Friday, June 21, 2024
The wrong sort of gamble
Following on from Sunak's PPS, Craig Williams admitting that he placed a bet on the date of the general election, it transpires that another one of the Prime Minister's aides is caught up in a similar betting scandal.
The Guardian reports that a second Conservative candidate and the party’s campaigns director were being looked into by the Gambling Commission.
They say that the watchdog is examining bets allegedly placed by Laura Saunders, the Tory candidate in Bristol North West, and her husband, Tony Lee, who is now on leave of absence from his job at party headquarters:
It is not known when the alleged bets were placed or for how much money.
Labour called for the Tories to suspend Saunders from the party. The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, said: “This candidate should be suspended and it’s very telling that Rishi Sunak has not already done that. If it was one of my candidates, they’d be gone and their feet would not have touched the floor.”
The Liberal Democrats called for a Cabinet Office inquiry. The party’s leader, Ed Davey, said: “I think it’s quite awful. It needs a heavy hand from the top.”
The cabinet minister Michael Gove said the situation “doesn’t look great” for the Conservatives but said the commission had to get on with its investigation.
A Tory spokesperson said the party had been contacted by the watchdog about “a small number of individuals” who had allegedly placed bets on a July election. A party insider said they were not aware of any more cases beyond those already in the public domain.
But this is not all. The paper adds that separately, one of Sunak’s close protection officers was arrested on Monday over alleged bets about the timing of the election, on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
And now the Mirror reports that a flurry of bets were placed on the likelihood of a July election with a major betting exchange the week before Rishi Sunak announced the date.
The paper says that thousands of pounds were wagered on a July date, starting the day after a “contingency planning” meeting to plan for a Summer election was held in Conservative HQ:
Data from Smarkets, the industry leader for political betting, shows thousands of pounds being wagered either for and against the election being in July between May 14th and May 18th. Mr Sunak announced on May 22nd that the election would take place on July 4th.
And the market probability of the election taking place in May - based on movements in the betting market - increased dramatically between May 17th and the evening of May 21st. A spokesperson for Smarkets confirmed that in April there had only been a “few small trades” on a July poll, putting the probability up to 12% - where it stayed mostly steady for two weeks.
Smarkets said the betting pool for political issues is not as “liquid” as it is for major sporting events - meaning relatively small things, like a Tweet or newspaper article - can prompt activity. But the first real indication a July election was on the cards was a May 18th tweet from the Financial Times’ Lucy Fisher - who reported there had been a “contingency planning” meeting at CCHQ the previous Monday - May 13th.
The flurry of bets began on May 14th.
This is going to run and run.
Labels: one of t
Thursday, June 20, 2024
Killers
The Mirror reports that Rishi Sunak has vowed to keep killing badgers to prevent cattle from catching disease from them. The fact that this meaningless slaughter does not work in suppressing bovine TB appears not to concern him.
This is a plan that is not working and which is being implemented in defiance of the science. Let's hope that any incoming Labour government puts an end to this nonsense.
Wednesday, June 19, 2024
Right wing bias on BBC Question Time
Their findings reveal that while the Question Time producers have broadly balanced the main political parties, they have frequently relied upon a small number of rightwing guests to provoke entertaining debates:
Question Time has long been accused of bias towards both the left and right – usually a good indication of balance.
But the overuse of rightwing guests, as identified in our analysis, supports some of these claims of a lack of impartiality. The regular appearances of panellists such as Isabel Oakeshott and Julia Hartley-Brewer – the two most frequent non-politician guests in our analysis – raise questions about how producers choose guests.
It is worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the BBC inviting guests from these organisations, nor is there anything wrong with political writers from The Spectator discussing the political issues of the day. However, the lack of counterbalancing narratives from leftwing publications is notable.
Debate programmes such as Question Time are subject to the same stringent rules on impartiality as news programmes. But academic research has tended to focus mostly on analysing impartiality in news bulletins. Our findings suggest that researchers should also pay attention to the balance on political debate programmes.
The commitment to due impartiality can indeed mean that impartiality occurs over time – but the evidence does not demonstrate Question Time is achieving this. Instead, it may be sacrificing the BBC’s reputation for impartiality to create provocative programmes.
To be honest I stopped watching Question Time years ago as it was becoming insufferable. The evidence from this study certainly justifies my decision.
Tuesday, June 18, 2024
Covid Contract scandal features in election
According to the paper the founder of Innova Medical Group, who says his business collected $2bn (£1.6bn) in profits, one of the largest fortunes banked by any medical supplier during the scramble for lifesaving equipment in the early months of the pandemic, has been hit by a storm of claims and counter-claims. This has led to Innova’s boss, Charles Huang, to be accused by former associates of “squandering” or moving $1bn of those profits, spending lavishly on luxury aircraft, an $18m house in Los Angeles and “homes for his mistresses”:
The previously little-known Chinese-American businessman’s fortune was transformed by the British taxpayer through 11 government contracts worth approximately £4.3bn for lateral flow tests (LFTs) made in China and sold by Innova. The government fast-tracked the company after its British representatives sent a direct email to Dominic Cummings, the chief adviser to the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, in July 2020. And, a Guardian investigation has found, the fast-tracking of Innova was supported by the then chancellor Rishi Sunak’s team at the Treasury.
Innova became for a period of at least four critical months the only company authorised to supply rapid Covid tests in the UK, despite scores of others developing similar kits. At the time, the government spending watchdog raised concerns, saying the lack of competition posed “risks to value for money”.
In his evidence to the Covid inquiry last October, Cummings told how he had pushed through the first Innova contract with backing from Sunak’s team. The intention was to allow the economy to reopen by providing enough kits for up to 10 million people a day to test for the disease. The mass daily testing plan, labelled “moonshot”, was met with scepticism by scientists, including Jonathan Van Tam, the then deputy chief medical officer, who has told the inquiry that he had “real doubts about whether it was workable”. The moonshot plan became part of NHS test and trace, known as the mass testing programme.
“In the autumn [of 2020],” Cummings said in his written statement, “Sunak’s team supported me with the mass testing team as we tried to overcome horrific Whitehall bureaucracy, secretly buy hundreds of millions of fast tests before other countries realised their value and there was a PPE-like panic.”
The UK Health Security Agency has confirmed in response to a freedom of information request that the “secret” buying of tests was the first contract awarded to Innova. Agreed in September 2020, it was worth £103m. The government went on to spend billions more with the company.
The information raises further questions about the UK government’s widely criticised decision-making during the pandemic, and the huge sums of public money spent after normal procurement processes were suspended. The apparent support of Sunak’s team also raises questions about how far the Treasury was involved in the government expenditure of billions of pounds on test and trace and personal protective equipment. Sunak has repeatedly presented his work during the pandemic as a landmark success, telling workers at an event on the first day of the 2024 general election campaign: “You know you can trust me when it comes to the economy: I got our country through Covid.”
That this should hit the media now is not just inconvenient for Sunak, but could well lead to further public controversy that will hit Tory poll ratings even further.
Monday, June 17, 2024
From bad to worse for the Tories
Just when you thought that the Tory election campaign couldn't hit new depths, the Deputy poliical editor of the Daily Mail tweets that Rishi Sunak has managed to upset some major Tory donors.
Anna Mikhailova reports that Sunak has pulled out of attending his party's Black and White Ball this week, despite the fact that tickets were on sale at £1,500 each, with him as the main guest.
