Search Results

This blog sets out the budget policy changes that took place during and after the chaos of the Truss administration; it explores the current levels of social security in the UK and a comparison of these levels with other countries; it examines the extent of welfare cuts since 2010; considers some options which we are led to believe that Sunak and Hunt are looking at and concludes with some alternative options which would lead to a fairer distribution of wealth. A decade on from austerity 1.0, we are clearly being prepped for austerity 2.0 with the same old line about ‘difficult decisions’ having to be made. Why is it always the case that the difficult decisions made by Conservative governments always adversely impact the most vulnerable in our society, rather than those with the broadest shoulders? I would suggest that the day-to-day decisions that are already being made by millions of people across the UK, even before winter has set in, are by several degrees far more ‘difficult’ than policy decisions made by Government Ministers detached from the daily grind of life. In the current whirlwind that passes for the current Tory administrations, it is difficult to keep track of the latest giveaways to the rich. However, after the dust has settled on the Truss/Kwarteng ‘free market’ experiment on the UK public, we are left with the following: Pre KwartwengTruss/Kwarteng mini-budgetHunt resetCorporation Tax 25% from April 202319% from April 202325% from April 2023 (19% for small profits)Income Tax (currently 20%) 19% from April 202419% from April 202320% from April 2023National Insurance 13.25%12% from November 202212% Bank Corporation Tax Surcharge 3% from April 2023 (gross rate 28%)8% from April 2023 (gross rate 27%)Not knownBenefit rises – in line with CPI inflationno commitmentno commitmentPensions ‘triple lock’ – in line with CPI inflation from April 2023no commitmentin line with CPI inflation (Liz Truss PMQs 19th October 2022) Kwasi Kwarteng’s mini-budget was announced on 23rd September. Jeremey Hunt’s financial plan was announced on 17th October. Liz Truss announced her resignation as Prime Minister on 20th October. So, as it stands at the moment, we are broadly in the same position as we were prior to the debacle of the Truss Premiership. However, the current government administration led by Sunak is clearly signposting significant cuts to public services and is carefully avoiding any commitment to raising social security or pensions in line with inflation. It is a moot point now, but it is worth stating that Kwarteng’s mini-budget giveaways to the rich were not balanced by a similar generosity to the least well-off in our society. Kwarteng was also very careful not to give any assurances that benefits were to rise in line with inflation, seemingly content to give up any pretence of us all being in this together. Current benefit and pension rates Before we look at Sunak’s options, let’s look at some examples of the current levels of social security and pensions provided in the UK, how it compares with other countries and how policy decisions made by the Coalition and Conservative governments since 2010 have impacted benefits. Standard Universal Credit Allowance £334.91 single (per month) Standard Universal Credit Allowance £525.72 as a couple (per month) Statutory Sick Pay £99.35 per week (for 28 weeks) ‘New Style’ Jobseekers Allowance £77.00 per week (£61.05 if aged under 25) New (full) State Pension £185.15 per week A full list of benefit rates for 2022/2023 compiled by the AgeUK charity can be found here and a benefits calculator found here. Comparing UK welfare rates to other countries Comparing the UK welfare state to other countries is challenging due to the complex nature of differing social security systems in each country and their balance of private and public spending across different policy areas. However, in cash-benefit terms (excluding benefits in kind, such as private pensions and public healthcare provision) the UK is less generous than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. Sick Pay Statutory Sick Pay in the UK is set at a flat rate of £99.35 per week (not including any additional sick pay provision within an employment contract) which is payable for 28 weeks. In Germany, sick pay is paid at between 70-100% of full pay for up to 84 weeks. Norway pays 100% for 52 weeks and the Netherlands 70% of full pay for 104 weeks. The rates and length of sick pay for each country in Europe (data from May 2021) can be found here. Unemployment benefit New Jobseekers Allowance is set at a flat rate of £77.00 per week for those aged 25 or over. This works out to approximately 13% of the average annual salary in the UK. In France, unemployed people receive 57% of their normal salary, in Germany, they receive 66% and in Italy 75%. Pensions In regard to pensions, the UK is once again some way down the table of OECD countries. The UK has a ‘net pension replacement rate’ (the percentage of pension received in comparison to previous earnings) of 58%. This compares to the EU average of 68%. The full set of data from the House of Commons Library research briefing ‘Pensions: International Comparisons’ can be found here. UK welfare cuts since 2010 According to the Resolution Foundation1 the 2010-15 coalition government cut social security spending by £19 billion by 2023-24. This was partly as a result of the switch from the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the annual uprating of benefits as well as subsequent below inflation uprating. This was offset by £1.6 billion due to increased spending on free school meals for infants and the extension of free childcare to two year olds in lower-income families. The 2015 budget announced further reductions in working age benefits worth £14 billion by 2023-24. These cuts included the ‘two child’ limit for benefit claims, a four-year benefit freeze, a reduction in the benefit cap (see below) and a reduction in income thresholds in tax credits and work allowances in Universal Credit. From this budget followed the ‘Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016’. For balance I should point out that most Labour MPs abstained when it was voted on in the House of Commons and arguably the fallout from this had a significant impact on the direction of the Labour Party in subsequent years. Since then, there have been some additional spending by the Conservative government, including a reduction in the Universal Credit (UC) taper rate (the amount of UC withdrawn per each pound of income earned) and an increase in UC work allowances (the amount that can be earned before the taper comes into effect). However, the impact of the previous measures, termed ‘flow measures’ as they only affect new claims, so take many years before their full impact is felt, has resulted in a significant real terms reduction in benefit levels. The Benefit Cap The benefit cap, the maximum a household can receive in benefits, was introduced in 2013. Originally the cap was set at £26,000 a year for a family. In 2016, via the ‘Welfare Reform and Work Act’ the cap was lowered to £23,000 for families in London and £20,000 for families outside of London. The benefit cap has remained frozen at these levels ever since. Each year the cap remains fixed in cash terms, it loses value in real terms. Higher levels of inflation accelerate this trend. Based on current inflation forecasts the value of the cap will have declined by 26%. As of May 2022, around 130,000 households were subject to the Benefit Cap. Of these 87% were families with children and 69% were single parent families. When benefits are uprated, these households will see no increase in the amount they receive despite the rising cost of living. If benefit rates are increased by 10% in April 2023, in line with the September 2022 CPI figure, and the benefit cap remains at the same level, House of Commons Library research indicates that another 45,000 extra households will have their benefits capped. What is the plan? With current estimates of the black hole in the public’s finances ranging between £35 billion to £72 billion, Sunak and his Chancellor Jeremy Hunt face ‘difficult choices’ required to fill this hole and meet the fiscal rules of balancing the books by 2027/28. How they choose to do this will impact all of us one way or another over the coming years and Sunak’s newly found brand of ‘compassionate conservatism’ will be put to a very early test. Sunak’s botched ‘Energy Profits Levy’ where the ‘super deduction’ investment allowance, quite apart from promoting fossil fuel extraction, resulted in energy companies using the loophole to avoid paying any windfall tax, further dents the Tory claims that they should be trusted on the economy. George Osborne’s austerity 1.0 from 2010 onwards was based on an 80:20 ratio of spending cuts vs tax rises. After 12 years of Tory austerity, there is little skin on the bone of public services, real terms benefit cuts will send thousands more into poverty and tax rises clash with ‘low tax, small state’ Tory ideology. Sources close to Hunt suggest that the spending cuts vs tax rises ratio will be in the region of a 50:50 split. All will be revealed on 17th November and a slightly improved financial picture, following the turmoil of the Truss/Kwarteng induced chaos, may give a little breathing space. Hunt has been careful not to guarantee that benefits would rise in line with inflation from next April or that the ‘triple lock’ on pensions would be retained. Another option supposedly on the table is a four-year freeze on tax allowances and thresholds, which would drag many people into paying income tax for the first time, or place people already paying income tax into a higher tax band. Hunt may also look at cutting ‘day to day’ spending as well as ‘capital’ spending (spending for investment) although he will be aware that cuts to capital spending risk impacting future growth. Finally, another area Hunt may look at is retaining the cut to the Overseas Aid budget, due to be returned to 0.7% of GDP in 2024. An alternative approach While we may have moved on from the brief Truss/Kwarteng ideology of ‘trickle-down economics’ which regarded ‘redistribution’ with some horror, unless it was a shift in wealth to the rich, we should be wary of things being that much different under the Sunak/Hunt regime. It is clear to most people that austerity has never really gone away, and local council and government departments are at the limit of what can be cut without severely detrimental impacts on the fabric of our society. Domestically, as the cold weather approaches and with energy prices double that of last winter, we can reflect back on a lost decade of opportunities to insulate the UK’s housing stock, the abandoning of the ‘zero carbon homes’ plan, the botched grant schemes and the lack of support, both in financial terms as well as through building regulations, for domestic renewable energy generation. Below are some alternatives, setting out both where tax increases could be applied and how benefits could be up-rated, enabling a fairer distribution of tax and wealth. Tax Wealth Tax – while Rishi Sunak may not be in favour, in July 2020 he said: ‘No, I do not believe that now is the time, or ever would be the time, for a wealth tax.’ the idea is getting more traction as the UK’s financial challenges increase and wealth inequality has risen. The ‘Wealth tax Commission’ was established in the Spring of 2020 and its report was released in December 2020. The report established that for a number of reasons a one-off wealth tax would be preferential to an annual wealth tax. The amount a wealth tax would raise is dependent upon a variety of factors, including to what threshold of wealth the tax would apply. The report sets out that setting a 1% rate for wealth of £1 million could raise £147 billion. The report also addresses concerns about liquidity (asset-rich, cash-poor) as well as fairness and avoidance. You can read an Executive summary (11 pages) of the report here or the full report here. There is also an FAQs that answers the top questions raised about a one-off wealth tax which you can read here. National Insurance Upper Earnings Limit – currently (until November 2022) the National Insurance rate for earnings between £12,570 (the primary threshold) and £50,270 (the upper earnings limit) is set at 13.25%. For earnings above this upper earnings limit, the rate of National Insurance deducted drops to 3.25%. From November 2022 these rates are due to drop to 12% and 2% respectively, the same rates as shown in the chart below. This drop means that proportionally the richest are contributing a significantly smaller percentage of their income in National Insurance than those on lower incomes. This reduction in the NI rate at the £50,270 threshold aligns with the higher tax rate threshold at which point income tax increases from 20% to 40%. Apart from this making a strong case for a single tax, this does result in a combined marginal tax rate that varies little between those earning £51,000 a year and those earning £2 million a year. For example, from November 2022: those earning £20,000 would pay a marginal rate of 32%. those earning £51,000 a year would pay a marginal tax rate of 42% those earning £151,000 a year would pay a marginal tax rate of 42% an individual earning £2 million would pay a marginal tax rate of 47% Marginal Income tax rates – this does not include National Insurance which is set out in the