Friday, April 18, 2025
Labour failing on social care reform
The paper says that crucial cross-party talks aimed at building political consensus for large-scale changes to adult social care have failed to get off the ground with Liberal Democrats saying that not a single all-party meeting on the issue had taken place in the four months since the government announced ambitious plans to build a national care service to fix the UK’s growing social care crisis:
Wes Streeting said in January that older people could be left without help and the NHS overwhelmed unless a national consensus could be reached on how to fix a system widely regarded as failing.
The health secretary appointed Louise Casey to chair a commission on social care with a brief to build agreement between the main parties on how the changes could be taken forward. Streeting said past attempts at reform had stumbled because of “bad politics”.
Talks were scheduled to open on 26 February but were postponed after ministers said that not all parties could make the meeting. The Lib Dems offered to “clear our diaries” to reschedule but said a new date has not yet been proposed.
Helen Morgan, the Lib Dems’ health and social care spokesperson, said: “If it’s taking almost two months and counting to schedule a single meeting, I have serious concerns about the focus at the top of government needed to successfully undertake and implement this review.
“Ministers’ handling of these cross-party talks smells of a government that has put rescuing social care in the ‘too difficult’ pile.
“Their failure to grasp the nettle means that a review that could have been completed within a year is instead taking three, with ministers risking even longer delays because of their failure to get these talks off the ground.
“For years under the Conservatives, [social care] was shamefully neglected, with patients bearing the brunt. Now, the Labour government is taking an approach of kicking the can down the road rather than facing up to the challenges of fixing this broken system.”
Labour really need to do better.
Thursday, April 17, 2025
Will Trump's free speech demands endanger British children?
The paper says that these concerns have been raised after allies of vice-president JD Vance told the paper that he wants the UK to repeal hate speech laws and ditch plans for a new online safety law in exchange for a trade deal that could see the UK avoid tariffs.
They add that Vance has previously claimed that free speech is being undermined by laws banning hateful comments, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, and sees UK legislation aimed at improving online safety as an attack on US tech giants:
Both the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the think tank The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) have highlighted concerns over any retreat by Labour on either area.
Matthew Sowemimo, associate head of policy for child safety online at the NSPCC, said: “The Online Safety Act offers a foundation that we believe will vastly improve children’s experiences online.
“For too long, too many children and young people have been exposed to harmful content, groomed, harassed, and bullied online.
“To ensure this vital legislation reaches its potential, we need the UK government to ensure the Online Safety Act is strongly implemented and bolstered where needed. They must be holding Ofcom and tech companies to account, and ensuring the act has enough weight behind it to change the tide for children’s safety online.”
Sophia Worringer, deputy policy director at the CSJ, said: “We have a deeply unhappy generation, amplified by the cancer of social media, whose childhood spent online is threatening their adulthood. Added to this is the ballooning welfare bill with more young people than ever going straight from education into long-term sickness benefit.
“Unless we act now to increase the age of digital consent to 16 and ban algorithms for users under 16, our forecasts show that one quarter of all UK children will suffer from a mental disorder by 2030. This is a national emergency, and we need to act now.”
The paper adds that Vance is “obsessed with the collapse of western civilisation” and believes that there is an erosion of free speech in the UK and Europe, he has also raised concerns about legal cases against Christians for praying silently outside abortion clinics.
This is an alien agenda to the UK and should be resisted. If anywhere is facing an erosion of free speech it is the USA, where the Trump administration is deporting innocent civilians in defiance of the courts, using its financial power to shut down campus protests and threatening states with sanctions if they don't adopt the Federal government's agenda.
Wednesday, April 16, 2025
Vance agenda must be resisted in any trade deal
The paper says that the warning came after the vice president suggested a UK-US agreement may be close, with the White House “working very hard” on it, saying: “I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.”:
But allies of Mr Vance say he is “obsessed by the fall of western civilisation” – including his view that free speech is being eroded in Britain – and that he will demand the Labour government rolls back laws against hateful comments, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, as a condition of any deal.
