This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn in PMQs - live news
PMQs: May refuses to back Johnson claim about no-deal fears being exaggerated - live news
(32 minutes later)
Corbyn says Labout put forward a motion to take no-deal off the table. The MD of Iceland says some food prices could go up by 20% under no-deal. Can May confirm the EU ruled out renegotiating the backstop.
Labour’s Marie Rimmer asks about a constituent with a Down’s Syndrome child. She says the tax rules for carers like her constituent are confusing.
May says everyone knows what the EU agreed. She says, on the key votes, Labour voted for a no-deal. Typical of Corbyn, she says - “all mouth and trousers”. (She means no trousers).
May says the government wants to provide more empowerment for women.
Corbyn says no-deal would disastrous. This government is an irrelevance, he says. He says the two Tory leadership candidates both have fantasy plans. He says the best option would be to “go back to the people” and let them decide what to do next.
Labour’s David Lammy asks about the Windrush review. It was due out in March. Will it be published before May leaves office.
May says, if you want to avoid no-deal, you must vote for a deal. She says many in the shadow cabinet do not support Brexit. Labour want to block Brexit. “And that would be a betrayal of the many by the few.”
May says it is up to Wendy Williams when she finishes the review. She says she thinks it has not yet been completed.
Corbyn says May could not even get her party to vote for her deal. He quotes other business concerns about a no-deal Brexit. So what can May say to workers at Ellesmere Port and elsewhere? He says May should speak to both of the candidates to succeed her and say that, as they trade insults, thousands of jobs are at risk.
Nigel Huddleston, a Conservative, asks May about tourism.
May says she would tell the Ellesmere Port workforce Tory MPs voted to protect their jobs. Labour voted against. The threat to them comes from Labour, she says.
May says the government is working with the tourist industry to encourage people to come to the UK.
Corbyn says Labour exists to protect jobs. What impact would no-deal have on food prices and farming?
Labour’s Steve Reed asks about a murder in his Croydon constituency. He says the government is not doing enough on knife crime.
May says Labour has voted three times for no-deal, putting jobs at risk. And it has voted against tax cuts. She says she will take no lectures from Labour on protecting jobs.
May says this case was shocking. But the government is taking action, and this requires a multi-faceted approach, she says.
Jeremy Corbyn offers his condolences to the families of the rail workers killed in the accident in Port Talbot.
Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, says May’s former school is planning to move to part-time education because of financial pressure. Does she agree schools need more?
He also congratulates Rose Hudson-Wilkin, who was a brilliant priest in Hackney before coming to the Commons, she says.
May says the government is already putting more money into schools.
He also congratulates the England women’s team, and pays tribute to Pride.
She says she has read in the Maidenhead Advertiser that he thinks she will stand down as an MP. She won’t. And the story even quoted Cable getting the name of her seat wrong. The Lib Dems are wrong on facts, wrong on everything, he says.
Corbyn asks if he agrees with Philip Hammond, who says a no-deal Brexit would cost £90b, or Boris Johnson, who says fears about no-deal are confected nonsense.
Labour’s Grahame Morris says the Treasury has taken funds from the surpluses in miners’ pension funds. Can the government review this so miners get their fair share?
May says the figure quoted by Hammond was in the public domain. She voted for a deal, she says.
May says one of the biggest hits on pension funds came from the last Labour government, when it took £100bn out of pension funds.
May refuses to back Boris Johnson’s claims about no-deal fears being exaggerated.
Jonathan Reynolds, the Labour MP, asks May if she agrees that bus subsidies should increase so people outside London can have as good a bus service as in the capital.
Corbyn says a cabinet note says no-deal would be very serious. He says Make UK has said politicians have made businesses complacent about no-deal. Are they right?
May says the government spends £250m a year on bus subsidies. She says the number of services on offer has gone up.
May says the opposition should have voted for a deal.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a Conservative, asks if May agrees that the Russian submarine accident shows the need for investment in submarines.
Hugo Swire, a Conservative, asks if May has a message for the people of Hong Kong.
