Protection Regulations at Downing Street and Department for Education on various dates and has received correspondence in relation to this reporting.
“Throughout the pandemic the Met has followed the national four Es approach of enforcing the Coronavirus Regulations.
“Where live ongoing breaches of the restrictions were identified, officers engaged with those present, explained the current restrictions, encouraged people to adhere to them, and only as a last resort moved to enforcement.
“In line with the Met’s policy, officers do not normally investigate breaches of Coronavirus Regulations when they are reported long after they are said to have taken place. However, if significant evidence suggesting a breach of the regulations becomes available, officers may review and consider it.
“The Cabinet Office is conducting an inquiry into gatherings at Number 10 Downing Street and the Department for Education.
“The Met has ongoing contact with the Cabinet Office in relation to this inquiry. If the inquiry identifies evidence of behaviour that is potentially a criminal offence it will be passed to the Met for further consideration.”
This is the same force that vigorously enforced lockdown regulations against citizens across London, but who had officers based outside 10 Downing Street, apparently unaware that a breach was happening just metres from where they were stationed, a force that physically removed women holding a peaceful vigil for a woman murdered by one of their own officers and a force whose senior management has consistently failed to be accountable for its actions.
None of these people were given the option of investigating themselves and then advising the police whether they had broken the law or not. Maybe all the money taken in fines for breaches of lockdown regulations should now be reimbursed.
Wednesday, January 12, 2022
And now the cover-up?
As if the blatant flouting of lockdown rules while people are dying, without access to their relatives, isn't bad enough, the Independent reports that Downing Street staff were advised to “clean up” their phones by removing information that could suggest lockdown parties were held at No 10.
The paper refers to two sources, who claim a senior member of staff told them it would be a “good idea” to remove any messages implying that they had attended or were even aware of anything that could “look like a party”:
The “clean-up” suggestion was made early last month after the first reports emerged of parties at Downing Street, the sources allege.
One said they were “told to clean up their phone just in case” they had to hand it in to the investigation.
A second said: “I was being leant on [during the discussion with a senior colleague] and told to get rid of anything that could look bad.”
Both sources told The Independent they felt under pressure to delete communications and images.
The claims that a senior member of staff directed junior colleagues to remove potential evidence contradicts an email, also sent in December, that instructed staff not to destroy any material that could prove pertinent to an investigation, criminal or otherwise.
This was meant to refer to emails, WhatsApp messages, and calendar invitations, but it was allegedly not observed by some staff, many of whom conducted discussions via WhatsApp on their personal phones as well as work devices.
Personal phones cannot be accessed by Ms Gray’s investigation unless staff volunteer them. However, staff can be forced to hand over workplace handsets.
With many staff who attended lockdown-busting events no longer working at No 10, and others having wiped messages from their phones, it will be hard for Ms Gray to gather all available evidence of wrongdoing, sources claim.
Emails at No 10 are automatically deleted after 90 days for security reasons. This is also the case in some other sensitive government departments but not all.
Ultimately, deleted emails can be recovered from servers, but this is far more challenging than accessing historic messages in some other departments, according to people familiar with the process.
In fact it is not that hard to recover deleted emails, but that is hardly the point. If this is true then heads need to roll.
The paper refers to two sources, who claim a senior member of staff told them it would be a “good idea” to remove any messages implying that they had attended or were even aware of anything that could “look like a party”:
The “clean-up” suggestion was made early last month after the first reports emerged of parties at Downing Street, the sources allege.
One said they were “told to clean up their phone just in case” they had to hand it in to the investigation.
A second said: “I was being leant on [during the discussion with a senior colleague] and told to get rid of anything that could look bad.”
Both sources told The Independent they felt under pressure to delete communications and images.
The claims that a senior member of staff directed junior colleagues to remove potential evidence contradicts an email, also sent in December, that instructed staff not to destroy any material that could prove pertinent to an investigation, criminal or otherwise.
This was meant to refer to emails, WhatsApp messages, and calendar invitations, but it was allegedly not observed by some staff, many of whom conducted discussions via WhatsApp on their personal phones as well as work devices.
Personal phones cannot be accessed by Ms Gray’s investigation unless staff volunteer them. However, staff can be forced to hand over workplace handsets.
With many staff who attended lockdown-busting events no longer working at No 10, and others having wiped messages from their phones, it will be hard for Ms Gray to gather all available evidence of wrongdoing, sources claim.
Emails at No 10 are automatically deleted after 90 days for security reasons. This is also the case in some other sensitive government departments but not all.
Ultimately, deleted emails can be recovered from servers, but this is far more challenging than accessing historic messages in some other departments, according to people familiar with the process.
In fact it is not that hard to recover deleted emails, but that is hardly the point. If this is true then heads need to roll.
Tuesday, January 11, 2022
The killer email - is Johnson on borrowed time?
Even when caught red-handed, ignoring the rules he, himself, set for other people, Boris Johnson still seems annoyingly invulnerable as Prime Minister. That is because, despite all the justified public outrage, the people who will actually decide the Prime Minister's fate in the short term - backbench Tory MPs - appear to be curiously mute.
They should know that, in terms of public perception and trust, the crime attributed to Johnson is a big one, and let's suffer no delusions here, if the accusations are true, then the PM broke the law, and there is a reasonable expectation that the Metropolitan Police should be kicking down the door of 10 Downing Street to charge all the perpetrators. Instead, and true to form, Cressida Dick's force have sent an email.
The Guardian reports that Boris Johnson has been accused of an “utterly outrageous” breach of lockdown rules as a leaked email showed that of his top officials invited more than 100 Downing Street staff to a “bring your own booze” party during the first lockdown:
The prime minister is believed to have attended the No 10 garden party on 20 May 2020 along with Carrie Johnson, then his fiancee, after it was advertised by his principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds.
“Hi all, after what has been an incredibly busy period we thought it would be nice to make the most of the lovely weather and have some socially distanced drinks in the No 10 garden this evening. Please join us from 6pm and bring your own booze!” the email seen by ITV News said.
