Archive for: Political Database

 The SNP’s Shadow Health and Social Care SNP Spokesperson, Dr Philippa Whitford MP, writes that extensive testing and contact tracing must be established before the current lockdown can be reviewed.

Boris Johnson’s Government was apparently warned in mid-January about the threat posed by COVID-19, yet took little significant action, beyond advising us all to ‘Wash our hands’ until mid-March. Nor, despite the failings highlighted by the 2016 flu pandemic exercise, Operation Cygnus, were efforts made to prepare health and social care services, by purchasing additional ventilators and PPE while they were still available.

As late as 11 March, the day COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the reality of asymptomatic spread was still being denied by the Secretary of State in the House of Commons.

During the ‘containment’ phase, the UK chose not to follow the WHO guidance on testing, contact tracing and isolating cases to break the chain of infection. This meant that when, on 16 March, the UK Government finally recognised the potentially appalling death toll of sticking with their ‘herd immunity’ policy, the only option left to them was to initiate physical distancing; followed on the 23 March by lockdown.

Prior to the lockdown, the number of new infections was accelerating exponentially as every case of COVID-19 was able to infect two to three other people who could each, in turn, infect three others. Cases were doubling every few days but, for a long time, the numbers seemed quite low and UK Government ministers appeared complacent.

Having missed the opportunity to contain the infection, maintaining ‘safe distancing’ has become critical to minimising the number of people ill with COVID-19 at any one time and ensuring health services are not overwhelmed but have sufficient resources to treat everyone, including those who become ill from other causes during the outbreak.

There have been suggestions that the number of new cases is stabilising rather than accelerating. While any improvement is welcome, it is simply too early to tell when we will reach the peak. The number of people infected is still rising and, while the UK might be approaching the peak, it is certainly not yet coming down the other side.

To avoid taunting the public, it would have been better to be honest from the start, as was the case in Scotland, that the lockdown would require about 12 weeks rather than be up for review in three. The suggestion that those under 30 years could soon come out of lockdown is particularly concerning as the young have often, mistakenly, thought they were immune to COVID-19 and may now start to rebel against current advice. Based on the predicted mortality of 0.03% for those aged 20-30 years, this could result in the loss of 630 young adults – surely far too high a price to pay.

Throughout this crisis, there has clearly been a tussle within the Cabinet about the balance between the health impacts and economic damage. The leak of recent Home Office discussions has raised concerns that the dangerous herd immunity strategy is still being pursued, particularly as the UK Government encouraged construction and manufacturing to continue in England despite the supposed ‘lockdown’.

No reduction in the lockdown should be considered until the peak of the epidemic is passed, and extensive testing and contact tracing established. Otherwise we are likely to see another surge in cases and further loss of life.

The UK Government failed to use its two months’ grace to properly contain the epidemic or prepare healthcare services for what they would face. They must not now compound those mistakes, through impatience, by lifting the lockdown prematurely.

Dr Philippa Whitford is the SNP’s Westminster Spokesperson for Health and Social Care & Europe. She is the MP for Central Ayrshire.

Former Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael asks that the Government makes more support available to small businesses and the self-employed, or risk a far smaller and less vibrant self-employed sector in the future.

It takes a particular sort of person to start your own business or to make your living in self-employment. It is not for everyone. Yes, it can give freedom that will never be found in a large corporate or in the public sector. It can also bring a lot of risk and uncertainty. There is no chain up that blame can be passed. For good or ill, you know where the buck stops.

For many people who are self-employed it is not just a means of earning a living but can also be a lifestyle choice, informing how they see the world.

It is that mindset that Government always finds difficult to understand, and not just in the current COVID-19 crisis.

Last week when the Government announced new measures to support self-employed people, I welcomed the efforts, however overdue.

One week on, however, and it is becoming clearer from my inbox that there are large gaps in this support, even setting aside the extended delays in getting it. Few of the self-employed feel any more reassured today than they did this time last week.  For many, the despair is deepening. Lockdown pulled the rug from under their feet and they see nothing to cushion their fall.

One accountancy practice in my constituency tells me that more than 75% of their clients do not qualify for any of the support measures offered by the Government. That is the scale of the failure here.

These are often young businesses – sole traders who either have yet to file a tax return or filed their first tax return last year. Their accounts are often complex due to the short period covered and high level of start-up costs reducing their recorded profit. Most importantly, these businesses have not had time to build up cash reserves to see them through this crisis.

