Connect with us

Politics

Worcester Council calls for video meetings for carers and parents

Published

on

Worcester Council calls for video meetings for carers and parents


BBC Jessie Jagger smiling at the camera. She has long brown hair and brown eyes.BBC

Liberal Democrat city councillor Jessie Jagger is expecting a baby daughter in January

Politicians who are also parents or caregivers should be allowed to participate and vote remotely, according to a pregnant city councillor in Worcester.

Liberal Democrat Jessie Jagger said the flexibility would help attract a more diverse range of people into local politics, including those with disabilities or full-time jobs.

A legal requirement for councillors to attend meetings in person was dropped during the Covid-19 pandemic, but was reintroduced in May 2021.

Advertisement

At a meeting on Tuesday, city councillors unanimously backed her request for the issue to be raised in Parliament.

“Being a parent is a big undertaking, but I don’t think it should come at the cost of being unable to represent the people who elected me,” said Jagger, who argued parents faced practical challenges under the current rules.

“I was told I could bring my baby into the council chamber,” she said.

“But then I started thinking, what if it cries, what if I can’t get it to settle?”

Advertisement

“I could watch remotely, but I couldn’t speak and I couldn’t vote… I realised there are some real barriers, which could be very easily solved,” she said.

Worcester City Council's councillors debating in the council chamber

Worcester City Council meetings have been streamed live on YouTube since 2021, but rules dictate councillors must attend in-person to vote and participate

At present, the 1972 Local Government Act does not permit councillors to participate unless they attend in person.

But Jagger argued the legislation could easily be amended, to give councils the flexibility to meet councillors’ specific needs.

“It’s not just something that benefits me. People with disabilities, people who have full-time jobs… who don’t normally run for council because of these constraints,” she said.

Advertisement

The Liberal Democrat councillor’s motion called for Worcester’s Labour MP Tom Collins to raise the issue in the House of Commons.

“Local politics needs to represent and reflect the experiences of communities that it serves,” said Green city councillor and mother of two Katie Collier.

“Too often women – particularly those with children – are overlooked. I’m proud to second this motion.”

Katie Collier smiling at the camera in the council chamber. She has pink hair, a smart jacket and a purple lanyard.

Green city councillor and mother Katie Collier backed the call for remote participation

“It’s not just about looking after children, we have responsibilities to older people as well,” added Green city councillor Andrew Cross.

Advertisement

“My mum down in Devon is 85… she had a fall and I was only just able to make it back to council in time for a meeting. If we were able to do remote meetings, there wouldn’t be the pressure to have to return,” he said.

While the Liberal Democrat motion was backed by all parties on the city council, some councillors raised concerns a return to remote meetings could be open to abuse.

Conservative city councillor Alan Amos warned virtual participation should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

“We do know from the Covid era that remote meetings do lack the proper cut and thrust required in this political arena”, he said.

Advertisement

“People might be on holiday abroad, and this wouldn’t stop them being part of the council meeting.

“Is that the right decision?”

Andrew Cross in the council chamber. He has a beard and is wearing a suit jacket.

Green city councillor Andrew Cross helps care for his elderly mother

In response, Jagger argued an amendment to legislation would allow councils to decide what circumstances were appropriate.

Last month, the minister for local government Jim McMahon MP indicated Labour would be open to reform.

Advertisement

“We are keen to break down barriers that prevent people from seeking to serve their communities,” he said in answer to a written question by deputy Liberal Democrat leader Daisy Cooper MP.

“Allowing hybrid meetings could be a helpful step in doing that and we are keen to work with the sector to have an evidence based discussion about its merits,” he added.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Return of Donald Trump puts UK defence spending at top of agenda

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
BBC A treated collage image featuring, at the top, a Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet alongside a missile on its launch ramp, and along the bottom, an image of the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier.BBC

You’re probably used to politicians telling you we’re living in the most dangerous times for decades.

But who’s going to pay for our protection?

Donald Trump is a lot less willing than the current president to pay for other countries’ defence.

As one UK source told me, “it doesn’t make sense for Europe’s defence interests to be dependent on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania.”

So Trump’s return puts this question right to the top of the list.

Advertisement

The UK government does plan, eventually, to hit the target the Conservatives committed to – of spending 2.5% of the size of the economy on defence, a level last hit back in 2010.

But there’s a defence review underway, and a spending review of every penny spent in Whitehall to get through first.

They’re expected to come one after the other, next spring.

John Healey, the defence secretary, was granted an extra £3bn in the Budget, which is a chunky sum of money – but in terms of defence spending, not a transformative amount of cash.

Advertisement

And it’s only a top-up for a year, with no certainty over long-term funding.

A former minister said: “It’s very hard to order for the years ahead – how long can we be talking, when the need is now?”

