Afternoon summary
- The government’s EU (withdrawal agreement) bill has now cleared parliament. MPs voted this afternoon to remove the five amendments to the bill made when it was in the House of Lords, and peers have just voted to accept these changes. They did not try for a second time to insist on any of their amendments, mindful that the government won every vote with a large majority. This is the legislation that will implement the withdrawal agreement negotiated by the UK and the EU. Theresa May’s failure to get this deal through parliament led to her resignation, and Boris Johnson was only able to get it onto the statute book after performing a significant U-turn on Ireland (effectively, he has now accepted a customs border down the Irish Sea) and fighting a general election. The bill will get royal assent before the end of the week, paving the way for the UK to leave the EU next Friday, after nearly half a century of membership.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Peers have now voted to accept the Commons’ changes to the bill.
That means that the bill has cleared parliament. It will get royal assent, and become law, very soon.
In the House of Lords peers are currently debating the EU (withdrawal agreement) bill again, and the government’s decision to reject all five amendments to the bill passed when it was in the Lords. Peers are expressing disappointment about the government’s decision, and particularly its refusal to accept the Dubs amendment offering a safeguard for unaccompanied child refugees, but they are not planning to pass new amendments to try to get the government to think again.
Earlier Lord Dubs posted this on Twitter.
It is bitterly disappointing that after a victory in the Lords the government have voted down my amendment in the Commons. What could be more humane than asking that unaccompanied child refugees stranded in Europe be able to join relatives in this country? https://t.co/XiwoY0FIiz
— Alf Dubs (@AlfDubs) January 22, 2020
Why Johnson's claim about his proposed tax cut disproportionately benefiting the poor was false
In his “People’s PMQs” on Facebook Boris Johnson falsely claimed that the proposed cut in national insurance contributions would disproportionately benefit people on lower incomes. He said:
One of the things we’re doing that has already been announced is we’re cutting national insurance contributions for everybody, so that will disproportionately benefit, of course, people on lower incomes. And that’s the way we should do it. Where you have the ability to cut taxes, I want to do it to help working people on lower incomes.
This is not true. This is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in an analysis it published during the election campaign covering the proposed Tory national insurance cut. It said (bold type added by me):
The Conservatives propose to raise the point at which employees and the self-employed pay NICs to £9,500 in 2020–21. This compares to the currently planned level of £8,788. The reform would cost a little over £2 billion a year and would mean that, at any point in time, around 430,000 fewer people would pay NICs, and those still paying it would be paying £85 per year less. (Liability would be £104 lower than this year, as highlighted in some of the Conservatives’ pronouncements, but £19 of that reduction would have happened anyway because of the normal uprating of the threshold with inflation.)
16 million households would gain by £120 a year on average, since many households have more than one earner.
Cutting NICs is about as well targeted as a direct tax cut can be on low earners. On the other hand the biggest average gains still go to the middle and upper-middle of the household income distribution. Only 8% of the giveaway goes to the lowest-income fifth of working households. That number would be 64% if the same money were allocated to increasing work allowances in universal credit – though that would come at the cost of bringing many more families into means-testing.
And here is the IFS chart showing the distributional impact of Johnson’s tax plan.
Long-Bailey discovers her own version of Blair's 'Mondeo man'
Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour leadership candidate, has given a lengthy interview to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg. Long-Bailey is seen as the Corbynite candidate in the contest (although she is trying to play down the idea that she would be continuity Corbyn - see 11.02am), but she has also talked about aspiration and at one point she ended up sounding uncannily like Tony Blair.
It came when she was talking about why she thought Labour should have done more at the election to tell people that it wanted to help them improve their lives. She said:
One example that I’ll give of how I was crushed in the election campaign was one of my constituents was on a driveway and we were having a chat about whether she was going to vote Labour - her and her husband - and they worked hard, they bought their own home.
And they wanted to have that recognised and they felt that we were a party that was giving handouts and not helping people like them.
And I tried to explain, because I was crushed at that point, because I thought we are the party that’s for you, we’re there to pick you up if you fall on hard times and you lose your job. We want you to do well, we want you to work hard and get paid well and have a decent life, be able to buy your own home, if that’s what you want, be able to go on holiday, and for your children to be given the best possible education so that they can climb whatever ladder they want to, and reach their aspirational goals.
But they didn’t believe we were doing that, despite that being the fundamental principles that drives every single one of us as Labour party members.
Does that sound familiar? In 1996, in his last speech to Labour conference before the election that made him prime minister, Blair said:
I can vividly recall the exact moment that I knew the last election was lost. I was canvassing in the Midlands on an ordinary suburban estate. I met a man polishing his Ford Sierra, self-employed electrician, Dad always voted Labour. He used to vote Labour, he said, but he bought his own home, he had set up his own business, he was doing quite nicely, so he said I’ve become a Tory. He was not rich but he was doing better than he did, and as far as he was concerned, being better off meant being Tory too.
In that moment the basis of our failure - the reason why a whole generation has grown up under the Tories - became plain to me. You see, people judge us on their instincts about what they believe our instincts to be. And that man polishing his car was clear: his instincts were to get on in life, and he thought our instincts were to stop him. But that was never our history or our purpose.
Even though Blair did not use the phrase, that 1992 voter became known as “Mondeo man” and finding a message, and polices, that appealed to Mondeo man became key to New Labour’s success. It sounds as if Long-Bailey has met him too.
Here is this week’s Guardian Politics Weekly podcast. My colleague Rowena Mason is joined by Katy Balls, Stewart Wood and Lisa O’Carroll to discuss the latest on the prime minister’s Brexit withdrawal bill, and Jess Phillips’s decision to drop out of the Labour leadership race. Plus Larry Elliott rings in from Davos, and Kate Proctor sits down with Gina Miller.