table above. Please note it also does not include the impact of the ‘High Income Child Benefit Charge’ which applies to individuals earning between £50,000 to £60,000 a year. A fairer tax system would increase the marginal tax rate at progressively higher rates of income, rather than the current flat rate above £150,000. This could be achieved in any number of different ways. To avoid the anomalies around the £50,000 and £100,000 areas, due to the ‘High Income Child Benefit Charge’ and loss of Personal Allowance, a higher rate of National Insurance could be introduced at the £150,000 threshold. There are approximately 629,000 people in the UK who earn over £150,0002. Capital Gains Tax – CGT is a tax on the profit of an asset you sell that has increased in value. As recently as 2015 this tax was applied at 28% for the higher rate and 18% for the lower rate. In 2016 these rates were reduced by the then Chancellor George Osborne to 20% and 10%. These rates could be raised to bring them more in line with the current income tax rates of 20% for basic rate taxpayers and 40% for higher rate taxpayers. It has been estimated that this change could bring in around £3.5 billion extra a year. Bank Surcharge – this is an additional tax levied on the profits of banks on top of the current rate of Corporation Tax. Currently, Corporation Tax is at 19% and the Bank Surcharge is set at 8% – a combined rate of 27%. Sunak had set out in the Spring 2022 budget a plan to increase Corporation Tax to 25% in April 2023 and reduce the Bank Surcharge to 3% – an effective combined rate of 28%. Sunak has the option to maintain the Surcharge at 8% leading to an effective combined rate of 33%. He could also reduce the increase in the Surcharge Allowance, which was due to be increased from £25 million to £100 million. Windfall Tax – Prior to ‘Energy Profits Levy’, introduced earlier this year, Sunak couldn’t bring himself to call it a windfall tax, oil and gas sector companies paid a headline rate of 40% on their profits. The levy introduced an additional 25% rate, leading to a combined rate of 65%. However, a ‘super deduction’ investment allowance for further oil and gas extraction has resulted in the energy companies taking advantage of this loophole which has resulted in them avoiding any levy payments. This Levy was expected to raise £5 billion in the first 12 months. This loophole has not only resulted in a loss of vital revenue, but has also encouraged further investment in fossil fuel extraction. Norway’s tax rate on North Sea oil and gas firms is 78%. If the UK matched this rate and closed the loophole, research suggests this could raise an additional £6.6 billion pounds a year. Benefits and Tackling Inequality Real Living Wage – The National Living Wage which by law employers must pay is currently £9.50 an hour for those aged 23 or over. The ‘Real Living Wage’ calculated according to the cost of living, based on a basket of household goods and services is currently set at £10.90 an hour, with a higher rate of £11.95 an hour for those working in London. Further, the Real Living Wage is paid at the same rate regardless of age, while the statutory NLW pays a reduced hourly rate for younger people. The Real Living Wage could be a stepping stone to a £15 minimum wage advocated by the TUC, details of which can be found here. Raising the Benefits Cap The benefit cap limiting a cap on household benefits to £26,000 a year for a family and £18,200 a year for a single person was rolled out by the coalition government in 2013. The cap was further reduced by the Conservative government’s 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Bill to £20,000 for a family and £13,400 for a single person outside of London. The cap has been fixed at this level since 2016. As of May 2022, around 130,000 families were subject to the Benefit Cap. Of these, 87% were children and 69% were single-parent families. When benefits are uprated, these families will see no increase in the amount they receive despite the rising cost of living. If benefit rates are increased by 10% next April the House of Commons Library estimates that up to 45,000 extra households may have their benefits capped. This cap both increases inequality and poverty across the UK. As the table below shows, if CPI inflation uprating had been applied to the benefits frozen by the Conservative government, the Benefits Cap would now be £22,435 for a family and £15,032 for a single person outside of London, with higher rates for those in London. Benefit freeze amounts and the 2022/23 rate of the equivalent benefits if they had been uprated in line with CPI Inflation Ending the ‘two-child limit‘ The two-child limit was introduced in 2016 by the Conservative government. This legislation means that third or subsequent children born after 6th April 2017 will not entitle the claimant (the parent or parents) to any additional amount of benefits. The Universal Credit child element in 2022/23 is £244.58 a month for each child not affected by the two-child limit. As of April 2021, 317,500 families, with a total of 1,138,650 children were affected by the limit. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) estimates that by the time it is fully rolled out, 3 million children will be affected. Removing the two-child limit would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and lessen the depth of poverty for another 600,000 children at a cost of £1 billion, according to an analysis by the CPAG. Sara Ogilvie Director of Policy, Rights and Advocacy at CPAG says: “The two-child limit is a brutal policy that punishes children simply for having brothers and sisters. It forces families to survive on less than they need, and with soaring living costs the hardship and hunger these families face will only intensify. Government must abolish this senseless policy, and protect children from a lifetime of struggle.” Conclusion In a vain attempt at brevity, I have not covered all the issues that lie ahead for many over the coming months. Social rents (which potentially could have increased by 11% in April 2023) but will now be capped at between 3% and 7% will impact the most economically challenged in our communities. The Energy Price Guarantee will now end in March 2023 and be replaced by more targeted support for the most vulnerable households will be an economic shock for many. I would suggest that he concentrates significant support on the 4.5 million people who pay for their energy via prepayment meter. The ‘Minimum Income Floor’ for self-employed people claiming Universal Credit was reinstated in August 2021 and many are facing significant financial difficulties as a result. Lord King, former Bank of England governor, and who earned around £300,000 a year in that role, said last week “So we may need to confront the need to have significantly higher taxes on the average person. There isn’t enough money there amongst the rich to get it back.” As Mandy Rice-Davies said, “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he”. Sunak certainly has tricky choices to make. As a Tory, he will instinctively recoil from placing the burden on the rich, and he will be aware of how unpopular this would be within his divided Party. However, twelve years of Tory austerity has decimated public services and slashed social security support. If he chooses to place the burden on these areas with further cuts, quite apart from the damage to our services and a detrimental impact on our economy, the political backlash will be significant and potentially fatal. This time Labour must resist falling in behind any repeat of the narrative the Tories successfully peddled for their first round of austerity, the burden of which fell on the poorest in our society, the effects of which are still being felt today. The coming years present significant challenges, but they also present an opportunity to build a fairer society, built on a just transition to a green economy, with a government that displays empathy and compassion. After 12 years of the current government, it is clear we are not going to get any of this under the Tories. Apologies if this blog has been a rather gloomy and statistic-heavy read. I am aware that behind every benefit cut is a family struggling to make ends meet and, despite how those on benefits are portrayed in the media, many are working people just trying to get by and do the best for themselves and their families. However, while politicians on all sides talk about supporting ‘hard workers’ we should never forget those who through bad luck, ill health, or other circumstances are unable to work, either in the short-term or long-term. I believe we should judge our society by how we support the most vulnerable people within it. Finally, on a slightly lighter note. If Sunak does want to provide a little Christmas cheer, he could do with looking at upping the rate of the Christmas Bonus, which has been frozen at £10 since 1977! Julian Vaughan 1st November 2022 Sources and further reading Resolution Foundation: The Long Squeeze October 2022 House of Commons Library; The impact of the two-child limit in Universal Credit Wealth tax Commission: A wealth tax for the UK – Executive Summary Prof Prem Sikka: We can raise lots of money without taxing the masses #UKpolitics #incometax #benefits #wealthtax #SocialJustice #Politics #inequality #energyprofits #minimumwage #ukbudget

Yet again Bedfordshire faces further cutbacks to its already threadbare public transport provision after Stagecoach is set to hand over the keys to its 72/73 route between Bedford, Sandy, Potton and Biggleswade. Central Bedfordshire Council ‘Bus Service Improvement Plan’, launched in October 2021 is in tatters as rural Bedfordshire risks becoming a public transport desert. This time it is Potton that bears the brunt of the cuts. The extent of the changes are detailed below. Buses are a vital form of transport for those on a lower income and older people who do not have access to a car. Frequent bus services, which go where people need to go, are crucial for people in rural areas to access work, help reduce loneliness in cut-off rural areas and enable a shift away from the car. Public transport is vital in reducing traffic congestion and both pollution and CO2 levels as part of the drive to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Current bus times are in italics and the new bus times from 31st October are in bold First morning services 1st bus from Potton to Sandy/Bedford is currently 06.06 From 31st October the 1st bus from Potton to Sandy/Bedford leaves at 07.36* 1st bus from Potton to Biggleswade is currently 07.12 (72 service, journey time 11 minutes) From 31st October the 1st bus from Potton to Biggleswade leaves at 07.54 (189 service, journey time 37 minutes). 1st bus service from Sandy to Potton is currently 06.53 From 31st October 07.16 *In 2019 the first bus from Potton to Sandy left at 05.40 Last evening services The last bus Sandy to Potton is currently 20.41 (72 service, journey time 19 minutes) From 31st October the last bus from Sandy to Potton leaves at 17.47 (189 service, 29 minutes) The last bus from Biggleswade to Potton currently 18.20 (72 service, journey time 16 minutes) From 31st October the last bus from Biggleswade to Potton will leave at 18.05 (189 service, journey time 35 minutes). The last bus from Potton to Sandy is currently 18.36 From 31st October the last bus from Potton to Sandy leaves at 17.36 The last bus from Bedford to Potton is currently 20.05 From 31st October the last service from Bedford to Potton leaves at 16.38 *Please note the above information has been collated by studying a number of timetables from different websites. Any errors are mine, but a centralised database of all Bedfordshire bus services would make the task easier for everyone. Further to this from 31st October services on the 72 route between Potton and Bedford will run every 2 hours rather than the current hourly service. The service on the 73 route between Sandy and Bedford will run every hour rather than the current 30-minute service. Crucially, the later start to the services in the morning and earlier finishes in the evening will result in bus services not being a viable option for commuters who will be forced into using their cars. The 72 bus route between Bedford, Sandy, Potton and the 73 route between Bedford Sandy and Biggleswade are to be operated by Grant Palmer from 31st October 2022 Central Bedfordshire Council stated in the foreword to their Bus Service Improvement Plan will “enable us to deliver a better public transport network which will support the future growth of housing, employment, and education opportunities across Central Bedfordshire.” Central Bedfordshire Council’s local plan set out the following objectives re public transport: SO9 Reduce the reliance on the use of the car by improving facilities at bus and train stations, delivering transport interchanges and by promoting safe and sustainable forms of transport, such as improved walking and cycling routes. SO10 Ensure a reliable network of east/west and north/south public transport routes to improve access to local services and facilities, especially for those without a car, through well planned routes and integrated public transport. While there has been welcome progress in terms of transport interchanges, such as the soon to be opened transport interchange in Biggleswade, the benefit of these will be severely limited if the bus services to them are so poor they do not encourage people out of their cars. We can and must do better than this and I believe we should view the funding of public transport as a public good rather than an opportunity for private profit. Details of the new 72/73 service starting from 31st October below. *From 22nd November Grant Palmer introduced a new timetable for the 72/73 routes which you can find in the link below: https://www.grantpalmer.com/media/2727/72-73-bedford-sandy-biggleswade-potton-201122.pdf Further information here: Central Bedfordshire ‘Bus Service Improvement Plan’ announcement re Enhanced Partnerships with bus operators February 2022: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/news/article/645/improving_buses_%E2%80%93_enhanced_partnership_approved Department for Transport – Bus Back Better Strategy 2021: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/980227/DfT-Bus-Back-Better-national-bus-strategy-for-England.pdf Grant Palmer bus timetables: https://www.grantpalmer.com/bus-services/ Campaign for Better Transport – Future of Buses: https://bettertransport.org.uk/future-buses Julian Vaughan October 2022 #UKpolitics #integratedtransport #buses #loneliness #Bedfordshire #publictransport #climatechange

