Monday, September 30, 2024
Tories reject motherhood and apple pie again
Back then Leadsom was forced to withdraw from the Conservative leadership contest after she suggested in an interview with the Times that she would make a better prime minister than May because she had children, whereas her opponent had none. A firestorm ensued which threatened to sour the final, all-female leg of this contest and there was no coming back for the hapless South Northamptonshire MP.
Now, we have Kemi Badenoch telling an interviewer that maternity pay is “excessive” and people should exercise “more personal responsibility”:
The shadow communities secretary said one of the principles she was fighting her Tory leadership contest around was a call for the state to do less, as “the answer cannot be let the government help people to have babies”.
However, she has since clarified her remarks, saying she does “believe in maternity pay”.
Badenoch said on X: “Contrary to what some have said, I clearly said the burden of regulation on businesses had gone too far … of course I believe in maternity pay!”
Earlier, in an interview with Times Radio, she was asked if she thought maternity pay was at the right level.
Badenoch said: “Maternity pay varies, depending on who you work for. But statutory maternity pay is a function of tax, tax comes from people who are working. We’re taking from one group of people and giving to another. This, in my view, is excessive.
“Businesses are closing, businesses are not starting in the UK, because they say that the burden of regulation is too high.”
Asked again if she thought maternity pay was excessive, Badenoch replied: “I think it’s gone too far the other way, in terms of general business regulation. We need to allow businesses, especially small businesses, to make more of those decisions.
“The exact amount of maternity pay, in my view, is neither here nor there. We need to make sure that we are creating an environment where people can work and people can have more freedom to make their own decisions.”
The Tory leadership hopeful was told that the current level of maternity pay was necessary for people who could not afford to have a baby without it.
Badenoch replied: “We need to have more personal responsibility. There was a time when there wasn’t any maternity pay and people were having more babies.”
Can she defy the odds and avoid Leadsom's fate. We can only wait and see.
Sunday, September 29, 2024
Tory leadership chaos keeping Starmer afloat
However, as the Independent reports Labour’s standing with the public is holding firm despite a barrage of criticism for Keir Starmer and senior ministers over freebies, his chief of staff Sue Gray and unpopular policy decisions.
The paper says that the weekly Techne UK tracker poll reveals that after a difficult conference in Liverpool for Labour - overshadowed by questions about the prime minister’s integrity and infighting - the party is still at 32 per cent, down just one point:
Meanwhile the Tories, who go into their conference in disarray without a leader and overshadowed by the resignation of former chair Baroness Warsi, have failed to capitalise on Labour’s woes - going up just one point to 22 per cent.
Nigel Farage’s Reform are still challenging the Tories at 18 per cent, with the Lib Dems at 13 per cent and the Greens at 7 per cent - all unchanged.
The lack of movement comes despite ongoing questions about freebies for Starmer including £5,000 in clothes for his wife Victoria, the use of Lord Alli’s luxury flat during his son’s GCSEs, the failure to declare the use of the same flat during Covid, and free tickets to football matches and Taylor Swift concerts totalling £107,000 since 2019.
Sir Keir insisted he has been “transparent” despite being late to declare some gifts, while his deputy prime minister Angela Rayner who used a luxury penthouse in New York claimed “all MPs do it”.
Techne UK’s chief executive Michela Morizzo agreed the prolonged Tory leadership and lack of focus of the official opposition has helped Labour and Sir Keir hold on to support.
She said: “With the Labour Party conference now behind us, and as we look towards the Conservative Party conference this coming weekend, we notice some small changes in voting intention when compared to last week’s tracker poll.
“This small drop in Labour’s support is perhaps not unsurprising given the many problems the government is already facing. People pay great attention to what they expect from the new elected government and they expect to see the campaign’s promises become true very soon. Therefore the honeymoon is always shorter!
“It is still too early to draw any significant conclusions although what is apparent is even though the Labour Party seem beset by problems their vote share remains perhaps unexpectedly steady.”
The warning signs are though evident to see in the polls which find that trust in Labour is low with 42 per cent saying they would not vote in an election now, and 51 per cent saying they have no or little confidence in Starmer’s government.
Saturday, September 28, 2024
Cost of Senedd expansion rises
The broadcaster tells us that the Commission wants the extra money to deliver "the biggest change since devolution", as the number of Members of the Senedd (MSs) rises from 60 to 96 in 2026:
The commission will publish its draft budget later ahead of a vote on the proposals in November.
However, a briefing document provided to MSs and obtained by BBC Wales, shows it is seeking an overall budget of £84.3m for 2025-26, an increase of 16.7%.
It says this is necessary due to the coming together of a number of factors, including a commitment to increase public sector wages, pre-election costs as the Welsh Parliament heads towards the 2026 poll and maintenance work on Tŷ Hywel, the block behind the main Senedd building where MSs have their offices.
There are further costs associated with exploring possible options when the Senedd's current lease on Tŷ Hywel expires in 2032.
However, the key challenge facing the commission over the next year will be adapting offices and the Senedd building itself to accommodate 36 more MSs from 2026.
I have argued before that there is no justification for 96 members of the Senedd, and that a more realistic number is 80, which would enable MSs to do their job properly without adding significantly to the cost of supporting them.
This is also Welsh Liberal Democrats policy, so why the party's leader supports 96 members is a mystery.
Friday, September 27, 2024
Warsi quits Tories
The paper says that the Muslim peer was brought in as chair by David Cameron in 2010 to help detoxify the party’s brand and bring it into the 21st century, but since leaving government in 2014 Warsi has had a difficult relationship with the Tory leadership consistently calling out racism and islamophobia in the Conservative Party:
She has angered many recently as a passionate advocate for the suffering of Palestinians with Rishi Sunak as prime minister and the potential leadership candidates to replace him all supporting Israel instead of condemning the killing of 41,000 people in Gaza.
In a statement on X, formerly Twitter, Baroness Warsi said: “It is with a heavy heart that I have today informed my whip and decided for now to no longer take the Conservative whip.
“This is a sad day for me. I am a Conservative and remain so but sadly the current Party are far removed from the Party I joined and served in Cabinet.
“My decision is a reflection of how far right my Party has moved and the hypocrisy and double standards in its treatment of different communities.
“A timely reminder of the issues that I raise in my book Muslims Don’t Matter.”
The row seems to revolve around her agreeing that referring to ethnic minority Conservatives like Rishi Sunak as “coconuts” - a slur which means of colour on the outside and white on the inside - was an acceptable criticism. Wars pointed out that a trial against the person who had held up the banner, which many deemed racist, had ended in a not guilty verdict.
Baroness Warsi said: “I will not be gagged on a point of principle. And I am not prepared to play games behind closed doors.
“If Rishi Sunak’s party wants to retry and replay the coconut trial despite the acquittal of Marieha Hussain , the clear legal findings and the overwhelming expert witness testimonies then I wish to do so publicly and transparently.
“It would be unfair to do this whilst continuing to take the Conservatives whip.
“I realise I have the privilege of platform and I have decided to exercise that privilege by speaking truth to power.”
If the Tories cannot accommodate Baroness Warsi's views within their party then they really are in trouble.
Thursday, September 26, 2024
Labour's growing pains
It is clear that Starmer's Parliamentary army believe that taking tough decisions and making a virtue of them is the key to demonstrating that they are fit for government. Normally, I would agree, but this only applies if they take the right decisions for the right reasons.
The cuts to the winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners and the refusal to abolish the two-child cap on child benefit are demonstrably the wrong decisions, because they penalise the worst-off in our society to achieve a disputed fiscal outcome, while leaving the better-off untouched.
Now, it may well be that they plan to hit the asset-rich in the budget, but that does not excuse the undue haste to flex their governmental muscles at the expense of vulnerable groups in our society. And it seems that the wider Labour Party agree with that assessment.
