Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[sprunt]

with some MPs having to pay out large sums

For what?

 

[Gloster]

For what?

Redundancy payments to those staff they employ directly; payment of office rent, equipment hire, etc., until contracts are terminated; settling all outstanding bills incurred during and (in some cases) after their tenure. However, their actual pay ends on polling day if they are defeated: although they will get they money back eventually they are no longer getting any income and have to meet these costs out of savings in the meantime. For an MP who has loads of outside earnings, this isn’t a problem, but for MPs who have concentrated on their constituency and parliamentary duties and do not have massive savings, it is another matter. (Not my area of expertise, but I think I have got this near-enough right.)

 

[brad465]

Redundancy payments to those staff they employ directly; payment of office rent, equipment hire, etc., until contracts are terminated; settling all outstanding bills incurred during and (in some cases) after their tenure. However, their actual pay ends on polling day if they are defeated: although they will get they money back eventually they are no longer getting any income and have to meet these costs out of savings in the meantime. For an MP who has loads of outside earnings, this isn’t a problem, but for MPs who have concentrated on their constituency and parliamentary duties and do not have massive savings, it is another matter. (Not my area of expertise, but I think I have got this near-enough right.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it ends when Parliament is dissolved ahead of a General Election, and then if re-elected resumes accordingly?

 

[Gloster]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it ends when Parliament is dissolved ahead of a General Election, and then if re-elected resumes accordingly?

You may be right as I am not an expert, but my understanding is that their status as an MP, together with most of its privileges, formally ends with the dissolution of Parliament. However, their pay continues until polling day.

 

[Typhoon]

... However, their actual pay ends on polling day if they are defeated: although they will get they money back eventually they are no longer getting any income and have to meet these costs out of savings in the meantime.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it ends when Parliament is dissolved ahead of a General Election, and then if re-elected resumes accordingly?

According to the article from the Metro I quoted in #20009

Those MPs who lost their seats receive their salary up to and including polling day.

I suppose this is because there will still be constituency work to do, otherwise there with be a six week period where constituents have nowhere to turn.

Whether the Metro is a reliable source, I will leave this to others.


Quote from https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/13/much-will-paid-mps-lost-seats-11879931/

 

[jfollows]

Another thing I noticed the government has reversed on is a Boris-inspired plan to charge people for prescriptions up to the state pension age. John Major equalised the benefit for men and women to the then state pension age for women, 60, and it's been there since.

To be fair, there has been a "consultation" although this was primarily about whether or not to change the age to the state pension age immediately (66 I think) or to increase it gradually over the next six years.

I don't think a formal announcement has been made, but the decision has been trailed in a number of newspapers.

I think the decision to leave things alone has been made for two reasons:

1. The politics of imposing an extra cost of >£100 (potentially) on people during a period in which costs are rising rapidly anyway.
2. A much better reason, the argument that making the change would cost money seems to have been heard. Essentially enough 60-66 year old people would stop taking prescription medicine and end up in hospital as a result.

I'm just happy because it's one less thing to worry about. Having received free prescriptions for a year and a half now I'd be slightly annoyed to have to re-apply for a pre-payment certificate and pay >£100, but it's something I would have done.

This reminds me of the earlier abolition of free TV licenses which ended up costing the taxpayer more in the end, simply because there was an exemption for people in receipt of "pension credit" (I think) which resulted in many people who either didn't know about it or didn't claim it for other reasons applying for it in order to retain their free TV licenses. In the case of prescription charges I think sense has prevailed.

For example, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/end-free-nhs-prescriptions-scrapped-backlash-2213029:

Plan to end free NHS prescriptions for 60-65 year-olds scrapped after charity backlash

EXCLUSIVE

Campaigners argued the charges would be a ‘medicines tax’ and lead to the less well off failing to buy medicatio

By Paul Waugh

Chief Political Commentator

March 16, 2023 12:06 pm(Updated 3:45 pm)

Plans to end free NHS prescriptions for 60-65 year-olds in England have been scrapped by the Government following a wave of anger from charities and older people, i can reveal.

