Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere owns the Daily Mail through a complex structure of offshore holdings and trusts.
He has non-domicile (non-dom) tax status which allows him to claim tax concessions.
The front pages below cover the period 2nd June to 13th September 2025
The National Audit Office (NAO) of the UK have just published reports previously planned for release in June and July. The fieldwork for these reports was conducted under the previous government and the reports could not be published during the pre-election period.
Hat tip for photo via unslpash to Mihály Köles
Below are the links to each of the NAO not issued reports and the takeout paragraph I've chosen from each. The 2nd summary paragraph below summarises the takeout paragraphs. The 1st summary paragraph below boils those takeout paragraphs down to what government and the organisaitons if funds need to concentrate on.
1st summary paragraph - In the follwing text read customer as client also. Who is your customer? What is your strategy to make their lives better? What is your plan to give your customer great advice & support? Do you know specifically how your £ spend adds value or supports your customers? How well do you know the physical state of your infrastructure? How do you combine your procurement to get value? How are you liasing across government/organisations to make what you collectively offer simplier?
2nd summary paragraph - The NHS might break. HS2 Ltd should deliver value for money. UK Space Agency needs to be fast and flexible. Farmers need quality advice & support from Defra. DfE doesn't understand how its £'s help disadvantaged children. Government doesn't have a credible alternative to its Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage programme. DfT doesn't have a good understanding of the condition of local roads. The Buckingham House refurb project is praised for it honesty and engagement. Streamline the central purchasing system. Government has no strategy or public targets for reducing statutory homelessness. DWP wants to be customer focussed, its plans are challenging. Simplify the government grants landscape.
NHS financial management and sustainability
Takeout paragraph " When we consider how the health needs of the population look set to increase, we are concerned that the NHS may be working at the limits of a system which might break before it is again able to provide patients with care that meets standards for timeliness and accessibility. "
HS2: update following cancellation of Phase 2
Takeout paragraph "DfT and HS2 Ltd must now take the time needed to properly reset, and set themselves up to deliver value for money from the programme."
The National Space Strategy and the role of the UK Space Agency
Takeout paragraph "The sector is developing at a fast pace, and in planning for the future the government will need to balance the need to provide certainty with the need to be flexible and responsive to new opportunities."
The Farming and Countryside Programme
Takeout paragraph "Farmers need quality advice and support to adapt, but Defra has not yet ensured that they can access what they need. Around half of England’s farmers say they are not at all positive about their future in farming."
Improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged children
Takeout paragraph "DfE has evidence to support some of its interventions and uses this to help schools and early years providers to make decisions. However, it does not yet understand the outcomes resulting from a significant proportion of its expenditure on disadvantaged children. It also does not have a fully integrated view of its interventions, or milestones to assess progress and when more may need to be done."
Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage programme
Takeout paragraph "The government does not have and is currently not developing a credible alternative pathway without the use of CCUS. In this context, it is critical that DESNZ succeeds with its CCUS programme if the UK is to achieve its legally binding climate ambitions."
The condition and maintenance of local roads in England
Takeout paragraph "However, at present DfT does not have a good enough understanding of the condition of local roads, and does not use the limited data it does have to allocate its funding as effectively as possible. It does not know whether the funds it allocates are delivering improvements in road condition, and has not updated its guidance to local authorities, to share good practice and help them make the most of their limited funds, for some years."
Progress on the Buckingham Palace Reservicing programme
Takeout paragraph "The Household has worked hard to engage stakeholders within the Palace and through the supply chain, and the Palace has remained operational throughout. The Household has responded well to challenge and assurance, fostering a culture of honesty."
Efficiency in government procurement of common goods and services
Takeout paragraph "The Government Commercial Function (GCF), working in conjunction with the Crown Commercial Service (CCS), should streamline the central purchasing system to deliver better value for money for the public sector."
