Thursday, April 18, 2024
Oops, they did it again!
There is no surer sign of a government party in its desth throes than a succession of scandals amongst its MPs leading to suspensions, resignations and bad newspaper headlines like these.
The Guardian says that a Conservative MP has lost the party whip over allegations he misused campaign funds and demanded thousands of pounds from an aide to pay off “bad people” in the middle of the night:
Mark Menzies, 52, was suspended from the Tory parliamentary party on Wednesday night while an investigation is carried out.
The Conservatives took action after the allegations were made public in a report by the Times.
Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, said the party had been aware of the claims “for a while” but “further information came to light yesterday”.
Shapps told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “I understand that CCHQ have been aware for it for a while and have been investigating, and I think some new investigation has come to light subsequently.”
Menzies denies the allegations and maintains he has followed all the rules about funding declarations.
The case is the latest alleged misconduct scandal to rock the Conservative party. It comes only weeks after William Wragg, another MP who has now lost the Tory whip, claimed he handed over colleagues’ personal numbers to someone who had compromising material on him.
How convenient that this didn't become public until after Prime Minister's Questions.
The Guardian says that a Conservative MP has lost the party whip over allegations he misused campaign funds and demanded thousands of pounds from an aide to pay off “bad people” in the middle of the night:
Mark Menzies, 52, was suspended from the Tory parliamentary party on Wednesday night while an investigation is carried out.
The Conservatives took action after the allegations were made public in a report by the Times.
Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, said the party had been aware of the claims “for a while” but “further information came to light yesterday”.
Shapps told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “I understand that CCHQ have been aware for it for a while and have been investigating, and I think some new investigation has come to light subsequently.”
Menzies denies the allegations and maintains he has followed all the rules about funding declarations.
The case is the latest alleged misconduct scandal to rock the Conservative party. It comes only weeks after William Wragg, another MP who has now lost the Tory whip, claimed he handed over colleagues’ personal numbers to someone who had compromising material on him.
How convenient that this didn't become public until after Prime Minister's Questions.
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
The oxygen of publicity
The far right thrives on publicity, and of all those who flirt with the far right agenda, Nigel Farage is the biggest publicity junkie of all. So, who in their right mind would give them what they want by shutting down an obscure conference which had until them slipped under the radar?
The Mirror reports that the culprit was Emir Kir, the mayor of Brussels district Saint-Josse-ten-Noode. They say that police attempted to shut down the right-wing political conference in Brussels attended by ex-Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Nigel Farage, with officers entered the venue to serve a court order demanding the National Conservatism (NatCon) event cease on public safety grounds as Farage was making a speech:
The former Ukip leader reportedly told the audience: “I understand the police are very keen to shut this down. Well, in that case they can do it while I’m still on stage.”
Organisers were told to wrap up the conference following an intervention from the local mayor. Emir Kir, mayor of Brussels district Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, said: "In Etterbeek, in Brussels City and in Saint-Josse, the far-right is not welcome." But NatCon said it was "legally challenging" the order as it said there were "no grounds to shut down a gathering of politicians, intellectuals, journalists, students, civic leaders, and concerned citizens".
In a video on social media, Mr Farage said the Brussels authorities were behaving "like the old Soviet Union". Following her speech, Ms Braverman hit out at the "Brussels thought police" and claimed it was proof right-wingers are "winning the arguments".
Ms Braverman used her speech to stick the boot into Rishi Sunak for being too weak to take Britain out of the European Court of Human Rights. She said: “The current UK Government doesn’t have the political will to take on the ECHR and hasn’t laid the groundwork for doing so. And so it’s no surprise that recent noises in this direction are easily dismissed as inauthentic."
The conference had already been forced into several venue changes after a string of hosts cancelled due to pressure from local politicians. This lead organisers to accuse the Brussels mayor Philippe Close of seeking to "cancel" the event. Concerns were also raised over security issues due to protests, with the conference shuttering the main entrance of the venue so people couldn't get in.
In a democracy we tolerate the expression of all views no matter how obnoxious, providing they are legal. Trying to suppress these people just plays into their hands, gives them an element of legitimacy and arguably mirrors the sort of crackdown they may impose on their opponents if they ever got into power.
The Mirror reports that the culprit was Emir Kir, the mayor of Brussels district Saint-Josse-ten-Noode. They say that police attempted to shut down the right-wing political conference in Brussels attended by ex-Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Nigel Farage, with officers entered the venue to serve a court order demanding the National Conservatism (NatCon) event cease on public safety grounds as Farage was making a speech:
The former Ukip leader reportedly told the audience: “I understand the police are very keen to shut this down. Well, in that case they can do it while I’m still on stage.”
Organisers were told to wrap up the conference following an intervention from the local mayor. Emir Kir, mayor of Brussels district Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, said: "In Etterbeek, in Brussels City and in Saint-Josse, the far-right is not welcome." But NatCon said it was "legally challenging" the order as it said there were "no grounds to shut down a gathering of politicians, intellectuals, journalists, students, civic leaders, and concerned citizens".
In a video on social media, Mr Farage said the Brussels authorities were behaving "like the old Soviet Union". Following her speech, Ms Braverman hit out at the "Brussels thought police" and claimed it was proof right-wingers are "winning the arguments".
Ms Braverman used her speech to stick the boot into Rishi Sunak for being too weak to take Britain out of the European Court of Human Rights. She said: “The current UK Government doesn’t have the political will to take on the ECHR and hasn’t laid the groundwork for doing so. And so it’s no surprise that recent noises in this direction are easily dismissed as inauthentic."
The conference had already been forced into several venue changes after a string of hosts cancelled due to pressure from local politicians. This lead organisers to accuse the Brussels mayor Philippe Close of seeking to "cancel" the event. Concerns were also raised over security issues due to protests, with the conference shuttering the main entrance of the venue so people couldn't get in.
In a democracy we tolerate the expression of all views no matter how obnoxious, providing they are legal. Trying to suppress these people just plays into their hands, gives them an element of legitimacy and arguably mirrors the sort of crackdown they may impose on their opponents if they ever got into power.
Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Same old excuses from new Welsh First Minister
A large number of the commentariat have been shocked by the recent announcement of ninety job losses at the National Museum and Galleries of Wales, but more so by the claim by Museum Wales' chief executive Jane Richardson's that she may be forced to close one of its best known buildings, National Museum Cardiff, because of its deteriorating condition.
Naturally, the new First Minister was approached for a comment and, true to form, he demonstrated his trademark political clay feet by failing to even allay people's concerns. As the BBC report, at his press conference in Ebbw Vale on Monday, Vaughan Gething offered no immediate help for Museum Wales, saying that the potential closure was a consequence of making the NHS a priority after a decade of austerity and that the Welsh government faced "difficult choices":
In a statement released the next day, Museum Wales said it currently has no plans to close National Museum Cardiff.
"However, the deterioration to the roof of the museum is significant," the statement said.
"We're therefore in discussions with Welsh government to secure capital funding specifically for building maintenance."
In a bid to prop up the NHS and Transport for Wales the Welsh government has made cuts to most other areas of its budget.
Museum Wales has had a £3m reduction in its grant, but says that because it continues to incur a year-on-year deficit of £1.5m it had to address a total deficit of £4.5m by the of March.
It has a £90m repair backlog across its sites - the organisation runs seven national museums.
It is the same old story, the same excuses, blame somebody else and moan that there is nothing that can be done. Except in this case, it shouldn't be too difficult to secure the future of the Cardiff museum as the urgent need is for capital investment, not revenue and that can be borrowed, or the Welsh Government can move around their existing programme to provide assistance.
So, why didn't Vaughan Gething say instead that they are looking at that specific aspect of the museum's crisis?
Naturally, the new First Minister was approached for a comment and, true to form, he demonstrated his trademark political clay feet by failing to even allay people's concerns. As the BBC report, at his press conference in Ebbw Vale on Monday, Vaughan Gething offered no immediate help for Museum Wales, saying that the potential closure was a consequence of making the NHS a priority after a decade of austerity and that the Welsh government faced "difficult choices":
In a statement released the next day, Museum Wales said it currently has no plans to close National Museum Cardiff.
"However, the deterioration to the roof of the museum is significant," the statement said.
"We're therefore in discussions with Welsh government to secure capital funding specifically for building maintenance."
In a bid to prop up the NHS and Transport for Wales the Welsh government has made cuts to most other areas of its budget.
Museum Wales has had a £3m reduction in its grant, but says that because it continues to incur a year-on-year deficit of £1.5m it had to address a total deficit of £4.5m by the of March.
It has a £90m repair backlog across its sites - the organisation runs seven national museums.
It is the same old story, the same excuses, blame somebody else and moan that there is nothing that can be done. Except in this case, it shouldn't be too difficult to secure the future of the Cardiff museum as the urgent need is for capital investment, not revenue and that can be borrowed, or the Welsh Government can move around their existing programme to provide assistance.
So, why didn't Vaughan Gething say instead that they are looking at that specific aspect of the museum's crisis?
Already, we are getting indications of a significant fall-off in quality at the top of the Welsh Government. Is Gething starting to look tired already?
Monday, April 15, 2024
Ping pong must continue
I woke up this morning to confident assertions by Tory politicians and the unquestioning affirmation of BBC journalists, that the government's Rwanda bill is going to pass into law this week and that the first flights would be taking off within a month.
My first reaction to this was 'not if the House of Lords have any say in the matter' and then I remmembered that prolonged ping pong between the two Houses of Parliament depends on peers not losing their nerve and that, in turn, relies on Labour being prepared to do what they haven't been willing to countenance so far, use the second chamber to frustrate the will of the House of Commons through persistent and constructive amendments.
This opinion piece in the Guardian by Simon McDonald resonates strongly with my thinking on the matter. He says that peers know the Rwanda bill is flawed and dangerous and suggests that they must use every power to oppose it:
So far this year, the House of Lords has debated the safety of Rwanda bill for more than 40 hours. Immediately before Easter, the Lords passed a second set of seven amendments and returned the bill to the Commons (which had earlier rejected the first set of 10 amendments). The Commons will consider those amendments when parliament returns from its Easter recess tomorrow.
The debate in the Lords has highlighted the fundamental flaws of the legislation, legally and constitutionally. But the government believes that “stopping the boats” is important enough to override the UK’s traditional respect for human rights; it argues that the scheme will have such a powerful deterrent effect that potential asylum seekers won’t cross the Channel.
Deterrence works in one of two ways. The more powerful is the certainty of unpleasant consequences when you do something. The UK-Albania communique, signed in December 2022, falls into that category. Albanians who claim asylum in the UK now know that they will be returned to Albania; they have substantially stopped coming.
Being uncertain that unpleasant consequences will not follow exerts a less powerful but sometimes still effective deterrent effect. The government hopes the Rwanda scheme falls into this category. And yet debate has revealed facts that undermine their case. First, the Home Office minister, Lord Sharpe, revealed that about 55,000 asylum applications were lodged in the last nine months of 2023. Second, ministers failed to deny reports that Rwanda has agreed to take just 300 refugees in the first three years of the scheme’s operation. So, a refugee’s chances of deportation are minimal. Very few potential asylum seekers would be deterred by such odds, having already journeyed thousands of miles and overcome numerous challenges.
The scheme would also be astronomically expensive: the National Audit Office puts the costs at £541m. The cost for each refugee sent to Rwanda would be about £1.8m over three years. As Lord Carlile has observed, it would be cheaper to put them up at the Ritz.
For this doomed venture, the government is asking parliament to pass legislation that is extraordinary in two ways. First, the bill declares as a fact that Rwanda is safe enough to provide shelter for vulnerable people fleeing persecution in their home countries. It is true that Rwanda has seen astonishing progress since the genocide that began 30 years ago this month. But it is not safe. President Kagame does not tolerate dissent. And the best our government can manage when challenged over the treatment of the LGBTQ+ community is that Rwanda does better than its neighbours, some of the world’s most notoriously hostile countries towards LGBTQ+ people. Rwanda is also embroiled in the civil war in eastern Congo; no one in Kinshasa considers Rwanda a safe country to do business with.
