Boris Johnson ‘failed to wear a mask’ at Macbeth performance
Boris Johnson ‘broke Covid rules by failing to wear a mask’ as he watched theatre performance of Macbeth after week of Tory drama
‘Well done to Siren Libby Darling for doing a great job on BBC Radio Sussex this morning talking about our campaign, and rebutting some of the suspect comments made by Sir Peter Talking-out-of-his-Bottomly.
South Coast Sirens – Clean Seas For All
Who are Conservatives these days? – Owl
Whenever the government faces criticism, one of the first questions commentators ask is whether the latest fiasco will have cut through in the “red wall”. While the red wall does indeed represent one substantial and important element in the Conservative coalition, this focus understates the problem the party faces, by suggesting there is just one restive set of seats they need to keep onside.
Robert Ford www.theguardian.com
In fact, the Tory coalition incorporates a number of different battlegrounds, with vastly different needs. This makes the government’s task far harder – pleasing the red wall often means provoking anger in other equally important areas.
We can divide Conservative seats into groups based on their electoral context: is the seat marginal? How long has it been marginal? Does it lean towards leave or remain? Who is the local opponent? If we define the red wall seats as newly competitive constituencies with Labour as the local opponent in leave-voting areas, then there are about 70 of these spread across England and Wales.
Traditional swing seats might get less attention but they are just as numerous and count the same towards the outcome. There are at least 50 seats in this category, market towns and “swingy” suburbs whose mixed demographics reflect the nation, and where party control has shifted over many cycles on the ebb and flow of national opinion. They will be as competitive as ever next time.
The Brexit realignment that turned the red wall blue has also had implications elsewhere. There are now about two dozen Conservative seats in remain areas facing a credible Labour challenge, and another 30 also in largely remain areas where the Conservatives need to fend off resurgent Liberal Democrats. This “remain wall” includes many former safe seats where the Tory majority has been slashed since Brexit.
Lost seats in the traditional swing areas are a certainty if the government’s popularity falls. But if these are combined with substantial losses on either of the new fronts, the Conservative majority is immediately at risk. The government therefore cannot afford to alienate either the red wall or the remain wall.
But these seats are poles apart. The red wall is clustered in the Midlands and the north; the remain wall in the south. Red wall seats are working class and graduate light; remain wall seats are middle class and graduate heavy. Red wall seats have low house prices and more voters in council housing; remain wall seats have expensive housing and high home ownership rates.
This divide in outlook and priorities stretches beyond the electoral battleground: many of the 200 or so (currently) safe Conservative seats resemble one of the new battlegrounds, and their MPs will often align with less secure colleagues.
The two new fronts the Conservatives must defend are different worlds, at odds over the government’s domestic policy agenda. Ambitious levelling up investment is what red wall voters want to see; remain wall voters fear higher tax bills will follow. Masses of new, affordable homes are a dream for red wall renters, but a nightmare for remain wall homeowners, for whom the nimby instinct runs deep.
Even the fate of Boris Johnson himself splits the battlegrounds: the prime minister’s distinctive appeal in the red wall would be hard to replace, but Tories in the remain wall would breathe easier with a more traditional figure in charge.
It is no wonder the MPs in these two new battlegrounds object so regularly and loudly to their own government. Their job is to represent their constituents’ interests, and they are emboldened by the knowledge that their leader regularly reverses course under pressure. Johnson has no hope of pleasing MPs on both fronts, yet his constant caving to rebellions brings its own risks, intensifying the perception of a chaotic and rudderless government. Nor can the Conservatives avoid fights by sitting on their hands – the impatient red wall voters, promised “levelling up” and “unleashing Britain’s potential”, have low trust in politics, no inherent love for the Conservative party, and will not accept second best.
Having raised hopes of radical domestic reform, the Conservatives now face a difficult choice: plough ahead and risk defeat on one front, or back off and risk a beating on another. Getting Brexit done, it turns out, was the easy part.
Harlequin centre: “an unattractive, modern ‘American’ style mall of 32 shops, that is also a carpark. It forms one side of the canyon that is the sad fate of Paul Street. Designed by Bruges Tozer of Bristol at a total cost of £6 million in 1987.”
Creates 380+ “bed spaces for co-living” accommodation, twenty per cent of the units will be classed as ‘affordable’, with priority given to key workers.
As one councillor said “This development doesn’t provide extra homes, it provides accommodation for single people only.”
Looks like more student accommodation to Owl.
Revised plans to redevelop the Harlequins shopping centre in Exeter – minus a previously-agreed hotel – have been given the go-ahead.
City councillors approved altered proposals for ‘co-living’ accommodation at the Paul street site by ten votes to two at their November meeting, writes Local Democracy Reporter Ollie Heptinstall.
Original blueprints for a total of 251 bed-spaces, as well as a 116-room hotel with bar and restaurant, were backed in October last year.
But developer Curlew submitted a new application saying that Covid had caused ‘significant changes to the economy’.
The revised scheme replaced the hotel with a second co-living block – increasing the scheme’s total number of beds by 132.
Passivhaus-standard energy-efficient accommodation will be made up of self-contained studio apartments with ‘kitchenettes’ along with ‘cluster flats’ that will share amenities.
Twenty per cent of the units will be classed as ‘affordable’, with priority given to key workers.
Applicant Chris Dadds said the units would be restricted to single occupancy only and that minimum terms would be for three months.
The development will be car-free except for two disabled spaces and two electric vehicle spaces, with 280 cycle bays will be provided.
A ‘pocket park’ will be created, along with improvements around Paul Street for pedestrians and cyclists, along with a replacement pedestrian bridge.
Both blocks will operate jointly, with one management team, and residents will have access to amenities including lounges, cinemas, a gym, separate yoga studio and spa suite, laundry, co-working area and a games zone.
Exeter City Council leader Phil Bialyk backed the scheme before citing former United States President Franklin D Roosevelt and saying: “The only fear we have is fear itself – that’s all we’ve got to be frightened of here.
“Come on guys, look at what it’s doing for our housing supply….the availability of housing for people in Exeter.
