Latest news with #CarlCourt
New Statesman
2 days ago
- Business
- New Statesman
How Ed Miliband can deliver cheaper energy bills, today
Photo by Carl Court / Getty Images We need to get energy bills down, and fast. Above all else, how quickly we make these bills affordable is what will determine our success as a Labour government. Our work in expanding clean energy and insulating homes will get bills down for good, but these investments will take time while voters are, rightly, impatient for change. The good news is there are ways to get energy bills down now and for free. We can do this by implementing a progressive pricing system. The simplest way is to abolish the standing charge – a flat fee paid by all of us regardless of the amount of energy used. Another is through a 'Rising Block Tariff', where an initial allowance of energy has a lower unit price and energy consumed above this allowance, a higher unit price. With extra exemptions also built in, this pricing system will lead to lower bills for low- and middle-income households and doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. Britain has some of the highest domestic energy bills in Europe and record numbers of people are struggling to pay them. The cost-of-living is still, by far, the most important issue for voters. Nine in ten people see reducing their energy bills as the best way of getting the cost-of-living down. They are right. Making the bills affordable is why I, as a Labour MP, was elected. Our Labour values can be summed up as this: ensuring that every single person in this country can afford a good life. But with one-third of people unable to afford the basics and 3 million emergency food bank parcels being handed out every year, it's clear we are very far from that ideal. If we want a country where a good life is affordable, then we must get energy bills down. Making life affordable was why over 100 MPs came together last week to form the Living Standards Coalition. We come from different traditions of the party, but we share common Labour values and the same overriding electoral imperative. Put bluntly, if we don't get bills down, we lose. Economically insecure voters are 50 per cent more likely to have left Labour. We need to get bills down fast to get these voters back and keep the likes of Nigel Farage out of power. We are building the solar farms, wind turbines, and nuclear power stations that will get bills down for good. We are insulating 5 million homes. But all of these investments take time. People need relief from rising bills now. We have acted, expanding the Warm Homes Discount, which led to an immediate fall in bills for the six million lowest income households, but we can do more to get more peoples bills falling today. There are ways to get bills down quickly and for free, by making the bills we pay more progressive. The simplest way is by abolishing the standing charge, and moving the costs on to each unit of energy consumed. The standing charge, paid by all of us regardless of the amount of energy used, has risen by 43 per cent since 2019. It is, in effect, a flat tax that hits low- and middle-income earners the hardest. Getting rid of this charge would mean that your energy bill is related to how much you use. It is progressive, puts more money into the pockets of low- and middle-income households, and is fiscally neutral. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Another element of a progressive energy bills system is a Rising Block Tariff. Where currently all the energy we use has a flat price, the Rising Block Tariff introduces an initial allowance of energy usage that is priced at a lower tariff. Energy used above this allowance is priced at a higher tariff. Protections are then built in for vulnerable groups such as those on means-tested social security, children, and the disabled to protect poorer, high-energy households. As income is strongly correlated with energy use, it is low- and middle-income households that benefit the most. A Rising Block Tariff is progressive, growth-enhancing, and fiscally neutral. It is progressive because it reduces costs for low- and middle-income households. It is growth-enhancing as it gets more money in the pocket of low- and middle-income families who will then spend more down the local shops and less on foreign gas imports. Crucially, this policy won't cost the Treasury a penny. It redistributes costs within the system. Too many of us are struggling to pay the bills with little relief in sight. Getting to clean energy and insulating homes will get bills down for good, but after years of hard times, people are impatient. They want us to get bills down now. There is a way to do this. By introducing a progressive pricing system, we can reduce bills for low- and average-energy users. Changing to this pricing system would also boost growth, and doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. These are policies that live up to our Labour values and will help us win the next election. Related
The Herald Scotland
14-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Trump to be hosted by King at Windsor during unprecedented second state visit
This will be Mr Trump's second state visit to the UK – an unprecedented gesture towards an American leader, having previously been feted by a state visit in 2019. Mr Trump was presented with a letter from the King regarding his second state visit by the Prime Minister in February (Carl Court/PA) The House of Commons will not be sitting at the time of Mr Trump's visit as it will be in recess for party conference season, meaning the president will not be able to address Parliament as French President Emmanuel Macron did during his state visit this week. However, the House of Lords will be sitting. A senior minister insisted the timing of the trip was a matter for Buckingham Palace, rather than an attempt by the Government to avoid potential embarrassment over a parliamentary address. Treasury chief secretary Darren Jones said: 'I don't know why the particular dates were chosen by the Palace. 