The Tory contenders to be the next PM won’t discuss how to tackle the crises facing the country and are only interested in slagging each other off, and saying how much they are going to cut taxes and shrink the state. 

So Owl is not surprised that they aren’t interested in trying to convince the general public they have got what it takes to be Prime Minister.

So, for now, all “public debate” is off. 

Sky News has just announced it has cancelled the Tory leadership debate planned for tomorrow night after Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss said they would not take part. This is from Sky’s Tamara Cohen.

Conservative MPs have reacted with shock and sorrow to the scale of “blue-on-blue” attacks in the Conservative leadership race – culminating in bitter clashes during ITV’s debate on Sunday night. 

(Watch for breaking news – Owl)

Anushka Asthana www.itv.com 

Some warned that the in-fighting could “kill” their party, while others said the attacks were “shameful”. 

Westminster WhatsApp groups were “kicking off more than usual” after the debate, according to sources, as people warned about the damage that this could do to the party.

Following a night in which Liz Truss accused the former chancellor Rishi Sunak of driving the country towards recession, and he hit back that her ideas were “socialist”, and Kemi Badenoch accused Tom Tugendhat of failing to have enough experience, while Penny Mordaunt faced attacks over trans issues, MPs started messaging each other over WhatsApp.

They warned that the debate, but also “smears” in the newspaper, threatened to damage the party because of the divisiveness.

In messages seen by ITV News, one MP warned: “The division, smears and personal attacks this weekend have been disgraceful. Nothing will kill our party more than blue on blue.”

WhatsApp messages sent by Tory MPs as in-fighting threatens to destroy the party.

Another wrote: “We have an 80-seat majority and have spent time in-fighting and bringing down the party and are now fighting publicly. It’s shameful. I can’t believe this is happening.” 

One MP told ITV news that it was more “sorry than anger” in terms of the mood, but admitted: “It’s hard to see how people partner up when they go so hard at each other.”

WhatsApp messages seen by ITV News.

The battle continued on Monday morning as Liz Truss’s team highlighted a new analysis by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) suggesting that there will be £60bn more than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s base estimates in 2024/25.

Setting out the foreign secretary’s plans to use that to help families, a spokesperson said: “Under Rishi Sunak’s time as chancellor the tax burden in the UK has risen to the highest it has been in 70 years and the UK is forecast to have the lowest growth in the G20.”

Mordaunt tried to hit back at newspaper briefings suggesting she had changed her mind on the issue of whether trans people should be able to “self identify”, saying: “It is unedifying… I know why this is being done, but all attempts to paint me as an out-of-touch individual will fail.”

Some argued that the TV debates had been a mistake. 

Westminster Whatsapp groups were “kicking off more than usual” after the debate.

But not everyone agreed that there should not be robust attacks. One MP wrote: “Disagree. If we are changing a PM without the public’s permission then the public deserve to see who we are making the next PM.”

However, this morning it emerged that Rishi Sunak would no longer do a Sky News debate on Tuesday, but would now only do one when the competition was down to the final two. 

Vital sea defences to save Sidmouth’s crumbling coastline and protect the Esplanade has now gone up by £5million increasing the estimated cost to a total of £19million. Last October, East Devon District Council (EDDC) and the Sidmouth and East Beach Beach Management Plan Project Advisory Group approved a new and improved £14 million outline proposal.

Anita Merritt www.devonlive.com 

It is now proposing to proceed to the next stage, with plans to secure the extra funding from government or by bridging the shortfall if required. The aim is to start work on the scheme in spring 2025, giving Sidmouth seafront and East Beach the coastal defences it needs.

Both locations are said to be at increasing risk from predicted storm events due to climate change. Plans to protect vital flood defences for the town, which would also better protect the Esplanade and the town’s crumbling cliffs above East Beach, have long been needed and discussed.

After changes to DEFRA funding in 2020, EDDC was able to start work on plans for a new ‘hybrid option’ to replace the former 2018 ‘preferred option’. This option includes at least one additional rock island, which may reduce the need to raise the splash wall along The Esplanade and could lower the long-term costs of recharging the beach with new material, which will be needed in the future.

