UK Politics

One of the most powerful regional Tory politicians has criticised the government’s “levelling up” plans, calling for them to be extended to allow regional tax cuts.Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen said the flagship proposals to close the gap between England’s rich and poor regions “did not go far enough”. He argued mayors should have the power to cut taxes to encourage businesses to set up in their areas.“It’s not always about throwing money down people’s throats,” he told The Telegraph.He said he would “slash business rates across the board” to attract private sector investment, create jobs and “put more money in people’s pockets”, given the chance.He said he believes the Treasury opposes the idea, and accused levelling up secretary Michael Gove of lacking ambition in the long-awaited paper, which was unveiled on Wednesday.It outlines plans to improve education, broadband and transport, and spread wealth more evenly across the country.A central proposal is to create more regional mayors, giving all parts of England access to “London-style” powers and a mayor to help target spending more effectively.The strategy’s launch sees the government returning to a core manifesto pledge following weeks of tumult over reports of parties held at Downing Street during lockdown.But the levelling up paper has come under fire from all sides, and Mr Houchen was not the only Conservative politician to criticise them.The former Tory minister Steve Baker also hit out at the plans, which he described as “socialist”.“We should be using our 80-seat majority to implement Conservative policies, not policies that wouldn’t look out of place in Labour’s manifesto,” he said.Labour said the strategy contained no new money and fell far short of what the country needs.Shadow levelling up secretary Lisa Nandy said: “Ministers have had two and a half years to get this right and all we been given is more slogans and strategies, with few new ideas.“Boris Johnson’s answer to our communities calling for change is to shuffle the deckchairs, new government structures, recycled pots of money and a small refund on the money this Government have taken from us.“This is not what we were promised. We deserve far more ambition this.”Labour also pointed to the Tories’ record in office since 2010 “turbocharging the decline of our communities”. More

Conservative MPs are among a group of politicians and campaigners demanding a review of all Covid fines and prosecutions, as partygate puts the “discriminatory” system under greater scrutiny.A joint letter to the justice secretary, Dominic Raab, said: “There is substantial evidence that thousands of people have been wrongfully fined and even prosecuted unlawfully under coronavirus-related legislation. “There is also clear evidence that these laws have been applied in a discriminatory fashion. Amid allegations of numerous offences under these same laws in the heart of government, it is vital that decisive action is taken to safeguard the public’s trust in the justice system.”The prime minister, politicians and civil servants face being punished under the same laws if the Metropolitan Police finds that any of the 12 gatherings under investigation breached the regulations in place at the time.Officers are reviewing extensive evidence in the case, and giving opportunities to provide written explanations, whereas most of the 120,000 fines given to the public were handed out on the spot.The letter warned that because there is no formal system to appeal Covid fines, innocent people are forced to pay penalties for crimes they did not commit, or risk criminal prosecution by refusing them.Conservatives David Davis, Steve Baker and Marcus Fysh were among more than 40 MPs and peers who signed the letter, including those from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Green Party.It was also backed by campaign groups such as Fair Trials and Big Brother Watch, and several barristers who have represented people wrongly handed Covid fines.The letter called for Mr Raab to instigate an urgent review of all historic and ongoing fines and prosecutions under the Health Protection Regulations, which enforced lockdowns and other restrictions, and the separate Coronavirus Act.A review by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has so far uncovered 803 wrongful prosecutions – 21 per cent of those under the regulations and every single one under the act. “We are not aware of any law in history that has an accompanying 100 per cent unlawful prosecution rate,” the letter said.“If, in line with the unlawful rate of prosecutions found by the CPS, 21 per cent of the 118,963 fines recorded in England and Wales were unlawfully issued, this would account for almost 25,000 unlawfully issued fines. This represents serious injustice that must be investigated and remedied.”