The Great Big Dorset Hedge project aims to create a wildlife highway stretching nearly 100 miles from the border with Somerset in the west to the edge of Hampshire in the east.

Mario Ledwith www.thetimes.co.uk

The rolling hills, wild unspoilt landscapes and bustling market squares of Dorset served as the centrepiece for much of Thomas Hardy’s work.

Describing the rural playground in Far from the Madding Crowd in 1874, the Victorian novelist and poet wrote of land divided by hedgerows that sang as the wind danced over the land.

Now, after a century of decline, a campaign group is hoping to restore the hedges that Hardy said made “a mean show as a fence” by planting a continuous line across the entirety of Dorset.

The Great Big Dorset Hedge project aims to create a wildlife highway stretching nearly 100 miles from the border with Somerset in the west to the edge of Hampshire in the east.

As well as offering food and shelter for wildlife, environmentalists say that the network will combat the effects of climate change and reinvigorate the landscape’s physical beauty.

The project has been instigated by the Dorset Climate Action Network, which said that thousands of miles of ancient hedgerows have been ripped out over the past century to accommodate agriculture and large machinery.

Volunteers are being sought to map the hedge network before planting honeysuckle, elm, hawthorn, dogwood, blackthorn and trees in the gaps. It may take a generation for the completion of a hedgerow to “stretch the length and breadth of the county”.

Jenny Morisetti, from the campaign, said: “What we are hoping to do is fill in the gaps in the existing hedgerows to create a footpath for the natural world. The idea is that insects and other wildlife will be able to move around more freely with cover without fear of predators and be more resilient to pesticides.

She added: “It’s a big project, ambitious and long-term, but we hope it will bring communities together.”

Although in its early stages, the project is being pitched as a future tool against climate change, with hedgerows protecting against flooding and soil erosion, providing shelter and helping to combat air pollution.

The charity Rewilding Britain has called for at least 5 per cent of Britain to be returned to the wild and for wildlife to be protected across another 25 per cent of land and sea to create corridors that plants and animals can move through in response to climate change.

The project is thought to be the most expensive hedgerow expansion being undertaken in the country. Similar projects are being carried out by volunteers in Devon and by the Hedgelinks organisation across the country.

Work has begun to build a new £112,000 all-weather games area in East Devon for a host of sporting and outdoor activities.

eastdevonnews.co.uk

Construction work began on Monday (October 24) at the Newton Poppleford Playing Field, near Back Lane, and is expected to continue for the next eight weeks – if the weather allows.

The district council hopes the new area will encourage new sporting teams to set up, for all-year-round activities, such as netball, walking football and other games.

Work begins on the new games area at Newton Poppleford Playing Field. Photo: EDDC.

The project, being led by Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council, has been funded by East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Section 106 money and Community Infrastructure Levy funds – cash paid to the authorities by developers to use on community projects.

Councillor Chris Burhop, Chair of Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council, said: “This new multi-use games area is the result of several years of consulting with the local community, planning and hard work.

“The parish council is therefore delighted that this project can finally get underway.

“The new multi-use games area will be a step change in facilities in the parish and, having an all-weather surface, the area is bound to be well-used by a wide range of residents all year round.”

He added: “As a parish council we are committed to continue to expand the facilities of this parish, especially for sport and exercise and we will be looking at what we can do next.

“I hope we can see new teams being formed from the parish to make use of this facility, such as netball, five-a-side football and futsal.

“Many years ago, we had a netball team based in the village which had to disband when their court was resurfaced, and netball lines were not replaced. It would be great to see netball back.”

Photo shows (L-R) Michael Carter – project officer, Councillor Nick Hookway – EDDC’s portfolio holder for culture, sport, leisure and tourism, Councillor Chris Burhop – Chair of Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council, Parish Councillor Susan Tribble and Jacqui Baldwin – Clerk to Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council. Photo: EDDC.

EDDC said the playing field was already home to well-used tennis courts, football and cricket pitches, plus a children’s playground.

Councillor Nick Hookway, EDDC portfolio holder for culture, sport, leisure and tourism, said the district council was ‘delighted’ to help fund additional sporting opportunities in East Devon.

Cllr Hookway said: “East Devon District Council is delighted to provide funds to support Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council in extending sports facilities for its residents.

“This new games area will have a big impact on improving the health and wellbeing of the local community – as regular exercise is key to good all-round health for all age groups across the community.

“As football and netball are such popular sports, let’s hope that these new facilities will help to develop local talent to meet national standards.”

“A mid-life obituary can be a gift, a course corrector, and in recent days the Conservativ Party has also had a foretaste of how it might go down in history. With the polls dipping as low as 14 points, obituaries are being written, and they are ugly: incompetence, ineptitude, lying, loafing, recklessness, selfishness, squabbling, careerism-before-country.”

Comment, Clare Foges, The Times 24 Oct 22

Simon Jupp says on facebook that he has been “knocking on doors” in Newton Poppleford ahead of the District Council by-election to fill the vacancy caused by the sad death of Val Ranger.

This prompted the following comment: “Could you please start responding to your emails, rather than galavanting round East Devon! People are still in crisis and are still needing help, even though your party is in pieces at the moment, your job still stands!”

In the 2019 election the Conservative candidate got only 114 votes, and Val romped home.

The best memorial for Val is for the people of Newton Pop to discard any apathy, overcome inertia and to get out there and vote for who will best represent the interests of their community. The candidate list can be found here 

This government doesn’t seem keen on giving people a vote these days so this might also be an opportunity to send them a message from Newton Poppleford as strong as the message sent from Tiverton and Honiton. A few letters to the press wouldn’t go amiss either.

The local Tories must be very worried if they have to send out their MP to canvass in a local election. Maybe he is the only activist left.

Jupp’s photo op follows his pet theme of supporting the hospitality sector. In this he is pretty much a lone wolf in the party as Jeremy Hunt ignored any lobbying and reimposed the increases in alcohol duty as part of Austerity 2.0 and the sector is really struggling. It faces a deadly combination of rising prices, rocketing food and energy costs and the prospect of recession, as the vital Christmas trading period looms.

BUT SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. 

See: UK hospitality warns of ‘tidal wave’ of closures as crises loom.

Voting Tory isn’t going to help the hospitality sector.

PS Anyone answered a knock on the door to find themselves facing SJ in person or does he only visit the faithful few?

“We will come together, unite the Conservative Party, and deliver for the country.”

It is now clear that you and your party will be delivering eye watering Austerity 2.0.

Who cares a stuff about the Conservative Party?

Why is this something to celebrate? – Owl

Austerity 2.0 will be harsher than it needs to be, argues Larry Elliot in this extract from his column written on Monday before the new PM was announced.

Not that it will impact either Rishi Sunak (est worth £730M) or even Jeremy Hunt (est worth £17M) particularly. – Owl

“The incompetence and chaos of Truss’s brief period in office means that any hope, for now at least, of an alternative to deflationary policies has been extinguished. Both the Bank and the Treasury now feel obliged to pursue what they see as market-friendly rather than people-friendly policies. In tough times, the state can act as a shock absorber by spending and borrowing more, but Hunt thinks he has no choice but to make the public absorb more of the shock itself.”

