Michael Gove kicks off over Breakfast and hosts' ‘inner Paxmans'
It was a rare moment of rage from Gove on a night when he was on stage with his ex-wife Sarah Vine to promote her book. Those expecting dirty laundry to be aired were disappointed as the two were wonderfully kind to each other — perhaps with good reason. Fellow panellist Lord Swire said the whole evening was an attempt to sell copies of Vine's book and thereby 'reduce Michael's alimony'. The formerly-weds were on such good terms that someone in the audience said their divorce was the most amicable since 'the Duke and Duchess of York' — an especially unflattering comparison for Gove, which Vine immediately rubbished. 'Michael sweats,' she said.
• Michael Gove on divorce, gay rumours, dating and the Camerons
The government has quite literally gone dotty. There has been a seemingly needless rebrand of the gov.uk website and someone has decided to make a big thing of the 'dot' in that address. It is thought that the dot is now a symbol of the government, but it is difficult to confirm this as the guidance on the rebrand doesn't appear to be written in English. The guidance, which is longer than the Strategic Defence Review, says: 'Our dot is the bridge between government and the UK' and is a 'guiding hand for life'. This enterprise cost £500,000, or 2,667 weeks of personal independence payments.
MPs have little time to be aspiring statesmen as they are overwhelmed with local casework, but this can lead to a moment of note. For instance, Peter Swallow (Lab, Bracknell), raised his constituents' concerns after some wildlife had been run over in the area. It was charming to see a Swallow stand up for geese.
You expect some journalists to have used hallucinogenic drugs, but not Matthew Parris, still of this parish. However, in characteristically polite style, he was only doing it to fit in with the locals. He tells Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? that it happened in the Amazon, where he partook of a 'poisoned tree frog'. 'You just go crazy,' he said. 'First I couldn't stand up, then I couldn't sit down.' His hosts sat under trees and saw the mysteries of the universe, while Parris dreamt that Denis Thatcher was telling him to get into the boot of Mrs Thatcher's car. Only an ex-Tory MP could go to the Amazon and see a Jaguar which wasn't a cat.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ban on Palestine Action clears Parliament but faces legal challenge
A ban on Palestine Action as a terror group is poised to become law after peers backed the Government move at Westminster but faces a legal bid to block it. The House of Lords backed proscribing the group under the Terrorism Act 2000 without a vote. A short time before, a so-called regret motion proposed by a Green Party peer criticising the measure was rejected by 144 votes to 16, majority 128. The ministerial order, which has already been approved by MPs, will make it a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison to be a member of the direct action group or to support it. However, it is unclear when the ban, which needs final sign-off by the Home Secretary, will come into force as the group is mounting a court challenge to try to temporarily block the move with a hearing scheduled on Friday, pending further proceedings. The Government crackdown comes after two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 causing £7 million worth of damage, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Four people have been charged by counter-terrorism police in connection with the incident and were remanded in custody following a court appearance. Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said: 'I will always defend the right of British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful protest and to stand up for the causes in which they believe. 'But essential as these rights are, they do not provide a blank cheque for this particular group to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence.' He added: 'We would not tolerate this activity from organisations if they were motivated by Islamist or extreme right-wing ideology, and therefore I cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action. 'By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action's veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name.' But ministers have faced criticism over the decision to outlaw Palestine Action, with opponents branding the move as 'draconian overreach' and comparing the group to the Suffragettes. The United Nations has also warned against the ban, with experts concerned at the 'unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as 'terrorist''. In the Lords, Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb opposed the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. Her regret motion argued the ban undermined civil liberties, constituted a misuse of anti-terror legislation, suppressed dissent against the UK's policy on Israel, and criminalised support for a protest group, causing 'a chilling effect on freedom of expression'. The legislation approved by the Lords also bans two white supremacist groups, Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement, including its paramilitary arm Russian Imperial Legion. The Home Office describes the Maniacs Murder Cult as a neo-Nazi transnational and online organisation which has claimed a number of violent attacks around the world. The Russian Imperial Movement is an ethno-nationalist group which aims to create a new Russian imperial state. Its paramilitary unit fought alongside Russian forces in the invasion of Ukraine to advance its ideological cause. It also runs a paramilitary training programme to support attendees to carry out terror attacks, the Home Office added.
