Speaker plays straight bat on aid cut amendment – but then bowls PM a hostile bouncer

Published

4 years ago

June 7, 2021

admin

Seldom has a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons been so eagerly anticipated by MPs.

During the Brexit wars of a couple of years ago, pro-Remain John Bercow could be relied upon to deliver rulings to cause maximum turmoil and embarrassment for the government.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle is a much less partisan figure, however, and when he has to made a tricky or controversial ruling he relies on the advice of the Commons clerks and legal bods. Mr Bercow used to overrule them.

So when he had to rule on Tory MP Andrew Mitchell’s bid to use a piece of legislation on science research to reverse Boris Johnson’s overseas aid cut, cricket fan Sir Lindsay played a straight bat.

It wasn’t in order, he declared, to almost no-one’s surprise.

What was more surprising was Sir Lindsay’s angry attack on the government at the end of his ruling. From straight bat to bowling the prime minister a hostile bouncer.

First he encouraged Mr Mitchell and his supporters to apply for an emergency debate on the aid cut, which he duly did and now MPs will have three hours to attack the government. A free hit for the PM’s critics.

Then he rounded off his statement with some furious finger pointing at the government frontbench as he bluntly ordered ministers to hold a vote on the aid cut without delay – or he’d connive with MPs to find a way to hold one.

“I wish and hope, very quickly, that this is taken on board,” the normally cheery Sir Lindsay warned, his lip curling with disdain for the government’s attempts to dodge a vote.

“I don’t want this to drag on,” he said. “If not, we will then look to find other ways in which we can move forward.”

Then when Sir Lindsay’s deputy, Nigel Evans, tested support for Mr Mitchell’s application for an emergency debate, no-one rose to their feet quicker than former prime minister Theresa May, who was seated just a few rows further forward.

She was one of around 30 Conservative MPs who had put their names to the Mitchell new clause to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, a Dominic Cummings legacy, no less. What an ironic twist.

The Tory rebels included old bruisers like David Davis and Sir Edward Leigh, but cabinet ministers from the May years like Jeremy Hunt and Damian Green and MPs from both the Brexit and Remain wings of the party.

In his response to Sir Lindsay’s ruling and then in his bid for an emergency debate, Mr Mitchell claimed that had the vote gone ahead he would have won by nine or possibly 20 votes. He reminded MPs, of course, that he is a former chief whip.

Really? That assumes all the Conservative MPs who put their names to his new clause would have trooped into the Aye lobby with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP. Would Mrs May – victim of dozens of bruising rebellions as PM – go that far?

She has form for voicing her objection to a Boris Johnson policy and then absenting herself from a vote, no doubt because of a pressing engagement elsewhere.

Former prime ministers tend not to rebel, with the exception of Ted Heath during the Thatcher years. Not for nothing was he known as “the incredible sulk”.

Talking of ex-prime ministers, the Tories’ 0.7% aid spending pledge is a legacy of David Cameron’s time as Tory leader.

It was even written into law in 2015, as Sir Lindsay reminded MPs. That’s presumably why Mr Cameron’s former bag-carrier Sir Desmond Swayne was among the rebels.

Not that they would accept that they’re rebels. Since 0.7% was a Tory manifesto pledge, they’ve claimed throughout this row that they’re the loyalists.

Not sure that’s how the current chief whip, the burly, ruddy-faced Nottinghamshire farmer Mark Spencer, would see it.

With Mr Mitchell’s new clause ruled out of order, the debate that followed was a dismal anti-climax.

But hostilities will resume in the emergency debate and if and when the government brings forward a proper vote on the aid cut.

Sir Lindsay will no doubt continue to play a straight bat. But his mood suggests he is growing tired of the prime minister dodging the umpire’s rulings.

Politics

Farmers warn mansion tax could be double whammy

Published

3 hours ago

November 28, 2025

admin

Farmers warn mansion tax could be double whammy

Farmers have warned the government it would be unfair to include farms in the mansion tax as they are working businesses, “not luxury homes”.

Rachel Reeves revealed homes worth £2m or more will be subject to an annual charge on top of council tax from 2028.

Politics latest: Starmer challenged over ‘misleading the public’ with budget tax rises

Her spokesman refused to rule out farms having to pay the mansion tax, which could prove a double hit for farmers after last year’s budget removed inheritance tax relief for farms worth more than £1m.

The Conservatives accused Labour of “waging a war on farmers”, while the Lib Dems said the government has “no understanding of farmers or farms”.

Farmers have been protesting since Ms Reeves’s inheritance tax announcement last year.

