Typically, when questioned about the possibility of an individual losing an award, the Prime Minister’s office simply states that it is a decision for the committee, which functions with a level of secrecy.
However, the No 10 office stated that Rishi Sunak would offer significant backing to the committee if they chose to reconsider withdrawing Vennells’ CBE due to the Horizon scandal.
The spokesperson for the prime minister stated that Sunak would fully back the forfeiture committee if they decided to launch an investigation.
Over one million individuals have participated in an internet petition coordinated by 38 Degrees, expressing their support.
After receiving a CBE for contributions to the Post Office, and subsequently taking on leadership roles in government and healthcare, it is appropriate that this recognition is now revoked through the forfeiture process.
Paula Vennells has declined to respond to inquiries from both employees and the press. She has also not shown remorse for the concealment, suffering, and distress that have damaged not only her reputation, but also that of the Post Office, the honours system, and the government.
The Prime Minister’s representative informed reporters during the briefing in the lobby.
The prime minister empathizes with the public’s anger regarding this matter. He fully endorses the forfeiture committee’s potential decision to investigate the case.
The committee is responsible for making the decision, not the government.
Filters BETA
Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, informed Members of Parliament that the investigation he initiated into the reported escape of inmate Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth in September has been completed. He also stated that he has requested the prison, the Prison and Probation Service, and the Ministry of Justice to promptly implement the recommendations from the independent investigation.
The findings from the Resolution Foundation’s report were discussed in a speech at Glasgow University regarding the state of the economy.
According to Yousaf, the report stated that the average household would see an increase of £8,300 in their income if the UK had income inequality levels similar to other countries.
”
Yousaf stated that the same approach would be used for Scotland.
The average Scottish household would receive a larger prize of £10,200.
The great reward of gaining independence is the ability to become more typical as a country. It may not happen immediately, but it is a goal worth pursuing.
When asked, Yousaf stated that the economic changes in a sovereign Scotland would not occur immediately.
I am not promoting independence as a sudden transformation. It is not guaranteed that the day after achieving independence, everything will be perfect and easy. There will inevitably be obstacles and struggles. The journey towards independence will be a gradual process.
However, according to Yousaf, the economic issues in the UK are ingrained and widespread.
According to the National, Yousaf suggested that a separate Scotland should establish a department for industrial strategy.
This is a message from my coworker, Libby Brooks.
At 10:33am, Cable was asked if Davey had any questions to address.
All of the government officials, including Ed Davey, who addressed this issue during the previous Labour administration and even more so in the current Conservative government, handled it in a similar manner. However, Davey is now being singled out, likely due to the upcoming election and the desire to find a scapegoat within the Liberal Democrat party. I do not believe this is a matter of party politics.
The failure of governments and the criminal justice system is evident, leading to the need for an independent investigation.
It is a natural human response to seek out someone to blame, but it does not address the root issue.
-
He supported Keir Starmer’s proposal for a system to be established that would allow for all convictions to be collectively overturned. (Refer to 10:57 AM.) Cable stated that this would still be justifiable, even if it resulted in some guilty individuals being cleared of their charges.
-
He stated that, in his role as business secretary, he lacked the authority to halt the Post Office prosecutions. He clarified that ministers were only permitted to make requests.
The government had granted the Post Office extensive authority to not only function as a business, but also to act as a personal security force similar to the railways. The department began to express worries about this, but it was uncertain how we could step in and address the issue.
The Post Office was granted a significant level of autonomy to ensure that the decision to close specific post offices would not be controlled by ministers, according to his statement.
-
During his time as business secretary, he disclosed that he was approached by a group of sub-post office operators regarding injustices, but it was not a pressing matter for him or other ministers.
I am not arrogant. I believe that any minister who is involved in this situation, whether currently in our government or in the future, bears some responsibility. I am willing to apologize, as I believe all ministers involved should do.
I have a strong sense of responsibility and believe that both myself and many others would have taken more proactive action had we known how to do so.
She wasn’t invited to ask a question (note to No 10 – that’s not a good decision), but she claims to have been informed that Harry Cole’s report regarding Rishi Sunak’s desire to do away with the Rwanda policy during his candidacy for Tory leader in 2022 is true. (Refer to 11:48 am.)
)
According to a source within the campaign, as reported by @MrHarryCole, the Prime Minister had initially planned to eliminate the Rwanda scheme and had little interest in addressing illegal or legal migration until he was convinced otherwise during the campaign. However, the Prime Minister has since denied ever stating that he would scrap the scheme.
The Post Office Horizon scandal will not begin until later today, following three other items after the conclusion of defence questions at 3:30pm. Here is the schedule with approximate times.
At 3:30pm, an urgent inquiry regarding Gaza was brought forth by David Lammy, the opposition’s foreign secretary.
At approximately 4:15pm, Victoria Atkins, the secretary of health, issues a statement regarding the NHS’s management of the winter season.
At approximately 5:15pm, Robbie Moore, the minister responsible for water and rural development, issues a statement regarding the ongoing flooding situation.
At approximately 6:15pm, Kevin Hollinrake, the minister responsible for postal services, issues a statement regarding the Post Office Horizon controversy.
The UK government has suggested that it wants the committee responsible for stripping honours to revoke Paula Vennells’ CBE, which was given to her during her time as CEO of the Post Office.
Usually, when questioned about the possibility of someone losing an honor, the 10 Downing Street office simply states that it is up to a committee that operates with a level of secrecy.
