As ever, it’s been a very busy fortnight in political circles, with plenty of interesting stuff in the social and economic fields as well, but a car crash interview on Saturday’s Today programme surely encapsulates the dire state of this government. Justice Minister (!) Dominic Raab was asked in no uncertain terms about the shocking Met Police conduct, the Nadhim Zahawi tax scandal (which the BBC is finally getting into after weeks of cowardly avoidance), Sunak’s failure to wear a seat belt and subsequent fine, and the eight allegations of bullying against Raab himself. It’s worth listening back to it (about 08.35 on Radio 4) to get the full impact of his pathetic responses, which twice saw him saying he was giving ‘everything I’ve got’ to resolving this or that issue. It’s striking that New Zealand’s PM Jacinda Arden is bowing out because she has ‘nothing left in the tank’, when numerous UK politicians don’t seem to recognise this in themselves, that is, if there was anything in those tanks to begin with. Raab came out with the usual tired and long disproved responses (eg about ‘bad apples’ in the Met when it’s over 800 officers being investigated), that Sunak had put his hand straight up (reassuring he wasn’t waving it around?), ‘we’re all human, we’re all fallible, he has an incredibly demanding job, people make mistakes’, and that Zawahi had paid his tax ‘in full and on time’ when he’d done nothing of the sort. As if only paying after having been caught out is ok, and to think this was promised to be a government of ‘Integrity, professionalism and accountability’.
Not only has Zahawi, party chairman and cabinet minister, avoided this tax, he had to pay a penalty on top of what he already owed, coming to an estimated £5m. And since the story broke he initially resisted to the hilt admission of culpability, choosing mostly to speak through ‘representatives’ and worse, trying to censor the media via his lawyers. It’s unfortunate that HMRC has publicly accepted the neutered version of this affair, that it had been a ‘careless’ mistake rather than a deliberate one, clearly having been leaned on to water down the impact. No thanks, as ever, to the collusive BBC, these misdemeanours only emerged through dogged investigation over months by the Independent and tax expert Dan Neidle, who posted a long thread on the chronology of this scandal, including the untruths his lawyers used to fob him off on multiple occasions. ‘If Zahawi has paid a penalty, it would be hugely embarrassing, given his previous role as chancellor in charge of the UK’s tax system. He has also been a member of a government that has made great efforts to ensure tax is paid in full and on time.
Labour said Zahawi should quit because his story “doesn’t add up”. Earlier this week, the party called for an inquiry into whether Zahawi broke the ministerial code or misled the public over his tax affairs’. Trouble is, we’ve seen many times that breaking of the ministerial code is not a sacking offence in this government. While Zahawi’s colleagues still plug the honest mistake line, other sources say he’s ‘fighting for his political life’. Sunak has tough questions to answer now about at what point he knew about this and what he now does about it.
Almost as much of a story, as it applies to so many other subjects, is the public broadcaster’s avoidance of it of it for so long, so that if you only get your news from this source like so many, you’d be none the wiser. This amounts to censorship via omission. As a commentator tweeted: ‘The Zahawi Tax Scandal broke last Sunday. Despite frequent requests to report on the Today hashtag, no reporting other than passing references in paper reviews was done until 3 days later. BBC News must endeavor to prioritise the public over antagonizing the sitting government’. But now we know why.
But now we know why. As someone observed yesterday, Tory scandals don’t come solo but come along in twos and threes. No wonder the BBC wants to keep extra quiet It’s now been revealed The BBC chairman helped arrange a guarantee on a loan of up to £800k for Boris Johnson weeks before then PM selected him for the role. Johnson was told to end Richard Sharp’s involvement in his financial affairs by the Cabinet Office. The BBC job application says: “You cannot be considered for a public appointment if you fail to declare any conflict of interest” Candidates must disclose anything which could later undermine confidence in appointment but Sharp didn’t tell the panel. Apart from anything else this blows out of the window denials of BBC Tory bias we often hear.
