Tag: United Kingdom

As Suella Braverman stands to address her party faithful in Manchester this week, she has serious questions to answer about the failures of the department she oversees. And yet last week, instead of working to fix the mess that is the UK asylum system, she jetted off to the US to peddle an isolationist and flawed view of refugee law and policy, motivated it seems, more by self-promotion and political posturing than in tackling the real failures of her Governments broken asylum system.

The home secretary’s intervention was not the serious work of the leader in waiting she hopes to be, but yet more juvenile game playing. It makes Britain look small on the one hand and untrustworthy on the other and like many of the government’s recent announcements on refugee and asylum policy you have to question whether it was a serious intervention seeking solutions or yet more playing to their base for an upcoming leadership election.

The thesis of her speech was that the definition of a refugee has broadened so much that anyone who is gay or a woman could be granted refugee protection. This is just not true. In 2022 just 2% of all applications for asylum were made on the basis of sexual orientation and around three quarters of those applications were accepted as valid at initial decision.

The asylum system is currently failing, but with over 175,000 people currently in the asylum backlog that failure is not because of an upsurge in claims based on sexual orientation but more likely because the home secretary seems more interested in grandstanding than doing the hard work necessary to fix the problem.

The truth is the asylum process in the UK places a high bar on granting protection, it is rigorous and an individual has to have a strong and credible case, tested by independent evidence. Purely fearing discrimination, as the home secretary suggested, has never been enough to be considered as a refugee.

Her latest strategy appears to not only be saying that people who arrive irregularly into the UK cannot be asylum seekers, but now that also those who are granted refugee status are not actually refugees.

This is despicable. When we consider the movement of refugees across the globe, we need to have an international perspective. We cannot be isolationist, but accept we are in a connected world. We should be building alliances around the world in order to collaborate on how best to support refugees in our current age, not promoting the idea that they are not our “problem” or do not qualify for refuge — that is not grown up government.

The UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention is a hugely important international agreement, providing a framework to ensure that refugees are not returned to a country where they face persecution.

But the convention is not the reason why our asylum system is in a mess. If the home secretary wanted to fix our system, she could start with speeding up good quality decision making, growing safe routes for refugees and effectively and humanely removing those whose asylum application are not successful. Every day that she shifts blame or plays games is another day that the UK taxpayer continues to pay the mounting costs of her failure.

Not taking anyone who has travelled through France, whilst also blocking safe routes for asylum seekers to reach here is not a solution to the challenges we face. If every country followed that logic European border countries including Italy, Greece and Spain would face unsustainable pressures. Our British sense of fairness demands we give those desperate enough to travel here despite the dangers a least a fair hearing.

My question for the home secretary is what are her serious proposals to fix the failures of the asylum system. Her current arguments do not make sense if you follow them through, they are short termist and seem focused on self promotion rather than actually seeking to solve the challenges we face. This kind of shallow nonsense – that I can’t imagine she honestly believes – undermines the fragile international community, weakens the alliance of liberal democratic western nations and ultimately makes Britain look ridiculous.

I don’t expect to agree with our home secretary on everything, or even most things, but I and the British people should expect her to act with honesty, wisdom, intelligence and authority.  Looks like we’ve been expecting too much.

Source

Source

Unless the Conservatives pull off the mother of all comebacks between now and next year, it looks increasingly likely that Keir Starmer will be Britain’s next prime minister.  Whether he’ll move into Number Ten with a working majority, however, is a tricky question.

If an election were called tomorrow, then Labour could feel pretty confident of winning well in excess of 350 seats.  Trouble is it won’t be.  Turkeys, especially Tory turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and Sunak, if he follows the example of most of his predecessors, will hang on for as long as he can, hoping something will turn up.

There’s no guarantee, then, that the double-figures lead over the Tories which Labour currently enjoys will last until autumn 2024.  And don’t forget, either, that it’ll take an unprecedented 13-14 point swing to deliver it even the barest of bare majorities.

True, Starmer is now seen as a better bet by more voters than Sunak.  But his star-power doesn’t come close to matching Tony Blair’s in 1997.  Nor has the party’s recent performance in local elections so far matched what New Labour achieved in the run-up to its landslide victory back then.  So a horribly-narrow win, or even a hung parliament, is still a distinct possibility.