It invited just over 100 employees to the gathering at a time when social mixing was banned except with one other person from another household outdoors in a public place.
About 30 to 40 are said to have attended, with food and wine set out on tables, but some staff reportedly expressed reservations at the time.
“Um. Why is Martin encouraging a mass gathering in the garden?” one staffer said, according to the BBC. Another asked: “Is this for real?”
On the same day, Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, had reminded the public at a press conference: “You can meet one person outside of your household in an outdoor, public place provided that you stay two metres apart.”
The Metropolitan police had tweeted telling people they could have a picnic, exercise or do sport outside providing you are “on your own, with people you live with, or just you and one other person”.
On Monday night following news of the leaked email, the Met said it was “aware of widespread reporting relating to alleged breaches of the Health Protection Regulations at Downing Street on 20 May 2020” and said it had made contact with the Cabinet Office. Senior officers are expected to discuss the situation on Tuesday morning. The force has previously said it was policy “not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations”.
Johnson will now come under huge pressure to explain his own role in the gathering, whether he played any part in the invitation given the phrase “we thought it would be nice” and why his office did not listen to alleged warnings from his former aide, Dominic Cummings, that it appeared to be against the rules. Cummings revealed the existence of the 20 May party in a blog on Friday.
The paper says that there have been reports of at least five other alleged gatherings in Downing Street and Whitehall in winter 2020, including a Christmas party, leaving do, quiz, No 11 flat party and drinks at the Department for Education.
They should know that, in terms of public perception and trust, the crime attributed to Johnson is a big one, and let's suffer no delusions here, if the accusations are true, then the PM broke the law, and there is a reasonable expectation that the Metropolitan Police should be kicking down the door of 10 Downing Street to charge all the perpetrators. Instead, and true to form, Cressida Dick's force have sent an email.
The Guardian reports that Boris Johnson has been accused of an “utterly outrageous” breach of lockdown rules as a leaked email showed that of his top officials invited more than 100 Downing Street staff to a “bring your own booze” party during the first lockdown:
The prime minister is believed to have attended the No 10 garden party on 20 May 2020 along with Carrie Johnson, then his fiancee, after it was advertised by his principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds.
“Hi all, after what has been an incredibly busy period we thought it would be nice to make the most of the lovely weather and have some socially distanced drinks in the No 10 garden this evening. Please join us from 6pm and bring your own booze!” the email seen by ITV News said.
It invited just over 100 employees to the gathering at a time when social mixing was banned except with one other person from another household outdoors in a public place.
About 30 to 40 are said to have attended, with food and wine set out on tables, but some staff reportedly expressed reservations at the time.
“Um. Why is Martin encouraging a mass gathering in the garden?” one staffer said, according to the BBC. Another asked: “Is this for real?”
On the same day, Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, had reminded the public at a press conference: “You can meet one person outside of your household in an outdoor, public place provided that you stay two metres apart.”
The Metropolitan police had tweeted telling people they could have a picnic, exercise or do sport outside providing you are “on your own, with people you live with, or just you and one other person”.
On Monday night following news of the leaked email, the Met said it was “aware of widespread reporting relating to alleged breaches of the Health Protection Regulations at Downing Street on 20 May 2020” and said it had made contact with the Cabinet Office. Senior officers are expected to discuss the situation on Tuesday morning. The force has previously said it was policy “not to investigate retrospective breaches of such regulations”.
Johnson will now come under huge pressure to explain his own role in the gathering, whether he played any part in the invitation given the phrase “we thought it would be nice” and why his office did not listen to alleged warnings from his former aide, Dominic Cummings, that it appeared to be against the rules. Cummings revealed the existence of the 20 May party in a blog on Friday.
The paper says that there have been reports of at least five other alleged gatherings in Downing Street and Whitehall in winter 2020, including a Christmas party, leaving do, quiz, No 11 flat party and drinks at the Department for Education.
All these events took place when everybody was locked down, unable to socialise with family and friends, unable to visit loved ones in care homes, and losing relatives and then unable to have a proper funeral for them. If this is not a resigning matter, then what is?
Monday, January 10, 2022
No value for money in government spending
There is some damning criticism of government ministers and their spending plans in today's Times. The paper quotes the head of the National Audit Office, Gareth Davies, who has concluded that Ministers and officials are spending billions of pounds on projects that are never properly evaluated.
Mr. Davies says that too often the government has not learnt from its failures and has “little information” on “what difference is made by the billions of pounds being spent”:
In an article for The Times Davies, who took over at the spending watchdog in May 2019, says that he was concerned to see that lessons that might have helped the government to deal with Covid had not been learnt.
He says there is little evidence that things have improved even though it has “never been more important that the government makes the right choices” after the pandemic.
Recent research by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that only 8 per cent of big government projects had robust evaluation plans in place.
“Prior to the pandemic the government did take forward many lessons from the simulation exercises it undertook to prepare for potential pandemics,” Davies writes. “However, it did not act on some warnings that would have helped it prepare for a pandemic like Covid-19.”
He adds: “What we have found by auditing government’s work is that many of the interventions carried out by government are either not evaluated robustly or not evaluated at all. This means government is not learning from its successes or failures, and has little information in most policy areas on what difference is made by the billions of pounds being spent.”
Davies cites the Kickstart Scheme, launched amid much fanfare last year to fund employers to create high-quality six-month work placements for people aged 16-24. He says that the Department for Work and Pensions had “limited assurance over the quality of the work placements created by the scheme”, or whether the jobs created “would have existed anyway”.
“Without having done more during the scheme’s operation to monitor what kinds of jobs and training employers are providing in practice, the department will find it much harder to deliver a robust estimate of the scheme’s long-term impact,” he writes.
Davies also says that there are no consequences for failure or not robustly assessing projects and pulling the plug on those that are not performing. “The incentives to evaluate and learn what works and why must be stronger than the instinct to avoid evaluating in case it uncovers bad results,” he writes. “At present public bodies face limited consequences if they do not evaluate their work. This needs to be addressed.”