Larry Elliott www.theguardian.com (extract)

Make no mistake, a Sunak premiership would be a victory for the financial markets and for the status quo more generally. And not just in Britain, either. After Truss’s humiliation during her 44 days in office, any country contemplating challenging the orthodoxy will now be having second thoughts.

This is a disaster, but one that Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng brought on themselves. As the Guardian revealed, the prime minister and her first chancellor were warned last month by economists sympathetic to their project of the need to square off the markets before revealing the contents of the mini-budget.

There was – and still is – a respectable case for the government borrowing more at a time when the economy is weak but the reasons for pursuing a more active fiscal policy needed to be spelled out. Truss and Kwarteng were told this by Gerard Lyons and Julian Jessop at a meeting in early September but chose not to listen.

The way forward was obvious. First, the Truss government should have announced details of a six-month energy price cap, an appropriate response to the hit to real incomes caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Other European countries had already announced price controls in response to higher gas prices and there was no reason why the markets would have been alarmed by a similar UK plan.

Second, Kwarteng should have announced a date for a later fiscal event at which he would make good on Truss’s leadership promises: the cut in NICs and the scrapping of the corporation tax increase, with the moves costed by the Office for Budget Responsibility. Any further changes should have been parked until a full budget in the spring of next year, again with an OBR assessment.

Instead of this step-by-step approach, Truss and Kwarteng committed blunder after blunder. All three stages were telescoped into one, the OBR was sidelined and the story became less about protecting the public from the side-effects of Putin’s war than about borrowing for tax cuts for the rich. The prime minister and the chancellor seemed surprised by the hostile market reaction but they really should not have been.

Now a hard rain is gonna fall. Kwarteng’s replacement as chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is preparing a package of swingeing spending cuts and tax increases that will suck demand out of an economy already in the early stages of recession. In this he is being egged on by the International Monetary Fund, which thinks it is a good idea for both monetary policy – what the Bank of England does – and fiscal policy to be tightened at the same time.

But the idea should be to use a combination of monetary and fiscal policy to bring inflation down with the minimum amount of collateral damage. At a time when the Bank is in danger of being spooked into over-aggressive increases, it would make sense for the chancellor to be pushing in the opposite direction. The upshot of having monetary and fiscal policy pushing in the same direction will be an increase in company failures, higher unemployment and weaker consumer demand. The recession will be deeper and longer, making it harder for the government to meet its targets for borrowing and debt.

When Truss was running to be prime minister, she pushed back against the idea that there was a quantifiable “black hole” in the public finances that could be filled only by tax increases or spending cuts, and she was right to do so. Estimates of the public finances in the future rely on assumptions about how fast the economy will grow, because faster growth means a higher tax take, lower spending and smaller deficits.

The incompetence and chaos of Truss’s brief period in office means that any hope, for now at least, of an alternative to deflationary policies has been extinguished. Both the Bank and the Treasury now feel obliged to pursue what they see as market-friendly rather than people-friendly policies. In tough times, the state can act as a shock absorber by spending and borrowing more, but Hunt thinks he has no choice but to make the public absorb more of the shock itself.

In those circumstances, people act rationally. They spend less and save more; businesses find they have fewer customers and respond by cutting back on investment. Unemployment rises and companies go bust.

The fact that there are people on the left as well as the right who insist that Hunt has no choice other than to usher in a new age of austerity is evidence of the harm that Truss has caused. Governments always have choices, and this one has decided that a period of fiscal discipline is now necessary.

Hunt will get the full backing of whoever becomes PM for policies that will lead to more people relying on food banks and shivering in their homes this winter, fearful of turning the central heating on because of the cost. Desolation Row is about to become more desolate.

Rishi Sunak was instrumental in getting rid of Boris Johnson and came second to Liz Truss, in the process the Conservative Party concocted to succeed him.

She crashed the economy in 44 days.

In order to stay in power and avoid a general election at all costs, the Conservative Party has now decided that he should be next up for the job.

Yet we, the electorate, haven’t a clue what plan the third choice has for us is.

The new owner of a small, private airfield in East Devon has hit back at ‘nefarious’ objectors and also East Devon District Council after having to officially apply into an entity operational 365 days of the year. Farway Common Airfield, Moorlands Farm, just outside Sidbury in East Devon, was established 36 years ago and was originally operated under the ’28 day rule’.

Anita Merrit www.devonlive.com

However, it has always been available 365 days a year to both resident and visiting aircraft which is evidenced from airfield logbooks, the on-site flying school and aircraft owners. As the site doesn’t technically have planning permission, new owner and qualified pilot James Hortop, has had to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development.

The planning application has so far received 108 public comments and of those, 56 are in support of it and 51 against. Concerns raised include noise pollution, safety concerns for those directly under flight paths and being in with an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Gary Fuller, who lives directly by the 30 acres airfield which has two runways, said: “The new person who has bought it is trying to develop it into something a bit bigger and a lot of residents have complained due to concerns about excessive noise and it is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

“I am also worried about disruption, the flight paths, being overlooked and what it could turn into. I believe the peace and tranquility we have experienced in the last 10 years will change and there will be no changing it back when the new owner gets the certificate of lawfulness.

“The person who owned it before just had it as a private airstrip. He was in his 90s and hadn’t flown for about 10 years, but he used to have people fly in and land there and would have some things running from there, but if it ever got too noisy he would put a stop to it. He ran it with respect for the neighbours.

“From what I have read on the planning application, the new person who bought it has big plans for the airfield to make it a bigger commercial venture and it will be used whenever he wants.”

Farway Common Airfield

To address concerns raised by local residents and objectors, Mr Hortop has written an open letter. In it, he states: “We are very disappointed with the obvious campaign that is running in objection to our recent application for a lawful use certificate. Many of the objections are a cut and paste from a circular letter whose writer has not properly read or understood our application.

“Despite making our contact details known and introducing ourselves to our near neighbours not a single one has opened any dialogue whatsoever as to what our plans are and our reasons for the application. We did not want to make an application; we were forced to do it.

“We write this letter in an attempt to prevent further concern, worry and fear that these circulating nefarious letters/social media posts are creating.”

He continued: “Due to unnecessary escalation from the council – with an out of the blue Contravention Notice despite writing to EDDC – we have had no choice but to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development. This is simply to protect what has been occurring at the airfield for over 20 plus years.”

Mr Hortop added: “All we seek to do is regularise the operation of the site as a small airfield. The application to do this has been blown out of all proportion.”

Mr Hortop confirmed that its resident pilots fly around 70 to 100 hours per year (five to eight hours per month). He said: “We are also a small airfield with very limited space; we simply don’t have the room for hundreds of aircraft.”

Addressing concerns about its commercial flying school, he said: “The word ‘commercial’ has been taken out of all context. By commercial, we mean ‘for reward and employment. This does not mean an ab-initio school for would be commercial pilots who want to do circuits all day, every day.