Already this week the shambolic Tory campaign has had to contend with a betting scandal involving the Prime Minister's parliamentary private secretary, an expenses scandal in the Welsh Senedd involving a shadow Tory cabinet member and, of course, they are still reeling from Sunak leaving the D-Day commemoration events early, a decision designed to enrage the most hardened Tory supporter.
Mikhailova tweets that donors were told that Sunak will skip the Ball to attend a TV debate, but they aren't buying it:
'He just needs to pop in for half an hour' one said. ‘You leave D-Day early, you don’t go to the summer party, how can you expect other people to turn up for you?’
She adds that the bash - at the Hurlingham Club in London - is one of the party’s biggest fundraisers at a time when the party is already struggling to draw donations, but some donors are already asking for refunds.
Talks are now underway over who will replace Sunak as key speaker at the Ball, no doubt running parallel with manoeuvring to replace him as Tory leader.
Sunday, June 16, 2024
Failing upwards
Nation Cymru reports that new independent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has concluded that the UK Government’s flagship Levelling Up policy has been a failure.
They say that tThe policy was launched by the Conservative government in 2019 with the claim that it would reduce inequality based on where people live across the UK, but according to NIESR, “there are very few signs of Levelling Up, with disparities in living standards and productivity between various English regions and UK devolved nations remaining unchanged or widening since the last General Election.”:
NIESR’s new research shows that the gap in living standards between London and the South East and the North East has grown, and productivity differences between London and the South East and the West Midlands have also increased. Its projections of living standards and productivity suggest that unless some fundamental change occurs, there will be no significant progress by 2030.
The study concludes that the combination of insufficient central government resources and the slow disbursement of relatively small pots of money has meant that progress on the 12 main Levelling Up missions has been “feeble”.
I suspect that most people in red wall areas already knew this.
Saturday, June 15, 2024
Another snub for Welsh Labour
It is beginning to look as if senior Labour politicians cannot help themselves. Vaughan Gething may be Starmer's man, but the price he is having to pay for that support is a series of snubs on long-standing Welsh Labour policy.
Yesterday, I blogged on how the Shadow Home Secretary had indicated that she was opposed to her Welsh colleagues position of devolving policing to the Senedd.
Today's snub is a tad more serious.
The BBC report that Shadow Welsh secretary Jo Stevens told BBC Radio Wales Breakfast that the Welsh government will not have full control over the replacement for European Union funds, should the party win the general election:
Sir Keir Starmer has previously said that he would restore decision-making powers to the Welsh government over millions worth of grants to help boost Wales' economy.
But the party's manifesto on Thursday said that "representatives" of Wales would be given the power to make decisions, without clarifying who.
The Welsh Conservatives said it was focused on empowering people across Wales, while Plaid Cymru accused Labour of snubbing the Welsh government.
BBC Wales was told that Labour's plans would work much like the EU scheme had in the past.
Last year, Sir Keir promised Welsh Labour conference that Wales would have control over its "economic destiny".
"The decision-making role for the Welsh government on structural funds, will be restored," he said.
Speaking on Friday, Ms Stevens said: "It's exactly the same as Keir Starmer said in Welsh Labour conference.
"Both the UK government and Welsh government under the old EU funding... had a role. It's not a binary choice, one or the other."
Asked if control will go fully to the Welsh government, she said: "No, as I said, it's not a binary choice.
"It's changed from the current circumstances where the Welsh government has absolutely no say in how the Shared Prosperity Funds are delivered in Wales."
Previously, the The Welsh government had administered the EU grants - known as structural funds - while the UK was in the EU. However, after Brexit, the UK government set up the Shared Prosperity Fund which it has controlled rather than ministers in Cardiff.
That caused a row with Welsh government who have accused them of rolling back devolution. It now looks as if a Starmer government is going to leave it that way. So much for Labour's commitment to Wales.
The BBC report that Shadow Welsh secretary Jo Stevens told BBC Radio Wales Breakfast that the Welsh government will not have full control over the replacement for European Union funds, should the party win the general election:
Sir Keir Starmer has previously said that he would restore decision-making powers to the Welsh government over millions worth of grants to help boost Wales' economy.
But the party's manifesto on Thursday said that "representatives" of Wales would be given the power to make decisions, without clarifying who.
The Welsh Conservatives said it was focused on empowering people across Wales, while Plaid Cymru accused Labour of snubbing the Welsh government.
BBC Wales was told that Labour's plans would work much like the EU scheme had in the past.
Last year, Sir Keir promised Welsh Labour conference that Wales would have control over its "economic destiny".
"The decision-making role for the Welsh government on structural funds, will be restored," he said.
Speaking on Friday, Ms Stevens said: "It's exactly the same as Keir Starmer said in Welsh Labour conference.
"Both the UK government and Welsh government under the old EU funding... had a role. It's not a binary choice, one or the other."
Asked if control will go fully to the Welsh government, she said: "No, as I said, it's not a binary choice.
"It's changed from the current circumstances where the Welsh government has absolutely no say in how the Shared Prosperity Funds are delivered in Wales."
Previously, the The Welsh government had administered the EU grants - known as structural funds - while the UK was in the EU. However, after Brexit, the UK government set up the Shared Prosperity Fund which it has controlled rather than ministers in Cardiff.
That caused a row with Welsh government who have accused them of rolling back devolution. It now looks as if a Starmer government is going to leave it that way. So much for Labour's commitment to Wales.
Friday, June 14, 2024
Shadow Home Secretary undermines Welsh Labour
This can be particularly embarrassing if you head up a longstandin Welsh Labour administration and have been arguing for some time that you can work more closely in partnership with a UK Labour Government. And so it has proved even though not a single vote has yet been cast.
Wales on Line reports that shadow home secretary. Yvette Cooper has said control over police forces would be retained by Westminster if Labour takes power next month despite the Welsh Labour Government wanting to take charge of policing here:
Ms Cooper could be responsible for overseeing police forces in England and Wales if Labour win power. Responsibility for police forces in Wales currently rests with the UK Government rather than the Welsh Government. This is unlike policing in Scotland and Northern Ireland which are controlled by their respective governments.
Speaking to BBC Radio Wales Breakfast on Wednesday Ms Cooper said it was important to "keep the links" around policing and crime across England and Wales. She also accused the Home Office of "turning its back on Wales" and said there were reasons not to give policing powers over to Cardiff Bay.
"We need to keep the links around policing and crime across England and Wales," she said. "Not least because here in north wales there’s obviously strong links in terms of what happens in Merseyside has an impact on north wales and so on. So you have to have all of those close relationships between police forces."
Home Office figures show the number of police officers in Wales has increased from 7,479 in 2010, when Labour left power in Westminster, to 8,091 in 2023, the BBC reports. There is some disagreement among Labour over whether or not Wales should gain control of its police forces. Previously Mark Drakeford's government had held ambitions of devolving policing to Wales and the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales said in January that policing and criminal justice powers should be devolved beginning with the police, probation, and youth justice. A sub-group of the commission said that there was evidence of a "strong case for change to secure better outcomes, better value for money, increased transparency, and more accountability".
But these ambitions have been tempered by some in UK Labour including shadow Welsh secretary Jo Stevens who said earlier this year: "We have said that we will explore the devolution of youth justice and probation. But we will not be looking at devolution of policing and justice.
