Latest news with #DavidCameron
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
How bad is the HS2 fiasco now? So bad it's time to listen to Nigel Farage
Stop it now. Stop spending sums that you admit are out of control. Show common sense and send everyone home. HS2 is a bad joke, a fiasco. Labour's second transport secretary in a year, Heidi Alexander, claimed on Wednesday to be shocked by HS2. She was clearly new to the subject. After being briefed on the latest delays and cost overruns by the latest CEO, Mark Wild, she said that the project was 'an appalling mess … a litany of failure … unsustainable'. It was as if she had just entered a morgue and disliked the smell. What then? Alexander read out the usual dog-eared transport department brief. It said she would 'draw a line in the sand' and 'get the job done'. She did not know what it might cost or when it might actually open. But since it would be at least eight years overdue, no one need really care. Every other spending minister has a right to howl. Each day of the year, Alexander signs away £20m to fund a 12-year-old vanity project of a Tory prime minister, David Cameron. That is to meet HS2's current Treasury subsidy of £7bn a year. Alexander's statement clearly indicated that she was forbidden to challenge any aspect of the project beyond the ineptitude of its management. This enabled her to play the familiar Starmer card of blaming the opposition for everything that goes wrong, and imply that in her hands all would be fine. We have heard this from a decade of HS2 ministers, not one of whom was in office long enough to withstand its lobbies. It is a measure of the rottenness of British government that Cameron's project dazzled politicians of both parties as well as the media establishment. Labour's Ed Balls once said it would cancel HS2 if it costs went beyond the then £50bn price tag. But infrastructure is a religious creed. Its shrines, once sanctified by the Treasury, are beyond criticism. HS2 is clearly a project too big to stop. Everyone I have ever known in government agrees it was a mistake. But to say so in political circles is like questioning the virgin birth. The result is that no transport secretary, no chancellor and no prime minister has felt strong enough to order cancellation. Boris Johnson, who had once dismissed HS2 as a 'gimmick', merely hacked off its north-east limb. Rishi Sunak hacked off its north-west one. In doing so they slashed whatever value still attached to the project as a whole. It is now no more than a surplus line from an isolated station in central Birmingham to Acton in London, and possibly on to one of London's least busy terminuses, Euston. Alexander is so in awe of HS2 that she appears to have reversed Sunak's bizarre insistence that new extension be privately financed. This will give Euston four to six extra platforms. It is simply astonishing expenditure, a staggering £6bn for a few platforms. You could rebuild London's most derelict hospitals with that. No one mentons that HS2 at current costs will pocket about £2,000 each from the average British taxpayer. HS2's contractors were told that they would be reimbursed for all their costs, plus inflation plus profit. Typical of Whitehall project management, this was insane. It meant that absolutely nobody had an interest in restraining costs rather than inflating them. That is how the company's 'world class' bosses have long earned £400,000-£600,000 a year, while more than 40 senior staff earn over £150,000. The result is that HS2's 30,000 staff, officials and consultants, its Whitehall civil servants, local councils and businesses, have formed a massive lobby for continuation. Johnson's Downing Street transport adviser, Andrew Gilligan, tells of officials who 'lied, covered up and fired whistle-blowers'. One whistleblower known to me felt as though he was working for the mafia. The lobby sent a deputation to the Guardian to explain to me why my opposition was so wrong. The former owner of the Euston site called the project a giant 'Ponzi scheme, a gravy train to nowhere'. And they all walk away with their pay, perks and honours intact. It is a classic of Britain's 'deep state' at work. Alexander is now repeating the old ministerial mantra that the project will be fine if managed by her. It always starts with more reports. Alexander is now waiting for another Wild report. It follows the Oakervee review and countless others from Stephen Glaister, the National Audit Office and the public accounts committee. All warn of trouble ahead. All have been ignored. The continued uncertainty over HS2 costs can only mean continued increases. The project is now way below normal Treasury value for money estimates, and survives only by the grace of politics. Its cancellation would of course cost more money. But of the currently assumed £100bn, only between £30bn and £40bn has been spent. There is still about £60bn needed for what is a purely political gesture of growth machismo. Keir Starmer is fond these days of parroting Reform's leader, Nigel Farage. He should listen to what Farage said on Wednesday: 'Scrap HS2', and spend the money on something worthwhile. Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Echoes of Brexit as Starmer is pressed to seize initiative on human rights