In that case, Labour’s ability to govern confidently may end up resting on some sort of deal with one or more of the UK’s smaller parties – whether it be simply for “confidence and supply” à la Theresa May and the DUP in 2017, or else involves a full-blown coalition à la David Cameron and the Lib Dems back in 2010.

And if those smaller parties have got any sense, then the price Starmer may have to pay for whichever arrangement he plumps for is a promise to, at the very least, look into the possibility of introducing a more proportional voting system for elections to Westminster.  

Cue speculation about the consequences of PR for the UK’s party system and in particular how it might lock in a supposed progressive majority and lock the Conservatives out of power – which is clearly the aim of some of those keenest on the idea.

Re-engineering the voting system in order to do down your opponent is, of course, by no means unusual. But it rarely works out quite as well as those who do the tinkering hope it will. Certainly, as others have noted, anyone who thinks PR will put an end to right-wing government in the UK should be careful what they wish for.

Indeed, anyone who, like me, favours a move to a fairer voting system should probably dial down their expectations of how much things would change.

PR would doubtless boost the number of MPs from Britain’s so-called “minor parties” and would very probably usher in a handful of new ones to boot, one or two of whom might last long-term.  But it is less likely than some of its advocates think to blow up parliament as we know it: rather than rendering the UK’s party system unrecognisable, it will reconfigure it.   

To appreciate this, just look at what happened when another Westminster-style democracy – New Zealand – switched to proportional representation in the mid-nineties.

That switch did not, in the end, completely upend the country’s politics.  Yes, there were a few new entrants, and they were of precisely the kind we’d expect to see in the UK – not least from the populist NZ First and the neoliberal ACT on the right and the Greens and a left party (the Alliance) on the left.  But Kiwi politics fairly soon settled into a familiar pattern: essentially bipolar blocs led by Labour and by National (NZ’s Tories) alternating in office, with the prime minister in each and every case being supplied by one or other of them. The election to be held on the 14 October – the tenth under New Zealand’s PR system – shows little sign of breaking that mould.

In short, to imagine PR bringing about no change in the UK would be an exaggeration. But a complete implosion of politics as we know it? Unlikely. Long-established parties have an infrastructure and a degree of brand loyalty that mean many voters will stick with the devils they know.

That said, New Zealand should serve as a warning to the smaller party that’s most likely to pressure Labour on PR in a hung parliament or tiny majority scenario – the Lib Dems. In the end, there turned out to be no place in the new eco-system for a centrist party. Like I said, be careful what you wish for.

Source

Labour has triumphed in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election, with leader Sir Keir Starmer hailing a “seismic result” for his party north of the border.

The result sees Michael Shanks replace MP Margaret Ferrier, who was ousted from her party (the SNP) and then her seat in August after a successful recall petition for breaching COVID restrictions during lockdown in 2020.

Michael Shanks received 17,845 votes compared to SNP candidate Katy Loudon’s 8,399. Every other candidate lost their deposit. 

Out of the 82,104 electorate, a total of 30,531 votes were cast (37.19 per cent turnout).

The by-election saw a swing of 20.4 per cent to Labour, a fact which Sir Keir Starmer will interpret as proof of a Labour recovery in Scotland.

The result, if replicated in a general election, could lead to a virtual clean sweep north of the border.

The turnout is down from 66.48% at the snap 2019 general election, when 53,794 valid votes were cast.

Speaking to Sky News after his win, Labour candidate Shanks said: “There’s absolutely no doubt that this result shows that there’s no part of the United Kingdom that Labour can’t win.

“It’s been a long time in Scotland – Labour building back to a place where people can trust us again.”

The SNP’s defeat in Rutherglen and Hamilton West marks its first by-election loss in 16 years.

Sir John Curtice told BBC Scotland News it was a “remarkably good result” for Sir Keir Starmer’s party, adding: “If this kind of swing were to be replicated across Scotland as a whole you’d be talking about the Labour Party quite clearly being the dominant party north of the border.”

Scottish Conservatives came in third place, with candidate Thomas Kerr polling 1,192 ahead of Scottish Liberal Democrat candidate Gloria Adebo, and Scottish Green Party candidate Cameron Eadie who secured 895 and 601 votes respectively.

SNP depute leader Keith Brown has admitted that his party has “work to do” ahead of the next general election, which will be held next year.

“Of course it’s a challenge”, Mr Brown told reporters after the result was announced.