She gave them a small concession on Wednesday as she announced farmers and small business owners will be able to transfer up to £1m of any unused inheritance tax allowance to their spouse or civil partner if they die – bringing them in line with homeowners.

Farmers have said this is welcome but does not address the issue completely, as they said many farms will still have to sell land off, or sell up entirely, due to inheritance tax costs.

Ms Reeves’s spokesman said there will be “a consultation that will look at different cases” for the mansion tax.

Asked if he could rule out farms having to pay the tax, he said: “There’s a consultation on cases to be accounted for.”

He said the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which provides property taxation advice to the government, will be carrying out the consultation.

The VOA is also responsible for valuing properties for council tax and business rates.

Farmer Gavin Lane, president of the Country Land and Business Association, which represents rural property, land and business owners, told Sky News: “A farm is not a luxury home. It is a working business.

“If a tax built for high-value homes were ever stretched to cover barns, grain stores, or the land a farmer needs to run their business, it would hit people the policy was never written for.

“There are already clear rules for valuing residential property. This is about council tax on homes, and this system has always been built around residential use, not the land and buildings a farmer relies on to run a business.”

Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride told Sky News: “Labour are waging a war on farmers.

“Having been whacked by the family farm tax last year, farmers now face a double hit with Rachel Reeves’s family home tax.

“Reeves’s farm tax has already placed heavy pressure on many family farms.

“At a time when certainty is essential, this budget has left people feeling that nothing is safe – not their home, their job, their savings, their pension or their farm.

“This was the benefits budget. Rachel Reeves has chosen to put taxes up on hardworking people to pay for more and more welfare.”

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey told Sky News: “The government has once again shown it has no understanding of farmers or their farms.

“For many farmers, their home is their place of work. Some farmers who could be hit by this tax earn less than the minimum wage for doing work that is absolutely crucial to our country.”

Under the mansion tax, officially called the “high-value council tax surcharge”, there will be four bands.

The lowest band, for properties worth between £2m and £2.5m, will pay £2,500.

The highest band, for homes worth £5m or more, will pay £7,500.

Ms Reeves and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) did not reveal the two middle bands and charges.

But she said the surcharge would be uprated annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation.

Politics

Uzbekistan greenlights stablecoins for payments under new sandbox regime

Published

3 hours ago

November 28, 2025

admin

Uzbekistan greenlights stablecoins for payments under new sandbox regime

Uzbekistan is moving to bring stablecoins into its formal payment system, starting with a tightly controlled development sandbox, according to local media.

According to a Friday report by local news outlet Kun, Uzbekistan’s new stablecoin regulatory framework will come into force on Jan. 1, 2026. The new law, signed on Nov. 27, establishes a regulatory sandbox under the purview of the National Agency for Perspective Projects, together with the central bank.

Pilot projects are expected to be implemented to develop a stablecoin-based payment system operating on distributed ledger technology. Starting next year, Uzbekistan-based entities will reportedly be allowed to issue tokenized shares and bonds, and a separate trading platform will be created on licensed stock exchanges for those new assets.

The news follows Uzbekistan’s central bank Chairman Timur Ishmetov announcing in September that studies on digital currencies are underway. At the time, he said crypto activities “should be done under strict control, as it will have a serious impact on monetary policy.”

CBDCs also on the table

Ishmetov also mentioned central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), but not in their retail form. He explained that “such a currency would not be used in people’s daily lives, but mainly to speed up settlements between commercial or central banks.

*Kashkadarya Regional branch of the Central Bank of Uzbekistan. Source:* *Wikimedia*

Uzbekistan’s National Agency for Prospective Projects issued a directive in late March 2024 to increase monthly fees for crypto market participants in the country. Under the new system, crypto exchanges face a monthly fee equivalent to $20,015 — about double the previous fee.

Central Asia not left being left behind

As much of the world develops crypto regulatory frameworks, Central Asia has also progressed. In late October, Kyrgyzstan rolled out a new stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the Kyrgyzstani som, while confirming plans to issue a central bank digital currency and explore a digital asset reserve.

Still, Kazakhstan clearly leads the pack. According to October reports, Kazakhstan’s Financial Monitoring Agency took down 130 crypto platforms involved in money laundering schemes this year. Earlier that month, the country also continued implementing its dual-track approach to digital assets, piloting a CBDC while also backing a state-linked stablecoin.

This followed the launch of the Kazakhstan central bank’s stablecoin pilot project in late September. Also in September, the country established a state-backed crypto reserve in partnership with Binance, holding BNB (BNB).

Magazine: Koreans ‘pump’ alts after Upbit hack, China BTC mining surge: Asia Express