One of the many occasions climate change denier and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak uses a private jet.
The shocking waste of money all occurred when Rishi Sunak was either Prime Minister or Chancellor and includes the £140 million on the failed Rwanda scheme and £2.3bn on the scrapped parts of HS2.
Ever keen to portray themselves as the party of sound finances, the Tories have squandered £100 billion of taxpayers’ cash in four years on ‘crony contracts’ and ‘duff deals’, a new report has found.
The shocking waste of money all occurred when Rishi Sunak was either Prime Minister or Chancellor and includes the £140 million on the failed Rwanda scheme and £2.3bn on the scrapped parts of HS2.
The report was compiled by campaign group such as Best for Britain, looking at figures since 2019, which found that just under £15 billion vanished on unused or unusable PPE, storing it and ending contracts – and up to £10,000 of furlough cash went to Koru Kids, a childcare firm in which the PM’s wife, Akshata Murty, has shares.
Naomi Smith, CEO of Best for Britain, said: “The notion that the Tories are safe with money has been blown out of the water.
Tory Chancellor Jeremy Hunt uses Autumn budget to back bosses and attack the most vulnerable
TAX cuts for business while squeezing the most vulnerable are at the heart of the Tory re-election strategy, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement revealed today.
The Chancellor focused on placating angry Conservative activists but offered little to millions struggling with the cost-of-living crisis in slow-growth Britain.
He took particularly aim at benefit claimants suffering sickness or disability with draconian measures designed to force them off welfare if they do not accept jobs that may be either unsuitable or non-existent.
Mr Hunt said that if, after seeking a job for 18 months, a claimant has still not found work they will have to take part in a compulsory work placement and if they “choose not to engage with the work search process for six months, we will close their case and stop their benefits.”
Clearly showing the class nature of his calculations, Mr Hunt boasted that he was ordering “the biggest business tax cut in modern British history” by making permanent a 25 per cent tax deduction for companies that invest in plant and equipment.
In other business-ordered moves, he extended tax relief on firms in special freeports or investment zones, which are themselves to be increased in number.
Desperate to revive the Tories’ bleak electoral prospects, the Chancellor surprised MPs by ordering a 2 per cent cut in employee National Insurance payments, to 10 per cent, which will save the average employee around £450 a year.
Nevertheless, the overall tax take in the British economy is still heading towards a post-war high of 37.7 per cent of GDP, according to the Office for Budget responsibility (OBR).
This blog has featured articles by Morning Star often. Morning Star is imposing a paywall system in an apparently inconsistent manner so that it is uncertain whether this blog will continue featuring it’s articles. 24/11/23 No further Morning Star articles will be featured unless they are accessible without charge. Paywalls are avoided for myself and this blog’s audience.
Image of the Green Party’s Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.
Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer has outlined a 10-point plan of distinctive tax and spend policies aimed at delivering a fairer, greener country. She will dismiss the chancellor’s Autumn Statement, saying it will be “another failed opportunity to end the cost-of-living crisis, tackle the climate crisis and restore crumbling public services on which we all rely.”
Denyer said:
“Our 10-point plan identifies around £30 billion of additional funds that would be available from simply rebalancing the tax system so that the super-rich pay their fair share and both people and planet benefit.”
“The extra revenue raised would enable the government to pay NHS staff an inflation-matching pay award, increase access to NHS dentists, increase Universal Credit, abolish the two-child benefit cap, improve bus services and help small businesses take advantage of the opportunities offered by greening the economy.
“Instead, the chancellor’s Autumn Statement will be another failed opportunity to end the cost-of-living crisis, tackle the climate crisis or restore crumbling public services. It’s clear that as the Tories continue to languish in the polls, Jeremy Hunt has more interest in electoral gimmickry that he has in creating a fairer and greener country.”
The Green Party’s 10-point plan would:
Restore the public health budget by increasing spending by £1.4 billion
Immediately increase NHS spending by £8 billion, to ensure NHS staff can be paid an inflation matching pay award
Meet the Government’s current plan to increase access to NHS dentists by increasing spending 50 per cent – £1.5 billion – of the total NHS dentistry budget
End the rise in homelessness caused by the cap on Local Housing Allowances at a cost of £700 million
Increase Universal Credit by £40 per week at a cost of £9bn
Abolish the two-child benefit cap to reduce poverty for some of the most vulnerable children in the country by increasing the welfare budget by £1.3 billion
Provide the necessary powers and funding to rural local authorities to take back control of bus services so they can increase routes and service frequencies at a cost of £3bn
Turn ISAs green by linking their tax exemptions to investments in green bonds
Invest an additional £3billion in Green Transition Grants for small businesses to help them prepare for and take advantage of the opportunities offered by greening the economy
Rebalance the tax system to raise an extra £30 billion through changes to Capital Gains Tax, National Insurance and the abolition of “non dom status” which would pay for the proposed measures
Championing the Green’s alternative Autumn Statement, Carla Denyer said:
“These fairer, greener alternatives give just a flavour of what could be done if we had a Government willing to tackle the long-term crises we face. They would start to remove the fundamental injustice that means that wealthier people who own more assets often see a lower effective tax rate than less well-off people.
