At 2:45pm, he made this post.
MichelleMone did not disclose her financial stake to me. She did not mention her financial involvement from the start – her message below was the standard.
This was not listed in her Register of Interests, as one would expect. @RishiSunak is correct in regarding this matter with great importance.
At 4:40pm and 5:24pm, Solace released a statement on behalf of local government chief executives.
Municipal governments throughout England are experiencing significant financial strain, and various analyses indicate that the issues are widespread, primarily due to increased demands for social care for adults and children, special education services, and housing, compounded by inflation. The increasing number of councils issuing or warning of s114 notices highlights the danger at hand. If the sector does not receive a truly sustainable financial solution, it is only a matter of time before well-managed authorities begin to struggle.
Unfortunately, there are limited options for saving money. The budget cuts being implemented by councils to maintain financial stability will have long-term consequences. Not only will the current residents experience a decrease in their quality of life, but it will also result in more complicated social issues that will ultimately be more costly for the government. This chronic underfunding of services and communities will also have a negative impact on our national economy, at a crucial time when we need to see an increase in productivity and growth.
within three months of the bill becoming law. The government has accepted the moral case for paying compensation, but had wanted to wait until the inquiry into the scandal produced its final report before setting up a scheme.
Several technical factors need to be taken into account, as they could greatly affect public finances.
It is crucial that any decisions regarding compensation funding be made with caution, and the government should be held accountable for thoroughly assessing the costs to the public sector. The needs of the community must also be taken into account at all times, while acknowledging the extensive impact this scandal has had on their lives.
At 4:40 pm, Shaun Davies, who leads the cross-party organization, states that it is unacceptable for local councils to not receive more support.
The current settlement does not allocate sufficient funds to address the significant financial and demand pressures that have caused councils of all political affiliations to express concerns about their ability to create balanced budgets for the upcoming year. Councils in England are still facing a funding deficit of £4 billion for the next two years, as today’s announcement does not alter the funding gap that councils are currently facing for this year and the following year.
It is inconceivable that the government has not allocated necessary funds for local services in 2024/25. Despite efforts by councils to decrease expenses, this puts the vital services our communities depend on at risk of additional reductions.
The County Councils Network has reached a similar conclusion. Barry Lewis, the spokesperson for finance, stated:
The release of the temporary budget for local government today will be greatly disheartening for county authorities in England. The County Councils Network (CCN) had presented a compelling argument for emergency funding next year to tackle the financial challenges that councils are currently facing, which are beyond their control. However, despite productive talks with government officials in recent days, the decision has been made not to take action.
If no extra funding is allocated, our municipalities will be forced to make even deeper cuts to services and raise council tax rates. This will be a major blow to residents already facing financial strain, and many local governments may struggle to balance their budgets in the coming year.
At 2:45pm, he shared this on social media.
Michelle Mone failed to disclose her financial interest to me. She did not mention her financial involvement from the start. Her message below was standard.
She did not have it listed in her Register of Interests, as one would expect. @RishiSunak is correct in treating this matter with great concern.
According to a document from the House of Lords library, a peerage can only be taken away through an act of parliament, which has not occurred since World War I. During this war, four individuals had their peerages revoked for supporting the Germans. Until recently, the House of Lords did not have the authority to remove a member for misconduct. However, with the passing of the House of Lords (Suspension and Expulsion) Act 2015, this is now possible. The process for expulsion is outlined here. In 2020, the Lords conduct committee recommended the removal of a peer due to sexual exploitation; however, the peer retired from the House before the expulsion vote could occur.
This is the news release. The link is provided here.
The package is valued at over £64 billion according to DLUHC.
The temporary financial agreement for local government provides an additional £4bn in funding for councils in England for the 2024-25 fiscal year, representing a 6.5% increase from the previous year. This above-inflation increase acknowledges the challenges that local authorities are currently experiencing.
The promise of funding implemented last year will continue to guarantee a minimum 3% rise in core spending power for all councils in England before any decisions are made regarding council tax. This choice was made in acknowledgement of the challenges faced by local governments, despite the recent decrease in inflation.
In order to continue aiding councils in their provision of essential services for adults and children, we will be providing an additional £1 billion in grant funding for social care in the year 2024-25, as compared to the previous year 2023-24.
Local authorities have the power to raise council tax by a maximum of 3% without holding a local vote. An additional 2% increase is allowed for those in charge of adult social care services, with certain councils having extra flexibility. While it is the responsibility of the councils to set council tax rates, they should consider the impact on residents’ living expenses before making any choices.
According to the thinktank LGiU, which supports local councils, this has been deemed insufficient and delayed. In his statement, the chief executive Jonathan Carr-West expressed his disappointment.
The current financial plan for this year does not solve the major issues within local government finances and is insufficient and tardy. The confidence in the financial stability of local governments is low within the sector. In March, only 14% of top council officials expressed confidence in the sustainability of local government finances. In the meantime, three additional councils have declared their financial insolvency.