One constituent who contacted me set up a small groundworks company in 2018. Due to the purchase of essential equipment that year, he spent more money than he made, and because the last financial year is the one his eligibility is based on, he has been told that he cannot receive any support aside from Universal Credit. He feels – and I agree with him – that it seems very unfair that he must use his savings to stay afloat, while the vast majority of the UK are receiving assistance.

A further complication is presented for those working in tourism, which makes up a vital part of the local economy in my constituency and others. Outside major cities like London it is highly seasonal, and yet this is not recognised in the Government’s measures. Those who rely on the summer trade – now likely to be minimal as a result of the virus – to cover them through the rest of the year cannot live for twelve months on three months of Government support based on an ‘annual average’.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect for these businesses is the inability to access grants available to business rate payers. Most small businesses starting out are run from home, and many continue in this way for practical reasons. Home based businesses are no less important than businesses that operate from rateable premises and yet so far, no support is offered to them.

The issues I highlight here are just a few examples of those that I have encountered from constituents in the last few days. My hope is that the current measures are inadequate because the Government was working in a hurry, rather than because they have designed something that they think will do the job. It has been my experience, though, that Government departments struggle to ‘get’ how self-employment works. That, I believe, is why the scheme took longer to design and why it has so many flaws and gaps.

No one is expecting to get through this crisis without any hardship at all, as the Prime Minister suggested when I put my concerns to him before the parliamentary recess. All that self-employed people are asking for is the same treatment and the same assurances as people in employment have already been given. If we cannot stretch ourselves to support our dynamic self-employed economy now, we cannot be surprised if it is far smaller and less vibrant in the future.

Alistair Carmichael is the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs, Brexit and the party’s Chief Whip. He is the MP for Orkney and Shetland.

Liberal Democrat House of Lords spokesperson for Digital, Lord Clement-Jones, urges the Government to think again about how best to support the self-employed who cannot survive until June without any financial help, and to do more for people who weren’t helped at all by the package announced last week.

Throughout the coronavirus crisis the self-employed have been neglected by the Government. Even with Rishi Sunak’s announcement last week of a financial package for the self-employed, it seems they will not receive a single penny until June.

This took far too long to come, but with consistent pressure from the Liberal Democrats such as through tabling amendments in both Houses of Parliament, finally the Government came forward with something. We consistently made clear that millions of individuals had been plunged into financial insecurity, and subsequently far too many were wondering if they can even afford to put food on the table over the next few months. However, this then begs the question how do they expect people to wait months before they see any material financial support?

The self-employed are not high-flying entrepreneurs as often pictured – they are taxi drivers, hairdressers, builders or child minders. Many of these people will not have savings large enough to cover the cost of living for months on end without any money coming in.

The majority of the self-employed have taxable incomes of less than £10,000 a year, and that compares with just 15% of employees on incomes that low. Without any money before June, they won’t be able to pay their mortgages, rent and bills, and potentially face financial ruin.

Another industry largely forgotten about is the creative industries. The Creative Industries Federation survey last week revealed that 60% of creative freelancers estimate that their income will more than halve in 2020 due to the coronavirus outbreak, and almost 50% of freelancers who responded to their poll have already had 100% of their work cancelled.

The wait until June is not the only concern Liberal Democrats have. The scheme proposed by the Chancellor also ignores all those who have been self-employed for less than a year. Between November 2019 and January 2020, the number of self-employed workers increased by 194,000. Many of these individuals will have risked their savings to get started and it looks like they will get nothing from the package. Equally, the Chancellor’s pledge that the self-employed can access loans is also useless to the majority who cannot to afford the personal guarantees banks are saying small businesses need.

If we truly want people to stay home, we must ensure people have the cash to get by now. This is not just about protecting their finances, but also their health. We need to protect them and those around them from the virus – this cannot become a luxury for those who can afford to. If we have seen anything over the past few days, it has been how easily and quickly this virus can spread. The financial packages announced are not just there to protect people’s bank accounts, but to give them the ability to follow the advice we have been given regarding social distancing. If we truly believe that no-one deserves better healthcare because of who they are, where they’re from, or how much they earn, then I would urge the Government to think about how soon they can get the funding to the self-employed during this crisis.

Lord Clement-Jones is a Liberal Democrat peer and the party’s House of Lords Spokesperson for digital.

