Behind Simon Jupp’s Exmouth office (yes the prospective candidate for Sidmouth still has a presence in Exmouth) is a line of bins.
Obviously not belonging to Simon’s office, it’s not just open long enough to generate this much rubbish.
But did the image sow the seed of an idea? – Owl
Rishi Sunak said on Thursday that there had not been enough honesty and transparency about what is involved in the transition to net zero. And he has done various media appearances since his speech on Wednesday doubling down on the government’s U-turn on net zero policies. Here we examine five of Sunak’s key claims.
Sandra Laville www.theguardian.com
The claim: Sunak said he was not slowing down on climate targets and that the government had consistently overdelivered in meeting its targets so far.
For many years, the UK was a world leader on the climate, cutting greenhouse gas emissions further and faster than any other G7 economy. However, much of this was achieved long before this government, as a result of structural changes in the UK economy stretching back to the 1980s. The “dash for gas” took place in the 1990s and 2000s, replacing coal-fired power generation with North Sea gas, and accounts for most of the 50% fall in UK emissions since 1990.
Emissions from the power sector have continued to fall as more renewable energy is installed, helping the UK to meet its five-yearly carbon budgets to date, but carbon from transport, housing and farming has barely budged in the past decade.
Those are the key areas that would have been addressed under plans such as the switch to electric vehicles and heat pumps. Weakening those policies puts the UK’s current and future carbon targets in doubt. According to the statutory Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the government was already off track to meet the fifth and sixth carbon budgets, running from 2028 to 2032 and 2033 to 2037. Its experts are now considering whether the changes in policy are likely to make that worse.
The claim: Sunak said people who disagreed with him must explain why they want families to have to pay an extra £5,000, £10,000 or £15,000.
It was unclear, but Sunak may have been referring to the cost of installing heat pumps over gas boilers. The average cost of installing heat pumps is coming down, however, something the prime minister acknowledged when he said the cost of transition was falling faster than anyone had thought.
Octopus Energy has just unveiled a heat pump for a three-bedroom home that would cost £3,000 after the government’s boiler upgrade grant. Octopus said that with the increase announced by Sunak of the boiler upgrade grant from £5,000 to £7,500, an average home could get a heat pump for as little as £500 – not a figure mentioned by Sunak.
Mark Maslin, a professor of climatology at University College London, said: “His excuse again and again … is not to put the cost burden on the public – as if it is individuals that have to pay for the net zero transition. The prime minister seems to forget that government is there to enable major infrastructure changes, and the switch to renewable energy, electric cars and heat exchangers should be supported because all of them in the long run save people money and improve people’s health.”
The claim: Sunak said he was scrapping various proposals for encouraging behaviour change – “for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car”; “that we should force you to have seven different bins in your home”; “to make you change your diet and harm British farmers by taxing meat”.
None of these have ever been government policies or been about to become government policies. Sunak appeared to claim on BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that the CCC had proposed a meat tax, but it has never proposed one. The committee has recommended a reduction of meat and dairy intake by 20% by 2030.
Sunak claimed he had scrapped rules requiring households to have seven bins for recycling. In 2021, new regulations said local authorities should arrange for collections of seven different types of waste – paper, plastic, metal, glass, non-recyclables, food waste and garden waste – but there were never plans for households to have a bin for each. The recyclable waste could still all go in one bin.
His own officials reassured stakeholders hours after Sunak’s speech, saying: “It was never the case that seven bins would be needed by households.”
Companies involved in car sharing said they were surprised that Sunak appeared to be scrapping a policy to force people to car share, because it did not exist. “It would appear that the prime minister has just killed a policy that no one knew they had,” said Julie Furnell, of Mobilityways.
The claim: Sunak said households would never be forced to “rip out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump”.
Until Wednesday, there was a 2035 target to phase out the sale of gas boilers. It would not have forced people to rip out their boiler at that date and replace it, however. In reality, only those who needed to replace their boiler from 1 January 2035 would have had to replace it with a non-fossil fuel option.