Q: Do you prefer tea or coffee?
Johnson says he is drinking tea. But he has nothing against coffee.
Q: Will five year be enough?
Johnson says he wants to crack on.
He says he has to go now to a meeting.
But he will do this again next week, he says.
And that’s it.
Q: What will you do to fix potholes?
Johnson says the government is spending £2nb on potholes.
Q: How will you keep police on the streets?
Johnson says he wants to keep police numbers on the streets high.
Johnson says he wants to improve mental health services.
Q: Why won’t you give the NHS the funding it needs?
Johnson says he is giving record sums to the NHS. It is getting the biggest ever cash boost it has had.
(That is misleading. In real terms, the NHS spending increase is only the biggest since the mid-200s.)
And he is building 40 new hospitals, and upgrading another 20, he says.
Q: Do you support lower tax for working people?
Yes, says Johnson. He says he will cut national insurance for everybody. He says that will disproportionately cut tax for people on lower incomes.
(That is not true. Average and higher earners gain the most. I will post the data later.)
Q: Will the next budget cut VAT on tampons?
Johnson says he cannot say what will be in the budget. But he appreciates the importance of keeping period products low. He says an MP asked about this in the Commons today. When the UK leaves the EU, it will be able to cut VAT on tampons. That is one of the advantages of Brexit, he says.
Q: Can you commit fully to the union?
Yes, says Johnson. He says he commits to it 1,000%. He says when he criticises the SNP, he is not criticising Scotland. He says Scottish education is legendary. It produced Michael Gove, he says. It is a fantastic system. But recently Scotland has been slipping down the Pisa rankings, he says. The SNP should focus on the priorities of the people of Scotland.
He says the SNP have got no really clear idea of how breaking up the union would work.
(Some might say that criticism could be applied to other breaking up long-standing political unions.)
He says people were told that the 2014 referendum was a once in a generation event. He says five years does not constitute a generation. Nor does 10 years, he says.
Q: What shampoo do you use?
Johnson says he does not know. But it is blue. And it comes in a plastic tube.
Johnson is reading out his own questions.
Q: Will we take back control of fishing?
Yes, says Johnson. He says the UK will not trade away its fishing rights.
Johnson says he does not accept that he won’t be able to get a good trade deal from the EU.
Boris Johnson’s ‘People’s PMQs’
Boris Johnson is now hosting his People’s PMQs on Facebook from Downing Street.
LIVE: I'm answering your questions from Downing Street https://t.co/WoBwpJgjiV
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) January 22, 2020
Here is a question from below the line (BTL) prompted by MPs rejecting the Lords amendment to the Brexit bill saying EU nationals staying in the UK should be given a physical document proving their right to residence.
I’ve asked my colleague Lisa O’Carroll, who knows more about this than I do, and she has sent me this.
EU member states have not yet said how they are going to deal with British citizens who want to remain after Brexit. Under the legally binding withdrawal agreement they will be entitled to stay but some issues are outstanding, such as freedom of movement.
British in Europe only yesterday told me they still don’t know which countries favour a “declaratory” system and which favour a “constitutive” system, like the UK’s. (This briefing [pdf] explains the difference.)
But it may be worth pointing out that the majority of EU countries already require non-nationals to register in some way.
And in some countries like France citizens, including French ones, have to carry ID on their person at all times.
The problem facing the government in relation to EU citizens arises because there was no registration system in the first place, partly because of concerns over ID cards and civil liberties.
These are from the BBC’s economics editor, Faisal Islam.
Just interviewed the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen here in Davos, 1st UK TV
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) January 22, 2020
- Govt “has to choose” whether it wants “good access to the single market” in next few weeks so that both sides can find “what the room for negotiation is”. “We’ll see” on end 2020 pic.twitter.com/NnQ8sW3xBz
EU’s VDL also responded positively to UK Chancellor Sajid Javid saying that the EU trade deal was the priority ahead of a US one: “It’s good that they assign a lot of resources to these negotiations”.
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) January 22, 2020
VDL also said that the UK should not feel it has to choose between trade links with the USA and the EU. “it’s in our common interest for all three of us the UK, EU and US that we will work as close as possible together... both can go in parallel”.
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) January 22, 2020
In the Times today (paywall) Steven Swinford says Boris Johnson is going to scrap the £30,000 minimum salary threshold for migrants coming to the UK after Brexit. He says:
Under Mr Johnson’s plan migrants’ earnings will be taken into account as part of their application to enter the UK. Other criteria could include English proficiency, educational qualifications, occupation and willingness to work in particular areas of Britain.
While the prime minister is understood to have the support of his cabinet, ditching the £30,000 criteria will still be controversial in the Tory party.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Eurosceptic MP and former Conservative leader, warned that it could make it more difficult for the prime minister to fulfil his pledge to cut migration. He said: “They should be cautious about ditching the £30,000 threshold. They will need to have very strong checks in place to ensure that they deliver on their pledge to control immigration.”
Responding to the story, which has not been denied by Downing Street, the SNP’s immigration spokesperson in the Commons, Stuart McDonald, said:
This climb down by the Tories, while welcome, is little more than a distraction - Boris Johnson’s one-size-fits-no-one approach to immigration not only poses a very real threat to Scotland’s businesses and economy by ending freedom of movement but puts the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of EU citizens in jeopardy.