Getty Images Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves operates a Max Evo drone as Defence Secretary John Healey (R) looks on at the Stanford Training Area Getty Images

Pictured with Defence Secretary John Healey (R), Rachel Reeves pledged nearly £3bn in additional funding for the military

The government will not say when they expect to hit the 2.5% target – and won’t commit to hitting it before the end of the Parliament in 2029 – causing frustration in some quarters.

A senior source said “you either believe it is the most dangerous time in decades and you fund it properly, or you just don’t really believe it, so you don’t.”

Advertisement

And earlier on the Today programme, former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace accused Labour of making an effective “cut in our defence budget” by including £3bn of Ukraine funding in it.

If Labour reach the 2.5% target, he said he’d welcome it, “but it’s got to be real money with a timetable”.

There is little disagreement that more resources are needed.

John Healey himself has acknowledged the military “have not been ready to fight”. A squeeze on funding over many years had made money tight – the forces “hollowed out”, according to Wallace.

Advertisement

The UK’s support for Ukraine, which has almost universal political support at home, has added to pressure.

According to the National Audit Office, the UK has committed nearly £8 billion to Ukraine – air defence missiles, drones, cruise missiles, tanks and ships, as well as clothing and personal equipment.

Another former minister told me that funding “is absolutely urgent – it is urgent to help Ukraine but the most urgent is where our forces are in danger – it’s not hypothetical, in the Red Sea the Houthis are firing at our ships.”

And shortly before the election, the government’s new national security adviser Jonathan Powell wrote that a new administration would need to reinforce the UK’s defence and security “within the bounds allowed by a struggling economy”.

Advertisement

Some insiders argue rising threats around the world mean the UK should spend way more than 2.5% in any case.

Another former minister told me, “by any measure we are underspending – if you don’t buy the insurance policy you end up having to pay yourself and the cost of real conflicts would be immense in comparison”.

A defence source told me, “we are going to have to make a move on spending or we can put our fingers in our ears and hope we get through it – the Treasury has to do the maths on this – the way to stop spending 5 percent of GDP in the future is to spend now.”

Getty Images Conservative leader, Kemi BadenochGetty Images

Kemi Badenoch criticised Keir Starmer during PMQs for not committing to a defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP by 2030

How it’s spent

Advertisement

But it’s not just about how much money goes to defence – it’s also about how it’s spent.

Recent history is littered with examples of Ministry of Defence projects that overrun and overspend, some in eye-watering proportions.

One insider told me, “the worst thing we could do is spend more and spend it badly … the number needs to go up but we absolutely need to get a proper grip of procurement.”

Several sources mentioned with some pride, and indeed surprise, the way the MoD had worked effectively and quickly with Ukraine to get the right kit into their hands quickly.

Advertisement

One said the MoD had “proved it can spend cash well but it needs to show it can do it consistently”.

Another said the British military had to shed its culture where “only the most exquisitely perfect products may be bought”.

The MoD reckons it can crack down on waste and improve the way things are bought and paid for with new more centralised methods – even hiring a new national armaments director to manage this.

As methods of warfare evolve on the battlefield, so too do the ways militaries respond with kit.

Advertisement

A former minister said: “forget your big new fantasy regiment – we can make what we have more lethal” instead.

The government says it wants to shake up and sort out the mess that defence procurement has become. But there is no doubt that is easier said than done.

Power era

While as a political party, Labour is instinctively uncomfortable with Donald Trump’s re-election, when it comes to defence there is some sympathy with his attitude towards European defence funding.

Advertisement

One insider said, “put on your incontinence pants, don’t listen to the rest of his politics, it’s none of our business.”

Another source told me, “Trump set a challenge to Europe last time and he was in part right to,” pointing out that after his term in office the number of Nato countries which hit the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence did go up.

Twenty-three now meet the 2% target, up from just six countries in 2021.

Rather than worrying about what Trump might do in office, they said, “a precondition for Trump to take European defence seriously is for Europe to take its own defence seriously.”

Advertisement

It’s hard to see how that does not mean more countries on the continent spending more of their own cash.

“Let’s not kid ourselves, Nato does deter Russia, and we have to make sure that happens,” said a defence source.

America’s role in our security is vital. But sources in government acknowledge that Europe, with conflict on its fringes, must play a vigorous financial part.

Eager to be seen as the leader in Nato, the UK is taking steps to boost defence cooperation across the continent – leaders recently signed a “landmark defence agreement” with Germany.

Advertisement

Donald Trump’s return to the White House sets nerves jangling across the Atlantic about what it will mean for Nato, what it will mean for the US committment to support for Ukraine in terms of diplomacy and cold hard cash.

