Wednesday, July 31, 2024
Labour failing another generation of families
Rachel Reeves announced the cancellation of the Dilnot reforms on Monday, alongside a swathe of other spending cuts to address a black hole in the public finances left by the previous Conservative government. Dilnot described the changes as “a tragedy”:
The commission’s findings were presented to the government more than a decade ago, with proposals including a £35,000 cap on lifetime individual liability for care costs, liability for food and accommodation costs limited to £10,000 per year and the assets threshold for cut-off of state support being raised from £23,250 to £100,000.
The plan to cap social care costs was delayed by former chancellor Jeremy Hunt until October 2025.
But during the election campaign, Labour indicated it would implement the reforms despite the proposals not appearing in the party’s manifesto.
Announcing a swathe of spending cuts on Monday, the chancellor accused the Tories of having hidden the true extent of Treasury overspending from the public, claiming the government inherited a £22bn hole in public finances.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about the cancellation of social care reforms, Sir Andrew said: “I think it’s a tragedy, and it’s very disappointing given what was said in the election campaign on your own programme.
“Wes Streeting, the now secretary of state for social care, said: ‘We don’t have any plans to change that situation. That’s the certainty and stability I want to give.’
“Later on, on another BBC programme, he said one of the things that we’ve committed to is this. I want to give the sector the certainty this side of the election. So to rip this up is unbelievably disappointing for hundreds of thousands of families who need care, for those who are providing it, for those who are trying to make decisions about.
“It’s another example of social care, something that affects people at some of the most difficult times of their lives, being given too little attention, being ignored, and being tossed aside and it’s very, very disappointing.”
While Sir Andrew denied the changes have taken social care “back to square one”, he warned: “We seem again to be in a position where a government is saying this isn’t an important enough thing to carry on with.”
He added: “The cost of acting is not great and the transformation to the lives of those who need care and those providing it would be transformative. And I really hope that after this blip, we get back to a serious plan.”
Asked in June if he could make a firm commitment to bringing in the cap in October 2025, Mr Streeting said: “That’s the plan, as things stand.”
When pressed on whether or not that was a firm commitment, he said: “We don’t have any plans to change that situation and that’s the certainty and stability I want to give the system at this stage.”
But Ms Reeves told Times Radio on Tuesday: “There was a £21.9bn black hole in the government’s plans. There was no money set aside for social care.
More broken promises from Labour and another vulnerable section of society abandoned.
Tuesday, July 30, 2024
Labour penalise pensioners and the poor
The Welsh Older Persons' Commissioner is quite right in urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider her plans to change the eligibility rules for Winter Fuel Payments.
As Nation Cymru reports, the payments of up to £300 have been made available to everyone above state pension age, but from this winter pensioners will only receive a payment if they are receiving pension credit:
Thousands of older people in Wales will no longer be eligible to receive the payment following the introduction of the means test by Rachel Reeves.
The move is expected to reduce the number of pensioners in receipt of the payment in England and Wales by 10 million, from 11.4 million to 1.5 million, saving some £1.4 billion this financial year.
The payment is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Chancellor said she was making “difficult decision” in an attempt to fill a £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the previous Conservative government.
“The announcement that the Winter Fuel Payment will now only be paid to those in receipt of Pension Credit is deeply concerning, as it means that thousands of older people in Wales will now miss out on crucial financial support,”Older People’s Commissioner for Wales, Heléna Herklots CBE, said.
“It is estimated that around 80,000 households in Wales miss out on Pension Credit despite being eligible, meaning older people are already missing out on over £200 million they are entitled to.
“The Chancellor’s decision would mean that these households could now also miss out on tens of millions of pounds more that could make a big difference in terms of people’s finances.
“I am also concerned about the older people in Wales who may be surviving on low incomes and struggling financially, but find themselves just above the Pension Credit threshold.
“These individuals already miss out on the crucial wider support unlocked by Pension Credit – such as council tax discounts – and will miss out on even more as a result of this decision.
“I would urge the Chancellor to reconsider this decision ahead of her budget to avoid driving more older people in Wales into poverty, and putting people’s health and well-being at risk, which could bring greater costs in the longer-term.”
Age Cymru said it is extremely concerned means testing will have on older people across Wales.
Chief Executive, Victoria Lloyd said: “We know that thousands of households in Wales are failing to claim the £200million that they are entitled to in Pension Credit, so much more needs to be done to support these people to access what they are eligible for.
“Means-testing the Winter Fuel Payment in this way, gives pensioners little time to prepare and is a decision that will potentially jeopardise their health as well as their finances.
A decent income provides dignity and security, and helps people stay independent and active. A warm home, nutritious food, occasional treats and being able to get out and about are all good for health and wellbeing, helping older people to make the most of later life.
“This should not just be an aspiration but the experience of all older people across Wales.”
Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert, immediately warned the Government’s targeting of the payments was “too narrow with the winter we have coming”, adding: “The energy price cap is likely to rise 10% this October and stay high across the winter, leaving most energy bills nearly double those pre-crisis, at levels unaffordable for millions.
“Many pensioners eke out the £100 to £300 winter fuel payments to allow them to keep some heating on through the cold months.
The worst part of this announcement is that the money saved is not being invested in the country's future, it is being used to help fund the Tories' cut in National Insurance. So, effectively, poorer pensioners are being asked to help subsidise those in work.
Combined with the refusal to end the two-child cap on child benefit, one has to ask why this Labour government wants penalise the poorest members of our society? Weren't they elected to stop that happening?
Monday, July 29, 2024
Government own goal on carers
The Guardian reports that those teachers, NHS staff and other key workers who do balance part-time work with caring for loved ones are quitting their jobs to avoid being hit with huge cash penalties for breaching carer’s allowance rules.
They say that research into the human impact of the penalties found sanctions running into thousands of pounds, triggered by opaque rules, and poor administration by benefits officials playing havoc with carers’ working lives, health and finances:
The report, by Carers UK, a charity, details carers being forced to take desperate measures to avoid breaching tight earnings limits, including: quitting their jobs; cutting their hours; turning down pay rises, one-off cost of living payments and performance bonuses; and even working free hours each month.
Those who unwittingly breached the £151 a week earnings limits – in some cases by less than £1 – said the disproportionate penalties levied on them for doing so landed them with huge debts, plunging them and the people they care for into hardship, and inflicting a savage toll on their mental health.
The so-called “cliff-edge” earnings rules mean a carer who oversteps the limit must repay the whole £81.90 weekly allowance. A carer who earned £1 more than the £151 threshold for 52 weeks, therefore, would pay back not £52 but £4,258.80. Some are prosecuted for fraud.
A Guardian investigation earlier this year revealed the scale of the carer’s allowance injustices, including the last government’s failure to address failings it had known about for years. Latest figures show 134,500 unpaid carers were repaying £251m in earnings-related overpayments, with 11,500 carers repaying sums above £5,000.
This was an issue raised by Ed Davey in his first Prime Minister's questions as leader of the third largest party in the House of Commons. It is one that the new government urgently needs to address before the already creaking care system starts to fall apart.
Sunday, July 28, 2024
Trump's handmaid's tale
The paper tells us that Trump said on Friday night at a rally hosted in West Palm Beach, Florida, by the far-right advocacy group Turning Point Action: “Christians, get out and vote! Just this time – you won’t have to do it anymore. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”
Bizarrely, he continued, with a slight shake of his head and his right hand pressed against the left side of his chest, to say: “I’m not Christian.” But, he added: “I love you. Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”
The paper says that Trump’s remarks – delivered not far from his Mar-a-Lago resort and home – were immediately met with consternation in some political quarters:
The constitutional and civil rights attorney Andrew Seidel, for instance, replied to video of Trump’s comments circulating on X by writing: “This is not subtle Christian nationalism. He’s talking about ending our democracy and installing a Christian nation.”
Actor Morgan Fairchild added in a separate X post: “But … what if I want to vote again?? I was always raised that we get to vote again! That is America.” And NBC legal commentator Katie Phang said: “In other words, Trump won’t ever leave the White House if he gets re-elected.”