The Independent reports that delegates at the annual Labour Party conference in Liverpool on Wednesday voted to reverse the introduction of “means-testing for the winter fuel allowance” as part of a union motion.
The paper says that the vote will be seen as a blow for Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, even though motions at the party conference are non-binding and the government is not required to respond to them, as it highlights a major division within the party over the controversial policy:
The motion, which was passed by a show of hands, said: “Britain cannot wait for growth, nor turn back to failed austerity.
“We need a vision where pensioners are not the first to face a new wave of cuts and those that profited from decades of deregulation finally help to rebuild Britain.”
It also calls for an end to the “fiscal rules which prevent borrowing to invest” brought in under the previous Tory government, as well as the introduction of wealth taxes to ensure there are “no further cuts to welfare provision for working people and pensioners”.
They propose taxing the top 1 per cent, equalising capital gains tax with income tax and imposing national insurance on investment income.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham has described the policy as “cruel”, urging the prime minister to admit he made a “misstep”.
She said: “The first thing Labour does is to take away the winter fuel allowance from the poorest in our society while they leave the wealthiest people pretty much untouched.”
Speaking ahead of the vote on Wednesday morning, Ms Graham said: “I do not understand how our new Labour government can cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and leave the super-rich untouched.
“This is not what people voted for. It is the wrong decision and needs to be reversed.
The impact of these decisions is already being reflected in the polls and on the doorstep. No wonder the wider Labour Party are nervous.
Now, it may well be that they plan to hit the asset-rich in the budget, but that does not excuse the undue haste to flex their governmental muscles at the expense of vulnerable groups in our society. And it seems that the wider Labour Party agree with that assessment.
The Independent reports that delegates at the annual Labour Party conference in Liverpool on Wednesday voted to reverse the introduction of “means-testing for the winter fuel allowance” as part of a union motion.
The paper says that the vote will be seen as a blow for Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, even though motions at the party conference are non-binding and the government is not required to respond to them, as it highlights a major division within the party over the controversial policy:
The motion, which was passed by a show of hands, said: “Britain cannot wait for growth, nor turn back to failed austerity.
“We need a vision where pensioners are not the first to face a new wave of cuts and those that profited from decades of deregulation finally help to rebuild Britain.”
It also calls for an end to the “fiscal rules which prevent borrowing to invest” brought in under the previous Tory government, as well as the introduction of wealth taxes to ensure there are “no further cuts to welfare provision for working people and pensioners”.
They propose taxing the top 1 per cent, equalising capital gains tax with income tax and imposing national insurance on investment income.
Unite general secretary Sharon Graham has described the policy as “cruel”, urging the prime minister to admit he made a “misstep”.
She said: “The first thing Labour does is to take away the winter fuel allowance from the poorest in our society while they leave the wealthiest people pretty much untouched.”
Speaking ahead of the vote on Wednesday morning, Ms Graham said: “I do not understand how our new Labour government can cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and leave the super-rich untouched.
“This is not what people voted for. It is the wrong decision and needs to be reversed.
The impact of these decisions is already being reflected in the polls and on the doorstep. No wonder the wider Labour Party are nervous.
Wednesday, September 25, 2024
Labour must tread carefully on new snoop powers
They say that a fraud, error and debt bill will require banks and other financial institutions to share data that may help identify benefit fraud as part of a package of measures designed to “catch fraudsters faster” and save £1.6bn over five years:
Campaigners warned ministers against adopting any legislation based too closely on the previous government’s widely criticised data protection and digital information bill, which had similar anti-benefit fraud aspirations.
When that bill – condemned by campaigners as an invasion of privacy likely to disproportionately affect older and disabled claimants – was passing through parliament Labour opposed amendments that required banks to share their customers’ data with the department to help it tackle benefit fraud.
The government said the new bill will include enhanced measures to protect vulnerable claimants, and establish safeguards to ensure the new powers are not misused by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The DWP said: “Staff will be trained to the highest standards on the appropriate use of any new powers, and we will introduce new oversight and reporting mechanisms, to monitor these new powers. DWP will not have access to people’s bank accounts and will not share their personal information with third parties.”
'''
Silkie Carlo, Big Brother Watch’s director, said: “Everyone wants fraud to be dealt with, and the government already has strong powers to investigate the bank statements of suspects.
“But to force banks to constantly spy on benefits recipients without suspicion means that not only millions of disabled people, pensioners and carers will be actively spied on but the whole population’s bank accounts are likely to be monitored for no good reason.
She added: “A financial snooper’s charter targeted to automate suspicion of our country’s poorest is intrusive, unjustified and risks Horizon-style injustice on a mass scale.”
Crossbench peer Beeban Kidron said she hoped the new government was not proposing to resurrect the “egregious proposals” made by the last one. She said: “If the government introduces spyware as previously proposed, I will oppose it with the ferocity that Labour colleagues in opposition did.”
Caroline Selman, a researcher for the Public Law Project charity, said the bill raised questions about whether ministers had learned lessons from the last proposal. “If they are serious about building trust in government use of technology, introducing invasive powers of surveillance with a high risk of harm is not the way to do it,” she said.
Important as it is to tackle fraud the new Labour government need to tread carefully here, and make sure that they get it right.
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Paranoid Labour look for scapegoats
The reaction of several senior cabinet members has been to single out the top civil servant in Whitehall as a potential source of the briefings and call for his sacking.
The Independent reports that Keir Starmer is being urged by several cabinet ministers to sack the top civil servant in Whitehall immediately and stamp his authority on the new Labour government:
Knives are out for cabinet secretary Simon Case, who has been accused of undermining the prime minister and being responsible for briefings against his chief of staff Sue Gray.
One exasperated cabinet minister said: “He [Case] has got to go now.”
Mr Case has denied any inappropriate behaviour and has been put in charge of investigating how damaging leaks at No 10 occurred, including the news that Ms Gray’s salary eclipses the PM’s. Earlier this week the prime minister’s spokesman also said he was satisfied Mr Case was not behind the leaks.
Senior ministers have spoken of their frustration at the seemingly non-stop briefings against the fledgling Labour government which are threatening to destabilise it.
One minister accused Mr Case of “poisoning the well of government” and said his planned departure from government must “be done now with immediate effect to show Keir’s authority and to stop the damage and distraction”.
Another minister told The Independent they have personally raised their concerns with the prime minister and said Mr Case “really should go now”.
Others consider Mr Case’s relationship with Ms Gray to be too corrosive and have accused him of briefing against Ms Gray.
“Case is scheduled to leave at the end of the year having been forced earlier to take six weeks leave, but another 12 weeks of infighting is not viable,” said one insider.
It seems that gaining power is synonymous with paranoia. It's just that nobody expected it to set in so early.
Monday, September 23, 2024
Freebie Rollercoaster
The paper has carried out a trawl of what, to my mind, are pretty difficult spreadsheets on the Parliamentaru website, to establish that more than £700,000 worth of free gifts and hospitality was received by MPs in the past year for everything from Taylor Swift tickets to a helicopter ride.
These figures are based on data from the MPs’ register of interests between September 2023 and August 2024, and come during a growing furore around the acceptance of gifts by the prime minister and his inner circle:
On Friday, the prime minister pledged that he, Rachel Reeves and Angela Rayner will not accept any more free clothes from donors in an effort to draw a line under the debacle.
The Conservatives have been critical of the number of gifts received by senior Labour figures and called for a full investigation into Starmer’s potential breaches of the rules.
But Conservative MPs have also significantly benefited in gifts from wealthy benefactors – 141 Tory MPs received £359,891 in free gifts, including tickets paid for by the water industry and thousands of pounds of clay-pigeon shoots and helicopter rides from wealthy donors, according to Observer analysis. In the same period, 118 Labour MPs netted £298,151 worth of gifts.
