How Did Someone Who Thinks We Should Stay in the Customs Union End Up Running DIT?

Former Department for International Trade permanent secretary Martin Donnelly’s anti-Brexit speech today has been seized upon by Remainers and given top billing by the Today programme. Donnelly’s latest whinge is nothing new – he essentially says this morning that we should stay in the single market and customs union, just as he did three months ago. Not that that’s stopping the BBC and Remain media from treating it as new information. The more pertinent question is how on earth did someone who thinks we should stay in the customs union end up in charge of a department the whole point of which is to sign trade deals outside the customs union? 

The reaction on Whitehall this morning is more one of rolled eyes than surprise. A former Eurocrat, Donnelly was never rated, neither by ministers nor Jeremy Heywood. Indeed they tried to push him out repeatedly pre-referendum before he finally took a knighthood and left. Donnelly tells you all you need to know about the civil service being stuffed full of Remainers trying to undermine the process… hardly helpful for his former colleagues.

Jeremy Heywood Openly Endorses Civil Service’s Political Campaigning

Over the last few days some of the supposedly ‘great and the good’ have been clasping their pearls and theatrically reaching for the smelling salts at the suggestion that civil servants might have some groupthink going on, and that the Treasury in particular might be politically suspect when it comes to forecasting. Former heads of the civil service Andrew Turnbull and Gus O’Donnell came over like pantomime dames at the impilication, comparing Brexiteers to Hitler and snake oil salesman.

What are the views of the most recent ex-head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake? Strangely he was silent this weekend, fortunately we have the benefit of being able to read his 44 page independent review published last year Rethinking the Treasury. It was produced by another heavyweight panel of ‘the great and the good’ – and it was scathing…

The theme of the report is that the Treasury tells Chancellors what they want to hear, suffering from an arrogant inward looking “groupthink“, tailoring forecasts and analysis accordingly. In a wide-ranging criticism of the Treasury’s macroeconomic forecasting, Kerslake notes that “The creation of the Office for Budget Responsibility reflected a conscious decision to outsource Treasury responsibility for forecasting…”. He warned of “the specific need to re-establish the department’s credibility in terms of the impartiality of its advice and hence the importance of its economic expertise in designing Brexit.” Something Brexiters in government don’t believe has happened.

Jeremy Heywood of course pretends the civil service is impartial and departmental research is objective analysis. He is pictured above at the Civil Service Awards, held after the Scottish Referendum, presenting his Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Award to the Treasury’s Scotland Analysis Programme Team. At the time of the referendum their analysis was bitterly contested by the SNP as politicised and heavily slanted. Something the civil service denied haughtily at the time in much the same way it is doing today with its Brexit forecasts. 

Celebrating after receiving the award team members spoke to Civil Service World Magazine. Mario Pisani, perhaps a little too in vino veritas said:

 “… we’re part of a political campaign. We were doing everything from the analysis, to the advertising, to the communications. I just felt a massive sense of being part of the operation. This being recognised makes me feel just incredibly proud.” 

Shannon Cochrane said:

“… it is possible for civil servants to work on things that are inherently political and quite difficult and you’re very close to the line of what is appropriate…”

Civil Service World is the trade press for civil servants, who are not famed for being candid in public. Very revealing – Heywood signalling that if you do get too close to, or even cross, the line in supporting his policy goals, he will be very pleased….

Former Civil Service Chiefs: Brexiters are Crazy Nazis

On the front page of the Observer the former head of the civil service Andrew Turnbull compares Brexiters to Nazis. On Peston his successor Gus O’Donnell called Leavers “completely crazy” snake oil salesmen. Guido won’t hold his breath for the same Twitter outrage as seen after the “mutineer” front pages criticising Remainers. Almost as if Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker have a point…

Heywood Hits Back

Jeremy Heywood with an unsubtle defence of his Brexit doom document, praising his civil service colleagues for “making evidence-based policy”. Thought the line was the civil service wasn’t trying to “make” policy?

