Davey vows to challenge Farage and calls for ‘Swedish-style' budget changes
He also set out calls for a major shake-up of economic and net-zero policy, including a Swedish-style approach to Government whereby MPs are allowed to debate tax and spend changes – and propose alternatives and amendments – before the measures are finalised.
Speaking at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in central London, Sir Ed said his party had considered its proposed reforms carefully beneath the headline announcements.
Asked if a focus on technical detail would cut through to voters enough to combat a populist threat in the polls, he said: 'The truth is, Nigel Farage has no answer, right?
'Nigel Farage will tell you about all the problems, but when you ask him about his answers, he's just got nothing to say.'
He added: 'We've got to hold these people to account for getting away with their snake-oil sales… the difference with us is we have thought through the policies underneath the headlines, which is why people can bank on them.
'They can't bank on anything that man says.'
Asked if he saw Reform UK as the main political threat, Sir Ed said: 'He has to be taken on… I think he keeps misleading people.'
The Lib Dem leader said Mr Farage's approach to renewable power 'would only benefit foreign dictators like Vladimir Putin'.
He unveiled a package of pledges which he claimed could cut energy bills in half within 10 years, including a proposed switch of all green power contracts on to a subsidy scheme guaranteeing generators a fixed price.
Such contracts for difference (CfD), awarded at a Government auction, would mean the 'link can be broken' between electricity costs and market fluctuations caused by the price of gas, Sir Ed said.
He also proposed an Office for the Taxpayer, based in Parliament and designed to hold policy-makers to account, a 'bespoke' UK-EU customs union, an 'economic coalition of the willing' aimed at fostering more international trade, and a tougher approach to US President Donald Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
I was once hit with a superinjunction and know how democracy dies in the dark
I was once smacked with a superinjunction … and lived to tell the full Kafkaesque tale. So I have a lot of sympathy for The Independent and other media organisations who, for nearly two years, have been forced to sit on a story which the British state didn't want told. My own experience of being gagged involved an unappetising company called Trafigura, which had been caught dumping toxic chemicals off West Africa in 2006. The company had shelled out more than £30m in compensation and legal costs to 30,000 inhabitants of Abidjan in Ivory Coast who claimed to have been affected by the dumping. Trafigura was keen to suppress the findings of an internal report, which could have proved embarrassing. So they obtained an injunction to stop The Guardian from publishing it – and then, for good measure, a further injunction to prevent us from revealing the existence of the original injunction. Welcome to superinjunctions, which were, for a while, sprayed around like legal confetti – often by errant footballers keen to keep their off-pitch escapades secret. The Trafigura case represented a novel application of the law to silence investigative journalism, seemingly contradicting the only dictum about the courts that most people are familiar with – the principle that the law must be seen to be done. Trafigura went one step further. When a Labour MP tabled a question about their use of a superinjunction, their lawyers, the unlovely company Carter-Ruck, even warned newspapers that they would be in contempt of court if they dared mention this parliamentary intervention. That was plainly ludicrous. Trafigura's legal pitbulls had lost sight of the fact that people risked their liberty and their lives to fight for the right to report what their elected representatives say and do. The super injunction collapsed like an undercooked souffle. And here we are 16 years later, discovering that, for 683 days, a tiny handful of lawyers, judges, politicians and civil servants had been silencing the press from telling the most extraordinary story of how a hapless MoD official caused a catastrophic data breach, putting the lives of thousands of Afghans in peril. The saga began in September 2023 when Mr Justice Knowles issued a gagging order contra mundum (against the world) forbidding anyone from revealing the leak, which named Afghans who had assisted the British forces in Kabul – and who might now be at risk of reprisals from the Taliban. The judge spoke in lukewarm terms about the importance of freedom of expression, but considered a blanket gag was essential to give MoD time to mitigate the harm. Since then, a growing number of journalists became aware of the story, and another judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, held multiple hearings – many of them closed to outsiders – to decide how long the injunction should hold. At one point, about a year ago, he thought enough was enough, but was overruled by the Court of Appeal. It was only this week that the curtain was lifted and we were allowed to know that as many as 18,500 Afghans had secretly been flown to Britain at a cost variously estimated to be between £400m and £7bn (ie we don't know). British spies and special forces soldiers were also among the tens of thousands of people potentially put at risk by the catastrophic Afghan data leak. The clincher for Chamberlain was a risk assessment report commissioned by the current government from a retired civil servant, Paul Rimmer. Rimmer took a markedly different view of the ongoing risk and, said Chamberlain, 'fundamentally undermined' the case for the gagging order to continue. And so it was that, at midday on Tuesday, the jaw-dropping nature of what had been going on was finally