“Everyone deserves easy access to a dentist, improved public health, properly paid and supported doctors and nurses working with decent facilities, reduced poverty and homelessness, and accessible public transport.
“There is enough money in the economy to make our country fairer and greener. What is lacking is the political will to change priorities. And Starmer’s official opposition seems no more ready to offer this than the Government is. That is why we so desperately need more Greens in Parliament to make the case for the common-sense changes that can deliver a fairer greener country.”
The PM has defended sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil activists
The United Nations had warned the long sentences could stifle protest
The protesters caused gridlock after climbing the Dartford Crossing bridge
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has defended sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners following criticism from the United Nations.
Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge.
The UN had warned the government in a letter that the “severe” sentences could stifle protest.
Mr Sunak said in response in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that those who break the law should feel the full force of it.
“It’s entirely right that selfish protestors intent on causing misery to the hard-working majority face tough sentences,” he said.
“It’s what the public expects and it’s what we’ve delivered.”
One of the many occasions climate change denier and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak uses a private jet.
What an asshole Rishi Sunak is calling Just Stop Oil protesters selfish. So they’re protesting for the benefit of the planet and all it’s inhabitants human or animal, risking prison sentences and criminal records. C’mon Sunak you assole, you had better explain how exactly that is selfish?
Isn’t it people like Sunak and fossil fuel investors that destroy our planet, nature and everybody’s future for profit who are the real selfish bastards? The oil industry has known since the 60s that their actions were destroying the planet and they did it regardless for profit. Isn’t that selfish? Of course, these are the selfish bastards.
Sunak when he was Chancellor introduced huge fossil fuel subsidies that are intended to extract every last drop of oil from the North Sea despite knowing full well that that the World is likely to hit 3 degrees C warming as a result. This will lead to more and more extreme climate events as if we didn’t have enough already. It’s uncertain that humans or the planet can take 3 degrees increase due to fossil fuels and this total cnut has the audacity to call those campaigning against this selfish …
Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil’s You May Find Yourself… art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
The Rwanda deal was signed when Priti Patel was home secretary. Rwanda visit April 14, 2022. Image: UK Home Office.
Before publishing this article unaltered, I draw your attention to these excerpts:
…
It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.
…
This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.
But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.
…
So it would appear that UK is not going to be sending refugees to Rwanda despite Rishi Sunak and Conservative claims that it will.
Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next
The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.
Upholding an earlier decision by the court of appeal, the supreme court found that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may be at risk of refoulement – being sent back to a country where they may be persecuted, tortured or killed.
The courts cited extensive evidence from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) that Rwanda does not respect the principle of non-refoulement – a legal obligation. The UNHCR’s evidence questioned the ability of Rwandan authorities to fairly assess asylum claims. It also raised concerns about human rights violations by Rwandan authorities, including not respecting non-refoulement with other asylum seekers.
It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.
The ruling is another blow to the government’s promise to “stop the boats”. And since the Rwanda plan is at the heart of its new Illegal Migration Act, the government will need to reconsider its asylum policies. This is further complicated by Conservative party infighting and the firing of home secretary Suella Braverman, just two days before the ruling.
How did we get here?
For years, the UK government has been seeking to reduce small boat arrivals to the UK. In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement making it possible for the UK to deport some people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda, without their cases being heard in the UK. Instead, they would have their cases decided by Rwandan authorities, to be granted (or rejected) asylum in Rwanda.
While the Rwanda plan specifically was found to be unlawful, the government could, in theory, replicate this in other countries so long as they are considered “safe” for asylum seekers.
The government has not yet sent anyone to Rwanda. The first flight was prevented from taking off by the European court of human rights in June 2022, which said that British courts needed to consider all human rights issues before starting deportations.
A UK high court then decided in December 2022 that the Rwanda plan was lawful.
Catch up on our other coverage of the Rwanda plan:
Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania challenged the high court ruling, with the support of the charity Asylum Aid. Their claim was about whether Rwanda meets the legal threshold for being a safe country for asylum seekers.
The court of appeal said it was not and that asylum seekers risked being sent back to their home countries (where they could face persecution), when in fact they may have a good claim for asylum.
The government has since passed the Illegal Migration Act. The law now states that all asylum seekers arriving irregularly (for example, in small boats) must be removed to a safe third country. But now that the Rwanda deal has been ruled unlawful, there are no other countries that have said they would take asylum seekers from the UK.
What happens next?
Former Home Secretary Suella ‘Sue-Ellen’ Braverman continued with the Rwanda policy.
It is clear that the government’s asylum policies will need rethinking. Should another country now be designated as a safe country and different arrangements put in place, these will probably be subject to further legal challenges, including in the European court of human rights and in British courts.
This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.
But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.
The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that he is working on a new treaty with Rwanda and is prepared to change domestic laws to “do whatever it takes to stop the boats”.
The UK is not the only country to attempt to off-shore asylum processing. Germany and Italy have recently been considering finding new safe third countries to accept asylum seekers as well.
But ensuring these measures comply with human rights obligations is complicated. International law requires states to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution or risk to their lives. As this ruling shows, the UK is not going to find an easy way out of these obligations.
