Cross-party body seeks to tackle divisions in wake of 2024 summer riots
The cross-party body, led by former Tory home secretary Sir Sajid Javid and Labour MP Jon Cruddas, says it will seek to examine what the Prime Minister last year called the 'cracks in our foundation'.
It has support from across the political spectrum, including the backing of Sir Keir Starmer's Government.
The group will develop a series of evidence-based recommendations for measures to build more social cohesion across the four nations.
Former Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, ex-Tory mayor of the West Midlands Sir Andy Street, and former counter-extremism tsar Dame Sara Khan are among its members.
Sir Sajid, who served in the Cabinets of David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson, said successive administrations had treated social cohesion as a 'second-tier' issue.
He said governments had responded 'only when tensions spill over and too often ignoring the root causes.'
'This commission has been established to do what governments alone cannot: take a long view, propose radical policy changes and — crucially — help forge a cross-society consensus about how we want to live together now and in the future,' Sir Sajid said.
Former veteran Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham Mr Cruddas said the commission would seek to respond to one of 'the most pressing and persistently neglected issues' facing Britain.
He said: 'This won't be a top-down exercise. Over the next year, we'll be listening directly to people across the UK – drawing on their experiences to help shape practical, long-term answers to the forces pulling us apart.'
The commission is being facilitated by the Together Coalition founded by Brendan Cox, the husband of the Labour MP Jo Cox who was murdered by a far-right extremist.
It was established in the aftermath of a wave of violent disorder that swept across parts of the UK last summer following the Southport stabbings.
False information spread on social media about the identity of the attacker, later found to be 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana, was widely seen as playing a role in fuelling the unrest.
The disturbances, which saw mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers targeted, were denounced at the time as 'far-right thuggery' by Prime Minister Sir Keir.
Although not officially Government-sponsored, the commission is being supported by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
A spokesperson for the ministry said: 'We want to put an end to community division, which is why we are driving £15 million into towns and cities across the country through the Community Recovery Fund.
'This will provide vital support to areas affected by recent unrest – such as £5.6 million for Southport to help rebuild the town.
'We are supportive of the work that the Together Coalition is undertaking, and we look forward to following the commission's progress.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's mad planning system is becoming more and more absurd
Across the political spectrum, we don't agree on much. But we can all agree that the UK needs more homes and must start building in earnest. So why is Labour-run Birmingham City Council demanding that Mark Jones rip down the £180,000 two-bedroom 'granny flat' he built in his back garden for his dying father? With bin strikes, rat plagues and near bankruptcy, one might imagine that this particular local authority would have different matters on its mind. Mr Jones said he believed the building complied with planning laws and lodged a retrospective planning application. But the council's officious officers found that the Sutton Coldfield IT engineer has fallen foul of their regulations as it was 'over-intensive', and have ordered it to be demolished by the end of the month. The case shows in microcosm what is wrong with Britain's planning system. Like so much that is wrong on our island, from the NHS to the post-war explosion in council housing, its origins lie with the 1945 Clement Attlee Labour government. The 1947 Town and Country Planning Act established our system of planning permission, as well as the modern system of needing consents to build on land. It also meant that all planning authorities had to come up with a comprehensive development plan. Green belts, the listing of buildings and the anathematising of building in the open countryside can all be dated back to this legislation. In some regards, we should be grateful for Attlee's innovation. Anyone who has taken the seven-hour trip from Boston to Washington DC on the Acela Amtrak train will see why. Apart from a stretch along the Connecticut coastline, the prospect out of the windows is of virtually unending urban sprawl. Or contrast the west coast of Ireland with the west coast of Scotland. While the Irish views are endlessly interrupted by the tackiest imaginable McMansions, complete with fake colonnades and naff statuary, the Caledonian vista is virtually uninterrupted. Our planning system has made large-scale developers hugely powerful to a far greater extent than in most other developed countries. Building your own house is straightforward in much of the United States. But then America is a large country with plenty of space, as defenders of the British status quo might point out. The rules in much of Europe, however, are also vastly more flexible. In France, for example, it is relatively straightforward to buy a plot of land on the fringes of a village and build a family home on it. By contrast, in the UK, to build a new single dwelling in the isolated countryside