Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Labour failing on climate change
The paper says that flooding, droughts and heatwaves are all increasing in severity due to climate breakdown, but current plans to protect people, land and infrastructure against extreme weather have been judged inadequate by Brown's committee, in a scathing assessment of the UK’s preparedness.
Lady Brown said: “We are seeing no change in activity from the new government, despite the fact that … it’s clear to the public that the current approach just isn’t working. The country is at risk, people are at risk, and there is not enough being done,” adding that it is frightening that the government is not taking seriously the rapidly increasing risk of flooding and is instead considering cuts to flood defences.
The Treasury has indicated that flood spending would not be ringfenced and could be reduced in the spending review in June.
Brown said: “If that means they’re thinking of cutting the money for resilience to flooding, we would ask them to think again. I can’t be clear enough about our message: we cannot wait to take action. This is not tomorrow’s problem. It’s today’s problem. And if we don’t do something about it, it will become tomorrow’s disaster.”
She pointed to floods in Valencia that killed 220 people in October and floods in Germany and Belgium in 2021 with similar numbers of deaths. “These are very close to home. These things could happen in the UK and we need government to recognise that this is the disaster that could be happening tomorrow and start to really take this seriously,” she said. “It is quite frightening that the evidence we’ve got shows that it isn’t yet.”
Without increased focus on making the UK’s infrastructure and economy more resilient to extreme weather, the impacts of the climate crisis could destroy about 7% of the UK’s GDP by 2050, the CCC found. This compares with a cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 of about 0.2% of GDP per year.
The CCC’s latest two-year assessment of the UK’s progress in adapting to climate change, published on Wednesday, found failure across every measure and every form of infrastructure, from transport and energy to communications. People’s health was being put at risk by the failure to adapt, the report found, and the natural environment was being damaged.
One in four properties will be at risk of flooding by 2050 unless urgent action is taken, up from about 6.3m properties today, the report found. More than a third of the railways and road networks are already at risk of flooding, which will rise to about half by 2050.
More than half of England’s top quality agricultural land is already at risk of flooding, and harvests like last year’s – the second worst for arable on record – could become more common.
Although many of the findings in the CCC assessment relate to measures taken under the previous government, Brown said that Labour was failing to respond to the threats. “We’re seeing no increase in action,” she said.
The Environment Agency warned last year that inflation was eating into flood defence budgets, meaning fewer people were being protected for the same expenditure. The National Audit Office warned of a quarter of new flood defence projects being abandoned.
Athough the current government may well be playing catch-up after the appalling record of the previous Tory government, they do need to act swiftly and decisively to try and mitigate the impact of climate change on our communities. However, their own watchdog doesn't think they are doing enough. Let's hope they sit up and take notice.
Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Labour's benefit cuts could stifle the UK economy
The Guardian reports that the anti-poverty charity Trussell has warned that Labour’s tough stance on benefits is costing Britain’s economy billions of pounds each year while adding to the pressure on public services by pushing more people into poverty.
The paper says that Trussell believes that failing to tackle hunger and hardship will have severe human costs and cause damage to the wider economy and public finances:
Attacking Labour’s drive to find savings from the welfare bill despite repeated promises that there would be no return to austerity, it said the UK’s elevated levels of poverty meant the economy was missing out on more than £38bn each year in potential output.
The intervention comes as the government prepares to publish its long-awaited strategy for tackling child poverty in June, amid the heightened risk of a rebellion by Labour MPs opposed to the £5bn benefit cuts announced by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, in her spring statement.
It emerged last week that ministers are privately ruling out scrapping the controversial two-child limit introduced under the Conservatives, despite warnings from charities that a failure to do so could result in the highest levels of child poverty since records began.
Criticising the government’s benefit cuts and urging ministers to rethink their resistance to abolishing the two-child limit, Trussell argued that any narrow savings on the welfare bill should be viewed in the context of the wider costs to the UK economy, public finances and personal wellbeing.
In a report commissioned by the charity from experts at the consultancy WPI Economics, it said the UK was missing out on the full contributions of millions of people struggling in severe hardship.
It said as many as 9.3 million people in Britain faced hunger and hardship in the financial year ending in March 2023, including as many as 6.3 million adults and 3 million children. It defined a family as facing hunger and hardship if it was more than 25% below a poverty line set by the Social Metrics Commission, which measures a household’s savings and income.
