Tag: United Kingdom

The Downing Street official dubbed “Party Marty” and former chief adviser to Boris Johnson Dominic Cummings are among those scheduled to give testimony to the Covid inquiry this week. 

After four months of hearings, the accounts given by Cummings, Martin Reynolds as well as Lee Cain, his ex-communications chief, will provide potentially damning insight into the work of Boris Johnson’s Downing Street operation.

Reynolds, or “Party Marty”, was so dubbed after it was revealed he sent an email to more than 100 Downing Street staff about a “bring your own booze” event during the first lockdown. 

He will be questioned by the inquiry this morning in a session beginning at 10.30 am. 

Cummings takes centre stage on Tuesday in his first major public appearance since his evidence session before a committee MPs on the same topic of two years ago.

In that appearance, Cummings accused Johnson of not taking Covid seriously initially and suggested he changed his mind 10 times a day. He added that former health secretary Matt Hancock should have been sacked for lying.

He also said that his own trip to Barnard Castle, in County Durham, when he had Covid in 2020, which prompted his excuse that the excursion was to test his eyesight, had been a “terrible mistake”.

Former chancellor George Osborne has claimed that “disgusting and misogynistic” WhatsApp messages sent by Johnson and Cummings will be released as part of the inquiry’s workings this week.

Osborne told his podcast, co-hosted with former Labour cabinet minister Ed Balls: “From what I understand, there are some pretty staggering things that have been said on those WhatsApp messages … not just by Boris Johnson, but key advisers like Dominic Cummings. Really pretty disgusting language and misogynistic language.”

Alongside Cummings, Cain and Reynolds, other inquiry sessions this week involve former Deputy Cabinet Secretary Helen MacNamara on Wednesday, former NHS England Chief Executive Simon Stevens and DHSC perm sec Chris Wormald on Thursday.

The full list of attendees and timings can be found here. 

One notable absentee during this week’s round of evidence sessions will be cabinet secretary Simon Case who is on medical leave. 

As part of the inquiry’s proceedings, earlier this month it was revealed that scientific advisers had referred to Rishi Sunak as “Dr Death” following the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.

The exchange took place on 20 September 2020, with the message sent by Dame McLean.

Lead counsel Hugo Keith asked Professor John Edmunds whether the comments could have been made in relation to the “eat out to help out” scheme, championed by Sunak, which ran in August 2020.

Professor Edmunds replied: “Honestly, it’s so long ago I wouldn’t know, but it could well be.”

Naomi Fulop, spokesperson for Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, responded at the time: “This inquiry has made clear that there was absolutely no consultation with the government’s scientific advisers on Eat Out to Help Out, that it contributed to the loss of thousands of lives, put unnecessary pressure on the NHS and plunged the country into a brutal second lockdown.

“It’s unbearable to think that if it wasn’t for Rishi Sunak’s reckless, unscientific and callous approach, my mum might still be with me.

“When our current chief scientific adviser has referred to our prime minister as ‘Dr Death’, how can any of us have faith in our government if another pandemic strikes?”.

This latest batch of WhatsApp messages and emails shown at the Covid inquiry also seemed to indicate that Dame McLean called Stephen Powis, the medical director of NHS England, a “f***wit

Earlier this month, the inquiry heard that Angela McLean, who is now the government’s chief scientific adviser, referred to another leading scientist, Carl Heneghan, as a “fuckwit”.

Source

The Brexit vote illustrated how public confidence in our political system was precarious and recent scandalous governments have shaken it to the foundations. People feel that they are not listened to, not cared for, ignored and sometimes even reviled. Yet when roused, our popular democracy can be a formidable beast, as we have seen in recent by-elections.

The Commission on Political Power, a grouping of people who have worked in and thought about  central and local government, has published four short papers looking at how this democracy could be improved, step by steady step. The most recent paper proposed ideas for increasing citizens’ engagement with political power.

There is always good news and that must come first. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are participating in political power at every level. These people are elected councillors, school governors, running food banks, youth groups, local newspapers and fairs. They are community leaders in the strongest sense and they have more influence than they realise. This is the fabric of democracy. It is not just political power at the centre.

The problem is that central political power is top heavy and needs to become more diffuse and there are ways that citizens can be more engaged so that political influence is spread more fairly.

