More stories

  • in

    Furious Hunt attacks ‘unworthy’ BBC after Amol Rajan calls chancellor a ‘Soviet Drag Queen’

    Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailJeremy Hunt called the BBC “unworthy” during heated exchanges on the Budget during an interview on Radio 4’s Today programme.The chancellor criticised programme host Amol Rajan after he called Mr Hunt a “fiscal drag queen” and said his plans to boost NHS productivity were “Soviet.” Mr Rajan said Britain was “ravaged by economic shocks” and the economy was “at best drifting, at worst stagnant.”Addressing the chancellor on theToday programme, the BBC presenter said:“We’ve seen seven quarters of GDP per head that’s been revised downwards. We’re hooked on foreign labour. The birth rate is collapsing. Many public services are creaking. Councils are going bust. Those are facts.”The angry Mr Hunt replied that the remarks were “unworthy of the BBC… and unworthy of you Amol”Undeterred, an indignant Mr Rajan defended himself and the corporation saying: “It’s not about what I think – these are the facts.“It’s a bit rich for you to say ‘I’m not a guy who does gimmicks’. People want radical change and you are not delivering it.”Chancellor Jeremy Hunt delivered his spring budget yesterday Mr Hunt sternly replied: “I disagree. We are doing better than other economies in Europe. I do not share your pessimism.”When Mr Rajan added “I’m trying not to be cynical,” Hunt interjected: “I’m not letting you get away with that.”Earlier in the show, Mr Rajan rattled the chancellor by referring to him as a “fiscal drag queen”.He said: “They call you the British fiscal drag queen for good reason. Tax levels are the highest since 1948”.Mr Hunt replied: “You accuse me of being a drag queen. I haven’t been called that before.”After claiming the economy was “at best drifting, at worst stagnant,” Mr Rajan added: “We have had seven quarters of falling per head GDP, we’re hooked on foreign labour, the birth rate is collapsing, many public services are creaking, councils are going bust.”Mr Hunt then lost his temper with the presenter after Mr Rajan said he was “stating facts” as he pointed out that the economy had contracted and public services are strained.As the two spoke over one another, Mr Rajan interjected: “The BBC is an organisation with tens of thousands of people who do lots of different things.”Mr Hunt added: “I’m afraid I don’t share your pessimism.” More

  • in

    ‘Working assumption’ general election will take place in Autumn, Jeremy Hunt says

    Jeremy Hunt has claimed an autumn general election is the government’s “working assumption”.The chancellor dropped a hint about when the nation will next take to the polls during an appearance on Sky News on Thursday 7 March, the morning after delivering his Budget.“When it comes to the choices voters make in an election, it’s about trust,” Mr Hunt said.“Do they see a Conservative government taking responsible, difficult decisions for the long term? Whether [the prime minister] chooses to have the election early, or chooses – which is the working assumption – to do it in the autumn, a Budget has to be responsible.” More

  • in

    Listen: Jeremy Hunt labelled ‘fiscal drag queen’ in heated BBC interview

    Jeremy Hunt said he has not been called a “drag queen before” after being dubbed “the fiscal drag queen” due to frozen thresholds pulling people into higher tax rates.The chancellor was a guest on Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday (7 March), when presenter Amol Rajan informed him he had been called “the fiscal drag queen”.“I want to make a start on bringing down taxes. I’ve never said for one moment that I can bring them right down all in one go,” he said.“I don’t think I’ve ever been called a drag queen before, by the way.” More

  • in

    Jeremy Hunt clashes with BBC presenter as he is forced to defend spring Budget

    Jeremy Hunt clashed with BBC Breakfast presenter Charlie Stayt as the chancellor was forced to defend his spring Budget.The presenter quizzed the chancellor over his Budget on Thursday’s show (7 March) and asked: “Is it true that if you are earning £15,000, because of your decisions yesterday, you will be £400 a year worse off?“Hang on, you’re taking one figure in isolation,” Mr Hunt said. The chancellor then went on to explain how he had increased benefit payments, local housing allowance and extended household support to help people on a low income.The presenter said: “One thing you don’t seem to be able to do is say that is true.” More

  • in

    Michelle Donelan’s libel damages payment not approved by me, Jeremy Hunt claims

    Jeremy Hunt has claimed a £15,000 settlement paid by the taxpayer to an academic who was falsely accused of supporting Hamas by Michelle Donelan was not “approved” by him.The science secretary has come under fire after she was forced to retract comments she made about Professor Kate Sang last year.It cost taxpayers £15,000 to cover damages and the sum was paid “without admitting any liability”, according to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.“The chancellor only approves much larger sums of money,” Mr Hunt told BBC Breakfast on Thursday 7 March, when asked if he signed off the payment. More