The Independent was told: “The vice president expressing optimism [on a trade deal] is a way of putting further pressure on the UK over free speech. If a deal does not go through it makes Labour look bad.”
Mr Vance’s recent speech to the right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank was cited as an example on his views on western culture and free speech being linked to securing an agreement.
“No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that,” the source close to the vice president said.
It is understood Britain has already offered to drop its proposed digital services tax as a means of getting a trade deal through. But the US wants to see laws on hate speech repealed as well as plans for a new online safety law dropped.
Labour has made it clear it is not prepared to go that far. A Downing Street source said the subject “is not a feature of the talks”.
However, the issue seems to be one of the main sticking points from the White House perspective.
The UK Government should not allow the United States to impose a MAGA-like agenda on our country in a desperate attempt to get a deal.
It is bad enough that ministers are considering rowing back on the digital services tax, without signing up to Vance's fantasies about our democracy, which appears to be far more respectful of freedom of expression than the current US administration.
Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Labour MPs under threat
The paper says that the analysis suggests almost 200 Labour MPs have a majority smaller than the number of recipients of personal independent payments in their constituencies – a significant number in northern England “red wall” seats:
Not all of those recipients will be affected by the changes – but more than 80 Labour MPs have a majority which is smaller than the number of disabled people who could see their benefits cuts.
MPs say an organising campaign to oppose welfare changes is stepping up coordinated action over the Easter recess, with a vote now expected in June.
Rebels believe they may be able to secure as many as 50 MPs to vote against the changes. One MP who opposes the changes said party whips had been suggesting some uneasy MPs may be quietly allowed to abstain on the vote.
A number of disaffected but loyalist MPs who do not want to rebel have been encouraging a campaign of personal letter-writing directly to Keir Starmer to urge changes to the cuts or pledges of more action to tackle poverty in advance of the vote, saying it was “pointless” to lobby the chancellor, Rachel Reeves.
More hardline MPs are planning a mass public intervention in the weeks after parliament returns, the Guardian has been told.
The Office of Budget Responsibility has suggested about 52% of current claimants do not score high enough on their current assessment to remain eligible for Pip, though many would be likely to challenge the reassessment.
Cabinet and senior ministers are among those who have smaller majorities than the number of constituents expected to be affected by the changes.
They include the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, and health secretary, Wes Streeting, as well as the safeguarding minister, Jess Phillips, education minister, Nia Griffith, and homelessness minister, Rushanara Ali.
The list also includes high-profile MPs who are vulnerable to Reform, such as the Barnsley South MP, Stephanie Peacock, Rotherham MP, Sarah Champion, Kingston upon Hull East MP, Karl Turner, and Grimsby MP, Melanie Onn.
Some MPs with healthy majorities could be at risk, the data shows. In Easington, where Grahame Morris has a majority of more than 6,000 over Reform, there are more than 12,600 Pip claimants. In Huddersfield, Harpreet Uppal has a majority of more than 4,500 over the Greens, but 9,387 Pip claimants.
MPs are also warning that family members of claimants are also likely to be affected significantly or feel very strongly about the cuts – meaning the ripple effect could be much greater. The data also shows the sheer numbers of voters in Labour constituencies – even with large majorities – where people receive Pip. In some Labour constituencies, including Easington, Blaenau Gwent and Aberafan and Maesteg, one in five of the working-age population receive Pip payments.
This also impacts Swansea West, where I live. Here, in the seat of the pensions minister, Torsten Bell, one in six people receive Pip. No wonder disabled constituents are anxious to meet him and get an explanation for the cuts.
Monday, April 14, 2025
Consequences
The paper says that analysis by Save the Children lays bare the true impact of repeated cuts to the budget, the latest of which will see spending fall to just 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI) – the lowest level in 25 years:
Women and girls will suffer the most as the government is likely forced to scale back programmes across global education, family planning, water and food aid.
This could leave 12 million people without access to clean water or sanitation and result in 2.9 million fewer children in education, compared to 2019 when aid spending was at its peak at 0.7 per cent.
Save the Children warned the loss of funding would “devastate lives across the world”, while MPs from across the political divide condemned the government for abandoning the world’s poorest people.