Trump’s comments on Friday came months after he remarked that he would be “a dictator on day one” if given a second four-year term in the White House. He has repeatedly made known his admiration for authoritarian leaders, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. And a former White House aide reported that Trump once said Adolf Hitler – whose Nazi regime murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust amid the second world war – “did some good things”.
Meanwhile, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has detailed plans to aim retribution at Trump’s actual and perceived enemies – whether politicians or bureaucrats – should he be re-elected.
Experts on authoritarianism warn the public to take Trump seriously when he speaks in that manner. And before Joe Biden halted his re-election campaign on 21 July and endorsed Kamala Harris to succeed him in the Oval Office, the Democratic president repeatedly sought to portray Trump as an existential threat to American democracy.
If nothing else this speech confirms Trump as an existential threat to democracy in America and, for that matter, the rest of the world.
His vision is tantamount to the dystopian world portrayed in Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale with one crucial difference: not being a Christian himself Trump apparently plans to let others impose their religious dictatorship while he presides over it as an atheist overlord, barking out orders, consuming endless McDonald's burgers and imprisioning his enemies.
He has to be stopped.
He has to be stopped.
Saturday, July 27, 2024
Tory leadership disarray
So far one of the leading campaigners, Tom Tugendhat has had to amend his rather laboured campaign slogan because it created an acrostic which spelt out TURD. But in many ways that is just a side issue.
The Independent reports that rightwing Tory MP Suella Braverman’s bid to replace Rishi Sunak as Tory leader may come to an end before it even begins despite huge support among ordinary party members.
The paper says that it understands that the former home secretary is struggling to get the ten MPs needed to put her on the ballot paper to become the next Conservative leader as rightwing Brexiteers look at Robert Jenrick as an alternative candidate.
They say that her allies that have warned that a “Stop Suella” campaign is running among parliamentarians because of the “uncomfortable truths” she spoke about the state of the party and her enormous support among ordinary members:
A survey by the Conservative Post has been sent to 14,000 verified registered party members with dramatic results. From the first 3,091 respondents Ms Braverman has picked up more than 1,000 votes as the best leader well ahead of former business secretary Kemi Badenoch in second place with just over 400. The two centrist One Nation candidates on the left of the party - James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat - are trailing in the last two places with less than 300.
The contrast between the MPs and members appears to show that the rift between the two groups is widening even after the catastrophic election defeat on 4 July.
While Ms Braverman’s rightwing rhetoric is popular among members, MPs have claimed she is “too toxic” to win over the wider public.
Ms Braverman has attracted negative headlines with her support for the Rwanda deportation scheme as “her dream”, her description of pro-Gaza supporters as “hate marchers”, her call to takeaway homeless people’s tents, her claim that LGBTQ+ flag “represented child mutilation which left her physically repulsed” and her description of imigrants arriving on small boats as “an invasion”.
But supporters have warned that keeping Ms Braverman off the ballot paper will be the last straw for many ordinary members who are generally more rightwing than the party’s MPs.
Braverman ally Claire Bullivant, editor of the Conservative Post and chief executive of the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), warned that keeping Ms Braverman off the ballot could destroy the party.
She told The Independent: “There appears to be a Stop Suella campaign among MPs. They must be afraid of her popularity with members and her ability to articulate their conservative values as well as identify what has been going wrong since the removal of Boris Johnson.
"After the disaster of the election MPs have no right to continue to act in this arrogant way.
"If Suella is kept off the ballot then it will only serve to widen the rift between ordinary party members and MPs. MPs need to remember who stuck by them, delivered their leaflets, knocked doors and took abuse for them during a very difficult campaign.”
Ms Bullivant has been tracking Tory membership moving to Reform UK which Nigel Farage announced last week had hit 70,000.
She said: "Unfortunately this unacceptable behaviour by MPs will have consequences. We are already seeing a flight of thousands of members defecting to Reform. If Suella is not even allowed on the ballot that switch to Nigel Farage will only get worse and accelerate.”
Ms Bullivant added: "We all believe in this great party and want to see it restored to power. But at the moment those holding power within it are leading it to destruction."
Perhaps we should get the popcorn while we watch the Tories tear themselves to pieces even more.
The Independent reports that rightwing Tory MP Suella Braverman’s bid to replace Rishi Sunak as Tory leader may come to an end before it even begins despite huge support among ordinary party members.
The paper says that it understands that the former home secretary is struggling to get the ten MPs needed to put her on the ballot paper to become the next Conservative leader as rightwing Brexiteers look at Robert Jenrick as an alternative candidate.
They say that her allies that have warned that a “Stop Suella” campaign is running among parliamentarians because of the “uncomfortable truths” she spoke about the state of the party and her enormous support among ordinary members:
A survey by the Conservative Post has been sent to 14,000 verified registered party members with dramatic results. From the first 3,091 respondents Ms Braverman has picked up more than 1,000 votes as the best leader well ahead of former business secretary Kemi Badenoch in second place with just over 400. The two centrist One Nation candidates on the left of the party - James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat - are trailing in the last two places with less than 300.
The contrast between the MPs and members appears to show that the rift between the two groups is widening even after the catastrophic election defeat on 4 July.
While Ms Braverman’s rightwing rhetoric is popular among members, MPs have claimed she is “too toxic” to win over the wider public.
Ms Braverman has attracted negative headlines with her support for the Rwanda deportation scheme as “her dream”, her description of pro-Gaza supporters as “hate marchers”, her call to takeaway homeless people’s tents, her claim that LGBTQ+ flag “represented child mutilation which left her physically repulsed” and her description of imigrants arriving on small boats as “an invasion”.
But supporters have warned that keeping Ms Braverman off the ballot paper will be the last straw for many ordinary members who are generally more rightwing than the party’s MPs.
Braverman ally Claire Bullivant, editor of the Conservative Post and chief executive of the grassroots Conservative Democratic Organisation (CDO), warned that keeping Ms Braverman off the ballot could destroy the party.
She told The Independent: “There appears to be a Stop Suella campaign among MPs. They must be afraid of her popularity with members and her ability to articulate their conservative values as well as identify what has been going wrong since the removal of Boris Johnson.
"After the disaster of the election MPs have no right to continue to act in this arrogant way.
"If Suella is kept off the ballot then it will only serve to widen the rift between ordinary party members and MPs. MPs need to remember who stuck by them, delivered their leaflets, knocked doors and took abuse for them during a very difficult campaign.”
Ms Bullivant has been tracking Tory membership moving to Reform UK which Nigel Farage announced last week had hit 70,000.
She said: "Unfortunately this unacceptable behaviour by MPs will have consequences. We are already seeing a flight of thousands of members defecting to Reform. If Suella is not even allowed on the ballot that switch to Nigel Farage will only get worse and accelerate.”
Ms Bullivant added: "We all believe in this great party and want to see it restored to power. But at the moment those holding power within it are leading it to destruction."
Perhaps we should get the popcorn while we watch the Tories tear themselves to pieces even more.
Friday, July 26, 2024
Prisons in crisis
They say that the figures show self-harm rates in UK prisons are at their highest on record, with 73,804 incidents of self-harm in the past year, the equivalent of one prisoner hurting themselves every seven minutes, while assaults hit a post-pandemic high in the last year, with 28,292 violent assaults across the estate:
The number of prisons deemed overcrowded shot up for the third year in a row, with 23.6 per cent of jails now housing too many prisoners. And prison performance ratings showed four in 10 prisons are now deemed of concern or serious concern.
The MoJ said violence and self-harm are becoming more prevalent because of widespread drug use within prisons, with drug finds having risen 44 per cent compared with the previous 12 months and discoveries of drugs-related equipment soaring 107 per cent.
With The Independent recently revealing figures showing just one in five jails had enough riot officers, the new data showed incidents of violent concerted indiscipline rose 70 per cent to hit 179 in the past year, with a further 58 hostage situations and 7,783 incidents at height, involving inmates climbing onto roofs or netting.
The crisis means prisons, which have been running at 99 per cent capacity since the start of 2023, have struggled to give prisoners time out of cells and deliver the activity needed to combat violence, drug use and self-harm.