  • in

    John Rentoul answers your spring Budget questions – from national insurance cuts to Tory poll numbers

    Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailThe big news, but not the big surprise, from Jeremy Hunt’s spring Budget was that millions of workers are set to benefit from an additional 2p cut in national insurance.The chancellor announced the measures in an attempt to ease the tax burden ahead of next year’s general election.He also confirmed a new levy on vaping, an abolition of the non-dom tax status and another extension of the fuel duty freeze – meaning motorists will continue to save on petrol prices.As we heard Mr Hunt deliver the final budget from Rishi Sunak’s current government, I’ve been answering questions from readers about the spring statement – from the intricacies of national insurance cuts to Tory poll numbers.Here are nine questions from Independent readers – and my answers from the “Ask Me Anything” event.Q: Can the Tories afford to win the General Election now they have set so many economic traps for Labour?Slightly Tipsy MaxA: Good question. Neither party can afford to win the election. Whoever is the next government will face tough decisions about the public finances. It would obviously be easier for Labour to deal with those choices, because public opinion would be more inclined to give a new government the benefit of the doubt – for a few months at least.Q: How does a cut in NI create more jobs as Hunt claims?JecerisA:At the most basic level of economic theory, if you reduce the price of something it increases demand. Cutting NI has the effect of reducing the price of labour and makes it slightly cheaper for employers to hire people. Hunt claimed the Office for Budget Responsibility modelling shows a job-creating effect, and I assume this is true.Q: Who is double checking all the good news? He does not mention the fact UK’s economy has been destroyed and many businesses have left and are still leaving, if not closing down. Listening to Hunt, the UK could not have been doing better ever. Reality is very different though! The UK is not supporting its businesses or population in any way.ResponsibleA: As with most chancellors in most Budget speeches, Jeremy Hunt was selective in the figures he quoted. This or that was the best in the G7, whereas a more balanced presentation would be that the UK’s economic record and outlook are not terrible but nothing special.I don’t think it is fair to say that the government is not supporting the population in any way, though. Many of Hunt’s fiscal problems have been made more challenging by the furlough scheme and business support during the pandemic, and the energy price subsidy since.Q: John, why can those who are of retirement age not pay national insurance? There is a lot of talk about generational unfairness but this would seem sensible, may even fund universal social care and an increased state pension. MrpipesfA: The split between income tax and national insurance is one of many illogical features of the British tax system. Jeremy Hunt seems to be pursuing one route to ending the unfairness, by gradually abolishing national insurance contributions. But we should point out that these cuts (2p in the £ in Jan, another 2p in Apr) are to employee contribution rates only – employers continue to pay a large, and largely invisible tax in employer contributions.In an ideal world, income tax and national insurance should be merged, which would mean older people on higher incomes would pay more. But no politician is willing to lose those votes.Q: Is it correct that a 2% cut in NI means someone on £25,000 gets a tax cut of £248, while someone on £50,000 gets three times as much, £748?Neil LamputtA: I think it is more than that. Today’s cut is worth £435 a year to someone on £25k a year, and £1,310 to someone on £50k. That is my objection to it, and the previous cut: they are worth more in cash terms to people on higher incomes. Norman Lamont’s election-winning Budget in 1992 shot Labour’s fox by cutting income tax for people on lower incomes, which would have been a better idea.Q: Could anything he said make any difference to Tory poll numbers?Mark BurnsA: I don’t think anything Hunt said will make a difference to Tory poll numbers, mainly because it was all already in the public domain, but that doesn’t mean that he *couldn’t* have said anything that would move the numbers.Q: How can the speaker get the government to announce stuff in parliament before briefing the papers? (And does it matter)Ali HughesA: In the old days there were weeks of “purdah” before a Budget, when the Treasury would go dark and journalists really were just speculating, mostly wrongly, about what might be announced.In Gordon Brown’s time in particular, the Treasury became a much more communications-conscious department, and would leak or formally announce measures in advance to try to create a wave of news stories to prepare the way for the one remaining theatrical surprise on the day. Now it is all pre-announced and there is no surprise on the day.I imagine Hunt wanted the 2p national insurance cut to be a surprise, but news seeped out because MPs were warned in advance that extra legislation would be needed (which it would be for NICs but not for income tax changes), and it is almost impossible to keep a government secret these days.The speaker can try to order the tide to retreat, but he will have no luck.Q: What are the risks with further tax cuts in the current UK fiscal and economic environment? old daneA: A very good question! At several moments in Hunt’s speech I thought it was “Trussonomics by stealth”. He and Rishi Sunak are treading a fine line between, on the one hand, reassuring the markets that they have a grip on the public finances, and on the other, having to do irresponsible things in a desperate attempt to win the election.The markets want to be fooled, and so accept unrealistic future public spending plans as long as the Office for Budget Responsibility continues to grumble rather than rebel.But as I say, really taxes should be going up, not down.Q: If the Tories believe that there is no hope at the next election are they mean enough to salt the earth in the next budget for the next government making it even harder to begin to clear up before the election after that? If so what could the Chancellor do?fistfulloffishesA: I’m not sure that Sunak and Hunt are deliberately “salting the earth”. That implies that they have given up and simply want to make life difficult for their opponents. But politicians always delude themselves that they can win – remember that Sunak, for example, thought his career was over when Liz Truss won the leadership election, only to find himself in No 10 at short notice.These questions and answers were part of an ‘Ask Me Anything’ hosted by John Rentoul at 3pm GMT on Wednesday 6 March. Some of the questions and answers have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.John also sends a weekly Commons Confidential newsletter exclusive to Independent Premium subscribers, taking you behind the curtain of Westminster. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, head here to find out more. More