Labour MP Sarah Champion, the chair of the Commons international development select committee, told The Independent: “The cuts made to UK aid over recent years are nothing short of savage. The prime minister told me at the liaison committee that his recent decision to slash the aid budget even further wasn’t a choice he wanted to make. But is he fully aware of the true cost of that decision?”
The latest cuts – announced by chancellor Rachel Reeves to pay for a boost in defence spending – will reduce the foreign aid spend to just £9.22bn by 2027, a substantial drop from £15.3bn in 2023. But the scale of the cuts is worsened by the fact that the UK’s asylum-seeker housing costs continue to come out of the same budget.
The latest cuts come despite a Labour manifesto pledge to return spending to 0.7 per cent after pressure on public finances during the Covid pandemic saw it reduced to 0.5 per cent, in what the Tory government of the time said was a “temporary measure”.
Ms Reeves’s announcement prompted outrage among Labour MPs and saw international development minister Anneliese Dodds quit, saying it would be “impossible to maintain [key] priorities given the depth of the cut”.
When Labour unveiled the plans, Sir Keir Starmer promised support for Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan would be protected.
However, the cost of keeping that pledge is around £6.98bn of the total £9.2bn budget. This includes, among others, £520m in aid and development spending for the three countries if current levels are maintained; at least £1.1bn for global health initiatives; and £1.6bn for climate change and environmental protection projects.
That figure also includes areas that are highly unlikely to be cut, such as legally binding multilateral funding (£365m), Gift Aid (£165m), and the UK Integrated Security Fund (£406m) which tackles high-priority national security threats overseas.
Meanwhile, the cost of housing asylum seekers in the UK, which also comes out of the foreign aid budget, is forecast to sit around £3bn in 2027, according to the Center for Global Development.
That is a third of the total budget, so on top of the £6.98bn to keep Sir Keir’s Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza commitments, the government will be left with a black hole of at least £750m. That leaves no room for the £1.1bn across other projects – meaning tens of millions of people will lose out.
“Breaking promises is baked into slashing the aid budget,” said Dan Paskins, director of policy at Save the Children. “But even the pledges Keir Starmer made in the same breath as announcing these cuts are at best back-of-the-envelope and at worst, disingenuous. These cuts cannot be made without delivering a hammer blow to his stated global priorities.”
The charity’s analysis found that 32.8 million women and girls could miss out on family planning support, due to a reduction in sexual health and other programmes, which will have major implications for maternal health, population growth, and even the spread of HIV.
The Women’s Integrated Sexual Health programme (Wish) is one such project at risk. The programme, which is currently budgeted to receive £49m in 2027, aims to “reduce maternal deaths and prevent the use and access to unsafe abortion, including for marginalised and young women”.
As ever, these cuts will have real consequences for people's lives. The fact that those affected are neatly tucked away in other countries does not justify them, though ministers may feel that they can get away with the cuts for that reason. And there are consequences too, for UK influence in affected countries - soft power.
Sunday, April 13, 2025
UK warned on trade concessions
The Independent adds that an adviser to the US president said it would take an “extraordinary deal” for the UK to improve on the 10 per cent tariff Mr Trump has placed on the country.
The paper says that UK ministers appear to be increasingly downbeat about the prospect of a US-UK deal, with health minister Stephen Kinnock admitting that it might take some time, despite officials previously insisting that talks were at an “advanced stage”:
It is understood that there is more appetite and optimism from UK officials to chase lower trade barriers with other countries instead.
It comes after economists on Thursday warned the prime minister he must accelerate cooperation with other leading economies because the US, under Mr Trump, had shown itself to be an unreliable trade partner.
The US president was forced to delay tariffs above his base rate of 10 per cent, which affects the UK, for 90 days, after days of market turmoil that sparked a fire sale of US government bonds. However, he later warned higher rates would return if countries were unable to strike fresh deals with the US.
Asked about hopes the UK could escape the baseline tariff, Mr Evenett warned: “I just haven't seen any signal from [the Trump administration] that they're willing to contemplate that. And the same is true on in the sensitive sectors [for aluminium, steel and cars], getting the tariffs below 25 per cent.”