Liz Truss’s honeymoon period, if indeed there was one, was already well and truly over prior to the Conservative Party Conference earlier this week. The Chancellor’s ‘fiscal statement’, ‘mini budget’, ‘largest tax giveaway in 50 years’, call it what you will, sent shock waves through the financial markets, shudders through Tory ‘red wall’ MPs and jarred against the UK public’s inherent sense of fairness. The screeching reversal on the abolition of the 45p tax rate showed us that the Thatcher wannabee is actually for turning. The first Conference of a newly elected Prime Minister is normally a chance for the new administration to set out their stall. Instead, we had a Chancellor and a Prime Minister whose key performance indicator was not to say anything that would further spook the markets and cause another financial meltdown. Truss is known for her wooden delivery. In her speech on Wednesday, she did not disappoint. Flat throughout, bar a brief rally around the time of the intervention by the Greenpeace protestors, the applause lines often misfired and the interactions with the audience were cringeworthy. Around halfway through, and thankfully it was a shortish speech, Truss seemed to just want to rattle through as quickly as possible and read the autocue like she was scanning someone else’s speech for the very first time. Of course, content should always trump delivery. However, the content was also an issue, not just owing to what was said, but also what wasn’t said and it made me realise how much the Conservative Party has changed in a very short space of time. Below are excerpts from Liz Truss’s speech on Wednesday and Theresa May’s first Conference speech in 2016. While May’s speech had its fair share of empty rhetoric, she never did “fix the burning injustices”, the difference between the two speeches, both in content and tone, is startling. Theresa May speech – 5th October 2016 “It was (on the vote to leave the EU) about a sense – deep, profound and let’s face it often justified – that many people have today that the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them.” “If we don’t take this opportunity to deliver the change people want – resentments will grow. Divisions will become entrenched. And that would be a disaster for Britain. Because the lesson of Britain is that we are a country built on the bonds of family, community, citizenship.“ “A country of decency, fairness and quiet resolve.“ “A country that boasts three of the top ten universities in the world. The world’s leading financial capital. And institutions like the NHS and BBC whose reputations echo in some of the farthest corners of the globe.” “Yet within our society today, we see division and unfairness all around. Between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of London and the rest of the country. But perhaps most of all, between the rich, the successful, and the powerful – and their fellow citizens.“ “That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.“ “But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.“ “But for those who can’t work, we must offer our full support“. “It’s a plan to tackle the unfairness and injustice that divides us, so that we may build a new united Britain, rooted in the centre ground.“ “That’s why the central tenet of my belief is that there is more to life than individualism and self-interest. We form families, communities, towns, cities, counties and nations. We have a responsibility to one another.“ “Time for a new approach that says while government does not have all the answers, government can and should be a force for good; that the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot;” Liz Truss speech 5th October 2022 “I have three priorities for our economy: growth, growth and growth”. “When the government plays too big a role, people feel smaller.” “I believe in sound money and the lean state.“ “I love business. I love enterprise”. “Cutting taxes is the right thing to do morally and economically.“ “Economic growth will mean we can afford great public services such as schools, the police and the NHS.“ “We will be proudly pro-growth, pro-aspiration and pro-enterprise”. For those concerned about me cherry-picking excerpts, you can read May’s October 2016 speech in full here and Truss’s speech from earlier this week in full here. Apart from a number of questionable statements made by Truss, which deserve full analysis in a separate blog, after reading both speeches in full it is noticeable how narrow the breadth of Truss’s speech was. Theresa May’s speech spoke about the importance of community, the importance of fairness and equality, setting out the role of the state as a protective force for the UK public and the importance of our institutions such as the NHS and the BBC. May acknowledged the imbalance of power between the elite and the ordinary people of the country. What did we get from Truss? Empty rhetoric on Growth, growth and a bit more growth; a list of enemies to watch out for, and a headlong ideological dash to discredited trickle-down economics. However, even worse there was a complete lack of empathy or compassion or recognition of the importance of community and the role of the state within our society. While the cut to the 45p tax rate was reversed it clearly set out the priorities and direction of travel of this government. A government that believes it is entirely fair that the rich become richer at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society. Devoid of any commitment to social justice, it’s like both the Windrush scandal and the Grenfell disaster never happened. Climate change was mentioned once, lobbed into the same section of the speech as a commitment to open more gas fields in the North Sea. Lacking in any original thought, you get the sense that Truss is merely a vessel for others to pass their ideas through, while painting herself as an anti-establishment figure challenging the status quo. It really was a tea-spitting moment when she talked of “the vested interests dressed up as think-tanks” given her connections to ‘Tufton Street’ think tanks such as the ‘Institute of Economic Affairs’ and the ‘Taxpayers Alliance’. Virtually all the sensible heads have left the Conservatives. The intended path has been set and the future direction clearly laid out. It remains to be seen who will win the current ideological battle within the Tory party, but Labour must be ready for any eventuality, whether it be a further lurch to the right with Truss, or a return to a ‘one-nation toryism’ approach of Cameron and May. The Tories have revealed there true colours as a party of the rich, for the rich. With the potential for the lights to go out across the UK this winter, looming cuts to public services and benefits and rising rents putting many on a financial cliff edge it is time for Labour to make crystal clear whose side we are on. Julian Vaughan 7th October 2022 Theresa May – full transcipt of speech to October 2016 Conservative Party Conference: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-speech-tory-conference-2016-in-full-transcript-a7346171.html Liz Truss – full transcipt of speech to October 2022 Conservative Party Conference: https://www.conservatives.com/news/2022/prime-minister-liz-truss-s-speech-to-conservative-party-conference-2022 The tentacles of Tufton Street – Sam Bright, Byline Times: https://bylinetimes.com/2022/10/04/the-tentacles-of-tufton-street-think-tank-alumni-handed-top-government-roles/ #UKpolitics #liztruss #SocialJustice #trickledowneconomics #ToryParty #Politics

The utter shambles of this Truss-led government has clearly indicated that they intend to renege on a promise made by the previous Chancellor Rishi Sunak, to uplift social security benefits in line with inflation. They may well now claim it is due to the ‘difficult choices’ they have to make as a result of the turmoil in the financial markets, which they will blame on the Ukraine war, or Starmer or cheese, but of course in reality it is a disaster entirely of their own making. However, these cuts to benefits were already indicated on the day of the budget in Kwasi Kwarteng’s answer to Labour MP Stephen Timm’s question. When Lizz Truss was questioned by Laura Kuenssburg about rumoured cuts to public spending and social security benefits, there was no denial, just a parrot-fashion repetition of the need to grow the economy and ‘value for the taxpayer’. The grim irony of the Tories in 2008 accusing the Labour government of economic incompetence, when the reality was a global crash originating from deregulated financial markets in the US, and the Tories in 2022 blaming the current instability in the UK financial markets on a global problem, when the reality is that it was their incompetence and lack of transparency that created it. Following the market crash of 2008, a Tory government aided by a supportive right-wing media (remember all those daytime TV programmes about benefit cheats etc.) successfully set out a narrative of lazy scroungers sponging off the state, which resulted in widespread public support for the cuts to benefits for the most vulnerable in our society. I believe the Tories will be assuming they can push this line again and receive the same public support aided by their ‘non-dom’ friends in the press. I think they are mistaken. Their scrapping of the cap on bankers’ bonuses and cut to the top rate of tax* has revealed their true colours – a government of the rich for the rich, who give claps for carers and cash to hedge fund managers. *Since this was written the cut to the 45p rate has been reversed. The Tories claim this u-turn was due to the distraction of this policy created by the media, rather than the scores or Tory MPs who realised it was a certain seat loser. However, the intended direction of travel has been revealed. Millions of people will struggle this winter, with energy prices double that of last winter alongside rising rents and food prices. Add to this the ticking time bomb of homeowners coming to the end of fixed rate mortgage deals and facing huge increases in their mortgage payments – a scenario which resulted from the Chancellor’s desperate drive to give handouts to the rich, while at the same time avoiding independent scrutiny of his actions. Many people are likely to face financial stress for the first time, with those already in financial hardship facing dreadful choices about how to prioritise their household budgets and support their families. Labour has rightly talked about being on the side of ordinary working people as opposed to bankers and millionaires. However, they must also be seen to champion rather than stigmatise the least well-off in our society. I believe we should judge our society on how we look after the most vulnerable within it. The pandemic showed how communities can pull together for the benefit of everyone. So, this time when the Tories, aided by the media, push their ‘shirkers not workers’ narrative we now know the truth. The current government do not have the mandate to govern the country. We have financial decisions being made that impact us all that have not even been discussed by the cabinet, never mind voted on by the public. It is time for a General Election to get them out of power. Labour will be buoyed by the startling poll leads they currently have. However, this is not the time to be passive. Labour should set out a bold alternative for a fairer more equal society, that presses for workers’ rights alongside an adequate safety net for the vulnerable. An alternative which promotes empathy and compassion for all, rather than the narrow self-interest of a Tory government that lobbies for the benefit of a privileged few. That will be a country of which we can rightly be proud. That is true patriotism. Julian Vaughan 2nd October 2022 #benefits #austerity #mortgagerises #labourparty #publicservices #SocialJustice #Politics #taxcuts #government #Tories #spendingcuts

