Latest news with #PrimeMinister'sQuestions
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Prisoners who skip sentencing 'should lose visits'
Plans to stop prison visits for criminals who refuse to attend their sentencing hearing have been supported by the mother of a murdered nine-year-old girl. Cheryl Korbel, whose daughter Olivia Pratt-Korbel was fatally shot by Thomas Cashman in Dovecot, Liverpool, in August 2022, said: "If we want to see our loved ones, we have to visit a cemetery but they still have the right to see their family." Cashman refused to attend court to be sentenced in April 2023, prompting Olivia's family to campaign for a change in the law. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer praised Ms Korbel, saying her determination to bring about change would be "heard by the whole world". Olivia was fatally shot by Cashman when he chased a fellow drug dealer into her home on 22 August 2022. Olivia's Law is part of the Victims and Courts Bill which is progressing through Parliament. It would mean that criminals who refuse to attend sentencing, or disrupt hearings in England and Wales, could face an additional two years in prison as well as other sanctions, including missing out on family visits. Ms Korbel told BBC Radio Merseyside: "If we want to see our loved ones that aren't here anymore we have to go to a cemetery, but they still have the right to see their family. "If they are going to object to coming up (for sentencing) then that sanction should be put in place." The proposed legislation had its second reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Her MP Anneliese Midgley, who represents Knowsley, spoke in the debate. Her speech included the victim impact statement which Ms Korbel read at Cashman's sentencing hearing, despite him not being in court to hear it. Ms Korbel and her cousin Antonia Elverson were also present for Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, where Midgley asked the Starmer to commit Olivia's Law to the statue books "as soon as possible". Starmer welcomed Olivia's family to the House of Commons before adding: "I am always humbled by those with the courage to respond to appalling heartbreak by campaigning for change and I know the whole house will pay tribute to her extraordinary courage and resolve." He thanked Midgley for reading Ms Korbel's victim impact statement "because I know from talking to Cheryl how hard it was for her to make in the first place". The prime minister went on: "It took a huge amount of courage and grief, and she wanted to read that statement to the perpetrator as she should have been able to do, and I know how visceral the pain is to her of not being able to have done so." Starmer said: "Cowards who commit these heinous crimes should face the consequences of their actions and that's why we will force offenders to attend sentencing hearings." Midgley said she wanted to read the statement in full to ensure the words were forever recorded in Hansard, the Parliamentary record. "They were words she was denied saying to the murderer of her child in court, and spearheaded her campaign to get the law changed," said the Labour MP, adding that she hoped it would bring Ms Korbel "a sense of justice" that "she was denied". Ms Korbel said hearing her words read in Parliament had been "one of the hardest moments" of her campaign. Ms Elverson said: "It's so poignant because those words are going to go down in history. "They will be there for anyone to research and when we are gone for our family to look back on." She said it had been "really difficult" because "it did take us back" to the time of Cashman's trial. Midgley said there were provisions in the Bill which would mean that, as well as having their sentence extended, offenders who refused to attend sentencing hearings could face unlimited fines and lose privileges including family visits and social time. She said the Bill had received cross-party support from MPs. After more scrutiny, the draft law will return to the Commons for a third and final reading. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230. Olivia's mum backs sentencing refusal law change Olivia's murderer jailed for at least 42 years UK Parliament Prime Minister's Office
New Statesman
21-05-2025
- Business
- New Statesman
Britain's stubborn inflation is decades in the making
Photo by Jordan Pettitt -This morning's inflation figures contained a nasty surprise. The consumer price index (CPI) was 3.5 per cent higher than last year in April, above the consensus of 3.3 per cent predicted by economists and financial markets. Earlier this month the Bank of England predicted inflation would peak at 3.5 per cent in the third quarter of this year; that peak has arrived already. The biggest contributor to the jump was energy bills – gas prices rose 7.5 per cent – but the second-biggest rise was water bills, which rose 26.1 per cent, the steepest rise since privatisation. At Prime Minister's Questions this afternoon, Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch traded lines about whose fault the resurgence was, but the fact that water bills made such a significant contribution is a reminder that when your government makes a terrible decision, you pay for it repeatedly. The public is now paying for the decision to privatise England's water and sewage services in at least three different ways, through both monetary policy and fiscal policy. Firstly, there is the direct cost of higher water bills. The point of privatisation was to keep bills low, and this was one of the main duties of the regulator, Ofwat. However, other countries (such as the Netherlands and Poland) have achieved lower bills for water supply without privatisation. Those countries have also invested in their water infrastructure, while the UK hasn't, and the environmental fallout of this negligence is the reason bills are now rising so steeply here. But this is not the only way in which you pay for that decision because, as we have seen today, when you and everyone else is paying more for water, this contributes to higher inflation. The Bank of England has one tool to address this: interest rates. By raising its base rate, the Bank can increase the cost of your debts (or, for the more fortunate, the return on your savings) in order to force (or cajole) you into spending less on other things. So you pay a second time, through your mortgage, your car finance, or your credit card bill. The payments do not stop there, however, because the bad decision will also have a fiscal impact. It introduces new costs to the government – which may have to rescue a failing water company, or provide investment in