Markus Andrews

Departments funding services such as local councils, courts, the police, transport and benefits will receive 8 per cent less than planned one year ago, it has found.“Most likely these figures are simply unrealistic, and borrowing or taxes will be higher than planned,” the IFS said, after studying the detail of Rishi Sunak’s plans in greater detail.“If they are adhered to then many public services are due a second, sharp dose of austerity.”His own watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said the Budget included a £4bn spending cut, creating a total of £15bn to be slashed from departmental spending each year from 2022.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayRead more:But the IFS has now concluded that original forecasts of the impact did not account for the Barnett Formula, which calculates knock-on spending in Scotland and Wales.That meant what was expected to be a 1 per cent real-terms cut was, in fact, 3 per cent – or 8 per cent in cash terms when set against March 2020 plans.Only spending on the NHS and defence is protected for the next five years – and schools for the next two – leaving other departments badly exposed.“This poses clear and obvious challenges, not least because of the new pressures created by the pandemic,” said Ben Zaranko, the IFS’s research economist.“Plans can change, but as things stand, for many public services, the first half of the 2020s could feel like the austerity of the 2010s.” Last week, Mr Sunak, was warned he should be suffering “sleepless nights” over the looming cuts, but insisted his critics are wrong because spending will “grow in every year”. “I think what you’re referring to are changes in forecasts from previous fiscal events – that’s not a cut in spending,” he claimed. But the IFS said the small print pointed to “perennially squeezed areas” such as the courts system, the Home Office and “further cuts for local government.”“For departments not fortunate enough to be protected by a pre-existing agreement with the Treasury, the Chancellor’s spending plans are even tighter than they first appeared,” Mr Zaranko added.Spending on those unprotected services in 2022−23 is set to be 3 per cent lower than a year earlier, and 8 per cent lower than what was planned prior to Covid-19.” More

Families bereaved by the Covid-19 pandemic have begun legal action against Boris Johnson’s government demanding that it set a date for a statutory inquiry into the handling of the outbreak. The families have issued a letter before claim, paving the way for judicial review of the prime minister’s failure to name a date for the inquiry which he has promised.With Mr Johnson still saying only that a lessons-learned process will take place “in due course”, Labour stepped up pressure by setting a date for the first time for an independent inquiry to begin. Shadow cabinet minister Rachel Reeves said public hearings should start in June a lockdown restrictions are lifted and continue through the summer.The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign said the PM has refused to meet the families on six occasions over the course of the year.Co-founder Jo Goodman, who lost her father Stuart, 72, to the virus, said: “With many of us approaching the anniversary of our loved ones’ passing, believe me we’d rather be with our families than standing in court. But if this government won’t listen and act, then that’s where they’ll be seeing us. Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayRead more:
“The loss of our loved ones will not be in vain, the government must learn crucial lessons from this grim period if it’s to save lives now and in the event of future pandemics.“PPE, care homes, lockdown timings, test and trace – there are so many questions that need answers. Only a proper inquiry can provide those answers: a statutory public inquiry that’s independent and led by a judge. “The prime minister has promised an inquiry, but he seemed to miss it off his roadmap around reopening pubs.”Ms Goodman added: “It’s staggering to us that the prime minister has refused to meet with our group of bereaved families six times and still refuses to start a critical inquiry to learn lessons that can save lives. “The biggest responsibility for any government is protecting its own citizens, but it’s hard not to feel like Mr Johnson would rather protect his own image. The least the government can do is hear our plea and kickstart a statutory public inquiry, or else they can see us in court.”Ms Reeves said that “justice is being denied” to bereaved families, who will not have closure until they better understand what happened.She told The Guardian: “We’re supposed to be out of the roadmap by 21 June. Let’s get ready for it now, and from 21 June, this inquiry can really get started and use the summer months where we should be better protected, and the vaccine has been rolled out to most adults.”She urged the government to work closely with bereaved families on the format for the inquiry.“The inquiry is needed most of all by them,” said Ms Reeves. “So I think they should be in the driving seat really for how this is conducted, but it needs to be independent, it needs to be held in public. And it needs to be properly resourced,.”Mr Johnson declined to set a date for the inquiry when quizzed in the House of Commons on Wednesday.