He added: “I think it’s time that that place [Harlequins] was regenerated in this way.
“We have firm commitments that we do not want to build on the hills and the surrounding green land around this city, and so therefore we have to redevelop brownfield sites. We have to – in effect – go up if we are to defend those.
“It’s make your mind up time on which direction we go, and I think we should be going in this direction.”
Cllr Ruth Williams said: “For me, the additional 132 bed space is really important.
“We have 2,200 people on Devon Home Choice [waiting list for housing], so this makes a significant difference to addressing the shortage of accommodation in Exeter.”
However, Cllr Diana Moore voted the bid, expressing concern over the ‘unclear’ proposed rental value of the units and restrictions on who could live there.
She said: “This development doesn’t provide extra homes, it provides accommodation for single people only.”
Cllr Rob Hannaford voted in favour, but admitted there was some uncertainty. He said: “I think we are looking at a bit of an experiment here and some unknowns in terms of how it’s going to work and what the market is…but I hope that it will deliver what we want in terms of key workers and affordable housing.”
He added: “If, once it’s built, a lot of these units go to students rather than key workers, then we’ll see what public opinion says at the time, but let’s hope it does what it says on the tin and we wish it well.”
Natural England has been tasked by the government to assess the creation of a new National Park based on combining the East Devon and Dorset AONBs.
As with the formative stages of the creation of the Jurassic Park World Heritage Site, all the running is coming from Dorset. Unless EDDC starts to engage with the process, guess who will be left behind again.
For example, the latest Dorset National Park Teams newsletter outlines proposals for a simplified and streamlined approach to planning in the proposed Dorset National Park
Dorset offers the unique opportunity of a National Park wholly within the boundaries of the Dorset Council area. There is an opportunity to develop a unique, streamlined and cost effective new style National Park.
➤ The Dorset Council could have the leading role on the National Park Authority (NPA) Board and in NPA policy development and implementation.
➤ It could develop and implement a Local Plan for the whole Dorset Council area including the National Park. NPA staff could be Dorset Council employees, with a single planning team covering all of rural Dorset.
➤ NPA resources, including central government grant, would benefit Dorset Council, local communities and businesses, help to meet the costs of planning and other functions, and thus release funds for other local priorities.
➤ A National Park Advisory Board could include relevant Dorset organisations (e.g. the Jurassic Coast Trust, Dorset Local Nature Partnership) and help promote coordination and synergy. NPA funds would support such local organisations (and thus also supplement or release Dorset Council funds).
➤ Offer a wider range of recreational opportunities than is available in any existing or proposed National Park.
The former Dorset County Council concluded that “the proposal for a National Park could potentially support the Council’s corporate outcomes in relation to a healthy and prosperous Dorset.”
The Dorset National Park team accepted an invitation from Natural England in the summer to be involved in the further assessment of the Dorset proposal now it has been short-listed for further evaluation. The team looks forward to renewing these discussions with Natural England.
Dorset has an opportunity to take forward unique proposals for a National Park which would bring economic, financial and environmental benefits for all.
Dubious legality of Tories’ proposal
The Conservative Group at East Devon District Council (EDDC) has failed to get through a new Disclosure and Barring (DBS) policy following the conviction of one their former members for sex crimes against children.
Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk
Tory John Humphreys was Exmouth’s mayor
Following the jailing in August of John Humphreys, who as well as serving on the district council was a former mayor of Exmouth, the Conservative group at EDDC called for mandatory criminal record checks for councillors and anyone who stands for election to the council in future.
Now a less ambitious proposal from the Conservative group, asking the council to lobby the government to change the law around DBS to allow councils to carry out such checks, has failed.
Former councillor and alderman John Humphreys, 59, is serving a 21-year prison sentence after being found guilty at Exeter Crown Court of sexually assaulting two boys between 1990 and 2001. He was a prominent councillor whilst the Conservatives controlled East Devon, which since 2019 has been run by a coalition of independents, Lib Dems and Greens.
As it stands, district councils do not have the legal power to ask all councillors to go through enhanced DBS checks – something EDDC Conservatives want changed.
The law already prevents anyone who has been sentenced to three months or more in prison in the five years before the election from standing to be a councillor.
But East Devon Conservatives wanted to go further, and submitted a motion to EDDC’s audit and governance committee asking for the council to lobby the government to introduce mandatory enhanced DBS checks for all district councillors and officers.
The proposal failed after other councillors argued such a law would not create the necessary safeguards. They said it would be insufficient to prevent a similar case to that of John Humphreys in future and that even enhanced DBS checks do not create the protections needed.
Putting forward the motion, Councillor Phil Twiss (Conservative, Honiton St. Michael’s) said a new law requiring all councillors to undergo enhanced DBS checks would mean the public would have “suitably appropriate people representing them and their interests.”
Cllr Twiss’ proposal also asked for EDDC to pay for the costs of lobbying the government on the issue. It also said EDDC should pay for safeguarding training for all councillors and foot the bill for all DBS checks. The motion didn’t receive enough votes to pass.
Right now EDDC councillors only have to go through DBS checks if they are around vulnerable people or children. A recent report from officers found the law allows the council only to ask councillors to undergo basic DBS checks.
At present EDDC councillors can voluntarily undergo basic checks, but have to pay the £23 bill personally. If EDDC were to pay all 60 councillors to undergo the check it would cost council taxpayers £1,380.
Basic DBS checks only provide very limited information relating to ‘unspent’ convictions, which generally means very recent ones or those that carry only light sentences.
Standard checks show spent and unspent convictions as well as police cautions. Enhanced checks detail all convictions and cautions, but also extra information from police. These can only be requested if they are relevant to the role, such as a school governor.
Speaking at the committee, Cllr Steve Gazzard (Democratic Alliance Group, Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh) said he had no problem “in principle” with Twiss’ proposal but it would not reveal things done by a councillor right after a check.
He told the committee: “My only concern is that an enhanced DBS check is only as good as the time you apply for it.
“I don’t think it’s the panacea that some people think. It’s not going to solve all problems.”