“I do feel confident, if we can get the offer right, then rather than the declining, managed decline of the UK, its economy and so on, one of the most unequal countries in the world, we can move forward to a brighter future with independence.

“But we have to get the offer right and we’ve got work to do.”

Meanwhile, an SNP MP has urged “calm heads” in the wake of the party’s defeat at the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election.

David Linden, the party’s spokesman for social justice at Westminster, claimed on X, formerly Twitter, that commentators were getting “wildly carried away” about the significance of the swing.

He said the SNP won Glasgow East in 2008 with a swing of 22.5 percentage points, only for Labour to re-take the seat at the general election two years later with a swing of 18.5 points.

Linden also told Politico: “The seat has swung back and forth like a pendulum at every election since 2010. Onwards to the general election, where I expect a very different result.”

Source

Rishi Sunak has said this morning that he wants to make the “right decision for the country” on HS2 as he insisted ministers would not be “rushed” on the subject.

Multiple outlets are reporting Sunak has decided to axe the line and will make an announcement in his keynote speech at conference tomorrow.

Number 10 has said that such reports are “incorrect”.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast, the prime minister said: “I know you want to keep asking, I know there is lots of speculation but all I can say is I am not going to be forced into a premature decision because it is good for someone’s TV programme.

“What I want to do is make the right decision for the country. This is an enormous amount of people’s money. Taxpayers’ money. Everybody watching. Billions and billions of pounds.

He added: “We shouldn’t be rushed into things like that. What people would expect from me is to take the time to go over it properly and make sure we make the right long term decision for the country. That is what I am interested in doing.”

Asked whether he had “given up” on the high-speed rail link between Birmingham and Manchester, Sunak said: “Absolutely not. We have got spades on the ground on HS2 as we speak and we’re getting on and delivering it.

“But it’s not the only thing we’re doing to help spread opportunity and level up around the country.”

Andy Burnham, the Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester, accused the prime minister of “pulling the rug” on the north of England over the reported decision to scrap the HS2 line between Birmingham and Manchester.

He told the BBC: “Look at the place. The place is doing so well at the moment. We have just brought in a new public transport system ourselves. Investors are flocking here.

“We are growing faster than the UK economy and you are going to pull the rug on us at this moment?

“Please, Prime Minister, at least give us a conversation, give us a chance to influence your decision before you make it.”

It comes after Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands Andy Street vowed not to let the government scrap HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester “without a fight”.

Street told the prime minister that he has a “very stark” choice in front of him over the future of HS2, explaining he would be throwing away a “once in a generation” opportunity to “level up”.

Source

The Conservative Party candidate for London mayor has suggested that Jewish people are “frightened” by Labour’s Sadiq Khan in a fringe event at party conference. 

Susan Hall, who was selected to run for the mayoralty in July, made the comments at the Conservative Friends of Israel event. 

She told the audience that one of the “most important” things she would do for Londoners would be to make the city “safer”, particularly “for our Jewish communities”.

Hall asked for “as much help as [she] can get in London” because Mr Khan “needed to be defeated”.

“I know how frightened some of the community is because of the divisive attitude of Sadiq Khan”, she added.

“One of the most important things that I will do when I become mayor of London is to make it safer for everyone, but particularly for our Jewish community. I will ask for as much help as I can get in London, because we need to defeat him.”

The Board of Deputies of British Jews responded saying Sadiq Khan had “treated our community with friendship and respect”.

The organisation said it hoped to hold a hustings with all the candidates before the mayoral vote next May.

It said the hustings will make “clear that while London Jews may have varying political views, there is no fear present at all”.

Shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said her remarks were “divisive and disgusting”.

“Sadiq Khan has repeatedly stood by London’s Jewish communities in the fight against antisemitism”, he wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

“Susan Hall’s dog whistle politics have no place in London. Will decent Conservatives ever call this out?”

The Jewish Labour Movement accused Hall of “gutter divisive politics that seeks to use the Jewish community as political pawns”.

“We had quite enough of this from Jeremy Corbyn and saw him off — and have no patience for it from Susan Hall,” it said.

Source

Brexit has been a failure. You know it. I know it. Nigel Farage, God love him, knows it.

You’ll find very few people around these days who are happy with how our departure from the European Union has turned out, whether they voted for it or not. Quite a lot of people think we should not have left. So what do we do about it?

