No 10 would not say whether the prime minister was confident that perceptions of a conflict of interest had been avoided but insisted “operational decisions” were “ultimately” up to Scotland Yard and not the government.
Last week it emerged that London mayor Sadiq Khan and home secretary Yvette Cooper were involved in talks around the security for Swift’s sell-out summer shows at Wembley before the singer was granted a blue-light escort.
The Sun reported that she was given the motorbike convoy on the way to the stadium despite initial police reservations, with her mother Andrea Swift also negotiating arrangements directly with No 10 aide Sue Gray.
Asked today whether it was the prime minister’s view that there was no perception of a conflict of interest, his official spokesperson said: “Operational decisions are for the Met. That’s the bottom line.”
Downing Street cited the terror threat faced by Swift in Vienna, which had forced her to cancel gigs on the Austria leg of her Eras tour, as one of the reasons government was involved in security talks round her London shows.
Senior Labour politicians including the prime minister and Cooper have accepted free tickets to the singer’s concerts, which came under intense scrutiny in recent weeks amid a row over freebies given to ministers.
The PM announced he would cover the cost of around £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality he received received since entering office following the donations backlash, as well as committing to changing ministerial hospitality to improve transparency.
Among the declarations he paid back were four tickets to see Swift at Wembley Stadium which were received on 20 August from UMG, the musician’s record label.
Asked whether No 10 could rule out Starmer having been given the tickets as a “thank you” after discussions between government and the force were followed by Swift getting security while in London, the spokesperson said: “I completely reject that characterisation because it’s ultimately up to the police to take operational decisions in relation to the security of these major events.”
A Met Police spokesperson said: “The Met is operationally independent. Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case. It is our longstanding position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”
the announcement, David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said:
When I went to the West Bank earlier this year, on one of my first trips as foreign secretary, I met with Palestinians whose communities have suffered horrific violence at the hands of Israeli settlers.
The inaction of the Israeli government has allowed an environment of impunity to flourish where settler violence has been allowed to increase unchecked. Settlers have shockingly even targeted schools and families with young children.
Today’s measures will help bring accountability to those who have supported and perpetrated such heinous abuses of human rights.
Bank of England, Mervyn King.
In an article for the Independent, King says that it was “reckless” for the Tories to cut national insurance before the general election, that both main parties were “irresponsible” when they said they would not reverse those cuts and that it would be best for the government to put it back up.
King was governor of the Bank of England from 2003 to 2013, and in his article he recalls a conversation with Reeves at the bank when she worked there in her first job after university.
Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative chancellor, cut employees’ national insurance from 12% to 10% in his autumn statement last year, and then he cut it again to 8% in his spring budget before the election. Taken together, the two cuts are worth around £18bn in the current financial year.
In his article, King says:
Before the general election, both major parties were irresponsible in either making, or promising not to reverse, cuts in national insurance contributions. It was a reckless increase in the future national debt – an attempt to bribe voters with their children’s and grandchildren’s pocket money.
An honest approach would be to say that such a commitment now appears a mistake and to return national insurance contributions to their previous level. You might be surprised by how many citizens would accept such honesty; better to tackle the problem now and not a year or so before the next general election.
King also says that he accepts the case for higher government borrowing in the short term.
If you believe that the UK requires higher investment to overcome the perception that “nothing works any more” – and I do not disagree – then you should argue for the merits of that … even if it means higher borrowing for a while.
Reeves has signalled that in her budget she intends to keep the government’s debt rule (that it should be falling in the fifth year of the forecast) but change the definition of debt used for this purpose. In his article, King says the rule itself should be changed.
The current fiscal rule, that the ratio of debt to national income is projected to fall in the fifth year of the forecast horizon, makes little sense. It is Augustinian – make me fiscally stable… but not yet. But not even Saint Augustine believed in a five-year rolling horizon.
The problem with the current rule is that it is too loose – not too tight (do read the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report on debt published last month). Your challenge is to justify a temporary Augustinian deviation from the objective of a falling debt to national income ratio, because of the need to finance higher investment without cutting day-to-day public spending.