It actually makes sense to give the Welsh Government the sort of control over policing that is held by the Mayor of London and other elected Mayors in England. At present we are in a sort of halfway house in which Welsh Ministers provide half the funding but have no say in how that money is spent, nor is there any proper accountability on a Welsh level.
The reluctance of senior Labour figures to address this issue tells you all you need to know about their attitude to devolution and the new First Minister.
Thursday, June 13, 2024
Tory candidate in Betting controversy
Of particular interest to Welsh politicos, the Guardian reports that Rishi Sunak’s closest parliamentary aide placed a £100 bet on a July election just three days before the prime minister named the date.
The paper says that the Gambling Commission is understood to have launched an inquiry after Craig Williams, the prime minister’s parliamentary private secretary, who became an MP in 2019, placed a bet with the bookmaker Ladbrokes on Sunday 19 May in his local constituency of Montgomeryshire:
On 22 May, Sunak made the surprise announcement that a general election would be held on 4 July.
In a statement, Williams said: “I’ve been contacted by a journalist about Gambling Commission inquiries into one of my accounts and thought it best to be totally transparent.
“I put a flutter on the general election some weeks ago. This has resulted in some routine inquiries and I confirm I will fully cooperate with these.
“I don’t want it to be a distraction from the campaign, I should have thought how it looks.”
A Conservative party spokesperson added: “We are aware of contact between a Conservative candidate and the Gambling Commission.
“It is a personal matter for the individual in question. As the Gambling Commission is an independent body, it wouldn’t be proper to comment further, until any process is concluded.”
It is understood that a red flag was automatically raised by Ladbrokes as the bet in Williams’ name was potentially placed by a “politically exposed person”, and the bookmaker is particularly cautious over “novelty” markets.
The £100 bet, which could have led to a £500 payout on odds of 5/1, is believed to have been placed via an online account that would have required the user to provide personal details including their date of birth and debit card. The bookmaker also knows the location of the bet.
Ladbrokes referred the case to the Gambling Commission, which is understood to have launched an inquiry. The Guardian understands the regulator informed Downing Street officials last week. Using confidential information to gain an unfair advantage when betting may constitute a criminal offence.
Separately, the MPs’ code of conduct prohibits members from “causing significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the house”. The bet was placed while parliament was still in session.
While Sunak’s general election announcement last month came as a surprise to the public and many Conservative MPs, the prime minister is thought to have been considering and debating the timing for months. He is believed to have settled on the July date weeks before confirming it in heavy rain outside Downing Street.
The alleged bet, which would not have received a payout until after the election took place, is likely to be highly embarrassing for Sunak, who has been accused of presiding over a calamitous general election campaign. Sunak and Williams will now face questions about who knew about the election date and when.
It will be interesting to see how this goes down in the new constituency of Montgomryshire and Glyndwr.
Wednesday, June 12, 2024
Blame Game
Just how much more into denial can the Welsh Labour Party get?
Not only do we have a succession of senior Labour politicians tramping around the country defending Vaughan Gething and arguing that he should ignore the fact that the Senedd voted that they have no confidence in him, but now we get Gething himself blaming the media for his own self-inflicted troubles.
Nation Cymru reports that the First Minister has appeared to blame journalists for coverage of his scandal ridden tenure saying he regretted “how the whole thing was reported”.
Nation Cymru reports that the First Minister has appeared to blame journalists for coverage of his scandal ridden tenure saying he regretted “how the whole thing was reported”.
They say his comments came during First Minister’s Questions on yesterday, less than a week after he lost a vote of no confidence in the Senedd:
Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth led a rigorous line of questioning in the Chamber this afternoon challenging the FM on the donation scandal and the Blythyn sacking.
He said: “What we have here is a First Minister’s judgment repeatedly being called into question. We’ve got the donation from a convicted polluter, but then there was the issue of how a Minister was recently sacked too, one of those not here last week.
“Sacking a minister is a serious matter, but it seems that the normal safeguards of natural justice weren’t afforded to the former deputy minister in this instance.”
Mr Gething replied: “I regret the way that the last three months have been covered and reported, and I regret the impact of the choice I made within all of the rules at the time.”
“I would not want either myself or any of my colleagues to have had to go through that again. I recognise that there has been real damage caused to a range of people in this place.”
Mr Iorwerth, a former journalist himself, hit back at the First Minister asking: “So, it’s the way this has been covered, it’s the way it’s been reported?
“I’m a former journalist, I’m a member of the National Union of Journalists, are you blaming journalists for this? Are you blaming opposition Members for the way that we voted in that vote last week?”
Mr Gething responded saying: “One of the challenges in making choices as a leader is you have to not just think about what the right choice is, but you also have to consider that it’s only you that can make the decision, and you have to consider and balance a range of different consequences.”
I wonder how that line will go down on doorsteps.
Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth led a rigorous line of questioning in the Chamber this afternoon challenging the FM on the donation scandal and the Blythyn sacking.
He said: “What we have here is a First Minister’s judgment repeatedly being called into question. We’ve got the donation from a convicted polluter, but then there was the issue of how a Minister was recently sacked too, one of those not here last week.
“Sacking a minister is a serious matter, but it seems that the normal safeguards of natural justice weren’t afforded to the former deputy minister in this instance.”
Mr Gething replied: “I regret the way that the last three months have been covered and reported, and I regret the impact of the choice I made within all of the rules at the time.”
“I would not want either myself or any of my colleagues to have had to go through that again. I recognise that there has been real damage caused to a range of people in this place.”
Mr Iorwerth, a former journalist himself, hit back at the First Minister asking: “So, it’s the way this has been covered, it’s the way it’s been reported?
“I’m a former journalist, I’m a member of the National Union of Journalists, are you blaming journalists for this? Are you blaming opposition Members for the way that we voted in that vote last week?”
Mr Gething responded saying: “One of the challenges in making choices as a leader is you have to not just think about what the right choice is, but you also have to consider that it’s only you that can make the decision, and you have to consider and balance a range of different consequences.”
I wonder how that line will go down on doorsteps.
Lost in Swansea
When parachutist, Torsten Bell was first selected as Labour candidate for Swansea West, the Welsh Liberal Democrats candidate, Mike O'Carroll offered to show him around. Judging from this story. Mr Bell should have taken up the offer.
The Nation Cymru site reports that a Welsh Labour social media post that placed Mr Bell in the wrong constituency has been seen as a symbol of how the party’s hierarchy has become disconnected from local communities.
They say that the post shows a picture of him with a Welsh flag in the background and a caption which reads: “Britain needs change – and Torsten Bell is proud to be your candidate for Swansea East ready to deliver it. If you want change, vote Labour on Thursday 4 July.”
But it gets worse, Bell himself seems confused as to where exactly he was when he posted a tweet following a canvassing session which referred to the Swansea district of Townhill as “North Hill”.
Perhaps somebody should give him a map.
The Nation Cymru site reports that a Welsh Labour social media post that placed Mr Bell in the wrong constituency has been seen as a symbol of how the party’s hierarchy has become disconnected from local communities.
They say that the post shows a picture of him with a Welsh flag in the background and a caption which reads: “Britain needs change – and Torsten Bell is proud to be your candidate for Swansea East ready to deliver it. If you want change, vote Labour on Thursday 4 July.”
