Delegates at Green Party conference in Manchester have voted for HS2 to be funded and completed in full, including the entire Eastern leg and an underground through station at Manchester Piccadilly. The policy development comes as phase one of HS2 between London and Birmingham is well under construction.

Commenting on the revised Green Party policy, co-leader Carla Denyer MP, said:

“The Green Party has long supported the principle of a new north-south high-speed rail line but had serious concerns about the specific route of HS2 and the environmental impacts of this route.

“However, this first phase of HS2 between London and Birmingham is well under way and most of the environmental impacts of construction are already baked in. So this is a pragmatic decision by the Green Party. It moves us on.

“Crucially, we have also acknowledged that the northern leg of HS2 was always the most important in terms of tackling capacity issues on our railways as well as addressing regional inequalities. So the line must be completed in full.

“We also say loud and clear that our railways have to be built right – for habitats and wildlife, for local transport users, for affected neighbours and for government coffers. Greens will not support blank cheques or offer uncritical endorsement.

“We need to move at great speed to shift travel away from cars and flights to public transport. HS2, in full, can play an important role in achieving this shift.”

The vote passed with 345 for and 318 against.

Buses were privatised under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s

But since 2017, metro mayors have had the power to run their own bus networks.

Manchester mayor Andy Burnham launched the hugely successful Bee Network last year - which increased reliability, introduced 24/7 services and boosted passenger numbers.

He’s pledged to complete the process of taking Manchester’s buses under public control by next January (2025).

Similar plans are underway in the Liverpool City Region and West Yorkshire.

It’s understood Labour’s rule changes, to be tabled in the Commons on Tuesday, would lift the ban on local councils setting up community bus companies, allowing more local leaders to take more services into public control.
[…]

Thousands of vital routes have been axed - that's what happens when control is handed to those who put profit above passengers

By Louise Haigh, Transport Secretary

[…]
I’ve heard countless stories from people let down, of communities cut off, about opportunities missed, all due to poor bus services. I know how much this matters.

That’s why this Government was elected. To deliver on our mission to repair and rebuild Britain. To return our country to the service of working people. To fix what is broken.

And I am not wasting any time. My pledge to Mirror readers is simple: better buses are around the corner.

I promised to move fast and fix things, and next week I will be setting out the first stop on the journey to better buses, with steps to take back control of our buses.

For too long Private operators have been allowed to pick and choose whatever routes they want, regardless of what communities need. We want to see every area have the power to build their own public transport network in a way that works for them
[…]
Four decades of deregulation has seen thousands of vital routes axed, and a staggering 1.5 billion fewer bus journeys taken each year.

This wasn’t inevitable. It is the result of political choices.

It is what happens when control of services is handed to those who put profit above passengers.

When whole communities are cut off and isolated, without a thought to the damage this does to local economies.

Archive

The housing secretary is considering abolishing [Right to Buy] for newly built council houses and cutting the discount offered to existing tenants.

The deputy prime minister is facing growing pressure from local authorities to reduce the cost of Baroness Thatcher’s flagship policy, and a consultation on proposals will be launched in October’s Budget.

More than 100 local authorities called for the scheme to be axed on new council homes in a damning report into the state of Britain’s housing stock published on Tuesday. The report, commissioned by Southwark Council, said the policy was helping to burn a £2.2bn hole in local authority accounts and exacerbating the country’s housing crisis.

Ms Rayner attended an “urgent meeting” with local authorities last month to discuss housing reforms. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government told The Telegraph: “We are working at pace to reverse the continued decline in the number of social rent homes.”
[…]
In Southwark Council’s report, local authorities said Right to Buy had created “a serious problem for the sustainability of England’s council housing”. Ms Rayner said in the summer that the Government was considering protections for new council homes.

Discounts on the scheme can reach as much as £75,000 outside of London, and over £100,000 in London. The cap, which is based on how long a tenant rents a property before buying it, is limited to £136,400 in London.
[…]
In the last financial year, 10,896 homes were sold through Right to Buy and only 3,447 were replaced, official figures show – resulting in a net loss of 7,449. Since 1991, the scheme has resulted in a net loss of 24,000 social homes.

This is partly because under the current system, councils can only keep a third of the receipts from each sale to build a replacement home, with the rest going to the council and government for other purposes.

Following high-profile rows over the amount of time the likes of Reform leader Nigel Farage and ex-cabinet minister Nadine Dorries spent in the Commons or their seat, an overwhelming majority (77 per cent) of voters backed a minimum attendance rule for MPs.

