Tag: United Kingdom

The parliamentary commissioner for standards has upheld five allegations of bullying and one of sexual misconduct against Conservative MP Peter Bone. 

Bone could now be banned from parliament for six weeks, paving the way for another potential by-election and headache for Rishi Sunak.

The Wellingborough MP, who served as Deputy Leader of the House of Commons in 2022, was found by parliament’s Independent Expert Panel (IEP), which rules on complaints against MPs, to have “committed many varied acts of bullying and one act of sexual misconduct” against a member of his staff in 2012 and 2013.

In a statement, Bone, 70, dismissed the IEP report as false and untrue.

“As I have maintained throughout these proceedings, none of the misconduct allegations against me ever took place,” he said.

“They are false and untrue claims. They are without foundation.”

He said the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) investigation into him “was flawed, procedurally unfair and didn’t comply with its own rules and regulations”.

The complaints included four allegations of bullying, detailing that Mr Bone “verbally belittled, ridiculed, abused and humiliated” his employee and “repeatedly physically struck and threw things” at him.

In its findings, the IEP said: “This is a serious case of misconduct. The bullying involved violence, shouting and swearing, mocking, belittling and humiliating behaviour, and ostracism.

“This wilful pattern of bullying also included an unwanted incident of sexual misconduct, when the complainant was trapped in a room with the respondent in a hotel in Madrid. This was a deliberate and conscious abuse of power using a sexual mechanism: indecent exposure.”

The Liberal Democrats have called for the prime minister to withdraw the Conservative whip from Bone.

Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said Britain deserves better than “endless Conservative Party sleaze and scandal”.

She added: “Rishi Sunak needs to remove the whip from Peter Bone and call on him to resign. There is no place anywhere in our society for this kind of sexual harassment and bullying.”

The recommended six-week suspension would trigger a recall petition if approved by parliament.

Bone has an 18,540 majority in the seat, smaller than that overturned by Labour MP Keir Mather in Selby and Ainsty in July.

Source

These are tantalising times for Liz Truss. Earlier this month, she stole the show at Conservative Party conference with her packed-out fringe event; Nigel Farage, Priti Patel and Jacob Rees-Mogg were among the adoring attendees as the former PM triumphantly insisted that the core tenets of the Trussite creed are, in spite of it all, correct.

“What we need to acknowledge is government is too big, taxes are too high and we are spending too much”, Truss argued as she laid out her case for growth. In terms of both bums on seats and column inches, she vastly outcompeted chancellor Jeremy Hunt, who took to the conference’s main stage at around the same time. 

But Truss was not only a hot topic at Conservative Party conference. A week later in Liverpool, the former PM’s mere mention provided an easy laugh line for Labour’s mainstage speakers. Recounting Rishi Sunak’s recent travails, Keir Starmer was only five lines into his speech before he declared: “I’m beginning to see why Liz Truss won. Although I still think we’d be better off with that lettuce”.

What is clear: over a year after the disastrous mini-budget, Trussonomics has yet to find its way into the dustbin of history. Both its lead advocate and namesake, Truss, as well as its most prominent opponents, the Labour frontbench, are battling to keep it centre stage. Rishi Sunak, who still refuses to directly rebuke his predecessor, plays his usual role as spectator. 

And with news that the former PM plans to publish an “alternative budget” a week before Jeremy Hunt unveils his Autumn Statement in November, Truss has now secured her place in the narrative of this year’s crucial last fiscal statement. 

This “alternative budget”, already the subject of much mockery, will flow from the pens of the conclave of liberal economists collected within the Truss-patronised “Growth Commission”. Nominally, the former PM is the “convenor” of the commission and, when it launched in July, Truss sat in the audience debuting her new impression of an elder statesperson. As I noted at the time, this was “Trussonomics retreating to its intellectual homestead: the realm of secretive policy institutes and think tanks”. 

Truss herself told reporters after the launch: “It’s a long game”. Now we know how Truss intends to play it. 

At the time, the ostensible thinking behind the Growth Commission was that it would act as a kind of shadow to “orthodox” institutions, curating economic models based on fundamentally antagonistic ideological assumptions: an office of budget irresponsibility, if you will.

But with the upcoming “alternative budget”, Truss’ grouping appears to be stepping outwith the bounds of this initial, deliberately wonkish, brief. Rather, it is now expected to propose policy on a range of areas, including on corporation tax, income tax and national insurance. Other things on the agenda are public sector spending, productivity as well as regulatory reforms.