May expresses condolences to the family and friends of those who died. She says the government is committed to its submarine programme.
May says people were marching peacefully in Hong Kong. It is vital that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is respected. She has raised this with Chinese leaders, she says.
Jack Brereton, a Conservative, asks about investment in Stoke.
Labour’s Neil Coyle asks about knife crime, and says government paralysis means this problem has not been tackled.
May says the government has put money into the high street fund, and bids are being considered.
May says the government has been acting on this. She says this is not just a policing issue. More powers have been given to police. But it is not just a matter of policing; it is about ensuring young people don’t carry knives.
Labour’s Hugh Gaffney asks if May agrees that all pensioners should continue to get free TV licences.
Theresa May starts by saying England’s Lionesses have inspired millions and made the nation proud.
May says people will wonder why the BBC is raising salaries while cutting free TV licences. It should think again.
She congratulated the Speaker’s chaplain, Rose Hudson-Wilkin, on becoming bishop of Dover.
As for May’s question, the FT’s Henry Mance had an answer on Twitter last night.
And she pays tribute to Pride.
As the article points out:*amount that would be raised by scrapping free TV licenses = £745m*extra pay for stars = £11m (1.5% of the above) pic.twitter.com/lXcFavVZw0
PMQs is due to start soon.
Nicky Morgan, a Conservative, asks about a constituent whose daughter killed herself after reading a book about taking pills from Amazon. Does May agree that Amazon has a duty not to sell books like this?
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
May says the government is working with tech companies to get them to take more responsibility for looking after their uses. Jackie Doyle-Price, the minister for suicide prevention, is aware of this issue, and will be writing to Amazon about it, she says.
There is increasing interest in the question of whether or not the Brexit party would cooperate with a Boris Johnson-led Conservative party in a general election (see 11.04am) because at Westminster the odds on an early election are getting shorter and shorter. Today the Economist Intelligence Unit has published a forecast confirming that. It says:
Our baseline scenario (60% probability) is that - in the face of a gridlocked parliament, and no meaningful concessions from the EU - Mr Johnson will call a snap election, arguing that a Conservative majority is needed to deliver Brexit (this requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority under the 2011 Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which we think would be forthcoming).
An alternative scenario (30% probability) is that the prime minister prevails in the struggle with parliament, which either fails to coalesce around legislation to prevent a no-deal Brexit before October 31st, or is unable to oust the prime minister though a vote of no confidence in time to prevent the UK’s departure. The latter could be approved by a simple majority, but would also trigger a two-week period to seek a new prime minister before an election is called. In such a no deal scenario, the UK and the EU would revert to WTO trade rules, causing severe short-term economic disruption.
A final scenario (10% probability) is that parliamentary gridlock and the deep divisions within both the Conservatives and Labour lead the prime minister to request, and to be granted, a third extension of the article 50 period for further negotiations. Such an outcome is only likely in the context of productive talks between Mr Johnson and the EU. Strong lobbying from those countries most exposed to a disorderly Brexit (Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium) could contribute to agreement on an extension, but this would also require a change in stance from Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, the German chancellor and French president.
(Personally, I think the EIU are overstating the chances of an election and understating the chances of no-deal, but the key point is that no one actually knows.)
The IPPR, a leftwing thinktank, has published a 40-page report today (pdf) on ending austerity. It calls for a shift towards an “investment state”, with significantly higher government spending on health, education and welfare, funded by higher taxes. This would lift the UK to European standards of provision, it says.
It says two shifts in policy are required.
People on middle incomes will have to feel that those on higher incomes are paying their fair share of taxation before they are willing to pay more themselves. We therefore call for increases in corporation, wealth and income tax on high earners – together raising as much as £57 billion in revenues per year – in the short run. This is crucial because to achieve the scale of revenue increases needed in the long term, the middle classes will ultimately have to pay more tax: an ‘investment state’ cannot be funded by taxes on the wealthy alone.