revealed. Some might argue that, back in September 2023, there was a case for some kind of news blackout to give the authorities a chance to alert those most at risk, and to extricate as many people as possible. The question is, was it right to keep the gagging order in place for so long? Chamberlain clearly thought it was fine to discharge it a year ago. Was he right? Or was the MoD justified in arguing for more time? The first thing to be said is that the state (in the form of governments and Whitehall) will, in such circumstances, always argue for more secrecy. They will say they are acting in the national interest. But history tells us that the government of the day can often not be trusted in their judgment of where the national interest lies. In 1938, the government of the day attempted to use the Official Secrets Act to compel Duncan Sandys MP to disclose the source of his information about the state of anti-aircraft defences around London. Sandys later became defence minister. Historians now take a different view of those who opposed appeasement in the 1930s. Also in the 1930s, the appeasing government condemned the 'subversive' whistleblowers who were feeding Winston Churchill information about Britain's readiness for war. 'The damage done to the Services far outweighs any advantage that may accrue,' raged a now-forgotten war minister. He was wrong: Churchill and his informants were right. The government of the day tried in 1967 to prevent The Sunday Times, under its editor, Harold Evans, from publishing an accurate account of the case of former MI6 agent Kim Philby and his life as a double agent. The then foreign secretary, George Brown, having failed to prevent publication, publicly accused Evans of being a traitor and of 'giving the Russians a head start... for god's sake, stop!' It's not just a British instinct. In 2004, George W Bush talked The New York Times out of running a series of articles which revealed that the US National Security Agency [NSA] had been eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without any warrant. Bush told the editor: 'You'll have blood on your hands.' The editor spiked the articles. So Mr Justice Chamberlain was right to be a little sceptical about what the state's representatives were telling him during this two-year saga. As he pointed out, the potential sums of money involved (£7bn!?) and the sheer number of urgent migrants were entirely legitimate subjects of political debate. Even more troubling is the fact that members of parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) were also kept in the dark. In June 2024, a court of appeal judge suggested that the ISC might be allowed access to the issue. But the lead KC for the MoD poo poohed the idea. Lord Beamish, the ISC's chair, said the decision not to keep his committee in the loop was 'appalling'. He's right. The ISC is a statutory committee intended to scrutinise the work of Britain's spy agencies, including GCHQ, MI6 and MI5. Being told that the MoD doesn't trust them with 'certain pieces of information' calls into question the entire mechanism of oversight in the secret state. What else do the spooks not think they can be trusted to know? Ironically, the seven media organisations – including The Independent – that were in on the secret by the time the injunction was finally discharged all behaved impeccably in not breathing a word. It's a topsy-turvy world in which journalists can be trusted with knowing information that the ISC was denied. Lord Beamish is right to be furious – and no doubt his committee will want answers. They're not the only ones. There should be the fullest possible reckoning. As the saying goes, democracy dies in darkness.
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
The one-second habit that could save you £60 on your power bill
Amidst the ongoing cost-of-living crisis and soaring inflation, households are scrutinising their spending habits more closely than ever. While many instinctively cut back on discretionary spending like new clothes, daily coffees, or dining out, and even cancelling memberships, simpler ways to reduce expenditure often exist. One such overlooked method, potentially right under our noses, is unplugging household appliances. Lisa Stanley, chief sustainability officer at Zero and co-founder of Good With Money, asserts that unplugging appliances from the wall '100 per cent saves money'. She highlights studies from consumer champion Which? which indicate this simple habit could lead to annual savings of up to £60. 'The reason why it saves money is because if you leave sockets turned on, or plugs turned on at the socket, it has this thing called vampire power,' Stanley explains. 'It actually continues to suck the power once you turn off the socket but when you unplug the appliance, it breaks the circuit and can no longer continue to take that flow of electricity.' Although appliances can eat up energy a lot, Stanley says it's 'simple, small lifestyle changes that can make a difference and they don't need to impact your quality of life at all'. What appliances take up most energy? 'When it comes to your fridge and freezer for example, they are quite energy-hungry but of course you've got to keep them turned on all the time,' Stanley says. 'Other appliances, like your set-top box, actually use quite a lot of energy too but you may find that if you turn that off then it messes with your settings, so you may not want to do that frequently. 'However, you can also look at your laptops and TVs because you can turn your TV off without it impacting your set-top box. All of your tech actually uses around 6% of your entire home's energy and that isn't including someone who is working at home daily or a heavy gamer. 'Unfortunately, other kitchen appliances, such as a dishwasher, can use up to 4% of your home's energy in a year but you can start looking at using the eco-settings.' What changes can people make when thinking about appliances? 