The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has warned that Britons are facing a “historic shock to real incomes”, with energy price rises this year larger than any single year in the 1970s. The disastrous impact this crisis will have on people’s livelihoods is clear: 600,000 could fall into poverty and millions will be unable to afford essentials. But so far the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, has only introduced halfhearted half measures.

Carsten Jung, senior economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research www.theguardian.com 

As we face an epochal challenge to living standards and energy supply, there are policies already in place elsewhere that Sunak could learn from: countries such as Germany and Ireland are doing more to protect the most vulnerable, doing more to switch to energy-saving measures and doing more to wean themselves off fossil fuels.

This year, the German government has provided a €200 boost for people on benefits, as well as a €100 topping up of child support and at least €270 for people on housing assistance, next to a €300 lump sum payment (pre-tax) to all employees. A low-income family with two children could receive at least €657, plus a possible heating subsidy of €490. With other measures this could fill more than two-thirds of the cash shortfall caused by increased energy prices. By comparison, the average low-earning UK family would receive less than half of that amount (£270, or about €325) plus bills support that will have to be paid back.

Elsewhere, France and Italy have moved much more decisively than the UK to limit energy price increases facing households. This has been done through measures including requiring the state energy company to sell electricity at well below market price and tax cuts on electricity.

Equally eye-catching are examples of innovative policies to encourage lower energy use. As petrol prices surge, public transport is one of the most effective ways of keeping costs for the economy down. For three months, Germany is offering all citizens the use of regional transport for only €9 a month. Some US cities have also shown that reduced or free public transport fares can increase use. And New Zealand is halving public transport fares for three months in response to high fuel prices. France has been experimenting with free public transport since 2018 and Paris just slashed its ticket prices.

This comes on top of European countries’ support schemes for home insulation. Ireland, for example, has just passed a grant policy that provides up to 50% of the costs of a deep retrofit. In contrast, the UK has nowhere near the same ambition.

All these international examples contrast with Sunak’s spring statement in which he announced almost no targeted support for lower earners. Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank, where I work, shows that low-income households still face an average cash shortfall of £320 this year, with some facing up to a £700 hit. This would leave many of the UK’s poorest in poverty with no option but to miss out on essentials, such as food or home heating. As millions of households are having to cut back on spending, this will also drag down economic growth.

Staggeringly, what the chancellor did announce was heavily skewed towards higher earners. We estimate that, on average, high-income households received four times the support of lower-income households.

These were Sunak’s policy choices, but it’s not too late to change tack. His first priority should be to establish a livelihood guarantee for low earners. This means ensuring that their living standards do not fall below what they were last year.

The government could have achieved this by increasing benefits in line with inflation, to ensure people’s income stays in line with the price of products and services they need. This could be combined with an increase in child benefits and additional measures to alleviate pressure from household bills. With this, the chancellor would virtually fully maintain living standards for low and medium earners at a cost of £9bn – just £1.5bn more than what he spent on his poorly targeted policy package.

He could also learn from other countries’ energy saving measures. IPPR has proposed large-scale investment in home insulation, allocated via an easy-to-use “GreenGo” system. This would provide a one-stop shop for people to transition to cleaner transport, housing and consumption, with an initial focus on energy-poor homes, which require support the most.

All of this is eminently feasible and affordable. For instance, our proposed package to almost fully protect low and middle earners could largely be paid for by a windfall tax on energy companies – a type of tax that the EU is set to endorse soon.

So don’t let the government convince you that its hands are tied, because this is a crisis with global dimensions. In fact, it is precisely by looking overseas that we can see that better policy choices are possible.

A win for the Lib Dems, the Conservatives lost overall control in 2019 but run the council in coalition with “independents”. [In this case Owl puts independents in quotes as the picture is rather confused about aligned and unaligned councillors.] 

In Owl’s view, it isn’t sufficient for Independents just to claim “independence” they need to make clear where they are coming from, their priorities and what core values they hold.

To have any influence they will have to form groupings, alliances or align themselves with others and voters need to be able to assess which direction this might take.

www.radioexe.co.uk 

A former Cullompton mayor is now one of the town’s representatives of Mid Devon District Council, following a close by-election victory.

Liberal Democrat James Buczkowski, who also serves as a town councillor, secured victory in the Cullompton South by-election triggered by the resignation of 94-year-old Eileen Andrews [Independent]

He defeated Conservative candidate Rosemary Berry, herself a former district councillor, by 318 votes to 279 in Thursday’s poll [7 April] Labour’s Jason Chamberlain received 67 votes.

Turnout was just 21 per cent with 668 people voting. Four ballots were rejected.

Cllr Buczkowski’s campaign promised to put “Cullompton first” and accused the district council of not listening to the town’s residents.

His three-point plan focussed on ensuring “Cullompton residents are listened to and council ‘solutions’ are right” for the town, adding: “The ‘one-size-fits all’ thinking must come to an end.”