Conservative MP Bob Blackman writes about his journey from being drawn second in the Private Members’ Bill ballot to passing a ground-breaking piece of legislation: the 2018 Homelessness Reduction Act. The Act ‘places a duty to refer on to agencies like the NHS, the prisons service and Jobcentre Plus, to try to ensure no one is missed in the system’ and ensures local authorities offer help up to 56 days before the crunch occurs, reducing the need for unsuitable temporary accommodation.

In April 2018, I was proud to see my Homelessness Reduction Act given Royal Assent to become the first major change to legislation on the subject in England for nearly forty years.

This piece of ground-breaking legislation came about after I was drawn number two in the Private Members’ Bill ballot in 2016. It is a comprehensive change to the law that has shifted the emphasis firmly towards preventing homelessness from ever occurring in the first place, and it ensures that care leavers, ex-offenders, NHS patients, armed forces veterans and other vulnerable groups will receive help and advice for the first time.

From the moment I was drawn in the ballot, I was inundated with requests to use the opportunity to further interests or a particular cause by multiple groups. I settled on homelessness reduction after giving thought to issues I have seen in my time in politics, having been a councillor and member of the London Assembly before entering the House of Commons.

A lot of work went into ensuring the Bill would be workable and credible and I was naturally pleased that it gained valuable backing from the Government and all opposition parties. My colleagues on the Communities and Local Government Select Committee deserve particular mention for their support, as this was the first time a Private Member’s Bill was given pre-legislative scrutiny by a Select Committee and it made a big difference in ironing out the finer points at an early stage.

The homelessness charity, Crisis, deserve a great deal of credit for helping to support the early formation of the Bill through its extensive groundwork, and I also owe thanks to Shelter and several other charities for their support as well. The Residential Landlords Association, and London Councils, to name a few are also to be commended for having the insight and vision to recognise the need for this legislation and I am also grateful for their support. Throughout the process I was repeatedly surprised by how dated homelessness law was and how long had passed since proper scrutiny by lawmakers.

The experience gained from the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 was perfectly timed to help inform measures put forward in the Homelessness Reduction Act. Wales saw a 69 % decrease in the number of households owed the main homelessness duty for example. While there are obvious differences between the nations, this was a demonstration that shifting the balance towards prevention work could really make a difference.

Drawing on lessons from Wales, there is a strong evidence base to suggest that the costs of transforming local authority services towards prevention work will rapidly offset the savings to local authorities on temporary and emergency accommodation. As of the end of 2018, there were 78,930 recorded households in temporary accommodation, with 69% placed in temporary accommodation in London, and the number of families with children stuck in completely unsuitable B&B-style accommodation on the rise. The National Audit Office (NAO) report on Homelessness in September 2017 showed that, of the £1.1bn spent by English local authorities in 2015-16, £845 million was spent on temporary accommodation, and this figure has only continued to increase.

I am very pleased that the Government is funding the initial implementation of my Act to the tune of £72.7 million, helping local authorities to make the adjustments and provide the new services needed to turn things around and change how we approach homelessness entirely. As a result, I believe there will be fewer people hitting the point of becoming homeless in the first place, with local authorities empowered to step in and offer help and advice up to 56 days before the crunch occurs, in turn causing a reduction in the need to use unsuitable temporary accommodation.

Of course, this piece of legislation cannot be considered a fix-all. Homelessness is typically the end point that occurs due to numerous other issues and no one thing can provide a complete solution. The Act places a duty to refer on to agencies like the NHS, the prisons service and Jobcentre Plus, to try to ensure no one is missed in the system, and it also reinforces legislation to ensure Private Rented Sector accommodation has been inspected for suitability prior to it being offered. I hope all the different measures contained within this legislation will really make a difference on the ground and I intend to continue to press the Government to keep monitoring it and listening to local authorities as they feed back.

Bob Blackman is the Conservative MP for Harrow East.

Vuelio’s Sam Webber assesses the latest Government response to the Coronavirus pandemic, including a new fiscal stimulus and school closures.

The Coronavirus pandemic has now affected every aspect of Government and public life in a way that this country has not experienced since the Second World War.

