Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM avoids Tory rebellion over foreign aid

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.

More from Politics

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.”

Andrew Mitchell MP
Image:
MP Andrew Mitchell has been leading efforts to reverse the cut in overseas aid

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

Chancellor Rachel Reeves considering ‘changes’ to ISAs – and says there’s too much focus on ‘risk’ in investing

Published

on

By

Chancellor Rachel Reeves considering 'changes' to ISAs - and says there's too much focus on 'risk' in investing

The chancellor has confirmed she is considering “changes” to ISAs – and said there has been too much focus on “risk” in members of the public investing.

In her second annual Mansion House speech to the financial sector, Rachel Reeves said she recognised “differing views” over the popular tax-free savings accounts, in which savers can currently put up to £20,000 a year.

She was reportedly considering reducing the threshold to as low as £4,000 a year, in a bid to encourage people to put money into stocks and shares instead and boost the economy.

However the chancellor has shelved any immediate planned changes after fierce backlash from building societies and consumer groups.

In her speech to key industry figures on Tuesday evening, Ms Reeves said: “I will continue to consider further changes to ISAs, engaging widely over the coming months and recognising that despite the differing views on the right approach, we are united in wanting better outcomes for both savers and for the UK economy.”

She added: “For too long, we have presented investment in too negative a light, quick to warn people of the risks, without giving proper weight to the benefits.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

Ms Reeves’s speech, the first major one since the welfare bill climbdown two weeks ago, appeared to encourage regulators to focus less on risks and more on the benefits of investing in things like the stock market and government bonds (loans issued by states to raise funds with an interest rate paid in return).

She welcomed action by the financial regulator to review risk warning rules and the campaign to promote retail investment, which the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is launching next year.

“Our tangled system of financial advice and guidance has meant that people cannot get the right support to make decisions for themselves”, Ms Reeves told the event in London.

Read more:
Should you get Lifetime ISA? Two key issues to consider
Building societies protest against proposed ISA reforms
Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Last year, Ms Reeves said post-financial crash regulation had “gone too far” and set a course for cutting red tape.

On Tuesday, she said she would announce a package of City changes, including a new competitive framework for a part of the insurance industry and a regulatory regime for asset management.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves is ‘totally’ up for the job

In response to Ms Reeves’s address, shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: “Rachel Reeves should have used her speech this evening to rule out massive tax rises on businesses and working people. The fact that she didn’t should send a shiver down the spine of taxpayers across the country.”

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈  

The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, also spoke at the Mansion House event and said Donald Trump’s taxes on US imports would slow the economy and trade imbalances should be addressed.

“Increasing tariffs creates the risk of fragmenting the world economy, and thereby reducing activity”, he said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto-backed group gathers $141M funding to influence US elections

Published

on

By

Crypto-backed group gathers 1M funding to influence US elections

Crypto-backed group gathers 1M funding to influence US elections

Fairshake reported raising $52 billion from the crypto industry in the first half of 2025, at a time when candidates previously supported by the PAC were providing crucial votes.

Continue Reading

Politics

Programmable regulation is the missing key to DeFi’s legal future

Published

on

By

Programmable regulation is the missing key to DeFi’s legal future

Programmable regulation is the missing key to DeFi’s legal future

Programmable regulation could be the solution to legacy regulatory frameworks struggling to keep pace with DeFi’s rapidly evolving ecosystems. Embedding compliance in code can bring legal clarity, reduce risk and foster innovation in DeFi.

Continue Reading

Trending