Repeatedly, ministers cite the signature of the UK-Rwanda treaty as clinching proof that Rwanda is safe. Kigali has made a series of promises that parliament is invited to take at face value. But signatures are cheap. Naivety is the second worst failing of diplomats. Ronald Reagan was guided by the principle “Trust but verify”. The House of Lords international agreements committee concurs and has set out 10 tests it believes need to be passed before the treaty can safely come into force. The government rejects the need to verify.
Second, the bill states that British courts must accept that Rwanda is safe; courts can neither question that view now nor in the future in the light of new evidence that Rwanda may no longer be safe. From time to time, governments set out controversial facts in legislation. To date, it has been possible to test such facts in court; that happened, for example, with the Asylum and Immigration Act (2004) when the courts upheld the government’s view that Rwanda could be considered a “safe third country”.
This time is different. The courts will be told unequivocally that they cannot question the government’s view. This is unusual but not unprecedented. Lord Hoffmann reminded the Lords of the last such case, the Acte for Poysoning (1531). Henry VIII had a pathological fear of poisoning. Originally the bill had two provisions: to treat all cases of poisoning as treason and to stipulate death by boiling for anyone found guilty. At the last minute, he added a third clause, after two people died following a dinner party given by the bishop of Rochester in February 1531. The bill found Richard Roose, the cook, guilty of poisoning. Royal assent was given on 31 March and Roose boiled to death on 15 April.
Even at the time, parliamentarians were uneasy; the act was used in only one other case before its repeal in the first year of the reign of Henry’s successor. But the stain on the country’s reputation is remembered 493 years later. The government wants to repeat Henry’s error.
The big question now is will the Lords and Labour have the cojones to send this bill into long term ping pong, so that it cannot pass before a general election is held to provide a mandate for it.
My first reaction to this was 'not if the House of Lords have any say in the matter' and then I remmembered that prolonged ping pong between the two Houses of Parliament depends on peers not losing their nerve and that, in turn, relies on Labour being prepared to do what they haven't been willing to countenance so far, use the second chamber to frustrate the will of the House of Commons through persistent and constructive amendments.
This opinion piece in the Guardian by Simon McDonald resonates strongly with my thinking on the matter. He says that peers know the Rwanda bill is flawed and dangerous and suggests that they must use every power to oppose it:
So far this year, the House of Lords has debated the safety of Rwanda bill for more than 40 hours. Immediately before Easter, the Lords passed a second set of seven amendments and returned the bill to the Commons (which had earlier rejected the first set of 10 amendments). The Commons will consider those amendments when parliament returns from its Easter recess tomorrow.
The debate in the Lords has highlighted the fundamental flaws of the legislation, legally and constitutionally. But the government believes that “stopping the boats” is important enough to override the UK’s traditional respect for human rights; it argues that the scheme will have such a powerful deterrent effect that potential asylum seekers won’t cross the Channel.
Deterrence works in one of two ways. The more powerful is the certainty of unpleasant consequences when you do something. The UK-Albania communique, signed in December 2022, falls into that category. Albanians who claim asylum in the UK now know that they will be returned to Albania; they have substantially stopped coming.
Being uncertain that unpleasant consequences will not follow exerts a less powerful but sometimes still effective deterrent effect. The government hopes the Rwanda scheme falls into this category. And yet debate has revealed facts that undermine their case. First, the Home Office minister, Lord Sharpe, revealed that about 55,000 asylum applications were lodged in the last nine months of 2023. Second, ministers failed to deny reports that Rwanda has agreed to take just 300 refugees in the first three years of the scheme’s operation. So, a refugee’s chances of deportation are minimal. Very few potential asylum seekers would be deterred by such odds, having already journeyed thousands of miles and overcome numerous challenges.
The scheme would also be astronomically expensive: the National Audit Office puts the costs at £541m. The cost for each refugee sent to Rwanda would be about £1.8m over three years. As Lord Carlile has observed, it would be cheaper to put them up at the Ritz.
For this doomed venture, the government is asking parliament to pass legislation that is extraordinary in two ways. First, the bill declares as a fact that Rwanda is safe enough to provide shelter for vulnerable people fleeing persecution in their home countries. It is true that Rwanda has seen astonishing progress since the genocide that began 30 years ago this month. But it is not safe. President Kagame does not tolerate dissent. And the best our government can manage when challenged over the treatment of the LGBTQ+ community is that Rwanda does better than its neighbours, some of the world’s most notoriously hostile countries towards LGBTQ+ people. Rwanda is also embroiled in the civil war in eastern Congo; no one in Kinshasa considers Rwanda a safe country to do business with.
Repeatedly, ministers cite the signature of the UK-Rwanda treaty as clinching proof that Rwanda is safe. Kigali has made a series of promises that parliament is invited to take at face value. But signatures are cheap. Naivety is the second worst failing of diplomats. Ronald Reagan was guided by the principle “Trust but verify”. The House of Lords international agreements committee concurs and has set out 10 tests it believes need to be passed before the treaty can safely come into force. The government rejects the need to verify.
Second, the bill states that British courts must accept that Rwanda is safe; courts can neither question that view now nor in the future in the light of new evidence that Rwanda may no longer be safe. From time to time, governments set out controversial facts in legislation. To date, it has been possible to test such facts in court; that happened, for example, with the Asylum and Immigration Act (2004) when the courts upheld the government’s view that Rwanda could be considered a “safe third country”.
This time is different. The courts will be told unequivocally that they cannot question the government’s view. This is unusual but not unprecedented. Lord Hoffmann reminded the Lords of the last such case, the Acte for Poysoning (1531). Henry VIII had a pathological fear of poisoning. Originally the bill had two provisions: to treat all cases of poisoning as treason and to stipulate death by boiling for anyone found guilty. At the last minute, he added a third clause, after two people died following a dinner party given by the bishop of Rochester in February 1531. The bill found Richard Roose, the cook, guilty of poisoning. Royal assent was given on 31 March and Roose boiled to death on 15 April.
