uk politics
Naz Shah Effectively Quits Labour Frontbench in Defiance of Starmer on Gaza Ceasefire
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
Labour's Shadow Minister for Crime Reduction has become the first member of Starmer's team to effectively quit over the Labour leader's opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, amid Israel's military response to Hamas' October terror attacks.
In a speech to the Commons, the Labour shadow minister and Bradford West MP said: "Our values push us to do better, and this is why despite all the risks to our personal positions, we must do what is right...
"A Palestinian child is killed every 10 minutes. For the people of Palestine, every minute, every hour, every day we wait is another orphan, another grieving mother and another family wiped out.
"This is why in standing to save innocent lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and representing the people of Bradford West, in today’s motion I will be voting for an immediate ceasefire."
After her defiant address to MPs, Shah told Byline Times: "I have never voted against my party and should this mean that I lose my frontbench position, it's something I'm willing to accept as this is about more than me - it's about innocent Palestinians losing their lives."
Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman appeared to confirm to journalists on Wednesday afternoon that Labour frontbenchers who defy the party whip - by backing the Scottish National Party's motion demanding a ceasefire - would be sacked from their posts.
A dozen Labour frontbenchers could defy HQ over the issue, in what could be the Labour leader's biggest parliamentary rebellion since he was elected. Labour has called for longer 'humanitarian pauses' rather than a ceasefire, saying Israel has a right to defend itself and respond to the October 7 attacks.
Shah has held her post since December 2021.
Don't miss a story
Naz Shah's Speech in Full
The attack against innocent Israelis on October 7 was an egregious crime against humanity.
Families of those killed continue to mourn the loss of their loved ones, and families of those taken hostage praying for their safe return. It would be a grave injustice, to not recognise acts of terror committed by Hamas for what they are.
In the same way, it would be a grave injustice if the world turned a blind eye, whilst innocent Palestinians are being murdered by the hour.
More civilians killed in 6 weeks in Gaza – than civilians killed in 20 months in the Russia-Ukraine war. More children killed in Gaza than the annual number of children killed across all conflict zones since 2019.
More UN workers killed in Gaza, than in any comparable period in the UN’s history. More journalists killed in Gaza, than in any conflict period since 1992.
More bombs have been dropped on the Gaza strip in a few weeks of this conflict, than the number of bombs that were dropped on Afghanistan by the U.S.-led coalition in all of 2019, a country which is 1800 times larger than the Gaza strip.
Hospitals have been bombed, refugee camps have been bombed, United Nations schools bombed, Ambulances bombed, bakeries bombed, Mosques and churches bombed, Northern Gaza bombed, Gaza City bombed, Khan Younis Bombed, the Rafah border bombed.
Almost every inch of the Gaza strip has been bombed.
Over 11,000 innocent civilians killed, the hopes, dreams, and futures of nearly 5000 Palestinian children ended in mass graves.
2.3 million people fleeing death and destruction, babies dying in incubators, pregnant women having Cesarean without anaesthetic. No fuel to power hospitals. No food to feed the living and searching for clean water being as rare as searching for gold.
Make no mistake, this is a humanitarian catastrophe. I urge members to back an immediate ceasefire on all sides and push for the release of hostages.
It’s a call backed by 120 members of the U N Security council, backed by 17 UN Agencies, backed by the UN General Secretary, backed by the World Health Organisation, backed by the World Food Programme, backed by Amnesty International, backed by over 600 leading international NGOs including Oxfam, Save the children, Christian Aid, Medical Aid for Palestinians, The international committee for refugees, backed by the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury, backed by the overwhelming British public and now backed by President Macron of France.
‘The Anti-Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions Bill is Another Way to Silence Pro-Palestinian Voices’
A bill to restrict public bodies from making ethical financial decisions based on the conduct of foreign states makes no distinction between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Sharmen Rahman
Calls for an immediate ceasefire are growing day by day, and seen as the only viable solution to future peace in the region.
Almost every single international aid agency in the entire world is saying vital humanitarian aid cannot be delivered without a ceasefire.
The very agencies whose expertise we rely upon in other conflicts and take their lead, so why not this time?
We need a political solution to an issue which leads to peace, not one that ends in a way which is so horrific, it emboldens more terror in the region.
Injustice is the greatest barrier to peace, and the truth is we cannot expect peace unless we enable justice to be delivered.
And nothing symbolises our British values better than the statue of lady justice towering over the Old Bailey.
Figuratively blinded because justice is unbiased, the scales representing the impartiality of decisions and the sword, a symbol of the power of justice.
These values embody our British way of life, and the lens which the world sees us through.
But when Israel acts with impunity and attacks Hospitals, UN schools and refugee camps, and the case for the Palestinians is vetoed by the US and UK at the international criminal Court then the world asks if our justice is really unbiased.
Amid rising attacks on Muslims in the UK, the former Faith Minister launches a thinly-veiled broadside against Sunak’s Government, and calls for a new civil rights movement in Britain
Josiah Mortimer
When we rightfully condemn extremist and genocidal statements by Hamas but fail to utter a single word about the genocidal rhetoric being spouted by Netanyahu and his right-wing government - then the world asks, are our scales of justice truly impartial?
When we follow the path of justice and the rule of law in the face of Putin’s aggression, but yet Israel continues to defy UN resolutions with empty words and no action . Then the world wonders where is the sword of justice?
When we fail to provide equal application of justice, then in the eyes of the world, it is “one rule for the allies of the US, and another for the rest.”
These are not my words, but the words uttered by the former Labour Foreign secretary, the late Robin Cook, in this very chamber - that sadly ring true 20 years on,
Our values push us to do better, and this is why despite all the risks to our personal positions, we must do what is right.
Whilst it may be a matter of convention to follow our closest ally, the US in interests of foreign policy, it is a matter of conscience to step away from our closest ally, in the interests of peace.
We know that eventually there will be a ceasefire in this current crisis. Every war ends with a cessation of hostilities. The question is not if there will be a ceasefire but when.
A Palestinian child is killed every 10 minutes. For the people of Palestine, every minute, every hour, every day we wait is another orphan, another grieving mother and another family wiped out.
This is why in standing to save innocent lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and representing the people of Bradford West, in today’s motion I will be voting for an immediate ceasefire.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
‘They are Cutting Down the Cemetery Trees for Firewood’: Life in the Middle of Gaza Amid War
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
Hamza Elbuhaisi is an award-winning British-Palestinian journalist, author and researcher with more than 15 years’ experience working with in TV, radio, documentaries and online media.
He is currently trapped in Dair Al Balah, central Gaza, with his wife Sara Albhaisi, and has told Byline Times that they are waiting for their names to be placed on the Home Office's list of nationals who can cross into Egypt.
