Thursday, November 23, 2023
Tory budget spin uncovered
The Guardian reports that the Chancellor's carefully constructed narrative of Tory budget measures relieving the tax burden on lower and middle income workers may not be as compelling as Jeremy Hunt believes.
They say that an analysis by the Resolution Foundation has found that the tax cuts worth £20bn in the autumn statement favoured the richest 20% of earners, undoing much of the progressive policy changes made during the parliament’s first half.
The top fifth will gain £1,000 on average, five times the gains seen by the bottom 20%, who will be only £200 better off from measures that include a 2p cut in national insurance, according to the Resolution Foundation’s analysis.
The thinktank also found that while earnings are growing faster than previously estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – the Treasury’s independent economic forecaster – real average earnings adjusted for inflation are not forecast to return to their 2008 peak until 2028 – “a totally unprecedented 20-year pay stagnation”.
The analysis said this parliament was on track to be the first in which real household disposable incomes fall – by 3.1% from December 2019 to January 2025. Households will on average be £1,900 poorer at the end of this parliament than at its start.
And the news gets worse:
Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said that “despite the tax-cutting rhetoric”, taxes are on course to rise by 4.5% of the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) between 2019 and 2020 and 2028 to 2029, equivalent to £4,300 a household.
The thinktank praised welfare benefit increases and a lifting of the cap on private rent subsidies after a freeze of several years that had been blamed for thousands of tenants being forced to leave their homes.
However, Bell added that the tax cuts and benefit rises were underpinned by an “implausible” squeeze on public services over the next five years that amounted to a 15% budget reduction in real terms for unprotected departments such as justice and transport.
Perhaps the Tory supporting newspapers should have paused for a bit before splashing celebratory headlines this morning.
They say that an analysis by the Resolution Foundation has found that the tax cuts worth £20bn in the autumn statement favoured the richest 20% of earners, undoing much of the progressive policy changes made during the parliament’s first half.
The top fifth will gain £1,000 on average, five times the gains seen by the bottom 20%, who will be only £200 better off from measures that include a 2p cut in national insurance, according to the Resolution Foundation’s analysis.
The thinktank also found that while earnings are growing faster than previously estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – the Treasury’s independent economic forecaster – real average earnings adjusted for inflation are not forecast to return to their 2008 peak until 2028 – “a totally unprecedented 20-year pay stagnation”.
The analysis said this parliament was on track to be the first in which real household disposable incomes fall – by 3.1% from December 2019 to January 2025. Households will on average be £1,900 poorer at the end of this parliament than at its start.
And the news gets worse:
Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said that “despite the tax-cutting rhetoric”, taxes are on course to rise by 4.5% of the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) between 2019 and 2020 and 2028 to 2029, equivalent to £4,300 a household.
The thinktank praised welfare benefit increases and a lifting of the cap on private rent subsidies after a freeze of several years that had been blamed for thousands of tenants being forced to leave their homes.
However, Bell added that the tax cuts and benefit rises were underpinned by an “implausible” squeeze on public services over the next five years that amounted to a 15% budget reduction in real terms for unprotected departments such as justice and transport.
Perhaps the Tory supporting newspapers should have paused for a bit before splashing celebratory headlines this morning.
Wednesday, November 22, 2023
Abusing the Tories
I was once told that a reasonable defence to a slander action was that the words used were commom abuse. I have no idea if that is the case and, of course, it will all depend on context, but it seems that in recent years the ability to effectively abuse people, particularly politicians, has been severely curtailed by the police and the courts.
This week's judgement by the High Court, therefore, upholding the acquittal of two protestors who called Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum” outside the Conservative party conference, seems to be a turning point.
The Guardian reports that Lord Justice Popplewell and Justice Fordham said no fault in law was made by a senior district judge last November in finding Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, not guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent:
In response to a request for a judicial review from the director of public prosecutions, the high court found that Judge Goldspring, who is also described as a chief magistrate, had made the important finding that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith, and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly.
There was nothing to undermine Goldspring’s conclusion that criminalising the words “Tory scum” would be a disproportionate interference in the two protesters’ rights, the high court ruled.
Tom Wainwright, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers representing Wood and Haslam, said the judgment represented an important defence of the right to freedom of expression.
He said: “Just the idea that someone can be convicted for saying this is bizarre in the first place. The director of public prosecutions was trying to put the burden on the defendants to show that they hadn’t crossed the line – the crucial question of when free speech crosses the line into something that is criminal.
“What this judgment confirms is that it is not for the defence to show that, but it is for the state to show that there is a good reason to restrict free speech and that a conviction is the only way that could be done.”
Of course anybody who has waded through a collection of political insults will know that the most effective are witty and cutting ripostes that undermine one's opponents credibility or arguments. Perhaps now that 'Tory scum' has been legalised protestors might consider developing a more sophisticated vocabulary.
