“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%.

 

Now he’s flip flopped back to Sunak.

PS PPS, fantasy economics were never going to work.

Simon do you possess any “nouse” at all? – Owl

Conservative MP for East Devon Simon Jupp, whose constituency includes Sidmouth, has backed former chancellor Rishi Sunak to become the next prime minister.

sidmouth.nub.news 

However, it is not yet certain at the time of writing whether Mr Sunak will enter the leadership race.

Mr Jupp also supported Sunak earlier this year in the Tory leadership contest to replace Boris Johnson.

It comes after the resignation of Prime Minister Liz Truss yesterday (Thursday 20 October), which the East Devon MP described as “the right and honourable step given the situation”.

Jupp had also accepted a position in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as a parliamentary private secretary before Ms Truss’ resignation.

Simon Jupp MP said: “I accepted a position in government because I wanted it to work. Unfortunately, it didn’t.

“Rishi Sunak has already set out his stall to the nation. He’s got the experience needed to lead the nation and the knowledge to restore economic credibility.

“I’m backing Rishi Sunak for PM.”

Candidates who want to put themselves forward in the leadership race to become the next prime minister must get the support of at least 100 MPs by 2pm on Monday 24 October.

 

Conservative leadership hopefuls are hitting the phones this morning in a desperate bid to secure the 100 nominations needed for a shot at replacing Liz Truss as prime minister. But the all-too-real prospect of Boris Johnson making a jaw-dropping return to Downing Street has unnerved scores of MPs and left the party teetering on the brink of a historic split. The disgraced/much-missed (delete as appropriate) former PM was neck and neck with Sunak on nominations last night, prompting some critical MPs to threaten an immediate revolt if he regains the keys to No. 10. The drama is only just beginning, and as a Gen-Z knucklehead might put it: this lightspeed leadership race is going to be *fire*. 

From Politico Newsletter

In a run-off the 180,000 Tory members get to make the final choice on behalf of 46.5 Million voters

Guess what, it never had planning permission! – Owl

Everyone knows about Exeter Airport, and Devon also has airfields at Branscombe and Dunkeswell Airport. But Devon has a ‘secret’ airport that very few people know about.

Daniel Clark www.devonlive.com

Farway Common Airfield was established 36 years ago and it was originally operated under the ’28 day rule’. The Airfield consists of two runways, but despite being an ‘airport’ for the last 36 years, technically the site doesn’t have planning permission.

However, for over 20 years, the airfield has operated significantly in excess of 28 days, and has always been available 365 days a year to both resident and visiting aircraft, had the details of the airfield published specifically to assist in the conduct of safe and considerate flying, and had aircraft owned and operated by the owner of Moorlands Farm, just outside Sidbury in East Devon.

The new owner of the land has now applied for a Certificate of lawful development for the 30 acres used as an aerodrome. This 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.

In the statement with the application, the applicant, James Hortop, states: “The airfield is used by both aircraft based on site and those visiting. This has occurred for more than 28 days per year continuously for over 20 years. The airfield has been available to aircraft 365 days per year to both based and visiting aircraft during this time.

“The hangar and outside parking areas are used by aircraft for both short and long term storage. These uses have been continuous since the establishment of the airfield 36 years ago.

“A flying school, of which employment and a commercial business depends is based at Farway Common Airfield. This use has been established for over 10 years. Slots for lessons are available 365 days per year as training has to coincide with different types of weather conditions and student/instructor availability.”

Farway Common Airfield

It adds: “James Hortop, the owner of Moorlands Farm/Farway Common Airfield also bases his aircraft in the hangar. His locally based business supports the UK emergency services and defence industry. He uses his aircraft for a regular commuting to offices on the Isle of Wight, Poole and Manchester; the aircraft is also used for travelling to business meetings around the UK and Europe. James’ business is dependent on his ability to quickly and effectively get to sites to meet urgent customer requirements.

“For example, during COVID, his business delivered 500 x COVID vaccination and test vehicles in just three months – his ability to move equipment, people and himself depended on the aircraft – restrictions in use at Farway would have a dramatic effect on his business.”

The airfield, located 9nm east of Exeter, closed in 2021 after the death of the previous owner. Farway Common Airfield has now reopened under the new owners.