There is instinctive political unease here with his behaviour, his attitude to the law, convention, and the truth. But perhaps in the words of one source “it’s not a rule of law era, it’s a power era”.

Before the Trump victory, there were already profound questions for our politicians about how they protect our interests.

The imperative to answer them is stronger now the unpredictable president is on his way back.

Advertisement

Perhaps the UK and the rest of Europe may need to display and pay for more of its own power to have a chance of getting the Trump White House on board.

Subscribe to Laura Kuenssberg's weekly email
Grey presentational line

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Ukraine, trade and Trump on agenda as Keir Starmer makes Paris trip

Published

on

Ukraine, trade and Trump on agenda as Keir Starmer makes Paris trip

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is expected to discuss European security and the likely impact of a second Trump presidency when he holds talks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on Monday.

Ahead of attending a ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Macron and Starmer are expected to discuss Russia’s ongoing invasion and the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Downing Street said.

Their meeting comes as questions are being asked about US President-elect Donald Trump’s support for Ukraine after he said he could end the war with Russia “in one day”.

Trade will also be on the agenda, with Trump saying he will impose a blanket 20% tariff on imports into the US.

Advertisement

Sir Keir – who is believed to be the first British leader to attend the ceremony on the Champs Elysee since Winston Churchill in 1944 – will also meet French Prime Minister Michel Barnier.

Questions have been raised following Trump’s US presidential election victory about what his second term could mean for US support for Ukraine and Nato.

The UK and France have said backing Ukraine against Russia is essential when it comes to to protecting the European continent as a whole.

Trump has previously told Nato members to increase defence spending, saying he would let aggressors such as Russia do “whatever the hell it wants” to those that do not.

Advertisement

During his election campaign, Donald Trump declined to specify how he would end the war between Russia and Ukraine in a day – but it could involve imposing a deal on both sides.

Bryan Lanza, who worked on Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, told the BBC that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had to have a “realistic vision for peace”, which would not involve ending the Russian annexation of Crimea.

However, a spokesperson for Donald Trump distanced him from the remarks, saying Mr Bryan “does not speak for him”.

The Armistice Day meeting between Starmer and Macron comes as fighting between the two sides intensifies.

Advertisement

Exchanges at the weekend saw the largest drone attacks by both sides against each other since the start of the war, and Russia’s defence ministry said it intercepted 84 Ukrainian drones over six regions, including some approaching Moscow.

On Sunday, Treasury Minister Darren Jones told BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme that the government wanted to increase defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of the national income.

However, he did not say when the target would be reached or whether it would be met before the next election, which could be held in 2029, at the latest.

Sir Keir joined other political leaders and members of the Royal Family, including the Prince and Princess of Wales, for the annual National Service of Remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph in London on Sunday.

Advertisement

King Charles led the nation in two minutes of silence in remembrance of those who lost their lives serving in the two world wars or other conflicts.

As on Remembrance Sunday, two minutes of silence will be held on Armistice Day at 11:00 GMT.

It marks the moment World War One ended, at 11:00 on the 11th day of the 11th month, in 1918.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Dearborn’s Arab Americans didn’t just vote for Trump — they punished Harris

Published

on

Farah Khan (left), co-chair of the Abandon Harris Michigan campaign, tries to convince Caitlyn Brown to vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.

DEARBORN, Michigan — Arab American leaders for months warned Vice President Kamala Harris that she needed to separate herself from President Joe Biden’s support of Israel in the war in Gaza — or face an electoral backlash from this influential community in a key battleground.

But those pleas went largely ignored.

Instead, Harris made strategic errors that deeply insulted Arab American voters reeling from intense grief as the death toll in the Middle East climbed. She refused to host a Palestinian American onstage at the Democratic National Convention. She curtly shut down protesters at campaign rallies who criticized her solidarity with Biden over the conflict. She dispatched pro-Israel surrogates to Michigan.

Now, many Arab American residents in Dearborn “feel like they’ve been redeemed,” said Michael Sareini, Dearborn city council president. “They wanted to send a message and they did.”

Advertisement

“This stance on endless wars and killing of innocent women and children has got to end,” he said.

In the initial days after the election, as Democrats despaired over the results, Dearborn residents felt unsurprised by President-elect Donald Trump’s resounding win, according to interviews with nearly a dozen Arab American leaders in this densely populated Muslim city just outside Detroit. Adding to their sense that they were right, their protest vote was not limited solely to Arab Americans, who make up a fraction of the U.S. population. Their furor toward the Biden administration over Gaza spilled out onto college campuses across the nation and among progressives of all ages, amounting to the most significant anti-war protest in a generation.

“While we dealt with that grief, we became much more politically mature,” said Amer Zahr, a Palestinian American activist.