“In fact, it would actually be illegal as such training must occur at a licenced facility. The flying school has operated for over 12 years.”

He continued: “The site has operated at a greater intensity than it does now for numerous years over the last two decades. No complaints during this time were received.

“There has been no impact on the ANOB, our fields are full of wild flowers, insects, pollinators, deer and birds. We seek to preserve and protect this environment.

“However, the natural asset that Farway Common Airfield has become is dependent on flying activities. Without it, we would be forced to graze horses or other livestock which would result in a monoculture.

“Had the airfield caused many of the issues that people are worried about, EDDC would have acted five, 10, 15 or even 20 years ago. There have been no complaints to act on.

“While we completely understand the concerns, the perceived negative effects of the airfield on the area have not materialised.”

Thanking those who have shown their support for the application, he said: “Farway is clearly loved by many and an important local and national asset to the flying community.”

Farway Common Airfield

A spokesperson for East Devon District Council said: “The council received a complaint early in the summer from a resident raising concerns that the times that Farway Common Airfield is used had significantly increased in recent times and now far exceeds the 28 days in a calendar year that the airfield can operate without needing planning permission. Council officers investigated the claims and agreed with the complaint and so advised the airfield to either stop or apply for retrospective planning permission.

“In response, the operators of the airfield have made an application called a Certificate of Lawfulness to demonstrate that they have been operating for more than 28 days per year for at least the last 10 years. Under the legislation where this is proven through evidence then the use can be recognised by the council as being lawful having operated unchallenged for more than 10 years.

“It is only right that this matter be formally addressed through the current application and residents be given the opportunity to submit evidence to challenge the applicant’s case. The airfields case could never have been formally considered other than through a formal application. A decision on the application will be made in due course.”

James is CEO of Merlin Equipment which supplies and designs of unique power products to the marine, specialist vehicle and defence industries. During Covid-19, his business delivered 500 x COVID vaccination and test vehicles in just three months

The Certificate of lawful development involves taking off, landing and manoeuvring of aeroplanes on the ground, and would allow operation 365 days per year – and regularising the use that currently takes place. The Town & Country Planning Act 1990: Section 191 as amended by section 10 of the Planning & Compensation Act 1991 states that the local authority has a period of up to 10 years to take enforcement action against breaches of planning control.

After the time limit has passed, the development becomes lawful, in terms of planning. To view the planning application, please click here.

“Christopher Chope, the MP for Christchurch and a supporter of Johnson, warned on Monday that Sunak was seen as having undermined both Johnson and Truss, and could not thus expect loyalty from his own MPs. To have a mandate, Chope said, Sunak needed to call a general election.”

“I believe I am well placed to deliver a Conservative victory in 2024…” Boris in his statement as he “bottles it” this time.

Rishi Sunak will face ‘ungovernable’ Tory party, warns Johnson supporter

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

Rishi Sunak’s hopes of a smooth accession to power have taken a blow after Boris Johnson supporters warned he would face an “ungovernable” Conservative parliamentary party, while Penny Mordaunt’s campaign insisted she remained in the race.

The former chancellor could be named as the successor to Liz Truss as party leader, and thus prime minister, as early as 2pm on Monday if Mordaunt, the Commons leader, fails to gather the necessary 100 nominations from MPs.

Sunak, who has over 160 nominations, became the very likely winner after Johnson announced on Sunday night that he would not be running. The former PM insisted he had 100-plus MPs backing him, but others were sceptical.

Christopher Chope, the MP for Christchurch and a supporter of Johnson, warned on Monday that Sunak was seen as having undermined both Johnson and Truss, and could not thus expect loyalty from his own MPs. To have a mandate, Chope said, Sunak needed to call a general election.

“We’ve got a parliamentary party which is completely riven, and it’s ungovernable,” Chope told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“In a sense, that is the reason why Boris has pulled out, because obviously Rishi Sunak wasn’t prepared to guarantee him his support in the event that he was elected as leader by the party and the country.

“Unless we can have somebody as our leader in parliament who commands the support and respect of the parliamentary party, we are in effect actually ungovernable.

“Unlike Boris, who did have a mandate, we now have the prospect of having a Conservative party leader who doesn’t have the mandate from the country and won’t even have a mandate from the membership either.”

Asked if he would back Sunak if we won, Chope replied: “I supported Boris Johnson and I supported Liz Truss, and I saw before my very eyes their authority being undermined by the people who now wish to take over and inherit the crown.

“Respect is a mutual thing. If the people who are now seeking the crown want to have the respect which comes from having a mandate, then what I am saying is that the best way they can get that respect is by winning a mandate with the people, and that’s why I think a general election is essentially the only answer.

“Otherwise we’re just going to go from bad to worse. We’re going to have continuing rebellions as we try to change policies.”

Mordaunt is stuck on about 30 publicly declared MP nominations, although her team hope she could be boosted by some supporters of Johnson moving to her.

Mordaunt’s backers vowed on Sunday that she was still in the race, and on Monday morning released details of a poll they said showed she was the candidate best placed to unite the nation.

The Deltapoll survey of 4,000 voters found Mordaunt was more appealing to voters in seats the Tories had gained in 2019 than Sunak or Johnson. It also found she was seen as more trustworthy, “highlighting that she is the only candidate who can unite the country and restore trust in government”, her campaign said.

Tens of thousands of new homes face being delayed or scrapped because of river pollution that could cost the economy £16bn.

(So say developers – Owl)

By Wyre Davies www.bbc.co.uk

Experts say more phosphate, found in animal and human waste, is getting into rivers and affecting water quality.

Tougher rules on phosphate river pollution targets have been brought in – but that could affect 100,000 new-build homes in England and Wales.

Developers want governments to take urgent action to find a solution.

The pollution is a problem partly caused by us and our demand for cheap food.

That demand has driven an industry that’s threatening to overwhelm our environment, a BBC investigation has found.

Campaigners have said more needs to be done to save the UK’s rivers before it’s too late.

The building of more than 5,000 new homes are affected in Wales because of tighter phosphate pollution targets on rivers which were adopted in 2020. That could cost more than £700m to the economy.

‘Delays could cost £16bn’

The Home Builders’ Federation (HBF) contacted planning authorities and developers and calculated 100,000 homes in 74 areas in England are also affected by phosphate restrictions on housebuilding.

The HBF estimate the impact could be a £16bn loss in economic activity in England and Wales.

That figure is calculated from an industry standard model, factchecked by the BBC, that projects the financial footprint of new homebuyers, including spend in the local economy and taxes.

“We have government agency-imposed moratoriums on house building across large swathes of the country for nutrient neutrality, despite house building being a minor contributor to the issue,” said Stewart Baseley, executive chairman of the HBF.

“House building delivers growth, and it is crucial that the government re-evaluates the impacts of these costs and moratoriums and ensures that the industry is sufficiently supported such that it can deliver desperately needed new homes and the associated social and economic benefits.