N.B. Some of my favourite quotes are below:
Former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating on John Hewson: “He’s like a shiver waiting for a spine.”
Winston Churchill on Prime Minister Clement Attlee: “An empty cab pulled up to Downing Street. Clement Attlee got out.”
Adlai Stevenson on Richard Nixon: “The kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree and then mount the stump to make a speech for conservation.”
MP Jonathan Aitken on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “She probably thinks Sinai is the plural of sinus.”
This week's judgement by the High Court, therefore, upholding the acquittal of two protestors who called Iain Duncan Smith “Tory scum” outside the Conservative party conference, seems to be a turning point.
The Guardian reports that Lord Justice Popplewell and Justice Fordham said no fault in law was made by a senior district judge last November in finding Ruth Wood, 52, and Radical Haslam, 30, not guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent:
In response to a request for a judicial review from the director of public prosecutions, the high court found that Judge Goldspring, who is also described as a chief magistrate, had made the important finding that “the use of Tory scum was to highlight the policies” of Duncan Smith, and that this was relevant to the “reasonableness of the conduct” in relation to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly.
There was nothing to undermine Goldspring’s conclusion that criminalising the words “Tory scum” would be a disproportionate interference in the two protesters’ rights, the high court ruled.
Tom Wainwright, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers representing Wood and Haslam, said the judgment represented an important defence of the right to freedom of expression.
He said: “Just the idea that someone can be convicted for saying this is bizarre in the first place. The director of public prosecutions was trying to put the burden on the defendants to show that they hadn’t crossed the line – the crucial question of when free speech crosses the line into something that is criminal.
“What this judgment confirms is that it is not for the defence to show that, but it is for the state to show that there is a good reason to restrict free speech and that a conviction is the only way that could be done.”
Of course anybody who has waded through a collection of political insults will know that the most effective are witty and cutting ripostes that undermine one's opponents credibility or arguments. Perhaps now that 'Tory scum' has been legalised protestors might consider developing a more sophisticated vocabulary.
N.B. Some of my favourite quotes are below:
Former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating on John Hewson: “He’s like a shiver waiting for a spine.”
Winston Churchill on Prime Minister Clement Attlee: “An empty cab pulled up to Downing Street. Clement Attlee got out.”
Adlai Stevenson on Richard Nixon: “The kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree and then mount the stump to make a speech for conservation.”
MP Jonathan Aitken on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: “She probably thinks Sinai is the plural of sinus.”
Tuesday, November 21, 2023
A searing condemnation of Parliament
The Guardian reports on a statement by the head of parliament’s complaints watchdog that she “does not know” if the Palace of Westminster is a safe workplace for women:
Thea Walton joined the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme in March with a vow to build trust in the watchdog.
Established in 2018, the ICGS processes official HR complaints and also assesses complaints made on the parliamentary estate against a number of codes including the palace’s sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment policy.
Since the last general election, 24 MPs have faced at least a one-day suspension, according to Chris Bryant, the former chair of the House of Commons standards committee.
Bryant said this was because of those in power turning a blind eye to poor conduct, a temptation among politicians to protect their own, and hard-to-change behaviours and attitudes at Westminster.
When asked whether Westminster was a place women can feel safe, Walton told the House Magazine: “‘I don’t know’ is the honest answer. I wouldn’t say that nobody feels safe, but I have heard lots of things where women don’t from some of the engagement that I’ve done.
“I think all the time that there is a section of people that are saying they don’t feel safe, then people have to listen and do something about it.”
The number of MPs who have lost their party’s whip as a result of allegations of sexual harassment or assault has grown recently. The Labour party suspended Bambos Charalambous, MP for Enfield Southgate, after a complaint was made against him.
Senior Conservative MP Crispin Blunt has been arrested on suspicion of rape and possession of drugs and has been suspended by the Tory party. MPs and staffers have previously expressed concern that those already vulnerable after reporting serious incidents – and others shaken by reports of parliamentary sleaze scandals – are at risk from members under investigation but who are still free to roam the estate.
That the primary law-making body in the UK, with a duty to protect its citizens, can be deemed an unsafe workplace for women is a searing indictment of those who are elected to it. Something has to be done to correct this culture, and quickly.
Thea Walton joined the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme in March with a vow to build trust in the watchdog.
Established in 2018, the ICGS processes official HR complaints and also assesses complaints made on the parliamentary estate against a number of codes including the palace’s sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment policy.
Since the last general election, 24 MPs have faced at least a one-day suspension, according to Chris Bryant, the former chair of the House of Commons standards committee.