10 Questions For Jeremy Heywood to Answer

Jeremy Heywood is feeling “heat” from Number 10 this morning according to Whitehall sources. Guido will believe it when he sees it, Theresa May’s aides usually allow the Cabinet Secretary to walk all over them. The Sun reveals Heywood “played a key role in coordinating” the Brexit doom document and was consulted on it last month. The Times reckons he was ultimately “responsible” and “timed the paper’s release to “soften up” Cabinet ministers before a crucial meeting next week to discuss the government’s objectives for a future economic relationship with the EU”. Which means Heywood has several questions to answer this morning:

  • What was his role in the genesis of the project?
  • When did he find out about it?
  • When did he tell ministers about it?
  • When did he tell the Prime Minister?
  • Why did his civil servants start the project off their own backs, without permission from ministers?
  • Which civil servants were involved, in which departments?
  • To whom was the work accountable?
  • What role did the cross-Whitehall Government Economic Service play?
  • Is it normal for departments to carry out work about which their ministers have no knowledge?
  • According to Tim Shipman’s “Fall Out”, Heywood thought the Treasury’s referendum predictions were wrong. How? Why? How are these figures different? What lessons have been learned since then?

A senior government source says this morning that Heywood has “exceeded his mandate”… Number 10 have plenty to be asking him…

Did Heywood Have Permission to Defend Remain Ally Robbins?

Worth watching Nick Watt’s profile of Theresa May’s Brexit supremo Olly Robbins, which draws on Guido’s story about his communist past and reveals David Davis regularly mocks his former Soviet sympathies. The film also carried a rare public statement from Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood defending his Remain ally:

“The civil service is putting enormous effort and many of its very best people into making a success of the project. It is being tested on a daily basis and I am very proud of what we have – so far – delivered. Morale is at record-levels, proving once again that the civil service is at is very best when under pressure.”

The civil service code is clear: mandarins must “ensure you have ministerial authorisation for any contact with the media”. Which means May or Lidington will have had to authorise this statement, or else Heywood has broken the ministerial code. Did they? Or do they just let him do what he wants…

Ultra-Remainers Claiming End State Victory

Wishful thinking from the Treasury’s ultra-Remain former Perm Sec? Or is he onto something?

We have seen briefings before from the Treasury that May is going to end up closer to Hammond’s vision of the end state than Boris’ and Gove’s, so it’s worth taking this with a pinch of salt. But the Remainers’ optimism explains the increasing concerns of Cabinet Brexiters that we are not going to pursue a Brexit that makes the most of leaving…

Knives Out For Heywood and Robbins

Tory Brexiteers fear Theresa May is being bounced by her top civil servants Jeremy Heywood and Olly Robbins into a non-Brexit which prevents us from diverging from the EU after we leave. Leavers have been pragmatic, calm and willing to compromise throughout the Brexit process so far. This is really the first time things are in danger of seriously kicking off. This line in the draft text apparently agreed by Number 10 has caused genuine fears among all Brexiteers:

“In the absence of agreed solutions, the UK will maintain full alignment with the internal market, customs union…”

This is wholly unacceptable, it is almost unbelievable Number 10 would sign it off. Guido bumped into Lord Trimble last night and showed him this line, he stared at it for some time as if having difficulty believing it could be real before commenting: “This is surely not something the British government could sign up to”.

Brexiteers believe Heywood and Robbins are taking advantage of a weak Downing Street to force through a Brexit which keeps us too closely aligned to Brussels. Guido reported in September that Heywood and Robbins were seeking a softer EEA minus model, there are now genuine fears of a stitch up and Number 10 choosing a route closer to that than the real Brexit preferred by Boris, Gove and Fox, and demanded by the referendum result. A Whitehall source says May is “way too reliant” on Robbins. It is baffling that they appear to have conceded alignment on agriculture between the EU and the whole of the UK – could the Environment Secretary really live with that? There are also serious concerns that May could drop the ECJ red line from her Lancaster House speech. Leavers are seeing the situation as salami slices being given away until eventually there is no salami left. 

There is also disbelief that May did not consult Cabinet about what they were about to concede. A Whitehall source tells the Sun“Cabinet is in the dark about what the PM is doing now, which is a very strange state of affairs to be in”. A Cabinet source tells the Telegraph: “The Prime Minister is playing a risky game”. Brexiteers are asking who in is in charge: is it Heywood and Robbins bouncing a weak May into a softer Brexit, or is it May trying to bounce the Brexiteers? It is more likely to be the former. May knows she owes her position to keeping Leavers onside – if she sells out they won’t stand for it.