The hybrid option still includes a 120m rock-groyne at East Beach and requires a beach recharge on both East Beach and the town beach. This option was originally costed using 2020/21 prices, with funding coming from EDDC, Devon County Council, Sidmouth Town Council and the South West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, along with DEFRA grant funding.

An outline business case is currently being prepared for the Sidmouth Beach Management Scheme (BMS) readying it for submission to the Environment Agency (EA) for funding. The increase in the cost of the scheme is said to be due to a number of factors including material costs rising by up to 200 per cent; diesel costs rising by 50 per cent as low VAT Red Diesel is no longer allowed; staff shortages caused by a smaller labour pool after leaving the EU; ongoing Covid issues; the Russia-Ukraine war increasing energy costs further; construction risks such as availability of materials and equipment and the danger of cliff falls on East Beach.

Sidmouth’s East Beach (Image: Daniel Clark)

A cross-country campaign has been launched by all the bodies developing flood and coastal defence projects seeking to change Government funding to enable the projects to proceed. The Sidmouth BMS is being used as an example to explain the urgent requirement for extra funding to avoid these government-funded schemes from failing.

To allow the scheme to progress, the authority will submit a report to EDDC’s cabinet and full council, seeking approval for the additional funds from the capital budget as a temporary loan until further money can be secured from elsewhere.

Councillor Geoff Jung, EDDC’s portfolio holder for coast country and environment and chair of the Sidmouth BMP Project Advisory Group, said: “The estimated uplift in costs is most worrying, but the advisory group considers that these works must proceed urgently to protect Sidmouth from the increasing risk from predicted storm events due to climate change. Therefore, the recommendation to proceed to the next stage will be put to a full council meeting shortly.

“I would like to thank our engineers’ officers, consultants and all members of the advisory group for all their work to get to this important stage.”

The anticipated timeline:

• Late summer 2022 – Submit the funding case for approval to EA, which if successful, secures the funding in principle. Approval should be granted by autumn 2022.
• Late autumn 2022 – Work on the scope of the detailed design stage with a sub group made from members of the Sidmouth and East Beach BMP Project Advisory Group. They will help represent Sidmouth residents, providing guidance on what the town needs from the scheme, what it looks like, how it will work and how it will be designed and built. This will include discussions on the number and position of additional rock breakwaters.
• Early 2023 – Finalise the scope for the detailed design.
• Followed by – Appointing an engineering consultant to manage the detailed design process and prepare for construction.
• Summer 2023 – autumn 2024 – Public consultation on the detailed design and propose a planning application.
• Autumn 2024 – Early 2025 – Appoint a contractor to build the scheme.
• Spring 2025 – Start construction.

A multi-millionaire Tory tycoon is refusing to hand over £500,000 of donations from himself to the party – unless Boris Johnson is given a chance to remain Prime Minister.

Dan Bloom www.mirror.co.uk (Extract)

Peter Cruddas – who Mr Johnson put in the Lords against official advice – said there has been a “coup” against the PM and said he should be allowed to be on the ballot for a new leader.

He told the Sunday Times: “I planned to donate a total of £500,000 this year but that is on hold and will not be paid unless the membership have a chance to vote on Boris being PM.

“I have no interest in Rishi who I deem to be not fit for high office due to his plotting and the orchestrated way he and others resigned to remove the PM.”

Five candidates remain to be Tory leader under rules agreed by the Conservative Party – which decided Mr Johnson would be barred from standing again.

Last year Boris Johnson overruled advice from the Appointments Commission to put Peter Cruddas in the Lords after he failed its vetting process.

Hitting net zero came bottom of a list of ten policy areas, behind cutting personal taxes, increasing defence spending and strengthening Britain’s global standing in YouGov survey.

Most pressing concern is winning the next election!

Right now these are the people with our future in their hands. Scary! – Owl

George Grylls www.thetimes.co.uk

Conservative Party members care very little about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, polling shows.

Only 4 per cent of those surveyed said that hitting the target of net-zero emissions by 2050 was one of their three priorities for the next Tory leader.

