Home news No 10 refuses to say if PM’s ethics adviser saw proof that Reeves was wrongly advised over home rental – UK politics live | Politics

No 10 refuses to say if PM’s ethics adviser saw proof that Reeves was wrongly advised over home rental – UK politics live | Politics

by wellnessfitpro

No 10 won’t say if PM’s ethics adviser obtained proof that Reeves was wrongly advised over rental licence

At the Downing Street lobby briefing (or any other briefing, for that matter), it is not a good sign if the reporters end up laughing. But there was a bit of that today as the No 10 spokesperson faced questions about Rachel Reeves’ rental licence error. To be fair to the spokesperson, it was not his fault; he is expected to stick to “lines to take” agreed by the prime mininster and his most senior aides in No 10, and the spokesperson did that perfectly calmly and professionally. It is just that there were a lot of questions he would not address.

Here are some of the things that No 10 did say.

  • The No 10 spokesperson rejected the claim that Reeves had got off “scot-free” to avoid spooking the markets. When it was put to him that Starmer had done a quick “stitch-up” to avoid upsetting the markets and “the chancellor has got away scot-free”, the spokesperson replied: “I don’t accept the framing of that at all.”

But there were a lot more questions that the spokesperson would not answer.

  • The No 10 spokesperson declined to explicitly confirm that Reeves had not broken the ministerial code. Asked repeatedly whether or not Reeves broke the ministerial code, the spokesperson avoided answering one way or the other. But he did say that the ministerial code did say that an apology can be “an appropriate sanction” – implying the code was broken. The spokesperson repeatedly referred to section 2.7 of the code, which says:

Where the prime minister determines that a breach of the expected standards has occurred, they may ask the independent adviser for confidential advice on the appropriate sanction. The final decision rests with the prime minister. Where the prime minister retains their confidence in the minister, available sanctions include requiring some form of public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period.

  • The spokesperson would not say whether or not Sir Laurie Magnus, the PM’s ethics adviser, asked for proof that Reeves had been told that she did not need a rental licence, or whether he just took Reeves at her word when she said that was the case. The spokesperson just said that Starmer spoke to Magnus, who “advised that in the light of the chancellor’s prompt action to rectify the position, including her apology, further investigation is not necessary”. Reporters were left with the impression that Magnus had not asked for evidence to back up what Reeves said.

  • The spokesperson would not say whether Starmer still believes that any breach of the ministerial code should lead to a resignation, as he proposed when he was in opposition. The spokesperson said that what Starmer did when he was opposition leader was not a matter for him. But he said as PM Starmer had strengthened the code.

  • The spokesperson would not say why, if the ethics adviser is genuinely independent, why he rushed out a decision on this last night instead of taking time to establish what the full facts were. When asked this, the spokesperson said the chancellor had acted “with urgency”. But he did not explain why Magnus did not take longer to look at the matter.

  • The spokesperson would not say whether or not Reeves’s mistake meant she had broken the law. The spokesperson just repeated the line about how Reeves had apologised for an inadvertent mistake. Asked if Reeves would have to resign if she gets fined over this, the spokesperson again referred to the PM’s letter to Reeves last night. He said he would not comment on a hypothetical question. But he said that Starmer has “set out the standards he expects in public life” in the past.

Share

Updated at 

Key events

A raft of leading economists and thinkers from around the world are supporting a Green Planning Commission being launched today by the Common Wealth thinktank.

The commission will explore the need for “a new progressive climate consensus … which takes the break with market coordination as its premise, but which absorbs the political and policy innovations and limitations that have taken place over the past decade and comprehensively advocates for a more robust green planning policy framework”.

In a statement about their work, the commissioners say:

We are in a moment of peril for progressive climate action. In Washington, a revanchist carbon coalition is brutally dismantling the turn towards green investment and planning initiated by the Biden Administration. A Labour government in Britain, meanwhile, is at a crossroads; its ambitious transition targets threatened by rising costs and a stagnant economy. Across Europe, uneven but real progress is threatened by a populist right that promises to row back on decarbonisation efforts as an illusory solution to the cost of living crisis. Globally, despite the world-historic productive force of China’s green state developmentalism, the green transition remains dangerously off course.

It is, however, also a time of renewal, well suited to the rethinking of dominant political and policy paradigms. We have an opportunity and responsibility to develop a programme that can defeat forces of reaction, deliver a just transition, traverse a fraught geopolitical context, rebuild state capacity, and ensure economic security and affordability for working people.

There are more details of what the commission hopes to achieve here.

Share

Updated at 

#refuses #PMs #ethics #adviser #proof #Reeves #wrongly #advised #home #rental #politics #live #Politics

You may also like

Leave a Comment