One of the most exciting recent innovations is the development of citizens’ assemblies. These are groups of people chosen randomly, rather like juries, to learn about and come up with ideas for solving a problem. The best known example is that in Ireland that led the way to abortion and divorce reform. In the UK six House of Commons committees commissioned a citizens’ assembly on climate change which published a final report in 2020. What is interesting here is the difference in outcome. The Irish government sponsored the assemblies and committed to acting on their recommendation, whereas the British government has ignored the work of Parliament’s sponsored assembly.

Deliberative processes like citizens’ assemblies are tools that can help us find a way through contentious issues and inform decision making. This is absolutely not mob rule, the assemblies ask a lot from the participants who have to devote considerable time to consideration of sometimes technical and complex information from experts and who have to listen to competing ideas. But, they do work. At the end, the wisdom of the crowd is encouraging and should be used to guide governance.

The most alienated from political decision making are young people and because they have the biggest stake as they are going to be around longer than we older people we need to make an effort to engage them. Young people do not easily see traditional forms of representation as the answer but there are examples of how young people can be supported to become more empowered. Citizenship in schools is key, that does not mean just teaching about it in lessons but more importantly devolving power to young people within the institution.

The Commission looked at practical ways the public can be better informed and engaged in the political system. Campaigns headed by figures such as Jamie Oliver and Marcus Rashford have been influential. We think the media could be better used. The BBC Parliament is as dry as dust and could be better used to provide context.

As a former locally elected councillor I am passionate about local decision making and democracy. It has been deliberately disempowered and financially atrophied but is still, in outposts, representing and engaging with real energy. If we are to counter the view that political power resides in London, we need to revive local government. A case study is the Preston model where the council led other partners in the private and public sector like colleges, housing associations and the university to invest in the local economy to bring about community wealth.

The Commission looks at how civil society organisations can foster greater democratic engagement and accountability. Public appointments should be spread better and encouraged. The people who are magistrates or on the boards of visitors of prisons are old and white. Better recompense for employers to allow time off and better protection for decision making would encourage people who can show conspicuous merit but who come from different communities, like the young and working class, to be involved.

The demographic of MPs has changed. Conservatives MPs have always been drawn from a wealthy social class but Labour used to include trades union activists and the working class. Increasingly party candidates are people who have been apparatchiks. The introduction of primaries to select candidates for council and Parliament would open them up to a wider constituency and engage local people in the choice. When the Conservative Party briefly experimented with open primaries it threw up some interesting and independently minded MPs.

Finally, the Commission looked at the ethics and output of the media which is corroding and corrupting politics. The demise of local journalism and local media has eroded public confidence and knowledge of politics. There is general concern about the malign influence of social media and its promotion of disinformation which is a genuine threat to democracy. The Commission calls for a long term strategy for change from the next government to revive local media and for controls on social media that is misleading.

These are small steps that could enhance public engagement and shift political power. There is no revolution here, but some ideas that could make a difference and improve democracy whilst shifting power. Disengagement and disenchantment must be dealt with, or our political system needs to be reinvigorated.

Source

A plastic bottle takes approximately five seconds to produce in a factory. It takes around five minutes for you to drink and put it in the bin. This plastic bottle can then stay in our environment for five hundred years.

This “take-make-dispose” attitude to resource consumption is now rife across our economy and producing a mountain of waste along with it. To save money and resources, we need to change our ways. Becoming a more circular economy is how we can do this.

A circular economy is one that keeps our resources and materials in the economy for as long as possible, rather than using them once and then throwing them away. In order to do this, we need to embrace a plethora of resource management techniques, such as reusing, repairing, remanufacturing, recycling and reducing unnecessary waste wherever possible.

The waste measures in the Environment Act will create a better route for consumers to recycle their packaging waste. But packaging is only one source of waste and recycling is only one solution.

At 23.9kg per person per year, the UK is currently the world’s second largest producer of e-waste and is on track to take the top spot in the coming years. With the government in the process of reforming its existing Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment regulations (WEEE), the timing could not be better to tackle this growing waste stream.