Even at the time, parliamentarians were uneasy; the act was used in only one other case before its repeal in the first year of the reign of Henry’s successor. But the stain on the country’s reputation is remembered 493 years later. The government wants to repeat Henry’s error.
The big question now is will the Lords and Labour have the cojones to send this bill into long term ping pong, so that it cannot pass before a general election is held to provide a mandate for it.
Sunday, April 14, 2024
Following the money
As is well-known it is not just the Tory Party who give special treatment to their donors, all the parties are at it. As if to remind us of that fact, the Guardian reports that senior members of the shadow cabinet have held a private meeting with a group of financial services companies to discuss the party’s banking policies just weeks after one of the companies donated £150,000 to the party.
The paper says that six senior Labour figures – including the leader, Keir Starmer, the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the shadow business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds – attended the meeting in Edinburgh last December, according to an investigation by the website OpenDemocracy:
Companies in attendance included the investment managers Baillie Gifford and Aegon, as well as Bloomberg and NatWest. Bloomberg had just donated its largest sum in years through its trading subsidiary.
According to a now-deleted LinkedIn post by an employee of one of the companies at the meeting, Starmer and his ministerial team offered those in attendance an “exclusive dive” into the launch of its financial services policy.
The revelations have sparked concerns about the possibility the party is allowing its top donors to help shape policy in a way that could further their corporate interests.
Steve Goodrich, the head of research and investigations at Transparency International UK, said: “Parties should scrupulously avoid the perception that they’re offering privileged political access in return for cash. The next general election looks set to be the most expensive in modern times, so it’s crucial that politicians of all stripes avoid stumbling into quid pro quos in the rush for funds.”
A Labour party spokesperson said: “It is standard practice for the Labour party to meet with the private sector.”
Bloomberg declined to comment.
Starmer and Reeves have made it a priority to win back support from the City of London in recent years. They have embarked on a series of meetings with business leaders described as the “prawn cocktail offensive 2.0”, in reference to similar efforts by Tony Blair in the 1990s.
As part of that, the party has overhauled its approach to the financial services sector, including appointing a panel of 10 advisers from the City and clarifying that it will not reimpose a cap on bankers’ bonuses.
In December, shadow ministers travelled to Edinburgh to present the new panel and to highlight their commitment to boosting the sector. Tulip Siddiq, the shadow City minister, told the Financial Times before the visit that her party had stopped “sneering at business”.
The OpenDemocracy investigation has found that during the visit, Siddiq and her colleagues attended a roundtable meeting convened by Bloomberg and the lobbying group Sovereign Strategy. Other senior Labour figures who attended included Anas Sarwar, the party’s leader in Scotland, and Daniel Johnson, the member of the Scottish parliament for Edinburgh Southern.
Electoral Commission records show that Bloomberg Trading Facility – the company’s platform for trading financial investment products – gave Labour £150,000 about a month before the meeting, the largest sum given by any Bloomberg company since the Brexit referendum in 2016. That single donation made Bloomberg one of the party’s top corporate donors for the whole year.
One of the lobbyists involved in setting up the meeting posted afterwards on LinkedIn that it had offered “a very thorough discussion on Labour’s vision and priorities for economic growth, outlook for the financial services industry and an exclusive dive into Labour’s launch of the financial services policy review”.
Labour later published a video from the event showing Starmer speaking while his shadow ministers looked on. The party did not say which companies attended the meeting, but the video shows Starmer telling them: “What you now see is a Labour party that is fundamentally different to the Labour party that fought the last general election. Unrecognisably different. And very obviously pro-business.”
The following month, Labour announced its new financial services plan, in which it promised to cut down 10,000 pages of regulations and ruled out a windfall tax on bank profits.
All of this is standard practice in politics nowadays but it is sad that it took a deleted Linkedin post to highlight the meeting. If we can't reform the way political parties finance themselves then we should at least expect some transparency.
The paper says that six senior Labour figures – including the leader, Keir Starmer, the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the shadow business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds – attended the meeting in Edinburgh last December, according to an investigation by the website OpenDemocracy:
Companies in attendance included the investment managers Baillie Gifford and Aegon, as well as Bloomberg and NatWest. Bloomberg had just donated its largest sum in years through its trading subsidiary.
According to a now-deleted LinkedIn post by an employee of one of the companies at the meeting, Starmer and his ministerial team offered those in attendance an “exclusive dive” into the launch of its financial services policy.
The revelations have sparked concerns about the possibility the party is allowing its top donors to help shape policy in a way that could further their corporate interests.
Steve Goodrich, the head of research and investigations at Transparency International UK, said: “Parties should scrupulously avoid the perception that they’re offering privileged political access in return for cash. The next general election looks set to be the most expensive in modern times, so it’s crucial that politicians of all stripes avoid stumbling into quid pro quos in the rush for funds.”
A Labour party spokesperson said: “It is standard practice for the Labour party to meet with the private sector.”
Bloomberg declined to comment.
Starmer and Reeves have made it a priority to win back support from the City of London in recent years. They have embarked on a series of meetings with business leaders described as the “prawn cocktail offensive 2.0”, in reference to similar efforts by Tony Blair in the 1990s.
As part of that, the party has overhauled its approach to the financial services sector, including appointing a panel of 10 advisers from the City and clarifying that it will not reimpose a cap on bankers’ bonuses.
In December, shadow ministers travelled to Edinburgh to present the new panel and to highlight their commitment to boosting the sector. Tulip Siddiq, the shadow City minister, told the Financial Times before the visit that her party had stopped “sneering at business”.
The OpenDemocracy investigation has found that during the visit, Siddiq and her colleagues attended a roundtable meeting convened by Bloomberg and the lobbying group Sovereign Strategy. Other senior Labour figures who attended included Anas Sarwar, the party’s leader in Scotland, and Daniel Johnson, the member of the Scottish parliament for Edinburgh Southern.