“It is encouraging that after almost three years of home builders’ pleas, the government seems to be looking to find solutions, but we need urgent actions that matches the scale and urgency of the issue.”

‘Serious damage’

Natural England, a UK Government agency, said phosphate pollution is causing “serious damage” to rivers and wetlands – and the species that live in them – and made £100,000 available for each affected river catchment.

“These are also the same habitats that we need to protect us from the impacts of the climate crisis such as drought,” said Melanie Hughes of Natural England.

“Their protection and enhancement underpins our economy and our wellbeing.

“Nutrient Neutrality is a way of making sure that new housing does not add to the problem by ensuring developers can take action to reduce pollution, such as by making new wetlands.

“Together with the government, Natural England is working closely with local authorities, developers and planning authorities to create those solutions so that much needed development can take place. This is happening now.”

Wales’ First Minister Mark Drakeford held a summit with farmers’ representatives and water companies to discuss the impact of phosphate pollution on house building in the summer.

High levels of phosphate and other nutrients in rivers can lead to algal blooms and, ultimately, the loss of many species that make rivers their home, including fish, birds, invertebrates and plants that are vital to the river ecosystem.

BBC Wales Investigates has explored the problem on the River Wye that straddles the England and Wales border.

It is one of the UK’s most ecologically diverse waterway and supports wildlife like salmon, otters and kingfishers.

Warning ecosystem will ‘collapse’

The River Wye catchment is failing Joint Nature Conservation Committee targets and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) estimate almost three-quarters of phosphates entering the river are from rural land use, like farming.

“We cannot wait any longer,” said Gail Davies-Walsh of charity Afonydd Cymru, which represents river trusts in Wales.

“Quite simply, if it carries on as it is now, that ecosystem will just collapse.

“It is salvageable, but it is going to take a huge amount of working together, and it’s going to require all of those sectors to play their part in this and what we see at the moment is actually quite a lot of delays in that happening.”

Is pollution because of intensive farming?

Campaigners believe intensive poultry farming is responsible.

Data gathered by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales has found that, since 2008, more than 300 intensive poultry farms and farm extensions have been given planning permission in Powys, which covers a large area of the Wye.

But water quality monitoring has not been able to prove a direct link between phosphates in the river and chicken farms.

“Agriculture is part of the problem,” National Farming Union Cymru President Aled Jones told the BBC Wales Investigates programme.

“It’s a very complex issue. There are so many other contributors to the water failing in these rivers.

“We need to go with the evidence. And as that evidence is clarified, clearly, then we will respond.”

Water monitoring across the UK is limited but a team at Lancaster University modelled how much muck is being generated in the Wye catchment.

They found 7,500 tonnes of phosphorus is generated in the River Wye catchment every year from animal muck.

Crops in that area can only absorb around 4,500 tonnes of that muck – leaving a surplus.

“Fundamentally, if you have a surplus, you have too much phosphorus in your environment, it’s likely that you’re going to have worse water quality,” said Dr Shane Rothwell of Lancaster University.

Can a manmade wetlands stop river pollution?

Near the Wye in Herefordshire, building has started on the first wetlands in the UK to be funded by developers buying what is being described as “phosphate credits”.

Such measures aim to stop putting more nutrients, like phosphate, into rivers – similar to carbon offsetting.

The wetlands in the village of Luston, near Leominster, should prevent 200kg of phosphate going into the river every year.

Developer Merry Albright has 52 house builds on hold due to the phosphate restrictions but is benefitting from the wetlands scheme.

‘Developers don’t mind doing more for biodiversity’

She said: “New housing didn’t cause this problem and yet we are being blamed and also being asked to pay for a solution which won’t really fix the bigger problem.

“I’m happy to do the best for the environment so I’m not seeking someone to eradicate the red tape but I would like people to focus on what caused this and what is needed to be done to fix it.”

In England, Defra said they have tripled their workforce in the last two years and increased farm inspections from 300 to 1700 a year. They added they plan to expand to 4,000 inspections annually.

In Wales, it’s NRW’s job to enforce water quality regulations. They are negotiating with Welsh government to get extra funding to police the new pollution rules.

“It is key having people on the ground to deliver,” said Siân Williams of NRW.

“That’s why we’re looking into not just external funded programmes that are temporary, but we’re also looking at our baseline funding with Welsh Government.”

Wales’ Rural Affairs Minister Lesley Griffiths said the Welsh Government had already been working to make “quick gains” as well as long term solutions.

“Of course, I’m part of the solution, just as other people are,” she said. “We all have to take responsibility each and every one of us.”

Yesterday’s man – Owl

For all Boris Johnson’s habitually coy language about his leadership ambitions, one thing is abundantly clear: he only withdraws from a political race if he thinks he cannot win it. And so it was on Sunday night.

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

The former prime minister’s statement confirming his decision to not stand was a classic of this Johnson genre: equal parts bullish insistence about his own ability to triumph, and a pretend modesty that he is choosing another path for the sake of unity.

In reality many observers – and many Conservative MPs – remain deeply dubious about Johnson’s claim that he had secured the support of 102 parliamentary colleagues, given that fewer than half this number had said so publicly.

There will be similar scepticism about Johnson’s insistence that, once on the ballot, he would most likely triumph in a vote of party members, and then stand a good chance of winning the next general election.

The first of those was not impossible, especially as Rishi Sunak, by now an apparent near-certainty to become the next prime minister, remains far from hugely popular with Tory members, some of whom blame him for precipitating Johnson’s downfall in July by resigning as chancellor.

But probably the very best outcome Johnson could have hoped for would be to emerge as the leader of a party where about two-third of its MPs think he is unfit for office, some even threatening to defect or resign if he took over again.

Far more humiliating would be to not make the 100-nomination threshold. Those who know Johnson portray him as a politician who, even by the standards of the trade, lives on adulation and approval. If he cannot feel wanted he would rather not be involved.

So it was in 2016, fresh from being hailed by Brexiters as the defining reason for the Vote Leave victory, with Johnson billed as one of the frontrunners to succeed David Cameron.

That time events were even more dramatic, but followed a similar narrative. Just before Johnson was due to formally declare, Michael Gove, his ally and Vote Leave partner, announced he believed Johnson was unsuited to the job and that he would stand instead. Johnson, his hopes badly damaged, gave up.

On Sunday, Johnson followed his prediction that he could win the race if he chose to by adding: “But in the course of the last days I have sadly come to the conclusion that this would simply not be the right thing to do.”

Much like the supposed 102 backers, many Tory MPs or others who have closely observed Johnson will greet that sentence with something of a hollow laugh.

Johnson would like the world to believe he is withdrawing for the sake of party unity, or the national good. But if he genuinely cherished those things he would not have launched a new bid to become PM little more than three months after he was forced out by more than 50 ministerial resignations, and with the threat of an official inquiry into whether he misled parliament hanging above his head.

Perhaps the one part of Johnson’s statement that is sincere, if not necessarily accurate, is when he states: “I believe I have much to offer but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time.”