Boilers often last about 15 years, so the 2035 date gives enough time for most boilers to be gone in time for net zero in 2050.
The phasing in of heat pumps allows consumers to stop relying on ever-more expensive gas, and encourages the industry to come up with cheaper and more efficient options. It also incentivises insulation, which enables heat pumps to work more effectively. When properly installed in a home with sufficient insulation, a heat pump is already cheaper to run today than running a gas boiler.
The policy to allow gas boilers to continue to be sold for longer ultimately benefits the fossil fuel industry rather than consumers.
The claim: Sunak said he was taking a middle road between “eco-zealots” who want to go further and faster on cutting emissions, and climate denialists who say there is no problem.
Sunak’s new stance does not appear so pragmatic when measured against the likely economic impacts. Although many carbon-cutting measures require upfront investment, the savings in efficiency, fossil fuels and from adopting more productive new technology can rapidly pay back the cost. There are also frequently “co-benefits” to green measures, which are harder to quantify, such as improvements in health and quality of life from eating less meat, cycling or walking more, and the cleaner air from taking more cars off the road.
For the UK to be economically successful, new business investment and new or upgraded infrastructure is constantly needed – so the question is not whether to invest at all, but whether to invest in clean and green ways of doing business, or in old high-carbon ways. The government can help with this by setting out regulations that private companies must follow. If it does not do so, British people may be stuck with high-carbon infrastructure in a future low-carbon world – for instance, with roads instead of public transport, air travel instead of high-speed trains, gas-fired boilers instead of modern heat pumps.
The Office for Budget Responsibility calculated in 2021 that the low-carbon investment needed to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would cost about £1.3tn in total. About £1tn of this will be offset by savings in fossil fuels and efficiency. The £300bn remaining, spread over 30 years, is now even less, the OBR said in its updated report in July, because of high gas prices – in fact, relying on gas for longer will now be more expensive than going low-carbon, it found.
Sunak, as a former chancellor of the exchequer, must have read the OBR reports, so the question is: if he is a pragmatist and economist, why is he failing to follow pragmatic economic advice?
Good Law Project
The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has paid £137m in hidden payments to a firm owned by Frank Hester, the healthcare tech tycoon. Hester, who was found to have given a £5m donation to the Conservatives earlier this month, has received around £800,000 a week to his company, Phoenix Partnership.
The enormous scale of the payments to Hester’s Phoenix Partnership has not previously been reported.
Good Law Project calculated the size of these payments by combing through four years of the department’s data on official payments.
The contracts under which the payments were made have not been published on the Government’s official procurement website, Contracts Finder, but the DHSC claims the payments were made under a published ‘contract framework’ and that there is no requirement to publish individual contract awards.
The accounts of the holding company, which is 100% owned by Frank Hester, reveal that he was paid £10m in dividends last year. In December last year Frank Hester wrote: “We are here for our NHS. We are here to help, not drive profits for shareholders or to grease revolving doors.”
The VIP lane – a system for fast-track access declared illegal in a Court case brought by Good Law Project – saw many controversial contracts given to Conservative donors, without competition.
“We’ve been shining a light on the donors’ money-go-round since the pandemic,” said the Good Law Project Executive Director, Jo Maugham, “but the huge size of Hester’s donation makes this stand out for its sheer ugliness.”
Frank Hester was approached for a comment.
Just in case Simon Jupp is still in denial about this. – Owl
Over the past few weeks I have travelled across England speaking to leaders in local government – from Maidstone and Gravesend, in Kent, to Stoke-on-Trent, in Staffordshire, and then Surrey Heath and Woking in Surrey.
Anushka Asthana www.itv.com
Everywhere I went, whether it was Conservative voices, Labour ones or Lib Dems, the message was the same – that local government is in crisis.
The reality is that councils are on their knees financially and services everywhere are under threat.
ITV News embarked on this project after revealing earlier this summer that huge councils across the country were being hit by massive equal pay bills.