However, No 10 has stated that Rishi Sunak would offer strong support to the committee if they choose to investigate the possibility of revoking Vennells’ CBE following the Horizon scandal.
The spokesperson for the prime minister stated that Sunak would be in full support of the forfeiture committee if they decided to conduct an investigation.
Over a million individuals have participated in an internet petition arranged by 38 Degrees, stating:
After receiving a CBE for contributions to the Post Office, and transitioning into higher roles in government and healthcare, it is appropriate for this recognition to be revoked through forfeiture.
Paula Vennells has chosen not to respond to inquiries from these employees and the press, and has also declined to offer an apology for concealing the truth, causing suffering and distress, and damaging not just her own reputation, but also that of the Post Office, the honours system, and the government.
An update was given by the spokesperson of the Prime Minister during the lobby briefing with journalists.
The prime minister empathizes with the public’s anger regarding this matter. He would fully back the forfeiture committee’s decision to review the case.
The committee, rather than the government, will make the decision.
He was the previous week.
However, Sunak is not facing a nation with a clean slate. Voters already have a firmly established, and highly unfavorable, perception of Sunak’s governing accomplishments, and the upcoming election will rely on his ability to change that. Unfortunately, this morning’s announcement did not offer anything that could potentially sway public opinion.
This event was coordinated by CCHQ, not the government, giving Sunak the opportunity to be politically partisan. He did criticize Labour and Keir Starmer. However, while CCHQ has continuously tried to argue that Starmer’s £28 billion green investment plan would require tax increases (Starmer refutes this claim), Sunak did not strongly make that point and instead opted for the weak attack that Starmer “lacks a plan” and simply “criticizes from the sidelines”. (Refer to 11:17 AM.)
There are three issues with this: Firstly, Starmer does have a multitude of plans, although their level of inspiration and effectiveness is debatable. Secondly, even if he did not have any plans, it is not the worst criticism an opposition leader can receive. And lastly, as the leader of the opposition, it is essentially Starmer’s role to criticize from the sidelines. Labour headquarters may have observed this and thought, “Is that all?”
Sunak was contrasting Labour’s stance with his own “long-term plan”. This worked for Cameron in 2015 but, as Matthew Holehouse from the Economist points out in posts on X, there are good grounds for thinking it won’t this time.
It seems reminiscent of the 2015 campaign. The issue is that during 2010-15, many individuals believed in the grand narrative of Cameron: the idea of a “square one” and a “long-term plan”. However, it is difficult to make the same statement today…
Sunak’s statement suggests that the starting point for his tenure as Liz Truss’ replacement is October 2022. However, this may not have the same impact on voters as it did in 2015, when “square one” represented the global financial crisis and the previous government’s rule.
His Q&A session last week was more successful than Rishi Sunak’s today.
It could be due to the varying format, but Sunak was expected to primarily answer questions from the general public, while Starmer’s recent event was geared towards the media. However, for a while now, Sunak has been more inclined to restrict the number of questions he takes from journalists at similar events compared to Starmer. This suggests that being more receptive to scrutiny is a display of confidence.
At 11:33am, he did not refute the content of the story.
Sunak has responded cautiously to our report that he talked about removing Rwanda from consideration during the 2022 leadership competition.
Informs PM Connect event: “I did not mention that I would get rid of it.”
The story clearly showed that he was convinced not to do it.
There will be no refusal of discussions.
The Rwanda bill has been deemed highly efficient. However, numerous legal professionals have expressed that the current draft of the bill will successfully achieve its intended purpose.
He declares that the entire Conservative party is in favor of the bill.
“That statement is false. Roughly 30 people actively chose not to vote during the second reading.”
The Q&A session has come to a close.
UPDATE: Sunak said:
If individuals have innovative suggestions on how to improve this and still meet our global responsibilities while keeping Rwanda involved in the program… then I am willing to discuss them.
After investing a significant amount of time, I am confident that this is a favorable deal that will effectively fulfill our needs.
9.57am.)
Sunak denies ever making that statement.
I did not mention discarding it. That is entirely untrue. Of course not.
The report did not state that he publicly supported that stance – only that he personally pondered it as a possibility.
He stated that he discussed this matter in his BBC interview yesterday. He was in favor of using deterrents, but as chancellor, he had to carefully examine the proposal.
He claims the inquiries pertain to the Labour party; the issue can only be addressed with a preventative measure, so why aren’t they backing the Rwanda legislation? He asserts that it is the responsibility of the government to determine who is allowed entry into the UK.
UPDATE: Additional information on this can be found at 11:48am and 1:17pm.
Sunak is currently addressing inquiries from the press.
Why did it require an ITV drama for your government to prioritize the Post Office miscarriage of justice? Will you now overturn all convictions?
Sunak claims that this is a scandal, but acknowledges that his predecessors had already begun the process of resolving the issue. They initiated an inquiry and agreed to provide compensation. However, Sunak aims to accelerate the process.
The event that occurred was incorrect.
The author mentions full expensing and points out that no other major economy provides such a significant tax benefit to businesses.
He states that it is now a permanent situation.
He acknowledges that there was a shift in policy towards achieving net zero. However, he explains that this was motivated by his concern for people being pressured to adapt too rapidly. He aimed for a practical and balanced approach. Despite this, the UK will still reach net zero at a faster pace compared to other nations. He admits receiving criticism for this decision, but believes it was the correct course of action.
He claims that achieving net zero is now possible in a cost-effective way.
Source: theguardian.com
