Connect with us

Published

on

Boris Johnson will be confident of victory in a snap Commons vote on his NHS bailout and social care shake-up, which MPs are claiming is the biggest political gamble of his premiership.

Defying potential Tory rebels, the prime minister has raised taxes to their highest level since the Second World War and broken Conservative manifesto pledges on taxation and pensions.

And ahead of a debate and vote on what some senior Tories are calling a one-item Budget, the threat of a damaging backbench rebellion was receding and a full-scale mutiny close to collapse.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM promises social care boost

The crucial vote, just 24 hours after Mr Johnson unveiled his £12 billion tax hike, is on a motion to give the government the authority to create a healthcare levy and change the rate of national insurance.

Writing in the Daily Mail, the prime minister said he wanted to put an end to the “cruel lottery” of who will or will not face financial ruin to meet their care costs.

Mr Johnson conceded that a lot of the money raised would not, at least in the short term, be going towards social care reform, but would be used to relieve pressure on the NHS and to clear the “backlog of missed operations and treatments”.

He said he had ruled out borrowing to pay for his proposed reforms and instead had “reluctantly concluded that the only responsible course is to ask everyone to pay more”.

More from Politics

He added: “No one in this Conservative government wants to raise taxes. But after the extraordinary exertions of the NHS – and the sacrifices made by countless people – we cannot shirk the challenge.”

And although the PM has not ruled out further tax rises, most Conservative MPs back the post-COVID emergency cash injection to tackle the massive NHS backlog and accept that reform of social care funding is long overdue.

Many MPs also see the snap vote as a move to bounce potential rebels into backing the controversial proposals and claim the threat of an imminent government reshuffle is being used by No. 10 to exert pressure on MPs and ministers to remain loyal.

The prime minister’s move to combine his tax hike to pay for social care reforms with extra cash to fight the COVID backlog in the NHS is being seen as a political masterstroke that effectively killed off the threat of a major rebellion.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is the social care plan fair or unfair?

Defending the tax hike, Chancellor Rishi Sunak writes in The Times: “This is one of the most consequential decisions a government has made on a matter of public policy in my lifetime; a decision that governments of all political colours have said they would make, but ultimately ducked.

“But we can’t spend money we don’t have, and this will come at a cost. There will be some who will say that we should borrow, and hope that in the end it will all come good. But no responsible government would ever plan on that basis.

“With national debt set to reach nearly 100 per cent of GDP and our borrowing levels high as a result of the pandemic, we must take the difficult decisions. So we have made the tough but responsible choice to raise taxes.

“And the only way to raise such significant sums is from income tax, VAT or National Insurance contributions (NICs). We believe NICs is the fairest and most progressive approach.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

A budget in all but name

The Commons vote presents a dilemma for Labour, which also backs more cash for the NHS but is opposed to the 1.25% rise in national insurance. Sir Keir Starmer held an emergency meeting of his shadow cabinet to decide how to respond.

Continue Reading

Politics

Mandelson appointment was ‘worth the risk’ despite ‘strong relationship’ with Epstein, says minister

Published

on

By

Mandelson appointment was 'worth the risk' despite 'strong relationship' with Epstein, says minister

Appointing Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US was “worth the risk”, a minister has told Sky News.

Peter Kyle said the government put the Labour peer forward for the Washington role, despite knowing he had a “strong relationship” with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

It is this relationship that led to Peter Mandelson being fired on Thursday by the prime minister.

Politics Hub: Latest updates

Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. File pic
Image:
Lord Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. File pic

But explaining the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, Business Secretary Mr Kyle said: “The risk of appointing [him] knowing what was already public was worth the risk.

“Now, of course, we’ve seen the emails which were not published at the time, were not public and not even known about. And that has changed this situation.”

Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, he rejected the suggestion that Lord Mandelson was appointed to Washington before security checks were completed.

More on Peter Mandelson

He explained there was a two-stage vetting process for Lord Mandelson before he took on the ambassador role.

The first was done by the Cabinet Office, while the second was a “political process where there were political conversations done in Number 10 about all the other aspects of an appointment”, he said.

This is an apparent reference to Sir Keir Starmer asking follow-up questions based on the information provided by the vetting.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘We knew it was a strong relationship’

These are believed to have included why Lord Mandelson continued contact with Epstein after he was convicted and why he was reported to have stayed in one of the paedophile financier’s homes while he was in prison.

Mr Kyle said: “Both of these things turned up information that was already public, and a decision was made based on Peter’s singular talents in this area, that the risk of appointing knowing what was already public was worth the risk.”

Mr Kyle also pointed to some of the government’s achievements under Lord Mandelson, such as the UK becoming the first country to sign a trade deal with the US, and President Donald Trump’s state visit next week.

Mr Kyle also admitted that the government knew that Lord Mandelson and Epstein had “a strong relationship”.

“We knew that there were risks involved,” he concluded.

PM had only ‘extracts of emails’ ahead of defence of Mandelson at PMQs – as Tories accuse him of ‘lying’

Speaking to Sky News, Kyle also sought to clarify the timeline of what Sir Keir Starmer knew about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein, and when he found this out.

It follows Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch accusing the prime minister of “lying to the whole country” about his knowledge of the then US ambassador’s relationship with the paedophile.

Allegations about Lord Mandelson began to emerge in the newspapers on Tuesday, while more serious allegations – that the Labour peer had suggested Epstein’s first conviction for sexual offences was wrongful and should be challenged – were sent to the Foreign Office on the same day by Bloomberg, which was seeking a response from the government.