This includes Birmingham, which admitted liabilities of up to £760m because of legal cases accusing it o discriminating against female staff.
These claims come on top of a decade in which local government finance has been stretched to the limit following spending cuts through austerity, changes to the funding formula and now inflation.
It was that financial context that meant when Birmingham was hit by equal pay it basically toppled over, effectively declaring itself bankrupt by issuing a section 114.
This forces the council to stop any non-essential spending, including lots of things that you or I might consider pretty critical like youth services, or leisure centres and libraries.
Rishi Sunak accused the Labour administration in Birmingham of driving the council to bankruptcy, but the reality is a crisis that spans the country and all political colours.
At the biggest Conservative council in the country, Kent County Council, the leader Roger Gough told me things were “unsustainable”.
His deputy Peter Oakford, who is in charge of finances, painted an even bleaker picture.
“I think all of local government across the country is heading for a death spiral unless the issues around the funding of social care are resolved,” he warned.
He said that 70% of the council’s budget was now coping with spiraling demand for social care and children’s services – leaving a diminishing pot for everything else.
For example the roads budget, was squeezed despite Kent suffering record potholes in freezing weather last year, he said.
And Kent is not a council where there have been questions about bad financial decisions.
The same is true to a large extent in Stoke-on-Trent. There, leader of the council Jane Ashworth admitted she can’t promise they will balance the books next year.
They need to find £25 million and could be forced to issue a 114 notice.
She criticised the old Tory administration (that was voted out in May) for a bad decision to build a car park costing £15m but said mainly this was a national problem.
She warned that getting to that stage wasn’t a help to a council.
Stoke-on-Trent council leader Jane Ashworth Credit: ITV News
“In your stomach you tend to think that will sort it out. Well it doesn’t,” she said.
“All it does is limit your own spending powers. But as we’re limiting our own spending powers anyway.
“It doesn’t seem to be a particularly helpful device. It’s not like it brings with it a sack of money.
“It doesn’t bring any money at all – it just brings government commissioners telling you that you can’t do what you weren’t going to do in the first place.”
Stoke-on-Trent suffers with deprivation, which means it has a lower ability to raise council tax and a higher social care need.
The council argues a change in funding means less money follows need.
In Woking, where the borough council was accused of poor financial investments under the Tories, a new Lib Dem administration is looking at some dire cuts.
From parks and playgrounds, to closing public loos, the local swimming pool, and youth services, all these social services are being hit.
Next door is Surrey Heath, the backyard of Tory MP and levelling up secretary Michael Gove, whose job it is to make sure councils are operating effectively.
The Lib Dems accuse him of pushing their council to bankruptcy with a funding formula they feel is unfair to their much more affluent area.
There, they want to keep more of the business rates they raise. They don’t think they will issue a 114 notice soon but believe it could happen in two years.
The problem is everywhere – 60 council leaders and chief execs across England have spoken anonymously to the Local Government Information unit – which has shared some findings with ITV News.
“It’s the worst it’s ever been,” says one.
Councils are reduced to a “blue light service” says another.
There are warnings “libraries are gone, GP surgeries are gone”, and that they “can’t maintain roads and parks”.
Another admits: “We are on the verge of collapse…”
Meanwhile new research from the IPPR shows that councils have sold off £15bn of public assets since 2010 because of the financial strain.
The top five include: Birmingham, City of London, Westminster, Southwark, and Camden.
An attempt by the Conservatives to overthrow a local authority’s Labour leadership has been defeated in a dramatic council meeting.
Not dissimilar to Tory antics in EDDC in 2019 where we have also seen the formation, and success, of non-Tory alliances . – Owl
Gareth Lightfoot www.gazettelive.co.uk
Councillor Niall Innes proposed to have current Stockton Council leader, Labour group leader Cllr Bob Cook, removed and replaced with the Tory group leader, Cllr Tony Riordan. He said this was to “move forward respecting the democratic choice of the electorate” after the Tories gained seats in May’s elections.