So there we have it, the big reveal, Any pretence of following ‘one nation’ Toryism, of ‘fixing the burning injustices’ in our society, or helping the ‘just about managing’ have been abandoned in a grim dash to cut taxes for the most well off in our society. It is a wide open field, but perhaps the most morally repugnant policy in today’s ‘fiscal statement’ is the scrapping of bankers’ bonus cap. Just in case you were under the impression that this cap, introduced in 2014, placed bankers in a precarious financial position reliant on foodbanks and charity, a reminder that the cap was set at 100% of their basic salary, or at 200% with shareholder approval. Meanwhile, those in the public sector are offered single digit increases well below inflation, not just a cap to their wages, but a real terms wages cut. The government will have been fully aware of the public feeling about bankers’ bonuses. Their ideological decision to remove this cap is a giant raised middle finger to ordinary working people across the UK. Millions of people will face a stark choice between heating their homes or feeding their families this winter. The Chancellor boasted about the support he has given to vulnerable families and talked about the £1,000 reduction in energy bills as some sort of windfall for the public. The reality is that it is a cut in future energy bills that many families simply could not have afforded anyway. As it stands energy bills this winter will still be around double those of last winter. Another giveaway to the richest in our society, for whom the current cost of living crisis won’t even register as a minor inconvenience, was the scrapping of the 45p tax rate from April 2023 for the around 660,000 people in the UK earning above £150,000. This tax cut means that those with incomes of £1 million or more will gain more than £40,000 each. Another tax cut gleefully pulled out of the hat by the Chancellor was the 1.25% cut in the National Insurance rate from 6th November 2022. Again high earners will benefit far more than those on lower incomes as shown in the chart below. Kwasi Kwarteng could have retained the 1.25% increase for those earning above the ‘Upper Earning Limit’ currently £50,270 a year, but again chose to ensure that the richest gained the most. Savings due to NI cuts from 6th November 2022 Just a few weeks in to to the Truss government and it’s clear that they believe independent scrutiny of their actions is beneath them. Truss stated that she didn’t need an ethics advisor because she “knows the difference between right and wrong”. Kwasi Kwarteng avoided contemporary independent scrutiny by the ‘Office of Budget Responsibility’ of the largest tax cuts in 50 years by classing today’s budget as a fiscal statement, rather than what we all know was a budget. Why the need to avoid scrutiny if they have nothing to hide? Family income changes per income deciles as a result of Kwarteng’s budget Has this blatant tax giveaway to the most well off been matched by similar level of generosity to those struggling to make ends meet? Hardly. Instead, Kwarteng chose to double down on the threat of sanctions for those on Universal Credit and tellingly refused to confirm that social security payments would be uprated in line with inflation. While someone earning £20,000 a year will gain £157 from the cumulative tax cuts a person earning £1 million will gain £55,220. Kwarteng’s response to the looming climate disaster – extract more fossil fuels from the North Sea, end the ban on fracking and build more roads! The government expects to grant around 100 oil and gas extraction licences in the North Sea and set out plans for 86 road schemes. Meanwhile their funding for reducing domestic energy consumption is a drop in the ocean in comparison to what is required. The budget was also a giveaway for big business as those companies making profits of more than £250,000 will no longer have to pay the planned increase in corporation tax to 25%. UK companies pay the lowest corporation tax in the G20, yet there is little evidence that this boosts investment. The Stamp Duty cut will also disproportionally benefit London and the South East over other regions. ‘Levelling up’ is a thing of the past in this Truss-led administration. The government appears to have abandoned the ‘red wall’ seats in the North of England to return to their homelands in the Home Counties. The tax giveaway is unevenly spread across the UK Source: Resolution Foundation As the Chancellor maintains that falling debt is his key metric for fiscal sustainability the Resolution Foundation has stated that without any tax rises, there will need to be spending cuts of around £36 billion by the middle of the decade. These cuts will be applied to public services already on their knees after 12 years of Tory rule. So what do people with far more knowledge of economics than me make of Kwarteng’s budget? Larry Summers, a former US Treasury Secretary said “Britain will be remembered for having pursued the worst macroeconomic policies of any major country in a long time.” The financial markets reacted by sending the value of the pound to the lowest level since 1985 as US investment bank JP Morgan stated the sell off indicated “a broader loss of investor confidence in the government’s approach.” The fall in the value of the pound makes imports more expensive and the market reaction to the budget was an increase in the cost of government borrowing. We now have the government that proudly removes the limit on bankers bonuses while at the same time claiming that modest pay rises for public sector workers and railway staff would fuel rampant inflation. In most peoples eyes I believe this bizarre argument will not be credible. Perhaps Truss and Kwarteng know the game is up and are adopting a ‘scorched earth’ policy in anticipation of being booted out of office within the next two years. While the budget may seem like electoral suicide the odds are still stacked in favour of the Conservatives. The ‘first past the post’ system means Labour has a mountain to climb to obtain a working majority and the government will no doubt still be backed by a hard right media who will back the upcoming attacks on workers rights, public services and migrants. Labour must resist the temptation to sit back and watch it all go wrong in anticipation of electoral success. To date Labour have been light on policy announcements. This must change and the upcoming Labour Conference in Liverpool is the perfect opportunity to set out policies which embrace empathy and compassion rather than greed and division. Let’s prioritise the needs of those on prepayment meters rather than the greed of corporate lobbyists. Julian Vaughan 24th September 2022 Further reading The Resolution Foundation: Blowing the Budget https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/blowing-the-budget/ Institute for Fiscal Studies: Mini-Budget Response https://ifs.org.uk/articles/mini-budget-response #UKpolitics #labourparty #Parliament #Politics #government #inequality #GeneralElection #equality #fuelpoverty #energybills #TheLabourParty

Dear Richard I am writing to you to raise my concerns about the inaction of your government in relation to the looming energy price cap rise and in particular the impact on energy customers using prepayment meters. As I am sure you are aware, the latest forecast for the energy price cap rise coming into force on 1st October is £3,582. Further to this, the forecast for the price cap in January 2023 is now £4,266. As a comparison, the price cap in February 2021 was £1,138. You can read more about the price cap forecasts here: https://www.cornwall-insight.com/price-cap-forecasts-for-january-rise-to-over-4200-as-wholesale-prices-surge-again-and-ofgem-revises-cap-methodology/ Should these forecasts be correct, and they are being revised up not down on a regular basis, it will mean that a typical user’s average bill will rise from £95 a month to £355 a month. This rise will not be sustainable for many previously financially comfortable families in your constituency who will experience fuel poverty for the first time. However, for those already struggling to make ends meet it is no exaggeration to say it will be a financial catastrophe and will lead to them choosing between heating or eating. We face the real prospect of your constituents dying of the cold this winter. While the situation is dire for those of us who pay monthly via direct debit, it is even worse for those who have to pay for their energy in advance via a prepayment meter. There are around 4.4 million electric and 3.4 million gas prepayment customers in the UK. Prepayment customers already pay higher rates per unit of energy than anyone else, on the questionable pretext that they are more expensive to administer. It is just not right that the people in our constituency who can least afford to pay, are charged the highest rates for their energy. Even Keith Anderson, the CEO of Scottish Power, described this situation as ‘perverse’ during a House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee (BEIS) evidence session, which I note you attended. A link to the full session of evidence from various energy company CEOs can be found here: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/10102/default/ and the relevant quote from Kevin Anderson is below. “Right now, people on a prepayment meter pay more, and that is perverse. A social tariff should be brought in to discount the price for people in fuel poverty and those on prepayment. The cost of that should be borne by those who can afford to pay.” Kevin Anderson CEO Scottish Power in evidence to the House of Commons BEIS Committee 19th April 2022 Further to this, unlike customers who pay by direct debit and can spread their costs evenly throughout the year, prepayment customers will face an instant and alarming hike in their energy prices from the moment the price cap comes into effect on 1st October. They will again have a further instant price shock when the predicted additional rise comes into force in January 2023. Prepayment customers are already very likely to be struggling financially and many will already be in energy debt, the reason for them being put on to prepayment meters in the first place. The option to change to a credit meter will not be available to the vast majority of these people, as they would be required to pass a credit check and pay off any outstanding debt to do so. Should we have a cold winter, the consequences for the most vulnerable people within our constituency and across the UK do not bear thinking about. Unfortunately, while many people are facing an unprecedented financial shock, our Prime Minister appears to have gone absent, seemingly in some sort of huff, while two leadership contenders appear more interested in outdoing each other in how many migrants they will be sending to Rwanda, or how they will ‘keep Brexit safe’. They appear totally out of touch with the current and pressing concerns of the electorate. They seem reluctant to discuss the issue, but the solutions they have suggested to date are totally inadequate. Income tax cuts will not benefit those in most need and a cut to the VAT on energy bills will be little help given the scale of the increase. An emergency like this needs a collaborative approach and it cannot wait until September. I do acknowledge the considerable support that the government has provided to date and I set this out in my blog on the cost of living emergency here: http://julianvaughan.blog/2022/08/02/the-looming-cost-of-living-emergency/ However, the scale of the crisis has increased significantly since then and further, sustained support is required. I ask that you urgently press for the following: An immediate package of support for prepayment customers across the UK. The provision of a ‘social tariff’ for those in fuel poverty and on prepayment meters – I know you are aware of the details around this as it has been discussed in BEIS Committee evidence. A further ‘windfall tax’ on the energy companies to offset the costs of the above. A commitment to adequately insulate the UK housing stock. The government currently has no coherent approach to this following the abject failure of the ‘Green Homes Grant’ scheme. Finally, without comprehensive financial support, it is likely that many people will simply be unable to afford to heat their homes. I understand that discussions are being held around the UK about the provision of communal ‘warm places’ to help those unable to heat their homes this winter. Would this be something that the Conservative Club in Biggleswade would be able to provide? I look forward to hearing from you on this urgent matter. Please regard this as an open letter. Julian Vaughan to Richard Fuller, MP for NE Bedfordshire via email on 10th August 2022 Further reading: Fuel Poverty in the UK: House of Commons Library https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8730/ Energy Bills and tariff Caps: House of Commons Library https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8081/ Citizens Advice letter to the BEIS Committee on changes to the Energy Bills Support Scheme June 2022 https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/CitizensAdvice/Energy/Energy%20Consultation%20responses/20.06.22%20Citizens%20Advice%20response%20to%20BEIS%20letter%20on%20changes%20to%20the%20Energy%20Bills%20Support%20Scheme.pdf Government Support – cost of living factsheet May 2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-support-for-the-cost-of-living-factsheet/government-support-for-the-cost-of-living-factsheet #UKpolitics #socialtariff #costoflivingcrisis #prepaymentmeters #Politics #fuelpoverty #energypricecap #energybills