The £30,000 salary threshold was just one of a million problems with the previous Tory immigration bill. Their next bill is certain to create an immigration system based on crushing bureaucracy and dreadful expense and leave key sectors, such as health, agriculture and tourism, unable to access the workers they need.
From my colleague Josh Halliday
We interviewed 33 Labour leaders in 'red wall' seats and they overwhelmingly backed Sir Keir Starmer or Lisa Nandy for leader. They're almost unanimously anti-RLB. Full story: https://t.co/etTkIlVIH7
— Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) January 22, 2020
Lisa Nandy has posted a copy of her welfare speech from this morning on Medium.
Under my leadership, Labour will not seek to simply meet the aspirations of 80 years ago but to recover the ambition of the Beveridge era for today. https://t.co/VhSpT4VsvL
— Lisa Nandy (@lisanandy) January 22, 2020
The veteran BBC journalist John Ware has launched legal action against the Labour party over his controversial Panorama investigation into allegations of antisemitism last year, my colleague Lisa O’Carroll reports.
The chief executive of the Civil Service, Sir John Manzoni, is to step down “at some point” this year, the Cabinet Office has said. As the Press Office reports, a spokesman said that the departure of Manzoni, who is also the permanent secretary at the Cabinet, had been planned for “some time”. Manzoni’s five-year tenure in the post had been due to end in October last year, although such senior appointments can be extended for a short period.
When the EU (withdrawal agreement) bill returns to the Lords this afternoon, peers are not expected to insist on any of their amendments (ie, to vote to put them back into the bill). They are expected to accept the bill as it is, meaning it should be able to become law very soon. Sometimes the Lords does sent a bill back to the Commons again with an anti-government amendment included, but after a round or two of “ping pong” it almost always backs down, letting the elected house have its way. On this bill the pressure to give in is particularly acute because Boris Johnson has just won a near-landslide on a manifesto committing him to passing this bill.
The fifth and final Lords amendment to the Brexit bill has been defeated by the government by 349 votes to 246 - a majority of 103.
MPs have voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill by 349 votes to 246. This relates to clause 38 on the Sewel Convention.
— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) January 22, 2020
Read the list of the Lords Amendments here: https://t.co/hch3OAluqR
The bill will now returns to the Lords where peers can either accept the bill as it is, or else try again to insert some or all of their amendments.
The Home Office has announced police funding for 2020 to 2021 in England. It says funding “will increase by more than £1.1bn, totalling £15.2bn, if police and crime commissioners (PCCs) take full advantage of flexibility to set the police precept”.
MPs reject Dubs amendment to Brexit bill by majority of 88
We have just has the result of the fourth Commons vote. MPs rejected the Dubs amendment which put the government under a duty to negotiate with the EU for unaccompanied child migrant refugees to be admitted to the UK by 342 votes to 254 - a majority of 88.
MPs have voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill by 342 votes to 254. This relates to Clause 37 on unaccompanied child refugees being allowed to join their families in the UK after Brexit.
— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) January 22, 2020
Read more here: https://t.co/hch3OAluqR
Earlier, in the third vote, MPs rejected Lords amendment three by a majority of 103.
MPs voted to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill by 350 votes to 247. This relates to powers of ministers to decide when to use or set aside judgements by the ECJ.
— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) January 22, 2020
Read a list of the Lords Amendments: https://t.co/hch3OAluqR
Updated
The government won the second vote on reversing a Lords amendment to the EU (withdrawal agreement) bill by 348 votes to 246 - a majority of 102. This was an amendment about the ability of the British courts to depart from European Court of Justice judgments.
They are voting on the third Lords amendment now.
Updated
Jess Phillips, who withdrew from the Labour leadership contest yesterday, has said she is backing Ian Murray for deputy leader. In a statement she said:
Labour must be a party for every region and nation of the UK, standing up for our values of solidarity and working together, and Ian is the candidate who best understands that.
Ian has put forward a positive vision not only for our party, but also for the country. He recognises that we can’t just talk to ourselves - we must listen to voters in seats we held, seats we lost and seats we have never held.
People didn’t trust Labour in the last election because they weren’t sure where we stood on the big issues of the day, and Ian is right that this can never happen again.
Phillips is also backing Lisa Nandy for leader. See 10.47am.
The government has won the vote by 338 votes to 252 - a majority of 86. Lords amendment 1, on citizens’ rights, has been taken out.
MPs are now voting to reverse the next Lords amendment.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has told ITV Border that she still intends to hold a referendum on independence this year.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says she still 'intends' to hold a second independence referendum in 2020.@NicolaSturgeon tells @petermacmahon 'it's what I fought the general election on. It's what I won the general election on'#indyref2 #indyref2020 pic.twitter.com/8r4HMkml2m
— Representing Border (@ITVBorderRB) January 22, 2020
Sturgeon intends to set out more details of her plans next week. Boris Johnson has said he will not give the Scottish government the permission it needs to hold a referendum that would be legally valid. One option would be to hold a referendum anyway, despite it not having any legislative standing, but in the past Sturgeon has dismissed this as an option.
MPs are now voting on the first Lords amendment to the EU (withdrawal agreement) bill.
Just before the debate ended the SNP’s Phillipa Whitford challenged a point made by Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, earlier. Barclay said EU nationals living in the UK after Brexit could always print out the Home Office email saying they had settled status. (One of the Lords amendments said they should be given a physical document proving they have the right to be in the country.) But Whitford told MPs that the email specifically says it is not proof of someone’s status.
These are from my colleague Lisa O’Carroll.
THIS
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) January 22, 2020
Government taken to task after Stephen Barclay says EU citizens can print out email from Home Office to evidence their status.