Councillor Paul Hayward (Democratic Alliance Group, Yarty) added: “Effectively they’re an MOT certificate. Your car can fall apart the day afterwards but you have an MOT certificate.”
Cllr Nick Hookway (Democratic Alliance Group, Exmouth Littleham) agreed, and said that the most important thing was that the council’s safeguarding measures are “known by all and operated by all.”
Cllr Hooway’s put forward an alternative motion to request that the council’s safeguarding training includes training on the operation of the safeguarding policy. The motion was passed by the governance and audit committee.
As it stands it is not legal to force councillors who do not have access to vulnerable people or children to have enhanced DBS checks.
However, before the vote on Cllr Twiss’ motion, councillor Andrew Moulding (Conservative, Axminster) said the council should “seriously consider enhanced DBS checks for all councillors and those intending to be a councillor.”
He added: “I am suggesting quite strongly that this council should consider seriously that members of the council should have enhanced DBS checks in order to satisfy our public and constituents that we are suitable people to take that office.”
It was not clear if Cllr Moulding was stating that enhanced DBS checks should be required even if that was not lawful as it stands.
However, Cllr Twiss argued: “Nobody on this council is forcing anyone to take a DBS check, that wouldn’t be legal – nobody is suggesting that.”
He said that his motion was a chance to “get ahead of the curve” before the UK government updates the law.
A private member’s bill, introduced by Tory MP Sir Paul Beresford, could result in tighter rules. The proposed law, still at an early stage, would prevent people involved in some types of sexual offences from taking such a role.
But even if this law had been in place when John Humphreys was a councillor it is unlikely that the DBS checks would have found any wrongdoing unless they had been updated regularly.
As a governor at an Exmouth primary school, it is very likely that former Cllr Humpreys would have undergone criminal records checks. His crimes only became public many years later, after the council had honoured him with the title of ‘alderman’ – an honour withdrawn by EDDC following Mr Humphreys’ conviction.
Owl wonders whether Simon Jupp saw this coming?
We have been here before quite recently haven’t we?
Boris Johnson’s controversial social care bill will “undoubtedly” be amended in the House of Lords, as peers urge MPs to think again about the “Robin Hood in reverse” cap on care costs, The Independent has been told.
Peers said that the Upper House will be “emboldened” in revising the prime minister’s plans both by the size of the Conservative rebellion in Monday’s vote and by the fact that crucial details of the cap’s operation were released only days before the legislation cleared the Commons, giving MPs almost no time for scrutiny.
And a former Tory deputy leader said Mr Johnson should prepare for defeat in the Lords on the bill, which completed its passage through the Commons on Tuesday.
Conservative peer Ros Altmann said there were concerns over how the cap – which threatens to force pensioners with assets of £106,000 or less to sell their homes to pay for care while protecting the property of wealthier individuals – fits in with the prime minister’s professed aim of “levelling up” the country.
Both Baroness Altmann and Tory former health secretary Andrew Lansley are understood to be considering amendments which could force MPs to reconsider the last-minute change announced last week, under which local authority contributions will not be included towards the proposed £86,000 lifetime maximum for spending on care.
Former pensions minister Lady Altmann told The Independent: “Undoubtedly there will be amendments. I am hoping that the government might address some of the problems that have arisen from this bill, particularly relating to the way it may be very good for the well-off, but not at all for middle and working-class families across the country. If we are committed to levelling up, I’m not sure this fits in.
“These changes have happened far too fast, given their importance. The fact that it was rushed out days before MPs were asked to vote will only make peers more ready to ask the Commons to reconsider.”
Professor of palliative medicine Ilora Finlay, who sits in the Lords as a crossbencher, said there was “disquiet” among peers not only about the cap, but also about the failure of the legislation to deal with long-standing problems about the integration of health and social care and the status of care workers.
“Health and social care are treated as separate because they have different budgets, but it is the same person that requires health care and social care if something goes wrong,” Lady Finlay told The Independent.
“There are financial silos and service commissioning silos and the result is that patients find themselves in hospital and can’t be discharged to social care because the facilities are not there and that causes backlogs.
“Government after government has kicked this into the long grass. At least this government is trying to do something. What we need to do is see whether there is something here in the bill that we can build on. I would expect the Lords to do what they do well, which is to scrutinise every line of the bill and debate what needs to be debated to improve it.”
Lady Finlay said there were potential problems with the detail of Mr Johnson’s proposed care costs cap, which effectively treated people differently depending on the increase in the value of their homes since they bought them decades previously.
“If you bought a home in the north of England 40 years ago, it will have increased in value by far less than if you had bought it in Surrey, and that will affect the outcome under the design of this cap,” she said. “There is a risk of widening disparities, which is a potential problem.”
The Health and Care Bill is unlikely to receive its first reading in the Lords much before Christmas, with any crunch votes not expected until February, giving peers a long time to build coalitions behind amendments.
Labour’s leader in the Lords, Angela Smith, said she expected opposition parties to seek cross-party co-operation, building on the widespread concern among Tory peers about the cap plans.
“One of the things that emboldens the House of Lords to act is where there is a sense that public opinion feels the Commons has got it wrong,” she told The Independent. “People have had very little time to find out about this, but I think over the coming months we will see pennies dropping across the country. If Tory MPs are being contacted by their constituents about concerns, they will be in touch with Tory peers and that will help shape thinking.
“There are clearly already tensions because of the scale of the rebellion, and because of the government’s history of U-turns, Tories can’t be confident that the government isn’t going to change its mind under pressure. That will also shape thinking.
“People are already talking formally and informally about how changes could be made. There are a lot of people in the Lords with a background and expertise in social care or experience of social care. They can now give the government the opportunity to do the right thing.”
Former Tory deputy leader Peter Lilley said Mr Johnson must expect to see his plans defeated in the Lords.
Speaking to Times Radio’s John Pienaar, Lord Lilley said: “The government normally does get defeated in the Lords. This is what nobody realises, the rare occasions we win a vote the chief whip sends us an email rejoicing in this rare fact. So it’s normal for the government to be defeated. It will probably be defeated on this, and send it back to the House of Commons.”