Farway Common is a private airfield located in East Devon. The Airfield consists of two runways, orientation North/South & East/West of 550m each with a large parking area. “Our goal is to make Farway a haven for those who are passionate about flying,” a statement on their website says.

Farway Common now operates under a Letter of Agreement with Border Force which allows departures and arrivals to countries outside of the UK. This is provided that PPR has been obtained and the appropriate GAR and flight plan have been lodged.

The statement concludes: “The land has had an established change of use to that of an Aerodrom available for use throughout the year. The use of a building as a hangar for the parking of aircraft and the use of land for the parking of aircraft has been established for more than ten years.

“Historically the land was used as an airfield under planning permitted development rights. The use of the land as an airfield continuosly over the last 20 years for in excess of 28 days shows that a change of use has occurred and that it has now has a legal, established, use as an Airfield. The documentary evidence demonstrates that the change in use has occurred and is indeed lawful.”

East Devon District Council will determine the fate of the Certificate of lawful development at a later date.

“The Prime Minister has taken the right and honourable step given the situation. The Conservative Party must now quickly unite around a new leader to continue to deliver for our great country.”

Deliver what exactly more chaos, more austerity?

So why did you take a job as PPS the other week?

(Probably on business or hols in the Caribbean)

For what did these “frackers” trash their green and net zero credentials?

It appears we still don’t really know the true voting numbers, such was the chaos on Wednesday night. – Owl

The motion to secure Commons time to consider legislation to ban fracking, as put forward by Labour, was defeated by 230 votes to 326, majority 96.

Bertie Adam www.devonlive.com

The numbers announced in the chamber did not match the numbers on the division list released by the Commons authorities.

The list released after the Commons vote contained 228 names in the ayes and 319 names in the noes.

It may be updated further by parliamentary officials to include any missing names to ensure the numbers match the ones announced in the chamber, or it could be a counting error by the whips.

The division list showed 36 Conservative MPs in total did not take part in the fracking vote, although this does not automatically equate to an abstention – but in many cases will be.

Here is a list of all MPs across Cornwall, Devon, Plymouth, Dorset, Somerset, Bath, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. Have a look how they all voted:

Ayes

Devon

Ben Bradshaw (Exeter)

Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton)

Bristol

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East)

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West)

Somerset

Wera Hobhouse (Bath)

Nays

Cornwall

George Eustice (Camborne & Redruth)

Scott Mann (North Cornwall)

Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall)

Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay)

Derek Thomas (St Ives)

Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth)

Devon

Simon Jupp (East Devon)

Anthony Mangnall (Totnes)

Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot)

Selaine Saxby (North Devon)

Gary Streeter (South West Devon)

Mel Stride (Central Devon)

Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View)

Somerset

Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane)

Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset)

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset)

Liam Fox (North Somerset)

John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare)

Marcus Fysh (Yeovil)

James Heappey (Wells)

Dorset

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East)

Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Simon Hoare (North Dorset)

Robert Syms (Poole)

Richard Drax (South Dorset)

Gloucestershire

Richard Graham (Gloucester)

Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds)

Alex Chalk (Cheltenham)

Mark Harper (Forest of Dean)

Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate)

Chris Skidmore (Kingswood)

Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke)

Wiltshire

Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire)

John Glen (Salisbury)

Danny Kruger (Devizes)

Robert Buckland (South Swindon)

Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon)

James Gray (North Wiltshire)

No vote

Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon)

David Warburton (Somerton and Frome)

Conor Burns (Bournemouth West)

Chris Loder (West Dorset)

Siobhan Baillie (Stroud)

Darren Jones (Bristol North West)

Karin Smyth (Bristol South)

Next please

Tourism and recreation experienced the fastest fall in output of any UK business sector last month, the latest data shows.

Well done hospitality spokesman and champion, Simon JUpp. – Owl 

Mabel Banfield-Nwachi www.theguardian.com 

Output in the sector, which includes pubs, hotels and restaurants, declined at the fastest pace since February 2021, when the UK was last in lockdown, with a tracker score of 36.3 in September, according to the Lloyds Bank UK Recovery Tracker. Any reading below 50 indicates contraction.

The drop was caused by demand falling for a fourth consecutive month – to a tracker score of 38.5 last month – as consumers reined in spending amid rising inflation.

However, five of the 14 UK sectors that make up the tracker reported faster growth in output in September, compared with just three the previous month. A tracker reading above 50 indicates expansion.