“I certainly take full responsibility for everything the government did, and of course we mourn the loss of every single coronavirus victim, and we sympathise deeply with their families and their loved ones,” said the prime minister. “Am I sorry for what has happened to our country? Yes of course I am deeply, deeply sorry, and of course there will be a time for a full inquiry to enable us all to understand what we need to do better when we face these problems in the future, and that is something I think the whole House shares.”England’s deputy chief medical officer Professor Jonathan Van-Tam said imminently launching a public inquiry into the government’s handling of coronavirus would be “an extra burden that wasn’t necessary” for medics and experts involved in the pandemic.“I think the timing of inquiries is entirely a matter for ministers and politicians, it’s not a matter for physicians,” he told a Downing Street briefing on Wednesday.“Personally, would an inquiry be an unwelcome distraction for me personally, at the moment, when I’m very focussed on the vaccine programme and the vaccine programme we might need in the autumn? Who knows? I think it would be an extra burden that wasn’t necessary.“Is looking back on what you did and whether you could do things better a function of medicine, in terms of the clinical audit that happens in every GP surgery and every NHS trust up and down the land? Yes, it is.“Will lessons be learned in due course? I am sure lessons will emerge.” More

The UK’s ability to improve on the skeleton Brexit deal will be undermined by a posting in Brussels becoming “a career graveyard”, Boris Johnson is warned today.But the UK’s muscle in the EU’s capital has been “downgraded” from the most senior civil service level, it warns – after the post of ambassador was replaced with a “head of mission”.There are already fewer staff in Brussels (65) than in Paris (110) or Berlin (75) – even before a likely brain-drain, as “relations with the EU plummet down the list of political priorities”.The report, by the UK in a Changing Europe think tank, raises the alarm over what it says is a failure to recognise that the EU will continue to “loom large” over the UK’s post-Brexit world.“There is a palpable risk that the UK mission will struggle to attract talented civil servants in future,” author Matt Bevington warns. Read more:Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday“One of the most attractive features of working in UKRep – being directly involved in negotiations on legislation – no longer exists.”Highlighting a “knowledge” gap, with it no longer being possible to gather intelligence and lobby for UK interests, Mr Bevington adds: “Without a concerted effort to bolster recruitment, the UK mission could come to be regarded as a career graveyard.“There is an expectation that it will gradually reduce in size over time due to natural wastage as officials move on.”Even the ratification of the deal has been plunged into doubt, with the EU launching legal action over the UK’s alleged breach of the Northern Ireland Protocol.Released to The Independent, the report, which was compiled after conversations with British former officials in Brussels, concludes that the UK’s failure to punch its weight has been a longstanding weakness.There has been a “fixation” on member state leaders meeting in the European Council and a “failure to recognise the growing importance of the parliament”, it says.Crucially, that undermined David Cameron’s attempt to negotiate better membership terms ahead of the 2016 referendum, and expertise was then “sidelined” by Theresa May.As a partial solution, the report urges political parties and senior MPs to rescue links with counterparts across the Channel.“The UK has left the EU, but a close and important relationship between the two is inevitable and needs to be maintained,” the study concludes.“Discussions will continue across a whole range of issues, from fisheries to police cooperation, to customs and social security.“Managing this morass of committees, review dates and discussions requires some form of central coordination within the UK government. It will require the mobilisation of all the UK’s EU expertise.” More

More than 700 of the UK’s leading legal academics have signed a stinging open letter urging Boris Johnson to ditch “draconian” restrictions on the freedom to demonstrate, in one of the largest protests of its kind in decades.The signatories, who represent a significant proportion of the UK’s legal scholars and include more than 120 professors of law from universities including Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and York, warned of “an alarming extension of state control over legal assembly” from measures in the prime minister’s controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.Scenes of women being forced to the ground and handcuffed while attending a vigil to murder victim Sarah Everard in south London on Saturday vividly highlighted the dangers of  extending powers to control protests and public gatherings, they said.The 300-page bill, which was rushed through its second reading in the Commons this week just days after being published, dramatically extends police powers to clamp down on protests and gives home secretary Priti Patel