Anyone who tells you there is a quick and easy solution is selling you a bridge.

It would be nice to imagine that we could seamlessly and painlessly jump back into the EU within the course of the next five years, but that is just not happening. We need to move past the idea that there are easy fixes for our politics and our country – that our future lies at the bottom of a new and better three-word slogan.

The slow puncture of Brexit is just part of a wider problem. If we are going to repair the underlying break in our public life then we have to look deeper, and think longer term.

Too often I see people in favour of EU membership jumping on the latest economic evidence that Brexit is a failure, the latest poll suggesting a new majority for rejoining. Even as someone who would like to see us back in the EU at some point I think this is missing the mark.

The first problem is the assumption that because people answer a poll saying they want to rejoin in the abstract, that they also want to reopen the debate this year or even within the next five years. People are tired. They have other priorities right now – food prices, mortgages, the NHS. You can make a reasonable case that many of our current problems have been exacerbated by Brexit but it is just not what gets most people out of bed in the morning.

The second problem is the assumption that because people answer a poll saying they want to rejoin the EU in the abstract, that those numbers will hold up in the heat of a renewed campaign. “Rejoin” and “Remain” are different propositions, not just as a matter of timing but as a matter of what they entail.

Now that we have left the EU the terms on which we could be a member again are different. The exact position we would find ourselves in would be a matter of negotiation but it would be wise to assume that we could not secure all the convenient opt-outs we had before. Many people would see that as a worthwhile price to pay. We cannot assume that of everyone who might currently answer “yes” to a pollster.

It is the final error made by people on the pro-EU side of the argument, however, that is the most important. That is the assumption that because a poll suggests a new majority of any size for rejoining, this alone is sufficient to make a new campaign a good idea.

Even now our country is fiercely divided over Europe, and even if there were a durable majority to rejoin (despite the challenges above) there would still be a very large minority against – bitterly opposed, and feeling utterly betrayed. Driving constitutional change without consensus is risky business.

Reading this many pro-EU people may turn about and say that this is exactly what the Brexiters did. They took a narrow majority and abused it beyond recognition. They delivered a major constitutional change in a way that divided the country and left no one happy.

They are right – but that is exactly why we have to resist the temptation to go down the same route.

Those self-same consequences of the Brexit vote – polarisation, mistrust and a zero-sum mentality – show us the risks ahead if we repeat the same mistakes.

It is always tempting to demand revenge, comeuppance for those on the opposing team, but an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind and we have been too short sighted in this country for too long.

Instead we need to see the long term project as one of tamping down polarisation, building consensus and ending the tribal divisions around Europe. It is a tall order but it is the only way to create a durable foundation to go forward.

Any plan based on alienating and infuriating 40-odd percent of the country is not one which implies a healthy debate going forward. That is still more true when one of the major parties – currently the party of government and likely to govern again in time – continues to hold Brexit as its central plank of policy.

You might reasonably ask if it is dangerous to give a quasi-veto power to the minority. If we rely on something close to consensus then it risks giving too much influence to those who refuse to allow that consensus, whether for genuine principle or personal interest. The gridlock of Scottish politics since 2014 shows what can happen when one side refuses to accept compromise or loss in political disputes.

Even so, the aim has to be to find better ways of talking about and tackling our political problems, ways which live up to the standard of liberal democracy. If the old model of political dialogue is not working then it is up to all of us to change the model, whether that means electoral reform, citizens’ assemblies or simply good old-fashioned respectful debate, engaging with the arguments instead of repeating the same stale talking points.

We have to remember what real compromise and restraint look like: not taking everything that you want, even when you could have it all. In the case of Europe that might mean pragmatic agreements and “only” Single Market membership. We might have to accept just half the loaf, at least for the near-term.

Liberal democracy puts obligations on those who lose out in votes. It also puts obligations on those who win.

The way we approach our future relationship with the EU – and the conversations we have within our own country – matters just as much as where we end up.

This is the point that is often lost when liberals talk about the EU, so let’s set it straight: Europe is part of a deeper goal, but it is not the goal in of itself. EU membership is a good idea because internationalism, openness and liberal democracy are good ideas, and because the EU imperfectly advances those values.

“Imperfect” is the word. No one backs EU membership because they love every part of the institution, whether qualified majority voting, tight fiscal rules or the Common Fisheries Policy. Compromise means not always getting everything you want.