The primary concern is not the size of yearly financial agreements, although they can contribute to the level of difficulty or ease for local authorities to handle. The main focus is on the sector’s ability to withstand challenges over the long term.
The significant challenges that English local government is currently facing can only be resolved by implementing multi-year financial agreements that prioritize areas of need, providing more freedom for councils to manage their financial resources, and most importantly, fostering collaboration between central and local government as equal allies with a shared goal of providing essential services.
A system in which local governments are only informed of their annual budget without adequate consultation and with limited ability to improve their financial standing will never be able to effectively address the long-term needs of the sector.
At 2:45pm, concerns were raised about the government’s knowledge of PPE Medpro and its connection to Christine Jardine. Christine Jardine, who represents the Liberal Democrats for the Cabinet Office, called for an investigation to clarify the situation. She stated:
The continuous flow of accusations and revelations surrounding the Conservative government is distressing. As this scandal continues to unravel, the inquiries for Michael Gove and other ministers become increasingly grave.
Why didn’t they disclose Michelle Mone’s involvement in the PPE contracts earlier if they were aware of it from the start?
An immediate and impartial investigation is necessary to uncover the events that took place at the Cabinet Office regarding these contracts. What information were the ministers aware of and when? What specific conversations were held with Michelle Mone or any other individuals involved?
Michelle Mone remains a member of the Conservative party as a peer.
According to Pippa Crerar, the Conservative party does not consider her a member, but the House of Lords website lists Mone as a peer affiliated with the party.
After the Guardian reported that Mone could potentially profit from the PPE Medpro deal, she chose to temporarily step down from her position in the Lords. The Prime Minister’s press secretary stated that this effectively resulted in Mone having the whip withdrawn from herself.
According to Pippa’s suggestion, if Rishi Sunak is truly committed to this matter (as seen in 11.23am), it would be reasonable to anticipate a stronger stance from the Lords whips.
Charities expressed concern that she was merging the role of overseeing disabled individuals with other duties. In the past, there was a designated minister solely devoted to issues surrounding disabled individuals (Tom Pursglove, who now serves as the minister for legal migration).
During the DWP question session, Vicky Foxcroft, the opposition minister for individuals with disabilities, inquired Davies:
After the announcement of her new role, it was revealed that she had been demoted from minister of state to parliamentary under-secretary. What implications does she believe this has for individuals with disabilities? Will she strive to attain the position of minister of state like her predecessor did?
Davies responded by stating that the alteration in status would have no impact on the assistance provided to individuals with disabilities. She affirmed:
I am happy to reply and clarify to the group and individuals we are discussing and taking care of, that this has no significant impact on their daily life. My ability to gather people and my daily tasks remain unchanged.
Our purpose is not based on rank. We have been assigned to assist the individuals in this residence, to interact and listen. I will fulfill this duty regardless of my position or status.
Mims shared this information on X last week to reassure everyone of her qualifications for the position.
My father suffered from a head injury for more than 25 years, leading us to rely on benefits. I served as the Charities Minister and co-chaired the APPG for carers, as this has been a personal interest of mine. I have been with the DWP since July 2019 and am familiar with the teams, policymakers, and JCPs. Rest assured, I understand the situation.
The Home Office has released a statement outlining the proposals, which primarily aim to ensure that instances of spiking are accurately identified and thoroughly investigated.
The updated package will involve modifications to the laws, investigation on self-testing kits, increased training for bouncers, and improved education for youth to increase awareness of the danger. Additionally, there will be collaborative efforts by the police to combat incidents of drink spiking during critical periods throughout the year – a strategy that has effectively addressed other offenses, like knife-related crimes.
As the government prepares to pass the criminal justice bill, measures are being taken to address the issue of spiking. This will include providing a clear definition of spiking in the law, along with separate guidance, to ensure that there is no confusion about its legality. These actions aim to empower victims to speak out, raise public awareness about the crime, and hold perpetrators accountable with potential sentences of up to 10 years in prison.
At 11:23am, she reiterated a statement from her BBC interview yesterday stating that she had always been transparent about her involvement with PPE Medpro to those involved in the contract. However, in the same interview, she did acknowledge that she had previously lied to journalists about the connection.
What is the subject of @RishiSunak’s discussion?
I was truthful in my interactions with the Cabinet Office, the Government, and the NHS.
Everyone was aware of my participation from the start.
It is quite audacious for Rishi Sunak to lecture the Scottish government on their public spending.
After the Prime Minister gave an interview in Scotland this morning, she made a statement expressing disappointment in the reports that Robison intends to increase taxes for those with higher incomes in her budget tomorrow. (See 12.44pm.)
Robison responded by stating that the UK government’s choice to decrease national insurance in their recent autumn statement was solely for pre-election purposes by the Conservative party, disregarding the impact on public services. She also mentioned that the NHS in Scotland will only receive an additional £10.8 million next year from the autumn statement.