When Michael Gove was Cabinet Office minister, he pledged to set up an internal Whitehall unit to assess all government projects against their aspirations and pull the plug on those that were not performing well.
“There can be a tendency in government where you get ‘vanity of authorship’, ” Gove said. “It is, ‘I launched this programme and I’ll defend it come what may’. We want people to know that the government is not simply trumpeting the fact that x amount of money has been spent on a new scheme but we go back to citizens and say: ‘This is what we tried. This worked. This didn’t work. This was the basis on which we acted.’ ”
However, Gove has since moved on to levelling up and housing and there have been no more announcements about the proposed evaluation unit.
Perhaps if the Chancellor got to grips with this problem, he would not need to cut public spending as much as he plans.
Mr. Davies says that too often the government has not learnt from its failures and has “little information” on “what difference is made by the billions of pounds being spent”:
In an article for The Times Davies, who took over at the spending watchdog in May 2019, says that he was concerned to see that lessons that might have helped the government to deal with Covid had not been learnt.
He says there is little evidence that things have improved even though it has “never been more important that the government makes the right choices” after the pandemic.
Recent research by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that only 8 per cent of big government projects had robust evaluation plans in place.
“Prior to the pandemic the government did take forward many lessons from the simulation exercises it undertook to prepare for potential pandemics,” Davies writes. “However, it did not act on some warnings that would have helped it prepare for a pandemic like Covid-19.”
He adds: “What we have found by auditing government’s work is that many of the interventions carried out by government are either not evaluated robustly or not evaluated at all. This means government is not learning from its successes or failures, and has little information in most policy areas on what difference is made by the billions of pounds being spent.”
Davies cites the Kickstart Scheme, launched amid much fanfare last year to fund employers to create high-quality six-month work placements for people aged 16-24. He says that the Department for Work and Pensions had “limited assurance over the quality of the work placements created by the scheme”, or whether the jobs created “would have existed anyway”.
“Without having done more during the scheme’s operation to monitor what kinds of jobs and training employers are providing in practice, the department will find it much harder to deliver a robust estimate of the scheme’s long-term impact,” he writes.
Davies also says that there are no consequences for failure or not robustly assessing projects and pulling the plug on those that are not performing. “The incentives to evaluate and learn what works and why must be stronger than the instinct to avoid evaluating in case it uncovers bad results,” he writes. “At present public bodies face limited consequences if they do not evaluate their work. This needs to be addressed.”
When Michael Gove was Cabinet Office minister, he pledged to set up an internal Whitehall unit to assess all government projects against their aspirations and pull the plug on those that were not performing well.
“There can be a tendency in government where you get ‘vanity of authorship’, ” Gove said. “It is, ‘I launched this programme and I’ll defend it come what may’. We want people to know that the government is not simply trumpeting the fact that x amount of money has been spent on a new scheme but we go back to citizens and say: ‘This is what we tried. This worked. This didn’t work. This was the basis on which we acted.’ ”
However, Gove has since moved on to levelling up and housing and there have been no more announcements about the proposed evaluation unit.
Perhaps if the Chancellor got to grips with this problem, he would not need to cut public spending as much as he plans.
Sunday, January 09, 2022
Yet another party
It has reached the stage when we are not just asking if Boris Johnson partied while we were locked down in our own homes, but how many parties did he hold? The Independent reports that the Prime Minister now stands accused of personally attending a drinks party in the garden of No 10 during the first lockdown.
They say that Downing Street did not immediately deny a report in the Sunday Times alleging that the Prime Minister attended the potentially rule-breaking event with wife Carrie in May 2020. This is presumably because the newspaper has cited three sources stating Mr Johnson’s principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, emailed officials with an invite adding “BYOB”, meaning bring your own bottle, or booze:
Senior civil servant Sue Gray is investigating the May 20 event as part of her inquiry into numerous allegations of rule-breaking events being held in No 10 during the coronavirus pandemic.
Allegations of that gathering, said to have been attended by 40 people, emerged this week when Dominic Cummings said he had warned at the time the “socially distanced drinks” would likely be against the rules and “should not happen”.
But the front page report suggesting Mr Johnson himself was present will add to the seriousness of the claims.
The prime minister imposed England’s first lockdown to combat Covid-19 in March 2020 and it was not until June 1 that groups of up to six people were allowed to meet outdoors.
Dominic Cummings has confirmed that the event went ahead, writing:
“On Wednesday 20 May, the week after this photo, a senior No 10 official invited people to ‘socially distanced drinks’ in the garden.”
Mr Cummings said he and at least one other special adviser “said that this seemed to be against the rules and should not happen”, adding that he issued the warning “in writing so Sue Gray can dig up the original email”.
“We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened,” he continued.
Yet another black mark to add to Boris Johnson's memoirs, which will be presumably entitled: 'One rule for them, another for us'.
They say that Downing Street did not immediately deny a report in the Sunday Times alleging that the Prime Minister attended the potentially rule-breaking event with wife Carrie in May 2020. This is presumably because the newspaper has cited three sources stating Mr Johnson’s principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, emailed officials with an invite adding “BYOB”, meaning bring your own bottle, or booze:
Senior civil servant Sue Gray is investigating the May 20 event as part of her inquiry into numerous allegations of rule-breaking events being held in No 10 during the coronavirus pandemic.
Allegations of that gathering, said to have been attended by 40 people, emerged this week when Dominic Cummings said he had warned at the time the “socially distanced drinks” would likely be against the rules and “should not happen”.
But the front page report suggesting Mr Johnson himself was present will add to the seriousness of the claims.
The prime minister imposed England’s first lockdown to combat Covid-19 in March 2020 and it was not until June 1 that groups of up to six people were allowed to meet outdoors.
Dominic Cummings has confirmed that the event went ahead, writing:
“On Wednesday 20 May, the week after this photo, a senior No 10 official invited people to ‘socially distanced drinks’ in the garden.”
Mr Cummings said he and at least one other special adviser “said that this seemed to be against the rules and should not happen”, adding that he issued the warning “in writing so Sue Gray can dig up the original email”.
