Joel Hills

Business and Economics Editor, ITV News. Data, evidence, statistics, proof. And Pompey (occasionally).

[ITV News @itvnews]

Thames Water creditors make last-ditch bid to avoid nationalisation, @ITVJoel reports
https://t.co/cv2pgGeXwW

[ITV News @itvnews]

Exclusive: Union says workers ‘being replaced by AI’ as British Gas cuts 500 jobs

ITV News' @ITVJoel reports
https://t.co/7yKTXqU4cg

[Fred Dimbleby @freddimbleby]

"I don't know why everybody hates him, I quite like him actually"

Conservative MP @EdwardLeighGB comes to the defence of Keir Starmer

On @ITVLastOrders tonight

https://t.co/SuGfHcLYXV

[ITV News @itvnews]

Asda set to axe 1,000 jobs as supermarket expands use of robots in warehouses, @ITVJoel reports https://t.co/r0J3EWWBNW

[Joel Hills @ITVJoel]

Alan Milburn has told Sky News "the evidence points in one direction" when it comes to a ban on social media for under-16s.

Yesterday, the former Chair of Ofcom said he supports a ban.

Michael Grade said that despite the introduction of the Online Safety Act, too much online content remains “toxic”, the tech companies have resisted change and the government needs to do more to protect children.

[ITV News @itvnews]

Former Ofcom chairman Lord Grade says his experience across the media industry has convinced him social media should be banned for under-16s.

ITV News Business Editor @ITVJoel reports

[ITV News @itvnews]

Former Ofcom chairman Lord Grade says his experience across the media industry has convinced him social media should be banned for under-16s.

ITV News Business Editor @ITVJoel reports

[ITV News @itvnews]

Michael Grade says he believes there is 'nothing to lose' from introducing a time-limited social media ban

[ITV News @itvnews]

'Wild west for tech firms': Ex-Ofcom boss backs under-16s social media ban, ITV News' Business and Economics Editor @ITVJoel reports
https://t.co/oTHr8018lm

[Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound]

Further to Blair. Literally every honest sensible person in all the main parties privately agrees with all these propositions:

- welfare spending is too high and is throwing good people on the scrapheap
- defence spending is too low
- the triple lock is unsustainable
- without cheap energy we cannot exploit the AI revolution
- we should be investing in EVERY form of energy: renewables, nuclear and the North Sea
- migration needs to be controlled to boost social cohesion and because the boats look like a huge failure of the state
- any new relationship with the EU will be imposed on us until we are stronger and cannot involve the closeness some desire without freedom of movement
- we are deeply embedded with America in ways which the public does not understand and cannot be told and however joyous it makes us feel to hate Trump, disengagement at the deep state level is not only wholly unrealistic but also undesirable
- Whitehall needs a total overhaul so specific project expertise and political appointees can be brought in quickly

Blair basically says all that.

The one thing he doesn’t say and which the same group of people agree on is this and it’s something Blair left behind:

- judges and quangos have too much power, are unaccountable and without redressing the balance in favour of parliament it is very difficult to do anything big fast
- the bare minimum that needs to change in this regard is to reform judicial review and planning law so we can put building and economic growth ahead of newts and NIMBYs

None of that above really ought to be up for discussion. It is all common sense but not one of our politicians will publicly say all of it

Whatever you think of Blair, engage with what he’s saying not how he makes you feel. The bare minimum we should expect from any leader is that they have an analysis of the current situation and a plan to deal with it which is as coherent and realistic as his intervention. Pretty well every critique I’ve read so far has failed to meet this requirement.

Over to Andy and Keir and Kemi and Nigel and Zack and all the others

[Dan Neidle @DanNeidle]

Stunned, appalled, shocked etc to see actual tax reform from a politician. This from Wes Streeting today.

A thread on why capital gains tax is broken. It's too low AND too high. & why this is a good proposal.

[Joel Hills @ITVJoel]

A reminder that Gilt yields can go down as well as up.