‘Here we go again’: PM refuses to say if he was at lockdown ABBA party in own flatThe true proportion of unlawful prosecutions could be far higher, because the CPS review does not cover those under the Single Justice Procedure.The process, originally designed for minor driving offences, are decided by a single magistrate, behind closed doors and with no legal representation for defendants.More than 7,000 coronavirus-related offences had been heard under the procedure, and if the error rate is the same as that in open court hearings, there would be more than 2,000 additional miscarriages of justice.Almost nine in 10 people dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure never respond to official notices, meaning they may not even be aware that they have been charged.“Hundreds and likely thousands of people have therefore been convicted and fined for coronavirus-related offences in their absence, without any checks or balances,” the letter said.The government has previously refused to review Covid fines, and failed to act on calls to prevent further miscarriages of justice.Ministers have not implemented official recommendations by parliamentary committees to ensure that people can challenge fines of up to £10,000 without ending up in court.Griff Ferris, the legal and policy officer at Fair Trials, said: “The criminal justice response to the pandemic has been discriminatory, with black, Asian and ethnic minority people fined disproportionately more than white people. It has also been, in many cases, unlawful. “It’s deeply unjust that so many people have been criminalised and financially penalised by racist and inconsistent policing, and unlawful, opaque, and unchecked prosecutions. People deserve justice, and that means refunding fines, withdrawing prosecutions, and deleting criminal records.”Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, accused the government of “throwing the country into a rule of law crisis”.“Urgent action is needed to protect justice,” she added. “It is an insult and grave injustice for innocent people who have found themselves wrongly criminalised, whilst allegations of law-breaking engulf Downing Street.”The letter called for a review of Covid fines, and for those found to be wrong to be withdrawn and repaid. It said wrongful convictions should be rescinded and criminal records deleted. More

The leader of Canada’s Conservative party was ousted Wednesday after he failed to defeat Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in last year’s election and angered his party’s lawmakers by moving it to the center. It is the third Conservative leader that Trudeau has helped bring down.Party lawmakers voted 73 to 45 to remove Erin O’Toole. Trudeau thanked O’Toole for his service. “It is a very, very difficult life for even the most successful of us,” he said. His removal has big implications for the conservative movement in Canada. With him gone, the party could swing back further right and in a more populist direction. O’Toole said this week that lawmakers of his party had a choice between extremism or inclusion that better reflects the Canada of 2022.O’Toole, in a videotaped message, accepted the result and urged politicians not to be driven by ideology. “Canada is in a dire moment of our history. You need only take a walk down the street in Parliament to see how divided we are,” O’Toole said in reference to COVID-19 protests in Ottawa O’Toole advertised himself as “true-blue Conservative” when he ran for the party’s leadership in 2020. He became Conservative Party leader with a pledge to “take back Canada,” but immediately started working to push the party toward the political center. He lost the federal election last fall. His strategy, which included disavowing positions held dear by his party’s base on climate change, guns and balanced budgets, was designed to appeal to a broader cross section of voters in a country that tends to be far more liberal than the United States. “It’s a chance for a fresh start. We do need to rebuild and reflect on the last election,” Conservative lawmaker Marilyn Gladu said. Conservative lawmaker Mark Strahl said the next leader needs to respond to the “curtailment of freedoms” Canadians have seen during the pandemic. “What is our view on vaccinate mandates in the federal sector? Should people be fired who are working from home because they are not vaccinated? Should they able to get on an airplane? Should the fact a triple vaccinated prime minister still contracted COVID-19 have any impact on how we go forward,” Strahl said. One of the leading candidates to replace him is Pierre Poilievre, a polarizing lawmaker who has met with protesters in Ottawa railing against vaccine mandates and other COVID-19 restrictions. Many Canadians are outraged by the behavior of the demonstrators, who continue to block streets and blare horns at all hours. In the fall election, Trudeau bet Canadians didn’t want a Conservative government during a pandemic and voiced the concerns of Canadians who were upset with those who refuse to get vaccinated.Michael Barrett, a Conservative lawmaker, said an interim leader will be picked later Wednesday.“It looks like the Conservatives will swing right and populist but that will hurt them in Atlantic Canada, metropolitan urban areas such as Toronto Montreal, and Vancouver, and it won’t do much for them in the rest of Quebec,” said Nelson Wiseman, a political science professor at the University of Toronto. Daniel Beland, a politics professor at McGill University in Montreal, said the vote to oust O’Toole is a clear victory for the more populist side of the party. “The next leader is likely to belong to that side of it,” Beland said. “This would be a risky gamble electorally to move the party further to the right, father away from the preferences of the more centrist average voter.”O’Toole’s removal as party leader follows the ouster Trudeau rivals Stephen Harper and Andrew Scheer. More