infrastructure, or to otherwise compensate for the consequences of the decision. To pay for this, the government might raise taxes and take money from you directly. But even if it tries to avoid doing so, you will still pay, because inflation will remain higher and more volatile, and the value of government debt will be eroded. Because government debt is a significant component of your pension fund, this means the bill is once more handed to your future self, to pay for the third or possibly the fourth time. Where water bills are concerned, it seems pretty unlikely that a new and much more profitable type of water is going to be invented. There is not really a prospect that the profits of the water industry are going to rise to meet the need for investment, and its costs continue to steepen. (To take one example, Southern Water, which announced its annual results this morning, paid its CEO, Lawrence Gosden, £764,200 in 2023/24, a 78.7 per cent rise on the previous year's pay.) The largest provider, Thames Water, is currently the subject of 31 criminal investigations, which will also add to its costs. So, the money for investment will have to come from higher bills, higher interest rates or higher taxes, or possibly all three. Jagjit Chadha, professor of economics at Cambridge University, says the same principle applies to other areas of the economy, such as railways and roads, which, like water, interact with production and consumption across the economy. The poor management of public assets means that 'the supply side of the economy is restricted', he told me, 'and that means every time a shock comes along, we end up with more persistent and elevated inflation than would otherwise be the case'. The cost-push inflation we see in water bills today is 'a signal of poor economic management since we went headlong into privatisation without appropriate regulations in place, which left us open to these risks that are ultimately borne by the household'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The current consensus is that inflation is not on the rise again as it was in 2022 – this month's monetary policy report predicts that having peaked in the autumn it will 'fall back thereafter', which sounds relaxing. A less optimistic model, released this week by the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, suggests it will continue to rise, reaching 5.3 per cent in March 2026. The prospect of trade war (and actual war) make the outlook even more uncertain; an economy with a constrained supply side cannot respond easily to such shocks. Labour's answer is that we will be rescued from this predicament by economic growth, which Chadha agrees would be great – if it appears. 'You can't conjure it up. It's a get-out-of-jail card, but it's not one you can buy, like in Monopoly. You can wait for it, but you can't bank on it.' [See also: No one understands Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules] Related
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fact check: The unemployment rate has risen from 4.2% to 4.5% since the election
A disagreement broke out between leader of the Opposition Kemi Badenoch and Labour MP Jake Richards at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) on May 14. When quizzing the Prime Minister, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Yesterday we learnt that unemployment is up 10% since the election.' After PMQs had ended, Mr Richards said in reference to Mrs Badenoch's statement: 'That figure is completely and utterly incorrect.' The number of unemployed people in the UK has risen from about 1.47 million in the three-month period before the election to 1.61 million in the latest three-month period. That is a rise of almost exactly 10%. However in the same period, the number of people who are employed has risen by about 14.5%. In addition to this, the most commonly cited figure which people use when discussing unemployment is the unemployment rate, which has risen from about 4.2% to 4.5%. There are two main ways of measuring unemployment in the UK. The most often cited figure is that for the unemployment rate, which is compiled by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed people by the combined number of people over the age of 16 who are employed and unemployed. The unemployment rate was just under 4.20% in the three months to the end of June 2024 – the last measurement before the general election. It has since risen to a little over 4.53% in the three months to March 2025 – the latest period for which data is available. That is a rise of about 0.33 percentage points. When measuring differences between two different percentages, best practice is to use percentage points, rather than the percent change between the two figures. However the change between the two unemployment rates if measured in percentages rather than percentage points would be 8.06%. Therefore, if Mrs Badenoch was referring to the unemployment rate, the 10% claim would have been inaccurate. However, it is also possible to look at changes in the total number of people who are unemployed in the country. The ONS data shows that the estimated number of unemployed people rose from 1,466,819 in the three months to June 2024 to 1,613,800 in the three months to March 2025. That change is a rise of almost exactly 10% – 10.02% to be more precise. Using this figure Mrs Badenoch's claim was accurate. It is however important to note that while the number of people who are unemployed has gone up, the number of people who are employed has also risen in the same period. Between the three months to June 2024 and the three months to March 2025 the number of people in employment has risen from 33,489,184 to 33,975,463 – an increase of almost half a million, or 14.5%. When contacted by the PA news agency, Mr Richards said: 'The only useful metric is about unemployment relative to employment.' To be counted as unemployed, a person must be 'without a job, have been actively seeking work in the past four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks' or 'out of work, have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks'. UK Parliament – Hansard, Wednesday 14 May 2025 (archived) ONS – A guide to labour market statistics (archived) ONS – Summary of labour market statistics (archived page and spreadsheet, see tab 1 columns D, E and H for the data used in this article)
ITV News
07-05-2025
- Business
- ITV News
'Bring back the winter fuel payment': Starmer faces pressure to u-turn on winter fuel cut at PMQs
