The sacking of the Chancellor is a symptom of the escalating incoherence of Liz Truss’ Government – not a sign that it is changing course to become more coherent, writes Nafeez Ahmed

bylinetimes.com

I have spent two decades studying the dynamics of social crisis and societal collapse. It’s now clear to me that Prime Minister Liz Truss is leading Britain into a convergence of crises that is likely to culminate in an unprecedented social and economic collapse that cascades across the government, economy, housing markets, energy, health, the judiciary and beyond.

Worse, these crises risk triggering a global financial crisis bigger in scale than the 2008 crash – one that, like that crash, could have potentially irreversible impacts on global civilisation.

The sacking of her Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, after 38 days in office, is unlikely to significantly reverse these prospects. In fact, it signals a systemic level of incoherence the only outcome of which, at this stage, can be continued breakdown. The danger is that, as this Government collapses, it brings the rest of Britain down with it.

Systems collapse when they are unable to adapt to change. The policies of the Truss Government are not only accelerating conditions of change beyond the capability of British institutions to adapt, they are generating crises across multiple institutions simultaneously in such a way that they are overwhelming the overall system’s abilities to respond.

When a system is overwhelmed in this way, we start to rapidly run out of options within the existing framework. The more it moves in different directions to quell the crisis, the more it inadvertently stokes the crisis. As a result, the system itself becomes an accelerator of its own collapse – and this is exactly the predicament that the Truss team has managed to pull Britain into.

These ingredients are critical preconditions for the collapse of complex societies. Such collapses have taken place over decades, in some cases centuries, in others. While collapse doesn’t necessarily entail the complete evisceration of a society, it involves a breakdown of institutional complexity. This results in a loss of societal capabilities, potentially entailing reductions in living standards and population.

Liz Truss’ agenda is accelerating the risk of such a collapse in a way that is unprecedented. While, to some extent, this can be explained by a penchant for disaster capitalism designed to benefit elites at everyone’s expense, the deeper problem is that the Truss Government appears to be fundamentally incapable of grappling with complexity.

It doesn’t realise that our systems are tightly coupled in complex ways; that these interconnections mean you cannot tinker with one element of the system without upending the entire system; that pulling the rug out from under critical institutions or public services can unravel social cohesion in a way that could generate chronic instability from which there is no easy recovery – leading to a spiral of escalating costs and diminishing returns.

Britain is on the brink of spiralling out of control.

Article continues with sections on The Economy, The Housing Market, Energy, The Collapse of Critical Services and finally A Vicious Cycle.

Read on here bylinetimes.com

“The Environment Agency does not appear to be in a position to underpin the move. After frequent deep budget cuts, the agency’s chief executive, Sir James Bevan, has said the regulator is no longer sufficiently funded and that it would have to pause or stop some of its environmental protection activities.”

Under Truss and Hunt expect more cuts – Owl

Rachel Salvidge www.theguardian.com 

The government’s pledge to raise the cap on the amount of money the Environment Agency can fine water companies for sewage pollution to £250m has been described as “hot air”, as the Guardian can reveal the regulator has failed to levy any such penalties since it was given powers to do so 12 years ago.

Variable monetary penalties (VMPs) were introduced in 2010 to enable the Environment Agency to directly levy fines for serious environmental offences without having to go through expensive and lengthy court proceedings, but to date the agency has not levied a single VMP against water companies.

Despite this, the environment secretary, Ranil Jayawardena, last week announced a 1,000-fold rise in the cap on VMPs, from £250,000 to £250m, and said the bigger financial penalties “will act as a greater deterrent and push water companies to do more, and faster, when it comes to investing in infrastructure and improving the quality of our water” and that “the polluter must pay”.

But the Environment Agency does not appear to be in a position to underpin the move. After frequent deep budget cuts, the agency’s chief executive, Sir James Bevan, has said the regulator is no longer sufficiently funded and that it would have to pause or stop some of its environmental protection activities.

The lack of VMPs is part of a broader picture of dwindling enforcement on the part of the regulator, which has told its staff to “shut down” and ignore reports of low-impact pollution events, saying it does not have enough money to investigate them.

The Environment Agency has also slashed its water-quality monitoring regime, has downgraded 93% of prosecutions for serious pollution over four years, despite recommendations from frontline staff for the perpetrators to face the highest sanction, and agency staff say that cuts and operational decisions have made it “toothless”.