Bryant said this was because of those in power turning a blind eye to poor conduct, a temptation among politicians to protect their own, and hard-to-change behaviours and attitudes at Westminster.
When asked whether Westminster was a place women can feel safe, Walton told the House Magazine: “‘I don’t know’ is the honest answer. I wouldn’t say that nobody feels safe, but I have heard lots of things where women don’t from some of the engagement that I’ve done.
“I think all the time that there is a section of people that are saying they don’t feel safe, then people have to listen and do something about it.”
The number of MPs who have lost their party’s whip as a result of allegations of sexual harassment or assault has grown recently. The Labour party suspended Bambos Charalambous, MP for Enfield Southgate, after a complaint was made against him.
Senior Conservative MP Crispin Blunt has been arrested on suspicion of rape and possession of drugs and has been suspended by the Tory party. MPs and staffers have previously expressed concern that those already vulnerable after reporting serious incidents – and others shaken by reports of parliamentary sleaze scandals – are at risk from members under investigation but who are still free to roam the estate.
That the primary law-making body in the UK, with a duty to protect its citizens, can be deemed an unsafe workplace for women is a searing indictment of those who are elected to it. Something has to be done to correct this culture, and quickly.
Monday, November 20, 2023
Same old, same old
Any notion that the appointment of David Cameron as foreign secretary would put the Tory party firmly back into the centre of British politics must surely have been rebutted by the speculation that followed soon afterwards regarding the Chancellor's autumn statement.
The Guardian reports that Jeremy Hunt may well be using next week’s autumn statement to announce pre-election tax cuts for the wealthy while overseeing a multibillion-pound stealth raid on the incomes of 36 million workers.
The paper reports on analysis by the Resolution Foundation thinktank that found that cutting inheritance tax – which is paid by fewer than 4% of all estates, affecting largely the richest in society – could be financed by a gargantuan £40bn raised from freezing income tax thresholds, which would in turn leave millions of low paid workers worse off.
They say that Hunt is also weighing up cuts to benefits, drawing an angry response from union leaders and charities who warned the chancellor risked ignoring the pressures facing millions of households amid the cost of living crisis:
Adam Corlett, the principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said the government’s six-year freeze in income tax thresholds had “turned from an £8bn ‘stealth’ tax to a gargantuan £40bn tax rise” because of higher inflation.
“Any pre-election tax cuts – such as cutting inheritance tax for a small number of wealthy estates – would effectively be funded by higher taxes on the incomes of 36 million people,” he said.
It is the same old Tories after all.
The Guardian reports that Jeremy Hunt may well be using next week’s autumn statement to announce pre-election tax cuts for the wealthy while overseeing a multibillion-pound stealth raid on the incomes of 36 million workers.
The paper reports on analysis by the Resolution Foundation thinktank that found that cutting inheritance tax – which is paid by fewer than 4% of all estates, affecting largely the richest in society – could be financed by a gargantuan £40bn raised from freezing income tax thresholds, which would in turn leave millions of low paid workers worse off.
They say that Hunt is also weighing up cuts to benefits, drawing an angry response from union leaders and charities who warned the chancellor risked ignoring the pressures facing millions of households amid the cost of living crisis:
Adam Corlett, the principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said the government’s six-year freeze in income tax thresholds had “turned from an £8bn ‘stealth’ tax to a gargantuan £40bn tax rise” because of higher inflation.
“Any pre-election tax cuts – such as cutting inheritance tax for a small number of wealthy estates – would effectively be funded by higher taxes on the incomes of 36 million people,” he said.
It is the same old Tories after all.
Friday, November 17, 2023
Flip-floppers
The Guardian highlights a report by the left-of-centre Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank which has found that Britain’s economy has lost billions of pounds in investment since 2010 due to government “flip-flopping” on its industrial growth plans as it churned through 11 different economic strategies.
The paper says that industry bosses have warned ministers that more consistency is required to increase investment levels after more than a decade of instability, saying that the constant chop and change of government industrial strategy and a revolving door for senior ministerial appointments have undermined the country’s ability to attract investment.:
The IPPR pointed out that since 2010 Conservative-led governments had appointed nine different business secretaries and seven chancellors, resulting in the launching of 11 economic strategies – from George Osborne’s 2011 “plan for growth” to Hunt’s “growth plan” announced this year.
Publishing a report backed by two leading business groups and the former chief executive of Siemens UK Jürgen Maier, the thinktank said companies were crying out for consistency, certainty and clarity.
Stephen Phipson, the chief executive of the manufacturing trade body Make UK, said: “Recent governments have been so confused about industrial strategy that they’ve had 11 of them in 13 years. No wonder businesses are putting investments in the UK on hold.”