I gave some credit to Truss at the time of the Commission’s launch: it thought the new group was doing something more interesting than Liz Truss revival project, as other commentators had suggested. But buoyed by her welcome at the Conservative Party conference, it appears Truss is, in fact, edging into overtly political territory. 

While the mere mention of a Truss-helmed “alternative budget” will send a shiver down the collective spine of Britain’s financier class, we should now view it for what it is: a new phalanx being pushed into the battle for political and intellectual supremacy in the Conservative Party. 

This, of course, means more bad news for Rishi Sunak. He is already facing an amassing Trussite rebellion, with more than 33 MPs in September having signed their name to a pledge not to vote for any more tax rises. And the former PM announced at her conference “growth rally” that the conclave of Trussite parliamentarians, termed the Conservative Growth Group, has swelled to 60 since it was set up in January. In theory, the caucus has the potential to inflict actual parliamentary damage on the prime minister if they choose to vote against him en masse.

Truss’ “alternative budget” gambit will now further expose Conservative splits. There is no hiding the difference of opinion between Truss and her successor as prime minister; in fact, their gulf in positioning is arguably made worse by the fact that Sunak refuses to lean into the debate and repudiate Trussonomics unambiguously. As with the vote(s) on the partygate report(s) into Boris Johnson and his allies, Sunak fears that provoking one of his predecessors will have dire party management implications.

But, moreover, Sunak probably calculates that engaging in a debate with Truss will proffer her vision some undue credibility. Sunak will, therefore, likely refuse to legitimise Truss’ Growth Commission by responding to its budget recommendations. But this means, in lieu of any ministerial repudiation, Truss loyalists will soak up the crucial pre-autumn statement oxygen. 

And it is great news for Labour, whose spokespersons are ever keen to leverage Truss’ fiscal loosening as part of their platform of economic credibility. Indeed, the throughline of everything the Labour Party has uttered since Kwasi Kwarteng delivered his doomed fiscal update in September last year is that Labour is now the party of sound economics.

Revelling in the Truss-induced factional fanfare over the past few months, Labour has called on Sunak to block the former PM’s resignation honour list; posted a social media graphic of Sunak in Truss’ pocket (Miliband- and Salmond-style) with the caption, “We know who’s really in charge”; claimed Truss is still leading the Conservative Party” at Labour conference via Rachel Reeves’ address; pledged to give the Office for Budget Responsibility greater powers if it wins the next general election to avoid another “disastrous” Truss-style implosion; and briefed out analysis about a “Tory mortgage penalty” flowing from the mini-budget. 

Crucially, the Mid-Bedfordshire constituency, which heads to the polls for a key by-election in Thursday, has the highest number of households with a mortgage in England and Wales (at 39.8%), according to the House of Commons library. (Note, this is according to the new constituency boundaries; the new Mid Beds maintains 80.7 per cent of the old constituency, with 0.1 per cent of Bedford appended). Still, in light of this, it is little surprise Labour is amping up its attacks on the “Tory mortgage penalty”. 

Thus, Truss’ alternative budget will be a moment of fresh danger for Rishi Sunak, and fresh opportunity for Keir Starmer and the Labour Party. The former PM, undoubtedly, remains Labour’s not-so-secret weapon.

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

Stephen Flynn, leader of SNP in Westminster, has said the leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer must accept the democratic will of Scotland if he becomes PM. 

Speaking to Sky News, Flynn said the SNP has added “more meat to the bones” of a potential referendum bid at party conference

“What we would like to see is the power of an independence referendum transferred from Westminster to Holyrood, but also some of the key levers to allow us to resolve the cost of living crisis”, he explained.

Turning to UK-wide politics, he said that Labour looks “increasingly likely” to win the next general election, and called upon Sir Keir Starmer to engage in discussions with the SNP over a potential referendum.

“If he believes himself to be a democrat and the Scottish National Party wins a majority of seats in the general election next year, which I’m very confident we will, he needs to heed the democratic view of the people of Scotland.”

Questioned by host Kay Burley about former SNP MP Lisa Cameron’s comments that the party was like a “cult”, Flynn said he simply does not recognise them “in any way, shape or form”, before adding that some of the threats she has received are disgusting.