Sir Cover-Up, Sir Craig and the Curious Case of His Memoirs

The rules for a former Special Adviser wanting to write a book on their time in government are very clear: Sir Jeremy Heywood must give his personal approval. As the Code of Conduct for SpAds states: “The permission of the Cabinet Secretary must be sought before publishing, or entering into a contractual commitment to publish such memoirs”. Sir Craig Oliver’s memoirs, then, must have secured Heywood’s approval before the book deal was signed. Yet a year-long Freedom of Information campaign raises questions as to whether the rules were followed…

Sir Craig’s book is full of privileged information. It discusses the contents of a phone call between David Cameron and Barack Obama (pages 62-63). It discusses the contents of various Cabinet meetings (pages 95-96, pages 376-379). It discusses the contents of a meeting between Obama and the Cabinet (pages 196-197). Now, it has consistently been government policy, championed by Heywood, not to release details of conversations between the PM and US Presidents, or to release details of Cabinet discussions. A co-conspirator tested this by sending a very specific FoI request seeking the exact same information published in Sir Craig’s book. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose it on grounds of “prejudicing relations between the UK and any other State” and protecting Cabinet privacy.

So the Cabinet Office is on record that releasing this specific information could prejudice relations with the US. Why, then, was Sir Craig allowed to publish it?

Guido’s co-conspirator has spent the last year trying to find out. On 3 November 2016, in response to another FoI request, the Cabinet Office said Sir Craig “followed the process for publishing personal memoirs as set out in the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers”. In other words, nothing to see here.

Yet eight months later, in response to an internal review of the FoI response, on 27 July 2017 the Cabinet Office was forced to admit it “does not hold any recorded information to show there was a discussion prior to Mr Oliver signing a contract with a publisher”.

Hang on a minute. If there is no record in the Cabinet Office of any discussion prior to Sir Craig signing his book deal, how can he have possibly “followed the process” which requires “the permission of the Cabinet Secretary” before “entering into a contractual commitment”Uh oh…

The Cabinet Office say Sir Craig did submit his manuscript before publication, meaning Heywood could have prevented the release of restricted information but chose not to do so. This all raises several questions. First, Sir Craig could be in big trouble if the rules on securing permission before signing a book deal were not followed, as the Cabinet Office appeared to admit. Indeed the government has seized the profits of books which breached the rules before – an outcome which definitely wouldn’t be hilarious. Secondly, if Heywood did sign the book off prior to publication, why did he sanction the release of privileged information that the Cabinet Office says “prejudices relations” between the UK and US? It is hard to see how Sir Craig and Sir Cover-Up can both have kept to the rules. This could unleash some demons…

Former Brexit Minister: Government Must Publish No Deal Plans

The queues to see Leave Means Leave’s Jacob Rees-Mogg event at the Radisson were so long the police had to be called to keep order. In the absence of any real news the Mogg is the box office figure at conference so far. A who’s who of Brexiters turned up to hear him this evening including David Davis, his SpAd Stewart Jackson and Brexit minister Steve Baker. The Mogg warned that “organisations within the state” are working against Brexit, naming the Home Office as a potential threat to Brexit and warning: “I am very suspicious of Her Majesty’s Treasury”. He told the room it was in civil servants’ interests to delay Brexit and laid into the BBC, whose coverage since the referendum he labelled “absolutely appalling”. In the heat a lady fainted, the Mogg leapt to her side like an ambitious MP in a room full of Tory members…

Aside from the Moggmania, the most interesting comments came from former Brexit minister David Jones. With his old boss looking on, Jones insisted DExEU is making preparations for a no deal scenario, but called on the government to publish the plans. He added that unless the EU agrees to talk about the future trade relationship “we must make it absolutely clear we will terminate negotiations”. Increasing numbers of Tory MPs are resigned to the negotiations failing – it is worrying the government has done so little to talk publicly about its plans for no deal…

Cabinet Minister: We Will End Up Very Close to EEA

One line in James Forsyth’s column that explains why Brexiters are so concerned and why the Cabinet is split. He quotes a Cabinet minister as being upbeat on the likelihood of an EEA light option where the UK is forced to copy EU regulations and not diverge in future without the consent of Brussels:

“That’s where we’ll end up. Not in (the EEA) but very close.”