Disposable vapes have become the poster child for this issue. We now buy 7.7 million single-use vapes a week and inside the plastic casing of these vapes hides enough lithium to power the batteries of 5,000 electric vehicles. Without sufficient recycling infrastructure and information in place, these critical resources are being wasted.

Existing regulations require retailers to provide a way for customers to correctly dispose of their e-waste when they are selling them a new version of it. This can take many forms and can see individual initiatives or multiple businesses clubbing together with one scheme.

Incentivised take-backs are becoming the norm, with big brands like Apple and Currys offering vouchers or money off the next purchase. But vapes that continue to litter our streets provide a clear example of how loopholes in the existing regulations need to be closed.

Disposable vapes are not designed to last so the need to recycle them is obvious. But the same is not always true for other sources of e-waste. Material Focus recently found that there are 7.5million unused electrical children’s toys hidden in UK households, but 72% of these toys still work. This story is the same for old phone chargers, games consoles, radios, phones, laptops, and DVD players, to name just a few products.

Breaking fully functioning goods down for recycling is not only unnecessary, but would represent an inefficient use of energy, materials, and carbon emissions. By hiding items away in our cupboards and out of action, we are required to extract new raw materials to keep up with our demand for products.

The problem is that consumers and businesses are not incentivised to see the value in old, but functioning tech. Not knowing what to do with it when you have finished with it means that a lot of these items are gathering dust in our cupboards rather than being donated or resold.

Providing routes to recycling is, therefore, only part of the solution. Although some products are more easily reused and repaired than others, we need a more holistic regulatory framework that encourages reuse, not just recycling. The existing WEEE regulations do not.

Although often spoken about in terms of pollution and carbon emissions, our increasing demand for resources, if not met by a supply of materials that we have already extracted, puts greater pressure on the natural environment. Moreover, by not providing appropriate methods for the disposal of the waste we create, we are enabling litterbugs, endangering wildlife and humans in the process.

E-waste is one example of how our linear approach to resource consumption is becoming the norm. Construction and fashion are two more. The truth is that our entire economy could benefit from the principles of the circular economy. Defra has its work cut out. But with packaging reforms in motion, and WEEE regulations being developed as we speak, the government can now pick its next target.

Source

As the UK government proudly hosts the AI Safety Summit next week, showcasing Britain as one of the leading nations in digital innovation, there is an unintended but contradictory narrative unfolding in the wings. 

The Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent today, stands in stark contrast to the UK’s ambition to be at the forefront of technology. While the summit aims to project the UK as a global player in AI, the Online Safety Act, with its potential to undermine end-to-end encryption, appears anti-business, illiberal and regressive, attracting criticism from both leading tech companies and human rights organisations.

End-to-end encryption ensures that only the sender and the recipient of a message can access its content. Intermediaries, be they messaging platforms, telecom companies or potential eavesdroppers, cannot decrypt these communications. This encryption is crucial for the confidentiality and security of digital conversations whether they be personal chats, support for dissidents living under authoritarian regimes, business communications or financial transactions.

However, the Online Safety Act, while well-intentioned, creates an unintended consequence which threatens the encrypted services that users, and innovation, rely on. Demanding tech companies create “backdoors” for accessing encrypted messages, may open the door to regulatory oversight, but it also makes it easier for malicious actors and repressive regimes to access messages.

It can be likened to providing keys to both the police and potential burglars. And here lies a serious unintended consequence of the Act: in striving for online safety,  it might inadvertently make online users more vulnerable.

For businesses, the ramifications are profound. Firstly, consider our burgeoning cybersecurity industry. The UK cybersecurity sector is thriving, contributing over $10.5 billion to our economy and providing tens of thousands of jobs. Undermining encryption not only threatens the integrity of this industry but also jeopardises the trust of its global clientele. If our cybersecurity standards are compromised, why would international clients entrust companies in the UK with their digital safety? Leading private messaging services, Whatsapp and Signal have threatened to pull out of the UK market should the Online Safety Act’s encryption-breaking powers be used, undermining attempts to promote the UK as a hub for digital enterprise.

Then, there’s the broader business landscape to consider. In an era where digital transactions are the norm, encryption acts as the bedrock of trust. Financial transactions, contact with those living under repressive regimes and proprietary business communications all rely on encryption for security. Weakening this protection will deter businesses and human rights organisations from operating in the UK or using UK-based digital platforms, fearing exposure to cyber threats.

