Ministers have approved the opening of the first new British coal mine in a generation in a decision has horrified environmentalists and risks fresh revolt by Conservative MPs.
The Woodhouse Colliery project, near Whitehaven in Cumbria, has sparked fierce opposition from local people and environmentalists, including the president of the COP26 climate change summit, former cabinet minister Alok Sharma.
…
Green groups warn that the new pit will damage the UK’s reputation internationally and undermine its ability to persuade others to make sacrifices to tackle global warming.
…
The former chief executive of British Steel Ron Deelan agreed: “This is a completely unnecessary step for the British steel industry, which is not waiting for more coal as there is enough on the free market available.
The entire British government appears to have broken its own ministerial code by failing to declare any conflicts of interest since May.
It is now six months since the UK government last published what is supposed to be its twice-yearly List of Ministers’ Interests, detailing outside interests and dealings for each minister. But Rishi Sunak’s government has been unable even to begin this work, which takes weeks, after failing to appoint the ethics adviser whose job it is to oversee the regime.
It leaves open the possibility that there are scores of undeclared interests held by government ministers.
This is despite Rishi Sunak having promised in July that “I definitely will reappoint an independent ethics adviser and it will be one of the first things I do” on becoming prime minister. He has so far made at least 125 other appointments in government.
Cabinet Office minister Jeremy Quin said more than a month ago: “It is absolutely the prime minister’s intention to appoint an independent adviser,” while Sunak’s spokesperson claimed five weeks ago that it would be “done shortly”.
This sort of government-wide breach of the Ministerial Code has happened just once before – under Boris Johnson – in a situation described at the time by former parliamentary commissioner for standards Sir Alistair Graham as “all pretty scandalous” and “dreadful”.
The Ministerial Code promises that “a statement covering relevant ministers’ interests will be published twice yearly”. Under previous ethics advisers, including the most recent, this has been interpreted as meaning that they are to be released six months apart.
Two resignations
Much of the chaos stems from the UK government’s last two ethics advisers having both resigned under Boris Johnson.
The first, Alex Allan, quit in November 2020, after Johnson refused to uphold Allan’s advice and sack Priti Patel over bullying allegations.
Johnson eventually appointed Christopher Geidt as his new ethics adviser in April 2021 – after dragging his feet over replacing Allan.
On taking up the post, Geidt wrote: “It is my firm intention that the twice yearly publication should now be resumed and maintained, as envisaged in the code.” He then published up-to-date Lists of Ministers’ Interests in May 2021, November 2021, and May 2022.
But Geidt quit in June, after Boris Johnson “placed me in an impossible and odious position”, asking Geidt to approve the breaking of international law by advising on a plan to extend tariffs on steel imports that may have gone against World Trade Organization rules. Geidt said that Johnson was “in the business of deliberately breaching his own code”.
Threat
While all MPs and peers have to sign a Register of Members’ Interests in parliament, the reporting requirements for that are more lax than the strict standards applied to ministers in the Ministerial Code.
But the lack of an ethics adviser causes other problems. Dave Penman, secretary general of the civil service union the FDA, last month highlighted the threat it poses to public servants and whistleblowers: “If a civil servant has a complaint to make about a minister, the lack of a written process is only half the problem, as the lack of someone to even investigate it is a bigger hurdle.”
Deputy prime minister Dominic Raab is currently the subject of “multiple” complaints of bullying from civil servants, with Sunak having had to ask a lawyer to lead an investigation that would usually have been the job of the ethics adviser.
Earlier this week, it emerged that “several” candidates had reportedly all declined the ethics job, with Labour’s Angela Rayner suggesting it was “a poisoned chalice”.
At the heart of the reported reasons for the role being turned down are its limited powers – and Sunak’s refusal to change the terms of reference.
Lord Evans, chair of the committee on standards in public life, has strongly criticised the way that the job – which reports directly to the prime minister – effectively gives the prime minister a veto over which ministers are investigated. Prime ministers are also free to disregard advice from the adviser, as happened in Patel’s bullying case
A Downing Street spokesperson said: “The prime minister committed in the summer to [appoint an ethics adviser], as well as when he became prime minister. Recruitment is underway and we want to appoint as quickly as possible.” They added that “work is happening at pace”.
TORY attempts to use the war in Ukraine to justify yet more real-terms pay cuts for public workers is a “new low for this government,” unions stressed today.
The charge came after Conservative Party chairman Nadhim Zahawi claimed inflation-proof wage boosts would further stoke rising prices amid Russian President Vladimir Putin’s ongoing assault on Kiev.
…
“Unions should rethink and reflect on the damage and disruption to people’s lives and livelihoods at Christmas because that is exactly what Putin wants to see — let’s not divide, let’s come together.”
However, the Royal College of Nursing, which is due to launch its first ever national NHS strike over pay and declining patient safety on December 15, said the public “does not believe this kind of rhetoric and wants ministers to address our dispute.”