Describing the lack of a long-term industrial strategy as the UK’s “achilles heel”, Phipson urged the government to set out its strategic objectives, including for growing green manufacturing. “Every other major economy has a national manufacturing plan, underlying the importance of an industrial base to the success of its wider economy. The UK is an outlier not having one and, if we are to compete on a global stage, we need one as a matter of urgency.,” he said.
Hunt is preparing to outline the government’s plans for increasing private investment and growing the economy, after forecasts from the Bank of England this month showed Britain would come close to recession next year.
Writing in an open letter to the chancellor, the chief executives of 37 local chambers of commerce across the country said “much needed solutions to Britain’s investment problem” were required.
Representing more than 35,000 companies in the British Chambers of Commerce network, the bosses said the autumn statement would be one of the government’s last chances before the next general election to show it could provide businesses with the long-term certainty they needed to make investment decisions.
The letter urged Hunt to overhaul the UK’s planning system to support companies with investment in business premises, factories and shops; upgrade the energy grid; and extend tax breaks for business investment.
Growth in business investment in the UK has been consistently worse than other leading economies in recent decades, with a particularly weak track record after the 2016 Brexit referendum. A report from the IPPR in June found business investment in the UK was lower than in any other country in the G7, and 27th out of 30 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, ahead of only Poland, Luxembourg and Greece.
Publishing a blueprint for a modern green industrial strategy, the thinktank said there were four key areas for the government to focus on: production, purchasing, planning and governance, and the wider economy.
It said the government could shape industrial production through subsidies, tax allowances and regulations, while guaranteeing the purchase of goods by the state – as seen with Covid vaccines – could spur private investment. An effective policy would also involve clear plans and oversight, as well as ministers supporting the wider economy.
If there had been different governments this inconsistency would be understandable, however the country has been led by the same party for the entire period of this study, which seems to reflect the turmoil in the Conservative party and its ongoing civil war rather any other cause. Yet another reason for a general election.
The paper says that industry bosses have warned ministers that more consistency is required to increase investment levels after more than a decade of instability, saying that the constant chop and change of government industrial strategy and a revolving door for senior ministerial appointments have undermined the country’s ability to attract investment.:
The IPPR pointed out that since 2010 Conservative-led governments had appointed nine different business secretaries and seven chancellors, resulting in the launching of 11 economic strategies – from George Osborne’s 2011 “plan for growth” to Hunt’s “growth plan” announced this year.
Publishing a report backed by two leading business groups and the former chief executive of Siemens UK Jürgen Maier, the thinktank said companies were crying out for consistency, certainty and clarity.
Stephen Phipson, the chief executive of the manufacturing trade body Make UK, said: “Recent governments have been so confused about industrial strategy that they’ve had 11 of them in 13 years. No wonder businesses are putting investments in the UK on hold.”
Describing the lack of a long-term industrial strategy as the UK’s “achilles heel”, Phipson urged the government to set out its strategic objectives, including for growing green manufacturing. “Every other major economy has a national manufacturing plan, underlying the importance of an industrial base to the success of its wider economy. The UK is an outlier not having one and, if we are to compete on a global stage, we need one as a matter of urgency.,” he said.
Hunt is preparing to outline the government’s plans for increasing private investment and growing the economy, after forecasts from the Bank of England this month showed Britain would come close to recession next year.
Writing in an open letter to the chancellor, the chief executives of 37 local chambers of commerce across the country said “much needed solutions to Britain’s investment problem” were required.
Representing more than 35,000 companies in the British Chambers of Commerce network, the bosses said the autumn statement would be one of the government’s last chances before the next general election to show it could provide businesses with the long-term certainty they needed to make investment decisions.
The letter urged Hunt to overhaul the UK’s planning system to support companies with investment in business premises, factories and shops; upgrade the energy grid; and extend tax breaks for business investment.
Growth in business investment in the UK has been consistently worse than other leading economies in recent decades, with a particularly weak track record after the 2016 Brexit referendum. A report from the IPPR in June found business investment in the UK was lower than in any other country in the G7, and 27th out of 30 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, ahead of only Poland, Luxembourg and Greece.
Publishing a blueprint for a modern green industrial strategy, the thinktank said there were four key areas for the government to focus on: production, purchasing, planning and governance, and the wider economy.
It said the government could shape industrial production through subsidies, tax allowances and regulations, while guaranteeing the purchase of goods by the state – as seen with Covid vaccines – could spur private investment. An effective policy would also involve clear plans and oversight, as well as ministers supporting the wider economy.
If there had been different governments this inconsistency would be understandable, however the country has been led by the same party for the entire period of this study, which seems to reflect the turmoil in the Conservative party and its ongoing civil war rather any other cause. Yet another reason for a general election.
