article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
President Biden said Sunday that the Group of Seven (G7) nations will ban Russian gold imports to further impose financial costs on Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine. “The United States has imposed unprecedented costs on Putin to deny him the revenue he needs to fund his war against Ukraine,” Biden tweeted on Sunday. “Together, the G7 will announce that we will ban the import of Russian gold, a major export that rakes in tens of billions of dollars for Russia.” Biden’s announcement came on the first day of a G7 meeting in Germany; a formal announcement is expected later on during the summit. While it does not bring in as much money as energy, gold is a major source of revenue for the Russian economy. Restricting exports to G7 economies will cause more financial strain to Russia as it wages the war in Ukraine. The G7 includes the United States, France, Canada, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy. The U.S. and its allies have been searching for more ways to punish Russia for the bloody war that recently entered its fifth month. Biden has announced waves of penalties coordinated with allies that range from sanctions on Russian officials and oligarchs to export controls to sanctions on major Russian banks. Still, Europeans are limited in what they can do because of their dependence on Russian energy imports. European countries have vowed to phase out Russian oil but have not taken steps like the U.S. to do so immediately. Biden administration officials teased new announcements to squeeze Russia ahead of Biden’s trip to Europe and it’s possible there will be more announcements beyond the plan to ban Russian gold imports. Biden embarked on the trip to Europe for the G7 meeting and, later, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit with the goal of demonstrating unity with allies on keeping up pressure on Russia even as the war roils the global economy. Biden spent Sunday morning meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and later participated in a working lunch with other leaders. A White House readout of Biden’s meeting with Scholz indicated Ukraine was a main topic of conversation. “The leaders underlined their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as their continued provision of military, economic, humanitarian, and diplomatic support to help Ukraine defend its democracy against Russian aggression,” the White House readout said. “The leaders also discussed efforts to alleviate the impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine on global food and energy security.” Biden also thanked Scholz for committing to boosting Germany’s defense spending above NATO’s 2 percent of gross domestic product target. A White House official characterized the meeting as “very warm and friendly” and said there was “very broad alignment on all of the issues that they discussed and all the common challenges that our countries are working on together.” –Updated at 8:50 a.m. Tags | Global Organizations |
Ukrainian service members cross a river outside the city of Sievierodonetsk, as Russia's attack on Ukraine continues, Ukraine June 19, 2022. REUTERS/Oleksandr RatushniakRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comKYIV/POKROVSK, June 26 (Reuters) - Ukraine special forces remained in Sievierodonetsk directing artillery fire against Russian-backed troops, said an adviser to Ukraine's president, after the city fell in a major setback for Kyiv as it struggles to keep control of the country's east.Ukrainian shelling on Saturday forced Russian troops to suspend the evacuation of people from a chemical plant in Sievierodonetsk, just hours after Moscow's forces took the city, Tass news agency quoted local police as saying.The fall of Sievierodonetsk, following weeks of some of the war's bloodiest fighting, is the biggest defeat for Ukraine since it lost control of the southern port of Mariupol in May.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comUkraine called its retreat from the city a "tactical withdrawal" to fight from higher ground in Lysychansk on the opposite bank of the Siverskyi Donets river. Pro-Russian separatists said Moscow's forces were now attacking Lysychansk.The fall of Sievierodonetsk - once home to more than 100,000 people but now a wasteland - transforms the battlefield in the east after weeks in which Moscow's huge advantage in firepower had yielded only slow gains.Russia will now seek to press on and seize more ground on the opposite bank, while Ukraine will hope that the price Moscow paid to capture the ruins of the small city will leave Russia's forces vulnerable to counterattack.President Volodymyr Zelenskiy vowed in a video address that Ukraine would win back the cities it lost, including Sievierodonetsk. But acknowledging the war's emotional toll, he said: "We don't have a sense of how long it will last, how many more blows, losses and efforts will be needed before we see victory is on the horizon."Kyrylo Budanov, Ukraine's military intelligence chief, told Reuters that Ukraine was carrying out "a tactical regrouping" by pulling its forces out of Sievierodonetsk."Russia is using the tactic ... it used in Mariupol: wiping the city from the face of the earth," he said. "Given the conditions, holding the defence in the ruins and open fields is no longer possible. So the Ukrainian forces are leaving for higher ground to continue the defence operations."Russia's defence ministry said "as a result of successful offensive operations" Russian forces had established full control over Sievierodonetsk and the nearby town of Borivske.Oleksiy Arestovych, senior adviser to Zelenskiy, said some Ukrainian special forces were still in Sievierodonetsk directing artillery fire against the Russians. But he made no mention of those forces putting up any direct resistance. read more Russia's Interfax news agency cited a representative of pro-Russian separatist fighters saying Russian and pro-Russian forces had entered Lysychansk across the river and were fighting in urban areas there.MISSILES RAIN DOWNRussia also launched missile strikes across Ukraine on Saturday. At least three people were killed and others may have been buried in rubble in the town of Sarny, some 185 miles (300 km) west of Kyiv, after rockets hit a carwash and a car repair facility, said the head of the local regional military administration.Russia denies targeting civilians. Kyiv and the West say Russian forces have committed war crimes against civilians.Russian missiles also struck elsewhere overnight. "48 cruise missiles. At night. Throughout whole Ukraine," Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak said on Twitter. "Russia is still trying to intimidate Ukraine, cause panic."Ukraine's top general Valeriy Zaluzhnyi wrote on the Telegram app that newly arrived, U.S.-supplied advanced HIMARS rocket systems were now deployed and hitting targets in Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine. read more Seeking to further tighten the screws on Russia, U.S. President Joe Biden and other Group of Seven leaders attending a summit in Germany starting on Sunday will agree on an import ban on new gold from Russia, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters. read more Britain is ready to guarantee a further $525 million of World Bank loans to Ukraine later this year, taking total fiscal support this year to $1.5 billion, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said ahead of the G7 meeting."Ukraine can win and it will win. But they need our backing to do so. Now is not the time to give up on Ukraine," Johnson said in a statement on Saturday.'IT WAS HORROR'In the Ukrainian-held Donbas town of Pokrovsk, Elena, an elderly woman in a wheelchair from Lysychansk, was among dozens of evacuees who arrived by bus from frontline areas."Lysychansk, it was a horror, the last week. Yesterday we could not take it any more," she said. "I already told my husband if I die, please bury me behind the house."Europe's biggest land conflict since World War Two has entered its fifth month, after Russian President Vladimir Putin sent tens of thousands of troops over the border on Feb. 24 and unleashed a conflict that has killed thousands and uprooted millions. It has also stoked an energy and food crisis that is shaking the global economy.Since Russia's forces were defeated in an assault on the capital Kyiv in March, it has shifted focus to the Donbas, an eastern territory made up of Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk were the last major Ukrainian bastions in Luhansk.Moscow says Luhansk and Donetsk, where it has backed uprisings since 2014, are independent countries. It demands Ukraine cede the entire territory of the two provinces to separatist administrations.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Reuters bureaux; Writing by Michael Perry; Editing by Edmund KlamannOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
Everyone acknowledged that Zoom was less than ideal as a forum for a heartfelt conversation on systemic racism and policing. But the meeting was urgent, and, a little more than two months into the Covid-19 lockdown, it would have to do.
During the first week of June 2020, teams of workers and their managers came together across the country to share how they were responding to the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis and to chart out what — if anything — their own company or nonprofit could do to contribute toward the reckoning with racial injustice that was rapidly taking shape.
On June 2, one such huddle was organized by the Washington, D.C., office of the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rights movement’s premier research organization.
Heather Boonstra, vice president of public policy, began by asking how people were “finding equilibrium” — one of the details we know because it was later shared by staff with Prism, an outlet that focuses on social justice advocacy.She talked about the role systemic racism plays in society and the ways that Guttmacher’s work could counter it. Staff suggestions, though, turned inward, Prism reported, “including loosening deadlines and implementing more proactive and explicit policies for leave without penalty.” Staffers suggested additional racial equity trainings, noting that a previous facilitator had said that the last round had not included sufficient time “to cover everything.” With no Black staff in the D.C. unit, it was suggested that “Guttmacher do something tangible for Black employees in other divisions.”
Behind Boonstra’s and the staff’s responses to the killing was a fundamentally different understanding of the moment. For Boonstra and others of her generation, the focus should have been on the work of the nonprofit: What could Guttmacher, with an annual budget of nearly $30 million, do now to make the world a better place? For her staff, that question had to be answered at home first: What could they do to make Guttmacher a better place? Too often, they believed, managers exploited the moral commitment staff felt toward their mission, allowing workplace abuses to go unchecked.
The belief was widespread. In the eyes of group leaders dealing with similar moments, staff were ignoring the mission and focusing only on themselves, using a moment of public awakening to smuggle through standard grievances cloaked in the language of social justice. Often, as was the case at Guttmacher, they played into the very dynamics they were fighting against, directing their complaints at leaders of color. Guttmacher was run at the time, and still is today, by an Afro Latina woman, Dr. Herminia Palacio. “The most zealous ones at my organization when it comes to race are white,” said one Black executive director at a different organization, asking for anonymity so as not to provoke a response from that staff.These starkly divergent views would produce dramatic schisms throughout the progressive world in the coming year. At Guttmacher, this process would rip the organization apart. Boonstra, unlike many managers at the time, didn’t sugarcoat how she felt about the staff’s response to the killing.
“I’m here to talk about George Floyd and the other African American men who have been beaten up by society,” she told her staff, not “workplace problems.” Boonstra told them she was “disappointed,” that they were being “self-centered.” The staff was appalled enough by the exchange to relay it to Prism.
The human resources department and board of directors, in consultation with outside counsel, were brought in to investigate complaints that flowed from the meeting, including accusations that certain staff members had been tokenized, promoted, and then demoted on the basis of race. The resulting report was unsatisfying to many of the staff.
“What we have learned is that there is a group of people with strong opinions about a particular supervisor, the new leadership, and a change in strategic priorities,” said a Guttmacher statement summarizing the findings. “Those staff have a point of view. Complaints were duly investigated and nothing raised to the level of abuse or discrimination. Rather, what we saw was distrust, disagreement, and discontent with management decisions they simply did not like.”
A Prism reporter reached a widely respected Guttmacher board member, Pamela Merritt, a Black woman and a leading reproductive justice activist, while the Supreme Court oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization were going on last December, a year and a half after the Floyd meeting. She offered the most delicate rebuttal of the staff complaints possible.
“I have been in this movement space long enough to respect how people choose to describe their personal experience and validate that experience, even if I don’t necessarily agree that that’s what they experienced,” Merritt said. “It seems like there’s a conflation between not reaching the conclusion that people want and not doing due diligence on the allegations, which simply is not true.” Boonstra did not respond to a request to talk from either Prism or The Intercept.
The six months since then have only seen a ratcheting up of the tension, with more internal disputes spilling into public and amplified by a well-funded, anonymous operation called ReproJobs, whose Twitter and Instagram feeds have pounded away at the organization’s management. “If your reproductive justice organization isn’t Black and brown it’s white supremacy in heels co-opting a WOC movement,” blared a typical missive from one of its Instagram stories. The news, in May 2022, that Roe v. Wade would almost certainly be overturned did nothing to temper the raging battle.
That the institute has spent the course of the Biden administration paralyzed makes it typical of not just the abortion rights community — Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and other reproductive health organizations had similarly been locked in knock-down, drag-out fights between competing factions of their organizations, most often breaking down along staff-versus-management lines. It’s also true of the progressive advocacy space across the board, which has, more or less, effectively ceased to function. The Sierra Club, Demos, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change, the Movement for Black Lives, Human Rights Campaign, Time’s Up, the Sunrise Movement, and many other organizations have seen wrenching and debilitating turmoil in the past couple years.
In fact, it’s hard to find a Washington-based progressive organization that hasn’t been in tumult, or isn’t currently in tumult. It even reached the National Audubon Society, as Politico reported in August 2021:
Following a botched diversity meeting, a highly critical employee survey and the resignations of two top diversity and inclusion officials, the 600,000-member National Audubon Society is confronting allegations that it maintains a culture of retaliation, fear and antagonism toward women and people of color, according to interviews with 13 current and former staff members.
Twitter, as the saying goes, may not be real life, but in a world of remote work, Slack very much is. And Twitter, Slack, Zoom, and the office space, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former executive directors of advocacy organizations, are now mixing in a way that is no longer able to be ignored by a progressive movement that wants organizations to be able to function. The executive directors largely spoke on the condition of anonymity, for fear of angering staff or donors.
“To be honest with you, this is the biggest problem on the left over the last six years,” one concluded. “This is so big. And it’s like abuse in the family — it’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. And you have to be super sensitive about who the messengers are.”
For a number of obvious and intersecting reasons — my race, gender, and generation — I am not the perfect messenger. But here it goes anyway.Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer sign the American Rescue Plan Act on March 10, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagFor progressive movement organizations, 2021 promised to be the year they turned power into policy, with a Democratic trifecta and the Biden administration broadcasting a bold vision of “transformational change.” Out of the gate, Democrats pushed ahead with the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, funding everything from expanded health care to a new monthly child tax credit. Republican efforts to slow-walk the process with disingenuous counteroffers were simply dismissed.
And then, sometime in the summer, the forward momentum stalled, and many of the progressive gains lapsed or were reversed. Instead of fueling a groundswell of public support to reinvigorate the party’s ambitious agenda, most of the foundation-backed organizations that make up the backbone of the party’s ideological infrastructure were still spending their time locked in virtual retreats, Slack wars, and healing sessions, grappling with tensions over hierarchy, patriarchy, race, gender, and power.
“So much energy has been devoted to the internal strife and internal bullshit that it’s had a real impact on the ability for groups to deliver,” said one organization leader who departed his position. “It’s been huge, particularly over the last year and a half or so, the ability for groups to focus on their mission, whether it’s reproductive justice, or jobs, or fighting climate change.”“My last nine months, I was spending 90 to 95 percent of my time on internal strife.”This is, of course, a caricature of the left: that socialists and communists spend more time in meetings and fighting with each other than changing the world. But in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential election, and then Joe Biden’s, it has become nearly all-consuming for some organizations, spreading beyond subcultures of the left and into major liberal institutions. “My last nine months, I was spending 90 to 95 percent of my time on internal strife. Whereas [before] that would have been 25-30 percent tops,” the former executive director said. He added that the same portion of his deputies’ time was similarly spent on internal reckonings.
“Most people thought that their worst critics were their competitors, and they’re finding out that their worst critics are on their own payroll,” said Loretta Ross, an author and activist who has been prominent in the movement for decades, having founded the reproductive justice collective SisterSong.
“We’re dealing with a workforce that’s becoming younger, more female, more people of color, more politically woke — I hate to use that term in a way it shouldn’t be used — and less loyal in the traditional way to a job, because the whole economic rationale for keeping a job or having a job has changed.” That lack of loyalty is not the fault of employees, Ross said, but was foisted on them by a precarious economy that broke the professional-social contract. That has left workers with less patience for inequities in the workplace.
“All my ED [executive director] friends, everybody’s going through some shit, nobody’s immune,” said one who has yet to depart.
One senior progressive congressional staffer said that when groups don’t disappear entirely to deal with internal strife, the discord is still noticeable on the other end. “I’ve noticed a real erosion of the number of groups who are effective at leveraging progressive power in Congress. Some of that is these groups have these organizational culture things that are affecting them,” the staffer said. “Because of the organizational culture of some of the real movement groups that have lots of chapters, what they’re lobbying on isn’t relevant to the actual fights in Congress. Some of these groups are in Overton mode when we have a trifecta.”
The idea, in theory, is that pushing their public policy demands further and further left widens the so-called Overton window of what’s considered possible, thereby facilitating the future passage of ambitious legislation. Those maximalist political demands can also be a byproduct of internal strife, as organization leaders fend off charges of not internally embodying progressive values by pushing external rhetoric further left.“There are wins to be had between now and the next couple months that could change the country forever, and folks are focused on stuff that has no theory of change for even getting to the House floor for a vote.”But, the aide pointed out, there is legislative potential now. “There are wins to be had between now and the next couple months that could change the country forever, and folks are focused on stuff that has no theory of change for even getting to the House floor for a vote.”
“Sunrise is doing their Green New Deal pledge,” the aide continued, describing the Sunrise Movement-led effort to get elected officials and candidates to sign on to an ambitious climate commitment. “The climate bill is still on the table. … There’s a universe where people are on the outside, focused on power and leveraging power for progressives in Congress. Instead, they’re spending resources on stuff that is totally unrelated to governing. Nobody says, ‘Hey guys, could you maybe come and maybe focus on this?’”
The silence stems partly, one senior leader in an organization said, from a fear of feeding right-wing trolls who are working to undermine the left. Adopting their language and framing feels like surrendering to malign forces, but ignoring it has only allowed the issues to fester. “The right has labeled it ‘cancel culture’ or ‘callout culture,’” he said, “so when we talk about our own movement, it’s hard because we’re using the frame of the right. It’s very hard because there’s all these associations and analysis that we disagree with, when we’re using their frame. So it’s like, ‘How do we talk about it?’”
For years, recruiting young people into the movement felt like a win-win, he said: new energy for the movement and the chance to give a person a lease on a newly liberated life, dedicated to the pursuit of justice. But that’s no longer the case. “I got to a point like three years ago where I had a crisis of faith, like, I don’t even know, most of these spaces on the left are just not — they’re not healthy. Like all these people are just not — they’re not doing well,” he said. “The dynamic, the toxic dynamic of whatever you want to call it — callout culture, cancel culture, whatever — is creating this really intense thing, and no one is able to acknowledge it, no one’s able to talk about it, no one’s able to say how bad it is.”
The environment has pushed expectations far beyond what workplaces previously offered to employees. “A lot of staff that work for me, they expect the organization to be all the things: a movement, OK, get out the vote, OK, healing, OK, take care of you when you’re sick, OK. It’s all the things,” said one executive director. “Can you get your love and healing at home, please? But I can’t say that, they would crucify me.”The Sunrise Movement protests inside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to advocate that Democrats support the Green New Deal, in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 10, 2018. Photo: Michael Brochstein/LightRocket via Getty ImagesWhat’s driving the upheaval can’t be disentangled from the broader cultural debates about speech, power, race, sexuality, and gender that have shaken institutions in recent years. Netflix, for instance, made news recently by laying off 290 staffers — a move described by the tabloid press as targeting the “wokest” workers — in the midst of roiling tensions at the streaming company.
“It’s not just the nonprofit world, though, so let’s be clear,” said Ross. “I started a for-profit consulting firm last year with three other partners, because every C-suite that’s trying to be progressive is undergoing the same kind of callout culture. And so it’s happening societywide.” Business, she said, is booming, but the implications have been especially pronounced within progressive institutions, given their explicit embrace of progressive values.
Sooner or later, each interview for this story landed on the election of Trump in 2016 as a catalyst. Whatever internal tension had been pulling at the seams of organizations in the years prior, Trump’s shock victory sharpened the focus of activists and regular people alike. The institutional progressive world based in Washington, D.C., reacted slowly, shell-shocked and unsure of its place, but people outside those institutions raced ahead of them. A period of mourning turned into fierce determination to resist. Spontaneous women’s marches were called in scores of cities, drawing as many as 5 million people, a shocking display of force. (Their collapse in a heap of identitarian recriminations is its own parable for this moment.)
New grassroots organizations like Indivisible sprang up, and old ones were rejuvenated with new volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars from small donors across the country. The ACLU alone collected almost $1 million within 24 hours of Trump’s election and tens of millions more over the next year. Airports were flooded with protesters when Trump announced his so-called Muslim ban. Fueled by that anger, Democrats stormed back into control of the House in 2018, with a vibrant insurgent wing toppling the would-be speaker, Rep. Joe Crowley, and electing the most progressive freshman class ever.
After that election, incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teamed with the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats to occupy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional office to demand a Green New Deal. The protest put the issue on the map, and soon nearly every Democratic candidate for president was embracing it. But it was one of the only examples over the past five years of an organized, intentional intervention into the political conversation, which otherwise has been relatively leaderless and without focus. Presidential campaigns, particularly those of Sen. Bernie Sanders for the left, and midterms provide a natural funnel for activist energy, but once they’re over, the demobilization comes quickly. That emptiness has been filled by infighting, and the fissures that are now engulfing everything in sight began to form early.
In August 2017, when a rising “alt-right” organized a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the ACLU went to court to defend the right to march on First Amendment grounds, as it had famously done for generations. When a right-wing demonstrator plowed his car into a crowd, he killed counterprotester Heather Heyer and wounded dozens of others.
Internally, staff at the ACLU, concentrated among the younger people there, condemned the decision to defend the rally. Veteran lawyers at the ACLU complained to the New York Times that the new generation “placed less value on free speech, making it uncomfortable for them to express views internally that diverged from progressive orthodoxy.”
Alejandro Agustín Ortiz, a lawyer with the organization’s racial justice project, told the Times that “a dogmatism descends sometimes.”
“You hesitate before you question a belief that is ascendant among your peer group,” he said.
National Legal Director David Cole stood by the decision to defend the rally in a New York Review of Books essay. “We protect the First Amendment not only because it is the lifeblood of democracy and an indispensable element of freedom, but because it is the guarantor of civil society itself,” he wrote.
Around 200 staff members responded with a letter slamming the essay as “‘oblivious’ to the ACLU’s institutional racism,” the New York Times reported, noting that 12 of the organization’s top 21 leaders were Black, Latino, or Asian and 14 were women.
Under pressure, the ACLU said it would dial back its defense of free speech. Wrote the Times: “Revulsion swelled within the A.C.L.U., and many assailed its executive director, Anthony Romero, and legal director, Mr. Cole, as privileged and clueless. The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose ‘values are contrary to our values’ against the potential such a case might give ‘offense to marginalized groups.’”Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, speaks at a conference at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. Photo: Paul Morigi/Getty ImagesAn internal dispute over the organization’s absolutist commitment to free speech is to be expected after such a tragedy. But the conflict mushroomed; instead of finding common ground on the question, it became fodder for endless and sprawling internal microbattles.
The Times article on the ACLU infighting was published in September 2021, more than four years after the event that triggered it, and there’s no sign of the tensions easing. Such prolonged combat has become standard, whether the triggering event is a cataclysmic one like Charlottesville or more prosaic, like a retweet of an offensive joke by a Washington Post reporter. The initial event prompts a response from staff, which is met by management with a memo or a town hall; in either case, the meeting or the organizationwide message often produces its own cause for new offense, a self-reproducing cycle that sucks in more and more people within the organization, who have either been offended, accused of giving offense, or both, along with their colleagues who are required to pick a side.
At the ACLU, as at many organizations, the controversy quickly evolved to include charges that senior leaders were hostile to staff from marginalized communities. Each accusation is unique; some have obvious merit, while others don’t withstand scrutiny. What emerges by zooming out is the striking similarity of their trajectories. One foundation official who has funded many of the groups entangled in turmoil said that having a panoramic view allowed her to see those common threads. “It’s the kind of thing that looks very context-specific, until you see a larger pattern,” she said.
Things get very ugly, she noted, and the overlapping crises of Trump, Covid, and looming climate collapse have produced extreme anxiety. Under siege, many leaders cling more tightly to their hold on power, she said, “taking shelter in professional nonprofit spaces because they think clinging to a sinking ship and hanging on as long and strongly as possible is the best bet they can make for their own personal survival.”
Three years of post-Trump tensions crashed head-on into a pandemic lockdown and the uprising following the police murder of Floyd.
Progressive organizations convened meetings to work through their response, and, like at Guttmacher, many of them left staff extremely unsatisfied. A looming sense of powerlessness on the left nudged the focus away from structural or wide-reaching change, which felt out of reach, and replaced it with an internal target that was more achievable. “Maybe I can’t end racism by myself, but I can get my manager fired, or I can get so and so removed, or I can hold somebody accountable,” one former executive director said. “People found power where they could, and often that’s where you work, sometimes where you live, or where you study, but someplace close to home.”
Too much hype about what was possible electorally also played a role, said another leader. “Unrealistic expectations about what could be achieved through the electoral and legislative process has led us to give up on persuasion and believe convenient myths that we can change everything by ‘mobilizing’ a mythological ‘base,’” he said. “This has led to navel-gazing and constant rehashing of internal culture debates, because the progressive movement is no longer convinced it can have an impact on the external world.”
Things were also tense because of Covid. Jonathan Smucker is the author of the book “Hegemony How-To: A Roadmap for Radicals” and trains and advises activists across the movement spectrum. After the pandemic forced people into quarantine in March 2020, he noted, many workplaces turned into pressure cookers. “COVID has severely limited in-person tactical options, and in-person face-to-face activities are absolutely vital to volunteer-driven efforts,” he wrote to The Intercept. “Without these spaces, staff are more likely to become insular – a tendency that’s hard enough to combat even without this shift. Moreover, the virtual environment (zoom meetings) may be convenient for all kinds of reasons, but it’s a pretty lousy medium once there’s conflict in an organization. In-person face-to-face time, in my experience, is irreplaceable when it comes to moving constructively through conflict. I know this is not the full picture and probably not even the root of these problems or conflicts, but it’s almost certainly exacerbating them.”
The histories of the organizations were scoured for evidence of white supremacy, and nobody had to look very hard. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was posthumously rebuked for her dalliance with eugenics, and her name was stripped in July 2020 from the headquarters of its New York affiliate. (In 2011, I won a “Planned Parenthood Maggie Award for Online Reporting,” which I still have.)
At the Sierra Club, then-Executive Director Michael Brune published a statement headlined “Pulling Down Our Monuments,” calling out founder John Muir for his association with eugenicists. “Muir was not immune to the racism peddled by many in the early conservation movement. He made derogatory comments about Black people and Indigenous peoples that drew on deeply harmful racist stereotypes, though his views evolved later in his life,” Brune wrote that July, adding:
For all the harms the Sierra Club has caused, and continues to cause, to Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color, I am deeply sorry. I know that apologies are empty unless accompanied by a commitment to change. I am making that commitment, publicly, right now. And I invite you to hold me and other Sierra Club leaders, staff, and volunteers accountable whenever we don’t live up to our commitment to becoming an actively anti-racist organization.
Brune came to the Sierra Club, the environmental group founded in 1892, from Greenpeace and the anarchist-influenced Rainforest Action Network in 2010. He was considered at the time a radical choice to run the staid organization. Brune didn’t last the summer.
The progressive congressional aide said the Sierra Club infighting that led to his departure was evident from the outside. “It caused so much internal churn that they stopped being engaged in any serious way at a really critical moment during Build Back Better,” the aide said.
Then the Sierra Club’s structure, which has relied on thousands of volunteers, many empowered with significant responsibility, also came under scrutiny after a volunteer was accused of rape. The consulting firm Ramona Strategies was brought in for an extensive “restorative accountability process” that The Intercept described last summer as an “internal reckoning around race, gender, and sexual as well as other abuse allegations.”“Being a ‘volunteer-led’ organization cannot stand for volunteers having carte blanche to ignore legal requirements or organizational values around equity and inclusivity — or basic human decency,” the consultant’s report stated. “All employees should be managed by and subject to the oversight of individuals also under the organization’s clear control and direction as employees. There is no other way we can see.”
The recommendation was the logical dead-end point of the inward focus. Having only employees and no volunteers — or, in the case of Everytown for Gun Safety, asking volunteers to sign nondisclosure agreements — would render moot the structure of most major movement groups, such as Indivisible, Sunrise, MoveOn, the NAACP, and so on.
The reckoning was in many ways long overdue, forcing organizations to deal with persistent problems of inclusion, equity, and poor management. “Progressive organizations are run like shit,” acknowledged one executive director, arguing that the movement puts emphasis on leadership — more often called “servant leadership” now — but not enough on basic management. “I have all the degrees, but I don’t have a management degree.”
In the long term, the organizations may become better versions of themselves while finally living the values they’ve long fought for. In the short term, the battles between staff and organizational leadership have effectively sidelined major progressive institutions at a critical moment in U.S. and world history. “We used to want to make the world a better place,” said one leader of a progressive organization. “Now we just make our organizations more miserable to work at.”Mark Rudd, chair of Students for a Democratic Society, talks to reporters as Columbia University students protest on April 25, 1968. Photo: Dennis Caruso/NY Daily News via Getty ImagesTheorists have developed sophisticated ways to understand how political movements evolve over time. Bill Moyer, a former organizer with Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign who went on to lead the anti-nuclear movement, famously documented eight stages in his “Movement Action Plan.” (Others have subsequently simplified it to four seasons that roughly map to the same waves.)
