The Conservative party has reportedly been aware of these serious accusations for over three months. What action was taken, by whom, and when?
When did CCHQ become aware of this incident?
On being made aware of this incident, did CCHQ advise the person involved to contact the police themselves?
When presented with evidence of an MP involving junior staff in paying thousands of pounds to ‘bad people’, did you immediately report this matter to the police? And if you have not yet, why not and will you do so today?
Will you give the police full access to all evidence you have in this case?
At least one of Menzies’ donors is reported to have given a “four-figure sum” to the Fylde group. Has this been declared with the Electoral Commission?
Is it common practice for Conservative party MPs to use money donated for campaigning activities to instead pay their personal expenses?
According to the Conservative party constitution, the board of the Conservative party is responsible for the Conservative party’s compliance with PPERA [Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act]. As chairman of the Conservatives, you chair the board in the absence of Rishi Sunak. Can you confirm that you and the board have completely satisfied your obligations under PPERA? Can you further confirm that the Conservative party are fully compliant with all relevant UK electoral and donations law?
In a statement about the allegations, first report by the Times, Menzies said:
I strongly dispute the allegations put to me. I have fully complied with all the rules for declarations. As there is an investigation ongoing I will not be commenting further.
Filters BETA
conceded the goal of reducing emissions by 75% by 2030 is now “out of reach”.
With the target enshrined in law, the Scottish government – which includes the Greens thanks to a powersharing agreement with the SNP – will now bring forward new legislation to ensure climate change targets “better reflect the reality of long-term climate policymaking”, McAllan told MSPs.
This will also see the Scottish government move away from legally-binding annual targets – which it has missed for eight out of 12 years.
But McAllan stressed Scotland’s target to reach net zero by 2045 – five years earlier than the UK – will remain.
Humza Yousaf had earlier told MSPs his government will “not move back by a single month, a week or even a day from that 2045 target”.
Prof Piers Forster, interim chairman of the UK’s Climate Change Committee, said the removal of the 2030 target is “deeply disappointing”.
Friends of the Earth Scotland’s head of campaigns Imogen Dow said:
SNP and Green ministers choosing the scrap these climate commitments is the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish parliament.
The 2030 target could and should have been met, but instead politicians are going to break their promises and betray both their constituents and the most vulnerable people already enduring the impacts of climate breakdown.
10.15am and 11.56am) is not the only one out today providing a grim read for No 10. Lord Ashcroft, the former Tory deputy chair and Angela Rayner biographer, has for years run a well-regarded polling operation, and his latest poll shows Labour ahead of the Conservatives on every issue of importance to voters, including defence.
In an article on the findings, Ashcroft writes:
In a survey just under a year ago I found that defence and national security was the one area in which the Conservatives were still trusted more than Labour. As the world seems to become more unstable by the week, and with UK forces taking part in an operation to shoot down Iranian drones, might these issues come to play a bigger part in people’s voting decisions, to the Tories’ advantage?
There is certainly evidence that defence is on the minds of more voters. Only 8% named it among the top three issues facing the country a year ago, compared to 13% today. But four times as many mention the cost of living and even more name the NHS.
In any case, the Conservatives should not expect a dividend if national security is climbing the political agenda. My latest poll now finds Labour to be ahead on the issue, for the first time I can remember in my years of polling. Only 28% of voters think Labour would do a better job on defence, but the Tories languish on 26%, with nearly half of voters saying they don’t know. In the event of an armed conflict that threatened the UK, only just over one in five say they would trust Keir Starmer more than Rishi Sunak to lead and make good decisions, but only 15% say the reverse. Sir Keir is hardly the new Sir Winston, but defence is not the firm Tory territory it once was.
It is not just the poll numbers that will worry Rishi Sunak; he will be even more worried about the fact that the Daily Mail, which is normally reliably pro-Tory, made the story its splash.
a report published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies today saying the government could raise almost £3bn by closing three inheritance tax loopholes.
It says removing business relief for AIM (Alternative investment market) shares could raise £1.1bn this year; capping agricultural and business relief at £500,000 per person would raise £1.4bn; and including the value of defined contribution pensions in estates would raise £200m.
By 2029-30 those measures would raise almost £4bn a year (£1.6bn, £1.8bn and £400m respectively), it says.
