Connect with us

Published

on

The Conservatives could be in danger of losing more than a dozen seats in their so-called “blue wall” heartlands, a new poll suggests.

YouGov found that voting intention in 53 such constituencies in the south and east of England currently held by the party stood at 44% for the Conservatives, 24% for Labour, 18% for the Liberal Democrats and 9% for the Greens.

“The Conservatives could be set to lose up to 16 seats in their ‘blue wall’ heartlands if an election was held tomorrow,” research manager Patrick English said.

He said the voting intention figures represent “a change of minus eight for the Conservatives from their 2019 performance in these constituencies, plus four for Labour, a surprising six-point drop for the Liberal Democrats, and a sizable seven-point gain for the Greens”.

Mr English added: “The Conservatives are falling almost twice as fast in the blue wall as they are nationally, with the latest YouGov poll showing them five points down on their 2019 general election showing.”

Those surveyed for the research expressed concerns about the government’s handling of Brexit and the need for people to have their say on local housing developments.

All of the seats voted Remain in the 2016 EU referendum and have a higher-than-average concentration of university degree holders.

More on Conservatives

Boris Johnson currently has a Commons majority of more than 80, with the Tories taking a number of traditional Labour “red wall” constituencies in 2019 on the way to the party’s best election result in decades.

That success means the party would have to lose a number of seats elsewhere, in addition to any “blue wall” reverses, in order to see its status as the largest party in parliament evaporate.

Some have suggested the prime minister has been preoccupied with shoring up Tory support in the former Labour heartlands it now holds, at the expense of traditional Conservative constituencies.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Greenbelt worried over PM’s planning reforms

Others say such talk is wide of the mark, but the result of the recent Chesham and Amersham by-election offers potential evidence there could be something in such claims of cracks in the “blue wall”.

YouGov said its findings suggest that particular result was “no isolated incident”.

The Conservatives won the seat at the last general election in 2019 with a majority of more than 16,000.

But this was overturned by the Liberal Democrats, who won the constituency by 8,028 votes in what was a stunning result.

“If the swings were uniform across all constituencies, Labour would be set to gain a total of nine blue wall seats and the Liberal Democrats three,” Mr English said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Liberal Democrats take by election seat

“While it would not be anywhere near enough to offset the party’s losses in the so-called red wall in 2019, Labour punching holes in traditional Tory foundations will send alarm bells ringing across Conservative Associations and MPs in the south.”

YouGov said its findings suggest that constituencies such as Chingford and Woodford Green (represented by former cabinet minister and party leader Iain Duncan Smith), Chipping Barnet (currently held by former cabinet minister Theresa Villiers) and Wycombe (represented by prominent Brexiteer and former minister Steve Baker) could change hands.

“A large drop in the Conservative vote share would also severely threaten four other Tory constituencies, including current Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab in Esher and Walton as well as Cambridgeshire South, Cities of London and Westminster, and Guildford,” Mr English said.

YouGov polled 1,141 adults between 20 and 28 July.

Continue Reading

Politics

Matt Hancock: The key questions facing ex-health secretary when he gives evidence to COVID inquiry

Published

on

By

Matt Hancock: The key questions facing ex-health secretary when he gives evidence to COVID inquiry

Former health secretary Matt Hancock played a key role in the UK’s response to the COVID pandemic – and his decisions will today be scrutinised by the official inquiry.

Mr Hancock was a familiar face at the regular press conferences that took place during that period, giving updates to the public about social distancing measures, the state of the NHS and the vaccine programme.

In 2021, he was forced to resign after he admitted he broke the government’s own coronavirus guidance to pursue an affair with an aide.

Today it is his turn to give evidence to the COVID inquiry.

He will follow a string of high-profile witnesses who have already shared their experience of the pandemic with inquiry chair Baroness Hallett, including Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser, Lord Simon Stevens, who was the chief executive of the NHS at the time, and former chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance.

Mr Hancock has already featured heavily in the testimonies of the witnesses who have given evidence to the inquiry so far.

Politics – latest: Sunak accused of ‘insane’ claim which ‘shows he’s run out of road’

A spokesperson for Mr Hancock said he has “supported the inquiry throughout and will respond to all questions when he gives his evidence”.

Read more:
Hancock ‘wanted to decide ‘who should live and die’
Gove says lockdown went against Johnson’s ‘world view’

Former NHS CEO Lord Stevens made this assessment of Mr Hancock when he appeared before the COVID inquiry at the beginning of November.

“The secretary of state for health and social care took the position that in this situation he – rather than, say, the medical profession or the public – should ultimately decide who should live and who should die,” he said in a written statement to the inquiry.

“Fortunately, this horrible dilemma never crystallised.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Hancock ‘wanted to decide who should live’

However, although Lord Stevens suggested that Mr Hancock wanted too many powers in his capacity as health secretary, he did add that “for the most part” the former cabinet minister could be trusted.

“There were occasional moments of tension and flashpoints, which are probably inevitable during the course of a 15-month pandemic but I was brought up always to look to the best in people,” he said.

‘Nuclear levels of over-confidence’

The day before Lord Stevens gave evidence, the COVID inquiry heard from Helen MacNamara, who was deputy cabinet secretary during the pandemic.