A very bleak winter looms for many across the UK, as the Tories become ever more detached from the lives of ordinary people. A combination of inflation reaching levels not seen since 1990 and stagnant wage increases, particularly among public sector workers, means that many people are being thrust into a catastrophic cost of living emergency from which there seems little prospect of respite. The backdrop to this crisis is a rudderless government, whose leadership contenders promise tax cuts that disproportionally benefit the richest in our society, while attempting to land punches on the rail unions as a warning shot to ordinary working people across the UK. Assorted Etonians of the people During the pandemic, public sector workers were rightly praised for the vital work they carried out in their communities. We saw the true value of the work undertaken by low-paid workers in the medical, care and cleaning sectors. We also saw the hypocrisy of a Tory government who was prepared to clap for carers and NHS workers, but refused to give them a decent pay rise – all while they trousered significant salary rises and handed out contracts to their mates. A quadruple whammy of rising energy, food, housing and transport costs threatens to plunge many previously reasonably comfortable families into financial stress. The start of this impact is already being evidenced through a fall in donations to food banks due to regular providers feeling the pinch. Energy Price Rises In February 2020 the energy price cap, which will impact around 22 million households, stood at £1,042. It currently stands at £1,971 an increase from £87 a month to £164 a month. This increase has already led to many people choosing between heating and eating. However, there is far worse to come. The price cap, which strictly isn’t a cap as such, more a set rate for a given amount of energy consumed, is updated every six months, in April and October. The announcement for the October price cap announcement is due on 26th August, but is forecast by a well respected energy consultancy firm to be around £3,244, increasing to over £3,363 in early 2023. This will lead to typical monthly bills of around £270. Another energy consultancy firm predicts an even higher cap of £3,420 in October and a further increase to £3,850 in January if OFGEM’s preference for a price cap change to every three months comes into effect. *Update 9th August* Cornwall Insight is now predicting an October cap of £3,582 and a January cap of £4,266 more details here. **Update 26th August** OFGEM announces a price cap of £3,549 for a typical domestic customer using 12,000kWH of gas and 2,900kWh of electricity. Prepayment customers pay an additional £59 a year. Cornwall Insight is currently predicting a rise in the price cap to £5,386 in January and a further rise to £6,116 from April 2023. The announcement for the January to March price cap will be made on 24th November. Given that the April price cap rise has yet to be fully felt, as the timing of it coincided with most people turning off their heating, these additional increases will be a massive financial shock to many families across the UK. Further, while those paying by direct debit will be able to spread their energy costs over the year, households using pre-payment meters, already on extortionate tariffs, will instantly feel the impact of higher prices. I have written previously about the pre-pay rip-off which affects 4.4 million electric and 3.4 million gas customers across the UK. Many of these households are on low incomes and it is difficult to see how these people are going to cope. One energy consultancy firm predicts that more than half the country could be pushed into fuel poverty during the coming winter. An infographic showing fuel poverty distribution across England. The definition of fuel poverty in England is convoluted. A household is classed as being in fuel poverty if the energy efficiency of the dwelling is Band D or below and the household’s disposable income (after housing and fuel costs) is below the poverty line. The poverty gap is the reduction in the fuel bill that the average fuel poor household needs in order not to be classed as fuel poor. Source: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ‘Fuel Poverty Factsheet’ England 2020. This real figure could actually be far worse, as bizarrely in England you cannot be classed as being in fuel poverty if you live in a property that has an energy efficiency rating of ‘Class C’ or better. In 2020 2.6 million households in England were in the lowest two income deciles, but were not deemed to be in fuel poverty because their property had a ‘Class C’ or better energy efficiency rating. It is likely that many of these households will face extremely serious financial difficulties in the coming months if no more government help is forthcoming. Evidence from energy company CEOs Previous energy price rises have already had an impact on vulnerable customers. In evidence given to the House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Committee in April 2022, Simone Rossi CEO of EDF Energy said that they have seen data showing that their 10% most vulnerable customers will go from spending £1 in every £12 of their income on energy bills to spending £1 in every £6. Chris O’Shea CEO of Centrica said that 10% of their customers are late in payments. This figure represents around 716,000 customers who are on average £440 in debt. Keith Anderson CEO of Scottish Power, giving evidence about prepayment customers said “Come October (2022) that is going to get truly horrific. It has got to a stage now where I honestly believe that the size and scale of this are beyond what I can deal with. It is beyond what I think the industry can deal with”. You can read the full evidence from the energy company CEOs here. It was also accepted that prepayment customers, already on poor value tariffs, would feel the pinch the moment the energy cap rises come into force, whereas those who pay on receipt of their bill or by direct debit, will feel the impact a few months later or have the impact smoothed by paying the increase over the year. We also heard one of the CEOs, Keith Anderson, state that people on prepayment meters pay more than other customers and that the current situation where those that can least afford it pay the most for their energy was “perverse”. The prospect of vulnerable customers dying in their homes during the upcoming winter was raised with the energy company CEOs and they were asked if they were satisfied that their internal systems were adequate in flagging and dealing with these customers. Their response was not entirely reassuring. They stated that maybe they could look at a way of monitoring customers who have not recharged their payment meter for an unusually long period of time – known in the industry as ‘self-disconnecting’. They also said that they have a priority services register to assist vulnerable people, but that this register does rely on being told by the customer or other agencies such as Citizens Advice or food banks. So what help has the government offered so far? £400 off this winter’s energy bills through the Energy Bills Support Scheme – this will be paid in monthly instalments, starting in October with a £66 discount applied to their bill, rising to £67 in December with the final payment in March 2023. This discount will not have to be repaid and is an updated package of support from that originally announced in February which was a £200 ‘discount’ and was to be repaid over five years. There have been concerns about how this discount will reach vulnerable customers such as the estimated 585,000 people who pay their energy bills as part of their rent. There is currently no obligation on landlords who pay energy suppliers on behalf of their tenants, to pass on the benefits of the scheme. There are also concerns about those who use legacy (i.e. not smart) prepayment meters, in terms of theft or loss of vouchers. In a previous voucher scheme, 30% of households did not redeem their vouchers. Further, there are also concerns that the money provided by the scheme will be used to pay down energy bill debts, rather than help them access energy. A £650 cost of living payment for those on means-tested benefits such as Universal Credit and Pension Credit. This will be paid in two lump sums, the first was in July, and the second payment will be in the Autumn. A £300 Pensioner cost of living payment. This payment will go to the eight million pensioner households who receive the Winter Fuel Payment. A £150 Disability cost of living payment. This is payable to the 6 million people who receive various disability allowances or Personal Independence Payments. A £150 Council Tax rebate for those people living in Band A-D households. This was applied in April 2022. £1 billion Household Support Fund for households not eligible for other kinds of help or who need further support. This fund will be distributed by local authorities. However, since these measures were announced, wholesale gas prices have continued to rise and this October’s energy price cap is expected to be £450 higher than what the Government’s support package was based on. With energy prices set to rise further, the current measures will make a dent in bills, but will not offset the total cost or take into account ongoing high energy prices set to last throughout 2023 and beyond. As I wrote in ‘End the Pre Pay Energy Rip Off’ back in November 2020, it is just not right that the richest in our society pay the lowest rates for their energy, while those on the breadline get lumped onto the most expensive tariffs, creating a vicious circle of financial hardship. I suspect there are very few if any MPs who have ever experienced life with a prepayment meter. If there were, I don’t believe this inequality would still exist. Food Prices It’s not just energy prices that are putting pressure on households across the UK. Food prices have increased significantly and the average annual grocery bill is set to increase by £380, from £4,580 up to £4,960. The price of pasta has gone up by around 40%, teabags by 17% and coffee by 14%. There are a number of factors involved in these price increases including higher shipping costs, but it is noticeable that drought and heatwaves have had a significant impact. Climate change will only make these more likely in the future. The price of milk rose by 7% in the year to March 2022 and is forecast by some analysts to rise to £1.70 for four pints of milk this year. Transport price rises Regulated rail ticket prices increased by 3.8% in March 2022. However, other fares such as advance fares, normally the best value, have gone up by 8.8%. Source: Office of Rail and Road Rail Fares Index 2022 Bus fares rose 61% between 2009 and 2019, this was an even greater increase than rail ticket prices, which rose 50% over the same period. A £2 price cap to start in the Autumn has been announced by Labour mayors of West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Liverpool. A £2 price cap, again starting in the Autumn, for all bus journeys up to eighty miles was announced by 10 Downing St. However, it is unclear if a new Prime Minister will proceed with this policy – and the Department for Transport have yet to confirm either way. Housing Costs Private rental prices in England (excluding London) increased by 3.3% in the 12 months to April 2022. This is the highest yearly increase since records started being collated in 2006. Increases in social housing rents are capped by the CPI inflation figure +1% from the previous September. For 2022-23 this figure was 4.1%. As interest rates are back on the rise, mortgage rates have also risen for borrowers on variable rate mortgages and fixed-rate mortgages are also on the rise and the Nationwide building society increased rates on its fixed-rate mortgages by up to 0.4% and the HSBC bank raising their main fixed rate mortgages by up to 0.5%. What can be done? The government has provided substantial support, including a £15 billion energy bill rebate package, worth up to £550 each for around 28 million households. However, with energy price cap estimates going up by the week, it is clear that this support will not be anywhere near enough to avoid millions of households falling into fuel poverty and people making the stark choice between heating and eating. Many households who have never previously experienced financial difficulties will do so for the first time as they face a perfect storm of rising prices combined with stagnant wages and there is the real prospect of people dying in their homes due to the cold. Tragically, at a time when experts are giving grave warnings about the looming emergency, we have two candidates campaigning to be the next Prime Minister who seem completely out of touch with the pressing concerns of the people they will soon be representing. Sunak and Truss seem locked in an arms race to send the most migrants to Rwanda or dishing out the biggest tax cuts to the rich, while their solutions to the energy crisis – slashing VAT on energy bills (Sunak) suspending green energy levies (Truss) have been described as “trivial” by Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com and in the case of Truss slammed as “nonsensical” by Good Energy’s Chief Executive Nigel Pocklington. Liz Truss, the current favourite to be our next PM has already ruled out a further windfall tax on the energy companies. Windfall Tax Further, while the government belatedly introduced an energy profits levy (they refused to call it a ‘windfall tax’) which is expected to raise around £5 billion, they have