Such an outcome is unacceptable, it does not allow Britain to go its own way, it keeps us attached at the hip to the EU, it is not Brexit. Forsyth confirms Guido’s story on Monday that it is Hammond, Heywood, Rudd and Olly Robbins who are pushing for this outcome. Cabinet ministers saying we are going to end up very close to EEA membership are not delivering the will of the people, that they are so bullish about winning this argument rightly has Brexiters worried…

Hammond and Treasury “On Manoeuvres” Against Brexit

A timely intervention from Theresa May’s former chief of staff Nick Timothy, who fingers Philip Hammond for being “on manoeuvres” against Brexit. Timothy says May “deserves the support of her ministers, Leavers and Remainers alike” – the implication being that the likes of Hammond and Rudd are undermining the PM on Brexit. He accuses Hammond of playing “games” and says “the Treasury’s reluctance to even mention the positives of leaving the EU, such as the Brexit dividend, is why the government has not talked positively enough about the opportunities of Brexit. In that respect, the Foreign Secretary was right in his Daily Telegraph column last Saturday”. As Guido reported on Monday, Hammond and the Treasury have been pushing for a soft EEA-light Brexit, contrary to government policy…

For an idea of just how much the Treasury hates Brexit, here is former HMT permanent secretary Nick Macpherson responding to Timothy’s article:

The man who ran the Treasury until last year implying Brexit is an “overwhelming wickedness” and some terrible example of human nature that needs to be “curtailed“. This is the sort of pompous, anti-democratic civil service intransigence May is still having to deal with. Mandarins and Remainer Cabinet ministers are working against government policy and the referendum result…

Civil Service ‘Not Really Preparing’ For No Deal Scenario

A concerning report by the BBC’s Chris Cook says the government is not taking seriously the idea of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, and that preparations for such a scenario are superficial at best. Cook writes: “A lot of memos are being circulated, but not a lot beyond that. Britain does not seem to be taking the idea of No Deal very seriously”. This is a view echoed by senior Brexiters, who are worried that the civil service and Cabinet Remainers are so gloomy about a no deal Brexit that they are not even countenancing that outcome. Guido reported in March that senior Leavers were lobbying the government to prepare for no deal – at the time Number 10 officials put the probability of no deal at between 30% and 50%. Not much progress has been made since then…

Given the not exactly tiny possibility that talks with Brussels could break down, a failure to make serious preparations would be an abdication of responsibility similar to the lack of contingency planning for a Leave vote under the Cameron / Heywood administration. In any case, a no deal Brexit provides huge opportunities that should be being talked up not down. Pretending to be ready to walk away is not good enough, the government and civil service needs to make real plans for such an outcome…

Nadine Complains to Civil Service Chief About Statto’s Boris Blunder

Click to enlarge

Nads is right, Sir David Norgrove cocked up

RED ROBBINS: May’s Brexit Supremo is Soviet Sympathiser Who Opposed Capitalism

Theresa May’s Brexit supremo Olly Robbins is a former Soviet sympathiser who opposed capitalism, praised Soviet leaders and lamented the demise of Communist Russia, Guido can reveal. As as a student at Hertford College, Oxford in the nineties, “Red Robbins” wrote an article in praise of Soviet Russia for the Oxford Reform Club magazine. In a rewriting of history that would have made Seumas Milne blush, the PM’s new star Number 10 hire wrote:

“The Russian state has endured more than any other major nation in the twentieth century, and has achieved more too… I would never disagree that some of the deeds done in the name of communism were evil, but it is as well to look at the era’s aims and achievements. First among these were the aims of free and fair education, housing and healthcare. These were also the main planks of the post-war consensus here in Britain, and could hardly be described as evil. What is more, they were achieved. More Russians can read than Britons, there are almost no homeless people in Moscow, unlike London… Another achievement was the making of a state, a world power indeed, and one that its people could be proud of. The Soviet leaders changed Russia from a backward peasant autocracy, despised by the West, into a technological giant at whom the world cowered in fear for half a century.”

Red Robbins then lamented the fall of the Soviet Union as meaning there is no longer an alternative to the real baddie: capitalism.

“The demise of the Soviet experiment means that for those growing up in the world today, especially western Europe, there appears to be no alternative to the mad excesses of modern capitalism. To the thinking man and woman, Soviet Russia may not have been ideal, but it was food for thought in the “greed is good” climate of the 1980’s.”