A tweeter observed: ‘A former banker for JPMorgan, now chairman of the BBC appointed by then PM . Why was this allowed? His position is now untenable. Or is this going to be swept under the carpet? A tsunami of vice, nepotism & cronyism, each knowing their price, each selling their soul until we have nought’. Another pointed out the three key Tory influences in the BBC’s governance: ‘Chairman – Richard Sharp, Tory Party donor & Brexiteer, appointed after Johnson receives loan; DG – Tim Davie, former Deputy Chair of Fulham Tory Party….. and BBC news enforcer (Robbie Gibb), Brexiteer and ‘Tory apparatchik. Fair to say the BBC stinks’. At the time of writing neither Sharp nor Zahawi have resigned but some have suggested this could happen by the end of the day or if not, soon after.
A key point about much of this is the deleterious effect on our mental health and wellbeing: so many I speak to say how much their sense of equilibrium and their sleep have been disturbed by the dreadful state the government has allowed the country to sink into and the corruption and incompetence being demonstrated on an almost daily basis. As one tweeter said: ‘How do we get them out? I feel absolutely desperate’. Quite a few of us are wondering how on earth we can get through the next two years until the next election. It wouldn’t make much difference to an already corrupt regime, but Sunak will be even less likely to sack those unfit for office as so many of his MPs, seeing the writing on the wall, are standing down at the next election and will therefore be less committed to supporting the government’s agenda.
As the NHS strikes continue and unions are no longer engaging with the ‘rigged’ pay review system, Sajid Javid is the latest Conservative attempting to drive the agenda towards privatisation: further, I should say, as (unbeknown to many) there have already been substantial private sector inroads into the NHS, facilitated by successive Tory administrations. He wants patients to be charged for GP and A&E visits, which apart from the additional bureaucracy that would involve, ignores the fact that we already pay (just not ‘at the point of use’). What a gaslighting nerve the man has. ‘The former health secretary said ‘extending the contributory principle’ should be part of radical reforms to tackle growing waiting times. In an opinion piece for the Times, he called for a ‘grown-up, hard-headed conversation’ about revamping the health service, noting that ‘too often the appreciation for the NHS has become a religious fervour and a barrier to reform’. The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is not “currently” considering the proposals, Downing Street told the newspaper’. I should hope not but it’s yet another Tory trailer for what could follow and so many of these people have financial interests in US health conglomerates it’s hard not to see the writing on the wall.
On Saturday Radio 4 interviewed the head of NHS England, who managed to say little of substance for a good 20 minutes, clearly stepping very carefully to avoid criticism of the government whose policies have led to the current crisis. The interviewer asked the daft question as to when the NHS will ‘get back to normal’: the obvious answer is when it’s given sufficient funding, properly tackled its workforce problems (the NHS workforce plan has been long delayed) and addressed the need to reengineer its service to deal with unhelpful fragmentation. That is, probably never. Last Tuesday Channel 4 News devoted the entire programme to focusing on the NHS, speaking to numerous experts and practitioners, one of the most striking aspects was the absolute hopelessness of care minister Helen Whately, who looked suitably stressed while feebly trying to defend the government’s policies in the face of challenges from audience members (one nurse really sticking it to her) and Shadow Health Minister Wes Streeting.
At one point, when she’d run out of excuses, she just said ‘We are doing things…’ Most of the time she resorted to that politician’s trick of not answering the question, instead speaking in a faux impassioned way about how awful things are and how they need to be rectified. Questions were rightly asked as to why her boss, Steve Barclay, had not stepped up to this challenge rather than fielding this over-promoted ‘minister’. Fortunately, Krishnan Guru-Murthy is a much braver and skilled presenter than many of his BBC counterparts and kept the programme going at a cracking pace.
Everyone now knows a major problem for hospitals is the difficulty in discharging the substantial number of patients who are fit enough to leave but there’s nowhere for them to go. But it’s complicated, as these key tweeted questions indicate: ‘What patients going (rather than “being sent”) home from hospital are greeted by is vital. How much money has the NHS got to support it? And local authorities? What other organisations are involved? Which of these has not had its funding cut?’ The response to these and other questions is just the script trotted out about so many extra ‘care packages’ being funded now, though the sheer lack of capacity is not addressed.