Nearly £80,000 of the total amount of freebies was given to MPs since the election in July, mostly to newly elected MPs.
One of the biggest categories of freebies was football tickets or gigs hosted at football stadiums, which came to £96,000 in the last year.
Free tickets have largely come from the Premier League and its football club members, many of whom are lobbying against Labour’s plans for a new independent regulator for the sport.
Starmer himself has received thousands of pounds of corporate hospitality tickets to watch Arsenal games in the last year, a move he said was necessary due to security concerns about him sitting in the stands.
One of the other significant spenders, the gambling industry, spent more than £20,000 on gifts for MPs over the last year.
While corporate hospitality passes to football games, golf tournaments and tennis matches were common, 11 MPs also received more than £17,000 worth of free tickets to Taylor Swift’s Eras tour.
The standard defence being trotted out by Labour ministers is that the acceptance of all this largesse is within the rules. I am not sure that this reasoning resonates at all with the average voter.
If these politicians can't see how this looks to pensioners who have been denied their winter fuel allowance and are struggling to heat their home, a single mother with more tha two children who has been denied child benefit, or to the tens of millions of workers in this country whose pay has not kept up with inflation and are reliant on in-work benefits, then they don't deserve to be sitting in the House of Commons in the first place.
Donors are largely after influence, which is why many of them give these gifts in the first place. Is that really an appropriate way to conduct our public affairs?
Many would have no problem with donations to individuals and political parties to help pay for election and campaign expenses, because the alternative would either be state funding or confining representative politics to the filthy rich, but there is no justification for all these gifts and corporate hospitality. The rules should be changed, and soon.
Donors are largely after influence, which is why many of them give these gifts in the first place. Is that really an appropriate way to conduct our public affairs?
Many would have no problem with donations to individuals and political parties to help pay for election and campaign expenses, because the alternative would either be state funding or confining representative politics to the filthy rich, but there is no justification for all these gifts and corporate hospitality. The rules should be changed, and soon.
Sunday, September 22, 2024
Money for nothing
The paper adds that the Active Travel Fund, established in 2018, helps local authorities develop and deliver improvements to active travel infrastructure and related facilities like adding cycling and walking paths. They say that this fund or equivalent expenditure by local authorities increased significantly between 2018-19 and 2023-24, from £20 million to £46 million:
Total expenditure in the period was £218 million with another £65 million allocated by Welsh Government to its key active travel initiatives in 2024-25.
But Audit Wales says the "limited information" available suggests active travel rates have not improved in recent years, with headline walking rates below pre-pandemic levels. In 2022-23, 51% of people said they walked at least once a week for active travel purposes and 6% cycled. The figure for walking compares with 60% in 2019-20 while cycling rates have remained broadly static.
The report highlights various issues and areas for improvement, including around target setting, the extent to which active travel has been integrated across wider policies and programmes and prioritised locally, national leadership arrangements, capacity issues in local authorities, and the approach to and prioritisation of funding. It also emphasises that the building of physical infrastructure has not been accompanied by a strong enough focus on awareness raising and behaviour change.
They added: "Alongside this, approaches to monitoring and evaluation do not currently go far enough to enable robust tracking of progress or an overall assessment of value for money. The (Active Travel) Act’s reporting requirements are not being met consistently and a Welsh Government review of the Act is overdue. The report emphasises the importance of the Welsh Government now delivering with its partners on the new delivery plan. This includes work on a new monitoring and evaluation framework and a new assessment and funding framework to support delivery."
Auditor General Adrian Crompton said: "The Welsh Government needs to reflect on why, in over a decade, the Active Travel (Wales) Act and the arrangements to support delivery have not yet had the desired impact. Various factors influence active travel behaviour across a range of policy areas.
"The importance of being able to put value for money to the test through strengthened monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, reflects a recurring theme from my wider audit work. Without better supporting evidence, the risk is that doing more of the same, including in how funding is prioritised, may simply produce the same results."
To use a well-worn cliché, you can lead them to water, but you can't make them drink.
Saturday, September 21, 2024
Labour's opposition hypocrisy revealed
There are two examples of this hypocrisy. The first is over Tata Steel.
On this issue, Martin Shipton on Nation Cymru, writes that the outcome of the Labour government's negotiations with Tata Steel over the company’s plan for its Port Talbot plant illustrates dishonest behaviour.
He points out that in cash terms, the deal accepted by the UK Government, under which two blast furnaces are shut, 2,500 jobs are lost and the company will be given £500m towards the cost of building an electric arc furnace on the site, is identical to that accepted by the previous Conservative government. And yet senior Labour figures pulled no punches at the time in attacking the Tories at the time.
He provides examples of Shadow Welsh Secretary, Jo Stevens calling Tory Ministers short-sighted for squandering the potential of the Welsh economy by abandoning steelmaking in Port Talbot.
He provides examples of Shadow Welsh Secretary, Jo Stevens calling Tory Ministers short-sighted for squandering the potential of the Welsh economy by abandoning steelmaking in Port Talbot.
She said then that the deep cuts to jobs at TATA are a kick in the teeth and accused ministers of compounding the risk to livelihoods, by effectively forking out £500m in taxpayers’ money to make up to 3,000 people redundant and forfeiting our ability to make virgin steel:
“Their attitude shows a casual indifference to thousands of people across south Wales whose livelihoods are at stake, a fundamental misunderstanding of the regional economy, and total disregard for the need to preserve the UK’s sovereign steelmaking capability. The truth is their approach is totally self-defeating. However Tory ministers try to spin it, the loss of sovereign steelmaking is a fundamental threat to our economy and security.”
And then there is Vaughan Gething, who, when he was standing for the leadership of Welsh Labour as Economy Minister, said the UK Government’s £500m package to help Tata transition to produce more environmentally-friendly steel was not enough to save thousands of jobs.
“Their attitude shows a casual indifference to thousands of people across south Wales whose livelihoods are at stake, a fundamental misunderstanding of the regional economy, and total disregard for the need to preserve the UK’s sovereign steelmaking capability. The truth is their approach is totally self-defeating. However Tory ministers try to spin it, the loss of sovereign steelmaking is a fundamental threat to our economy and security.”
And then there is Vaughan Gething, who, when he was standing for the leadership of Welsh Labour as Economy Minister, said the UK Government’s £500m package to help Tata transition to produce more environmentally-friendly steel was not enough to save thousands of jobs.
He told a press conference that the shedding of about 2,500 jobs was “genuinely avoidable” if the UK Government would “engage” with the Welsh Government. Martin Shipton is scathing about this about-turn by Labour Ministers:
Yet Tata had made it abundantly clear time and time again that the only deal acceptable to it was the one that had already been accepted by what is now the former Tory UK government. Labour politicians were well aware of that, but chose to keep the charade going. Eventually, as was inevitable, the emptiness of their supposedly tough talk was exposed when they accepted the terms of the original deal, which is now being implemented.
By pretending that a better deal could be achieved, Ms Stevens and Mr Gething were undoubtedly offering false hope to the steelworkers of Port Talbot.
Yet Tata had made it abundantly clear time and time again that the only deal acceptable to it was the one that had already been accepted by what is now the former Tory UK government. Labour politicians were well aware of that, but chose to keep the charade going. Eventually, as was inevitable, the emptiness of their supposedly tough talk was exposed when they accepted the terms of the original deal, which is now being implemented.
By pretending that a better deal could be achieved, Ms Stevens and Mr Gething were undoubtedly offering false hope to the steelworkers of Port Talbot.
It is difficult to disagree with his conclusion that politicians who raise false hopes in communities, especially in the run-up to an election, are reprehensible and not to be trusted.
And then there is HS2, where. waleson-line report that the Labour-led Treasury has confirmed it will not recategorise the HS2 rail project, nor pay millions of pounds in a consequential to Wales.