But it gets worse, Bell himself seems confused as to where exactly he was when he posted a tweet following a canvassing session which referred to the Swansea district of Townhill as “North Hill”.
Tuesday, June 11, 2024
Revolting Tories Part Ten
I have never known a Conservative Party split so publicly, but to have it do so in the middle of a general election is unprecedented. It is actually getting embarrassing.
The Guardian reports that Tory rightwingers are planning to present Rishi Sunak with demands for tougher action on immigration and human rights law before the election if the prime minister’s manifesto promises on Tuesday fall flat.
They say that prominent party figures including Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick are said by Tory insiders to be among those waiting to see how the manifesto is received by the public before they act:
In the event Sunak’s launch fails to shift the dial on the Tories’ floundering election campaign, one option under discussion is a press conference next week to set out a series of alternative pledges.
They are hoping to capitalise on an already weakened Sunak who vowed to fight on until the last day of the campaign after a terrible weekend in which he was criticised for missing part of the D-day commemorations.
On the campaign trail in West Sussex on Monday, the prime minister said he believed he could still win back voters and he did not accept that the election result was a foregone conclusion.
Asked if he had considered quitting, Sunak said “of course not” and said he was energised by the campaign, after ministers were forced to insist he would not be replaced as leader during the course of the campaign.
In the run-up to the publication of the Tory manifesto, MPs on the right of the party launched a last-ditch attempt to toughen up the position on the UK’s membership in the European convention of human rights.
Two sources from the New Conservatives grouping said they had pushed hard for it to commit to a referendum on ECHR membership or full withdrawal. “A lot of us will be making our position clear publicly,” one MP said.
One former cabinet minister said it was “plausible” that a rebel manifesto could be published in the days ahead, with tougher positions on tax and immigration. “We’ll just have to see what emerges,” they added.
However, the Guardian understands that Sunak is expected to pledge to reform the terms of Britain’s ECHR membership, and to “keep all options on the table” – including leaving – if this fails.
One Tory source said: “Sunak doesn’t want to leave. This is just language to appease the right. It’s signalling. There’s no way he wants a cabinet row over this in the middle of the campaign, and some of his ministers are firmly against.”
Sunak was reportedly facing last-minute calls by cabinet ministers to add new tax cuts and tougher migration policy to the manifesto after early drafts provoked disquiet over the lack of big ticket pledges.
Bloomberg reported that while there were no signals that their demands would be met in the final document, some alterations had been made in recent days as a result of the conversations.
Considering that it was Sunak who called this snap election, the level of unpreparedness at the very top of his party is astonishing. Maybe he had to do it to keep the party together. If so, he has failed miserably.
The Guardian reports that Tory rightwingers are planning to present Rishi Sunak with demands for tougher action on immigration and human rights law before the election if the prime minister’s manifesto promises on Tuesday fall flat.
They say that prominent party figures including Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick are said by Tory insiders to be among those waiting to see how the manifesto is received by the public before they act:
In the event Sunak’s launch fails to shift the dial on the Tories’ floundering election campaign, one option under discussion is a press conference next week to set out a series of alternative pledges.
They are hoping to capitalise on an already weakened Sunak who vowed to fight on until the last day of the campaign after a terrible weekend in which he was criticised for missing part of the D-day commemorations.
On the campaign trail in West Sussex on Monday, the prime minister said he believed he could still win back voters and he did not accept that the election result was a foregone conclusion.
Asked if he had considered quitting, Sunak said “of course not” and said he was energised by the campaign, after ministers were forced to insist he would not be replaced as leader during the course of the campaign.
In the run-up to the publication of the Tory manifesto, MPs on the right of the party launched a last-ditch attempt to toughen up the position on the UK’s membership in the European convention of human rights.
Two sources from the New Conservatives grouping said they had pushed hard for it to commit to a referendum on ECHR membership or full withdrawal. “A lot of us will be making our position clear publicly,” one MP said.
One former cabinet minister said it was “plausible” that a rebel manifesto could be published in the days ahead, with tougher positions on tax and immigration. “We’ll just have to see what emerges,” they added.
However, the Guardian understands that Sunak is expected to pledge to reform the terms of Britain’s ECHR membership, and to “keep all options on the table” – including leaving – if this fails.
One Tory source said: “Sunak doesn’t want to leave. This is just language to appease the right. It’s signalling. There’s no way he wants a cabinet row over this in the middle of the campaign, and some of his ministers are firmly against.”
Sunak was reportedly facing last-minute calls by cabinet ministers to add new tax cuts and tougher migration policy to the manifesto after early drafts provoked disquiet over the lack of big ticket pledges.
Bloomberg reported that while there were no signals that their demands would be met in the final document, some alterations had been made in recent days as a result of the conversations.
Considering that it was Sunak who called this snap election, the level of unpreparedness at the very top of his party is astonishing. Maybe he had to do it to keep the party together. If so, he has failed miserably.
Monday, June 10, 2024
Another Sunak faux pas
Surely Rishi Sunak has committed enough faux pas during this general election without walking straight into a charge of hypocrisy over traffic regulations. but no, it seems that he actually enjoys the humiliation.
The Independent reports that the Tories are embroiled in a hypocrisy row over Sunak’s “backing drivers bill” to scale back Ulez, ban pay-per-mile road taxes and crack down on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs).
The paper says that having promised that the bill would be part of his first King’s Speech if he is re-elected on 4 July, ending Labour’s “war on drivers” in London and Wales, the prime minister has been accused of hypocrisy after it emerged his own ministers had supported many of the measures he is now railing against:
As chancellor, Mr Sunak reportedly drew up plans to introduce a pay-per-mile road pricing system. And in 2022 one of the PM’s own transport ministers, Huw Merriman, said London mayor Sadiq Khan should introduce a road pricing scheme to replace lost revenues from fuel and vehicle excise duties.
Labour also pointed out that Mr Merriman also suggested Mr Khan’s Ulez expansion was a “bold attempt to reduce congestion and pollution”.
Transport secretary Mark Harper on Friday ruled out introducing any pay-per-mile schemes and promised to reverse the London mayor’s “unfair Ulez expansion.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson introduced Ulez as mayor in 2015, calling it an “essential measure” that would “lengthen London’s lead as the greatest city on earth”.
Tory hopes that they can hold onto the backing of motorists who are counting the cost of environmental policies in the general election are looking more and more far-fetched as it becomes clear that, as well as top Tories’ past support for Ulez and pay-per-mile schemes, Labour have also pointed to senior Conservatives who previously backed LTNs.:
Tory chairman Richard Holden in 2022 said decisions about LTNs should be “entirely a matter for local authorities such as Warrington to make”.
Meanwhile former transport secretary Grant Shapps touted pop-up bike lanes, wider pavements, cycle and bus only streets as “examples of what people will start to see more of” under his £250m Emergency Active Travel Funding plans in May 2020.
Consistency is not a very atrong trait for this lot.
The Independent reports that the Tories are embroiled in a hypocrisy row over Sunak’s “backing drivers bill” to scale back Ulez, ban pay-per-mile road taxes and crack down on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs).