Unofficial results show Trump received the most votes in Dearborn, with 42 percent, while Harris earned 36 percent — a 33 percentage point drop from when Biden won Dearborn in 2020. Green party candidate Jill Stein collected 18 percent.

Advertisement

Farah Khan (left), co-chair of the Abandon Harris Michigan campaign, tries to convince Caitlyn Brown to vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.

Zoom into Arab American neighborhoods and you’ll find an even more dramatic crumbling for the vice president. Trump showed up big throughout the Eastern and Southern parts of Dearborn, where a high concentration of the community lives. In one of those precincts, Harris earned only 13 percent while Trump got 51 percent.

Multiple Dearborn leaders said that Trump’s social conservatism and isolationist “America First” foreign policy made Arabs more comfortable with backing a Republican after the community fled from the GOP in the aftermath of 9/11. And, for a population that often feels targeted by the justice system, many identified with Trump’s legal woes.

But those leaders emphasized that the dramatic move toward Trump does not mark a permanent realignment with the Republican party for this demographic historically part of the Democratic base but rather an explicit rejection of Biden and Harris. The top of the ticket was the exception: Democrats won Dearborn at every other level of the ballot, from U.S. Rep. Rashida Talib down to state lawmakers and school board members.

“They didn’t vote for Trump because they believe Trump is the best candidate,” said Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News. “No, they voted for Trump because they want to punish the Democrats and Harris.”

Advertisement

‘I am speaking now’

When Harris took Biden’s place as the Democratic nominee in July, Arab Americans were hopeful. She had given some indications of a softer stance in the Middle East, and Dearborn residents were optimistic that she may be the president who would stand up against Israel. By that point, the war in Gaza had endured for nine months — and Biden repeatedly refused to order an arms embargo against Israel, despite pleas from the community for an end to the bombardment that according to Gaza health officials has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians.

But when Palestinian Americans were denied a speaking slot at the DNC convention a few weeks later, residents in Dearborn started to feel disgruntled. That resentment grew when Harris in August told a pro-Palestinan protester “I am speaking now” — a line that Arab Americans now point to as a difficult moment for Harris to overcome.

As the deaths increased in the Middle East — and images of dead bodies were shared widely on social media — the Arab community felt even more pushed aside by the Biden administration. It started to feel, they said, like a betrayal from Harris herself.

When Israel launched a ground invasion into Lebanon in October, which they stated was in response to military attacks by Hezbollah, Arab Americans’ rage over the response by the U.S. reached its peak.

Advertisement

Opposition to Harris “built up slowly but surely,” as the war continued on, said Abed Hammoud, founder of the Arab American Political Action Committee. A large share of Dearborn’s population comes from South Lebanon, which has been devastated by the military action. Some Michigan residents have seen their entire families overseas killed.

“I wake up in the morning, I turn on the news just to see which village was leveled to the ground and who was killed,” said Sam Baydoun, Wayne County commissioner, who emigrated to America from Lebanon when he was 15. “This is the daily routine we have here in Michigan.”

A motorist passes a mural painted on the side of a school, in Dearborn, the nation's largest Arab-majority city.

In the final weeks of the campaign, the Harris campaign dispatched surrogates to Michigan who deeply offended the Arab community. Bill Clinton, speaking at a rally in late October, said Israelis were in the Holy Land “first.” Residents also grumbled about appearances by New York Rep. Richie Torres, a staunch Israel proponent.

Adding to insult, the campaign touted the endorsement of former Vice President Dick Cheney, the mastermind behind the war in Iraq. His daughter, Liz Cheney, who was the former No. 3 Republican in the House and a staunch Trump critic, was featured as part of Harris’ closing message.

Advertisement

By that point, Harris’ repeated statements that she wanted to end the war in Gaza and return hostages felt hollow to this community. She had lost them.

An opening for Trump

The Trump campaign viewed the Arab community’s disdain toward Harris in the waning weeks before the election as an opportunity. Residents were inundated with anti-Harris texts and mailers, which “played big” among voters, said Ali Jawad, founder of the Lebanese American Heritage Club.

Then Trump paid a visit to Dearborn four days before the election. He stood in a restaurant surrounded by a crowd of Arab Americans and declared that under his presidency, “we’re going to have peace in the Middle East — but not with the clowns that you have running the U.S. right now.”

Harris never personally visited Dearborn. Campaign staff and surrogates went in her place instead.

Advertisement

“The Democrats did this,” Zahr said. “They created a situation where Donald Trump was walking around our city, putting his feet up, shaking hands, kissing babies and Harris didn’t even enter our community. She was afraid.”

Arabs in Dearborn were united in anguish but deeply divided on how to express it politically. Factions emerged. Conversations among themselves grew tense. The main PAC representing Arab American interests not only declined to make a presidential endorsement but urged residents not to vote for Harris or Trump. Some residents decided to skip voting in the presidential race entirely.