Boris Johnson is facing a “drip drip” of letters from Tory MPs demanding his removal, amid warnings that his “dead cat” bid to divert attention from the Partygate scandal by linking Sir Keir Starmer to disgraced paedophile Jimmy Savile has backfired.Former minister Sir Gary Streeter became the 12th Conservative MP to openly call for Mr Johnson to resign as prime minister and the third in a day to submit a letter of no confidence.One red wall MP told The Independent that determination to oust the PM had been “hardened” by his refusal to retract a claim that Sir Keir had used his time as director of public prosecutions “failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile”.The slur was also cited by Commons defence committee chair Tobias Ellwood as he became the most senior Tory to announce he had handed a no confidence letter to the chair of the backbench 1922 Committee, Sir Graham Brady.Johnson loyalist Nadine Dorries lashed out at the letter-writers for distracting attention from the launch of the government’s flagship plans for “levelling up” the UK.“On the very day we are setting out steps to make this happen, a handful of egos want to make it all about them,” the culture secretary tweeted. “It’s selfish, doing Labour’s work and it’s really not helping their constituents.”Some 54 letters are needed for Sir Graham to trigger a leadership vote. At least eight are known to have gone in, but other MPs are believed to have submitted them privately.The fear among Johnson supporters is that they are being fed out gradually in order to keep outrage alive while the Metropolitan Police continue their investigation into alleged lockdown-breaching parties at No 10.Sir Keir called on Tory MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions to “restore some dignity” to the party of Winston Churchill, which he said was now led by a man “parroting the conspiracy theories of violent fascists”.But Mr Johnson refused to back down on the smear, pointing to an apology issued by Starmer in 2013 for the failings of the Crown Prosecution Service, which he led. A QC-led report found at the time that the then DPP was not involved in decisions in the Savile case.Mr Johnson’s press secretary later denied that the PM had drawn his attack line from far-right groups on the internet, insisting that it was based solely on Starmer’s public apology.Cabinet minister Michael Gove insisted Mr Johnson had “nothing to apologise for”.But a string of senior Tories urged him to withdraw comments that Sir Bob Neill branded “baseless and unworthy” and ex-Northern Ireland secretary Julian Smith described as a “false and baseless personal slur”.One red wall MP told The Independent that it was now “more likely than not” that the 54-letter threshold will be reached before the Metropolitan Police conclude their criminal investigation into 12 events at No 10 and other government departments, six of which the PM is alleged to have attended.And a lawyer MP said that the remarks were the latest in a long series of “distasteful” attacks on the legal profession by the PM.“Colleagues are very exercised about it, but I think a lot of us are staying our hands to see the hard and fast outcomes of the police inquiry,” the MP told The Independent. “It is deeply unsatisfactory.”Another senior Tory backbencher said: “The Savile comments have gone done very badly – no-one was impressed. So it’s not helped him. But it’s not enough on its own to make up anyone’s mind up on a letter.”In a TV interview early on Wednesday, Mr Ellwood said that, rather than acknowledge the need for fundamental change at No 10, Mr Johnson had responded to the Sue Gray inquiry by rushing out policy announcements and lashing out at Mr Starmer.“We’re better than this, we must seek to improve our standards and rise above where we are today,” said the former defence minister.“I don’t think the prime minister realises how worried colleagues are in every corner of the party, backbenchers and ministers alike, that this is all only going one way and will invariably slide towards a very ugly place.” Mr Ellwood called on Mr Johnson to “take a grip” and call a vote of confidence in his own leadership rather than wait for “the inevitable 54 letters”.Just hours later, two west country MPs moved against Mr Johnson in what some Westminster wags referred to as a “cream tea plot”.First Totnes MP Anthony Mangnall – a member of the younger 2019 generation – handed in his letter, blasting the PM’s “actions and mistruths” and declaring: “Standards in public life matter.”He was followed by South West Devon’s Sir Gary Streeter – a veteran of 30 years in the Commons who served in John Major’s government.He said he could not “reconcile the pain and sacrifice of the vast majority of the British public during lockdown with the attitude and activities of those working in Downing Street”.Veteran MP Sir Charles Walker, a former vice-chair of the 1922 Committee, said he would “applaud” the PM if he took the decision to stand down.Other Tories calling for Mr Johnson to stand down include, ex-cabinet minister David Davis, Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross, leading Brexiteer Andrew Bridgen and veteran backbencher Sir Roger Gale. More