Linking the impact of financial hardship on people’s chances of gaining and maintaining stable employment, it said lower levels of employment and weakness in productivity meant the economy was missing out on £38.2bn in annual output.
Without this contribution, the Treasury was also missing out on £18.4bn in tax revenues, and needed to spend about £5.3bn on social security payments to support people who were unemployed or receiving in-work benefits.
The higher likelihood that people in deep poverty require support from the NHS, social care services, homelessness support and the education system also meant there was a cost to the exchequer from high levels of poverty of about £13.7bn.
Part of this was down to an additional £1.5bn of spending allocated to schools to support children in poverty, such as free school meals and the pupil premium.
Although Trussell said the costs could not be immediately overcome, because policy changes take time to benefit a household’s financial position, it urged ministers to move quickly to revise their position on key benefit policies.
It said abolishing the two-child limit would lift 670,000 people out of facing hunger and hardship, including 470,000 children. This would lead to a reduction in costs to the economy, public services and the exchequer of more than £3bn.
Labour are learning that if you adopt an austerity agenda, which they have, then it will have unexpected repercussions.
Monday, April 28, 2025
Deregulating like it's the 1980s again - Labour risk another banking crash
The Independent reports that Rachel Reeves has told senior economists and business leaders that she wants to rip up regulations on the financial services sector brought in after the this crash.
The paper says that Reeves has been desperately looking for ways to kickstart economic growth in the UK, which has flatlined since Labour came to power last July with the country teetering on the edge of going into recession:
She said: “Excessive regulation makes it hard for new entrants to come into market, puts up prices for consumers.
“So I do think that we've gone too far in one direction. And of course, after the financial crisis, we had to put in place a good, greater set of regulations than we had before, sure, but we are now what you know, getting on for 20 years since the financial crisis. And I do think we've got to think about that balance.”
When major banks and financial institutions collapsed around the world in 2008 because they were overleveraged on the property markets, the then-Labour government in the UK was forced to bail out Lloyds, Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Gordon Brown’s government had to nationalise Northern Rock and the collapse saw new red tape and regulations brought in to prevent a similar crisis from happening again.
Internationally, the crisis saw whole countries’ economies, including Greece and Ireland, having to be bailed out.
But Ms Reeves, who until the debate had not indicated any major policy change on her trip to the International Monetary Fund conference of finance ministers in Washington DC, was clear that she considered financial regulation to be similar to environmental.
She repeated Labour’s plans to strip away protection for nature to allow new infrastructure and housing to be built.
This is seriously risky stuff from Labour. It is bad enough that they are compromising our environment with their growth agenda, but unleashing speculators in financial markets devoid of many of the safeguards put into place after the crash, is risking further economic chaos.
The paper says that Reeves has been desperately looking for ways to kickstart economic growth in the UK, which has flatlined since Labour came to power last July with the country teetering on the edge of going into recession:
She said: “Excessive regulation makes it hard for new entrants to come into market, puts up prices for consumers.
“So I do think that we've gone too far in one direction. And of course, after the financial crisis, we had to put in place a good, greater set of regulations than we had before, sure, but we are now what you know, getting on for 20 years since the financial crisis. And I do think we've got to think about that balance.”
When major banks and financial institutions collapsed around the world in 2008 because they were overleveraged on the property markets, the then-Labour government in the UK was forced to bail out Lloyds, Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Gordon Brown’s government had to nationalise Northern Rock and the collapse saw new red tape and regulations brought in to prevent a similar crisis from happening again.
Internationally, the crisis saw whole countries’ economies, including Greece and Ireland, having to be bailed out.
But Ms Reeves, who until the debate had not indicated any major policy change on her trip to the International Monetary Fund conference of finance ministers in Washington DC, was clear that she considered financial regulation to be similar to environmental.
She repeated Labour’s plans to strip away protection for nature to allow new infrastructure and housing to be built.
This is seriously risky stuff from Labour. It is bad enough that they are compromising our environment with their growth agenda, but unleashing speculators in financial markets devoid of many of the safeguards put into place after the crash, is risking further economic chaos.
Sunday, April 27, 2025
Labour Tory spy charter under fire
The paper says that in an attempt to claw back the annual £9.7bn in benefit overpayments made by the Department for Work and Pensions due to fraud or error, the government has adopted Conservative plans for debt recovery:
A fraud, error and recovery bill would give the DWP the power to require banks to provide data to help identify when an applicant is not meeting the eligibility criteria for a benefit for which they have applied.