The article concludes that it is unfair to say communism failed because the ravages of Russia’s Tsarist past meant “the experiment was hardly conducted in fair conditions”. A friend of Robbins confirmed he wrote the article but declined to comment on his past views.

So the top civil servant in charge of Brexit is only a former Soviet fanboy who defended Stalin and implied communism was preferable to capitalism. We knew Olly was a Remainer, but we didn’t think he’d be such a keen supporter of the crowning principles behind Juncker’s democracy-hating EU super-state speech last week. On the plus side, Red Robbins will get on famously with Seumas if Corbyn makes it to Number 10…

Heywood Breaching Cabinet Manual By Bypassing Ministers

Interesting story in Rachel Sylvester’s column today suggesting Number 10 is acting unconstitutionally by bypassing the Cabinet on Brexit. At present Brexit issues are being debated by Cabinet sub-committees and decided by Theresa May’s team, not Cabinet as a whole. Sylvester says “there has been no substantive Cabinet discussion on our future relationship with the EU… That is not only astonishing but outrageous” and “constitutionally questionable”. Gus O’Donnell’s Cabinet manual makes clear “issues of a constitutional nature”, “the most significant domestic policy issues”, “the most significant European or international business” must be agreed by the whole Cabinet. That isn’t happening at present…

What is Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood up to? He has the responsibility to tell the Prime Minister that she has to make these decisions collectively, not with a smaller coterie of ministers and civil servants. He must know the status quo is in breach of the Cabinet manual, as Sylvester says it is constitutionally questionable. Heywood has a reputation for shirking tough advice – it was for example an abdication of duty that he did not insist to Cameron he had to make preparations for Brexit. Of course it suits Heywood to bypass Cabinet and give the civil service and Number 10 greater control of Brexit. The problem is this freezes out senior members of the Cabinet who should be integral to decision-making. Which means you end up with a situation like the Boris article…

Hammond, Heywood, Robbins Pushing For Weak “EEA Light” Deal

The £350 million row is (once again) distracting everyone from the real story. James Forsyth has written a bang on the money blog about the “biggest Cabinet Brexit split” – between “several of the most senior members of the Cabinet” who want an “EEA minus/light” deal, and Boris and Gove who want a CETA/Canada plus model. An EEA minus/light deal means the UK shadows EU regulations and ECJ judgements, tying the UK’s hands and not delivering the Brexit for which Britons voted. A Canada plus deals means the UK shadows some standards but mostly we would be able to forge our own way in the world. This is what is kicking off right now.

Guido understands Boris went bonkers last week when he found out Theresa May was heading towards the EEA light option at her Florence speech. Senior Tory Brexiters say the EEA light model is being pushed by Philip Hammond and Remainer civil servants in the Treasury, the permanently frustrating Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood and Olly Robbins, the DExEU permanent secretary who it was announced this morning is off to Number 10. Dom Cummings, who Tim Shipman revealed yesterday was still in close contact with Boris and Gove, alleges David Davis is sympathetic to the EEA light option. Friends of DD deny that is the case. Boris and Gove are strongly opposed and insist it is the worst of all worlds.

As Open Europe’s Henry Newman, former SpAd to Gove, explains:

“Government needs to debate and decide what sort of country UK ought to be after Brexit: that’s the prior question rather than transition. The Treasury are pushing for us to be in an “EEA minus” arrangement – just outside of the Single Market but bound into a regulatory ERM. EEA minus would mean all the costs of Brexit and few opportunities. We need to be further along the spectrum from Norway/Swiss to Canada.”

EEA minus/light is essentially the Swiss model. When Switzerland sought to end freedom of movement they were threatened with being cut out of single market access and eventually had to climb down and relinquish control of borders. Theresa May should not be promising loads of money on Friday in exchange for a weak Swiss-type deal which does not deliver the Brexit people voted for. Guido believes May wants to do Brexit right, she has certainly shown no sign of wavering so far. She should remember that Boris and Gove won the referendum, not Hammond and Heywood…

Which Minister Authorised Heywood to Attack Maude?