The MoJ also warned that the prisons crisis is worsening reoffending rates and putting the public at risk.
Clearly, drastic action is needed to address this problem. This should include looking at a particularly egregious piece of legislation that is sending legitimate and peaceful protestors to jail for lengthy and inappropriate terms in excess of those dished out to those guilty of far more serious crimes.
Thursday, July 25, 2024
Royal prerogative
The Guardian reports that official accounts reveal that King Charles is set for a huge £45m pay rise with an increase of more than 50% in his official annual income>
They say that profits of £1.1bn from the crown estate – a percentage of which funds the monarchy – mean the sovereign grant, which supports the official duties of the royal family, will rise from £86m in 2024-25 to £132m in 2025-26.
They add that royal accounts also show that the Prince of Wales received £23.6m income from the Duchy of Cornwall in his first full year after inheriting the land and property owning estate from his father.
As Nation Cymru outlines, the Crown Estate is a collection of land and assets owned by the Crown, but managed by an independent trust. Its profits are funnelled into the UK Treasury, and 25% of revenues into the Sovereign grant, paid for the upkeep of the royal family.
In Wales, the crown estate owns about 65% of the Welsh foreshore and riverbed, and more than 50,000 acres of land. In 2020-21, the value of the estate went from £96.8m to £603m, reflecting the value of the land for renewable development and other projects. The estimated annual revenue in 2020-2021 was £8.7m. As revealed by Cymru Republic, the value in 2023 is £853m.
Since 2016, the Crown Estate has been devolved in Scotland but here in Wales the money goes to the Treasury and onto the royal estate. That is money that could be invested in public services and which should be staying in Wales.
Wednesday, July 24, 2024
Costly Tory decisions
Of course the main reason is the billions of pounds lost in dodgy PPE deals and also the struggling economy, caught up in needless bureaucracy because of Brexit. But let us not forget some of the other bizarre schemes.
The Guardian reports on the revelation that the Conservative government spent £700m of taxpayers’ money on the failed Rwanda deportation scheme, described by the new Home Secretary as a “costly con”:
Yvette Cooper described the policy, which was introduced two-and-a-half years ago and sought to send UK asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing, as “the biggest waste of taxpayer money I have ever seen”.
She told the Commons that over the course of six years ministers had intended to spend £10bn on the policy, but they never divulged this figure to parliament.
The home secretary said she had formally notified the Rwandan government that the partnership was over and thanked them for working with the UK “in good faith”.
“The failure of this policy lies with the previous UK government, it has been a costly con and the taxpayer has had to pay the price,” she said.
Under the Conservatives, the Home Office refused to set out the full cost of the scheme, though an official letter last year stated it had reached £290m. In a report last spring the National Audit Office estimated that the cost of the policy had surpassed £500m.
Ultimately, just four people travelled to Rwanda voluntarily under the scheme, Cooper told the Commons. “We had often warned that it would frankly be cheaper to put them up in the Paris Ritz – frankly now it turns out it would actually be cheaper to buy the Paris Ritz,” she said.
Cooper said the £700m cost included £290m payments to Rwanda, chartering flights that never took off, detaining people and then releasing them, and paying more than 1,000 civil servants to work on the policy.
And then there is the Prime Minister's decision to scrap the second phase of HS2, which a National Audit Office report estimates will cost up to £100m and could take three years to complete.
The Independent says that Rishi Sunak’s decision to slim down the high-speed rail link also means the government has £592m worth of land and property on the route from Birmingham to Manchester it needs to sell, which the government spending watchdog has warned could take years and distort local housing markets.
Everything the previous Tory Government touched appeared to go wrong, while the cost to the public purse grew increasingly out of control. So much for the Tories being the party of good governance.
The Guardian reports on the revelation that the Conservative government spent £700m of taxpayers’ money on the failed Rwanda deportation scheme, described by the new Home Secretary as a “costly con”:
Yvette Cooper described the policy, which was introduced two-and-a-half years ago and sought to send UK asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing, as “the biggest waste of taxpayer money I have ever seen”.
She told the Commons that over the course of six years ministers had intended to spend £10bn on the policy, but they never divulged this figure to parliament.
The home secretary said she had formally notified the Rwandan government that the partnership was over and thanked them for working with the UK “in good faith”.
“The failure of this policy lies with the previous UK government, it has been a costly con and the taxpayer has had to pay the price,” she said.
Under the Conservatives, the Home Office refused to set out the full cost of the scheme, though an official letter last year stated it had reached £290m. In a report last spring the National Audit Office estimated that the cost of the policy had surpassed £500m.
Ultimately, just four people travelled to Rwanda voluntarily under the scheme, Cooper told the Commons. “We had often warned that it would frankly be cheaper to put them up in the Paris Ritz – frankly now it turns out it would actually be cheaper to buy the Paris Ritz,” she said.
Cooper said the £700m cost included £290m payments to Rwanda, chartering flights that never took off, detaining people and then releasing them, and paying more than 1,000 civil servants to work on the policy.
And then there is the Prime Minister's decision to scrap the second phase of HS2, which a National Audit Office report estimates will cost up to £100m and could take three years to complete.
The Independent says that Rishi Sunak’s decision to slim down the high-speed rail link also means the government has £592m worth of land and property on the route from Birmingham to Manchester it needs to sell, which the government spending watchdog has warned could take years and distort local housing markets.
Everything the previous Tory Government touched appeared to go wrong, while the cost to the public purse grew increasingly out of control. So much for the Tories being the party of good governance.
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
The Welsh Labour schism
I've just come across an interesting blog on the Vaughan Gething affair from the Labour Senedd Member for Llanelli, Lee Waters. It is an honest and searing appraisal of what went worng with Gething's tenure as First Minister as well as the problems facing the Welsh Labour Party going forward.
Waters starts by saying that Welsh Labour are in a pickle. He says that after 25 years as the largest party in the Senedd, and 102 years as the party of Wales, Labour have become the establishment.
He adds that while their opposition is weak then, like many political systems where single parties dominate, Welsh Labour turns on themselves from time to time in order to check power and keep themselves honest:
'We are currently in the midst of the biggest schism since 1999, when the ‘pluralist’ section of the party embodied by Rhodri Morgan went ten rounds with the ‘machine politics’ section of the party represented by Alun Michael, and beat ten bells out of the each other. Those bruises took a decade to heal.
The last four months has seen the same happen again, albeit beneath the surface. The inevitable resignation of Vaughan Gething has brought that into the open and now party leaders are desperately trying to keep a lid on it by brokering a quiet deal to avoid any further open conflict.
How do we ‘heal the wounds’ is a question that bleeped across my WhatsApp frequently over the last week. The instinctive response being offered up is to come behind a ‘unity candidate’ and all will be well. I completely understand the instinct, and necessity, to pull together in common cause.
Disunity is a genie that is very difficult to get back into the bottle. But unity is not an end in itself; if that becomes our primary focus it risks a search for the lowest common denominator.
Unity is a consequence of renewing in office. It is the end result of a process to reach an agreement. It follows an exchange of ideas and is not some precondition for a contest where the less that is said the better.
There are honest differences, as there should be in any group of intelligent adults let alone a political party. We need to talk them through, test the arguments. Persuade and then decide.
We are not a management committee, we are a political movement. We were created for a purpose - to bring about change for working families, to challenge power, to make society fairer, and be a voice for the voiceless. That requires a passion, a hunger, and courage to reshape and reform ourselves as a political force to meet the modern context, in order to do the same for our society.
I think the new MP for Swansea West, Torsten Bell, hit the nail on the head, “The question”, he said, “is whether social democrats can turn themselves from simple defenders of the system into insurgents”.
That’s the real challenge to the people who wish to lead.'
His verdict on how Gething mishandled the whole donations saga is damning, not least with regards the £25,000 donation from the taxi firm Veezu:
'Set aside the much publicised stench of the extraordinary donation from David Neal, I think the equally problematic donation from taxi firm Veezu has attracted no attention. Bear in mind at the time of the leadership election we were in the process of passing a taxi reform Bill which has now been ditched, Vaughan took a £25,000 donation - which is the single largest donation to a Labour leadership campaign (before the Dawson one) - from a company at loggerheads with trade unions, who until recently was also paying right-wing Conservative Alun Cairns.