The bill would allow the government to demand bank statements to identify debtors who have sufficient funds to repay what they owe through fraud or error in a claim. The DWP would then have the power to recover money directly from bank accounts of those not on benefits or in PAYE employment who are identified as having the means to pay.
Those who repeatedly fail to repay funds could fall prey to a suspended DWP disqualification order that would disqualify them from holding a driving licence.
Liz Kendall, the secretary of state for work and pensions, has said the powers are necessary to deal with a “broken welfare system” but she is facing opposition from her own backbenches.
Amendments tabled by the Labour MP for Poole, Neil Duncan-Jordan, that would force the government to drop key strands of the bill are supported by a growing number of MPs in Starmer’s party.
The amendments, backed by 17 named Labour MPs, would ensure that only those suspected of fraud rather than being the victim of an error were subjected to surveillance, “allowing the government to target criminality without monitoring the public”, Duncan-Jordan said.
The Labour MP is also proposing to remove the power to apply to a court to strip people of their driving licences due to debt, describing the policy as a “poverty penalty”
Duncan-Jordan, is particularly exercised about this issues accusing Starmer’s government of “resurrecting Tory proposals for mass spying on people who receive state support”.
He says that this legislation “would compel banks to carry out financial surveillance of welfare recipients”, adding that “given the volume of accounts involved, this will be completed by an algorithm”:
“If the software flags a possible overpayment, whether due to fraud or error, the bank will report the individual to the Department for Work and Pensions for further investigation”, Duncan-Jordan writes. “By default, welfare recipients would be treated as suspects, simply because they need support from the state.”
He adds that the government should learn from the Post Office scandal in which a faulty computer system led to hundreds of people being falsely accused of fraud and error.
He writes: “The risk of a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale is glaringly obvious when millions are being monitored. It will be disabled people, carers, pensioners and the very poorest people who are impacted by wrongful investigations and forced to endure burdensome appeals to prove their innocence.”
Yet again Labour opts for an ICT solution to a problem, failing to learn from all the government failures in this area, including but not only the post office scandal. This is not going to end well.
Saturday, April 26, 2025
Water bosses could face jail for cover-ups
Their website says that bosses who fail to co-operate or obstruct investigators looking into sewage spills can now be jailed for up to two years:
The government said the threat of tougher sentences would act as a "powerful deterrent".
At the same time a highly critical report from the public spending watchdog accuses the government and regulators of failing to manage risk and drive investment in the water sector, contributing to higher bills for customers.
The National Audit Office's report said consumer trust was at an "all-time low".
It pointed the finger at the regulators, Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), for failing to drive improvements to the system.
Water companies have come under fire in recent years for allowing more frequent discharging of sewage spills, polluting rivers and lakes.
Firms have been accused of paying dividends to shareholders and bonuses to executives, while failing to invest enough money in the water infrastructure to cope with a growing population and more extreme weather.
However, it is Defra and the regulators who are jointly responsible for setting the framework the water companies operate under.
The government said the new powers to punish executives were needed because in the past water companies had failed to hand over vital evidence related to illegal sewage discharges.
Regulation had been "weak and toothless" with no accountability, said Environment Secretary Steve Reed.
"It's shocking that not a single water executive faced a fine, let alone a prison sentence, despite widespread law-breaking," he told the BBC's Today programme.
Campaign group River Action welcomed the new measures but said they would only be effective if they were used.
Getting tougher with executives who break the law is welcome of course, but unless they sort the regulators out then there is not going to be any change to the pollution that is blighting water courses all over England and Wales.
Friday, April 25, 2025
Is a Tory leadership contest inevitable?
The paper says that a letter to local election candidates offering his support was revealed just 24 hours after a recording emerged of him laying out a pledge to unite the Conservative Party and Reform UK.
In the letter, Mr Jenrick said: “I firmly believe that the best way to defeat our opponents is to champion Conservative values. We must not only stand by our Conservative principles but also put them into action.”
He offered to help with association fundraising and noted that he is speaking at events. The letter did not mention Tory leader Ms Badenoch, who defeated him last autumn in the final round.