“[The UK government] is stuck between a rock and a hard place on this stuff…. I think we're probably going to have to resign ourselves to the fact that it's a 10 per cent tariff going forward.”
He also warned that the US could prevent the UK from doing trade deals with other countries as part of an agreement – something he dubbed a “poison pill”.
“There is a risk, if one goes down the road of negotiating something with the US, that they put strings on who the UK can trade with, and this, of course, will all be about decoupling and de-risking from China.
“So I think that if we don’t pay a domestic price in terms of liberalising or deregulating health and safety standards and agriculture [the US] seems to so desperately want, then the price would have to be there.”
The papers also quotes King’s College London economist Jonathan Portes who has warned that any agreement with the US would primarily be a matter of “damage limitation”, rather than offering major upsides.
Are these trade talks already a busted flush? Would we not be better standing up to Trump as Canada has, instead of trying to soft soap him?
Saturday, April 12, 2025
Anger as Labour favour Scunthorpe over Port Talbot
The paper quotes the Prime Minister as stating that the future of the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe "hangs in the balance", as he vowed that the government will "keep all options on the table" amid calls for nationalisation. However, they add that Plaid Cymru has questioned why the government did not intervene to protect Port Talbot steelworks in the same way it is acting over Scunthorpe:
Both the Commons and the Lords will return to Parliament for a rare Saturday sitting to debate a law aimed at securing the future of the plant in North Lincolnshire. Jingye, the Chinese owner of British Steel, plans to close the blast furnaces and switch to a greener form of production.
Speaking from Downing Street, Sir Keir said: "As Prime Minister, I will always act in the national interest to protect British jobs and British workers. This afternoon, the future of British Steel hangs in the balance. Jobs, investment, growth, our economic and national security are all on the line."
He said that while the UK is facing a "new era of global instability", concerns about the plant and talks to protect it have been going on "for years". This moment could have happened at any time, but it has happened now, and I will not stand by. There is no time to waste," he said.
"So we are recalling Parliament tomorrow for a Saturday sitting. We will pass emergency legislation in one day to give the Business Secretary the powers to do everything possible to stop the closure of these blast furnaces. And as I have said, we will keep all options on the table."
However, in response Plaid’s Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts MP said: “Parliament is being recalled tomorrow to debate the nationalisation of Scunthorpe steelworks.
“But when global market forces devastated Welsh livelihoods in Port Talbot, Labour dismissed Plaid Cymru’s calls for nationalisation as ‘pipe dreams’. In a real emergency, governments step up to defend their strategic interests. Plaid Cymru recognised the importance of Welsh steelmaking. Labour chose to look the other way.
“When it was Wales, they mocked. Now it’s England, they act. Labour has taken Wales for granted for far too long – and the people of Wales won’t forget it.”
As one local journalist tweeted, if steel collapses in Port Talbot, that's market forces, but if it collapses in Scunthorpe then Labour will hold a special Saturday sitting and nationalisation to save their jobs.
It is good news for workers in Lincolnshire, but a slap in the face for those who left behind in Wales.
Friday, April 11, 2025
Councils face big bill from Labour's Barnett gaffe
That means that whereas public bodies in England will receive the full additional amount they need to pay in NI contributons, here in Wales we will just get 5.9% of the extra cost to the Treasury.
It has been estimated that this could create a £65m shortfall, money that will have to come from health, social services or education budgets. Now, according to Wales-on-line, a figure has been put on the cost to local councils.
The website says that the leader of the Welsh Local Government Association believes that Councils in Wales could be left up to £20m short due to the UK Government's decision:
The Welsh Government has already said it thought that Welsh public sector organisations face a £253m due to the changes. Mr Drakeford said the chancellor's decision was "wrong" and went against an advisory document prepared between the two governments.
This major change mid-year and after budgets had been set was frustrating, Andrew Morgan, the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf council and the Welsh Local Government Association said.
