Latest news with #LabourCabinet
BBC News
5 days ago
- General
- BBC News
Hebburn's Durham Court demolition decision to be re-examined
A decision to demolish an 18-storey tower block and rehouse its elderly residents is to be re-examined next Tyneside Council's Labour cabinet recently unanimously agreed plans for the future of Durham Court, the last remaining residential high-rise building in block, built in 1974, was deemed to have outlived its "original intended lifespan" of 50 years and that carrying out repairs costing an estimated £12m were not worth it. But the decision to tear it down will now go before a council scrutiny committee on 9 June after concerns were raised. This means a public meeting of the panel will be held to decide whether the move should be referred back to the cabinet for request for the call-in was recently signed by opposing councillors from across the political board, including South Tyneside Alliance Group (STAG) representatives, independents and one Green Group councillor. STAG's Andrew Guy said the demolition would be an "appalling mistake". "This is about proper accountability," he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service. "Decisions of this scale shouldn't be signed off without full and open consideration of the long-term impact on residents, services and public investment."It was previously revealed that if the demolition goes ahead residents would face the upheaval of being rehoused over a possible five-year period. However, the Labour-led local authority has promised tenants it will find new homes for them in in May, council leader Tracey Dixon said: "We will ensure right from the very beginning that the tenants will be given the homes of their choice."It's all about giving them priority."We know Durham Court is their family home, so we're here to support them and make sure they lead healthy and happy lives." Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Telegraph
06-04-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
David Lammy should keep on taking PJs
Amid the gloom of Trumpian tariffs, Birmingham rats and the ghastly news that a new Boujis nightclub is opening in Kensington, comes some proper cheer. David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, racked up a bill of £1.2 million for his private jet use (or PJs as regulars call them) between October and December last year. When you're as important as Mr Lammy has become, Zoom calls won't do and you must press the flesh – look your fellow foreign secretaries in the eye and bring with you the fulsome weight of an official entourage; attend a summit and get back to Blighty in time for tea with the King – then £14,000 a day is diplomatic peanuts. Indeed, Lammy's use of the PJ is exactly like that of his predecessors. Except that he and his Labour Cabinet colleagues spent their years in opposition sneering at the Conservatives' use of such means of travel. I have spent hours listening to, and indeed enjoying, Lammy spreading himself across the airwaves, especially on LBC, and, historically, the man could barely open his mouth without pontificating at the appalling waste, sleaze and largesse of Conservatives. But now, safely in power, in the globe-trotting role of his dreams, if he can pop to Kosovo to check out some small firearms, or nip to Delhi for a chinwag about UK visas for nurses, out will go the call: 'Is the PJ ready?' Angela Rayner snarled at Liz Truss's use of such means of flying, saying it showed 'exactly quite how little respect this Conservative government has for taxpayers' money'. A Labour spokesman said Rishi Sunak was 'out of touch' when he used private planes and helicopters to whizz around the UK during the 2024 general election. In October 2023, Rachel Reeves even promised a 'crackdown on Tory ministers' private jet habit', if and when they came to power. At a speech to Chatham House in January 2023, Lammy said his Labour government would be 'at the vanguard of climate action'. 'We will argue for the creation of a new law of ecocide to prosecute the widespread and intentional destruction of the planet,' he said. A year later, at the Fabian Society, he said, 'If I become foreign secretary, UK diplomats will work to build a Clean Power Alliance of developed and developing countries.' What he didn't say was that to drive forward these initiatives, he would need the use of a private jet; that mode of air transport which is significantly more environmentally damaging than a commercial flight, with far greater levels of carbon dioxide emissions per passenger. But then no one relishes the PJ life, the chauffeur-driven limo, the grand hotel suite, and the entourage of bag-carrying lackies more than a socialist. 'Don't mind if I do,' they sneer, grabbing the flute of champagne while, devoid of hubris or humour, directing their officials to put out a firm message to the horrid folk of the media. 'At a time of significant global upheaval, it is vital that the Foreign Secretary can travel abroad – often at very short notice – to defend and champion the UK's interests,' said a spokesman for the Foreign Office this week. Now, I am a passionate believer that our MPs, our nation's leaders, should be ferried in as comfortable and speedy a way as possible across the globe. A prime minister should be afforded nannies, cooks, nutritionists, personal trainers and whatever they need to help them focus on the job in hand, and we should pay our MPs vastly greater salaries and afford them generous expenses. But when the hypocrite comes home to roost, they deserve a roasting. So nothing cheers me more than to see Labour folk doing what they always do: swelling the public sector, raising taxes, busting the economy and, on that pathway to catastrophe, absolutely loving every comfort offered that they always swore they despised. It's the classic double-standard that lies, rotting, at the heart of their socialist ideology, reminding us to turf them out of office at the next available opportunity.