It comes as Tory MPs are privately questioning Ms Badenoch’s leadership since she took over from Rishi Sunak in November, with some openly speculating that she could quit or be forced out.
This comes despite Ms Badenoch having her strongest Prime Minister’s Questions yet this week when she took aim at Sir Keir Starmer over the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling suggesting that only biological women should be considered to be women in terms of female sports or single sex spaces.
But a lack of strong performances previously at PMQs, a failure to produce policies, and criticism over her handling of other MPs and the party have raised questions about whether she is the right person to continue to lead the party.
Added to that, the Conservatives are expected to lose hundreds of seats next week. Tory peer Lord Hayward, a leading pollster, has estimated they could lose up to 525 of the 954 seats they are defending. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage and Reform could win an estimated 450 seats.
But many MPs and senior party members are openly speculating that Ms Badenoch could be on her way out, leaving a contest between Mr Jenrick and former foreign secretary Sir James Cleverly.
One MP described Ms Badenoch as “too acerbic”.
Another said: “It feels like a matter of time now. Jenrick has clearly never stopped campaigning, and Cleverly is quietly turning up to member events to keep himself in the picture.”
A third warned: “We seem to still be losing ground to Farage and Reform, and nobody knows what we stand for.”
One former Downing Street adviser described it as “an utter shit show”.
Of course we've been here before, with Tory MPs ousting leaders only to find that things are no better with the new person. Liz Truss, anybody? A leadership contest is looking inevitable, as is a further period of turmoil within the Tory Party. This is not going to end well for them.
Thursday, April 24, 2025
Throwing in the towel
The paper says that the Conservative leader has warned Tory supporters to brace for a “very difficult” set of results for the party as voters go to the polls next Thursday, adding that Badenoch is leading the Tories into the local elections against a high watermark set by Boris Johnson at the peak of his popularity in 2021.
And, setting expectations low for her first electoral test as leader of the Conservatives, Ms Badenoch told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We lost last year in a historic defeat - these elections are going to be very difficult for Conservatives.
"Two-thirds of the seats four years ago we won - there's no way we are going to be able to do that again."
She added: "Protest is in the air - protest parties are doing well at the moment.
"It's really important that we take time to get things right - rebuild trust with the public and have a credible offer.
"I'm not saying everything we did was correct - that's why we've seen support for other parties."
The Liberal Democrats said Ms Badenoch has “thrown in the towel before a single vote has been counted in next week's local elections”.
Daisy Cooper said Kemi Badenoch doesn’t have a positive message for voters.
Deputy leader Daisy Cooper added: “The Conservative Party doesn't have any answers on the big issues facing the country, because their fingerprints of failure are all over them.
"The Conservatives trashed the NHS, blew a hole in the public finances and allowed water companies to commit an environmental catastrophe with sewage dumping.
"It's up to the public to decide what issues they will be voting on at these elections, and many will be voting to deliver another message to the Conservatives on the mess in which they’ve left the country and local services."
In just over a week we'll see what actually happens.
Wednesday, April 23, 2025
Will Labour fail to act on key child poverty issue?
The paper quotes Government sources who say that charities and Labour MPs who were concerned that wider benefit cuts would push more families into poverty should “read the tea leaves” over Labour’s plans:
“If they still think we’re going to scrap the cap then they’re listening to the wrong people. We’re simply not going to find a way to do that. The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness,” one source said.
In a letter to Keir Starmer on Tuesday, groups including Barnardo’s, Save the Children UK and Citizens Advice said scrapping the two-child benefit limit would be the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty.
The Child Poverty Action Group, which signed the letter, estimated the number of children in poverty would increase from 4.5 million to 4.8 million by 2029 unless urgent action is taken.
The government is planning to publish its long-awaited child poverty strategy in June, around the time of the spending review, raising expectations the plan will come with funding attached to try to drive down poverty levels.
As one MP says: “Ditching the cap is by far the most effective way of tackling child poverty. We have a moral obligation to do this. I’m afraid they’ll use the breakfast clubs to soften us up to tell us the two-child benefit cap remains.”
If Labour fail to revoke this cap it will amount to a betrayal of their core values. So far Labour MPs have been persuaded to give the government some leeway because of the promise of the new strategy in June. They may not be so understanding if ministers let them down.
Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Some MPs spending a day a week on second jobs
The paper says that their analysis of self-declared working hours found the seven had worked at least 300 hours since July – the equivalent of eight hours a week, in outside employment averaged across the parliament – totalling more than 3,000 hours between them. A further seven MPs had worked at least five hours a week on a second job.
Naturally, the MP who has made the most money from outside employment in this parliament is Nigel Farage, who has declared an average of about 24 hours’ work a week as a cameo creator, GB News presenter, media commentator, public speaker, Telegraph journalist, brand ambassador and social media influencer.
This could explain why Farage has voted in only a third of parliamentary votes so far this parliament, while the average MP has voted 72% of the time, according to figures from the Public Whip. The figures don’t include abstentions, meaning MPs could have been in parliament but not taken a side on an issue:
The analysis excluded billed hours for work in other elected positions – a further 27 MPs had worked an average of one business day a week as a councillor since being elected to the Commons, with some declaring almost 30 hours weekly for their council role. An analysis by ITV News found 26 MPs were still doubling up their job in parliament with their local role, with a majority of those attending fewer than half of council meetings since being elected to parliament.
In total, 236 out of 650 MPs declared at least some outside earnings, working a combined 32,000 hours between them in the first 264 days of parliament. Of those MPs, 105 had declared at least one period of ongoing paid employment, and 164 had declared at least one ad-hoc payment.
The Labour party previously pledged to ban all second jobs, but has since softened its stance to focus on paid advisory or consultancy roles.
In 2011, the Hansard Society found that MPs from the 2010 intake estimated they worked an average of 69 hours a week.
An MP of course, has a duty to his/her constituents and it is for them to determine if he or she is doing the job properly. It is an intensive role, leaving me to wonder how somebody like Farage could do it properly with so many other roles.
Monday, April 21, 2025
An unholy alliance?
MSN reports that the objective of these discussions is to take on the “Establishment Blob”. You couldn't make it up: a former Prime Minister who achieved that position by climbing up the ranks of the Conservative Party establishment, joining with a former public school boy and ex-city of London commodities trader, to take down the very system that made them and which they remain an intimate part of.
MSN say that Truss is giving Reform advice on how to engineer a major overhaul of the state, a discussion Farage has also had with ex-Vote Leave mastermind Dominic Cummings:
“It’s not just a case of thinking about policy, it’s about working through delivery in the face of institutional resistance,” a source told The Times.
Despite Reform and the Tories ruling out any electoral alliance, Truss recently urged the “best of the Conservatives and the best of Reform” to work together.
We await the outcome of these talks with interest.
Sunday, April 20, 2025
Labour MPs revolt
The paper adds that this major rebellion appears to be hardening on the Labour benches rather than subsiding, despite frantic efforts by whips and government ministers to talk MPs round.
The source of these MPs' ire is legislation being introduced to the House of Commons in early June to allow the cuts to come into force. The cuts will include tightening the criteria for personal independence payments (Pip) for people with disabilities, to limit the number of people who can claim it. One such change is that people who are not able to wash the lower half of their body will no longer be able to claim Pip unless they have another limiting condition:
One idea being floated as a way to win over rebels is for ministers to publish their long-awaited child poverty strategy shortly before the key Commons votes, and in it offer additional money for poor parents of children under five. Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall is understood to be examining a proposal focused on the youngest children that would cost less than the £3.6bn needed to scrap entirely the controversial two-child limit on benefit payments. It is now accepted in government that, given the state of public finances, the cap cannot be scrapped in the short term.
Many of the several dozen Labour MPs who are angry at their party’s cuts say they will refuse to get involved in any such “trade off” involving children in poverty and the disabled.
Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, who is planning to vote against the legislation, said: “You can’t compromise with a trade-off under which you say you will take more children from poor families out of poverty by placing more disabled people into poverty. That simply cannot be right.
“The government really does need to start listening to MPs, civil society and the population at large because there is really widespread opposition to these policies.”
Ministers and the Labour whips have been holding talks with concerned MPs over recent days, only to find the strength of feeling is not abating. A group of MPs is understood to be preparing to break cover by calling for a complete rethink. One government source said: “If anything, I think there is more worry than there was. It is like this is non-negotiable for many of our people.”
Another major complaint from Labour MPs is that they will be asked to vote on the legislation to implement the benefits cuts before the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has concluded an impact assessment on the effect they will have on getting people off welfare and into the workforce – the stated objective of the cuts. The OBR report is not due until the autumn.
