Banks just misses out on job he didn't want
Banks, the Brexiteer businessman who funded Leave.EU, came second to Labour's Helen Godwin, by around 6,000 votes, taking 22.1% of the total vote to her 25%. The loss means he won't be forced to take what he derided as a 'meaningless job' with little power to help anyone in an interview just days before voters went to the polls.
Reform's local election success might have been even greater had they not selected Arron Banks – a multi-millionaire who sounded like he didn't particularly want the job – as their candidate for the West of England mayoralty.
Last weekend, he told a Times journalist – in an interview in which he 'poured himself a second glass of red wine' at midday – that polls showing he had a chance of winning were 'a bit worrying' and that he was 'hoping for an honourable second'.
Banks admitted he was only standing because Nigel Farage told him 'you've got to do it' and said that, in the event of him winning, 'I'll probably appoint a deputy mayor and give him instructions. I'll direct him from my chateau 30 miles behind the lines and get some results.'
He added, 'I have tried to figure out what this office does and I can't see what it actually does' and that, despite standing on the Reform platform, 'I personally think local politics should be independent'.
Finally, asked whether he had been out knocking on doors, Banks laughed. Imagine how well he might have done had he actually been arsed!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment Matthew Pennycook He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection Ellie Chowns Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
Wales Online
29 minutes ago
- Wales Online
Martin Lewis lists five things DWP will check after £300 payment rule change
Martin Lewis lists five things DWP will check after £300 payment rule change The finance expert has set out what exactly the DWP will be counting as income for the winter fuel payment Martin Lewis has listed out the five things that constitute as "income" for the Winter Fuel Payment (Image: PA ) Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced that millions of people across England and Wales will be receiving the winter fuel payment this year in a major U-turn. The Labour-led UK government had taken the unpopular decision to stop the universal winter fuel payment, instead making it means tested for pensioners. This decision drew widespread criticism, as it reduced the number of pensioners receiving the benefit from 11.4 million people to nearly 1.5 million. Though the payment remains means tested, Reeves has said her government is 'expanding' the payments, 'to benefit nine million pensioners this winter". This means that those on state pension who have an income of £35,000 or below will be receiving the payment worth up to £300 going into winter this year. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here The chancellor has defended her government's decision to keep the payment means tested (Image: PA ) What constitutes 'income'? Martin Lewis took to X, to explain five things that would constitute an income under the scheme. These would likely be: Article continues below The State Pension Income from Earnings Private Pension Income Investment income (eg dividends) Savings interest Though he hasn't '100%' confirmed this, the financial guru added that non-taxable payments like the Attendance Allowance would likely not be included. Content cannot be displayed without consent Will you need to do anything to receive the benefit? If you're eligible, you'll automatically receive the payment this winter without needing to take any action. If your income exceeds the threshold, HMRC will automatically recover the money. This winter, households will automatically receive a payment of £200, or £300 if there is someone over 80 in the household. Over 12 million pensioners across the UK will also benefit from the Triple Lock, with their State Pension set to increase by up to £1,900 during this parliament. Pensioners earning above the £35,000 threshold - approximately two million people in England and Wales - will have the full amount of the winter fuel payment they received automatically collected via PAYE or through their self-assessment return. There's no need for anyone to register with HMRC or take any further action. Pensioners who wish to opt out and not receive the payment at all will be able to do so, with details to be confirmed. Content cannot be displayed without consent The chancellor has defended the government's decision to means test the payment, saying this would make the payment 'targetted and fair'. Reeves has said: 'Targeting Winter Fuel Payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. 'It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest.' Article continues below Speaking on the u-turn, she said: 'But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the Winter Fuel Payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter.'