The main reason for this of course is that the Welsh Labour government declined the offer to take resposnibility for railway infrastructure in Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland did take on this responsibility and as a result got a Barnett consequential for HS2.
Because Wales passed on the opporunity any investment in rail infrastructure is classed as England and Wales, even if the track goes nowhere near Welsh territory. This, though, did not stop Labour politicians tearing into the Tories on the issue:
There has been a debate about exactly how much Wales has lost out on. Plaid Cymru had said it could be as much as £4bn, but earlier this year, Wales' then finance minister, Rebecca Evans, said the amount Wales had lost out on was £350m.
She told the Senedd: "£350 million has been lost to Wales as a result of the misclassification of HS2. We’ll continue to press the UK Government – any UK Government – to reclassify HS2 as an England-only project and to provide us with our fair share of the consequential funding."
Mrs Evans explained: "When we first saw the HS2 project, as originally envisaged, then we could be looking at those higher figures, in the billions of pounds, and we've used them ourselves as Welsh Government. But as the project became smaller and smaller, and looking at what's been delivered over the period since the project started, then the figure, I don't think it could be argued, is £350 million."
In October 2023, Mark Drakeford had said his government was considering all options, including possible legal action over Wales not receiving additional cash due to spending on HS2 in England.
The following year, in the Senedd, Mr Drakeford - then First Minister - said: "If, as we keep reading, HS2 is to be cancelled from Birmingham to Manchester, then the fiction on which the UK Government has relied that, somehow, that line is of advantage to Wales will be completely exploded. At that point, we need to have the Barnett consequential of the money that has been spent to date".
After Rishi Sunak scrapped the rail scheme, Mr Drakeford said: "The UK Government now needs to step up and give Wales the money we are already owed from this failed project."
After all this it surely would be reasonable for the newly appointed Labour Ministers to send the missing cash to Wales. Alas it is not to be, with Jo Stevens now saying: "We cannot go back in time and change the way that project was commissioned, managed and classified by the previous Conservative Government."
But isn't that why you were elected in the first place?
In these matters as in many others, don't believe what they say, believe what they do.
There has been a debate about exactly how much Wales has lost out on. Plaid Cymru had said it could be as much as £4bn, but earlier this year, Wales' then finance minister, Rebecca Evans, said the amount Wales had lost out on was £350m.
She told the Senedd: "£350 million has been lost to Wales as a result of the misclassification of HS2. We’ll continue to press the UK Government – any UK Government – to reclassify HS2 as an England-only project and to provide us with our fair share of the consequential funding."
Mrs Evans explained: "When we first saw the HS2 project, as originally envisaged, then we could be looking at those higher figures, in the billions of pounds, and we've used them ourselves as Welsh Government. But as the project became smaller and smaller, and looking at what's been delivered over the period since the project started, then the figure, I don't think it could be argued, is £350 million."
In October 2023, Mark Drakeford had said his government was considering all options, including possible legal action over Wales not receiving additional cash due to spending on HS2 in England.
The following year, in the Senedd, Mr Drakeford - then First Minister - said: "If, as we keep reading, HS2 is to be cancelled from Birmingham to Manchester, then the fiction on which the UK Government has relied that, somehow, that line is of advantage to Wales will be completely exploded. At that point, we need to have the Barnett consequential of the money that has been spent to date".
After Rishi Sunak scrapped the rail scheme, Mr Drakeford said: "The UK Government now needs to step up and give Wales the money we are already owed from this failed project."
After all this it surely would be reasonable for the newly appointed Labour Ministers to send the missing cash to Wales. Alas it is not to be, with Jo Stevens now saying: "We cannot go back in time and change the way that project was commissioned, managed and classified by the previous Conservative Government."
But isn't that why you were elected in the first place?
In these matters as in many others, don't believe what they say, believe what they do.
Friday, September 20, 2024
Welsh Labour's half empty echo chamber
In these circumstances, surely it is reasonable for Welsh Ministers to at least express some regret or remorse for those pensioners in Wales who will be struggling to heat their homes this winter.
However, the general reaction of Labour MSs when asked to condemn the means testing of the winter fuel payments very much looks like one of denial.
The BBC reports that Social Justice Secretary, Jane Hutt stood up in the Senedd and defended cuts to winter fuel payments for most pensioners.
When Labour in the Senedd were challenged to back calls for the UK government to reverse the plans, and were warned that the cut will have a "devastating impact" with an estimated 500,000 losing up to £300 this winter. Jane Hutt said "difficult decisions" were being taken because of a £22bn "black hole" in UK public finances.
This is, of course, true but every financial decision is a choice and there were alternatives that wouldn't have left so many pensioners having to choose between eating and heating.
Perhaps the real tell is the fact that only two Labour MSs spoke in the debate, while most of the others missed the debate altogether. This loyalty to the UK government is misplaced. It is time that Welsh Labour stands up for the people they represent.
However, the general reaction of Labour MSs when asked to condemn the means testing of the winter fuel payments very much looks like one of denial.
The BBC reports that Social Justice Secretary, Jane Hutt stood up in the Senedd and defended cuts to winter fuel payments for most pensioners.
When Labour in the Senedd were challenged to back calls for the UK government to reverse the plans, and were warned that the cut will have a "devastating impact" with an estimated 500,000 losing up to £300 this winter. Jane Hutt said "difficult decisions" were being taken because of a £22bn "black hole" in UK public finances.
This is, of course, true but every financial decision is a choice and there were alternatives that wouldn't have left so many pensioners having to choose between eating and heating.
Perhaps the real tell is the fact that only two Labour MSs spoke in the debate, while most of the others missed the debate altogether. This loyalty to the UK government is misplaced. It is time that Welsh Labour stands up for the people they represent.
Thursday, September 19, 2024
Not all Tories like Rwanda
The paper says that, even as two Tory leadership rivals plan to reinstate the scheme, ex-Tory PM Sir John Major has lashed out at it as "odious" and "un-British":
Sir John described the costly project as "un-Christian" and said it is "not the way to treat people". He warned the Conservatives against lurching to the far-right and said a merger with Reform UK would be "fatal". One of Keir Starmer's first acts after the General Election was to torpedo the project, which was set to cost taxpayers billions of pounds in the coming years.
Despite MPs reacting with horror when the huge sums spent were revealed, two Tory leadership candidates - Robert Jenrick and James Cleverly - say they want to resurrect it. Sir John, who was Prime Minister from 1990 to 1997, said: "I thought it was un-Conservative, un-British, if one dare say in a secular society, un-Christian, and unconscionable and I thought that this is really not the way to treat people."
And he hit out at claims it would discourage small boat crossings. The former PM told the BBC: "Are they seriously saying to me that somewhere in the backwoods of some North Africa country, they actually know what the British Parliament has legislated for? I think not."
He went on to brand the scheme "odious". The project is set to be a key battleground as leadership candidates try and woo the party membership. Mr Jenrick was the first to say he'd bring the Rwanda scheme back, before former Home Secretary Mr Cleverly said he would “resurrect that incredibly important partnership”.
Sir John urged the party to focus on centre-right voters, saying this is ""where our natural support really lies". He pointed out that the party lost more seats to Labour and the Lib Dems than to Reform.
He said: "We lost five [seats] to Reform UK and people are jumping up and down, and some, rather reckless people are saying, well we must merge with them. Well, that will be fatal."
And it is not just that the schene is immoral. It is also expensive and based upon a legislative fantasy as the paper sets out:
Last month The Mirror revealed that officials in the Foreign Office were drawing up a communications plan preparing for war to break out in Rwanda - even as Tories voted it was a safe country. Former Foreign Secretary David Cameron was briefed on a strategy demanding civilians were protected and aid allowed in.