Electoral Commission records show that Bloomberg Trading Facility – the company’s platform for trading financial investment products – gave Labour £150,000 about a month before the meeting, the largest sum given by any Bloomberg company since the Brexit referendum in 2016. That single donation made Bloomberg one of the party’s top corporate donors for the whole year.
One of the lobbyists involved in setting up the meeting posted afterwards on LinkedIn that it had offered “a very thorough discussion on Labour’s vision and priorities for economic growth, outlook for the financial services industry and an exclusive dive into Labour’s launch of the financial services policy review”.
Labour later published a video from the event showing Starmer speaking while his shadow ministers looked on. The party did not say which companies attended the meeting, but the video shows Starmer telling them: “What you now see is a Labour party that is fundamentally different to the Labour party that fought the last general election. Unrecognisably different. And very obviously pro-business.”
The following month, Labour announced its new financial services plan, in which it promised to cut down 10,000 pages of regulations and ruled out a windfall tax on bank profits.
All of this is standard practice in politics nowadays but it is sad that it took a deleted Linkedin post to highlight the meeting. If we can't reform the way political parties finance themselves then we should at least expect some transparency.
Saturday, April 06, 2024
The wrong trousers
Michael Gove has a peculiar penchant for unexpected admissions when we least expect them, so really it should have come as no surprise that he has fessed up to “moral cowardice” during the Brexit campaign after not telling then-prime minister David Cameron about his prominent role in the Leave campaign.
The Guardian reports that the levelling-up secretary made the comments to former chancellor George Osborne on the Political Currency podcast, which is also hosted by former Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls:
Mr Osborne, a steadfast Remainer, said that Mr Gove had promised Lord Cameron he would not take up a “prominent role” in the campaign, but ended up one of the most visible members of the Vote Leave group.
The former chancellor asked Mr Gove: “Did you deceive David? He certainly felt, at the time, betrayed.”
Mr Gove denied that be betrayed Lord Cameron, but added: “As I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.
“And I think that was an example of, on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice, on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision.
“But I think David, entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”
Mr Gove said he ended up “going further” than he thought in the campaign as he ended up in television debates and political shows as a representative for Vote Leave.
Mr Balls asked the levelling up secretary if Mr Cummings’s influence was one reason he became more involved than he thought he would at the start of the Brexit campaign.
Mr Gove responded: “Yes. And again, one of the arguments was ‘if you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on’, and then with a sweep of his arm pointing to all the people in the office, including people who had been working with me for years, said: ‘You cannot let these people down’.”
He added that unlike Mr Osborne, who stayed up all night to see the result of the referendum, he only knew Vote Leave had won when his wife woke him up the next morning.
“I didn’t wake anyone up, I just went and lay on the sofa wide awake,” he said. “And not only did I think, as I still do, this is a disaster for my country, I just knew it was an absolute disaster for my career, it was basically the end of my political career. It’s definitely, of my political career – of any part of my career – the most traumatic day of my life.”
Mr Cameron and Mr Gove were formerly close friends but fell out in 2016 over Mr Gove’s active role in leading the Brexit campaign against him.
Unfortunately, this mea culpa is entirely misplaced. The real apology he should be offering is to the British people for condemning us to decades of economic stagnation and political isolation in campaigning for Brexit in the first place.
The Guardian reports that the levelling-up secretary made the comments to former chancellor George Osborne on the Political Currency podcast, which is also hosted by former Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls:
Mr Osborne, a steadfast Remainer, said that Mr Gove had promised Lord Cameron he would not take up a “prominent role” in the campaign, but ended up one of the most visible members of the Vote Leave group.
The former chancellor asked Mr Gove: “Did you deceive David? He certainly felt, at the time, betrayed.”
Mr Gove denied that be betrayed Lord Cameron, but added: “As I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.
“And I think that was an example of, on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice, on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision.
“But I think David, entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”
Mr Gove said he ended up “going further” than he thought in the campaign as he ended up in television debates and political shows as a representative for Vote Leave.
Mr Balls asked the levelling up secretary if Mr Cummings’s influence was one reason he became more involved than he thought he would at the start of the Brexit campaign.
Mr Gove responded: “Yes. And again, one of the arguments was ‘if you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on’, and then with a sweep of his arm pointing to all the people in the office, including people who had been working with me for years, said: ‘You cannot let these people down’.”
He added that unlike Mr Osborne, who stayed up all night to see the result of the referendum, he only knew Vote Leave had won when his wife woke him up the next morning.
“I didn’t wake anyone up, I just went and lay on the sofa wide awake,” he said. “And not only did I think, as I still do, this is a disaster for my country, I just knew it was an absolute disaster for my career, it was basically the end of my political career. It’s definitely, of my political career – of any part of my career – the most traumatic day of my life.”
Mr Cameron and Mr Gove were formerly close friends but fell out in 2016 over Mr Gove’s active role in leading the Brexit campaign against him.
Unfortunately, this mea culpa is entirely misplaced. The real apology he should be offering is to the British people for condemning us to decades of economic stagnation and political isolation in campaigning for Brexit in the first place.
Friday, April 05, 2024
A lucrative route to the House of Lords?
The Mirror highlights a report by Transparency International UK that almost a quarter of people nominated for a seat in the House of Lords over the last 10 years have donated to a political party, new figures reveal today. They say that 68 out of 284 peerage nominations from political parties made between 2013 and 2023 were political donors:
Together the individuals had boosted parties' coffers by a staggering £58million - with 91% of the donations (£53.4million) going to the Tories. Twelve of the "super donors" - representing 92% of all donations - had also provided donations of over £1million, the research reveals.
Transparency International UK says it has become "increasingly clear that the second chamber is being brought into disrepute, in large part due to political patronage, and there is a growing consensus that retaining the status quo is untenable".
The report calls for honours lists for resigning Prime Ministers to be scrapped and an end to their "unfettered power to make appointments" to the Lords. It also demands beefed up powers for the Lords' vetting body to veto nominations "they deem unsuitable or improper".
Chief Executive of Transparency UK Daniel Bruce said: "It should be deeply concerning that all too often those donating large sums of money to our political leaders are then handed jobs for life, making our laws in Parliament. This is inconsistent with the spirit of laws intended to protect the integrity of the upper house."