Members said the most pressing concern was winning the next election, followed by controlling immigration and helping families with the cost of living, a YouGov survey for The Times showed.

In April a poll for the think tank Onward found that 64 per cent of all voters supported the government’s plans to hit net zero. Nine per cent were opposed.

In the YouGov poll, 56 per cent of the Tory party members surveyed said that winning the next election was the most important issue. Hitting net zero came bottom of a list of ten policy areas, behind cutting personal taxes, increasing defence spending and strengthening Britain’s global standing.

Alok Sharma, the cabinet minister who led the Cop26 climate talks in Glasgow last year, has threatened to resign in protest at “lukewarm” commitments by Tory leadership candidates on the environment. He said that the failure of the five remaining contenders to commit themselves unequivocally to net zero emissions by 2050 risked causing “incredible damage” to British diplomacy.

Sharma told The Observer: “Anyone aspiring to lead our country needs to demonstrate that they take this issue incredibly seriously, that they’re willing to continue to lead and take up the mantle that Boris Johnson started off. I want to see candidates very proactively set out their support for our net-zero agenda for green growth. This is absolutely a leadership issue.”

Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, who came third in the first and second ballots of Tory MPs on Wednesday and Thursday, has promised to suspend the green energy levy to help households struggling with the cost of living. This would cost £4.2 billion a year.

Sharma said that the policy would not address the real cause of higher bills. “We need to very clearly understand what is actually driving the price of energy. It isn’t green levies, it is the wholesale gas price,” he said.

In 2019 the government committed itself to the 2050 target via an amendment to the Climate Change Act. Other candidates who have suggested they might change environmental policies if elected Tory leader include Kemi Badenoch and Tom Tugendhat. Badenoch called the 2050 target “arbitrary”. Tugendhat is reported to have told a hustings of the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers that he thought the date should be delayed. However, he later reaffirmed his commitment to the target.

Asked if he would consider resigning if a candidate who was weak on net zero were elected, Sharma, 54, said: “I don’t rule anything out and I don’t rule anything in.”

This selection process, on display for the third time in six years, is symptomatic of a floundering political system

Aimee Meade inews.co.uk 

A few hours before the first Tory leadership debate was broadcast on Channel 4, I was talking to a terrific palliative care team. At one point, the doctor said in matter-of-fact manner that there was no point trying to call an ambulance these days since it might take up to five hours to arrive. I was astonished. We were talking in the centre of London, not a remote rural area. Yet this dismal situation comes amid routine stories of staff shortages, handover delays at hospitals, more people using emergency services due to an inability to access GPs, even avoidable deaths among waiting patients. The data shows average ambulance waiting times even for serious conditions is now more than double the target.

Clearly the health service is creaking under pressure. Partly this is the legacy of Covid-19. But it is also tied to the collapsing social-care system, which Boris Johnson promised to fix but remains trapped in a catastrophic crisis that is devastating millions of families. Accident-and-emergency waiting times are at record levels. Patient satisfaction is plummeting. Delayed diagnosis for conditions such as cancer will cause thousands of preventable deaths, leaving doctors to lament over lives they might have saved with earlier treatment.

Yet the picture is more complex than presented by shroud-waving medical unions. NHS funding has risen sharply since the Tories came to power in 2010. According to the King’s Fund think tank, Britain entered the Covid crisis spending a similar slice of its economy on health to comparable nations – yet treatment outcomes for many major conditions are significantly worse.

Health soaks up a rapidly growing proportion of day-to-day public spending in our ageing society and amid stunning scientific advances: rising from less than a third in 2010 to a predicted 44 per cent by 2024. Yet still we see a succession of patient safety scandals – and these tend to harm or kill older, female or disabled citizens.

Clearly health is a major issue. Yet when it came up in the first broadcast leadership debate, the discussion was unbearably banal. Rishi Sunak thanked doctors for “heroic” work and said he “really believed” in the NHS as proved by his funding. Kemi Badenoch said her chipped tooth showed the access difficulties in dentistry, then said the NHS needed more efficiency. Tom Tugendhat expressed gratitude to the NHS for treating injured army colleagues and delivering his children. Liz Truss said the NHS did “a fantastic job” during the pandemic but “we need to work as hard as we can to reduce the backlog.” Penny Mordaunt at least seemed to have some grasp of issues, although offered little more than calling for fewer caveats on spending while stating the obvious by saying innovation and prevention were vital.