The EU has its own problems and its own illiberal members. We do ourselves and our values no favours if we try to sell a varnished version of Europe. If we put the EU on a pedestal then we lose sight of what the real goal is: healthy liberal democracy, internationalism and the rules-based order.

Now more than ever we know the value of these liberal democratic principles – locally, nationally and internationally. Recent events have reminded us that these values do not come cheaply. If we want to see them in our relationship with the wider world, we need to start in our own country.

Source

Nigel Farage has said the things he fought for have become “quite mainstream within the Conservative Party”.

The former UKIP and Brexit Party leader told ITV that his views had previously been characterised by senior Conservatives as “extreme”, “bad” and “wrong”.

Mr Farage added: “Those things we have fought for have become quite mainstream within the Conservative Party. I was welcomed with open arms”.

He said: “It was very nice of Rishi to say that ‘we’re a broad church and we’d have him back’ which previous conservative leaders would never have said”

Asked about the electoral prospects of the party, Farage added: “They’re in very, very real trouble and they’re particularly in trouble in the red wall. And those red wall voters that went Conservative in 2019 had nearly all come through UKIP. 

“They were old Labour had gone to UKIP — had gone to the Conservatives, so you can see why they’re being nice to me”.

Pressed on the substance of the prime minister’s speech yesterday, he said: “I think it’s what wasn’t said yesterday that was significant. I mean, he said we’re going to stop the boats, but didn’t even mention our membership of the ECHR”.

Farage had been a hot topic at the Conservative Party conference, and several senior Conservatives were asked whether they would welcome the former UKIP leader back to the party. He left the Conservative Party in 1992. 

Former businesses secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg told the BBC that Farage is a “very effective campaigner” and said he shared “most of his political views”.

He said: “I think Nigel is broadly a Tory and always has been. If he wanted to join I can’t think his membership would be refused.”

At the suggestion of Farage rejoining, Sir Jacob said: “We’re always delighted if people cross the floor.”

Asked by GB News if this could happen, prime minister Rishi Sunak refused to rule out the prospect, saying: “Look, the Tory party is a broad church. I welcome lots of people who want to subscribe to our ideals, to our values.”

When asked if this could include Farage, Sunak avoided the question, saying: “The thing I care about is delivering for the country and the more people as we’ve seen at this conference – we’ve had record attendance I think at this conference. Lots of energy, lots of engagement.”

However, Greg Hands, the Conservative Party chairman, told the BBC: “I think he [Farage has] been most recently advocating voting for another political party. That is not consistent with being a member of the Conservative party.”

Asked if he would welcome Farage, Hands said: “No, I don’t think I would because I think he’s repeatedly for the last 30 years or more advocated voting for other political parties. I think he said he doesn’t want to see the Conservative party succeed so I don’t think I would.”

Farage, asked on GB News whether he would consider returning to the party he quit in 1992, said: “Would I want to join a party that’s put the tax rate up to the highest in over 70 years, that has allowed net migration to run at over half a million a year, that has not used Brexit to deregulate to help small businesses?

“No, no and no.”

He added: “I achieved a lot more outside of the Tory party than I ever could have done from within it.”

Source

When Rishi Sunak announced his climate U-turn, he promised to square the circle between delaying climate policies and hitting climate targets. But the plan he wants to weaken is so threadbare that it was already illegal.

We are now in the crucial decade to stop irreversible damage from global heating, but despite Sunak’s claim that he wants to take “a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach to meeting net zero” he still hasn’t produced a realistic plan to tackle the climate emergency. Instead he’s botched an auction for offshore wind projects and announced a bonanza on fossil fuel drilling in the North Sea.

But even though some members of Sunak’s cabinet may feel they are above the law, the government still has to abide by it. The new net zero secretary, Claire Coutinho, has claimed that for climate activists, net zero “has become a religion”, but in reality, it is a practical necessity and a fundamental legal duty that the state must uphold.

The Climate Change Act passed into law in 2008 imposes a legal duty on the government to have a viable plan to hit net zero carbon emissions by 2050, as well as meeting a series of carbon targets along the way.

It is not Good Law Project’s role to tell the government exactly how they should reach net zero, but to hold it to account over its legal obligations – and we have a successful track record of doing so.

