Reader on Catherine Fookes MP's first year in office
It has been a year since the Labour election victory. They promised us change—but they didn't say it would be a change for the worse.
Catherine Fookes and Labour promised they wouldn't raise taxes and said they'd support local business, then they hit small businesses with an increase in National Insurance.
Mrs Fookes went to a meeting at Raglan Farmers market before the election and promised no increase in inheritance tax for farmers - then she voted for it.
Mrs Fookes also promised at public meetings to look after the elderly of Monmouthshire, then voted to snatch away the winter fuel allowance from 20,000 pensioners in Monmouthshire.
Mrs Fookes celebrated the pledge for an investment of £445 million over 10 years for Welsh rail but forgot to mention that it is less than half of what the last Conservative government spent on rail in Wales over the last 10 years.
Mrs Fookes has complained about the impact of the partial closure of the M48 bridge on congestion, travel times, and the local economy in Monmouthshire. Yet time and time again, the Welsh government, Mrs Fookes, and Labour councillors have opposed the Chepstow bypass, which would have reduced travel time, congestion and improved air quality around Chepstow.
In her weekly columns, Mrs Fookes is happy to list local events she has visited, but she never mentions the countless U-turns, the repeated betrayals, and endless failings of this Labour government.
If Mrs Fookes and Labour are truly serious about change, and change for the better. Wales—and Monmouthshire in particular—deserve better than empty words, false pledges, and chaotic U-turns.
Best wishes,
Thomas Hodkinson,
Chepstow
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer to unveil new sleaze watchdog
Sir Keir Starmer is poised to unveil his new sleaze watchdog in the coming days, The Telegraph can reveal. Plans are being made to announce the independent Ethics and Integrity Commission before MPs break for the summer on Tuesday. The commission will take over responsibilities for enforcing rules on lobbying for former government employees and overseeing wider standards in public life. It will also enforce the new legal 'duty of candour' for public officials which will be enacted in the Hillsborough law, which has been promised – but not yet published – by the Prime Minister. However, it is understood other bodies involved in political oversight, such as the parliamentary standards commissioner and the independent adviser on ministerial interests, will remain untouched. Labour pledge from 2021 It is unclear whether tougher new powers will be announced alongside the reorganisation, potentially opening up the plans to criticism that it is largely a rebadging of existing bodies. The commission was pledged by Labour in 2021 and was included in the party's manifesto at last summer's general election. It was used by Sir Keir and his front-benchers to argue it was time to draw a line under an era of Tory 'sleaze' seen in the latter years of the Conservative government. The Labour manifesto stated: 'Labour will restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards. 'We will establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, with its own independent chair, to ensure probity in government.' But little has been said about the commission in public by ministers since July 2024, leading to speculation about the body's future. Insiders have described to The Telegraph how the new commission will operate, with its areas of responsibility now said to be finalised and awaiting announcement. The advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba), which gives advice to former ministers and senior officials about roles taken after leaving government to ensure no conflicts of interest on lobbying take place, will be folded into the commission. Acoba has long been criticised as 'toothless' since there is no obligation for those who seek advice to follow the guidance issued and it has no ability to issue punishments. Yet it is unclear if the commission will be given much stronger powers over lobbying than Acoba, even while it is taking over its responsibilities. A second body – the committee on standards in public life – is also expected to be incorporated into the new commission. That committee, which advises the Prime Minister on arrangements for upholding ethical standards of conduct across public life, was set up by Sir John Major in 1994. Sir John's premiership was hit by frequent headlines about Tory 'sleaze' before he lost the 1997 general election to Tony Blair. The 'duty of candour' the commission will oversee will be contained in the delayed Hillsborough law, which attempts to correct wrongs revealed in the Hillsborough stadium disaster of 1989. The duty of candour has been described as an ethical and legal requirement for public authorities and officials to act in the public interest with openness, honesty and transparency about their actions. Other bodies or roles involved in ethical oversight in politics, however, are expected to be largely unaffected by the new commission. These include the parliamentary standards commissioners, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Electoral Commission. An announcement on the new commission is being prepared to be made before the end of Tuesday, given it is deemed politically wise to unveil plans while Parliament is sitting. 'Current system does not work' But the plan could yet be pushed back if more pressing government announcements or responses to breaking news are prioritised by Downing Street over the coming days. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, had championed the commission when it was first promised by Labour. Ms Rayner said then: 'The current system does not work and it has failed. It only works where there is respect for the rules and there are consequences for breaking them. 'If you break the rules, there should be clear consequences. Our democracy cannot hinge on gentlemen's agreements; it needs independent and robust protection from Conservative corruption. 'Labour's independent integrity and ethics commission will stamp out Conservative corruption and restore trust in public office.' A government spokesman said: 'This is speculation. 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.'