Last month, Keir Starmer said there was a “moral” as well as an economic case for reforming the benefit system. “It is indefensible, economically and morally, and we must and we will reform it. We will have clear principles, we will protect those who need protecting.
“We will also support those who can work back to work, but Labour is the party of work – we’re also the party of equality and fairness.”
Another Labour MP opposed to the cuts, Neil Duncan-Jordan, who won the seat of Poole in Dorset by just 18 votes last July, overturning a Conservative majority of 19,000, said he had more than 5,000 Pip recipients in his seat.
He said he could not support any compromise or “trade off”. “There is not a hierachy of need,” he said. “The whole policy is wrong. It goes without saying that if these benefits cuts go through, I will be toast in this seat.”
Duncan-Jordan said it did not make sense that MPs were being asked to vote on the cuts before the OBR had reported on how effective they would be in returning people to the workplace. “We are being asked to take a leap of faith. It does not make sense.”
In its report accompanying Rachel Reeves’s spring statement, the OBR said that “the full impacts of these policies are very uncertain, given the complexity of how trends in health, demography and the economy interact with the benefits system (as our 2024 welfare trends report explored).
“Welfare reforms incorporated into previous OBR forecasts have in many cases saved much less than initially expected, such as the transition from disability living allowance to Pip, or taken far longer to implement than expected, as was the case for the roll-out of universal credit.”
Whether this rebellion is big enough to force a rethink by Keir Starmer on these inhuman cuts has to be seen, after all he has a huge majority and many Labour MPs will want to enjoy the Prime Minister's patronage at some stage in this Parliament.
Those who are holding out against the cuts however, are causing Ministers a great deal of discomfort. That discomfort is nothing, of course, compared to the experience of the disabled people who will be hit by these changes to their benefits.
Saturday, April 19, 2025
Green party candidate tries to evict Labour opponent
The Guardian reports that a Green party council candidate is attempting to evict his Labour opponent from a house he owns using a no-fault notice, despite his party supporting a ban on exactly such kinds of eviction.
The paper says that William Pedley, who is standing for the Greens in the Victoria ward of North Northamptonshire council, has served a section 21 notice on his tenant and political rival Kelly Duddridge, who has lived in the property for 10 years:
Duddridge remains in the property but says the threat of eviction has caused her and her family significant stress, while Labour has accused Pedley of hypocrisy given his party’s opposition to no-fault evictions. Other Green party politicians have been accused of showing hypocrisy by calling for more clean energy while opposing solar farms and electricity pylons in their local areas.
Duddridge told the Guardian: “I am trying not to think about having to move away from the house. I love the neighbours and my four children are settled. But the reality is, once a section 21 notice has been served, there is not much I can do about it.”
A Labour spokesperson said: “This is yet more rank hypocrisy from the Green party. Threatening to evict a tenant via no-fault eviction while standing on a platform to abolish section 21 simply beggars belief. Time and again they pledge one thing and do another.”
A Green party spokesperson said: “We understand that Mr Pedley served the section 21 eviction notice almost a year ago. The order was served because his personal circumstances meant he required the premises for his own use.”
Section 21 notices allow landlords to take back control of their properties with two months’ notice without the tenant being at fault. Labour is planning to abolish such evictions as part of its renters’ rights bill, which has passed the Commons and is due to be debated in the Lords.
The Greens have also backed an end to no-fault evictions. In its fair deal for renters, the party argues that ending the practice will mean tenants “don’t have their lives turned upside down on the whim of their landlords”.
This is going to play well with voters, is it?
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.
Tuesday, April 08, 2025
Time for UK to step up in response to Trump
The paper says that the intervention comes as the government scrambles to boost support for British businesses and negotiate a trade deal with the US that would give Britain a carve-out to avoid the sweeping tariffs, which have been slapped on all major economies:
The UK should “notch up” its threats of retaliation towards Donald Trump after he imposed 10 per cent tariffs on UK exports, a former ambassador to the US has said.
It comes as the government scrambles to boost support for British businesses and negotiate a trade deal with the US that would give Britain a carve-out to avoid the sweeping tariffs, which have been slapped on all major economies.
While the UK has said nothing is off the table when it comes to responding to the tariffs, Sir Nigel Sheinwald said the UK should have gone further, earlier with its threats.