David Sturrock, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
Inheritance tax is littered with special reliefs and exemptions which make the tax unfair. The spring budget introduced yet another relief to this long list. Rather than gradually carving out more and more assets from the tax, the government should take steps to reduce or eliminate some of the major exemptions in the system. Eliminating the special treatment given to some shares, capping reliefs for business and agricultural assets, and bringing pension pots into the scope of the tax would make the system fairer and raise revenues.
colonial history or racial privilege, the business and trade minister, Kemi Badenoch, has told an audience in the City. Kalyeena Makortoff has the story here.
Angela Rayner.
And he said the fact there is now a police investigation into issues relating to a house purchase and Rayner’s living arrangements before she became an MP should “draw a line” under the affair.
Asked if he still had complete faith in his deputy, Starmer replied:
Angela has answered no end of questions on this. She’s said she’s happy to answer any further questions. I have complete confidence in her and the police investigation, I think, allows a line to be drawn in relation to this.
By “allows a line to be drawn” etc, Starmer seemed to be saying that he thought the fact that the police are investigating should put a stop to the need for any further media comment until the inquiry is over.
He also said Rayner would be out with the party campaigning in the local elections.
12.31pm.) For the record, here are the questions from that Labour leader, sent by Anneliese Dodds, the party chair.
The Conservative party has reportedly been aware of these serious accusations for over three months. What action was taken, by whom, and when?
When did CCHQ become aware of this incident?
On being made aware of this incident, did CCHQ advise the person involved to contact the police themselves?
When presented with evidence of an MP involving junior staff in paying thousands of pounds to ‘bad people’, did you immediately report this matter to the police? And if you have not yet, why not and will you do so today?
Will you give the police full access to all evidence you have in this case?
At least one of Menzies’ donors is reported to have given a “four-figure sum” to the Fylde group. Has this been declared with the Electoral Commission?
Is it common practice for Conservative party MPs to use money donated for campaigning activities to instead pay their personal expenses?
According to the Conservative party constitution, the board of the Conservative party is responsible for the Conservative party’s compliance with PPERA [Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act]. As chairman of the Conservatives, you chair the board in the absence of Rishi Sunak. Can you confirm that you and the board have completely satisfied your obligations under PPERA? Can you further confirm that the Conservative party are fully compliant with all relevant UK electoral and donations law?
In a statement about the allegations, first report by the Times, Menzies said:
I strongly dispute the allegations put to me. I have fully complied with all the rules for declarations. As there is an investigation ongoing I will not be commenting further.
according to new polling.
The Savanta polling, commissioned by the pro-Labour website LabourList, found that amongst the population as a whole 40% of people say the story sounds like a smear. Amongst Labour voters that figure is 56%, and amongst Tory voters that figure is 26%.
Tom Belger, editor of LabourList, said:
Labour has attacked rightwing ‘smears’ against Angela Rayner, and this poll suggests a striking number of Tory and Labour voters alike agree there are political reasons this story is getting so much attention.
Data from the Department for Education (DfE) shows there were 263,904 suspensions in the spring term of 2022/23, compared to 201,090 during the spring term of 2021/22 – a rise of 31%.
The number of suspensions in spring 2023 is the “highest” termly figure recorded, the DfE said.
Suspensions are typically higher in the autumn term, but the figures show the number rose by 7% from autumn 2022 (when there were 247,366 suspensions) to spring 2023.
The rise of suspensions – which are when a pupil is excluded from a school for a set period of time – comes amid warnings of challenging behaviour in classrooms following the Covid-19 pandemic.
The number of permanent exclusions also increased in the spring term of last year compared to the same period in 2022.
There were 3,039 permanent exclusions in spring 2023, compared to 2,179 in spring 2022 – a rise of 39%, the figures show.
The most common reason for suspensions and permanent exclusions was persistent disruptive behaviour, the DfE said.
recently resigned the Tory whip after admitting divulging colleagues’ phone numbers to a stranger threatening him on WhatsApp, had been due to open a backbench debate on access to redress schemes, according to the Commons order paper. But he did not speak, and the Lib Dem MP Richard Foord opened the debate instead.
He said compensation schemes like those for victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal were “frequently blighted by unnecessary complexity, delays [and] a huge emotional and legal burden on the victims”. Redress schemes should be “effective, timely, proportionate and fair”, he argued.
Source: theguardian.com