“We were ignored. I was ill and went home to bed early that afternoon but am told this event definitely happened,” he continued.
Yet another black mark to add to Boris Johnson's memoirs, which will be presumably entitled: 'One rule for them, another for us'.
Saturday, January 08, 2022
Jumping the gun
As if it wasn't bad enough that companies and individuals were getting on the preferred supplier list for lucrative covid contracts through personal contacts with Tory MPs and Ministers, we now have the ludicrous situation where, according to the Guardian, it has emerged that the Conservative peer Michelle Mone referred a business to the Cabinet Office for potential multimillion pound PPE contracts before it had even been incorporated as a company:
The business, PPE Medpro, was fast-tracked by the government through its “VIP lane” for politically connected firms following the referral by Mone.
Within weeks of the company’s incorporation on 12 May 2020, PPE Medpro was awarded contracts worth £203m to supply millions of masks and gowns.
The Guardian revealed on Thursday that leaked files appear to suggest that Mone and her husband, the Isle of Man-based financier Douglas Barrowman, were secretly involved in PPE Medpro, despite both consistently denying any “role or function” in the company.
It has now emerged that Mone’s referral of PPE Medpro occurred five days before the company was formally registered.
Responding to a recent parliamentary question from the late Labour MP Jack Dromey, health minister Edward Argar said: “Departmental records indicate that Baroness Mone identified Medpro as a potential supplier on 7 May 2020 and highlighted this opportunity by email on 8 May 2020.”
Mone referred PPE Medpro to the office of her fellow Tory peer Theodore Agnew, a Cabinet Office minister responsible for procurement during the Covid pandemic. PPE Medpro was then added by Agnew’s office to the VIP lane, which analysis later showed gave companies a 10 times greater chance of being awarded a contract.
PPE Medpro was not incorporated in the UK until 12 May 2020, five days after the initial referral. The UK company was effectively a subsidiary of another PPE Medpro, registered in the Isle of Man on 11 May. The director of both companies was Anthony Page, who works for Barrowman’s Isle of Man-based financial services firm and runs his family office.
Lawyers for Mone, who ran a lingerie company before David Cameron made her a member of the House of Lords, have always said she “was not connected to PPE Medpro in any capacity”.
They also said she had no “association” with PPE Medpro, and “never had any role or function in PPE Medpro, nor in the process by which contracts were awarded” to the company.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
The business, PPE Medpro, was fast-tracked by the government through its “VIP lane” for politically connected firms following the referral by Mone.
Within weeks of the company’s incorporation on 12 May 2020, PPE Medpro was awarded contracts worth £203m to supply millions of masks and gowns.
The Guardian revealed on Thursday that leaked files appear to suggest that Mone and her husband, the Isle of Man-based financier Douglas Barrowman, were secretly involved in PPE Medpro, despite both consistently denying any “role or function” in the company.
It has now emerged that Mone’s referral of PPE Medpro occurred five days before the company was formally registered.
Responding to a recent parliamentary question from the late Labour MP Jack Dromey, health minister Edward Argar said: “Departmental records indicate that Baroness Mone identified Medpro as a potential supplier on 7 May 2020 and highlighted this opportunity by email on 8 May 2020.”
Mone referred PPE Medpro to the office of her fellow Tory peer Theodore Agnew, a Cabinet Office minister responsible for procurement during the Covid pandemic. PPE Medpro was then added by Agnew’s office to the VIP lane, which analysis later showed gave companies a 10 times greater chance of being awarded a contract.
PPE Medpro was not incorporated in the UK until 12 May 2020, five days after the initial referral. The UK company was effectively a subsidiary of another PPE Medpro, registered in the Isle of Man on 11 May. The director of both companies was Anthony Page, who works for Barrowman’s Isle of Man-based financial services firm and runs his family office.
Lawyers for Mone, who ran a lingerie company before David Cameron made her a member of the House of Lords, have always said she “was not connected to PPE Medpro in any capacity”.
They also said she had no “association” with PPE Medpro, and “never had any role or function in PPE Medpro, nor in the process by which contracts were awarded” to the company.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Friday, January 07, 2022
Favours for donations?
The more information that comes out about the funding of Boris Johnson's flat refurbishment the dodgier it looks. The latest is reported in the Guardian, who say that the latest WhatsApp messages reveal the Prime Minister sought funds for his flat refurbishment from a Conservative donor while promising to consider plans for a mystery “great exhibition”.
They say Johnson is facing fresh questions after newly published WhatsApp messages with the Tory peer David Brownlow show Johnson called parts of his Downing Street residence a “tip” and asked for “approvals” so his decor designer, Lulu Lytle, could “get on with it” in November 2020. He signed off the message by saying: “Ps am on the great exhibition plan Will revert.” Lord Brownlow replied: “Of course, get Lulu to call me and we’ll get it sorted ASAP! Thanks for thinking about GE2.”:
On Thursday, Johnson was forced to make a “humble and sincere” apology for the texts not being given to his independent ethics adviser during an initial inquiry last spring.
The first Great Exhibition was held in Hyde Park in 1851. Plans for a “Great Exhibition 2.0” were discussed by Brownlow and the then culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, weeks after the WhatsApp exchanges, official records show.
Asked what the great exhibition plan Johnson had referred to was, his spokesperson said it was an “idea that wasn’t taken forward”. He added that instead “Festival UK” – formerly known as the Festival of Brexit – would be going ahead in 2022 but could not explain the difference between that event and the great exhibition plan.
On 18 January 2021 Brownlow held a meeting with Dowden at the Royal Albert Hall “to discuss plans for Great Exhibition 2.0”. A government source indicated it was a “private initiative” from the Royal Albert Hall, of which Brownlow is a trustee according to his register of interests.
Several events similar to a “Great Exhibition 2.0” have been considered by the government. Originally conceived by Theresa May’s administration as a “Festival of Brexit”, then “Festival 2022”, the government-backed £120m event was given the green light by Johnson and will go ahead this year under the name “Unboxed”.
Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said it appeared Brownlow had access to Johnson and Dowden “because he was paying” for the refurbishments. She said if true, it would constitute “corruption, plain and simple”, and added: “No one should be able to buy access or exchange wallpaper for festivals.”
The Liberal Democrats’ chief whip, Wendy Chamberlain, said: “It stinks of the worst kind of Conservative cronyism, with Boris Johnson seemingly happy to scratch his lord donor’s back to get his flat spruced up in return.”
It is almost as if Johnson doesnt care what people think of him. He certainly does not seem to believe the normal rules apply in his case.
They say Johnson is facing fresh questions after newly published WhatsApp messages with the Tory peer David Brownlow show Johnson called parts of his Downing Street residence a “tip” and asked for “approvals” so his decor designer, Lulu Lytle, could “get on with it” in November 2020. He signed off the message by saying: “Ps am on the great exhibition plan Will revert.” Lord Brownlow replied: “Of course, get Lulu to call me and we’ll get it sorted ASAP! Thanks for thinking about GE2.”:
On Thursday, Johnson was forced to make a “humble and sincere” apology for the texts not being given to his independent ethics adviser during an initial inquiry last spring.
The first Great Exhibition was held in Hyde Park in 1851. Plans for a “Great Exhibition 2.0” were discussed by Brownlow and the then culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, weeks after the WhatsApp exchanges, official records show.
Asked what the great exhibition plan Johnson had referred to was, his spokesperson said it was an “idea that wasn’t taken forward”. He added that instead “Festival UK” – formerly known as the Festival of Brexit – would be going ahead in 2022 but could not explain the difference between that event and the great exhibition plan.
On 18 January 2021 Brownlow held a meeting with Dowden at the Royal Albert Hall “to discuss plans for Great Exhibition 2.0”. A government source indicated it was a “private initiative” from the Royal Albert Hall, of which Brownlow is a trustee according to his register of interests.
Several events similar to a “Great Exhibition 2.0” have been considered by the government. Originally conceived by Theresa May’s administration as a “Festival of Brexit”, then “Festival 2022”, the government-backed £120m event was given the green light by Johnson and will go ahead this year under the name “Unboxed”.
Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, said it appeared Brownlow had access to Johnson and Dowden “because he was paying” for the refurbishments. She said if true, it would constitute “corruption, plain and simple”, and added: “No one should be able to buy access or exchange wallpaper for festivals.”
The Liberal Democrats’ chief whip, Wendy Chamberlain, said: “It stinks of the worst kind of Conservative cronyism, with Boris Johnson seemingly happy to scratch his lord donor’s back to get his flat spruced up in return.”
It is almost as if Johnson doesnt care what people think of him. He certainly does not seem to believe the normal rules apply in his case.
Thursday, January 06, 2022
At last, a Brexit promise that has been fulfilled
It is such a rare occurrrence, somebody actually delivering on a Brexit promise, that it is worth noting, and maybe even shouting from the top of a mountain. Unfortunately, this is not a promise that Boris Johnson or other Brexiteers would put much story on, or even celebrate, in fact it was made by the EU.
The Independent reports that tens of thousands of Brexit-related websites have been taken offline by the EU agency in charge of domain names – including the Leave.eu site set up by the pro-Brexit campaign group. This follows the warning by the EU to owners of .eu websites based in the UK that they needed to prove eligibility for an EU domain name after the Brexit process or they would be officially “revoked” this week:
The EURid agency said around 48,000 domain names had been revoked and would now be made available for registration on a “first come, first serve” basis.
“As previously communicated, all Brexit-related domain names, which were moved to the “withdrawn” status on 1 July 2021, will be revoked and released on 3 January 2022,” said a spokesperson.
EURid added: “About 48,000 domain names will become available for general registration on first come, first serve basis.”
The Leave.EU group – founded by businessman Arron Banks – had moved its website registration from the UK to the Republic of Ireland at the end of 2020 in a bid to get round a rule stating that .eu addresses can only be used by individuals and organisations based in the EU.
But an investigation by EURid led to the domain name being given “withdrawn” status, with the EU agency citing the failure to respond to data verification requests.
The website has now been revoked – with visitors to the web page greeted with the error message: “This site can’t be reached.”
However, the Leave.EU group now has a website using a UK domain name, leaveeuofficial.com.
Neale Richmond, an Irish member of parliament, wrote to the Republic of Ireland’s communications regulator last year to complain about the attempt to register in Waterford.
“It is utterly ridiculous to think that Leave.EU could brass-plate an address in Waterford to maintain their domain name – they wanted to leave the EU, they have, that means they leave their domain too,” he said.
Anyone who has EU residency or citizenship, or any organisation established in the bloc, will be able to reregister the .eu domain names which have been revoked.
You reap what you sow I suppose.
The Independent reports that tens of thousands of Brexit-related websites have been taken offline by the EU agency in charge of domain names – including the Leave.eu site set up by the pro-Brexit campaign group. This follows the warning by the EU to owners of .eu websites based in the UK that they needed to prove eligibility for an EU domain name after the Brexit process or they would be officially “revoked” this week:
The EURid agency said around 48,000 domain names had been revoked and would now be made available for registration on a “first come, first serve” basis.
“As previously communicated, all Brexit-related domain names, which were moved to the “withdrawn” status on 1 July 2021, will be revoked and released on 3 January 2022,” said a spokesperson.
EURid added: “About 48,000 domain names will become available for general registration on first come, first serve basis.”
The Leave.EU group – founded by businessman Arron Banks – had moved its website registration from the UK to the Republic of Ireland at the end of 2020 in a bid to get round a rule stating that .eu addresses can only be used by individuals and organisations based in the EU.
But an investigation by EURid led to the domain name being given “withdrawn” status, with the EU agency citing the failure to respond to data verification requests.
The website has now been revoked – with visitors to the web page greeted with the error message: “This site can’t be reached.”
However, the Leave.EU group now has a website using a UK domain name, leaveeuofficial.com.