Philipa Whitford SNP Brexit spox tells House the email explicitly says "This email is not proof of status"
Stephen Barclay's claim that EU citizens can print out document challenged by EU citizens as well as SNP's Phillipa Whitford.
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) January 22, 2020
Document here shows in bold. "This letter is not proof of your status". https://t.co/aPEhTY1Hlu
According to ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston, senior figures in Downing Street are strongly opposed to the former Labour cabinet minister James Purnell, who is now head of radio and education at the BBC, or anyone like him becoming the corporation’s next director general. In a blog Peston says:
According to a well placed Downing Street source, if the BBC’s board and [BBC chairman David] Clementi “try to put someone like Purnell in [as DG], we will put in a chairman whose first job is to fire him...The likes of Purnell [would be] ‘dead on arrival’”.
This is a reference to the former Labour minister, James Purnell, who is the BBC’s director of radio. It is not clear yet whether Purnell is a candidate to succeed Hall.
And what is more, [Dominic] Cummings and his colleagues are actively searching for possible director general candidates they regard as sympathetic to their aims for the corporation.
It is not unusual for governments, or anyone else in politics, to brief on an unattributable basis, but since Boris Johnson became PM there has been an increase in the number of unattributable briefings coming out of No 10, often involving threats to Johnson’s opponents. Quite often what is being threatened never actually happens. For example, we were told that Johnson would do anything to avoid having to request a Brexit extension from the EU in the autumn, but in the end he meekly complied with the legislation saying he had to.
That might mean that the threat was bogus in the first place. Or it might meant senior source making the threat subsequently got over-ruled by Johnson himself.
Some people think journalists should not be reporting this stuff. But if this is what someone important is saying in private, and the journalist who hears it to be at least half serious, then it does seem as if there is quite a good case for letting the public know. Anyone who doesn’t realise that there are some in No 10 who harbour deep hostility towards the BBC should read my colleague Rowena Mason’s scoop about Dominic Cummings.
Lisa Nandy has welcomed the nomination she has received from Chinese for Labour. (See 1.14pm.)
As someone of mixed heritage, I'm incredibly proud that it is Chinese for Labour who have secured my place on the ballot paper. They do incredibly important work to ensure we are a representative and inclusive party that can truly speak for modern Britain. https://t.co/Nt5d7BC9PD
— Lisa Nandy (@lisanandy) January 22, 2020
Boris Johnson to hold 'People's PMQs' on Facebook at 5pm
Boris Johnson is doing another of his Facebook People’s PMQs this afternoon.
🎙 Get ready for another #PeoplesPMQs at 5pm today!
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) January 22, 2020
💬 Send me your questions here: https://t.co/4gBIkrPJHh pic.twitter.com/1KpndoISUV
He has done at least two of these before. I missed the August one, but I did watch the September one. It was dire.
It was also a very poor guide to what Boris Johnson was doing to do next. “We will not accept a Northern Ireland-only backstop,” Johnson told his Facebook audience in September. But in the end he did end up proposing a Northern Ireland-only Brexit arrangement that, while not technically a “backstop”, is as good as.
MPs debate Lords amendments to Brexit bill
In the Commons MPs are now debating Lords amendments to the EU (withdrawal agreement) bill.
Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, is speaking for the government. He confirms that the government wants to overturn the defeats inflicted on the government when the bill was on the Lords.
He insists the government remains committed to maintaining protections for unaccompanied child migrants who want to come to the UK to join family members.
But he says there is no need for the amendment from the Labour peer Lords Dubs that was passed in the Lords committing the government to maintaining these arrangements.
The government has a proud record on supporting the most vulnerable children. The UK has granted protection to over 41,000 children since the start of 2010.
In 2018 the UK received over 3,000 asylum applications from unaccompanied children and the UK deals with 15% of all claims in the EU, making us the third highest intake country in Europe. Indeed the intake in the year ending to September 2019 rose to over 3,500.
Primary legislation cannot deliver the best outcomes for these children as it cannot guarantee that we reach an agreement and that is why this is ultimately a matter which must be negotiated with the EU and the government is committed to seeking the best possible outcome in those negotiations.
Updated
Nandy confirmed on final ballot for Labour leadership after securing third affiliate nomination
Lisa Nandy will now definitely be on the ballot for the Labour leadership, HuffPost’s Paul Waugh reports. Nandy already had the backing of two unions this morning, the GMB and the NUM, but now a tiny socialist society affiliated to Labour, Chinese for Labour, has backed her. That means that she has the three affiliates she needs, accounting for at least 5% of the affilates vote, to be on the final ballot.
Exclusive: Lisa Nandy Through To Final Round Of Labour Leadership Contesthttps://t.co/z4hlaFFoEw
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) January 22, 2020
The Chinese for Labour affiliate provided the clinching endorsement needed to go through to the full ballot of the party.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) January 22, 2020
Starmer already through. Long-Bailey set to cross hurdle with Unite and CWU soon.
PMQs - Snap verdict
Boris Johnson was remarkably bad. It did not matter very much, because his MPs were hugely supportive, and the nation as a whole, like the Commons, is not paying much attention to Jeremy Corbyn at the moment, but under a different Labour leader the prime minister’s glib complacency and lack of attention to detail when supposed to be defending the record of his government could - in fact, should - become a liability.
