Latest news with #Tories
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Will you pay more council tax to fund the North? Use our tool to find out
Households across southern England that pay less than £2,000 a year in council tax are facing an increase in their bills to fund the North. Angela Rayner is cutting the amount of central government funding that local authorities which set low bills will receive. The Tories accused the Deputy Prime Minister of 'punishing' these councils and putting them under pressure to either cut services or increase council tax to cover the funding shortfall. The changes could lead to bills rising across southern England to enable more money to be sent to northern cities. About half of council income comes from central government, and Labour claims that the way it is shared between councils is unfair. There are 13 councils that charge less than £2,000 a year in council tax, all of them in London. However, town halls can only put up council tax by a maximum of 5 per cent unless a local referendum approves a higher rate, or the Government gives them permission to do so. The plans for what Ms Rayner believes is a 'progressive' redistribution were unveiled in a consultation document published on Friday. It will change the way that central government grants are shared out, based on calculations of what local authorities could raise if all areas charged the same rates of council tax based on their housing mix. The document states: 'The Government is proposing to set a notional council tax level that achieves the objective of full equalisation. 'To fully equalise against the council tax base, we set the notional council tax level at the average Band D level of council tax in England in scope of these reforms (c£2,000 in 2026-27).' The Government will also introduce a new formula for accounting central government funding based on local needs, including population, poverty and age. Ms Rayner believes it is unfair that people living in the North often pay hundreds of pounds more in council tax than those in southern areas. For example, a three-bedroom semi-detached home in Hartlepool generates a council tax bill higher than a 10-bedroom home in Westminster valued at £80 million. The combination of the two changes will mean steep falls in grant income for wealthier councils, mainly in London and the South East, forcing them to either raise council tax rates to make up the shortfall or cut public services. Ms Rayner also unveiled changes to council tax collection to stamp out 'unacceptable, aggressive' practices. To help households manage their finances, she proposes to change council tax billing from 10 months to 12 months. Council tax bills tend to be paid through 10 instalments (from April to January) and the majority of the 25 million council tax bills issued each year in England are paid by this method. But 12 month instalments could help households to spread the cost of their bills over a longer period. The Government is also looking at enforcement processes, including 'a more appropriate and proportionate time frame' before councils can demand a full bill from households. When someone fails to pay council tax, a reminder can be sent seven days after a missed payment. Following that, if the bill remains unpaid seven days after the reminder notice has been issued, the full amount due for the year becomes payable.
West Australian
3 hours ago
- Politics
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Government are torpedoing relationship with the US
It's brutally realistic that the compulsion to fight for your life and your country's existence can affect someone's thinking about national defence. Israelis don't have the luxury of wishing and hoping that the world was a more peaceful place. Nor do the Ukrainians. Or the Taiwanese. An existential threat will focus the mind on how much to spend on your survival. Do Australians need a more obvious regional menace before we start to think seriously about our national security? As if China didn't make it plain enough with a live firing drill off Sydney and what was obviously meant to be a humiliating circumnavigation of our coastline by part of its navy just to ram home how defenceless we really are. If and when China wants to do anything about it. Should we just bet that it doesn't? Instead, stand back wishing and hoping while China buys off another of our regional neighbours that before President Xi Jinping's elevation — and his aggressively expansionist mindset — it didn't care a fig about. Cash-splashing agreements like the so-called Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with the far-distant Cook Islands, all demanding adherence to the One China policy, hardly reflect an altruistic interest in the welfare of the region's inhabitants well beyond its horizons. In the face of a more dangerous world, Australia's dripping-wet lefties write letters to the editor calling for peace. Write them to Xi. And Putin. Or the Ayatollah. Good luck there. The peaceniks admire our Foreign Minister, who always finds some mealy-mouthed way of censuring Israel's efforts to defend itself, words that barely conceal her contempt for the Jewish state. Our Prime Minister, who never matured his political leanings from indoctrination as an undergraduate Bolshevik, waves away demands for increased defence spending like an unwanted smell. The only thing Anthony Albanese ever publicly professed a desire to fight is 'Tories.' And he's obviously far more comfortable in the ideological trenches than confronting the real emerging threats to our national security. Albanese was saved a potential confrontation with Donald Trump this week over his resistance to commit to a realistic national security target because the US President was too busy helping a worthy ally. One that more than pulls its weight in making the world a safer place. But Albanese's day of reckoning for his neglect of our national security will arrive one way or another soon enough. Reality has a nasty way of crashing in. We should all pray that we never face the same sort of existential threats that Israelis wake up to every day. But look at how it responds. Israel