Johnson very much does believe he was unfairly forced out and should be granted another go. He also perhaps believes that in political times as fevered as this he could yet make a comeback.

But while definitive predictions are perilous, this does seem self-comforting, even delusional. Johnson returned from yet another holiday during the parliamentary session to be greeted by some former acolytes sycophantically greeting him on social media as “boss”.

But there were not many. Among Sunak’s 140-plus confirmed backers were the likes of Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch and Steve Baker, from the previously Johnsonite right of the party.

Even if he does not fully realise it yet, Johnson is now the Conservative party’s yesterday man. To borrow Cameron’s damning putdown of Tony Blair: he was the future once.

……before you can say “non-dom”?

If the contest for the next PM results in a vote of the Conservative party members, Conservative MPs will conduct an indicative vote.

As Politico Newsletter explained: the point of the indicative vote is to either (1) encourage the losing candidate to stand down so a new PM can be in place on Monday night or (2) show the mad, swivel-eyed loons in the membership who to vote for this time.

Reassured? – Owl

Andrew Woodcock www.independent.co.uk 

Supporters of Rishi Sunak have warned of a “constitutional crisis” if Boris Johnson becomes the second prime minister in succession to be elected by Tory members in the face of opposition from the party’s MPs.

The former PM may find himself faced with a boycott of his government by MPs along the lines of the mass resignation that forced his departure in July, said one minister, who warned that Mr Johnson would not last until 2023, let alone the general election expected in 2024.

The warning came after the Johnson camp sensationally claimed to have secured the promise of the 100 MPs’ signatures he needs to enter the race to succeed Liz Truss, apparently dashing Mr Sunak’s hopes of an uncontested coronation on Monday.

But the claim by Johnson ally Sir James Duddridge was greeted with deep scepticism by Sunak supporters, with one challenging him to “prove it” and another retorting that the supposed hidden army of “Bring Back Boris” MPs “don’t exist”.

“If Boris has 100 in the bag, why is his campaign putting out pics of him begging for votes?” asked Poole MP Sir Robert Syms.

With Sir James saying only that 100 MPs were “prepared to sign nomination papers”, there were suspicions in the Sunak camp that Mr Johnson was laying the ground for a face-saving announcement that, while he had the necessary support, he felt the time was not right for him to return to frontline politics.

Earlier on Saturday, the Johnson campaign appeared to be sputtering to a halt before it was even formally confirmed, despite winning the high-profile endorsement of former home secretary Priti Patel.

While Mr Sunak sped past the 100-nomination threshold late on Friday, Mr Johnson appeared becalmed on the declared support of a little over half that figure, and was hit by former close allies David Frost, Dominic Raab and Steve Barclay – his erstwhile Brexit negotiator, deputy prime minister and chief of staff – all declaring for his rival.

Mr Sunak was also boosted by the backing of trade secretary Kemi Badenoch, who ran a well-regarded bid for the leadership in the summer and is seen as a rising star.

If two contenders clear the nominations hurdle on Monday, MPs will hold an “indicative” vote to give members a clear steer on how much support each candidate enjoys in the Commons – and to give the second-placed candidate the chance to pull out if they trail by an overwhelming margin.

But the Johnson team believe that if the ex-PM can get onto the ballot paper alongside Mr Sunak, even in second place, he can sweep to victory on the back of members’ votes in an online vote set to conclude on Friday.

Apparently spooked by the prospect of Mr Johnson gathering the necessary support to run, a series of Sunak supporters issued statements warning of the dire consequences for the party if activists impose another leader against MPs’ will.

“Being elected the leader of the largest party in parliament, but without being able to form a stable government, would be a new set of circumstances which could lead to constitutional crisis and early general election in chaotic circumstances,” said trade minister Greg Hands.

His warning came as The Independent’s petition calling for an immediate general election passed 360,000 signatures.

Mr Hands claimed that the former PM had offered him the cabinet role of Northern Ireland secretary as he struggled to fill government posts amid an exodus of ministers in July.

“I think he would have offered me almost anything,” said Mr Hands. “I refused.”

And he warned that the situation could be repeated under a second Johnson premiership: “Some of my colleagues think he could win a 2024 general election. But if you can’t form a workable, effective and stable government, you’ll never get to 2023, let alone 2024.”

And former cabinet minister Robert Jenrick warned that the scandals that had forced Mr Johnson out of office “remain unresolved”, while the newly jittery markets would no longer tolerate the former prime minister’s “fiscal cakeism”.

“There may be another moment for Boris, but now is not the time for him to take back the reins,” said Mr Jenrick.

Mr Raab warned that a Johnson premiership would plunge the country and the Tory party back, Groundhog Day-style, into the Partygate “soap opera”, with the PM forced to give evidence on camera to an inquiry by the privileges committee into alleged lies to parliament, the outcome of which could lead to his removal as an MP.

With Penny Mordaunt so far the only contender formally to declare her candidacy, a Tory MP who quit the government ahead of Mr Johnson’s downfall in July told The Independent she hoped the former prime minister would not put himself forward.

“I hope he has some integrity left and will not stand,” said the MP. “Whilst the standards investigation is ongoing it is wrong. He cannot unite the party that he divided.

“While Boris is popular with the electorate, we need to calm the markets and bring back the brilliant voices and wisdom that have been returned to the back bench in the interests of the country and the economy – not one man’s political ambition.”

Meanwhile, long-serving Tory MPs Sir Roger Gale and Andrew Bridgen declared that they were ready to decline the Conservative whip and sit in parliament as independents if Mr Johnson was re-elected for a second stint at 10 Downing Street.

And a flash survey of members of the Tory Reform Group found 86 per cent saying they did not want Mr Johnson back. The group’s chair, Flora Coleman, said his return would spark an exodus of moderates from the party.

“We have seen that the party’s centrist members have been ‘quiet quitting’ for years,” said Ms Coleman. “It’s clear the return of Johnson would finally end the relationship for many.”

Mr Johnson returned to the UK from a Caribbean holiday on an overnight plane arriving at Gatwick early on Saturday, and immediately took to the phones to drum up support.

Supporters released photos of a determined but tired-looking Mr Johnson on the phone in a grey suit, doing a thumbs-up in front of a union jack flag.

Backer Andrew Stephenson said that many of the more than 60 MPs who had quit government posts in protest at Mr Johnson’s behaviour in July now regret forcing him out.

“I have heard lots of MPs who now feel that they were rash to judge him before the summer, rash to encourage him to resign then, and now feel that this is somebody who – in terms of the big national and international challenges we face – has very good judgement, and therefore at a difficult time for the country we need him back,” the former Tory chair told BBC Radio 4’s Today.

But the Labour chair of the Commons standards committee, Chris Bryant, said Mr Johnson was a “disgraced” figure who was “unfit for office”.

Mr Bryant said that if elected PM, Mr Johnson would spend the first months of his second premiership “entirely focused” on the contempt probe by the separate privileges committee.

And he added that he could then, “at the end of it, be found to have been in contempt of parliament, suspended from the House of Commons, and potentially facing a by-election in a seat which he would lose”.