Neale Richmond, an Irish member of parliament, wrote to the Republic of Ireland’s communications regulator last year to complain about the attempt to register in Waterford.
“It is utterly ridiculous to think that Leave.EU could brass-plate an address in Waterford to maintain their domain name – they wanted to leave the EU, they have, that means they leave their domain too,” he said.
Anyone who has EU residency or citizenship, or any organisation established in the bloc, will be able to reregister the .eu domain names which have been revoked.
You reap what you sow I suppose.
Wednesday, January 05, 2022
Yet another abandoned Brexit promise
It is another day, and another Brexit promise has seemingly fallen under the bus. The Mirror reports that a flustered Boris Johnson has been confronted over his own dodgy Brexit pledge on scrapping the 5% VAT rate on energy bills:
The Prime Minister vowed before the 2016 EU referendum that “when we Vote Leave, we will be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax”.
He added at the time: “It isn’t right that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels impose taxes on the poorest and elected British politicians can do nothing."
But Mr Johnson has now been in power for two and a half years and has made no pledge to scrap the VAT rate since taking office.
Today he blustered and waffled after he he was asked if he had misled voters at the No10 press conference, insisting: “Not at all”.
Mr Johnson appeared to hint help is on the way for Brits who are bracing for a possible £600-a-year rise in the energy price cap in April.
He insisted “I’m not ruling out further measures”, adding: “ Rishi Sunak is very, very mindful of the increase in energy prices and the effect of increasing energy prices on people up and down this country.
“And we are going to do what we can to help.”
But of the VAT cut idea he supported six years ago, he said: “It’s a bit of a blunt instrument.
As Money Saving Expert founder Martin Lewis has warned, households face a "seismic" hit to their energy bills. Surely, now is the time for ministers to step in and stop fuel poverty getting out of control by carrying out the Prime Minister's promise of scrapping VAT on fuel bills.
The Prime Minister vowed before the 2016 EU referendum that “when we Vote Leave, we will be able to scrap this unfair and damaging tax”.
He added at the time: “It isn’t right that unelected bureaucrats in Brussels impose taxes on the poorest and elected British politicians can do nothing."
But Mr Johnson has now been in power for two and a half years and has made no pledge to scrap the VAT rate since taking office.
Today he blustered and waffled after he he was asked if he had misled voters at the No10 press conference, insisting: “Not at all”.
Mr Johnson appeared to hint help is on the way for Brits who are bracing for a possible £600-a-year rise in the energy price cap in April.
He insisted “I’m not ruling out further measures”, adding: “ Rishi Sunak is very, very mindful of the increase in energy prices and the effect of increasing energy prices on people up and down this country.
“And we are going to do what we can to help.”
But of the VAT cut idea he supported six years ago, he said: “It’s a bit of a blunt instrument.
As Money Saving Expert founder Martin Lewis has warned, households face a "seismic" hit to their energy bills. Surely, now is the time for ministers to step in and stop fuel poverty getting out of control by carrying out the Prime Minister's promise of scrapping VAT on fuel bills.
Tuesday, January 04, 2022
Johnson's laissez-faire attitude to Covid has extended the pandemic
With omicron cases continuing to rise across the UK, it remains incredible that Boris Johnson is still not taking the most rudimentary steps to try and reduce its spread, measures that are already in place in Wales and Scotland.
From the start, he has been disengaged from the process of controlling this pandemic: failing to attend Cobra meetings; undermining public confidence in actions his government is taking by operating a one rule for us, another for them regime; delaying decisions on public health measuress; and failing to get a grip on the supply of key PPE or on the issues around care homes.
Today's Independent has a further story that illustrates the Prime Minister's casual and irresponsible approach to this virus. They say that Johnson is facing fresh questions about alleged Covid rule-breaking amid claims he failed to self-isolate last January after coming into close contact with a Downing Street aide who later tested positive for the infection:
The prime minister stood near No 10's videographer on 31 December 2020 while recording his official new year message as the UK was about to be hit with its second wave of the virus, sources told the Daily Mirror.
The videographer tested positive for Covid after the message was recorded.
They informed No 10 officials and other staff members in the room were asked to self-isolate for 10 days, but the PM was not.
A Downing Street spokesperson insisted that Mr Johnson did not break any regulations because social distancing measures were followed throughout the recording.
But photos of the recording posted on the image-sharing website Flickr may raise questions about whether or not Mr Johnson did in fact maintain a two-metre distance between himself and the videographer, as set out in official guidance.
A source told the Mirror that the videographer, who was not wearing a face mask, stood “face-to-face” with the PM for around 15 minutes The source also suggested Mr Johnson and the aide stood less than 2m apart during the recording.
Official guidance at the time outlined that anybody who came within two metres, for more than 15 minutes, of somebody who later tested positive for Covid were required to self-isolate.
Less than a week after the recording took place England was plunged into its third national lockdown as Covid cases soared and hospitals across the country began to fill up with the sickest patients.
All this matters, of course, because Johnson is the one making the rules. If he is seen as not keeping them, then how can he expects others to do so. When the inquiry into the pandemic gets underway, let's hope that the Prime Minister's role in extending it is looked into.
Today's Independent has a further story that illustrates the Prime Minister's casual and irresponsible approach to this virus. They say that Johnson is facing fresh questions about alleged Covid rule-breaking amid claims he failed to self-isolate last January after coming into close contact with a Downing Street aide who later tested positive for the infection:
The prime minister stood near No 10's videographer on 31 December 2020 while recording his official new year message as the UK was about to be hit with its second wave of the virus, sources told the Daily Mirror.
The videographer tested positive for Covid after the message was recorded.
They informed No 10 officials and other staff members in the room were asked to self-isolate for 10 days, but the PM was not.
A Downing Street spokesperson insisted that Mr Johnson did not break any regulations because social distancing measures were followed throughout the recording.
But photos of the recording posted on the image-sharing website Flickr may raise questions about whether or not Mr Johnson did in fact maintain a two-metre distance between himself and the videographer, as set out in official guidance.