The Conservatives are the largest party on the council, with 26 seats to Labour’s 22, but Labour still enjoy the support of seven Independent councillors allowing them to keep minority control of the council, with Thornaby Independent Association (TIA) councillors and Ingleby Barwick Independent Society (IBIS) agreeing to work with Labour on an “issue-by-issue basis” without a formal coalition.
Cllr Innes, Conservative member for Hartburn to run as candidate for Stockton North MP, put forward the same motion to oust the leader in July, but withdrew it as he admitted “we just didn’t have the numbers”. He tried to withdraw it again in the meeting at Stockton Baptist Church last night (Wednesday, September 20).
But this time, mayor Cllr Jim Beall put it to a vote and let councillors decide whether the motion was to be withdrawn or not. They voted 29-25 against withdrawing it, with Labour member Cllr Paul Rowling saying the proposal needed to be heard “to create clarity for the borough”.
Cllr Rowling said: “There’s a clear stable political position in this council and bringing this motion back every month undermines that very fact. It is damaging investment in the borough so we need to create certainty.”
So the motion was heard, prompting a string of Labour members to deliver scathing critiques of the Conservatives including their electoral campaign, national and local record, while speaking up in praise of their leader. Cllr Innes’ proposal was lost by another 29-25 vote, allowing Labour to retain its control of the council.
UK Voting Intention (change since July)
Labour 44% (-1) Conservatives 24% (-4) Liberal Democrats 12% (nc) Green Party 8% (+2) Reform 4% (+1) Others 7% (+1)
Our latest Political Monitor release of 19 September shows that nearly 9 in 10 Britons (86%) believe Britain needs a fresh team of leaders.
www.ipsos.com Updated on 19 September 2023 at 12:00.
How does “Spreadsheet” Sunak square this anomaly, or was this policy concocted in a rush? – Owl
Car firms will still be forced to meet strict quotas for selling electric cars despite the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles being delayed.
From January, just over a fifth of vehicles sold must be electric, with the target expected to hit 80% by 2030.
By Michael Race & Theo Leggett www.bbc.co.uk
The government confirmed the policy would remain even though Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the petrol and diesel ban would be moved to 2035.
Firms that fail to hit the quotas could be fined £15,000 per car.
Industry insiders said the quotas would be a “stretch” for manufacturers to achieve, adding the delayed ban could make it harder to sell electric cars, while Auto Trader suggested firms might cut prices to boost sales and meet targets.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has defended the government’s decision to push back the ban, insisting the UK will meet its net zero targets.
But there was some uncertainty whether the change to the ban would affect the quotas for electric sales, before Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch confirmed that the so-called Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate would remain in place.
It is expected the mandate will require car makers to ensure 22% of vehicles sold are electric next year and increase each year after that to reach 80% by 2030.
If a car maker fails to hit the targets, it will either face fines expected to be £15,000 per vehicle, or have to buy a surplus credit from a company that has sold lots of electric vehicles. However, a firm could claim back penalties if it surpasses the quota in future.
One large manufacturer told the BBC that forcing firms to hit the target on electric vehicle sales, while pushing back the ban on new petrol and diesel cars, would make it harder for firms to sell the electric ones.
Ian Plummer, commercial director of online car selling site Auto Trader, said the quota on firms for electric car sales would be a “stretch for the majority of manufactures to achieve” in its current form.
He said to meet targets “some manufacturers are likely to use price reductions as a lever” to attract drivers to buy electric.
“It’s likely price will need to play a big part in this,” he added.
“Electric vehicles carry a hefty price premium, so if prices come down, they’ll suddenly become a far more attractive proposition for a greater pool of car buyers.”
According to Auto Trader, the average price of a new electric vehicle is 39% more expensive than a petrol or diesel equivalent.
Prices for second-hand electric cars are almost double (£31,946) on average compared to used petrol (£16,332) and diesel (£16,233) cars, and electric prices in the second-hand market are increasing as demand rises.