Super-rich donors paid up to £15,000 a table for the chance to rub shoulders with senior cabinet ministers – who left the event early in order to vote through plans to make the poor pay more for social care.
See: www.mirror.co.uk
You’ll have to fold on cap when Bill comes back from Lords, PM warned www.standard.co.uk
Has Simon backed the wrong horse again? – Owl
Boris Johnson’s social care reforms are grossly unfair
Editorial www.independent.co.uk
Ever been to Peppa Pig World?” the prime minister asked the bemused delegates at the CBI conference. Not many had, it seems, not least because of the Covid-19 lockdowns over the past 20 months or so, the imposition of which not being aided by Boris Johnson’s disastrous prevarications and confusions.
It was a low point, but perhaps a mercy to the assembled business folk that he got the pages of his speech mixed up, and stopped jabbering. At least the silence was comprehensible, punctuated only by some utterances of “forgive me”. Despite a vague commitment to “levelling up” as a “moral mission”, Mr Johnson was wise to avoid any reference at all to the government’s latest evolution of its social care policy. Which could easily be labelled it’s social “don’t care” policy.
It is effectively a tax policy reversed and turned upside down. It is eye wateringly, heartrendingly unfair. Rather than richer people (and their descendants) paying proportionately more for their care in old age or disability, or even the same as poorer families, it means that they will pay proportionally less. In its way, it is quite an achievement for an administration to come up with such a regressive policy and yet market it as a fair and equitable package of reforms. Flawed as it was before, it is now unacceptable.
It doesn’t do much for “levelling up” or social justice. Given the concentration of personal wealth in the south, the policy will exacerbate the north-south divide. The even more skewed cascade of unearned wealth down the generations will also increase the gap between rich and poor within every region. The financial impact of the social care policy is to entrench disadvantage and widen existing economic divisions. The property that the children of the already wealthy inherit will be rented out to the children of those who have seen their inheritance disappear in social care home fees. The final insult is that the new social care levy, as a form of national insurance, will be paid by the low paid, but not by the landlords living off their newly protected riches.
The new social care policy is nothing less than a powerful engine of inequality. According to Andrew Dilnot, who produced the original and best report on funding social care a decade ago, the less well off will derive little benefit from these changes, and the Treasury will save £900m, a small sum in the wider context.
It is policy being made on the hoof, and in the wrong direction. Having gifted the Labour Party sleaze to run with, now the prime minister has opened another early window on the advent calendar with the most obscenely unfair policy in decades.
Given the disquiet voiced by many Conservatives, precisely because of the potential electoral repercussions, the policy may yet have to be revised once again, and it would certainly not survive a change of prime minister or party of government, as Jeremy Hunt is hinting. It has unhappy echoes of the poll tax of the late 1980s – a well-meaning reform of an outdated and unpopular system, but one that somehow managed to make things more complex and more unfair.
Few noticed the implications of a complex new way of financing local government, naturally, but opposition grew as the details became clear, and then came the riots. The poll tax also inflicted huge political damage on the then Conservative government, and contributed to the fall of Margaret Thatcher (that and relations with Europe and an imperious style of government).
Mr Johnson should heed history, and perform one of his celebrated U-turns before his policy does any more capricious harm to older people and their families, and indeed himself as prime minister. Otherwise he’ll have all the time he wishes to spend at Peppa Pig World.
This BBC graphic, being retweeted by some opposition MPs, explains clearly why some people are likely to have to sell their houses if they move into a care home under the current plans.
Official record of Prime Minister’s “car crash” speech to CBI.
Keir Starmer has indicated he would bar MPs from using personal companies to reduce the tax they pay on second jobs, saying he would stop any Labour MPs from doing so straight away.
Peter Walker www.theguardian.com
Starmer’s comments came after it emerged that at least 10 MPs, one of them Labour, had channelled income from additional work through their own companies, which is legal but reduces the amount of tax they need to pay.
An investigation by the Times found the MPs were paid in total about £1m via such arrangements. Sir Alastair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, told the paper this “should be stopped as soon as possible”.
“MPs should not be avoiding paying the taxes they’ve decided that the rest of the population should pay,” Graham said.
Asked on Monday if any Labour MPs found to have put any outside earnings through a personal company should stop doing so, Keir Starmer said they should.
“The answer to the question is very easy: yes,” he said during a media Q&A following a speech by the Labour leader to the CBI annual conference in Birmingham.
“The whole point of the registration and declaration scheme is that anybody can see transparently what is happening in relation to any income or donations.”
Instead of paying income tax at a rate of up to 45%, the personal company will pay corporation tax at 19%. Further tax is then due when owners draw money out of the company, either via income tax or a tax on dividends, the higher rate of which is 32.5%.
Starmer has already said that in power Labour would prevent MPs from carrying out any outside work, beyond a few exceptions for public interest reasons, such as MPs who are police or army reservists, or medical staff.
The Labour leader, who was director of public prosecutions before entering parliament, has in the past given paid legal advice while an MP. Allies of Jeremy Corbyn have said Starmer was instructed in 2017 to not take a second job with law firm Mishcon de Reya. Starmer’s spokesman insisted Starmer turned it down himself.
The investigation over tax minimisation comes less than a week after the Commons backed a plan to limit MPs’ scope to take on second jobs. While the plans are yet to be worked out, the focus is likely to be on political consulting, and on jobs which take up too much of an MP’s time.
The vote, which saw the government amend a Labour motion, followed days of outcry after ministers decided to change the system by which MPs are disciplined to protect then-Tory backbencher Owen Paterson from punishment for what an official investigation said was a serious breach of lobbying rules.
The government U-turned the next day, and Paterson resigned from parliament.
First-time buyers have seen the gap between their wages and house prices grow in the vast majority of councils in England and Wales, casting doubt on Boris Johnson’s promise to “turn generation rent into generation buy”.
Tobi Thomas www.theguardian.com
Just over a year ago, the prime minister said he wanted to give people “the fundamental life-affirming power of home ownership” and “spread that opportunity to every part of the country”.