The effectiveness of government in tackling homelessness
Takeout paragraph "The situation has worsened since we last examined the issue in 2017. Despite the introduction of HRA 2017, homelessness numbers are at a record level and expected to increase. While DLUHC has developed much better homelessness data and stronger links with local authorities, the government still has no strategy or public targets for reducing statutory homelessness, and DLUHC is falling behind on key programmes to improve housing supply. Funding remains fragmented and generally short-term, inhibiting homelessness prevention work and limiting investment in good-quality temporary accommodation or other forms of housing."
Takeout paragraph "DWP recognises that it needs to transform its services to be a customer-focused organisation. Its modernisation plans are based on a good understanding of the issues that need to be addressed and are necessarily ambitious. However, the scale and complexity of the plans mean delivery is risky, and DWP is unlikely to achieve in the short term the improvements that are needed."
Government’s general grants schemes
Takeout paragraph "Grant-making departments and arm’s-length bodies can simplify the grants landscape by combining schemes and awards, which government has started doing for grants to local authorities. There is more that the Grants Management Function and departments can do to improve grant-making, achieve efficiencies, support grant practitioners and enhance user experience."
Justice delayed is justice denied:
This age-old adage rings tragically true in the wake of the UK Post Office scandal, where hundreds of subpostmasters were wrongly accused of fraud due to faulty software, their lives shattered while waiting for years to clear their names. The saga serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of justice delayed, and begs the question: how can we prevent such systemic failures from occurring again?
The UK Government's immediate response to the scandal is a special bill that overturns all the various court conclusions of guilty subpostmasters and which creates quicker routes to compensation. Whilst worthwhile and needed, this approach is tackling the consequences of failures in how UK justice works, rather than addressing the root causes.
One additional immediate action that Alan Bates calls for in his 12th January 2024 FT article - is to overturn last Summer's Supreme Court PACCAR ruling which makes litigation funding in the UK largely impossible. Alan says in the article "The government can and should fix this urgently, and in the coming weeks they’ll have their chance. All it would take is a minor tweak to the proposed digital markets, competition and consumers bill, which is currently being reviewed in the House of Lords, to unwind the impacts of the PACCAR judgment."
The Cost of a Ticking Clock:
Imagine years of your life consumed by legal battles, your reputation in tatters, and your livelihood lost, all while clinging to the hope of eventual vindication. This was the harsh reality for countless subpostmasters, forced to navigate a labyrinthine legal system while facing the formidable might of the Post Office itself. The financial and emotional toll was immense, with many succumbing to illness, bankruptcy, and even suicide before seeing justice served.
Tilting the Scales:
The Post Office scandal wasn't just about faulty software; it exposed deep flaws within the justice system itself. A crippling lack of resources left courts overburdened and understaffed, with cases languishing for years awaiting trial. This, coupled with inadequate legal aid provisions for those facing well-resourced organizations like the Post Office, created a system heavily tilted against the vulnerable.
Reshaping the Landscape:
To prevent such injustices from repeating, a multi-pronged approach is essential:
The Post Office scandal is a scar on British justice, a stark reminder of the human cost of delayed legal resolution. By investing in our courts, providing equal access to legal aid, and harnessing the power of technology, we can strive towards a system where justice, like London buses, arrives swiftly and reliably, ensuring that no one is left waiting in the cold for years on end. Only then can we truly claim to have a justice system worthy of the scales of Lady Justice.
Sources:
I asked Bard to "write a short article with a snappy title about how the uk post office scandal demonstrates that justice delayed is justice is denied and ideas on how to to avoid such delays in future like: the need for there to be more courts and judges sitting more frequently; access to legal aid/funding for defendents up against large organisations". The text above is what it came up with. I reformatted this slightly and added the text in blue and the picture.
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash
The UK Covid-19 Inquiry started in earnest June 2023, and is due to conclude in 2026 at a possible cost of over £200 million
The inquiry chair, Lady Heather Hallett, has already shown her independence by letting government know she, not they, will be the one deciding whether evidence is relevant to the inquiry. The overall theme of the inquiry could be described as learning lessons by examining documents and calling witnesses to give evidence under oath. So we'll all be waiting for the evidence based answer to the question of what lessons can be learnt.