Here he provides a snapshot of the situation in the war-ravaged strip, as told to this newspaper on the evening of Monday 13 November.
'The Smell of Death is Everywhere'
I came to Gaza to see my wife and family. Now I'm stuck in Gaza, waiting for the UK Government to put our names on the Rafah crossing [list] to cross the border.
So I'm waiting to cross to Egypt to apply there for a visa for my wife. I cannot get a visa for my wife in Gaza, because I cannot reach the consulate, and I cannot go to the north of Gaza because the Israeli tanks are there shooting at everyone.
I struggle with illness and my wife is my carer. I take medicines regularly. Recently, I couldn't get some of my medicines, because they ran out at the pharmacies. I cannot sleep well, and I am struggling to deal with this horrific reality.
Stopping taking some of my medicines soon will affect me badly. Last week, I visited 12 pharmacies. I found the last two tablets for two different medicines, for just one week. So I have enough medications for only one week.
The smell of death is everywhere in the Gaza Strip. I experienced two Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip previously, but [the scale of] this one is completely new to me. And it is a real, declared war – with explosive barrels that smell like phosphorus, [detonating] randomly everywhere.
I’m 36 years old. In 15 years as a TV correspondent and journalist, I have never ever witnessed or covered anything like what is happening right now in Gaza.
The area I’m living in is Deir-al-Balah, in the middle of the Gaza Strip. It was a shelter for those who fled their homes from the north to the southern Gaza Strip.
What we are witnessing in the UK and the US is a weaponizing of the situation in Israel and Gaza to justify pre-existing right-wing or left-wing goals
Alexandra Hall Hall
'No Place is Safe'
Today, no place is safe in Gaza. We are witnessing a horrific war. Israeli war planes are striking the cities like never before, bombing densely populated areas everywhere, particularly Gaza City.
I live in one flat with four families. Most of them are relatives and friends who fled their homes in northern Gaza. Not all the families left their homes – mostly those who have relatives or friends to the south. But some people who didn't know anyone also left their homes.
Again, how exactly will we evacuate more than one million Palestinian people from northern to southern Gaza in less than 24 hours or in a few hours?
The problem is not only the time, but also the space. There are not enough places for everyone. This is why some people sleep in the streets and inside their cars. I saw here some people in Deir-al-Balah sleeping inside their cars. It is tragic.
Most important is the question of where these people will go or how they will get resources they need if they decide to stay. Also, we haven’t had electricity for nearly one month. There has been no fuel or gas entering Gaza since the war erupted.
If you don't have electricity, it means you won't have internet. People started to buy batteries and they charge them in the mosques or in any house that has solar energy. Solar energy is the main resource that is keeping people connected with the internet and the world right now.
It's the first time in my life that I’ve been obliged to drink salty water, water that is unsafe to drink. The water is polluted. From time to time, we’re able to buy good still water. But it's very expensive. All the people in the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) schools drink polluted water. Some of them don't have money to buy water.
I also noticed that all the drivers who fill their water tanks with safe distilled water have now swapped it out for the salty tap water, because clean water is all sold out from the shops. To find healthy water to drink, you need to make lots of calls and wait for one, two days or more. Or you wait for aid. I saw a truck in front of the UNRWA schools, sharing clean water, giving people some bottled water. Each one got a box of some bottles.
‘The Anti-Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions Bill is Another Way to Silence Pro-Palestinian Voices’
A bill to restrict public bodies from making ethical financial decisions based on the conduct of foreign states makes no distinction between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Sharmen Rahman
All That's Left
The food is not enough for four families. Every day, we stand in a queue for at least four hours by the bakery to get some naan bread and not pitta bread. Most of the bakeries who have flour don't have gas or electricity. So they closed. I saw some bakeries that cooked naan bread: they used firewood to cook it.
Of the shops, most of them are closed. Supermarkets are closed as well. The fridges in the shops are not working because there is no electricity. It means that we don't have any yoghurt or milk or healthy drinks. We have no meat or beans. Many people started to buy rice instead of bread. But now the rice is finished as well.
Last week, most of the shops sold only cleaning stuff. What can we do with cleaning stuff in a warzone?
There are no goods coming to the Gaza Strip through trucks. The borders are closed. The aid that enters the entire Gaza Strip isn’t goods – I think it's all medical supplies.
In our family, we bought wood because the gas has finished and we don't know how we’d cook. So we started to use the wood to cook only one small meal for nearly 25 people in the house. And we sometimes help relatives who live in UNRWA schools and provide them with some food.
For example, we cook lentil soup, because it's easy to cook. Sometimes we make only tuna sandwiches. Some days we eat only bread with tea. Today, we ate only bread with some tea.
The medical environment is completely damaged. I live near the biggest hospital in the middle of Gaza Strip. It's called Shahada Al Aqsa hospital. I visit the hospital regularly. There are not enough places for casualties. There are no more intensive care units. So those who have serious injuries are expected to die in a few minutes.
The Graves are Full
The dead bodies are everywhere in the main front yard. The civilian bodies are unidentified because the Israeli air strike targets the whole families, with no mercy or warning.
There is a lack of volunteers to bury the bodies in the graves. The issue here is that the cemeteries don’t have enough places to bury the dead bodies, including in areas like here in Deir-al-Balah.
The cemetery has no more space for dead bodies. The graves are full.
So now they are using one grave for each family, with four or 10 or more dead bodies together. They put them in one grave if they are from one family.
The question here is if this is against international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Nobody is safe in Gaza. Bombs are everywhere, targeting civilians. This is an insane war crime, with the full support of the US, Britain and European Union as well. This is madness, the way they bombard residential buildings and hospitals.
Israel’s leaders will be seen as murderers and war criminals. After all I saw today, and in the last few days, when I visited the UNRWA schools here in my city, I can tell you that the world is unfair and unjust.
This so-called United Nations is failing again to protect civilians against the massive, brutal Israeli machinery. For us, Israel has never been a democratic state, but a gang that has committed war crimes against Palestinians since the first war in 1948.
Amid rising attacks on Muslims in the UK, the former Faith Minister launches a thinly-veiled broadside against Sunak’s Government, and calls for a new civil rights movement in Britain
Josiah Mortimer
The Trees are Gone
We have to raise our voices and tell people the reality.
I live better than the people who have fled to the UNRWA schools. People there are suffering a lot. It's unbelievable. You can't imagine how people are living. They are sleeping on the floor. They don't have mattresses, pillows. Some have only one or two [rugs]. It is very dangerous for the kids.
There are so many problems here. I saw a woman gave birth in an UNRWA school, because she can’t go to the hospitals. She had her baby in front of me. But she is in pain.
It's much better in the middle of Gaza, than in the south and north. There, nobody can reach them. They don't have enough food. I don't know if people who are stuck in the north are drinking or eating. I have no idea. But I can confirm that it's very tragic and horrific.