Guardian analysis of prices paid by first-time buyers, however, shows that the affordability gap has grown in 98% of England’s local authorities since 2015, and in every part of Wales.
The traditional benchmark for mortgage affordability is that the amount required from a lender – the property price minus a 10% deposit – should not exceed 4.5 times the buyer’s wage or the combined wage of a couple.
But that target is unachievable for single first-time buyers – who are typically aged 32 – in 95% of local authorities in England, based on the median earnings for people in their 30s.
Single first-time buyers in Wales would not be able to afford a home in 86% of local authorities in the country. Although couples fare better, they would struggle to stay within 4.5 times their wage in almost a third (31%) of council areas in England.
The analysis looked at what has happened to affordability in the six years since the Conservatives won a majority government. The party’s 2015 manifesto said “everyone who works hard should be able to own a home of their own” and outlined schemes for cut-price starter homes and a help-to-buy Isa.
In the run-up to the 2019 election, the party said: “For the UK to unleash its potential, young people need the security of knowing that home ownership is within their reach.”
Since then the help-to-buy loan scheme has been extended, and this year a scheme to guarantee 95% mortgages was introduced. But the analysis shows homes have become less affordable over that period.
“Home ownership is now almost completely out of reach for most people on average or low incomes – with house prices continuing to soar, most people can’t scrape together a sky-high deposit to buy and so are stuck paying extortionate private rents,” Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, said.
“The government has ploughed money into a series of expensive home ownership schemes that most people can never hope to benefit from, as they still require a sizeable deposit when most renters don’t have any savings.”
House prices increased by the largest proportion in Salford, in the north-west of England, where the average house price for a first-time buyer increased by 58% over the six-year period.
*Cost in average salaries is calculated by the multiple of the median salary needed to make up the cost of the average first-time buyer’s home
This is despite the fact that Salford is within the top 20 most deprived local authorities in England in terms of deprivation.
In 2015, a single first-time buyer would have needed 4.4 times an individual’s wage to afford a typical mortgage, within the affordability criteria generally sought by lenders.
Today, a buyer on the median wage for a person in their 30s in the region would require 6.4 times the average salary.
In Bristol, while a property was affordable for couples seeking to get on the property ladder in 2015, the increase in prices has not kept pace with wages, rising from four times their joint wage in 2015 to 5.1 times their combined salary in 2021.
Two-thirds of London boroughs remain outside the reach of couples seeking to buy their first property in the capital.
In Wales, the biggest proportional increase in house prices between 2015 and 2021 was in Blaenau Gwent, where prices rose by 52.7% across that period, but the area remains affordable for a buyer in their 30s earning the local median wage.
Conversely, while prices haven’t risen as fast, the gap between a first-time buyer’s wage and the average property price was within the 4.5 times limit in 2015 but has since risen to beyond 5.5 times the average salary in Caerphilly, Torfaen and Carmarthenshire.
The analysis is based on Office for National Statistics data showing the median gross annual wage for the 30-39 age group for 2015 and 2020 at regional level compared with house price data for August 2015 and August 2021 as recorded by the Land Registry.
Affordability is defined as 4.5 times a person’s salary or couple’s combined salary compared with a typical mortgage required for a first-time buyer in each council area. Because the typical deposit is 10% of the house price, this calculation was based on 90% of the average property listed by the Land Registry.
Dan Wilson Craw, the deputy director of the campaign group Generation Rent, said: “It is already a struggle to save the deposit to buy your first home, and as prices have shot up home ownership has become even harder … The government has intervened to encourage banks to lend at higher loan-to-value ratios, so buyers don’t need as much in savings. But ultimately if you’re borrowing that much, your monthly repayments will be huge.”
“Ultimately, the only sustainable way the government can help people buy a home is to throw everything they have at reducing rents. That means building more homes where people want to live, and more council homes.”
A government spokesperson said: “Our economy is on track to reach pre-pandemic levels around the turn of the year and wages are rising in real terms.
“We know how important it is for people to own their own home, which is why we have supported over 700,000 households into ownership through shared ownership and help to buy since 2010, and our new First Homes scheme will provide homes at a discount of at least 30% for local first-time buyers.
“We’re also investing over £12bn in affordable homes over the next five years –the largest investment in affordable housing in a decade, alongside increasing skills funding and the national living wage.”
Despite a significant rebellion from his own MPs, Boris Johnson’s much-criticised changes to social care have been approved on a day to forget for the prime minister.
The new clause in the Health and Social Care Bill, which critics say will hit the poorest hardest, passed with just 272 votes – almost 90 short of the total number of Conservative MPs.
Meanwhile 246 MPs, including 19 Tories, voted against the changes, with many arguing it could lead to people living in cheaper houses having their assets wiped out.
The rebellion capped off a day that began with the prime minister fumbling a speech at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). (www.itv.com)
Owl has scanned the record of votes cast and finds Simon Jupp voted “aye” but Neil Parish has no vote recorded so he either abstained or was not present.
This, like the sewage bill, may be subject to amendment by the Lords and to the court of public opinion.
Exeter, Teignbridge and East Devon are among the 5% of local authority districts in England with the highest percentage of properties at risk of flooding. In Exeter, for example, more than 10% of properties are at risk.
Planning for climate change and flood resilience
Housing secretary Michael Gove should reset planning policy to ban developers from building thousands of new homes in high-risk flood areas, the think-tank Localis has argued. In a report published today entitled ‘Plain Dealing – building for flood resilience’ the place experts set out how deepening climate change pressures and rising housing demand have resulted in an increase in flooding on properties in at risk areas.
In original research undertaken for the report, Localis discovered that almost 200 planning permissions have been granted on floodplain land so far this year for some 5,283 new homes in the highest-risk local authorities in the country, the overwhelming majority some 4,255 in areas pre-identified as highly likely to flood.
Among its key recommendations, Localis calls for government commitment to empowering communities to manage flood risk locally in a ‘resilient’ way that allows them to pursue their local ecological, economic and social goals. In this context resilience means flood strategies that focus on living with floods instead of just preventing them and involve a flexible approach to flooding and a rapid recovery from inundation.