Corbyn started by asking about the way bonuses are clawed back for people on universal credit, prompted by the story about this happening to Greggs staff. Johnson clearly did not have a clue what Corbyn was talking about, but he would not say so, and instead blamed Corbyn for the way he framed the question. When Corbyn used his second question to explain, Johnson still failed to address the point. Then Corbyn branched out and asked various questions about universal credit, and poverty generally. It is hard to imagine Theresa May not having an answer about Greggs in her folder somewhere (she was never brilliant at PMQs, but she was always prepared), and when asked about UC, she was able to engage in discussion about the detail. Johnson was reduced to firing out headline bullet points about the government’s record on employment and poverty. He had a reasonably good joke up his sleeve about Tory MPs being happy to endorse Corbyn as the best Labour leader, but overall he was very poor, and only lifted by the fact that Tory MPs are still willing to cheer him unconditionally.
At some point Conservative backbenchers will start to assert their independence. But there is not much evidence of that yet, and some of the sycophancy on display this afternoon (see 12.02pm and 12.19pm) was gruesome.
One other point was interesting. Immediately after the general election, Johnson was keen to assert that he was leading a brand new government. Yet today, when challenged about the Tory record over the last 10 years, Johnson was happy to defend it with claims (some questionable - see below) about employment and poverty. He was back to sounding like a continuity PM, not a fresh start one.
Both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn have been listing competing claims about poverty in the UK at #PMQs. Different ways of measuring poverty can sometimes show different things—we’ve summarised the key figures and trends here https://t.co/dOzaQrBitY
— Full Fact (@FullFact) January 22, 2020
Updated
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP leader at Westminster, asks if the commitment to allow “unfettered access” for goods going from Northern Ireland to Britain after Brexit also applies to goods going the other way.
It does, says Johnson.
Amanda Solloway, a Conservative, asks about period poverty. She says she remembers the embarrassment of not being able to afford tampons when she was a teenager.
Johnson says free period products are being made available at schools now.
She says, when the UK leaves the EU, the government will be able to cut VAT on period products.
Labour’s Alex Cunningham says Teesside men have the same life expectancy as people in Ethiopia.
Johnson says this is a good point. He says the inequality in life expectance in the UK is a “disgrace”.
Updated
Labour’s Diana Johnson says Johnson wants to be known as Brexity Hezza. So will he support the Humber docks in the way that Michael Heseltine supported the development of docklands in London.
Johnson says this project is being considered. And he says a free port might help too.
Labour’s Marsha de Cordova asks about Wandsworth council’s special educational needs provision. Does Johnson agree every child with special educational needs deserves a good education?
Johnson says more money is going into SEND. Ofsted is the guarantor of SEND education, he says. But Labour wants to abolish Ofsted, he says.
Labour’s Holly Lynch says the north needs HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. Will the HS2 review be published this week?
Johnson says it is right to look at the value the country could get from HS2. He says the Oakervee review will be published in due course.
UPDATE: This post has been corrected because it was Holly Lynch who asked the question, not Cat Smith as originally stated. Sorry for the mistake.
Updated
Caroline Nokes, a Conservative, asks about algae in the Solent, and its effect on house planning in her constituency.
Johnson says he will use a “ministerial dyno rod” to sort out this problem.
Alex Chalk, a Conservative, asks about a renewable energy firm in his Cheltenham constituency.
Johnson says the government is looking to a replacement for the renewable heat incentive.
Sarah Dines, a Conservative, asks about quarrying in Derbyshire. She says the Tories are the party of working people.
Johnson says he hopes to visit Dines’ constituency as soon as possible.
He says it was sad that the president of the Durham Miners’ Gala said this week that Tories were not welcome at it.
Labour’s Mary Glindon says power cables over the Tyne are an obstacle to firms trying to get work to build large renewable energy structures.
Johnson says he appreciates the problem, and will do what he can to sort it out.
Blackford says last night the House of Lords voted to reinstate the Sewel convention. There is no respect from Westminster for the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland. And yesterday the Welsh assembly became the third devolved body to reject the Brexit bill.
Johnson says the Sewel convention does not support breaking up the UK.
Blackford says Johnson does not get it. This is an unprecedented attack, he says. He says Scotland said no to the Brexit legislation and it meant it. The Scottish parliament speaks for the Scottish people. He asks Johnson to stop his attack on devolution.
Johnson says he agrees with Blackford. Scotland said no and it meant it. It said no to independence in 2014, he says. He says the Tories support manufacturing in Scotland. The SNP support nothing but “manufacturing grievance”.
Ben Bradley, a Conservative, asks about schools.
Johnson says school standards are rising. He says in Scotland school performance in maths and science are at a record low. He challenges the SNP leader, Ian Blackford, to say why the SNP is so obsessed with independence when its performance is so bad.
Corbyn says Johnson should answer the question. He turns to the two-child limit. Why won’t the PM admit there is a link between poverty and the two-child limit.
Johnson says there has been a substantial reduction in child poverty.
The Labour party should change its tune, he says.
He says the Labour party voted Corbyn the best Labour leaders since records began. He says those sentiments are shared by many Tories.
Corbyn says levels of poverty are a national scandal. He says UC is a system of mind-numbing complexity. It is driving people to food banks. Johnson can’t answer questions on it. It should go, he says.
Johnson says Corbyn just wants to keep people in the welfare trap. He says Corbyn should pay tribute to the way the economy has grown. He says there will be 40 new hospitals and 20,000 more police officers. Labour still can’t make up its mind about whether or not to leave the EU, he says.
Corbyn says Johnson fought for bankers to be allowed to keep their bonuses. He asks if universal credit is making the social security system simpler.
Johnson claims it is, because unemployment has been reduced.
(That’s a non-sequitur.)
He returns to Greggs, and says just one person has complained about the bonus system.
He says the IMF says the UK will grow faster than the Eurozone. When will Corbyn stop talking the UK down?