Output growth was highest among software service providers at 55.8, down from 63.1 in August, followed by healthcare firms, rising to 53.6 from 47.8.

The tracker showed that overall input cost inflation for businesses intensified in September for the first time since May. The increase was driven by rising energy prices for manufacturers, which exceeded a previous peak during the 2008 oil price shock.

Jeavon Lolay, the head of economics and market insight for commercial banking at Lloyds, said: “While we expect UK inflation to remain stubbornly high in the coming months, there are clear signs of an easing in pipeline cost pressures in our latest UK Sector Tracker report.”

Between the second and third quarters this year, the average pace of input cost inflation slowed in all 14 sectors monitored by the tracker. This was supported by easing wage and shipping cost pressures – with reports of higher shipping costs reaching a 21-month low in September. The pace of inflation in prices charged to customers slowed in 12 sectors.

“That’s not to say that businesses won’t continue to face intense cost pressures, but suggests that peak inflation is near,” said Lolay. “This will be welcome news for both businesses and consumers.”

However, he said the recent news that the energy price guarantee scheme from April would prioritise support for the most vulnerable means that what happens to wholesale energy prices will, again, have a significant bearing on UK inflation from then on.

“The Bank of England will need to assess carefully prospects for both inflation and growth as it considers just how much more tightening is needed,” he added.

Labour dig a Heffalump trap in plain sight.

What do the Heffalumps do? 

Walk straight into it.

(Careerist Jupp does his duty). – Owl

Peter Walker www.theguardian.com 

A crunch Commons vote on the future of fracking has descended into mayhem after more than 40 Conservative MPs failed to back Liz Truss’s government, with MPs alleging ministers physically pulled some wavering Tories into the voting lobbies. [The chaos was great that even the voting numbers remain unclear Pippa Crerar now writes: Initially it looked like Liz Truss herself had missed the vote, but we’re told she did in fact vote… just forgot to swipe her pass.

Shortly after the vote, there were reports that the chief whip, Wendy Morton, and her deputy, Craig Whittaker, had lost their jobs. However, Downing Street later cleared up the rumours by saying the pair “remain in post”.

The government victory, by 326 votes opposing the Labour motion to 230 backing it, was marred by claims of intimidation and bullying on a turbulent night in the Commons.

While ministers successfully defeated the Labour motion, which sought to set up a vote which would formally ban drilling for shale gas in England, a total of 40 Tory MPs failed to support the government.

While some, like Boris Johnson, are simply away, the rebels included Tory MPs who had promised to defy a three-line whip, including Chris Skidmore, the former minister who heads up Truss’s review into net zero policies.

Other confirmed rebels included another former minister Tracey Crouch and MPs including William Wragg and Angela Richardson. No Tories voted directly with Labour.

Tory whips had written to MPs in the morning to warn that the vote was being seen as confidence measure, meaning the government would collapse if it lost and rebels would lose the whip.

However, near the end of the debate, with several MPs saying they would risk losing the whip, the climate minister, Graham Stuart, told the Commons: “Quite clearly this is not a confidence vote.”

Shortly after the vote, the Labour MP Chris Bryant used a point of order to tell the Commons that he saw Tory MPs being “physically manhandled” into the government voting lobby. He asked for a formal investigation.

In the wake of the chaos, Penny Mordaunt, the Commons leader, was seen trying to calm a group of mostly female MPs who had gathered to discuss what they witnessed. Mordaunt was seen encouraging witnesses to send her evidence or further details on WhatsApp.

One Tory backbencher said it was “the most bullying, screaming and shouting” they had seen in the voting lobbies, with Morton and Whittaker being engaged in a “full-blown shouting match”.

Another said Whittaker had been seen telling colleagues: “I am fucking furious and I don’t give a fuck any more.”

Afterwards, whips were said to have been gathered for an urgent meeting, with several parliamentary private secretaries deciding they would tell Morton and Whittaker to go.

Veteran Tory backbencher Charles Walker, who is due to step down as an MP at the next election, said the scenes on Wednesday were “inexcusable”. “I think it’s a shambles and a disgrace,” a visibly shaken Walker told the BBC, before railing at the “talentless” people in the cabinet.

He added: “I’m livid and I really shouldn’t say this but all those people that put Liz Truss in No 10, I hope it was worth it, it was worth it for the ministerial red box, as it was worth it to sit round the cabinet table, because the damage they have done to our party is extraordinary.”

However, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the business and energy secretary, disputed this, pointing to the government’s majority in the vote. He said: “This is a government that is functioning well.”

The bedlam risks obscuring a potentially even more significant Tory fracture over the disquiet of many government MPs about Truss’s decision to overturn the moratorium on fracking in England.

Skidmore, a leading voice of green Tories, said earlier he was willing to “face the consequences of my decision” to not back the government, even if this meant losing the whip.

“As the former energy minister who signed net zero into law, for the sake of our environment and climate I cannot personally vote tonight to support fracking and undermine the pledges I made at the 2019 general election,” he tweeted.

Crouch retweeted Skidmore’s message with the added word, “Ditto”, as did Richardson.

Despite efforts by Rees-Mogg to quell MPs’ fury by setting up a public consultation on fracking, a series of other Tories had told the debate that they were furious about the change of policy.

A number said they would only support the government because they felt Labour were trying to “play politics” with a motion that would give the opposition control of the order paper.

Ruth Edwards, the Rushcliffe MP, castigated the Tory frontbench for, she said, forcing her and colleagues “to choose between voting against our manifesto and voting to lose the whip”.

She added: “They should take a look at the faces of colleagues behind them, colleagues who have fracking sites in their constituencies, and they should hang their heads in shame. A Conservative government will always have my confidence, but its leadership today has severely tested my trust and the trust of many colleagues and I would advise them not to do so again.”

Simon Hoare, the North Dorset MP, said he would have rebelled but wanted to keep his “voice and vote” as a Tory. He warned, however, that fracking was doomed as a project. “It’s not going to happen. These are bald men fighting over a comb. No local community is going to grant consent,” he said.

Ed Miliband, the shadow climate and net zero secretary, said the government was pursuing a “frack me or sack me strategy”, saying fracking was “one of the most unpopular causes in the country”.

He added: “In normal times such an idiotic idea would have been dismissed out of hand but these are not normal times. But I say to the house and I say to members opposite, they all know that the prime minister will be gone in a matter of weeks, if not days, if not hours.”

The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto promised to maintain a moratorium on fracking unless there was new evidence on the risk of earthquakes from the practice. But Truss’s government changed this last month.

In a message to all MPs on Wednesday morning, Whittaker had said: “The second debate is the main event today and it is a 100% hard three-line whip. This is not a motion on fracking. This is a confidence motion in the government.”

Labour sources said Tory whips had walked into a trap set for them, and that although they did not expect to win the vote, the opposition had online adverts ready to go targeting every Tory MP who backed fracking.

It has been widely reported (BBC and Telegraph) that Liz Truss held a meeting with her “parliamentary private secretaries” (PPSs) on Tuesday morning, one indicating that it was billed as a “breakfast meeting” and only involved 20.

In the dying days of Boris Johnson’s premiership, a large number of PPSs resigned, hastening his departure. So keeping them “on side” in Team Truss would be vital. Could this be the reason for the meeting?

Many of these PPSs were first elected in 2019 and could be under serious threat of losing their seats the next time the UK goes to the polls.

Another source, London Playbook on Wednesday, claimed a senior Tory set out pretty much the worst kind of intel that No. 10 could hope to hear. “Every single MP I’ve spoken to basically says she’s got to go, apart from fanatics and the careerists,” they said. Even some moderates who had accepted jobs under Truss are “schmoozing up to colleagues all of a sudden because they know which way the wind is blowing.” Outreach in the party was summed up as “mega shit” and whipping in the division lobbies “invisible.”

Although the role of PPS is unpaid, it’s considered an important stepping stone for ambitious MPs.

So is Simon a plotter, fanatic or careerist?

Last night we learned that he is a “fracker” so we can rule out the first possibility. – Owl

Chair, East Devon Alliance, writes in the Herald:

As the Conservative government disintegrates, they are bringing the country down with them. The shambolic failures of Liz Truss, like Boris Johnson’s lying and cheating, will have serious consequences for people in Devon. Whether or not Truss is still in office when you read this – she is so obviously a disaster that many MPs are actively trying to get rid of her – if this government clings on, we face a grim two years.