Sunak and ministers continue to trot out cliches to explain away why the UK is ‘the sick man of Europe’, trying to blame the NHS crisis on the pandemic, flu and even the outgoing Labour government for the now 650k excess deaths a year. This is nothing short of culling. And in what looks like revenge for the health unions continuing with their industrial action, Barclay is cynically pitting patients against NHS staff by saying any extra payment for this year will be taken from existing budgets. In other words, if you can’t get your hip replaced for another year or two, don’t blame us, blame striking staff for demanding reasonable pay. It seems that the government just cannot believe that unions will continue their action as ministers see themselves as above the fray, making decisions unilaterally and are only just grasping that this is no longer the case. Imperiously refusing to negotiate (though they’re clearly devoid of those skills anyway) they resort to the blunt instrument of anti-strike legislation, which Business Secretary Grant Shapps has disingenuously said exists in other countries, except it doesn’t in anywhere near the same proposed form. Meanwhile, it looks as if 1 February is shaping up to be a day of coordinated strike action, a general strike in all but name.
Another thing Grant Shapps would not have told us is that the intention is to pass an enabling act, so that ministers can define the sector, the circumstances, the service criteria and the punishment for a strike, without scrutiny by MPs. This is dangerous ground and a further attack on democracy. It will be interesting to see how this bill fares in the Lords.
In recent weeks there’s been much attention focused on the often lamentable and robotic performance of Rishi Sunak, whether it’s at Prime Minister’s Questions or when he’s out and about, repeatedly in denial of his government’s appalling mismanagement of the country, forever dodging questions, failure to sack inadequate and/or dishonest colleagues (yes, I know, who would he have left?) and making one PR gaffe after another, the latest being what’s been called Seatbeltgate. Not to mention his embarrassingly bad ‘political broadcast’ containing five pledges, most of which commentators pointed out had no targets on which to judge success and which would occur anyway (eg inflation coming down). I thought it was notable that he said so emphatically, inviting us to judge him on these pledges, ‘I will NOT let you down’ when he already has, umpteen times. The latest embarrassment is his ‘levelling up’ splash (funny, that, as the Times reported this week that MPs in marginal seats were instructed to call it ‘stepping up’ or even ‘gauging up’ instead, suggesting that the whole charade has been acknowledged as such), when it’s been shown that twice as many Tory constituencies have benefited as Labour ones (including his own, of course, to the tune of £19m!), that millions have been wasted on consultancy to write the bids in the first place, and that what areas get back is a fraction of what’s been taken away from them in local government grants. It’s pork barrel politics.
There was also the little matter of Sunak taking three RAF jets within a week, justifying this when challenged by citing his schedule: ‘I’m not travelling around just for my own enjoyment – although this is very enjoyable, of course. I’m travelling around so I can talk to people in Accrington this morning, then I’ve talked to you, then I’m going to get over to Hartlepool because I’m working on all of your behalf’. I’m sure we’re all hugely comforted that Rishi is working on our behalf as to many it won’t feel like it.
Yet another scandal surfaced recently, that is the revelations emanating from investigative work by Sky News and Tortoise Media (predictably not the BBC) to produce the Westminster Accounts, which detail what donations politicians are receiving and from what sources. These are not consistently (if at all) entered in the register of MPs interests. Perhaps not surprisingly, Conservative Sir John Redwood came in fifth, earning £692,438 with the majority coming from his ‘global strategist’ role at investment firm Charles Stanley but it’s quite shocking to see how extensive this syndrome is right across the political board. The heads of news at Sky and Tortoise say: ‘Without greater transparency, money risks influencing our politics in the dark, it’s time to check who is paying our politicians and to ask why. More than £183m has flowed into the British political system during this Parliament, straight from wealthy individuals or companies, and into the bank accounts of political parties, all-party parliamentary groups, and the campaign funds and constituencies of government ministers and MPs from all political parties. Whilst the UK ranks towards the bottom of global corruption indexes, the way that information about MPs’ outside earnings and who is ultimately funding our politics is published has – for far too long – hindered understanding’. You can check to see how your own MP has benefited. Or not.