Corbyn says the reality is that many people in work are in poverty.
Universal credit was meant to reduce poverty, he says. But more and more people are using food banks. Why won’t the PM end the punitive five-week wait for benefits under UC?
Johnson says the number of people in poverty has fallen by 400,000 under this government. He says Labour is proposing “even more Corbynism”. He says Corbyn should listen to the verdict of the British people four weeks ago.
Jeremy Corbyn mentions Holocaust memorial day, and says all forms of racism must be opposed.
If a worker receives a £300 bonus, how much of it should he be allowed to keep.
That is a reference to this story.
Johnson says the living wage will ensure that some people get an extra £1,000 a year. He says if Corbyn wants a better answer, he should ask a clearer question.
Corbyn refers to the Greggs story, and says people on low pay might keep just a quarter of their £300 bonus.
Johnson (who clearly has not been briefed on this story at all) returns to his point about the living wage. He ignores the point about bonuses.
Bim Afolami, a Conservative, says he welcomes the government’s announcement this week about tougher sentencing, particularly for terrorism offences. Does the PM agree that we need to do whatever we can to stop terrorism?
Boris Johnson welcomes the question, and claim his proposals amount to a “major shift” in the sentencing of terrorists.
PMQs
PMQs is starting now.
Private landlords have backed calls for the government to issue physical cards to EU citizens to prove they have the right to be in the country post Brexit.
The Residential Landlords Association (RLA) has previously cautioned that EU citizens risk discrimination if do not have a card showing their status when looking to rent properties.
The group, in a joint statement with the EU citizens campaign group the3million and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), said:
MPs should back what is a pragmatic and common sense proposal. It should not be controversial that EU citizens who have played such a positive role to the life of the UK should be able to easily prove their rights with a physical document.
The House of Lords voted on Monday for EU nationals to be given a physical document proving their right to be in the UK after Brexit, but the government is set to reverse that defeat when MPs debate the EU (withdrawal agreement) bill again this afternoon.
Lisa Nandy's welfare speech - Summary
And here are the main points from Lisa Nandy’s speech on welfare at Centrepoint this morning. Some of the arguments in the speech were ones she deployed in her Today interview this morning. (See 10.26am.)
- Nandy said Labour should be making the case for tax as a public good. She said:
We need to change the debate. Tax is not an evil. Tax is how we contribute to something bigger, better than ourselves. When we labelled one of the cruellest reforms “the Bedroom Tax” it caught the public’s imagination. But we reinforced the idea that tax is bad. We won the battle, but lost the war. To win the argument, tax must first be based on principles of fairness – every time a company avoids corporation tax, or we allow a cut to the well-off at the expense of those in greater need, we chip away at the system and people’s trust in it.
- She said that employers who do not pay the living wage should be penalised. She said:
Today, the position couldn’t be starker. Insecure, zero-hours contracts and too many employers who don’t pay their taxes or pay their staff a living wage. Which is why, for big employers who turn a profit and don’t pay the living wage, we should ensure they settle their balance with DWP every year, before we consider anything else. Equally, we should champion those employers who pay their taxes, invest in their staff and engage meaningfully in their community. This is not just about financial sustainability. It’s about making your contribution.
- She said the cuts to universal credit should be reversed. She said:
It cannot be right that the poorest can find themselves paying the highest marginal effective rate of tax – that baker’s bonuses are taxed more than bankers. The root is universal credit, and the cuts made in 2012. I would immediately reverse these, paid for by cancelling the Tories proposed changes to the NICS threshold, while we design a progressive tax system that works for the least well off.
Cancelling the Tory proposal to raise the national insurance threshold to £9,500 (an effective tax cut) would save about £2bn. But this not would be be enough to restore all the cuts to benefits announced by the coalition. One IFS analysis said those cuts were worth £16.7bn.
- She said Labour should create a “modern, empowering welfare state for the 21st century”.
- She criticised the way the welfare state currently works, saying it “presumes the very worst of people in need”. She said:
The narrative on social security is so well established, we barely question it. It presumes the very worst of people in need, before they even walk through the door or pick up the phone. And for all our pride in the professionals who do their best, often butting against the system they work within, the phrase frontline professionals suggests those tasked with helping are at war with those they support. It reinforces everything that is wrong. The demonisation of people at the most difficult times in their lives.The idea we are problems to be dealt with, not incredible human beings with potential to be realised.
This all serves to pit people against one another, to corrode the sense of common purpose and allow the system to be dismantled bit by bit. But it takes all the wrong cues from the British public. We believe they want draconian welfare rules, when in fact they want the worst off to be cared for. Our job is to convince people it isn’t a zero-sum game.
- She said everyone accessing a public service should have access to personal help. She said:
Never again should we lose sight of the human being in front of us. Managing the conflicting, messy, complex, disastrous bureaucracy is bad enough for those who work in the the system. For those who need it, it is often as much the problem as the reason they sought help in the first place. Every single person accessing a public service should be given the right to have one person who gets them to where they need to go. It’s based on a simple but radical idea: that services should be built around people, not the other way round.
Updated
Rebecca Long-Bailey, another Labour leadership candidate, has given a substantial interview to the Daily Mirror this morning. Here are some of the key lines.
- Long-Bailey sought to quash claims she was a continuity Corbyn candidate by saying that she would take the party in “completely different directions”. She said:
Insinuations have been made: ‘Oh these men have been pulling strings in the background’.
I’ve been proud to stand on the policy platform that we’ve had. That’s not to say I’m not a completely different person from Jeremy because I am and I’ll be taking the party in completely different directions.