Between 2010-11 and 2020-21 the amount of grant-in-aid the Environment Agency allocated to generic enforcement activity fell from £11.6m to £7m, according to a report by the National Audit Office (NAO). This includes enforcement associated with the regulation of industrial facilities, storm overflows and fisheries, as well as response to serious pollution incidents.

Over the same period, the NAO says the number of prosecutions undertaken by the Environment Agency has plummeted, from 768 in 2009-10 to 17 in 2020-21.

“Punishments are only relevant if you have a regulator who is willing to impose them,” an Environment Agency insider said, adding that water company self-regulation was not working.

“The Environment Agency has been deregulating water quality for a number of years, and that shows no sign of slowing down. Increases in funding are still directed away from frontline regulation. It appears punishments such as VMPs will only be imposed if a water company chooses to report and punish itself.”

Richard Broadbent, director of the law firm Freeths and the former head of legal services at the nature regulator Natural England, said that “whilst reliance of regulatory tools are a matter of judgment for the regulator, they exist in order to be used, and a failure to do so for long periods may in time suggest a fettering of discretion.

“It seems odd for the government to tout the benefits of [an] increase in water pollution penalties when that is in connection with a regulatory tool the regulator does not favour, and does not directly assist it in terms of managing its operational costs,” he added.

The only way increasing the penalties would make sense would be “if the government combines it with a package of measures designed to give the Environment Agency the resources it needs to properly carry out its functions”, said Broadbent.

Ash Smith, the founder of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, said: “Presumably, someone at Defra [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] was tasked with coming up with something that sounded powerful and cost nothing. Raising the level of monetary penalties that are not even used would have been the perfect soundbite, but for the fact that no one trusts government ministers any more and even the most cursory look under the bonnet shows that there is no engine in the car Mr Jayawardena is trying to sell to the public.”

Smith described the announcement as “more hot air from a government that could very easily stop pollution from being profitable but simply refuses to do so and passed an Environment Act that allows illegal pollution to continue.

“The reality is that deliberately weak regulation and flawed privatisation has created a polluting for-profit-fest which has attracted ownership from all over the globe to extract money for nothing and take it offshore tax-free.

“We can expect more desperate threats and promises like raising penalties that won’t really be used, as the government tries carefully not to scare the shareholders or show what a massive scam has been perpetrated on the public.”

Defra declined to comment on the lack of VMPs, but said it was reviewing the Environment Agency civil sanctions regime more broadly to consider further opportunities for improving water company compliance with environmental law.

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “VMPs have so far had limited use against water companies. A reason for their limited use so far is the current £250,000 cap, which has prevented the Environment Agency from using a VMP if they think a higher fine is warranted. By raising the cap up to £250m we will enable the Environment Agency to issue VMPs in more cases, and with greater impact in disincentivising non-compliance.”

“We’re all fucked. I’m fucked. You’re fucked. The whole department is fucked. It’s the biggest cock-up ever. We’re all completely fucked.”

Remembering the wise words of Sir Richard Mottram, former permanent secretary at the  Department for the Environment, 2002

“It is widely understood by voters in the UK – and judging from polling, by a majority of people around the world – that the next few years offer a final opportunity to prevent climate-linked destruction on an unimaginable scale. Under Boris Johnson, Conservative environment policies were nowhere near ambitious enough. But under Ms Truss, they are already far worse…”

Editorial www.theguardian.com 

The latest schism to open up in Liz Truss’s cabinet is less surprising than it might have been, had divisions over tax and welfare policies not already emerged. But the decision by the business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to oppose her publicly over solar energy plans is still a dramatic one that leaves her looking even weaker and more exposed. Having previously stressed his support for fracking, and oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, Mr Rees-Mogg used an article in the Guardian to deny that he opposes green energy. While Ms Truss wants to restrict new solar installations on farmland, Mr Rees-Mogg’s deregulatory fervour extends beyond fossil fuels to renewables as well.

Ms Truss’s anti-solar scheme is so ill-judged that all voices raised against it are welcome. But Mr Rees-Mogg’s enthusiasm for new oil and gas means that he must never be mistaken for a friend to green causes. He is right to point out that carbon-intensive imports are just as damaging to the atmosphere as UK-based industries. But while his backing for solar and wind may make him a more consistent free-marketeer than the prime minister – who is against red tape except when it blocks something she dislikes – the risks to the environment from all those like him who champion growth at the expense of nature remain huge.