Only a convincing and credible strategy for raising investment while achieving fiscal sustainability by the end of this parliament will help to reduce the upward pressure on long-term interest rates, resulting from higher borrowing.
King ends his article by calling a conversation with Reeves at the bank.
I remember your telling me one day that the reason you enjoyed working at the Bank of England was the opportunity to work with other very bright young people. Your generation is now in charge.
Be courageous, be bold, and ensure that the economic inheritance we leave to our grandchildren is one of which both they and we can be proud. One day, you will look back on your time as chancellor and you will want to remember the far-reaching changes you made – not the political compromises that others will urge on you.
Reeves may appreciate King’s advice, but she has repeatedly made it clear that she won’t abandon Labour’s pledge not to put up employees’ national insurance. Politicians who have to face the electorate tend to take manifesto promises more seriously than unelected officials like King.
Labour MP Andy McDonald who said that repeated calls on Israel to uphold their humanitarian obligations were having “no impact” and that “recognition of Palestine is a pre-requisite for peace and not a by-product of it”.Labour MP Josh MacAlister is introducing a private member’s bill designed to limit the extent to which under-16s can access addictive social media content on their phones.
The bill has various components, and one of them would require schools in England to be mobile phone free zones.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson indicated that the government would not back this aspect of the bill. He said:
Headteachers already have the power to ban phones in school and many have chosen to exercise this right. So we don’t have plans to legislate in that particular area.
Asked if the government thought the current law on schools and phones was adequate, the spokesperson said:
That is the government’s position on the question of banning phones in schools.
Keir Starmer held a political cabinet this morning (a cabinet for party political discussion, not debate on government business), and the Labour party has sent out a readout saying Reeves had a difficult message for her follow ministers.
A Labour spokesperson said:
The prime minister said that the first Labour budget in 14 years would prioritise stabilising the economy, fixing the foundations, and growing our way to a better Britain. He added that prioritising growth is vital to break the country out of the low growth, high tax doom loop it has been stuck in for the past 14 years.
The chancellor updated the cabinet on preparations for the budget and the spending review, which she said is an opportunity to put the country on a firmer footing.
The chancellor highlighted the £22bn black hole inheritance from the previous government that needed to be filled just to keep public services standing still.
The chancellor said that the scale of inheritance meant there would have to be difficult decisions on spending, welfare, and tax – and that the long-term priority had to be unlocking private sector investment to drive economic growth.
The chancellor told cabinet the budget would focus on putting the public finances on a strong footing and being honest with the British people about the scale of the challenge.
The chancellor said the government could not turn around 14 years of decline in one year or one budget. However, the budget would deliver on the government’s priorities to protect working people, fix the NHS, and rebuild Britain.
House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill – the legislation removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to stay in the Lords.
The Conservatives are going to vote against. They have set out their reasons is an amendment that says:
That this house declines to give a second reading to the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill because it is not an acceptable or effective method of enacting major constitutional change, because it proposes a significant alteration to the composition of the House of Lords which should not be considered in isolation from other changes, having regard to the undertakings given by the then government in 1999, because it drip-feeds changes that hinder proper scrutiny of measures that could change the relationship between the two houses, because it risks unintended consequences, does not reflect the lack of political consensus on House of Lords reform and does not provide for full consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which would give the opportunity to consider the case for overall reform, seek cross-party engagement on proposals, and review the implications of all proposals.
The SNP has also tabled an amendment saying the bill should not be passed because it would be better to abolish the House of Lords altogether but, unlike the Tory amendment, this one will not be put to a vote today.
a report released last month, Lord Darzi, a leading surgeon and former Labour health minister, provided an assessment of the state of the health service, saying it was in a dire state. The report bolsters Streeting’s argument that the last Conservative goverment allowed the NHS to decline, and that reform is now needed.