- She said Labour should show it was “the party of aspiration”. She said:
The Tories talk about being the party of aspiration and they’re nowhere near delivering anybody’s aspirations, apart from a select group of people that they’ve always tried to protect.
We need to show that what we believe is about fulfilling aspiration. It’s about saying to an 18 year-old Rebecca that the Labour party will make sure you fulfill your dreams and that your childrens’ lives would be better than yours.
No matter your postcode, no matter where you work, you will be guaranteed that better quality of life. And we didn’t say that in this election. That message really didn’t cut through.
That drew many people to the conclusion that we were there to provide handouts rather than to fulfil people’s needs for aspiration.
- She rejected claims that she was not tough enough to be Labour leader. She said:
I’m from Salford, no-one messes with me.
- She rejected claims she was shy. She said:
I’m not shy, I was too busy working. I was locked in a room for four years developing a lot of the policies that were in the manifesto, rather than going around wining and dining.
Jess Phillips, who withdrew from the Labour leadership contest yesterday, is backing Lisa Nandy for leader, the Daily Mirror reports.
Here is some comment from journalists and commentators on Lisa Nandy’s Today interview.
From my colleague Gaby Hinsliff
Pretty polished from Lisa Nandy on Today prog. She’s got the knack of saying nuanced things without sounding vague or shifty, which is more handy than it sounds.
— Gaby Hinsliff (@gabyhinsliff) January 22, 2020
From the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges
There is actually something genuinely funny about the way all the Labour leadership candidates are claiming to want an open and honest debate about why Labour lost, whilst simultaneously doing everything they can to avoid saying a bad word about Jeremy Corbyn.
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) January 22, 2020
From the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush
A week ago his leadership had been too weak on antisemitism. Which is it? https://t.co/YSMyQi2vX7
— Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) January 22, 2020
From my colleague Dan Sabbagh
Cool, considered radio interview from @lisanandy who declines to "trash" Corbyn or Blair and shows communication skills absent at Labour's top table recently. But she is so far not polling well amongst members, so can she cut though in what still looks like a two horse race?
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) January 22, 2020
From LBC’s Theo Usherwood
In defence of Lisa Nandy equivocating in her criticism of Corbyn, it makes sense.
— Theo Usherwood (@theousherwood) January 22, 2020
The members' ballot has the option of second preferences. If she beats RLB into second place, she will need to have convinced her supporters she's a better alternative choice than Starmer.
Labour’s Tees Valley mayoral candidate, Jessie Joe Jacobs, vowed to tackle the area’s mental health crisis and build vocational centres for young people as she launched her campaign in Hartlepool this morning.
Joined by Manchester mayor Andy Burnham and Liverpool mayor Steve Rotheram, she also pledged £1m for a Tech For Good charity to encourage companies to invest in green and healthcare technology in the area.
Jacobs would be the first woman metro mayor if elected, and the first Labour mayor in Tees Valley since the role was first elected in 2017.
She vowed to end loneliness in Teesside with investment for community centres, and build a vocational centre in each of the area’s boroughs to prepare young people for new opportunities.
Jacobs, a charity leader from Stockon-on-Tees, was the only Labour candidate shortlisted by regional party leaders, meaning local members did not get a vote on their preferred choice.
She’s up against Tory incumbent Ben Houchen, who brought Durham Tees Valley airport back into public ownership during his time in office. Launching his re-election campaign earlier this month, he set out plans to bring steelmaking back to Teesside and install free parking in town centres.
Speaking of her opponent, Jacobs said:
Our future will not be found in our past. My opponent makes populist promises ... and offers simplistic answers and soundbites to complex issues.
Labour’s @JessieJoeJacobs has kicked off her campaign to be the next Tees Valley Mayor with a big promise to tackle the mental health crisis on Teesside
— TFM News (@TFMRadioNews) January 22, 2020
Speaking at a rally in Hartlepool she said it’s her number one priority and that she won’t shy away from major social issues pic.twitter.com/oauZab8Zy0
Updated
Lisa Nandy's morning interviews - Summary and analysis
Here are the main points from Lisa Nandy’s interviews on Today and ITV’s Good Morning Britain this morning.
- Nandy, a Labour leadership candidate, criticised New Labour for keeping elements of Thatcherism. (See 9.23am.)
- She refused to say who was her favourite leader. When asked this question by Nick Robinson on Today, Nandy replied:
I think there are different leaders who’ve done different things for the party at different times.
When Robinson put it to her that she was avoiding the question, she replied:
Well, it’s a bit of a daft question because people are complex and it is perfectly possible to believe that people do both good and bad things.
But she went on to talk about her view of Jeremy Corbyn. She said that she had known him since she was 21, that she “profoundly disagreed” with him on some things, but that agreed with him on the need for society to be more compassionate. She said:
On the issue of whether we’re a more compassionate society, and whether Labour needs to be clearer about that, I couldn’t agree with more.
Robinson’s question was prompted by YouGov polling this week that suggests Corbyn is the most popular Labour leader of the last 100 years amongst Labour members.
- She claimed that Labour need to be more ambitious in its goals. She said:
What I’m saying today is that we need to go out and recover our ambition; we don’t just tinker at the edges of the systems that we have, we need to get on the front foot and think about what the future of the welfare state will look like, what the future of this country will look like.
This is a surprising claim because the one criticism that could not be levelled against Labour’s 2019 manifesto was lack of ambition. When this point was put to Nandy, she said the problem was that the manifesto promised so much that people did not trust the party to deliver.