Everybody – including those on middle and higher incomes – will need to benefit from high quality public services in order to create a coalition in favour of the ‘investment state’. This will require a shift towards more universalist public services and welfare provision. We therefore call for the additional funding raised in the short term to be invested in universal childcare, social care and mental health provision – as well as reversing cuts to universal credit, adult education and public health. These priorities should be funded before more regressive universalist policies such as free tuition fees are considered.
This is very much in line with Labour party thinking and John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has welcomed the report. He said:
The failure of austerity on all counts is now widely accepted and it’s important that the IPPR is highlighting the deficits in health, care, skills and income security.
We need bold thinking about how to fund the things we all need.
It’s a depressing comment on the state of the Conservative party that instead of rebuilding our scarred public services and social security system they are fixated on 1980s-style swingeing tax cuts.
After PMQs we’ve got a statement today on the EU summit, the one where Theresa May played a backseat role as the EU selected candidates for its top jobs.
Two Statements today: 1) G20 Summit & Leadership of EU Institutions @theresa_may 2) Quarterly Counter-Daesh Update @RoryStewartUK
Nick Boles, who was a Conservative MP until he left to sit as an independent in protest at the party’s refusal to compromise over Brexit, says that Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are announcing policies, like the possible repeal of the sugar tax, that have no chance of getting through parliament.
I love reading about all the things that Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt is going to do when PM. Almost all of it would require a majority of MPs to vote for it. Scrap sugar tax - no chance. Cut income tax for top earners - dream on.
On the subject of how the Brexit party is evolving into something much more than a single-issue protest party (see 11.04am), this UnHerd article by Freddie Sayers about the Brexit party rally at the weekend is worth reading. Here’s an extract.
Farage’s offer is a hybrid of anti-corporate populism and Thatcherite appeal to small business owners. He is responding to a deeply held feeling across the country that London has benefited over recent decades as the regions have declined. And crucially it makes Boris Johnson, inextricably associated with London as its twice-elected Mayor, a highly vulnerable adversary.
Last month Nigel Farage, the Brexit party leader, suggested that he would be willing to form some sort of pact with a Conservative party led by Boris Johnson to deliver a hard Brexit, if parliament blocked no-deal. But, judging by what he told Sky’s All Out Politics this morning, he is going off the idea. Asked about his relations with Johnson, Farage said he did not trust the favourite in the Tory leadership contest because he did not know what Johnson really thought. He explained:
My difficulty with Boris Johnson is not liking him; my difficulty is I’ve no idea where he stands on a third runway [at Heathrow], I’ve no idea where he stands on HS2, I’ve no ideas where he stands really on sugar taxes. Immigration? This is a guy who just flips and flops, says what he thinks the audience wants to hear.
When it comes to Brexit, I heard him yesterday talking in Belfast saying that the Irish backstop was unacceptable. And yet he voted for it at the third time of asking.
So it’s very difficult to know just how sincere Boris is when he says he will take us out on 31 October. My feeling is they’re words to get elected and I’ll be very surprised if he delivers.
Farage said that Theresa May declared on more than 100 occasions that the UK would be leaving the EU on 31 March, and yet that did not happen. “I just don’t feel I can trust anything the Conservatives say at this moment in time,” he said.
Farage also said the Brexit party was not just interested in Brexit anyway. He said that the party was now about the “complete breakdown of trust that has occurred between the Westminster parties and Middle England” and that this would be a “real problem” for Johnson.
In its news release about the sin tax announcement (see 9.11am), the Boris Johnson campaign said that there was no academic consensus over whether “sin taxes” worked, and whether they were regressive (the two issues his review will consider). Different studies have come to different conclusions, the campaign said. Here, for reference, is what the Johnson campaign said in its briefing.
There are serious questions over whether sin taxes change behaviour
In the last ten years there have been a series of academic papers that have both argued for and against the proposition that ‘sin taxes’ change people’s behaviour. While there have been some studies, and overviews of academic literature, that have concluded that ‘sin taxes’ are effective (for example, Wright et al., BMC Public Health, 2017, link), there have also been a number of studies that have raised questions over their overall effectiveness. For example, for sugar, some research has suggested that the tax could increase alcohol consumption (Quirmbach et al., Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, link).