We now have had the extraordinary spectacle of a First Minister announcing on the floor of the Senedd that we are failing for the second time to honour a manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation on taxi reform (instead we are to have a draft Bill, which is something) and being forced to add when making the announcement: “Members may wish to note a declaration of interest concerning the company Veezu”.
Never before has a First Minister had to declare a formal conflict of interest on a key matter of Government business.
The fact it has passed without a single comment tells us something about where we have reached.
When I spoke out in the Senedd about the donations I rooted my objections in the damage this was being done to political culture, and to democratic norms. Here’s what I said:
The point about devolution, this place, a Parliament we have created from scratch, is that we set higher standards. 25 years ago we talked of devolution as the beginning of a new politics; but the reputation of politics, and politicians, seems to be lower than ever.
The First Minister told a Senedd committee last week that his approval ratings haven’t been affected by the controversy. I must say that surprised me, and troubled me. Whether the polls bear that out or not, it really isn’t the point. Surely the question isn’t what any of us can get away with, it’s what is right?
The fact that some voters just shrug their shoulders is what should worry us. Far from being an endorsement, I fear it’s a reflection that we are all tarred with the same brush. And we all get it - you’re all the same; you’re in it for yourselves; you’re on the make. Not only is it really demoralising for many of us who see politics as a genuine public service, a sacrifice; but it’s also dangerous to the fabric of our democracy at a time when it’s already under huge strain.
Academics call it ‘norm spoiling’.
They say that when accepted standards of behaviour, norms, are undermined, it lowers expectations. And that lays the ground for a new set of weaker standards to take hold. That is why we need to confront this situation.
I have felt increasingly dislocated by the fact that so many people in the Labour Party have been prepared to turn a blind-eye to what the public have been able to see very clearly. But ultimately our political culture has asserted itself and acted.'
He says that the central question of this leadership contest should be how Labour can meet the appetite for change in a way that honours their values as a political movement:
'But the voters aren't daft, and the warning signs are clear enough for those who want to look for them in the General Election result. Whereas the Westminster voting system this time flattered us, the new more proportional voting system we’ll be using in Wales will be far less forgiving if our support levels don’t get back beyond the 30% threshold. The last YouGov poll put us at 27% at a Senedd election - just 4 points ahead of Plaid.
The d’hondt voting system we’ve legislated for will actively work against us if our numbers stay at that level and a generation in the wilderness awaits.
That’s where we’re heading as I write, and people are panicking and so the ‘we must unite’ banner is quickly pulled up the flagpole and the call has gone out to rally round. My worry is that a superficial unity is in fact counter-productive. We have to be prepared to do the hard work of remaking our unity based on a real consensus of approach. Not a backroom deal to avoid having to go there.'
To be fair, Waters has been very open about his views on this affair but as he says, the Gething camp was not prepared to listen:
'One of the reasons why the last three months has been so painful in the Welsh Labour Party is that the schism that has surfaced has revealed a genuine tension in values. I literally felt sick when I felt compelled to speak out against what I saw as ‘norm spoiling’ behaviour; and when my cry of pain was ignored I made myself ill with the thought of endorsing this amorality in a confidence vote. I couldn't do it, and didn’t do it.'
So, as many suspected, it wasn't just that Gething lost the confidence vote because two members were absent, but at least one of them says that he couldn't bring himself to vote against it. As Waters says in conclusion:
We now have to try and come together and heal. But let's learn the lessons of these torrid few months - the best way to resolve disagreements is to address them openly and honestly. People don’t like divided parties, but they like dishonest ones even less.
'We are currently in the midst of the biggest schism since 1999, when the ‘pluralist’ section of the party embodied by Rhodri Morgan went ten rounds with the ‘machine politics’ section of the party represented by Alun Michael, and beat ten bells out of the each other. Those bruises took a decade to heal.
The last four months has seen the same happen again, albeit beneath the surface. The inevitable resignation of Vaughan Gething has brought that into the open and now party leaders are desperately trying to keep a lid on it by brokering a quiet deal to avoid any further open conflict.
How do we ‘heal the wounds’ is a question that bleeped across my WhatsApp frequently over the last week. The instinctive response being offered up is to come behind a ‘unity candidate’ and all will be well. I completely understand the instinct, and necessity, to pull together in common cause.
Disunity is a genie that is very difficult to get back into the bottle. But unity is not an end in itself; if that becomes our primary focus it risks a search for the lowest common denominator.
Unity is a consequence of renewing in office. It is the end result of a process to reach an agreement. It follows an exchange of ideas and is not some precondition for a contest where the less that is said the better.
There are honest differences, as there should be in any group of intelligent adults let alone a political party. We need to talk them through, test the arguments. Persuade and then decide.
We are not a management committee, we are a political movement. We were created for a purpose - to bring about change for working families, to challenge power, to make society fairer, and be a voice for the voiceless. That requires a passion, a hunger, and courage to reshape and reform ourselves as a political force to meet the modern context, in order to do the same for our society.
I think the new MP for Swansea West, Torsten Bell, hit the nail on the head, “The question”, he said, “is whether social democrats can turn themselves from simple defenders of the system into insurgents”.
That’s the real challenge to the people who wish to lead.'
His verdict on how Gething mishandled the whole donations saga is damning, not least with regards the £25,000 donation from the taxi firm Veezu:
'Set aside the much publicised stench of the extraordinary donation from David Neal, I think the equally problematic donation from taxi firm Veezu has attracted no attention. Bear in mind at the time of the leadership election we were in the process of passing a taxi reform Bill which has now been ditched, Vaughan took a £25,000 donation - which is the single largest donation to a Labour leadership campaign (before the Dawson one) - from a company at loggerheads with trade unions, who until recently was also paying right-wing Conservative Alun Cairns.
We now have had the extraordinary spectacle of a First Minister announcing on the floor of the Senedd that we are failing for the second time to honour a manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation on taxi reform (instead we are to have a draft Bill, which is something) and being forced to add when making the announcement: “Members may wish to note a declaration of interest concerning the company Veezu”.
Never before has a First Minister had to declare a formal conflict of interest on a key matter of Government business.
The fact it has passed without a single comment tells us something about where we have reached.
When I spoke out in the Senedd about the donations I rooted my objections in the damage this was being done to political culture, and to democratic norms. Here’s what I said:
The point about devolution, this place, a Parliament we have created from scratch, is that we set higher standards. 25 years ago we talked of devolution as the beginning of a new politics; but the reputation of politics, and politicians, seems to be lower than ever.
The First Minister told a Senedd committee last week that his approval ratings haven’t been affected by the controversy. I must say that surprised me, and troubled me. Whether the polls bear that out or not, it really isn’t the point. Surely the question isn’t what any of us can get away with, it’s what is right?
The fact that some voters just shrug their shoulders is what should worry us. Far from being an endorsement, I fear it’s a reflection that we are all tarred with the same brush. And we all get it - you’re all the same; you’re in it for yourselves; you’re on the make. Not only is it really demoralising for many of us who see politics as a genuine public service, a sacrifice; but it’s also dangerous to the fabric of our democracy at a time when it’s already under huge strain.
Academics call it ‘norm spoiling’.
They say that when accepted standards of behaviour, norms, are undermined, it lowers expectations. And that lays the ground for a new set of weaker standards to take hold. That is why we need to confront this situation.
I have felt increasingly dislocated by the fact that so many people in the Labour Party have been prepared to turn a blind-eye to what the public have been able to see very clearly. But ultimately our political culture has asserted itself and acted.'
He says that the central question of this leadership contest should be how Labour can meet the appetite for change in a way that honours their values as a political movement:
'But the voters aren't daft, and the warning signs are clear enough for those who want to look for them in the General Election result. Whereas the Westminster voting system this time flattered us, the new more proportional voting system we’ll be using in Wales will be far less forgiving if our support levels don’t get back beyond the 30% threshold. The last YouGov poll put us at 27% at a Senedd election - just 4 points ahead of Plaid.