The appointment of Jeremy Hunt fills me with foreboding. As Health Secretary, he presided over a long decline in the NHS. It was Hunt’s cuts that led Devon health bosses to close community hospital beds in Axminster, Honiton, Ottery and Seaton, the folly of which became apparent when there was nowhere to send patients when the main hospitals overflowed in the pandemic (and Hunt had shelved the UK’s pandemic plans). Hunt’s aim of selling off ‘surplus’ NHS buildings encouraged managers to dispose of some of the sites, and only community protests stopped this happening.

Hunt’s warning of a new round of ‘efficiency savings’ (spending cuts to you and me) confirms that, as Chancellor, he will be Mr Austerity once again. It is not just the NHS, with chronic staff shortages, a failing ambulance service and 7 million people waiting for operations, which simply cannot be allowed to face new cuts. The vulnerable cannot live without an inflation-matching rise in benefits. Hard-pressed schools cannot cope with declining real funding. Councils desperately need real increases to look after vulnerable children and old people.

Hunt will tell us that there is no alternative (after Truss’s budget has made government borrowing more expensive). But Britain is still a rich country and new resources can be found: close down tax havens; end ‘non-dom’ status; introduce a proper windfall tax on oil and gas firms; tax wealth as well as income; and raise tax well above 45 per cent for the bankers with their bumper bonuses and the other people who receive hundreds of thousands or millions each year.

The truth is that cuts are a political choice from a government which is in denial about the damage it has done. Truss or her successor may drone on about ‘growth’, but she and Hunt have each been ministers while Britain has stagnated over the last 12 years. George Osborne’s austerity took the wind out of the recovery from the financial crisis, just as

Hunt’s threatens to end the UK’s recovery from the pandemic.

The biggest harm has come from Brexit, the red-tape bonanza which has strangled trade with the UK’s largest market, sacrificed our farmers, and deprived our NHS of European doctors and nurses. Even some Daily Telegraph writers now accept that the warnings against Brexit were right, but Brexit ideology – of which Truss’s ‘trickle-down’ economics is a part – is now the religion of the Conservative Party. They seem more likely to abolish the monarchy than abandon this failed experiment.

Despite all this, Devon Tories remain in thrall to their leaders. Last week Hugo Swire, the former East Devon MP who bailed out rather than face Claire Wright at the last election, jumped back on the gravy train by taking a seat in the Lords (courtesy of Boris Johnson’s resignation ‘honours’ list), while his successor Simon Jupp accepted a bag-carrier role in Truss’s government. I thought rats were supposed to leave sinking ships!

In this situation, it’s timely that Richard Foord, the Liberal Democrat who won June’s by-election, is speaking about his first months as an MP at an open meeting in Axminster Guildhall this Saturday (22nd) at 10.30 am. He will be interviewed by my fellow-columnist Paul Arnott, the Independent East Devon Alliance leader of East Devon District Council. This will be a valuable opportunity for us to discuss the future without Conservative rule, and I very much hope to see readers there.

A few weeks ago, in his weekly news column, Simon was promoting Kwasi Kwarteng and Liz Truss’ unfunded, tax cutting, “growth” “mini-budget.

In this week’s Exmouth Journal, published today, he rides on the coat-tails of EDDC’s announcement of its successful bid for £500K to help support the homeless and returns to his recent attack on EDDC for continuing to hold virtual meetings.

No mention of the fact that the budget he supported a few weeks ago has been scrapped and the country plunged into austerity 2.0 by one of the architects of austerity 1.0 and by the reckless actions of the government in which he plays a minor part. Obviously no apology either.

Today inflation has risen to levels not seen for 40 years, driven by increases in food prices. People are yet to feel the increases in mortgage rates coming down the tracks.

What’s the point of an MP who is “not free to speak” and “not free to act”?

Can someone give him sight of a newspaper? – Owl

Figure returns to double digits in September, with households under pressure from cost of living crisis

(The September figures are the ones normally used for the inflation uplift to pensions and benefits, though Liz Truss is flip flopping on this manifesto pledge – Owl)

Richard Partington www.theguardian.com 

Inflation in the UK has risen above 10% for the second time this year as households come under mounting pressure from sky-high energy bills and rising food prices amid the cost of living crisis.

The Office for National Statistics said the consumer prices index rose to 10.1% in September, returning to double digits after a slight dip to 9.9% in August. The figure was last higher in 1982.

City economists had forecast a modest increase to 10%.