Memos obtained by this newspaper show preparations were underway in the Foreign Office in case tensions between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) escalated. One email, sent on January 17, shows Lord Cameron and his deputy, Andrew Mitchell, were warned of "heightened regional tensions" after troops crossed the border into Rwanda. But on the very same day, Rishi Sunak's Safety of Rwanda Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons with no mention of growing war fears.
In July Ms Cooper told MPs that £700million had been spent on the project. And she went on to say that a further £10billion was set to be ploughed into the scheme in coming years.
No wonder Cleverly and Jenrick lack all credibility in trying to resurrect the plan.
Wednesday, September 18, 2024
Brexit is ‘stifling’ exports and imports
The paper says that modelling by the economists has estimated that annual exports to the EU are 17 per cent lower and imports 23 per cent behind where they would have been if Brexit had not occurred, with negative impacts increasing during 2023:
“The findings reveal a sharp decline in both UK exports and imports with the EU, underscoring the enduring challenges posed by Brexit on the UK’s trade competitiveness,” the authors wrote in the paper published on Tuesday.
Its findings are likely to fuel calls for the government to be more ambitious in improving trade ties with Brussels.
The research was led by Jun Du, a professor of economics at Aston who has modelled Brexit impacts since the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) came into force in January 2021.
Labour has ruled out rejoining the EU single market or forming a customs union, but promised in its manifesto to “tear down” barriers to trade with Europe by seeking other improvements.
These include a so-called veterinary agreement to reduce border checks on plant and food products, a deal to improve access for touring musicians, and steps to make it easier for UK professionals such as architects and lawyers to practise in the EU.
The UK wants to reduce border checks on trade with the EU involving plant and food products © Neil Hall/EPA/Shutterstock The research paper examined the extent to which Brexit had impacted individual sectors including agrifoods, wood, textiles and footwear, with larger companies in sectors such as autos and aerospace showing relatively more resilience to Brexit effects.
“These findings [indicate] the profound and ongoing stifling effects of the TCA on UK-EU trade,” it added. “The analysis reveals a heavily disrupted and weakening UK-EU supply chain post-TCA.”
The Aston University research builds on work by economists at the Resolution Foundation think-tank that warned that Brexit was squeezing the UK out of higher-productivity manufacturing activities that were reliant on integration with EU supply chains.
Sophie Hale, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said the findings show the “economic damage is far from over”, though it is unclear how much of the decline is caused by shifting to new trading arrangements, and how much is because of regulatory divergence with the EU.
“Either way, what is clear is the urgent need for Labour to act quickly on their UK-EU reset strategy to prevent further deterioration and protect the UK’s economic interests,” she added.
The research used sophisticated economic modelling to create a “synthetic UK”, sometimes known as a doppelgänger UK, that “exports and imports identically to the UK, but did not experience the change in its trade relationships with the EU”.
John Springford, a trade economist at the Centre for European Reform think-tank, said that while Du’s results differed from some other academic studies, the findings were in keeping with overall trade data.
“Jun Du and her colleagues’ paper fits with what we know in the aggregate data about UK goods trade: exports and imports to all destinations, in both the EU and the rest of the world, have grown more slowly than peer economies,” he said.
Of particular concern is Du’s finding that the UK’s relative performance in goods trade had deteriorated in 2023 when compared with similar economies, he added.
Du said the government should focus on three key areas to improve trade ties: specific sectoral negotiations in areas such as agrifoods and textiles, better use of digital technologies to streamline border transactions, and closer regulatory alignment with the EU.
The onus has to be on the new Labour government to sort this out, with rejoining the single market high on the agenda.
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
What's next?
Andrew Rawnsley in the Guardian is clear that the path ahead of us is littered with difficult choices that could make or break the party.
He says that we will have to sober up and do some intelligent thinking about how we use and retain our much enlarged parliamentary presence. That will include fortifying our gains so they don’t turn into losses come the next general election when the context will be very different.
He points out that when voters who plumped for the Lib Dems in July were asked why they made that choice, less than a tenth of them said they always supported the party, while among those who had previously voted Conservative, just 9% said they could not see themselves voting for the Tories again in future. So we are far from impregnable in our new constituencies. And the big question is how we will position ourselves in the next four years:
Will they oppose Labour from the left or the right? Here they have a dilemma. Sir Ed regards himself as a man of the centre-left. Most Lib Dem activists are left-leaning. Yet their MPs now represent swathes of Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Wiltshire and other parts of prosperous southern England.
Some of the country’s wealthiest constituencies have a Lib Dem MP, including Witney, which used to send David Cameron to the Commons, and Maidenhead, held for 27 years by Theresa May. A Lib Dem MP represents Henley, previously Tory since 1910 and responsible for putting Boris Johnson in parliament. Not every voter in these seats is well-off, but they do contain many more of the affluent than the average. They’ll feel the increases in taxes related to wealth that Rachel Reeves plans to announce in her first budget at the end of October. Sir Ed and his party demand more funding for their favoured causes, especially care. To be consistent, you’d expect them to be supportive of some tax increases on those with the broadest shoulders. But that will mean getting behind revenue-raisers, which aren’t likely to be terribly popular among many of the well-heeled folk they now represent.
Sir Ed tells friends that he sees it as part of his role to push Labour “to be more ambitious”. Thus far he has tended to have a go at the government not from the right, but from the left. One of the perks of replacing the SNP as Westminster’s third largest party is that the Lib Dem leader gets the automatic right to put two questions to the prime minister at every PMQs. He’s used them to cajole Sir Keir Starmer to make the carer’s allowance more generous, raise money for public spending by increasing taxes on banks, and attacked taking the winter fuel payment away from 10 million pensioners. Sir Ed calls this the government’s “first big mistake”. A lot of Labour MPs would nod along to that. The Lib Dems also oppose retaining the two-child limit on benefits. Should they want to take them, there will be more opportunities for the Lib Dems to take a jab at the government when it reveals the tough choices it says it will have to make about spending on public services and welfare. Is it a viable long-term strategy for the Lib Dems to press Labour from the left while aspiring to take more seats from the Conservatives? There has to be some doubt about that.
A fundamental question the Lib Dems have to ask themselves is whether they want the Starmer government to succeed or fail. History suggests that they should prefer it to do well because their electoral fortunes are often linked. When Labour governments become unpopular with Middle England, their defeats are usually accompanied by falling support for the third party. That happened in 1951, 1970 and 1979. One veteran Lib Dem says: “If you ask me, in hard political terms, ‘do we want them (Labour) to fuck up?’, the answer is no.” How to be an impactful opposition when the Lib Dems probably need Labour to do all right? That is one of the tricky conundrums that will face Sir Ed and his party when they float back down to earth.
The party cannot keep walking a tightrope between left and right. We need to plan for the inevitable return of Tory voters to the fold. More importantly we have to understand that we cannot replace the Tories as an opposition while tacking to the left.
In my opinion, our place on the political spectrum is as a radical centre left party. We need to find a way to make that work while holding onto all that we gained in July.
Monday, September 16, 2024
A quiet conference
The Guardian reports that low interest is challenging organisers of the Conservatives annual get-together, with business day tickets still not sold, speakers reluctant to engage and attenders dialling back their time:
The experience of losing power is a brutal business. The ministerial cars disappear, the armies of advisers disperse and the utterances of newly former ministers cease to dominate the airwaves. Now the Conservative party is suffering from another symptom of its dramatic ejection from office: a somewhat suppressed level of interest in its party conference, usually the jewel in the crown of the Tory calendar.
Figures involved in organising events and talks at the conference report it has been a struggle in the wake of the Conservatives’ historic defeat. Organisers are pushing back deadlines and offering to help chase reluctant speakers for fringe events, a source close to the party has told the Observer.