There was a split among the area’s mayors. Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud emerged as a strong ally of the uncommitted movement, the Michigan-born coalition that galvanized antiwar sentiment on college campuses. Election results revealed that some big liberal college counties seemed to underperform for the Democratic ticket by at least a point.

The flag of Turkey hangs as workers take a break from the dinner shift in Dearborn.

Hammoud refused to meet with Trump when he was in Dearborn, based on his disagreement with the former president’s enactment of the Muslim ban and arming of Saudi Arabia. But he also declined to endorse Harris.

Advertisement

The mayors in two neighboring cities with similarly large Arab populations, Dearborn Heights and Hamtramck, stumped for Trump throughout Michigan. Dearborn Heights Mayor Bill Bazzi even appeared at Trump’s final campaign rally held in Grand Rapids in the hours before Election Day.

But Trump’s record — like the Muslim ban and his promises to deport millions of immigrants — was enough for some to push aside their misgivings for Harris, like for political organizer Ismael Ahmed, who said he “held my nose and voted for her.”

Yet in the end, Trump “was able to say some things that made them think maybe he’s really on our side,” Ahmed said. “Or maybe he’ll fix the economy in a way that no one else will. And it worked.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

UK support for Ukraine resolute after Trump win, says minister

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
BBC Darren Jones appearing on the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programmeBBC

Treasury minister Darren Jones has said the UK government’s commitment to Ukraine is “resolute” amid fears incoming US President Donald Trump could push the country into giving up territory to Russia.

Jones told BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, “Ukraine should be able to recover its country as it was previously structured” and that there “shouldn’t be an element of conceding to illegal invasions from Russia”.

He added he would not comment on “hypothetical scenarios” of a future US administration.

Speaking to the same programme, Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said the UK had to find a “shared way of working with the US” on Ukraine.

During the election campaign, Trump characterised the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a drain on US resources and said he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine “in a day”.

Advertisement

The president-elect has not offered details of how he would resolve the conflict,

However, a research paper written by two of his former national security advisers has argued that the US should continue its weapons supply to Ukraine, but make the support conditional on Kyiv entering peace talks with Russia.

To entice Russia, the West would promise to delay Ukraine’s entry into Nato, the military alliance of European and North American nations.

The former advisers argued Ukraine should not give up its hopes of getting its territory back from Russian occupation, but that it should negotiate based on current front lines.

Advertisement

Asked how the UK government would respond if Trump did compel Ukraine to make territorial concessions, Jones said: “Our commitment to Ukraine as a country here in UK is resolute.

“We continue to support Ukraine with billions of pounds of funding every year and support from our armed forces in line with our commitments through Nato.”

Asked if the UK still respected Ukraine’s desire to get back territories such as Crimea, Jones said: “That is the basis on which the UK is operating.”

Dame Priti, who was appointed shadow foreign secretary earlier this week, agreed Ukraine should not have to concede Crimea.

Advertisement

“No, of course not,” she said adding: “We’ve been unequivocal as Conservatives in government… we stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine.”

She added that Trump “hasn’t entered the White House yet” and it would be wrong to speculate on future US foreign policy.

“I think, take one step back, let’s be mature about this.

“We need to have dialogue and this comes back to having a strong relationship with our closest ally.

Advertisement

“I would urge our government going forward to be constructive in those discussions.”

Watch: Russia suffers ‘worst month for casualties’, says UK defence chief Radakin

Speaking to the same programme, Chief of the UK Defence Staff Sir Tony Radakin said Russia had suffered its worst ever month for casualties since the start of the Ukraine war, with around 1,500 dying or wounded every single day.

Sir Tony said the losses were “for tiny increments of land” but that there was “no doubt that Russia is making tactical, territorial gains and that is putting pressure on Ukraine”.

Advertisement

“Russia is spending over 40% of its public expenditure now on defence and security – that is an enormous drain on Russia as a country.

“I’m saying the longer the war goes on, the more difficult it is.”

He reiterated the UK government’s stance that Western allies would be resolute for “as long as it takes” adding: “That’s the message President Putin has to absorb and the reassurance for President Zelensky.”

Trump has repeatedly urged Nato members to spend more on their defence, accusing European countries of free-riding on America.

Advertisement

In February, he said he would let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” to Nato countries that did not spend enough on defence.

Nato countries are expected to spend 2% of their national income on defence. At the moment 23 countries – including the UK – meet the target, compared to just six in 2021.

The Labour government has committed to increasing spending from 2.3% to 2.5% – but has not set a date for hitting the figure.

Jones said the government would not commit to a deadline until it had completed its strategic defence review.

Advertisement

The review – led by former Labour minister and Nato head George Robertson – is examining how the defence budget is spent. It is due to be completed in the spring.