I couldn't resist coming up with my predictions on the answers to the questions the inquiry is likely to be asking (More info on the inquiry is below that if you're interested).
Q1) Was the pandemic properly planned for? A1) No
Q2) Was the UK adequately ready for that eventuality? A2) No
Q3) What lessons are there to learn on the whole system of civil emergencies including resourcing, risk management, pandemic readiness and government decision-making?
A3) a) A decade of NHS under-funding didn't help us be ready for a pandemic, b) mutiple pandemic options should be planned for rather than whatever the last one was, c) the economic and educational and mental health impacts of lock downs should be better quantified, d) decision making didn't join up impacts on the NHS and on social care.
Q4) Was the core political, civil service and central government governance and decision-making in the UK fit for purpose? A4) No
Q5) How effective where relationships with governments in the devolved administrations and local and voluntary sectors? .A5) Not much
Q6) How well did government and society respond to Covid-19?
A6) Initially the reaction was panic and fear
Q7) What impact did the pandemic have on healthcare systems, patients, health care workers?
A7) Burn out of staff and mounting backlogs of other medical procedures.
Q8) What effect did healthcare governance, primary care, NHS backlogs, vaccination programmes and long covid diagnosis and support have?
A8) a) The success with a vaccine was inspite of, not due to, our healthcare governance. b) Long covid impacts were unexpected and will continue to demand NHS and social care resources for some time. c) NHS backlogs were already mounting pre-pandemic, d) the NHS showed great flexibility in re-assigning staff and facilities to focus on hospitalised covid-19 patients, and in quickly sharing medical insights on how to treat covid-19 patient's symptoms.
Q9) What lessons have we learnt from from the development of Covid-19 vaccines, the implementation of the vaccine rollout programme, the treatment of Covid-19 through both existing and new medications?
A9) See answer 8) above
Q10) How prepared are we for the next pandemic? A10) We are not well prepared.
Q11) How unequal was vaccine uptake, what caused this, how did Government respond?
A11) Vaccine uptake was uneven, driven in part by cultural issues and, as always, by those who are poorer, less educated and less priveleged having poorer health.
Q12) What are the facts concerning public concern relating to vaccine safety and the current system for financial redress under the UK Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme?
A12) a) AI and social media will continue to spread dis-information on vaccines, b) as of May 2023, 72 people have received a payment from the government for being severely disabled by a Covid-19 vaccine, or on behalf of someone who died from the vaccine. In total, 96 people have been told that they are entitled to receive money via the UK’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, run by the NHS authority, which means 24 are still waiting on the cash. Source
Q13) How well was government procurement handled?
A13) Not at all well, with basic procurement disciplines being ignored and associates of those in power securing contracts that yielded them obscene profits.
Q14) How well did the Care sector respond to Covis-19?
A14) Infected older people were forced onto care homes leading to further unnecessary deaths. The Care sector was, and still is, underfunded and faces significant resourcing issues.
MORE INFO ON THE INQUIRY'S MODULES
The various modules are described below using information form the inquiry website.
Active modules
Further modules will be announced in the coming months (says the Inquiry website as at 6/7/23) covering both ‘system’ and ‘impact’ issues across the UK including:
SUMMARY
So I've just read the 48 page 20th April 2023 investigative report by Adam Tolley, (AT), KC on eight complaints about Dominic Raab, (DR), bullying various people. In the investigative process 66 interviews were held, mostly in person and some by video conference. AT conducted all of the interviews himself.
The report concludes that on two of the complaints DR's conduct fits the definition of bullying. As DR undertook to resign, if the investigation found bullying, then he has resigned. However his resignation letter says the findings of bullying are flawed and set the threshold for finding bullying too low..
On DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, the report concludes that DR acted in a way which was intimidating and which involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. It goes on to state that, at the very least, DR should have been aware that this would be the effect of his conduct.
On DR's conduct as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, the report concludes that the composition and content of the two omplaints make them unsuitable as a basis for any findings about DR's conduct. However the report does comment that DR has been able to regulate his level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation and that he should have altered his approach earlier.