The d’hondt voting system we’ve legislated for will actively work against us if our numbers stay at that level and a generation in the wilderness awaits.
That’s where we’re heading as I write, and people are panicking and so the ‘we must unite’ banner is quickly pulled up the flagpole and the call has gone out to rally round. My worry is that a superficial unity is in fact counter-productive. We have to be prepared to do the hard work of remaking our unity based on a real consensus of approach. Not a backroom deal to avoid having to go there.'
To be fair, Waters has been very open about his views on this affair but as he says, the Gething camp was not prepared to listen:
'One of the reasons why the last three months has been so painful in the Welsh Labour Party is that the schism that has surfaced has revealed a genuine tension in values. I literally felt sick when I felt compelled to speak out against what I saw as ‘norm spoiling’ behaviour; and when my cry of pain was ignored I made myself ill with the thought of endorsing this amorality in a confidence vote. I couldn't do it, and didn’t do it.'
So, as many suspected, it wasn't just that Gething lost the confidence vote because two members were absent, but at least one of them says that he couldn't bring himself to vote against it. As Waters says in conclusion:
We now have to try and come together and heal. But let's learn the lessons of these torrid few months - the best way to resolve disagreements is to address them openly and honestly. People don’t like divided parties, but they like dishonest ones even less.
Will Welsh Labour listen or will they anoint a so-called unity team as First Minister and Deputy and carry on as before in the hope that it will all go away? If they do then they could have a rude awakening at the next Senedd elections.
Monday, July 22, 2024
Labour doubles down on two-child benefit cap
The paper says that the chancellor came under pressure over the limit, which prevents parents from claiming benefits for any third or subsequent child born after April 2017. Scrapping the policy would lift an estimated 300,000 children out of poverty, according to the Child Poverty Action Group
Reeves was asked about opposition to the George Osborne-era cap from Labour heavyweights including Gordon Brown and Andy Burnham, but said she could not make “unfunded spending commitments”:
Labour is facing growing pressure over its refusal to commit to repealing the limit, with left-wing backbenchers prepared to rebel and back an amendment to the King’s Speech on the topic.
The SNP has tabled an amendment to the King’s Speech to scrap the two-child cap, which is backed by the Greens, the SDLP, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance party and independent MPs including Jeremy Corbyn.
Meanwhile 35 MPs have signed a Commons motion by Labour’s Kim Johnson calling for the limit to be axed. They include fellow Labour MPs Zarah Sultana, John McDonnell, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
The motion claims that if scrapped, the move would immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty and calls on the government to act.
It referenced recent figures showing around 1.6m children are missing out on thousands of pounds every year due to the policy.
The damning new figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) show that 1.3 million children are living in a universal credit household and 270,000 living in a child tax credit household.
This should be fundaemental for Labour, who are supposed to be committed to tackling child poverty. That they continue to resist this straightforward reform suggests that the change we have been promised is a long way away.
Friday, July 19, 2024
Welsh government damned by covid inquiry
The BBC reports that the Welsh government has been strongly criticised over its preparations for the Covid pandemic.
They say that the public inquiry looking into the UK’s preparedness for a pandemic said the system in Wales was "labyrinthine" and "hampered by undue complexity":
In a damning report, UK Covid-19 Inquiry chair Baroness Hallett said the UK government and devolved nations had "failed their citizens" as they planned for the wrong pandemic.
First Minister Vaughan Gething said he welcomed the first report from the inquiry and that its publication was an "important moment" for the bereaved families and frontline NHS staff.
A group representing families bereaved by Covid in Wales said they had been failed by the Welsh government.
In its first report into preparedness for a pandemic, the inquiry said the UK government's sole pandemic strategy from 2011 "was outdated and lacked adaptability", adding that "it was never properly tested and the doctrine that underpinned was ultimately abandoned".
"Processes, planning and policy of structures failed the citizens of all four nations," she added.
Baroness Hallett said the inquiry was recommending a fundamental reform of the UK government and devolved nations' preparedness for civil emergencies.
She suggested a radical simplification of preparedness systems, rationalising and streamlining bureaucracy, a new approach to risk assessment, and a new UK-wide approach which learns lessons from the past and takes proper account of existing inequalities.
In Wales, the report referred to the evidence given to the inquiry by Dr Andrew Goodall, the head of the civil service in the Welsh government.
The inquiry "was not persuaded" by civil service chief Andrew Goodall's argument that the system made more sense to those within it than outside.
It said: "For an administration that prided itself on its efficiency of movement because of its relative lack of scale, and which had described itself as operating effectively under one roof, the reality did not match the rhetoric.
"The system was labyrinthine".
The inquiry "was not persuaded" by mitigation offered by Dr Goodall that it made more sense to those within the system than those outside of it.
"An opportunity to create a coherent and therefore dynamic system in Wales had been hampered by undue complexity" it said.
The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru group said on X, formerly Twitter,, external that the Welsh government had "failed us".
"We knew they'd failed us and instead of listening they turned their backs on us," the group said.
"Welsh Labour must now stop blocking a Wales Covid inquiry."
They added: "This cannot happen again and yet there is no indication 4.5 years on that any progress has been made. Wales still does not have its own risk register."
It added that the report had been able to "uncover a lot of deficiencies in systems in Wales", but said it was "UK/England heavy".
This report must surely justify a separate Welsh covid inquiry to get down into the detail of how we can do better next time. .
They say that the public inquiry looking into the UK’s preparedness for a pandemic said the system in Wales was "labyrinthine" and "hampered by undue complexity":
In a damning report, UK Covid-19 Inquiry chair Baroness Hallett said the UK government and devolved nations had "failed their citizens" as they planned for the wrong pandemic.
First Minister Vaughan Gething said he welcomed the first report from the inquiry and that its publication was an "important moment" for the bereaved families and frontline NHS staff.
A group representing families bereaved by Covid in Wales said they had been failed by the Welsh government.
In its first report into preparedness for a pandemic, the inquiry said the UK government's sole pandemic strategy from 2011 "was outdated and lacked adaptability", adding that "it was never properly tested and the doctrine that underpinned was ultimately abandoned".
"Processes, planning and policy of structures failed the citizens of all four nations," she added.
Baroness Hallett said the inquiry was recommending a fundamental reform of the UK government and devolved nations' preparedness for civil emergencies.
She suggested a radical simplification of preparedness systems, rationalising and streamlining bureaucracy, a new approach to risk assessment, and a new UK-wide approach which learns lessons from the past and takes proper account of existing inequalities.
In Wales, the report referred to the evidence given to the inquiry by Dr Andrew Goodall, the head of the civil service in the Welsh government.
The inquiry "was not persuaded" by civil service chief Andrew Goodall's argument that the system made more sense to those within it than outside.
It said: "For an administration that prided itself on its efficiency of movement because of its relative lack of scale, and which had described itself as operating effectively under one roof, the reality did not match the rhetoric.
"The system was labyrinthine".
The inquiry "was not persuaded" by mitigation offered by Dr Goodall that it made more sense to those within the system than those outside of it.
"An opportunity to create a coherent and therefore dynamic system in Wales had been hampered by undue complexity" it said.
The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru group said on X, formerly Twitter,, external that the Welsh government had "failed us".
"We knew they'd failed us and instead of listening they turned their backs on us," the group said.
"Welsh Labour must now stop blocking a Wales Covid inquiry."
They added: "This cannot happen again and yet there is no indication 4.5 years on that any progress has been made. Wales still does not have its own risk register."
It added that the report had been able to "uncover a lot of deficiencies in systems in Wales", but said it was "UK/England heavy".
This report must surely justify a separate Welsh covid inquiry to get down into the detail of how we can do better next time. .
Thursday, July 18, 2024
Could Labour lose control of the Senedd?
Whisper it softly, Labour could well end up out of government at the next Senedd elections.
That at least is the verdict of one Welsh academic, who says that there is a real possibility that a midterm slump in support for Labour at the UK level could augur the unthinkable, namely an election in Wales in which Labour does not emerge as the largest party.