Jones did not say if the 2.5% target would be met within the current Parliament which can run until 2029.

In their manifesto, the Conservatives said they wanted to get to 2.5% by 2030.

Asked if her party would accept cuts elsewhere in order to meet 2.5%, Dame Priti said there were “efficiencies” that could be made as well as changes around the “performance of the civil service”.

Advertisement

She added that the government “could have done more in that Budget to put the pathway forward for 2.5% of GDP on defence”.

On Ukraine, former Labour minister Lord Peter Mandelson said: “Whatever happens to the fringes of Ukraine territory – and in that I don’t think anyone should be dictating to the Ukrainians what they do – what is sacrosanct is their freedom. That’s not up for grabs.”

He said the UK should work with the US to secure Ukraine’s freedom and its borders to ensure Russia “can’t invade again”.

He added that would be possible, not by offering Ukraine Nato membership, but by building “stronger, deeper” economic relationships with the country.

Advertisement

There have been reports that Lord Mandelson could be appointed the UK’s new ambassador to the United States.

Asked if he was in the frame for the high-profile position, he said: “Nobody has spoken to me about this job.”

On whether he would be interested, he said he would be “very interested indeed in giving advice about trade to whoever is appointed”.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

What’s wrong with letting people buy council houses?

Published

on

Is Reform UK's plan to get Farage into No 10 mission impossible?
PA Media Labour Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner at the Labour Party Conference. She is sitting at a long table behind a red Labour logo, and in front of a red backdropPA Media

The future of the Right To Buy scheme rests largely in the hands of Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner

When Harold Wilson was Labour prime minister in the late 1960s, up to a third of people in England lived in a council house or flat.

But by the time Keir Starmer became prime minister in July this year, the proportion of people in England living in social housing had fallen to about 16% of the population – about four million.

About two million council-built properties have been sold to their tenants at significantly discounted prices under the Right To Buy (RTB) scheme since it was introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government in the early 1980s.

Michael Heseltine described the advent of RTB as “laying the foundations of one of the most important social revolutions of the century”, but was selling off council houses more cheaply than new ones could be built simply laying the foundations of a housing crisis?

Advertisement

Waiting lists

Historically, money raised from selling off council houses has not gone far towards building new ones – new ones desperately needed, considering about 1.3 million people are on waiting lists for them in England.

Across the north-west of England, for example, about 4,350 council houses have been sold off in the last 10 years, with the money made from the sales going towards building or buying just over 1,400 others, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

While the £336,612,000 raised from those sales may sound a reasonable sum, it works out on average at about £77,000 per house. And, generally, councils have not been allowed to keep the whole amount, instead having to hand a sizeable chunk back to the government.

Advertisement

About 200,000 people are on waiting lists for social housing in the region.

While housing associations may have built homes, and there may have been schemes funded by cash from other government pots, the fact that the money raised from selling off homes is nowhere near enough to rebuild or buy like-for-like has been a long-standing concern.

And it would seem Labour deputy prime minister and minister for housing Angela Rayner – who famously bought her own council house in Stockport under RTB – has taken on board the views of RTB critics.

Rayner has said recently she may impose restrictions so that people who move into newly built council houses will not be able to buy them in the future.

Advertisement

It is a decision that is likely to be welcomed by Labour politicians in regions where the need for social housing is arguably as great as ever, but the amount of it available is very low.

PA Media Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Steve Rotheram, in a blue suit and light blue shirt, standing at a podium delivering a speechPA Media

Steve Rotheram is lobbying the government for help to stimulate social housing building

The Labour metro-mayors of both Liverpool and Manchester regions have both said they want to see more social housing built in their regions.

In May, Andy Burnham, leader of Greater Manchester, called on the-then Conservative government to pause RTB on new builds after losing 500 social homes to the scheme in 2022.

He argued that if planned homes could be bought by their tenants, it would be “like trying to fill a bath without the plug in”.

Advertisement

On Merseyside, virtually all former council housing stock was transferred to housing associations over the last two decades.

But metro mayor Steve Rotheram says registered social landlords (RSLs) have inherited some of the problems that came with RTB.

He says one Merseyside RSL had lost about a third of its homes through sales to tenants in the decade since the housing stock was transferred.

People who are tenants of RSLs can buy their homes under “preserved” RTB if they lived in their homes when the council owned them.

Advertisement

And once someone has lived in an RSL property for three years, they can apply for the Right To Acquire.

Rotheram says cheaper borrowing rates for RSLs and a moratorium on sales would help boost growth in social housing.

“You are not going to build a lot of houses for someone to come along in three or four years and buy it below market value,” he says.

“How we deal with this is part of our growth plan going to the government, and we are now trying to see if we can work with [Rayner] to come up with proposals.”