Alongside the main 163-page report, Darzi published a technical annex, twice as long, containing more than 330 charts and tables, covering areas from mental health outcomes to life expectancy.
Speaking during health questions in the Commons, Layla Moran, the Lib Dem chair of the health committee, stressed the importance of the data, saying “what we measure is so often what we end up improving,” and called on Streeting to keep the “incredibly useful” baseline updated yearly.
Streeting welcomed Moran’s request, calling it a “great constructive challenge” and reiterating the Labour government’s commitment to transparency.
He went on: “We’re not going to get everything right, and sometimes we’re not going to make progress as fast as we’d like, but where that’s the case we’re never going to duck that, we’re never going to pretend things are better than they are, because the reason why we will succeed, where the previous government has failed, is we’re willing to face up to the challenges in the NHS, rather than pretend they don’t exist.”
Taylor Swift tickets as a “thank you” after she was given taxpayer-funded police security while performing in London, PA Media reports. PA says:
No 10 would not say whether the prime minister was confident that perceptions of a conflict of interest had been avoided but insisted “operational decisions” were “ultimately” up to Scotland Yard and not the government.
Last week it emerged that London mayor Sadiq Khan and home secretary Yvette Cooper were involved in talks around the security for Swift’s sell-out summer shows at Wembley before the singer was granted a blue-light escort.
The Sun reported that she was given the motorbike convoy on the way to the stadium despite initial police reservations, with her mother Andrea Swift also negotiating arrangements directly with No 10 aide Sue Gray.
Asked today whether it was the prime minister’s view that there was no perception of a conflict of interest, his official spokesperson said: “Operational decisions are for the Met. That’s the bottom line.”
Downing Street cited the terror threat faced by Swift in Vienna, which had forced her to cancel gigs on the Austria leg of her Eras tour, as one of the reasons government was involved in security talks round her London shows.
Senior Labour politicians including the prime minister and Cooper have accepted free tickets to the singer’s concerts, which came under intense scrutiny in recent weeks amid a row over freebies given to ministers.
The PM announced he would cover the cost of around £6,000 worth of gifts and hospitality he received received since entering office following the donations backlash, as well as committing to changing ministerial hospitality to improve transparency.
Among the declarations he paid back were four tickets to see Swift at Wembley Stadium which were received on 20 August from UMG, the musician’s record label.
Asked whether No 10 could rule out Starmer having been given the tickets as a “thank you” after discussions between government and the force were followed by Swift getting security while in London, the spokesperson said: “I completely reject that characterisation because it’s ultimately up to the police to take operational decisions in relation to the security of these major events.”
A Met Police spokesperson said: “The Met is operationally independent. Our decision-making is based on a thorough assessment of threat, risk and harm and the circumstances of each case. It is our longstanding position that we don’t comment on the specific details of protective security arrangements.”
David Cameron, the former foreign secretary, said the last government was considering sanctioning them because of their support for extremist settlers in the West Bank and their oppostion to aid convoys going into Gaza.
Asked if the new government is also considering sanctioning the two ministers, the spokesperson said:
As you would appreciate, I can’t get into any commentary around future sanctions designations.
As you know, the UK has already sanctioned a number of people responsible for settler violence in the West Bank and we will obviously continue to take action to challenge those who undermine a two-state solution.
the Canadian investigation into allegations that the Indian government has been working with gangsters to kill dissidents in Canada. In a readout of the call released this morning, Downing Street said:
The prime minister spoke to Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau yesterday evening.
They discussed recent developments regarding allegations under investigation in Canada. Both agreed on the importance of the rule of law.
They agreed to remain in close contact pending the conclusions of the investigation.
The issue is likely to come up again at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM) in Samoa next week.
The Liberal Democrats are urging the government to rule out raising employers’ national insurance. In a statement issued after Keir Starmer’s interview this morning, Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesperson, said:
The chancellor needs to think again if the government is considering hiking taxes on small businesses, who have already suffered from eye-watering tax rises under the last Conservative government.