Thursday, November 16, 2023
Sunak presses on with 'batshit' policy
The Independent reports that despite yesterday's uanimous high court ruling, the UK Government plan to press on with their plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The paper says that the new Home Secretary, James Cleverly has revealed that the government’s plan B is “ready”. Meanwhile, a rattled Rishi Sunak said he would introduce emergency legislation to stop “foreign courts”, such as the European Court of Human Rights, from blocking flights to Kigali. He vowed to get planes in the air by spring next year.
Any thoughts that ministers have completely lost the plot in thinking that they can legislate in the UK Parliament to make Rwanda a safe destination are surely correct. In fact, even the Home Secretary appears to have doubts.
The Guardian reveals that in the Commons yesterday Yvette Cooper, his Labour shadow, alleged that in private Cleverly had described the Rwanda policy as “batshit”:
Cleverly has been doing an interview round this morning and, while not the main focus, this issue has come up. Although he did not admit using the phrase, anyone watching or listening to his interviews will conclude that he did indeed, at least once in private, describe the centrepiece of the government’s policy for dealing with irregular migration, beloved of rightwingers, as “batshit”.
Asked about the comment on Sky News, he replied: “I don’t recognise that phrase.”
Asked again on BBC Breakfast, he “squirmed” (in the words of the Mirror) and said this was a claim made about him, not by him, and claimed he could not remember using the word.
And when the question got asked again on the Today programme, Cleverly laughed unconvincingly and claimed the interviewer was falling into a trap laid by Labour.
All of which means that Sunak has appointed a new home secretary who – almost certainly, at least once – has expressed views on the Rwanda policy more in line with those of Guardian readers than Daily Mail readers. In the Conservative party, that will have been noted.
Is there an actual grown-up in the room after all? We will have to see.
The paper says that the new Home Secretary, James Cleverly has revealed that the government’s plan B is “ready”. Meanwhile, a rattled Rishi Sunak said he would introduce emergency legislation to stop “foreign courts”, such as the European Court of Human Rights, from blocking flights to Kigali. He vowed to get planes in the air by spring next year.
Any thoughts that ministers have completely lost the plot in thinking that they can legislate in the UK Parliament to make Rwanda a safe destination are surely correct. In fact, even the Home Secretary appears to have doubts.
The Guardian reveals that in the Commons yesterday Yvette Cooper, his Labour shadow, alleged that in private Cleverly had described the Rwanda policy as “batshit”:
Cleverly has been doing an interview round this morning and, while not the main focus, this issue has come up. Although he did not admit using the phrase, anyone watching or listening to his interviews will conclude that he did indeed, at least once in private, describe the centrepiece of the government’s policy for dealing with irregular migration, beloved of rightwingers, as “batshit”.
Asked about the comment on Sky News, he replied: “I don’t recognise that phrase.”
Asked again on BBC Breakfast, he “squirmed” (in the words of the Mirror) and said this was a claim made about him, not by him, and claimed he could not remember using the word.
And when the question got asked again on the Today programme, Cleverly laughed unconvincingly and claimed the interviewer was falling into a trap laid by Labour.
All of which means that Sunak has appointed a new home secretary who – almost certainly, at least once – has expressed views on the Rwanda policy more in line with those of Guardian readers than Daily Mail readers. In the Conservative party, that will have been noted.
Is there an actual grown-up in the room after all? We will have to see.
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Standing up for otters and the environment
Analysis by the Liberal Democrats, using a list of well-known otter habitats from the Wildlife Trust, has found that water firms dumped sewage over 650 times in otter habitats last year – lasting a total of 2,546 hours.
According to the Express, the worst incident was near Portrack Marsh, where Northumbrian Water discharged sewage for 561 hours in the River Tees:
Several firms discharged sewage into or nearby otter habitats, including United Utilities, Anglian Water and Yorkshire Water.
Liberal Democrat Environment spokesman Tim Farron MP said: “This is a scandal. Otters must be saved from raw sewage ruining their homes. No animal seems safe from this awful polluting crime.
“At the very least there should be a ban on all discharges into rivers which serve otter habitats. The public will be rightly outraged at water firms stuffing their pockets with bonuses whilst wrecking our natural environment. Frankly, the whole thing stinks.”
Ali Morse, water policy manager at The Wildlife Trusts, said otters were almost driven to extinction historically because of habitat loss and the dangerous use of organo-chlorine pesticides, which poisoned their food sources.
She added: “While better controls on toxic chemicals helped these charismatic creatures to recover, modern cocktails of pollution from sewage and farming are putting otters and other wildlife under huge pressure again.
“We know that chemical pollutants find their way into watercourses from storm overflows but also in the effluent from wastewater treatment works; ‘treated’ doesn’t mean the discharge has no impact on nature.
“Water companies need to look seriously at the harm both treated and untreated sewage causes to lakes, rivers, and streams. Otters rely on clean and healthy water; they shouldn’t be fighting for survival in rivers plagued by human waste.”