The levelling-up white paper lays out the problem of regional inequality. But it doesn’t offer a cost-benefit analysis for the cure – or the means to buy the medicine.The consensus from economists and policy-makers is that it’s a start. However, years after the promise to level up the nation was sold to voters in the 2019 election, it is no more than a start.Swathes of the 332-page document are dedicated to the history of economics rather than a meaningful action plan. That includes an entire page that republishes an infographic from a 2016 Guardian article on ancient history. The rest of the paper explores the flagship policy’s 12 missions, which range from skills to transport and lay out how small amounts of cash have been given to different areas. It has three main limitations: cash, local powers and timelines. The levelling-up fund is worth £4.8bn for a UK population of about 70 million. It is helpful to put that number in some context in order to understand just how small it is in terms of a flagship economic, social and moral policy. The public and politicians will probably end up asking, “Where are the billions?” Economists are likely to be left asking, “Where are the trillions?”There’s no easy like-for-like comparison, but the whole national fund is less than half of the annual budget for Manchester City Council for the next financial year, an institution that serves around 600,000 people. It is not just that the investment involved is small. It is that while the missions the paper lays out are given a 10-year rolling deadline there is no clear long-term financial commitment from central government laid out in the document. This is not a project that can be done quickly or on the cheap. The unified German government has been trying to level up east and west since 1990. It has spent around €2trillion and still not managed it entirely – unemployment remains stubbornly higher in the former communist east.Boosting skills and industry requires long-term financial settlements. Programmes of study also need to be plugged into trade strategy. The paper falls very short on detail in these crucial areas. It notes benefits of deals that have not even been successfully negotiated and does not – for instance – ask the question about how exactly the government and private sector will train workers who can benefit from exporting to countries such as those within the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.While politicians and politically-minded economists might disagree about whether levelling-up efforts should drive greater investment or more tax cuts and relaxed planning laws, the paper offers few next steps on either. It leaves the question of radical changes to the planning process for another day, money to develop brownfield sites is siloed into multiple pots. There is also merely a promise to develop a separate white paper on health inequality. Local councils often exhaust huge energy and resources into bidding for the small pots of money. The white paper might have been better off showing a radical shift not only in investment, but also the power to allocate that money more freely for local government. It falls short on a meaningful shift in devolved powers. Like every government strategy paper of the past decade (possibly longer) it falls into a trap of suggesting hubs or clusters or zones as a magic bullet for an industrial strategy and a sprinkling – it really is a sprinkling – of money to create them. If the government really wants the private sector to play a greater role in terms of cash and training and help build these clusters, it will take more than some fairly general points about making finance more available to small and medium firms. History suggests it will take billions of public funds over the long term alongside a clear and stable outlook for taxation and regulation. Freeports make a fresh appearance. These zones have been possible in the UK even while it was an EU member. Some argue that more freedom in areas like tax breaks and regulation can shift the dial on their success, but few economist believe they will offer net economic benefits in a low tariff, industrialised and open economy like Britain’s. In some areas, by laying out the scale of the problem and starting to work out how to measure it in a more accountable manner – with efforts such as the the Spatial Data Unit in order to illustrate progress on a range of inequality measures – it lays some ground for some detailed policymaking in the future.Few people disagree that levelling up should be a government priority, both among people wherever they live but also between places. But if anyone had hoped that this was a Marshall Plan that would make the UK economy fit for the challenges of the 21st century, they will be disappointed. It does not give communities the ability to take back control and in economic terms it’s unlikely to have any short- or medium-term impact on prosperity. More

