Latest news with #governmentPolicy
Times
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Times
Lord Hermer ‘gives himself veto' over government policy
Civil servants have been ordered to 'snitch' on ministers if they suspect them of potentially breaching international law, leading the Tories to accuse the attorney-general of handing himself an 'effective veto' over government policy. Lord Hermer is reported to have comprehensively amended guidance to Whitehall lawyers and civil servants that had been drafted by one of his Conservative predecessors, Suella Braverman. The guidance, which governs how government lawyers relate to ministers, has been tweaked to include a 'snitch clause', according to The Daily Telegraph. Hermer is said to have told civil servants to inform him if ministers might be about to break the law. It was also claimed that the attorney-general inserted 23 references to international law into the guidance and watered down Braverman's instructions that were designed to prevent government lawyers from becoming a 'block' to ministerial policy. Sir Michael Ellis, another former Conservative attorney-general, said that the changes to the document amounted to 'empire building' by Hermer, who had 'effectively given himself a veto over all government business'. Last year Hermer, who is the government's top lawyer and a friend of the prime minister, said in a speech that ministers must protect the rule of law from an 'age of populism'. Despite attending cabinet, Hermer is technically an independent legal adviser to the government. A spokesman for Hermer told The Daily Telegraph that 'government lawyers advise ministers, but it is always ministers that make decisions on policy, as has been the case under successive governments'.
The Guardian
01-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
After the welfare vote debacle, this much is clear: Starmer must change. Labour MPs will demand it
When politicians can't admit they are losing, they say they are listening. Your anger has been heard, says the contrite minister after a byelection drubbing. We are addressing the concerns, says the government spokesperson on the eve of a backbench rebellion. Sometimes, it is even true. Usually, it is too late. The optimal time for Downing Street to have started paying attention to Labour MPs' complaints about disability benefit cuts was before the uprising threatened to torpedo a flagship government bill. It was not, in the end, sunk, but it is listing low in the water. A humiliating Commons defeat was averted on Tuesday night by rolling concessions, diluting and deferring the policy with mounting, chaotic urgency as the vote drew near. 49 Labour MPs still voted to kill the bill anyway. Serious engagement on the substance of the rebels' complaints only began once it became clear they were legion and resistant to the conventional whips' arsenal of threats, pleas and career-advancing inducements. By that stage, relations between No 10 and the backbenches were befogged with suspicion and resentment. Withdrawing financial support from people with disabilities was always going to be a hard sell to Labour MPs. Blurring the line between reform and fiscal parsimony didn't help. It is hard to persuade sceptics that the Department for Work and Pensions will prioritise compassion when cost-cutting under Treasury duress clearly dictates the pace and scope of policy. That mistrust aggravates misgiving about Keir Starmer's strategy and the faultiness of his political antennae. Internal anxiety about Labour's purpose has grown as the party's popularity has shrivelled. There are many reasons for the steep collapse in support since the election. Two of the most commonly cited are lack of rigorous policy preparation in opposition and Starmer's struggle to inspire audiences with a clear sense of what he wants from power. Those might be the same problem. Vagueness on substance, ruthless message discipline and a horror of loose leftish talk that might spook swing voters were vital components in a campaign for ousting the Tories. Last year's election-winning strategy neutralised potential concerns about the prospect of a Labour government, but without generating enthusiasm for the idea. Starmer was the instrument of a broad but incoherent anti-Conservative coalition that lost its galvanising energy as soon as the exit poll was published. Arguably, the dissipation happened even earlier. The sense of an imminent Labour landslide, with weeks of headlines forecasting Tory annihilation, may have depressed turnout and encouraged left-leaning voters to prefer independents and Greens, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't wake up on 5 July to find Rishi Sunak still in charge. To a new government with a majority of 174, that looked like negligible voter attrition at the margins. The scale of the victory seemed to promise at least two terms in power. The official opposition was still the Tories, although Reform UK were already making menacing noises in the wings. Downing Street strategists were not worried about an exposed left flank. They could see frustration on that side of the spectrum where many had hoped Starmer's pre-election insipidity was a feint, but the more pressing concern was an ongoing mission to persuade voters in Labour's 'red wall' heartlands that the party really was for them. That focus intensified once Reform