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This outrageous public sector pensions gamble is costing taxpayers dearly
The Equality Act has cost British taxpayers at least £19bn over one unintended age 'discrimination' that was once perpetrated by the Government. This is a woeful tale of mismanagement, misjudgement, self-serving behaviour and greed – all standing as a metaphor for the UK and where it has gone wrong in the first quarter of the 21st century. It started innocently enough when the then-prime minister David Cameron announced in 2010 that he was commissioning an enquiry into the value, design and suitability of public sector pensions. The former prime minister appointed Lord Hutton of Furness – a former Labour Cabinet minister – as commission chairman. It was initially thought that the commission would recommend a move from 'defined benefit' to 'defined contribution' pensions, a move that almost all large private sector business had undertaken in the preceding decade on cost grounds. But the commission, which issued its final report on March 10 2011, did not recommend the abolition of the defined benefit model. Instead, amongst the 27 recommendations, it recommended that the existing 'final salary' model of defined benefit pensions, which gives a retiring employee a proportion of his or her final salary dependent on the number of years worked, would be replaced by a 'career average' scheme. This meant the retiring employee would receive a pension based on the inflation-adjusted average earnings over their career, also dependent on the number of years worked. It sounds quite technical, but the overall effect is to somewhat worsen the pension of higher-paid, faster promoted staff, and somewhat improve the pensions of lower-paid, static status staff – in effect narrowing pension differentials. The Government accepted Hutton's recommendations, and implemented the changes, mostly in March 2015, depending on the scheme. As part of the negotiations with the public sector unions, it was agreed that the changes should be calculated to be 'cost neutral' to the Government. All this sounds like a modest change, but that's not how pension schemes work. With enormous expenditure of time and effort, new career average revalued earnings (Care) schemes were set up for all the main public sector schemes (of which there are around 200), and discussion ensued as to how long the legacy final salary schemes should survive – immediate closure, or some transitional delay. Departing from the Hutton recommendations, the Government made a seemingly reasonable attempt to mitigate the proposed changes (particularly negative changes) for those nearing retirement. So the Government offered employees within 10 years of retirement age, dated from 2012 (i.e. typically their last seven years of service), the opportunity not to change pension scheme. Another group, those between 10 and 13.5 years away from retirement, could stay in the old scheme for longer than the final group – those more than 13.5 years away from retirement – who would be moved immediately. These younger employees would be moved to the new pension schemes on March 31 2015 (2014 for local government pension schemes). Finally, everybody would be moved onto the new schemes by March 31 2022. Remember, in these new arrangements, there are winners and losers – most of the losers are the higher-paid. and vice versa. In 2015, a young member of the judiciary, Victoria McCloud, led a complaint initially to an Employment Tribunal that these provisions breached the Equality Act 2010 by discriminating against younger members on grounds of age. Judges near retirement could keep their old (and generally better) pensions – younger members could not. A similar case was also bought by a group of firefighters. After a very protracted set of legal wrangles and judgments, the Court of Appeal finally ruled in December 2018 that the Government had indeed breached the Equality Act. This judgment required the Government to provide a remedy for this breach. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court for permission to Appeal the Appeal Court Judgment, but this was denied. The Appeal Court judgment required the Employment Tribunal to determine the remedy which the Government would be obliged to make. In 2019, the Government essentially gave in, and accepted that the McCloud judgment, itself specific to the Judicial Pension Scheme, would be accepted across all public sector pension schemes. There then ensued a period of consultation and negotiation over exactly how the Government would remedy their Equality Act breach. It was already agreed that by March 31 2022, everyone (young and old) would be moved to the new career average scheme – hence there was a seven year period (2015-2022) when all employees would in theory have a choice as to whether to stay in the old scheme, or move to the new scheme. The consultation therefore focused on the question: 'How would you like to be able to choose which plan (old final salary or new career average) you will be a member of in these seven years?'. The financial mathematics of pension funds are quite complex, and in seven years quite a lot of new information can arise, including promotions, redundancies, inflation and interest rate changes. So if the recipients of the question are future pensioners, and are asked how they would like to decide, in logic they will say, 'I want, with the benefit of hindsight, to be in the most lucrative scheme for me personally'. So a consensus emerged, that, yes please, we would like to have our cake and eat it – i.e. as much money for each of us as possible. And since the party which asked the question – the Government – all members of whom, both civil service and elected, are ultimately members of schemes covered by the McCloud judgement – there was no-one involved who would be adversely affected by this consensus. Except, of course, the taxpayers, but they did not have a real voice in the consultation process. So the McCloud remedy is as follows: if you are public sector pensioner, when you retire you can decide which scheme actually turned out to be the best one for you in the seven years between 2015 and 2022, and choose that one. The pension schemes have helpfully agreed to do all the maths for you, so in effect they will say to each retiree at retirement, 'Here are two pensions, both available to you, would you like the higher one or the lower one?'. And this absurdity is estimated by the Government Actuary to cost taxpayers £19bn. Final irony – pensions, by their nature, discriminate on grounds of age. That's their whole raison d'être. Oh what monster has the Equality Act become? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