Badenoch concluded by saying “there must be things we can do differently that would improve how we can tackle these issues”. But surely the point of a leadership contest is to present ideas and reforms for tackling such problems rather than simply spewing out a stream of cliches and inanities? This battle is, after all, picking our nation’s next prime minister. Badenoch still looks the most impressive candidate on the party right, yet she is such a blank sheet that after five years in parliament and serving in three ministerial offices her position on anything to do with China – the single most important foreign-policy issue – could not be discerned by a group of analysts monitoring relations with Beijing.

She does, however, have strong views on gender-neutral toilets; indeed, makeshift “Mens” and “Ladies” signs were taped to the doors at her launch event. This rammed home her strident opposition to gender self-identification, an issue seized on by culture warriors on the right despite being backed by the Commons’ Women and Equalities Committee and implemented in about 20 countries including Ireland and the United States. As a consequence, this subject has soaked up far more space in the leadership struggle than, say, the decrepit state of health and care systems or how to handle the rise of China under a belligerent nationalist dictatorship that are, dare I say, far more important to the future well-being of our country.

This battle for power has been a dispiriting spectacle so far – a tribal beauty contest scarred by smears and snide asides but devoid of serious policy ideas, let alone inspirational signs of fresh vision. They talk of delivery but ignore that Tory failures in office have resulted in low pay, a sluggish economy and struggling public services. The problem is that the candidates are seeking first the votes of 358 Tory MPs, so reliant on backroom deals and job offers struck secretly in Westminster, and then pitching to a party membership that is overwhelmingly white, older, male, middle-class and concentrated in safe Tory seats. So they strike hardline poses on migration, posture about tax cuts, pretend Brexit is a success, polish up their life stories and shy away from the toughest questions confronting our nation.

This selection process, on display for the third time in six years, is symptomatic of a floundering political system. It exposes a party searching desperately for a saviour after choosing a woman who proved not up to the job, followed by a man who was untrustworthy for high office. It is contemptuous of the electorate to impose a prime minister in this manner, especially when modern party leaders adopt a presidential style and determine election outcomes – as seen clearly in 2019 when Johnson cut through the Red Wall and Jeremy Corbyn repelled moderates. People may have strong views on whether Tugendhat won the first debate, Truss was a disaster or Sunak will emerge victorious. But few voters will be left inspired by this next wave of leaders jousting for power, let alone feel reassured over the future of our country.

The developer behind a controversial new build in Truro has been slammed by locals after it quietly lowered the number of affordable homes it promised to build. Wain Homes recently put forward its detailed plan to build 275 new properties at Dudman Farm, at Highertown in Truro.

Developers pleading poverty as usual – Owl

Edward Church www.cornwalllive.com 

Wain Homes pledged 30% of the homes will be sold as affordable – below market rate prices – in the application submitted in May 2022. Outline planning permission for the project was approved in 2016 on the basis that the affordable housing figure was at 40%.

Truro City Council’s planning committee was sent the reserved matters – the more detailed plans such as layout and design after outline permission is granted – to look over last week. Committee members, several of whom live in the area, strongly objected to the plans, with one, Councillor Karen La Borde, saying it’s unacceptable that the number of affordable houses could be changed at this stage.

Cllr La Borde said: “In 2016, the outline planning permission was agreed by Cornwall Council. The one thing which gets me overall is that the application is so old.

“When they agreed it, it was going to be 40% affordable housing, but now they say the site is unviable and they’ll do 30%, which is 5% less than they need and 10% less than they agreed to before. They say it’s viability, but surely they knew the site before they went there.

“They want their profit, it’s speculative development. They’ll be making profit and the people of Truro are losing out. They should not have been allowed six years to do this. We’re in a different time from 2016, we have different priorities.”