He said it is now up to Welsh Government to decide how to distribute the money the UK Government does give to each public sector organisation. The NHS takes up about half of Welsh Government funding, and councils around a quarter. Cllr Morgan said councils expect only 85% of their National Insurance costs will be met - leaving them 15% short. However, if the Welsh Government fully funded Wales' health boards, the amount left would be less, which would likely mean councils would face an effective 45% shortfall.
He said the working assumption in now that councils could be £20-25m short. Cllr Morgan said that because the Welsh Government received extra money from the UK Government in the budget, councils were better off overall but the communication of the decision had been poor.
"On the one hand I do understand we have the Barnett formula in Wales but it's a well-known fact that we've had a significant amount of cuts to public services over the last decade, but because they have been quite so bad as in England, Wales we do have a slightly bigger public sector workforce and more services are in-house, whereas in England an awful lot have been outsourced.
"Where they've done the calculation formula based on England, that gives us money, but we've always known if they did it that way we would be short, and therefore we're really disappointed they have done it that way. We've encouraged them not to and would have hoped all the way along in the private discussions they were having in the background with the Welsh Fovernment, they would have understood the impact it would have had on Wales.
"It is going to be challenging, but the scale of it does depend. If we end up having 20-25% of that £65m we could have a £20m cost pressure. That would vary depending on the size of the authority. A council the size of RCT would end up with £1.5-£2m shortfall, that's the kind of figure we're looking at.
"Would I like to say it's manageable? No I wouldn't like to say it is," he said. Cllr Morgan said authorities can absorb that, potentially, via in-spend overspends. "But it doesn't come without pain because there are no easy wins now it's often that you're not filling a post. When you're not filling the post of a litter picker, or someone who fills in potholes, then it's the things people see and notice," he said.
"That's the kind of difficult choices, but it all depends very much what does the Welsh Government decides to do, whether they can find some funding from reserves, if that's possible, we're not sure. But the sooner we get clarity, the better, because otherwise local government will have to make in your savings".
This decision is a major gaffe by the UK government and will come back to haunt them in next year's Senedd elections.
It has been estimated that this could create a £65m shortfall, money that will have to come from health, social services or education budgets. Now, according to Wales-on-line, a figure has been put on the cost to local councils.
The website says that the leader of the Welsh Local Government Association believes that Councils in Wales could be left up to £20m short due to the UK Government's decision:
The Welsh Government has already said it thought that Welsh public sector organisations face a £253m due to the changes. Mr Drakeford said the chancellor's decision was "wrong" and went against an advisory document prepared between the two governments.
This major change mid-year and after budgets had been set was frustrating, Andrew Morgan, the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf council and the Welsh Local Government Association said.
He said it is now up to Welsh Government to decide how to distribute the money the UK Government does give to each public sector organisation. The NHS takes up about half of Welsh Government funding, and councils around a quarter. Cllr Morgan said councils expect only 85% of their National Insurance costs will be met - leaving them 15% short. However, if the Welsh Government fully funded Wales' health boards, the amount left would be less, which would likely mean councils would face an effective 45% shortfall.
He said the working assumption in now that councils could be £20-25m short. Cllr Morgan said that because the Welsh Government received extra money from the UK Government in the budget, councils were better off overall but the communication of the decision had been poor.
"On the one hand I do understand we have the Barnett formula in Wales but it's a well-known fact that we've had a significant amount of cuts to public services over the last decade, but because they have been quite so bad as in England, Wales we do have a slightly bigger public sector workforce and more services are in-house, whereas in England an awful lot have been outsourced.
"Where they've done the calculation formula based on England, that gives us money, but we've always known if they did it that way we would be short, and therefore we're really disappointed they have done it that way. We've encouraged them not to and would have hoped all the way along in the private discussions they were having in the background with the Welsh Fovernment, they would have understood the impact it would have had on Wales.
"It is going to be challenging, but the scale of it does depend. If we end up having 20-25% of that £65m we could have a £20m cost pressure. That would vary depending on the size of the authority. A council the size of RCT would end up with £1.5-£2m shortfall, that's the kind of figure we're looking at.