He added: “With the absence of meaningful checks on political appointments, combined with the limitless ability of the Prime Minister to appoint supporters and allies to the House of Lords, it is now increasingly clear that this patronage is bringing the second chamber into disrepute."
The research comes after Rishi Sunak handed out knighthoods to right-wing Tory MPs in a surprise honours list snuck out before the Easter weekend. There was also a knighthood for mega-donor Mohamed Mansour, a Tory party treasurer, who gave the Conservatives £5million last year.
Of course, this is not just the Tories, it relates to other political parties as well. Surely the time for reform is long past, not to mention abolishing the House of Lords altogether and replacing it with an elected second chamber.
Together the individuals had boosted parties' coffers by a staggering £58million - with 91% of the donations (£53.4million) going to the Tories. Twelve of the "super donors" - representing 92% of all donations - had also provided donations of over £1million, the research reveals.
Transparency International UK says it has become "increasingly clear that the second chamber is being brought into disrepute, in large part due to political patronage, and there is a growing consensus that retaining the status quo is untenable".
The report calls for honours lists for resigning Prime Ministers to be scrapped and an end to their "unfettered power to make appointments" to the Lords. It also demands beefed up powers for the Lords' vetting body to veto nominations "they deem unsuitable or improper".
Chief Executive of Transparency UK Daniel Bruce said: "It should be deeply concerning that all too often those donating large sums of money to our political leaders are then handed jobs for life, making our laws in Parliament. This is inconsistent with the spirit of laws intended to protect the integrity of the upper house."
He added: “With the absence of meaningful checks on political appointments, combined with the limitless ability of the Prime Minister to appoint supporters and allies to the House of Lords, it is now increasingly clear that this patronage is bringing the second chamber into disrepute."
The research comes after Rishi Sunak handed out knighthoods to right-wing Tory MPs in a surprise honours list snuck out before the Easter weekend. There was also a knighthood for mega-donor Mohamed Mansour, a Tory party treasurer, who gave the Conservatives £5million last year.
Of course, this is not just the Tories, it relates to other political parties as well. Surely the time for reform is long past, not to mention abolishing the House of Lords altogether and replacing it with an elected second chamber.
Thursday, April 04, 2024
Brexit strikes again on cost of living
As if things were not hard enough for families struggling to make ends meet, the Guardian reports that consumers could see a rise in food prices after the UK government announced the introduction of post-Brexit charges on imports of EU food and plant products later this month.
The paper says that the government has published details of fees – known as the common user charge – which will apply to small imports of animal products and plants, such as sausages, cheese and yoghurt, entering the UK from the EU through the port of Dover and through Eurotunnel at Folkestone:
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the fees of up to £145, which come into force on 30 April, will pay for border inspections and improve biosecurity by preventing the import of plant and animal diseases into the UK. The charges apply to imports entering the UK and transits entering and leaving.
Trade groups criticised the charges and said the move would increase business costs and food prices and lead to potentially fewer choices for shoppers.
William Bain, the head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, called the move “extremely disappointing” and said the government had failed to listen to industry concerns.
“The level of import charges shows scant regard to the interests of both businesses and consumers,” he said. “A flat rate fee for bringing most animal and plant products into the UK is a hammer blow for small and medium-sized importers. It’s also deeply concerning for retailers, cafes and restaurants.”
He said importing a small consignment of goods with only five different meat, poultry, egg, milk or some fish products in the medium-risk category meant firms would face a bill of £145 a package under these proposals.
Phil Pluck, the chief executive of the Cold Chain Federation, which represents importers of perishable goods, said the charges had been introduced “at the last minute”, which he said gave companies very little time to alter their commercial arrangements with EU customers.
“This is in no way helpful to UK-based importers and the whole EU supply chain. It reinforces the government’s slapdash approach to a vital part of UK plc,” he said.
“Our main concern is that this is now certain to negatively affect food prices. The confirmation that common user charges will apply from 30 April means that UK importers of medium and high-risk goods will have to pass this cost on to either the EU importer, the smaller UK retailer, or the UK consumer.
“Ultimately, this will increase business costs and food prices and potentially lower choices for the shopper.”
Yet another consequence of leaving the EU that pro-Europeans warned about during the referendum, but which warnings were dismissed as scare-mongering by Brexiteers.
The paper says that the government has published details of fees – known as the common user charge – which will apply to small imports of animal products and plants, such as sausages, cheese and yoghurt, entering the UK from the EU through the port of Dover and through Eurotunnel at Folkestone:
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the fees of up to £145, which come into force on 30 April, will pay for border inspections and improve biosecurity by preventing the import of plant and animal diseases into the UK. The charges apply to imports entering the UK and transits entering and leaving.
Trade groups criticised the charges and said the move would increase business costs and food prices and lead to potentially fewer choices for shoppers.
William Bain, the head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, called the move “extremely disappointing” and said the government had failed to listen to industry concerns.
“The level of import charges shows scant regard to the interests of both businesses and consumers,” he said. “A flat rate fee for bringing most animal and plant products into the UK is a hammer blow for small and medium-sized importers. It’s also deeply concerning for retailers, cafes and restaurants.”
He said importing a small consignment of goods with only five different meat, poultry, egg, milk or some fish products in the medium-risk category meant firms would face a bill of £145 a package under these proposals.
Phil Pluck, the chief executive of the Cold Chain Federation, which represents importers of perishable goods, said the charges had been introduced “at the last minute”, which he said gave companies very little time to alter their commercial arrangements with EU customers.
“This is in no way helpful to UK-based importers and the whole EU supply chain. It reinforces the government’s slapdash approach to a vital part of UK plc,” he said.
“Our main concern is that this is now certain to negatively affect food prices. The confirmation that common user charges will apply from 30 April means that UK importers of medium and high-risk goods will have to pass this cost on to either the EU importer, the smaller UK retailer, or the UK consumer.
“Ultimately, this will increase business costs and food prices and potentially lower choices for the shopper.”