Unlike last year, the Conservatives are no longer offering their own dedicated streaming platform for those who wish to watch the fringe events live, which some regard as a sign of a lack of interest. Previously those interested in viewing the events had to obtain a pass. This year, the fringe will be less exclusive, with most talks simply going “straight to YouTube”.
One source, who wished to remain anonymous, added that many former senior Tories said they would not be attending this year. And while Labour’s “business day” tickets sold out in hours, with the great and the good of the corporate world keen to rub shoulders with the new government, the Tories are still trying to sell theirs – despite conference season starting this weekend with the Lib Dems in Brighton.
It’s not just Labour’s landslide victory that has fostered this lack of interest. The upcoming leadership contest has caused apprehension that internal party matters will dominate the conference, according to Jon McLeod, a partner at the strategic communications consultancy DRD Partnership. “I’ve been a lobbyist for 30 years,” he said. “I first went to the Tory conference in ’94. I’m not going this year – it’s the first time in 30 years I’ve not been.
“Not out of any mean-spiritedness – it’s partly because they’ve got the leadership parade and it’s difficult to work out materially what the candidates want.
“Businesses don’t feel very grateful to the Conservative party for the last five years of instability. There is not much appetite to hear four cats mewing.”
It seems you reap what you sew in politics.
Sunday, September 15, 2024
Calling them out
That is something that main stream leaders like Sunak and Starmer have notoriously failed to do for fear of alienating their target audience, thus allowing misinformation and harmful propaganda to persist unchallenged.
This article in the Guardian details one of those events that need more publicity so that the public can see the sort of people that Reform MPs are consorting with.
The paper says that Farage has embarked on another trip to the US, where he is speaking at an event alongside a leading far-right Austrian politician whose party has opposed sanctions against Russia:
The event on Friday evening in Chicago is the Reform leader’s third visit to the US in little more than two months since he was elected MP.
Farage is listed as the main speaker at a benefit event for the Heartland Institute, an Illinois-based rightwing thinktank which is a denier of human-created climate change. Its president, James Taylor, who is also speaking, has called climate change “a sham”. Tables at the dinner cost up to $50,000 (£38,000) each to reserve.
It has now emerged that another speaker listed at the dinner is Harald Vilimsky, a veteran figure in Austria’s far-right Freedom party, who leads the party’s representation in the European parliament.
In 2016, the Freedom party signed what was described as a cooperation pact with President Putin’s United Russia party. While the Austrian party says this is no longer in operation, it has been accused of sympathy with Russia.
However, the Freedom party has argued against sanctions on Russia, and Vilimisky has expressed opposition to the idea of Ukraine potentially joining the EU.
During the UK election, Farage faced criticism for his own views about Russia after he said that the EU and Nato “provoked” Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine by expanding eastwards.
Farage, who was elected to represent Clacton in Essex on 4 July, went to the Republican national convention in Milwaukee two weeks after the general election, and spoke at an event in Arizona in August, events his aides said had been booked long before he was elected.
This is no longer about Farage's absences from Clacton but the sort of people he consorts with and the views he holds that appear to be opposed to the best interests of the UK.
This article in the Guardian details one of those events that need more publicity so that the public can see the sort of people that Reform MPs are consorting with.
The paper says that Farage has embarked on another trip to the US, where he is speaking at an event alongside a leading far-right Austrian politician whose party has opposed sanctions against Russia:
The event on Friday evening in Chicago is the Reform leader’s third visit to the US in little more than two months since he was elected MP.
Farage is listed as the main speaker at a benefit event for the Heartland Institute, an Illinois-based rightwing thinktank which is a denier of human-created climate change. Its president, James Taylor, who is also speaking, has called climate change “a sham”. Tables at the dinner cost up to $50,000 (£38,000) each to reserve.
It has now emerged that another speaker listed at the dinner is Harald Vilimsky, a veteran figure in Austria’s far-right Freedom party, who leads the party’s representation in the European parliament.
In 2016, the Freedom party signed what was described as a cooperation pact with President Putin’s United Russia party. While the Austrian party says this is no longer in operation, it has been accused of sympathy with Russia.
However, the Freedom party has argued against sanctions on Russia, and Vilimisky has expressed opposition to the idea of Ukraine potentially joining the EU.
During the UK election, Farage faced criticism for his own views about Russia after he said that the EU and Nato “provoked” Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine by expanding eastwards.
Farage, who was elected to represent Clacton in Essex on 4 July, went to the Republican national convention in Milwaukee two weeks after the general election, and spoke at an event in Arizona in August, events his aides said had been booked long before he was elected.
This is no longer about Farage's absences from Clacton but the sort of people he consorts with and the views he holds that appear to be opposed to the best interests of the UK.
He is perfectly entitled to hold those views, but why doesn't he spell them out more starkly to his electors the next time he is in Clacton.
Saturday, September 14, 2024
Nice work if you can get it
They say that Ross Kempsell – now Lord Kempsell – is listed as the sole director of the firm Hyannis Strategy, which also has a contract with news channel GB News, which the ex-Tory leader is due to join as a presenter and commentator:
The elevation of Lord Kempsell, Mr Johnson’s former spokesman and tennis partner, to the House of Lords attracted claims of cronyism from Labour. He took up his seat in July last year.
Lord Kempsell, who was reportedly involved in “Operation Save Big Dog”, the fight to keep Mr Johnson in office in the wake of the Partygate scandal, is also a former journalist and friends with Carrie Johnson..
Last week the The Independent revealed that the woman Mr Johnson made Britain’s youngest peer has a plum new job at an environmental consultancy chaired by the ex-PM.
Charlotte Owen, now Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge after she entered the Lords at just 30 years of age, has been appointed vice-president of the company Better Earth.
There is no suggestion Lord Kempsell has done anything wrong.
Companies House shows Hyannis Strategy, formerly Good Night and Good Luck Media, has assets of more than £2m and just one director, who is named as “Mr. Ross Kempsell”.
The £2m figure is for accounts for the year up to the end of October 2023. The previous year’s accounts show assets of £1.
Lord Kempsell’s register of interests in the Lords list the company’s current clients as the Office of Boris Johnson Limited, the Policy Exchange think tank, and GB News.
It is understood that the accounts listed at Companies House are for PR work done before Lord Kempsell took up his seat in the Lords and do not include PR work for Mr Johnson.
The register of interests shows Lord Kempsell is also the CEO and founder of a business called Maple Research Limited as well as the founder of Arcani Intelligence Ltd, which is described as providing media advice and business intelligence.
He is also a senior adviser at WJL Partners LLP and a member of the media advisory board of Grayling, a PR and public affairs agency.
The register also shows he visited Israel last year with part of the costs paid for by Jamie Reuben, a property developer and major Tory donor, who previously funded Mr Johnson’s leadership campaign.
Charlotte Owen, also enobled by Boris Johnson has become the vice president of the green consultancy of which the ex-PM is a co-chair (UK Parliament)
A visit to Bahrain was paid for by the government of Bahrain, which also hosted him in the Royal Box at the Royal Windsor Horse Show, while a trip to Doha paid for in part by the government of Qatar.
Lord Kempsell also received a ticket and hospitality from Turkish Airlines and the Turkish government to attend the Champions League final at Wembley.
Lord Kempsell and Lady Owen both appeared on Mr Johnson’s controversial resignation honours list, which prompted a political storm with Labour calling those listed a “carousel of Boris Johnson’s cronies”.
Last week The Independent revealed that Lady Owen had become the vice-president of the green consultancy of which Mr Jonnson is co-chair, despite not having a background in environmental work.
Sometimes it does help to know the right people.
Friday, September 13, 2024
Nanny State?
There is no better illustration of this than the agenda being set out by Keir Starmer and his health secretary to stop us harming ourselves in an effort to save the NHS.