“Boris Johnson divides opinion in the Tory party and the country alike. His Conservative supporters believe he is the only person who would stand a chance of winning the next election for them…….But other Tories believe a second stint in No 10 would be even more of a disaster than the first one, and the short leadership of Liz Truss, for the following reasons.”

Intruding on private grief – Owl

Toby Helm www.theguardian.com 

Boris Johnson divides opinion in the Tory party and the country alike. His Conservative supporters believe he is the only person who would stand a chance of winning the next election for them. They point out that despite having been ousted in July he still has a mandate, having won an 80 seat majority for the Tories at the 2019 general election. Because of that, they argue that calls by Labour and other parties for a general election would have far less resonance under a Johnson Mark II premiership. But other Tories believe a second stint in No 10 would be even more of a disaster than the first one, and the short leadership of Liz Truss, for the following reasons.

His return would split, possibly destroy, the party

Weighed down by scandals, including Partygate, Johnson was forced to quit in July after more than 50 government ministers and aides resigned, saying they could no longer back him. Most Conservative MPs thought he should go by that time and a large majority of voters. If he were to return – as if his removal had not been driven by issues of principle – many of those same MPs and ex-ministers would be enraged. Large numbers of former ministers would refuse to serve or back Johnson and some backbench MPs would quit the party. A parliamentary party already riven by splits would be potentially ungovernable at the time of an economic crisis and when the Tories are about 30 points behind in the polls.

The worst of Partygate – and Johnson’s role in it – is yet to come 

Tory and Labour MPs say investigations by the Commons privileges committee into whether Johnson misled MPs over Covid rule-breaking parties in No 10 are turning up such devastating evidence that he could “be gone by Christmas” if he were reinstalled. A large amount of documents from inside No 10 have already been handed over to Labour’s Harriet Harman, who is chairing the inquiry by the Commons privileges committee. Evidence sessions at which Johnson is expected to appear will begin in November. Such a prospect has already persuaded the likes of Dominic Raab, the former deputy prime minister under Johnson, to think again about attempting a comeback that could land him and his party into even deeper crisis. For the Tory party to lose another leader (albeit a retread) after just a matter of weeks would probably be terminal. If Johnson is found to have misled the Commons, he could be suspended, making his position untenable.

The economy and the markets would be destabilised – again.

Johnson has never been one for fiscal discipline and following the disaster of Liz Truss’s unfunded tax cuts, his return could unsettle the financial markets again, after Jeremy Hunt brought some calm by scrapping Truss’s economic plan. Johnson is also personally associated with many of the high-cost levelling up infrastructure projects that will probably be in the chancellor’s sights in cutting public spending. The return of Johnson would look like a backward step and is unlikely to signal more stable times ahead to the financial markets.

The rightwing press, and public opinion

On Saturday, even some leading rightwing commentators were arguing that Johnson should stand aside and not attempt a comeback. His time had passed. This was the view of Charles Moore in his Daily Telegraph column. There were signs too that the Sun and Daily Mail were hedging their bets, keen not to back a loser, as they had done with Truss, and seeing the dangers of another act of Tory self-harm.

‘Strong liberal tradition’ here says politics expert

Ollie Heptinstall, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk 

The Conservatives are likely to be “in real trouble” in Devon based on current polling, according to an expert from the University of Exeter.

Liz Truss this week announced her resignation as Tory party leader and prime minister, less than two months after defeating Rishi Sunak in a leadership contest that lasted longer than her premiership.

Her reign was blighted by turmoil, with Tory MPs revolting after Ms Truss was forced to abandon much of her tax-cutting economic plan following a negative reaction from economic markets.

Opinion polls reacted badly to her government, with support for the Conservatives nosediving during her time in Downing Street. The Politico website’s poll of polls gave Labour a 32-point lead as of midday on Friday [20 October].

Dr Hannah Bunting, lecturer in quantitative British politics at the University of Exeter, remarked: “The Conservatives are definitely going to be in trouble all over the country, but particularly in Devon and the south west overall.

“I think one of the more cautious projections that we’ve seen recently has the Conservatives losing half of the seats that they have in the south west at the moment at the next general election.”

The Tories currently hold nine of the 12 seats in Devon. All but one has a majority less than the 24,000 successfully overturned by Liberal Democrat Richard Foord to defeat the Conservatives in June’s Tiverton & Honiton by-election.

“I don’t think that Labour would win with the 400-odd seats [nationally] that are being projected at the moment,” Dr Bunting added, “but they are still likely to win with what we would call a landslide. And certainly, there are many areas in Devon and the south west where those members of parliament who are Conservatives are in real trouble.

Describing the Liberal Democrats as a “viable alternative” to the Tories, Dr Bunting added: “There’s a strong tradition of liberalism here, so when people in Devon and the south west turn against the Conservatives, they tend to go towards the Lib Dems unless you’re looking at cities such as Plymouth and Exeter.”

“So, for certain, the Conservatives are definitely going to be in trouble in Devon and Cornwall, and that’s just indicative of how unhappy people are with what’s happened over the past nine months plus.”

On whether the Tories could recover before the next general election, which does not have to be held until January 2025 if a new prime minister can command a majority in parliament, Dr Bunting believes there could be some respite for the governing party.

“If somebody such as Rishi Sunak, for instance, who was the MPs’ favourite ahead of the membership vote in the last leadership election, has some government experience … and seems to have quite a coherent plan and would hopefully be able to work with Jeremy Hunt in the chancellor’s office quite well together.

“If somebody like him wins this contest and becomes prime minister, and Jeremy Hunt’s budget goes quite well on Halloween, 31 October, then we could see some stability heading towards Christmas.

“But that doesn’t really do much to help a lot of the crises that are happening at the moment. There is a health care crisis, the cost-of-living crisis, people’s mortgages are more expensive, energy bills.

“There are so many things that that we need a government for at the moment, that if it’s not a kind of holistic plan, then even if they do manage to hang on until Christmas, they’ve then got the May local elections coming up and it’s probably going to be a pretty disastrous result for the Conservatives there.”

While Dr Bunting is “certain” that the Conservatives “will try and hang on as long as possible,” she believes the next general election could be held next September.

“I think whoever [takes over] is really going to try and keep things together until Christmas and then after those May local elections perhaps they’ll have to start taking stock again.

“But there’s so many variables and so much going on at the moment that it’s really, really difficult to predict.”

Large greenfield sites in England have been identified in 35 councils’ applications to be part of deregulated low-tax investment zones.

Sandra Laville www.theguardian.com 

Seventy-seven areas have been identified for development in the zones, where key environmental protections and planning regulations will be relaxed to encourage fast growth, according to data gathered by an environmental campaigner.

Two councils, Stroud district council and Oxfordshire county council, have refused to take part. The Oxfordshire council leader, Liz Leffman, said the deregulation was incompatible with its net zero aspirations and commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity.

But across the country many other councils have submitted applications for the zones. There are several applications covering ports as well as commercial units and large housing developments on greenfield sites.