She said:
What I would say to Rishi Sunak is he has got a bit of a cheek, pitching up in Scotland to say anything given his autumn statement is deprioritising public spending.
It is shocking that there would be a decrease in funding for the NHS in England, especially during a time when the healthcare system is still trying to recover from the effects of Covid.
It is apparent that this is not something we can adhere to and do not desire to adhere to.
The Scottish government, in contrast to the UK government, will focus on investing in public services according to the statement given by the speaker. She emphasized that their primary values revolve around maintaining and supporting public services.
During the Inside Whitehall podcast, hosted by Jonathan Gullis MP (a member of the New Conservatives) and James Starkie, a former Tory special adviser, they were questioned about the potential for a leader from their group to emerge in the future.
Kruger replied:
I believe their beliefs align with those of the New Conservative party, regardless of whether or not they are currently a member.
I believe that regaining power will be difficult if we lose it. Additionally, I am concerned that our chances at the next election will be hindered without implementing the New Conservative policy approach.
I believe that our next successful election will be the one where we campaign to withdraw from the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) in order to bring back rationality, with a clear intention, in matters of culture, specifically pertaining to sex and gender, as well as school policies.
Kruger added that in order to make the party more appealing to voters, new policy strategies must be implemented. He elaborated:
I believe it is important for us to increase our defense investments. We must also recognize the impact of technology on both the workforce and everyday family life. There are certain issues that are currently not being addressed in political discussions, which we must face.
If we are able to achieve this before the election, I believe we have a strong possibility of maintaining our position. If we are unsuccessful, as in response to your inquiry, the candidate must be a believer in our principles in order for us to regain power. It is futile to simply compete for the middle ground with the Labour party.
When asked if she concurred with Kruger’s evaluation, Cates simply responded with a “Yes.”
House of Lords.
Mone is currently on a temporary break from her position in the Lords, but it is possible for her to come back. She refutes any accusations of misconduct regarding the contracts, but recently confessed that she had been dishonest when she denied involvement with the company that received the contracts.
When questioned about expelling Mone from the House of Lords, Starmer responded by saying:
I believe it is not appropriate for her to be a member of the House of Lords. I also think that the government should be responsible for their actions in this matter.
According to Starmer, Michael Gove, formerly Cabinet Office minister during the Covid pandemic and currently serving as Secretary for Levelling Up, should be held accountable for his involvement in the matter.
I believe this is an appalling disgrace from start to finish. Furthermore, with each passing day, more inquiries arise that require explanation. There are now indications that there may have been initial confidential communication with cabinet members, which could have triggered this unfortunate situation.
I believe that Michael Gove and the government have important inquiries to address.
When Mone needed to make sure that PPE Medpro would be eligible for contracts through the “VIP lane”, she reached out to Gove. This system allowed government officials to prioritize bids from ministers during a time when the procurement process was overwhelmed with offers.
The government has stated that this did not constitute favoritism since civil servants, rather than ministers, were responsible for making decisions on contract awards.
Mone was previously chosen as a Conservative member of the House of Lords, but has since had their party loyalty revoked and has left the party.
First, there was discussion about the agreement between Japan and Italy regarding fighter jets. Next, the focus shifted to the investigation into infected blood. Finally, measures were discussed to prevent sudden increases.
During a television interview yesterday, she stated that she plans to increase taxes for individuals making over £75,000 in Scotland.
During a press conference at RAF Lossiemouth, Rishi Sunak expressed disappointment in the potential tax increase for individuals in Scotland.
The first thing I’d say is the UK government has provided a record amount of funding to the Scottish government through the Barnett formula, so they’re ultimately responsible for the finances here in Scotland.
However, I am able to explain that our actions in the UK involve managing expenses and lowering individuals’ tax rates, which will apply to all in Scotland and the UK. Starting in January, there will be a decrease in the national insurance rate from 12% to 10%. This will result in a savings of approximately £450 for the average working person, making it a noteworthy tax reduction.
This is the action taken by the UK government to support Scottish households with their living expenses, as we understand it is a top concern for them.
However, ultimately it is the responsibility of the Scottish government to manage their own finances. Scotland is already the most heavily taxed region in the UK, so it would be disappointing to see this tax burden continue to increase.
The government of Scotland has the authority to establish its own levels of income tax and has shown a growing willingness to deviate from the rates imposed in England and the rest of the United Kingdom. In regions outside of Scotland, there are three tiers of income tax: a standard rate of 20%, a higher rate of 40%, and a top rate of 45%. In contrast, the Scottish system is more equitable, as those with lower incomes are subject to lower tax rates while those with higher incomes face higher rates. This system consists of five rates: 19%, 20%, 21%, 42%, and 47%.
According to recent reports, the Scottish government is expected to announce a new tax rate of 44% for incomes ranging from £75,000 to £125,000, starting tomorrow.
Source: theguardian.com
