Will Tories back Reform UK to lead Warwickshire again?
While Reform UK, with 22, has more council seats than any other party, no group commands a majority and will require agreement and votes from political rivals to install Howard's successor.Once elected, the leader holds day-to-day power and discretion to appoint political leads to all of the council's major service areas.Howard came in courtesy of support from his own party and the Conservatives, the party that lost power following May's elections.It was enough despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Labour.Conservative leader Adrian Warwick told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that his group was scheduled to meet next week and would consider whatever options were put forward as and when they appeared.
Warwick confirmed he had been informed of Howard's resignation on Wednesday but that no further discussions had taken place."It was a bolt from the blue for us as well, we weren't expecting it," he said."First and foremost, we are desperately sad to hear of Councillor Howard's health concerns and we wish him a speedy recovery."He added: "No one knows better than the Conservatives the pressures and workload that running Warwickshire County Council brings, we understand that because we did it for long enough. We know it is a tough job."Perhaps Reform didn't realise just how tough it would be but ill health is something that can hit anyone at any time. The fact that it has hit him alongside the workload that he has taken on, as Conservatives we just really feel for him on a personal level."
Interim council leader George Finch has publicly declared that his party wants to stay in power.Warwick said: "We will have to see what Reform brings forward."Warwickshire has to function. My group will have a meeting after the weekend and will discuss things when we know more but it is for Reform to put forward their proposals and for the other parties in Warwickshire to look at them and decide what they are comfortable with."Asked whether that could mean a Conservative candidate for leader, Warwick replied: "We would need to consider all options. That is a discussion for the group next week, whether we want to put someone forward."
Since taking charge, Reform UK has been criticised for the time taken to appoint a cabinet – in particular the role of portfolio holder for transport and planning, as well as vacancies being left on the overview and scrutiny panels that started their work this week.That criticism has been extended to the Conservatives for supporting their leadership but Warwick insisted he had no regrets."The only regret I have is that Councillor Howard has been taken ill, and that's on a personal basis, not a political one," he said.
This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations.
Follow BBC Coventry & Warwickshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Anyone with a brain is jumping off HMS Britain
A piece was recently published about five Oxford graduates. All of them are struggling to find work more than a year after getting good degrees. The article provoked a spate of online mockery about the young people's supposed sense of entitlement. Not for the first time, social media reminded us that we are what GK Chesterton called 'veneered vandals', savages under the thinnest of layers. In fact, the five Oxonians came across as ambitious and determined. They were making ends meet through temping, tutoring and working summer jobs while firing off hundreds of application letters. They were simply finding out, like so many people of their age, that three years of study and tens of thousands of pounds in student debt no longer get you onto the first rung of a career ladder. This discovery shocked them, as well it might. Theirs was the generation that was yanked out of school in March 2020, thinking that they would be back to take their A-levels after three or four weeks of lockdown. In fact, it wasn't just their schools that they never went back to; it was the way of life of pre-pandemic Britain. Before lockdown, the UK budget was on its way to surplus. Now, the Government is borrowing nearly £150 billion a year, two thirds of which must go to pay interest on past borrowing. No one has a plan to undo the supposedly emergency spending of 2020. The only debate is over whether taxes must rise to meet the new commitments, or whether we carry on borrowing. Did we imagine that we could pay people to stay home for the better part of two years without suffering an economic hit? As a matter of fact, I think a lot of us did. The same people who spent lockdown howling down attempts to loosen restrictions as 'putting the economy before lives' are now angry and bewildered because prices, taxes and unemployment have risen. Britain has reached the end of a long run of structurally high employment. For more than 30 years, our jobs market was the envy of Europe. Yes, we could be hit by external events, notably the global financial crisis. But we bounced back quickly, because we understood that the best way to encourage employers to hire people was to make it easy to fire them. A moment's thought reveals why. In a country with light employment regulations, firms take on staff during upswings, knowing that they can always drop them if things go wrong. But in a country with restrictive regulations, every employee is a potential liability, and companies hang back warily. In such countries, unemployment is structurally high, especially among young people. That has been southern Europe's tragedy for decades. British governments used to understand this. Neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown tried to undo the labour reforms of the 1980s. Both knew that, if they wanted revenue for public services, they needed a buoyant economy. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, by contrast, seem to struggle with the concept of cause and effect. Never mind their tax-and-spend policies. They appear not to grasp that raising the costs of employing people leads to fewer people being employed. Four months ago, they hit businesses with a double tax. Employer National Insurance contributions rose from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent, and at the same time kicked in on earnings above £5,000 instead of £9,100. What did they think would happen, for heaven's sake? If tobacco taxes reduce smoking and carbon taxes reduce emissions, what did they suppose jobs taxes would do? Sure enough, the number of employees on payroll plunged by 109,000 the following month, and has declined further in every month since. Britain's overall unemployment rate is now at its highest since lockdown. The really striking figure, though, is youth unemployment. Among 16- to 24-year-olds, the jobless rate has reached Mediterranean levels: over 14 per cent in recent months. Why? Again, because of our refusal to acknowledge that actions have consequences. Pushing up the minimum wage (which applies from age 16) and the national living wage (which applies from 21) makes MPs feel righteous. They have voted to raise minimum remuneration for 20-year-olds by 55 per cent since 2020. The trouble is that these repeated hikes end up punishing young people, not helping them, by closing off job opportunities and condemning many to welfare. Around 60,000 students a year go straight from university onto long-term sickness benefits. MPs with a basic knowledge of economics tend to keep quiet, because they are terrified of being asked how they would like to live on £10 an hour. It is an irrelevant question, but it nonetheless terrifies them. I was, I think, the only parliamentarian to speak out against an above-inflation hike in the minimum wage during the pandemic, at a time when wages were falling across the private sector. Everyone else wanted an even bigger rise. Ignorant voters, self-righteous journalists and cowardly politicians make a potent combination. This year, the minimum wage rose by 18 per cent for 16- and 17-year-olds and by 16.3 per cent for 18-, 19- and 20-year olds. Result? Fewer jobs for young people. Openings in the hospitality sector are down by 22,000 since last year, and graduate postings have fallen by an almost unbelievable 33 per cent. To repeat, policies have consequences. I sometimes think that the readiness to acknowledge trade-offs is the real dividing-line in politics. And I don't just mean among politicians. Among voters, too, there are those who look at the costs of policies, and those who go to the polling station humming 'I'm just a soul whose intentions are good'. Hikes in the minimum wage are the least of it. The open-ended extension of equalities laws is an even greater deterrent. When retail workers can be compensated for being paid less than warehouse workers on supposedly sex discrimination grounds, even though the retail workers were refusing to be redeployed to warehouses, employers can hardly be blamed for being reluctant to hire. And that is before we get to Angela Rayner's package of employment laws, the most far-reaching since the mid-1970s. The Employment Rights Bill, currently before the House of Lords, is a regulatory omnibill that covers sick pay, paternity leave, bereavement, privileges for new employees, a right to demand flexible working, new holiday entitlements and extra powers for trade unions. As Tony Blair put it, early in his premiership: 'There is almost always a case that can be made for each specific instrument. The problem is cumulative. All these good intentions can add up to a large expense, with suffocating effects.' Quite so, and it is more than a little scary that we are governed by people who can't see it. Here is a paradox. Labour – the clue is in the name – is meant to be the party of the worker. Yet every single Labour-majority government has left office with unemployment higher than when it began. Every. Single. One. This one, unlike some of its predecessors, has wasted no time. Already we can see where it is going: more and more workers' rights, fewer and fewer workers. We are in a vicious circle. Higher unemployment means fewer people paying taxes into the system and more drawing benefits from it. Since Labour has already proven that it cannot cut spending – not even mildly to slow the rise in benefits claims – that can only mean even higher taxes, prompting more disinvestment, slower growth, higher unemployment and lower revenue. According to a survey by the British Council, 72 per cent of Brits under 30 are thinking of working abroad, and who can blame them? We are pulling off the extraordinary double of simultaneous emigration and immigration crises, exporting our entrepreneurs and replacing them with people who go onto benefits. And, God help us, we have another four years of it to come.