Can a lefty human rights lawyer be the one to take on Britain's uneasy relationship with the European convention on human rights (ECHR)? It is the most unlikely of causes for Keir Starmer. But there is a growing feeling in government that he should seize the initiative. It will not just be a renegotiation in Europe, which ministers fear would echo the failed EU one attempted by David Cameron, but unilateral reform in the way the fundamental rights in the convention can be applied. It is fraught with complication and risk and no one knows that better than the prime minister. Starmer is steeped in the language and history of the Strasbourg court. Allies say he can – and does – reel off the most important cases and precedents from memory. The first time Starmer wrote for the Guardian was in 2009 on the fundamental importance of human rights, saying that to dismiss them was to 'lose all notion of justice and surrender to the sometimes understandable but always inappropriate yearning solely for retribution'. But it is from this position that those in government – and a growing number of Labour MPs – believe there is an opportunity to lance the boil of the far-right argument to leave the convention altogether. 'Under this government the question of whether to stay in the ECHR is settled, it's not even a question,' one senior government minister said. 'But this is not the EU – it's not about in or out – it's about whether we can use our national sovereignty to address what is a legitimate concern from the public to how this law is being applied in order to preserve what are really fundamental human rights laws which we all believe in.' The rightwing press have made a bogeyman of the ECHR – making wildly misleading accusations of it being responsible for allowing criminals to stay in Britain because their children don't like foreign chicken nuggets. It is the bete noire of Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, and leaving the ECHR was the platform for his Conservative leadership attempt. It looks almost certain to be adopted as a policy by Kemi Badenoch. Nigel Farage said it would be his first act to leave, if he were PM. But a growing number of Labour MPs say that although much of the criticism of the ECHR is hyped-up nonsense that falls apart when details of the cases are revealed, some of the commentary is valid. Many are in Reform-facing seats and want the government to seize the issue and act decisively. The two key aspects of the convention that have caused the most controversy are article 8, which includes privacy and right to family life; and article 3, freedom from torture and degrading treatment. The Home Office is undertaking reviews of both – and how courts apply them. ITV's investigation this week is an obvious illustration; two fugitives wanted for murder and child rape, one of whom has offended again in Britain, cannot be deported because of overcrowded conditions in Brazilian prisons. In a joint article responding to the ITV investigation, two of the most vocal Labour MPs of the 2024 intake – Jake Richards and Dan Tomlinson – said the government needed to neutralise the calls from the Tories and Reform to leave the ECHR. To do that, it should 'offer serious and practical changes to see off this threat and deliver for the British people'. Many more MPs say they believe there are examples the world over of voters reacting violently against international law and treaties because of their perceived anti-democratic inflexibility, which they believe stops them getting the changes they vote for. The way to stop this growing backlash happening in Britain, they say, is to show that change can happen without throwing away decades of long-fought-for human rights. The attorney general, Richard Hermer, a veteran human rights lawyer like Starmer, whose legal career has made him a big target for the right, has hinted he is in agreement. His view will be essential to the path Starmer takes. 'British leadership to strengthen and reform the international rules-based system is both the right thing to do and the only truly realistic choice,' he said in a recent speech. Senior government figures say there may be a path for a bill that sets out the principles on how the ECHR can be applied going forward, shaped by modern circumstances. But there is a strong feeling that seeking European-wide agreement to change the ECHR is a non-starter – it would take too long, be too tortuous, and give the impression the UK is going 'cap in hand' to Strasbourg to ask for permission to change things. It is true that nation states, including France, have begun to vary their interpretations of those laws, especially article 8. Some cabinet minsters believe that the change can come through guidance, especially to the first-tier immigration tribunal, about how to apply the law. But MPs in favour of change would like to see the government seize the cause more robustly and publicly than that, which is why they favour legislation. 'There have been too many occasions where the centre left haven't seized a cause that could turn very ugly and found a way to respond to public concern in a way that is progressive,' one said. The challenge is how to land that message of a third way, instead of the binary choice the populist right will present between leave or remain. That will feel queasily familiar to veterans of the Brexit years – Starmer again is among them.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Is Kemi Badenoch's grooming gangs outrage just politics or does she really care?