There are serious questions over whether sin taxes hit the poorest hardest
In the last ten years there have been a series of academic papers that have both argued for and against the proposition that ‘sin taxes’ are regressive and hit the poorest the most. While there have been some studies that have concluded that this is not the case (BMJ, link), other studies have concluded that these taxes are regressive. For example, some studies have claimed that a 20 percent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would take three times as much from lower-income households than from higher income households, as a percentage of disposable income (Sharma et al., the effects of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages across different income groups, Health Economics, link). In addition, recent studies have suggested that sugar taxes do not reduce socioeconomic inequalities in diet-related health (University of York, July 2018, link).
Labour claims that Boris Johnson’s policy on sugar taxes shows that his priority is representing wealthy supporters. This is from Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary.
This is extraordinary even by Boris Johnson’s standards. On the same day that Cancer Research UK is warning of the rising cancer threat of obesity, and with his own cheerleader Matt Hancock supporting a plan to strengthen the obesity strategy, Johnson wants to water down the plan to tackle it.
He has serious questions to answer about the role of corporate lobbyists for the soft drinks and tobacco industries in his campaign.
Boris Johnson has shown that his priority is representing the interests of his wealthy supporters, with no concern for the health and wellbeing of the general public.
On the Today programme this morning Penny Mordaunt, the defence secretary and women and equalities minister, said that the UK parliament would liberalise Northern Ireland’s strict abortion law if, as expected, a court rules it is incompatible with the Human Rights Act. She explained:
The reason why this hasn’t been dealt with to date is because it is a devolved matter and we take devolution seriously.
We are expecting a ruling shortly that what is going on in Northern Ireland is incompatible with an individual’s human rights.
In every single case where there has been a declaration of incompatibility with human rights the government has acted. This government has acted, previous governments have acted.
Parliament has been very vocal on this issue and if a government didn’t act parliament would and there would be clearly a free vote on that issue.
Mordaunt also indicated her strong personal preference for changing the law in Northern Ireland.
I think this needs to be resolved. I think the paucity of care that women have endured in Northern Ireland is the most appalling thing. It must change, that is my view.
At a Tory leadership election hustings in Belfast yesterday Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt both said it was primarily for Northern Ireland to decide if it wanted to liberalise its laws to allow abortion and same-sex marriage, in line with the rest of the UK, and that this was one reason they wanted the power-sharing executive restored.
The Times’ Matt Chorley says Boris Johnson used to favour sugar taxes.
This is the same Boris Johnson who as London Mayor introduced a sugar tax in City Hall, declaring: “I hope this initiative will allow us to raise awareness of the problem and encourage people to think about their diets.”https://t.co/Ae2DvsdSm8 2/7
This is the same Boris Johnson who said in 2015 that tackling obesity was "a matter of social justice". "Overwhelmingly people most affected by an obesity problem will be those on the lowest incomes. That’s why I’m thinking about sugar taxes."https://t.co/9oWB0g9I8B 3/7
Chorley also says that one of his Johnson’s advisers has been involved in lobbying against the sugar tax.
Will Walden, Johnson's key adviser and former director of comms at City Hall, is employed by Edelman and has advised Coca-Cola on lobbying against the sugar tax. (Team Johnson insist Walden was not involved in new policy) 4/7
Sky’s Sam Coates identifies another figure linked to the Johnson campaign who has a record of opposing sugar taxes.
Revealed: Sir Lynton Crosby’s business partner Mark Textor condemned sugar taxes in 2016 article. CTF running the Boris Johnson campaign https://t.co/Dz0jxTFHHH… pic.twitter.com/SoGQLyfsz8
Here is a better link to the article Coates is referring to.
In relation to these last two tweets, it is worth pointing out that establishing that ‘X favours policy Z, X advises/gets a job with/donates to politician Y, then Y implements policy Z’ may look unsavoury but normally isn’t. It is more often just a case of people in politics choosing to work for, or take advice from, people who share their views.