The plan says Cllr Buczkowski will “oppose all development without proper infrastructure and services” and that the town must have a “fair share of the district council resources.”

The result increases the opposition Lib Dems to 11 seats on the council, which is run by a coalition of independents and Conservatives. The Tories lost overall control in the 2019 election.

The Lib Dems had initially served in the coalition but were replaced by the Conservatives after a disagreement with independent leader Bob Deed over the future of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.

Ahead of next year’s full local elections, when all 42 seats will be contested, the Conservatives have 20 seats followed by the Liberal Democrats (11), independents and non-aligned (9) and the Green Party (2).

Result: Cullompton South (Mid Devon District Council)

• James Buczkowski (Lib Dem): 318
• Rosemary Berry (Conservatives): 279
• Jason Chamberlain (Labour): 67

“Dominic Grieve, a former Tory MP and attorney general, told the newspaper: “The long list of untrue statements to parliament, and the failure to correct them as required both by the rules of the Commons and the ministerial code, should be of great concern to all who believe in the need for integrity from government. “

www.thelondoneconomic.com 

Boris Johnson and his ministers have lied to parliament dozens of times in the past two years amid a “crisis of honesty” in Westminster, it has emerged.

The prime minister has not lodged any corrections to the official House of Commons record, despite being repeatedly reprimanded by the statistics watchdog and having his falsehoods pointed out by opposition MPs and fact-checkers.

Labour has hit out at Johnson for disrespecting the public with a “litany of lies and falsehoods”, while the former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve told The Independent that the figures suggested “a disregard for both good governance and truth”.

‘Degrading his office’

As many as 17 false statements have been attributed to Johnson following an investigation by the newspaper, working with Full Fact, including misleading claims about Partygate, refugees, the pandemic and the economy.

Ministers have made at least 27 uncorrected false statements to parliament since the general election in December 2019.

Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, said Johnson was guilty of “degrading his office”. 

“This litany of lies and falsehoods show a total lack of respect for the public from this Conservative government and its ministers,” she told The Independent.

“The ministerial code is absolutely clear that mistakes should be corrected as soon as possible, and purposely misleading parliament should mean resignation.

“But ministers are instead taking their lead from the prime minister himself, who has no issue with repeating mistruths and conspiracy theories.”

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey added: “Every time Mr Johnson and his ministers have misled parliament is just another blow to people’s trust in his sinking ship of a government – those who mislead the public must be held accountable.

“It’s clear that Mr Johnson has already lost the trust of the nation. Now the very least we should do is be able to hold his Trumpian behaviour to account.”

Savile slur

Among the false statements made by Johnson was his claim that Sir Keir Starmer had “spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile”. The slur has still not been retracted, despite the Labour leader later being mobbed by protestors in Westminster.

In the same parliamentary debate on 31 January, the prime minister claimed that the government had “cut crime by 14 per cent”. He was reprimanded over that assertion by Sir David Norgrove, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, who said the figure was “true only if fraud and computer misuse are excluded”.

Other ministers guilty of making false statements in the same period include Matt Hancock, Priti Patel and Nadine Dorries.

Dominic Grieve, a former Tory MP and attorney general, told the newspaper: “The long list of untrue statements to parliament, and the failure to correct them as required both by the rules of the Commons and the ministerial code, should be of great concern to all who believe in the need for integrity from government. 

“It marks a major departure from prior practice and suggests a disregard both for good governance and truth.”

‘New and shocking’

It comes amid mounting calls for changes that would force ministers to correct false statements. The current process relies on the voluntary submission of corrections to Hansard.

Will Moy, head of fact-checkers Full Fact, told The Independent: “The problem isn’t people making honest mistakes, it’s people making mistakes and not being willing to correct them – that isn’t honest behaviour,” he told The Independent.

“It is ridiculous that you have a system where the speaker can throw an MP out of the House of Commons for accusing somebody of lying, but an MP who is lying cannot be sanctioned in any way.

“The only MPs who can correct the record are government ministers, and there’s no mechanism to make them do that when they don’t want to.”

Warning of a “crisis of honesty”, he added: “The persistent failure of the prime minister and other ministers to correct the record when they are clearly required to do so under parliamentary rules creates a crisis not just of their own behaviour, but of parliamentary accountability.

“In this case we’re seeing senior government ministers, and the prime minister, repeating claims that are not true, and that they have had every chance to get right, up to and including their own regulator of statistics telling them what they’re saying is not true.

“That is both new and shocking.”

Five key questions Rishi Sunak and Akshata Murty have yet to answer

Rupert Neate www.theguardian.com 

How much tax did the chancellor’s wife pay on her £11.5m annual dividends from Infosys – and where did she pay it?

Why did Sunak and Murty have US green cards and when did they give them up?

Did Sunak waive his salary as a minister in 2020 in order to avoid paying US tax?

Does Murty have other overseas income beyond Infosys – how much, what tax does she pay and where?

How much money is in Sunak’s blind trust, and where is it located?