The report's findings are plainly dependent on the defintion of bullying it uses which is in paragrpah 175 of the report. In summary that paragraph says bullying is "Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."
In DR's written representations to the investigation he made various points concerning the definition of bullying, and in the report AT states that he has "made findings of fact with the DPM’s representation in mind".
A BIT MORE DETAIL
Paragraph 175 of the report says that, "for the purpose of this investigation under the Ministerial Code, conduct would fall within the description of ‘bullying’ if it can be characterised as:
(1) Offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour; or
(2) Abuse or misuse of power in ways that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."
Paragraph 176 of the report summarises what AT has found as follows.
The DExEU Complaint - DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union. DR's conduct can't be characterised as offensive, malicious or insulting. It was experienced as intimidating but AT couldn't make a finding as to whether it was in fact intimidating. There was no evidence to suggest any abuse or misuse of power.
The FCDO Complaint - DR's conduct as Secretary of State at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office.
In DR's genuine, adverse view about the work of others DR acted in a way which was intimidating, in the sense of unreasonably and persistently aggressive conduct in the context of a work meeting. It also involved an abuse or misuse of power in a way that undermines or humiliates. DR introduced an unwarranted punitive element. His conduct was experienced as undermining or humiliating by the affected individual, which was inevitable. It is to be inferred that DR was aware that this would be the effect of his conduct; at the very least, he should have been aware
On a separate occasion, DR referred to the Civil Service Code in a way which could reasonably have been understood as suggesting that those involved had acted in breach. This had a significant adverse effect on a particular individual who took it seriously. DR's conduct was a form of intimidating behaviour, in the sense of conveying a threat of unspecified disciplinary action, and was experienced as such. He ought to have realised that his reference to the Civil Service Code could well have been understood as a threat.
The MoJ Complaints - DR's conduct as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. The composition and content of these complaints make them unsuitable as a basis for any findings about DR's conduct.
DR's conduct during the MoJ Period was sometimes ‘abrasive’, in the sense of a personal style which is or feels intimidating or insulting to the individual, but is not intended to be so. His conduct was not, however, ‘abusive’, in the sense of behaviour which is intended and specifically targeted. DR has been able to regulate this level of ‘abrasiveness’ since the announcement of the investigation. He should have altered his approach earlier.
It appears that Conservative MPs are doing their bit for the environment by recycling previous wet wipe ban announcements. And yesterday they also managed to recycle Saturday's announcement about water company penalties and a national water plan.
Except that on wet wipes what they actually announced was a commitment to consult on a ban on the use of plastic in wet wipes
.jpg)
Yesterday in a press release the UK's Environment Secretary Thérèse Coffey said "I completely understand the concerns that people have about the health and resilience of our waters, which is why I am setting out this plan for a truly national effort to protect and improve them. That includes higher penalties taken from water company profits which will be channelled back into the rivers, lakes and streams where it is needed." The same press release said the plan included a commitment to consult on a ban on the use of plastic in wet wipes. So she managed to recycle Saturdays announcement about penalties and a national water plan.
Last Saturday in a press release the UK's Environment Secretary Thérèse Coffey said "Through the Water Restoration Fund, I will be making sure that money from higher fines and penalties – taken from water company profits, not customers – is channelled directly back into the rivers, lakes and streams where it is needed. "
In a March 2022 a press release from Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency and George Eustice - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary - one of the commitments was to "publish responses to a call for evidence on options to eliminate the use of wet wipes and ensure they are biodegradable where needed"..
And according to a post by the UK newspaper the Mirror, apparently George Eustice (MP) proposed a wet wipe ban in November 2021 when he held the Environment Secretary post, and in May 2018 Michael Gove first raised the idea when he was Environment Secretary.
For the water companies this ban - if it ever happens - will also help them reduce costs as they eventiually won't have to deal with as many fatbergs blocking sewers.