the power to define the kind of “serious disruption” which could lead to demonstrators being arrested and prosecuted.Under its terms, individuals could be jailed for up to 10 years for causing  “serious annoyance or inconvenience”. Police could impose legally binding restrictions on marches or rallies on the grounds that the noise generated “may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation” or may “have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the protest”. And unprecedented new powers could impose controls on protests by a single person.Anyone breaching conditions imposed by police can be arrested and prosecuted, even if they did not know they were in place, as the bill lowers the threshold which currently says it is an offence “knowingly” to fail to comply, making it possible to be charged with breaking a restriction which they “knew or ought to have known about”.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayRead more:Today’s letter, published in The Independent, warned that such measures represent “an existential attack on the right to protest”.Signatories pointed to warnings from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association that the threshold for imposing conditions on public assemblies in England and Wales is already “too low” and “does not reflect the strict test of necessity and proportionality” in international conventions.And they expressed “alarm” that the proposed use of so-called Henry VIII powers would allow the home secretary to alter the definition of prosecutable behaviours without parliamentary approval or scrutiny.“Attempts to push such draconian measures through to a second reading in Parliament in less than a week without proper consultation set a dangerous precedent for the future,” they warned. “The disturbing scenes at Clapham Common on Saturday evening highlight the dangers of affording the executive broad powers without appropriate checks and balances in place. We urge the government to abandon the Bill, and engage with civil society and relevant stakeholders about how the right to protest can be protected.”York University law lecturer Dr Joanna Gilmore, who coordinated the letter, said she had never seen an issue spark such comprehensive concern across university legal departments.“Within 24 hours of circulating this letter, we had received more than 700 signatures and the final number could easily reach 1,000,” she told The Independent. “It’s not just the ‘usual suspects’ with a particular interest in the area, it is a real broad opposition among eminent legal scholars across the piece. It is the strongest response I have seen in my career.“It is a mark of concern not only about the bill’s fundamental attack on the right to protest peacefully – which is an absolute right in any democracy – but also about the speed at which this is being rushed through, in the context of a pandemic and without proper consultation.“We are not calling for these measures to be amended, we are calling for this part of the bill to be abandoned.”If passed, the legislation would have a “chilling effect” on anyone considering taking part in a protest against the government’s actions, by increasing the fear that even peaceful demonstrations could lead to arrest, she said.“It is a real slippery slope in terms of the power of the executive to clamp down on free speech and assembly,” Dr Gilmore said.Dr Gilmore said that the “deeply disturbing” images of women being restrained at Clapham Common had heightened existing concerns about government responses to protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter, which Ms Patel branded “dreadful”.Contrary to ministers’ assertions, there was no academic evidence to show that demonstration tactics were becoming more disruptive or extreme, she said. Mass arrests at demos frequently led to very low rates of convictions.“A lot of people are uncomfortable with the attempt to describe campaigns as extremist or violent,” said Dr Gilmore. “This bill hasn’t come out of nowhere, it is part of a pattern to delegitimise anyone who disagrees with the government.”The human rights group Liberty has called the police bill a “staggering assault on our right to protest, as well as an attack on other fundamental rights”.Despite loud protests form opposition parties and a noisy demonstration outside Parliament, the legislation passed its first hurdle in the Commons by 359 votes to 263 on Tuesday without a single Conservative MP rebelling. It now faces further opposition as it passes through remaining stages in the Commons and Lords.Liberty policy and campaigns officer Emmanuelle Andrews said: “We should all be able to stand up for what we believe in, and protest is a key way we make our voices heard and fight for a fairer society.“However, these principles are under attack and the ability for us to hold the powerful to account is now under immediate threat.” More

Perhaps the prime minister will raise his eyebrows this morning while reading The Times from the No 10 residence: a report suggests a café on the remote Hebridean island of Canna is on the hunt for new staff to help serve a population of just 18 people. It boasts 20,000 seabirds and thousands of years of history. Tips are included.  Back in reality and down the staircase of his predecessors’ portraits in Downing Street, he faces questions over the rollout of the Covid vaccine, threats from Brussels on exports, and growing calls for a public inquiry into his government’s handling of the pandemic.Inside the bubblePolitical editor Andrew Woodcock on what to look out for today:Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday More