Stage one he called normal times, the period before the public is paying much attention to an issue, while only a few activists are working to develop solutions and tactics. Stage two is failure of institutions, as the public and activists more generally become aware of a problem and the need for change. This is early spring, which then evolves into stage three, ripening conditions. To take the civil rights movement as an example, Brown v. Board of Education helped ripen conditions, as did a rising Black college student population after World War II and the return of Black veterans from the war more generally, along with a surge in anti-colonial freedom struggles across Africa. The conditions are set.
Next comes a trigger event that shocks the conscience of the public, allowing the movement activists who’ve been at work on an issue to seize the moment, creating stage four, when social movements really take off. Rosa Parks was by no means the first Black woman arrested for refusing to go to the back of the bus, nor was Trayvon Martin the first Black teen to be shot by a vigilante, nor was Michael Brown the first Black teen to be killed by a police officer. But the events came at a time when the public was primed to see them as symptomatic of a broader social ill that needed to be confronted. Springtime for social movements is a time of great promise, optimism, and surging momentum, when the previously unthinkable comes within grasp. In 1957, Congress passed the first Civil Rights Act since Reconstruction.
But before it passed the Senate, it was stripped of its enforcement mechanisms, leaving much of the South still ruled by Jim Crow, helping produce the fifth stage, in which activists confront powerful obstacles and despair sets in. “After a year or two, the high hopes of movement take-off seems inevitably to turn into despair,” Moyer wrote. “Most activists lose their faith that success is just around the corner and come to believe that it is never going to happen. They perceive that the powerholders are too strong, their movement has failed, and their own efforts have been futile. Most surprising is the fact that this identity crisis of powerlessness and failure happens when the movement is outrageously successful—when the movement has just achieved all of the goals of the take-off stage within two years.”
Stage five happens coincidentally — and paradoxically — with stage six: majority public support. This is the period of time during which the movement has won over the public, with surveys showing two-thirds or more of the public siding with it on its question. Some elements of the movement adapt to this new environment and craft strategy to lock in gains, while other elements misread the moment and continue fighting as insurgents and outsiders.
This is the summer and fall period for a movement, followed inevitably by winter. Moyer calls stage seven success and stage eight “continuing the struggle,” but activists have wildly different ideas about the meaning of success, with most seeing nothing but failure, even as they might acknowledge that, say, life was far more free for a Black American in 1977 than 1957.
Whe | Human Rights |
World leaders last night agreed a new 'surge' of support to defeat Vladimir Putin in Ukraine after the Kremlin bombed Kyiv while the G7 met. At a summit in Germany, Emmanuel Macron, who had been seen by No 10 as wavering, yesterday said he was committed for the long haul. Boris Johnson said 'backing down' now would be a catastrophic mistake as he warned against encouraging Volodymyr Zelensky to accept a peace deal.Downing Street said the Russian leader's decision to fire missiles on the Ukrainian capital had been 'stupid' and had 'stiffened the resolve' of leaders.The spokesperson added that Macron and Johnson, who have until now had a strained relationship, were 'aligned' as the French said the defeat of Russia is 'option number one' and peace is 'number two'. 'There is a real sense that Putin was stupid to bomb Kyiv as the G7 gathered', a No 10 source said. 'It has made the leaders more united'.The timing of the attack was seen as a pointed message to world leaders to encourage Ukraine into a peace deal where it cedes large portions of its territory.A Downing Street spokesman also warned that 'enduring instability' could be created if Putin was not curtailed now from launching similar attacks on other countries. L to R: Prime Minister of Italy Mario Draghi, European Union Council Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, US President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida, French President Emanuel Macron and European Union Council President Charles Michel pose for a group photo on the first day of the three-day G7 Downing Street said the Russian leader's decision to fire missiles on the Ukrainian capital had been 'stupid' and had 'stiffened the resolve' of leaders. Pictured: Guests sit together at the table during a reception in the Antiquarium of the Residenz Clockwise from left: Italy's Mario Draghi, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz, Joe Biden, Mr Johnson, Japan's Fumio Kishida, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and European Council president Charles Michel The timing of Putin's (pictured) attack was seen as a pointed message to G7 members to encourage Ukraine into a peace deal where it cedes large portions of its territory US President to 'try and stop' Boris' plan to ease global food crisis Joe Biden will try to stop Boris Johnson from moving ahead with his plan to ease the global food crisis, the Telegraph has reported. The Prime Minister today will call on world leaders to take urgent action to get essential food supplies out of Ukraine where 25 million tons of grain are currently stuck. Mr Johnson will tell the G7 today: 'Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine are creating terrible aftershocks across the world, driving up energy and food prices as millions of people are on the brink of famine.'Only Putin can end this needless and futile war, but global leaders need to come together and apply their combined economic and political heft to help Ukraine and make life easier for households across the world. Nothing should be off the table.'Mr Johnson will explain if countries can swap biofuel crops for food then it will help keep food prices low and prevent starvation. Biden's officials said they would block the plan due to wanting to keep to green climate targets and help their farmers. The US will be joined by Canada, the Telegraph said, but Germany is said to back the British Prime Minister. Mr Johnson will announce £10 million in funding for repairs to the Ukrainian railways in a bid to get the grain out by train. In meetings today Mr Johnson and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will argue that countries should reduce the amount of biofuel they consume so the grains needed to make it can be sold as food instead. However, the US and Canada, which both produce large amounts of biofuel, are resisting the call.The UK, US, Germany, France, Canada, Italy and Japan make up the G7. Mr Zelensky is due to address the world leaders by video-link today. The Prime Minister yesterday argued that the leaders must help 'strengthen Ukraine's hand' by providing more military support rather than encourage Mr Zelensky to give up territory in a peace deal.Downing Street clarified to the Telegraph that this remark about peace by Mr Johnson was to 'the commentariat' and not to the G7. 'It's not helpful to discuss the individual leaders and their views expressed in private,' a spokesman added. 'I think what you will see in this G7 is that they are united in support for Ukraine.' Mr Johnson and Mr Macron, who have until now had a strained relationship, yesterday agreed to a 'reset' as they held one-on-one talks at the summit. But the Downing Street spokesman refused to say whether both leaders had reached an agreement. A No 10 source told the Daily Mail that they now believed the French president was 'on the right page' when it came to Ukraine. He said: 'They're getting on well, they had a very good meeting. It's all great with the French now.'Both sides are aligned. [Mr] Macron said the defeat of Russia is option number one to pursue. Option two is put [Mr] Zelensky in the best position to strike a deal.'We found that positive and officials say we are heading for a strong statement from this summit on Ukraine.'In talks with Mr Macron, Mr Johnson 'stressed any attempt to settle the conflict now will only cause enduring instability and give Putin licence to manipulate both sovereign countries and international markets in perpetuity'.'The leaders agreed to continue and enhance the close work between the UK and France on areas including defence and security,' the spokesman added to the Telegraph. The PM said yesterday: 'The consequences of what's happening for the world are tough, but the price of backing down, the price of allowing Putin to succeed, to hack off huge parts of Ukraine, to continue with his programme of conquest, that price will be far, far higher and everybody here understands that.'In behind-the-scenes discussions, he reportedly told world leaders they must back an Iraq-style surge strategy to help Ukraine strike a decisive blow to win the war.The comments came after Mr Johnson's spokesman said he 'firmly believes that it is in everyone's interest to push back against Russia's invasion to support Ukraine, because failing to do so would have significant knock-on impacts'.The spokesman added: 'It would embolden other authoritarian countries, and it would put the peace and prosperity of the United Kingdom at risk.'The message was repeated by US President Joe Biden, who said: 'We have to stay together, because Putin has been counting on from the beginning that somehow Nato and the G7 would splinter. But we haven't and we're not going to.' Carrie Johnson with The President of the United States of America, Jo Biden at the G7 leaders on the first day of the G7 Leaders' Summit 2022 in Germany World leaders last night agreed a new 'surge' to defeat Vladimir Putin in Ukraine after the Kremlin bombed Kyiv while the G7 met. Pictured: G7 guests sit together at the table during a reception in the Antiquarium of the Residenz last night At a summit in Germany, Emmanuel Macron (pictured close to Boris Johnson), who had been seen by No 10 as wavering, yesterday said he was committed for the long haul after Boris Johnson warned against encouraging Volodymyr Zelensky to accept a peace dealAnd in a moment of light-heartedness yesterday, the leaders sat together and joked about the Russian leader's fondness of being photographed without a shirt on. As they sat down for a meeting in the Bavarian Alps, Mr Johnson questioned whether they should keep their suit jackets on.'Shall we take our clothes off?' he asked, as leaders endured sweltering temperatures inside the summit venue as the German hosts opted not to use air conditioning in a bid to be environmentally friendly. 'We all have to show that we're tougher than Putin'.Justin Trudeau, the Canadian PM, referred to an infamous picture of Putin on a 'bare-chested horseback ride', before Mr Johnson added: 'We've got to show our pecs.'Before the meeting, Mr Johnson was asked whether France and Germany are doing enough over Ukraine.In his response, Mr Johnson focused on Berlin's response without mentioning France. 'Just look at what the Germans alone have done,' he said. 'I never believed in my lifetime that I would see a German Chancellor stepping up in the way that Olaf Scholz has and sending weaponry to help the Ukrainians to to protect themselves.'He's made huge, huge strides. We have 4 per cent of our gas comes from Russia, in Germany, it's 40 per cent.'They're facing real, real pressures, they're having to source energy from elsewhere. But they're doing it. They're making the effort. They're making the sacrifice. That's because they see that the price of freedom is worth paying.'This is something that it's worth us standing up for together. And that is the principle that a free, independent sovereign country like Ukraine should not be violently invaded and should not have its boundaries changed by force.'And the consequences of what's happening for the world are tough, but the price of backing down, the price of allowing Putin to succeed, to hack off huge parts of Ukraine, to continue with his programme of conquest, that price will be far, far higher and everybody here understands that.' And in a moment of light-heartedness yesterday, the leaders sat together and joked about the Russian leader's fondness of being photographed without a shirt on. PIctured: Vladimir Putin's famous horse riding pose Mr Johnson (pictured arriving with wife Carrie) said 'backing down' now would be a catastrophic mistake as Downing Street said the Russian leader's decision to fire missiles on the Ukrainian capital had 'stiffend the resolve' of leadersMr Johnson also told reporters yesterday morning: 'Realistically, there is going to be fatigue in populations and politicians. I think the pressure is there and the anxiety is there, we've got to be honest about that.'But the most incredible thing about the way the West has responded to the invasion of Ukraine by Putin has been the unity. Nato has been solid, the G7 has been solid and we continue to be solid.'But in order to protect that unity, in order to make it work, we've got to have really, really honest discussions about the implications of what's going on, the pressures that individual friends and partners are feeling, that populations are feeling – whether it's on the costs of their energy or food or whatever.'The Prime Minister today will call on world leaders to take urgent action to get essential food supplies out of Ukraine where 25 million tons of grain are currently stuck.Mr Johnson will announce £10 million in funding for repairs to the Ukrainian railways in a bid to get the grain out by train. In meetings today Mr Johnson and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz will argue that countries should reduce the amount of biofuel they consume so the grains needed to make it can be sold as food instead. However, the US and Canada, which both produce large amounts of biofuel, are resisting the call.The UK, US, Germany, France, Canada, Italy and Japan make up the G7. Mr Zelensky is due to address the world leaders by video-link today. | Europe Politics |
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryG7 to work with other countries, private sector on oil price capEmerging countries decline to criticise Russia over UkraineJapan tries to cut zero-emission vehicles goal from G7 statementSCHLOSS ELMAU, Germany, June 27 (Reuters) - The Group of Seven club of wealthy nations on Monday vowed to stand with Ukraine "for as long as it takes", promising to tighten the squeeze on Russia's finances with new sanctions that include a proposal to cap the price of Russian oil.The announcement came after Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, addressing G7 leaders at their summit in the Bavarian Alps via a video link, asked for weapons and air defences to gain the upper hand in the war against Russia within months.But efforts to rally the Global South to the Ukrainian cause were less successful, with five developing countries invited to partner with the rich country club signing up only to a mildly worded statement hailing democracy's "courageous defenders" without referring explicitly to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comThe G7 leaders' own statement aimed to signal that its members were ready to back Ukraine for the long haul, at a time when soaring inflation and energy shortages - fuelled by Russia's invasion - have tested the West's sanctions resolve."We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes," the statement said.After missiles rained down on Kyiv on Sunday, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the United States was readying a new weapons package for Ukraine that included long-range air defences and ammunition.In reference to Zelenskiy's address, Sullivan told reporters: "At the top of his mind was the set of missile strikes that took place in Kyiv and other cities across Ukraine and his desire to get additional air defence capabilities that could shoot down Russian missiles out of the sky."The G7 countries said they were ready to provide security commitments in a post-war settlement while stressing, after Ukraine had earlier voiced misgivings, that it was up to Kyiv to decide a future peace deal with Russia.The G7 countries said they had also pledged or were ready to grant up to $29.5 billion for Ukraine.TAKING AIM AT PUTIN'S REVENUESThe White House said on Monday that Russia had defaulted on its foreign sovereign bonds for the first time in a century - an assertion Moscow rejected. read more G7 nations, which generate nearly half the world's economic output, want to crank up pressure on Russia without stoking already soaring inflation that is causing strains at home and savaging the Global South.The expanded sanctions would also target Russia's revenue stream from gold exports, Moscow's military production and officials installed by Moscow in areas of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces. read more European Council President Charles Michel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, U.S. President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi attend a working dinner during the first day of the G7 leaders' summit at Bavaria's Schloss Elmau castle, near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, June 26, 2022. Stefan Rousseau/Pool via REUTERSImposing the oil price cap aims to hit Russian President Vladimir Putin's war chest while actually lowering energy prices."The dual objectives of G7 leaders have been to take direct aim at Putin's revenues, particularly through energy, but also to minimize the spillovers and the impact on the G7 economies and the rest of the world," a U.S. official said on the sidelines of the G7 summit.Western sanctions have hit Russia's economy hard and the new measures are aimed at further depriving the Kremlin of oil revenues. G7 countries would work with others - including India - to limit the revenues that Putin can continue to generate, the U.S. official said.India has refrained from criticising Russia and provided a market for Russian oil, gas and coal as it sought to balance longstanding ties with Moscow and relations with the West.While hosting the Indonesian president at the G7 summit, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not rule out boycotting the Group of Twenty summit in Indonesia in November if Putin attended. read more India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi is one of the five leaders of guest nations joining the G7 for talks on climate change, energy, health, food security and gender equality on the second day of the summit."It is good, important and necessary that we talk to each other," Scholz said of the guest nations, which also included Argentina, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa, hailing them as "democracies of the future."MORE SANCTIONSA U.S. official said news that Russia defaulted on its foreign sovereign bonds for the first time since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 showed how effective Western sanctions had been.The Kremlin, which has the funds to make payments thanks to rich energy revenues, swiftly rejected the U.S. statement, accusing the West of driving it into an artificial default. read more The United States said it would also implement sanctions on hundreds of individuals and entities adding to the more than 1,000 already sanctioned, target companies in several countries, and impose tariffs on hundreds of Russia products. read more The agencies involved would release details on Tuesday to minimize any flight risk, a second senior administration official said.The Ukraine crisis has detracted attention from another crisis - that of climate change - originally set to dominate the summit. Activists fear Western nations are watering down their climate ambitions as they scramble to find alternatives to Russian gas imports and rely more heavily on coal, a dirtier fossil fuel, instead.Japan is also pushing to remove a target for zero-emission vehicles from a G7 communique expected this week, according to a proposed draft seen by Reuters. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Andrea Shalal and Sarah Marsh, Angelo Amante, Phil Blenkinsop; Writing by Sarah Marsh and Matthias Williams; Editing by Thomas Escritt, Mark Heinrich and Alex RichardsonOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
What did the ECHR say and why did it prevent the first Rwanda deportation flight? Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg says the decision by the European Court of Human Rights was based on three key issues.The first was a question over whether people transferred to Rwanda would have access to "fair and efficient" asylum procedures.The second was whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was based on "insufficient enquiries" The third was that there would be no legal mechanism for someone transferred to Rwanda to appeal and attempt to return to the UK, because the country is not a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore the European Court of Human Rights would have no jurisdiction.The interim injunction, which prevents the removal of one of the individuals who had due to be on the first deportation flight was granted to give the UK courts time to consider those issues.Although it was only issued for the case of one individual, it had a knock on effect on remaining cases.Watch Joshua's full explanation here: Rwanda deportations: What happens now? On the Sky News Daily podcast, Kamali Melbourne and political correspondent Mhari Aurora look at the future for the policy and what this could mean for the UK's involvement with the European Court of Human Rights. Rwanda plan is a 'mess' of Priti Patel's making, say Labour The shadow foreign secretary David Lammy has described the Rwanda deportation scheme as "a mess that Priti Patel created."Speaking to Niall Paterson he said: "She was told that the system was unworkable, unethical, and would cost an extraordinary amount of money. It was very unlikely that she would be able to get a system up and running as quickly as possible, given that the Israelis tried and didn't succeed, the Australians tried and didn't succeed. So she was warned about this."Mr Lammy said the government needed to do more to negotiate with France, Belgium and Europol to prevent crossings and work to negotiate an agreement with the EU, given the UK is no longer a part of the Dublin Convention - which allows people to be sent back to countries in the bloc.Earlier the Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey told Sky News she was "surprised" by the decision by the European Court of Human Rights, but Mr Lammy said: "I don't know why she was surprised. People raised the issue of Rwanda's human rights record. They raised the issues of torture. They raised the issues that concern people who were LGBTQ going back to Rwanda."The court and others have raised that Rwanda hasn't got proper asylum processes, which is why effectively these injunctions have been issued and the flight has been delayed. So all of those issues were known. It's not surprising that we're in the situation we are this morning." Full Priti Patel statement following deportation flight cancellation It is likely Home Secretary Priti Patel will address the House of Commons after PMQs later to set out more detail about how the government intends to respond to the cancellation of the first deportation flight to Rwanda.But here's the statement that was put out by the Home Office last night:"Earlier this year, I signed a world-leading Migration Partnership with Rwanda to see those arriving dangerously, illegally, or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to build their lives there. This will help break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for the genuinely vulnerable."Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers. The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasing, and the British public have rightly had enough."I have always said this policy will not be easy to deliver and am disappointed that legal challenge and last-minute claims have meant today’s flight was unable to depart."It is very surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts. These repeated legal barriers are similar to those we experience with other removals flights and many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next."We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now." Home Office already preparing for new deportation flight to Rwanda, says minister Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey has just been speaking to Niall Paterson on Sky News Breakfast.Asked about the cancellation of the first Rwanda deportation flight last night, following a decision at the European Court of Human Rights, Ms Coffey said:"The government was expecting a lot of legal challenges, and we went through the British courts who gave the go ahead for this flight to happen. "Frankly, the government is disappointed in the decision. I've never known such a quick decision made by somebody on the ECHR trying to intervene and I think the public will be surprised that we have European judges overruling British judges. "But nevertheless, I know the Home Office is already getting ready for the next flight and we will continue to prepare and try and overturn any future legal challenges as well."Asked whether the decision could result in the government bringing forward plans to remove the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Coffey said:"The most important thing is that we tackle this issue right now. We'll go back, I'm sure, to ECHR to challenge this initial ruling because, as I say, British judges have made the decision that these flights will go ahead and I still think that's the best thing that can happen." Wednesday's frontpages The cancelled deportation flight to Rwanda dominates the frontpages this morning.Watch the full Sky News press preview here: First Rwanda deportation flight cancelled The first deportation flight due to take asylum seekers to Rwanda has been cancelled following a series of last-minute legal appeals, the Home Office has confirmed.A source said the plane, which was stood ready on a Ministry of Defence runway at Boscombe Down in Amesbury, would not be departing due to "last-minute interventions from the European Court of Human Rights".Home Secretary Priti Patel said the government "will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation's borders" despite the first flight to Rwanda being stopped. Low income households to receive cash payments from next month to help with soaring costs Eight million households will start receiving cost-of-living payments from 14 July, the government has said.Low-income households on benefits will get £326 next month as part of a £21bn support package to help with soaring bills, which was announced last month.Another £324 will hit their accounts in the autumn, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey said: "With millions of the lowest-income households soon seeing the first of two cash instalments land into their bank accounts, we are taking action to directly help families with the cost of living." Individuals removed from Rwanda flight Sky News understands two Iraqi men have been removed from tonight's deportation flight to Rwanda. Labour sets out four-point asylum plan A frequent retort from government ministers to critics of its Rwanda policy is: what is your alternative?Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper has set out the party's four-point plan on the issue."Firstly, we need much stronger action on tackling the criminal gangs in partnership with other countries," she says."We need a stronger partnership with France and with Belgium and with Europol because obviously this spreads right through Europe. There needs to be stronger action to target the supply chains. "For example, some of these gangs, they're getting boats from China. They're then using them putting people's lives at risk and effectively making profit from putting those lives at risk. "Priti Patel's relationship with the French government seems to have effectively collapsed and so we're not getting strong enough action across on the other side of the channel as well. "That should also include action on some of the social media advertising, because that's at the heart of their business model. That is how they organise. "Secondly, they have to speed up asylum decisions, because at the moment, the huge long backlogs that are growing for government is only taking half as many asylum decisions as they were five years ago. "That means we're not taking swift decisions so that refugees get support, but those who are not refugees then returned home."Thirdly, we need action to get targeted safe legal routes to target those who are most at risk of exploitation, redoing the existing resettlement schemes in order to do that to try and prevent some of the illegal exploitation."And fourthly looking to develop a replacement for the Dublin agreement that the government has lost, which used to include both safe returns and family reunion." Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options | United Kingdom Politics |
The 77th United Nations General Assembly continued into its fourth day with speeches by leaders from Pakistan, Palestine and New Zealand among others on Friday.
Watch the event in the player above.
Discussion on climate change and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has dominated debate so far. Amid the U.N. General Assembly meeting, the tide of international opinion appears to be decisively shifting against Russia, as a number of non-aligned countries are joining the United States and its allies in condemning Moscow’s war in Ukraine and its threats to the principles of the international rules-based order.
Western officials have repeatedly said that Russia has become isolated since invading Ukraine in February. Until recently, though, that was largely wishful thinking. But on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, much of the international community spoke out against the conflict in a rare display of unity at the often fractured United Nations.
The tide had already appeared to be turning against Russian President Vladimir Putin even before Thursday’s U.N. speeches. Chinese and Indian leaders had been critical of the war at a high-level summit last week in Uzbekistan. And then the U.N. General Assembly disregarded Russia’s objections and voted overwhelmingly to allow Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to be the only leader to address the body remotely, instead of requiring him to appear in person.
That shift against Russia accelerated after Putin on Wednesday announced the mobilization of some additional 300,000 troops to Ukraine, signaling the unlikelihood of a quick end to the war. Putin also suggested that nuclear weapons may be an option. That followed an announcement of Russia’s intention to hold independence referenda in several occupied Ukrainian regions with an eye toward possible annexation.
Those announcements came at the very moment that the General Assembly, considered the premier event in the global diplomatic calendar, was taking place in New York.
Numerous world leaders used their speeches on Tuesday and Wednesday to denounce Russia’s war. That trend continued Thursday both in the assembly hall and at the usually deeply divided U.N. Security Council, where, one-by-one, virtually all of the 15 council members served up harsh criticism of Russia – a council member — for aggravating several already severe global crises and imperiling the foundations of the world body.
The apparent shift in opinion offers some hope to Ukraine and its Western allies that increasing isolation will add pressure on Putin to negotiate a peace. But few are unduly optimistic. Putin has staked his legacy on the Ukraine war and few expect him to back down. And, Russia is hardly isolated. Many of its allies depend on it for energy, food and military assistance and are likely to stand by Putin regardless of what happens in Ukraine.
Still, it was striking to hear Russia’s nominal friends like China and India, following up on last week’s remarks, speak of grave concerns they have about the conflict and its impact on global food and energy shortages as well as threats to the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity that are enshrined in the U.N. Charter.
Brazil registered similar concerns. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa make up the so-called BRICS bloc of countries, which has often shunned or outright opposed Western initiatives and views on international relations.
Only one country, Belarus, a non-council member and Russia ally that was invited to participate, spoke in support of Russia, but also called for a quick end to the fighting, which it called a “tragedy.”
“We hear a lot about the divisions among countries at the United Nations,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said. “But recently, what’s striking is the remarkable unity among member states when it comes to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Leaders from countries developing and developed, big and small, North and South have spoken in the General Assembly about the consequences of the war and the need to end it.”
“Even a number of nations that maintain close ties with Moscow have said publicly that they have serious questions and concerns about President Putin’s ongoing invasion,” Blinken said.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was careful not to condemn the war but said that China’s firm stance is that “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected. The purposes of the principles of the U.N. Charter should be observed.”
Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said “the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict is a matter of a profound concern for the international community.” He called for accountability for atrocities and abuses committed in Ukraine. “If egregious attacks committed in broad daylight are left unpunished, this council must reflect on the signals we are sending on impunity. There must be consistency if we are to ensure credibility,” he said.
And Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos Alberto Franca said immediate efforts to end the war are critical. “The continuation of the hostilities endangers the lives of innocent civilians and jeopardizes the food and energy security of millions of families in other regions, especially in developing countries,” he said. “The risks of escalation arising for the current dynamics of the conflict are simply too great, and its consequences for the world order unpredictable.”
Foreign ministers and top officials from Albania, Britain, France, Ireland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Kenya, Mexico and Norway delivered similar rebukes.
“Russia’s actions are blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations,” said Albanian Foreign Minister Olta Xhacka. “We all tried to prevent this conflict. We could not, but we must not fail to hold Russia accountable.”
Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard called the invasion a “flagrant breach of international law” and Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said: “If we fail to hold Russia accountable we send a message to large countries that they can prey on their neighbors with impunity.”
Unsurprisingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was unapologetic and defensive at the same time and specifically targeted Zelenskyy. Citing a phrase often attributed to President Franklin Roosevelt, Lavrov called Zelenskyy “a bastard,” but said Western leaders regarded him as “our bastard.”
He repeated a long list of Russia’s complaints about Ukraine and accused Western countries of using Ukraine for anti-Russia activities and policies.
“Everything I’ve said today simply confirms that the decision to conduct the special military operation was inevitable,” Lavrov said, following Russian practice of not calling the invasion a war.
Russia has denied being isolated and the foreign ministry used social media to publicize a number of apparently cordial meetings that Lavrov has held with foreign minister colleagues at the UN in recent days.
Still, Blinken and his colleagues from other NATO nations seized on what they believe to be growing opposition to and impatience with Putin.
And, several speakers, including Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, pointed out that Lavrov skipped the meeting except for his speaking slot.
“I notice that Russian diplomats flee almost as quickly as Russian soldiers,” Kuleba said, referring to Lavrov’s hasty exit along with recent Russian troop retreats in Ukraine. | Global Organizations |
We've got to show them our pecs, the prime minister told his fellow G7 leaders after suggesting their take their clothes off."We all have to show we're tougher than Putin," Boris Johnson joked.
Canadian leader Justin Trudeau agreed: "We've got to get the bare-chested horseback riding."Kyiv attack was 'murderous cowardice' - see live Ukraine war updatesThey may have been mocking the Russian leader known for his penchant for appearing bare-chested in publicity stunts. But Vladimir Putin had sent his message earlier to the G7, sending 14 cruise missiles to hit residential buildings and other targets in the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv.
