Tag: United Kingdom

The chief of the elections watchdog has warned the UK is at risk of a “failed” election. 

John Pullinger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, told the The House magazine that MPs must begin an urgent overhaul of electoral law, citing issues with Voter ID, foreign interference as well as foreign donations to parties.

If MPs delay, he added, “the risk of something bad happening is going to be significantly greater”.

Pressed further on something “bad” might mean, he said: “[That] would be an election failed.”

Pullinger’s warning to ministers and MPs comes as peers warn government that changes to voter ID requirements are needed to stop people being locked out at the next election.

The House of Lords constitution committee has written to local government minister Simon Hoare to say that awareness of rules is “unacceptably low”.

Voter ID risks making Britain’s democracy less accessible to people with disabilities

The cross-party groupings also called for more forms of ID, such as rail passes, to be permitted.

The letter states: “The decision to introduce multiple changes to the electoral system simultaneously or in quick succession has placed a significant burden on a system with limited resilience and has introduced increased risk to the successful delivery of elections. 

It adds: “Scheduling the next general election ahead of the May 2024 local elections or combining a general election with the local elections could exacerbate this risk”.

In his interview with The House, Electoral Commission chief John Pullinger revealed he had spoken to 200 local authority chief executives who maintained they were under “very serious financial and staffing pressures”.

He said: “How worried should we be coming up to the next general election? A lot of them are under very serious financial and staffing pressures but they all have a personal responsibility as the returning officer for the locality to deliver this and they will pull out all the stops to do it.”

“They will have to pull things away from other services”, he added, 

He continued: “You just see something being stretched and stretched and stretched and I think we need collectively to worry about that. We are very fortunate in the UK that the public has very high levels of confidence in elections but if something doesn’t go quite right, it risks damaging that confidence. 

“Everybody involved is determined that doesn’t happen but it’s the implications of trying to rise to that challenge when it’s getting harder and harder.”

He has called on the government to allow a range of ID types in future polls, saying: “There’s a real question of whether they’ve got the balance right. The NHS card, for example, why wouldn’t you? I know a number of members of the police forces; a warrant card, surely, but it’s not on the list… I think it is a pity.”

Next election could face ‘serious disruption’ because of voter ID, experts warn

An Electoral Commission report, published in September, urged ministers to expand accessibility after voter ID rules prevented some from participating in May’s local elections.

The Electoral Commission’s report looked at data from 18 local authorities and found that the policy appears to be disproportionately hitting voters in certain marginalised groups.

Voters in deprived areas were found to be more likely to be blocked from voting than those in wealthier areas.

It also said that some people found it harder to vote in May because of the new rules, including disabled people, the unemployed, younger people and those from ethnic minority communities.

The Electoral Commission has also consistently said that the true figure for those denied a chance to vote by ID rules will be higher than recorded, as some of those who wanted to vote at polling stations might have turned away after reading the requirements at the entrance but were not formally noted.

In his interview with The House, Pullinger also argued that his agency needs more powers to protect UK elections from foreign interference.

The Electoral Commission chief said he has written to security minister Tom Tugendhat earlier this year asking for such measures.

But he revealed a response was not forthcoming her more than six months, adding: “I was frustrated. I wasn’t getting any response at one stage”.

Source

Rishi Sunak has confirmed this evening that a general election will be held next year in 2024, despite speculation that the prime minister could hold off until January 2025. 

Under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, January 2025 is the latest the prime minister could hold an election according to law. 

According to the Act, if an election was not called by 17 December 2024, parliament would automatically dissolve and the election would take place 25 working days later.

The 17 December 2024 is exactly five years since parliament first met after the last general election, held in 2019.

NEW: At press gallery drinks in No 10 this evening, Rishi Sunak tells lobby journalists to look forward to a general election that “WILL be in 2024”

Ruling out a January 2025 election, and suggesting he may already have a date in mind…

— Josh Self (@Josh_Self_) December 18, 2023

Under these circumstances, now ruled out by the prime minister, this means the latest date for the next general election is 28 January 2025.