Sir Keir Starmer faced calls to reverse the controversial cut in winter fuel payments at Prime Minister's Questions, as pressure on the government mounts to change course after the local elections. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged the prime minister to "admit he was wrong to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners". "His mayor in Doncaster says it's wrong, his first minister in Wales says it's wrong, even his own MPs say it's wrong... Will he at least listen to his own party and change course?" Badenoch asked in the first PMQs since the local elections. Starmer insisted he was putting the public finances "back in order, after the last government lost control". A group of Starmer's own MPs from the 'Red Wall' have called on the government to act, writing in a letter that: 'Responding to the issues raised by our constituents, including on winter fuel, isn't weak, it takes us to a position of strength'. The group called on the government to 'break away from Treasury orthodoxy otherwise we will never get the investment we desperately need.' Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey told the Commons: "Among the messages voters sent ministers last week, one stood out - bring back the winter fuel payment for millions of struggling pensioners." Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told ITV's Good Morning Britain that 'you can't do everything at the same time', and ministers "want to go faster" in implementing changes. Downing Street insist "there will not be a change to the government's policy" on winter fuel, despite ministers accepting the issue hurt the party in the local elections. The government insists there are other ways they're supporting pensioners, pointing to an expected £1,900 increase in the state pension over the course of the Parliament and an extension to the household support fund. Reports suggested changes were being considered to restore the winter fuel payments to some who lost the handouts worth up to £300. Cabinet minister Wes Streeting admitted to ITV News the policy was a "big issue" at the ballot box last week but said there was no formal review taking place. Wales' First Minister Baroness Eluned Morgan on Tuesday became the latest senior Labour figure to call for a government u-turn, saying "it's something that comes up time and again". Her call followed that of newly re-elected Labour Mayor of Doncaster Ros Jones, who said it was "wrong" to cut winter fuel, and called on the government to listen to the public. Former Transport Secretary Louise Haigh also said the loss of winter fuel payments along with welfare cuts were "totemic" for many voters, calling on Starmer to consider a wealth tax. She told the BBC: 'We just cannot continue down this path that means... we keep coming and raiding those people that can least afford it.' The decision last July to restrict the winter fuel payment to the poorest pensioners was intended to save around £1.5 billion a year, with more than nine million people who would have previously been eligible losing out.
Sky News
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Reform pledges to ban all flags except Union Jack, St George's Cross and county flags on public buildings
A row has erupted after Reform UK pledged to ban local authorities from flying any flags aside from the Union Jack or the St George's Cross in councils they control. In last week's local elections, Reform UK gained control of 10 councils, two mayoralties and won more than 500 council seats. And after saying last week they want to end all diversity and equality hire roles, another policy was announced this morning by party chairman Zia Yusuf. He said on social media that Reform-controlled councils will move "at speed" to ensure the only flag that will be flown on public authority buildings "will be the Union Jack and the St George's flag". He added: "No other flags will be permitted to be flown on flag-poles, balconies, reception desks or council-chamber walls." The announcement quickly drew criticism from across the political divide - including from Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Labour MPs, including Dover and Deal's Mike Tapp, said this would stop councils flying the Ukrainian flag. Mr Tapp said: "Reform are to ban the flying of Ukrainian flags from public buildings. A gesture of solidarity we see across the whole country." He then branded the party: "Putin's puppets." This is an attack line often used by the prime minister in Prime Minister's Questions, with Sir Keir Starmer accusing Nigel Farage of "fawning" over the Russian leader. During last year's election campaign, the Reform leader reiterated his belief that the West and NATO had "provoked" Russia's invasion of Ukraine - though said it was "of course" Vladimir Putin's "fault". In 2014, he said Mr Putin was the statesman he most admired. 1:50 Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, proceeded to mock Mr Tapp on social media, replying with a series of water drop emojis and saying "drip, drip, drip" - adding: "Oh, it's the Tapp again". However, the loudest criticism came from the Conservative ranks. Councillors and MPs attacked Reform's policy for potentially stopping regional flags like that of Kent or Yorkshire from being flown. A Reform spokesperson said: "Reform UK will proudly fly the Union Jack, St George's Flag and County flags. Unlike the Tories and Labour, we are proud of our country and history." It is understood that flags with "national heritage" will also be allowed. Among those criticising Reform was former Tory leadership hopeful Tom Tugendhat, whose constituency is in Kent. He said: "The White Horse has been the symbol of Kent for almost two thousand years. "The first king of Kent, Hengest, is said to have used the flag as he and his brother, Horsa, conquered their new kingdom. "Denying our flag is denying our history." Dr Luke Evans, the Conservative MP for Hinckley and Bosworth, asked on social media if Reform would allow the Leicestershire county flag to fly. Similar comments were made by Tory councillors on social media, as well as some Liberal Democrats. The war of words comes after the Conservatives and Labour both suffered heavily at the hands of Reform in last week's local elections, as well as the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. As well as flags belonging to other countries, the measure will also prevent councils controlled by Reform from flying flags associated with movements, causes or anything else - for example the Pride flag. A Reform source said: "The Tories seem more upset about Reform councils flying the union flag than their councils flying the trans flag. It sums up the state of the Tory party, the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history, the better."