The Chancellor’s comprehensive Budget, announced last week, has already had to be updated and overhauled with a far more generous package of measures to safeguard businesses and families. After pressure from MPs representing tourist destinations and from key cultural institutions like small attractions, pubs and restaurants that are set to be particularly affected, the Chancellor increased measures offered to this sector: ‘I announced last week that for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, with a rateable value of less than £51,000, they will pay no business rates this year.

‘Today, I can go further and provide those businesses with an additional cash grant of up to £25,000 per business – to help bridge through this period. Additionally, I also am today extending the business rates holiday to all businesses in those sectors, irrespective of their rateable value.

‘That means every single shop, pub, theatre, music venue, restaurant – and any other business in the retail, hospitality or leisure sector – will pay no business rates whatsoever for 12 months, and if they have a rateable value of less than £51,000, they can now get a cash grant as well.

‘I also announced last week that we would be providing £3,000 cash grants to the 700,000 of our smallest businesses. In light of the new circumstances, and to support their cash flow, today I can increase those grants to £10,000.’

Hinting at additional measures for other sectors of the economy he added:

‘Some sectors are facing particularly acute challenges. In the coming days, my colleague the Secretary of State for Transport and I will discuss a potential support package for specifically airlines and airports.’

For those affected by COVID-19 who will lose income and not be able to pay their monthly mortgage, the Chancellor also offered support: ‘Following discussions with industry today, I can announce that for those in difficulty due to coronavirus, mortgage lenders will offer at least a three month mortgage holiday – so that people will not have to pay a penny towards their mortgage while they get back on their feet.’

While he was immediately criticised because this statement offered nothing to those in rented accommodation, they have now been offered additional protections too.

Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said: ‘The Government is clear – no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home, nor will any landlord face unmanageable debts.’

His detailed statement includes a promise that: ‘Emergency legislation will be taken forward as an urgent priority so that landlords will not be able to start proceedings to evict tenants for at least a three-month period. As a result of these measures, no renters in private or social accommodation needs to be concerned about the threat of eviction.’

An announcement from Education Secretary Gavin Williamson on Wednesday also confirmed what many parents had been expecting: ‘After schools shut their gates on Friday afternoon, they will remain closed until further notice except for children of key workers and vulnerable children, as part of the country’s ongoing response to coronavirus.’

While this has serious implications for those studying for exams that will now not be taking place in the usual way, the Government is clear it will do whatever is necessary to ensure no students are adversely affected by these challenging conditions.

Finally, the Government has set up a new structure of four implementation committees focusing on health, public sector preparedness, economy and international response to deal with the crisis.

• Healthcare: chaired by the Health Secretary to focus on the preparedness of the NHS, notably ensuring capacity in the critical care system for those worst affected
• General Public Sector: chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look at preparedness across the rest of the public and critical national infrastructure, excluding the NHS
• Economic and Business: chaired by the Chancellor, with the Business Secretary as deputy chair, to consider economic and business impact and response, including supply chain resilience. It will also coordinate roundtables with key sectors to be chaired by relevant Secretaries of State
• International: chaired by the Foreign Secretary, to consider our international response to the crisis through the G7, G20 and other mechanisms, including like-minded groups, and the UK five-point plan

This shows that as well as relying heavily on the advice from his Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser, the Prime Minister is receiving support from his Cabinet colleagues Matt Hancock, Michael Gove, Rishi Sunak, Alok Sharma and Dominic Raab and all their respective teams of civil servants to feed into the UK’s holistic approach to defeating this virus.

As Rishi Sunak said this week: ’I want to reassure every British citizen, this Government will give you all the tools you need to get through this.’

Scottish National Party MP Hannah Bardell writes following her House of Commons debate on lesbian, bisexual and trans women’s health inequalities.

I came out literally as I was being elected, initially to myself, then later to my family and friends and publicly sometime after that, and that was challenging. It is fair to say that the impact on my mental health was profound.

For me, and for many other people coming out later in life, there is an element of regret and, in fact, mourning for a life not lived as my authentic self and it is hard to describe what that feels like. I try very hard to look forward – to make the most of what is in front of me, not to look back and have regrets that I was not living my life as my true self. There are many reasons why people come out later in life, and there is also much research around the profound impact that that has on people’s mental and physical health.

Coming out as lesbian, gay or bisexual can be a very different experience from coming out as trans. I cannot imagine how incredibly difficult that is, particularly in the current climate. We owe it to our trans and non-binary citizens to support them and ensure that discussion around changes in legislation or any matters relating to their lives and healthcare is conducted in a respectful and decent way.