“I think it's right that we should say we're going to think about retaliation. We might indeed have said that a little bit earlier on”, Sir Nigel told Sky News.
“I think it's always wrong to take that off the table or sound as if you don't mean it, because in the world of trade policy and trade negotiators, this is a tough world where you've got to brandish those weapons and seem as though you're prepared to use them.”
“I think the tempo and the tone need to be notched up somewhat”, he added.
Another former ambassador urged the PM to build a 'coalition of the willing' against Trump's tariffs.
Lord Ricketts told the Independent: “With the level of turbulence and unpredictability off the scale, two priorities stand out. First, move further and faster to draw closer to the EU. Second, just as with the coalition of the willing with Europeans on defence, we need a coalition of like-minded democracies to keep alive a rules-based economic order.”
I think both of these former ambassadors are spot on. Trump is playing hardball and he doesnt respect weakness. If we are going to negotiate he has to understand that we are prepared to retaliate in kind if he doesnt make concessions, otherwise he will walk all over us.
Monday, April 07, 2025
Starmer under pressure for Brexit reset
The paper says that Trade unions, who were previously divided over Brexit and still provide more than half of Labour’s campaign funding, are now at the forefront of a new push for much closer ties with the EU:
Armed with a survey by pollster Peter McLeod – who has carried out research for Labour and the unions – the Trades Union Congress (TUC) has joined with business groups and others to urge Sir Keir to rethink his Brexit red lines.
While the prime minister has insisted he will resist what he calls “a false choice” between the EU and US, the TUC’s public demands are being reflected in private by many in Labour as well.
It follows President Trump imposing a 10 per cent base “reciprocal tariff” on the UK, half of the 20 per cent slapped on the EU. Other countries such as China, South Korea, Japan and Cambodia face tariffs of more than 30 per cent.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak told The Independent: “The British public agree – they overwhelmingly back a common-sense reset. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit agreement has set workers and business back, at home and abroad.
“It’s time for a new approach that honours the referendum result while giving us a much-needed closer trading relationship with the EU.”
The survey of 5,000 voters for the TUC by Mr McLeod revealed that 66 per cent now want closer ties with the EU.
Even some supporters of pro-Brexit parties want closer ties with the EU – Reform (former Brexit Party) voters now back closer ties with Brussels by 42 per cent to 41 per cent, while Tory voters overwhelmingly back closer ties by 67 per cent to 21 per cent.
The polling also showed that eight in 10 Conservative to Labour switchers at the 2024 general election, and more than half (56 per cent) of Reform-leaning voters (who voted Labour in 2024 but would now vote Reform) support a closer UK-EU relationship. Only 28 per cent opposed closer ties.
Mr McLeod said: "The new poll confirms that what we heard from those voters also holds nationally by a very strong margin.
"The focus groups help explain why a lot of people feel this way. The dominant view was that Brexit has not been a success and that it would be sensible to try for a better deal. Some of the Leave voters in our groups expressly said that their votes had been a mistake.”
Labour MPs are also demanding that the Brexit reset talks set to conclude in a month are made much more ambitious.
The Liberal Democrats are absolutely right to be pushing this.The best way to stand up to Trump is to work with our allies in the EU. Now is the time to start re-establishing those relationships.
Sunday, April 06, 2025
Tory defectors on ballot paper
The paper says that Reform has also selected an ex-Conservative for its candidate in the upcoming Runcorn and Helsby byelection, while the party’s mayoral candidate for Greater Lincolnshire is the former Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns, who lost her parliamentary seat in West Yorkshire last July:
All but one of Reform’s MPs, including the party leader, Nigel Farage, were previously members of the Conservative party.
Labour has accused Farage’s party of a “mass rebrand” as Reform populates its ranks with candidates seeking to “save their own political careers” after the Conservatives suffered huge losses in the 2024 general election.
A Reform spokesperson said: “This is less than 4% of all our 1,630 candidates. Is this the same Labour party that accepted the defections of then Conservative MPs Christian Wakeford and Natalie Elphicke?”
The Labour study of candidate nominations for the local elections in May shows more than 60 Reform council candidates across Britain have served as councillors, candidates or activists for the Tories.
Reform’s parliamentary candidate for the byelection in Runcorn and Helsby, triggered by the resignation of the Labour MP Mike Amesbury after a criminal conviction, is Sarah Pochin, a former Tory councillor for Cheshire East.