The Liberal Democrats have also called for a ban on water firm executives receiving bonuses.
Half of water companies paid out bonuses for the past financial year despite the sewage crisis, regulator Ofwat revealed on Wednesday.
It said that five out of 10 water companies that deal with sewage had chosen to award performance-related bonuses.
Northumbrian Water, Wessex Water, Anglian Water, United Utilities and Severn Trent all paid out bonuses to at least one of their top executives. These were paid by shareholders rather than customer bills.
James Wallace, chief executive of River Action, says "The combination of 1.7 million hours of raw sewage and 26,000 tonnes of phosphates from manure released each year by water companies and farms is snuffing the light and life from our rivers.
"Our rivers are turning into greeny-brown, stinking drains for profiteering industries with no sanctuary for wildlife. We need the Government to do its job: monitor and regulate polluters and incentivise sustainable waste management. Or we are staring down the barrel of mass extinctions across our once fair and pleasant land."
This is a scandal that the government need to get a grip on, even if it means massive public investment to prevent it happening again.
According to the Express, the worst incident was near Portrack Marsh, where Northumbrian Water discharged sewage for 561 hours in the River Tees:
Several firms discharged sewage into or nearby otter habitats, including United Utilities, Anglian Water and Yorkshire Water.
Liberal Democrat Environment spokesman Tim Farron MP said: “This is a scandal. Otters must be saved from raw sewage ruining their homes. No animal seems safe from this awful polluting crime.
“At the very least there should be a ban on all discharges into rivers which serve otter habitats. The public will be rightly outraged at water firms stuffing their pockets with bonuses whilst wrecking our natural environment. Frankly, the whole thing stinks.”
Ali Morse, water policy manager at The Wildlife Trusts, said otters were almost driven to extinction historically because of habitat loss and the dangerous use of organo-chlorine pesticides, which poisoned their food sources.
She added: “While better controls on toxic chemicals helped these charismatic creatures to recover, modern cocktails of pollution from sewage and farming are putting otters and other wildlife under huge pressure again.
“We know that chemical pollutants find their way into watercourses from storm overflows but also in the effluent from wastewater treatment works; ‘treated’ doesn’t mean the discharge has no impact on nature.
“Water companies need to look seriously at the harm both treated and untreated sewage causes to lakes, rivers, and streams. Otters rely on clean and healthy water; they shouldn’t be fighting for survival in rivers plagued by human waste.”
The Liberal Democrats have also called for a ban on water firm executives receiving bonuses.
Half of water companies paid out bonuses for the past financial year despite the sewage crisis, regulator Ofwat revealed on Wednesday.
It said that five out of 10 water companies that deal with sewage had chosen to award performance-related bonuses.
Northumbrian Water, Wessex Water, Anglian Water, United Utilities and Severn Trent all paid out bonuses to at least one of their top executives. These were paid by shareholders rather than customer bills.
James Wallace, chief executive of River Action, says "The combination of 1.7 million hours of raw sewage and 26,000 tonnes of phosphates from manure released each year by water companies and farms is snuffing the light and life from our rivers.
"Our rivers are turning into greeny-brown, stinking drains for profiteering industries with no sanctuary for wildlife. We need the Government to do its job: monitor and regulate polluters and incentivise sustainable waste management. Or we are staring down the barrel of mass extinctions across our once fair and pleasant land."
This is a scandal that the government need to get a grip on, even if it means massive public investment to prevent it happening again.
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
Lost in fantasy land
If anything sums up the fantasy land that the current Tory government is occupying, it is the decision by Rishi Sunak to try and appease the right wing of his party by appointing Esther McVey as a Cabinet Office minister with the task of leading the government’s anti-woke agenda, acting as a “common sense tsar”.
The Guardian reports that McVey, who is currently a presenter on GB News, has been elevated to the cabinet in an attempt to appease the right wing of the Tory Party, who are mourning the sacking of Suella Braverman.
Braverman had long frustrated No 10 with her off-the-cuff comments, but she was removed on Monday for her article published in last Thursday’s Times, in which she claimed there was a “perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters” and were tougher on rightwing extremists than pro-Palestinian “mobs”.
McVey said last week that she believed Braverman was “feeling very vulnerable” and attempted to shore up more support on the right of the party so Sunak could not sack her.
She told GB News at the time: “I think that the immigration problem hasn’t been solved. So what she needs to do is, as she’d see it, is shore up a base, a base on the right hand side of the party, one that Rishi can’t naturally reach out to.
“What she’s saying is ‘you can’t get rid of me’. There is a reshuffle coming forward and she’s saying ‘I’m going to be quite out there’ … I have to stay in.”