Here's a rule I tend to apply across the board in Westminster: If a politician is talking, politics is probably taking place. Add into that, if the topic of debate is especially grave or serious, be more prepared to apply the rule, not less. Which brings us to . There is no doubt Tory leader Kemi Badenoch was politicising the issue when she ripped into the government in the Commons on Monday. In fact, she admitted as much. Asked about it during her news conference, she said: "When I'm in the Commons, I will do politics. If every time we are pointing things out and doing our job we are accused of politicising something, it makes it a lot harder." So the question here is less about whether politics is at play (it almost always is and that's not necessarily a bad thing), and more about whose interests the politics is working towards. In other words, does Ms Badenoch care about the grooming scandal because she cares about victims or because she cares about herself? To answer that, it's useful to try and pinpoint exactly when the Tory leader started showing such a keen desire for a public inquiry. Was she always harbouring it? Or did it only arrive after Elon Musk and others pushed the scandal back up the news agenda? On this, she's not helped by the record of the governments she served in. Yes, the broader child abuse inquiry was announced under David Cameron, but there was no specific statutory grooming inquiry. As late as 2022, the then Tory safeguarding minister was batting away demands for a public inquiry on the basis that locally-led probes were preferable. That is - as it happens - the same explanation the current Labour safeguarding minister Jess Phillips offered to Oldham Council in the rejection letter that sparked outrage and set us on a path to this eventual outcome. Read more: "If we'd got this right years ago then I doubt we'd be in this place now," wrote Baroness Casey in her audit. If Labour can be attacked for acting too slowly, the Tories - and by extension Ms Badenoch - can be too. In response, her aides insist she was bound by collective responsibility while she was a minister, and that the issue was outside her brief. Ms Badenoch also points to her work with patients of the now closed Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic as evidence of her track record campaigning for change in thorny policy areas. In this context, the presence in the grooming scandal of questions around the role of gender and ethnicity mark this as an issue that you'd expect the Tory leader to not only be interested in, but to genuinely care about too. But as previously discussed, just because a politician is somewhat sincere in what they are saying, doesn't mean there isn't a dollop of politics mixed in too. And having dug out a recording of a post-PMQs briefing with Ms Badenoch's media adviser from January, that certainly seems to be the case here. Asked what had changed to trigger the calls for an inquiry, the spokesperson said: "We can all go back and look at the reasons why this entered the popular discourse. This is something that is of high public salience." Or to put it another way, the politics changed.
Sky News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Is Kemi Badenoch's grooming gangs outrage just politics or does she really care?
Here's a rule I tend to apply across the board in Westminster: If a politician is talking, politics is probably taking place. Add into that, if the topic of debate is especially grave or serious, be more prepared to apply the rule, not less. Which brings us to the grooming scandal. There is no doubt Tory leader Kemi Badenoch was politicising the issue when she ripped into the government in the Commons on Monday. In fact, she admitted as much. Asked about it during her news conference, she said: "When I'm in the Commons, I will do politics. If every time we are pointing things out and doing our job we are accused of politicising something, it makes it a lot harder." So the question here is less about whether politics is at play (it almost always is and that's not necessarily a bad thing), and more about whose interests the politics is working towards. In other words, does Ms Badenoch care about the grooming scandal because she cares about victims or because she cares about herself? 1:03 To answer that, it's useful to try and pinpoint exactly when the Tory leader started showing such a keen desire for a public inquiry. Was she always harbouring it? Or did it only arrive after Elon Musk and others pushed the scandal back up the news agenda? On this, she's not helped by the record of the governments she served in. Yes, the broader child abuse inquiry was announced under David Cameron, but there was no specific statutory grooming inquiry. As late as 2022, the then Tory safeguarding minister was batting away demands for a public inquiry on the basis that locally-led probes were preferable. That is - as it happens - the same explanation the current Labour safeguarding minister Jess Phillips offered to Oldham Council in the rejection letter that sparked outrage and set us on a path to this eventual outcome. 