We know the LGBT community, including lesbian, bi and trans women, experience significant health inequalities and specific barriers to services and support, and are sadly at a higher risk of experiencing common mental health problems than the general population.

The Science and Technology Committee report states that there is ’emerging evidence demonstrates that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT+) people experience significant health inequalities across their lifespan, often starting at a young age.’

Stonewall Scotland’s survey of LGBT people in Scotland found that half had experienced depression in the past year, including seven in 10 trans people, and that more than half of trans people have thought of taking their own life in the past year.

Stonewall Scotland’s survey of LGBT people in Scotland found that:

• Half of LGBT people (49 per cent) have experienced depression in the last year, including seven in ten trans people (72 per cent).
• More than half of trans people (52 per cent) have thought of taking their own life in the last year.
• One in six LGBT people (16 per cent) have deliberately harmed themselves in the last year.
• One in four LGBT people (24 per cent) have witnessed discriminatory or negative remarks against LGBT people by healthcare staff.
• One in eight LGBT people (13 per cent) have received unequal treatment from healthcare staff because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Almost two in five trans people (37 per cent) have avoided healthcare treatment for fear of discrimination.
• One in four LGBT people (27 per cent) have experienced healthcare staff having a lack of understanding of specific lesbian, gay and bi health needs.
• Nearly three in five trans people (59 per cent) have experienced healthcare staff having a lack of understanding of specific trans health needs.

I understand that some of these matters are very technical. They are challenging and they require a level of expertise. That is why education, open discussion and proper resourcing in Scotland and across the UK is absolutely vital. We know how incredibly hard staff in the NHS work in all countries and parts of the UK. We salute them. However, the studies show that there is a bit more work to be done.

In 2013, a study in the USA said, unsurprisingly, that legalising gay marriage might improve health and reduce healthcare costs. Another similar study last year found that legalising equal marriage could improve the mental health of same-sex couples. Wow — what a revelation! You can marry the person you love and live the life you want as the person you are, and it might actually make you happy and reduce the burden on the healthcare system.

We know that legislative change does not in itself necessarily change culture or fix the problem, but it is an important step.

The specific health needs of disabled people who are also LGBT are often overlooked by healthcare professionals. According to Stonewall, which has produced some compelling briefings on the subject, disabled people in the LGBT community can be left with a lack of trust in their healthcare providers. Multiple needs are often not taken into account, which affects some of the most vulnerable people. LGBT people are not necessarily open about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity when seeking medical help, because of a fear of unfair treatment and invasive questioning.

Stonewall goes on to talk specifically about issues around PIP assessments and it has said that one in five non-binary people and LGBT disabled people have experienced discrimination. Similarly, one in five black, Asian and minority ethnic LGBT people, including 24% of Asian LGBT people, have experienced it.

There is still a long way to go and debates such as this one are part of the picture of making sure that good and proper healthcare is available for everybody in the LGBT community. We as MPs must do everything we can to make sure that no one suffers from poor mental or physical health just because of their gender, sexuality or gender identity.

We are all equal. At the end of the day, we are all human.

Hannah Bardell is a member of the SNP’s Shadow Foreign Affairs and International Development teams and the MP for Livingston.

This blog post is part of a cross-party series on Vuelio’s political blog Point of Order, which publishes insight and opinion to help public affairs, policy and comms professionals stay ahead of political change and connect with those who campaign on the issues they care about. To find out more or contribute, get in touch with Vuelio Politics.

The first Budget for 16 months will be delivered on Wednesday 11 March by Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who has only been in the post for three weeks. Sunak’s appointment swiftly followed the resignation from Government of Sajid Javid in the recent reshuffle, when he chose to walk away rather than sign up to a new joint Number 10 and Number 11 Downing Street team, which would have involved firing his team of advisers.

With a previous Budget set for November 2019 cancelled due to the parliamentary hiatus over Brexit and the subsequent General Election, this Budget, as well as being delivered by a newly appointed Chancellor, is also set to be dominated by the COVID-19 Coronavirus outbreak, which is predicted to escalate into a global pandemic.

Civil Service World reported that the Chancellor was ‘being forced to rewrite next week’s Budget to take account of the likely economic effect of the Covid-19 outbreak.’ This is expected to include additional cash for the NHS and other public services. It might also include a tax holiday for businesses that will be widely affected by any economic downturn due to the virus.