With Braverman out, and the likes of David Cameron, Laura Trott and Victoria Atkins in, many of the party’s rightwingers have seen the reshuffle as an attempt to move the party into the centre ground.
Andrea Jenkyns said “enough is enough … it’s time for Rishi Sunak to go”, and submitted a letter of no confidence to the 1922 Committee.
She said that forcing Boris Johnson out was “unforgivable enough”, before criticising the removal of Braverman – the “only person in the cabinet with the balls to speak the truth of the appalling state of our streets and a two-tier policing system that leaves Jewish community in fear for their lives and safety [sic]”.
Does this mean that the confrontational and right-wing stance of GB News will now be the order of the day in the cabinet office? The idea that somebody should be handed a senior government post with the intent of suppressing certain views and actions is hardly democratic.
Sunak's brave new world may turn out to be Trumpian after all.
The Guardian reports that McVey, who is currently a presenter on GB News, has been elevated to the cabinet in an attempt to appease the right wing of the Tory Party, who are mourning the sacking of Suella Braverman.
Braverman had long frustrated No 10 with her off-the-cuff comments, but she was removed on Monday for her article published in last Thursday’s Times, in which she claimed there was a “perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters” and were tougher on rightwing extremists than pro-Palestinian “mobs”.
McVey said last week that she believed Braverman was “feeling very vulnerable” and attempted to shore up more support on the right of the party so Sunak could not sack her.
She told GB News at the time: “I think that the immigration problem hasn’t been solved. So what she needs to do is, as she’d see it, is shore up a base, a base on the right hand side of the party, one that Rishi can’t naturally reach out to.
“What she’s saying is ‘you can’t get rid of me’. There is a reshuffle coming forward and she’s saying ‘I’m going to be quite out there’ … I have to stay in.”
With Braverman out, and the likes of David Cameron, Laura Trott and Victoria Atkins in, many of the party’s rightwingers have seen the reshuffle as an attempt to move the party into the centre ground.
Andrea Jenkyns said “enough is enough … it’s time for Rishi Sunak to go”, and submitted a letter of no confidence to the 1922 Committee.
She said that forcing Boris Johnson out was “unforgivable enough”, before criticising the removal of Braverman – the “only person in the cabinet with the balls to speak the truth of the appalling state of our streets and a two-tier policing system that leaves Jewish community in fear for their lives and safety [sic]”.
Does this mean that the confrontational and right-wing stance of GB News will now be the order of the day in the cabinet office? The idea that somebody should be handed a senior government post with the intent of suppressing certain views and actions is hardly democratic.
Sunak's brave new world may turn out to be Trumpian after all.
Monday, November 13, 2023
Deja Vu on Museum Wales row
Do public bodies in Wales learn from their past mistakes? That could well be the subject of a Phd thesis at some stage. In the meantime, we have to rely on those with long memories to dredge up incidents that may or may not have a bearing on current events.
These thoughts came to mind when I read about the latest reports concerning the National Museum and Galleries of Wales. The BBC report that a bullying row which led to a former rugby boss leaving his job at Museum Wales left taxpayers with a bill of more than £620,000.
They add that Roger Lewis was the subject of complaints from two senior employees when he was the museum's president and that the museum has been subsequently criticised for how it settled the dispute.
The Wales Audit Office has issued a report on the matter which has revealed that the museum spent £757,613 including a £325,698 settlement to the then director general David Anderson, who was in charge of the organisation:
Mr Crompton [The Wales Auditor General] found the "decision-making process concerning the resolution of the employment dispute with the former director general was fundamentally flawed".
He said the museum had not been able to demonstrate it acted in the best interests of the charity or that the settlement represented value for money.
He said his audit team was also not provided "with any specific written advice from the Welsh government to Amgueddfa Cymru concerning the settlement agreement itself, notwithstanding the involvement of the Welsh government's director of human resources in that process".
Although, the cases are fundamentally different, this report did remind me of one of my earliest meetings as a Welsh Assembly Member in early 2000, when I was on the nascent Assembly's Audit Committee, an early version of what is now their Public Accounts Committee.
These thoughts came to mind when I read about the latest reports concerning the National Museum and Galleries of Wales. The BBC report that a bullying row which led to a former rugby boss leaving his job at Museum Wales left taxpayers with a bill of more than £620,000.
They add that Roger Lewis was the subject of complaints from two senior employees when he was the museum's president and that the museum has been subsequently criticised for how it settled the dispute.
The Wales Audit Office has issued a report on the matter which has revealed that the museum spent £757,613 including a £325,698 settlement to the then director general David Anderson, who was in charge of the organisation:
Mr Crompton [The Wales Auditor General] found the "decision-making process concerning the resolution of the employment dispute with the former director general was fundamentally flawed".