spends about 8.8 per cent of its GDP on defence, some US$46.5 billion provided this year. We have set aside US$38.5b ($59b) which represents a shade over 2 per cent. Israel's economy is about a quarter the size of Australia's, 34th in the world against 13th. We are significantly wealthier with GDP per capita of US$57,000 against US$42,000. It has a population of 9.5 million against 27 million. You could fit Israel's land mass 350 times into Australia's. Tasmania is three times bigger. And it is squeezed between countries that want to destroy it while we sit in the splendid isolation of an island continent at the bottom of the world. In the cyberworld, that isolation offers no defence. When Israel launched its attack on Iran's nuclear and missile launching facilities eight days ago, it had more than 200 fighter planes in the air simultaneously. Our air force notionally has 87. Obviously, the defensive needs of our two counties are vastly different. There's no way Israel has the same requirement as us for submarines, but it still has five German-made diesel-electric boats with air-independent propulsion for stealth operations. All are believed to be capable of carrying nuclear-armed missiles. We have six conventionally-armed Collins-class diesel-electric submarines of which only two are believed to be operational at any time. Which is why our commitment to the AUKUS deal and its provision of long-range stealthy nuclear-powered submarines from the US by the early 2030s is fundamental to our defence posture. And which is why the US decision to review the AUKUS deal against Trump's America First policy settings is far more serious than Labor is conceding to the public. Australians need to have a very clear understanding of the timeline that has led to this very serious brinkmanship and how our 'gift horse' attitude has been so damaging. The annual Shangri-La security dialogue in Singapore, much of it held behind closed doors, is one of the most important meetings held by world leaders to discuss the Asia-Pacific region. There were two notable firsts this year. A European, President Emmanuel Macron of France, delivered the keynote address, signifying piqued interest in the region's tensions, and the Chinese Defence Minister was not present for the first time since 2019. But the highlight was the address by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth who said America was 'reorienting towards deterring aggression by communist China' and seeking a situation of 'peace through strength' in which China 'cannot dominate us or our allies and partners.' 'Any attempt by communist China to conquer Taiwan would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world,' Hegseth said. 'We are not going to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.' He laid down the gauntlet: 'President Trump has said that communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch.' Hegseth also had a public message for America's allies in the region: 'We ask — and indeed, we insist — that our allies and partners do their part on defence. Sometimes, that means having uncomfortable and tough conversations.' And he set a standard for the commitment: 'NATO members are pledging to spend 5 per cent of their GDP on defence, even Germany. 'So it doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies in Asia spend less on defence in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea.' While that was immediately reported, Hegseth's private demands to Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles were not. As the heat rose around Hegseth's comments, Albanese was again asked about America's demand to the Europeans to lift defence spending commitments — and again he came up short. 'What you should do in defence is decide what you need, your capability, and then provide for it,' Albanese said. 'That's what my Government is doing.' He was leaning, not lifting. Typically. In a clear response to that, the Americans immediately released a readout of Hegseth's bilateral meeting with Marles in which he said Australia should increase its defence spending to 3.5 percent of its GDP as soon as possible. That the Americans saw the need to do that should be deeply embarrassing to Albanese and Marles. But they attempted, as usual, to deflect it. And then the Americans announced the review of AUKUS. That is the pickle we are in. If it is their genuine intention to measure the deal against America First principles, it is hard to see how it can stand in its present form. The so-called 'assurance' Trump gave on the fly to the UK Prime Minister at the G7 on the future of the deal is meaningless for us. It needs output of 2.3 new Virginia-class submarines a year by the early 2030s, but is currently running at 1.2 with no signs of immediate improvement despite an extra injection of $10 billion to boost production. The Americans have already decided that Australia is dragging its feet on defence spending after repeated proddings. Trump has almost certainly concluded that Albanese is recalcitrant. Regardless of what is going on behind the scenes, Trump requires his allies to make public shows of fealty. Albanese was given plenty of opportunity, but preferred to stubbornly decline. The proposal by former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo, author of the 2009 defence white paper, to offer the submarine repair shipyard at Henderson, south of Perth, as a joint US/Australian facility went unheeded. The US Navy has a severe backlog in its submarine maintenance program and assured access to Henderson would help clear that, allowing more boats at sea. That in turn would reduce the risk of a US president in 2032 not certifying the transfer of US subs to Australia — as required by law — on the grounds that it would degrade the US submarine capability. Albanese's ingrained leftist instincts against increased defence spending — which traditionally drops under Labor governments anyway — are obvious to everyone. And that includes Trump. For electoral gain, Labor ruthlessly demonised Peter Dutton to look like he was standing too close to Trump. Now Albanese will be made to pay for not being close enough.