The 2022 planning documents submitted by Wain Homes said the 40% figure was not financially viable. The application reads: “The existing Section 106 agreement requires a 40% provision of affordable housing which would generate 110 affordable units across the scheme. This is above the policy requirement of 35% which would generate 97 affordable units.

“Due to viability considerations the application however proposes a level of 30% affordable housing which would generate 82 affordable units. The tenure split is proposed as 70% affordable rented homes and 30% intermediate housing for sale which accords with the Section 106 agreement.

“As the overall percentage would not be policy compliant, this will be subject to a separate request for a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 supported by the requisite viability assessment as required by Local Plan Policy 10: Managing viability.”

In short, the agreed terms of the Section 106 agreement from 2014-16, when it was submitted and approved, respectively, are being changed. The final decision is with Cornwall Council, which must respond by August 26.

Cllr La Borde, who also sits on Kenwyn Parish Council, which encompasses the area of Highertown including Dudman Farm, also joined many other locals in criticising the development as a whole on ecological grounds. She said: “The reaction to the idea of building 275 houses on that land is quite emotional.

A“Locals have been using the land for up to 20 years since it stopped being used for farmland. It’s become a public resource. We’re all used to it now, even more so after Covid. During lockdown it became a bit like the M1 down there, people going out all the time.

“It’s a very valuable resource. It’s not an easy site to develop because of the valley and the train track. But it’s just valuable land for the wellbeing of the people that live from Malabar to Threemilestone.

There are plans to build 275 homes at Highertown, Truro (Image: Google)

“It’s easily accessible and residents will be losing this great asset. We have a site over there that is sucking up as much carbon as it can as it’s been left for so long. Semi mature oak trees which will all have to go, the meadows of wild flowers are absolutely stunning.

“And, much has changed since the outline plans were approved. We now have 4,000 houses being built at Langarth, another 400 at Pydar Street and the city will have exceeded its national determinants for housing. We’re in a good spot in Truro, we don’t need these 275 houses here with the other developments.”

Martin Webster, who lives in an estate very near to the Dudman Farm site, said the area – which has become a popular walking spot – saved his life during the Covid lockdown. Mr Webster explained that it would be a huge loss for him, personally, should the development go ahead at all.

He said: “I’m a former veteran, served for 12 years and have PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). It was a lifesaver to walk in that countryside during lockdown and I know it saved a lot of other people’s lives.

“Having that unspoilt beauty removed, for me, it’s criminal. For someone who fought for it, I despise it and think the developers should be held accountable.”

Mr Webster said on a practical level he thinks the development will be disastrous for the area: “How will people feel here when their kids are in a class of 80 not 40? How much more of the natural area will be gone?

“Surely you need to improve the infrastructure of Truro before you start to okay these houses. There should be affordable housing for people but that’s not the priority for these companies.

“There’s lovely little pictures of the family, but it’s bulls**t. You go to houses on new builds and after two years they’re having to rebuild them. Also, the in road is always blocked with lots of cars. Imagine what it’ll be like when you’ve got 275 more houses being built.”

Cllr Steven Webb, mayor of Truro, told CornwallLive he felt it was wrong for a developer to sit on outline planning for this long and not have to start from scratch – given the changing priorities of local planning boards.

Fifty-two other locals added their criticisms on the council’s planning portal. Colin Andrews said: “It clashes with local policies. It is not needed. The council has met its housing need for Truro. It will have a negative impact on a local amenity.

“Biodiversity net gain cannot be met by the developer and wildlife will be destroyed. Not in the neighbourhood plan. It will increase pressure on a struggling traffic network.”

Sarah Searle added: “I walk with my dog and my young family daily in the area and to see the wildlife decimated and the green space disappear forever would be a travesty. Cornwall Council please do not approve planning. We are losing our green space in Cornwall at a mighty speed but we need it for our mental health and wildlife needs our help.

“We are in a climate emergency, take notice, do something to help and don’t approve nearly 300 houses in a green space where the road infrastructure is already at breaking point. Please listen to local people, the green space is important to us all. It’s was used so much during the pandemic and continues to be a popular place to walk and spend time outdoors. We can’t afford to lose it!”