- She said Labour had become too paternalistic and that it needed to promote a welfare system that empowered people. She said:
So it’s not just a question of do we raise universal credit rates. It’s a question of do we overhaul the entire system so that it genuinely empowers people. That’s something that Labour used to believe in. When the Beveridge report was published, when the welfare state was founded, we used to believe that our job was to empower people to change their own lives. In recent years we’ve become far more paternalistic. We think that by sitting behind desks in central London commissioning thinktank reports and focus groups we can fix it for people. We can’t.
This analysis is highly questionable. The minister credited with saying that the gentleman in Whitehall really does know best, the epitome of paternalism (although what he really said was “in the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves”), was Douglas Jay, a minister in the Attlee government that implemented the Beveridge report.
- She said that Ian Lavery, the Labour chair, was wrong to suggest at a rally last night that Sir Keir Starmer should stand aside to allow a woman to win the leadership contest.
- She criticised the Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan for dismissing claims that Meghan Markle has been subject to racism. This is from the Mirror’s Dan Bloom.
Full exchange here:
— Dan Bloom (@danbloom1) January 22, 2020
Lisa Nandy slaps down Piers Morgan on live TV over Meghan Markle racism rowhttps://t.co/8X0hlanCvD
Lisa Nandy has just started delivering her welfare speech at Centrepoint in London. I will post a summary when I’ve read the full text.
From the Telegraph’s James Crisp
EU27 ambassadors meet this afternoon to agree that council approval to the Brexit withdrawal agreement will be given in writing on Jan 30, the day before Brexit Day and the day after the European Parliament votes to ratify the deal.
— James Crisp (@JamesCrisp6) January 22, 2020
Huawei should be allowed to supply parts of 5G network, says George Osborne
Government ministers are still boycotting the Today programme, but former ministers are happy to appear and this morning George Osborne, the former chancellor who now edits the Evening Standard, made an appearance. He had two interesting arguments.
- Osborne predicted that the government would shelve its plans to impose a tax on tech giants like Google and Facebook. He said:
It would certainly be a very brave British government that walks into a trade war with the United States at the very moment as the centre point of its economic policy is to strike a trade deal with the US. I suspect they will use what the OECD is saying as a reason to delay implementation.
- He said the government should allow the Chinese firm Huawei to supply parts of the 5G network, despite opposition to this from the US. He said:
You can keep Huawei out of your most sensitive core bits of your national security infrastructure, but frankly if you want Britain to have 5G technology, Huawei is a massive supplier of that 5G technology.
Some of its products are frankly much cheaper and better than its competitors at the moment.
If our choice is to allow Huawei in and have a competitive playing field or delay 5G and fall behind other European nations, then I think we need to work of course with companies like Huawei.
Nandy criticises Blair/Brown governments for keeping elements of Thatcherism
Yesterday Lisa Nandy secured the GMB nomination which means she is now almost certain to be on the final ballot for the Labour leadership. And this morning she has been giving a series of interviews ahead of a speech on welfare she is delivering at 10am.
On the Today programme she was burnishing her Corbynite credentials by praising the outgoing Labour leader for breaking the consensus that “economic conservatism was a bigger priority than people”. She also criticised New Labour for continuing with elements of Thatcherism, telling the programme:
I’m not going to trash the legacy of the last Labour government because things like the minimum wage were complete game-changers in towns like Wigan, and the investment that went into health and education was really important.
But it is certainly true to say that the consensus that Thatcher built lasted all the way through the New Labour years.
I came into politics after 10 years working in the voluntary sector with homeless teenagers, first of all, and then with child refugees.
And the reason I did was out of frustration with a system under the last Labour government that took small amounts from people at the very top of the system and handed it with conditions to those at the bottom.
Nandy has also come out well from a focus group of ex-Labour voters commissioned for an item on Channel 4 News last night. There is a link to the film here.
Who do ex-Labour voters want to take on Boris Johnson? https://t.co/E7ZGi57EbQ
— Gary Gibbon's Blog (@GaryGibbonBlog) January 21, 2020
And here is a Times article (paywall) by James Johnson, the pollster (and former Tory aide) who organised the focus group, which was held in Birmingham. He writes:
Lisa Nandy went down well with the younger group aged 25 to 40. No one in this session was aware of her beforehand, but almost all left saying they thought she would be the candidate most likely to win back their vote. They were most impressed by her honesty and candour in a clip of her being interviewed by Andrew Neil — a rare sight from a politician for these disenchanted voters ...
Reflecting on the experience, I wondered how the Conservative party might feel about this research. They should be worried by Nandy. And they would have had reason to be spooked by [Jess] Phillips. Her departure spells out the reality: that the preferences of the voters Labour needs to win back to do not match those of the members. Instead, the favourites in this contest are [Keir] Starmer and [Rebecca] Long Bailey.
When I told respondents that these two were the frontrunners, despairing laughter echoed around the room. I was left with one conclusion: in Number 10, they will be rubbing their hands in glee.
I will post more from Nandy’s two morning interviews soon.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Lisa Nandy, the Labour leadership candidate, gives a speech on welfare policy.
12pm: Boris Johnson faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
After 12.30pm: MPs debate the EU (withdrawal agreement) bill on its return from the Lords. They are expected to vote to overturn the five government defeats the bill suffered in the Lords.
2.30pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, speaks about the Scottish economy at an IPPR event.
Afternoon: The EU (withdrawal agreement) bill returns to the Lords, where peers will have to either accept the Commons version or vote again to amend it.
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. I plan to post a summary when I wrap up.
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.
Updated
Andrew are U.K. citizens in the 27 being given hard evidence of status? Could you advise us what arrangements EU member states have made?