He said the museum had not been able to demonstrate it acted in the best interests of the charity or that the settlement represented value for money.
He said his audit team was also not provided "with any specific written advice from the Welsh government to Amgueddfa Cymru concerning the settlement agreement itself, notwithstanding the involvement of the Welsh government's director of human resources in that process".
Although, the cases are fundamentally different, this report did remind me of one of my earliest meetings as a Welsh Assembly Member in early 2000, when I was on the nascent Assembly's Audit Committee, an early version of what is now their Public Accounts Committee.
That meeting considered a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for England and Wales on a decision by the then Accounting Officer and Director of the National Museum of Wales relating to allegations of mismanagement against a senior employee.
A formal ‘Compromise Agreement’ was drawn up, which involved a payment of £30,000 from the National Museum of Wales as compensation for loss of office and a contribution of £1,450 plus VAT towards the employee's legal expenses. There was also a confidentiality clause and an agreement that the museum would provide a favourable reference for its former employee.
However, this agreement was never formally signed off in writing by the Welsh Government's accounting officer, even though the money was paid and the terms honoured by the museum. The National Audit Office was very critical of this failure to follow proper procedure as was the Assembly's Audit Committee.
An interesting parallel with current events that should be noted by all concerned.
A formal ‘Compromise Agreement’ was drawn up, which involved a payment of £30,000 from the National Museum of Wales as compensation for loss of office and a contribution of £1,450 plus VAT towards the employee's legal expenses. There was also a confidentiality clause and an agreement that the museum would provide a favourable reference for its former employee.
However, this agreement was never formally signed off in writing by the Welsh Government's accounting officer, even though the money was paid and the terms honoured by the museum. The National Audit Office was very critical of this failure to follow proper procedure as was the Assembly's Audit Committee.
An interesting parallel with current events that should be noted by all concerned.
Sunday, November 12, 2023
An abhorrent Home Secretary
It is difficult to disagree with Sadiq Khan when he states in the Mirror that the violent scenes we witnessed yesterday around the cenotaph were a direct result of the Suella Braverman’s words and behaviour.
Like many of us, he believes that the scenes of unacceptable aggression and disorder from the far right near the Cenotaph and in parts of central London yesterday were deeply disturbing.
Like many of us, he believes that the scenes of unacceptable aggression and disorder from the far right near the Cenotaph and in parts of central London yesterday were deeply disturbing.
Just minutes before a moment of national silence to remember all those who have lost their lives while serving our country, we saw far-right thugs attacking the police. Sadly, he says, these scenes were predictable after a week of efforts from some to stoke tensions and cause unrest:
Emotions have understandably been running high because of the events in the Middle East, and what we needed last week was for everyone to play their part in calming the situation and to work with the police do their job.
Instead, we saw Suella Braverman, who holds one of the great offices of state, doing the complete opposite - with the Prime Minister sheltering behind her. There can be no doubt that the scenes we witnessed yesterday involving the far right were a direct result of the Home Secretary’s words and behaviour. If she had any honour she would resign - and if not, Rishi Sunak should sack her. If he doesn’t, he’s either too weak to do so or he agrees with her.
The far right have clearly been encouraged and emboldened. This includes amplifying misleading fake audio purporting to be of me that rapidly spread across social media with no control. The Met have my full support in taking the action they did against those who broke the law yesterday, and I continue to support them in taking a zero-tolerance approach against anyone found spreading hate.
The irony, of course, is that after the Home Secretary warned us over and over again that protestors marching for peace in the Middle East were a threat to the peaceful remembrance of those who gave up their lives for our country, the real disruption came from the thugs who were supporting Braverman. Surely, Rishi Sunak must take action to remove her from office now.
Emotions have understandably been running high because of the events in the Middle East, and what we needed last week was for everyone to play their part in calming the situation and to work with the police do their job.
Instead, we saw Suella Braverman, who holds one of the great offices of state, doing the complete opposite - with the Prime Minister sheltering behind her. There can be no doubt that the scenes we witnessed yesterday involving the far right were a direct result of the Home Secretary’s words and behaviour. If she had any honour she would resign - and if not, Rishi Sunak should sack her. If he doesn’t, he’s either too weak to do so or he agrees with her.
The far right have clearly been encouraged and emboldened. This includes amplifying misleading fake audio purporting to be of me that rapidly spread across social media with no control. The Met have my full support in taking the action they did against those who broke the law yesterday, and I continue to support them in taking a zero-tolerance approach against anyone found spreading hate.
The irony, of course, is that after the Home Secretary warned us over and over again that protestors marching for peace in the Middle East were a threat to the peaceful remembrance of those who gave up their lives for our country, the real disruption came from the thugs who were supporting Braverman. Surely, Rishi Sunak must take action to remove her from office now.