But the following day, Sir Keir went into the House of Commons and publicly backed Britain’s man in Washington, giving him his full confidence. Only the next morning – on Thursday – did the PM then sack Lord Mandelson, a decision Downing Street has insisted was made based on “new information”.

Read more:
Witch-hunt vibe in Labour on who approved appointment
Senior Labour MP demands answers over Mandelson vetting

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Vetting ‘is very thorough’

Speaking to Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, Mr Kyle said: “Number 10 had what was publicly available on Tuesday, which was extracts of emails which were not in context, and they weren’t the full email.

“Immediately upon having being alerted to extracts of emails, the Foreign Office contacted Peter Mandelson and asked for his account of the emails and asked for them to be put into context and for his response. That response did not come before PMQs [on Wednesday].

“Then after PMQs, the full emails were released by Bloomberg in the evening.

“By the first thing the next morning when the prime minister had time to read the emails in full, having had them in full and reading them almost immediately of having them – Peter was withdrawn as ambassador.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Government deeming Mandelson to be ‘worth the risk’ is unlikely to calm Labour MPs

The Conservatives have claimed Sir Keir is lying about what he knew, with Laura Trott telling Sky News there are “grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement”.

The shadow education secretary called for “transparency”, and told Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: “We need to understand what was known and when.”

Laura Trott says there are 'grave questions about the prime minister's judgement'
Image:
Laura Trott says there are ‘grave questions about the prime minister’s judgement’

They believe that Sir Keir was in possession of the full emails on Tuesday, because the Foreign Office passed these to Number 10. This is despite the PM backing Mandelson the following day.

Ms Trott explained: “We are calling for transparency because, if what we have outlined is correct, then the prime minister did lie and that is an extremely, extremely serious thing to have happened.”

She added: “This was a prime minister who stood on the steps of Downing Street and said that he was going to restore political integrity and look where we are now. We’ve had two senior resignations in the space of the number of weeks.

“The prime minister’s authority is completely shot.”

But Ms Trott refused to be drawn on whether she thinks Sir Keir should resign, only stating that he is “a rudderless, a weak prime minister whose authority is shot at a time we can least afford it as a country”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Labour MPs already angry over claim Mandelson’s appointment was ‘worth the risk’

Published

on

By

Labour MPs already angry over claim Mandelson's appointment was 'worth the risk'

If you want to know why so many Labour MPs are seething over the government’s response to the Mandelson saga, look no further than my mobile phone at 9.12am this Sunday.

At the top of the screen is a news notification about an interview with the family of a victim of the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, saying his close friend Peter Mandelson should “never have been made” US ambassador.

Directly below that, a Sky News notification on the business secretary’s interview, explaining that the appointment of Lord Mandelson to the job was judged to be “worth the risk” at the time.

Politics latest – follow live

Peter Kyle went on to praise Lord Mandelson’s “outstanding” and “singular” talents and the benefits that he could bring to the US-UK relationship.

While perhaps surprisingly candid in nature about the decision-making process that goes on in government, this interview is unlikely to calm concerns within Labour.

Quite the opposite.

More on Peter Kyle

For many in the party, this is a wholly different debate to a simple cost-benefit calculation of potential political harm.

As one long-time party figure put it to my colleague Sam Coates: “I don’t care about Number Ten or what this means for Keir or any of that as much as I care that this culture of turning a blind eye to horrendous behaviour is endemic at the top of society and Peter Kyle has literally just come out and said it out loud.

“He was too talented and the special relationship too fraught for his misdeeds to matter enough. It’s just disgusting.”

There are two problems for Downing Street here.

The first is that you now have a government which – after being elected on the promise to restore high standards – appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Government deeming Mandelson to be ‘worth the risk’ is unlikely to calm Labour MPs

Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures – Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner – and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.

The second is that it once again demonstrates an apparent lack of ability in government to see around corners and deal with political and policy crises, before they start knocking lumps out of the Prime Minister.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sir Keir Starmer is facing questions over the appointment and subsequent sacking of Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the US.

Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we’ve had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing the with logic of the choice) but the fact that Sir Keir Starmer walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full-throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn’t be able to stay in post.

The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn’t sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.

But good process doesn’t always align with good politics.

Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.

Continue Reading

Politics

Man admits arson after major fire at MP Sharon Hodgson’s constituency office

Published

on

By

Man admits arson after major fire at MP Sharon Hodgson's constituency office

A man has admitted arson after a major fire at an MP’s constituency office.

Joshua Oliver, 28, pleaded guilty to starting the fire which destroyed the office of Labour MP Sharon Hodgson, at Vermont House in Washington, Tyne and Wear.

The fire also wrecked a small charity for people with very rare genetic diseases and an NHS mental health service for veterans.

The guilty plea was entered at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court on the basis that it was reckless rather than intentional.

Hodgson, who has been an MP since 2005, winning her seat again in 2019. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Hodgson, who has been an MP since 2005, winning her seat again in 2019. Pic: Reuters

The Crown did not accept that basis of plea.

Oliver, of no fixed address, had been living in a tent nearby, the court heard.

Northumbria Police previously said it was “alerted to a fire at a premises on Woodland Terrace in the Washington area” shortly after 12.20am on Thursday.

“Emergency services attended and no one is reported to have been injured in the incident,” it added.

Drone footage from the scene showed extensive damage to the building.

Read more:
Weather warning in place for Sunday

Migrant hotel critics meet asylum seekers

A spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings.

“We have worked closely with Northumbria Police as they carried out their investigation.”

Oliver was remanded in custody and will appear at Newcastle Crown Court on Tuesday, 14 October.

Continue Reading

Trending