Brexit port food checks in Northern Ireland will be halted from midnight on Wednesday, the Belfast government has announced – reigniting the battle with the EU over the inspections.Edwin Poots, Stormont’s agriculture minister, announced the inflammatory move, which opponents have warned will be a breach of the Northern Ireland protocol.The Democratic Unionist Party minister has ordered his top civil servant to act – although it was unclear whether the permanent secretary, Anthony Harbinson, will comply.It follows a dispute over whether Mr Poots needs the approval of the Stormont executive, which last week failed to back continuing the SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary) checks.Sinn Fein has warned scrapping checks will result in “public ridicule”, arguing civil servants would be obliged to defy any order because it would be unlawful.But Mr Poots said he had received legal advice, revealing: “The advice concluded that I can direct the checks to cease in the absence of executive approval.“I have now issued a formal instruction to my permanent secretary to halt all checks that were not in place on 31 December 2020 from midnight tonight.”The Dublin government was quick to blame London, condemning “a breach of an international obligation by the UK government”.“As the protocol is part of an international agreement agreed and ratified by the UK and EU, its implementation is a matter of international law,” a spokesperson said.On a visit to Northern Ireland last week, the foreign secretary Liz Truss said it was a “matter for the executive” if checks were stopped.The suspension is being seen by many as an attempt by the DUP to boost its fading popularity ahead of crucial elections to Stormont, in May.Michelle O’Neill, the Sinn Fein leader, tweeted: “This stunt is an attempt by the DUP to unlawfully interfere with domestic and international law.“DUP fixated on their own priorities, which are clearly at odds with where the wider community is at. Health, Jobs, Housing, Cost of living crisis is where the rest of us are focused.”Under the Brexit deal, checks on goods from Great Britain must take place at Northern Ireland’s ports to make sure they comply with EU laws.But unionist politicians have attacked the measures – agreed by Boris Johnson – arguing they are unlawful and are damaging Northern Ireland’s status in the UK.Mr Poots said: “I have taken legal advice in relation to my position from senior counsel. Earlier today I received that legal advice.”It stated that at present there is presently no executive approval for SPS checks. The implementation of SPS checks requires executive approval.“A decision to initiate or continue such checks could not be validly taken in the absence of executive approval.” More

Michael Gove admitted his levelling up strategy devolves no extra powers from Whitehall and that its pledges are “aspirational”, as it was widely criticised for lacking beef.The long-delayed blueprint also provides no further funding – after Rishi Sunak vetoed it – and its 12 “missions” have been largely copied from Theresa May’s abandoned plans, it emerged.Boris Johnson said success for his “defining mission” would give the UK “the most prosperous economy in Europe” and it was welcomed by Conservative MPs in the Commons.But the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the missions were “highly unlikely to be met”, criticising a lack of plans for delivery and even “less detail on available funding”.And, in the Commons, Mr Gove was forced to concede that despite promises of “a revolution in local democracy”, the 332-page document will release no further powers from London.Asked to confirm there “isn’t a single new power”, the levelling up secretary replied: “What the framework does lay out is how those local authorities which have fewer powers can acquire more.”The 12 missions – to improve everything from pay, jobs, research and development spending, and transport connectivity in struggling areas, to “restoring local pride” – will be backed by legislation, ministers said.But the white paper argues they are not “a mechanism for holding the government to account”, stating: “Missions are distinct from delivery targets.