at the same time gifted the oil and gas sector a 91% tax relief rate on further oil and gas extraction investment. Meanwhile, energy companies make record profits: BP made profits of £6.9 billion between April and June with Shell making profits of £9.5 billion in the same three month period. While many households across the UK are facing the prospect of a severe financial shock, these companies are so awash with money they are buying back their own shares and shelling out dividends. We are definitely not all in this together. Social Tariff One option that was discussed by MPs and the energy company CEOs during their evidence to the BEIS committee was the introduction by the government of a deficit fund, where anyone deemed to be in fuel poverty or vulnerable, and this importantly would include prepayment meter customers would have £1,000 taken off their bill and put into a fund which can be repaid over a 10 year period by the whole customer base, or could be funded wholly or partially by the government. The second step would be to introduce a ‘social tariff’ targeted to discount energy prices for those in poverty or on a prepayment meter. This would be likely to lead to the removal of the current fixed price caps, replaced by a relative cap to the lowest price. Home Insulation Another proposal was the reduction in demand through better home insulation. The UK has the worst insulated homes in Europe and Michael Lewis, CEO of E.ON stated that the UK has no coherent approach to upgrading the UK housing stock. The last initiative, the ‘Green Homes Grant’ was launched in September 2020, but was axed in March 2021 after reaching just 10% of the 600,000 homes Rishi Sunak promised would be improved. Summary With analysts forecasting that the energy crisis will last into 2023 and beyond there need to be long-term fixes to the crisis. It is shameful that while there are people having to choose between heating and eating, energy companies are posting record profits. However, the current government is clearly averse to any further windfall taxes which could be used to help ease the burden for millions of people across the UK. Yet again this Conservative government are prioritising profits over people and we are not likely to see any notable change in policy until we have a change of government. In fairness, any government would struggle with the sheer scale of the problem, but other countries have implemented policies that put people first. France capped electricity price rises at 4%, while Spain will introduce free rail travel across much of its rail network from September until the end of the year. Germany has introduced a 9 Euro a month scheme on all modes of city and regional transport. Italy has introduced a tax credit of up to 110% for households who improve their homes with green renovations such as insulation, solar panels, or heat pumps. The UK needs a government who are prepared to take similar steps and puts people before profits. What help is out there and how can you reduce your bills? Below are some links that either signpost you to sites that check you are getting all the benefits to which you are entitled, where to get help if you are struggling to pay your bills and tips on how to reduce your energy consumption. Energy Saving Tips – Money Saving Expert: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/energy-saving-tips/ Turn2Us – What happens if I can’t pay my bills? https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Fuel-Poverty/What-happens-if-I-cannot-pay-my-bills CCW – Help with my water bills: https://www.ccwater.org.uk/households/help-with-my-bills/ The Money Edit – 17 hacks to cut your energy bills: https://www.themoneyedit.com/household-bills/cut-energy-costs OFGEM – getting help if you can’t pay your energy bills: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/getting-help-if-you-cant-afford-your-energy-bills Further Reading Joseph Rowntree Foundation: Going Without: deepening poverty in the UK July 2022 https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/going-without-deepening-poverty-uk All Party Parliamentary Group on Poverty: In Work Poverty July 2022 http://www.appgpoverty.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/APPG_Poverty_in_work_poverty_FINAL.pdf Commons Library – Fuel Poverty in the UK May 2022: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8730/ Energy Company CEO evidence to the House of Commons BEIS Committee April 2022: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/10102/default/ Julian Vaughan August 2022 #UKpolitics #windfalltax #inflation #Politics #fuelpoverty #costofliving #energybills #energycrisis #poverty

This afternoon, representatives from Bedfordshire Rail Access Network (BRAN), Network Rail, GTR, Richard Fuller MP and Central Bedfordshire and Biggleswade Town Council officials met to discuss progress on step-free access at the station, as well as the transport interchange and proposed new toilet facilities. The good Since the previous meeting, another hurdle has been overcome and the step-free scheme for Biggleswade station has now been fully funded, endorsed and authorised by the Network Rail Investment Authority Panel. The next steps are awarding the construction contract and buying the materials and plant required. Works are due to start on site in October of this year, with the lifts due to enter into service in June 2023. Both these dates are unchanged from my previous update given in May. A bus interchange construction ‘groundbreaking’ ceremony is due to take place in late August and the interchange is still on course to be completed by March 2023. When both projects are complete this will provide seamless and step-free access between buses and trains. The Central Bedfordshire Infrastructure Delivery team is keen for the BRAN team to be shown around the interchange prior to opening, to both check all is ok and to publicise the facility to disabled people in the area. Work on a new accessible toilet facility at the station is due to begin at the end of August 2022 and be completed by the turn of the year. This will be a very welcome addition as the absence of this basic facility puts off many people from travelling on public transport. The final design of the toilet facility has yet to be decided, but is likely to consist of two toilets, both of which will be accessible. Further, a feasibility study is ongoing into the provision of a toilet on one of the platforms. The site for the new toilet block (the old cycle parking area) just to the right of the taxi office. If all goes to plan, by June 2023 Biggleswade will have an integrated step-free transport hub alongside secure cycle facilities and, at long last, the provision of toilet facilities at the station. This will both reduce our reliance on our cars and enable disabled people, those with reduced mobility and parents with young children to use the station with ease. Inaccessible transport results in disabled people being unable to play a full part in our society and these improvements will enable them to travel independently. The bad As a result of inflation resulting in significant cost increases to the scheme, two reviews were carried out to see if savings could be made in the ‘non-core’ elements of the scheme, i.e the areas of the scheme that didn’t affect the delivery of step-free access to the station. As a result of these reviews, the steps to the additional bridge which will provide access to the lifts have been removed from the scope of the scheme. This means that the additional bridge will only have lift access – and those passengers who do not wish to use the lift will need to use the current stairs. The layout of the new ramp and additional bridge. 16-person lifts will be installed for both platforms. The steps shown in this plan leading from the new bridge will now not be installed. The current bridge and steps will remain. The entrance to the ramp will be on your immediate right as you leave the ticket office. We were told that this will save the project £582,000 and will bring the project back within budget. While we understand that savings needed to be made and don’t regard their exclusion from the scheme as a deal-breaker, it does present a number of problems. Firstly, it does not ‘future-proof’ the station for increased passenger numbers in the coming years, when one staircase per platform will not be able to safely accommodate higher passenger numbers. Secondly, there are serious deficiencies within the current staircase, which means that its use is problematic for visually impaired people who may wish to use the stairs. Finally, the staircase is in very poor condition and both the staircase and the bridge itself are likely to need to be repaired in the near future. We asked if any disabled people had been consulted or were present at these two reviews. It seems they were not. We pointed out that this issue would have been flagged as an issue if disabled people had actually been involved in these scoping decisions. So once again, decisions on changes that impact disabled people were made without disabled people being part of the process. This is an example of how, no matter how unintentional, problems can be designed into a project due to the lack of first-hand knowledge of the problems faced by disabled people. That is why disability activists keep demanding “design with us, not for us”. As these stairs aren’t within the scope of the step-free scheme, funding for improvements to them will have to come from elsewhere. We have asked for an urgent meeting to discuss this issue with the relevant people. While it is good news that GTR, as landlords of the station, are looking at the provision of a platform toilet, as yet there is no funding available to build one. This is something we will keep pursuing in the coming months – if the drainage study shows that it is a viable option. While we were talking about the new toilets there was a discussion about how access to them could be set on a timer, so that when the station is unstaffed the toilets cannot be used. The reason for this is to reduce the chances of vandalism, and issues if anyone gets stuck in them. We then asked if there were any plans to extend the hours that Biggleswade station is staffed and whether the lifts to the platforms could remain open if there were no staff on the station. We believe that if a station is unstaffed then the lifts may have to close. GTR advised us that there were no plans to extend the hours that staff were present at the station, but were unsure if this would mean the lifts would have to go out of service when the station had no staff present. I understand this may be dependent on whether the lifts have a link to a central control room. We asked that this is clarified as soon as possible, as if the lifts do have to be closed the station will once again become inaccessible to disabled people – and they travel late at night and on weekends too! The ramp to the lifts will be accessible from where the gate is located in this photo. The ticket of is to the right of this picture. There were also discussions about ensuring that the bus service timings linked up with the timings of the trains services to and from London. Discussions on this are ongoing and we stressed how vital it is that the timings are combined to encourage people in the surrounding area to use public transport. There were also discussions about what would happen to the current bus station in the market square and where bus stops would be provided if this area is pedestrianised. It seemed clear that this will take some time to reach an acceptable solution. Overall, a mixture of good and bad news, but the date for step-free access at the station remains unchanged and is currently ahead of the original completion date target which was Autumn 2023. However, we won’t relax until the first person has used an in-service lift at the station. Many thanks to my BRAN colleagues who as always provide invaluable advice. On a personal note, although Richard Fuller and I disagree politically on virtually everything, we continue to put these differences aside while we work together to a successful outcome of the project. As always, feel free to get in touch if you have any questions. Contact details are below and you can follow BRAN on Facebook here. Julian Vaughan Chair Bedfordshire Rail Access Network 22nd July 2022 email: bedsrailaccessnetwork@gmail.com Further reading: Leonard Cheshire: Accessible Trains https://www.leonardcheshire.org/get-involved/campaign-us/accessible-trains Rail Delivery Group: Access Map http://accessmap.nationalrail.co.uk/ Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson: Our rail network is decades behind target in providing access to disabled people https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/our-rail-network-is-decades-behind-target-in-providing-access-to-disabled-people?heycid=705790 Great Northern: Assisted Travel details https://www.greatnorthernrail.com/travel-information/travel-help/assisted-travel #stepfreeaccess #buses #accessibility #Bedfordshire #publictransport #railways #Transport