[Financial Times @FT]

Gilts rebound on easing political fears and weak economic data https://t.co/AOjXQYoqQB

[Alex Wickham @alexwickham]

***EXCLUSIVE*** Andy Burnham fully rules out changing Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rules if he becomes PM

At the weekend his team had left it open whether he might change them in future

But tonight his spokesperson tells Bloomberg he is explicitly ruling out any changes to the existing fiscal rules

AND crucially Burnham is now also ruling out exempting defence spending from the fiscal rules to spend more on the military

He had floated that idea in a Bloomberg interview a few weeks ago but his spokesperson tonight says he won’t pursue it

This is a big attempt by Burnham’s campaign team to reassure markets who were spooked on Friday by his potential premiership

But it may risk disappointing some on the left who had hoped for a more radical fiscal policy

It may also mean tax rises are the likely main revenue raiser in the event Burnham wants to increase spending

[Joel Hills @ITVJoel]

“I support the current fiscal rules”

Is not the same as 

“I would keep these rules unchanged as PM”

[ITVPolitics @ITVNewsPolitics]

Burnham seeks to reassure markets but keeps room to bend the rules, @ITVJoel writes https://t.co/zS2oUPhKvs

[ITVPolitics @ITVNewsPolitics]

Burnham seeks to reassure markets but keeps room to bend the rules, @ITVJoel writes https://t.co/zS2oUPhKvs

[Joel Hills @ITVJoel]

In his interview with Dan, Burnham says he supports fiscal rules + “a plan to get debt down” - but he stops short of committing to the current rules set by Rachel Reeves.

He seems to be signalling to investors - on whom the UK government relies to borrow - that he would be disciplined if he became PM, while also leaving himself some room to tweak the rules, allowing for more borrowing or more time to meet debt targets.

Burnham says his comments last year about the UK being “in hock” to bond markets were not about ignoring investors but about ensuring the country is governed well enough not to be constantly on the brink of crisis.

On the EU, he says there is a “long-term” case for rejoining but that he won’t be “advocating” it in this by-election - implying he would stick to Labour’s current manifesto red lines in this parliament (no return to the single market, customs union or free movement).

The prospect of “fiscal slippage” may not cut through in Makerfield - but mortgage rates and economic credibility will.

Makerfield also voted strongly to Leave in 2016, so his EU position is likely to come under repeated scrutiny.

[Daniel Hewitt @DanielHewittITV]

What is @AndyBurnhamGM thinking? What’s his plan?

In his only sit down TV interview, the Mayor of Greater Manchester speaks to me about his bid to return to Westminster.

Watch the full 30 minute exclusive:

https://t.co/yL0TK4MGXQ

[Roger Mosey @rogermosey]

This is a vital piece by @RobBurl about the capture of the BBC by lobbyists, and how the corporation had major failures of impartiality. Great contributions from Fran Unsworth & Gavin Allen, and also noting the role of @StephenNolan in the fightback. (£) https://t.co/59IcjdGPjS

[Joel Hills @ITVJoel]

The break-up of ITV looms. Sky and ITV are closing in on a deal but will Lisa Nandy approve it? Indeed, will she still be a minister when the dust settles in Westminster?

Full story 👇

[ITV News @itvnews]

Sky and ITV insiders tell ITV News takeover deal is 'weeks away' and will protect future of brands, Business and Economics Editor @ITVJoel reports https://t.co/eZe5gGZhPR

[Paul Brand @PaulBrandITV]

EXCL: Angela Rayner says she has been cleared of any deliberate wrongdoing by HMRC.

🚨 And she’s not ruling out a bid for No10.🚨

In her first TV interview she insists there has been NO DEAL with Andy Burnham.

[Sam Dumitriu @Sam_Dumitriu]

Failed legal challenges have delayed major infrastructure projects like new roads and power stations by a collective 32 years.

Labour recently changed the law to cut the time it takes to throw out anti-infrastructure lawsuits.

And it's working. One parish council sued to try to stop a solar farm.

In the past, the case would likely have dragged on for over a year. But last month, a Judge threw out the case in just two months.

That's just one project, but that's a year saved already. It means new infrastructure will get built quicker and we can reap the benefits sooner.

https://t.co/R4VXkG2Ffe

[ITV News @itvnews]

Shell’s bumper war dividend not being used to ramp up investment in renewable energy, writes @ITVJoel
https://t.co/nqWJS28kQx