The government has not released any details of how many councils had expressed interest in creating low-tax zones by the deadline of 14 October.

Guy Shrubsole, an environmental campaigner, has used responses to freedom of information requests, council announcements and other data to identify 77 areas where zones could be agreed. These include 20 in Kent, four large housing sites in Gloucestershire, three areas of Dorset, three in Cornwall, and parts of Hampshire, Lancashire, Peterborough, West Midlands, Suffolk, Bedford and Plymouth. The applications include several ports.

Link to facebook page here. This also gives link to expandable Google maps and data base

In Derbyshire, the areas include 300 acres of land for a major tourist resort on the outskirts of the Peak District. In Gloucestershire, one application includes plans for 10,000 homes on a greenfield site at Tewkesbury.

Kent Wildlife Trust said 17 protected wildlife sites in the county could lose environmental protections if the zones allow developers to bypass environmental regulations.

Evan Bowen-Jones, the chief executive of Kent Wildlife Trust, said: “Nature isn’t an optional extra, it’s a must if people are going to thrive. Restoring nature and producing our food with less chemicals will help combat climate change, help our economy, and give our children a healthier future. We must not let this government take us backwards at this critical point in time, when we still have a chance to prevent irreversible damage to society.”

In Hampshire, the New Forest national park authority has said it will not accept investment zones in the area.

“In our role as the sole statutory planning authority for the New Forest national park area, the authority does not support the principle of investment zone designation for sites within the national park due to the incompatibility of a liberalised planning approach with the high level of protection afforded to the national park,” the authority said this month.

There is no ban on creating an investment zone in a national park, site of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Government guidelines only ask councils to identify if their zones overlap these areas.

There is no limit to the number of investment zones councils can apply for. There are also reports of concern within the Treasury at the reduction in tax receipts from the zones, which contain projects that were going ahead anyway.

Councils have only received meagre details of how the investment zones will work. Cllr Tony Ferrari, of Dorset council, said: “We have received only limited detail so far from government about how investment zones will work. Our expressions of interest do not represent a commitment by government or by Dorset council. We await further detail from government so we can assess the potential pros and cons of an investment zone before making any formal commitment following council processes.”

Analysis by the Woodland Trust found the zones could put ancient woodlands at risk.

A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said further details on the zones would be released in due course.

The current funding system for local authorities in England is “out-of-date and arbitrary”, which threatens the government’s levelling up agenda, a new report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has found.

Aysha Gilmore www.room151.co.uk 

The IFS’s report outlined that the government has not updated its main estimates of councils’ spending needs since 2013, which were predictions based on old data, sometimes from as far back as the 2001 census.

“As a result, funding allocations are increasingly out-of-date and arbitrary in relation to local socio-economic circumstances,” the report said.

The research found that local government funding does not consider the differences in population growth since it was last updated. In addition, the spending needs and revenue-raising capacity of authorities are taken into account in an ad-hoc way, which in the case of council tax is “arguably unfair”.

David Phillips, the IFS’s associate director and author of the report, told Room151: “The council funding system hasn’t really been a system at all in recent years – it lacks a suitable mechanism for estimating councils’ spending needs and their capacity to raise revenue themselves, and for allocating government funding accordingly.”

Evidence by the IFS found that areas with higher per capita needs in 2013-14 on average saw larger government funding cuts. This resulted in the most deprived councils in the country receiving 10% less funding for adults’ and children’s social care than their assessed needs, whereas the least deprived authorities gained 20% more funding than their estimated needs.

“[Government] approaches have over-prioritised funding stability by not accounting for changes in spending needs at all.

“In the case of police and councils, they have also, until very recently, worked against the ‘levelling up’ agenda by cutting funding more in areas with higher assessed needs and higher levels of deprivation.

“Indeed, the issues with police, local government and public health funding allocations are so significant that the amounts allocated to different places are essentially arbitrary,” the report said.

“The problem we have is that without up-to-date assessments of councils’ spending needs it’s very hard to say whether the levels of funding and spending we see across the country are ‘fair’, reflect differences in local needs and local decisions on council tax.”

Delayed Fair Funding Review

The IFS highlighted that “in recognition of the unsatisfactory state of the council funding system” the government had detailed plans to reform it in 2015 under the Fair Funding Review. However, no firm date has been set for the implementation of reforms.

Also, the IFS detailed that some aspects of the proposed Fair Funding Review were poorly thought out including the plan to base needs assessments for many council services on population only and not accounting for deprivation levels.

Phillips added: “The problem we have is that without up-to-date assessments of councils’ spending needs it’s very hard to say whether the levels of funding and spending we see across the country are ‘fair’, reflect differences in local needs and local decisions on council tax.

“Or whether central government funding needs to be redistributed to be fairer and deliver better value for money.

“That’s why we think it’s a shame that the Fair Funding Review seems to have been kicked further down the road.”

Social housing funding

The IFS’s report also criticised the government’s grant funding for new social housing as it is allocated to councils on the basis of competitive bidding.

“This means that there is no formal assessment of the need for such interventions in different areas, and areas with the highest housing needs may not receive funding if their funding bids are deemed to be not of sufficient quality,” the research added.

The IFS did suggest that the government’s “value-for-money approaches used in appraising bids” do account for the differences in expected benefits of projects in areas where land for housing is more expensive and affordable housing is a more pressing issue.

“The council funding system hasn’t really been a system at all in recent years – it lacks a suitable mechanism for estimating councils’ spending needs and their capacity to raise revenue themselves.”

Not to mention the “resignation honours”.

Did she ever pass her probation period? – Owl

Keir Starmer has joined calls for Liz Truss to decline the allowance of up to £115,000 a year she will be entitled to as a former prime minister.

Ben Quinn www.theguardian.com 

The Labour leader told ITV’s Good Morning Britain on Friday: “She should turn it down. I think that’s the right thing to do. She’s done 44 days in office, she’s not really entitled to it, she should turn it down and not take it.”

The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, also said she should turn down the allowance.

The political leaders’ remarks come after a trade union representing civil servants hit out at the entitlement to the perk amid a mounting squeeze on public services and the cost of living crisis.

Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said: “At a time when one in five civil servants are using food banks and 35% have skipped meals because they have no food, it’s grotesque that Liz Truss can walk away with what is effectively a £115,000 bonus.

“The next prime minister must give civil servants, who work hard on essential services, an above-inflation pay rise.”

Truss can claim the funding under the public duty costs allowance (PDCA), which was introduced by the then cabinet secretary, Sir Robin Butler, after Margaret Thatcher’s resignation. Government guidance states that the PDCA was introduced to assist former prime ministers still active in public life.

The former prime ministers are entitled to claim for necessary office and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life. In 2020-21, John Major and Tony Blair claimed the maximum allowance; Gordon Brown claimed £114,712; David Cameron claimed £113,423 and Theresa May £57,832.