As recently as last week, ministers were defending the controversial proposal to lift the qualifying age for free prescriptions from 60 to 66 to bring it into line with the state pension age.

The plan, first proposed in 2021 by Boris Johnson’s government to save £6bn, sparked a huge backlash from charities who warned that older people with long-term conditions such as arthritis, Parkinson’s and bowel disease would be hit hard by the charges.

But following increasing worries among Tory MPs, ministers have now decided to scrap the proposal. A source in the Department for Health and Social Care told i: “We are not going ahead with this idea.”

In the next few weeks, the Department will go public on its decision and will reassure all over-60s that they will continue to get free NHS prescriptions in England.

The move is a victory for campaigners who have long argued that the proposal would amount to a “medicines tax” that would lead poorer people to simply stop buying their medication, causing higher costs to the NHS for treatment over time.

Conservative backbenchers have also feared that the idea was a needless hit to their “grey vote” at a time when the Government is already facing dire poll ratings.

Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting told i: “It is remarkable that the Conservatives were even considering hiking up a medicines tax on people approaching retirement, which would hit hardest those with long-term health conditions. What on earth were they thinking?”

Over-60s have not been charged for prescriptions since 1995, when John Major decided to allow men to share the same eligibility as women who were qualifying for a pension at 60.

Yet with the state retirement age now 66 for both sexes, Johnson’s government had intended to save money by aligning the system for pensions and prescriptions.

An e-petition opposing the idea attracted 45,000 signatures and there were a huge 117,000 responses to the public consultation that started in 2021.

The Department for Health and Social Care admitted earlier this year that those numbers “are testament to the strength of feeling within our community” over the planned reform.

Even the DHSC’s own “impact assessment” of the proposal stated: “Those on low incomes who don’t qualify for an exemption based on the receipt of income-related benefits or due to a medical condition may struggle to pay the full cost of prescriptions and therefore may miss or reduce some of their medicine dose, leading to adverse health effects.”

Fresh worries that the Department of Health would push ahead with the move were sparked last week when Health Minister Neil O’Brien told MPs large numbers of over-60s were now economically active or receiving a private pension “and therefore more able to meet the cost of their prescriptions”.

While stressing no decision had been made, O’Brien said the Government was “trying to balance the cost of living pressures with the need for increasing funding for the NHS”.

NHS prescriptions are free for all ages in Scotland and Wales, but they still apply in England. And after a freeze last year, the charges are set to go up this spring to a record high of nearly £10 each. From April, the charge will go up from £9.35 to £9.65 for each medicine or appliance dispensed.

More than 40 organisations and charities that make up the Prescription Charges Coalition have campaigned to exempt from fees people with long-term conditions such as motor neurone disease, Crohn’s disease and other chronic illnesses.

Tonia Antoniazzi, the Labour MP who led the recent debate on the e-petition, said: “‘I’m pleased that the government has listened to the concerns. It would have been grossly unfair to implement this change at any time, never mind during a cost-of-living crisis.

“There are still issues that need to be addressed surrounding prescription charges, such as the outdated exemptions list, and England remaining the only part of the UK without universal free prescriptions.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “The upper age exemption for prescriptions remains at 60 years old.

“We have taken steps to help people with the cost of NHS prescriptions. Almost 89 per cent of prescription items in England are already provided free of charge and pre-payment certificates can be used to cap costs at just over £2 a week for regular prescriptions.

“The consultation has concluded and its conclusions will be published in due course.”

The DHSC stresses that prescription pre-payment certificates (PPCs) offer value for money for those who have to pay for regular medication. An annual certificate costs £108.10 and can help deliver savings for those who need more than one prescription a month.

Patients with certain medical conditions can apply for a medical exemption certificatethat provides exemption from prescription charges, with pharmacies offering specialist advice.

The NHS Low Income Scheme also offers help with help costs for people on low incomes but who don’t receive qualifying benefits for free prescriptions.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Redundancy payments to those staff they employ directly; payment of office rent, equipment hire, etc., until contracts are terminated

Absolutely insane that we have this situation. MPs’ constituency staff perform non-party political work so should be employed by the government not the MP. That way there’s continuity if the MP changes which is in the best interests of constituents, redundancy payouts are avoided, and there’s less chance of MPs employing their families.