On the Today programme Camilla Cavendish, who used to be director at policy at Downing Street for David Cameron, said that she used to share Boris Johnson’s scepticism about “sin taxes” like the sugar levy but that she had changed her mind. She told the programme:
I think [Johnson] is wrong. I used to think we shouldn’t use government to influence people’s choices. But I changed my mind, really for three reasons.
First of all I became a parent and I saw how much junk manufacturers are pushing down our children’s throats.
But I also became concerned about obesity and type two diabetes, which is costing the NHS a lot of money and is really a miserable, miserable condition. And it’s the children who [on] the poorest incomes who are most affected by obesity, which is one of the main reasons we did introduce the sugar tax because we felt it was an issue of social justice in some ways. Boris is talking about not clobbering people on lower incomes. But that tax is one way to help people just drink better.
And the third reason I became convinced about all this is I read the research which shows that sugar is as addictive as nicotine. And that’s partly why so many of our public health programmes haven’t worked because we all find it really hard to give up.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson - and we will, at length - but the favourite in the Tory leadership contest clearly has some exceptional skills not shared by less mortals. For example, who else could make the Westminster commentariat feel sorry for Matt Hancock?
Hancock, the health secretary, did not get very far in the Tory leadership contest, but he campaigned with some energy and imagination and emerged with his reputation enhanced. Then he decided to endorse Johnson and, in an excruciating Today programme on Monday, devoted to explaining why he was going back on everything he said about Johnson earlier, any credit he had gained himself evaporated. And now it has got worse. As my colleague Heather Stewart explains, Johnson is trampling all over one of Hancock’s key policy initiatives.
Here is Heather’s story.
Boris Johnson vows to review whether sugar tax improves health
And this is how it starts.
Boris Johnson has announced a wide-ranging review of “sin stealth taxes” just days before his high-profile supporter Matt Hancock, the health secretary, is due to publish a green paper advocating extending the sugar tax to milkshakes.
The policy green paper called Advancing our Health – Prevention in the 2020s, has been circulating among cabinet ministers this week and is due to be published in the next few days.
A draft seen by the Guardian includes widely trailed plans to extend the sugar tax to “sugary milk drinks … if the evidence shows that industry has not made enough progress on reducing sugar”. It also announces a ban on the sale of energy drinks to under-16s, alongside a slew of other policies aimed at improving public health.
The government has been consulting on the proposals for months and Hancock’s junior minister, Seema Kennedy, had been expected to launch the green paper within days. However, in his latest headline-grabbing campaign pledge, Johnson said he would carry out a review of whether “stealth sin taxes” were successful in changing behaviour and whether they disproportionately affected poorer consumers.
Johnson is not yet committing to reverse the sugar tax introduced in 2016. The press release issued by his team last night says he is just committing to “a comprehensive review into the effectiveness of the ‘sin taxes’ - including products high in salt, fat or sugar - and to assess whether or not these taxes unfairly hit those on lower incomes”, and to promising not to extend these taxes until the review has been completed. But the press notice also says Johnson has already promised not to extend the sugar tax to sugary milk drinks (aka, the milkshake tax), and the Sun newspaper has this morning welcomed Johnson’s announcement as a victory for its Hands Off Our Grub anti sugar tax campaign, and so it is not hard to guess where this is all heading.
Overnight Steve Brine, who was public health minister until he resigned over Brexit earlier this year, has accused Johnson of ‘transparent dog whistle politics”.
As the Public Health Minister who oversaw the introduction of the sugary drinks levy, I totally despair at this. Transparent dog whistle politics dressed up as something thinking. It is the exact opposite. https://t.co/zYPdIEjAMq
I will post more reaction shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, gives evidence to the international trade committee.
10.30am: High court judges give their reasons for the decision not to allow Boris Johnson to be prosecuted for misconduct in public office over false claims in the EU referendum campaign.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
3.30pm: Peers debate a motion to create a joint committee of MPs and peers to consider the impact of a no-deal Brexit.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, although I will be focusing mostly on the Tory leadership contest. I plan to publish a summary at lunchtime and then another when I finish.
You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe roundup of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