Mike Clancy, General Secretary of Prospect, whose membership includes large numbers of civil servants, said: “The government are in a chaotic merry go round of ministers, with huge redundancy costs for the taxpayer. At the same time, they want to cut public servants pay in real terms and erode their redundancy conditions. It’s one rule for ministers another for hard working public servants. This is wrong.”

Jo Grady, the general secretary of the University and College Union, also joined calls for Truss to give up the allowance. She said: “Millions of public sector workers, including those who transform lives in education, are in the grips of a devastating cost of living crisis. Low pay leaves thousands upon thousands skipping meals and restricting energy use.

“They will be appalled to see the soon to be former prime minister rewarded for such catastrophic failings. She should do the right thing and give up the money.”

Steven Littlewood, the assistant general secretary of the FDA, which represents senior civil servants, said: “The hypocrisy is astounding. This year, the government has offered a real-terms pay cut and once again tried to attack the redundancy terms of the civil servants who are keeping this country running while we move from one prime minister to another.

“After all of that, it beggars belief that the prime minister would accept £115k a year for just six weeks in the job.”

Joe Davies, a local organiser in Brixton with the Don’t Pay group, which is demanding a reduction in bills, said: “It’s a slap in the face even as a name. We’re picking up the tab for her ‘public duty’ from our pockets, our stomachs and in our heating bills this winter.”

Truss’s pension will not receive any extra boost from her time in Downing Street. Since 2013, prime ministers have been part of the regular ministerial pension scheme, paying in a certain proportion of their salary while the government also contributes.

Blair is understood to have been the last prime minister to avail of a special prime minister’s pension. Brown and Cameron decided to forgo the scheme and join the general scheme, before doing so became law in 2013.

There is also a severance payment, which amounts to a one-off payment of 25% of the annual salary for the post that ministers have left. For prime ministers it is about £19,000 (25% of £79,000 annual salary).

Too late, looks like the markets are spooked already. – Owl 

The return of Boris Johnson would worry financial markets, a former Bank of England deputy governor is warning – even as borrowing costs begin to rise as the prospect looms.

Rob Merrick www.independent.co.uk

Charlie Bean predicted “concern” that the extraordinary re-election of the former prime minister – tipped to have the backing of more than 100 Tory MPs – would bring fresh disarray to Downing Street.

Asked if it might “spook” the markets, he said: “There might be some concern about whether this was going to be a stable government again, given the instability that we had at the end of Johnson’s term as prime minister.

‘I think market participants might be concerned that, even if the fiscal statement coming up imminently goes off OK, there might be issues further down the road.”

The warning came as the interest rate demanded by investors buying government gilts rose sharply after Mr Johnson was installed as the bookies’ favourite to succeed Liz Truss.

It was soaring borrowing costs after Kwasi Kwarteng’s disastrous mini-Budget that forced the Bank of England into an emergency rescue – instability only brought to an end by dramatic U-turns on tax cuts.

Professor Bean said the Treasury must find £30bn of spending cuts or tax hikes to claim convincingly that it has a plan to get a grip on borrowing and debt.

Even if the savings are found, “there will then be a question of whether they can get a fractious Conservative Party to support all the measures”, he told BBC Radio 4.

The warning comes after a former cabinet secretary advised that the new prime minister must be in place by Tuesday to avoid the risk of a market backlash and higher interest rates.

A former Johnson aide and now critic of the former leader has said he is enjoying a surge in support among Tory MPs and has a “very” good chance of returning to No 10.

If he wins the support of 100 MPs and enters the race on Monday, it also increases the likelihood that it will last the week and go to a ballot of Tory members.

Meanwhile, Penny Mordaunt became the first Tory leadership contender to confirm she is running for No 10, promising she can deliver a “fresh start” for the party.

The Commons leader, who finished third in July’s leadership race, is likely to face Rishi Sunak and possibly Mr Johnson, but neither has made an announcement yet.

Ms Mordaunt is believed to have told Jeremy Hunt he will remain as chancellor, and that there will be no delay to his de facto Budget planned for 31 October.

UK Government is now seen by the rest of the world as unstable. Not only is it embarrassing but each and every one of us will pay the price.

The UK’s economic outlook has been lowered to “negative” by ratings agency Moody’s due to political instability and high inflation.

By Michael Race www.bbc.co.uk

Moody’s changed the UK’s outlook – which is a marker of how likely it is to pay back debts – from “stable”.

Rating agencies, in essence, rate a country on the strength of its economy.

Moody’s along with another of the big credit rating agencies Standard & Poor’s (S&P) maintained their assessments of the UK’s credit rating.

Rating agencies give governments (or large companies) a score on how likely they are to pay back their debt.

The rating affects how much it costs governments to borrow money in the international financial markets. In theory, a high credit rating means a lower interest rate (and vice versa).

Each agency gives countries around the world a specific credit rating score. These range from a top mark of “AAA”, which stands for “prime”, down to the lowest reading of “D”, which stands for “in default”.

Moody’s said there were “risks to the UK’s debt affordability”, but kept its rating of Aa3, the fourth-highest level on its scale.

Meanwhile, S&P maintained the UK’s rating of AA – its third highest rating level – and maintained its previously-changed outlook from stable to negative.

The reports published on Friday do not mean the UK’s credit rating has been downgraded, but a negative outlook indicates it could be downgraded at a later date. The other outlooks countries can be given are positive, or stable, and any outlook period typically lasts 12 to 18 months.

Moody’s said there were two “drivers” behind its decision to change the UK’s economic outlook.

It said the first was “the increased risk to the UK’s credit profile from the heightened unpredictability in policymaking amid a volatile domestic political landscape”.

Moody’s said this challenged the UK’s “ability to manage the shock arising from weaker growth prospects and high inflation”.

The rating’s agency said it viewed the government’s mini-budget, the reversal of the majority of the policies in it, and the change in prime minister as a “continuing reflection of the weakening predictability of fiscal policymaking seen in previous years”.

Moody’s assessment comes after government borrowing costs rose sharply in the aftermath of the mini-budget in September when investors became spooked by the then chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng pledging huge tax cuts without saying how the government would pay for them.

The current chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, reversed the majority of the tax cuts from the mini-budget on Monday in attempt to calm the markets, but the resignation of Prime Minister Liz Truss means economic policies are on hold.

“The government’s initial inability to deliver a credible policy response to address investor concerns around this unfunded stimulus further weakened the UK’s policy credibility, which is unlikely to be fully restored by the subsequent decision to reverse most of the tax cuts,” Moody’s said.

Moody’s said the second driver of its decision to change the outlook was the “heightened risks to the UK’s debt affordability from likely higher borrowing and the risk of more persistent inflation”.

Government borrowing costs rose on Friday, while the pound sank as investors reacted to gloomy economic data amid the political turmoil.

The interest rate – or yield – on bonds due to be repaid in 30 years’ time rose back above 4%, making government borrowing more expensive. They had hit 5.17% in the aftermath of the mini-budget.

Meanwhile, the yield on bonds due to be repaid in five years’ time, which underpins the cost of new five-year fixed rate mortgages, rose to 4.09%.