The fallout from the pandemic has been seen by many in the corporate world as an ideal opportunity to change the terms and conditions of their workforce. Once again we have a Conservative government that is asking ordinary working people to become poorer, while MPs line their pockets with second jobs and the salaries of company CEOs skyrocket. It is therefore no great surprise that trade unions have once again entered the crosshairs of the Tories and the hard right dominated media. It seems these days that any attempt to defend the rights of workers, or merely ask for wages to keep up with inflation, will mean you are labelled by the media as either a Marxist, a dinosaur from the 1970s, or both. My MP Richard Fuller is the latest of a long line to join in the union bashing. On the 27th of June, he wrote to the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg, Minister of State, Brexit Opportunities, recommending a cap on trade union representatives’ facility time within the public sector. The letter is in full below. Letter from NE Beds MP Richard Fuller to the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg Where do we begin with this?! This well worn attack line on trade unions is clearly an attempt to piggyback on what Tory MPs see as a wave of revulsion against working people standing up for their terms and conditions. Judging by the results from various opinion polls on the actions of the strikers, as well as the response to Richard Fuller’s post, I believe he has misjudged the mood of his constituents and the wider public. Mr Fuller quotes ‘recent research’ but neglects to provide a source. However, I can reveal that the source is the Taxpayers’ Alliance ‘Public sector trade union facility time’ paper published in June 2022. You can read the paper in full via a link at the bottom of this blog. While £98,126,371 (the actual figure) may seem like a substantial amount of money, this pales into insignificance if you compare this to the total spending of MPs which was £132,500,000 over the same period. This figure does not include the salaries of MPs which was £81,932 over the same time period 2020-2021. Again, a link to this information is provided at the bottom of this blog. MPs can claim up to £25 a day for food and can reclaim travel season ticket costs in full – no wonder that the government seems very relaxed about rail ticket price increases, as it has zero impact on their finances. Further, they can also claim up to £175 a night for hotel expenses. With our representatives so insulated from the financial struggles faced by the majority of the public, is it any surprise that they create policies that fail to take into account, and often worsen, the relentless daily grind faced by ordinary people? Finally, and I have by no means included all the allowable expenses of our Parliamentarians, members of the House of Lords can claim up to £323 a day through an ‘attendance allowance’ – and they do not pay any tax on this. Now I know a fair number of MPs personally, including Mr Fuller, and am aware of how hard they work for their constituents. I am not suggesting that expenses should not be permitted, but perhaps we should look at the above before attempting to limit the vital work that union reps carry out in workplaces across the UK. Mr Fuller frames the £98m spent on facility time as a ‘cost’ to the taxpayer. However, this completely ignores the substantial savings to businesses and the taxpayer as a result of the work of union reps. In 2007 the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) found that the work of union reps resulted in; Savings to employers and the exchequer of between £22m – £43m as a result of reducing the number of Employment Tribunal cases; Benefits to society worth between £136m – £371m as a result of reducing working days lost due to workplace injury and; Benefits to society worth between £45m – £207m as a result of reducing work-related illness. Further, using the same formulae as used in the BERR report, but using updated figures, it is estimated that the work of union reps results in; Overall productivity gains worth between £4bn to 12bn to the UK economy; Savings of at least £19 million as a result of reducing dismissals; Savings to employers of between £82m – £143m in recruitment costs as a result of reducing early exits. On a personal level, as a union health and safety rep, I know that the work that me and my colleagues undertake to make the workplace safer for our members, also makes it a safer environment for our passengers. I should also point out that much of the work undertaken by union representatives is outside of work and unpaid, a point recognised by the BERR who estimated union reps contribute 100,000 hours of their own time each week to their role. So far from being a cost to society, union representatives are a significant resource to workplaces across the UK and bring a substantial net benefit in financial terms to the taxpayer. This lazy and populist attempt to pit the public against unions under the guise of cost to the taxpayer should be seen for what it is, a blatant attack on organised labour. The Tories, backed by a hard-right dominated print media are falling over themselves talking of a ‘return to the 70s’ and ‘union barons’ who pull the wool over the eyes of their membership – they clearly haven’t ever met any rank and file union members! Even the more balanced broadcast media roll out tired old cliches of union members engaging in violence on the picket lines and union leaders whose prime motive is to convert the UK to communism. Agency rail workers will be stopped at picket lines and asked not to cross. RMT union's General Secretary Mick Lynch got a little flustered explaining why…#KayBurley FC pic.twitter.com/GiTb0WQkxn — Kay Burley (@KayBurley) June 21, 2022 Kay Burley interviewing RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch on 21st June – I don’t see Mr. Lynch getting flustered here… A petulant Richard Madeley accepts that Mick Lynch is not a Marxist. "To be absolutely clear, you are not a Marxist. Fine!" #GMB @GMB pic.twitter.com/ba8SdpfOIa — Fintan McCarthy💙 (@MccarthyFintan) June 22, 2022 Richard Madeley interviewed Mick Lynch on 22nd June. It was heartening to see Mick Lynch, the RMT General Secretary, calmly and forensically rebutting the usual attack lines on unions put forward by the media. Just as our parliament has a dearth of working-class representation, you have to question whether any of the interviewers who spoke to Mick Lynch had ever actually been on a picket line. We need more working-class representation in Parliament, but we also need greater balance in our print and broadcast media. See Dan Walker’s interview below to show how an interview can be conducted without resorting to tired union-bashing tropes. We live in the age of the jabby, confrontational interview & the RMTs, Mick Lynch, has had a few of them. If you treat people with respect, you can still ask tough questions & get decent answers allowing your audience to make their own minds up@5_News pic.twitter.com/pr6aYycBc5 — Dan Walker (@mrdanwalker) June 22, 2022 Dan Walker’s interview with Mick Lynch on 22nd June. Labour’s attitude to the strikes has so far been lukewarm, to say the least. Obviously concerned that they may fall into the trap of being seen to back unpopular and disruptive strikes they have sat on the fence and stated that they back all working people, not just those who are on strike. This position was cemented by a Labour Minister refusing to support striking British Airways workers – a position that they later retracted and apologised for. While politically I understand this cautious approach, the fence-sitting appears weak and it risks being seen by many as a party waiting to see which way the wind blows rather than having the courage of their convictions. As inflation is set to increase further over the coming months and with further energy price rises coming up before the next winter, there is likely to be further industrial unrest across many sectors of the economy and more and more people falling into poverty as wages continue to fall in real terms. Many will face a choice this winter between heating and eating. The Tories and particularly Boris Johnson from his time as London Mayor see the rail unions as ‘unfinished business’ and want to destroy their influence as a warning to workers in other industries not to rock the boat. Over the coming months, you are likely to see many more examples of the Tories and the media attempting to pitch workers against each other, the train driver against the nurse, the post worker against the care worker. It is the classic tactic of ‘divide and rule’. With the Tories prepared to scrap limits on bankers’ bonuses and happy to accept second jobs at hourly pay rates of up to £625 an hour do we really need to be told whose side they are on? Former Education Secretary Gavin Williamson’s 2nd Job entry in the Register of MPs interests. What can you do? If you’re not in a union join one. You can find a union for your workplace in the link below: https://www.tuc.org.uk/join-a-union Unionised workplaces are safer and apart from having the collective power of your union to negotiate better terms and conditions for you, you will have a representative to assist you with any issues with your employer. Judging by the response to Mr Fuller’s social media post which included the above letter, it would appear that many of his constituents are recognising that, far from being militants who are holding the country to ransom, rail workers are just the vanguard of what is likely to be a concerted push from workers not to passively accept being made poorer while CEOs pocket millions in bonuses and shareholders receive bumper dividends. Of course, we shouldn’t be anti-business, but we should expect that businesses are run ethically. We have seen in the aftermath of the Grenfell tragedy what happens when the pursuit of profit is prioritised above people. When it comes to a choice between CEOs with their bumper pay and key workers forced to rely on foodbanks, I know whose side I’m on, Labour needs to make crystal clear which side of the fence they sit on too. Julian Vaughan June 2022 Join the Labour party here: https://join.labour.org.uk/ Further reading: The facts about facility time for trade union reps – TUC October 2011 https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/tucfiles/thefactsaboutfacilitytime.pdf Public sector trade union facility time – Taxpayers Alliance June 2022: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/taxpayersalliance/pages/17522/attachments/original/1654610034/Public_sector_trade_union_facility_time.pdf?1654610034 The cost of MPs – Taxpayers Alliance January 2022 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/taxpayersalliance/pages/17437/attachments/original/1642701013/MPs’_expenses_2020-21.pdf?1642701013 House of Lords – financial support for members https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-finance-office/2021-22/financial-support-for-members-briefing-note-2021-22.pdf How to get trade union recognition in your workplace https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-employers/statutory-recognition #UKpolitics #MPs #strikes #workersrights #Politics #equality #unions #tradeunions

Five years on and still we are waiting for anyone to be held accountable. Why is it that the wheels of justice always turn so slowly, if at all, for the working class and marginalised communities? The Grenfell Inquiry has revealed how the pursuit of profit was prioritised over the safety of people, shamefully enabled by successive governments who regarded safety regulations as a ‘burden to business’. The tragedy of Grenfell was due to many different factors that culminated in the horrific events of five years ago. However, it is the government that holds the ultimate responsibility to protect the public and it was political decisions from governments of all shades that permitted a culture of greed to flourish among the many companies who refurbished the tower. We need more politicians who will stick up for the most vulnerable in our society, rather than those whose heads will be swayed by corporate lobbyists. A Parliament of millionaires and stacked with people from the business world will continue to prioritise the wealthy over the most vulnerable people in our society. We need more working-class people in the House of Commons who understand the lives of ordinary people. The government now has guilty knowledge of the risks presented by unsafe cladding and it’s unforgivable that five years on there are still thousands of buildings that remain potential death traps for their residents. This must be fixed as soon as possible, but we must also fix the culture of the state which views the lives of working-class people and minorities as less important than others. Changing this culture and putting in place and enforcing regulations to prevent a repeat of the fire will at least mean the residents of Grenfell didn’t die in vain. Above all, we need justice for the victims – and those at the very top must be held accountable for their actions. Julian Vaughan June 2022 Further Reading The Grenfell Tower Fire: A crime caused by profit and deregulation https://www.regulation.org.uk/library/2019-FBU-The_Grenfell_Tower_Fire-A%20crime-caused_by_profit_and_deregulation.pdf Deregulation, the absence of law and the Grenfell Tower fire – Daniela Nadj https://www.qmul.ac.uk/law/humanrights/media/humanrights/docs/Nadj-final.pdf You can follow the Grenfell Inquiry via live stream here: https://www.youtube.com/c/GrenfellTowerInquiry/featured #UKpolitics #Parliament #SocialJustice #Politics #Grenfell