Last week, Cameron he hit out at the SNP Westminster group for failing to reach out during a period in which she suffered a “significant deterioration” in her “health and wellbeing”, something she suggests came as a result of “bullying”.

She says she was the “victim of abuse at the hands of an SNP MP” and adds that the “leadership supported the perpetrator’s interests”.

She also praised praised Rishi Sunak for “valuing my continued contribution to Parliament as a health professional”.

Her defection came days before the SNP annual conference got underway in Aberdeen. The get-together, which closes today with leader Humza Yousaf’s speech, has been dominated by independence strategy.

The SNP resolved at party conference that it will seek to open negotiations with the UK government if it wins a majority of seats at the next general election.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

Andrew Mitchell has said this morning that Israel has a “moral and a practical responsibility” to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

The Minister of State for Development told Times Radio that “we stand absolutely foursquare behind Israel’s right to defend itself”. However, he added: “But all of us want to see the fighting contained”.

Yesterday, prime minister Rishi Sunak announced the UK will increase international aid to Palestinians by a third with an additional £10m of support.

It comes as Israel is poised to launch a ground offensive on the Gaza Strip. It follows the attack from Hamas which killed at least 1,300 Israeli civilians earlier this month. 

Israel has ordered Gaza’s population of 1.1 million to move to the south of the territory. It is an order that has faced criticism as many argue such a movement of so many people is practically impossible.

The UN estimates that over 1 million Palestinians have been displaced so far. 

Prior to the recent escalation of hostilities, the UN estimated that nearly 60 per cent of people in Gaza already needed humanitarian assistance, including over 1.5 million people in need of food assistance and 1.6 million in need of health and nutrition assistance.

Giving a statement to the House of Commons on Monday afternoon, the prime minister announced an increase in international aid, along with a commitment to increasing the UK’s regional engagement in the Middle East to prevent further escalation of the conflict.

“I’m proud that we are a long standing and significant provider of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people”, he said.

“I can announce today that we are increasing our aid by a third, with an additional £10m of support. An acute humanitarian crisis is unfolding, to which we must respond.”

He added that Israel’s right to defend itself “must be done in line with international humanitarian law, but also recognising that they face a vicious enemy that embeds itself behind civilians”, he said.

“As a friend, we will continue to call on Israel to take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians.”

Asked this morning on Sky News whether Israel had a right to “cross any border” and go so far as targeting Hamas leaders who are in Qatar, Mitchell said: “The Hamas leaders are guilty of the most heinous crime and the Israeli government will either hunt them down and bring them to justice or they will be killed during the course of the military action that takes place.”

Pivoting to Gaza itself, he said that any plan to allow civilians out of the Gaza Strip would “certainly” involve the Rafah Crossing on the Egyptian border, before adding that the UK was involved in discussions.

There is no concrete plan as it stands, however.

Source

I have a theory about party conferences. It’s that these annual fêtes of activists and parliamentarians amplify and embed — rather than reveal or upend — emergent trends within the hosting party.

It means, when it comes to conference season, outsider preconceptions are everything. In Manchester, Rishi Sunak had plans to refresh his premiership; but the fringe, and hence the commentariat, advanced a rather different reality. Then the press gallery gushed to Labour conference in Liverpool primed to frame their columns around a Tory incompetence-versus-Starmerite stolidity dichotomy.

So what does this mean for the SNP? Certainly, the past two weeks have been particularly bruising for Humza Yousaf’s party following the loss of the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election to Scottish Labour and the defection of MP Lisa Cameron to the Scottish Conservatives.

Meanwhile, Fergus Ewing, whose mother Winnie (of Hamilton 1967 by-election fame) died recently, is currently suspended for criticising the SNP’s coalition with the Greens. And other senior separatists including Kate Forbes, runner-up to Humza Yousaf in the party’s leadership contest earlier this year; Ash Regan, the race’s also-ran; Alex Neil, the former Holyrood health secretary; and Angus MacNeil, now an independent MP after a bust-up with the Westminster Group, are all no-shows.

But, all this aside (not to mention the ongoing police probe into party finances), there is a rather more significant undercurrent at SNP conference. Nicola Sturgeon had once insisted that this Thursday, 19 October 2023, would serve as the date of Scotland’s second independence referendum. But on Sunday, SNP delegates gathered for a rethink of the party’s strategy, with no IndyRef2 in sight.