A source told the Mirror that the videographer, who was not wearing a face mask, stood “face-to-face” with the PM for around 15 minutes The source also suggested Mr Johnson and the aide stood less than 2m apart during the recording.
Official guidance at the time outlined that anybody who came within two metres, for more than 15 minutes, of somebody who later tested positive for Covid were required to self-isolate.
Less than a week after the recording took place England was plunged into its third national lockdown as Covid cases soared and hospitals across the country began to fill up with the sickest patients.
All this matters, of course, because Johnson is the one making the rules. If he is seen as not keeping them, then how can he expects others to do so. When the inquiry into the pandemic gets underway, let's hope that the Prime Minister's role in extending it is looked into.
Monday, January 03, 2022
Diplomacy at a price
I went out for dinner with my wife last night to a lovely restaurant in Mumbles. We had a three course dinner and drinks and, with tip, the bill came to less than £90. This is the first time we have been out to a restaurant since our holiday in September. It is the sort of luxury we like to indulge in every now and again. If only the same could be said about the Foreign Secretary.
The Independent reports that Liz Truss insisted on hosting a lunch at an “incredibly expensive” private club owned by a Tory donor, overruling her officials’ advice to go somewhere more suitable. They say that leaked correspondence has revealed the foreign secretary “refused to consider anywhere else” and requested taxpayers’ cash for a £3,000 event with Joe Biden’s trade representative.
Fortunately, the venue agreed to reduce the bill to £1,400, but on condition of immediate payment – which meant civil servants had to use an emergency process to pay up straight away:
A receipt showed Ms Truss and her companions enjoyed two bottles of dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino, a Spanish white wine, and two bottles of the French red Coudoulet de Beaucastel, at £130 a bottle.
The correspondence, revealed by The Sunday Times, comes as Ms Truss launches a little-disguised campaign to succeed the prime minister, should he be toppled by disillusioned Tory MPs.
The lunch, last June, was condemned by Labour MPs. One, Nia Griffith, tweeted: “Yet again Tory Minister seems to have had scant regard for concerns raised by professional civil servants.”
And Luke Pollard alleged: “One rule for the current PM and those wanting to be the next Tory PM and another for the rest of us.”
Ms Truss was accompanied by nine other people, including the trade representative Katherine Tai, as the UK sought to speed up talks for a post-Brexit trade deal with Washington.
However, President Biden has slammed the brakes on negotiations – and has also refused to lift tariffs on UK steel, even as an agreement was reached with the EU.
Often considered to be London’s most exclusive club, 5 Hertford Street hosted Prince Harry’s first date with Meghan Markle, but posted six-figure losses last year.
Ms Truss is reported to have previously used it to host “fizz with Liz” dinners with MPs and “biz for Liz” receptions with potential donors, in preparation for a likely leadership bid.
An email shows an official described the club as “obviously incredibly expensive and more than I understand we’d usually expect to pay for such a venue”.
Colleagues proposed “another option – a Soho restaurant called Quo Vadis – which costs only £1,000”, it stated.
The email continued: “However, [the special adviser] refused on behalf of SoS [secretary of state] to consider anywhere else and is insisting that we book 5 Hertford Street and claims SoS would find Quo Vadis inappropriate.”
Of course I paid personally for my dinner, the problem though is that, as a taxpayer, I also paid in part for Liz Truss's extravagance.
The Independent reports that Liz Truss insisted on hosting a lunch at an “incredibly expensive” private club owned by a Tory donor, overruling her officials’ advice to go somewhere more suitable. They say that leaked correspondence has revealed the foreign secretary “refused to consider anywhere else” and requested taxpayers’ cash for a £3,000 event with Joe Biden’s trade representative.
Fortunately, the venue agreed to reduce the bill to £1,400, but on condition of immediate payment – which meant civil servants had to use an emergency process to pay up straight away:
A receipt showed Ms Truss and her companions enjoyed two bottles of dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino, a Spanish white wine, and two bottles of the French red Coudoulet de Beaucastel, at £130 a bottle.
The correspondence, revealed by The Sunday Times, comes as Ms Truss launches a little-disguised campaign to succeed the prime minister, should he be toppled by disillusioned Tory MPs.
The lunch, last June, was condemned by Labour MPs. One, Nia Griffith, tweeted: “Yet again Tory Minister seems to have had scant regard for concerns raised by professional civil servants.”
And Luke Pollard alleged: “One rule for the current PM and those wanting to be the next Tory PM and another for the rest of us.”
Ms Truss was accompanied by nine other people, including the trade representative Katherine Tai, as the UK sought to speed up talks for a post-Brexit trade deal with Washington.
However, President Biden has slammed the brakes on negotiations – and has also refused to lift tariffs on UK steel, even as an agreement was reached with the EU.
Often considered to be London’s most exclusive club, 5 Hertford Street hosted Prince Harry’s first date with Meghan Markle, but posted six-figure losses last year.
Ms Truss is reported to have previously used it to host “fizz with Liz” dinners with MPs and “biz for Liz” receptions with potential donors, in preparation for a likely leadership bid.
An email shows an official described the club as “obviously incredibly expensive and more than I understand we’d usually expect to pay for such a venue”.
Colleagues proposed “another option – a Soho restaurant called Quo Vadis – which costs only £1,000”, it stated.
The email continued: “However, [the special adviser] refused on behalf of SoS [secretary of state] to consider anywhere else and is insisting that we book 5 Hertford Street and claims SoS would find Quo Vadis inappropriate.”
Of course I paid personally for my dinner, the problem though is that, as a taxpayer, I also paid in part for Liz Truss's extravagance.
Sunday, January 02, 2022
Nearly £15 billion blown on wasteful projects and duff deals
As it is the New Year, the Mirror has indulged itself a little by reminding us how wasteful and crony-driven Boris Johnson's government is. It is a litany of incompetence that should be shared more widely, especially in advance of an election.