"More and more barbarism," said US President Joe Biden when asked about the attacks. More on Russia Russia in first foreign debt default in over a century, bondholders claim Ukraine war: Kyiv attacked by Russia for first time in weeks as one killed and several injured in missile strikes Ukraine war: Severodonetsk now under Russian control following weeks-long battle As the war grinds into the fifth month, G7 leaders know they must project unity against that barbarism."The message is we are standing united," said the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to Mr Biden as they met. Image: Vladimir Putin pictured bare chested and riding a horse in 2009. Image: AP And Mr Johnson and Emmanuel Macron were at pains to show they get on despite their differences.Two months ago the war had seemed to be moving in Ukraine's favour, possibly over by the end of the year.Now, Russia has the upper hand and is on the verge of taking the entire Donbas region.The war looks set to go for some considerable time to come.That means the West must gird itself for a protracted conflict and show enduring unity.The challenge it faces in doing this is politically weak leadership and divisions over the best way forward. Johnson and Biden are unpopular and Macron has lost control of the French parliament, meaning he will be distracted by domestic battles ahead.They have buried the hatchet it seems for now, but there have been clear differences over whether or not to negotiate with Putin and pressure the Ukrainians to cede land for peace.The longer the war goes on the greater the chance of divisions opening up. And the greater the consequences of war.It is pushing up food and fuel prices, increasing inflation and the chances of recession.Read more:Boris Johnson jokes about G7 being 'tougher' than Vladimir PutinThe G7 must find strength and unity to overcome huge challengesG7 protesters concerned fallout from Ukraine war is pushing climate down agendaOne casualty of war may already be G7 efforts to tackle climate change.In summit negotiations, the German hosts are reportedly trying to water down proposals to end financing of overseas fossil fuel projects, as they try and wean themselves off Russian energy.The longer the war goes on the greater the pressure on these leaders to stand together and not buckle in the face of Putin's aggression. | Global Organizations |
An employee processes ingots of 99.99 percent pure gold at a non-ferrous metals plant in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, Russia March 10, 2022. REUTERS/Alexander ManzyukRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comPARIS, June 26 (Reuters) - France backs banning Russian gold exports and the proposal now needs to be discussed among the European Union's 27 members, a French presidency official said on Sunday.The official said Paris was not opposed to a cap on Russian oil prices, but wanted the G7 to discuss a price shield that would cap oil and gas prices to rein in inflation.The official added that the G7 were fully united in intensifying their support for Ukraine after the intensification of the conflict in recent days.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by John Irish; Editing by Toby ChopraOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
A new way of electing members to an expanded Senedd could erode trust in politicians, an academic has warned.
Prof Laura McAllister said the "closed lists" system would put too much power in the hands of parties, with voters choosing between them instead of candidates.
The change is part of plans to add 36 more politicians to the Senedd.
The Welsh government said the change would allow it to be "better able to represent people in Wales".
The closed lists system is said to have been designed to make the Welsh Parliament more proportional, giving voters choice between parties instead of individuals.
Candidates are then elected from a list of names selected and ranked by each party.
Prof McAllister told the Politics Wales programme she fears the system has "major weaknesses" because it "removes the choice from electors to choose individual candidates".
"It seems odd to me that at a time when there's such a disconnect between the politicians and the public, we're disconnecting it further," she said.
"The risk... is that they will reward loyalty and longevity rather than calibre and challenge.
"I think that won't help the diversity of the class of politicians we get, and I think the public will very quickly get aggrieved when they realise they won't be able to select a politician that they wish to."
The closed list system is part of a major overhaul of the Senedd which will see the number of politicians increase from 60 to 96.
Currently elections use a mix of first past the post, where the candidate with the most votes wins a constituency seat, and lists in regions.
If agreed by two-thirds of the Senedd, the legislation will take effect from 2026 and could cost as much as £17.8m extra a year.
The Welsh government said the Senedd Reform Bill "aims to create a modern Senedd, better able to represent people in Wales, with increased capacity to scrutinise, make laws, and hold the government to account." | United Kingdom Politics |
One of the politicians I worked for said that a distinct advantage of being in the Cabinet was never again having to appear live on Newsnight. A junior minister could be dispatched to Broadcasting House for ritual disembowelment by Paxman or Wark, and the Cabinet Minister could be safely home with their red boxes. That the powerful fear Newsnight is a mark of its success and value to our political discourse.
I’ve been appearing on it, off and on, since the mid-1990s. I once persuaded them to cover a Labour Party plant sale in Billericay at the height of New Labour. I’ve faced Michael Crick on College Green, and Jeremy Paxman in the studio, struggling to get a word in edgeways alongside Danny Finklestein. Most recently I debated some chap who felt he was fully entitled to stand as a Labour candidate, whose tone and demeanour rather proved the opposite.
However, I have always been treated fairly and never once been asked to resign. Proper politicians fear Newsnight but know it is informed, erudite, querulous, and challenging. Sam McAlister’s excellent Scoops describes the behind-the-scenes machinations to get powerful bums onto the hot seat, and how they can so often crash and burn. Just ask the Duke of York.
Yet the rich and powerful appear because they know it remains a vital part of our politics – a place where reputations are made and broken. And when Newsnight is attacked by all sides – by Corbynites claiming Newsnight made their idol’s hat look ‘more Russian’ or the Tories complaining the left-wing tilt of the ‘Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation’, then you know they are doing something right.
All of which makes BBC management’s decision to sack the investigation team and reduce Newsnight to a late-night talk show all the more bewildering. In effect, they are abolishing Newsnight as a serious news programme, just when we need serious news more than ever.
We are living in an age of Fake News, where any old nonsense is adopted, repeated, and amplified across social – or antisocial – media. The hideous rise of antisemitism online is a symptom of a wider malaise. As so often, the Jews are the canary in the coalmine, as democratic norms and scientific facts are squished by a mountain of conspiratorial hate.
It’s only going to get worse. I caught a cab in Liverpool in October during conference. The driver was indignant that the Labour leader had been caught on camera slagging off the great city of Liverpool. He’d seen the video on TikTok, and believed it. The video, of course, was a deep fake. Imagine a senior politician going all the way to a major northern city just to insult them, unless it’s Sunak in Manchester scrapping HS2.
Deep fakes will now feature as part of our politics, and become ever-harder to distinguish from the real thing. People will believe the ‘evidence’ of their own eyes and ears, especially if the fake news feeds their own biases. And there are plenty of people in Russia, Iran, and China whose full-time occupation is to plant seeds of nonsensical conspiracy into democratic systems and skew elections. The BBC should be a bulwark against these hostile state actors who want to fill up your phone, scramble your head, and steal your vote.
If the BBC wants to win public trust and secure its charter, then it should show it holds to its Reithian principles and the best traditions of reporting, investigation and interrogation. If it wants a race for ratings, it will lose. GB News will always manage to produce faster, funnier, more provocative panel discussions with slightly bonkers guests. More people will watch The Last Leg for a feisty take on the day’s events.
Late night discussions with the commentariat talking over each other is not what Newsnight is for. Newsnight is for the serious business of exposing folly and hypocrisy, holding politicians to account, and investigating and exposing injustice. We need to look up briefly from X and be informed, educated, and entertained. If the BBC vacates the space, it will swiftly fill with antivaxxers, antisemites, and people who believe that Rachel Reeves is a giant lizard, or whatever.
Surely faced with this ever-more blurred line between what is real and what is fake, the BBC should be making Newsnight longer, and employing more trained NUJ members, not fewer. The BBC bean-counters say their disastrous plan is about saving money. But they should be more concerned with saving our democracy.
If you enjoyed this piece, see Paul Richard’s previous blog Breakthrough By-elections: The big picture of Labour’s modernisation. | United Kingdom Politics |
So it begins again. The annoying and the terminally needy. And that’s just Ant and Dec. Then there are the contestants. The very loosely titled celebs in I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! ITV’s annual bingefest of sadism.
People you’ve never heard of. People you think you might have heard of. People you’ve heard of and wish you hadn’t. All human dysfunction is here. An orgy of narcissism. This year capped off by the presence of Nigel Farage.
Almost every year we get one politician. Either hoping to kickstart a new career or fun-wash a reputation. To prove that they are a decent sport after all. Not that the public generally cares one way or the other.
Last year it was Matt Hancock. Desperate to reinvent himself after being sacked as health secretary for breaking the lockdown rules by being caught groping his lover on CCTV.
Hancock said he hoped the public would get to know the real him. But if they did, then they still didn’t like him. Day after day, they exacted their punishment by voting for him to do a bushtucker trial. Until they eventually got bored with it and took their cruelty elsewhere.
Matt came third, mainly because people forgot to vote him off the show. They thought he was an idiot at the start of the show. And they thought he was an idiot at the end.
Now the stakes have been raised. Farage is a different order of politician. Not some hapless moron who was promoted well above his skill level. Farage is the populist par excellence.
A man who has traded on his man-of-the-people casual xenophobia. One of the main architects of Brexit. Probably one of the most divisive figures of the century so far. You have to wonder what ITV thinks it is doing giving him a platform. To normalise the abhorrent.
Farage has laughed off his appearance. It’s all about the money, he has said. ITV has paid him a reported show record of £1.5m. Enough to make Coutts think again. He’s also said he’s been asked several times before, but now he has a slot in his diary. I’m sure he does.
We live in such weird times that this year’s I’m a Celebrity … is virtually the start of the next-but-one Tory leadership race. With Nigel lining up a return to the party if all goes well – to take over once Suella Braverman or whoever inevitably crashes and burns when Rishi Sunak goes.
Ant and Dec kicked off with a semi apology for Farage – though more joke than proper embarrassment. It’s all about the ratings, darling. They were sorry that the viewers would be missing Farage’s show on GB News. That’s Keith and Linda. Cue the first correction. Chris would also want to be included.
Then off to the outback where two people I’d never heard of – Nella and Josie – were dropped off with Farage, dressed in pastel shades like a Michael Portillo tribute act. Nella and Josie didn’t seem to know who he was either. Or if they did, they kept it quiet.
Nige spoke to camera. “I’m a villain to some, a hero to others,” he said. “I’m here to find the real me.” I doubt that. His ability to smile for the cameras when privately spitting tacks precedes him. He claimed not to want arguments to simmer. Oh bless! He’s only built an entire political career on imagined grievances.
The rest was all pretty standard. Farage, Nella and Josie were all made to do a trial in a burnt-out camper van. One that was predictably full of snakes that took one look at Nige and scarpered. They ended up with Farage taking charge of the show – it’s what he always does – and winning six stars.
Cut to four helicopters flying low over the Gold Coast and depositing four more Celebs on to the roof of a high-rise building. Welcome Fred Sirieix, Grace Dent and two more people I didn’t recognise – Sam and Danielle.
Sam rushed up to Fred and said: “I’m a huge fan.” Fred just nodded. He seems to think everyone is his fan. But hard not to root for him. Fred is on record as hating Farage and hating Brexit. This could get interesting later.
Several trials and three more introductions later – Jamie Lynn Spears was under the impression she was best known as an actor rather than Britney’s sister – all 10 celebs were finally in the jungle. Sam rushed up to Nige. “Mate,” he cooed. Sam is a friend of everyone. Sam, it’s safe to say, is a halfwit.
Farage was all reptilian smiles. Searching for the charm button. Searching for the hero inside himself – the artifice there for all to see. He said it was like a camping adventure. Not that he had ever been on one. He grinned when he was voted to do the next bushtucker trial. In world saviour mode.
Fred and Grace kept their distance. Let’s hope they are only biding their time. A nation expects. | United Kingdom Politics |
Forget Margaret Thatcher, the key to Keir Starmer is his view on Clement Attlee
A politician praising a predecessor provides a heavy hint on how they intend to govern, but Keir Starmer’s new found enthusiasm for Margaret Thatcher is a tactical play. His ultimate role model is a very different leader — not the grocer’s grammar school daughter but the shy and underwhelming Clement Attlee.
In many ways Sir Keir Starmer had little choice when seeking a successful role model. Only three Labour leaders have won a general election since the Second World War. All three were white, heterosexual men, educated at selective schools and at Oxford. Two went to private schools and two were barristers. The choice when seeking a close parallel was therefore down to Tony Blair or Clement Attlee. Blair, born and raised in Edinburgh, got the top job aged just 43. Lord Attlee, like Sir Keir, was brought up in Surrey and was 62 when he became PM — the age the current Labour leader is now.
Those striking similarities are not what Sir Keir highlighted in his introduction to a recently refreshed biography of the post war leader. Sir Keir’s backstory falls well short of the street cred most of his front bench colleagues crave. But in other respects Clement Attlee is an interesting hero and what Keir Starmer choses to highlight about him is telling.
Attlee spent much of his career in the shadow of a much more dynamic and charismatic opponent, Sir Winston Churchill. Starmer has shadowed a number of Conservatives but his formative period was opposite Boris Johnson — whose biography of Churchill is practically begging us to find similarities between him and his subject. Without over-indulging that one, a common skill they shared was an ability to deploy language devastatingly. Churchill famously described Attlee as “a sheep in sheep’s clothing” and “a modest man with much to be modest about”. Yet it was the grey forgettable man who emerged on top in the general election of 1945, beating Churchill at the height of his post-war popularity and power.
The most relevant parallel is with the state of the UK that Labour look likely to take over next year
Sir Keir has already seen off Boris Johnson of course, though it was Johnson's own Conservative colleagues who really took him down. The most relevant parallel — however — is with the state of the United Kingdom that Labour look likely to take over next year. It has not been ravaged by the the Second World War but is still reeling from a global pandemic that cost us £400 billion and left us with huge challenges and little money to address them.
A cautious leader, comfortably ahead in the polls as he is, would normally be seeking to manage our expectations down and warning that even a full term in power would not be remotely enough to make a difference. Yet in Starmer’s introduction to Attlee's biography he highlights how Attlee “accomplished so much in so little time — and in such inauspicious circumstances”.
The list is indeed impressive: finding jobs for returning soldiers, building council homes to house them, expanding pensions and national insurance and, crowning it all, the creation of the NHS.
It’s no wonder Keir Starmer is “inspired…by the scale of Attlee’s ambition for change” and concludes that Britain again needs a “transformative Labour government to glimpse the future and set out a transformative programme that can change lives”. The double use of that “t” word is pretty striking by a leader whose greatest supporters struggle to describe him in such up-beat terms. Look beyond the headline and his praise of Margaret Thatcher is for her “driving sense of purpose”, not anything she actually delivered (which he surely disagrees with).
So to what extent is Starmer signalling that all the caution and adoption of many Conservative targets are merely for this Christmas and not the life of a Labour government? Attlee — for better or worse — led the most left-wing government in British history. New Labour it was not.
Can Keir Starmer keep things tight with his powerful team?
Interestingly, the biography he introduces was written by a close friend and key member of the shadow cabinet, another Oxford educated barrister, the Torfaen MP, Nick Thomas-Symonds. His profile took a hit when he was moved from shadow Home Secretary, but he is now applying his formidable analytical skills to the Cabinet Office working with the former civil servant, Sue Gray, on the future shape and direction of a Labour government.
In that context his conclusions about Attlee are very interesting, and Thomas-Symonds is clearly trying to set a high bar for success should his shadow cabinet colleagues get into power, recalling Attlee’s warning in 1945 that his team would be judged on what they succeed at, not what they attempted. Each was given almost free reign in their departments with little central control from No10. But they were expected to use that autonomy with urgency and ambition. The PM in such circumstances becomes in-effect a chairman of the board co-ordinating rather than leading the discussion, but at every stage pushing the pace. “Democracy means government by discussion”, said Attlee, “but it is only effective if you can stop people talking”.
Can Keir Starmer keep things that tight, and project a coherent sense of purpose to a team that has Angela Rayner and Lisa Nandy as well as Wes Streeting and Rachel Reeves? Attlee’s mission was was cut short in the end by squabbling among his over powerful ministers which he failed to reign in. That was — admittedly — after a highly productive five years.
What’s fascinating is Thomas-Symonds's view that Attlee would probably have never stood a chance of gaining office in today’s fast paced, polarised and intensely scrutinised political landscape. “Attlee was too reserved, too unemotional in public and too formal to have survived”.
It’s hard not to see this as a candid warning to Keir Starmer that he is yet to close the deal with the British electorate and unless he can raise his campaigning game he can only dream of replicating what Clement Attlee achieved in office. | United Kingdom Politics |
Recent years have seen increasing expressions of concern about whether the UK Parliament has adequate procedures for scrutinising delegated legislation. In a recent article in Political Quarterly, Tom Fleming and Tasneem Ghazi explore the lessons which might be learned from how other parliaments approach that challenge. This blog summarises those lessons.
There is wide concern about the increasing use of delegated legislation in the UK. Delegated legislation is normally made by ministers, rather than parliament. Historically, it has been used to fill in the details of broader policy frameworks set out in primary legislation. But recent years have seen a growing trend of ministers using delegated legislation to implement major policy decisions. This was highlighted as an issue during the Brexit process and Covid-19 pandemic. It has continued under the Sunak government, as shown by the recent bills on industrial action and retained EU law both containing significant delegated powers.
This trend has led to renewed attention being paid to the UK Parliament’s system for scrutinising delegated legislation (which mostly takes the form of ‘statutory instruments’). By its nature, this legislation receives less extensive scrutiny than primary legislation. But especially when these statutory instruments (SIs) contain significant policy content, it is important that MPs and peers have sufficient opportunities and means to scrutinise them. That scrutiny may confer greater legitimacy and further government accountability to parliament. It may also highlight technical and policy flaws and ensure that a range of voices are heard in the policy-making process.
However, there is widespread agreement that the current UK system is not up to this task. The system’s flaws have been outlined extensively elsewhere, particularly by the Hansard Society. In brief: there is very little sustained debate of SIs, especially in the Commons, and particularly when it comes to their substantive policy merits rather than other legal or technical criteria. The role of undertaking legal or technical scrutiny is performed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI), whereas policy scrutiny is undertaken by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC). But in spite of the SLSC’s good work, there have been calls for more scrutiny of the substance of policy. Moreover, despite being scrutinised by committees, SIs are almost never voted down by parliament. The House of Lords debates SIs regularly, but typically exercises self-restraint and does not seek to defeat them. In the Commons, ministers’ control of the agenda can often allow them to simply block or delay attempts to object to SIs.
However, the UK is not the only country to use delegated legislation or to face the challenge of ensuring that it receives adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Our research thus sought to provide context by describing how other countries organise their equivalent systems. We focused on the national parliaments of six countries – Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Africa – and used various sources to summarise their formal procedures for scrutinising delegated legislation.
This new data allowed us to contrast the UK’s system with those found in these six other cases, and to evaluate its comparative strengths and weaknesses. We concentrated on how far these parliaments allowed delegated legislation to be meaningfully debated and to be put to a vote.
Comparative strengths of the UK system
Our research suggests that one comparative strength of the UK’s system is its well-established arena for detailed technical and legal scrutiny: the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. This committee of peers and MPs reviews the technical quality of a large number of SIs, and seems to be generally viewed as a valuable part of the UK system.
This places the UK alongside the better-equipped legislatures studied for this project. Four of our cases – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and India – have committees with a similar remit to the JCSI. These use varied criteria but appear to fulfil the same core role: scrutinising the technical quality of delegated legislation (but not its policy merits). This compares favourably to two other cases – Ireland and South Africa – which lack a permanent committee focused specifically on undertaking technical scrutiny of general delegated legislation.
Comparative weaknesses of the UK system
Nonetheless, we also found three comparative weaknesses in the UK’s system. The first two are weaknesses shared with the other cases; the third is one where the UK might learn lessons from elsewhere.
The first common weakness is the absence of a dedicated arena for merits-based scrutiny of delegated legislation. An arena of this kind was notably absent from all six of the legislatures we studied. Though they all have at least some mechanism for delegated legislation to be debated on the parliamentary floor, such debates are usually short, and often entirely non-existent.
In principle, the UK does have a venue for debating the policy merits of delegated legislation: the Commons’ Delegated Legislation Committees. However, these are one of the most extensively criticised parts of the UK’s system. Their debates are usually brief and superficial, and have been seen inside and outside Westminster as a waste of time, rather than a vehicle for serious scrutiny.
The second shared weakness is these parliaments’ inability to amend delegated legislation. Allowing MPs or peers to amend ministers’ proposals might have some downsides, but would be one way for MPs to raise objections short of rejecting those proposals entirely. However, the UK Parliament seems to be similar to four of our other cases in usually having no power to amend delegated legislation. There is some formal scope for amendment in New Zealand and India, but in practice this power seems to be curtailed.
Finally, our research identified one area where the UK might learn lessons from other parliaments. A central issue with the UK system is that it is difficult for MPs to insist on debating an SI, especially if it is only subject to a ‘negative’ procedure so does not need active assent from parliament. Ministers are generally able to use their control of the agenda to block the ‘prayer’ motions by which MPs raise objections to SIs. This can prevent MPs debating proposals and exposing them to scrutiny.
However, several of the cases we studied have procedural mechanisms which might reduce ministers’ ability to simply block or delay attempts to oppose SIs. For example, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand all have procedures for so-called ‘motions of disallowance’ (or their equivalent) to take effect automatically if not addressed within a certain time period. This route could potentially be abused for obstructive purposes, if open to all MPs without restriction. But that risk might be mitigated by limiting such a power to only certain members, such as those on the specialised committee scrutinising delegated legislation. This kind of approach is taken in Canada and New Zealand. Our evidence thus suggests that UK policy-makers might take inspiration from other parliaments when considering how to ensure MPs can secure debates on controversial statutory instruments.
Summary
The UK’s system for parliamentary scrutiny has both strengths and weaknesses when compared to these six other parliaments. While the UK’s system has clear flaws, these are not unique. Two of these cases – Ireland and South Africa – appear to have less extensive parliamentary mechanisms for scrutinising delegated legislation. The others – Australia, Canada, India, and New Zealand – share two key features of the UK’s system: developed mechanisms for technical scrutiny, but limited tools for effective merits-based scrutiny.
Our work also highlights an area where the UK might learn from other parliaments: ensuring MPs can air their concerns about, and object to, specific pieces of delegated legislation. Other countries seem to have developed specific procedural answers to this challenge, which the UK might consider studying and adapting.
Crucially though, none of the countries that we studied offers a clear template for redesigning the UK’s system to ensure more effective parliamentary scrutiny. It seems that improving scrutiny of delegated legislation at Westminster will require both learning from elsewhere and procedural innovation.
This post is a summary of a more detailed article, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation: Lessons from Comparative Experience, which was published by The Political Quarterly in July.
About the authors
Tom Fleming is a Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics at UCL.
Tasneem Ghazis a PhD student at the UCL Faculty of Laws. She worked part-time as a research assistant at the Constitution Unit in 2022. | United Kingdom Politics |
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged Monday that the situation is deteriorating in and around Bakhmut, a besieged mining city in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine that has been a key target for Russia for months.
"[In the] Bakhmut direction - the situation is getting more and more difficult," Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. "The enemy is constantly destroying everything that can be used to protect our positions, to gain a foothold and ensure defense," he added.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow has to take into account NATO's nuclear capabilities as he again falsely claimed that the West wants to eliminate Russia.
Echoing that sentiment on Monday, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the West wants to "isolate, and even dismember" Russia. He added that the future world order is being decided now.
Moscow accuses U.S. of preparing a 'toxic chemicals' provocation in Ukraine
A top Russian defense official claimed Tuesday that the U.S. is planning a provocation in Ukraine using toxic chemicals.
The official — Igor Kirillov, chief of the radiation, chemical and biological defense troops of Russia's armed forces — said comments by former U.S. ambassador to Russia John Sullivan on Feb. 22 were a basis for Russia's suspicions.
"On February 22, an influential American nongovernmental organization held a conference on the events in Ukraine. During the event, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan made a statement, claiming that Russian troops were allegedly planning to use chemical weapons in the special military operation zone," Kirillov said, according to Russian state news agency Tass.
"We regard this information as the intention by the U.S. itself and its accomplices to stage a provocation in Ukraine using toxic chemicals," he added.
Kirillov added that Moscow believed preparations for a provocation were underway, claiming that toxic chemicals and protective gear were delivered simulataneously to Ukraine. He said that if such a provocation takes place, Russia would "identify the true culprits and punish them."
It's not the first time that Russia has baselessly accused the West of planning a provocation that, it said, could then be blamed on Moscow. Similarly, the West has accused Russia, a country that has used chemical weapons in Syria, of potentially planning "false flag" attacks that it could blame on Ukraine.
CNBC has asked U.S. defense officials for a response to the claims.
— Holly Ellyatt
Belarus and Russia can produce 'any type of weapon together,' president says
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Monday that Russia and Belarus are capable of producing "any type of weapon" and can export such products to 57 countries around the world, circumventing sanctions on weapons production.
"Despite unprecedented sanctions pressure, we produce sufficient quantities of weapons and military equipment to meet the needs of the Belarusian army. This is due to the fact that all we need in terms of military hardware we easily receive from Russia," the president said during a meeting on military procurement that was posted on the Lukashenko-aligned Pul Pervogo Telegram channel.
"But as far as microelectronics, optical electronics, optics, etc. are concerned, kudos to those who preserved the legacy of the Soviet Union, and therefore, together with Russia, we are capable of manufacturing any type of weapon," Lukashenko added.
"We can also afford to export this sort of product to 57 countries of the world. This is what we are doing", he added.
Lukashenko's latest comments come on the eve of his trip to China. The U.S. has warned Beijing against giving weapons to Russia as Moscow looks for other sources of military hardware.
Belarus has sought to stay out of actively participating in the war while assisting Russia in terms where it can, having allowed Russia to launch its initial invasion of northern Ukraine from Belarusian territory.
Last Monday, Lukashenko said he had ordered the formation of a new volunteer territorial defense of up to 150,000 people. And on Friday, he said he'd had a long chat with Russia's President Vladimir Putin on the first anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine.
— Holly Ellyatt
Ukraine concedes it's facing a deteriorating situation in besieged Bakhmut
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged Monday that the situation is deteriorating in and around Bakhmut, a besieged mining city in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine that has been a key target for Russia for months.
"[In the] Bakhmut direction - the situation is getting more and more difficult," Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. "The enemy is constantly destroying everything that can be used to protect our positions, to gain a foothold and ensure defense," he added.
Zelenskyy said those defending Bakhmut and the surrounding area are "real heroes" and said officials are doing what they can to ensure Ukrainian forces "have as many weapons, long-range weapons, powerful weapons as possible."
Russian forces and private military contractors belonging to the Wagner Group have been trying to capture Bakhmut for months, with the city and surrounding area a scene of mass destruction, although several thousand civilians are believed to remain in the city.
Because of the sheer scale of bombardment and manpower thrown at Bakhmut, Russian forces have made incremental gains in the surrounding area and have gradually encircled the city.
On Monday, one official claimed Russian forces now controlled all roads into Bakhmut, stopping supplies of ammunition and forces into the city, although Ukraine's armed forces said they're still repelling attacks.
Ukraine's Deputy Defense Minister Hanna Maliar said on Telegram Monday that "the situation at the front is difficult. The enemy army is increasing the intensity of its assaults. The most difficult situation remains in the Bakhmut direction."
— Holly Ellyatt
Kremlin says China's peace plans 'deserve attention'
A peace plan put forward by China that it believes could resolve the Ukraine war should be given attention, the Kremlin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday.
"Any attempts to develop plans that will help transfer the conflict to a peaceful course deserve attention," Peskov told reporters, Russian news agency Ria Novosti said.
"We treat the plan of our Chinese friends with great attention. As for the details, of course, the details should be the subject of careful analysis, taking into account the interests of the parties," he added.
Russia counts China among the last of its powerful international allies, having burned bridges with much of the global community following its invasion of Ukraine a year ago.
On the first anniversary of the war last Friday, China called for a comprehensive ceasefire in Ukraine and promoted its own 12-point peace plan that called for a cessation of hostilities, the sovereignty of all countries to be respected, warned against the use of nuclear weapons, and called for nuclear power plants to be kept safe as well as calling for a Cold War mentality to be abandoned.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was open to considering parts of Beijing's proposed peace plan.
— Holly Ellyatt
Russian forces control all roads into Bakhmut, official claims
Russian forces are now in control of all the roads leading into the Donetsk city of Bakhmut, according to a spokesperson for pro-Russian separatists in the region.
Yan Gagin, an advisor and spokesperson for the acting head of the so-called Donetsk People's Republic, a pro-Russian separatist area in eastern Ukraine, told the Tass news agency that Russian forces had cut off the supply of the Ukrainian forces in Artemovsk (the Russian name for Bakhmut).
"Artemovsk [Bakhmut] has finally fallen into a classic operational environment, our forces completely control the roads leading to the city. The supply of ammunition to the garrison of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has been disrupted and stopped, the rotation and supply of replenishment of manpower has been stopped," he said, in comments translated by Google.
CNBC was unable to immediately verify the claims but the comments are the latest in a string of claims made by Russian officials that Bakhmut is coming under their control.