I cannot imagine how people live there. They are still there. They didn't leave. Some people didn't leave at all in Gaza, including some places in the north because they don't have any friends or anyone to help them to leave.
Today, I saw people in the cemetery, cutting down trees. And when I stopped, I asked them: "what are you doing?" They said to me: ‘We are cutting the trees for the branches. The branches will be used to cook for our children.’
And I thought: never in my life have I seen people cut down trees in the cemetery to make fire to feed their children.
I think that's all. I hope that there will be a ceasefire soon.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
‘Adult Social Care is Broken and Heading for a Bigger Crash – and the Government has Repeatedly Made It Worse’
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
If the funding and provision of adult social care, the access to it, its quality and safety, and crucially the staffing are inadequate, this has serious consequences.
It leaves older or disabled adults without the personal care and support they need to retain independence and control, to remain in their own homes or stay out of hospital, or to access long-term residential care when they need it.
It places an ever greater burden on the millions of unpaid carers (often older people themselves) who we know too often have to support them unaided at detriment to their own health or ability to work.
It leads to avoidable harms and complications and to hospitalisation or lengthy delays in discharge back out of hospital.
Getting social care wrong is a lose-lose situation. And despite fantastic work done by individuals and organisations within the sector, it has been going wrong for several years, with no solution in sight.
A failure to provide sustainable and adequate funding for social care leaves the companies running care homes and home care agencies in a precarious position.
Most of all, with no workforce to deliver care, there is no viable adult social care system. It is a people business and neither artificial intelligence, telecare nor robots are yet ready to take its place – if they ever would be.
The National Audit Office report published this month – 'Reforming Adult Social Care in England' – painted a bleak picture of inaction and delay.
Government pledges to create new training places for social care workers and support training for skills had yet to be enacted, as had proposals to develop a more formal career structure.
At least two dozen councils told the NAO that they would be unable to meet the long-term care needs of their local adult population by next spring.
Despite an additional £265 million being allocated for the years 2022-24 in the Government’s plan, the NAO found that so far only £19.7 million had been spent, partly because the Department of Health and Social Care lacked the staff to administer the training and workforce development plan after its own recruitment freezes.
EXCLUSIVE
What Lies Behind the Shocking Rise of Serious Injuries in Social and Health Care
Andrew Kersley examines why new figures obtained by Byline Times show there has been a surge of injuries inside care settings
Andrew Kersley
The NAO report came only months after a report – 'The State of the Adult Social Care Workforce in England' – by social care planning body Skills for Care, which found that around 150,000 social care vacancies (around 10% of the workforce) were unfilled, with around one-third of the workforce leaving within one year, and average hourly pay rates of only £10.11 for social care workers employed by private contractors.
Skills for Care estimated that, even without widening access to social care for people who need it, demographic change would require an additional 440,000 roles by 2035.
The report identified five factors that could reduce attrition and improve retention: being paid more than the minimum wage; not being on a zero-hours contract; being able to work full time; being able to access training; having a recent qualification.
Having all of these conditions in place could reduce turnover rates from 48.7% to 20.6%. But currently many workers enjoyed few of the five.
There had been a major upturn in international recruitment to the sector in 2023, though insufficient to compensate for the numbers of existing staff leaving.
Unison has described migrant workers in care homes who experiencing conditions “verging on modern slavery”, but who cannot leave their job because employers say they must repay relocation and training costs running into thousands of pounds.
Last year, a Migration Advisory Committee report on adult social care and immigration had highlighted the current reliance on overseas workers and the use of health and care visas for shortage occupations but highlighted the risk of exploitation, poor wages, and poor training.
Meanwhile, Boris Johnson’s 2019 election victory pledge to find “fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a plan” was not reflected 657 days later in his Government’s 2021 Queen’s Speech.
The speech set out plans for an additional £33 billion over three years to be raised by a “levy” in the form of national insurance increases on working adults. But most of the cash was to be given to the NHS, leaving only £1.7 billion a year to social care. Much of this sum would be swallowed up in protecting people whose assets exceeded the £86,000 cap on individual care costs, rather than widening access to social care for others in need.
Even this commitment was then reversed. And choosing the instrument of a flat national insurance rate rise was rightly criticised as inequitable – targeting only those in paid employment, not taxing wealth or assets or those of retirement age and hitting those on lower income proportionately harder.
Nor is the current method of fundraising for social care equitable or progressive. Councils raise income from council tax based on property values and from business rates, so more affluent and thriving areas are able to raise more money, even though population deprivation and need are often lower. And even if they add an additional 'precept' on the council tax, more money will be raised in wealthier areas.
Councils also rely on central government support grants. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that more deprived areas have been hit hardest by cuts to those grants, despite 'levelling up' pledges.
Economic modelling by independent charity, the Health Foundation, in 2021 suggested that, by 2030, adult social care in England would need an annual uplift of £8.9 billion (€10.3 billion; $10.7 billion) just to maintain current levels of service and £14.4 billion to restore access to historic levels. Social care access is already heavily rationed by strict eligibility thresholds and means testing, unlike free-at-the-point-of-use, needs-based NHS care.
These problems go back several years though.
The 2010-2015 Coalition Government’s austerity policy led to major cuts in local government funding and hence to adult social care budgets. And despite episodic short-term cash injections from ministers since then, those cuts were never adequately addressed, even as the population aged and need for care grew.
Independent think tanks The King’s Fund and Nuffield Trust estimated in 2015 that around 500,000 fewer people were in receipt of social care than in 2010.
Don't miss a story
The 2010 election killed off Labour’s proposal for a cross-party consensus on social care funding and was lambasted by the right as a “death tax”.
The 2011 Dilnot Commission made reasonable recommendations, the implementation of which was killed off by the 2015 Conservative Government.
The 2014 Care Act was a well-regarded piece of legislation setting out standard entitlements and protections around assessment, support and care eligibility but did not come with the funding to support its implementation.
Theresa May’s hasty, poorly pitched or risk-assessed proposals of 2017 were shouted down as a “dementia tax” and disappeared from sight.
Brexit damaged the social care labour market.
Points-based immigration rules damaged it further. Although they eventually had to be relaxed to allow more immigrant workers in, lower-paid workers including those in social care were not initially included in the shortage occupation or skilled workers visa eligibility list, with predictable consequences.
UK workers are not lining up for such poorly paid, demanding and safety critical work.
And with labour shortages across many sectors, including the NHS, social care is in a competition to recruit and retain staff.
Labour had a part to play, before the 2010 election, in not planning sufficiently for the future funding and provision of social care and development of the workforce. And Shadow Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting’s recent Conference speech contained little to suggest that the party has an adequate plan now.