  • in

    Portugal’s anger over corruption and the economy could benefit a radical right party in election

    Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email Home furnishings giant Ikea recently placed billboards in Portugal advertising a self-assembly bookcase, with a wink at the country’s political upheaval. “A good place to stash books. Or to stash 75,800 euros,” it said.That’s the amount of cash, equivalent to $82,000, police found stuffed in envelopes on bookshelves when they searched the office of the prime minister’s chief of staff last year during a corruption investigation.The discovery triggered a scandal that brought down the government and led to an early general election on Sunday.Corruption is a high-profile issue in the election after the cases “caused a lot of public dismay,” said Paula Espirito Santo, an associate professor at the University of Lisbon’s Superior Institute for Social and Political Sciences.The outrage could give further momentum to a rightward drift in European politics as a radical right populist party benefits from disenchantment with mainstream political parties. Similar trends gripped neighboring Spain and France.Portugal’s center-left Socialist Party and center-right Social Democratic Party have alternated in power for decades. They are expected to collect most of the 10.8 million potential votes this time.But both are tainted by charges of graft and cronyism.The election is taking place because Socialist leader António Costa resigned after eight years as prime minister amid the corruption investigation. He hasn’t been accused of any crime.Also, a Lisbon court recently decided that a former Socialist prime minister should stand trial for corruption. Prosecutors accuse José Sócrates, prime minister between 2005-2011, of pocketing around 34 million euros ($37 million) from graft, fraud and money laundering during his time in power.The Social Democratic Party is not unblemished, either.A recent graft investigation in Portugal’s Madeira Islands triggered the resignation of two prominent Social Democrat officials. The scandal erupted on the same day the party unveiled an anti-corruption billboard in Lisbon that said, “It can’t go on like this.”Yet Portugal’s malaise runs deeper than corruption.Despite tens of billions of euros in European Union development aid in recent decades, it remains one of Western Europe’s poorest countries.In 2022, the average monthly wage before tax was around 1,400 euros ($1,500) — barely enough to rent a one-bedroom apartment in Lisbon as prices have shot up amid a housing crisis.Close to 3 million Portuguese workers earn less than 1,000 euros ($1,085) a month. The average old-age pension is around 500 euros ($543) a month. Hardship has grown due to a surge in inflation.The frustrations have come into sharper focus because the election roughly coincides with the 50th anniversary next month of the Carnation Revolution. That army coup swept away António Salazar’s right-wing dictatorship, which had kept the country in shackles for four decades, and introduced a democratic system of government.The landmark event is a powerful symbol of hope in Portugal. In the opinion of many left-leaning people, its lofty ideals have been replaced by grubby political interests.“I’m a bit disillusioned, of course. I think we’re all going through a period of disillusionment … We believed in something,” said Osvaldo Sousa, an opera singer at Lisbon’s Sao Carlos theater who as a 20-year-old student witnessed tanks and troops in the streets on April 25, 1974.“Our dreams came up short,” he said at his apartment in the capital’s suburbs, pointing to current difficulties with housing and public health care.Even more frustrating for people like Sousa is that a radical right party could now have access to power through the ballot box.The Chega (Enough) party may end up in the role of kingmaker if, as expected, the main parties need the support of smaller rivals to form a government.Just five years old, Chega collected its first seat in Portugal’s 230-seat Parliament in 2019. That jumped to 12 seats in 2022, and polls suggest it could more than double that number this time.Party leader André Ventura is tapping the public disenchantment. “For 50 years the Portuguese have voted for the same parties and nothing’s changed,” he said recently.Ventura has forged friendly relations with Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and head of the populist, right-wing League party, and French far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Like them, he prefers the EU to be a grouping of sovereign states with no federal obligations. He also wants tighter controls on immigration.Ventura has indicated he is prepared to drop some of Chega’s more controversial proposals, such as chemical castration for some sex offenders, if that opens the door to a governing alliance with other right-of-center parties.He has made use of social media to reach younger voters. One is 21-year-old Carolina Pereira, who said she had to drop out of university because she couldn’t afford to continue.Now she can’t find a job as the work available pays badly, and young people from her city of Almada near Lisbon are seeking work abroad.“I identify (with Ventura) because I want things to change,” she said.___AP videojournalist Helena Alves contributed to this report.___Follow AP’s global elections coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/global-elections/ More