Speaking to lobby journalists at a press gallery drinks reception in No 10 Downing Street, Rishi Sunak confirmed an election “will” be held next year. 

It rules out the January “very long” option for Sunak, which had been suggested as a last resort for the prime minister. 

So (very) ‘long’, prime minister: a January 2025 election has never looked more likely

It raises the possibility that Sunak could call an election while still far behind in the polls. 

However, the PM’s statement this evening still leaves open a range of possibilities when it comes to election timing.

One of the scenarios that is most frequently referenced is a Spring election, which would see the prime minister go to the electorate some distance earlier than he is required by law. 

Another, potentially more likely scenario if the polls continue to prove inflexible over the coming year, is that the prime minister will call an election in autumn 2024. 

Commenting recently on his plans for the next election, Rishi Sunak told the Spectator: “The choice at the next election is between me and Keir Starmer. A Labour party that wants to borrow £28 billion a year is not going to control welfare or public spending. A Conservative party is going to do those things – and cut your taxes instead”.

How Rishi Sunak could fight a ‘stop the boats election’

Source

As chair of the House of Commons health and social care select committee, one of the privileges I have is to encounter stories from across the NHS of people working hard to improve our health system. Be it the doctors and nurses developing innovative ways of working through our Clinical Entrepreneur Programme, or those trying to make digital healthcare work for patients across the country.

As I discovered at the Medical Technology Group’s reception in parliament, it can also be patients. Maree is a mum from Yorkshire who was born with a rare disease that affects her muscle and bone growth. Initially she was turned away from undergoing overly complex surgery, but thanks to a partnership between her clinicians and medical technology designers, she was able to undergo life changing hip surgery.

Maree’s story is a demonstration of what “patient power” can bring to the NHS. Often in healthcare, we can be overly focused on hitting targets and metrics, forgetting that at the heart of all we do is the patient. An overlooked aspect of this approach is that patients have a valuable insight into not just their condition, but those of others all around the country like them.

The NHS is set to undergo exciting transformation in the next decade, with an array of innovative new technologies and a drive to better use data to build the NHS around an in-depth understanding of how to keep people healthy and happy in their communities. The inaugural Medical Technology Strategy announced at the start of the year will aim to deliver this vision, while also ensuring the best evidence-based medical technologies and treatments are used on the NHS.

Placing patients at the heart of this transformation is vital to getting the most out of this change. As with many instances of innovation and world class care on the NHS, there are already pockets of best practice when it comes to harnessing patient power. As highlighted by the MTG’s work, there is much to improve on for NHS trusts up and down the country when it comes to meaningful patient involvement.

In theory, placing people and communities at the heart of healthcare is already ingrained into the new ICSs. When they became statutory bodies, they were expected to develop a system-wide strategy for engaging with people and communities. However, as the MTG has often found, all too often patient involvement is merely a tick box exercise. This slow progress has undoubtedly been hindered by the unprecedented stress on our healthcare system, but there are instances where certain ICSs and their boards are pioneering this approach to delivering patient-centric healthcare.

Cheshire and Merseyside ICB, for example, is leading the way with ‘citizen panels’ that ensure patients are properly involved in decision-making, recruiting up to a thousand people in the area to understand how lived experience can shape and influence the delivery and development of health and care services. In Derbyshire, a new initiative called the Patient and Public Partner (PPP) role is using those with extensive experience across the health and social care landscape to help healthcare providers embrace potential changes with a view on the patient’s perspective, ensuring patients are full participants in decisions that affect them.

It’s examples like these that show our health service is already leading the way when it comes to involving patients in their healthcare. There are areas in which both government and NHS England can also lead this development. The Department for Health and Social Care could publish guidance requiring patient representation on ICBs, while the Care Quality Commission could be given more freedom to scrutinise the level of patient involvement being carried out by ICSs and ICBs. Such initiatives would go a long way in ensuring that the best practice already seen in the NHS is scaled out to benefit every patient in the country.