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Facial recognition cameras too racially biased to use at Notting Hill carnival, say campaigners
The Met commissioner should scrap plans to deploy live facial recognition (LFR) at next weekend's Notting Hill carnival because the technology is riven with 'racial bias' and subject to a legal challenge, 11 civil liberty and anti-racist groups have demanded. A letter sent to Mark Rowley warns that use of instant face-matching cameras at an event that celebrates the African-Caribbean community 'will only exacerbate concerns about abuses of state power and racial discrimination within your force'. The Runnymede Trust, Liberty, Big Brother Watch, Race on the Agenda, and Human Rights Watch are among those who claim the technology 'is less accurate for women and people of colour'. The demand comes just days after ministers ramped up the deployment of vans fixed with facial recognition technology to nine forces across England and Wales. The Met said last month it would deploy specially mounted cameras at entries and exits of the two-day event in west London. As many as 2 million people attend the second biggest street festival in the world every year, held on the August bank holiday weekend. In the letter seen by the Guardian, the signatories say: 'The choice to deploy LFR at Notting Hill carnival unfairly targets the community that carnival exists to celebrate. 'The Met has been found to be institutionally racist by Baroness Casey's independent review and trust in the Met has been badly damaged by discriminatory policing. 'Targeting Notting Hill carnival with live facial recognition technology will only exacerbate concerns about abuses of state power and racial discrimination within your force.' The letter says that since the Met announced its Notting Hill plan, a high court challenge has been launched by the anti-knife campaigner Shaun Thompson. A Black British man, Thompson was wrongly identified as a criminal, held by police, and then faced demands from officers for his fingerprints. 'Mr Thompson was returning from volunteering with Street Fathers, a youth advocacy and anti-violence community organisation, when he was surrounded by officers and held for half an hour. He has likened the discriminatory impacts of LFR to 'stop and search on steroids',' the letter said. Campaigners claim the police have been allowed to 'self-regulate' their use of the technology. Officers have in the past used a setting that was subsequently shown to disproportionately misidentify Black people. An independent report by the public corporation the National Physical Laboratory found that the Met's LFR technology, which is called NeoFace, is less accurate for women and people of colour when deployed at certain settings. The report's author, Dr Tony Mansfield, acknowledged that 'if the system is run at low and easy thresholds, the system starts showing a bias against black males and females combined'. There is no legal obligation on the police to run the technology on higher settings, the letter says. In 2018, a researcher at MIT Media Lab in the US concluded that software supplied by three companies made mistakes in 21% to 35% of cases for darker-skinned women. By contrast, the error rate for light-skinned men was less than 1%. The other signatories are senior figures in Privacy Watch, Privacy International, Race Equality First, Open Rights Group, Access Now, StopWatch and Statewatch. The Met said last month the cameras would be used on the approach to and exit from the carnival, 'outside the boundaries of the event' itself, to help officers 'identify and intercept' people who pose a public safety risk. The Met has said it will only use the technology at settings that demonstrate no racial bias to uncover people wanted for the most serious offences such as knife crime and sexual assaults. However, civil liberty groups were dismayed to discover that the technology has previously been used by police in Wales to target ticket touts. About 7,000 officers and staff will be deployed on each day of the carnival, the Met said. LFR cameras on the approach to the carnival will search for people who are shown as missing and people who are subject to sexual harm prevention orders, police said. Screening arches will be deployed at some of the busiest entry points, where stop-and-search powers will be used. The event is still community-led, but senior politicians have expressed concerns about its safety, resulting in demands that it should be moved to Hyde Park or be ticketed to prevent crushes in narrow streets. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said last week that she would draw up a new legal framework for the use of LFR. 'Facial recognition will be used in a targeted way to identify sex offenders or people wanted for the most serious crimes who the police have not been able to find,' she said. The Met and South Wales police have been testing the technology. The Met says it has made 580 arrests using LFR for offences including rape, domestic abuse, knife crime, grievous bodily harm and robbery, including 52 registered sex offenders arrested for breaching their conditions. The Met deputy assistant commissioner Matt Ward, who is in charge of the policing operation for carnival this year, said the force was aware there were still 'misconceptions' about the use of live facial recognition in Black and other ethnic minority communities. 'It is right that we make the best use of available technology to support officers to do their job more effectively. That is why we will be using LFR cameras on the approach to and from carnival, outside the boundaries of the event itself. Live facial recognition is a reliable and effective tool. It has led to more than 1,000 arrests since the start of 2024. 'Independent testing by the National Physical Laboratory found that at the thresholds the MPS uses the system, it is accurate and balanced with regard to ethnicity and gender, but we know there are still misconceptions about its use, particularly in Black and other minority ethnic communities.'