The current crisis, however, is largely down to the Conservative-led Government of the past 13 years – either ducking key policy decisions, back-tracking on them, or enacting policy that actively damaged the capacity in the sector.
David Oliver has been an NHS acute hospital doctor for 34 years, looked after a Coronavirus ward throughout the pandemic waves, and has held a variety of medical leadership and policy roles. He is a regular columnist for the British Medical Journal
‘The Supreme Court Verdict on Sunak’s Unlawful Rwanda Scheme is a Victory for Human Decency’
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
In the end the Supreme Court decision could not have been clearer. The court on Wednesday found unanimously that the Government’s Rwanda scheme is in breach of international law and cannot go ahead.
Despite the Government’s repeated insistence that Rwanda is a “safe country,” the court found that there are “substantial grounds” to believe that genuine refugees sent there by the UK would be at risk of return to their countries of origin.
The judges upheld the previous findings of the Court of Appeal that the “memorandum of understanding” between the UK and Rwandan Governments could not be relied upon.
They cited evidence from Rwanda’s previous resettlement agreement with Israel, in which the country breached multiple assurances it had made.
Crucially, despite calls from the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman to force through the scheme by quitting the European Convention on Human Rights, the court found that the Rwanda agreement in its current form would still leave the UK in breach of multiple other international agreements.
Had it gone ahead the UK would have breached its obligations to offer refuge to those fleeing persecution, and to ensure they are not returned to the countries they have fled.
So clear cut was the Supreme Court’s finding that it raises questions about whether Rishi Sunak’s Government could ever really have believed that the scheme was viable in the first place and if so then why.
US Sanctions Rwanda Over Child Soldiers – As UK Sings President Kagame’s Praises
The latest sanctions stand in stark contrast to the UK Government’s often inaccurate descriptions of life in Rwanda, where it plans to send some asylum seekers
Brian Latham
Ever since the scheme was first proposed by Boris Johnson’s Government, legal experts warned that it would place the UK at clear risk of breaching international law.
Yet despite this, multiple Home Secretary’s including Braverman, continued to suggest that it was a viable plan, even going so far to suggest that it was her “dream” to see flights taking off for Rwanda.
That dream, however, is likely now over.
Despite Downing Street’s insistence prior to the verdict that the Government has “contingency plans” in place for a Supreme Court defeat, it is incredibly hard to see a scenario whereby flights to Rwanda ever take off.
Save from Britain quitting all of its multiple international obligations, the scheme is surely now dead for all intents and purposes.
At best the Government can attempt to strike an agreement with an actually safe third country. However, doing so would require time and international goodwill, both of which Sunak’s Government are in short supply of as we creep ever closer to the next general election.
Even if such a plan could be made viable in time, the potential numbers involved would be tiny compared to the tens of thousands of asylum claims still waiting to be processed.
Don't miss a story
Today's finding confirms that the Government’s plans to send refugees to Rwanda were in clear breach of international law.
What it also confirms is that it was in even clearer breach of basic standards of human decency.
Until relatively recently Britain had a proud record of helping to both create, and uphold, the international framework for protecting vulnerable people fleeing war and persecution.
The Rwanda scheme, had it been allowed to go ahead, would have destroyed those protections and that record while setting a dangerous precedent for other governments around the world to follow.
As a result, the Supreme Court’s decision is not only a massive defeat for Sunak's Government, but it is also a victory for all those who still believe in maintaining our basic responsibilities to our fellow man.
Workers Face the Sack if They Don’t Cross Their Own Picket Lines. What Kind of Country is This?
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
The title makes it seem deeply boring and minor: “Minimum Service Levels: Code of Practice on reasonable steps”. But the document released by the Government today represents the biggest state imposition on independent trade unions in decades.
Six sectors of public services in Britain - some of them privatised - will in the next month or so be subject to Minimum Service Levels. The list covers health services, fire and rescue services, education, transport, nuclear decommissioning, and border security.
What this means in practice is that when workers vote to strike in these sectors from now on, a significant proportion of them will be forced to come in - even if they voted to strike - or face the sack.
For most sectors so far - including transport and education - that figure is 40%. The Trades Union Congress estimates that five million workers are now affected by the workers’ rights clampdown, with many told to cross their own picket lines even if they vote to strike. They've branded the law a 'dog's dinner' that will drag out disputes, and tie unions up in more red tape.
What makes the legislation particularly offensive is that unions will be forced to tell their members to come in to work if their employer demands it, during strike action, to meet the new minimum staffing levels. Bearing in mind that strikes often concern the dire understaffing of many public services today, it is viewed by many as a slap in the face. Or rather, being made to slap their own faces.
Don't miss a story
The new Code of Practice is a convoluted mess which requires unions to instruct their members to defy strike actions they democratically voted for - making a drastic shift in the government's approach to industrial relations.
Unions must now navigate a complex web of requirements, pushing them to act against their members' interests and their own principles. Members will be told to break their own strikes, or face the sack. Unions will be told to break their own strikes, or face hefty fines.
Imagine the scenario: NHS workers, having voted to strike, are then told by their union to turn up for work. Many stand firm in their convictions and refuse to cross the picket line. Others might simply call in sick.
In this very likely scenario, they risk termination of employment without any legal protection.
In this environment, the likelihood of resolving disputes quickly and amicably dwindles rapidly.
Unions face another burden - being told to appoint supervisors at every picket line: another layer of bureaucracy to an already strained system. These supervisors are expected to enforce the crossing of picket lines by workers who’ve been told to come in.
BREAKING
David Cameron’s Appointment is the Final Nail in the Coffin of Sunak’s Political Integrity
Sunak’s appointment of the disgraced former Prime Minister gives the lie to his claims to be restoring accountability to Government, writes Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Union officials will have to be condemned by their own unions, or face legal action, for encouraging strike participation by those workers who face orders to come in.
This directive - deliberately, not doubt - will sow division within unions. But it also erodes the very purpose of picketing, to present a united front against perceived injustices, to counterbalance bosses’ power with workers’ voices.
The past decade has seen a raft of anti-union measures passed. The Lobbying (or Gagging) Act restricted their influence in politics. Anti-protest laws have clamped down on their ability to protest. And ministers tried to allow agency workers to break strikes - a move that was recently overturned by the courts, having been rushed through with little consultation.
Minimum service levels will not lead to better public services. Instead, they’ll toxify already strained industrial relations.
The new Code provides a ‘helpful’ draft letter - written by Government - for unions to send to their members, instructing them to break their strikes.
Where are the so-called Conservative libertarians? As usual when it comes to issues of dissent, the protection of a free civil society, they are silent. They prefer to talk about privatisation instead.
Unions will resist this to the fullest extent possible, and rightly so. The TUC has announced a dedicated Congress to discuss the next stage of campaigning against the anti-strike laws, on December 9.