'The first thing you can do is make sure you're not falling victim to vampire power and you're turning off all your sockets as much as possible,' Stanley says. 'Really think about it. For example, when I'm working at home I will plug my laptop in, go downstairs to get lunch and I leave it plugged in, even if my laptop is fully charged – so be aware of these things.' 'Secondly, you can switch to LED light bulbs which are also much kinder to the planet and are longer lasting. The manufacturing impact of them is also better because you're not having to replace them all the time. ' Thirdly, if you're boiling the kettle – which is really energy hungry – make sure if you're only making a cup of tea for one person, pour it into a mug before you pour it into the kettle. That way, you're only boiling as much water as you need and it's also saving water – which at the moment is really important that we try and do. 'You can also wash your dishes by hand, run all your appliances on the eco-setting or when washing your clothes, turn down the temperature to 20 or 30 degrees or even cold if you can, as that can make a massive difference to both the amount of energy used and the cost. 'At this time of the year as it is hot, fans are another thing to think about when it comes to energy. If it's a standard desk fan, you can get it from somewhere like John Lewis and costs 1p an hour to run, versus if you've got one of the Dyson fans that are also air purifiers, they can cost up to 66p an hour to run. 'There are also massive differences with the type of smart speakers too. Be aware that keeping music playing when you're not in the room is essentially sucking power when it's not needed.'
Daily Mirror
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Controversial four-day week made permanent in UK-council first
The council implemented a four-day work week to help with hiring and keeping staff, as well as to cut down on expenses A controversial four-day working week at a district council has been made permanent following a trial in a UK-first. South Cambridgeshire District Council staff have been doing 100% of their work in 80% of their hours since January 2023. Last night (July 17), 26 councillors voted in favour of making the working pattern permanent, with nine opposing. The district council is believed to be the first council in the UK to introduce a four-day week. Lib Dem leader of the council Cllr Bridget Smith said the move heralded a "very bright future" for the council and represented "smarter" working for the 21st century. However, the Conservative opposition argued it was a "slap in the face" for taxpayers to pay for council staff to have an extra day off every week. The four-day week trial was introduced for desk-based staff at the district council in 2023. Under the trial, staff receive full pay for working 80% of their hours, but are expected to complete all of their work in that time. The council introduced the four-day week to aid staff recruitment and retention and reduce the spending on agency staff. Council services have continued to operate for at least five days a week. A report published ahead of the debate said 21 of the authority's service areas had improved or stayed the same since the four-day week trial began. But ahead of the meeting, the Conservative opposition questioned the report's independence, saying it was "co-authored by a 4-day week activist". The report said nine areas saw a "statistically significant improvement", including in the percentage of calls answered at the contact centre, the percentage of complaints responded to within timescales, and the percentage of emergency housing repairs completed in 24 hours. The council said if performance variations caused by the Covid pandemic were discounted, every service monitored had improved or stayed the same. The authority also said there has been an overall annual net saving of £399,263, which it said was mainly due to filling vacancies permanently, rather than paying for agency workers. However, some areas showed a "statistically significant decline," including the percentage of housing rent collected, the average days taken to re-let all housing stock, and the percentage of tenant satisfaction with responsive repairs. Cllr Smith told councillors at a full council meeting on Thursday (July 17) that the four-day working week worked and had 'exceeded' expectations. She said: "This is not about working less; it is about working smarter. We are living in the 21st century, and this is the way of working for organisations like us: smarter working, not longer working, and that delivers improvements. It is not perfect; where we fall short of residents' expectations, we will work harder to improve, and now we can do that." However, Conservative Cllr Dr Shrobona Bhattacharya said she had received more than 300 emails from people worried about the four-day week. She argued it was an "unfair system," noting that no one was stopping people from working a four-day week but arguing they should receive four days' pay for doing so. Conservative opposition leader Cllr Heather Williams told the meeting that key performance indicators did not cover everything the council does. She pointed out that the report stated that the analysis of services could not prove that the four-day week directly caused the identified results, as other changes had been made. She said: "We have a choice. We can show residents that we support them. It's a slap in the face when people are taking on increased council tax while their money is spent to give people a day off every week. "It's not right, it's not fair, and there is no reliable proof that it works. If this goes ahead, trust between the council and residents could be broken for good. This has got to stop."