Robert Jenrick has insisted “fundamental” government targets on rolling out vaccines to the population will still be met, after NHS bosses revealed a “significant” reduction in supply over the coming month.The cabinet minister said there was “every reason to believe” supply will increase again in May, June and July but refused to be drawn on the source of disruption to Britain’s vaccine programme, including suggestions of a four-week delay to an Indian shipment.Vaccinations for people in their 50s will still go ahead, as well as administering second doses to those who have already had a jab, while people aged under 49 must wait before being allowed to book appointments.Mr Jenrick said ministers had learnt of problems “in the last few days”, but refused to be drawn on suggestions the issue was down to a four-week delay from the Serum Institute in India, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s not that there’s any one factory that is responsible for this or any one country. Read more:Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday“There are multiple manufacturers around the world who are experiencing supply issues at the moment. It would not be right for me to pin blame on any one manufacturer, factory or country — that is not the case, the manufacturers are working incredibly hard.”Quizzed on when under 50’s would receive a first dose of a Covid vaccine, he added: “Well, there will some delay, but not in meeting our target. “Remember the target was to deliver vaccines, the first jab, to everyone in 1-9 by the middle of April and to get every adult in the country to have their first jab by the end of July and we are very much on course. We’re confident we’ll be able to meet both of those fundamental targets.”In a separate interview, professor Adam Finn, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), added that “vaccines are are definitely tricky when it comes to supply”.He said: “Historically we’ve always tried in the UK to have more than one supplier of more than one vaccine, whenever possible, because this does come up from time to time.“And I think even more so than at the present time, because these vaccines are new technology, and manufacturing them at scale is quite tricky.”The NHS letter said that during the period of disruption, invitations to under-50s for jabs will “only be permissible in exceptional circumstances”, unless they fall into a priority group as health or care workers or sufferers from specific health conditions.But the reason for the slowdown remained unclear, with an AstraZeneca spokesperson saying on Wednesday evening: “Our UK domestic supply chain is not experiencing any disruption and there is no impact on our delivery schedule.”Pfizer said deliveries “remain on track” for the first quarter of its 40 million dose agreement with the UK, with a “steady supply of vaccines” delivered to the nation. More

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte s conservative party powered to a fourth consecutive election victory in a vote held during a nationwide lockdown and dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic, near-complete results indicated Thursday. The feat puts Rutte in pole position to begin talks to form the country’s next ruling coalition, most likely with another big winner — the centrist, pro-European D66 party led by former diplomat Sigrid Kaag, who danced on a table Wednesday night when an exit poll showed her party recording one of its biggest-ever ballot box victories.Rutte said voters had given his party “an overwhelming vote of confidence and it is humbling. It is also forcing us to do everything we can to make a success out of it.”“The agenda ahead of us is enormous,” Rutte said. “In the coming weeks and months, we have to lead the Netherlands through the corona crisis.”Moves to form a new coalition were to start Thursday afternoon with the leader of the lower house of parliament meeting party leaders. The splintered political landscape in the Netherlands — 16 parties were forecast to have won at least one seat — could make coalition talks difficult.Rutte, for one, wants a quick formation process so that a new government can continue battling the pandemic that has killed more than 16,000 in this country of more than 17 million people. Rutte’s victory came two months after his last coalition resigned amid a scandal involving the country’s tax office wrongfully labelling thousands of families who claimed child welfare benefits as fraudsters.