Other report recommendations for policy and regulatory changes include suggestions to: –
In Detail
The report notes that Exeter, Teignbridge and East Devon are in the top half of the top 10% of local authority districts in England with the highest percentage of properties at risk of flooding (i.e. in the 5% of districts most at risk). In Exeter, for example, more than 10% of properties are at risk.
The report also paints a gloomy picture of the ability of the current planning system to stop making the problem worse: under resourcing; divided responsibilities amongst multiple agencies and lack of overall control.
Read this extract from the Executive Summary:
Problems with the current system
While national planning policy in England should steer development away from current flood risk areas and advises that future risk should be considered, at present there is no clear policy for how local authorities should effectively account for the flood risk associated with increasing climate change in plans and development decisions. Thus, faced with competing interests and institutional agendas such as constraints on building on protected land (e.g. the green belt around urban areas in England) and pressure to meet national housing targets, local authorities frequently permit new developments in flood zones. The complex nature of this issue – local authorities, under-resourced and under pressure to deliver housing targets, working in something of a grey area – highlights the asymmetrical central-local relationship that exists in this area of governance.
There is a huge mismatch between central and local relations regarding flood risk management, one affecting the entire journey from local plan to development control. This has led to data gaps, a lack of ambition and subsequent lack of effective action and change. Complexity is borne from the multitude of bodies involved in flood risk and service management. In England, local authorities are responsible for housing (district councils in county/district areas), with the county council (if it is a two-tier authority) responsible as the statutory consultee for surface water drainage. Meanwhile the EA is responsible for flood risk and a private water company is responsible for drainage. When there is an emergency, these roles are slightly different and don’t align in the same manner. The district council is responsible for evacuation, with the county council focusing on provision of alternate accommodation.
The defunding of local authorities since 2010 has naturally had an impact on the ability of councils to manage this complex issue. Just 12 percent of local authorities strongly agree that they have the skills and expertise to take account of flood risk now and in the future in planning decisions. Despite over 60 percent of councils declaring climate emergencies, local authorities have a critical shortage of skills and expertise in relation to planning for climate change. For example, only two percent of local authorities are considering future insurance availability and affordability when making planning decisions, and only a third of local authorities are seriously considering the impacts of climate change when deciding whether to grant planning permission. As local decision-makers, it is paramount that local authority planning departments are better resourced to deal with the flood risk challenges they are facing, both now and into the future.
Pinneywood Farm Lodge Lane Axminster EX13 5RTRef. No: 21/2990/PDQ | Validated: Fri 12 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionThe Old Vicarage Salcombe Regis Sidmouth EX10 0JHRef. No: 21/2983/TCA | Validated: Fri 12 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionFormer Woods Farm Recycling Centre Bowd Sidmouth EX10 0JSRef. No: 21/2978/FUL | Validated: Fri 12 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionStedcombe House Axmouth Seaton EX12 4BJRef. No: 21/2980/TRE | Validated: Fri 12 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionValleys Woodbury Exeter EX5 1JYRef. No: 21/2965/FUL | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionThe Court Chardstock Axminster EX13 7BSRef. No: 21/2959/TCA | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionNorthwood Bendarroch Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TSRef. No: 21/2968/FUL | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionMonterey Strawberry Hill Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5JZRef. No: 21/2969/TRE | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision18 Ash Grove Exmouth EX8 3BNRef. No: 21/2970/FUL | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision6 Bowd Court Bowd Sidmouth EX10 0NDRef. No: 21/2971/FUL | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision6 Bowd Court Bowd Sidmouth EX10 0NDRef. No: 21/2972/LBC | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionThe Haven Frys Lane Sidford Sidmouth EX10 9SPRef. No: 21/2947/FUL | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision7 Victoria Place Budleigh Salterton EX9 6JPRef. No: 21/2951/TCA | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionGreengage Cottage Farringdon Exeter EX5 2HYRef. No: 21/2955/FUL | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionGreengage Cottage Farringdon Exeter EX5 2HYRef. No: 21/2956/LBC | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision5 Cotfield Close Honiton EX14 1QXRef. No: 21/2954/FUL | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionBears Patch Fair View Lane Colyford Colyton EX24 6QXRef. No: 21/2941/TRE | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionTimbers Lower Broad Oak Road West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1UFRef. No: 21/2933/FUL | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision4 Heatherdale Exmouth EX8 2HZRef. No: 21/2940/FUL | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision1 Hulham Road Exmouth EX8 3HRRef. No: 21/2938/FUL | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionCockhayes Farm Upottery Honiton EX14 9RBRef. No: 21/2936/FUL | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionAllerdown Town Lane Woodbury Exeter EX5 1NERef. No: 21/2935/FUL | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionWestexe Forklifts Poltimore Barton Poltimore Exeter EX4 0BQRef. No: 21/2932/FUL | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionWaterside Yarcombe Honiton EX14 9BQRef. No: 21/2928/FUL | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision3 Cedar Court London Road Rockbeare Exeter EX5 2EARef. No: 21/2917/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionManagers Office Pegasus Court 88 Salterton Road Exmouth EX8 2NNRef. No: 21/2915/TRE | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision4 Cedar Court London Road Rockbeare Exeter EX5 2EARef. No: 21/2916/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionSidcliffe Cottage Questant Lane Sid Road Sidmouth EX10 9ALRef. No: 21/2921/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision34 Moormead Budleigh Salterton EX9 6PZRef. No: 21/2919/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision2 Cedar Court London Road Rockbeare Exeter EX5 2EARef. No: 21/2918/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision29 Simcoe Way Dunkeswell Honiton EX14 4URRef. No: 21/2922/FUL | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionChadacres Hawkchurch Axminster EX13 5XBRef. No: 21/2901/FUL | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionCaravan Park Farm Membury Axminster EX13 7TBRef. No: 21/2902/FUL | Validated: Fri 12 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision3 Lower Green Way Gittisham Honiton Devon EX14 3FTRef. No: 21/2906/FUL | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionCleverhayes Farm Cotleigh Honiton EX14 9HQRef. No: 21/2897/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionF W S Carter And Sons Greendale Business Park Woodbury Salterton Exeter EX5 1EWRef. No: 21/2898/MFUL | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionHigher Moorlands Farm Luppitt Honiton EX14 4SYRef. No: 21/2888/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionCherry Cottage School Lane West Hill Ottery St Mary EX11 1TXRef. No: 21/2886/FUL | Validated: Tue 09 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionFairways Burgmanns Hill Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5HNRef. No: 21/2859/FUL | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionLand Adjacent Glebelands Glebelands UplymeRef. No: 21/2874/TRE | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision23 Colleton Way Exmouth EX8 3PTRef. No: 21/2856/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision17 Hillside Colyton EX24 6NWRef. No: 21/2746/FUL | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decision2 Albert Terrace Salcombe Road Sidmouth EX10 8PXRef. No: 21/2705/LBC | Validated: Wed 10 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionFlat 2 Sidcliffe House Sidcliffe Sidmouth EX10 9QARef. No: 21/2689/LBC | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionBrookfield Cottage The Strand Lympstone Exmouth EX8 5EYRef. No: 21/2441/LBC | Validated: Mon 08 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionDeepway Cottage Deepway Sidbury Sidmouth EX10 0SARef. No: 21/2347/LBC | Validated: Thu 11 Nov 2021 | Status: Awaiting decisionHow many will be fitted with Portable Loos or will they be an “optional” extra? – Owl
Gwyn Topham www.theguardian.com
More than 5,000 new homes in flood-risk areas of England have been granted planning permission so far this year, as local authorities try to tackle the housing shortage.