Advertisement

Blackpool Council’s cabinet member for economy and the built environment, Mark Smith, is clear that while the money generated from RTB sales is used to support various investments in housing, the RTB receipts his council receives are “not sufficient to replace lost social rent housing”.

And he says even with changes such as the government giving councils more flexibility to allow RTB receipts to be used alongside cash from other streams such as funds given by developers who get planning permission for private schemes, there is still some red tape in the way of using different types of funding together to build council housing.

“We do the best we can within the parameters of the policy as it exists currently but there is always room for improvement,” he says.

A photograph of Symington House, a five-storey modernist block of council flats in Elephant and Castle, London

More than two million council homes have been sold by local authorities under Right To Buy since the 1980s

Under the new Labour government policies, councils and housing associations are being given “more freedom” to decide how to use their RTB money.

Advertisement

Previously, only 50% of the money a council received from a sale could go towards building or buying a new house.

But in future councils will be able to use all that money, and put money received from private developers handed over as part of planning agreements into projects as well.

These deals, known as Section 106 agreements, see developers give money to councils to mitigate any negative impacts their private schemes might have on local communities or housing markets.

Sources within the social housing sector say that in the past the “policy has never achieved anything like a one-for-one replacement ratio”.

Advertisement

“If it had then there would be a lot less concern about the policy,” one says.

“Yes, a Right To Buy home continues to be a home after it’s sold, but it contributes to a huge loss of social housing stock and contributes to housing waiting lists, or people having to live in unsuitable accommodation.”

‘Serious shortage’

The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils, says there is a “serious housing shortage in this country” and “record numbers of people living in temporary accommodation”.

Advertisement

Adam Hug, the LGA’s housing spokesman, says: “While the Right To Buy can and has delivered home ownership for many the scheme in its current form does not work.

“Rising discounts, alongside other measures that restrict councils’ use of Right To Buy receipts, mean that the money raised from the sale of property is usually not sufficient to cover the building costs of replacing the property.

“We have long called for the removal of rules and restrictions which disincentivise local authorities from building social homes, at risk of losing them.

“Councils must be given the control, power and flexibility to use receipt monies in a way that works best for their local areas, which includes retaining 100 per cent of the receipts permanently.”

Advertisement

‘Scandal’

In 2012, the Conservative-led government increased the discount a tenant could receive when buying their home.

Since coming to power, Labour has said the discount will be reduced to between £16,000 and £38,000, depending on the location – a significant reduction from the £136,000 discount currently available in London and the discount of just over £100,000 elsewhere.

Rayner, who bought her Stockport council house under a RTB discount in 2007 and sold it several years later for £48,000 more than she paid for it, said she wanted to see a “fairer” system.

Advertisement

Her department says it is a “scandal” that only about one third of homes lost to RTB have been replaced since 2012, and that it was “working at pace to reverse the continued decline of social rented homes”.

But while the government stresses there are “no plans to abolish the RTB”, the “social revolution” Lord Heseltine heralded nearly 45 years ago is clearly facing a radical change to everything but its name.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

‘We know what is coming’: Federal bureaucrats wrestle with fight-or-flight response to Trump election

Published

on

The former president and his allies are deeply distrustful of the executive branch bureaucracy and the more than 2 million civil servants who staff it.

Thousands of federal bureaucrats have lived through one Donald Trump administration. Many are not sure they can or will survive a second.

POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen civil servants, political appointees under President Joe Biden and recently departed Biden administration staffers in the days since the presidential election was called for Trump, who were granted anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic and the risk to their jobs. Many are bracing for a wave of departures from key federal agencies in the coming months, amid fears that the next president will gut their budgets, reverse their policy agendas and target them individually if they do not show sufficient loyalty. The result is likely to be a sizable brain drain from the federal workforce — something Trump may welcome.

“Last time Trump was in office, we were all in survival mode with a hope for an end date,” said one State Department official. “Now there is no light at the end of the tunnel.”

The former president and his allies are deeply distrustful of the executive branch bureaucracy and the more than 2 million civil servants who staff it — blaming a federal “deep state” for trying to undermine him in his first term and driving the impeachment efforts against him. As president, Trump named political appointees to various agencies with the purpose of cleaning house — and will again have the chance to nominate people for roughly 4,000 political jobs throughout the administration. In 2021, his White House launched an effort to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees, something he is expected to restart when he returns in January. He’s also threatened to move thousands of federal jobs outside D.C.

Advertisement

Trump-Vance Transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt did not reply directly to a query about the future of the federal workforce, saying, via email, “President-Elect Trump will begin making decisions on who will serve in his second Administration soon. Those decisions will be announced when they are made.”

Trump’s policy agenda is also at odds with core priorities for a number of agencies under Biden.