Yet another consequence of leaving the EU that pro-Europeans warned about during the referendum, but which warnings were dismissed as scare-mongering by Brexiteers.
Wednesday, April 03, 2024
Not a level playing field
It was inevitable really that Boris Johnson's promise of levelling up the poorest areas of the UK was going to fall foul of poor administration, political favouritism and bad local choices.
There was always going to be an inadequate amount of money at a UK level to come anywhere near meeting the ambitions set out for the scheme, while given the paucity of resources available to local councils, any programme that relies on an expensive five stage bidding process and match-funding was going to struggle to get off the ground.
Combine that with local political leaders cherry-picking prestigous investments over measures that would make a real difference in terms of skill-building and employment and we have a strategy that has been almost designed to fail.
The Guardian reports that local councils have now woken up to this reality and have demanded an independent review of the levelling up policy, in the face of what they describe as years of hype, disappointment, bureaucratic delay and a “begging bowl” culture:
Levelling up was launched by Johnson after the Conservatives won the 2019 general election, as he promised to boost left-behind parts of the UK by committing billions to regenerate town centres, upgrade local transport and invest in cultural assets.
Four years and several funding rounds later, many local politicians are angry and frustrated over their experiences with a complex, demanding, seemingly random bidding system for numerous pots of levelling up funds that have ultimately so far led to little change.
Even more baffling to many is the evolution of a policy that seemingly sought initially to prioritise deprived post-industrial cities of the north and Midlands in the name of reducing regional inequality, but now embraces such relatively affluent places as Cambridge, Buckinghamshire and Canary Wharf in London’s docklands.
“One of our bids was for a housing site in the most deprived part of County Durham – top 10 most deprived areas in the country. How can that not be eligible for levelling up but a historic castle renovation in Kent can? What’s levelling up about that?” said Amanda Hopgood, the Liberal Democrat leader of Durham county council.
Confusingly, three of the top 20 most deprived council areas in England – Middlesbrough, Hastings and Rochdale – were awarded no cash over three rounds of the actual levelling up fund, although they did get cash from different pots under the wider collection of levelling up funds, including the towns fund and the shared prosperity fund (there are now an estimated 36 pots in total.)
The funds have different eligibility, application and reporting requirements, with each bid typically costing councils between £30,000 and £60,000, according to parliament’s spending watchdog. Some councils say they have heeded official feedback on failed bids and invested heavily in the next bid, only to be knocked back again “having done everything they asked”.
Gedling borough council in Nottinghamshire learned in November it had yet again failed with a levelling up fund bid (three neighbouring councils had by that stage been awarded tens of millions between them). It furiously accused the government of “moving the goalposts and leaving councils like us with absolutely nothing, time and time again”.
This month, after years of trying, it finally succeeded – getting £20m from the long-term plan for towns fund. “The begging bowl culture created by this government when it comes to allocating funding to local towns, means this funding has come years later than it should have done,” said Michael Payne, the deputy leader of Gedling borough council.
Hopgood called for an independent review of the government’s “dreadful” handling of a bids process that led to councils wasting scarce resources of time and money. County Durham estimates it spent £1.2m on five bids that were unsuccessful after the government changed the rules on eligibility after they had been submitted.
“The frustration is – you spend your time bidding. You haven’t actually got the money to do the bidding or the resources. The successful bids seem arbitrary. You can’t be certain the outcome related to the quality of the bid. You start to believe its been tweaked politically,” said Graham Chapman, a Nottingham City Labour councillor and vice-chair of the Special Interest Group Of Municipal Authorities.
One council chief executive in the south of England lamented the stop-start short-termism of levelling up, made worse by huge council budget cuts. He pointed to the success of a municipal arts centre planned and built locally under an old-style regeneration scheme before austerity took hold. “We would never build that today because there isn’t the resource, the certainty or the capacity to do it.”
Chapman criticises levelling up’s lack of ambition and focus on physical infrastructure at the expense of tackling skills shortages: “It was the only game in town, but it was naive, totally superficial and underfunded. You don’t turn anything around with a few bob over a few years. You can’t just tart up the town centre and think you are levelling up,” he said.
The sad part of all this is that the scheme's failure for precisely these reasons could have been predicted before it got off the ground. Levelling up has officially joined all the many, many other big ideas of UK Ministers over many decades, in the political dustbin,
There was always going to be an inadequate amount of money at a UK level to come anywhere near meeting the ambitions set out for the scheme, while given the paucity of resources available to local councils, any programme that relies on an expensive five stage bidding process and match-funding was going to struggle to get off the ground.
Combine that with local political leaders cherry-picking prestigous investments over measures that would make a real difference in terms of skill-building and employment and we have a strategy that has been almost designed to fail.
The Guardian reports that local councils have now woken up to this reality and have demanded an independent review of the levelling up policy, in the face of what they describe as years of hype, disappointment, bureaucratic delay and a “begging bowl” culture:
Levelling up was launched by Johnson after the Conservatives won the 2019 general election, as he promised to boost left-behind parts of the UK by committing billions to regenerate town centres, upgrade local transport and invest in cultural assets.
Four years and several funding rounds later, many local politicians are angry and frustrated over their experiences with a complex, demanding, seemingly random bidding system for numerous pots of levelling up funds that have ultimately so far led to little change.
Even more baffling to many is the evolution of a policy that seemingly sought initially to prioritise deprived post-industrial cities of the north and Midlands in the name of reducing regional inequality, but now embraces such relatively affluent places as Cambridge, Buckinghamshire and Canary Wharf in London’s docklands.
“One of our bids was for a housing site in the most deprived part of County Durham – top 10 most deprived areas in the country. How can that not be eligible for levelling up but a historic castle renovation in Kent can? What’s levelling up about that?” said Amanda Hopgood, the Liberal Democrat leader of Durham county council.
Confusingly, three of the top 20 most deprived council areas in England – Middlesbrough, Hastings and Rochdale – were awarded no cash over three rounds of the actual levelling up fund, although they did get cash from different pots under the wider collection of levelling up funds, including the towns fund and the shared prosperity fund (there are now an estimated 36 pots in total.)