The paper says that having promised that the bill would be part of his first King’s Speech if he is re-elected on 4 July, ending Labour’s “war on drivers” in London and Wales, the prime minister has been accused of hypocrisy after it emerged his own ministers had supported many of the measures he is now railing against:
As chancellor, Mr Sunak reportedly drew up plans to introduce a pay-per-mile road pricing system. And in 2022 one of the PM’s own transport ministers, Huw Merriman, said London mayor Sadiq Khan should introduce a road pricing scheme to replace lost revenues from fuel and vehicle excise duties.
Labour also pointed out that Mr Merriman also suggested Mr Khan’s Ulez expansion was a “bold attempt to reduce congestion and pollution”.
Transport secretary Mark Harper on Friday ruled out introducing any pay-per-mile schemes and promised to reverse the London mayor’s “unfair Ulez expansion.
Former prime minister Boris Johnson introduced Ulez as mayor in 2015, calling it an “essential measure” that would “lengthen London’s lead as the greatest city on earth”.
Tory hopes that they can hold onto the backing of motorists who are counting the cost of environmental policies in the general election are looking more and more far-fetched as it becomes clear that, as well as top Tories’ past support for Ulez and pay-per-mile schemes, Labour have also pointed to senior Conservatives who previously backed LTNs.:
Tory chairman Richard Holden in 2022 said decisions about LTNs should be “entirely a matter for local authorities such as Warrington to make”.
Meanwhile former transport secretary Grant Shapps touted pop-up bike lanes, wider pavements, cycle and bus only streets as “examples of what people will start to see more of” under his £250m Emergency Active Travel Funding plans in May 2020.
Consistency is not a very atrong trait for this lot.
Friday, June 07, 2024
Non-binding but fatal?
Today's Guardian's editorial is scathing about the attitude of Vaughan Gething and the Senedd Labour group towards the non-binding motion of no confidence that was passed on Wednesday.
They conclude that it’s hard to see how Vaughan Gething can survive as first minister in Wales:
Mr Gething won’t survive by just dismissing the vote as “non-binding”. The first minister lost because two Labour Senedd members, one of whom he sacked and the other a vocal critic, did not turn up to support him. Both were said to be ill. The first minister has annoyed colleagues with his high-handed approach. A day earlier, Mr Gething’s predecessor – the usually mild-mannered Mark Drakeford – dramatically criticised the Welsh government’s decision to scrap his proposals for changes to the school holiday.
The first black leader of a European nation, Mr Gething told the Guardian earlier this year that he wanted to be judged not on his skin colour but on his ability. He’ll need those talents to win over his party. In 2021, Labour won 30 seats, or half of the Senedd. Mr Gething secured the support of only a third of those members to win the leadership. Labour has been historically a broad church, where almost everyone was welcome. Mr Gething is wrong if he only wants those singing from the same hymn sheet.
The first minister has attacked Tory opponents for failing to respect Welsh democracy. Yet his apparent contempt for its norms is at the heart of his downfall. In March, it emerged that he had lobbied regulators in favour of a company that has been prosecuted for waste crimes and whose owner had since given him £200,000 for his leadership campaign. Elections cost money, but if the source of the cash fails the smell test then surely the funds ought to be returned. That applies to Mr Gething as well as to the Conservative party, which has taken £15m from a businessman accused of making racist and misogynistic comments, including about Diane Abbott.
Labour is on course to secure a landslide victory in Commons constituencies in Wales. But Mr Gething’s personal ratings are sinking. More than half the public tell pollsters he is performing badly. Only 15% think that he’s performing well. The opposition parties could call a vote of no confidence in the government itself, rather than in the first minister. The result would be binding, and if it succeeded it would bring down the government.
The row over donations also ended the Welsh Labour government’s collaboration agreement with Plaid Cymru. Welsh Labour can only get its budget through the Senedd with support from other parties. Responding to their concerns seems urgent. Since 2019, UK ministers have disregarded constitutional norms by legislating in areas devolved to the Senedd. A Welsh first minister needs to be able to see off such challenges. Mr Gething’s government is, following the recommendations from an independent commission, working on plans for the devolution of justice, policing and rail policy. These have already been rejected by Sir Keir Starmer’s team. A rethink, should Sir Keir enter Downing Street, would benefit Wales and the wider devolutionary settlement. That will be more difficult with a lame duck leader.
There is a meeting of the Labour group later today, let's see what comes out of that.
They conclude that it’s hard to see how Vaughan Gething can survive as first minister in Wales:
Mr Gething won’t survive by just dismissing the vote as “non-binding”. The first minister lost because two Labour Senedd members, one of whom he sacked and the other a vocal critic, did not turn up to support him. Both were said to be ill. The first minister has annoyed colleagues with his high-handed approach. A day earlier, Mr Gething’s predecessor – the usually mild-mannered Mark Drakeford – dramatically criticised the Welsh government’s decision to scrap his proposals for changes to the school holiday.
The first black leader of a European nation, Mr Gething told the Guardian earlier this year that he wanted to be judged not on his skin colour but on his ability. He’ll need those talents to win over his party. In 2021, Labour won 30 seats, or half of the Senedd. Mr Gething secured the support of only a third of those members to win the leadership. Labour has been historically a broad church, where almost everyone was welcome. Mr Gething is wrong if he only wants those singing from the same hymn sheet.
The first minister has attacked Tory opponents for failing to respect Welsh democracy. Yet his apparent contempt for its norms is at the heart of his downfall. In March, it emerged that he had lobbied regulators in favour of a company that has been prosecuted for waste crimes and whose owner had since given him £200,000 for his leadership campaign. Elections cost money, but if the source of the cash fails the smell test then surely the funds ought to be returned. That applies to Mr Gething as well as to the Conservative party, which has taken £15m from a businessman accused of making racist and misogynistic comments, including about Diane Abbott.
Labour is on course to secure a landslide victory in Commons constituencies in Wales. But Mr Gething’s personal ratings are sinking. More than half the public tell pollsters he is performing badly. Only 15% think that he’s performing well. The opposition parties could call a vote of no confidence in the government itself, rather than in the first minister. The result would be binding, and if it succeeded it would bring down the government.
The row over donations also ended the Welsh Labour government’s collaboration agreement with Plaid Cymru. Welsh Labour can only get its budget through the Senedd with support from other parties. Responding to their concerns seems urgent. Since 2019, UK ministers have disregarded constitutional norms by legislating in areas devolved to the Senedd. A Welsh first minister needs to be able to see off such challenges. Mr Gething’s government is, following the recommendations from an independent commission, working on plans for the devolution of justice, policing and rail policy. These have already been rejected by Sir Keir Starmer’s team. A rethink, should Sir Keir enter Downing Street, would benefit Wales and the wider devolutionary settlement. That will be more difficult with a lame duck leader.
There is a meeting of the Labour group later today, let's see what comes out of that.
Thursday, June 06, 2024
The first casualty
In war, truth is the first casualty is a military maxim attributed to Aeschylus, the father of Greek tragedy (I admit I had to check the source). It is a maxim that already has relevance in the general election.
The Independent reports that the Treasury’s permanent secretary James Bowler has distanced his department from claims Rishi Sunak made to the nation in the ITV debate that Labour would have to increase taxes by more than £2,000 per household.
The paper adds that this was later followed by the Office for Statistics Regulation launching a probe into the figure, which was the centrepiece of the prime minister’s attack on the opposition in Tuesday night’s TV debate:
It sparked a barrage of condemnation from Labour’s shadow cabinet, with several of the party’s top politicians accusing the PM of deliberately lying to the public.