The former president and his allies are deeply distrustful of the executive branch bureaucracy and the more than 2 million civil servants who staff it.

Several of Biden’s political appointees at Department of Transportation headquarters near Washington’s Navy Yard were despondent at the prospect of a new Trump administration set on undoing much of their work over the past four years, including airline consumer protections and massive investments in infrastructure.

“There’s a lot of anxiety among Biden appointees, like myself, who need to find new jobs — and also among career staff who are worried about Trump trying to remove career civil servants who had a policymaking role,” a DOT official told POLITICO.

Advertisement

“I am glad that I am retiring soon. … EPA is toast,” said a staffer at the Environmental Protection Agency, whose efforts to fight climate change clash with Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” approach to energy policy.

A number of officials, however, are wrestling with the conflicting desire to stay in government and defend the mission of the agencies they work for.

“We do our best to make sure either administration does what’s legal,” said a Department of Homeland Security staffer in a legal office. “If I leave, I’d be replaced with an enabler.”

The alarm over Trump’s return is particularly palpable among national security officials, environmental agencies and the federal health agencies, who fear the president-elect will follow through on his pledge to let noted vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “go wild on health.”

Advertisement

In his victory speech early Wednesday morning, Trump reiterated that promise. “He’s going to help make America healthy again. … He wants to do some things, and we’re going to let him get to it,” Trump said.

On Wednesday, Kennedy made the rounds on radio and television, saying that he would not seek to halt vaccinations.

Still, one current staffer at the National Institutes of Health said concerns are building inside the research agency about the future of vaccine research in the next administration.

NIH Director Monica Bertagnolli seemed to hint at those fears in an email sent to agency staff Wednesday that was shared with POLITICO.

Advertisement

“With the 2024 election day now behind us, I want to acknowledge that change can leave us feeling uncertain,” she wrote.

“I do not want to dismiss those feelings, but I do want to remind everyone that throughout our 137-year history, the NIH mission has remained steadfast, and our staff committed to the important work of biomedical research in the service of public health.”

A former Food and Drug Administration official told POLITICO on Wednesday that Kennedy’s assertions that he would have heavy influence over health agencies during Trump’s second term is raising the risk of career staff departing the agency responsible for drug oversight and food safety.

“The agency personnel are concerned, especially in light of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s statements and his potential role at the agency,” said the former official. “The reality of that is something the agency has to grapple with.”

Advertisement

A former FDA official told POLITICO on Wednesday that Kennedy's assertions that he would have heavy influence over health agencies during Trump's second term is raising the risk of career staff departing the agency responsible for drug oversight and food safety.

“They’re worried, they’ve been through transitions before so they clearly understand how to do that, but they read the news, the same as you and me,” said a separate former senior FDA official. “I think it’s a lot of RFK-driven stuff.”

Staffers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also fear that under Trump, the public health agency — so central to the Covid-19 response — has “a target on its back,” as one person who works with the agency said.

Republicans have outlined clear plans for changes to the CDC — including the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which includes ambitions to split the agency into two. (The Trump campaign has insisted that Project 2025 isn’t its official policy.) And many conservatives, including Trump’s former FDA commissioner, have argued that the CDC should narrow its scope to focus mainly on disease control.

“What is very clear is that in 2016, Trump was completely unprepared, and now he has a plan, and public health is right smack in the middle of it,” the person said.

Advertisement

A national security analyst who recently left the Biden administration shared similar fears and said having lived through a previous Trump administration, many civil servants are even more wary of working for a second one.

“People are sad and frightened. And what makes it worse is this time we know what is coming. It isn’t theoretical. It is real,” the analyst said.

“At State in particular, it is going hard to overstate how targeted people, career officers will be,” they said. “There will be no grace.”

Not everyone shared that bleak outlook. “I actually don’t see the freak-out yet, maybe it will come when the transition begins in earnest, but the folks I’ve talked to seem to have a pretty sober take that Trump’s victory means we carry out his policies,” said another State Department official. “If people disagree with those policies, nobody will hold anything against anyone that opts to leave.”

Advertisement

One Health and Human Services official who has worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations told POLITICO that while individual employees are freaking out about the election results, the overall vibe of her office this week is: “Business as usual. Keep on working. It is what it is.”

She is trying to find a glimmer of hope in the Trump administration’s mixed record on health care.

“There are sometimes weird synergies,” she said. “Like under the first Trump administration, Scott Gottlieb was a very strong tobacco control advocate, and the Center for Tobacco Products was actually able to do more than they could under the Obama administration.”

“So I’m asking myself: Are there pathways to work with people that you disagree with and despise?”

Advertisement

Michael Doyle, Kevin Bogardus and Hannah Northey contributed to this report.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com