As the Guardian reports, plans to ban junk food ads and to stop children buying high-caffeine energy drinks are among radical public health measures being drawn up by ministers to prevent illness:
Junk food advertisements will be banned from television before the 9pm watershed, the government has announced. Online ads for products that are high in fat, salt and sugar will be banned altogether. Both measures, which are intended to help tackle childhood obesity, will come into force in a year’s time.
Plans to ban children from buying high-caffeine energy drinks, which form part of the same public health drive and appeared in Labour’s election manifesto, are expected to be announced next month.
In the coming months, the government plans to introduce a strengthened tobacco and vapes bill, which is likely to extend the indoor smoking ban to pub beer gardens.
Ministers are also looking at expanding water fluoridation to improve dental health, and giving councils enhanced powers to block the development of fast-food outlets near schools to tackle obesity. Further measures are being looked at, with government officials canvassing the public health sector for policy ideas.
This amounts to a massive power grab by the UK government, direction and control, rather than persuasion and education. It is the same old Labour.
Thursday, September 12, 2024
Renters Rights Bill long overdue
The paper says that this latest addition to the bill goes further than Labour promised while in opposition, being designed to keep a lid on the rapid increase in rents that has contributed to the housing crisis, especially in the south of England:
The bill will also stop landlords barring tenants from keeping pets unless they have good reason to do so, and will force them to give four months’ notice before evicting someone because they need to sell the property, house a family member or move back in.
Further measures published on Wednesday include banning landlords from evicting a tenant in the first year of a tenancy and compelling them to give at least two months’ notice before raising the rent.
They add that the move is designed to dampen the rampant rent rises in the private market and stop people being priced out:
In the year to July, average private-sector rents in England increased 8.6%, while in London that figure was 9.7%. Recent figures from Rightmove suggest there are now 17 households bidding for each advertised rental property.
All this is very welcome, however, even though it is still early days, it would be good too to hear what the government's plans are for leasehold properties, which are another source of unfairness in the housing market.
Wednesday, September 11, 2024
Over half of pensioners will heat their homes less this winter
An opinion poll carried out on behalf of the Liberal Democrats has found that over half (55%) of UK pensioners who were asked say they will likely heat their homes less this winter due to the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Payment, while four in ten (39%) say they will cut back on essentials.
The poll also found that two-thirds (65%) say they will take cost-cutting measures due to the government’s announcement to withdraw the Winter Fuel Payment support with one in five (19%) saying that they will eat less this winter.
As Ed Davey says, the decision to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance, which was ratified by the House of Commons yesterday, will put untold stress on pensioners, with many facing a heartbreaking choice between heating and eating this winter. He adds:
“While we understand the dire state the Conservatives left the public finances in, now is not the time to be cutting support to some of the most vulnerable people in our society."
Fifty two Labour MPs abstained from voting on the regulations, indicating the level of discomfort amongst the governing party. The pressure is on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find a compromise which will help the two million pensioners that Age UK calculate will be most badly hit by this decision.
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Red Flags
The paper says that the analysis by Transparency International UK billed as the most in-depth look yet at public procurement during the crisis, warns that systemic bias, opaque accounting and uncontrolled pricing resulted in vast waste of public funds on testing and personal protective equipment (PPE).
They add that the review of more than 5,000 contracts across 400 public bodies identifies 135 high-risk contracts with a value of £15.3bn where investigation is merited due to the identification of three or more corruption red flags, which include a lack of competition, delays or failure to release information on procurement, and conflicts of interest in the award of contracts:
The report by Transparency International UK finds:
* At least 28 contracts, worth £4.1bn, went to those with known political connections to the Conservative party. This amounts to almost a tenth of the money spent on the pandemic response.
* Fifty-one contracts, worth £4bn, went through the “VIP lane”, a vehicle through which certain suppliers were given priority, of which 24, worth £1.7bn, were referred by politicians from the Conservative party or their offices.
* £1bn was spent on personal protective equipment from 25 VIP-lane suppliers that was later deemed unfit for use. The VIP lane was found to unlawful by a high court judge in a 2022 ruling.
* Eight contracts, worth £500m, went to suppliers that were no more than 100 days old.
* The UK government awarded more than £30.7bn in high- value contracts without competition – equivalent to almost two-thirds of all Covid contracts by value.
* The Department of Health and Social Care wrote off £14.9bn in public money over a two-year period – equivalent to the government’s total spend on personal protective equipment.
In response, a spokesperson for the Conservative party pointed to a National Audit Office report that found that ministers had properly declared their interests. “Government policy was in no way influenced by the donations the party received – they are entirely separate,” he said.
The Labour chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has said she will appoint a Covid corruption commissioner to examine an estimated £7.6bn worth of Covid-related fraud, with particular focus on the billions wasted on useless PPE.
The National Crime Agency (NCA) is investigating PPE Medpro – a company led by Douglas Barrowman, husband of the Conservative peer Michelle Mone – which was awarded government contracts worth more than £200m. Barrowman and Lady Mone deny any wrongdoing.
But researchers warn of a potential higher cost to the public purse than that acknowledged by Reeves as a result of the previous administration’s widespread and “often unjustifiable” suspension of procurement checks and safeguards.
Of the £1tn-worth of contracts signed in the three years from February 2020, government data shows that £48.1bn was spent in relation to the pandemic, largely on Covid testing and PPE, and a third (32%) of that spending raised serious concerns.
The report, entitled Behind the Masks, acknowledges that there had been a need to act quickly as Covid took grip, but the authors claim there was an unjustifiable disregard for publishing the details of contracts and an unhealthy reliance in government on uncompetitive procurement even as the impact of the crisis on the health system subsided.
Almost two-thirds of all high-value Covid contracts by value lacked competition. A year into the pandemic, UK contracting authorities were still frequently making awards without competition even as countries in the EU such as Italy were reverting to competitive bidding.
It is claimed that the so-called VIP and high-priority lanes – which triaged offers of assistance that came via officials, MPs, members of the Lords and ministerial offices – enabled unqualified politicians to fast-track the reviewing of offers from PPE and testing suppliers – a practice said to be unique to the UK’s pandemic response.
A proper official investigation is long overdue.
Monday, September 09, 2024
Tory Leadership dirty tricks?
The paper says that suspicions surround former work and pensions secretary Mel Stride who, while seen as a decent chap, is not seen as a serious candidate to replace Rishi Sunak, somehow managed to get enough Tory MPs to put him on the original ballot and then got 16 votes, one more than Priti Patel in the first round – meaning the former home secretary was the one who was eliminated. This was achieved even though Mr Stride has not even had an official leadership campaign launch yet:
Essentially, Tory leadership vote fixing is the practice by one of the frontrunners of lending votes to a much less popular candidate who can then be moved up to take out a more serious rival.
This can happen because the Tory MPs get to decide who the final two are before members vote in an open contest.
There have been strong allegations of this happening before. Infamously, MPs supporting Boris Johnson supposedly switched to Jeremy Hunt to ensure he kept Michael Gove out of the final two in 2019. Mr Gove was seen as the bigger threat to Mr Johnson.
Politics is notoriously a dirty game so it wouldn't be a surprise if these rumours turned out to be true. What is surprising is that any news outlet thinks that the Tory Party is still relevant and that their leadership election is worth writing about.
Sunday, September 08, 2024
Delayed justice could cost lives
The paper says that the Inquiry into the 2017 fire, which claimed 72 lives, blamed “decades of failure” by those in power and "systematic dishonesty" from building firms for the tragedy, and as a result police are under pressure to speed up the criminal probe into the Grenfell disaster as families have already waited seven years for the Inquiry's findings.
Shockingly, the Metropolitan Police has said it needs from 12 to 18 months to study the report before any criminal charges are brought, while Lord Macdonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions has warned that criminal trials may not start before 2029, with verdicts only being returned the following year.