In the Guardian, Richard Wyn Jones argues that Vaughan Gething's resignation in the midst of a donations scandal in which no rules were broken, and a mishandled ministerial sacking, combined with a poor General Election performance in Wales where opposition parties demonstrated some positive electoral momentum, could help form a perfect storm that, combined with a mid term UK government slump, will throw Labour out of power in Cardiff Bay in 2026.
He argues that any new Welsh Labour leader will need to repair shattered relations among Labour members in the Senedd:
Having rubbed along pretty well together for the first quarter-century of devolution – for example, sidestepping most of the psychodrama associated with the Corbyn era – the ruling Labour group has transformed over the past few weeks and months into something altogether less wholesome. It is far from clear how the divisions that now exist can be bridged.
Less obviously, but just as importantly, the new first minister will also need to reckon with Welsh Labour MPs in Westminster whose overall attitude to their Senedd colleagues is characterised by condescension that shades into animosity. Both the attitude and influence of these MPs was apparent in Labour’s recent general election manifesto which, while promising extensive further devolution within England, offered nothing of substance to Wales. There was, for example, no pledge to devolve the crown estate let alone the failing criminal justice system, as supported by the Welsh government and the wider Welsh Labour party. Since gaining power in London, we have also seen Labour engaging in a startlingly quick “reverse ferret” on securing what it had previously termed “fair funding” for Wales. Having once enthusiastically argued the case for Wales to receive substantial additional funding in lieu of spending on HS2 in England, Jo Stevens – the secretary of state for Wales and, in effect, shop steward for Welsh MPs – is now downplaying the relevance of that scheme.
The attitude of Stevens would appear to be that, from now on, the Welsh government should be seen and not heard. It’s time for the grownups in Whitehall to take the leading role. One of the problems with this view is that Labour faces a tricky Senedd election in May 2026. In the past, the Welsh Labour party has succeeded at the devolved level by presenting itself as a party willing to “stand up for Wales” no matter which party is in charge in Westminster. If this approach is no longer tenable or acceptable to Labour at the London level, then this radically reduces the room for manoeuvre for Gething’s successor.
Which bring us to the final and perhaps most difficult challenge that she or he will face, namely what would appear to be the increasingly jaded attitudes of the Welsh electorate. Labour’s very recent electoral triumph in Wales conceals a much more worrisome prospect as thoughts now turn to the next Senedd election. While the party won 84% of Welsh constituencies, it did so while securing only 37% of the vote – a 4% reduction on its 2019 performance and a historically low proportion of the UK general election vote for Welsh Labour.
This was also an election in which – from a Labour perspective – both Reform and Plaid Cymru appeared to have developed a worrying degree of momentum. Given that Labour support is always significantly lower in devolved elections – elections fought using a much more proportional system – there is now a real possibility that a midterm slump in support for Labour at the UK level could augur the unthinkable, namely an election in Wales in which Labour does not emerge as the largest party.
Such an outcome would herald devolution coming of age, at last. However, there is still a lot of water to pass under the bridge before we get there.
Wednesday, July 17, 2024
Welsh Labour's hidden weakness
We have already seen an implosion in the Senedd, with the First Minister being forced out by his own colleagues, Boris-Johnson-style, and there is no doubt that this, combined with Labour's inability to get to grips with public services, is going to hit them badly in the polls, but it is the long-term electoral trends, heavily disguised by the first-past-the-post system that could really hit Labour for a six.
As the Guardian points out, although Welsh Labour won its 28th general election in a row this month, the results effectively sealed Mr Gething’s fate:
On the surface, the Tories were routed in Wales, losing all 14 MPs. Yet this disguises the fragmentation of politics in the country. On the right of politics, the Conservatives haemorrhaged votes to Reform. While Labour’s vote share increased by 1.6% across the UK, in Wales it fell by 3.9% – with the nationalist Plaid Cymru and the Greens eating into the leftwing vote and increasing their shares by 4.9% and 3.7% respectively.
Labour’s landslide is a result of the first-past-the-post electoral system. If the poll had been held under proportional representation, Labour would have probably only won 12 out of 32 seats in Wales. The problem for Mr Gething – and Welsh Labour – is that the 2026 Senedd elections will take place using a PR system that reflects the share of the vote each party has received in constituencies that map onto current parliamentary boundaries.
Labour currently holds half the seats in the Welsh parliament, but on its current polling might only end up with a third of them in two years’ time. This might not be bad news. The devolved parliament was set up so that politics would be conducted consensually. There’s a lot to be said for a more pluralistic form of governance. But Labour would prefer not to be weakened further. This is a distinct possibility unless the party can elect a new leader who can command public confidence, win the backing of their own members and work with opposition parties.
They conclude that the tensions between the devolved government in Cardiff and Westminster require creative dealmaking, rather than meek deference, to resolve:
The NHS in Wales is in a terrible state and urgently needs money from the Treasury. Sir Keir Starmer’s team is reluctant to accede to demands from Welsh Labour to devolve criminal justice. Yet the developments that have occurred in Wales since devolution – political disengagement, the rise of the far right, the vote for Brexit – reveal a political settlement in need of urgent repair.
The question is whether Welsh Labour are capable of carrying out that repair.
Tuesday, July 16, 2024
Vaughan Gething resigns as First Minister
His resignation comes after four Welsh ministers stepped down from their posts in an apparently calculated move to force his hand.
In a move reminscent of the coup against Boris Johnson, Counsel General Mick Antoniw, Cabinet Secretary for Economy Jeremy Miles, Cabinet Secretary for Housing Julie James and Cabinet Secretary for Culture Lesley Griffiths posted separate letters on social media on Tuesday morning in which they called for Gething to go.
They did so just a day before the Senedd's last session prior to recess, in which the Tories have tabled a motion calling for the evidence that led to Hannah Bleddyn's sacking to be published.
Although the opposition have been calling for this outcome for some time, I am sure they would have hoped that Gething could hang on a little longer given he was such an asset to them. However, Labour's problems in Wales are not just about one man.
There is a general perception in Wales that Welsh Labour has failed to improve people's lives, while public services are getting worse on their watch. If the new First Minister cannot turn that around then the 2026 Senedd elections could prove very interesting indeed.
Now is the time to take a decisive step to tackle child poverty
The Guardian reports that the first real test of Labour’s hardline approach to public spending is the two-child benefit limit introduced by the Conservatives in April 2017. This prevents households from claiming universal credit or child tax credit for a third or any subsequent child born after this date:
For good reason, the two-child limit is loathed by many Labour MPs because while having no impact on the number of children families have, it has had the predictable result of increasing poverty.
The Resolution Foundation thinktank says the number of families affected by the policy has increased from 70,000 to 450,000 in the past six years and that a third of its impact is yet to come.
The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) says the two-child limit can cost households up to £3,455 a year – a massive hit to family budgets. Child poverty is at its highest ever level, and Labour says it has “an ambitious strategy” for reducing it.
Currently, this ambitious strategy does not extend to scrapping the two-child benefit cap, even though CPAG says doing so would lift 300,000 children out of poverty at a cost of £1.7bn a year. No other single measure the government could take would be as cost-effective in reducing the number of children living below the breadline.
Labour’s line is that scrapping the two-child limit is something not currently budgeted for in its programme, so abolition will have to wait until there is money to spare. The argument is that this would open the floodgates to a host of other demands.
This might make short-term sense but it is still misguided. The two-child cap will not survive five years of a Labour government with such a commanding parliamentary majority, and so it is a question of when, not if, the policy originally brought in by George Osborne will be canned.
Delaying that decision condemns more children to a life of misery and want. There is an economic case for a more generous approach to welfare – poor families tend to spend more of their income than rich families – but there is also a moral dimension. Needlessly pushing more children into hardship is plain wrong.
Finally, £1.7bn is a tiny sum in the context of a £2.7tn economy, and there are plenty of ways the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, could find it without any difficulty. As the tax expert Richard Murphy has shown, taxing capital gains at the same rate as income would net the Treasury £12bn a year, while restricting tax relief on pensions to the basic rate of income tax would raise a further £14.5bn. Removing the losses the Bank of England makes on its gilt holdings from the way the government’s debt rule is calculated would raise an estimated £20bn, according to the consultancy Oxford Economics.