At the same time, Partygate is not going away, the original investigator, ITV’s Paul Brand, having produced a podcast series about it. ‘Now in this seven-episode podcast series our multiple-award-winning journalist can finally take you inside Number 10 to reveal the full story. Along with exclusive interviews and never-before-aired details of our investigation, you’ll hear directly from several of our whistleblowers and sources, who were instrumental in helping us expose the truth’. Partygate: the Inside Story could do pretty well in the podcast ratings and is especially relevant considering that Johnson is yet to be judged by the Standards and Privileges Committee as to whether he deliberately misled Parliament.
There have rightly been questions (and some journalists followed him around trying to get answers, to no avail) as to why Johnson had gone to Davos, the glossy World Economic Forum jolly, as if he’s still in a position of power, and who paid for his attendance. The number of suits and those arriving in private jets makes it seem like something from another planet, but apparently some important issues were discussed, including the likely future direction of China, the role of artificial intelligence and whether we are on the brink of another debt crisis.
Yet another story not going away is that of Prince Harry and the Royal Family: despite the predictions of naysayers and much bile spewing from the right wing media, Harry’s book, Spare, performed better than any other non-fiction book in recent times and many of those who’ve taken the trouble to read it (as opposed to coasting by on selected media clips) have a positive view of it, despite perhaps feeling that some revelations should have been left out. While the Palace continues its longstanding stance of not commenting (how long can this continue in the 21st century?), there seems to have been some attempt at royal whitewashing in the news of Charles donating to the Treasury the profits of wind farms on ‘his’ land. Many have commented that this is not that big a deal, considering the king’s wealth, and it seems a huge coronation is planned (the State to pay), not the slimmed down one discussed some months ago. Meanwhile, we hear (he never gives up and accepts responsibility, does he?) that Prince Andrew is seeking to overturn the Giuffre judgement and is after a public apology, as a precursor, he fantasizes, to re-entering royal life. So it’s not only Harry unhappy about the pressure from other royal family members: ‘Andrew reportedly thinks he was “bounced” into not fighting the case against Ms Giuffre by his own family, who wanted to avoid even more negative publicity.“He never wanted to make a deal and has always insisted he is innocent,” a source said. This could run and run, another story King Charles won’t want in the run up to his coronation. Yet again these issues beg questions about the future of the monarchy in this country.
In a well balanced article (for a change given the polarised debate about the royals) there’s a reasoned argument for questioning the current model instead of the blind reverence found in many quarters. ‘The clearest solution would be the republican settlement we ultimately favour. In the meantime, however, an enormous chance is being missed to reshape Britain’s constitutional monarchy for the post-Elizabeth age. There is responsibility to share here too. King Charles and his inward-looking circle deserve some of it. The danger is that Britain’s 21st-century monarchy is being defined ad hoc by an elite consisting of a palace clique and an overly deferential governing culture’.
When things look especially bad in the UK, ministers are often keen to point out how difficult other countries are finding the cost of living, pressured health services, and so on, but what they omit, of course, is these countries have generally much healthier and able governments than ours. I thought it was cheering to read that Spain’s left wing government is offering free travel across the country’s public transport network, extended until December this year. It’s reckoned that this could save families up to 3,000 euros a year. But that’s not all: the government has also reduced VAT on foodstuffs from 4% to 0% and given a one-off payment of 200 euros to all households with an income of less than 27,000 euros a year. What’s not to like?
I wonder if the ‘basic foodstuffs’ cited above includes olive oil. For those old enough to remember how this oil was only available in a tiny bottle from the chemist, we could be returning to that set up given complaints about the inflated cost of oil in supermarkets. As someone who’s never subscribed to the habit of ‘drizzling’ olive oil on every dish, it doesn’t affect me that much but it will affect many, not to mention the restaurants using bucketloads of the stuff.
Finally, as someone with a longstanding interest in wine, I think it’s great news that the sauvignon blanc of a Cotswolds vineyard, Woodchester Valley, has been hailed as one of the best in the world by a panel of expert judges. It even beat the usual serious competition from New Zealand, Austria and Greece to win the top prize in the £20-£30 category at the Global Sauvignon Blanc Masters. It’s the first English still wine to have won a Master medal in this competition. It’s a shame about the price but UK wines tend to be consistently higher in price because of lower yields and so on. It will be interesting to see how this wine fares if submitted for other competitions, as British wines are increasingly well rated by international judges.
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 