"Would I like to say it's manageable? No I wouldn't like to say it is," he said. Cllr Morgan said authorities can absorb that, potentially, via in-spend overspends. "But it doesn't come without pain because there are no easy wins now it's often that you're not filling a post. When you're not filling the post of a litter picker, or someone who fills in potholes, then it's the things people see and notice," he said.
"That's the kind of difficult choices, but it all depends very much what does the Welsh Government decides to do, whether they can find some funding from reserves, if that's possible, we're not sure. But the sooner we get clarity, the better, because otherwise local government will have to make in your savings".
This decision is a major gaffe by the UK government and will come back to haunt them in next year's Senedd elections.
Thursday, April 10, 2025
Courting Trump - the quest for relevance
Nevertheless, here he is in the Independent, claiming that his friendship with Donald Trump could help the UK in their tariff negotiations with the US.
The paper says that the Reform UK leader, who has long supported the US president, has previously said he thought the tariffs were “a bit excessive”. And speaking to BBC Breakfast yesterday, Farage hailed his relationship “Not just with President Trump, but half of the cabinet.”
This is desperation at work on Farage's part, an attempt to find some relevance in UK politics.
That is apparent in this article on Nation Cymru, which suggests that opponents of Reform UK believe the party’s Achilles’ heel is its leader Nigel Farage’s close association with Donald Trump:
In the wake of Trump’s announcement of hefty tariffs on goods exported to the United States, many of those with a low opinion of Farage took to social media to draw attention to the links between the two men.
One post on X said: “Less than a month ago, Farage went off to the US to fundraise for Trump. A big reminder that Farage and Reform would ruin the UK economy in the same way as Farage’s best buddy.”
On March 20 the Guardian reported: “Nigel Farage is once again in America helping to fundraise for Donald Trump’s Republican Party, with the latest data showing he has spent more than 800 hours on outside employment since being elected.
“The Reform UK leader is appearing on Thursday night to give a keynote speech at a fundraiser for Florida Republicans’ ‘Disruptors’ dinner, with tables for top-tier ‘Trump sponsors’ costing $25,000 (£19,000).
“Before his appearance, he was absent from Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, and he did not appear in the Commons on Thursday.
“Farage has made at least nine trips abroad, including eight to the US, since he was elected MP for Clacton in Essex last July, with many of them either funded by donors or undertaken for paid employment such as speeches.
“In a statement issued by the US organisers, Farage said: ‘I’m so incredibly excited to be joining the Republican Party of Florida for the Disruptors Dinner.’
“President Trump’s decisive win and return to the White House inspires us all to continue the fight for freedom globally. I’m looking forward to being back in the Free State of Florida to celebrate with all of you.”
In the light of Trump's assault on the world economy, maybe a period of silence on the Reform leader's part is called for.
Wednesday, April 09, 2025
Labour chancellor rejects 'buy British' plea
The paper says that the chancellor and Downing Street said that, despite a campaign from the Liberal Democrats, they would not be calling om Britons to follow Canada, who have launched a buy Canadian campaign in response to a 25% US tariff on Canadian imports:
During Treasury questions on Tuesday, the Lib Dems’ deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, Daisy Cooper, asked the government to “commit to a ‘buy British’ campaign as part of a broader national effort to encourage people to buy British here at home”.
Reeves replied: “In terms of buying British, I think everyone will make their own decisions. What we don’t want to see is a trade war, with Britain becoming inward-looking, because if every country in the world decided that they only wanted to buy things produced in their country, that is not a good way forward.”
The prime minister’s spokesperson backed Reeves and said there were no plans for the government to launch a buy British campaign. He said the government “will always back British manufacturers” but it was up to individuals to decide what they wanted to buy.
Asked if the government would advise people to avoid US products, he said that would not be consistent with Britain being an “open, trading nation” and the government was “not going to tell people where they buy their stuff”.
He said: “That is something the prime minister and the chancellor have previously said, and we want to see fewer trade barriers around the world, such that we’re continuing to support our economy. At the same time, we also continue to prioritise and support British manufacturers, British producers.
This sort of prevarication sends the wrong message to Trump, that he can walk all over us. We should be right behind Canada and copying their response.