Labour, for its part, has pledged to scrap Minimum Service Levels, a commitment unions will hold Sir Keir Starmer to. In the meantime, the Act will no doubt be hauled through the courts to face the question: when does a right become so eroded, it simply ceases to exist in practice?
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
David Cameron’s Appointment to Cabinet ‘Another Reminder Why the House of Lords Must Go’
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
Former Prime Minister David Cameron's appointment as Foreign Secretary - despite having left Parliament in 2016 - has triggered fresh calls to abolish the House of Lords.
Cameron replaces James Cleverly, who has moved to ousted cabinet minister Suella Braverman’s former role of Home Secretary.
There is no constitutional requirement for a cabinet minister to be an elected MP, but it is very rare that senior offices of state are held by unelected politicians. Lobbyist Cameron has been handed a seat in the 800-odd member House of Lords for life to take up the role.
Today campaign group Republic demanded a written constitution and elected upper house following the move.
Republic's CEO, Graham Smith, said: "This appointment joins a string of recent outrages that remind us of the urgent need to ditch the Lords in favour of an elected upper house.
Don't miss a story
"The whole point of a parliamentary system is that the Government is drawn from those we’ve elected to parliament. Cabinet ministers must come from the Commons, where they can be held accountable by our elected representatives."
"If Cameron wants to return to cabinet he should seek election to parliament, not be parachuted in by a prime minister desperate to shore up his unpopular Government."
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesperson Layla Moran MP also hit out at the move, saying bringing back a “scandal-hit, unelected former Prime Minister” who has been criticising Sunak's Government has the “stench of desperation”.
“There is not even the bottom of the barrel left for Sunak to scrape in the Conservative party.”
David Cameron was at the heart of one of the biggest political scandals of recent years, as he was accused of lobbying for Greensill Capital to secure Government support after leaving office. The firm later went down in flames. A subsequent BBC Panorama investigation claimed that through his salary and share sales, Cameron earned around $10 million before tax for just 30 months of part-time work. The former PM has claimed his lobbying on Greensill's behalf did not break rules.
“Handing him a peerage makes a mockery of our honours system. Cameron’s peerage should be blocked given his shady past,” Moran said. On Monday afternoon, No 10 confirmed that Cameron's appointment went through the usual House of Lords Appointments Commission vetting - but it's not clear if the independent body raised concerns about the former lobbyist.
BREAKING
David Cameron’s Appointment is the Final Nail in the Coffin of Sunak’s Political Integrity
Sunak’s appointment of the disgraced former Prime Minister gives the lie to his claims to be restoring accountability to Government, writes Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Co-leader of the Green Party, Adrian Ramsay, noted that David Cameron started the programme of cuts to UK public services which has “now brought the NHS to near breaking point.”
“He has cashed in on dodgy lobbying for global oligarchs. And on the odd occasion where Cameron did take a principled stand - such as on maintaining the international aid budget - the Government has since reneged,” he added.
Naomi Smith, Chief Executive of Best for Britain described Cameron’s appointment as “another Tory VIP lane, only this time for unelected has-beens.”
“Handing one of the Government’s most prestigious jobs to someone with a prolific record of foreign policy failure and lobbying scandal shows Sunak is not just out of ideas, he is out of support from among his own MPs. He should call an election now,” she said.
SNP Westminster Deputy Leader Mhairi Black MP branded Cameron the “architect of thirteen years of Tory austerity cuts, and the disastrous Brexit referendum”.
The Electoral Reform Society has relaunched its petition demanding an elected second chamber following the move. Darren Hughes, its chief executive, told supporters: “David Cameron was appointed as Foreign Secretary - but he's not been an MP since 2016…Once again we are seeing our political honours system for what it is – nothing more than a grubby giveaway for political allies.
“No Prime Minister should be able to appoint anyone they like to the major offices of state, simply by making them a Lord. However long David Cameron serves in this role, he will be able to sit in the House of Lords for life.”
Cameron’s House of Lords pass will give him “potentially unfettered access to our politicians” for life after he leaves his role of Foreign Secretary. “A seat in the House of Lords is a lobbyist's dream,” Hughes noted.
Campaign group 38 Degrees also relaunched its call for a General Election - pointing out that Rishi Sunak has himself not won a General Election - and is now appointing unelected individuals to senior Government positions. “Huge decisions need to be made and we, the British public, deserve our say on what happens next - and who leads us through this crisis,” the group said in an email to backers.
Non-MPs to secure offices of state in recent decades include Andrew Adonis, who was made a peer by Tony Blair to make him Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools and Learners in 2005, and Sir Mark Malloch Brown, who was made a peer to serve as Africa Minister in 2007. Cameron's appointment appears to be the most significant non-Parliamentary appointment to Cabinet in decades.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
David Cameron’s Appointment is the Final Nail in the Coffin of Sunak’s Political Integrity
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
“Integrity, professionalism, accountability. That’s what I promised when I stood on the steps of Downing Street and that is what we have delivered", Rishi Sunak said last week as he announced his new programme for Government in the King’s Speech.
Fast forward one week and Sunak has not just ripped up this commitment but set it on fire.
His decision to appoint David Cameron as his new Foreign Secretary is both desperate and shameless.
It is desperate in that Cameron’s appointment gives a lie to Sunak’s promise to represent “change” and a challenge to the “old consensus”. However, it is shameless in that it means Sunak has appointed the lead figure in the biggest lobbying scandal to hit the UK Government in recent years.
Cameron's appointment comes two years after BBC Panorama revealed documents suggesting Mr Cameron had made about made about £8 million promoting Greensill Capital, whose boss Lex Greensill had previously been given his own office in Downing Street. The company, which collapsed in 2021, left investors missing billions of dollars, with criminal inquiries ongoing to this day in Germany and Switzerland.
Before it collapsed Cameron made multiple calls and sent dozens of texts to civil servants from outside Government, in a successful bid to allow Greensill to lend £10bn in emergency Covid loans. The BBC later reported that Cameron had also been lobbying the then Business Minister Nadhim Zahawi, who proved to be instrumental in securing Greensill the right to lend hundreds of millions of pounds to eight separate companies under the scheme.
A spokesman for Cameron has previously insisted that he acted in good faith throughout the scandal. However, a report by the House of Commons’ Treasury Select Committee in 2021 found that he had been guilty of a “significant lack of judgment” and that while he may not have broken any lobbying rules “that reflects on the insufficient strength of the rules” rather than any exemplary behaviour by the former Prime Minister.
At the very least the ongoing criminal investigations into Greensill should have given pause to a Prime Minister supposedly committed to retaining ‘integrity’ in public office. Yet far from taking that pause, Sunak has instead simply placed the disgraced former Prime Minister right back at the centre of Government.