“Mission end dates are far enough into the future that they are aspirational, with responsibility for delivery resting with a range of governmental and non-governmental actors.”Mr Gove told MPs the package would “make opportunity more equal and … shift wealth and power decisively towards working people and their families”.But Lisa Nandy, the shadow levelling up secretary, protested: “They have given away more to fraudsters than they’ve handed to the north of England.”And Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, attacked the 2030 benchmark for closing the transport gulf with the capital, asking: “Eight years not even to catch up London buses – what kind of ambition is that?”On the other side of the Commons, the Tory MP Steve Baker hit out at “socialist” plans, saying: “We should be using our 80-seat majority to implement Conservative policies, not policies that wouldn’t look out of place in Labour’s manifesto.”The white paper contained few policy ideas beyond adopting a US initiative in which GPs would prescribe vouchers for fresh fruit and vegetables, along with cooking lessons, to cut obesity.It emphasised how it ranges far beyond economic development to areas including cutting crime, to giving fans more influence over football clubs, and even “a National Spring Clean”.On devolution, the document promised talks on “deeper deals” with the West Midlands and Greater Manchester combined authorities, inviting bids from other areas.Combined authorities, largely in urban areas, could be allowed to raise business rates from their current levels – “whilst also considering the impacts on business”. More

Boris Johnson is battling to save his premiership after several more Conservatives announced they had lost faith in the prime minister and called on him to quit.Backbench MPs Tobias Ellwood, Anthony Mangnall and Gary Streeter said they had joined rebel colleagues by sending a letter of no-confidence to 1922 Committee chair Sir Graham Brady.A dozen Conservative MPs have said they have submitted letters to Sir Graham or have publicly called on Mr Johnson to quit in the wake of the partygate scandal.However, 54 MPs’ letters are needed to trigger a confidence vote in Mr Johnson. A majority of Tory MPs (around 180) must then vote against the PM before a leadership contest can take place to find his replacement.So who exactly has called for Mr Johnson to quit? As the rebellion grows, The Independent looks at the rebels who have declared their position.Gary Streeter, MP for South West DevonAnnouncing he had sent in his letter on no-confidence, Mr Streeter said he could “reconcile the pain and sacrifice of the vast majority of the British public during lockdown with the attitude and activities of those working in Downing Street”.Anthony Mangnall, MP for TotnesThe backbencher has submitted a no-confidence letter – saying Mr Johnson’s “actions and mistruths are overshadowing the extraordinary work of so many excellent ministers and colleagues”.Tobias Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth EastThe defence committee chair said it was “just horrible” for Tory MPs to defend partygate in public, and suggested Mr Johnson should “take a grip” of the situation by calling a vote of confidence in himself. Mr Ellwood has submitted a no-confidence letter.Peter Aldous, MP for WaveneyMr Aldous said he had submitted a letter to the 1922 Committee “after a great deal of soul-searching” – saying a new leader would be in “the best interests of the country, the government and the Conservative Party”.Andrew Mitchell, MP for Sutton ColdfieldThe former minister told the Commons Mr Johnson “no longer enjoys my support”, and later said the partygate scandal was corroding the Tory party “like battery acid”.David Davis, MP for Haltemprice and HowdenAlthough the former minister has not said whether he has submitted a letter, he stood up in the Commons and quoted Leo Amery telling Neville Chamberlain, “In the name of God – go”.Sir Roger Gale, MP for North ThanetThe veteran backbencher became the first Tory to announce that he had submitted a letter of no-confidence in mid-December. Sir Roger has since described Mr Johnson as a “dead man walking”.Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West LeicestershireMr Bridgen said in mid-January that he had submitted a no-confidence letter with a “heavy heart”, saying he had “lost his moral authority to lead” over Downing Street parties.Douglas Ross, Scottish Tory leader, MP for Moray and MSPRoss called on Mr Johnson to step down in mid-January, saying: “I don’t think he can continue as leader.” He said he had submitted a no-confidence letter. His position was backed by dozens of MSPs in Scotland, but not by other Scottish MPs.Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Southampton NorthThe former minister said Mr Johnson and the partygate scandal was “damaging the entire Conservative brand”, describing him as a “liability” as she called on him to quit. The Independent understands Ms Nokes has submitted a letter.Tim Loughton, MP for East Worthing and ShorehamMr Loughton said Mr Johnson’s resignation was “the only way to bring this whole unfortunate episode to an end” – calling the PM’s position over partygate “untenable.”William Wragg, MP for Hazel GroveThe vice-chair of the 1922 Committee has been scathing about Downing Street parties and has called on Mr Johnson to quit. Mr Wragg also claimed the whips had threatened and tried to “blackmail” rebels considering a move against Mr Johnson. More