The task facing first minister Humza Yousaf this conference is manifold, therefore, as he attempts to present his party as united and progressing amid deep internal ructions and yearning for what might have been. Expectation management has never been the SNP’s forté, but in Aberdeen Yousaf probably has little option. 

The first minister’s essential bind is between breathless independence supporters, who insist the SNP march on with its core mission, and the wider Scottish public who are losing faith in the party — if not, yet, independence. Indeed, despite the SNP’s party-political travails, support for separation is holding pretty steady.

So top of the agenda for Yousaf this party conference has been to settle on an independence strategy which commands broad support in the SNP, is realistic and might spur the salience of the “constitutional question”. Independence is popular but not at the top of the agenda with many Scottish voters — Yousaf must ensure it rises before 2024. 

In this way, the self-styled “first activist” appeared to strike the right tone on Sunday as he told activists that they “must move on from talking about [independence] process to talking about policy”. “It is with honesty that I tell you there is no short cut that will get us independence”, he said. “I tell you what will: listening, campaigning and persuading.”

Rhetoric aside, the reason Yousaf needs a new strategy for independence is because activists failed to embrace former first minister Nicola Sturgeon’s “Plan C” for independence: to fight the next UK election, expected in 2024, on the single issue of separation. (If you are keeping track, Plan A was to win a majority for IndyRef2 at Holyrood in the 2021 elections in the hope of persuading UK ministers to back it; Plan B was to pursue a bill anyway and take the UK government to the Supreme Court). 

But to suggest that Sturgeon’s “de facto referendum” gambit was Plan C is, in truth, pretty generous. Under Sturgeon, a post IndyRef1 Plan A (so essentially Plan B) was contained in the SNP’s 2015 election manifesto: to hold a referendum by the end of 2017. This was later scrapped in favour of a “common sense” vote in the autumn of 2018. When this approach was found wanting, Sturgeon talked up a new “referendum bill” which would see IndyRef2 held before the end of the Scottish parliamentary session in May 2021. Then came Sturgeon’s plan to win a majority at the 2021 for IndyRef2 at Holyrood, and her subsequent defeat in the Supreme Court.

Now in 2023, the SNP is running out of alphabet — and the ostensible strategic consensus Yousaf cohered this conference was therefore not before its time. 

So what does the road to Scottish independence now look like? According to SNP activists, it runs through winning a majority of Scottish seats at the next general election. Then the Scottish government, currently composed of pro-independence SNP and Scottish Green ministers, would “begin immediate negotiations with the UK government to give democratic effect to Scotland becoming an independent country”.

Speaking in the debate, Yousaf described the “de facto referendum” plan of his predecessor as the “wrong approach”. The FM’s messaging works as a signal that the strategic gimmicks of the Sturgeon years are behind the SNP — and delegates voted overwhelmingly, and therefore symbolically, in favour of his new approach. Another significant moment came when Joanna Cherry, a perennial thorn in the side of Sturgeon’s leadership, signalled she would back Yousaf’s motion. Cherry had a dig at Sturgeon, saying that under Yousaf and Westminster Group leader Stephen Flynn, the SNP was returning to being a party of “respectful and reasoned debate”.

But Cherry also won a concession from the leadership with her plan for a constitutional convention set to be “constituted by the MPs elected to Westminster. MSPs and representatives of civic Scotland”. It means a further, if vague, tactical shift (details beyond the body’s composition are conspicuously absent).

The question that flows from all this is does Yousaf really think there will be mileage in, after the next election, declaring a mandate for independence of a majority of Scottish parliamentary seats — with a convention somewhere along the line?

On the surface, it seems politically maladroit — a strategy to shore up the SNP base rather than a plan for independence. Because there is simply no chance of Westminster, whoever is in government after 2024, regarding a majority of seats won at a general election as an expression of Scotland’s “settled will” in favour of independence. 

Indeed, this was the strategy the SNP opted for in 2017; and the party fell victim to significant unionist tactical voting campaign. There is the possibility, therefore, albeit a distant one, that the SNP might not win a majority of Scottish seats in 2024 — especially considering the rise of Scottish Labour over recent months. 

In this way, Yousaf appears to be storing up pain for his party, and, despite the rhetoric, retreating into the realm of strategic gimmicks that characterised Sturgeon’s tenure as first minister. 