The paper says that research based on official figures claims that Government has blown £14.7 billion of public money on “wasteful” projects, crony contracts and duff deals. They report that analysis reveals around £3.6bn in public contracts have been handed to firms linked to individuals in government or the Conservative Party since Mr Johnson became Prime Minister, while in the same period, the Best For Britain campaign group said a further £11.1bn had been “spent wastefully or funded government excess”:
Examples it gives include £73,000 spent stocking the Westminster wine cellar and a £30million Covid test vials contract awarded to a firm run by the landlord of Matt Hancock’s local pub without a proper tendering process.
It also includes a £122m deal for medical gowns that failed safety standards. The £14.7bn could have paid the combined salaries of 60,000 nurses, 65,000 teachers and 77,000 police over the two and a half years since Johnson took charge.
Naomi Smith, chief of independent Best For Britain, said: “It is easy to become numb to the extreme scale and frequency of this government’s cosy deals with friends, and wasteful spending on useless products.
“While raising taxes on working people and cutting support for those most in need, it’s outrageous they are spending eye-watering sums enriching their mates, living the high life and buying junk.”
A staggering £900,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent painting the PM’s plane on top of £100,000 decorating No.10 with works of art bought through the Government Art Collection fund.
Last March it was revealed the Government spends more than £500,000 a year ferrying ministerial papers around Whitehall in chauffeur-driven cars.
In February, the Tories approved spending up to £600,000 in legal fees defending its decision to award a Covid-19 opinion polling contract to Public First run by associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings.
The contract itself was worth £840,000 and was not put out to competitive tender. The same goes for a further £580,000 of political polling by Hanbury Strategy - also run by associates of Mr Cummings.
Best of Britain says ‘duff deals’ also include £10billion for the NHS Test and Trace programme, an amount described as “astonishing” by Chris Ham, former chief of the King’s Fund health think tank.
Then there were a raft of contracts handed to firms with links to the Tory Party, MPs or ministers.
A £2.1m school technology deal in October 2020 went to Specialist Computer Centres which is owned by the Rigby Group that has donated a total of £105,000 to Conservative coffers since 2017.
Meller Designs, co-owned by a party donor at the time, got £160m deals to provide PPE without competitive tender.
It later emerged the firm was referred to the ‘VIP lane’ for contracts by Gove, to whom firm boss David Meller had donated cash.
No wonder the public finances are in such a mess.
The paper says that research based on official figures claims that Government has blown £14.7 billion of public money on “wasteful” projects, crony contracts and duff deals. They report that analysis reveals around £3.6bn in public contracts have been handed to firms linked to individuals in government or the Conservative Party since Mr Johnson became Prime Minister, while in the same period, the Best For Britain campaign group said a further £11.1bn had been “spent wastefully or funded government excess”:
Examples it gives include £73,000 spent stocking the Westminster wine cellar and a £30million Covid test vials contract awarded to a firm run by the landlord of Matt Hancock’s local pub without a proper tendering process.
It also includes a £122m deal for medical gowns that failed safety standards. The £14.7bn could have paid the combined salaries of 60,000 nurses, 65,000 teachers and 77,000 police over the two and a half years since Johnson took charge.
Naomi Smith, chief of independent Best For Britain, said: “It is easy to become numb to the extreme scale and frequency of this government’s cosy deals with friends, and wasteful spending on useless products.
“While raising taxes on working people and cutting support for those most in need, it’s outrageous they are spending eye-watering sums enriching their mates, living the high life and buying junk.”
A staggering £900,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent painting the PM’s plane on top of £100,000 decorating No.10 with works of art bought through the Government Art Collection fund.
Last March it was revealed the Government spends more than £500,000 a year ferrying ministerial papers around Whitehall in chauffeur-driven cars.
In February, the Tories approved spending up to £600,000 in legal fees defending its decision to award a Covid-19 opinion polling contract to Public First run by associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings.
The contract itself was worth £840,000 and was not put out to competitive tender. The same goes for a further £580,000 of political polling by Hanbury Strategy - also run by associates of Mr Cummings.
Best of Britain says ‘duff deals’ also include £10billion for the NHS Test and Trace programme, an amount described as “astonishing” by Chris Ham, former chief of the King’s Fund health think tank.
Then there were a raft of contracts handed to firms with links to the Tory Party, MPs or ministers.
A £2.1m school technology deal in October 2020 went to Specialist Computer Centres which is owned by the Rigby Group that has donated a total of £105,000 to Conservative coffers since 2017.
Meller Designs, co-owned by a party donor at the time, got £160m deals to provide PPE without competitive tender.
It later emerged the firm was referred to the ‘VIP lane’ for contracts by Gove, to whom firm boss David Meller had donated cash.
No wonder the public finances are in such a mess.
Saturday, January 01, 2022
The cost of living crisis facing us in 2022
With rising energy costs, hikes in the price of petrol, more expensive food stuffs due to Brexit, benefit cuts, tax rises and restrictions on the ability of many people to earn a living due to Covid, the new year does not look that promising. What makes it worse, according to the Mirror, is the fact that a lot of people do not have enough money stashed away for a rainy day.
The paper says that a study of government statistics shows that over six million workers have no savings at all as they face this looming cost of living crisis. Over half of working families had less than £3,000 in household savings going into the pandemic, nearly 27 million people who live in working households had either no savings, savings under £1,500 or savings under £3,000 in 2020.
How the Chancellor of the Exchequer reacts to this situation could well be make or break for tens of thousands of families. This year is not one for an austerity budget, it is a year in which the government need to provide the necessary assistance to help people get back on their feet after two years of hardship.
The paper says that a study of government statistics shows that over six million workers have no savings at all as they face this looming cost of living crisis. Over half of working families had less than £3,000 in household savings going into the pandemic, nearly 27 million people who live in working households had either no savings, savings under £1,500 or savings under £3,000 in 2020.
How the Chancellor of the Exchequer reacts to this situation could well be make or break for tens of thousands of families. This year is not one for an austerity budget, it is a year in which the government need to provide the necessary assistance to help people get back on their feet after two years of hardship.