As a former MP, Cameron will not even be accountable to the electorate and will instead simply be handed a seat in the House of Lords without any ability for elected representatives to hold him to account.
Asked if Cameron has given up all of his many outside business interests before taking on his new job, Rishi Sunak's spokesman declined to say, adding only that they will "ensure all relevant interests will be managed appropriately".
Rishi Sunak Says it’s ‘Time for a Change’ and the King’s Speech Confirms He Won’t Deliver it
The Prime Minister’s flimsy new government programme suggests he leads a Government that is fresh out of ideas
Adam Bienkov
Conflicted Interests
Of course none of this should come as a surprise to anyone seriously following Sunak's premiership. Despite promising to offer a break from the dishonesty and unethical behaviour of Boris Johnson, Sunak's Government has, if anything, been even less transparent than its predecessor.
His continued refusal to fully publicly declare his wife's financial interests, means that big questions remain about conflicts between his own financial affairs and those of his Government.
Just last month it emerged that Sunak's own Covid fund had paid nearly £2million into four startup companies linked to his wife, three of which later went into administration.
The revelation came after Sunak was rebuked for failing to previously publicly declare his wife's investment in a childcare company that benefited from another Government scheme.
That revelation followed Sunak’s Government announcing that it would hand £600 ‘incentive payments’ to new childminders joining the profession, with these incentives doubling to £1,200 if people signed up through one of six private childcare agencies singled out by the Government.
Asked at Parliament’s Liaison Committee, by Labour MP Catherine McKinnell whether he had any personal interests he needed to declare about the decision, he flatly denied having any.
“No all my disclosures are declared in the normal way,” Sunak told McKinnell.
In reality they had not been.
Within hours it emerged that Sunak’s own wife held shares in one of the agencies set to benefit from his decision. Not only this, but the bosses of the agency had been personally invited into a Downing Street reception that took place just hours after the Prime Minister was questioned about it by MPs.
None of this had been declared by Sunak, either directly, or on his public register of interests.
Also undeclared by Sunak were the details of what was included in the “blind management trust” managing his own financial investments.
This arrangement is ostensibly designed to prevent the Prime Minister from personally being involved in any future investment decisions that may be affected by his own policies.
However, by placing his existing investments within this “blind” arrangement, the public are prevented from ever knowing which Government policies are directly enriching the Prime Minister and his family.
Rishi Sunak Trashed the UK’s Entire Climate Change Strategy for Nothing
New polling shows the Conservatives are set to lose big to Sadiq Khan in next year’s London mayoral election, despite Sunak’s attempts to weaponise, anti-green, anti-ULEZ votes
Adam Bienkov
Revolving Doors
The circumstances in which Cameron has been re-appointed to Government also give the lie to Sunak's claims of integrity.
Although brought in as part of a wider reshuffle, Cameron's return was only triggered due to the collapse of relations between Sunak and his former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
Braverman, who was last forced out of Government just over a year ago for a breach of the Ministerial Code, was brought back into Government by Sunak just six days later.
Since then she has continued to bring her office into disrepute with a series of deeply offensive comments about everyone from gay refugees, to homeless people to pro-Palestinian protesters.
Yet while now seeking credit for her removal from office, the reality is that Sunak only moved against her after her behaviour started to impact on his own personal reputation and authority.
As with Braverman, so too with David Cameron. Despite his claims, what this reshuffle really shows is that whenever faced with a choice between political principle and self-preservation, Sunak has always chosen the latter at the expense of the former.
Who Owns the Thames? Giant Party Boat OceanDiva is Frontline in Battle Over London’s River Amid Claims of ‘Zero Accountability’
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
“Swift the Thames runs to the sea… / Bearing ships and part of me” singer Ewan McColl wrote of Britain’s most famous river. Yet despite its romantic hold over the imagination over all Londoners, who controls what happens on the Thames? Strangely enough, no one seems to know.
The question has become more pertinent in recent months as Thames-side residents face an almighty battle over “Europe’s biggest party boat” which is the size of seven London buses. Costing £25 million pounds, stretching three storeys high and covering almost the length of a football pitch, OceanDiva can accommodate up to 1,500 people.
It is, in short, a roving nightclub which concerned residents feel powerless to challenge.
Objectors say they are fighting to preserve the river for all to use and accuse the operators of the giant yacht of wanting to “plunder the Thames and use Tower Bridge and the world-famous surrounds as a postcard frame for its own commercial benefit.”
Don't miss a story
While the story has been framed by the press as a battle of NIMBYs versus progress, the reality is more nuanced. The concerns are about a lack of a say over what happens on the Thames.
Because accountability seems to end at the riverside when it comes to the Thames. The only guaranteed say any Londoner will get on the OceanDiva plans is - or was - a licensing application that will be made to east London’s Newham Council.
While the boat will be officially berthed there, up to 1,500 partygoers will be boarding three times a week in an entirely different borough - Southwark. But a booze licence is only needed in one place, and OceanDiva’s backers went for Newham, where most of the complained-about disruption would not be taking place.
Wall of Silence
OceanDiva put in their application, which received an unprecedented 1,000 objections. It was then subsequently withdrawn by OceanDiva’s owners in March - and it’s unclear what happens next. For now, residents wait to hear the results of a Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) investigation into an incident during a trial-cruise this June, when the party boat went off course and crashed into a barge.
The Port of London Authority, responsible for safety on the tidal Thames, did its own investigation - but has not published the findings. A spokesperson for the Port of London Authority told Byline Times: “The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) has commenced an investigation into June’s incident. In accordance with our approach for comparable cases on the Thames, we will not be releasing anything until the MAIB report has been published.” But residents had been asking for the PLA report long before the MAIB investigation had begun.
One potential avenue for local dissent seemed to be the Port of London Authority. The PLA is a “self-funding public trust” which governs the Thames. It has powers over ensuring safe navigation and ports, and protecting the environment. They have their own police force. Yet the PLA is not accountable to residents or the Mayor of London, but (notionally) the Department for Transport.
It was meant to be a disaster, but the doomsayers appear to be in retreat.
Josiah Mortimer
Residents tell Byline Times they have struggled to get information out of the charity - on this issue and many others. They are not able to submit Freedom of Information Requests to it, nor to pick its board members.
That lack of a say became pertinent when the PLA contacted interested parties recently about planning applications for electric charging points on the Thames. The body made it clear that they did not have any legal duty to consult on the installations. “That made the request for views seem a bit pointless,” Rachel Bentley, a local Lib Dem councillor leading on the OceanDiva campaign tells me.