If Labour fail this test so early in their administration then we really should be questioning what they are for.
Monday, July 15, 2024
Dark Underbelly
I was on a plane coming back from New York when a gunman tried to take out Donald Trump, so it was a shock when I switched my phone back on and saw the news.
It is not as if American politics is a stranger to violence. As one blogger wrote shorty afterwards, they have experienced one founding father killing another in a duel, four U.S. presidents were assassinated while in office; another 13 were the targets of unsuccessful plots.
In the past few years alone Gabby Giffords, Steve Scalise, and Paul Pelosi were the targets of politically-motivated attacks. Three years ago Vice President Mike Pence and the entire U.S. Congress were the target of a violent mob assault on the U.S. Capitol. There were 656 mass shootings in the United States in 2023 and another 261 in the first half of 2024.
However, this is not an entirely American phenomenon. The Independent reports that the government’s adviser on political violence has called on the home secretary to investigate a “dark underbelly” of abuse and intimidation of candidates during the general election:
John Woodcock, a former Labour MP, who now sits in the House of Lords as Baron Walney, also suggested there could have been a “concerted campaign by extremists”.
He has urged Yvette Cooper to commission an inquiry.
His call comes just days after the Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said: “If there is something that keeps me awake at night, it is the safety of MPs.”
Two MPs have been murdered in the UK in the last eight years. The security of MPs was tightened after David Amess was stabbed more than 20 times during a constituency surgery in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex on 15 October 2021.
Ali Harbi Ali was later convicted of his murder. At the trial it emerged that he had also planned attacks on other MPs, including cabinet minister Michael Gove, who he believed posed “a harm to Muslims”.
Amess’s murder was the second in recent years, after Jo Cox was killed in her constituency in 2016.
A number of MPs had to have police protection because of the threats they received during this election campaign.
Labour MPs Jess Phillips and Shabana Mahmood have highlighted the intimidation and threats they suffered, which they described as an “assault on democracy”.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage had a milkshake and other objects thrown at him while he was on the campaign trail.
And Reform UK’s candidate for Truro and Falmouth, Steve Rubidge, suffered severe injuries during an alleged assault.
In a letter reported by the BBC, Lord Walney said evidence pointed to a “concerted campaign by extremists to create a hostile atmosphere for MPs within their constituencies to compel them to cave in to political demands”.
He wrote: “The conduct of the election campaign in many communities has underlined the gravity of the threat to our democracy”.
Lord Walney added: “I am increasingly concerned about the scale of intimidation against candidates in the general election.
“I believe there is now a need for a focused piece of work on the scale and drivers of this intimidation so that it cannot continue to mar our democratic processes and put candidates at risk.”
Politics certainly arouses passions in people, but there is no excuse for it degenerating into violence. The future of democracy is at stake.
In the past few years alone Gabby Giffords, Steve Scalise, and Paul Pelosi were the targets of politically-motivated attacks. Three years ago Vice President Mike Pence and the entire U.S. Congress were the target of a violent mob assault on the U.S. Capitol. There were 656 mass shootings in the United States in 2023 and another 261 in the first half of 2024.
However, this is not an entirely American phenomenon. The Independent reports that the government’s adviser on political violence has called on the home secretary to investigate a “dark underbelly” of abuse and intimidation of candidates during the general election:
John Woodcock, a former Labour MP, who now sits in the House of Lords as Baron Walney, also suggested there could have been a “concerted campaign by extremists”.
He has urged Yvette Cooper to commission an inquiry.
His call comes just days after the Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said: “If there is something that keeps me awake at night, it is the safety of MPs.”
Two MPs have been murdered in the UK in the last eight years. The security of MPs was tightened after David Amess was stabbed more than 20 times during a constituency surgery in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex on 15 October 2021.
Ali Harbi Ali was later convicted of his murder. At the trial it emerged that he had also planned attacks on other MPs, including cabinet minister Michael Gove, who he believed posed “a harm to Muslims”.
Amess’s murder was the second in recent years, after Jo Cox was killed in her constituency in 2016.
A number of MPs had to have police protection because of the threats they received during this election campaign.
Labour MPs Jess Phillips and Shabana Mahmood have highlighted the intimidation and threats they suffered, which they described as an “assault on democracy”.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage had a milkshake and other objects thrown at him while he was on the campaign trail.
And Reform UK’s candidate for Truro and Falmouth, Steve Rubidge, suffered severe injuries during an alleged assault.
In a letter reported by the BBC, Lord Walney said evidence pointed to a “concerted campaign by extremists to create a hostile atmosphere for MPs within their constituencies to compel them to cave in to political demands”.
He wrote: “The conduct of the election campaign in many communities has underlined the gravity of the threat to our democracy”.
Lord Walney added: “I am increasingly concerned about the scale of intimidation against candidates in the general election.
“I believe there is now a need for a focused piece of work on the scale and drivers of this intimidation so that it cannot continue to mar our democratic processes and put candidates at risk.”
Politics certainly arouses passions in people, but there is no excuse for it degenerating into violence. The future of democracy is at stake.
Saturday, July 06, 2024
Time to redress the media balance
What is most disturbing though has been the reaction of the many media outlets who seem to believe that because Farage is now an MP and has four other MPs to back him up, then they are now justified in continuing that sort of coverage.
Let's put this in context. The UK Reform Party have five MPs, the Greens have four, Plaid Cymru have four, the Liberal Dempcrats have 72. None of those parties have had the sort of coverage that Farage and his fellow travellers have had.
Let's put this in context. The UK Reform Party have five MPs, the Greens have four, Plaid Cymru have four, the Liberal Dempcrats have 72. None of those parties have had the sort of coverage that Farage and his fellow travellers have had.
The BBC in particular needs to get its act together on this. Their coverage of Farage has defied their duty to impartiality and balance for a long time now.
Farage may be good entertainment but political coverage is more serious than that. It's time for all media outlets to redress the balance and give the other parties a much bigger slice of the cake.
Farage may be good entertainment but political coverage is more serious than that. It's time for all media outlets to redress the balance and give the other parties a much bigger slice of the cake.
Friday, July 05, 2024
The discredited first past the post system - updated
The biggest losers were the Tories who with 121 seats, amounting to 18.6% of the total MPs, actually polled 24% of the votes, while the biggest winner were Labour, whose vote share of 34% barely lifted off its 2019 level of 32.2%, but who have secured 412 seats, the equivalent of 63% of the membership of the House of Commons.
In many ways it is gratifying to see the Tory Party, who so strongly opposed proportional representation in the 2011 referendum get punished in this way. Despite this, I'm not expecting them to change their mind on electoral reform, nor is Keir Starmer going to jeopardise his super-majority in the future by doing a u-turn either.
The combined vote of the Labour and Tory parties amounts to just 58% of those cast, but they hold 83% of the seats between them. That is the smallest share of the vote for the two biggest parties ever.
This election result highlights the basic unfairness of our voting system in a very dramatic way. Surely, it is time to change it to a fairer one in which people actually get what they voted for.
Thursday, July 04, 2024
Labour abandons pro-EU voters
The paper says that the Labour leader told reporters on Wednesday he did not think Britain would go back into any of the three blocs while he was alive, all but ruling out rejoining even if he wins a second term in office:
With less than 24 hours to go until polls open, Starmer has largely avoided talking about relations with the EU during the campaign, as Labour seeks to avoid the mistakes it made in 2019 when it alienated Leave voters by promising a second referendum.
Some have suggested this reluctance to talk about the issue masked a desire to pursue re-entry to the customs union or single market during a second Labour term, something other senior figures in the party have failed to rule out. Starmer insisted on Wednesday, however, this was not the case.
Asked whether he could see any circumstances where the UK rejoined the single market or customs union within his lifetime, Starmer said: “No. I don’t think that that is going to happen. I’ve been really clear about not rejoining the EU, the single market or the customs union – or [allowing a] return to freedom of movement.”