In light of the recent behaviour of Boris Johnson and this week’s updating of the Ministerial Code, I have again written to our local MP, Richard Fuller about how these updates further reduce Boris Johnson’s accountability and asking him to reconsider his current support for the Prime Minister. The letter is set out in full below and I have provided a number of links for further reading. “I am writing to you regarding the recent changes to the Ministerial Code which was published yesterday, the 27th of May and Boris Johnson’s response to the findings of the Sue Gray report, published on 25th May. I am sure you are now aware in the Prime Minister’s foreword to the updated Code that all references to the need for Ministers to uphold the very highest standards of propriety and the ‘precious principles of public life’, have been removed. The Ministerial Code is issued by the Prime Minister and whilst it is a matter of convention, rather than having any legal basis, it sets out how ministers should behave and lays out for the public, the standards against which ministers, and the government should be held to. The recent Owen Paterson scandal saw Boris Johnson attempt to change the rules, and his actions were subsequently described by Lord Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as “a very serious and damaging moment for Parliament and for public standards in this country.” The Prime Minister was subsequently forced into a humiliating U-turn. For Johnson to now rewrite the rules just before facing an inquiry by the Privileges Committee is behaviour that we, if it were to be seen taking place in any other country, would rightly be shocked at the sheer audacity of such a move. A Prime Minister who acts like the rules don’t apply to him or changes the rules for personal benefit, does great damage to our democracy and the public’s confidence in politics. Further, the Prime Minister has rejected the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation to allow the Independent Advisor to launch their own inquiries without the Prime Minister’s consent. This rejection, along with the fact that the Prime Minister has the final decision on who is appointed as their ‘independent’ advisor, means there are valid and serious concerns about the impartiality and true independence of the position. Again, this further reduces public confidence that there will be any accountability at the highest levels of our government. In addition to this, the updated Code states that if the Prime Minister decides that an investigation shouldn’t proceed, the Independent Advisor may still make public the reasons for not proceeding unless “this would undermine the grounds that have led to the investigation not proceeding.” This is clearly nothing more than a means to ensure that a Prime Minister’s decision not to allow an investigation will not be publicly scrutinised, hardly open or accountable as per the Nolan Principles. The removal of any reference to the ‘Nolan Principles’ in the Prime Minister’s foreword to the Ministerial Code gives the clear impression – and given the timing, one can only think this is intentional – that Johnson believes he can change the rules of the game if they do not suit him. In a previous version of the Ministerial Code, David Cameron said “we must remember that we are not masters but servants.” Unfortunately, and I do not say it lightly, Johnson’s behaviour is more akin to that of a dictator, rather than a servant of the people. I want to make clear that this is not a witch hunt. In defence of Johnson, although some have commented on the apparent watering down of the potential sanctions, including an apology or temporary removal of a Ministerial salary, I am fully aware that this was a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life as the single option to resign was deemed too harsh for minor breaches of the code. Further, the Code still includes an expectation that a Minister will resign if found to have knowingly misled Parliament. I also note that in the Foreword there is a change of emphasis from a Prime Minister being accountable under the Ministerial Code to that of being accountable via the ballot box. This suggests that Boris Johnson believes he is not bound by the code and is both judge and jury on his own breaches of the code. Once again this demonstrates his lack of any accountability and a fundamental belief that the rules do not apply to him. The Prime Minister has stated that he takes “full responsibility” for the parties and behaviour that took place in 10 Downing Street and the culture revealed by the Sue Gray report. Can you please define “full responsibility” in this context – and how Boris Johnson has understood it? Boris Johnson clearly has a tenuous relationship with the truth and believes that the rules that apply to others do not apply to him. Both of these are immensely damaging to our democracy as well as the public’s trust in politicians and the political system under which we are governed. Although our political views differ sharply, I know you think deeply about the issues that impact your constituents and like me, you are immensely proud of our country. In light of this, I would urge you to reconsider your current support for the Prime Minister. In April you said that “Some constituents have asked me to go further: to force the Prime Minister to resign in mid-term. I do not agree that the announcements made yesterday yet achieve the standard needed for such an action on my part.” Should you continue to support him, I am afraid that you will bear a degree of responsibility for what ensues if he were to remain in post. I look forward to hearing your views on the issues raised above. Please regard this as an open letter.“ Yours sincerely Julian Vaughan 29th May 2022 The 2019 Foreword to the Ministerial Code – the paragraphs highlighted in yellow have been removed in full from the updated version published this week The May 2022 version of the Ministerial Code Further Reading: Upholding Standards in Public Life: Final Report of the Standards Matter 2 review – November 2021 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029944/Upholding_Standards_in_Public_Life_-_Web_Accessible.pdf Transparency International UK: It’s time for the MInisterial Code to become law https://www.transparency.org.uk/ministerial-code-UK-nolan-principles-public-ethical-standards The Institute for Government: The Ministerial Code https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ministerial-code HM Government Statement of Government Policy: Standards in Public Life May 2022 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1079237/statement-of-government-policy-standards-in-public-life.pdf #UKpolitics #nolanprinciples #Bedfordshire #Politics #ministerialcode

I have written previously in ‘Tories crack the Ministerial Code’ about how the current government has significantly eroded the public’s trust in politics. In light of the recent behaviour of Boris Johnson and this week’s updating of the Ministerial Code, I have again written to my local MP, Richard Fuller about how these updates further reduce Boris Johnson’s accountability and asking him to reconsider his current support for the Prime Minister. The letter is set out in full below and I have provided a number of links for further reading. “I am writing to you regarding the recent changes to the Ministerial Code which was published yesterday, the 27th of May and Boris Johnson’s response to the findings of the Sue Gray report, published on 25th May. I am sure you are now aware in the Prime Minister’s foreword to the updated Code that all references to the need for Ministers to uphold the very highest standards of propriety and the ‘precious principles of public life’, have been removed. The Ministerial Code is issued by the Prime Minister and whilst it is a matter of convention, rather than having any legal basis, it sets out how ministers should behave and lays out for the public, the standards against which ministers, and the government should be held to. The recent Owen Paterson scandal saw Boris Johnson attempt to change the rules, and his actions were subsequently described by Lord Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as “a very serious and damaging moment for Parliament and for public standards in this country.” The Prime Minister was subsequently forced into a humiliating U-turn. For Johnson to now rewrite the rules just before facing an inquiry by the Privileges Committee is behaviour that we, if it were to be seen taking place in any other country, would rightly be shocked at the sheer audacity of such a move. A Prime Minister who acts like the rules don’t apply to him or changes the rules for personal benefit, does great damage to our democracy and the public’s confidence in politics. Further, the Prime Minister has rejected the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation to allow the Independent Advisor to launch their own inquiries without the Prime Minister’s consent. This rejection, along with the fact that the Prime Minister has the final decision on who is appointed as their ‘independent’ advisor, means there are valid and serious concerns about the impartiality and true independence of the position. Again, this further reduces public confidence that there will be any accountability at the highest levels of our government. In addition to this, the updated Code states that if the Prime Minister decides that an investigation shouldn’t proceed, the Independent Advisor may still make public the reasons for not proceeding unless “this would undermine the grounds that have led to the investigation not proceeding.” This is clearly nothing more than a means to ensure that a Prime Minister’s decision not to allow an investigation will not be publicly scrutinised, hardly open or accountable as per the Nolan Principles. The removal of any reference to the ‘Nolan Principles’ in the Prime Minister’s foreword to the Ministerial Code gives the clear impression – and given the timing, one can only think this is intentional – that Johnson believes he can change the rules of the game if they do not suit him. In a previous version of the Ministerial Code, David Cameron said “we must remember that we are not masters but servants.” Unfortunately, and I do not say it lightly, Johnson’s behaviour is more akin to that of a dictator, rather than a servant of the people. I want to make clear that this is not a witch hunt. In defence of Johnson, although some have commented on the apparent watering down of the potential sanctions, including an apology or temporary removal of a Ministerial salary, I am fully aware that this was a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life as the single option to resign was deemed too harsh for minor breaches of the code. Further, the Code still includes an expectation that a Minister will resign if found to have knowingly misled Parliament. I also note that in the Foreword there is a change of emphasis from a Prime Minister being accountable under the Ministerial Code to that of being accountable via the ballot box. This suggests that Boris Johnson believes he is not bound by the code and is both judge and jury on his own breaches of the code. Once again this demonstrates his lack of any accountability and a fundamental belief that the rules do not apply to him. The Prime Minister has stated that he takes “full responsibility” for the parties and behaviour that took place in 10 Downing Street and the culture revealed by the Sue Gray report. Can you please define “full responsibility” in this context – and how Boris Johnson has understood it? Boris Johnson clearly has a tenuous relationship with the truth and believes that the rules that apply to others do not apply to him. Both of these are immensely damaging to our democracy as well as the public’s trust in politicians and the political system under which we are governed. Although our political views differ sharply, I know you think deeply about the issues that impact your constituents and like me, you are immensely proud of our country. In light of this, I would urge you to reconsider your current support for the Prime Minister. In April you said that “Some constituents have asked me to go further: to force the Prime Minister to resign in mid-term. I do not agree that the announcements made yesterday yet achieve the standard needed for such an action on my part.” Should you continue to support him, I am afraid that you will bear a degree of responsibility for what ensues if he were to remain in post. I look forward to hearing your views on the issues raised above. Please regard this as an open letter.“ Yours sincerely Julian Vaughan 29th May 2022 The 2019 Foreword to the Ministerial Code – the paragraphs highlighted in yellow have been removed in full from the updated version published this week The May 2022 version of the Ministerial Code Further Reading: Upholding Standards in Public Life: Final Report of the Standards Matter 2 review – November 2021 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029944/Upholding_Standards_in_Public_Life_-_Web_Accessible.pdf Transparency International UK: It’s time for the MInisterial Code to become law https://www.transparency.org.uk/ministerial-code-UK-nolan-principles-public-ethical-standards The Institute for Government: The Ministerial Code https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ministerial-code HM Government Statement of Government Policy: Standards in Public Life May 2022 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1079237/statement-of-government-policy-standards-in-public-life.pdf #UKpolitics #nolanprinciples #Bedfordshire #Politics #ministerialcode