Researchers analysing 16,000 planning applications lodged between January and September discovered about 200 had been approved, for a total of 5,283 new homes, in areas where more than 10% of homes were already at significant risk of flooding.
Insurers said they were concerned about the numbers of homes being built where owners were at risk of experiencing “traumatic and devastating losses”.
But builders said that the need for new homes meant even flood-risk areas would have to be used – and with the climate crisis leaving more homes exposed, more defences and mitigation measures would have to be put in place.
Martin Milliner, the claims director at LV= General Insurance, which commissioned the report, said: “Whilst we welcome the government’s commitment to increase housing we have concerns about the UK’s resilience to future flood events, and in particular the number of new housing developments in flood-risk areas that are still receiving approval.
“Flooding is an extremely traumatic event which has a devastating impact on a person’s life, both physically and mentally.”
Andrew Whitaker, the planning director at the Home Builders Federation, said: “We face an acute housing crisis. Planning policy already directs development away from those areas most liable to flooding.
“However, where there is no other choice, or sites in high flood risk zones are the most sustainable sites for other reasons, developments have to meet extremely stringent mitigation requirements.”
The Local Government Association’s housing and environment spokesperson, David Renard, said almost 99% of applications were decided in line with Environment Agency flood risk advice.
He added: “Funding for flood defences needs to be devolved to local areas to ensure money is directed towards projects that best reflect local needs. The government also needs to introduce mandatory anti-flood requirements for new homes in building regulations.”
An investigation by Greenpeace this year found that one-third of England’s most important flood defences were in private hands, with more than 1,000 found to be in a poor state of repair.
More than 5m homes and businesses in England are at risk of flooding, according to Environment Agency estimates.
The government said it was investing over £5.2bn in flood and coastal defences in England, which would improve protection for more than 336,000 properties.
A spokesperson said: “Our national planning policy is clear that floodplain development should be avoided wherever possible, and protections must be put in place when building in these areas is necessary – we expect local planning authorities to follow this guidance.”
Infection rates across Devon have soared, with every council area in the county reporting a significant increase in new cases.
Joe Ives, local democracy reporter www.radioexe.co.uk
Government figures for the week up to Sunday, 14 November show a total of 6,886 cases across Devon, 33 per cent (1,721) more than in the previous week.
Infection levels are extremely high in some parts of the county and every district has a higher infection rate than the UK average. The average infection rate across Devon is now at 558 per 100,000 of the population. In comparison, the national average sits at 403 per 100,000.
In Torridge, infections have more than doubled within the space of a week. The district’s new 602 infections – 304 more than last week – represent a rise of 102 per cent. The infection rate in Torridge is now at 876 per 100,000 people – more than double the national average.
It’s a similar story for neighbouring North Devon. The district recorded 708 new cases, 183 (35 per cent) more than the previous week. The area’s infection rate now sits at 721 per 100,000, almost 80 per cent higher than the national average.
Overall, the Devon County Council area, which excludes Plymouth and Torbay, saw 4,789 new infections, 1,238 (35 per cent) more than the previous week. The infection rate across its seven districts is now 591 per 100,000 of the population.
Torbay’s infections shot up by 38 per cent, recording 808 new cases, 223 more than in the previous week. The 38 per cent rise takes the infection rate in the Bay to 593 per 100,000 of the population.
Cases rose sharply in Plymouth, too. The city saw 1,289 new infections, 258 (25 per cent) more than in the previous week. The infection rate in the area is now 490 per 100,000.
Despite rising infections in Devon and across the country, prime minister Boris Johnson this week said it was still too early to move to ‘plan b’ and reintroduce restrictions such as mask mandates and working from home orders.
Hospitalisations
As was reported on Tuesday, the latest figures (Tuesday, 2 November) show 127 covid patients in the county’s hospitals – a fall of two on last week’s total. However, this number is likely to rise in the coming weeks as the impact of the rapid increase of infections reaches the county’s hospitals.
There are 49 patients at Derriford in Plymouth, 44 at the RD&E in Exeter, 21 in Torbay and 13. Of the total number of patients, 13 are on mechanical ventilation beds.
Deaths
Deaths have increased, with four more recorded than in the previous week.
Eighteen people died within 28 days of receiving a positive covid test across Devon in the most recent complete seven-day period (up to Sunday, 14 November).