In response, a defiant Conservative leader and energy secretary Claire Coutinho doubled down, repeating the assertion.
In the first televised clash of the general election campaign, Mr Sunak had repeatedly pointed to analysis by Treasury civil servants he said showed a £38.5bn black hole in Sir Keir’s spending plans.
This would lead to each working household paying £2,094 more in tax under a Labour government, the PM said.
But Mr Sunak suffered a humiliating setback when the Treasury rubbished his claim.
His claims started to unravel on Wednesday morning when Ms Coutinho conceded on the Today programme that the £2,000 figure was spread over four years.
Soon after, in a dramatic and humiliating intervention for Mr Sunak, a letter emerged from Mr Bowler which he had written to the Labour Party to pour cold water on the claim.
Mr Bowler set out how the costings relied upon by Mr Sunak were nothing to do with impartial civil servants, and stressed that the Treasury was “not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document ‘Labour’s Tax Rises’ or the calculation of the total figure used”.
The figure “includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury”, he told shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones.
“I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service,” Mr Bowler added.
In a scathing letter, he continued: “I have reminded ministers and advisers that this should be the case.”
Earlier, Paul Johnson, the director of the highly-respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, also hit out at the figure. He said: “The £2,000 per working household that the Conservatives are suggesting that Labour is committed to is not independently arrived at or verified. It has been calculated based on Conservative party assumptions about Labour’s spending plans.”
The £2,000 claim is now being looked at by the Office for Statistics Regulation.
It is not known precisely how long its investigation will take.
It would not be the first time the prime mister has been rebuked by the statistics regulator.
Last December, his claim that the government had reduced debt was challenged by the watchdog, whose chairman said the assertion “may have undermined trust in the government’s use of statistics”.
It can only go downhill from here.
The Independent reports that the Treasury’s permanent secretary James Bowler has distanced his department from claims Rishi Sunak made to the nation in the ITV debate that Labour would have to increase taxes by more than £2,000 per household.
The paper adds that this was later followed by the Office for Statistics Regulation launching a probe into the figure, which was the centrepiece of the prime minister’s attack on the opposition in Tuesday night’s TV debate:
It sparked a barrage of condemnation from Labour’s shadow cabinet, with several of the party’s top politicians accusing the PM of deliberately lying to the public.
In response, a defiant Conservative leader and energy secretary Claire Coutinho doubled down, repeating the assertion.
In the first televised clash of the general election campaign, Mr Sunak had repeatedly pointed to analysis by Treasury civil servants he said showed a £38.5bn black hole in Sir Keir’s spending plans.
This would lead to each working household paying £2,094 more in tax under a Labour government, the PM said.
But Mr Sunak suffered a humiliating setback when the Treasury rubbished his claim.
His claims started to unravel on Wednesday morning when Ms Coutinho conceded on the Today programme that the £2,000 figure was spread over four years.
Soon after, in a dramatic and humiliating intervention for Mr Sunak, a letter emerged from Mr Bowler which he had written to the Labour Party to pour cold water on the claim.
Mr Bowler set out how the costings relied upon by Mr Sunak were nothing to do with impartial civil servants, and stressed that the Treasury was “not involved in the production or presentation of the Conservative Party’s document ‘Labour’s Tax Rises’ or the calculation of the total figure used”.
The figure “includes costs beyond those provided by the civil service and published online by HM Treasury”, he told shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones.
“I agree that any costings derived from other sources or produced by other organisations should not be presented as having been produced by the civil service,” Mr Bowler added.
In a scathing letter, he continued: “I have reminded ministers and advisers that this should be the case.”
Earlier, Paul Johnson, the director of the highly-respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, also hit out at the figure. He said: “The £2,000 per working household that the Conservatives are suggesting that Labour is committed to is not independently arrived at or verified. It has been calculated based on Conservative party assumptions about Labour’s spending plans.”
The £2,000 claim is now being looked at by the Office for Statistics Regulation.
It is not known precisely how long its investigation will take.
It would not be the first time the prime mister has been rebuked by the statistics regulator.
Last December, his claim that the government had reduced debt was challenged by the watchdog, whose chairman said the assertion “may have undermined trust in the government’s use of statistics”.
It can only go downhill from here.
Wednesday, June 05, 2024
Social Media bites
With so many last minute candidates being put into place before close of nominations on Friday, it was inevitable that some studious journalist would be digging away in their social media accounts for a story or two.
Here in Swansea, the imposition of a London-based thinktank boss with no connection to the city has aroused some interest, but in his case he appears to have already scoured his own twitter account for anything interesting. That though, has not stopped the inquisitive.
Nation Cymru reports that Labour's Swansea West parachutist, Torsten Bell has deleted social media posts from 2023 that conflict with the party’s current policies:
It has emerged that since he was selected for Swansea West, a series of social media posts he made in January 2023 have been deleted. The posts coincided with the publication of a report by the Resolution Foundation that criticised tax breaks given to those who invest in Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs).
Currently, ISAs allow individuals to save up to £20,000 per year tax-free, with no upper savings limit.
Mr Bell wrote a series of posts at the time of the report, including one that stated: “The problem with ISAs: they do work for the top. Evidence: 1.5m people live in families with ISAs worth over £100,000 per adult! Why on earth is the state spending billions subsidising savings that large?” It was deleted last week.
Another post, also deleted, said: “Our main policy to support saving does nothing for many on low/middle incomes – which is where the public policy priority to encourage saving lies – while doing a lot for the top who I promise you are going to save anyway. We should sort it out.”
Mr Bell’s deletion of the posts calls into question whether he stands by his quoted comments now that he is a Labour candidate.
This is hardly a smoking gun. Bell's deleted comments are backed up by a well-researched Resolution Foundation report and, whether you agree with them or not, are a valid contribution to the tackling poverty agenda. As chief executive it would be a surprise if he didn't support the think tank's conclusions.
The story here in fact, is not what was deleted but the fact that Bell thought he had to take the posts down. Are we being asked to vote for a man who believes that he cannot act or think independently of the party line? Is he a yes man after all?
I would have had a lot more respect for Mr Bell if he had left the posts up and defended them if challenged.
Here in Swansea, the imposition of a London-based thinktank boss with no connection to the city has aroused some interest, but in his case he appears to have already scoured his own twitter account for anything interesting. That though, has not stopped the inquisitive.
Nation Cymru reports that Labour's Swansea West parachutist, Torsten Bell has deleted social media posts from 2023 that conflict with the party’s current policies:
It has emerged that since he was selected for Swansea West, a series of social media posts he made in January 2023 have been deleted. The posts coincided with the publication of a report by the Resolution Foundation that criticised tax breaks given to those who invest in Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs).
Currently, ISAs allow individuals to save up to £20,000 per year tax-free, with no upper savings limit.
Mr Bell wrote a series of posts at the time of the report, including one that stated: “The problem with ISAs: they do work for the top. Evidence: 1.5m people live in families with ISAs worth over £100,000 per adult! Why on earth is the state spending billions subsidising savings that large?” It was deleted last week.
Another post, also deleted, said: “Our main policy to support saving does nothing for many on low/middle incomes – which is where the public policy priority to encourage saving lies – while doing a lot for the top who I promise you are going to save anyway. We should sort it out.”