Harnessing patient power, and using the lived experience of patients like Maree can play a pivotal role in transforming the NHS. Not only can it ensure services deliver for the needs of the local population, it can also guarantee better outcomes for patients via personalised and tailored care, while ensuring that every patient in the country receives the best possible treatment available on the NHS.

Source

A leading backbench Conservative MP has suggested his party will never “get back into power” unless it makes a commitment to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.

Danny Kruger, who co-chairs the New Conservatives with Miriam Cates, was speaking to the Inside Whitehall podcast — which is hosted by fellow Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis and former government adviser James Starkie. 

Kruger said: “I don’t think we will ever get back into power, if we go out of power. And frankly, I think we’re going to struggle at the next without this as well. 

“So I think the next election we win will be one in which we’re standing to leave the ECHR.”

Kruger, as the New Conservatives’ co-chair, was one of the 29 Conservative MPs to abstain on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill at its second reading in the House of Commons last week. 

Rwanda bill: Robert Jenrick dismisses ‘contested notions of international law’

Speaking in the debate, Kruger said: “I recognise the progress that the government have made to improve capacity but … we have significant concerns about the system getting gummed up with legal claims that are still allowable under the Bill. 

“We are also concerned about the potential continued operation of rule 39 orders from the Strasbourg Court”.

He added: “I regret that we have an unsatisfactory Bill before us. I cannot undertake to support it tonight. I hope that the government will agree to pull the Bill and allow us to work with them and colleagues across the House to produce a better Bill; one that respects parliamentary sovereignty and satisfies the legitimate concerns of colleagues about vulnerable individuals. 

“For instance, we can do better on safe and legal routes. We should be working together with other countries to design a system that respects the sovereignty of Parliament and the legitimate rule of independent nations”.

Watch moment Rwanda bill passes second reading amid Conservative rebel abstentions

The government’s Rwanda bill will return to parliament in the New Year for its final commons stages, when critical MPs like Kruger and his colleagues in the so-called “five families” are expected to propose amendments. 

It comes as Conservative moderates in the One Nation grouping of MPs state their intention to fight back against any further radicalisation of the bill, including in its approach to the ECHR.

A new grouping, backed by the Bright Blue think tank, and called the Bright Blue Community, has been set up ahead of the showdown over the bill in January.

According to a report in The Times newspaper, the grouping is supported by more than 20 MPs, among whom nearly half are former ministers.

It also comes as Sir Robert Buckland, a former cabinet minister and member of the One Nation group, considers tabling an amendment of his own in January to ensure that the proposed Rwanda legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 

“It could get support from across the House, unlike amendments that may be tabled by the right”, Buckland told The Guardian. 

Week-in-Review: The political inanity of Rishi Sunak vs the ‘five families’

Source

Leading Conservative MP Miriam Cates has been placed under investigation by parliament’s standards watchdog.

The backbench MP is facing claims that she has caused “significant damage to the reputation of the House as a whole, or of its members generally”.

However, it is not known what the investigation — opened on December 14 — relates to.

Those under investigation by Standards Commissioner Daniel Greenberg are also barred from discussing the allegations.

Cates was elected as MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge in 2019, winning the seat from the Labour Party. 

In parliament, she has become a leading figure of the right-wing New Conservatives group.

The New Conservatives is one of the so-called “five families” of right-wing party factions seeking to strengthen the government’s legislation to implement the Rwanda deportation plan.

She has also been outspoken in her concern about declining fertility rates in Britain, claiming the declining birth rate in the UK was partly down to “cultural Marxism” and increased numbers of people going to university.

Cates is now one of eight MPs currently being investigated by standards commissioner Daniel Greenberg.

Others include senior Conservative MP Sir Bernard Jenkin, deputy speaker Dame Eleanor Laing and the Reclaim MP Andrew Bridgen.

Week-in-Review: The political inanity of Rishi Sunak vs the ‘five families’

Source

Levelling up secretary Michael Gove is being called to subject himself to “questioning and scrutiny” from MPs over the controversy relating to PPE firm Medpro.