Similarly the constituency office should be provided by the state, probably via the local authority. Again, continuity and no opportunity for the MP to rent space at above market rates from someone they know

We also missed a massive opportunity after the 2012 Olympics - we should have taken about 600 rooms in the athletes’ village and told MPs there’s your London accommodation. Cheaper, and far easier to provide suitable security

 

[jon0844]

We also missed a massive opportunity after the 2012 Olympics - we should have taken about 600 rooms in the athletes’ village and told MPs there’s your London accommodation. Cheaper, and far easier to provide suitable security

There's a good chance that some MPs or their family already own some of the former Olympic Village flats and are renting them out for great profit!

 

[birchesgreen]

Absolutely insane that we have this situation. MPs’ constituency staff perform non-party political work so should be employed by the government not the MP. That way there’s continuity if the MP changes which is in the best interests of constituents, redundancy payouts are avoided, and there’s less chance of MPs employing their families.

Similarly the constituency office should be provided by the state, probably via the local authority. Again, continuity and no opportunity for the MP to rent space at above market rates from someone they know.

Yes probably something which was logical in the 1800s but needs adding to the long list of ways the state needs to be modernised.

 

[Gloster]

In something that might seem like a joke on the surface but has a worrying subtext, the grower who produces around 80% of the UK’s annual production of Coffey’s beloved turnips has stopped growing them and we will have to import, if we can. Just for good measure, the grower is in Coffey’s constituency and did this last September. An MP in touch with her grassroot(crop)s.

The subtext is that our level of self-sufficiency in food production is probably the lowest it has ever been. The problem is that the growers are on fixed contracts with the supermarkets, but costs have rocketed, which has caused many to pull out. The supermarkets reap the good publicity for keeping costs down, but are wrecking the farming sector, and if we want to import, well, it is a lot more complicated nowadays due to a certain vote. Meanwhile, the government seems to just be hoping that it will go away and they can keep on with their independent agricultural policies, not bounded by Europe, which seem to be skewed towards the large landowner rather than the productive farmer.

 

[simonw]

Absolutely insane that we have this situation. MPs’ constituency staff perform non-party political work so should be employed by the government not the MP. That way there’s continuity if the MP changes which is in the best interests of constituents, redundancy payouts are avoided, and there’s less chance of MPs employing their families.

Similarly the constituency office should be provided by the state, probably via the local authority. Again, continuity and no opportunity for the MP to rent space at above market rates from someone they know

We also missed a massive opportunity after the 2012 Olympics - we should have taken about 600 rooms in the athletes’ village and told MPs there’s your London accommodation. Cheaper, and far easier to provide suitable security

Constituency staff may do non-political work, but many of them will have taken on the job because they support the MP. They are hardly likely to want to stay on in the employ of someone they disagree with.

Why should the state provide constituency offices, esp as political parties may wish to maintain a presence even if the MP is not re-elected?

 

[brad465]

You couldn't make it up:

Thérèse Coffey’s ‘eat turnips’ message leaves bitter taste after UK’s biggest grower gives up

Environment secretary’s response to salad shortages suggests she was unaware vegetable farmer – in her constituency – was forced to quit due to costs

www.theguardian.com

Environment secretary’s response to salad shortages suggests she was unaware vegetable farmer – in her constituency – was forced to quit due to costs

It wasn’t a cunning plan, but Thérèse Coffey sparked more interest in turnips than anyone since Blackadder when she suggested that people might eat them instead of tomatoes.

The environment secretary’s response to salad shortages attracted more ridicule than Baldrick – even from Vladimir Putin, who suggested last week that sanctions against Russia had backfired on the west. Turnips are good but they’ll probably have to get them from us, he said.

Putin’s remarks had a thin veneer of truth. Although Coffey said people should “cherish” specialist British produce, she seemed unaware that Britain’s biggest turnip grower was in her constituency – and had stopped growing them months earlier.