is extraordinarily difficult. One of the very few routes is via what is now called Paragraph 84 consent. This is a rule, first introduced in 1997 in the dying days of John Major's government, allowing for new country houses to be built, but only if they are of 'truly outstanding' design and 'reflect the highest standards of architecture'. We would all, I am sure, like to live in such houses – but to meet such benchmarks requires money, plenty of it. It is not something that rural Mr Joneses, middle-earning IT engineers and their like, will ever be able to afford. The British system places all the cards in the hands of the vast corporate builders, with their new housing developments. Angela Rayner's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is now being pushed through the House of Lords, will only make this problem even worse. It will make development easier, and that is indeed a worthy goal. It will make it easier to overrule Nimby-style objections, but its mechanisms are not there to help people who want to do their own projects. It is all about pushing through large-scale plans in the face of local opposition, be they for new homes, wind or solar farms or the latest railway wheeze dreamt up in Whitehall. It is not about allowing Sir Keir Starmer's much-touted 'working people' to realise their own building ambitions. Our planning system might seem to have been more of a success if our post-war homes were exemplars of design. But that is far from the case. Probably the only country in Western Europe that has uglier townscapes than those found in much of Britain is Germany. Walk through Cologne, and outside of its Cathedral and Romanesque churches you would be hard put to find an uglier city with less inspiring buildings. Colognians have a very good excuse. When their city was rebuilt in the 1950s from the ashes the RAF had reduced it to, beauty was not foremost on their minds. We have no such excuse for some of the horrors that urban planning has imposed on our towns and cities. And our planning laws did little to protect us from these missteps. When Nick Boles was housing minister in the Cameron government, he was evangelical about relaxing planning rules in urban and suburban areas. He wanted to allow thousands upon thousands of Mr Joneses to do pretty much as they pleased with their own land and property, and thought this would make a huge difference to our housing shortage. It would also empower local people. Such an approach would clearly be a disaster if applied to, say, the Victorian garden square of London or the Georgian terraces of Bath. They would soon be scarred with endless glass boxes and extensions which would now be on trend, but soon look very dated. If Labour really wants to empower working people, allowing the Mr Joneses to build on their back gardens could be just the thing. But don't hold your breath.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Scottish Government officials accused of censoring experts who warned Gaelic will die out
Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Officials have been accused of colluding against and "censoring" experts who warned Gaelic-speaking communities will die out within a decade unless radical action is taken. Professor Conchúr Ó Giollagáin, who co-authored a landmark 2020 study into the crisis facing the language, published as The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community, said officials and academics had failed to properly engage with its findings. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said the recently passed Scottish Languages Bill, which aims to support Gaelic in Scotland, was 'largely pointless' and weaker than what was originally proposed. The Scottish Languages Bill is 'largely pointless' | Getty Images But Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes, who has responsibility for the language in the Scottish Government, insisted there had been 'an encouraging increase' in Gaelic speakers. Writing for The Scotsman, Prof Ó Giollagáin, of the University of the Highlands and Islands, said the Scottish Languages Bill failed to respond 'coherently and credibly to the documented reality of Gaelic community demise'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'The official and academic failure to engage sincerely with the reality check which the Gaelic crisis evidence engendered is also implicated in this misguided legislation. 'The book's evidence was subjected to an irrational academic and official antagonism in which custodians of existing Gaelic promotion colluded to ensure that the Gaelic crisis perspective would be denied a fair hearing. 'In censoring the Gaelic crisis, these custodians have merely reasserted a version of what constitutes Gaelic promotion while at the same time refusing to accept any responsibility for its societal failings. They have washed their hands of any linkage between their institutional power and the consequences of official inertia.' He added: 'The reality is that the Gaelic crisis evidence has never been properly considered or debated in Scottish academia, in official language bodies or in governmental circles. Five years on, nobody in these key sectors for Gaelic affairs has sat down with the authors for an in-depth discussion on the implications of their research for the sustainability of Gaelic in Scotland.