Gove, who served as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the Covid pandemic, was referenced by Baroness Mone in her recent interview with the BBC.

In the interview, conducted by Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday, Baroness Michelle Mone admitted she did not tell the full truth about her links to the PPE firm.

However, she added that she and her husband have “no case to answer”.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has issued breach of contract proceedings over a 2020 deal on the supply of gowns.

The National Crime Agency is investigating the company. 

Baroness Mone told the BBC she contacted Michael Gove at the beginning of the pandemic following a “call to arms” for Lords, baronesses, MPs and senior civil servants to help provide the “massive quantities of PPE” needed for the pandemic.

She told the BBC: “I just said, ‘We can help, and we want to help.’ And [Gove] was like, ‘Oh my goodness, this is amazing’”.

Pressed on whether she stands to benefit from the deal, Baroness Mone said: “If one day, if, God forbid, my husband passes away before me, then I am a beneficiary, as well as his children and my children, so, yes, of course”.

She said her life had been “destroyed” by allegations about their PPE profits, even though “we’ve only done one thing, which was lie to the press to say we weren’t involved”.

She said that was “not a crime”, adding: “No one deserves this.”

Shadow cabinet office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has now called on Michael Gove to answer questions following her claim.

In a letter to Gove, Thomas-Symonds said: “This series of events has led to civil litigation and a National Crime Agency investigation.

“Yet these ongoing matters should not preclude you from addressing questions about your own involvement and the role of the government.

“Events so far expose a shocking recklessness by the Conservative government with regard to public money, and a sorry tale of incompetence in relation to the so-called ‘VIP Lane’ for procurement during the pandemic.”

The Labour frontbencher said Gove should answer questions about the so-called “call to arms” referenced by Baroness Mone.

He said: “The very least Conservative ministers owe is maximum possible transparency and there should be an urgent statement to parliament before the Christmas recess”.

He added: “It is vital that mistakes are addressed, wasted money recouped, and vital lessons learned about the conduct of Government. As a result, I call on you to take the following urgent steps:

• 
  

  Come before parliament yourself to update MPs on this issue and subject yourself to questioning and scrutiny;

• Indicate what plans the Government is making to return any money to the public purse that can now be recouped;

• Introduce a Covid Corruption Commissioner as the Labour Party is asking for to pursue those who profited from the carnival of waste and ineptitude during the pandemic. You will be aware that the estimated cost to the taxpayer of wasted, failed or overpriced PPE contracts runs into billions of pounds.

In a post of X (formerly Twitter) publicising the letter, Thomas-Symonds said: “The Baroness Mone crisis gets ever murkier for the Tories with an admission that lies were told to the public, an ongoing NCA investigation and tens of millions of taxpayers’ money at stake.

“I’ve written to Michael Gove demanding he comes to Parliament to face scrutiny”.

Following Baroness Mone’s interview on Sunday, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves posted on X: “Failed [and] overpriced PPE contracts = £8.7bn. Public money lost to Covid fraud after warnings were ignored = £7.2bn. £15.9bn of taxpayers’ money lost [and Rishi Sunak] signed the cheques

“Labour’s Covid Corruption Commissioner will clawback every [pound] we can”.

In December 2022, Baroness Mone said she was taking a leave of absence from the Lords in order to “clear her name”.

Speaking yesterday, deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden said there were “no favours or special treatment” involved in PPE procurement and said it was “categorically not the case” that cronyism was involved in the “VIP lane”.

“The government’s intention in respect of that was to make sure that if legitimate claims came forward, we’d process them quickly”, he said.

“There were no favours or special treatment.”

Source

The only visible part of the child’s body is her hand. It’s paper white. An ugly brown stain of blood runs along the wrist. It twitches once, twice. Then it goes still. A pale scar in the grey rubble. Soon we won’t see videos like this. Israel has banned independent journalists from Gaza. But children will almost certainly continue to die. One can (and should) fully condemn terrorism and still believe that kid should be alive today.