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Spiralling building costs are wrecking Britain's prospects
It will provide the water for tens of thousands of homes, allow supply to catch up with a huge rise in the population, and it might even allow resource-hungry data centres to finally get built in the South East of England where they are most needed. There are lots of reasons to welcome the planned new Abingdon Reservoir in Oxfordshire. There is just one catch. The cost has tripled from the initial estimates, and will now come in at £7.5bn. In reality, from nuclear power stations, to rail lines, to runways, this is happening time and time again. Everything costs far more to build in Britain than it does in comparable countries. And until we work out how to fix that, there is no hope of the economy ever recovering. When, or rather if, it is finally opened in 2040, the Abingdon reservoir will be the first major new piece of water infrastructure the UK has built in more than 30 years. Even though we have added 11m people to the total population since 1995, and total output has almost doubled, at least in nominal terms, we have been squeezing every last drop of water out of a largely Victorian water system. The locals may not like it, but we desperately need some new reservoirs, and Abingdon is as good a place as any to start. The problem is the cost. From initial estimates of around £2bn, Thames Water said this week the bill was likely to rise to £7.5bn, and perhaps even more. We can add it to the list of escalating infrastructure costs. Last month, Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, in a rare example of a sensible decision, gave the go-ahead for the Sizewell C nuclear power station. Again, however, the price was shocking. It will come in at £38bn, almost double the £20bn that was estimated when it was first discussed five years ago. If anyone believes that will be the final figure, if I have a pre-loved windmill I would like to sell them. The estimated cost of a third runaway at Heathrow has risen from £14bn to close on £50bn; the cost of the HS2 rail link has already gone up to close on £100bn, and that is after we have halved its length; the cost of the Lower Thames Crossing connecting London and Kent has risen to £10bn, and work hasn't even started yet. The list goes on and on. It makes no difference whether a project is large or small. In my corner of south-west London, Hammersmith Bridge has been closed for years, clogging up traffic for miles, but now that the cost of fixing it has doubled to £250m, the money is not available to start work. Our rivals are far better at keeping costs under control. France is not a cheap country to do business in, but nuclear plants cost less than £10bn each. According to Britain Remade, nuclear power plants cost an estimated £9.4bn per megawatt in the UK compared with £4.4bn in France and £2.2bn in South Korea. Reservoirs are hard to compare precisely because the size and the value of the land varies so much. But the huge new Bassin d'Austerlitz built to clean up the Seine for the Paris Olympics cost only €1.4bn (£1.2bn), far less than Abingdon. As for high-speed rail lines, everyone else builds them for a fraction of the cost in the UK. The trouble is, the soaring cost of building anything is turning into a catastrophe for the economy. There are three big problems. First, hardly any new infrastructure projects get started because the costs are so horrendous. Thames Water was already in dire financial trouble, and adding billions to the cost of new reservoirs is not going to help fix that. Meanwhile, the Government is already so deeply in debt and so strapped for cash, it can't afford to fund them either. Next, the huge bills and the endless escalation of prices deter investors. After all, why bother with infrastructure investments in the UK when you can build the same kit somewhere else for half the price, and earn far better profits? Finally, it means the prices that have to be charged soar out of control. Energy from Sizewell C will cost a lot more than it would have done if it had been built more efficiently. Presumably, anyone planning to travel on HS2, if it ever gets finished, will have to take out a second mortgage to pay for the cost of the ticket to Birmingham. Expensive infrastructure pushes up the price of everything else. The Labour Government was meant to be cutting the costs of building projects. But so far it has failed dismally. We can see that from the way estimates for projects such as Abingdon and Sizewell C keep going up when they should be coming down. We could fix the crisis if the political will were there. Like how? The UK needs to streamline its planning rules so that a single minister could give the green light for a project, without local consultation, without endless reports, and most of all, without any right to judicial review. Likewise, we need to scrap the environmental rules that prioritise wildlife over people and the economy. And we need to train more engineers and skilled construction workers so the labour is available once a project is approved and the finance has been secured. The cost of building anything in Britain is an issue that has been growing for years, but it is now reaching crisis proportions. In the 19th century, Britain was a world leader in creating infrastructure. Until we can build again, at reasonable cost, there is no hope of the economy recovering – and eventually the water, and the power, will just run out.