started topping opinion polls. But messages calibrated to Nigel Farage's potential recruits base – reluctance to speak ill of Brexit; a pugnacious tone on immigration – failed to seduce the target audience while driving defections to the Lib Dems and Greens. MPs started warning that this would cost Labour seats. Downing Street didn't listen. That may now be changing. The rebellion on benefit cuts, coinciding with the first anniversary of the election, demands some strategic introspection. No one can pretend things are going well. Steps the government has taken that ought to be popular with the party's base – big cash infusions for the NHS, transport, social housing; expanding provision of free school meals – haven't registered amid the rage against cuts elsewhere. Farage has seized the mantle of radical changemaker, at least in that corner of the political market where change implies tearing down institutions and breaking rules without much thought (or honesty from the leader) about what might replace them. Starmer can't compete in a game of system-smashing. He is a pragmatic fixer by nature and also prime minister – the apex of the system being targeted. While he also can't ignore the concerns of Reform voters, polling evidence suggests they are a smaller, less biddable component of Labour's potential electorate than the liberal-left defectors. A recent poll commissioned by Stanley Greenberg, a veteran US Democratic party strategist with close ties to Labour, found that almost 15% of current Lib Dem voters and 10% of Greens say there is a fair chance they could back Starmer. The equivalent numbers for Tory and Reform are 3% and 1% respectively. The same poll looks at issues that animate swing voters and the messages that might appeal to them. Unsurprisingly, the NHS and cost of living crisis are top of everyone's list. Immigration is also crucial. There is no path to a second term that doesn't include credible reassurance that the nation's borders are securely managed. But there are also fruitful areas where Starmer could lean more to the liberal-left in terms that retain mass appeal. One is urgency around the climate crisis (as long as it is made clear that consumers won't be overburdened but will benefit from lower energy bills). Another is greater clarity about the destabilising effects of Donald Trump's misrule in the US, and the necessary mitigation through closer strategic alignment with Europe. Trump is reviled by supporters of every UK party, including Reform. The only foreign leader who beats him at repelling British voters is Vladimir Putin. Farage has publicly admired them both. Given Greenberg's connections, it is safe to assume his polling and the strategic avenues they illuminate have been seen and taken seriously in Downing Street. The core observation will come as no surprise to Starmer's team. Local elections earlier this year had already revealed the fractious condition of British politics. Also, amid the volatility, a pattern of coalescence into two blocs – a liberal-progressive constellation of Labour, Lib Dem and Greens facing a populist-nationalist insurgency motored by Reform, with the Tories in a sidecar. Recognition of that dynamic explains Starmer's tendency to name Farage as his main rival and treat Kemi Badenoch as an irrelevance. On one level, that is just a description of facts as they appear from current polling. But it also anticipates a general election campaign, where Labour maximises tactical support from Lib Dems and Greens. The assumption is that a litany of grudges against the prime minister will be set aside once the task in hand is blocking Farage's entry into No 10. It is a plausible bet but not a certain one. If Labour continues to aggravate its former supporters at the current rate there is a serious risk of them casting a protest ballot elsewhere or staying at home when the anti-Reform clarion summons them to action. Four years remain before that call goes out. There is still time for Starmer to position himself as the candidate of a mainstream majority that doesn't want Britain to follow the US down the path of bigoted venality, climate denialism and democratic decay. But if the prime minister really does envisage the next election as a head-to-head battle for the soul of British politics, he needs to get cannier at picking fights he can win, while also giving his longsuffering supporters something to cheer. His current method seems likely to do neither. Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist One year of Labour, with Pippa Crerar, Rafael Behr and more On 9 July, join Pippa Crerar, Raf Behr, Frances O'Grady and Salma Shah as they look back at one year of the Labour government, its current policies and plans for the next four years
BBC News
13-06-2025
- Business
- BBC News
Private schools lose High Court challenge into VAT changes
Three high court judges have rejected a judicial review into the government's policy of adding VAT to private school representing families and private schools had argued that the policy was discriminatory and in breach of human rights Robinson, CEO of the Independent Schools Council, which represented some of the families said it is carefully considering the court's judgment and next government defended the policy in court saying it would raise £1.8bn a year by 2029/30 which it would spend on raising standards in the state sector.