Israel could be a beacon for the world. Established in the shadow of genocide (in spite of the bungling of a declining British Empire), it became the Middle East’s first democracy. Israel was a homeland for a people persecuted for centuries. It could be those things again. Yet, in recent years, Israel has descended into the politics of an authoritarian far right.

The Israeli government and its supporters brook no dissent. Western politicians seem almost afraid to criticise Israel. There is an increasing trend to label any criticism of Israeli policy “antisemitic”.  The UN General Assembly was “the most antisemitic organisation in the world” because it called for a ceasefire. Amnesty International was so branded for saying that both sides in the Gaza conflict have likely committed war crimes. The hundreds of thousands who marched through London every Saturday, demanding nothing more than peace, are supposedly part of a vast antisemitic conspiracy.

Antisemitism is real. Both antisemitic and Islamophobic violence has increased in the UK since 7 October. Ironically, many of the loudest voices supporting the obliteration of Gazans also promote the antisemitic conspiracy theories. Douglas Murray, one of the Israeli regime’s most loyal defenders, also embraces the “great replacement” conspiracy theory (a global elite is secretly causing Europe to commit “suicide” by using Muslim immigration to undermine white, Christian culture). The theory originated as an antisemitic trope.  Suella Braverman, who described demonstrators calling for a ceasefire as “hate marchers”, also espouses the “cultural Marxism” conspiracy theory.

Separating criticism of Israeli policy and government from antisemitic hatred is not only possible but necessary. As the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance points out:

… criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Rejecting antisemitism means acknowledging Israel’s legitimacy and statehood. But that also requires us to hold Israel to the same standards as other states.

There is, at the very least, a case to answer. Israel is fighting a terrorist group which explicitly calls for its annihilation. But that doesn’t absolve Israel from the rules which apply to civilised states. Israel’s leaders have been quite explicit about their intentions. They are fighting “human animals… [so] will eliminate everything” (Defence Minister Yoav Gallant), “there is one and only one solution, which is to completely destroy Gaza…” (Politician Moshe Feiglin). Benjamin Netanyahu publicly quoted 1 Samuel 15:3, a verse generally interpreted as calling for genocide. When combined with the IDF’s indiscriminate bombing, and mass killing of civilians, Israeli actions begin to look like “the total or partial killing or forced removal of an ethnic group with the aim or intention of wholly or partially destroying that group”.  The definition of genocide.

Israel’s immediate default to carpet bombing, humiliation and torture of prisoners, setting fire to civilian food and water supplies, and firing on civilian ambulances may all be prima facie war crimes. They breach the Geneva Conventions’ prohibitions on indiscriminate killing (even in self-defence) mistreatment of prisoners, and duty to protect civilian life. The IDF claimed that parading almost naked prisoners on camera with their trousers around their ankles was a necessary precaution to check for suicide vests. This was quickly debunked by military experts.

The killing or persecution of part of an ethnic group (even if there is no intent to eliminate the group as a whole) is a crime against humanity, the most serious international crime after genocide. Even Israeli NGOs, like B’Tselem, accuse the Israeli regime of unlawfully persecuting Palestinians. Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s declaration that “There are no innocent civilians in Gaza…” certainly smacks of an authorisation for collective punishment.

Israeli regime advocates often complain that Israel is unfairly treated in international bodies (again alleging antisemitism). Some of these accusations are undoubtedly true. There is strong evidence that some states use their positions on organisations like the UN Human Rights Council to attack Israel through diplomatic channels. But the death toll in Gaza is not an antisemitic conspiracy theory. It is chillingly verifiable.

It is difficult to imagine that any decent person would not support the punishment of the Hamas terrorists who invaded Israel on October 7^th. But, by the same token, those responsible for Israeli crimes against Palestinians must also be punished. Israel must exist. Antisemitism must be stamped out. Those responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity must be stopped and brought to justice. These should not be contradictory statements. Those of us who believe in the importance of Israel must also be ready to hold its leaders to account.

Source