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Prof Ó Giollagáin said the Scottish Languages Bill 'is more likely to generate a cottage industry of navel-gazing language politics, rather than offering practical help to a language community in existential crisis'. He continued: 'Given the irrelevance of this Bill to the social circumstances of the Gaels, it is likely that this legislation will become the sociolinguistic equivalent of a religious liturgy for a non-existent congregation.' The expert called for a 'Gaelic community summit' to identify sources of support outwith the political sphere, adding: 'Besides availing of the limited opportunities from the Bill, it is clear that the Gaels are going to require a bespoke fund to support their collective efforts to reverse the current trajectory towards social erasure.' Ms Forbes said: 'It is inaccurate to claim that the Scottish Languages Bill was weakened during its progression through Parliament. It was strengthened to make it easier to establish Gaelic schools and introduce targets on Gaelic speaker numbers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'There has been an encouraging increase in Gaelic speakers and we are taking action to drive growth in Gaelic communities, so that more people who speak Gaelic continue to live in those areas.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Starmer's promised ethics commission may repackage existing regulators
Keir Starmer's flagship new ethics and integrity commission may be a rebrand of existing watchdogs brought together under a new 'umbrella' rather than creating an entirely fresh regulator, government sources have said. A year after Labour made its manifesto promise, ministers are mulling the idea of a new oversight structure above current regulators to avoid the need for starting from scratch. They are also considering abolishing some regulators, with one option being to get rid of the lobbying watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) and splitting its functions between the independent adviser on ministerial standards for former politicians and the civil service commission for former officials. Acoba has widely been criticised for being toothless, so any redistribution of its responsibilities could be an opportunity for new penalties for those flouting lobbying rules. Another possibility is formalising the regular meetings of standards watchdogs, convened by the committee on standards in public life, chaired by former military chief Doug Chalmers. However, asked last week whether he wanted responsibility for a new ethics and integrity watchdog, Chalmers told a panel that he did not want the role. Sources suggested the new commission could have its own website 'signposting' to existing ethics structures and providing an overarching governance. Several Whitehall sources said the process of coming up with a new ethics structure had proved more complex than initially thought and that ministers were increasingly reluctant to add a whole new body at a time when they are trying to shrink the civil service rather than expand it. There are multiple bodies with elements of standards as part of their remit including the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Acoba, the CSPL, the parliamentary standards commissioners, the civil service commission, the independent complaints and grievance service, the House of Lords appointments commission, the electoral commission, the UK parliamentary standards authority (Ipsa), the UK statistics authority and the registrar of consultant lobbyists. Part of the complication is that their responsibilities are fairly distinct and some report to parliament while others are responsible to the government. Tim Durrant, programme director at the Institute for Government (IfG), said: 'Labour committed to creating an ethics and integrity commission in their manifesto but more important than the structure is how the standards system works. If all they do is create a new organisation that doesn't fix the underlying issues.' The government has faced criticism over the length of time it has taken to establish the new commission, which was originally championed by deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, who no longer has the brief. Earlier this month, parliament's public administration committee launched a new inquiry to examine the seeming lack of progress and to push the government on what has happened to its ethics commitments. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion It was one of Keir Starmer's flagship manifesto pledges that the new Labour government would 'establish a new independent ethics and integrity commission, with its own independent chair, to ensure probity in government'. The party promised to 'restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards', and to enforce restrictions on ministers lobbying for companies they used to regulate, with meaningful sanctions for those breaching the rules. However, there was no blueprint for a commission ready to go when Starmer formed the government last year. It has barely been mentioned by ministers since last July. The prime minister published a new ministerial code last year, allowing the independent adviser on ministerial standards to start his own investigations into misconduct without requiring permission from the prime minister. It is understood the government is hoping to come forward with proposals soon for a new ethics structure. A government spokesperson said: 'This government is committed to establishing the right structures to uphold the highest standards in public life. We have already taken steps to improve probity and transparency, including through introducing a new ministerial code which emphasises the principles of public life, by strengthening the terms of reference for the independent adviser, and by introducing a new monthly register of gifts and hospitality.'