Ukraine and Russian forces have been engaged in fierce fighting around Bakhmut for months, turning the city and surrounding area into a landscape of death and devastation. Both forces claim that the other side is losing hundreds of soldiers every day because of fighting around Bakhmut.
Russian forces have been seen to have slowly encircled the city, prompting the question of whether Ukraine would choose to tactically withdraw from the city in order to save its remaining troops.
Kyiv's top general visited the front-line town of Bakhmut on Sunday and on Monday. The General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces said in an update Monday that "the Russian army continues to keep its main efforts on the offensive actions in the directions of Kupiansk, Lyman, Bakhmut, Avdiivka and Shakhtarsk." It said that, over the past 24 hours, the Ukrainian army had repelled 81 attacks in those areas.
— Holly Ellyatt
Future world order is being decided now, Russia's foreign minister says
The future world order is being decided right now, Russia's foreign minister said Monday, adding that Moscow has frustrated the West's plans "to isolate, and even dismember" the country.
Speaking at a conference of regional representatives of his ministry on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that "at the moment, the configuration of the future world order is being decided."
"[This determines] Russia's place in the democratic, fair, polycentric system that is being formed now and for which there is no and cannot be an alternative," he said according to comments reported by news agency Tass.
"I want to emphasize that we managed not only to disrupt the plans of the collective West to isolate, and even dismember Russia, but also to ensure ongoing cooperation with the overwhelming majority of members of the international community. We now call it the world majority," he said in comments translated by Google.
Lavrov cited closer ties with countries like China and India and "many other international partners" including post-Soviet states like Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and the BRICS nations (which include Brazil and South Africa).
Lavrov's comments parrot similar remarks by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday in which he said the West wants to defeat and divide Russia.
— Holly Ellyatt
Ukraine hit by more drone attacks overnight
Ukraine's air force said the country was targeted by a series of drone attacks overnight.
"On the night of February 27, the enemy attacked Ukraine with Iranian-made Shahed-type attack drones from the north," the Air Force said in a Telegram update Monday.
It said up to 14 unmanned aerial vehicles were launched and that air defense teams destroyed 11 of them.
Russia has unleashed multiple drone strikes on Ukraine, with much of the country's energy infrastructure damaged by drone attacks. Iran initially denied supplying drones to Russia but in November it acknowledged for the first time that it supplied Moscow with the UAVs, but said they had been sent to Russia before the war in Ukraine.
— Holly Ellyatt
Russia has to take into account NATO's nuclear capability, Putin says
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow has to take into account NATO's nuclear capabilities and claimed again that the West wants to eliminate Russia.
"Where the leading NATO countries have proclaimed their main goal to be the strategic defeat of Russia, in order for our people 'to suffer' as they put it, how, in these conditions, could we not take into account their nuclear potential?," Putin asked during an interview with Pavel Zarubin on the Rossiya-1 TV channel on Sunday, according to an NBC translation.
Putin said the West is complicit in "crimes" being committed by Ukraine by supplying the country with weapons and that the end goal is to destroy and divide Russia.
"They have one goal – to destroy what was the Soviet Union and it's central part – the Russian Federation. After that they may indeed accept us into the so-called "family of civilized nations", but only separately, each part separately. Why? To order around these parts and to put them under their control," Putin said, claiming that plans to destroy the Russian people are "on paper," without presenting evidence.
Putin has repeatedly blamed the West for starting the conflict in Ukraine. In a speech last week ahead of the first anniversary of the start of the war, Putin tried to justify Russia's invasion by claiming it has been attempting to allow citizens in the contested Donbas region in eastern Ukraine to speak their "own language."
— Holly Ellyatt | Europe Politics |
Discover more from Striking 13
Revealed: The new batch of laws undermining parliament
Away from prying eyes, the government is very quietly making massive changes to immigration, prisons and drug law.
They're just churning them out now. There's no sense of restraint. No hint of constitutional decency. They're completely out of control.
As soon as parliament was back from the conference recess, the government started pumping out ministerials edicts, on acute areas of public interest, without any scrutiny, or assessment of the likely consequences, or thoughts for the basic operation of a democratic society. Big fat pivotal changes in law, passed without a bat squeak of scrutiny or accountability.
They cover all sorts of things - immigration, drugs, prisons. And in every case they're likely to have severe knock-on effects, many of which the government demonstrably has no knowledge of. But no-one will know. MPs won't know. Journalists won't know. And the public won't know. Because this whole area of law is conducted under cover of darkness, with no fanfare, according to impenetrable legislative language and procedures.
The mechanism they're using is called a statutory instrument. If you're the kind of person who reads this newsletter, you probably know what that is. You're all fucked up and broken, just like me. But just in case you don't, here's the low down: They're tiny little bits of executive power designed to turn ministers into mini-emperors. They sidestep the normal parliamentary process of debates and scrutiny and instead basically allow them to create law on the spot.
Ministers ask for the power to pass a statutory instrument in an Act of parliament, but once it's passed, they can just start machine gunning them onto the statute book. There are some face-saving provisions for MPs to stop them, but they're not remotely functional. Of the tens of thousands of negative statutory instruments laid in the Commons since the 1950s, only seven have ever been rejected. The last time it happened was 1979.
So what've they done this time?
On October 19th, the government laid the Immigration Health Charge Amendment Order 2023. Yes, the name is very boring and all of that is entirely to the benefit of No.10, which much prefers it if no-one can be bothered to look into what it's doing.
If anyone wanted to work out the basis of the order or what the hell it does, they'd have to follow an interminable legislative trail. It runs backwards to the Immigration Act 2014, then veers off to the National Health Service Act 2006, before arriving at the Immigration Health Charge Order 2015. Then they'd have to put all four bits of the jigsaw together to ascertain which bits of text are amending what. None of this is necessary, of course. You could write it all out in a self-contained schedule in clear English for public transparency and understanding. But that is not in the government's interest, so it doesn't happen.
The new statutory instrument works to massively increase the fees legal migrants have to pay to access the NHS. The charge for students and young people will increase from £470 to £776. The fees for everyone else will increase from £624 to £1,035.
These are preposterously high numbers. They break a core moral rule of a political society: that you pay in and you get out. Migrants pay taxes. They therefore deserve to have equal access to the services funded by those taxes, just like anyone else. But instead, we apply a further additional charge at an extortionate rate. This money is then used for profit generation by the state.
This type of measure can drive people into poverty. The number of destitute migrant households has increased by a barely conceivable 95% since 2019, according to this week's Joseph Rowntree report. There are currently over a million destitute migrants in the UK, including 338,200 children. Instead of trying to improve the situation, the government is making it worse.
In one sense, this is a continuation of the hostile environment - it's an attempt to make the UK a less welcoming place to live. But honestly that understates the problem. If we were uniform in our approach, we would at least have the virtue of being consistently reactionary. But we fail even at that.
Underneath the cruelty, we are in fact still actively trying to encourage people to come here. Last year, 166,408 people were given worker visas, along with 147,656 of their dependents. These were primarily Indians, Nigerians and Zimbabweans, as we tried to make up for the labour force we lost through the end of European free movement. We're like a national version of Two-Face, with one side of our personality welcoming newcomers to the UK and the other side screaming at them to fuck off.
What kind of thought has been put into the impact of a massively increased health charge applying to people from countries where those kinds of savings might be unusual? What are the economic consequences to the UK if the number of arrivals consequently falls? What's the impact to the exchequer if it leads to a spike in child deprivation levels in migrant households? Does the pro-immigration part of the British state know what the anti-immigration part is doing?
These would all be good questions for MPs to ask. They would all be good reasons to stop it. But neither of those things will happen. It's a statutory instrument. It passes in silence. It turns into law by virtue of ministerial command.
You can see the exact same process taking place with the Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 Removal of Prisoners for Deportation Order 2023, introduced on October 13th. This allows the government to free foreign offenders from prison earlier in their sentence, so that it can deport them.
It's quite the change in policy. Back in 2022, the government increased the maximum sentence a magistrate could impose. Then, last March, it reduced it. Now it is saying foreign prisoners can be released from prison and removed from the UK even earlier. There is no consistency to the government position at all.
So why's it happening? Because the prison system is full and we need the space. There are currently 88,126 prisoners in England and Wales, next to a usable operational capacity of 88,890. That leaves just 764 spare places. The statutory instrument is expected to free up 300 spaces at a time. It's not a lot. But when you've only 700 or so to play with, you'll take what you can get.
The trouble is, this constitutes a direct contradiction of the government's previous argument for jailing foreign offenders. Not so long ago, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Ministry of Justice why it bothered to lock up foreign offenders at all. Why not just deport them and save some money? They got a very interesting reply. It was "to ensure convicted criminals are punished and to uphold confidence in the Criminal Justice System... This acts as a deterrent for criminal activity in our country."
That's fascinating. If true, it suggests that the current statutory instrument will reduce confidence in the criminal justice system and encourage future criminal activity.
So what's the answer to all this? We'll never know, because there's no debate and no scrutiny. Indeed, there's barely any information from the Ministry of Justice at all. They haven't provided information about the types of offences the change would apply to, what sentences the foreign criminals were serving, what kind of discussions would take place with their home governments before deportation or whether they'd be likely to face charges when they make it back home. "The absence of such significant background information," the Lords committee concluded, "makes effective scrutiny of the instrument impossible."
Finally we have another bloody silly thing - the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Regulations 2023, laid on October 18th. Fascinating bit of legislative knitwork, this. It's designed to compliment the government's recent decision to ban the possession of nitrous oxide, otherwise known as laughing gas.
Real actual bona-fide experts did look at whether this is a good idea. In March, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs did a thorough report on the substance. It concluded that "current evidence suggests that the health and social harms are not commensurate with control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971". There's about one death per year in the UK per million users, compared to 28,000 deaths for 40 million users of alcohol. But home secretary Suella Braverman did it anyway, because of course she did.
One of the core problems the Advisory Council cited was the impact of a ban on the legitimate use of nitrous oxide, including in medicine, dentistry, food preparation and catering. "Control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971," the experts warned, "could produce significant burdens for legitimate medical, industrial, commercial, and academic uses. The current scale and number of legitimate uses that stand to be affected is unknown but is estimated to be large."
So what has come of that warning? Absolutely nothing. Instead, the government has simply stitched a bunch of exemptions into the ban using its latest statutory instrument. It basically removes those in possession of the substance from all the provisions of the ban, unless that person "intends to wrongfully inhale it" or "knows, or is reckless as to whether, it is likely to be wrongfully inhaled by some other person".
There's a whole lot of easily foreseeable wretched bullshit going on in that formulation. How will police or the courts assess whether someone was reckless about someone else being likely to use it recreationally? What's the test for that? Do they need a whipped cream licence? It's the kind of question that seems trivial and legalistic, unless you're the poor sucker pulled up in court as a drug dealer.
What kind of debate was had about this? What sorts of questions did MPs ask about it? Well, once again, bugger all, because it's all established by slipping this innocuous little statutory instrument under the door after conference season and hoping no-one sees it.
These three examples are just the tip of the iceberg. In the same post-conference period, we've seen other statutory instruments introduced on RAAC in schools, 15-year limits on overseas voting, minimum terms for convicted murderers and much more. A ceaseless churn of unassessed, under-analysed law. It's like we've given up on actually passing primary legislation to be debated in the Commons Chamber and decided to run the country by ministerial edict instead.
This isn't just a democratic problem. It's a functional problem. With no-one to point out the problems or even discuss them, the government blinds itself to the consequence of its actions. It can't assess the likely impact on society, or on its existing policy initiatives, or on the economic situation it finds itself in.
It's a remorseless unstopping churn of shit law - without an evidence base, or a demonstration of necessity, or an assessment of its efficacy, or even an awareness of whether it contradicts existing government policy. A mad scramble of authoritarian irrationality. And then they wonder why we're in such a mess.
Some people to follow
This seems an old-fashioned notion now that Musk has detonated Twitter, but on the off chance that it survives it's nice for me to have a place to highlight the people who helped with a post or who are just generally amusing or knowledgable and worth your time.
The piece above was prompted by this thread by the Hansard Society who are doing vital work assessing statutory instruments and proposing workable alternative systems that might bring them under control. Director Ruth Fox, senior researcher Brigid Fowler and researcher Matthew England are particularly worth a follow. To keep up with what's going on in the world of statutory instruments, check in on the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Mita at the brilliant Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) was invaluable in helping me work my way through the nightmare jungle of amendments and footnotes in that immigration healthcare instrument. Oh and thank you to Louise, at the Sheffield event, for pointing me towards the topic.
One thing that made me happy
Seeing as it's Friday, I might as well throw one thing in here each week that helps alleviate the gloom, which at the moment is pretty all-encompassing. The Burial, starring Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones, is currently on Amazon Prime. It's an absolute full-score delight, a proper old-school 90s legal drama, which cracks along with a manic energy while still finding time for relatively complex contract law details and a sense of historic racial injustice. Foxx is seriously underrated. He has blow-the-lights movie star megawatt charisma energy that isn't sufficiently recognised. It's a perfect film for pizza delivery on a Friday night.
Odds and sods
I just want to say thank you again to those who signed up for a paid subscription without even being asked, and especially for the messages you sent. I am a frigid cold hearted emotionally undeveloped Englishman and therefore do not enjoy experiencing human emotions, but it meant a lot.
I'll set up a paid subscription eventually - probably around the turn of the year. I gave up two paid gigs to create the time for this experiment and I'll need to make up the money I lost in order for it to be sustainable. But I am going to try my damndest to keep the newsletter free-to-access.
The reason for that is political. Paid subscriptions for journalism put it in a much better place than during the free-for-all clickbait era. But I'm increasingly concerned by the fact that most of the reliable content online - from quality reporting to academic research - is behind a paywall, while the batshit conspiracy theory stuff is just flying out all over the place.
So I'm putting serious thought into what the offer is for paid subscribers, given that I don't want it to be newsletter access. Reader Brian Dubb had the excellent idea of recording the column as a kind of mini-podcast, which I'm going to do if I can figure out the technical details. If anyone else has any ideas, I'm all ears. Basically, it would be very helpful to hear the sort of things that would get you to upgrade your subscription, for this or any other newsletter. So yeah, send 'em in. I am fucking terrible at this commercial stuff.
Have a good weekend, kids. Try to keep the doom-scrolling to a minimum.
Thanks for reading Striking 13! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. | United Kingdom Politics |
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron arrive at the Franz Josef Strauss Airport, on the eve of the G7 summit, in Munich, Germany June 25, 2022. Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERSRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comPARIS, June 25 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron seeks to name a new government in early July, possibly including members from outside his political party, according to an interview with AFP.Macron has asked Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne to propose a new "government of action" at the end of next week and confirmed his confidence in Borne over the long term, AFP said in a Twitter post.The president rejected Borne’s offer to resign Tuesday, in the wake of a stinging election defeat last week in which he lost his absolute majority in parliament. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comMacron has not renounced his planned pension reform, which he said will entail “working longer as all our neighbors do,” according to the interview.Another reform will be focused on “full employment."Under pressure to build compromises, Macron has sought to reach out to political opponents, asking them to come up with ideas for the fragmented parliament to legislate. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Mimosa Spencer; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Chizu NomiyamaOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
BBC News prefers some voices to others
How the Beeb fails to inform
Next month, Australians will vote on whether to establish a body called the “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”.
Most people in Britain probably aren’t that familiar with what this body would do, how it would work, and what the main arguments for and against it are. If curious, they might go to BBC News to try and find out.
They wouldn’t get very far. Last week, a headline on the BBC website thundered “lies fuel racism ahead of Australia’s Indigenous vote”.
The accompanying article devotes a brief few sentences to the Yes campaign’s main arguments — that it will give indigenous Australians “greater self-determination” and help reduce socioeconomic disparities between indigenous and other Australians. The No campaign’s main argument, essentially that “the Voice will have too much power,” is summed up in a single sentence.
The logic behind both campaigns’ arguments is left untouched. We’re not told how Yes campaigners expect the Voice to achieve what they claim it will, or why No campaigners think it will “undermine government processes and clog up the courts”.
The existence of No voters who believe the Voice isn’t strong enough is ignored, at least until the end of the article when it quotes at length a woman who had planned to vote No on those grounds, but has since switched to Yes.
But it’s abundantly clear that you’re not meant to engage with any of these arguments and decide for yourself. You’re supposed to be reassured by the BBC’s claim that “many fears raised by the No campaign have been debunked”.
The article also repeatedly expects you to put your faith in nameless authority figures. The claims of “some” that the Yes campaign’s declining poll numbers are down to “public sentiment” (how could it not be?) are deftly batted away by “Yes campaigners” who instead blame an “ecosystem of disinformation”.
“Analysts” are credited with linking racial abuse to the “narratives that underpin the No campaign,” and we’re similarly assured that “legal and constitutional experts” believe those narratives are “unfounded”. No further explanation is provided.
Finally, a section entitled “community harm” heavily implies that the No campaign would be responsible if the suicide rate among indigenous Australians were to increase.
With all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the BBC are creating a narrative for what increasingly appears to be the Yes campaign’s impending defeat. “Lies”, “racism”, and “gaming the algorithm” of social media sites like Facebook.
You might recognise this narrative
You might recognise this narrative, because it’s the same one trotted out by left-wingers and liberals around the world whenever things don’t go their way.
The same line was used ad nauseam to explain the vote for Brexit in 2016. Australians should probably brace themselves for a cavalcade of hysterical New York Times articles if they dare to vote No next month.
Donald Trump now claims to have invented the term “fake news”, but it was previously deployed by his opponents to describe false stories which, they suggested, swung the 2016 election in his favour. And then against Jair Bolsonaro’s campaign in Brazil two years later.
Needless to say, lies which don’t quite fit the narrative — like the Labour Party and the SNP both centring their 2019 election campaigns around the Tories allegedly planning to sell the NHS to Donald Trump — don’t generate quite so much comment.
The BBC’s piece on the Voice referendum is the latest example of an increasingly settled liberal belief that they have a monopoly on truth and decency, especially when it comes to so-called “culture war” issues, and that lies and bigotry are the only meaningful obstacles to their unending success.
It’s not hard to see how this worldview leads to a reluctance to be impartial towards, or even a will to censor, opposing views. The double shock of Trump and Brexit led to widespread liberal criticism of traditional media impartiality, which in their view had failed.
The BBC’s failure to provide balance between the pro- and anti-Voice sides in Australia’s referendum reflects the new, post-2016 attitude of much of the mainstream liberal media. Traditional balance is considered ‘false equivalence’, at least on culture war issues, and liberal journalists are expected to report from the side of what they consider to be truth and decency.
A glance at the BBC News back catalogue shows that this isn’t a one-off. In recent years, readers have been treated to multiple puff pieces in the space of weeks for “reparations” to Caribbean countries, favourable write-ups for Satanism and Drag Queen Story Hour, a piece denouncing singer Matty Healy as a “white saviour” for criticising Malaysia’s anti-gay laws while performing in the country, a glowing eulogy to a defunct far-left magazine, and some kind words for polyamory.
Their favourite subject, for some reason, appears to be a group of Muslim hikers and its founder, and especially the online abuse they’ve received. Organising a hiking group is nice, and online abuse is bad, but that doesn’t explain why one particular group warrants a level of attention from the national broadcaster that some Cabinet ministers would walk a thousand miles for.
Tory MPs are rarely shy to point out BBC bias, but they often point at their coverage of day-to-day UK politics, where the evidence is less clear-cut. For (almost) every Emily Maitlis tirade against Dominic Cummings, there’s a video comparing Rishi Sunak to Superman. Both those incidents drew apologies from the BBC.
It’s right to keep a watchful eye on BBC bias. It’s a publicly-funded broadcaster, nominally committed to impartiality, but most importantly, it’s also comfortably Britain’s most-read and most-watched news source. The BBC is by far the loudest voice in the British media landscape.
But the Australian referendum piece shows how an eye needs to be kept on all BBC News coverage, not just on how it reports the Westminster rigmarole. It’s often in features, culture, and on this occasion, foreign politics where the left-wing bias at BBC News is truly exposed.
Enjoying The Critic online? It's even better in print
Try five issues of Britain’s newest magazine for £10Subscribe | Australia Politics |
The SNP's three leadership candidates engaged in a fiery clash during a live Sky News debate as they failed to agree on several issues.
Ash Regan, Kate Forbes and Humza Yousaf are battling it out to replace Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon after she announced she was stepping down last month.
Taking part in a live debate on Sky News, hosted by political editor Beth Rigby, the trio tried to win over SNP voters moments after an exclusive Sky/YouGov poll found 54% of Scots want to remain part of the UK.
These are the key moments from the hour-long debate on Monday evening:
The whole reason for the SNP's existence - but the trio could not agree on whether it is top of their agendas.
Asked if it was their top priority, Ms Regan said Scotland was suffering disproportionately from being in the UK while Ms Forbes said her priorities are the cost of living and public services.
Mr Yousaf, seen as the continuity candidate, was the only one who answered with a straight answer, saying: "Yes, independence is my top priority."
Ms Regan was grilled on her plans for establishing a Scottish currency after saying earlier in the campaign one could be introduced quickly after independence.
But she struggled to explain exactly how that would come about and what other issues would have to be addressed if Scotland becomes independent.
She said she would set up a commission to establish plans for a new monetary system but pressed on what institutions are needed for that she only said a central bank.
Ms Regan admitted she could not give "the full details at this point" and insisted she only meant she could introduce a new currency within two months of independence if all the plans had been established beforehand by a commission.
Asked by Mr Yousaf what she would do if she became first minister in two weeks, Mr Regan said she would make the A9 road a dual carriageway but admitted she could not determine how much that would cost.
The trio, especially Mr Yousaf and Ms Forbes, bickered over who was more popular with the public.
Mr Yousaf insisted the momentum is behind him, despite some polls making for pretty grim reading.
He put himself over as the candidate that is popular with SNP voters, while Ms Forbes claimed she had the backing of more Scots overall.
But, in the end, it is only the SNP members who matter as they - not the wider voters - will determine who wins the leadership of their party.
Mr Yousaf accused Ms Forbes of losing SNP supporters as he boasted about overtaking her in the polls but she said she was "ahead in key metrics".
Read more:
No obvious successor to Sturgeon, Salmond says
How will Nicola Sturgeon's successor be chosen?
The Sky News poll released on Monday afternoon found 44% thought Mr Yousaf would be a bad leader, while Ms Regan came in at 39% and 36% for Ms Forbes.
But he batted off suggestions he had been a bad health minister, saying finance minister Ms Forbes had not been in a service delivery role while he has had "the most difficult and toughest jobs" in government for decades (health, transport and justice).
He defended his record as health secretary, which he started in 2021, saying waiting times were down due to the pandemic and Scotland had a speedy COVID booster roll out.
Ms Regan admitted her name is not so well-known but said she is "far from a rookie", having been in government for nearly five years.
"I'm definitely less well known than the others but a good first minister does not depend on how well known they are but on their abilities, their plan and a good team," she said.
Gloves came off in Sky's SNP debate The SNP’s facade of unity and discipline imploded live on Sky News this evening, writes Connor Gilles, Scotland Correspondent. Outgoing First Minister Nicola Sturgeon will have been watching the drama through her fingers as the three candidates vying to replace her came to blows over their record in government. Humza Yousaf, seen as a party favourite, pivoted his message to the members while Kate Forbes took advantage of the exclusive Sky News poll suggesting she is seen in a more favourable light with the wider electorate. Big holes were exposed in Ash Regan’s plans for setting up a currency in the initial months of independence. During her Beth Rigby interrogation she failed to provide details. Yousaf’s stinging retort about Regan “not having a single plan for the economy” is far from what her camp wanted to hear. Kate Forbes has endured repeated questions over social issues and this debate was no different. She failed to fully commit to banning all forms of conversion therapy in a painful exchange. Yousaf was hit with a barrage of statistics on his missed NHS targets. He was robust in his responses, but the reality is he can’t dodge the facts. The Sky polls suggest the majority of Scots feel the NHS is handled badly by the SNP. The health secretary pushed the discussion back to his varied ministerial roles in an attempt to undermine his opponent's inexperience. The big test in the short term is who can win over the SNP voters before the much bigger job of governing a country and appeasing a restless independence movement begins.
Ms Forbes made headlines early in the campaign after saying her faith means having children outside of marriage is "wrong".
Asked about unmarried and gay married couples, she told the debate "I certainly don't disapprove" and said she would "defend the rights of everybody in Scotland to live without harassment and fear".
She went in strong on whether a plan to ban conversion therapy should go ahead, saying: "Conversion therapy is abhorrent."
But she got a bit tangled up when asked about people who wanted it done to themselves, saying people "should be allowed to live freely as they choose, I do not think there should be conversion therapy in Scotland".
Mr Yousaf tried to exploit Ms Forbes' perceived weakness with SNP voters on social issues by suggesting she is "abandoning the progressive agenda" of the party.
He claimed: "With SNP voters, the momentum is with me."
However, Sky News polling suggests Ms Forbes is most popular with Scots, if not with SNP members.
All three were asked if JK Rowling is a national treasure following her remarks about trans people, with Ms Regan and Ms Forbes agreeing she is and was "very brave" to talk out.
Mr Yousaf agreed she is a national treasure for her books "but I disagree vehemently with her view on trans rights".
The candidates were asked if they would work with Labour if they were to win the next general election as polls suggest.
Ms Regan and Ms Forbes said they would while Mr Yousaf said he would "work with anyone to kick out the Tories".
Mr Yousaf said his price to work with Labour would be if they gave him the power to hold another referendum.
The other two also agreed on that but differed in their opinions of the Labour Party.
Mr Yousaf called Sir Keir Starmer a "pale imitation" of a Tory and Ms Forbes said she would "always side with fellow progressive parties". | United Kingdom Politics |
Workers paste the posters announcing the NATO Summit outside the Madrid Fair before a NATO summit in Madrid, Spain June 27, 2022. REUTERS/Juan MedinaRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryFirst new NATO strategy brief in decade to cite ChinaU.S., UK want tough wording; France, Germany more cautiousBoth G7 and NATO summits this week eye China challengeFocus on China ties with Russia amid Moscow's Ukraine warSCHLOSS ELMAU, Germany, June 27 (Reuters) - NATO’s first new strategy concept in a decade will cite China as a concern for the first time but member states remain at odds over how to describe the country with the world's largest military and its relationship with Russia, NATO diplomats say.Both a summit of the G7 rich industrial democracies now underway in Germany and a NATO summit to follow will tackle China's deepening ties with Russia after Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, and what is seen as the growing inclination of China to flex its geopolitical muscle and coercive economic might abroad.The new strategic concept to be endorsed at the NATO summit in Madrid on Wednesday and Thursday will address increasing threats posed by Russia and, for the first time, China, the world's second largest economy, U.S. officials said last week.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comA White House official voiced confidence on Sunday that the document would include "strong" language on China, but said the negotiations were continuing ahead of the NATO summit in Madrid on June 29-30. read more NATO diplomats said the United States and Britain have pushed for more forceful language to reflect what they see as China's increasing military ambitions and growing concern that it could attack the democratically governed island of Taiwan, which Beijing regards as its own territory.France and Germany - given major European industrial investment in China - meanwhile favour more measured references, said the NATO diplomats, who spoke on condition of anonymity since the document was still being finalized.At the Group of Seven summit on Monday, U.S. National Security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters that NATO's strategy paper would "speak in ways that are unprecedented about the challenge that China poses".One diplomat said a compromise was taking shape under which China would be described as a "systemic challenge", while including balancing language referring to a "willingness to work on areas of common interest" with Beijing.The strategy document, which will update U.S.-led NATO's objectives and values, will also state member states' "awareness of the need for "resilience", the diplomat said.Negotiators are in addition fine-tuning how to describe the relationship between China and Russia, with the Czech Republic and Hungary strongly opposed to the phrase "strategic convergence" to define it, one of the diplomats said.China's foreign ministry has said the sole purpose of Western assertions about Chinese threats is to contain and suppress China's development and maintain U.S. hegemony.CHINA'S 'GLOBAL AMBITIONS'NATO officials are racing to complete the new strategic concept in time for the Madrid summit, where the Russian invasion of Ukraine will take centre stage.Britain recently adopted language describing Russia as an “acute, direct threat” and China as a “strategic challenge.”The Pentagon's latest annual report to the U.S. Congress underscored the importance of "meeting the pacing challenge presented by the People's Republic of China’s increasingly capable military and its global ambitions".U.S. officials stressed the importance of including China in NATO's updated strategic concept, and Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea were therefore invited to the NATO summit for the first time.The point was to signal that NATO is not “taking our eye off the ball in China” even as it focuses on strengthening Ukraine's defences, one of the officials said. “It's firmed up the democratic world on both Russia and China.”“NATO can’t afford to ignore China,” agreed a European official. “Europe was a bit behind in recognising this, but views have definitely shifted in light of Hong Kong,” referring to Beijing's security crackdown on the Asian financial hub.China says Taiwan and Hong Kong are purely its internal affairs.Another European official said: “We tried to build an era of being nice and incentivising China and we got President Xi (Jinping)." Western critics say Xi has taken Beijing on a more authoritarian path at home and aggressive course abroad. "So I think most people would think a different approach is needed."Regarding NATO's original mission to counter Russian threats to the West, the official added: “NATO’s area of operation is simply north of the Tropic of Cancer. It has no eastern or western limits. So I think it’s fair that NATO looks at that.”Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Andrea Shalal and Humeyra Pamuk, editing by Mark HeinrichOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
The Westminster Accounts interactive database lets you search for information about the earnings and donations declared by any MP, political party, an all-party parliamentary group, or donor since the last election.Sky News and Tortoise Media have programmatically collected and analysed thousands of public records to create this extensive record of financial interests in Westminster from December 2019 onwards.