The funds have different eligibility, application and reporting requirements, with each bid typically costing councils between £30,000 and £60,000, according to parliament’s spending watchdog. Some councils say they have heeded official feedback on failed bids and invested heavily in the next bid, only to be knocked back again “having done everything they asked”.
Gedling borough council in Nottinghamshire learned in November it had yet again failed with a levelling up fund bid (three neighbouring councils had by that stage been awarded tens of millions between them). It furiously accused the government of “moving the goalposts and leaving councils like us with absolutely nothing, time and time again”.
This month, after years of trying, it finally succeeded – getting £20m from the long-term plan for towns fund. “The begging bowl culture created by this government when it comes to allocating funding to local towns, means this funding has come years later than it should have done,” said Michael Payne, the deputy leader of Gedling borough council.
Hopgood called for an independent review of the government’s “dreadful” handling of a bids process that led to councils wasting scarce resources of time and money. County Durham estimates it spent £1.2m on five bids that were unsuccessful after the government changed the rules on eligibility after they had been submitted.
“The frustration is – you spend your time bidding. You haven’t actually got the money to do the bidding or the resources. The successful bids seem arbitrary. You can’t be certain the outcome related to the quality of the bid. You start to believe its been tweaked politically,” said Graham Chapman, a Nottingham City Labour councillor and vice-chair of the Special Interest Group Of Municipal Authorities.
One council chief executive in the south of England lamented the stop-start short-termism of levelling up, made worse by huge council budget cuts. He pointed to the success of a municipal arts centre planned and built locally under an old-style regeneration scheme before austerity took hold. “We would never build that today because there isn’t the resource, the certainty or the capacity to do it.”
Chapman criticises levelling up’s lack of ambition and focus on physical infrastructure at the expense of tackling skills shortages: “It was the only game in town, but it was naive, totally superficial and underfunded. You don’t turn anything around with a few bob over a few years. You can’t just tart up the town centre and think you are levelling up,” he said.
The sad part of all this is that the scheme's failure for precisely these reasons could have been predicted before it got off the ground. Levelling up has officially joined all the many, many other big ideas of UK Ministers over many decades, in the political dustbin,
Tuesday, April 02, 2024
Heartless Tories target homeless
In many ways the controversial Criminal Justice Bill currently being considered by Parliament is classic Tory. It was first introduced when Suella Braverman - who branded homelessness a "lifestyle choice" - was Home Secretary, and includes a clampdown on rough sleepers. It creates new offences which would see people sleeping in doorways and on the streets punished for being a public nuisance.
It is partly reassuring therefore to see the bills most illiberal measures being challenged by a number of Tory backbenchers.
The Mirror reports that the Prime Minister is under growing pressure to abandon proposed new laws which would see homeless people face fines of up to £2,500 or imprisoned. He faces a rebellion from his own benches, while business minister Kevin Hollinrake today refused to publicly back the plan:
Lib Dem MP Layla Moran, who headed a cross-party campaign against previous plans to criminalise homelessness, branded the proposals "heartless". She said: "The government should listen to their own backbenchers and take a compassionate approach to tackling homelessness, instead of stigmatising and criminalising rough sleepers. Sleeping rough is not a lifestyle choice. Ministers should focus on tackling the root causes of this crisis, not scapegoating the victims of it."
Labour Shadow Policing Minister Alex Norris said: “With soaring serious violence, plummeting charging rates and rock bottom levels of confidence in policing the Criminal Justice Bill was a chance to address crucial community safety issues. Instead the Government have chosen to go after homeless people or indeed anyone who smells. These are the twisted priorities of a government out of time.”
Business minister Mr Hollinrake said: "Those things are not within my auspices. I will be interested to see the legislation as it goes through and what the Prime Minister has planned."
Matt Downie, chief executive of Crisis, the national homelessness charity, urged Home Secretary James Cleverly to "drop these cruel and unnecessary measures and focus on the real solutions" including building more social housing.
Polly Neate, chief executive of charity Shelter, said homelessness was a result of the Government's "catastrophic failure to build enough social homes combined with spiralling private rents". She said: “Parliament must not enact this legislation. Instead of punishing people for being homeless, politicians should be trying to prevent them from ending up on the streets."
This bill should never have seen the light of day in the first place. It is to the Tory;s shame that it is being taken seriously at all.
It is partly reassuring therefore to see the bills most illiberal measures being challenged by a number of Tory backbenchers.
The Mirror reports that the Prime Minister is under growing pressure to abandon proposed new laws which would see homeless people face fines of up to £2,500 or imprisoned. He faces a rebellion from his own benches, while business minister Kevin Hollinrake today refused to publicly back the plan:
Lib Dem MP Layla Moran, who headed a cross-party campaign against previous plans to criminalise homelessness, branded the proposals "heartless". She said: "The government should listen to their own backbenchers and take a compassionate approach to tackling homelessness, instead of stigmatising and criminalising rough sleepers. Sleeping rough is not a lifestyle choice. Ministers should focus on tackling the root causes of this crisis, not scapegoating the victims of it."
Labour Shadow Policing Minister Alex Norris said: “With soaring serious violence, plummeting charging rates and rock bottom levels of confidence in policing the Criminal Justice Bill was a chance to address crucial community safety issues. Instead the Government have chosen to go after homeless people or indeed anyone who smells. These are the twisted priorities of a government out of time.”
Business minister Mr Hollinrake said: "Those things are not within my auspices. I will be interested to see the legislation as it goes through and what the Prime Minister has planned."
Matt Downie, chief executive of Crisis, the national homelessness charity, urged Home Secretary James Cleverly to "drop these cruel and unnecessary measures and focus on the real solutions" including building more social housing.
Polly Neate, chief executive of charity Shelter, said homelessness was a result of the Government's "catastrophic failure to build enough social homes combined with spiralling private rents". She said: “Parliament must not enact this legislation. Instead of punishing people for being homeless, politicians should be trying to prevent them from ending up on the streets."
This bill should never have seen the light of day in the first place. It is to the Tory;s shame that it is being taken seriously at all.