The Savanta/38 Degrees survey, shared exclusively with [I], suggested just 6 per cent of the public would oppose such a move.

The poll also saw voters backing a series of reforms to improve MPs’ conduct after years of sleaze scandals, including banning MPs for deliberately lying in public (79 per cent), introducing a job description (77 per cent), banning MPs from betting on political outcomes (77 per cent), tightening restrictions on gifts (75 per cent), and banning specific second jobs (70 per cent).

But despite Sir Keir Starmer’s pledges to clean up politics and rebuild trust, more voters are more pessimistic (38 per cent) than optimistic (35 per cent) the Government will improve standards for MPs.

The lack of belief in the Prime Minister’s commitments come after a string of cronyism allegations levelled at Labour over the filling of Whitehall jobs since the election.

The lack of trust was also illustrated by the fact nearly two thirds (65 per cent) of voters believe that in the current political system, MPs who behave unethically are likely to get away with it.

This sentiment cuts across party lines, with 74 per cent of 2024 Reform UK voters, 61 per cent of Conservative voters, and 62 per cent of Labour voters expressing the same concern.

Sir Anthony Seldon is set to release his latest political biography, ‘Truss at 10: How Not to be a Prime Minister’ on 29th August, covering the turbulent 49 days that Truss was in the top seat.

The book is expected to contain some bombshell revelations about her time in charge, including insight into how she proposed to deal with the fallout from her disastrous mini-budget, which sent financial markets into a death spiral.

It also claims that Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg tried to persuade Truss to make him chancellor instead of Kwasi Kwarteng, and that he urged her to abolish inheritance tax, replace all tax rates with a 20p flat rate, and organise a stunt to promote nuclear power.

Seldon writes that the then cabinet minister told Truss: “We should get a nuclear submarine to dock at Liverpool and plug it into the grid. That would show it is safe.”

Sir Anthony says cabinet secretary Simon Case dismissed the idea as a “non-starter”, adding that “the subs are needed in operations”.

Archive

Senior figures in the party are pushing for a controversial rule change at next month’s party conference, which would change the way Labour elects its leader if the party is in power.

The scheme is viewed as a way to avoid a repeat of the Tory leadership contest in 2022, when Tory members made Truss leader despite her not having the support of the majority of MPs.
[…]
Allies of Starmer believe a similar [long leadership contest] should be avoided at all costs, by reforming how his successor is elected if the party is still in government. They want only MPs to have a say over who should succeed Starmer as leader.

Those behind the move also believe the timing is right for Starmer to use his first party conference as prime minister to tighten the centre-left wing’s grip on the party.

They are confident that conference delegates this year are tilted in the “moderate” wing’s favour and would pass the proposal if it were put to a vote.

“There’s a plan to bring a constitutional reform to conference that would cut out the membership for electing a leader when we’re in government, and only allow the MPs to decide,” said a senior Labour source.

“This is seen as the last reform that needs doing to syphon off any threat from the left,” they added. A second said: “It’s known as the ‘Liz Truss lock’. The Tories compounded the country’s misery by letting their members put someone in No 10 the parliamentary party wouldn’t work with. So we need to make sure that can’t happen again.”
[…]
Labour declined to comment. However, a source denied the party leadership was behind the move or would support it, calling it a “non-starter”.

Starmer did successfully change the rules for a leadership contest in 2021, when he managed to raise the number of MP supporters a candidate needed to make it on to the ballot from 10 per cent to 20 per cent.

He also tried to move the leadership voting rights back to an electoral college system, but was forced to abandon it in the face of opposition from union leaders and other left-wingers.

It is an increasingly common message from websites: browse for free - if you allow us to track your data and target you with personalised ads - if you don't, hand over some cash.

The model is known as "consent or pay" and, while it may be becoming increasingly common, questions remain over whether it is ethical or even legal.

The UK data regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has launched a consultation, external on the practice - it will report its findings later this year.

"In principle, data protection law does not prohibit business models that involve 'consent or pay,'" the ICO says on its website.

But it continues: "However, any organisation considering such a model must be careful to ensure that consent... has been freely given and is fully informed, as well as capable of being withdrawn without detriment."
[…]
Newspapers such as MailOnline, The Sun, The Independent and The Times have all recently brought in "consent or pay" models.

"It's basically saying, 'We're giving people a choice. They can either pay and get ad-free access to our articles, or they can be tracked, or they can walk away and not read it,'" Philippa Donn says.

This question being considered by the ICO and others is - is that a fair choice?