Not least, the undermining of encryption sends a message to the rest of the world that the UK is willing to compromise on digital privacy and security for government access. In an age where data is a valuable resource, such a message could deter tech innovators and other businesses from investing or basing their global HQ in the UK.

A nation that projects itself as a tech leader at the AI Safety Summit should avoid simultaneously casting a shadow of doubt over its commitment to digital trust and security.

Previously, I’ve raised concerns over making apps vulnerable to attacks by “bad actors”, since when encryption is compromised, it’s not just the good guys who gain access; it’s also those with criminal intentions. The average economic cost of a data breach for UK companies stands at £3.2m. Nearly a third of UK companies polled in 2023 reported a data breach in the last 12 months. Given this, combined with the potential loss of intellectual property and diminished consumer trust from undermining encryption, the overall economic impact could be staggering

While most people would agree with the aims of the Online Safety Act in seeking to protect users, especially the vulnerable, from online harms, it’s crucial to ensure that in doing so, we don’t inadvertently expose other users to greater risks.

While the UK government rightly pursues an ambition to be a global tech leader, it should be wary of legislation that could undermine digital trust. It is essential to strike an appropriate balance between online safety and digital security. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

While we look forward to next week’s AI safety summit, we should also reflect on Global Encryption Day, which took place this week by championing strong encryption. For the UK to truly position itself as a global leader in technology and innovation, I hope the government will strongly defend digital privacy and security and introduce safeguards and reassurances for encryption through OFCOM’s upcoming code of conduct. The business community, and indeed our society at large, deserves nothing less.

Source

A senior shadow cabinet minister has admitted that people have been “upset and hurt” by Labour’s initial response to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Wes Streeting, the shadow secretary of state for health and social care, said that people wanted his party to be “louder and clearer” about the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza.

Asked if voters could be turned away from Labour as a result, Streeting said: “No, I think people have been upset and hurt and wanted us to be louder and clearer on the humanitarian crisis.”

The comments, issued on Sky News, come as tensions have emerged in the Labour Party over the party’s stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, with Labour leader Keir Starmer having been heavily criticised after an earlier interview with LBC.

In the interview with LBC, Starmer appeared to suggest that Israel had the right to withhold water and food from Palestinians in Gaza.

The presenter asked of Israel’s response to Hamas’ initial attack: “A siege is appropriate? Cutting off power, cutting off water?”. The Labour leader responded: “I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation.”

Starmer’s spokesman has since suggested that the LBC interview confused Labour’s position because “there were overlapping questions and answers based on what had been being said before”.

A subsequent visit to a Mosque was criticised after Starmer released a statement on X (formerly Twitter )which was considered by attendees to have “gravely misrepresented” the meeting. 

After the visit, a post on X from the Labour leader read: “I was grateful to hear from the Muslim community of the South Wales Islamic Centre.

“I repeated our calls for all hostages to be released, more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, for the water and power to be switched back on, and a renewed focus on the two state solution.”

The centre’s statement said: “We wish to stress Keir Starmer’s social media post and images gravely misrepresented our congregants and the nature of the visit.

“We affirm, unequivocally, the need for a free Palestine. We implore all those with political authority to uphold international law, and to end the occupation of Palestine.”

Keir Starmer yesterday met concerned Muslim MPs and Peers with deputy leader Angela Rayner. 

The meeting, which came as at least 20 Labour councillors have resigned from the party in protest at its positioning, saw senior figures discuss the backlash to Labour’s stance on the conflict in Israel and Gaza.

In the meeting, Starmer did not back calls for a ceasefire, instead saying Labour supports “humanitarian pauses”, mirroring the government’s position.

The position was repeated by Streeting, who said UK politicians need to prioritise supporting Israel in getting hostages back from Gaza “and making sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen again”.

Streeting also told Sky News that Starmer, despite previous comments in the LBC interview, “doesn’t think it’s ok cut off power and water”.

“It was never Keir’s intention to give the impression that we support those measures,” he said.

“In interviews you have a sustained line of questioning — he was answering a previous question and not that one.”

Source