Eleven of the deaths occurred in the Devon County Council area. Meanwhile, four deaths were recorded in Torbay. A further four occurred in Plymouth.
Across Devon, a total of 1,323 people have now died within 28 days of a positive covid test.
Vaccinations
Eighty-six per cent of people aged 12 and above have had their first dose of a vaccine in the Devon County Council area, which excludes Plymouth and Torbay, with 80 per cent receiving both doses.
In Plymouth, 83 per cent have had one dose, while 75 per cent have had both.
In Torbay, 84 per cent have received one dose, while 78 per cent have had both jabs.
This means that vaccination rates in Devon remain slightly behind the rest of the UK. Across the country, 88 per cent of people aged 12 and over have had one dose, while 80 per cent have had both jabs.
Boris Johnson will seek to boost the UK’s clean energy credentials after a tricky UN climate crisis conference by announcing that all new buildings in England will be required to install electric vehicle charge points from next year.
Aubrey Allegretti www.theguardian.com
In a speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) in the north-east of England on Monday, the prime minister will reveal plans, briefed as “world-leading”, to toughen up regulations for new homes and buildings.
From next year developers on sites such as supermarkets and office blocks will be required to install electric vehicle charging points, in an attempt to help phase out the use of petrol and diesel cars before sales of them come to an end in 2030. The government expects the move to lead to 145,000 new charging points each year.
Buildings undergoing renovations that leave them with more than 10 parking spaces will also be subject to the new measures.
Heralding the importance of clean energy just weeks after the UK hosted Cop26, Johnson will say the country is at a pivotal moment, adding: “We cannot go on as we are.”
He will tell business leaders that it should not just be public spending that is used to “adapt our economy to the green industrial revolution”, but that the government will focus on investment in science and technology, raise productivity and “then get out your way”.
Defending the new requirements, Johnson will add: “We must regulate less or better and take advantage of new freedoms.”
The government will also support a new loan programme worth £150m, distributed by Innovate UK over three years, to help British small and medium-size enterprises commercialise their latest research. The “innovation loans” will be accessible to a variety of sectors – including green businesses – and follow a pilot with businesses.
A further £9.4m in funding has been confirmed for what Downing Street said was a first-of-a-kind hydrogen project in the UK’s largest onshore windfarm, near Glasgow. The money will go to the Whitelee green hydrogen initiative to develop the country’s largest “electrolyser” – a system that converts water into hydrogen gas. It is used to store energy and supply local transport providers with zero-carbon fuel.
As part of the government’s bid to reach net zero by 2050, almost 26,000 publicly available electric vehicle charging devices have been installed – including 4,900 rapid ones. A total of 250,000 points in homes and workplaces have already been put in place.
Ed Miliband, the shadow business secretary, accused the government of “failing Britain’s automotive companies and workers”. He said: “Ministers have stepped back and left manufacturers, workers and the public on their own, failing to take the action necessary to make the switch affordable for families hit by a cost of living crisis.
“By extending the help to buy an electric car for those on lower and middle incomes and accelerating the rollout of charging points in areas that have been left out, [Labour] would ensure that everyone could benefit and make the green transition fair.”
The prime minister’s climate spokesperson, Allegra Stratton, raised eyebrows in August when she revealed she was still driving a third-hand diesel. When asked why she did not drive an electric vehicle, she said: “I don’t fancy it just yet.”
Stratton, who lives in north London, said this was because of the length of time it took to make trips to visit her father in the south of Scotland, her mother in Gloucestershire, her grandmother in north Wales, and her in-laws in the Lake District.
However, in October, just before world leaders gathered for Cop26, Stratton revealed she had ditched the diesel car.
A peculiar trend has been spotted in the House of Lords. Have you noticed it? It looks a bit like high-value donors to the Tory party are being ‘awarded’ a peerage as thanks for massive wads of cash. Dodgy stuff.
There’s no denying the numbers. Earlier this month, The Sunday Times and openDemocracy revealed that 15 of the last 16 Conservative Party treasurers have been offered a seat in the House of Lords, having each donated more than £3 million to the party.
Many other Conservative donors have also been ennobled alongside party treasurers. In total, 22 of the party’s main financial backers have been given peerages since 2010. Together, they have given an estimated £54 million to the party.
A former Tory Party chairman reportedly told The Sunday Times, “Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.” And one former Conservative cabinet minister this month described it as a “scandal in plain sight”.
The Scottish National Party’s Pete Wishart MP wrote to the Metropolitan Police to report this pattern and ask them to investigate. But mere days later, the Met wrote back to Mr Wishart refusing to investigate, saying, “there is insufficient information upon which to launch a criminal investigation”.
This is baffling. Buying or selling honours is a crime which the police have, in the past, been willing to investigate. In March 2006, Scottish National Party MP Angus McNeil brought a complaint to the police after it emerged that four wealthy businessmen, who had lent the Labour Party a total of £5 million, were nominated by Tony Blair for peerages. The police questioned a raft of politicians over the scandal and made several arrests.
We think this looks suspiciously like the Conservatives are selling off seats in the heart of our democracy. Members of the House of Lords get a say on laws that affect all of our lives. Why should someone get a vote on Universal Credit because they handed £3 million quid to the Conservative Party?
When asked about this this week, the Prime Minister defended his party’s reliance on major donors, saying: “Until you get rid of the system by which the trade union barons fund other parties… we have to go ahead.”
If the Government is selling peerages, it’s breaking the law. We think there is more than enough evidence to trigger a police investigation. If the Metropolitan Police refuse to investigate, they must satisfactorily explain why or risk judicial review.
Alongside Pete Wishart MP, we are asking the Metropolitan Police to share the information and documents they considered before refusing to investigate, and the internal record of the refusal.
At the heart of this legal action is a simple ask: that Boris Johnson be subject to the same law as you and I. And if there is reason to think he has broken the law, he gets investigated by the police, just like you and I would.
We recognise that this is a difficult challenge, so we will assess the response we get before launching any fundraising. Good Law Project only exists thanks to donations from people across the UK. If you’re in a position to support our work, you can do so here.
East Devon Watch 