AW Mortier, near Alderton in Suffolk, had a near monopoly on the few turnips available in supermarkets but gave up in September last year because of stores’ unwillingness to pay higher prices to make up for rising costs of energy and fertiliser.

“It just wasn’t worth them doing it,” said Andrew Thorogood, the managing director of S Thorogood and sons, a leading wholesaler that specialises in traditional English fruit and vegetables.

“They were tied into all the supermarkets, and being tied down terribly. The open-market price is much higher than the supermarkets are prepared to pay – that’s quite a normal thing these days.”

He said there were “two or three” other growers who served independent retailers and restaurants. “Most of our turnips now come from either these two or three growers or France. We import probably 70 or 80% of our product from France, and more and more from Spain and Portugal.”

Despite their bitter taste and punchline status, turnips had made a minor comeback in the last few years, Thorogood said. “They’re very useful in Asian cooking. It keeps its consistency.” But imports of mooli – a long, white radish – had been replacing turnips, he said.

 

[yorksrob]

It's a shame really.

If Rishi wasn't making my life worse by deliberately screwing up the railway, I could get behind some of his policies, such as better relations with Europe, childcare etc.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't think being selected as a GE candidate prevents him walking away if he gets a better offer from elsewhere - after all, this is Johnson we're talking about...

Absolutely, this is just a 'holding move' and has as much permanence as a Johnson relationship, whether with a person or the truth. In any case, our discredited voting system will doubtless militate against him losing the seat, with myriads of A.N. Others of various hues scooping up thousands of wasted votes between them. Who'll be the Martin Bell? Gary Lineker maybe?

 

[Gloster]

Something that would be so ridiculous as to be hilarious if it wasn’t so utterly appalling. Afghans who worked with the UK government or armed forces and are applying for relocation to Britain were told to get copies of their documentation in English approved by the Taliban. There really is nothing that can be said.

 

[nw1]

It's a shame really.

If Rishi wasn't making my life worse by deliberately screwing up the railway, I could get behind some of his policies, such as better relations with (continental) Europe, childcare etc.

Not sure you'll get that out of Sunak.

We need this particular iteration of the Tories to be out before we see any genuine progress there. While noted right-wingers like Braverman and Anderson are being promoted, then, to me, it's just the same old same old that we've endured since 2019.

 

[yorksrob]

Not sure you'll get that out of Sunak.

We need this particular iteration of the Tories to be out before we see any genuine progress there. While noted right-wingers like Braverman and Anderson are being promoted, then, to me, it's just the same old same old that we've endured since 2019.

Well, we seem to have moved on slightly since the Johnson era, put it that way.

 

[Gloster]

Well, we seem to have moved on slightly since the Johnson era, put it that way.

But it is only comparatively. We are now only banging our heads against the wall every ten seconds, rather than every eight with Johnson. A marvellous improvement. They have turned the heat on the flame under the frog down just one notch. Rejoice, rejoice!

 

[yorksrob]

But it is only comparatively. We are now only banging our heads against the wall every ten seconds, rather than every eight with Johnson. A marvellous improvement. They have turned the heat on the flame under the frog down just one notch. Rejoice, rejoice!

Well, it's fairly academic in my case as the state of the railway makes him "damaged goods" as far as I'm concerned.

 

[dosxuk]

Boris has published the substance for his defence against the claims he misled Parliament - https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/119498/default/ - apparently it was due yesterday, but the Committee wouldn't accept it until this morning due to the number of mistakes in it...

His defence seems to be going along a few separate tracks:

• That the committee is against him and have expanded their remit so they can get him on something
• That there is a number of people who are against him and are unreliable to give evidence
• That the guidance wasn't the rules, so it doesn't matter if the guidance isn't followed because they did follow the rules
• I was so busy that I didn't notice anything going on
• All my staff lied to me about what was happening
• We were so busy keeping the country running that things happened which may seem wrong to outsiders but were actually perfectly fine
• Photos showing me at a party prove I was following the rules, because otherwise the photo wouldn't have been taken

Should be an interesting session tomorrow when they sit down to discuss all this.