1:56 "If we'd got this right years ago then I doubt we'd be in this place now," wrote Baroness Casey in her audit. If Labour can be attacked for acting too slowly, the Tories - and by extension Ms Badenoch - can be too. In response, her aides insist she was bound by collective responsibility while she was a minister, and that the issue was outside her brief. Ms Badenoch also points to her work with patients of the now closed Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic as evidence of her track record campaigning for change in thorny policy areas. In this context, the presence in the grooming scandal of questions around the role of gender and ethnicity mark this as an issue that you'd expect the Tory leader to not only be interested in, but to genuinely care about too. But as previously discussed, just because a politician is somewhat sincere in what they are saying, doesn't mean there isn't a dollop of politics mixed in too. And having dug out a recording of a post-PMQs briefing with Ms Badenoch's media adviser from January, that certainly seems to be the case here. Asked what had changed to trigger the calls for an inquiry, the spokesperson said: "We can all go back and look at the reasons why this entered the popular discourse. This is something that is of high public salience." Or to put it another way, the politics changed.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Credit Suisse was ‘warned' about Greensill three years before firm collapsed
Bosses at Credit Suisse were warned against dealing with the Australian financier Lex Greensill's eponymous company three years before the collapse of his Greensill Capital, which once employed the former UK prime minister David Cameron as an adviser. The 'character judgment' of senior Credit Suisse managers was challenged in anonymous messages they received as early as 2018, which raised concerns over the Swiss bank's dealings with Greensill, according to a report by the Swiss regulator Finma, released under a London court order after a request by the Guardian and other media. The document showed senior managers were warned several times about the risks involved in its business dealings with Greensill and his firm, the 2021 collapse of which contributed to Credit Suisse's shocking demise in March 2023. A message from an anonymous tipster raised 'strong doubts' over the bank's strategy of packaging up Greensill's loans into $10bn (£7.4bn) worth of investable funds for wealthy clients. Greensill appeared at the high court in London this week as a witness in a month-long trial, in which a former Credit Suisse fund is suing the Japanese tech investor SoftBank for $440m over a complex deal it allegedly coordinated with Greensill Capital before its collapse. The Finma report, released as part of the trial, detailed the messages sent to Credit Suisse managers. 'We also have serious doubts about your character judgment in choosing Greensill Capital as a partner in this field, and even more so in giving them the degree of discretion over your clients' money which they appear to have,' the message said. The tipster was also concerned that a 'large proportion' of those loans were to companies in the metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta's troubled steel empire. The message added that the recent collapse of another set of Greensill-backed funds offered by rival asset manager GAM 'should be taken as a strong warning … you need to take care'. One senior manager forwarded the 2018 tipoff to Lex Greensill, adding: 'People in CS are receiving anonymous mails … seriously, you have to rethink your communication strategy!' Greensill Capital, founded in 2011, offered corporate loans, giving companies advances on their invoices in exchange for a fee. But its founder, the Australian melon farmer turned City banker, entered into a series of complex financial agreements and marketed his lender as a tech firm stacked with high-profile advisers including Cameron. Greensill went on to attract a series of large investors including General Atlantic and SoftBank, whose investments were purportedly meant to expand Greensill's activities. 'However, as it later turned out, these funds were primarily used to pay out private investors and to provide Greensill Bank, which was increasingly coming under regulatory scrutiny, with additional capital,' the Finma report stated. 'Under the management of Lex Greensill, the company provide[d] customised suits for its employees, elegant business premises and its own fleet of business jets.' Finma's report, which was compiled in December 2022 after nearly two years of investigations, showed Credit Suisse bosses continued to receive warnings over their dealings with Greensill as late as June 2019. Greensill was, at the time, still on the rise and had hoped to launch a £22bn stock market flotation before the Covid pandemic put its clients and investors under severe financial strain. Greensill eventually collapsed in March 2021, after insurers refused to renew contracts that underpinned its loans. It came amid growing concern over the firm's management and its outsized exposure to Gupta's metals empire, which ultimately sparked a string of financial and political scandals. It forced Credit Suisse to close its $10bn Greensill-backed funds, leaving wealthy customers nursing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of losses and further eroding confidence in Credit Suisse. That led the Swiss regulator, Finma, to launch what became a near two-year investigation into its dealings with Greensill. The full resulting Finma report was never previously released. But key findings, released in February 2023, declared that Credit Suisse 'seriously breached its supervisory obligations' and would face additional oversight for senior managers and important business relationships. The 167-year-old bank collapsed a month later, leading to its emergency rescue by rival UBS. UBS is still trying to recoup money for former investors of the Greensill-backed Credit Suisse funds. Commenting on the Finma report, UBS said: 'This is a legacy Credit Suisse matter. The conduct described in the report pre-dates UBS's acquisition of Credit Suisse.' A representative for Lex Greensill declined to comment. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