Mr Bell’s deletion of the posts calls into question whether he stands by his quoted comments now that he is a Labour candidate.
This is hardly a smoking gun. Bell's deleted comments are backed up by a well-researched Resolution Foundation report and, whether you agree with them or not, are a valid contribution to the tackling poverty agenda. As chief executive it would be a surprise if he didn't support the think tank's conclusions.
The story here in fact, is not what was deleted but the fact that Bell thought he had to take the posts down. Are we being asked to vote for a man who believes that he cannot act or think independently of the party line? Is he a yes man after all?
I would have had a lot more respect for Mr Bell if he had left the posts up and defended them if challenged.
Tuesday, June 04, 2024
Gething scandal rumbles on
Welsh Liberal Democrats have said that the latest development in the Vaughan Gething donations scandal raises further questions about the integrity and judgement of the First Minister.
They are responding to a report by BBC Wales that the company that bankrolled Vaughan Gething's successful bid to become Wales' first minister was linked to a criminal investigation at the time,
The BBC say that a criminal investigation into suspected environmental offences by Resources Management Limited (RML) is being carried out by Natural Resources Wales. This is a firm which is owned by millionaire businessman David Neal, who donated £200,000 to Gething's leadership campaign:
BBC Wales Investigates can also reveal that a senior Welsh Labour figure offered to lend Mr Gething money so he could pay back the donation in full, but he declined to take up the offer.
Mr Gething, who narrowly won the Welsh Labour leader contest earlier this year, previously said he had done nothing wrong and has not broken the ministerial code.
The continuing row in Wales is an unwelcome distraction to Sir Keir Starmer during the general election campaign - although the Labour leader has publicly backed Mr Gething.
RML runs the Withyhedge landfill site near Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, which people have complained since October 2023 is a "stink bomb on steroids".
RML said it would "continue to fully cooperate with any pending investigations by Natural Resources Wales".
But it is not the first time a waste management company controlled by Mr Neal has been investigated.
He was twice convicted for environmental crimes relating to two companies in 2013 and 2017, and one of those also pleaded guilty in March this year to another offence.
The BBC speculates as to who knew about this investigation, saying that NRW is overseen by the Welsh government and it had been briefing ministers about the Withyhedge site controlled by Mr Neal since before Mr Gething became first minister in mid-March:
Health secretary Eluned Morgan and then-climate change minister Julie James both had meetings with the regulator about problems at Withyhedge in February.
It was revealed in March that Mr Gething has also previously spoken to NRW on behalf of Mr Neal back in 2016, asking them to ease restrictions on one of his businesses, Atlantic Recycling Ltd.
The second chunk of money Mr Neal gave Mr Gething in January 2024 was donated the day before another of Mr Neal's company's outlined plans for a new solar farm on the Gwent levels, in an area of Special Scientific Interest.
In a statement Mr Neal said: "All donations made have come from a separate account to those used for the development of our business; we have never requested or expected anything in return."
Now there is going to be a no confidence vote on Wednesday in the First Minister, which the Welsh Liberal Democrats will be supporting.
They are responding to a report by BBC Wales that the company that bankrolled Vaughan Gething's successful bid to become Wales' first minister was linked to a criminal investigation at the time,
The BBC say that a criminal investigation into suspected environmental offences by Resources Management Limited (RML) is being carried out by Natural Resources Wales. This is a firm which is owned by millionaire businessman David Neal, who donated £200,000 to Gething's leadership campaign:
BBC Wales Investigates can also reveal that a senior Welsh Labour figure offered to lend Mr Gething money so he could pay back the donation in full, but he declined to take up the offer.
Mr Gething, who narrowly won the Welsh Labour leader contest earlier this year, previously said he had done nothing wrong and has not broken the ministerial code.
The continuing row in Wales is an unwelcome distraction to Sir Keir Starmer during the general election campaign - although the Labour leader has publicly backed Mr Gething.
RML runs the Withyhedge landfill site near Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, which people have complained since October 2023 is a "stink bomb on steroids".
RML said it would "continue to fully cooperate with any pending investigations by Natural Resources Wales".
But it is not the first time a waste management company controlled by Mr Neal has been investigated.
He was twice convicted for environmental crimes relating to two companies in 2013 and 2017, and one of those also pleaded guilty in March this year to another offence.
The BBC speculates as to who knew about this investigation, saying that NRW is overseen by the Welsh government and it had been briefing ministers about the Withyhedge site controlled by Mr Neal since before Mr Gething became first minister in mid-March:
Health secretary Eluned Morgan and then-climate change minister Julie James both had meetings with the regulator about problems at Withyhedge in February.
It was revealed in March that Mr Gething has also previously spoken to NRW on behalf of Mr Neal back in 2016, asking them to ease restrictions on one of his businesses, Atlantic Recycling Ltd.
The second chunk of money Mr Neal gave Mr Gething in January 2024 was donated the day before another of Mr Neal's company's outlined plans for a new solar farm on the Gwent levels, in an area of Special Scientific Interest.
In a statement Mr Neal said: "All donations made have come from a separate account to those used for the development of our business; we have never requested or expected anything in return."
Now there is going to be a no confidence vote on Wednesday in the First Minister, which the Welsh Liberal Democrats will be supporting.
Their view is that Gething may have followed all the rules, but his judgement in this matter has been very suspect. They also want to see a cap on all political donations to preveent this happening again.
Monday, June 03, 2024
Carved in Stone
A profile in today's South Wales Evening Post reveals that the parachuted-in Labour candidate for Swansea West, Torsetn Bell, when he was head of policy for then-Labour Leader, Ed Milliban, who thought up the Edstone gimmick.
This wss an eight foot, six inch high slab of stone, into which Labour carved its pledges on tax, the NHS and immigration.
Rumours that if elected, Mr Bell will have the stone dragged from the obscure barn where it is gathering moss and have it installed on the Guildhall lawn cannot be confirmed.
Sunday, June 02, 2024
Selective levelling
The Guardian reports that the Tory general election campaign has hit more trouble with accusations that the government has been using levelling up funds to win votes.
The paper says that more than half of the 30 towns each promised £20m of regeneration funding on Saturday are in constituencies won by Tory MPs at the last election:
Some 17 of the £20m pots went to towns in areas won by the Conservatives in 2019, although two of those were no longer held by Conservative MPs when the general election was called.
Just eight awards were made to towns in Labour seats, although many of the party’s strongholds tend to be in more deprived areas in need of levelling up money.
The funding pledge led to accusations from Sunak’s opponents of “pork barrel” politics, while those involved in regeneration of the north said the announcement was more about winning votes than levelling up.
This has obviously upset a number of people who are committed to using these funds to make a difference in tackling poverty:
Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, an independent body representing business and civic leaders in the north of England, criticised the regeneration announcement. “This is nothing to do with raising prosperity. This is only about trying to win a few votes at election time,” he said.
Murison added that a separate announcement last weekend by the government to abolish the UK shared prosperity fund, which replaced EU structural funds, to help fund the national service scheme, had in reality been the last “nail in the coffin” for levelling up. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found the Conservative proposals would leave the UK’s poorest regions millions of pounds worse off.
Sunak said on Saturday that the party had allocated more than £15bn to overlooked areas across the UK since 2019 and had used established methodology to select the areas that would benefit. A Tory spokesman said the party was “providing more funding to the most deprived towns in the areas with the highest need of levelling up”.