It means that for the first time, you can easily see the total sums of donations and earnings for individual MPs - something which was previously very difficult to collate and compare due to the way the registers are published.Read more:MPs earn £17.1m on top of their salaries since the last election - with Tories taking £15.4mSearch for your MP using the Westminster Accounts toolTransparency in politics often feels like it falls short - we want to shine a light on thatWestminster Accounts: Following the moneySo how can you explore the database for yourself?
Find an MP When you open the Westminster Accounts interactive database, you are presented with a search box. Here you can search for any MP or find your own by entering your postcode. Alternatively, you could select the random MP suggested above the text entry box.Earnings and donations outlined Once you have made your selection, you will be taken through an explanation of the project and then the information about your chosen MP will be revealed.The tool will tell you how many financial interests the MP has declared since the last general election.Each declaration is represented as a circle in the party colours of the MP. If you click on the circle, you will see the value of the declaration, who it came from and when it was registered.APPG membership After the information about the MP's declared financial interests, you will be taken to a section which shows whether they have been an officer of an all-party parliamentary group.These are informal groups of cross-party MPs who come together to focus on a particular subject area. There are many APPGs, but they do not receive direct financial support from parliament. This means they often rely on outside organisations or donors to fund their operations.In this section, you will see which donors have provided funding, either in cash or as benefits in kind, to the APPGs of which your chosen MP is a member.Party donations The next part of the picture revealed is the donations received by your MP's political party.The tool will show you how many sources of funding the party has declared and the total amount.Finally, you will see how the donations made to the party in question compare to the other political parties and how your MP's interests compare to others in the House of Commons.Explore further After your journey through the declared interests of your MP and where they sit in the wider universe of money in parliament, you may feel you want to go further.The final page of the interactive tool enables you to do just that.In the top right corner, you will find a search box, and above it four buttons - party, MP, APPG and Source of £.By clicking into the search box you will reveal a list ordered by the highest values, letting you click through to explore each entry further.You can also search directly in any of the categories for further information.We hope you will want to come back the Westminster Accounts again and again. If you do, and you don't want to go through the introductory story or explanation of the MP you have selected, a button in the bottom left corner lets you "skip intro slides" and "skip to explore" - returning you to the searchable database page. Spreaker Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options Click to subscribe to the Sophy Ridge on Sunday podcastMore informationThe database brings together the following sources:• The register of members' financial interests, which records MPs' secondary employment, donations, gifts and other benefits.• The register of all-party parliamentary groups, which records the donations, gifts and other benefits for all APPGs.• The Electoral Commission register, which records donations, gifts and other benefits received by political parties represented in the House of Commons.Importantly, the database does not cover the expenses MPs claim to run their offices or their annual base salary of £84,144.Additional compensation for serving as a minister is also outside the scope of the database. The focus is on what they have earned on top of their MP salaries and what they have received in donations.Outgoing funds are also not captured in the database - so if your MP gives money they have received to charity, that will not be visible.You can find more detail on how and why we made decisions like this in our publicly-accessible methodology. | United Kingdom Politics |
| August 05, 2022 04:25 PM A top Russian scientist has been arrested on charges of “high treason” — yet another apparent casualty of an investigation conducted by Russian security services. The arrested man, Dr. Alexander Shiplyuk, directs the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics in Siberia under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His detention puts a spotlight on Russia’s cutting-edge hypersonic weapons research about a month after his colleague Anatoly Maslov was taken into custody. "Investigative activities were held in the institute,” another official at the institute, Vasily Fomin, told state-run media outlet TASS. “He is faced with the same charges as Maslov. High treason.” Shiplyuk specializes in hypersonic technology research, according to TASS, having authored or contributed to more than 90 publications related to hypersonic technology and other engineering subjects, according to a ResearchGate tally. He and Maslov were based in Novosibirsk, Russia. They shared that city with a third Russian scientist, Dmitry Kolker, who was taken from a hospital where he was receiving cancer treatment and then died in custody. RUSSIA WAGES A PARANOID WAR ON HYPERSONICS SCIENTISTS “The FSB murdered my father,” the late scientist’s son, Maksim Kolker, wrote on social media last month, referring to the KGB successor agency. “Fully aware of the condition he was in, they dragged him from the hospital. ... They didn’t even allow him to say goodbye to his family. Kolker, who led a quantum optics laboratory, was accused of collaborating with China, but his family disputed the charges as a trumped-up allegation after his participation at a public conference in China. “He was working in his country despite many invitations from leading universities and labs to go work abroad,” his cousin, Anton Dianov, said last month. He wanted to work in Russia, he wanted to teach students there. ... These charges are absolutely ridiculous and extremely cruel and unusual to be levied on such a sick man.” An arrest related to spying for China would seem to attest to the suspicion that persists between the two countries despite their vaunted “no limits” partnership. “There are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation,” Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese General Secretary Xi Jinping said in a joint communique in February. “Russia and China intend to encourage interaction in the fields of public health, digital economy, science, innovation and technology, including artificial intelligence technologies, as well as the increased coordination between BRICS countries on international platforms.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The substance of the charges against Shiplyuk was not included in the TASS report. A profile page described his work as “related with the development of the experimental facilities and methods of aerophysical researchers, analysis of wave processes causing the laminar flow transition into the turbulent one, methods of control of these processes at hypersonic flight speeds, experimental aero-thermodynamics of hypersonic aircrafts with scramjets." | Europe Politics |
The worldâs fastest years of economic growth are likely already behind it â expansion is slowing as population growth weakens, according to Goldman Sachs Research. But emerging economies, and powerhouses in Asia in particular, are forecast to keep catching up to richer countries.
Goldman Sachs Research set out its first long-term projections for the Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRICs) economies almost 20 years ago and expanded those estimates in 2011 to include more countries. Our economistsâ latest version covers 104 nations, and the projections cover a horizon from now to 2075.
Worldwide potential growth (the rate an economy can sustain without producing too much inflation) is forecast to average 2.8% annually between 2024 and 2029 and to gradually decline thereafter, according to Goldman Sachs Research. That compares with an average of 3.6% in the decade before the global financial crisis and 3.2% in the 10 years before the Covid pandemic (measured on a market-weighted basis). Economic expansion is ebbing as the worldâs rate of population growth has halved during the past 50 years and is now at less than 1% â population growth will stall by 2075, according to UN population projections. Weakening productivity, linked to a slowdown in globalization, is also part of the reason our economists expect GDP growth to fade.
âGlobal population control is a necessary condition for long-term environmental sustainability,â Goldman Sachs economists Kevin Daly and Tadas Gedminas wrote in a report. But a population that is aging and growing more slowly will have to cope with rising healthcare and retirement costs. The number of countries that face a serious economic challenge from a greying population is likely to steadily increase in the coming decades.
Emerging economies, led by powerhouses in Asia, are growing more quickly than developed ones, even as expansion in real (inflation adjusted) global GDP slows. Their share of the world economy will continue to rise, and their incomes are expected to slowly converge toward those of richer countries. China is forecast to overtake the U.S. as the worldâs largest economy by around 2035, while India is expected to have the worldâs second largest by 2075, according to Goldman Sachs Research.
China, India, and Indonesia slightly outperformed our economistsâ forecasts from 2011, while Russia, Brazil, and Latin America more significantly underperformed those projections. âWe expect that the weight of global GDP will shift (even) more towards Asia over the next 30 years,â our economists wrote in their latest report. In 2050, the world's five largest economies (measured in U.S. dollars) are projected to be China, the U.S., India, Indonesia, and Germany. Looking out to 2075, the prospect of rapid population growth in the likes of Nigeria, Pakistan, and Egypt imply that â with the appropriate policies and institutions â these economies could become some of the largest in the world.
The U.S. economy was exceptional during the past decade. It slightly outperformed our economistsâ forecasts for real GDP growth, making it unique among large, developed economies. The dollar also appreciated sharply during that period, helping the relative value of the U.S. economy outstrip their expectations. Our economists say that feat is unlikely to be repeated, in part because the greenback has appreciated so much that itâs significantly above its purchasing power parity-based (PPP) fair value. In addition, they argue that âU.S. potential growth remains significantly lower than that of large EM economies, including China and (especially) India.â
Our economists think protectionism and climate change are two of the biggest risks to their projections. Populist nationalists are in power in some countries, and supply-chain disruptions during Covid have resulted in a greater focus on resilience and onshoring, according to Goldman Sachs Research. This has resulted in a slowdown rather than a reversal of globalization, but the risks to globalization, which reduced income inequality across countries, are there. For it to continue, there will need to be more focus on sharing the benefits of globalization and rising incomes within each nation.
When it comes to climate change, many countries have been able to decouple carbon emissions and economic growth, which indicates it should be achievable for the global economy as a whole. But that doesnât mean it will be easy. âAchieving sustainable growth requires economic sacrifices and a globally coordinated response, both of which will be politically difficult to achieve,â our economists wrote. | Asia Politics |
If you squint, and turn your head just right, you can see the future of Europe.
It’s a Europe that is more powerful by virtue of offering nation states greater options in their relationship with it. And it’s one in which Britain could have a place.
The outline for this idea emerged in a joint German-French paper this week, but in truth it’s been around for a long time. It is the idea of a multi-speed Europe – one in which a hard core of countries press ahead with ever closer union while others are able to hang back, enjoying the economic benefits without the political requirements.
It makes sense. Indeed, it already exists, albeit in a haphazard unplanned way. Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein are either in or docked with the single market despite not being EU members. The creation of the Eurozone created a new de-facto two-tier status between those countries sharing a currency and those which would not. And Britain has left altogether, but last year it joined the European political community – a forum to discuss political and strategic matters.
For decades, Europeans have dreamed of formalising these types of distinctions into a multi-speed Europe, or a Europe of concentric circles. Countries could pick the level of engagement they wanted, from being at the heart of things to maintaining a more distant economic relationship.
French President Emmanuel Macron now plans to see that through. He’s worried that recalcitrant members like Hungary will interfere with plans for deeper integration and streamlined decision-making, particularly on defence and foreign policy. That’s especially important now that Ukraine readies itself for membership.
This week’s joint paper proposed that core countries form an “inner circle” at the heart of Europe if another country tries to block treaty change. There would then be a second tier composed of the remaining existing EU who would get an opt out from the new treaty, but not from the previous ones.
After that there would be an “associate outer tier” of non-EU single market countries like Norway, who want frictionless trade but not future integration. And finally there would be the existing European political community.
It’s a good system. To be really radical it would offer limited voting rights to associate countries, as Commission president Jacques Delors proposed in 1989, but that’s an argument for another day. The fundamentals are these: it is time for Europe to step up and take up the role of a world political power, not just an economic one. This kind of framework is the only way that becomes feasible.
Britain is currently in the European political community, but the joint paper clearly envisages that it might like to take a step inside and take up associate outer tier status. Indeed, it has been written with that idea very clearly in the authors’ minds.
The paper emerged yesterday at the worst possible moment for Keir Starmer, who’d been in France chatting with Macron. And of course the Labour team instantly shot it down. The idea was a “non-starter”, a senior Labour source told i.
They have to do that. There is no way on God’s earth that Labour are going to allow a conversation which involves the words “EU” and “membership”, even if it’s technically in a new framework.
But we are not talking about the Europe of today. We’re talking about the Europe of tomorrow.
Starmer unveiled some of his plans for European policy this week: alignment of agricultural products to reduce friction at the border and probably some kind of reciprocal youth visa scheme which would basically amount to free movement for the young. It’s quite a good package – basically the closest you’re likely to get to Europe without joining the single market.
But he is not going to propose joining the EU, the single market or the customs union. And there is a good reason for that. It would open up the Tory attack on betraying Brexit. It could help stitch back together the winning Tory electoral alliance of 2019. It returns us to the identity-war conversation of the post-2016 era, which Labour cannot win, rather than the cost-of-living and competent government conversation of the post 2021 era, which Labour can.
Starmer was duly attacked for this sensible proposal from all sides. Brexit supporters like the Daily Mail said it was “proof you can’t trust Starmer on Brexit”. Remain supporters got cross that he wasn’t offering something more radical. And analysts pointed out that this kind of tinkering with the existing EU deal would achieve little economic difference and would anyway struggle to engage the Europeans. This latter point – that Europe is done with Brexit and doesn’t want to bring Britain any closer in – is picking up a lot of traction.
And yet that is not the picture we get from the French-German paper. It is of a Europe which is thinking hard about how to incorporate a more friendly UK into its structures. It is looking forward to a day when we can work co-operatively rather than as resentful opponents.
Those of us who consider ourselves European always knew we were in a long-term project of at least a decade to fix the situation after the thumping we got in 2019. It was a three-stage process: Change the government. Repair the relationship. Then fight to rejoin the EU or the single market. The first is on the verge of being achieved. The second comes after the election. The third constitutes a demand on Starmer for a second Labour term, around 2030.
Much could go wrong before then. Starmer might not win this election, let alone the next one. Europe could itself face difficulties – financial or political – which makes it less attractive to British voters. But we have a Labour leader who is cautiously and pragmatically moving closer to Europe. And we have European leaders who are cautiously and pragmatically offering options which might prove politically possible in a few years time.
In the right light, and with a bit of luck, the future of Europe can be seen over the horizon. There is a place for Britain within it. | Europe Politics |
Humza Yousaf has been told to remember he is the First Minister for the whole of Scotland and not just those with an agenda for separation.
The SNP leader was criticised for taking part in an independence rally yesterday where he vowed to fight the “democratic disgrace” that is Brexit. Thousands of people marched from Edinburgh Castle to the Scottish Parliament with Mr Yousaf addressing the crowds.
He said: “As we gather here today – in the European capital of a European nation – we are reminded that Brexit is nothing short of a national tragedy. But the fact that it was forced upon Scotland against our will also makes it a democratic disgrace.”
He added: “Friends, independence allows us to put right the historic wrong of Brexit. Westminster is taking us down the wrong path. It’s not just that we are facing a cost of living crisis - Scotland is facing a cost of Westminster crisis.
“But by taking Scotland’s future into our own hands, we can get back on the right track. We can rejoin the world’s largest trading bloc – one that is seven times larger than the UK by population.
“We can be at the top table of the EU as an independent member state – working in partnership with countries across Europe. We can – once again - be at the heart of Europe where we belong.”
However, the Scottish Conservatives said the First Minister was in danger of forgetting the majority of the Scots voted against independence in 2014.
Shadow constitution secretary Donald Cameron MSP said: “Humza Yousaf needs to realise he is the First Minister for Scotland, not the SNP, and his appearance at the independence rally shows his top priority is to push for another divisive referendum. People across Scotland will be infuriated that the First Minister attended this march and believes separating our country is more important than helping households through the global cost of living crisis and fixing our broken NHS and crumbling schools.
“Humza Yousaf continues to be completely out-of-touch with public opinion and people are rightly seeing through his reckless behaviour. Only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up to this independence-obsessed SNP-Green government and holding them to account for their widespread failings.”
Earlier on, a spokesman for the UK Government said: “People in Scotland want both their governments to be concentrating on the issues that matter most to them, like growing our economy, halving inflation and improving public services. We want to work constructively with the Scottish Government to tackle our shared challenges because that is what families and businesses in Scotland expect.
“This is not the time to be talking about distracting constitutional change.”
And Pamela Nash, from Scotland in Union, warned Scotland’s attempts to rejoin the European bloc would have to come with compromises. | United Kingdom Politics |
The UK spends more than anywhere else in Europe subsidising the cost of structural inequality in favour of the rich, according to an analysis of 23 OECD countries.
Inequalities of income, wealth and power cost the UK £106.2bn a year compared with the average developed country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to the Equality Trust’s cost of inequality report.
When compared with the top five most equal countries, however, inequality costs the UK £128.4bn a year in damage to the economy, communities and individuals.
Fixing the NHS crisis, including funding the maintenance backlog, hiring more staff and increasing wages, would cost about £66.7bn over 15 years.
“Inequality has made the UK more unhealthy, unhappy and unsafe than our more equal peers,” said Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the trust. “It is also causing huge damage to our economy: we have shorter healthy working lives, poorer education systems, more crime and less happy societies.”
Britain in the 1970s was one of the most equal of rich countries. Today, it is the second most unequal, after the US.
Sahni-Nicholas said: “There is a direct financial cost to inequality: the consequences of structuring society to allow for massive profiteering for the richest at the expense of the rest of us have been enormous.”
Overreliance on financial systems that allow for massive profits and wealth-hoarding has hollowed out our infrastructure, she added, encouraging massive regional disparities and leaving the UK vulnerable to shocks and recessions.
The report found that the richest 1% in the UK are the most expensive top 1% group in Europe, paying the lowest taxes of such a group in any large European country. The benefits of allowing this to continue are “almost impossible to defend”, said Danny Dorling, the author of Inequality and the 1%.
“Inequality is more than just economics: it is the culture that divides and makes social mobility impossible,” he said. “The mere accident of being born outside the 1% will have a dramatic impact on the rest of your life: it will reduce your life expectancy, as well as educational and work prospects, and affects your mental health. The cost of the super-rich is just too high for the rest of us. We must urgently redress the balance.”
Stewart Lansley, the author of The Richer, the Poorer and The Cost of Inequality, said it was “an acute paradox of contemporary capitalism that as societies get more prosperous, rising numbers are unable to afford the most basic of material and social needs”.
He said: “In Britain, child poverty has doubled in 40 years. Yet few modern tycoons go without private jets, luxury yachts, even private islands.”
Lansley blames the way the gains from growth have been increasingly colonised by a small group of financial and business magnates – a process he says is facilitated by state policy.
“Many of Britain’s deep-seated problems – a broken economy, hollowed-out public services, static and falling living standards, the doubling of child poverty since the late 1970s, and the fall in social resilience – can be traced to the way the economy has been turned into a cash cow for the already rich,” he said.
Too much of today’s economy involves unproductive activity geared to personal reward, a far cry from the culture of entrepreneurialism promised by Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, Lansley adds.
Several factors account for the further enrichment of the already wealthy, says Lansley, “none of them serving much social purpose”, with nine-tenths of all national assets and infrastructure are now privately owned making Britain one of the most heavily privately and narrowly owned economies among rich countries. | United Kingdom Politics |
On stretches of Route 90, the Israeli-built road running down the length of the Jordan Valley in the occupied West Bank, the west side of the highway is full of straw-like grass despite the summer heat. To the east of the road, what can be eaten by sheep and goats is gone.The difference is the only perceptible sign of the biggest strategic shift in the battle for control of Area C, the 60% of the West Bank under full Israeli control, in recent years: the emergence of Israeli settlers using shepherding as a tool for seizing the most land, with the least effort.“We used to be able to take the sheep and goats all over the mountains and the valley,” said Mohammed, a 16-year-old herding a flock of 200 on the side of the road that is safe for Palestinians. “Now the road is the border and beyond that is forbidden.”Map – area C of the West Bank“They come down from the mountain and take the water, take the land, but bring goats,” said Abu Fadi, 52, a Bedouin shepherd from Al-Auja, a village north of Jericho. “There’s not enough space any more and the price of food for the animals is going up. We are being pressured on both sides.”About 450,000 Israelis have settled in what is now Area C of the West Bank since the occupation of the Palestinian territories began in 1967, some motivated by religious or nationalistic reasons, and others by the cheaper cost of living. Their presence is viewed by most of the international community as a major obstacle to lasting peace.What was once seen as a pioneer lifestyle is now often very comfortable: some early settlements are now well established and wealthy, with security guards at the entrance and fences topped with cameras and barbed wire. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) are on hand to enforce military law for Palestinians, and civilian law for settlers.A shelter on the Haroe Haiviri settler farm. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum/The GuardianAccording to Dror Etkes, a leading expert on Israeli land policy over the Green Line and founder of the NGO Kerem Navot, during the last 10 years, the rightwing of the settler movement has been trying out something different, with great success.A new Kerem Navot investigation has found that there are now 77 Israeli farms and shepherding outposts across the West Bank; 66 were established over the last decade, and 46 in the last five years, part of an explosion in settlement growth during the Trump administration. The area now controlled by shepherd settlers is around 60,000 acres – just under 7% of Area C.As Ze’ev Hever, the secretary general of Amana, a settler organisation, put it at an online conference last year: “Construction takes up little ground, due to economic considerations of building development … The shepherd farms – over the last three years we have ventured into a large expanse – now cover an area almost twice as large as the built area of the settlements.”Etkes spent three years interviewing Palestinian herders, observing changes over time in the grazing areas visited by Palestinians and settlers, and using aerial photographs to map out geographical features such as deep valleys and roads, which now often form the de facto boundaries of land appropriated by settler shepherds.He also found that the settler herders are often helped with grants and allocations of pastureland issued directly by Israeli government offices and other publicly funded bodies.“This is the most important change in the West Bank in decades. The settler enterprise used to be about building communities, and now often someone comes alone to start a farm, and maybe later brings his family, living like he’s in the Wild West,” Etkes said during the Guardian’s visit to several Palestinian and settler communities in the Jordan Valley last week.A block of cement with the inscription ‘Dangerous, firing zone’ near the Malachei Hashalom farm in the West Bank. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum/The Guardian“They are initially very violent in pushing the Palestinians out, but once they’ve established dominance, they are usually less violent. They feel entitled to the land, like they don’t need numbers or the army to keep them safe.”Violence related to control of land in the West Bank is on the rise, with 450 attacks by settlers against Palestinians, and 160 attacks by Palestinians against settlers, recorded by the UN in 2021.The Bedouin hamlet of Ras al-Tin in the Jordan Valley is still reeling from a particularly vicious incident last week: around 20 shepherd settlers living on a nearby hilltop arrived in the village by car on Tuesday evening, accompanied by 10 IDF personnel.According to other residents, the settlers entered a home and proceeded to beat the four members of a family with batons spiked with nails, while the IDF watched. Mustafa Ka’abanh and his sons Ahmad and Muhammad, in their 20s, were beaten while handcuffed, and the young men arrested.A young Palestinian shepherd tries to keep his goats off the road. Photograph: Quique Kierszenbaum/The Guardian50-year-old Hager, their mother, was so badly beaten, she was unconscious in hospital in Ramallah for several days. Mustafa was detained for four days after his release from hospital, and their two sons remain in custody at Ofer military prison.The IDF said that soldiers had been dispatched to the scene to separate a physical altercation between Israeli civilians and Palestinians and had stones thrown at them by two villagers.“The soldiers responded according to operational procedures, including firing warning shots until all of the suspects dispersed,” a spokesperson said. “Ahmad and Mohammed Ka’abanh were arrested under suspicion of assault of a 15 year old” and their detention was “extended by the military court of appeals for investigative purposes until Monday.”“I heard the settlers came because they were angry about an incident involving a cow and this was revenge, but we had nothing to do with it,” said a close relative of the family, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals.The attack marked the first time that settlers who established a nearby outpost over the last few years have entered Ras al-Tin itself. People living there are now deeply worried that the violence could escalate and that, like many others, they could be forced to leave their homes.“There is no worse oppression in the world than not being safe in your own house,” the relative said. “It’s not about who can graze animals and where, not really. They want to get rid of us completely.” | Middle East Politics |
Indonesian President Joko Widodo speaks to the media, as newly inaugurated Trade Minister Zulkifli Hasan and Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning Hadi Tjahjanto, who was former Indonesia's military chief, stand besides him at a Presidential Palace in Jakarta, Indonesia, June 15, 2022. REUTERS/Willy KurniawanRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comJAKARTA, June 26 (Reuters) - Indonesian President Joko Widodo said on Sunday he will urge his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts to open room for dialogue during a peace-building mission to the warring countries and ask Russia's Vladimir Putin to order an immediate ceasefire."War has to be stopped and global food supply chains need to be reactivated," Jokowi, as the president is popularly known, said before leaving for Germany to attend the G7 summit on Monday.The president also said he will encourage the G7 countries to seek peace in Ukraine following Russia's invasion, and find an immediate solution to global food and energy crises. Russia calls its actions in Ukraine a "special operation".Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSeparately, Indonesian foreign minister Retno Marsudi said food and fertiliser products from Russia and Ukraine need to be "reintegrated into the global market, despite the war"."It is necessary to secure a grain corridor from Ukraine and open food and fertiliser exports from Russia. All countries must refrain from actions that further exacerbate this food crisis," Marsudi said in a statement on Sunday.Indonesia has condemned the war and expressed sympathy to Ukrainians. However, Jokowi in April said he had declined a request for arms from Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Bernadette Christina and Stanley Widianto; Editing by Christopher CushingOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
The United States is pledging $200 billion to a G7 infrastructure project intended to counter’s China’s multi trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative. The "Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment" was relaunched by President Biden and other Group of Seven leaders on Sunday at their annual gathering being held this year at Schloss Elmau in Southern Germany. U.S. President Joe Biden attends the first day of the G7 leaders' summit at Bavaria's Schloss Elmau castle, near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, June 26, 2022. (REUTERS/Lukas Barth/Pool / Reuters Photos)Altogether the G7 leaders pledged to raise $600 billion in private and public funds over five years to finance needed infrastructure in developing countries. The U.S.’ $200 billion portion will come from grants, federal funds, and private investment over that time period to support projects are intended to tackle climate change, improve global health, gender equity and digital infrastructure.GERMANY STEPS UP MEASURES TO CONSERVE GAS AS RUSSIA SLOWS SUPPLY TO EUROPE Biden went at lengths to insist the money was not "aid or charity.""It’s an investment that will deliver returns for everyone," he said, adding that it will allow countries to "see the concrete benefits of partnering with democracies."He suggested that additional funds – upwards of hundreds of billions – could come from multilateral development banks, development finance institutions and sovereign wealth funds.Chinese President Xi Jinping launched China’s Belt and Road Initiative scheme in 2013. The nearly ten-year multi trillion-dollar effort involves development and infrastructure programs in more than 100 countries aimed at creating a modern version of the ancient Silk Road trade route from Asia to Europe.Western officials have long argued that the initiative traps receiving countries in debt with investments that benefit China more than the hosts.The G-7 program responds to China's so-called Belt and Road Initiative, which Western officials have long argued traps receiving countries in debt and with investments that benefit China more than their hosts. Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin via a video link, from the Great Hall of the People on December 2, 2019, in Beijing, China. (Noel Celis - Pool/Getty Images / Getty Images)The White House says the initiative seeks to leverage $200 billion in U.S. investment over the next five years, along with a similar amount from G-7 allies, to boost infrastructure development in lower- and middle-income nations.It adds that most of the funding will come from the private sector, sovereign wealth and global development funds, rather that direct taxpayer dollars.The U.S. says the G-7 backed effort promotes responsible investments that aim to benefit the communities they are made in.Among the first initiatives are a $2 billion solar farm investment in Angola in Southwest AFrica, $320 million for hospital construction in Ivory Coast, in West Africa, and $40 million to promote regional energy trade in Southeast Asia.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX BUSINESS APPIn a jab at China, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the G-7 is offering "sustainable, quality infrastructure" and will be "listening closely to the recipient countries."The Associated Press contributed to this report. | Global Organizations |
Yevgeny Prigozhin did not have long to work out who had killed him. But he had long enough. He must have twigged.