In social media posts that have been deleted since Pochin became a Reform candidate, she described her “absolute pleasure” posing in 2019 with the then levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, while she was a Conservative councillor, before describing her meeting with Liz Truss’s business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, as “inspiring”.
Nineteen of the 23 councils up for election this May are run by the Conservatives. There will be mayoral elections in the West of England, and Peterborough and Cambridgeshire, and inaugural mayoral contests in Hull and East Yorkshire, and Greater Lincolnshire.
A Labour spokesperson said: “A snake might shed its skin but at the end of the day it’s still a snake. Is that why so many of Nigel Farage’s council candidates are slithering away from their years serving the Tory party?
I'm not quite clear what exactly Labour think they are achieving with this sort of rhetoric. Surely, it's universally known that large numbers of Reform members and candidates have come from the political right, many from the Conservative Party.
If former Labour voters are inclined to back Farage's horde as a protest vote, then Labour portraying Reform as Tory-lite is unlikely to dissuade them.
Saturday, April 05, 2025
Blunting the Percy Pig invasion
As the Guardian reports, Heard Island and McDonald Islands have been hit with a 10% tariff on goods. These islands form an external territory of Australia and are among the remotest places on Earth, accessible only via a two-week boat voyage from Perth on Australia’s west coast. The paper adds that are completely uninhabited, with the last visit from people believed to be nearly 10 years ago.
Other territories on the White House list were the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island and Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island, which has a population of 2,188 people and lies 1,600km (1,000 miles) north-east of Sydney, was hit with a tariff of 29% – 19 percentage points higher than the rest of Australia. This has left local officials scratching their heads.
The Guardian says that the United States' Observatory of Economic Complexity data believes that in 2023, Norfolk Island exported US$655,000 (A$1.04m) worth of goods to the US, with its main export being US$413,000 (A$658,000) worth of leather footwear. However, George Plant, the administrator of Norfolk Island, disputes this. He told the paper that: “There are no known exports from Norfolk Island to the United States and no tariffs or known non-tariff trade barriers on goods coming to Norfolk Island.”
The Guardian thinks that there has been a case of mistaken identity, and that in fact, the goods originated in Norfolk, UK:
The Guardian has identified two bills of lading – records of cargo shipments – for shipments each containing 3,714 black Timberland men’s ankle boots that set sail from South Riding port in the Bahamas for Miami, Florida, in December 2023. The shipments were worth a combined total of US$315,000 (A$498,000).
The bills of lading list “Norfolk Island” as the country of origin and the address of the shipper as Timberland, 200 Domain Drive, Stratham 03885-2575, Norfolk Island.
Timberland’s corporate office address is listed as 200 Domain Drive, Stratham, New Hampshire on its LinkedIn page.
A spokesperson for Timberland shoes said: “We are in a quiet period and have no comment.”
Other bills of lading that appear to have erroneously listed Norfolk Island as the country of origin include several from an aquarium and fountain company, OASE, which sent shipments from Norfolk in the UK to the US, and steel equipment sent from Novum Structures in Norfolk, UK, to the US.
Novum Structure’s address is listed on one bill of lading as 14 Hopper Way, Diss Business Park, Diss, Norfolk Island, instead of Norfolk in the UK, which is its EU headquarters, according to Novum’s website.
Meanwhile, stock markets all over the world are taking a massive hit as a result of these tariffs, with the consensus being that the United States' economy is going to suffer badly from rising prices and more unemployment as a result.
United States-based victims of the policy could well be those with a sweet tooth. The Guardian reports that Trump has effectively derailed plans by Marks and Spencer to launch its Percy Pig range in Target stores there.
The paper says that Archie Norman, the chair of M&S, has described Percy as the retailer’s “gift to America” but he told the Retail Technology Show in London that “we might have to change our minds” because Trump has imposed additional taxes on imported goods. They add that while M&S is not considering withdrawing the sweets, tariffs could push up prices and make them less popular:
The pink confectionery which sells more than 18m bags a year in the UK and is apparently enjoyed by celebrities including Adele and Olivia Rodrigo, went on sale in the US on 30 March both in Target stores across the US and on its website in what was described as Percy’s “biggest journey to date”.
The pigs may have to stay at home.