She told the inquiry Mr Hancock showed “nuclear levels” of confidence at the start of the COVID pandemic and “regularly” told colleagues in Downing Street things “they later discovered weren’t true”.

For example, Ms MacNamara said the former health secretary would say things were under control or being sorted in meetings, only for it to emerge in days or weeks that “was not in fact the case”.

She also recalled a “jarring” incident where she told Mr Hancock that it must have been difficult to be health secretary during a pandemic, to which he responded by miming playing cricket, saying: “They bowl them at me, I knock them away” during the first lockdown.

‘Lied his way through this and killed people’

There is clearly no love lost between Mr Hancock and Mr Cummings, who told the inquiry that he repeatedly called for Boris Johnson to sack him.

Mr Cummings alleged that the ex-health secretary “lied his way through this and killed people and dozens and dozens of people have seen it”.

In a message sent to Mr Johnson in May 2020, Mr Cummings said: “You need to think through timing of binning Hancock. There’s no way the guy can stay. He’s lied his way through this and killed people and dozens and dozens of people have seen it.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

COVID: No 10 in ‘complete chaos’

In August 2020, he wrote again: “I also must stress I think leaving Hancock in post is a big mistake – he is a proven liar who nobody believes or [should] believe on anything, and we face going into autumn crisis with the c**t in charge of NHS still.”

Mr Cummings also echoed Ms MacNamara’s accusation that the former health secretary told colleagues things that later were discovered not to be true, saying he “sowed chaos” by continuing to insist in March 2020 that people without symptoms of a dry cough and a temperature were unlikely to be suffering from coronavirus.

He also revealed that he purposefully excluded Mr Hancock from meetings because he could not be trusted.

Mark Sedwill wanted Hancock removed to ‘save lives and protect the NHS’

Messages exchanged by Lord Mark Sedwill, the former head of the Civil Service and Simon Case, the current cabinet secretary, revealed that Lord Sedwill wanted Mr Hancock removed as health secretary to “save lives and protect the NHS” – a play on the pandemic-era slogan at the time.

Lord Sedwill said this was “gallows humour” and that he did not use the work “sack” when speaking to Mr Johnson about his health secretary.

However, he did admit that Mr Johnson would nevertheless have been “under no illusions” about his feelings towards Mr Hancock.

‘He had a habit of saying things he didn’t have a basis for’

Sir Patrick Vallance, who was chief scientific adviser from 2018 to 2023, was another figure who claimed Mr Hancock would say things “he didn’t have a basis for”, which he attributed to “over-enthusiasm”.

He told the COVID inquiry: “I think he had a habit of saying things which he didn’t have a basis for and he would say them too enthusiastically too early, without the evidence to back them up, and then have to backtrack from them days later.

“I don’t know to what extent that was sort of over-enthusiasm versus deliberate – I think a lot of it was over-enthusiasm.”

Asked if this meant he “said things that weren’t true”, Sir Patrick replied: “Yes”.

‘I have a high opinion of Matt Hancock as a minister’

One COVID witness who did defend Mr Hancock was Michael Gove, who was minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the pandemic.

He told the inquiry that “too much was asked” of Mr Hancock’s department at the beginning of the pandemic.

“We should collectively have recognised that this was a health system crisis at an earlier point and taken on to other parts of government the responsibility for delivery that was being asked of DHSC [department for health and social care] at the time,” he said.

He added: “I have a high opinion of Matt Hancock as a minister.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Brazilians may soon need to stump up taxes on crypto held abroad

Published

on

By

Brazilians may soon need to stump up taxes on crypto held abroad

Brazilians may soon be required to pay up to 15% tax on income derived from cryptocurrencies held on exchanges outside the country, after new income tax rules were approved by the Brazil Senate on Nov. 29.

The bill has already passed in the Chamber of Deputies and is expected to be approved by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, as his administration initiated the income tax rule changes, Cointelegraph Brazil reports.

Under the bill, any Brazilian who earns more than $1,200 (6,000 Brazilian reals) on exchanges based outside Brazil would be subject to the tax, effective Jan. 1, 2024. The change makes those funds taxable at the same rate as funds held domestically. Funds earned before that date would be taxed when accessed by the owner, meanwhile, earnings on funds accessed before Dec. 31 will be taxed at 8%.

The bill also affects “exclusive funds” — investment funds with a single shareholder — and foreign companies active on the Brazilian financial market. The government hopes to raise $4 billion (20.3 billion Brazilian reals) in 2024. Senator Rogério Marinho voiced his opposition to the bill. He said:

“The government is creating a tax because it is a poor manager.” 

Related: OKX launches crypto exchange, wallet services in Brazil

In September, the governor of the Banco Central do Brazil Roberto Campos Neto, announced plans to tighten regulations on cryptocurrency in connection with a sharp rise in its popularity in the country. At the time, he said he suspected crypto was being used for tax evasion

The Brazilian central bank was given jurisdiction over virtual asset service providers in June.

Crypto-based securities are regulated by the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários — Brazil’s equivalent of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Magazine: 6 Questions for Lugui Tillier about Bitcoin, Ordinals, and the future of crypto