The National
4 hours ago
- Business
- The National
Heat gets to MPs' heads as they daydream about ousting Keir Starmer
IT feels increasingly like people are not as switched on in Westminster this weather as perhaps they should be. It may be the heat. My office has the keen disadvantage of catching the sun just as it begins its westward descent towards the end of the day. It could not get hotter unless we had a sunroof installed to catch the midday rays. Has it gone to everyone's heads? Commentators who usually complain about the snail pace of legislation have turned to bemoaning how two major pieces of social change enacted in Westminster this week – the decriminalisation of abortion and the passage of the assisted suicide bill – were rushed. This is not a comment on the merits of either topic, merely a reaffirmation of the veracity of the truism: 'You can't please all the people all the time.' Someone who is finding it difficult to please anyone any of the time is Keir Starmer. His buddy Donald Trump (above) seemed to tire quickly of the Prime Minister's company at the G7 summit this week, leaving abruptly with ominous threats that he could bomb Iran at any moment. Starmer is busy pleading for de-escalation, meanwhile arranging the evacuation of British citizens from Tel Aviv – giving the distinct impression the PM rates peace's chances none too highly. READ MORE: Lisa Nandy 'either dishonest or ignorant' after benefits cuts claim On the home front, he hardly fares better. Vicky Foxcroft whipped her last this week when she dramatically quit on Thursday night, saying she could not back benefits cuts. Department for Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall (below) says that the cuts, expected to save £5 billion, would save the benefits system – worth a cool £326bn, all told – from collapse. Square those sums, if you can. Labour MPs for the most part seem fairly sanguine with the prospect of their official forecast that 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will be plunged into poverty by the changes. Some have grown a spine, or were lucky enough to have been born with one, and have criticised the cuts. Over them hangs the threat of being 'blacklisted' for government jobs in the future. So much for the 'biggest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation'. One MP, far from a fan of the Prime Minister, told me this week that they reckon Starmer's time will come – and soon. There are murmurs – falling short of outright chatter – about who would replace Starmer when the men in red ties come for him. But that's getting ahead of ourselves, if you care for my opinion. Does this limp crop of Labour MPs even have it in them to do the necessary scheming to plot an insurgency? Say what you want about the Tories but at least they had a taste for cloaks and daggers. Starmer's lot seem more like they'd be pushing for parental guidance for reporting on tales of political skulduggery. I think Starmer's high noon is still a long way off. You can get the Worst of Westminster delivered straight to your email inbox every Friday at 6pm for FREE by clicking here.
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
MPs back assisted dying: what next?