Travel and commuting restrictions, reduced imports from overseas, including the far east where the virus originated, and a self-exclusion plan that might have to come into force, would all have a significant effect on the UK economy and the Treasury is being asked to step up and make guarantees to businesses and citizens.

The Budget is also expected to formalise the Conservative manifesto pledge to raise the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance Contributions (NICs) by more than 10% to £9,500. If confirmed at this rate, a typical employee will save around £104 in 2020/21, while self-employed individuals, who pay a lower rate, will have £78 cut from their bill, according to Government figures.

A key aim of this Government’s mission is to ‘level up’ spending across Britain and to reduce regional disparity through increased spending and better infrastructure, not least in the former Labour heartland seats that the Conservatives won in 2019 and now seek to retain at the next election.

One likely way to find extra cash is to scrap Entrepreneurs’ relief. This tax relief brought in by Labour in 2008 and subsequently extended by George Osborne, allows business owners when they sell their company to pay capital gains tax at a reduced rate of 10% rather than the usual rate of 20%, which applies to gains up to £10m.

The Sun reports that this could have serious effects on SMEs including retailers selling a shop for £150,000 who would lose £15,000 if the plans go ahead. The proposal is apparently unpopular with some backbench MPs and The Sun quotes national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Mike Cherry, who said: ‘Scrapping entrepreneurs’ relief would destroy the retirements of thousands of business owners. The Conservative manifesto committed this Government to reviewing and reforming this incentive, not scrapping it entirely. The Conservatives should keep their promises – it’s a question of trust.’

The FSB spokesperson suggests a compromise: ‘Keep the relief for the first £1m of a business sale and scale it back at the top end. Doing so would save the Treasury more than £1bn and maintain a vital incentive which encourages entrepreneurs to start up, hire and invest.’

In a dig at the authors of the likely policy to scrap the relief entirely he adds: ‘A lot of entrepreneurs see their business as their retirement plan. They don’t have the gold-plated pensions enjoyed by Treasury civil servants.’

Mike Cherry also said that small business confidence has already suffered a slump over the past 18 months and this proposal risks making a bad situation worse for small businesses, and risks losing them to other more welcoming tax jurisdictions.

The Financial Times reports (£) that Sunak could use the Budget to end the freeze on fuel duty which has been in place since 2010 or at least start by removing the £2.4bn subsidy for ‘red diesel’. This is used by off-road vehicles and machinery and would demonstrate that the Treasury is prepared to use the tax system to encourage a move away from fossil fuels.

A Daily Telegraph pre-Budget analysis predicts that ‘Changes to tax, pensions, housing and social care’ are all set to be included. It also speculates that additional funding for adult social care could be included as well as measures to increase the roll out of high-speed broadband and reduce single-use plastics.

Changes to pension contributions have been suggested as an idea alongside a wealth or ‘mansion tax’, but it is understood that Rishi Sunak took these proposals off the table when he became Chancellor. A scheme to cut the cost of buying a home for key workers and first-time buyers would perhaps prove more popular nationally to ensure that renters can buy a home in their area at a reduced rate.

As with many across the country and especially public affairs professionals, we will watch with interest on Wednesday as with previous Budgets, to see if this newbie Chancellor has a rabbit to pull out of his hat in terms of a key announcement that will get everyone talking and, unlike the pasty tax or caravan tax of the George Osborne era, won’t unravel as soon as the journalists and financial experts crunch the numbers in detail.

**
The Vuelio Political team will be summarising the Budget and stakeholder reaction to all of the key announcements and measures.

Sign up to receive your complimentary copy of The Budget Summary and Reaction.

**

Yesterday was a historic day for the climate campaigners.

The Court of Appeal has taken the climate emergency into account and made it a key part of its decision to stop the expansion of Heathrow.

The Government now has a choice: they can continue with business as usual, appealing the Court of Appeal decision and continuing to push for infrastructure that will ultimately stop them reaching their climate targets; or they could use this as a wake-up call and start legislating for climate action now.

Achieving net-zero involves cutting emissions across all sectors to almost zero and offsetting the remaining emissions by planting forests and investing in carbon capture technology.

This is a daunting task and the sooner we start the better chance we have of avoiding widespread environmental chaos that will define the lives of future generations.

We are living through a climate emergency.

Yesterday’s decision, against the expansion of Heathrow Airport, is a victory.