The 7 #PoliticalTactics are: 1) Answer the question you wanted to be asked rather than the question you were asked; 2) Welcome a report and its recommendations (Notice this isn't the same as agreeing with the report); 3) Don't agree that what happened was sub-standard; 4) Don't agree you should have known it was sub-standard; 5) Don't agree to any action plan to make sure this doesn't happen in future; 6) Don't agree that individuals may have financially benefitted themselves or friends through such sub-standard actions and finally 7) from the you tube clip above - Claim you are feeling an emotion directly opposite to what you should be feeling. So if you should be ashamed say you are proud, if you should be unsure say you are confident and so on, sad/happy, depressed/jubilant, anger/calm
On Radio 4's today programme on 18/11/20 they reported about how the government's spending watchdog ( The National Audi Office - [NAO] )
1) Ministers set aside normal standards of tranparency as they scrambled to secure PPE at the start of COVID-19
2) £18 billion worth of contracts were awarded under emergency rules that bypassed the normal competitive tendering process
3) Firms recommended by MPs, ministers offices or Health Chiefs were given priority and fast tracked
4) NAO said even in an emergency, it remained essential to public trust, for the government to document why it had chosen a supplier and how it had managed any particular conflicts of interest - yet in a sample of 20 cases it found repeated failure to do so.
5) In one of the cases - Public First - a focus group organiser - whose owners had previously worked for Cabinet Office Minsiter Michael Gove and alongside Dominic Cummings - Boris Johnson's then top advisor - yet the Cabinet Office failed to document any consideration of any potential conflict of interest"
The response of one of the companies so hired - Public First - was that "It was hired on a pay as you go arrangement that meant it could be fired if it didn't perform well" A classic example of the #PoliticalTrick of - Answer the question you wanted to be asked rather than the question you were asked. So in this case I'll bet they weren't asked "What happens if you don't perform well?" and were actually asked something like "Why was your company chosen for this contract?"
The Cabinet Office response was that "It welcomed the NAOs scrutiny and its recommendations for improvement, but declined to comment on the case of Public First". A great example of some #PoliticalTricks when dealing with a report or review that says what you've done or allowed to happen is sub-standard. So:
- welcome a report and its recommendations (Notice this isn't the same as agreeing with the report)
- don't agree that what happened was sub-standard
- don't agree you should have known it was sub-standard
- don't agree to any action plan to make sure this doesn't happen in future
- don't agree that individuals may have financially benefitted themselves or friends through such sub-standard actions
Previous posts on #PoliticalTactics
30 Oct 2020 Corbyns response to EHRC's antisemitism report - The 5 #PoliticalTactics are: 1) I'm the victim here; 2) It's somebody else's fault; 3) I don't accept all the points, 4) There is a conspiracy against me; 5) Simply ignore the most damaging points.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government seems to be trying to compete with Strictly for our attention. Like Strictly the government's weekly dance with statistics and advice is all about personalities and performance. Unlike Strictly, the consequences of missteps and mistakes are a little more serious.
So lets review the dance so far.
Slow: was the pace at which government initially reacted to China and other countries restricting travel.
Slow: was the reaction to the increasing no. of cases and England's Chief Medical Officer telling MPs on 5th March that we'd gone beyond the containment phase; went the 11 days it took Boris Johnson to make his lockdown broadcast to the nation on 16th March.
Quick was: Chancellor Rishi Sunak's announcement of £ support; Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock's claim to have “thrown a protective ring around care homes”.
Quick was the pace at which: Government promised future improvements in track and trace; placed contracts with companies owned by Tory donors.
Slow was: Government's realisation that their 3 tier reaction to SAGE's 13th October "circuit breaker" recommendation wasn't working.
And so we get to today - where faced with the second wave the French announce they will abandon their regional approach, and the Germans warn that significant actions will be necessary.
What is certain is we're a long way from the last dance
“England is a small country with a large and growing gap between those places that offer good opportunities for social progress – what we have called social mobility hotspots – and those that do not – the coldspots.”
St. Paul's Institute 
James Walters 
Myriam Zandonini 