He repeated, however, his view that Labour could achieve better trading arrangements with the EU in certain industries. “I do think we could get a better deal than the botched deal we got under Boris Johnson on the trading front, in research and development and on security,” he said.
How exactly Starmer expects to achieve the economic growth that Labour's plans are preditated on achieving without engaging with the EU is not explained. Whatever the answer, it is now clear that those who believe that we need to work more closely with the European Community have no friends in Labour.
If they want to secure higher growth by negotiating deals with the EU and even, perhaps, joining the single community, then their only option is the Liberal Democrats.
Wednesday, July 03, 2024
Political pariah?
It is no surprise therefore that Nation Cymru has reported that a Labour general election battle bus touring Wales did not have Vaughan Gething as a passenger when it visited the seat where residents’ lives have been made a misery by his criminal donor.
Mr Gething accepted £200k for his Welsh Labour leadership campaign from a company owned by businessman David Neal, who was given two suspended prison sentences for dumping toxic sludge in the Gwent Levels protected landscape.
Another of Mr Neal’s companies has been responsible for the emission of nauseous odours from the Withyhedge landfill site near Haverfordwest for the best part of a year.
At the weekend, the party battle bus visited the new seat of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. But when a number of prominent Welsh Labour politicians disembarked to be greeted by their local candidate Henry Tufnell, there was no sign of the First Minister.
Early in the general election campaign NationCymru revealed how Mr Tufnell had asked Welsh Labour to tell Mr Gething to keep away from his constituency because of the First Minister’s association with Mr Neal.
Mr Tufnell was told off by party apparatchiks for daring to tell the truth to NationCymru and later he and Mr Gething were pictured eating ice creams together on the Pembrokeshire coast.
Since then a damning Dispatches programme has been broadcast on Channel 4 alleging that Mr Neal is under investigation for “mischaracterising” waste sent to Withyhedge so he makes savings on his landfill tax bill.
A Labour insider said: “ Vaughan’s supporters are quick to claim his crisis is just a Cardiff Bay bubble thing. The reality is very different, Pembrokeshire residents have to live with the stink caused by his associate every day. It is no surprise he didn’t fancy joining this particular campaign stunt, and it’s obvious UK Labour want nothing to do with him.
“Vaughan claimed he would be an electoral asset during his leadership campaign, but he has been incredibly low profile throughout the election. His polling numbers are damning, people have made their minds up and it’s only going to get worse if he doesn’t return the dirty donation money.”
We asked Welsh Labour why Mr Gething wasn’t on the campaign bus, but did not receive a response.
It suits the opposition of course to keep Gething in post, but Labour are clearly suffering because of it and it's not going away soon.
Tuesday, July 02, 2024
Time to rein in the water companies
The Guardian reports that Thames Water has been urged to show greater transparency over its finances and accused of “financial chicanery” after it emerged its board had approved a £150m dividend hours before its shareholders U-turned on providing emergency funding.
The paper says that the board of the struggling water supplier agreed to the payout at a meeting on 27 March. The following day, the debt-laden company said its investors were no longer willing to provide £500m of funding they had previously pledged, raising the prospect that the company may be temporarily nationalised. Thames Water made no mention of the dividend payment at that point:
The water industry regulator, Ofwat, planned to investigate the circumstances around the dividend paid by Thames, sources said. The company was already under investigation over its decision to pay a separate £37.5m dividend at the time the £150m dividend was paid.
Britain’s biggest water supplier said the payment was made from the regulated company to an intermediate parent company, Kemble Water Eurobond, to “settle a pension top-up payment” and “surrender relief” on tax losses.
Gary Carter, GMB national officer, said: “Thames Water has once again shown an alarming lack of transparency.
“Of course GMB wants our members’ pension pots to get back in the black – but shareholders should be topping it up.
“Instead they’re taking money out of the regulated company, money needed to stop spills and pay our members’ wages.”
He added: “Thames Water needs to front up about its financial chicanery, while shareholders need to cough up to fill the pensions black hole – not customers or taxpayers.”
The Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson Sarah Olney, who has called for Thames Water to be put into special administration by the government and for it to be reformed as a public benefit company, said: “This is a scandalous payout while our rivers are polluted with sewage and the company stands on the brink of bankruptcy.
“It is concrete evidence of why we need to abolish Ofwat and create a new water regulator with real teeth and power.
“The public will never forgive the Conservative party for how they have let water firms get away with financial mismanagement and environmental vandalism.”
Thames Water is just the tip of an ongoing scandal in which water companies are putting profit before the environment. That is why the Liberal Democrats have put in place a policy to bring these companies to heel. This involves:
* Setting meaningful targets and deadlines for water companies to end sewage discharges inIntroduce a Sewage Tax on water companies profits to fund the cleanup of waterways.to waterways.
* Introducing a Sewage Tax on water companies profits to fund the cleanup of waterways.
* Reducing the number of licences given to water companies permitting them to discharge sewage into rivers.
* Strengthening Ofwat’s powers to hold the companies accountable for discharging raw sewage into rivers.
* Adding local environmental groups onto water companies’ boards.
At the end of the day, however, the obvious solution is to renationalise the companies and have them working for the public benefit once again.
Monday, July 01, 2024
Can we stem the rising far right tide in the UK?
The Guardian references a report from the Fairness Foundation which concludes that the next government must take decisive action to reduce inequality or risk unprecedented far-right gains.
The paper says that the Foundation has concluded Britain will become more unfair and unequal over the next five years, with growing inequality in health, housing, poverty and the north-south income divide:
More than 30 people from business, academia and civil society have backed the report’s findings in a letter to all party leaders which expresses their dismay at the “lack of political will to address unfairness and inequality” in the UK.
“We believe that this is not only morally wrong, but is causing deep damage to our society, economy and democracy, and undermining the fight against the climate crisis,” they say.
“Failure to act now will make us less healthy, productive, efficient, resilient and cohesive.”
The new report, Canaries, warns that the number of children in relative poverty is set to rise from 30% to 33% by 2028, due to a freeze in housing benefit, the end of cost of living payments and the two-child benefit cap.
It also says that the number of children who live in overcrowded homes will rise from 1.8 million to 2 million by 2030, as housing becomes more expensive.
The average person in south-east England is £195,400 wealthier than in the north, a gap that is expected to grow to £229,000 by 2029 due to the unequal inheritance of wealth.
Education attainment gaps are likely to rise because school budgets are set to decline over the next five years.
Only 25.2% of disadvantaged children get five or more good GCSEs compared with 52.4% of their peers without disadvantages – a gap that has been widening since 2017.
And the earnings gap between chief executives and their employees is also likely to grow. FTSE350 CEOs earn 57 times more than the median wage of their workers and earnings inequality has grown by 20% from 1980 to 2019.
Will Snell, chief executive of the Fairness Foundation, said that most people in the UK agree that we must urgently address inequality. “But all the evidence points to the fact that Britain is a deeply unfair and unequal country,” he said.
“This undermines the very foundations of our society, damages our economy and endangers our democracy; and unfairness in Britain looks set to get even worse over the next few years. The canaries in the coal mine are no longer singing, and the next government needs to pay attention.”
Unfairness means people in deprived areas are more likely to fall ill for decades to come, the report says. These types of inequality act as a brake on economic growth, reduce social mobility and fuel social unrest.
Shabna Begum, chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, said: “There is a real threat that, unless a new government delivers swift and meaningful change to inequality, we will see far-right parties capitalise on desperation and despair and become a real electoral threat.”
The report’s recommendations include a plea to scrap the two-child benefit cap and adopt advice from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell Trust to introduce an “essentials guarantee” – a minimum level of Universal Credit support.
It also backs the Resolution Foundation’s suggestion of creating a £10,000 “citizens inheritance” given to all 30-year-olds, and a “universal savings account” merging pensions, Lifetime ISAs and Help to Save.
If the next government doesnt address this crisis then there is a real possibility of the far right here replicating the success of their sister party in France. Labour, the most likely next government, really needs to step up to the mark on this agenda.