'Of course, state visits are organised by the Palace, not by the Government or Parliament.' Former Commons speaker John Bercow opposed Mr Trump appearing in Parliament during his first term in office and 20 MPs have signed a motion resisting an invitation being issued this time around. Mr Jones told ITV's Good Morning Britain the Government was 'looking forward to welcoming' Mr Trump. 'We benefit in terms of our economy and our defence and national security capabilities by continuing our very historic and important relationship with the United States of America, whoever is president,' he said. In February this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer presented the US president with a letter from the King as he invited him for the visit during a meeting at the White House. As the pair were sat next to each other in the Oval Office, Sir Keir handed the president the personal invitation, later saying 'this is truly historic and unprecedented'. After reading it, Mr Trump said it was a 'great, great honour', adding 'and that says at Windsor – that's really something'. US President Donald Trump has two golf courses in Scotland (Suzanne Plunkett/PA) In the letter, Charles suggested he and the president might meet at Balmoral or Dumfries House in Scotland first before the much grander state visit. However, it is understood that, although all options were explored, there were logistical challenges surrounding an informal visit, with complexities in both the King and Mr Trump's diaries meaning a private meeting was not possible over the course of the summer months. This week, a senior Police Scotland officer said the cost of policing a visit by Mr Trump will be 'considerable' and that the force will look to secure extra funding. It emerged on Wednesday that the force was in the early stages of planning for a visit at the end of this month, which is likely to see the president visit one or both of his golf clubs in Aberdeenshire and Ayrshire and require substantial policing resources and probably units to be called in from elsewhere in the UK. Precedent for second-term US presidents who have already made a state visit is usually tea or lunch with the monarch at Windsor Castle, as was the case for George W Bush and Barack Obama. The late Queen hosted Mr Trump during his first state visit. Mr Trump was hosted by the late Queen in 2019 (Jack Hill/The Times/PA) News of the plans for the September visit comes days after the King wrote to Mr Trump to express his 'profound sadness' after catastrophic flooding killed nearly 90 people in Texas. Charles 'offered his deepest sympathy' to those who lost loved ones over the July Fourth weekend, the British Embassy in Washington said. Back in March, Mr Trump sent the King his 'best wishes' and 'good health' in a phone call with Sir Keir after Charles spent a brief period in hospital after experiencing temporary side effects from his cancer treatment. The September state visit comes after Charles visited Canada back in May where he opened the nation's parliament. Many Canadians saw the King's two-day visit to Ottawa as a symbol of support for the country that has faced the unwanted attention of Mr Trump's trade war against his neighbour and threats to annex Canada. This week, French president Mr Macron and his wife Brigitte were hosted by the King and Queen during his three-day state visit. Mr Macron's itinerary included a glittering state banquet at Windsor Castle, a carriage ride through the historic Berkshire town and a ceremonial welcome. The state dinner was attended by the Queen, the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Prime Minister and senior members of the Cabinet.
Scotsman
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Labour promised change
People protest against Labour's plan to cut disability benefits, which was gutted after a major backbench rebellion against it (Picture: Carl Court) I grew up in a traditional working-class family. My parents weren't political with a capital P, but they were loyal Labour supporters. Labour was the party of workers, trade unions, solidarity and socialism. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, 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... Maybe that's why so much of what I write about Labour comes from a place of real shock—and deep disappointment. Because this is not the party my parents once believed in. It's not the party that inspired loyalty across Scotland's working-class communities. From their failures in councils across the country to their betrayal in Westminster, today's Labour is unrecognisable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It started with cuts to the winter fuel allowance—vital support for pensioners—before they reinstated it under pressure. Then came betrayal of the WASPI women. And now the final straw: a Labour government has voted to cut disability benefits. Let that sink in. Not a Tory government, a Labour one chose to take money from those living with illness, chronic pain, disability and mental health conditions. As if that wasn't enough, they tried to wrap this cruelty in a slogan: #DyingToWork. Whoever approved that should be nowhere near public service. What does this mean for Scotland? Nearly one in three Scottish households includes a disabled person. In Edinburgh alone, over 13 per cent of adults live with a disability. These aren't just statistics. They're our neighbours, our friends, our families—people already battered by the cost-of-living crisis, inflation, and years of Tory austerity. And now? Labour austerity too. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Every Labour MP in Edinburgh bar one voted to make their lives harder. Shame on Scott Arthur, Chris Murray and Ian Murray. Anyone who's supported someone through the benefits system knows the emotional toll: the shame, the hesitation, the belief that asking for help makes you a burden. That stigma doesn't happen by accident. It's shaped by Westminster—by choices like this. And we're told these cuts are about 'fiscal responsibility.' But is it responsible to hammer the poorest while letting the richest dodge billions? Just 3.6 per cent of benefit spending is lost to fraud—yet £35 billion is lost every year to tax avoidance and evasion. Why isn't Labour going after them? This is exactly why I support Scottish independence. Not as a slogan, but as a practical, moral necessity. Because under Westminster control, whether red or blue, we will never have a government that reflects Scotland's values: dignity, fairness and compassion. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Labour ran on a promise of change. And they have changed – but not in the way Scotland hoped. They've abandoned the people they were created to protect. They're now competing with the Tories and Reform UK on cruelty, not principle. That is not the future I want for Scotland. We deserve better. We deserve a government that reflects who we are—not one that imposes policies we overwhelmingly reject. Independence is also about dignity. About equality. About refusing to let cruel decisions be made in our name. SNP group leader, Edinburgh City Council
Scotsman
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
How Keir Starmer walked into avoidable trap set by Tories years ago
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox 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... I was in London long enough this week to be reminded why, when in parliament, I used to regard it as the worst month of the year – sweltering hot, grossly overcrowded and business dragging on towards the recess. For Labour MPs, that break will offer some blessed relief from a very tough year and not at all what most of them had anticipated. There are plenty who never expected to be there and will already have one eye on future career options. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Heat does not encourage cool, calm decision-making and may have contributed to this week's 'things that should never have happened'. The private emotions of a Chancellor should never have been exposed to public view. A government with a huge majority should never have to pull a major piece of legislation at the last moment, and so on. People protest against Labour's plan to cut disability benefits, which was gutted after a major backbench rebellion against it (Picture: Carl Court) | Getty Images Failure of basic competence None of this is irreversible. Politics is a series of small earthquakes with not many dead. Sure, this week's debacle registered higher than most on the Richter scale but apocalyptic interpretations can quickly subside if lessons are learned and acted upon. Get the second year right and this week's pundits of doom might, in 12 months' time, be recalling the welfare climb-down as a turning point, rather than a disaster in its own right. It all depends on what happens from here. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the way they concluded, this week's events, which saw a successful Labour backbench rebellion against the government's plan to cut disability benefits, represented a failure of basic competence more than of policy. The job of the whips is to tell Downing Street whether legislation can be delivered and at what cost. Either these messages were not delivered or they were ignored. It's important to know which and make sure it never happens again. If that means changes of personnel, then so be it. A week before Tuesday's finale, it should have been clear that it was too late for the usual formula of 'concessions' and arm-twisting to overcome a rebellion. The whole thing should have been shelved with whatever dignity was still available. It would have been embarrassing but not nearly as bad as the alternative. A narrative about listening to voices of MPs and the disabled would have had credibility. Instead, ploughing ahead with what turned into the maximum display of weakness was the worst of all managerial options. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Tories' many poisoned chalices But what about the policy itself? Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the benefits system needs reform but also that it is an arena which must be tip-toed into with sensitivity – not headlines about saving £5 billion a year which raises the obvious question of who is going to pay for it. It is literally impossible to cut any benefit without provoking an outcry, so a government must be very sure of its ground before it starts. That, presumably, is why the Tories let personal independence payments (PIPs) grow and grow without doing anything about it, since introducing them in 2013. It was one of many poisoned chalices they were delighted to leave for their successors, which was another obvious reason why Labour then had to handle it with great care. The economy is not going to collapse along with the Bill which is, in itself, confirmation of why these reforms should not have been rushed into in a way Labour MPs found unsaleable. For all the political damage that has been done, the challenge has not gone away. In a sense, it is easier to recognise its scale through the more comprehensible Scottish numbers and the fact that the devolved budget is relatively finite. According to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the benefits bill will rise, in real terms, from £6.1bn in 2024-25 to over £9bn by 2029-30 with our version of PIP, the adult disability payment, costing £5bn. A risk to Scotland's finances There's a lot of politics at play, of course, with the Scottish Government anxious to present itself as more generous and, hence, caring. The other interpretation is that it is simply resistant to reform and is doing thousands of Scots no favours by encouraging them into the benefits system rather than into work, where that is a realistic objective. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Either way, the fact is that an extra £3bn being spent on benefits is £3bn that will not be spent on other social goods. As Holyrood's cross-party Public Audit Committee told the Auditor General this week: 'We agree with your assessment that 'social security spending is increasingly outstripping Barnett consequentials in Scotland' and that this is a risk to the Scottish Government's financial position.' So the issue can be kicked down the road but it does not go away. Whether at Westminster or Holyrood, the assumption that a system which sees more than 1,000 new claimants for PIP/ADP a day can be left unreformed may seem virtuous in the short term but it comes at costs which cannot be concealed for ever. Making a botched job of reform has been foolish. Pretending that there is no need for reform is irresponsible. Clear thinking required There are plenty exonerating factors for Keir Starmer's government in the events of the past year. They expected a grim economic legacy and it proved to be much, much worse than even that. The extent to which international events and demands for defence spending overtook the agenda could not have been predicted. The many good things that have been done have been undeservedly overshadowed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad
The Herald Scotland
03-07-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10
But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. The Prime Minister said his Cabinet should look back with a sense of 'pride' at the first year in office (Carl Court/PA) His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months,' he told the PA news agency. Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he told PA. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising with the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said. The Government's original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected to save up to £5 billion a year, leaving Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to look for the money elsewhere. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some rebels calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday have also led to questions about her future, although a Treasury spokesman cited a 'personal matter' as the cause of her distress and Number 10 said she would remain in post. Asked whether it was time for a course correction, Downing Street has said the Prime Minister will 'plough on' with the 'very busy agenda' of Government. But the MP quoted above said: 'The idea that they can keep carrying on as they've been carrying on is suicidal. 'They have no real sense of how the party thinks and feels.' Others had a more optimistic view of the year ahead, with a Starmer loyalist who supported the Bill suggesting the upset could be salvaged with a 'measured but solid response' from the Government. 'The worst they can do is nothing,' the backbencher added. The Prime Minister used a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday to defend his record in office, telling ministers the welfare Bill was 'to help those who can work into employment and ensure dignity and security for those who can't work.' He said they could all 'rightly look back with a real sense of pride and achievement' on the last 12 months, pointing to a reduction in NHS waiting lists and a series of economic agreements struck with the US, EU and India. Abroad, the Prime Minister faces a tricky diplomatic balancing act as he seeks to strengthen ties with both Europe and Washington amid global instability from the Ukraine war and Middle East crisis. Sir Keir Starmer secured a trade deal with the US last month (Suzanne Plunkett/PA)h At home, Labour is staring down a threat from Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, which turned opinion poll momentum into widespread gains at the ballot box during the local elections in May. Sir John said that parties such as Reform and the Greens offer more choice to voters wanting to express their discontent with Labour while the Tories continue to flounder in the polls. 'The character of the challenge is different from what it has been historically,' he said. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, said people had been expecting bold change on areas such as workers' rights and growth, and the Government's achievements so far were 'pretty small beer' by comparison. Critics say the first year has instead been marked by a series of U-turns, including a partial reversal of cuts to the winter fuel payment and the move to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs after months of resisting opposition pressure to do so. The Government disputes that framing, pointing out for example that ministers had never explicitly ruled out a statutory probe into child sexual exploitation but waited for a review to be carried out before making a decision. Prof Bale said he believed the first year had gone 'worse than most people imagined' and warned 'it's difficult for a leader who starts badly to persuade people that he or she is what they need.' But he said the problems were not necessarily fatal, adding that setbacks early on in a premiership have an upside in allowing for more time to 'turn it round'. 'If you look back to Margaret Thatcher, she was able to do that, so it's not a foregone conclusion that all is lost, even for Keir Starmer himself,' he said. Arguing that the Government could recover in the polls if its plans for the economy and public services pay off, he added: 'I think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's a very long tunnel.' Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' through a phased approach to Government, the first year of which he said would involve 'cleaning up the mess' his administration had inherited. In a speech last week seeking to set the tone for the future, he said: 'We've wiped the state clean, we've stabilised the economy, and now we can go on to the next phase of government, building on that foundation.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We were elected with a commitment to deliver change and security for working people – and we are getting on with the job. 'We are delivering our Plan for Change – wages are rising faster than prices, interest rates have been cut four times, immigration has come down with 30,000 people with no right to be here removed and over four million NHS appointments have been delivered. 'Progress has been made, but we know people are impatient for change – and we are too – so we will continue to govern in the national interest for British people and deliver a decade of national renewal.'