 

[jon0844]

Has Boris Johnson and Donald Trump ever been photographed together*? I'm starting to wonder if they're one and the same person.

* If so, it must be a Photoshop job.

 

[Gloster]

The committee requested that he submit the dossier last summer, but he has only just handed it in. He then immediately demanded that it be published and imputed dishonesty to the committee because it wasn’t. He seems to be adopting the methods of the Trump playbook: deny everything, claim it is a plot, make wild accusations of bias by everyone (even your own supporters, if necessary), rabble-rouse, get your supporters to try to intimidate anyone who might be against you (there are a number of reports of MP, including members of the committee, being threatened with deselection), lie, etc.

Personally, I think he will bluster and waffle so they don’t get anywhere when he meets the committee.

 

[jfollows]

The committee requested that he submit the dossier last summer, but he has only just handed it in. He then immediately demanded that it be published and imputed dishonesty to the committee because it wasn’t. He seems to be adopting the methods of the Trump playbook: deny everything, claim it is a plot, make wild accusations of bias by everyone (even your own supporters, if necessary), rabble-rouse, get your supporters to try to intimidate anyone who might be against you (there are a number of reports of MP, including members of the committee, being threatened with deselection), lie, etc.

Personally, I think he will bluster and waffle so they don’t get anywhere when he meets the committee.

The committee also said that the version submitted to it yesterday contained errors and typos and the corrected version, submitted at 8am today, is the one they then published.
Comments that Boris Johnson was consistently late submitting copy as a journalist followed.

 

[Gloster]

The committee also said that the version submitted to it yesterday contained errors and typos and the corrected version, submitted at 8am today, is the one they then published.
Comments that Boris Johnson was consistently late submitting copy as a journalist followed.

There is still no sign of him completing the book on Shakespeare that he was paid an advance of £88,000 (or more) for in 2015. Publication was due in 2016.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Parliamentary Standards committee consists of 4 Conservative, 2 Labour and 1 SNP but Boris is claiming in his defence that its partisan, lol.

 

[edwin_m]

Boris has published the substance for his defence against the claims he misled Parliament - https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/119498/default/ - apparently it was due yesterday, but the Committee wouldn't accept it until this morning due to the number of mistakes in it...

His defence seems to be going along a few separate tracks:

• That the committee is against him and have expanded their remit so they can get him on something
• That there is a number of people who are against him and are unreliable to give evidence
• That the guidance wasn't the rules, so it doesn't matter if the guidance isn't followed because they did follow the rules
• I was so busy that I didn't notice anything going on
• All my staff lied to me about what was happening
• We were so busy keeping the country running that things happened which may seem wrong to outsiders but were actually perfectly fine
• Photos showing me at a party prove I was following the rules, because otherwise the photo wouldn't have been taken

Should be an interesting session tomorrow when they sit down to discuss all this.

Perhaps he should have added:

• I was drunk at the time

 

[nw1]

The Parliamentary Standards committee consists of 4 Conservative, 2 Labour and 1 SNP but Boris is claiming in his defence that its partisan, lol.

It certainly is partisan. It's Tory partisan, and thus inherently biased towards favourable outcomes for Tories.

 

[JamesT]

It certainly is partisan. It's Tory partisan, and thus inherently biased towards favourable outcomes for Tories.

That makes the erroneous assumption that the Tory party are a happy family who will always vote for each other. I think there are easily enough examples in the recent past to show that's not that case.

 

[brad465]

It certainly is partisan. It's Tory partisan, and thus inherently biased towards favourable outcomes for Tories.

I can see a number of Tories wanting Johnson removed from Parliament just so he can stop undermining the party from within, thus would do whatever they can to get him suspended and recalled.

 

[edwin_m]

I can see a number of Tories wanting Johnson removed from Parliament just so he can stop undermining the party from within, thus would do whatever they can to get him suspended and recalled.

Which might include quite a few not unadjacent to Sunak. Apparently one reason this enquiry has taken so long is that the Johnson government stalled on providing any documents to it, and those that did arrive were so heavily redacted as to be pretty useless. Soon after Sunak took over, the enquiry got the evidence it needed.