The National
28 minutes ago
- The National
Unite canvass members on cutting ties with Labour
A survey has gone out to between 20,000 and 30,000 Unite reps across Scotland, England and Wales asking for their views on disaffiliating from the party. Unite ending its affiliation would inflict a major symbolic blow to Labour, severing its links with Britain's largest trade union. And it would deliver a punishing financial penalty, with the party currently enjoying an annual £1.4 million affiliation payment from the union. One source told The National: 'It looks like it's favourable to disaffiliate.' They said that the consultative survey was to 'test the waters' after the union voted to reconsider its relationship with the party should it continue to fail to back striking bin workers in Birmingham. In a dramatic measure last week, members voted to suspend Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner's (above) membership for telling workers to accept effective pay cuts. Any decision about whether to disaffiliate from the Labour Party would need to be taken by a members' vote at a special 'rules' conference, which is not scheduled until 2027. However, it is understood that pressure from lay members or committees within the union could push this forward to an earlier date. Severance would cause financial headaches for Labour, whose finances are reportedly feeling the pinch. READ MORE: Activist slams 'draconian' law as protester arrested at Palestine Action demo An internal document warns Labour is in a 'recovery plan' this year to address its 'difficult financial position' and must secure 'at least £4m to adequately resource the 2026 elections', according to the New Statesman. A union source said it would have been 'unthinkable' for Unite to deliberate on disaffiliation even a few years ago, but said repeated blunders from Labour in power – from the Birmingham strikes to cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment cut and disability – had brought the issue into focus. The revelation about the consultation, on which Unite have publicly remained quiet, could put pressure on the union's private discussions with Labour about their relationship. Sharon Graham, Unite's general secretary, this week told the New Statesman that she did not want to 'scupper' talks with Labour going on behind closed doors but added that it was becoming 'harder to justify the affiliation' with the party. Unite did not respond to requests for comment. Labour were approached for comment.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Britain and its people are not safe, former Nato chief warns Parliament
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), said the UK is lacking in ammunition, training, people, logistics, and medical capacity. He told the upper chamber: 'Bearing in mind the difficult world that we live in and have to survive in, this is what I firmly believe: we are underinsured, we are underprepared, we are not safe. 'This country and its people are not safe. 'The British people are faced with a world in turmoil, with great power competitions spilling over now into conflict, with constant grey zone attacks on our mainland, and with Russia – often with the co-operation of Iran, China and North Korea – challenging the existing world order. 'We simply in this country are not safe.' The Labour peer wrote the review alongside the former commander of the joint forces command, General Sir Richard Barrons, and defence adviser Dr Fiona Hill. Artificial intelligence, drones and a £1 billion investment in homeland missile defence all form part of the review's plan to keep the UK safe in the face of threats from Vladimir Putin's Russia and the rise of China. As peers debated the review on Friday, Lord Robertson said: 'When we say in the report that we are unprepared, it is an understatement. 'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare. 'Over the years, and I suppose I must plead guilty to that as well, we took a substantial peace dividend, because we all believed that the world had changed for the better.' He continued: 'Sadly, we were not alone in that. There may have been over-optimism, but at worst, wishful thinking, but the brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin's Russia three years ago was a savage wake-up call for all of us. 'This world we now live in has changed out of all recognition, and we have got to change as well.' Lord Robertson told the upper chamber he is 'confident' the review will 'intimidate our enemies, inspire our friends, invigorate our defence industry, and make our country safer'. Conservative shadow defence minister Baroness Goldie pressed the Government to be specific about the amount of money and timing needed for defence spending to reach 3% of GDP. She said: 'In this exciting and brave new world for defence, the elephant in the room is money, and none of this excellent aspiration proposed by the review means anything without attaching pound signs to the proposals. 'Ambition must translate into specific financial commitment.' Former military chief Lord Stirrup said the Government's spending would need to be restructured to be 'anywhere near 3.5% of GDP for defence by 2035'. 'There is no sign of any urgency on any side of the political divide on addressing this crucial matter,' the crossbench peer added. Former top diplomat Lord Hannay of Chiswick said forms of soft power such as overseas aid and the BBC World Service should be prioritised alongside hard power. 'We really do need to take another look at the hard power soft power balance, recognising that we need them both,' the crossbench peer said. Conservative former defence minister Lord Soames of Fletchling said the British people needed to be told what they should do in the event of a cyber attack that knocked out the internet and phone networks. Lord Soames, who is the grandson of Second World War prime minister Sir Winston Churchill, called for the public to have food stocks at home. He said: 'I believe that unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence, charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack.' Meanwhile, Tory peer Lord Harlech, who is a reservist, said the Government needed to pay more attention to the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. He said: 'For too long, we have treated reserves as an afterthought. A just-in-case solution. Too often called on at short notice, handed out outdated kit, sidelined from training opportunities and then expected to deliver at the same standard as regulars. 'If we are to rely more heavily on the reserves, as the review suggests, then we must be honest about what that actually requires. 'It means giving them the same standard of equipment, no more trickle-down hand-me-downs. It means equal access to courses and training opportunities. 'Too often, reserves find themselves bumped off areas by cadets or even airsoft groups. That is not how a serious military trains.' Labour's Baroness Goudie criticised the review for failing to mention gender, adding: 'The exclusion of women from peace process does not lead to stability. It leads to a relapse.' Defence minister Lord Coaker said: 'We're debating things that we never thought we'd be debating again, about war in Europe and also about the threats to the homeland with respect to attacks on it.' He added that the Government has committed to spend 5% of GDP on national security by 2035, alongside its Nato allies, but conceded 'the trajectory to get to that will need to be thought through'.