MPs have voted – by a narrow 23-vote margin – in favour of legalising assisted dying. Bizarrely, the 51.9 to 48.1 per cent breakdown is the exact same as the 2016 referendum result, although hopefully this issue doesn't divide the Labour party in the same way that Brexit did for the Tories. The whole process is far from 'Parliament at its best', as it has often been claimed. Despite hours of passionate and emotional debate, key concerns about the drafting of the bill forced some who would naturally back assisted dying to oppose it. The overwhelming feeling is that a private member's bill was not the right forum for this kind of legislation. So what comes next? The bill will now pass to the House of Lords, after which comes the business of putting the measures into practice. This raises a multitude of problems for the Labour government, as it must now decide, for example, whether the responsibility will fall on the NHS or private doctors; who will pay for it; and what legal protections will be given to doctors and nurses. Other key questions remain: did Keir Starmer break a voting pact with David Lammy? And how could the decision to go against the party impact ambitious members of the shadow cabinet? Lucy Dunn, James Hale and Rajiv Shah, former adviser in No. 10, discuss. Produced by Oscar Edmondson.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Jenrick: Grooming gang members must face automatic life sentences
Child sexual groomers must face automatic life sentences and should be barred from big discounts on their sentences if they plead guilty, Robert Jenrick has said. Setting out his party's policy in the wake of the Baroness Casey review, the shadow justice secretary said it should be 'the norm' for anyone convicted of a rape or sexual offence involving child grooming to face a life sentence. He said they should also serve consecutive terms where there are multiple victims, instead of the common current practice where the sentences run concurrently. This would mean that a man handed three separate terms of 10 years for rape would have to serve 30 years. Mr Jenrick also proposed that child sexual groomers should be barred from eligibility for a third off their sentence if they plead guilty at their first court hearing, as is currently the case under the discount scheme. The decades-old system is designed to encourage early guilty pleas, which can spare victims the trauma of appearing before a court and also speed up justice. The Tories are also proposing to review overall discounts where a guilty plea earns a quarter off the sentence if entered after the first hearing but before the trial starts. Offenders can also get a tenth off if they plead guilty when the trial begins. Mr Jenrick said: 'There should be no guilty plea discounts for organised sexual exploitation. The privilege should stay only for low-level, non-violent crime where victims genuinely avoid court.' As part of the proposed policy, he said dual nationals convicted of child exploitation should be stripped of their British citizenship and foreign nationals should be deported the 'moment their sentence ends'. Loophole exploited The Home Office has taken such action against two of the ringleaders of the Rochdale grooming gang scandal, Qari Abdul Rauf, a 55-year-old father of five, and Adil Khan, 54, who were jailed in 2012 for their part in raping or sexually assaulting 47 girls, including some as young as 12. But the pair have exploited a loophole by also renouncing their Pakistani citizenship, which has led to a stalemate, with Pakistan refusing to take them back as it no longer recognises them as citizens. Tory sources said they would investigate whether they could close the loophole and would also review the lower tariff discounts to sentences for serious offenders such as child sex groomers. The moves follow low sentences issued to groomers such as Sohail Zaffer, 41, who was jailed for just three years and six months for raping a child, and Manzon Akhtar, imprisoned for four and a half years, also for raping a child. Mr Jenrick said: 'These men have been sentenced but not punished. They are already back out walking the same streets as their victims. 'These were some of the few who were convicted. The Telford inquiry found that more than 1,000 girls were raped and abused, yet just 10 men have been convicted for their crimes.' He said that even when they were prosecuted, serious flaws in the criminal justice system meant that they did not get the longer sentences merited by their crimes. 'Tactical giveaway' 'First, many rape gang trials happened more than 20 years after the abuse. Under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, judges are forbidden from imposing a harsher penalty than was available at the time of the crime,' he added. 'In the 1990s, indecent assault on a child carried a 10-year cap, not life – so the court's hands were tied, even when the same act today would attract a life tariff. 'Second are discounts. A rapist who pleads guilty at the first hearing is automatically given up to a third off their sentence. The rule was meant to spare victims from cross-examination. In grooming gang cases, it's become a tactical giveaway – the damage is done, victims still relive the abuse in court statements and the perpetrator bags a shorter stretch. 'For group child rape that trade off simply isn't defensible, not least for victims who have waited decades for justice. 'Third is the totality rule: when an offender faces many counts, judges, as bound by the Sentencing Council, must make the overall term 'just and proportionate'. They therefore run most sentences concurrently. 'Mohammed Din was convicted of 11 rapes, each worth well into double digits, but received 14 years in total because the terms all overlap. That's barely a year per rape. 'The result? Derisory jail terms that insult survivors, embolden predators and shred public confidence in justice.'