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayHis party was forecast to win 35 seats, two more than the last election, in the 150-seat parliament, while D66 gained five seats to take its bloc to 24, according to the prognosis by national new agency ANP, based on nearly 80% of votes counted.The other big winner of the night was the far-right populist Forum for Democracy which rose from two to eight seats after its flamboyant leader Thierry Baudet campaigned around the country on a pledge to end the country’s coronavirus lockdown.Baudet, normally hyperactive on social media, made no reaction and was conspicuous by his absence on election night.Hans Smolders, a newly elected Forum for Democracy lawmaker, had a simple explanation: “Thierry Baudet was totally exhausted,” he told the Good Morning Netherlands current affairs show early Thursday.It was something of a political resurrection for the party that imploded late last year amid reports of anti-Semitic text messages circulating among members of its youth wing.Despite the gains for Baudet, the far-right populist bloc in the Netherlands is unlikely to take part in any new coalition. Anti-Islam lawmaker Geert Wilders, whose Party for Freedom lost three seats and is now the country’s third-biggest party, said he would again lead the opposition in parliament.The political left also looks likely to be out of power after parties lost seats or failed to gain ground after four years in opposition to Rutte’s outgoing center-right coalition. The Green Left party, which was a big winner in the 2017 election, was forecast to lose half of its 14 seats.The election, just months after Britain’s Brexit divorce settlement with the European Union came into full force, saw gains among pro-EU parties. Big winner D66 has long been a staunch defender of the 27-nation bloc and among new parties in the lower house of parliament was outspokenly pro-European party Volt, which was forecast to win three seats. Kaag, a former diplomat who served as minister for foreign trade and development cooperation in Rutte’s last coalition, had campaigned as a viable alternative to Rutte as national leader in a country that has never had a female prime minister.“I have always believed and that has been confirmed this evening, that people in the Netherlands are not extreme, but moderate and appreciate a positive attitude,” she said after her party tweeted a photo of Kaag standing on a table cheering her party’s big gains. More

Police are to record hate crimes which have been motivated by misogyny after ministers announced a concession to campaigners on women’s safety.Forces will be asked to identify where a victim believes the crime has been prompted by “hostility based on their sex”.Among the crimes included will be stalking and sexual offences.The move was announced just hours after prime minister Boris Johnson called for a change in cultural attitudes towards women’s safety.A policeman has been charged with the murder of Sarah Everard. Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford said that the change would be made initially on an “experimental” basis.Data collection was crucial to understanding hate crime and the ways to tackle it, she said.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayA long-term decision will be made after ministers have seen a review into hate crime by the Law Commission.The change will apply to police forces in England and Wales. The move came after a call by Labour’s Baroness Kennedy of Cradley, who warned of an “epidemic of violence” against women and girls.Gathering evidence about the prevalence of hostility towards women and girls was crucial to recognising connections, according to Lady Kennedy.Speaking as the Lords considered amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill, Lady Kennedy added: “If we are not recording crime targeted at women, how can we effectively address violence against women and girls and the police’s response to it?”Labour MP Stella Creasy, who has led demands for a change in the law, said:  “I’m delighted that the government has listened to this cross-party and grassroots campaign to make misogyny a hate crime and is now taking the first steps towards making it happen.“Recording where crimes are motivated by hatred of women will help us better understand the scale of the problem and so be better able to prevent these crimes – it should give all women confidence that if they come forward to report crimes they will be taken seriously, too.“Now we want the government to implement the outcome of the Law Commission review in the sentencing bill so that our courts start to take misogyny and the crimes it drives seriously, too.”The Fawcett Society, a gender equality charity which had campaigned for the move, said it was “delighted that this government has accepted that misogyny should be treated as a hate crime”.Chief executive Felicia Willow added: “Fawcett’s campaign showed there was overwhelming public support for this.“It’s essential that women have the confidence to report crimes and that they are taken seriously when they do.“This is a major step forward in changing how we understand, address and prevent violence against women – and one that we hope will help change attitudes towards women.”Domestic Abuse Commissioner Nicole Jacobs said: “I strongly welcome the government’s plans to ask police forces to collect data on whether violent crimes are committed on the basis of someone’s sex or gender. “This is a vital step forward in helping to ensure that we have a more complete picture of the extensive nature of violence against women and girls.”Earlier, the prime minister told MPs that Britain had to, “address the fundamental issue of the casual, everyday sexism and apathy that fails to address the concerns of women”. More