It can’t have been more than a few seconds between the explosion aboard the otherwise reliable Embraer Legacy 600 executive jet, and the moment the Russian thug blacked out in his vertiginous acceleration to earth; and yet in that instant I am certain that he knew with perfect clarity what had happened.
He knew whose hidden hand was sending him 28,000 ft down, to be immolated with the rest of his Wagner group companions in a fireball in the countryside of the Tver region north of Moscow — and then on downwards, of course, for the shade of Prigozhin: down, down to Hades and the Tartarean pit below.
He understood what was going on because for the past few weeks he must, at the back of his mind, have been expecting it to happen — either that or something very like it.
Prigozhin knew whodunnit, and so do we all, don’t we?
We don’t need a crash site investigation. We don’t need anyone to look at the DNA or the dental records, and it is frankly hilarious that a French presidential spokesman should claim that there are ‘reasonable doubts’ about what happened to the plane.
Reasonable doubts? Donnez-moi un break, mon vieux, and tirez l’autre because it’s got bells on.
It doesn’t matter what method was used — whether it was a bomb concealed in a box of vintage wine, a surface-to-air missile, adulterated fuel or a snipped aileron cable.
The whole world knows full well — and is intended to know — that the man behind the killing of Prigozhin and the Wagner group leadership, not to mention the deaths of the crew, is the very same man who authorised, for instance, the poisonings in the UK of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal.
The killer of Prigozhin is the same individual who was behind the assassination of the opposition politician Boris Nemtsov and the human rights campaigner Anna Politkovskaya, as well as innumerable other acts of skulduggery.
As the detonation sucked the air out of the aircraft’s cabin, I would wager that the last thought in the doomed dome of Prigozhin’s skull was ‘Putin!’, preceded by one of the many profanities in which the former jailbird and hotdog salesman was so fluent.
How could it be otherwise? It was mad — in retrospect — for Prigozhin to have believed that Putin would let him live.
The Wagner group leader had humiliated his patron and boss. His men had actually marched on Moscow. Though the Russian media deny it, there seems little doubt that the threat was enough to send Putin scuttling from his own capital.
The Wagner group shot down Russian military planes and helicopters. They killed fellow Russians — IN Russia. They had taken over a key city, Rostov, without firing a shot and with the enthusiastic support of the locals, and as bargaining capital they had a nuclear base.
By their bare-faced effrontery, the Wagner group mutineers had destroyed the precious illusion on which the Russian state — like all states — depends: that it has, in the phrase of the sociologist Max Weber, the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
The Wagner group under Prigozhin was openly and intolerably contesting that monopoly. Whatever he intended to achieve by his attempted coup, Prigozhin had done enough to become — if only briefly — an existential threat to the Putin regime. He had mocked the very authority of the Kremlin.
It was therefore the height of conceit for the Wagner group chief to believe that Putin might forgive him, or allow him indefinitely to continue to walk the same earth.
Prigozhin knew — better than anyone — that Putin believes in vendetta. Even when Putin invited him into the Kremlin on June 29, after the mutiny was over, he must have known that the tyrant would be meditating reprisals.
Even when Prigozhin went to the Africa-Russia summit a few days ago, he must have thought, deep down, that he was living on borrowed time.
As we watch the chilling footage of that plane spiralling to earth, we are witnessing something historic. This is the violent liquidation — on TV — of his enemies by an existing head of state. I cannot think of another example of such ostentatious and uninhibited savagery by a world leader — not in our lifetimes.
We hear of what Kim Jong-un does to his enemies; we don’t actually see it. With these murders Putin is being transformed before our eyes into an Asiatic despot, slaughtering his former favourite just to show who is boss, revelling in his ruthlessness.
The mask is now fully off. Putin stands exposed as a gangster, and his absurd televised ‘tribute’ to the dead Wagnerites is straight from the pages of The Godfather. Yevgeny Prigozhin had a ‘complicated fate’, said Putin, a euphemism that must surely rank with ‘he sleeps with the fishes’ and ‘I made him an offer he couldn’t refuse’.
As students of the gangster drama, we are instinctively tempted to believe that this moment — the ruthless killing of the oldest, closest ally — is a sign that we are nearing the climax, just as Al Pacino’s Tony Montana murders his oldest, closest Cuban buddy in the final reel of Scarface.
There are many Western analysts who believe that the Prigozhin episode — in all its brutal farce — is a demonstration of the terminal weakness of Vladimir Putin. I have read the suggestion, here and there, that this is the beginning of the end, and that sooner or later the other siloviki — the strongmen of Russia — will find a way to finish Putin off.
Well, perhaps: but then we must remember that we in the liberal West are not the only intended audience for this gangsterish theatre. There are plenty of others, in Russia and around the world, who will see this murder very differently; not as weakness, but as strength.
Putin wanted to kill Prigozhin with maximum global éclat, and at a time of his own choosing. I don’t think it was any coincidence, therefore, that the downing of the plane took place just as Putin was speaking to the BRICS summit in South Africa – the economic grouping named after Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and which has just welcomed six more countries to its ranks, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.
What is the mortar that holds BRICS together? It is a scepticism and sometimes a dislike of the idea of a unipolar world — the American dominance that followed the of the Cold War. They are suspicious of the so-called ‘Washington consensus’.
There are countries on that list that don’t like being endlessly lectured about democracy and human rights. Some of them don’t want to hear a lot about the importance of equalities, and the LGBTQ agenda.
Some of the leaders around that table worry about their own political mortality, and openly or covertly they like the way Putin is so robust in the protection of his own position.
They quite like the way he two-fingers the U.S., and they like the way he satirises some of the pieties of the West. They also cannot help noticing a crucial difference between Moscow and Washington.
Putin sticks with his friends — which is more than you can sometimes say about us Western powers. They observed what happened to Gaddafi in Libya, for instance. After all that sucking-up by the UK — remember the deal in the desert, where Tony Blair went and sat in a tent in Tripoli — we Brits then ratted on Gaddafi, and he met a terrible end: dragged from a storm drain by a mob in Sirte, tortured and impaled.
They saw what happened in Afghanistan, what Western promises were worth, and how we cut and ran.
Some of them wonder, how do I know the West would not do the same to me? So they look at how Putin behaves to his clients, and they contrast his constancy and his commitment.
Take Bashar al-Assad, the butcher of Aleppo. It is now more than ten years since the U.S. and the UK started to chant the mantra that ‘Assad must go’. Well, Assad is not only still there in Damascus, in power, but after all his cruelty — and his use of chemical weapons — he is back in the Arab League. Who does he have to thank for his survival? Vladimir Putin, very largely, and his willingness to give Russian military assistance.
No wonder some of the world’s less democratically inclined states are willing to give Putin the benefit of the doubt. He sells them weapons, with no complicated forms to fill in about compliance with international humanitarian law.
He is happy to send Wagner group mercenaries to help suppress Islamic jihadis and other opponents — and, again, with no questions asked about the interrogation techniques they employ. Let’s face it — he is able to be useful, in a way that we, for very good reasons, are not.
That is why Russian influence is so surprisingly prevalent, given the size and state of the Russian economy. If all that were not enough, he of course offers many of them the oil and gas they need to keep their economies going. All of which helps explain why it has been so hard to enforce the sanctions against his regime.
We have not yet been able effectively to isolate the Russian economy — and that is partly why his kleptocratic regime survives. In Russia male life expectancy at 15 has once again plunged, and it is now the same as a 15-year-old in Haiti. For all its hydrocarbon riches, per capita GDP in Russia is now around a quarter of the UK. The Russians — for now — seem willing to endure it all.
Putin retains his grip on power by selling oil and gas to those — like India — who will buy it, and above all by feeding the nationalism and paranoia of his people by foreign adventurism, and by trying to rebuild, by aggression, the former Soviet empire.
The Ukrainian fight for freedom is therefore pivotal — and the outcome will determine the direction of the world for decades to come.
If Putin wins in Ukraine, it would be a disaster for democracy around the world.
If Putin were to win, it would be a vindication of all those who say that you can’t rely on the West, and that they won’t stick with you and see things through.
Above all, a win for Putin would be a moral abomination — the defeat of a free, independent, democratic and entirely innocent country that is being punished by Putin precisely because they chose freedom and democracy.
It must not and will not happen. Yes, the counter-offensive is going more slowly than some would like — but it is making progress; and if this war has taught us anything so far, it is never to underestimate the Ukrainians.
If we had been sensible, and equipped them with what they need earlier in the conflict, they would now be going faster. We must stick with it, give them the necessary tools — and the heroic Ukrainians will do the rest.
Let’s stop obsessing about Putin, and what may or may not happen to him. This isn’t about the future of the tyrant, or some unknowable transformation in the Kremlin. It’s about the liberation of a valiant European country.
And surely to goodness there is one glaringly obvious conclusion from the Luciferian fall of Yevgeny Prigozhin.
Look at that tumbling plane, all you who tell me we can have a negotiated solution, or that we must somehow encourage the Ukrainians to trade land for peace.
Any such trade would be morally nauseating, after the carnage Putin has inflicted. It would be politically impossible for Volodymyr Zelensky to deliver, even if he wanted to.
More importantly, it would be completely and utterly fatuous to put any kind of trust in a deal with Putin — and we have just had the proof.
Prigozhin thought he had guarantees. Prigozhin thought he had sorted it out. Look at that deal now. Look what happened to him. There is only one way forward — defeat for Putin, and victory for Ukraine, as fast as possible. | Europe Politics |
The South African government was under more pressure Wednesday for declining to release cargo documents relating to the visit by a Russian ship that the United States alleges collected a consignment of weapons for Moscow.
Separately, a top official in South Africa's ruling party added to the scrutiny of the country's relationship with Russia by saying the party would "welcome" a visit by President Vladimir Putin, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
The comments by African National Congress Secretary General Fikile Mbalula regarding Putin were made in an interview with the BBC and in the context of the Russian leader attending a summit of the BRICS economic bloc in South Africa in August. The bloc is made up of Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa.
"If it was according to the ANC, we would want President Putin to be here, even tomorrow, to come to our country," Mbalula said in the interview, excerpts of which were posted on the ANC's social media channels on Tuesday. "We will welcome him to come here as part and parcel of BRICS."
As a signatory to the International Criminal Court treaty, South Africa is obliged to arrest Putin if he enters the country. The South African government has indicated it will not carry out the arrest warrant if Putin does travel for the summit, although it hasn't said that explicitly.
"Do you think that a head of state can just be arrested anywhere?" Mbalula, a former Cabinet minister who is now the ANC's top administrative official, said in the BBC interview.
He told the BBC interviewer there was hypocrisy on the part of the West related to the arrest warrant for Putin because, he said, Britain and other Western nations committed crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and no heads of state were arrested.
Mbalula last month referred to the United States as one of the countries "messing up the world."
There has been increasing anti-U.S. and anti-West rhetoric in the ANC and sometimes in parts of South Africa's government since Russia's invasion of Ukraine last year, despite South Africa maintaining it has a neutral stance on the war.
The trend is troubling for the U.S. and other Western partners of South Africa because of its status as an influential democracy in the developing world, and Africa's most developed economy.
South Africa has a historical relationship with Russia connected to the old Soviet Union's military and political support for the ANC when it was a liberation movement fighting to end the racist apartheid regime that oppressed the country's Black majority. The West appears concerned that the ANC's old ideological ties to Russia are now pulling South Africa into Moscow's political orbit amid burgeoning global tensions. There are also growing economic ties between Africa, a continent of 1.3 billion people, and China.
The concerns were laid bare by the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa earlier this month when he accused it of providing weapons to Russia via a cargo ship that docked at a naval base near the city of Cape Town in December. Ambassador Reuben Brigety said "I would bet my life" that weapons were loaded onto the Russian-flagged Lady R, which is under U.S. sanctions for alleged ties to a company that has transported arms for the Russian government.
The South African government has denied it made any arms transaction with Russia, although it hasn't categorically ruled out the possibility that another entity did so secretly. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has ordered an inquiry.
On Wednesday, South Africa's main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, challenged the government to come clean if it had nothing to hide and release a cargo manifest for Lady R's visit to the Simon's Town naval base.
A DA lawmaker also asked Defense Minister Thandi Modise to release the documents during a debate in Parliament on Tuesday. Modise refused to do so while also using an expletive to repeat the government's denial that any weapons were loaded onto the ship.
Modise has said that the Russian ship was visiting to deliver an ammunition shipment to South Africa that was ordered in 2018 but delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Modise's refusal to make public the cargo manifest was supported by fellow ANC lawmakers, who said the documents were "classified." Modise said they would be handed over to the inquiry into the incident. | Africa politics |
Angela Rayner's road to the top of British politics has been an unlikely one.
The former care worker had a baby at the age of 16 and left school without any qualifications, told she would not amount to anything.
But if Labour wins the next general election, she is certain to be one of the key figures in the new government.
In a reshuffle of his top team, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer gave Ms Rayner the official title of shadow deputy prime minister, and a hefty domestic policy brief covering levelling-up, communities and housing.
She remains Labour's deputy leader, with a party source saying "she will continue to be the strategic lead on Labour's new deal for working people".
Labour's deputy leader is elected by the party, not appointed by its leader, which gives Ms Rayner a significant level of independence from Sir Keir.
The 43-year-old has a reputation for speaking her mind, and - as a working-class woman from the north of England, who did not go to university - a widely-recognised ability to reach parts of the electorate that might be less accessible to recent Labour leaders closely associated with London.
Relations between Sir Keir and Ms Rayner have sometimes been tense. After Labour lost control of eight English councils and the seat of Hartlepool in a parliamentary by-election in May 2021, the deputy leader was removed from her post as party chair.
But she pushed back and gained new roles as shadow first secretary of state, shadow Cabinet Office minister and a fresh post speaking for the party on the future of work.
Born Angela Bowen in Stockport, Greater Manchester, in 1980, she grew up on one of the area's poorest council estates and was caring for her mother, who was bipolar and suffered from depression, from an early age.
Both Ms Rayner's parents were unemployed. Speaking in 2017 to the BBC's At Lunch With... podcast, she remembered having to grow up very quickly.
She said: "My mum was a really vulnerable person. I remember, at 10, my mum being suicidal and me sleeping like a dog on the end of her bed, just to try and stay next to her so she didn't do any harm to herself."
Her father, she added, shouted a lot, and she, her older brother and her younger sister were all scared of him.
She has also recalled going to her grandmother's flat on Sundays, so the family could take it in turns to have a bath there. Hot water was too expensive for them to use at home.
After having her first son at 16, Ms Rayner studied part-time at college, learning British sign language and gaining a vocational qualification in social care.
She spent a number of years as a care worker in Stockport, mainly looking after elderly people in their own homes, while also rising quickly through the ranks of the union, Unison.
"I was mouthy," she says. "And I would take no messing from management."
Ms Rayner, who now has three sons, married Unison official Mark Rayner in 2010. The couple separated in 2020.
At the age of 37, she became a grandmother, giving herself the nickname, "Grangela", and turning it into a hashtag.
By that time, she was already an MP and shadow education secretary. She won her seat, Ashton-under-Lyne, for the first time in 2015, observing in her maiden Commons speech that she was its first female MP in its 183-year history.
'Soft left'
Like Rishi Sunak a keen Star Wars fan, she fell foul of parliamentary rules early on when she used Commons-headed note paper to complain to a shop about missing out on a pair of R2-D2 heels.
But she rose quickly at Westminster, becoming an opposition whip and shadow pensions minister before joining Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet - holding the women and equalities, and education briefs.
In the education role, she made her mark championing funding for early years children and the idea of a national education service modelled on the NHS. She said she knew what it was like to be left behind.
She has described herself as a socialist, but also as part of Labour's "soft left". She voted for now-Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham in Labour's 2015 leadership election and was critical of Mr Corbyn's performance as leader after he resigned.
At Westminster, Ms Rayner shared a flat with another new young female northern Labour MP, Rebecca Long-Bailey, and sat alongside her in the shadow cabinet.
When Mr Corbyn stood down following Labour's worst general election result since 1935, the friends decided not to fight each other for the leadership. Ms Long-Bailey was defeated by Sir Keir, while Ms Rayner won the deputy post comfortably.
She has described herself as "quite hardline" on law and order, having experienced anti-social behaviour when she was growing up.
In the same interview, she said police should "shoot terrorists and ask questions second".
Ms Rayner told the BBC's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson podcast she was relaxed about people becoming "filthy rich... as long as they pay their taxes".
She said Labour wanted people to "create wealth", echoing famous remarks made by former cabinet minister Lord Mandelson.
Abuse and misogyny
She has said she "didn't have a particularly strong view either way" on Brexit. She campaigned and voted to remain in the EU during the 2016 referendum, but later opposed Labour's shift to a policy of holding a second referendum, arguing it would "undermine democracy".
Ms Rayner earns an MP's salary of £86,584, and has declared £16,050⬠in extra income, gifts and donations in the 2022-23 register of financial interests.
As a prominent woman, Ms Rayner has suffered a lot of online abuse. In 2019, she had panic alarms installed at her family home after receiving death threats.
In October 2021, a man who had sent her a threatening email telling her to "watch your back and your kids" was given a suspended prison sentence.
The next day, Ms Rayner "unreservedly" apologised for a comment she had made at a Labour conference event, where she described senior Conservatives as "a bunch of scum".
She had initially stood by the remark, saying she would say sorry when then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson apologised for his own past offensive comments. Sir Keir told the BBC: "Angela and I take a different approach, and that is not the language I would have used," adding that it was up to her to decide whether to apologise.
In a social media post, Ms Rayner said she had reflected on "our political debate" and the "abuse that now seems to feature all too often", and in future would be "more careful" about her language.
In April 2022, she was at the centre of further controversy - but this time won support from across the party divide, when the Mail on Sunday carried a claim that she had tried to distract Mr Johnson in the Commons by crossing and uncrossing her legs.
The newspaper said the claim had been made by a number of Tory MPs. But the story was widely condemned, including by many female Conservatives.
The prime minister said he deplored "the misogyny directed at her anonymously". Ms Rayner dismissed the report as a "perverted smear" that showed women in politics faced misogyny every day. | United Kingdom Politics |
United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson attends a working lunch with other G7 leaders to discuss shaping the global economy at the Yoga Pavilion, Schloss Elmau in Kuren, Germany, June 26, 2022. Kenny Holston/Pool via REUTERSRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comWASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) - Balance between protecting shared values and doing business with China can be found, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday as world leaders convened in Germany for the G7 summit."China is a gigantic fact of our lives...Every country gathered here today at the G7 does a huge amount of business with China. The question is can we continue to do that," Johnson said during an interview that aired on CNN's "State of the Union" program, adding: "I think there is a balance to be struck...It may be difficult but that's what we have got to try and do."Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Katharine Jackson; Editing by Lisa ShumakerOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
Boris Johnson has spoken to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservative 1922 Committee, to inform him of his decision to resign as leader though he will remain Prime Minister until a successor is appointedVideo LoadingVideo UnavailableBoris Johnson appears to threaten a general electionBoris Johnson is set to quit with staff in Number 10 drafting his resignation letter while he prepares to address the nation at 1pm. The disgraced leader has informed the Queen of his decision and will remain at Number 10 until a successor is in place, expected to be by the time of the Conservative Party conference in October. The PM has been hit with a flurry of resignations this morning - as the new Education Secretary quit and his Chancellor told him to do the right thing. More than 50 Tories have quit the government - ranging from from Cabinet ministers to aides and moderates to Red Wallers - but with hours to go until his resignation statement the PM has appointed a new Cabinet. Yesterday, the Prime Minister shamelessly refused to resign, sacking Michael Gove who told him to quit and sparking another flurry of desertions. The revelation the PM knew about claims against “grope” accused MP Chris Pincher was the last straw for many Tories. Follow the latest updates today in our live blog11:53Alahna KindredNew Education SecretaryJames Cleverly has been announced as Secretary of State for Education following Michelle Donelan's resignation this morning.Mr Cleverly was spotted entering Downing Street through the back and carrying a box of doughnuts.Ms Donelan resigned about 36 hours after she was appointed by Boris Johnson following Nadhim Zahawi's appointment to Chancellor.She told Mr Johnson "I can see no way that you can continue in post" but without a formal mechanism to remove him the Cabinet must "force your hand".11:48Dave BurkeMr Johnson's former mistress 'feels sorry' for himBoris Johnson's former mistress says she "feels sorry" for the outgoing Prime Minister - just days after she likened him to Vladimir Putin.Petronella Wyatt tweeted today that politics is a "nasty game" after Mr Johnson finally accepted that the game is up.The journalist, who he had an affair with between 2000 and 2004, wrote: "Politics is a very nasty game. I can’t help but feel sorry for Boris now."She had previously written off any chances of Mr Johnson walking out from his job, saying it was "as likely as Putin withdrawing (from) Ukraine saying it had all been a terrible mistake"Read more herePetronella Wyatt, pictured with Boris Johnson in 2006, this week likened the PM to Vladimir Putin (Image:Alan Davidson/REX/Shutterstock)11:46Alahna KindredBoris Johnson v No10 staffIt appears there is a stand-off between the Prime Minister and his staff over his resignation statement.It is understood he will deliver the statement in less than two hours.11:35KEY EVENTFirst ministerial appointments announcedGreg Clark, the former Business Secretary under Theresa May, will become the new Levelling Up Cabinet minister.He replaces Michael Gove, who was sacked last night by Boris Johnson. Mr Johnson is expected to resign today.He has still appointed a new cabinet ahead after a series of gaping holes have been left by the scores of ministers that have jumped ship over his leadership.Downing Street has appointed Kit Malthouse as Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster, the most senior minister in the Cabinet Office after the Prime Minister.11:28Lizzy BuchanBoris Johnson's legacy Lobby Akinnola, spokesperson for the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice campaign said: "Boris Johnson’s legacy is the deaths of nearly 200,000 British people on his watch. "He will be remembered as the Prime Minister who failed to act when Covid-19 began ripping through the country, who allowed our hospitals to become overwhelmed, left our Care Homes defenceless, and had to put the country in lockdown for nearly a year to salvage the situation."Whilst Johnson will move on to a life of writing newspaper columns and being paid eye-watering amounts to give after-dinner speeches, there will be no moving on for the families like mine that have been ripped apart by his actions. "For us, Johnson will always be the man that wanted to ‘let the bodies pile high’ whilst our loved ones desperately fought for their lives and that partied whilst we had to say goodbye to our loved ones over a screen."Although his reign will shortly be coming to an end, his devastating impact on families like mine will not. We can only hope that the Covid inquiry will bring some closure for us, teaching us the lessons that will save lives in the future and meaning that no one will be able to repeat Johnson’s terrible mistakes and get away with it."11:23William MorganShould there be a snap election? Have your say as Boris Johnson resignsPrime Minister Boris Johnson announced today that he is resigning as leader of his party and stepping down as PM. It comes just two and a half years after winning a massive 80-seat majority in parliament, and 14 million votes from the British public, making Johnson one of the most popular but shortest-lived PMs in political history.Whoever is chosen to succeed Mr Johnson will face one major question as soon as they are picked by Conservative members - what is their electoral mandate to enact the sweeping changes necessary to fix the spiralling cost of living, transition to a green economy, and respond to Russia's continued invasion of Ukraine?The next general election isn't until December 2024.However, with the country facing a personal and public financial crisis, the ongoing pressure on the NHS from coronavirus, and lots of Brexit issues still to be resolved, could there be a worse time for the instability and division that comes with a general election? With Labour beating the Tories in the polls for the last few months, many Conservative MPs will fear the outcome.Let us know your thoughts here11:20Dave BurkeSummer of carnage as Boris Johnson could stay for 3 more monthsThe Prime Minister is poised to announce his resignation today after finally conceding that the game is up.But that doesn't necessarily mean there will be a new incumbent in the lavishly-wallpapered Downing Street flat straight away - as the PM is reportedly determined to stay on as caretaker.A No 10 source said Mr Johnson spoke to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservative 1922 Committee, to inform him of his decision."The Prime Minister has spoken to Graham Brady and agreed to stand down in time for a new leader to be in place by the conference in October," a No 10 source said.If he gets his way, he'll preside over a chaotic summer as a Tory leadership contest unfolds.Read more here11:17Alahna KindredMinutes away from ministerial appointments Our Political Editor has said Boris Johnson is planning to appoint new ministers to fill the massive gaps in his team following scores of resignations11:16Alahna KindredMadame Tussauds in London updates its 10 Downing Street displayThe display has a 'VACANCY' sign in anticipation of Boris Johnson’s impending resignation today.The museum also confirmed Boris Johnson's figure will be removed from the Baker Street attraction, at the point he is officially no longer Prime Minister.11:14Lizzy BuchanDominic Cummings doesn't shy away from how he feelsDominic Cummings called on police to "escort him from the building" today.Embittered ex-aide Mr Cummings said letting Mr Johnson stay on as caretaker would cause "carnage" and told the Cabinet to order him to leave today.He tweeted: "Cabinet ministers shd talk to Brady this a.m, agree Raab as interim PM, then speak to Cabinet Secretary and get him to fix with Palace..."Tell [PM] you either resign and leave today or the Queen will dismiss, appoint Raab, & cops escort you from building. [PM] will fold Game over."Read more here11:09Alahna KindredYouGov polls say Ben Wallace could be next leaderA YouGov poll among Tory members has put Defence Secretary Ben Wallace on top in a leadership competition.He beats (at 48%) all the main contenders including Liz Truss (29%).11:06Alahna KindredWho could put their name in to run?Following Boris Johnson's resignation, there is speculation about who will take over.Liz TrussThe foreign secretary is the darling of the ruling Conservative Party's grassroots and has regularly topped polls of party members carried out by the website Conservative Home.Jeremy HuntEarlier this year, he said his ambition to become prime minister "hasn't completely vanished". Hunt said he voted to oust Johnson in a confidence vote last month that the prime minister narrowly won.Ben WallaceDefence minister Ben Wallace, 52, has risen in recent monthsto be the most popular member of the government with Conservative Party members, according to Conservative Home, thanks to his handling of the Ukraine crisis.Rishi Sunak Rishi Sunak was until last year the favourite to succeed Johnson.Sajid JavidHe is a Thatcher admirer and finished fourth in the 2019 leadershipcontest to replace former Prime Minister Theresa May.Nadhim ZahawiZahawi said last week that it would be a "privilege" to be primeminister at some stage.Penny MordauntCurrently a junior trade minister, Mordaunt called the lockdown-breaking parties in government "shameful". She had previously expressed loyalty to Johnson.Tom TugendhatHe has been a regular critic of Johnson and would offer hisparty a clean break with previous governments.However, he is relatively untested because he has neverserved in cabinet.Suella Braverman A Brexit-backing Attorney General, Braverman has indicatedshe will run for the leadership. She was heavily criticised by lawyers during her tenure after the government sought to break international law over post-Brexit trade rules in Northern Ireland.10:49Alahna Kindred'We don't like him'The Kremlin said on Thursday that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson didn't like Russia and that Moscow didn't like him either.Speaking during a call with reporters, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "He doesn't like us, we don't like him either".Peskov said that reports that Johnson would shortly resign as prime minister were of little concern for the Kremlin.10:45Alahna Kindred'We don't have a functioning government'Angela Rayner, Labour Deputy Leader, said Boris Johnson was "always unfit for office".Speaking during today's Urgent Questions, she added that "we don't have a functioning government". She said it was "good news for the country" that Boris Johnson is expected to resign. Asking an urgent question on the functioning of Government in the Commons, Ms Rayner said: "I hate to break it to the minister but we don't have a functioning Government. "It will be good news for the country that the Prime Minister is to announce his resignation. He was always unfit for office. He has overseen scandal, fraud and waste on an industrial scale. "But the chaos of the last three days is more than just petty Tory infighting. These actions have serious consequences for the running of our country. "In the middle of the deepest cost-of-living crisis of a generation, with families unable to make ends meet, a dangerous war in Europe threatening our borders, and a possible trade crisis in Northern Ireland, Britain has no functioning Government."Angela Rayner in the Commons today (Image:Sky News)10:41Lizzy BuchanLiz Truss jetting back to the UKLiz Truss is cutting short her trip to Indonesia and racing back to the UK amid Boris Johnson's resignation announcement.The Foreign Secretary, who was attending a G20 Summit, is due to make a statement shortly, our Deputy Online Political Editor Lizzy Buchan tweeted today.