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Streeting's NHS plans are baby steps in the right direction
Some 28 years after Tony Blair told British voters there were just '24 hours to save the NHS', Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer is telling the public that it's now ' reform or die ' for the health service. Blair was evidently wrong. Sir Keir, on the other hand, may well prove to be right. A post-Covid productivity slump, combined with a spiralling funding bill, an ageing population, and a mountainous backlog of cases awaiting care, have combined with the existing flaws in the structure of the health service to produce a serious threat to its continued viability. These trends are not new. The Conservative Party, over its 14 years in office, largely elected not to deal with them, kicking the can down the road rather than face the opprobrium that would come with reform of an institution so riddled with vested interests and political controversy. Health Secretary Wes Streeting, then, deserves credit for being willing to come out swinging when so many before him have meekly elected to decline the double-edged opportunity of reforming the NHS. The Government's new 10 year health plan recognises that there is no route forward for the status quo, and in its attempt to reckon with this has come up with some promising ideas. Ending the 8am rush for GP appointments by training more doctors, focusing on the prevention of illness as well as its treatment, making use of new technology to improve productivity, and publishing league tables that show which parts of the service are failing are all steps that would be welcome if implemented successfully. That, however, is the catch: 'if'. The idea, for instance, that the NHS should have a Single Patient Record to 'bring an end to the frustration of repeating your medical history to different doctors' is a good one. It was a good one, too, when the National Programme for IT in the NHS was launched in 2002, spent vast sums attempting to implement it, and then failed amid bitter recriminations. Similar things could be said of other ideas. The history of the NHS, to borrow from Adam Smith, has too often been a 'conspiracy against the public' on behalf of those providing health services. Sir Jim Mackey's comment last week that the NHS sees patients as an 'inconvenience' aptly summarised the attitudes and culture that must be shattered. Having spent the last year pulling together its plan, the hard work for the Government begins now.
Sky News
29 minutes ago
- Sky News
Fiscal rules are silly but important as Reeves has banged on about them and markets care
You're probably tired by now of hearing all about "black holes". It's one of those phrases trotted out by journalists in an effort to make economic policy sound a little more interesting. And in some senses it's a massively misleading image. After all, when people talk about fiscal holes, what they're really talking about is something rather prosaic: the amount of money it would take for the chancellor not to break her fiscal rules. Those fiscal rules are not god-given, after all. They were confected by the chancellor herself. Missing them will not really result in Britain sliding into infinite nothingness. Even so, whatever you choose to call the dilemma she's faced with right now, it's certainly quite a big deal. And understanding this helps provide a little context for the extraordinary events of the past few days, with markets sliding in the wake of Ms Reeves' teary appearance at Prime Minister's Questions. Following that moment, the yield on UK government debt - the rate of interest we're being charged by international investors - suddenly leapt higher. Granted, the jump was nothing like what we saw in the wake of Liz Truss's mini-budget. And those yields dropped down after the prime minister backed the chancellor. Even so, they underline one very important bit of context. The UK has become something of an outlier in global debt markets. For years, the yield on our benchmark government bonds was more or less middle of the industrialised-world pack. But since 2022's drama, it has hovered unnervingly high, above every other G7 nation. That speaks to a broader issue. Britain might not have the biggest deficit in the G7, or for that matter, the highest national debt. Others (most notably France, and to some extent, too, the US) face even more desperate fiscal dilemmas in the coming years. But markets do still seem nervous about Britain. Perhaps that's because of what they (and we) all endured in 2022 - when British gilt markets stepped briefly over the precipice, causing malfunctions all around the financial system (most notably in obscure parts of the pensions investment sector). But it also owes something to the fact that the chancellor's own fiscal plans are sailing worryingly close to the wind. Reeves made f iscal rules matter The main piece of evidence here is the amount of leeway she has left herself against her fiscal rules. As I said at the start, there's nothing gospel about these rules. But having created them and banged on about them for a long time, even those of us who are a little sceptical about fiscal rules would concede that breaking them is, as they say, not a good look. Back in spring, the Office for Budget Responsibility thought the chancellor had about £9.9bn in leeway against these rules. But since then, she has u-turned on both the cuts in winter fuel payments and on personal independence payments. That reduces the £9.9bn down to barely more than £3bn. But the real issue isn't just these U-turns. It's something else. The stronger the economy is, the more tax revenues come in and the more her potential headroom against the fiscal rules would be. By the same token, if the economy grows less rapidly than the OBR expected, that would mean less tax revenues and an even bigger deficit. And if you compare the OBR's latest forecasts with the current average of forecasts among independent forecasters, or for that matter, the Bank of England, they do look decidedly optimistic. If the OBR is right and everyone else is wrong, then the chancellor "only" has to fill in the hole left by those U-turns. But if the OBR is wrong and everyone else is right, things get considerably more grisly. Even a small downgrade in the OBR's expectations for productivity growth - say a 0.1 percentage point drop - would obliterate the remaining headroom and leave the chancellor with a £6bn shortfall against her rule. Anything more than that (and bear in mind, most economists think the OBR is out by more than that) and she could be £10bn or more underwater. Now, there are plenty of very reasonable points one could make about how silly this all is. It's silly that so many people treat fiscal rules as tablets of stone. It's silly that government tax policy from one year to the next seems to hinge on how right or wrong the OBR's economic forecasts are. Yet all this stuff, silly as it might all seem, is taken quite seriously by markets right now. They look at the UK, see an outlier, and tend to focus more than usual on black holes. So I'm afraid we're going to be talking about "black holes" for quite some time to come.