Potential offences include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office, health and safety offences, fraud, and offences under the fire safety and building regulations:
"Unless processes are massively expedited, justice is a very long way away," he (MscDonald) told the Guardian. "The criminal justice system is still suffering terribly from austerity cuts, which did enormous damage.
"The upshot is that it now takes years for cases to come to trial after charge. Criminal cases arising out of Grenfell are likely to be many and complex.
"The Crown Prosecution Service is speaking of charging decisions in 2026. This is probably optimistic. But even if it is right, on current trial schedules, it could be two or three years later before trials can be heard. Some are potentially talking about 2028, 2029."
Emma O'Connor, a disabled resident who escaped the tower but lost two friends on the night, told the Mirror that more lives could be destroyed by delays.
She said: "What you're doing by delaying this even longer is putting us through trauma and still letting [manufacturers] make money and another Grenfell will happen.
"Another Grenfell can and will happen. They've been able to make money selling this dangerous cladding. It's not fair on lives that could be destroyed like ours were.
"[The Met Police] said [charges would be brought] in 2026 and I was willing to accept that but now this is coming out. It's too long [to wait till 2029 for criminal trials]. They've got all the evidence they need.
"I don't know how much more evidence they need to keep it watertight. It's not good enough."
Deputy PM Angela Rayner has backed the police to bring forward criminal prosecutions swiftly. She said on Thursday: “We can’t have a situation where justice is delayed because that is justice denied, so as quickly as possible the Met Police will carry out their investigation and we’ve got to support that process.”
What is also disturbing is that many buildings are still at risk because government ministers in England and Wales have dragged their heels in forcing owners to remove dangerous cladding. Isn't it about time that was sorted out.
Saturday, September 07, 2024
Unease grows within Labour ranks
The papers says that frontbenchers believe the government will have to announce extra support in the budget or even earlier to cushion the blow for some of the people worst affected by the cut:
The new Labour intake’s WhatsApp group had had a string of messages about the issue, MPs said. Labour backbenchers have been spooked by the volume of correspondence they have received, with one saying they had gone from receiving a trickle of emails from worried constituents to a flood this week.
“It’s going to save us £1.5bn but that won’t be worth the political hit we’ll take this winter,” the MP said. “The rightwing press will be full of stories about elderly people sitting in A&E or on buses because they can’t afford their fuel bills and it’s the only way they can keep warm.”
Another Labour MP said: “I don’t think there is a Labour MP who isn’t worried. We’re talking to our constituents, reading our emails, this weekend we’ll be in our constituencies. I’ve had more people stopping me in the street than over Brexit. Pensioners just pleading that we don’t do this.”
A third Labour MP who represents a marginal seat said they had received about 200 emails on the issue, many of them along the lines of: “I’ve just voted Labour for the first time but never again”. A fourth MP said they were getting “absolutely tonnes” of correspondence and added: “Of all the emails I receive it’s the one [issue] where they are absolutely not coordinated. They are not part of a campaign.”
The Lords’ secondary legislation scrutiny committee warned this week that the move “may cause potential inequalities between low-income pensioners claiming benefits and low-income pensioners not claiming benefits, and it is not clear whether [the Department for Work and Pensions] has assessed this risk”. It added that the policy’s quick implementation “precludes appropriate scrutiny”.
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, told the BBC on Thursday he had “concerns” and would be making representations to the government before the budget.
Some MPs have noted that local and regional newspapers are covering the cut extensively, including by pointing out how many thousands of local people will be directly affected. “It’s a cut people notice straight away, directly out of their pocket, it’s the most damaging kind,” a fifth Labour MP said.
They may only have been in power for two months, but in that time they have a chance to set the tone for the rest of their term. Do Labour really want to be remembered for penalising poor pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes? If they don't sort this quickly, it will blight the rest of their term in government.
Friday, September 06, 2024
Ex Labour Shadow Chancellor wades in on winter fuel payments
The Guardian reports that confirmation of the vote comes amid growing unease within the party about backing the plans. They say it will take place next Tuesday after the Conservatives submitted a motion to annul the government’s change to regulations – a change that ordinarily would not be subject to a vote:
Balls said on Thursday he thought the government needed “an escape route” from the policy and described it as “a mess”.
“They need to find a creative way to do what they said they were going to do, close the in-year black hole, and find an alternative way to do it which could either be modifying what they’re doing on the winter allowance or finding some other way to close the black hole,” he said on the Political Currency podcast.
In a sign of unrest in the parliamentary party, a number of Labour MPs have signed an early day motion asking for the change to be reconsidered and given more time to be communicated.
The motion was submitted by the new Labour MP for Poole, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who previously worked for the biggest pensioner pressure group, the National Pensioners Convention. The Guardian understands that MPs have attended briefings given by Duncan-Jordan on the implications of the change.
Two other new MPs have signed Duncan-Jordan’s motion, which is not binding on the government and is essentially symbolic. They are the Stroud MP, Dr Simon Opher, a former GP, and Chris Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire. Others who have signed the motion include leftwing Labour MPs such as Clive Lewis and Kim Johnson.
Remarkably, the MP for Swansea West, a former CEO of the Resoluton Foundation, who has been particularly vocal about poverty has gone to ground on this issue. We will see how he votes on Tuesday.
Thursday, September 05, 2024
Wales underlines the problems Labour face in meeting its English housing targets
This is something that ministers cannot rely on the private sector to enable. If the UK government is serious about providing homes where they are most needed then they will have to provide significant amounts of public subsidy and ensure that local councils and housing associations are sufficiently resourced to build the social housing that is required. They will also need to invest in infrastructure.
The Welsh Labour Government has already learnt this lesson. They have been in government here for over twenty-five years and yet there is an escalating housing crisis, so much so that homeless families with children are sitting in temporary accommodation behind other homeless families on council waiting lists because there is not enough social housing to go around and it is taking too long to build more.
Now the BBC report that fewer than half the 20,000 homes promised by Welsh Labour in its manifesto at the last Senedd election have been built. Audit Wales have found that the Welsh government could fall more than 4,000 homes short of its target by March 2026:
Ministers have already said rising prices had threatened to stop them creating all the low-carbon social homes they wanted in this Senedd term.
According to the latest estimate, the plan will cost around £1.8bn.
But Audit Wales estimates an extra £580m to £740m will be needed.
Its report says progress has been “slow and more expensive than initially expected”.
Up to 9,197 homes have been delivered so far, with 10,000 more in the pipeline.
That falls just short of the target, but the report estimates that without the additional funding, only between 15,860 and 16,670 homes will be delivered
“If the Welsh government is to meet the 20,000 social homes target by March 2026 it will need to spend significantly more than planned,” the report says.
It adds that there is a “high probability” that some of the “riskier schemes” will not happen, regardless of how much is spent.
Inflation, outside the Welsh government’s control has driven up the cost of building new homes.
In response, the Welsh government has paid for councils to buy or lease more homes, which also count towards the 20,000 target.
However, not all those homes are new or low carbon.
Auditor General Adrian Crompton said a lack of capacity in the planning system and complying with environmental regulations had delayed progress.
He said: “It (the Welsh government) is going to have to spend significantly more than it has currently planned for, and secondly, it’s going to need to deliver all the schemes in its pipeline of plans – and we think there’s quite a high risk some of those schemes won’t deliver in time or at all, regardless of the level of funding available.”
A Welsh government spokesperson said: “There are a range of factors impacting housing supply, not least the recent sustained period of record inflationary pressures, which has made achieving the target even more challenging.
“Tackling homelessness and delivering more homes is a key priority for this government and we have set a challenging target and allocated record levels of funding to housing supply in this Senedd term, with more than £1.4bn invested so far.”
These are the same sort of problems that the new English housing minister is going to face in meeting their target. Perhaps they should come across the Severn Bridge for a briefing.