News.com.au
29-05-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
‘Stop giving concessions': Major warning on first-home handouts
Potential first-home buyers are falling further behind due to the very schemes designed to get them into a home. Independent economist Saul Eslake said the best thing the government could do to help first-home buyers would be to remove concessions that allow them to buy a home. 'The question isn't what they should be doing, it's what they should not be doing,' he told NewsWire. 'What they have to stop doing is things that needlessly inflate demand for housing. 'Stop giving out what I call second-home vendor grants as I call them because that is where the money ends up.' 'Stop giving stamp duty concessions, all they do is allow people to pay the vendor what they would have paid to the state government and back away from the mortgage deposit guarantee schemes and shared equity schemes,' he said. Mr Eslake said these policies, which are designed to help first-home buyers, simply end up inflating house prices. 'While a shared equity scheme sounds like a good idea, in practice, if you're willing to buy a $400,000 house and the government says 'hey, we will give you 20 per cent', then buyers say 'oh good, I can now afford a $500,000 house'. 'So a $400,000 house becomes a $500,000 house, so it's more a matter of just stop needlessly inflating demand.' One of the key election policies the Albanese government ran on was its expansion of the First Home Guarantee scheme, which is sometimes called the 5 per cent deposit scheme. This program allows first-home buyers to purchase property with a deposit as little as 5 per cent, with the government effectively guaranteeing the other 15 per cent, allowing first-home buyers to avoid paying lenders' mortgage insurance. But in an updated version of the scheme to come into effect at the start of 2026, caps of $125,000 for singles and $200,000 for couples will be removed. The PropTrack April Home Price Index showed national house prices hit a new record high over the month of April, increasing by 0.2 per cent monthly or 3.7 per cent compared with the same time last year. Helia chief executive and managing director Pauline Blight-Johnston said the main risk to the latest policy was the removal of the income caps to get government help. 'Our belief is that we will achieve the most as an economy if the government help is directed towards those that need it the most, and those that are able to help themselves through private enterprise do so without the taxpayers' dollar,' she told NewsWire. 'At the end of the day, our view is that taxpayers' dollars should go to those that really need the help to get into the market, such as essential workers or others that are really struggling.' Ms Blight-Johnston said expanding the HGS didn't address the fundamental underlying issue for those struggling to buy their first home – a shortage of affordable supply. She fears that the government's housing schemes just worsen housing affordability by fuelling demand and driving up prices. Instead, she pointed to first-home buyers using lenders' mortgage insurance as a 'really powerful tool' that is often misunderstood. 'People think of it as a fee …. But if you think of it differently as a wealth creation tool and it allows you to get into a home earlier, on average people that use LMI get in around nine years earlier and around $100,000 better off after five years because they got into the market earlier,' she said. Ms Blight Johnston said mortgage holders would typically pay 1 to 2 per cent as a premium above their usual repayments if they took on LMI. 'If you think property goes up on average 4 or maybe 5 per cent a year, if it is going to take you more than six months to save the deposit, the extra 15 per cent — as LMI takes the deposit down from 20 to 5 per cent – you're going to be ahead by getting into the market earlier and paying the premium.' Mr Eslake said LMI could increase demand for property if it acted like a reduction in interest rates. 'We know whenever interest rates go down, people borrow more and pay more for the house they buy which results in higher prices,' he said.