Asked who the organisation was accountable to, a PLA spokesperson said: “We are a trust port, accountable to the Department for Transport.” How could residents have a say on their decisions? “Within our remit of ensuring navigational safety, we have no obligation to consult on our reviews of vessels’ passage plans…There are a variety of different opportunities for people to provide feedback to us, including three annual public meetings and other stakeholder events.”
Patchwork of Quangos
Noise complaints, meanwhile, will have to go to the London Port Health Authority - run by the City of London Corporation. The Corporation is itself a strange sort-of-council that is elected partly by residents of the Square Mile, and partly by the businesses that operate there, including at least one sanctioned Russian bank last year.
The PLA raises most of its cash from charges applies to boat owners - for example, for “pilotage” - steering cargo ships safely down the Thames. But its second biggest source of income according to accounts in 2022 is “river works licences, rents & investment income,” generating around £15m of its £78m income.
Much of that in turn comes from charges paid by leaseholders in flats that sit by the river - levied disproportionately on those whose balconies overhang the Thames. One such resident of Shad Thames, who didn’t wish to be named, told Byline Times: “This time they’ve asked for £54,000 [a year] for our building… It seems to me that there's no real justification for these fees.
“The charge is now getting similar to my annual council tax bill. In order to have the right to breathe the air on my balcony, I have to pay the PLA equivalent of my council tax, which seems ridiculous.
“We’re talking around £1300 or something. Only about £8k of the £50k or so is attributed to the jetties that actually sit on the Thames.”
New Cash for Buses Means Little if Councils Remain Stripped of Power by Westminster
Councils are at the whim of multinational transport firms when it comes to local transport
Josiah Mortimer
Under the PLA Act, the legislation underpinning the trust, PLA act, “the cards are stacked in their favour,” the resident says. “If we challenge the fees, they appoint the arbitrator, who then makes a determination. But we have to pay their costs. Lots of people will want to challenge them, but they’re likely to say ‘we’re not going to pay £50k to challenge this’.”
The charge on their building - and therefore individual leaseholders - has gone up by more than 50% since 2016. The PLA told Byline Times: “Arbitration procedures are available when the level of charges is set or reviewed.”
While there might not be oceans of sympathy for residents who can afford to live on the water’s edge, the question of who runs the capital’s river is one that affects all Londoners.
Thousands Affected
On the OceanDiva battle, Kathleen Ehrlich, chair of Shad Thames Residents Association, is frustrated by how residents are being locked out of big decisions about what happens on the Thames. “None of the bodies involved in the [boat] certification process - neither the Maritime and Coastguard Agency or the PLA - are obliged to keep us informed about what's happening. So, when we want information, we have to go to them with very specific requests.”
“The PLA will usually say to us very politely that they are not obligated include or consult residents, but that they will because they are so happy to have us involved. But it's a very one way flow of information - we're not in dialogue with them.
“The only way for our residents to have any voice in this whatsoever is through the licensing process with Newham. There's no way for us to engage or for the PLA to take any of our feelings into their decision making process,” she adds.
For Ehrlich, this is bigger than the press’ narrative about NIMBYs. “We don't really have any recourse…This is an important historical place. It is about the history of working class London that deserves to be preserved.”
The Water Industry is Environmentally Insolvent: So Where is Future Investment Going to Come From?
Polluting privatised water companies have been hollowed out by dividend stripping and reckless borrowing. But there is a way out
Richard Murphy
The PLA has now given a grant to a company called Net Zero Marine Services, which has set up its headquarters here in Shad Thames. The firm plans to build an electric charging station and a “black water” (sewage from boats) pump-out station on the riverside.
“We have an idea of what the impact of 1,500 partygoers three times a week would be, but we've no idea what the impact of having a commercial charging station and a pumping station here would be,” Ehrlich says. Again, the PLA has no obligation to consult on the impact of the sewage pumping in the area.
Ehrlich took a TfL boat back from Greenwich at the weekend. The amount of residential space on the river bank is “incredible” she says. “There has to be tens and tens of thousands of people who are living on both the north and south side of the river. These kinds of party boats really do have an impact on the lives of 1000s and 1000s of people.
“There are a lot of people who aren't millionaires that live in this neighbourhood. We have council housing, and a lot of people don't have anyone representing them to fight this off. They aren't able to pay barristers to get involved, they are counting on their representatives and their residents associations to be their voice in this process," the residents' campaigner says.
Michelle Lovric from the River Residents Group put it simply: “The marine organisations entrusted with decisions about the OceanDiva appear not to be accountable to the public. The fear and outrage of Londoners evidently holds no water for the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, the Marine Management Organisation and the Port of London Authority.”
Residents and Cllr Rachel Bentley are calling for the Mayor of London to step in. But he holds no power over the river, either.
Who owns the Thames? It certainly isn’t Londoners.
OceanDiva and the Mayor’s office were contacted for comment.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Government Claims it ‘Takes Seriously Its Constitutional Role and Responsibility’ – As Another Report Raises Concerns About Britain’s Democracy
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
A group of leading constitutional experts has warned that badly behaved politicians are running roughshod over, and violating, constitutional norms.
The United Kingdom Constitution Monitoring Group (UKCMG) believes there is evidence of a desire on the part of some who operate in the UK political system to wholly bypass democracy.
This group consists of leading constitutional experts, including former permanent secretaries of the civil service, professors of public law, and a former lord chief justice of England and Wales.
It warns that, while elements of an oversight system have been demonstrated to work in recent months, challenges to these systems have had damaging consequences.
Worryingly, the authors of the report believe that this is not just unique to the UK and is part of a much wider international trend.
The Government told Byline Times that it takes the responsibility for upholding the UK’s constitutional settlement seriously.
The report's editor, Professor Andrew Blick of King’s College London, said the period it covers “saw senior politicians, including a former Prime Minister, being found to have violated basic constitutional and ethical principles”.
Constitutionally Objectionable
The UKCMG’s research covers the period between January and June this year and highlights seven primary areas of concern, alongside the behaviour of dozens of individuals.
These spanned the Boris Johnson Lords nominations, issues with the Illegal Migration Bill, the introduction of mandatory voter ID, and breaches of the Ministerial Code.
It highlights how a number of holders of high office in the UK have all been found by official inquiries to have seriously failed to live up to appropriate expectations. Despite subsequently leaving their posts, their accompanying statements to varying degrees failed to accord due respect to – or positively denigrated – the processes concerned.
The Government restated that all ministers are subject to the Ministerial Code. However, the authors found that “this tendency for senior politicians established clearly to have transgressed standards to fail properly to accept such outcomes and to question the procedures that have been found against them is constitutionally objectionable”.
‘A Fully-Elected House of Lords Is Not the Answer to Much-Needed Reform’
Boris Johnson’s controversial appointments to the upper chamber show change is required – but Labour may not be on the right track
Frances Crook
On the 94 peerages Boris Johnson dished out, the report found that the trend of making the appointments to those who have rendered political service or financial support to Johnson and the Conservative Party had accelerated under his tenure.