Cabinet Secretary Jeremy Heywood is very upset with Francis Maude for speaking the truth about the civil service. In a speech last night (which is well worth your time), Maude warned that Whitehall is “deeply flawed”, not up to scratch to make a success of Brexit, guilty of promoting sub-par employees, covering up failure and lying to ministers. Any Secretary of State who has ever tried to do anything approaching a radical reform will tell you the same. If a politician ever wants to do something which might improve the country, the civil service blob stands in their way.

Heywood has launched a personal attack on Maude in response: “It is a pity that Lord Maude has chosen to attack the organisation and its dedicated staff with a wholly inaccurate portrayal of what is widely regarded as one of the world’s most effective and efficient civil services”. This isn’t  a fair critique of the Maude speech – he went to great effort to stress he wasn’t attacking individuals. And the claim that it was an “inaccurate portrayal” is guff. It is very unusual for a civil servant to go on the record to the press attacking a politician like this. The civil service code clearly states mandarins must “ensure you have Ministerial authorisation for any contact with the media”. Which minister authorised Heywood’s attack on Maude? Or has he breached his own code?

Civil Servants Sabotaging Brexit

Former head of the civil service Bob Kerslake is known as “Comrade Bob” by fellow peers for his lefty interventions in the Lords. Last night he revealed his view, no doubt shared by former colleagues, that a no deal Brexit would be “an utter and complete disaster”. Last night’s major leak to the Guardian on immigration is suspected to have come from disgruntled anti-Brexit civil servants, who handed the story to the most pro-immigration newspaper. Ministers feel they are the victim of a sabotage attempt from mandarins who are supposed to be politically neutral. Anyone in any doubt as to the views of panjandrums should look at the Twitter feed of former Treasury permanent secretary and Project Fear architect Nick Macpherson, who spends his whole time these days moaning about Brexit. When pro-Remain pundits talk about Brexiters becoming the new establishment they have it wrong, the civil service establishment hates the referendum result and is working to undermine it…

HS2 Boss Resigns Following Contract Fiasco

HS2 has announced the departure of its Director-General following the £170 million cancelled contract debacle. David Prout, the civil servant who had overall responsibility for the entire project for the last four years, has resigned and will take up a position at Oxford University in September.[…] Read the rest


Tip offs: 0709 284 0531

Quote of the Day

Jacob Rees-Mogg on the transition:

“purgatory before we get into heaven”


Guidogram: Sign up

Subscribe to the most succinct 7 days a week daily email read by thousands of Westminster insiders.
Inside the Freer Launch Inside the Freer Launch
Labour Head of Broadcast Now Working For BBC News Labour Head of Broadcast Now Working For BBC News
Owen Jones’ Viral Fake News Owen Jones’ Viral Fake News
Sunday Shows Highlights Sunday Shows Highlights
Young Conservatives Relaunch Young Conservatives Relaunch
Guardian U-Turns to Take Seumas’ Line Guardian U-Turns to Take Seumas’ Line
Now Starmer Abandons Jezza Over Russia Now Starmer Abandons Jezza Over Russia
Watch: May Fist Bump Rockstar Remix Watch: May Fist Bump Rockstar Remix
Dodgy Tweets of RT Man on Question Time Dodgy Tweets of RT Man on Question Time
Man Pops Question in Commons Chamber Man Pops Question in Commons Chamber
Milne Defended Kremlin After Opposition Leader’s Murder Milne Defended Kremlin After Opposition Leader’s Murder
Parliament Changed Mail Provider Before Suspicious Package Wave Parliament Changed Mail Provider Before Suspicious Package Wave
Williamson to Russia: Shut Up and Go Away Williamson to Russia: Shut Up and Go Away
Jezza’s Russian Revisionism After Shad Cab Split Jezza’s Russian Revisionism After Shad Cab Split
Seumas Sticks to Line: Refuses to Condemn Russia Seumas Sticks to Line: Refuses to Condemn Russia
Bercow Recuses Himself from Bullying Investigation Bercow Recuses Himself from Bullying Investigation
Chris Williamson Puts Morning Star in PMQs Shot Chris Williamson Puts Morning Star in PMQs Shot
Putin’s Expansion Into Ukraine Not Unprovoked Putin’s Expansion Into Ukraine Not Unprovoked
Greggs Westminster Update Greggs Westminster Update
Labour Scaremongering Over Free School Meals Labour Scaremongering Over Free School Meals