Labour to spend millions on communities in Reform-voting regions
Labour will spend hundreds of millions of pounds in community projects in Reform-voting regions as part of an attempt to tackle the rising threat posed by Nigel Farage's party.
No 10 and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have put together proposals for a renewed 'plan for neighbourhoods' to invest in regenerating council estates and tower blocks.
Labour MPs have warned that the party faces 'electoral wipeouts' in post-industrial areas at the hands of Farage unless they can invest significantly in deprived areas.
The government plan is based on the findings of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods (Icon), chaired by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, the former Labour cabinet minister.
The commission, thought to have the backing of senior figures in Downing Street
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
38 minutes ago
- The National
SNP could have got the votes to win had they backed this petition
In the run-up to the by-election the SNP leadership played the well-worn Westminster political 'first past the post' tactic. That is, not to try to promote your own policies but to claim that a vote for your candidate will prevent the 'much worse' party winning the seat. That way there's no need to make any promises or commitments to the electorate, you just claim to be much better than the party you claim is likely to win the seat if your party fails to win it. READ MORE: Israel launches second wave of major strikes on Iran John Swinney insisted on claiming that the outcome of the election would be a win for either SNP or the unknown Reform UK candidate, so that voting SNP was required to stop the neo-fascist Farage bunch from taking the seat, and in doing so, getting a foothold in Scotland. He offered no evidence to back this up, just his own political wisdom and in following this strategy, allowed Labour's 'invisible man' to quietly take the seat with practically no campaign – Labour were probably looking on and thinking it would be rude to interrupt! We now know that John's political wisdom was widely off the mark, indeed his claim that Reform was doing so well probably played into the Farage media hype, which is the core of the Reform organisation, and to that extent helped them in the election. This was a disaster for the SNP, losing a seat that they've held since its introduction in 2011. So again, the only winner was political apathy and disillusionment, with a turnout of only 44.2% compared to 63.2% in 2021, John Swinney seemed to imply this was a reasonable result? I know that in the run-up to this election, the SNP candidate Katy Loudon asked SNP members and the wider constituency for their support. Andy Anderson, the national convener of the Respect Scottish Sovereignty movement, responded to Katy, asking her to give her support to petition PE2135 on Scottish human rights which is currently before the Scottish Parliament. Andy said if she would do this, he would talk to RSS supporters in the constituency and seek their help to get her elected. RSS has about 7000 supporters in Scotland and hundreds of these supporters are in that constituency, so getting their active support for the SNP candidate could have been decisive in the outcome of this election. So how did Katy respond? She didn't. Andy prompted her again. No response. It seems it was more important to the SNP leadership to keep their options open to undermine the UN human rights of the Scottish people than to win a by-election. The Scottish people will not tolerate this, we will persist in our struggle for Scottish human rights and for direct democracy, and this RSS petition is an important part of that struggle. Apathy and political disillusion will not continue to dominate our electoral system. So, if the SNP want a viable political future in Scotland, they had better pay attention to the human rights of the Scottish people and start to respond to this issue. Paddy McCarthy via email IT is always a good way to finish the working week, witnessing the complete meltdown with associated frothing at the mouth of the extremists, those whot love to label themselves as 'Reform'. The followers of Farage – yes, he that is nothing more than a 'market-stall Trump' – dislike having their twisted ideology questioned. Which is in itself a classic reaction by those with leanings towards the totalitarian state. Their disdain for human rights, obsession with national security, and want of suppression of workers' rights all point to the fascist way of thinking. Yet if you were to ask them what their goal is? Their answer is that all they crave is their country back? They are, of course, unable to state where they wish to bring their country back from. But they know that the problems facing the UK could be solved by putting machine guns on the Channel crossing points, kicking out everyone who does not look the same, speak the same, or prays to a different god! After all, are they nothing more than an invasion force sitting in our midst just waiting for the call? Which is similar to the scaremongering used before the start of the First World War. Then it was directed at the German waiters in London, who were supposedly all serving officers in the Kaiser's army. The rancid press also stated that thousand of rifles with even more ammunition had been pre-placed in the UK for use by the waiters/officers! Oh, how they crave to have the country returned to a time of smartly dressed obedient children, with housewives equally smartly dressed doing their daily shopping at local shops. A time that did not exist outside of the BBC. The fascists will not accept that they are being manipulated by politicians who are, by their nature, dangerous, corrupt of ideology, and vile in deed. Scotland as a matter of urgency must separate from that breeding ground of rancid thought that is Westminster. Only through independence and rejoining our friends in Europe (in whatever form) shall we halt this goose-stepping into the abyss of intolerance and authoritarianism. Cliff Purvis Veterans for Scottish Independence 2.0 AN excellent article by Dr Mark McNaught on the advantages of the Efta/EEA over the EU for an independent Scotland (Jun 11). In particular, he calls out the EU's now blatant and highly dangerous military ambitions. What he doesn't mention, however, is that Scotland would be a net contributor to the EU. Latterly the UK was paying around £9 billion annually, the equivalent of more than £150 per adult. Given that Von der Leyen and co are hell-bent on admitting the ultimate basket case, Ukraine, that figure would be a lot higher. George Morton Rosyth
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids.
BBC News
41 minutes ago
- BBC News
The BBC World Service debate: Is Donald Trump making the world safer or more dangerous?
Update: Date: 18:45 BST Title: The BBC World Service debate: Is Donald Trump making the world safer or more dangerous? Content: Lyse DoucetChief international correspondent Hello and welcome to the BBC World Service debate, live from the Radio Theatre in Broadcasting House in London. Events are moving quickly. We're recording our discussion as tensions escalate sharply in the Middle East and beyond after Israel attacked Iran, and Tehran retaliated. President Trump promised to be a peacemaker - can he end this confrontation? He also boasted he would end the wars in Ukraine, as well as Gaza. He has put peace talks on the table in many places, and pushed his allies in many regions to take more responsibility for their own security. But his critics say his approach to diplomacy is reckless and chaotic, and so far the dealmaker in chief has not delivered a deal. Is Donald Trump making the world safer or more dangerous? Lyse will be joined by a panel of guests to discuss the escalating tensions in the Middle East, and the rapidly changing international landscape during President Trump's second presidency. Watch the debate live at the top of this page from 19:00 BST (18:00 GMT).