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves may have U-turned on winter fuel, but her problems are far from over
Standing in what appeared to be a garden centre to announce her latest U-turn on the pensioners' winter fuel payment, Rachel Reeves looked as if she was wilting a bit. Never at ease in front of a camera, the chancellor was more stilted than usual and didn't make much of an attempt to justify the change on any rational grounds. If this 'difficult decision' was the right thing to do last year, when the public finances were under pressure, one might ask: why is it the wrong thing to do this year, when the public finances are still under pressure, albeit for different reasons? She cannot, for reasons of pride, admit the U-turn is because of the recent electoral punishment-beating administered by an angry public – with the added force of Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage both declaring they'd restore the payment in full and immediately. She certainly cannot concede that this totem of her 'iron determination' to do whatever it took to achieve sustainable public finances has had to be tossed away, against her wishes, because the prime minister publicly ordered her to do so and her backbenchers increasingly demanded this hated policy be ditched. But she knows that everyone knows the truth – and to her credit, she cannot disguise her discomfort. She is in the worst of all worlds: she looks callous (even if she is not) but now she also looks weak, and will get few thanks for giving the winter fuel payment back (mostly). This is not a dream combination of attributes for a senior Labour figure or, for that matter, for a finance minister hoping to dazzle the markets. In fact, even in executing this U-turn she has somehow managed to botch things, by trying to retain some element of the means-testing she introduced last year, just to save face. So, even now, not all pensioners will receive their £200 or £300 (depending on age). Or rather, all will receive it initially, but some, not fantastically rich on an income of £35,000 or more, will find it entirely clawed back by HM Revenue and Customs through the self-assessment procedure. It would have been easier all round just to complete the U-turn: instead, Ms Reeves has stopped around the 170-degree mark. It hardly seems worth it. Even when it was first announced at the end of July last year, means-testing the WFP was an ill-conceived move. Of all the options available to her – and all chancellors, even in the tightest of binds, have choices – she plumped for the one that combined an incredibly modest saving (about £1.5bn) with the maximum political damage. Some 10 million active and motivated pensioners were ready to head to the nearest polling station at the earliest opportunity to make their displeasure clear. Too late, Ms Reeves and Liz Kendall pointed out how relatively generous the triple lock on the state pension was. Yet they didn't attempt to point out what a functioning NHS might do for the quality of life of older people. There was never so much as the faintest hint that an incoming Labour government would scrap something introduced by Gordon Brown and retained by the Conservatives since 2010. Making the U-turn announcement now, two days ahead of the comprehensive spending review was, presumably, an attempt to manage the news cycle – getting the good-but-embarrassing news out of the way. That might be shrewd, if the review does indeed show how the public services will 'live within their means' in the coming years, with welcome extra resources for the NHS, schools and the defence of the realm, restoring Ms Reeves's prestige. Yet the authority of the chancellor has been badly compromised by the missteps she's taken in her first year in office – unforced errors compounded by poor presentation. The so-called 'tractor tax' and an over-reliance on employers' national insurance contributions have also landed badly. As some old Treasury hands suggest, it feels very much as though her civil servants reached for their favourite policies when the inexperienced chancellor asked about options, and she accepted the recommendations all too readily, in a way her predecessors did not. Maybe the very real 'black hole' she inherited panicked her. It looks like it. At any rate, she is finding it even more difficult to resist her more powerful colleagues in the spending departments when they push for politically expedient solutions. We need not exaggerate matters, though. Ms Reeves is not like Kwasi Kwarteng being recalled from an IMF summit to be sacked by Liz Truss for delivering (her) mini-Budget in 2022. Nor is this a repeat of a dazed Norman Lamont staggering into Whitehall to announce that sterling was leaving the European ERM in 1992. Unlike in those episodes, the government's economic policy has not been destroyed by an adjustment of about £1bn in a social security budget of more than £300bn. But she knows that she is in a weakened position – and, with no following in the party, depends heavily on the confidence of the prime minister to survive. Sir Keir Starmer knows, as she does, that if he were to move her this early in the life of the government it would only make matters worse in every respect. For now, they're still in this together.