Motor industry analyst Philip Nothard, insight and strategy director at Cox Automotive, told the BBC the target for electric car sales was “arguably a greater influence” on the market than delaying the ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles.
He added that because many carmakers were already committed to hybrid and electric-only ranges based on the government’s previous 2030 policy, greener vehicles might be more attractive to buyers in terms of price because consumers would eventually face a “limited choice” of new petrol and diesel cars, causing the prices of those vehicles to rise.
The targets for electric car sales mean only a maximum of 20% or less of new cars sold by 2030 can be petrol or diesel, with some of those likely to be hybrids.
Car manufacturers have given mixed responses to the decision pushing the ban on new petrol and diesel car sales back from 2030 to 2035. Ford said the move undermined its electric car investment plans, but Toyota welcomed the announcement, saying the delay was “pragmatic”.
Motor industry sources said the impact of the ban being delayed was expected to be limited.
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), said the regulations compelling increased sales of electric vehicles “remains the single most important mechanism to deliver the UK’s net zero commitment”, rather than the ban on new cars with petrol and diesel engines being changed.
He said consumers needed to be encouraged to make the switch, which would “require a package of incentives for private buyers that complements those on offer to businesses, as well as measures to accelerate the rollout of charge points”.
Prior to Mr Sunak announcing a shift in policy, the government had planned to ban the sale of new, pure petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. Now, it will begin in 2035.
By phasing out fossil fuel-powered vehicle sales, it aims to accelerate the transition to electric and achieve net zero by 2050. Net zero is when a country’s net carbon emissions are cut to zero, and is seen as vital to tackling climate change.
Under the ban, from 2035 only electric battery-powered cars and other zero-emission vehicles will be able to be bought new. However, most people will not be affected by the ban immediately, as the majority of drivers buy vehicles second hand and only sales of new petrol and diesel models would be affected – not existing ones.
The delay in the ban brings the UK into line with the European Union, which is also banning sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035.
Thank Goodness! (Owl can never remember which of the seven to put out on a Friday)
Rishi Sunak’s pledge to scrap a series of green measures has prompted ridicule from critics who say they were never a reality – and on social media have taken on a life of their own.
Ben Quinn www.theguardian.com
“You boy, which of the seven bins is it this week?” read the caption above an image of Scrooge – from the 1951 adaptation of A Christmas Carol – in a tweet lampooning the prime minister’s claim he had spared people from being forced to recycle in as many different bins.
The pledge inspired the lion’s share of mickey-taking, including a mocked-up picture featuring a scene from a fictitious film, “Snow White and the Seven Bins (1937)”, with its eponymous heroine flying over a snowy, bin-strewn hillside.
Another post used an image from an encounter Sunak had with a homeless person while briefing manning a soup kitchen. “Yes I scrapped the meat tax. Seven bins? Not on my watch mate. Compulsory Badger racing also cancelled,” read the caption.
The broadcaster and author James O’Brien, meanwhile, shared his relief on Thursday, telling followers: “Thank goodness I don’t have to put all seven of them out any more.”
Wednesday’s announcement at Downing Street was likened to Soviet-era rewriting of history, such as when secret police official Nikolai Yezhov was airbrushed out of a photo showing Stalin at the Moscow canal. Standing in front of Stalin in a new imaging of the photo were … those seven bins; it was followed by another version of this image in which the bins had been made to conveniently disappear.
Elsewhere, the thought of what the Conservative leader may promise next occupied users’ imaginations.
“Next up on @RishiSunak’s list: – Santa made to have a pilots licence – Monsters under your bed deported to Rwanda – Unicorns limited in horn length – Tooth fairy income will be taxed – Number limits on invisible friends kids can have,” suggested a user of X, formerly known as Twitter.
The @Parody_PM account, which boasts more followers than many MPs, promised to unveil further moves on Thursday to scrap imaginary proposals, pledging: “Today I will be announcing the cancellation of the requirement for people to work in a chain gang for five years.”
East Devon Watch 