Here are some further outstanding questions: how will Yousaf frame the narrative post-2024 when Westminster inevitably says “no” to his calls for negotiations? What might this mean for the Holyrood election in 2026? Cherry, for one, who backed Yousaf on his general election strategy, has said the option of a “de facto referendum” strategy should be kept open — including for the 2026 Scottish parliament election.

The first minister’s key line so far this conference — that “there is no shortcut that will get us to independence” — is belied by his strategy which, in essence, professes to offer exactly that. 

It is also worth bearing in mind the paths not taken by the SNP in Aberdeen. Pete Wishart, the veteran MP, argued at conference that the party should treat every election as a de-facto referendum and that “we keep on doing it — until they properly engage, or we win, which we will most definitely do”.

The SNP also rejected another amendment from Cherry that suggested a majority of votes for pro-independence parties — therefore, including outfits like former first minister Alex Salmond’s Alba party and the Scottish Greens — would operate as a mandate for independence. 

Of course, both Cherry and Wishart’s amendments do not square the circle regarding Westminster’s ability to refuse to engage on IndyRef2. But Yousaf will need to further explain over the coming weeks and months why his strategy is a realistic way forward for independence — with other options rejected. 

And all the while, Scottish Labour will be sitting back watching the turmoil unfold. Alex Salmond has said he feels like he is “witnessing a car crash in slow motion” as Labour closes the gap on the SNP in the polls. The end of the the party’s 16-year ascendancy in Scotland, despite some personal wins for Humza Yousaf over the past few days, has, in this way, never seemed more likely. 

So, has SNP conference helped combat the perception that the party is at a strategic dead end? No. 

There will also be no disguising the fact that when parliament returns at 2.30 pm today, there will be two fewer Scottish nationalists among the SNP Westminster group, (following Cameron’s defection and the Rutherglen by-election loss), than there were when it rose. In 2024, after a difficult general election for the party, there may be considerably less still. But, in this eventuality, Yousaf will nonetheless argue that the result operates as a mandate to open negotiations about IndyRef2. 

That is the trajectory the SNP has now decided for itself.  

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

A defence minister has called the “celebration and glorification” of Hamas’ attack on Israel “despicable” this morning.

James Heappey, the armed forces minister, was referring to pictures of a pro-Palestine demonstration in London on Saturday which appeared to show two women wearing images of paragliders.

Paragliders were used by Hamas during their deadly attack on civilians in Israel last weekend, leaving some 1,300 people dead.

Hamas sent terrorists on paragliders to a rave in Israel where they massacred the civilians so it's important to tape images of paragliders to your clothes at a pro Palestine demonstration. pic.twitter.com/0By0sbs3yT

— Harry's Place (@hurryupharry) October 14, 2023

Metropolitan Police officers investigating a public order offence have released a picture of the two women in the hope of identifying them.

In total, seven arrests were made during the London demonstration, four in breach of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, two for public order offences and one for criminal damage.

Asked this morning on Sky News about the demonstration, Heappey said: “I think that that celebration, glorification of what happened last Saturday is despicable. 

“I was a soldier now I’m a minister in defence. Never once have I celebrated the demise of my adversaries. And so even if those women who were wearing those stickers regard Israelis as their enemy, even if they want to see … the state of Israel [removed]”.

He added: “The idea that they celebrate and glorify that loss of human life is just despicable to me, and I’m glad the police are acting. I hope that those two particularly are found”.

Since last weekend, there has been a rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents reported to the Metropolitan police.

Before the protests on Saturday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said: “Our role as an independent and impartial service is to balance the right to lawful protest with potential disruption to Londoners.

“People do not have the right to incite violence or hatred. The law is clear that support for proscribed organisations is illegal.

“Anyone with a flag in support of Hamas or any other proscribed terrorist organisation will be arrested.

“We will not tolerate the celebration of terrorism or death, or tolerate anyone inciting violence.”

In the United States, Black Lives Matter Chicago was forced to apologise earlier this week after sharing a picture of a paraglider with the message “Free Palestine”.

The organisation tweeted on October 10: “Yesterday we sent out [messages] that we aren’t proud of. We stand with Palestine & the people who will do what they must to live free. Our hearts are with, the grieving mothers, those rescuing babies from rubble, who are in danger of being wiped out completely.”

Source