Now is the time to be cutting our emissions, not adding infrastructure that will cause them to skyrocket.

It is a victory for the thousands of local campaigners who have spent years protesting the expansion. It shows communities, across the country, that people power can make the difference. The Liberal Democrats has been backing these campaigns from the very beginning, supporting grassroots action to make today’s decision possible.

For far too long the Government has been committed to Heathrow expansion, with no consideration of the impact on our carbon footprint and the local environment.

This Government’s own target – to reach a net zero by 2050 – is not compatible with airport expansion. Whether that be expansion of Heathrow Airport or Bristol.

Flying long haul, in 2020, requires fossil fuels. As a result, flying always comes with a carbon cost. Research into cleaner fuels is important and yet green alternatives will not be replacing oil-based aviation fuel anytime soon.

Flying is a positive part of life in a globalised world, but we have an obligation to not to expand an industry that is contributing to the climate crisis.

And it is because of this that my party opposes airport expansion.

If Boris Johnson makes the wrong choice now, he may well have to lie down in front of the bulldozers and the wider impact on our climate will be catastrophic.

I will be urging the Government to respect the Court of Appeal decision and to use this moment as a turning point, investing in substantive climate action now.

We can help – The Liberal Democrats are the only party to have a detailed plan to reach net zero, including a sector by sector roadmap.

This decision was a landmark victory for climate campaigners. For the sake of future generations, let’s make tomorrow an even better one.

Wera Hobhouse is the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for the Climate Emergency, Energy and the Environment & MP for Bath.

This blog post is part of a cross-party series on Vuelio’s political blog Point of Order, which publishes insight and opinion to help public affairs, policy and comms professionals stay ahead of political change and connect with those who campaign on the issues they care about. To find out more or contribute, get in touch with Vuelio Politics.

We are – finally – recognising that there is no such thing as throwing something ‘away’ on our poor choked planet. Every bit of waste has to go somewhere.

Globally, most of the eight billion tonnes of plastic produced since the 1950s is still in existence – in our drinking water, our soils, our animals and our air. Even in our beer.

Last year in the UK, a group of supermarkets and other stores announced with much fanfare that within the next seven years they are planning to cut out non-recyclable plastic packaging.

That is seven more years of producing something that won’t ever disappear, but this was far more positive than the Government proclaiming that it will ban unnecessary single-use plastic by 2042.

There’s a crucial point to make about both the voluntary ban and the Government announcement: ‘recyclable’ doesn’t mean an object is going to be recycled and who defines what is and isn’t ‘necessary’?

Our plastics recycling facilities are already groaning with over-supply of recyclables from the impact of the Chinese decision to stop importing most plastic waste for recycling there.

At the consumer end, households are struggling with a hugely variety of different schemes with different rules: if you move house there’s a good chance you’ll have to learn a new system. Live in a flat in Wandsworth and you are expected to put your recycling into a large single-use plastic bag. Really?

How much better if an unnecessary item isn’t produced at all. That more than 40 per cent of the plastic produced goes into single-use packaging is shocking, even before you consider the fact that the world total is more than 300 million tonnes each year.

After massive public pressure, the Government is supposed to be introducing a bottle deposit scheme, for plastic and other bottles, although we’re still waiting for actual action, and there’s always going to be significant numbers that escape the net.

Pub and café chains are rushing to promise to get rid of plastic straws, and there’s now some decent discounts on coffee in some places if you bring your own cup. Some are also calling for a ban on single-use sachets – sauce, vinegar, sugar etc.

I will happily applaud all of this, but huge amounts of parliamentary time could be taken up passing limited, fiddly legislation that has to define and restrict specific categories of table condiments, or focus on plastic straws or stirrers, a tiny fraction of our plastics pollution.

The logical way to approach this is to start at the other end. Let’s begin with a ban on all single-use plastic – that would cover everything you could think of and then some – single-use cups, sandwich wrappers and those really annoying almost unopenable hard plastic frames around toothbrushes.

Then you could make exceptions for items that are actually necessary – wrappings to keep medical equipment sterile, maybe some packaging for meat products, wherever a genuine case of need could be made.

This could be a model for further action. The plastics pollution crisis is just one of the ways in which we are butting up against the limits of this fragile planet.

Ensuring that resources are used only sparingly, and well, is a model that we need in all aspects of our economy.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Natalie Bennett) was leader of the Green Party of England and Wales from 2012 to 2016.