Just Stop Oil have issued the following statement:
From today, Just Stop Oil will halt its campaign of civil resistance on the M25. We are giving time to those in Government who are in touch with reality to consider their responsibilities to this country at this time.
We ask that the Prime Minister consider his statement at COP27, where he spoke of the catastrophic threat posed by the ravages of global heating, the 33 million people displaced by floods in Pakistan, and the moral and economic imperative to honour our pledges.
You don’t get to recycle words and promises — you owe it to the British people to act.
Today is Remembrance Day, we call on you to honour all those who served and loved their country. Take the necessary first step to ensure a liveable future and halt new oil and gas. The UK Government’s failure to do so is a criminal dereliction of its fundamental duty — to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens, and is an act of utter betrayal of billions of people living in the Global South. It is murder, plain and simple.
The supporters of Just Stop Oil are now the people upholding law and order and protecting civil society. Under British law, people in this country have a right to cause disruption to prevent greater harm — we will not stand by.
Rishi Sunak has reconsidered his decision to stay away from COP27. It is a screeching U-turn, according to Labour. But is his government really changing its attitude to climate breakdown, or it simply making the best of a bad political error?
The global context is clear. UN secretary-general António Guterres has stridently repeated his message that impending climate chaos is the key issue of the age, but under current agreements temperatures will rise by around 2.5°C, well above the level at which tipping points are likely to be reached.
Every day brings more news of what is unfolding, most recently the World Meteorological Organisation’s report that Europe has warmed at twice the global average over the past 30 years. According to one summary of its findings:
The effects of this warming are already being seen, with droughts, wildfires and ice melts taking place across the continent. The European State of the Climate report… warns that as the warming trend continues, exceptional heat, wildfires, floods and other climate breakdown outcomes will affect society, economies and ecosystems.
While global political responses remain far too limited, the crisis comes at a time of impressive developments in rapid decarbonisation as the cost of electricity generated from renewables continues to plummet. As I wrote previously, one of those involved in a study of renewables has said that it even made sense for climate change sceptics to invest in these sources rather than oil and gas.
I wrote before about the potential for Keir Starmer’s Labour Party to focus on climate issues, especially with Ed Miliband’s long-term commitment. Does this still hold if Sunak’s government has really had a change of heart?
The problem for Sunak is the Tory track record on the shift to renewables, shown clearly by the party’s actions after the 2015 general election. After being in coalition with the Lib Dems for the previous five years, the Tories won a comfortable parliamentary majority in 2015, which changed everything. With the opposition in the throes of a bitter leadership election, that summer saw the dismantling of a raft of measures that had been initiated by Labour prior to 2010 and survived during the coalition thanks to Lib Dem influence.
Week after week, news of further cuts seeped out. At the time there was a burgeoning new industry around solar panel installations. The generous feed-in tariff that encouraged installations by paying householders for electricity generated was promptly savaged, and thousands of industry staff were laid off. In a gross double whammy, building onshore wind farms was frowned on and access to a subsidy scheme halted, while the development of North Sea oil was aided by £1bn in additional subsidies.
A scheme to support improved energy-efficient homes was scrapped and, most damning of all, the “zero carbon homes” plan was junked. Under this policy, all new homes built from 2016 were to have been carbon neutral. Apart from the cumulative beneficial effect of 200,000+ zero-carbon homes being built every year, the move would have had economic and psychological impacts. The whole house-building industry would have seen the writing on the wall for traditional energy-inefficient homes, with ripple effects right across the construction business. That change alone would have done much to transform public attitudes to climate change.
OPINION: After I lost my home, I realised we can’t rely on politicians. Communities must act to protect their future
Behind all this lies a market fundamentalism rooted in the neoliberal economic worldview. For convinced neoliberals, the COVID pandemic was not easy to handle because the government expenditure involved in countering its dire effects ran deeply counter to a belief system that sought a small state and was confident for month after month that markets alone could cope successfully with a pandemic.
The worry now in right-wing circles is that the government will be bumped yet again into heavy public spending, this time to prevent climate breakdown. To make matters worse in neoliberal eyes, this comes at a time when the whole free market approach is starting to take flak following the utter failure of the Truss regime. The conviction that a wholesale acceleration towards true market fundamentalist politics in Britain would work a treat came spectacularly unstuck in a matter of days.
So, in this regard, what is the chance of Sunak altering course, starting with a spectacular announcement at COP27? Why not play fantasy politics? Now that the £25bn Sizewell C nuclear plant is likely to be junked, Sunak has an easy way of doing it. A 10% wealth task [tax?] on the £750bn owned by Britain’s richest thousand people, imposed over three years so they would scarcely notice it, would raise three times the cost of Sizewell C. This would be more than enough to embark on an accelerated transition to much cheaper renewables, ensuring security of supply and falling prices. It could be combined with an intensive nationwide programme of free home insulation.
Energy security combined with much-reduced fuel poverty would mean that Sunak and his party really had experienced a Damascene conversion. Will this, or anything like it, really happen?
In your dreams. This is, after all, fantasy politics.