  • in

    Lords vote to exempt heroes who supported UK troops from flights to Rwanda

    Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailPeers have voted to exempt Afghan heroes who have supported UK troops from being sent to Rwanda as part of Rishi Sunak’s flagship small boats bill. The House of Lords backed an amendment on Wednesday night that would prevent the government from removing anyone who supported British armed forces in an “exposed or meaningful manner” from being deported to the African country. It comes after extensive reporting by The Independent on the plight of Afghan heroes who helped the British but were left behind after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.Two former chiefs of defence staff, a former defence secretary and a former British ambassador to the US were among the Lords who supported the clause. Peers voted 244 to 160 in favour of the amendment tabled by Labour peer Des Browne, which also covers the family members of those who supported British troops. The Independent has documented a number of cases of asylum seekers who supported the UK armed forces efforts in Afghanistan and who have since been threatened with removal to Rwanda after arriving in the UK via small boat. Peers inflicted a number of heavy defeats against Mr Sunak’s bill on Wednesday night. The House of Lords also backed an amendment that would overturn the government’s plan to oust the domestic courts from the process of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda. The clause, backed by 278 votes to 189, restores the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in determining the safety of Rwanda and allows them to intervene in certain cases. Ahead of the next election, Rishi Sunak has made ‘stopping the boats’ a key pledge of his leadershipMr Sunak’s government is using the Safety of Rwanda Bill to try and prevent any legal challenges by asylum seekers to their deportation. The bill also currently gives ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights, aiming at clearing the way to send asylum seekers on flights to Rwanda by spring. Peers in the House of Lords also voted by 265 to 181 to enable UK courts to consider appeals against age assessment decisions before a person claiming to be an unaccompanied child is removed to Rwanda. The latest government setbacks to its Rwanda Bill follow five defeats on Monday, setting the stage for an extended tussle between the Commons and Lords during “ping-pong”, where legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.The prime minister had previously warned the Lords against frustrating “the will of the people” by hampering the passage of the bill, which has already been approved by MPs.Ahead of the next election, Mr Sunak has made “stopping the boats” a key pledge of his leadership.Speaking against the bill on Wednesday, Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said: “The courts are there to ensure justice is done and I think justice in this case does require the ability for the law, as it impacts on an individual, to be tested in the courts.“That strikes me as something which is fundamental to the way rule of law operates.“Sometimes that’s really inconvenient to governments… but justice is an important part of our democracy.”Speaking in favour of the amendment to stop the deportation of age-disputed children, Lord Dubs, a former child refugee from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, said: “It’s difficult assessing the age of children, officials can get it wrong, and this modest amendment simply seeks to provide a safeguard against getting it wrong. Yes, the minister can say, ‘If we get it wrong the child can be brought back from Rwanda’. What a terrible thing to subject a child to.“Asylum-seeking children are among the most vulnerable of all asylum seekers.”Lord Alf Dubs is veteran campaigner for refugeesThe Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, a former child refugee from Iran, said: “Safeguarding is not some burdensome requirement, but a legal and moral imperative.”She asked: “Would you consent for this course of action for your own child or grandchild? I do not believe there is any one among us who would.”The government’s own provisions in the Safety of Rwanda Bill would mean a person claiming to be an unaccompanied child is assessed by two Home Office officials and a decision is made based on appearance and demeanour.If they are judged to be an adult, they will be sent to Rwanda. The unamended bill would allow judicial review if certain conditions are met, but the person claiming to be a child would need to engage with the process from Rwanda.They would also only be able to challenge the decision based on an error in the law, not on the basis of an error in fact. More