This blog post is part of a cross-party series on Vuelio’s political blog Point of Order, which publishes insight and opinion to help public affairs, policy and comms professionals stay ahead of political change and connect with those who campaign on the issues they care about. To find out more or contribute, get in touch with Vuelio Politics.

Investing in the UK’s transport infrastructure to reduce regional economic disparities across the country is a key Government priority now we have formally left the European Union, and are negotiating our future trading relationship with the bloc before the end of 2020.

In the 2019 General Election, the Conservatives pledged to build the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme and well as invest £29bn in strategic roads, including £1bn to boost the UK’s electric car charging network.

The Government postponed a decision to approve or scrap the High Speed 2 rail project, instead waiting for the Oakervee Review to report its findings into the project.

The Prime Minister has been under pressure from both sides on this issue of a new high-speed railway from London to Birmingham and then onward to the North East, Scotland and the North West. While initial budgets in 2015 costed the project at £55 billion, leaked information from the as yet unpublished Oakervee Review report suggests this cost has risen to more than £107 billion.

One inescapable fact of the 2019 election is Labour’s red wall of heartland seats falling to the Conservatives. Across the Midlands, the North of England, North Wales and the North East, the Prime Minister is only too aware he has a brief honeymoon period to repay the trust placed in him by lifelong Labour voters, many of whom voted Conservative for the first time.

Among the new intake of Conservative MPs, several have spoken out against the HS2 project including Simon Jupp, the MP for East Devon, who has become a member of the Transport Select Committee and intends to highlight the need for investment in the South West: ‘I can’t back HS2 when the main and branch railway lines in Devon simply are not fit for purpose’.

Richard Holden, the MP for North West Durham has said his preference is to reconnect his area with the rail network, and not to prioritise HS2 or further rail infrastructure in London or the South East: ‘Consett and the surrounding area is one of the largest population centres in England without a rail line, despite having four rail lines there as recently as the 1960s. I will be campaigning for a feasibility study to reconnect our area to the growth centres of the North East’.

These MPs will note the Government’s promise to open up as many branch rail lines as possible following closures in the 1960s, though the cost of this is likely to be significant.

Whether or not the Northern vote was actually in favour of ‘Getting Brexit done’, the Conservative Government has a chance to deliver for these northern communities or face handing these seats back to Labour in 2024 if the Opposition’s fortunes are reversed under their new leader, who will be announced on 4 April.

A video released by the Conservatives showing a northern working-class voter meeting Boris Johnson and speaking about some of the reasons why he voted Tory for the first time has been widely viewed on social media. The PM says every time he meets newly elected Conservative MPs, he tells them: ‘This is on loan, this is conditional. We have to repay the trust of the electorate’.

Andy Street, the West Midlands Mayor, is hailed by Conservatives as a modern Conservative municipal leader and was managing director of John Lewis from 2007 to 2016 before winning the West Midlands Mayoralty in 2017 by a wafer-thin majority of 3,776 votes out of over 523,000 cast.

He will be heavily banking on the first stage of HS2 getting the green light and a formal decision by Cabinet and the PM is expected to be made within weeks. Street is not just constrained by HS2 though and has recently pledged a joined up approach to passenger transport across his Birmingham and the Black Country.  Andy Street incidentally faces a tough re-election battle on 7 May when his Labour opponent, announced yesterday, will be former Cabinet Minister and Birmingham MP Liam Byrne.

Further examples of how this Government intends to improve regional transport include Transport Secretary Grant Shapps’ recent decision to strip Northern Rail of its franchise after a catalogue of delays and cancellations in recent years when he said: ‘People across the north deserve better, their communities deserve better and I am determined to achieve that.’

The move means that services will be operated by an arms-length Government-owned company.

This follows the January announcement by the Government that it would intervene to save the UK regional airline Flybe by postponing a payment of Air Passenger Duty, rumoured to be £100 million. The main reason behind the intervention is thought to be that the airline connects remote parts of the UK including in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the South West, as well as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

These recent decisions certainly show that the Government is prepared to think outside of the London and South East mindset that can often overshadow infrastructure decisions and also show that the Prime Minister recognises he needs to deliver on his promises to voters in the North and midlands. He knows he needs to improve their lives for the better and fast. Making sure the trains run on time would surely be a welcome start.