The burden of this budget should fall on the likes of big banks, social media giants and oil and gas firms, instead of our local community businesses. The chancellor should be protecting these smaller businesses, who are the backbone of our economy and the heartbeat of our communities.
Now is not the time to raise national insurance rates on our high streets, local businesses and dynamic entrepreneurs.
The government is facing an extra £100m bill for next year’s state pension increases following revised official figures published on Tuesday, Steve Webb, a former Lib Dem pensions minister, has said. PA Media says:
Under the triple lock guarantee, the state pension increases every April in line with whichever is the highest of earnings growth in the year from May to July of the previous year, CPI (consumer prices index) inflation in September of the previous year, or 2.5%.
With inflation running at more subdued levels, it is thought that wages will determine next year’s state pension increase.
Last month, Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures indicated that total pay had increased by 4.0% annually in the three months to July.
But when jobs data was released on Tuesday, the ONS had revised the figure up to 4.1%.
Webb said the additional 0.1 percentage point could add around £100m to the state pension bill under the triple lock formula.
Webb, who is now a partner at consultants LCP (Lane Clark & Peacock), explained:
A slightly higher rate of increase is welcome for pensioners, though will be an unwelcome £100m extra cost for the chancellor as she prepares her budget.
The rate of the new state pension will now be close to £12,000 per year, very near to the £12,570 tax-free personal allowance. This is likely to put extra pressure on the chancellor to take action on tax allowances in the coming years.
The Conservatives are claiming that a comment by Rachel Reeves from 2021 justifies their claim that raising employers’ national insurance would be a breach of Labour’s 2024 manifesto promise.
In a fresh statement released by CCHQ this morning after Keir Starmer’s interview, Laura Trott, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said:
In 2021, the chancellor said increasing employer national insurance was a tax on ‘workers’. That’s why even in her own words it breaks Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase tax on working people.
In a Commons debate on 19 October 2021, Reeves said:
Despite all their election promises to cut national insurance contributions, [the Conservatives] are actually raising them against the strong advice of businesses and trade unions.
The Conservative government’s actions will make each new recruit more expensive and increase the costs to business. The decision to saddle employers and workers with the jobs tax takes money out of people’s pockets when our economic recovery is not yet established or secure and only adds to the pressure on businesses after a testing year and a half. When all other costs are going up—the costs of energy and of supplies—these tax rises are only hitting them harder.
As mentioned earlier, during the election Trott criticised Labour explicitly for not ruling out raising employers’ national insurance. (See 9.28am.)
Boris Johnson he would fuck him up for ever if he backed leave in the 2016 referendum campaign.
Johnson makes the claim in his recently-published memoir, where he recalls telling Cameron that he was thinking of backing leave. Johnson writes:
‘If you do that,’ [Cameron] said – and these were his exact words – ‘I will fuck you up for ever.’
Johnson implies the threat carried some weight (although not enought to make him change his mind). In his memoir he goes on:
I had to admit that the threat sounded serious. Did I want to be fucked up? For ever? By a prime minister equipped with all the fucking-up tools available to a modern government, and thousands of fucker-uppers just waiting to do his bidding?
In an interview with Times Radio this morning, asked about Johnson’s account, Cameron replied:
I find that hard to believe.
What I do remember saying is, Boris, you’ve never backed Britain leaving the EU before, you’ve always said, let’s reform it, let’s change it. I said, why back it now when we got a better deal? You might not like my deal. You might think you can do better when you become prime minister, as you probably will in a few years time. But don’t suddenly back something you’ve never backed before.
That was the argument I remember having.
And I don’t remember any language any fruitier than that. But you know, memories, recollections differ, as they say.
Cameron also said it was “a spirited conversation”.
This is a classic non-denial denial. And, in fact, it is not even hard to believe that Cameron did threaten Johnson like this using the f-word. Although mostly genial in public, as PM Cameron was well known for having a temper, and his command of Anglo-Saxon was impressive.
Source: theguardian.com