Renewed enthusiasm for fossil fuel projects is one aspect of this government’s reactionary and dangerous agenda. Two more are the promises to scrap hundreds of environmental regulations governing areas such as water quality (already shockingly poor), and to remove wildlife protections from new low-tax investment zones. The decision to review a post-Brexit farming payments scheme that took six years to set up – and which has already led to enhanced protection for wildlife in pilot areas – offers further proof of the government’s disdain for all things green.

Ms Truss made this explicit when she targeted climate campaigners as part of an “anti-growth coalition”. So far, she shows no sign of paying attention to warnings from senior figures including William Hague that she is on the wrong track. But concern about the government’s new direction is spreading. Ministers are at odds not only with environmental campaign groups such as Greenpeace, but also with mass-membership charities beloved of many Tory voters, including the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Paul Miner, from the countryside charity CPRE, described the reversals on fracking and other issues as “a litany of betrayal and broken promises”.

Precisely how the anger prompted by these anti-green policies will manifest itself remains to be seen. Already, charities have called on members to contact MPs, and they will be emboldened by a speech from the Charity Commission’s chair, Orlando Fraser, affirming their right to engage in political activity. With another crunch UN climate conference fast approaching, and a new report from scientists pointing to a further decline in animal populations, conservation groups and their supporters are right to be alarmed.

It is widely understood by voters in the UK – and judging from polling, by a majority of people around the world – that the next few years offer a final opportunity to prevent climate-linked destruction on an unimaginable scale. Under Boris Johnson, Conservative environment policies were nowhere near ambitious enough. But under Ms Truss, they are already far worse. Her hang-the-consequences short-termism would never have won a general election. The Greenpeace activists who interrupted her conference speech were right that voters do not support the policies she has embraced. They and other groups should take heart from the support they have already received. Ministers may not care about the damage that they are causing, but the public does.

Perhaps Alison Hernandez should have spent more time on her job rather than on taking selfies. 

These things don’t just come “out of the blue”.

Time for her to go as well as Truss. – Owl

Bertie Adams www.devonlive.com

Devon and Cornwall Police has (October 14) been placed into special measures by the police inspectorate. The force has been moved into an “enhanced level of monitoring” for reasons including inadequate response times, poor crime recording – particularly against vulnerable victims and for violent or behavioural crimes – and inability to manage sexual and violent offenders.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) continuously monitors the performance of all police forces in England and Wales.

The monitoring process consists of two stages: Scan and Engage. All police forces are in the Scan phase by default, but may be escalated to Engage.

A statement from HMICFRS outlining the reasons for the decisions is below:

“His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary has decided to move Devon and Cornwall Police into the Engage phase because:

• “the force’s crime recording has deteriorated since our last inspection. It doesn’t always record crimes against vulnerable victims, particularly violent or behavioural crimes, and anti-social behaviour;
• “the force does not answer, or respond to, emergency or non-emergency calls within adequate timeframes, and too many calls are abandoned. Identification of repeat and vulnerable callers is missed, and callers are not always given the appropriate advice on preservation of evidence or crime prevention; and
• “the force is unable to adequately manage registered sexual and violent offenders which means an increasing risk of further offending may not be identified.”

HMICFRS said more detail about Devon and Cornwall’s performance would be included in its next inspection report, which is due to be published early next year. His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary Wendy Williams said:

“We move police forces into our enhanced level of monitoring, known as Engage, when a force is not responding to our concerns, or if it is not managing, mitigating or eradicating these concerns. The Engage process provides additional scrutiny and support.

“Devon and Cornwall Police has been asked to urgently produce an improvement plan and will meet regularly with our inspectors. We will work closely with the force to monitor its progress against these important and necessary changes.”

A full statement from Devon and Cornwall Police is below:

“Devon and Cornwall Police is continuing to make improvements to its service after His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) today announced that the Force has been placed under an enhanced level of monitoring in three areas of policing.

“The inspection which took place earlier this year has identified three distinct areas where the Force must make improvements: How crime is recorded; its ability to answer emergency and non-emergency calls and the management of registered sexual and violent offenders.

“HMICFRS will now monitor the Force under its enhanced Engage process which provides additional scrutiny and support on behalf of the public.

“In its inspection, HMICFRS also highlighted a number of strengths in the organisation stating that it understood the needs and expectations of local communities with a focus on vulnerability and works effectively with partners locally. Other areas highlighted as strengths were the Force’s effective management of demand and that it treats people fairly.

“Temporary Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police, Jim Colwell, said: “We fully accept the findings of the HMICFRS inspection. I understand that these findings may cause concern in our communities and we are committed to delivering improvements. We have already commenced action in all three of these areas following the Inspectorate’s initial inspection in January”.