The Government pointed out how all nominations to the Lords are subject to independent vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission for proprietary.
But Professor Blick added: “That it is possible to inquire into and condemn such transgressions is heartening. However, the response of the individuals concerned tended to be to challenge the process rather than accept the outcome. Pressure on standards in public life, and many other aspects of our system, remain a serious cause for concern.”
The Illegal Migration Bill became an Act of Parliament in July 2023, just outside of the UKCMG’s reporting period. But the group has still highlighted serious concerns with it. This is because consent was not sought from the devolved governments, and the Act removes or reduces legal checks over decisions of the Home Secretary to remove an individual, who arrived in the UK illegally, from the country.
It also places the Home Secretary under a duty to remove those arriving illegally in the UK. The Government told Byline Times that it needs the legislative framework to deliver on Rishi Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats” and clamp down on those abusing the system.
A Home Office Spokesperson added: "The Illegal Migration Act will ensure people who come here illegally won’t have their asylum claim considered in the UK and instead can be detained and swiftly removed.”
Another area of concern for the UKCMG is the introduction of voter ID. The Government has said it has faith in local authorities to implement the change, while continuing to deliver a secure and robust election process.
But the authors state: “There is now clear evidence of voter ID having significant negative consequences on the numbers voting, especially among particular groups. Research conducted by the Electoral Commission found that at least 0.25% of those who attempted to vote in the English local elections were prevented from doing so under the new ID rules.”
This percentage figures amounts to around 14,000 voters. But that number is likely to rise considerably at a general election. Evidence suggests that the real number of those unable to vote was higher because of “data quality issues”.
In addition, polling carried out for the Electoral Commission of non-voters in the English local elections suggested that there were more people still who did not attempt to vote because of the need for ID.
A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesperson said: “The vast majority of voters in the polling station – 99.75% – cast their vote successfully at the local elections in England in May.”
Brexit and the Fracturing of British Identity: A Warning From Ireland
Hardeep Matharu speaks to acclaimed playwright Frank McGuinness about where the nationalist Brexit project being trumpeted by Boris Johnson could end up
Hardeep Matharu
The report also looked at the continuing lack of an executive in Northern Ireland, failures in intergovernmental relations, and the degradation of the Sewel Convention.
Throughout the reporting period, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) sustained its refusal to participate in the Northern Ireland Executive, denying Northern Ireland democratically accountable government at devolved level.
The Government said it is the priority of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see the return of locally elected, accountable and effective devolved government.
The UKCMG found that the lack of an executive in Northern Ireland was undermining the peace process and removes a level of democratic accountability in a way that is of “considerable constitutional, democratic and material detriment” to the country.
Moreover, the authors of the report believe it is “entirely inappropriate for civil servants to be required to make decisions about spending reductions” in Northern Ireland.
'Them and Us’
Baroness Drake, Chair of the House of Lords’ Constitution Committee, said the report highlights a number of issues, many of which her committee has been monitoring throughout the year.
Under the Sewel Convention, the UK Parliament is “not normally” able to legislate without the relevant devolved nation having passed a legislative consent motion.
Baroness Drake said this had been a particular area of concern and that “the committee has been keen to ensure the Sewel Convention is adhered to and has warned that secondary legislation should not be used as a means to circumvent it”.
She added: “The committee has also produced reports on the roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers, the Cabinet manual and the constitutional position of senior civil servants. The committee has followed the progress of voter ID since the Elections Bill was passing through the Lords: we have recently launched an inquiry into the use of voter ID in the May 2023 local elections and lessons to be learned for future elections.”
A Government spokesperson added: “The Government takes seriously its constitutional role and responsibility for upholding our unique constitutional settlement. We have committed to publishing in this Parliament an updated version of the Cabinet manual, setting out our constitutional conventions and practices.”
In response to the findings, former Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, director of Unlock Democracy, said: “Politics isn't working and government politicians believe there is one rule for them and one for the rest of us. Fortunately, there is a simple way to restore order to the chaotic government we have seen in the last few years: introduce a fair and proportional voting system to make sure everyone's vote counts and everyone's voice is heard.”
The Overton Window: Homelessness
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we'll post a free copy of Byline Times
On 4 November, Suella Braverman took to the platform formerly known as Twitter.
“We cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people,” the Home Secretary wrote. “Living on the streets,” she claimed was – for many – “a lifestyle choice.”
Hers is a strategy that aims to restrict tents for rough sleepers. This includes, Braverman hopes, creating a new civil offence to stop charities giving tents to homeless people.
Despite a long list of shocking statements she has recently come out with, this latest announcement seems one of the hardest to fathom. Especially given the rise and rise of homelessness under her and her predecessor’s governance.
By the end of March this year, there were just shy of 80,000 households facing homelessness in England. This is the highest number on record – up some 25% since a new recording system was put in place by the Government in 2018. This new recording system is not ideal for accountability. It makes it hard to work out how bad homelessness has become under the Conservatives since 2010.
What we do know is that, at the turn of the millennium, the figures show that there were 77,986 homeless households in temporary accommodation in England, Scotland and Wales. By 2010, after a decade of Labour rule, that number had dropped some 21%. That year, a Conservative prime minister took power and homelessness began to rise again. Between 2010 and 2018 the number of homeless households in the three nations rose to reach some 96,669 – an increase in eight years of 58%.
More recently, albeit using different ways to calculate the number, there were more than 104,000 households listed in England as being in temporary accommodation. According to the charity Shelter “this is at the highest level ever”.
“Historical records,” it says, “show that numbers were consistently under half what it is today in the decades before this.” There were also some 131,000 children recorded in temporary accommodation in England in March 2023.
Indeed, there are more homeless children in England than people in the British Army (112,000 regular and reserves).
After a point, such figures become meaningless. We begin to unsee the numbers and become numb to the homeless we do see. That’s why, in this picture, when Londoners pass by a man without glancing, it is hard to blame them. London’s streets are filled with too many like him.
Some cry in their desperation. “Give me money,” a young woman asks daily outside Shepherd’s Bush underground station. Others kneel in supplication, begging for alms. Others walk the tube lines, asking for pennies in a world where few carry cash anymore.
None seem to be doing it out of choice. Driven to that place by addiction, abuse or alienation, theirs are never lives that seem chosen.
Who would claim this man – huddled under a wet sleeping bag, ignored by passing crowds who have seen the numbers of unhoused swell and swell under years of Conservative rule – is there because of a "lifestyle choice"?
Perhaps the Home Secretary would say that she did not mean him. But who did she mean then? And where can they be found?
For as I walk the streets of London, I cannot seem to find them in my camera’s window.