Last year, we joined forces with ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth to take the government to the High Court over its original net zero strategy, which was inadequate. In a landmark judgment, the High Court ruled in our favour and ordered the government to go back to the drawing board to produce a new and improved strategy which showed exactly how the 2050 deadline would be met.

But the renewed strategy that ministers came up with in March – the so-called Carbon Budget Delivery Plan – is so threadbare it’s still unlawful. Even before Rishi Sunak’s recent U-turn on key green policies, our three organisations had launched a second round of legal action against the government over its updated net zero plan. Our cases will now be heard in the High Court in February.

This fresh legal action we have brought with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth is multi-pronged. Good Law Project’s side of the challenge focuses on getting the government to be transparent about their assessment of whether all the policies they have come up with will actually get us to net zero or not.

During these proceedings, the government has told us that they have put together “risk tables” for the policies outlined in its Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, but it has refused to make them public. We now want to uncover just what it is trying to hide.

It is impossible to tell whether policies are effective without knowing anything about the difficulties they face. The impacts of these policies will be felt across future generations, so it is vital that the public and Parliament can scrutinise these risk tables.

It is a travesty that the independent Climate Change Committee wasn’t even able to see these risk tables before it published its damning report on the government’s net zero strategy earlier this year.

In her speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Coutinho was keen to cite Rishi Sunak’s commitment to having an “honest” conversation with the public about reaching net zero. But keeping these crucial risk tables under wraps makes clear that the government isn’t interested in coming clean.

We’ve written to Coutinho, reminding her of her responsibilities under the Climate Change Act,  and demanding she explains just how Ministers expect to hit net zero when key climate policies are being watered down. Delaying really crucial policies like those on electric vehicles and boilers which are set to reduce emissions significantly is alarming,  so we have threatened to take further legal action against the government where necessary.

It’s outrageous that Sunak has torn up a political consensus built up around net zero over many years, in a desperate bid to cling on to power.

Reaching net zero is bigger than party politics. The planet is at stake. But the law can help us cut through the smoke and mirrors, making sure we have a plan that will preserve our future.

Source

Grant Shapps has officially confirmed that Rishi Sunak will make an announcement about HS2 during his speech to Conservative conference as fears build that the decision could trigger the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, to resign from the party.

Speaking during a broadcast interview Grant Shapps said listeners could be “pretty confident” of an announcement on the rail line today.

The Conservative mayor Andy Street, has not spoken publicly at length since it was reported last night that the northern leg of HS2 will effectively be scrapped by the PM in his conference speech.

But Street had told Rishi Sunak that he has a “very stark” choice in front of him over the future of HS2, warning that he would be throwing away a “once in a generation” opportunity to “level up” earlier this week at a press conference.

He vowed not to let the government scrap HS2 from Birmingham to Manchester “without a fight”.

Subsequently, Street, the former John Lewis boss, is reported to have urged the PM to strip the government-owned organisation HS2 Ltd of control over the multibillion-pound scheme and instead put a development corporation in charge.

The mayor is also reported to have cancelled a trip abroad in order to listen to Rishi Sunak’s speech today.

Sky News reports that allies of Street have said they would be “surprised but not shocked” if he resigns as a member of the Conservative Party as a result of the HS2 decision.

A spokesperson has also told the broadcaster: “We intend to listen to PM’s speech and respond accordingly.”

“I know it’s much anticipated and lots of people have said that there’ll be something with HS2 in it. I think we can be pretty confident that will be heard,” he told Times Radio.

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, another key critic of the decision expected today, has said the latest plan to cut the Manchester to Birmingham leg of HS2 is “not a workable plan” and there is “huge frustration and growing anger in Greater Manchester”.

He told BBC Breakfast: “It’s so frustrating. It just proves there’s still so many people in politics, many of them in the Tory party, that think they can treat the north of England differently to the way they treat other parts of the country it’s just so wrong.

“I’ve been in politics 30 years, I’ve never seen a party come to a conference and leave an axe hanging over the place they’re in for the whole week. And then actually drop it on that place.

“I just don’t think it’s fair to people in Greater Manchester to do this and the plan that they’re putting forward, that we’ve only seen briefed overnight because we haven’t even been told what it is, takes trains off HS2 at Birmingham and puts them on the existing tracks of the West Coast Mainline that just simply isn’t going to work.

“It’s not a workable plan and you know, you can understand why there is just huge frustration and indeed growing anger in Greater Manchester about this.”

Source