“Whilst there are improvements we must make; I am extremely proud that Devon and Cornwall remain the second safest counties in the country and this is testament to the hard work of all our officers, staff and volunteers. Protecting victims of crime remains our priority as we strive to meet our mission for world-class policing and to provide the best possible service for our communities.

“We take these findings very seriously and we will continue to work closely with HMICFRS, our key partners and our Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez, to embed sustainable improvements in the areas identified. We remain committed to delivering the excellent policing service our communities deserve.”

Reacting to Devon and Cornwall Police being put into special measures, Luke Pollard, MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, said: “This is incredibly concerning news. We must have confidence in our police.

“I’ve written to the T/Chief Constable and the Conservative Police and Crime Commissioner to seek a meeting to hear how our police force will be put back on track.”

@trussliz omg cant believe he was also part of the ant-growth coalition babe! SO right to get rid!!!!

From another regular Correspondent:

Wow!  So, Simon Jupp, supposedly East Devon’s MP, has accepted an unpaid job as a PPS at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.  He had supported Rishi Sunak for PM so this is quite a U-turn.

First: what is a PPS?

From Wikipedia which carries full references:

Although not paid other than their salary as an MP PPSs help the government to track backbench opinion in Parliament. They are subject to some restrictions as outlined in the Ministerial Code of the British government but are not members of the Government.

A PPS can sit on select committees but must avoid “associating themselves with recommendations critical of, or embarrassing to the Government”, and must not make statements or ask questions on matters affecting the minister’s department. In particular, the PPS in the Department for Communities and Local Government may not participate in planning decisions or in the consideration of planning cases.

PPSs are not members of the government, and all efforts are made to avoid these positions being referred to as such. They are instead considered more simply as normal Members. However, their close confidence with ministers does impose obligations on every PPS. The guidelines surrounding the divulging of classified information by ministers to PPSs are rigid.

Ministers choose their own PPSs, but they are expected to consult the Chief Whip and must seek the written approval for each candidate from the prime minister.

Although not on the government payroll, PPSs are expected to act as part of the payroll vote, voting in line with the government on every division.

What has Jupp done for us?

Jupp’s previous appointment, under Johnson, had been as a member of the Transport Select Committee in February 2020 and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in September 2021.

So, let’s list his achievements in his former posts and his suitability for the current post.  Or try to …

Transport Select Committee:

Can anyone tell me his achievements in this area – nationally or for East Devon?

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

– likewise?

All this correspondent recalls about Jupp up to now is that for many, many months he refused to meet members of the majority group on East Devon District Council and a rather unfortunate decision he made to stay at a property owned by former Councillor and Alderman John Humphreys when he was canvassing for the MP job in 2019.  Humphreys – now serving 21 years in prison for sexual offences against minors – was under investigation at that time, which at least some councillors and officers appear to have been aware of  – though obviously none of them alerted Jupp to this.  Nor is it likely Hugo Swire said anything, as he is on record in his wife’s book as being very much a Humphries supporter.

All Jupp’s utterances in the local press to date appear to have been rehashes of government press releases – has anyone got any evidence ofJupp’s original thinking?

The only campaign he appears to be passionate about is supporting the hospitality sector. He was photographed drinking non-local beers with such good examples of Tories as: “three homes” Robert Jenrick and “tractor porn” Neil Parish just before the first was sacked and the second chucked out of the party. Now, continuing his disastrous sense of timing, he has just joined “Team Truss”.

Now to his new responsibilities. 

Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

From Wikipedia again:

A Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) is a Member of Parliament (MP) in the United Kingdom who acts as an unpaid assistant to a minister or shadow minister. They are selected from backbench MPs as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the minister in the House of Commons.

So, now he is actually FORCED to support the policies of his masters as part of the job!  

I have consulted the website https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ to check Jupp’s interventions in Parliament, seeing no sign of anything that deviates from being a loyal servant of whichever master is in charge.  Though there was one – when during a heatwave – he did ask if honourable members could remove their jackets!

So, Jupp is what is known as a “bag carrier”,  now obliged to vote with his government as part of his job.

It’s nonsense for him now to claim, as he does: “East Devon will of course come first”.

Is this what the Conservative voters of East Devon voted for?  

Come back Claire Wright – never more needed!  Remember her slogan as an Independent?

“Free to Speak, Free to Act”, unlike Jupp “Not free to speak, not free to act” as long as he is  PPS!