The towns in Tory areas include Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. Edward Leigh, its veteran Conservative candidate, said money had been pledged to the town “following our lobbying”. He said it would be “the greatest boost the town has ever had”.
Justin Madders, who retained the seat of Ellesmere Port and Neston in the north-west of England for Labour in 2019, said “given their monumental failure to deliver on levelling up over the last four years, why would anyone believe this is going to make a difference now?”
Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Sarah Olney said: “It will take more than this desperate attempt at pork barrel politics to win over voters after years of failure on the NHS and cost of living.”
Yet another Tory failure.
The paper says that more than half of the 30 towns each promised £20m of regeneration funding on Saturday are in constituencies won by Tory MPs at the last election:
Some 17 of the £20m pots went to towns in areas won by the Conservatives in 2019, although two of those were no longer held by Conservative MPs when the general election was called.
Just eight awards were made to towns in Labour seats, although many of the party’s strongholds tend to be in more deprived areas in need of levelling up money.
The funding pledge led to accusations from Sunak’s opponents of “pork barrel” politics, while those involved in regeneration of the north said the announcement was more about winning votes than levelling up.
This has obviously upset a number of people who are committed to using these funds to make a difference in tackling poverty:
Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, an independent body representing business and civic leaders in the north of England, criticised the regeneration announcement. “This is nothing to do with raising prosperity. This is only about trying to win a few votes at election time,” he said.
Murison added that a separate announcement last weekend by the government to abolish the UK shared prosperity fund, which replaced EU structural funds, to help fund the national service scheme, had in reality been the last “nail in the coffin” for levelling up. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found the Conservative proposals would leave the UK’s poorest regions millions of pounds worse off.
Sunak said on Saturday that the party had allocated more than £15bn to overlooked areas across the UK since 2019 and had used established methodology to select the areas that would benefit. A Tory spokesman said the party was “providing more funding to the most deprived towns in the areas with the highest need of levelling up”.
The towns in Tory areas include Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. Edward Leigh, its veteran Conservative candidate, said money had been pledged to the town “following our lobbying”. He said it would be “the greatest boost the town has ever had”.
Justin Madders, who retained the seat of Ellesmere Port and Neston in the north-west of England for Labour in 2019, said “given their monumental failure to deliver on levelling up over the last four years, why would anyone believe this is going to make a difference now?”
Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Sarah Olney said: “It will take more than this desperate attempt at pork barrel politics to win over voters after years of failure on the NHS and cost of living.”
Yet another Tory failure.
Saturday, June 01, 2024
Parachuting in a Starmer Stooge?
To be fair there is nothing about Torsten Bell that implies that he is anybody's stooge, but that is not going to pacify a number of Labour members who have had him imposed on them above the claims of the favoured son, the local council leader.
The BBC reports that Labour has been accused of "riding roughshod" over its local members after it confirmed on Friday that Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation think tank, will be its candidate for Swansea West:
Former Labour MP Beth Winter - who lost out on a new Welsh seat to another party frontbencher - said the move was "an insult to party members, an insult to Wales, and an affront to democracy".
But Welsh Labour said the decision was made by a panel "formed by representatives from the Welsh executive committee and local members".
The party’s former MP for Swansea West, Geraint Davies, was barred from standing again in the constituency pending an investigation into his behaviour.
Mr Bell was previously a special advisor to Alistair Darling while he was Labour's chancellor.
Mr Bell said he was "excited to be Welsh Labour’s candidate for Swansea West and to be campaigning for a change Labour Party with Keir Starmer".
But Ms Winter - who has demanded an independent review of a selection process that saw Gerald Jones beat her to be the candidate in the new constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Cynon - hit out at the move, external.
"In his leadership campaign, Starmer promised to end imposing candidates," she said.
"He broke that promise."
Local Swansea West members have also told BBC Wales they are "angry" and "disappointed" by the decision.
One local member said he was now "seriously questioning" his membership of the party - adding "I'm furious".
"The party is riding roughshod over the core membership. It’s tone deaf.
"We have very good potential candidates who live and work here in Swansea, who have driven Swansea through some extremely difficult times in the last 14 years. To parachute someone in makes me extremely angry."
Another local party member said they were "disappointed that the candidate has not been chosen by the [constituency Labour Party] panel in Swansea West and has no known connection to Swansea".
"He’s a candidate who’s come from outside, and it would be better if we had someone who knows Swansea, and knows what Swansea needs," they added.
BBC Wales also spoke to a member who warned it could have an impact on campaigning by local members, in a constituency that is considered a safe Labour seat.
"An outsider being parachuted in will make people very angry. In an area like this, local connections are very important. We are the local members of the party and we’re getting no voice in the selection of our MP," they said.
With another saying it appeared that "UK Labour isn’t bothered about what we (local members) think."
Kudos to Welsh Liberal Democrats candidate, Mike O'Carroll however, who tweeted:
The BBC reports that Labour has been accused of "riding roughshod" over its local members after it confirmed on Friday that Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation think tank, will be its candidate for Swansea West:
Former Labour MP Beth Winter - who lost out on a new Welsh seat to another party frontbencher - said the move was "an insult to party members, an insult to Wales, and an affront to democracy".
But Welsh Labour said the decision was made by a panel "formed by representatives from the Welsh executive committee and local members".
The party’s former MP for Swansea West, Geraint Davies, was barred from standing again in the constituency pending an investigation into his behaviour.
Mr Bell was previously a special advisor to Alistair Darling while he was Labour's chancellor.
Mr Bell said he was "excited to be Welsh Labour’s candidate for Swansea West and to be campaigning for a change Labour Party with Keir Starmer".
But Ms Winter - who has demanded an independent review of a selection process that saw Gerald Jones beat her to be the candidate in the new constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Cynon - hit out at the move, external.
"In his leadership campaign, Starmer promised to end imposing candidates," she said.
"He broke that promise."
Local Swansea West members have also told BBC Wales they are "angry" and "disappointed" by the decision.
One local member said he was now "seriously questioning" his membership of the party - adding "I'm furious".
"The party is riding roughshod over the core membership. It’s tone deaf.
"We have very good potential candidates who live and work here in Swansea, who have driven Swansea through some extremely difficult times in the last 14 years. To parachute someone in makes me extremely angry."
Another local party member said they were "disappointed that the candidate has not been chosen by the [constituency Labour Party] panel in Swansea West and has no known connection to Swansea".
"He’s a candidate who’s come from outside, and it would be better if we had someone who knows Swansea, and knows what Swansea needs," they added.
BBC Wales also spoke to a member who warned it could have an impact on campaigning by local members, in a constituency that is considered a safe Labour seat.
"An outsider being parachuted in will make people very angry. In an area like this, local connections are very important. We are the local members of the party and we’re getting no voice in the selection of our MP," they said.
With another saying it appeared that "UK Labour isn’t bothered about what we (local members) think."
Kudos to Welsh Liberal Democrats candidate, Mike O'Carroll however, who tweeted:
@TorstenBell congrats on your selection as Labour’s #SwanseaWest candidate 🎉
I know you’re not from Swansea so I’d be willing to show you around our amazing city. Reply or DM and we’ll set up. I’ll even buy you a Joe's🍦
Am looking forward to a fair fight. Good luck.