✈️ Liz Truss cutting short her trip to Indonesia and due to make a statement shortlyWhat's a day of drama without a bit of flight radar??— Lizzy Buchan (@LizzyBuchan) July 7, 2022 10:36Liam BucklerThousands set to attend 'Boris Johnson's leaving party' Preparations for the possible departure of the Prime Minister are underway as a Facebook event for 7pm on Friday July has attracted over 2,800 confirmed guests and 12,500 interested party-goers.The public Facebook event, which has been set up by Howie Scarbrough, is asking guests to bring leaving drinks and cake - a tribute to the Partygate saga, one of the many scandals that has engulfed the PM during his leadership.The party, which kicks off at 7pm in central London, will be held outside the current home of Mr Johnson - Number 10 Downing Street - as guests are invited to join from all over the world.And guests have been quick to respond to the leaving event on Facebook as excited party-goers ready themselves for a party outside No 10 - if the PM goes.Read more hereThousands are set to attend 'Boris Johnson's leaving party' as the PM's future hangs in the balance (Image:Facebook)10:33Alahna KindredBoris Johnson and his relationship with the QueenBoris Johnson has been the 14th prime minister of the Queen's reign, and it has been an eventful time for the monarch with him at the helm.He has caused a certain amount of trouble for the nation's longest-reigning sovereign.He succeeded in drawing the Queen into a major constitutional row over the illegal proroguing of Parliament.He twice broke with convention and talked about their private audiences, and publicly apologised to the Queen and the country over events in Downing Street on the eve of the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral.The monarch is politically neutral and acts on the advice of her government in political matters.In 2019, Mr Johnson sparked a major constitutional row during the Queen's summer holidays in August 2019 amid Westminster's bitter Brexit battles after asking her to suspend Parliament for more than a month.The sovereign was duty-bound to hold a Privy Council meeting at Balmoral, her private Scottish estate, where, acting on the advice of the prime minister, she approved an order to temporarily close - or prorogue - Parliament for five weeks.In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating Parliament.Mr Johnson apologised to the monarch.10:28Alahna KindredTherese Coffey to stay Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey has said she will remain in office to ensure the "wheels of government keep turning".In a statement on Twitter, after it was confirmed that Boris Johnson intends to resign, she said: "I asked to speak to the PM yesterday evening and had still hoped to do so today. I fully understand colleagues' concerns and the very bad situation we are now in."The wheels of government need, though, to keep turning, especially at DWP which helps the most vulnerable in society."DWP needs to be firing on all cylinders to support them, especially with the cost-of-living payment beginning to be paid next week as part of our help for households."10:25Alahna KindredThere is growing alarm from Tory MPs that Boris Johnson might try to stay on until the autumnBoris Johnson is due to deliver his resignation statement today, and for long he will remain afterwards will be dependent on the 1922 Committee.Mr Johnson is said to want to stay on until October, so the party can select a new leader in time for their annual conference. The Energy and Business Secretary has said the country needs a new leader as soon as possible.Kwasi Kwarteng tweeted: "What a depressing state of affairs. So much needless damage was caused. "We now need a new Leader as soon as practicable. Someone who can rebuild trust, heal the country, and set out a new, sensible and consistent economic approach to help families."However, earlier this morning veteran Tory MP and former Brexit Secretary David Davis said he is "not too bothered" about Boris Johnson possibly remaining as Prime Minister until later this year.He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The simple truth, this is going to take a month or two."We're hearing from people who were happy to be in Cabinet one week ago that we have now got to do this in five minutes flat."I'm not too bothered about the idea of Boris staying in place until we've got a new leadership."10:18Alahna KindredA string of resignations in the past few hoursOver the past few hours, there have been many that have jumped ship.Conservative MP for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton Nick Gibb tweeted: ZAs well as resigning as party leader the PM must resign his office. "After losing so many ministers, he has lost the trust and authority required to continue."We need an acting PM who is not a candidate for leader to stabilise the government while a new leader is elected."Rebecca Pow, an Environment Minister, tweeted: "Earlier this morning I tendered my resignation as Environment Minister. Values, integrity and the morals by which I live are at stake, and the needs of the country must always come first. My letter follows."Rob Butler has resigned as a parliamentary private secretary to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office after concluding he "can no longer reconcile loyalty" to Boris Johnson.Richard Graham, Tory MP for Gloucester, has stepped down as trade envoy to several south-east Asian nations after 10 years in the role, stating it is vital to "have full confidence in the leadership and integrity of the government that I represent".10:16Alahna KindredJoe Lycett's spoof letter The comedian wrote a hilarious spoof letter addressed to the Prime Minister and pretending to be signed by Nadine Dorries - a strong ally of Boris Johnson.Written on Parliament letterhead, it starts out in similar language as how other ministers have started their resignation letters.It then descends into pure silliness over a "PoptheTop automatic bottle opener". It goes on to say it is not the correct bottle opener.Here is an image of the letter in full.Comedian Joe Lycett tweeted this mock letter to the Prime Minister (Image:@joelycett/Twitter)10:12Alahna KindredBoris Johnson has spoken with the Queen, reports sayBoris Johnson has spoken to Queen Elizabeth as a courtesy ahead of animpending announcement about his resignation plan, ITV DeputyPolitical Editor Anushka Asthana has said.It comes Buckingham Palace declined to comment on whether the Queen has had any communication with Boris Johnson on Thursday morning.The Queen is at Windsor Castle and the Court Circular recorded that she held her weekly audience by telephone with Mr Johnson on Wednesday evening.Boris Johnson has spoken to the Queen, reports say (Image:PA)10:03Alahna KindredEd Davey's savage responseBoris Johnson's formal resignation is expected today as many believe he could stay on until October to allow the party to select a new leader.It is thought he will stay on as caretaker prime minister until the next party conference in the autumn. That is a decision to be made by the 1922 Committee.He will stay on as caretaker prime minister until October, with a new Conservative leader set to be installed in time for the party’s annual conference.Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, tweeted: "The idea that the Conservatives might make Boris Johnson caretaker for anything is frankly ludicrous. "The man’s never taken care of anything in his life."10:00Pippa CrerarAll the Tory MPs who could replace Boris Johnson in No10 as PM set to resign TODAYSenior Tories are jockeying for position to succeed doomed Boris Johnson, as the Prime Minister is set to resign with a statement later today.Following a flood of sleaze scandals including Partygate and the Chris Pincher furore, Mr Johnson’s time in No10 looks to finally be over.Since Tuesday night, more than 50 Tory MPs have abandoned their leader and staff at Number 10 have now said his letter of resignation has been prepared.The statement is expected to be made at lunchtime - but who could replace the outgoing PM as leader of the Conservative Party.Penny Mordaunt has emerged as the hot favourite to become PM.Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss, Ben Wallace and Sajid Javid are widely tipped to stand.After a bruising charge to oust their boss, MPs are set to enter a potentially divisive bid to choose a fresh direction.But can anyone unite the party split over Brexit and Mr Johnson’s shameless conduct?Read more from our politics team hereBoris Johnson at the door of No 10 (Image:Tim Hammond / No10 Downing Street)09:57Alahna KindredNicola Sturgeon has said there will be 'widespread relief' that Boris Johnson is quittingScotland's First Minister also questioned whether it was "sustainable" for him to remain in the role until the autumn.She tweeted: "There will be a widespread sense of relief that the chaos of the last few days (indeed months) will come to an end, though notion of Boris Johnson staying on as PM until autumn seems far from ideal, and surely not sustainable?"Boris Johnson was always manifestly unfit to be PM and the Tories should never have elected him leader or sustained him in office for as long as they have."But the problems run much deeper than one individual."The Westminster system is broken."Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said it is a relief Boris is going (Image:Getty Images)09:48Alahna KindredUK national security under threat amid resignationsA constitutional law expert has claimed that national security is at threat because of the resignations under Boris Johnson.Professor Adam Tomkins, a former Scottish Conservative MSP, said the scale of the exodus now means a "constitutional crisis is beginning to unfold".Prof Tomkins warned: "It is no exaggeration to say the national security of the United Kingdom is at threat."He said it is now a "constitutional imperative" for Mr Johnson to go, calling on the 1992 Committee of Tory backbenchers to accelerate its plans to change its rules to enable another vote of confidence in the Prime Minister.Prof Tomkins told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme: "My view is the 1922 Committee needs to accelerate its plan. "It's plan clearly was there would be elections to the executive on Monday, that executive would be formed of people who want to change the rules to enable the second vote of confidence in Boris as a leader as early as Tuesday of next week."It now looks like that is too late because we need to have a functioning government over the weekend, we need to have a functioning government now."We don't have a functioning government now because there is straightforwardly an insufficient number of Conservative MPs who are willing to serve in a Government headed by Boris Johnson."09:43Jasmine AlldayITV's Lorraine taken off air as Boris Johnson's resignation imminentITV show Lorraine was taken off air today as Boris Johnson prepares to resign as Prime Minister.The ITV daytime show was pulled off air as Downing Street confirmed he would be making a statement today where it is expected for him to confirm his resignation and leader of the Conservative Party after over 50 ministers left their post.During the show today, Lorraine Kelly was presenting their usual show when the announcement came and ITV moved their coverage to the news as it was confirmed that Mr Johnson would be speaking to the nation later today.It is not yet known how long the ITV daytime shows will be off air for.Read more here09:41KEY EVENTKeir Starmer says 'it should have happened a long time ago'Keir Starmer MP, Leader of the Labour Party, responding to news that the Prime Minister is resigning, said: “It is good news for the country that Boris Johnson has resigned as Prime Minister."But it should have happened long ago."He was always unfit for office."He has been responsible for lies, scandal and fraud on an industrial scale. And all those who have been complicit should be utterly ashamed."The Tory Party have inflicted chaos upon the country during the worst cost of living crisis in decades."And they cannot now pretend they are the ones to sort it out."They have been in power for 12 years. The damage they have done is profound. 12 years of economic stagnation. 12 years of declining public services."12 years of empty promises. Enough is enough. We don’t need to change the Tory at the top – we need a proper change of government. We need a fresh start for Britain.”Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer says Boris Johnson was always unfit for office (Image:PA)09:36Alahna KindredDeputy Chairman of the Conservative Party resignsResigning as deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, Luke Hall, Tory MP for Thornbury, said he felt "there is no choice"."I have taken the view that there must be parliamentary oversight of the inevitable leadership contest," he wrote in a letter to the Prime Minister, before it was announced that Boris Johnson had agreed to step down."However there are others who can provide that. The current situation is clearly untenable."I have spent many years supporting the Conservative Party at every level, but that loyalty is directed to the party, our values, and ultimately the communities we represent, not any one individual."It is now in the best interest of the Conservative Party and the country for you to step down."I am deeply saddened that it has come to this, but, like many other colleagues, I feel there is no choice."09:34Alahna KindredWho is in charge of the leadership contest?The 1922 Committee, a powerful backbench committee chaired by Sir Graham Brady, has the ultimate responsibility for setting the rules in any Conservative Party leadership contest.Leadership elections only happen if a Conservative leader resigns or if they lose a vote of confidence among MPs.Now that Mr Johnson has spoken to Tory 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady and agreed to stand down, a leadership contest will be held to replace him as Tory leader.In the meantime, he will remain as a caretaker prime minister.The timetable for a contest is agreed by the 1922 Committee and Tory Party HQ, with a new Tory leader expected to be in place by the party conference in October.Invalid EmailSomething went wrong, please try again later.We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More infoThank you for subscribingWe have more newslettersShow me | United Kingdom Politics |
In any fiscal event, there is a conflict between economics and politics. Today in the autumn statement, the Chancellor showed his colours, selecting narrow political appeal to the Tory base over the stable economics he has championed since being instated.
It is worth remembering, in the midst of these tax cuts, that it is only just over a year ago that Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng caused market chaos by offering unfunded tax cuts. Yet here we are again.
The Chancellor states that he is spending ‘fiscal headroom.’ Let’s be clear – that is not real money. Rather, the dire state of the public finances has exceeded the Treasury’s very low fiscal expectations. Hunt has been able to maintain the fantasy of debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of his forecast horizon – his fiscal rule – but only by pledging completely unrealistic spending freezes during the next parliament.
Hunt has promised jam today and will be asking Labour to foot the bill.
The medium-term fiscal situation is dreadful. Existing commitments, such as the NHS workforce plan, require an influx of spending over the next parliament. Taxes are at a record high, but pressure on public services is at breaking point.
Growth, meanwhile, is projected to be anaemic at best. A responsible government would look to increase revenue going forward. Instead, the Chancellor has cut National Insurance in a crude but expensive way.
Have no doubt – this is not a tax-cutting government. The freezing of tax thresholds – so-called ‘fiscal drag’ – has caused an effective tax hike of over £50 Bn. Far from cutting taxes overall, today has seen the Government completing a transfer in the tax burden, giving with one hand whilst they take much more with the other. The Government literally raised National Insurance, the same tax, earlier on in this Parliament.
When it comes to spending, increasing Universal Credit in line with inflation is welcome, but the commitment to uprating the state pension by 8.5% yet again shows a gross emphasis on handouts for Conservative voters at the expense of the neediest in our society. His other spending measures are trivial – tweaking an economy that has fundamental issues with productivity and growth.
In 1997, Gordon Brown took over the Treasury with the public finances, and indeed the economy, in a reasonable condition. The Conservatives, despite the chaos of Black Wednesday, gave a good economic inheritance to New Labour.
If we can finally remove the Conservatives from Downing Street in the next 12 months – by no means a foregone conclusion – Labour’s inheritance will be much, much worse. Sunak’s Conservatives are acting like wedding guests with an open bar. A bill for today’s antics will come due, but they are hoping they won’t be around when it does.
The pressure on Rachel Reeves and the rest of the Shadow Treasury team, therefore, is mounting even higher. Where the government faces tension between politics and economics, for the Shadow Chancellor they are in alignment. Every penny must be accounted for.
It can be no coincidence that Hunt’s political antics today come following weeks of speculation that he might be replaced by a ‘more political Chancellor.’ He has shown that, far from the steady hand who replaced Kwarteng, he can be relied upon to prioritise Conservative election chances over his economic legacy. Hunt cuts a feeble figure, contrasted with Reeves. Her image as the new ‘Iron Chancellor’ stands in distinction to his ‘tin-pot tinkerer.’
But economic credibility is much more easily shattered than it is built. As the Conservatives sacrifice economic credibility in favour of their base, now more than ever we must not follow suit. We shouldn’t fall for this. For all the talk of ‘long-term decisions’, the Conservatives have abandoned even the pretence of economic prudence. | United Kingdom Politics |
NEW YORK (AP) — The tide of international opinion appears to be decisively shifting against Russia, as a number of non-aligned countries are joining the United States and its allies in condemning Moscow’s war in Ukraine and its threats to the principles of the international rules-based order.Western officials have repeatedly said that Russia has become isolated since invading Ukraine in February. Until recently, though, that was largely wishful thinking. But on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, much of the international community spoke out against the conflict in a rare display of unity at the often fractured United Nations. The tide had already appeared to be turning against Russian President Vladimir Putin even before Thursday’s U.N. speeches. Chinese and Indian leaders had been critical of the war at a high-level summit last week in Uzbekistan. And then the U.N. General Assembly disregarded Russia’s objections and voted overwhelmingly to allow Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to be the only leader to address the body remotely, instead of requiring him to appear in person.That shift against Russia accelerated after Putin on Wednesday announced the mobilization of some additional 300,000 troops to Ukraine, signaling the unlikelihood of a quick end to the war. Putin also suggested that nuclear weapons may be an option. That followed an announcement of Russia’s intention to hold referendums in several occupied Ukrainian regions on whether they will become part of Russia.Those announcements came at the very moment that the General Assembly, considered the premier event in the global diplomatic calendar, was taking place in New York. Numerous world leaders used their speeches on Tuesday and Wednesday to denounce Russia’s war. That trend continued Thursday both in the assembly hall and at the usually deeply divided U.N. Security Council, where, one-by-one, virtually all of the 15 council members served up harsh criticism of Russia – a council member -- for aggravating several already severe global crises and imperiling the foundations of the world body.The apparent shift in opinion offers some hope to Ukraine and its Western allies that increasing isolation will add pressure on Putin to negotiate a peace. But few are unduly optimistic. Putin has staked his legacy on the Ukraine war and few expect him to back down. And, Russia is hardly isolated. Many of its allies depend on it for energy, food and military assistance and are likely to stand by Putin regardless of what happens in Ukraine.Still, it was striking to hear Russia’s nominal friends like China and India, following up on last week’s remarks, speak of grave concerns they have about the conflict and its impact on global food and energy shortages as well as threats to the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity that are enshrined in the U.N. Charter. Brazil registered similar concerns. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa make up the so-called BRICS bloc of countries, which has often shunned or outright opposed Western initiatives and views on international relations.Only one country, Belarus, a non-council member and Russia ally that was invited to participate, spoke in support of Russia, but also called for a quick end to the fighting, which it called a “tragedy.”“We hear a lot about the divisions among countries at the United Nations,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said. “But recently, what’s striking is the remarkable unity among member states when it comes to Russia’s war on Ukraine. Leaders from countries developing and developed, big and small, North and South have spoken in the General Assembly about the consequences of the war and the need to end it.”“Even a number of nations that maintain close ties with Moscow have said publicly that they have serious questions and concerns about President Putin’s ongoing invasion,” Blinken said.Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was careful not to condemn the war but said that China’s firm stance is that “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected. The purposes of the principles of the U.N. Charter should be observed.”Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said “the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict is a matter of a profound concern for the international community.” He called for accountability for atrocities and abuses committed in Ukraine. “If egregious attacks committed in broad daylight are left unpunished, this council must reflect on the signals we are sending on impunity. There must be consistency if we are to ensure credibility,” he said.And Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos Alberto Franca said immediate efforts to end the war are critical. “The continuation of the hostilities endangers the lives of innocent civilians and jeopardizes the food and energy security of millions of families in other regions, especially in developing countries,” he said. “The risks of escalation arising for the current dynamics of the conflict are simply too great, and its consequences for the world order unpredictable.”Foreign ministers and top officials from Albania, Britain, France, Ireland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Kenya, Mexico and Norway delivered similar rebukes.“Russia’s actions are blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations,” said Albanian Foreign Minister Olta Xhacka. “We all tried to prevent this conflict. We could not, but we must not fail to hold Russia accountable.”Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard called the invasion a “flagrant breach of international law” and Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said: “If we fail to hold Russia accountable we send a message to large countries that they can prey on their neighbors with impunity.”Unsurprisingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was unapologetic and defensive at the same time and specifically targeted Zelenskyy. Citing a phrase often attributed to President Franklin Roosevelt, Lavrov called Zelenskyy “a bastard,” but said Western leaders regarded him as “our bastard.”He repeated a long list of Russia’s complaints about Ukraine and accused Western countries of using Ukraine for anti-Russia activities and policies. “Everything I’ve said today simply confirms that the decision to conduct the special military operation was inevitable,” Lavrov said, following Russian practice of not calling the invasion a war. Russia has denied being isolated and the foreign ministry used social media to publicize a number of apparently cordial meetings that Lavrov has held with foreign minister colleagues at the UN in recent days.Still, Blinken and his colleagues from other NATO nations seized on what they believe to be growing opposition to and impatience with Putin. And, several speakers, including Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, pointed out that Lavrov skipped the meeting except for his speaking slot.“I notice that Russian diplomats flee almost as quickly as Russian soldiers,” Kuleba said, referring to Lavrov’s hasty exit along with recent Russian troop retreats in Ukraine.___This story has been corrected to show the Indian official’s title and name are Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, not Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jayashankar. | Global Organizations |
Joint naval exercises including South Africa, Russia, and China get underway in waters off South Africa's east coast Friday, despite U.S. concerns and Ukrainian condemnation. Critics say the 10-day military drills will do little to benefit South Africa and act as a propaganda boost for Moscow on the one-year anniversary of its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
While the West is upping its arms shipments to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion, South Africa begins wargames today with Russian warships that proudly support the offensive.
Russia’s “Admiral Gorshkov,” which arrived in Cape Town this week, is marked with the Kremlin’s pro-war symbol, the letter 'Z.'
Critics say the optics of South African servicemen aboard the frigate near the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion would be a coup for Moscow and a shame to the country of freedom fighter Nelson Mandela.
Ukrainian Ambassador to South Africa Liubov Abravitova told VOA she condemns the drills.
“It is very disturbing that South Africa will be hosting the military exercise with the country, aggressor, invader, that is using its military force against peaceful country, bringing destruction and trying to eliminate Ukrainian nation," Abravitova said.
South Africa has repeatedly defended its neutral stance on the conflict in Ukraine and its right to relations with Russia, a fellow member of the BRICS trade bloc with Brazil, India, and China.
South Africa’s foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, last month welcomed her visiting Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov and said Pretoria wouldn’t be bullied into choosing sides.
The opposition Democratic Alliance though, says Pretoria's hosting the drills shows it has dropped any pretense at neutrality.
Democratic Alliance shadow defense minister Kobus Marais adds the drills, called Mosi II, won’t benefit South Africa’s depleted navy and the funds would be better spent elsewhere.
“Given our very limited naval capabilities, resources and other higher priorities, we can gain little or no value from Exercise Mosi II, especially from the presence and possible launch of the hypersonic missile," Marais said.
The Gorshkov is equipped with hypersonic Zircon missiles, which Russian state media report could be fired in a training launch during the drills.
South African officials have denied the missile launch will be part of the 10 days of exercises, which also include China’s navy.
South Africa’s Defense Department said this is not the first war game with Russia and that it previously joined military drills with its Western allies as well.
However, South Africa this year declined an invitation to join U.S.-led multinational maritime drills in the Gulf of Guinea.
South African Institute of International Affairs Russia expert Steven Gruzd says Pretoria is trying to straddle both sides.
“South Africa does see a future in which Russia and China are both very, very important partners, but it’s still also trying to balance its relations with Western states," said Gruzd. "There may be some fallout, we’re not sure of what kind, but the U.S. is certainly not happy at all that South Africa is taking part in these exercises.”
Asked to comment on the drills, the U.S. State Department told VOA by email it noted them with concern “even as Moscow continues its brutal and unlawful invasion of Ukraine.”
The statement went on to say, “We encourage South Africa to cooperate militarily with fellow democracies that share our mutual commitment to human rights and the rule of law.”
Since Russia’s invasion last February, U.S. officials estimate tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been killed along with as many as a hundred thousand troops or more on each side.
The Russian Embassy in South Africa and South Africa’s Defense Ministry did not reply to requests for comment. | Africa politics |
(Bloomberg) -- Argentina is preparing a set of emergency measures, including raising its key interest rates by 600 basis points to 97% on Monday, as inflation spirals out of control in the run up to presidential elections, according to officials at the Economy Ministry and the central bank.
Most Read from Bloomberg
The central bank will raise its benchmark interest rate while boosting intervention in the foreign exchange market in a bid to limit a selloff in the peso, which weakened 13% against the dollar last month, the officials said, asking not to be named before measures are formally announced by Economy Minister Sergio Massa.
Read More: Argentina April Inflation Surged to 109% Amid Peso Selloff
At the same time, the government intends to obtain more international support for its dwindling foreign reserves by speeding up deals with the International Monetary Fund, China and Brazil through the BRICS group, which also include Russia, India, China, and South Africa, one of the officials said.
The measures come after April inflation data published Friday afternoon showed prices rose 108.8% from a year ago, far above market expectations and the highest level since 1991.
The monetary authority has recently raised rates by 10 percentage points to 91%.
Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | Latin America Politics |
Lee Han-byeol has a favourite memory of her elder brother.They were both teenagers in the 1990s, during the famine that devastated North Korea and is estimated to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. Impoverished, tired and hungry, the pair were travelling to pick up rice from relatives. They had been on the road overnight.Lee’s eyes mist when she recalls how, as they walked through the darkness, Lee Se-il had swung her on to his back. As dawn broke, she clung wearily to his bony shoulders. “He really adored me,” she whispers, clutching a small black-and-white photo of him. By now, the tears are flowing steadily. “I hope I can see his face again.”Lee, who fled North Korea through China in 1999, is now 38. Speaking in her small office in the northern outskirts of Seoul, South Korea’s capital, she says the last clear sighting of her brother was in 2009, when he was in the custody of the Kim regime after attempting to escape. China’s security forces had apprehended him in the borderlands and he was transported back to North Korea. The owner of a guesthouse who had briefly harboured him relayed that he was beaten savagely, and that his hands and feet were wrapped in bandages because of acute frostbite. Lee fled North Korea in 1999; the last sighting of her brother was a decade later © Ashley Crowther A few years ago Lee attempted to find out more. She made phone calls and sent messages through a network of middlemen in China, and her family still inside North Korea bribed officials for information. The only result was a second-hand glimpse: he was apparently still in a prison camp in North Hamgyong province, near the country’s borders with China and Russia. Since then, no word. If her brother is still alive, he would be in his mid-forties.As a statistic, Lee Se-il fits into a number of classifications. He is one of thousands of refugees who have escaped from North Korea into China only to be arrested and returned. He is one of hundreds of thousands to be detained in the kwanliso, the Kim regime’s political prison camps. And he is one of an unknown number, possibly millions, who have disappeared inside North Korea and who are feared lost to their families, and to history, for ever.“There is no way to truly know whether they are alive or not,” Lee says. “I feel so heartbroken.”Now entering its eighth decade, the “hermit kingdom” of North Korea remains heavily guarded from international observers; even western intelligence agencies struggle to acquire reliable information. Defectors such as Lee Han-byeol, who now spends much of her time working to bring other North Koreans safely to South Korea, are often the best sources, though details are scarce.But just as North Korea’s disappeared seem on the point of vanishing from memory altogether, technology and the determination of a tireless group of activists are providing something that has evaded the families for years: hope.In a small, bright office a few hundred metres from the presidential Blue House in Seoul, the Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG) is building a digital database. The ambition of this group of mostly South Korean academics, lawyers, cyber experts and human rights activists is to create an archive of every single person thought to have been detained, abducted or disappeared in North Korea since the 1950s. The effort involves bringing together tens of thousands of documents, records, images and more. Working slowly and painstakingly, the group is also compiling and mapping other lists: the secret prisons, the execution sites, the mass graves, the identities of perpetrators. The project has been going for three years now; almost 20,000 files are already online and freely available, with an estimated 100,000 more waiting to be processed. It is named Footprints.One of the early batches of documents loaded into the system included a UN Human Rights Council report that mentioned Lee Se-il. It noted that he had allegedly been “arrested by members of the national security service” after his repatriation. Lee Han-byeol’s hope is that, as the database expands and is used by others, more and more will be revealed. “Anyone can check the database. Someone might know about my brother’s situation,” she says. “It does give me a glimmer of hope.”The story of North Korea’s mass disappearances dates back to the country’s beginnings. In early August 1945, Tokyo was on the point of surrendering to Allied forces and the question of what to do with Japan’s colonial empire loomed large. Korea had been occupied by the Japanese since 1910; the Americans’ fear was that, once Japanese forces departed, the Soviets would “occupy the entire peninsula and move quickly toward Japan”, as historian Don Oberdorfer has written.Working late into the evening on August 10, just a day after the bombing of Nagasaki, two young US army officers, using a National Geographic map, proposed a solution: dividing Korea along the 38th parallel, about halfway down the peninsula. The southern zone would be controlled by Washington, the north by Moscow. For their puppet, the Russians chose a jowly 33-year-old guerrilla fighter who had waged war against the occupying Japanese forces in Manchuria. His name was Kim Song Ju, but he styled himself Kim Il Sung. It was always Kim’s ambition to take back control of the peninsula. In June 1950, Soviet-built tanks stormed across the border, through Seoul and further south, igniting the Korean war. The surprise attack was almost successful, driving ill-prepared South Korean and US troops to a small enclave. It was only the bravery of South Korean suicide squads and US general Douglas MacArthur’s daring landing in September that forced a North Korean retreat.During that months-long occupation by the north, about 90,000 South Koreans are estimated to have been abducted, remaining in enemy hands as they moved back towards Pyongyang. While many were taken as slave labour, others were also targeted for specialist skills and experience.One of those taken was Lee Seong-hwan, a young factory manager and army interpreter with a wife and two young children, who was snatched from the family home in eastern Seoul by North Korean soldiers. His daughter, Lee Mi-il, was just 18 months old when he was kidnapped; now 72, she still lives in the same neighbourhood and has dedicated her life to finding him and others. “My mother talked about my father a lot,” says Lee Mi-il in a thin rasp. “She believed that he was the greatest person in the world.”The conflict became a brutal war of attrition; about three million Koreans on both sides — one in 10 — were killed, injured or went missing. When an armistice was finally signed in July 1953, the two sides were essentially back where they started, on the 38th parallel, with a demilitarised border zone between them. The agreement included provisions for the repatriation of prisoners of war, but 50,000 South Koreans were never released. Over the years, a small fraction of these PoWs and their families have made successful defections, carrying with them stories of slavery, torture and summary executions.North Korea has remained in the grip of the Kim dynasty ever since. In 1994 Kim Il Sung was succeeded as supreme leader by his son Kim Jong Il, who in turn handed over to his son, Kim Jong Un, who has ruled for the past decade. An obsession with control and an intense fear of foreign influence have been hallmarks of the Kim ideology. As Jung Pak, a former CIA officer and now a top adviser to US president Joe Biden, notes, Kim Il Sung began indoctrinating the North Korean people as early as 1955 with the doctrine of juche, or self-reliance, and his position as the suryong, sole leader. Pak writes that “the regime’s opaqueness, self-imposed isolation, robust counter-intelligence practices, and culture of fear and paranoia” make even “some of the most mundane pieces of information” difficult to obtain. International observers’ hopes that Kim Il Sung’s Swiss-educated grandson would prove a reformer have so far proved unfounded.Photos of some of those missing after the Korean war on display at the Korean Abductees’ Family Union © Ashley CrowtherFrom the 1960s to the 1980s, hundreds more foreigners, mostly South Korean and Japanese citizens, were seized, often by North Korean agents. Some were abducted for particular skills: to teach foreign languages to North Korean spies, for instance. Among the most notorious cases was the 1969 hijacking of a South Korean passenger plane with 50 people on board; 11 never returned and their fate remains mysterious.Others were abducted as brides for the few foreign men in the country; local women, raised on a diet of xenophobic propaganda, were repelled by foreigners. Charles Robert Jenkins, an American soldier detained in North Korea for four decades after drunkenly crossing the demilitarised zone in a brazen attempt to desert in 1965, was required to live with a Japanese woman who had herself been snatched while walking with her mother near her home. Women abducted from Thailand and Romania were forced into marriage with detained American soldiers. There is also a third class of abductees: North Koreans who have disappeared inside the country into a vast system of labour and prison camps, usually sent there for committing crimes against the regime. Although the precise number is unclear, it is likely to be enormous: of more than 33,000 North Koreans who have managed to defect to South Korea since the late 1990s, nearly one in three has an immediate family member who has suffered this fate, according to surveys.The void left by these disappearances is stark, and families often spend decades attempting to find some form of closure. Son Myung-hwa was born in North Korea in 1962 to a father who had been abducted by North Korean forces as a prisoner of war and spent his life as a forced labourer in a coal mine near Musan by the Chinese border, eventually dying in his fifties. When Son succeeded in escaping to South Korea in 2005, she spent eight years attempting to get hold of her father’s remains — in the end making a risky trip to China to meet North Korean brokers who had promised to transport them. On July 4 2015, his bones were finally buried in a national cemetery in South Korea. “I had to restore my father’s honour,” she says.For other families, getting hold of the most basic scraps of information — names, dates, details of disappearances, where bodies are buried — is as much as they can hope for. This is where the Footprints database comes in.The TJWG, a non-governmental organisation, was set up after a 2014 special inquiry by the UN, which declared that the “gravity, scale and nature” of North Korea’s crimes against humanity “does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”. With funding from the US government, and other private and public sources, plus technological support from a Geneva-based NGO, the group began by attempting to locate execution and burial sites in North Korea using a combination of eyewitness interviews and satellite imagery. It now employs digital tools including data visualisation and geolocation software, as well as providing secure storage for legal documents (in the hope of future trials) and photos of those who have disappeared. Sources range from public and private archives to new interviews and testimonials from defectors, including former North Korean officials. A search for “Lee Se-il”, Lee Han-byeol’s brother, produces data such as the date and location of his disappearance, and which victim “type” he falls into: “Forced repatriation of escapee. Current status: unknown.” Another search tells a different story, equally threadbare. “Name: Lee Seong-hwan. Victim type: Korean war abductee. Current status: unknown.”Lee Soon-geum, 59, an advocate for the families of those taken as prisoners of war, was among the first to record a video testimony for the archive. She says her father, a South Korean soldier, was sentenced to a life spent shovelling coal in mines at Aoji near the Chinese border. As a child growing up in the mining town, she hated her father for having served in America’s “puppet army”; guilty by association, the family were constantly monitored. “We resented him,” she says. “I thought he should have died in the war.”His fate was grim: in 1996, he was executed along with her younger brother. Labelled “spies and reactionary scum”, the pair were tortured, possibly for months, before being displayed to relatives, bound and gagged, then shot. Their crime, she believes, was speaking out against the regime. Lee Soon-geum was forced to watch. “My brother looked down at me and looked into my eyes, and I saw him shedding tears,” she says, her words punctuated by pain-filled sobs. She eventually managed to flee to South Korea in 2004.First-hand evidence such as this, researchers hope, is a means of pressuring Pyongyang to address human rights issues thought still to be widespread in the country of 26 million people.By obtaining GPS co-ordinates of hundreds of sites where they believe bodies have been disposed of, and linking them with documents, researchers now think they can track where some kwanliso prison camps are located, as well torture and execution facilities. (For fear of tipping off the authorities in Pyongyang, many of the details they have acquired have not been made public.)The database also has another purpose: to draw international attention to the plight of the Korean missing. When it comes to writing about North Korea, argue activists, the global media all too often prefer to focus on rocket launches and nuclear tests, oddball haircuts and militaristic parades, rather than the human stories of those who have disappeared. “No one listens to us, no matter how much we shout about it,” says Lee Soon-geum. Even people in South Korea often have little inkling of their close connection to events. When Daye Yoon, an IT expert, was hired by the TJWG in 2018 to help with data security (including threats from North Korean hackers), she knew little about her own family history — just sketchy details of her paternal grandfather, who died in an incident somehow related to the north. Her parents wouldn’t be drawn on the details.After chatting in the office, her colleague looked up a list of South Korean fishermen abducted in 1968: among them was her grandfather.The discovery has persuaded her of the value of the work the TJWG is doing, she explains, but she still can’t bring herself to discuss what happened with her parents. “I don’t want to make them sad,” she says. “But when I started working here, my mother told me that this was probably my destiny.”As the Footprints database reveals more and more of the internal architecture of North Korea’s shadowy apparatus of repression, activists hope that it can help prepare for a future in which the country is no longer a dictatorship but some form of democracy, and in which there might finally be a legal reckoning.“We are sending a signal to the North Korean elites,” says Ethan Hee-Seok Shin, one of the TJWG’s co-founders. The message is that “one should tread carefully, otherwise you can be subject to a criminal-justice mechanism after the transition”. The Transitional Justice Working Group wants to build an archive of every person detained, abducted or disappeared in North Korea since the 1950s © Ashley Crowther The team in Seoul are following in the footsteps of transitional justice researchers in places such as the former East Germany, where archivists have spent years reconstructing and combing through Stasi files — sometimes piecing together shredded documents by hand — to track the activities of the communist regime and help Germans come to terms with the past.Another inspiration for Footprints was research done in Guatemala after its civil war, which ended in 1996. Tracking down people who had perpetrated killings, disappearances and other war crimes was difficult: high-ranking officers’ names had often been left off authorisation documents. But researchers were ultimately able to use government records of promotions to ascertain who had been in charge. TJWG interviewers make sure to ask every defector questions about official records, in the hope that one day their locations might be accessed.Scott Stevens, a Canadian who co-founded the TJWG and is now its communications director, found himself in the field after moving to Seoul in 2012 and working in education. After volunteering with defectors and activists, and visiting North Korea as a tourist in 2013, he became fascinated by the country and its people. Even apparently innocuous pieces of information can be precious, he explains: “Everything from chain of command to responsibility or who’s making these decisions at what level. All of that can be really useful for accountability processes down the line.” Again, Stevens draws lessons from history: people who worked in Cambodia in the 1990s after the fall of the Khmer Rouge learnt how important it was to locate grave sites as early as possible “so that investigations can proceed more quickly when the opportunity comes”. In the end, more than 20,000 grave sites were uncovered there after the regime’s collapse. Not everyone believes the TJWG’s approach is the right one. By publicising individual families and stories, there are real dangers that people still living in North Korea might suffer reprisals, say experts.Figures in South Korea’s foreign policy establishment instead advocate a “trade-off”: try to improve the lives of ordinary North Koreans through engagement and economic interaction, rather than by advocating for human rights. “Once we raised the human rights issues up-front, then North Korea regarded it as a hostile effort to undermine the regime,” says one former senior official in Seoul who has dealt with North Korea. (They asked not to be named.) “I can tell you one thing for sure: ‘megaphone diplomacy’ for human rights will never improve human rights conditions in North Korea.”There is also a risk that identifying perpetrators and apportioning blame at this stage might undermine efforts from within to encourage reform, says Sokeel Park, a Seoul-based activist who leads a group called Liberty in North Korea that has helped many people escape and build lives elsewhere. Efforts should focus on how, in places such as Egypt under Hosni Mubarak or communist Europe, the wider world signalled to people within those societies that it was in their interests for regime change to happen.Maps from North Korea used for research by the TJWG © Ashley CrowtherPowerful people in North Korea must be won over to the cause of change, says Park: “We need to try and make sure that we don’t unwittingly persuade the relevant people inside the country that that transition would be very bad for them.” Shin isn’t convinced. Activists such as TJWG can’t afford to wait until after the regime collapses, he says, as happened in other countries. Moreover, many people with first-hand knowledge of atrocities are in their final years. “People weren’t ready. Everything was happening so fast and nobody was really prepared in advance,” he says of post-war Germany and Japan. “We want to avoid that kind of scenario by having these records, having the personnel files of the victims and perpetrators ready,” he says, adding, “It is a race against time.”When South Korea’s national assembly building was constructed in the early 1970s, the architects were given a unique instruction for the fan-shaped debating chamber: leave space so that representatives from the north might one day be included.These dreams have faded for many: the two countries have travelled such different paths since 1945 that it is hard to see how they might one day be united. But over the past four years, South Korean president Moon Jae-in, a former human rights lawyer and the child of North Korean refugees, has staked his legacy on making reunification a priority. With the unlikely support of US president Donald Trump, the two sides edged closer. In late April 2018, Moon hosted Kim at a lavish summit at Panmunjom, where the armistice was signed in 1953, and the two leaders embraced. As well as voicing lofty commitments to disarm and denuclearise the Korean peninsula, they agreed to “solve” the reunion of separated families and relatives.But there has been little practical progress, with Seoul’s Ministry of Unification struggling to negotiate with its counterparts in Pyongyang. In the past 20 years, only about 60 families have participated in brief, temporary state-organised reunions. Now, as Moon reaches the final months of his presidency, reunification appears as far away as ever. Meanwhile, international attention has waxed and waned. Neither admonishments by the US government nor frequent calls by the UN for North Korea to address the situation of those in prison camps or who have suffered torture have resulted in significant change. Biden has signalled North Korean human rights will be given more prominence under his administration. But analysts expect Kim’s nuclear weapons to remain his focus. Time is of the essence, and not just politically. In the aftermath of the Korean war, the search for those abducted was led by parents looking for lost children and wives for husbands; later the task was taken on by grown-up children hoping to one day meet parents they never knew. But memories of that era are disappearing fast. South Korean cities are unrecognisable even to those who grew up there in the 1960s and 1970s; young people feel more remote from the past, and from family connections they once had to North Korea. According to a survey that tracks South Korean attitudes towards “peace and reconciliation” run by the state-backed Korea Institute for National Unification, it is not just interest in the idea of reunification that is fading, but in the topic of the split altogether. People in their twenties and thirties ranked highest on “the division not affecting their lives”. Leighanne Yuh at Korea University in Seoul says she has been “genuinely surprised” by the pace at which disconnection from North Korea has become mainstream. “There was this affinity with North Korea, and this general sense that we’re all the same people,” she says. “But as more and more time has progressed, that feeling has waned. My students have even expressed that they feel like North Koreans are a different ethnicity — which I found pretty shocking — and the cultural differences, they feel, are also too great.” Lee Han-byeol holds an image of her brother outside her apartment in Seoul © Ashley Crowther The TJWG is under no illusions about how hard it is to remind people of the past. But the group insists there is progress. Its data have already been deployed in direct questions to the North Korean government at the UN, for example probing Pyongyang’s use of the death penalty. Publicising testimonials from escapees has helped rekindle public attention.Possibly the most tangible impact is memorialisation, argues Stevens: allowing families the opportunity to mark what has happened to loved ones. Many relatives no longer hope for a family member to be returned or even that they’ll be able to exhume a body, he says: it’s enough for a disappearance to be officially noted. “They were just happy to tell someone and if they’re going to pass away, then maybe this information will be recorded.”Recording and reminding are Lee Han-byeol’s tasks too. Holding the photograph of Lee Se-il, her lost brother, and talking of the countless others who have gone, she says: “I just hope people remember them by their name, not just as numbers.”Edward White is the FT’s Seoul correspondent and Kang Buseong is an FT reporter in SeoulFollow @FTMag on Twitter to find out about our latest stories first. | Asia Politics |
Retained EU law has found an unlikely champion in Nigel Farage, whose battle with NatWest has culminated in the resignation of the bank’s CEO, Alison Rose. Farage has yet to thank the EU for creating the laws that allowed him to win this battle, but his victory would not have been possible without European data regulations, which Brexiteers have long sought to remove.
The former Ukip and Brexit Party leader’s account at Coutts bank was closed against his wishes, and he filed a subject access request (SAR) to find out why. This is a right we all enjoy thanks to the UK’s implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in which article 15 gives “data subjects” (the person to whom the data relates) a right of access to that data.
The GDPR also imposes responsibilities on “data controllers” (people or companies who collect information on other people). Farage was able to say whatever he liked about his own bank account, because people are free to share their own data, but Coutts was not able to comment on the specifics of the case because that would have meant sharing some of the information they had on him.
This is the reason Rose has had to step down. It was her responsibility to protect the data she held on Nigel Farage – a responsibility in which she appears to have failed when, on 3 July, she sat next to the BBC’s business editor, Simon Jack, at a charity dinner and spoke with him about Farage’s claims. In her resignation statement Rose says she did not share “any personal financial information” with Jack, but the following day the BBC published a story in which Jack claimed that Farage’s account had been closed because it had “fallen below the financial threshold” required for Coutts’ customers, who must hold £3m in savings or £1m in investments. While Rose said that she had only responded to a general question about eligibility criteria by citing publicly available information, she acknowledged that she had left Jack with “the impression” that the decision to close Farage’s account was a commercial one. Clearly, speaking to a journalist (or anyone else) about the amount of money in someone’s bank account, without their knowledge or permission, is an unacceptable thing for a bank’s CEO to do.
The narrative being pushed by people like Andrew Griffith, the City minister, is that NatWest “withdrew” Farage’s bank account after deciding his “lawful political views” were unpalatable, and that Rose has been forced out after her sinister corporate wokery was discovered. This isn’t true. While the bank’s reputational risk committee (of which Rose was not a member) did conclude that Farage’s high profile and appetite for controversy made it unattractive for the bank to continue providing services to him, it was Rose’s failure to protect Farage’s data rights under the GDPR that led to her resignation.
Farage will be familiar with the GDPR because he was a member of the European Parliament when it proposed the law in 2012 and when it enforced it in 2016. It continues to apply, as European law, to British businesses that hold EU citizens’ data, but it also applies as British law – the UK GDPR – into which it was transposed, with references to the EU taken out. In 2021 Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary at the time, said he wanted to replace it with “a world-leading data policy” that was “based on common sense, not box-ticking”, but the fact is that any country that wants its businesses to be able to provide goods and services beyond its own borders has to create similar rights and protections: without “data adequacy” the sharing agreements that allow information to flow between continents cannot be formed.
Farage initially blamed “EU directives” on anti-money laundering for the closure of his account, although he didn’t say which ones. The truth is that in this fight, the EU has been very much on his side.
[See also: Never underestimate Nigel Farage] | United Kingdom Politics |
A price cap on Russian oil, deferral of climate change commitments, a potential famine in Africa and the further supply of weapons to Ukraine are to crowd into a meeting of G7 world leaders over the next three days held against the backdrop of the biggest geopolitical crisis since 1945.The agenda reveals how the world has been turned upside down since leaders of the industrialised nations last met in Cornwall a year ago in a summit chaired by Britain, largely to focus on the threat posed by China.Before the summit in Germany, Boris Johnson issued a warning for the west not to show war fatigue, a point that will be echoed when the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, addresses the meeting by video link. He is expected to emphasise the difficulties his troops are facing in eastern Ukraine as well as the need for heavier long-range weapons.Andriy Yermak, the head of Zelenskiy’s office, said the G7 should respond to the latest air strikes on Kyiv, which killed one on Sunday, with a full gas embargo.The overall message from the three-day G7 meeting will be that sanctions are slowly working in degrading the Russian war machine, and will be stepped up if damage to the wider world economy can be contained.The US president, Joe Biden, urged the G7 to show resolve as he greeted the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz. “We have to stay together, because Putin has been counting on from the beginning that somehow Nato and the G7 would splinter. But we haven’t and we’re not going to.”A ban on new imports of Russian gold will be one new measure of solidarity with Ukraine, but the idea of a cap on Russian oil prices, backed by the US president, Joe Biden, has forced its way into the discussions as a visible means of slowing rampant inflation, one of the chief topics of conversation when the G7 leaders gathered for their first session over three days in the Bavarian Alps.Such a price mechanism would set an upper limit on imports of oil from Russia, which would be imposed unilaterally by each participating country and prevent Russia selling at a higher price. For European nations, it is also seen as a way potentially to dampen rampant inflation driven by energy prices.Some European countries have been wary that it could potentially require the painful reopening of the existing European Union agreement on oil sanctions against Russia. That would need the agreement of all 27 EU member states. The EU is due to phase out its dependence on Russian oil by the end of the year, with some exemptions, but that deal required laborious discussionIt is also unclear how key buyers of Russian crude such as China and India could be coaxed into complying with a price cap. One idea being floated by the US would be to make their access to shipping insurance for oil cargo dependent on not paying more than the agreed fixed cap for the oil onboard. The EU has agreed to ban insurance for the transportation of crude and petroleum products from Russia.Italy has for weeks been pressing to go further by introducing a cap on gas prices, an idea backed by Italian energy firms. French officials at the summit expressed a willingness to discuss an oil price cap, but suggested Europe needed a broader energy price shield to bring inflation under control.But there is no guarantee that Vladimir Putin would not respond by cutting gas supplies further. Gazprom cut gas supplies by 60% last week, citing maintenance problems caused by the lack of supply of parts from Canada, an explanation G7 leaders do not regard as credible. The Nord Stream 1 pipeline is due to shut down altogether for regular two-week summer maintenance in July and there are fears Putin would be prepared to take the hit to Russian and Gazprom revenues if he believed it would cause an industrial meltdown across Europe.EU states are due to have replenished its reserves to 80% by November in preparation for a difficult winter, but there are also complex duties for national reserves to be distributed to countries suffering energy shortfalls.EU states are already allowing some coal plants to stay open longer than planned. The change in approach to fossil fuels including gas is reflected in the draft communique being less hardline about the need to end all future investments in fossil fuels, but the language is so couched that it also retains commitments toward a radical green energy transitionThis year’s chair of the G7, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has invited as partner countries Senegal, currently chairing the African Union, Argentina, currently heading the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, as well as Indonesia and India, the current and next hosts of the G20 group of large industrial nations, as well as South Africa. The Indonesian president, Joko Widodo, announced he was joining a long list of mediators in the Ukraine conflict, saying he would travel to Moscow to propose a ceasefire.African leaders, faced by drought and rocketing wheat prices, will want to hear what is being done to speed the flow of grain out of Ukraine, but discussions about a safe route for grain convoys out of the Ukrainian-run Black Sea port of Odesa is proving difficult. The EU has insisted it is not imposing sanctions on Russian grain or fertiliser exports, and no block on Ukrainian exports would exist but for Russia’s action.Scholz said: “The summit must send not only the message that Nato and the G7 are more united than ever, but also that the democracies of the world stand together against Putin’s imperialism just as they do in the fight against hunger and poverty.”The summit is taking place at the castle resort of Schloss Elmau at the foot of Germany’s highest mountain, the Zugspitze – the same venue where the country last hosted the annual G7 meet-up in 2015. That meeting was chaired by Angela Merkel in the wake of the first Russian invasion of Ukraine and Merkel is now seen to have bequeathed her successor a legacy of overdependence on Russian energy. | Global Organizations |
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade a “backward step” on Sunday but said the U.S. remains a guarantor of freedom. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” in Krun, Germany during the G7 summit, the conservative lawmaker told co-anchor Jake Tapper that he supports a woman’s right to have an abortion. “I want to stress that this is not our court, it’s not our jurisdiction,” Johnson said. “So, in a sense, it’s for the United States, it’s not for the U.K. But the Roe v. Wade judgment, when it came out, was important psychologically for people around the world, and it spoke of the advancement of the rights of women, I think.” “And I regret what seems to me to be a backward step,” he continued. “But I’m speaking as someone looking in from the outside.” The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Mississippi state law banning abortion at 15 weeks in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A majority of justices also voted to overturn Roe, the landmark case that guaranteed abortion rights nationwide for nearly half a century, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the abortion right guaranteed by Roe. Johnson is slated to meet with President Biden and other leaders of the world’s wealthiest democracies at the G7 summit this week, which will be followed by a NATO summit in Spain. When asked if the decision hurt the United States as a representative of rights and freedom, Johnson said he didn’t think that was the case, pointing to the country’s support of Ukraine. “For me, it remains a shining city on the hill,” Johnson told Tapper. “And it’s an incredible guarantor of values, democracy, freedom around the world.” Tags abortion Boris Johnson G7 summit Roe v. Wade | United Kingdom Politics |
World June 26, 2022 / 9:13 PM / AP Biden meets with G7 leaders amid Russian assault Biden meets with G7 leaders as Russian offensive continues 02:18 Russia shattered weeks of relative calm in the Ukrainian capital with long-range missiles fired toward Kyiv early Sunday, an apparent Kremlin show-of-force as Western leaders meet in Europe to strengthen their military and economic support of Ukraine.Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said the missiles hit at least two residential buildings, and President Volodymr Zelenskyy said a 37-year-old man was killed and his 7-year-old daughter and wife injured. Associated Press journalists saw emergency workers battling flames and rescuing civilians.The strikes also damaged a nearby kindergarten, where a crater pocked the courtyard. U.S. President Joe Biden called the attacks "barbarism" after he arrived in Germany for a Group of Seven summit. Later Sunday, a local official reported a second death, telling the Unian news agency that a railroad worker was killed and several others were injured in the attacks while servicing rail infrastructure.Ukrainian air force spokesman Yuriy Ignat said the first air-launched weapons successfully to target the capital since June 5 were Kh-101 cruise missiles fired from warplanes over the Caspian Sea, more than 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) away. Rescuers work on a damaged residential building, as a result of a missile strike by the Russian army. Sergei Chuzavkov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Kyiv's mayor told journalists he thought the airstrikes were "maybe a symbolic attack" ahead of a NATO summit in Madrid that starts Tuesday. A former commander of U.S. forces in Europe said the strikes also were a signal to the leaders of G-7 nations meeting Sunday in Germany. "Russia is saying, 'We can do this all day long. You guys are powerless to stop us,'" retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of U.S. Army forces in Europe, said. "The Russians are humiliating the leaders of the West."The G-7 leaders were set to announce the latest in a long series of international economic steps to pressure and isolate Russia over its war in Ukraine: new bans on imports of Russian gold. Standing with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the three-day meeting's host, Biden said of the missile strikes on Kyiv: "It's more of their barbarism."Zelenskyy, speaking in his nightly video address, appealed to the G-7 leaders for more help, saying stopping Russian aggression "is possible only if we get everything we ask for, and in the time we need it - weapons, financial support and sanctions against Russia." Rescuers carry an injured person after rocket fire from the Russian army hit a nine-floor house. Sergei Chuzavkov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images A Ukrainian parliament member, Oleksiy Goncharenko, wrote on the Telegram messaging app that preliminary information indicated that Russia launched 14 missiles toward the capital region and Kyiv itself. Zelenskyy said some were intercepted, and he vowed revenge against "all pilots, dispatchers, technicians and other people who ensure the launch of missiles in Ukraine." "We will find you all. Each of you will be responsible for these blows," Zelenskyy vowed. "And if someone thinks he will evade responsibility by saying that this was an order, you are wrong. When your missiles hit homes, it's a war crime. The court is what awaits you all. And you will not hide anywhere - neither on the shores of the Caspian Sea, over which your missiles are launched, nor in Belarus ... Nowhere."In a phone interview, retired U.S. general Hodges told The Associated Press that Russia has a limited stock of precision missiles and "if they are using them, it's going to be for a special purpose,"Russia has denied targeting civilians during the 4-month-old war, and Hodges said it was hard to know if the missiles launched Sunday were intended to strike the apartments buildings.Russian forces tried to seize control of Kyiv early in the war. After Ukrainian troops repelled them, the Kremlin largely shifted its focus to southern and eastern Ukraine.Russian rocket strikes in the city of Cherkasy, about 160 kilometers (100 miles) southeast of Kyiv, killed one person and injured five, regional governor Ihor Taburets said Sunday.In the east, Russian troops fought to consolidate their gains by battling to swallow up the last remaining Ukrainian stronghold in Luhansk province. Luhansk Gov. Serhiy Haidai said Sunday that Russia was conducting intense airstrikes on the city of Lysychansk, destroying its television tower and seriously damaging a road bridge."There's very much destruction. Lysychansk is almost unrecognizable," he wrote on Facebook. For weeks, Lysychansk and the nearby city of Sievierodonetsk have been subject to a bloody and destructive offensive by Russian forces and their separatist allies aimed at capturing all of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region.They have made steady and slow progress, with Haidai confirming Saturday that Sievierodonetsk, including a chemical plant where hundreds of Ukrainian troops and civilians were holed up, had fallen. Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, U.S. President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, French President Emmanuel Macron and President of the European Council Charles Michel pose for an informal group photo standing at a bench after a working dinner during the G-7 Summit held at Elmau Castle, southern Germany on June 26, 2022. LUDOVIC MARIN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images Commenting on the battle for Sievierodonetsk, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said late Saturday that Russian and Moscow-backed separatist forces now control not only the city but the villages surrounding it. He said the Russian military had thwarted Ukrainian forces' attempt to turn the Azot chemical plant into a "stubborn center of resistance."Capturing Lysychansk would give Russian and separatist forces control of every major settlement in Luhansk. At last report, they controlled about half of Donetsk, the second province in the Donbas.On Saturday, Russia launched dozens of missiles on several areas across the country far from the heart of the eastern battles. Some of the missiles were fired from Russian long-range Tu-22 bombers deployed from Belarus for the first time, Ukraine's air command said.Reacting to the shelling from the Russian bombers, Zelenskyy appealed to the people of Belarus to resist cooperation with the Russian military. "The Russian leadership wants to draw you - all Belarusians - into the war, wants to sow hatred between us," he said in his video address Sunday. "You can refuse to participate in this war. Your lives belong only to you, not to someone in the Kremlin."Belarus hosts Russian military units and was used as a staging ground before Russia invaded Ukraine, but its own troops have not crossed the border. In a meeting Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko that Russia planned to supply Belarus with the Iskander-M missile system. On the economic front, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said banning imports of Russian gold would represent a significant escalation of sanctions."That is the second-most lucrative export that Russia has after energy." Blinken told American news channel CNN. "It's about $19 billion a year. And most of that is within the G-7 countries. So cutting that off, denying access to about $19 billion of revenues a year, that's significant."Russia is poised to default on its foreign debt for the first time since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, further alienating the country from the global financial system following international sanctions imposed over its war in Ukraine.The country faces a Sunday night deadline to meet a 30-day grace period on interest payments originally due May 27. But it could take time to confirm a default.Russia calls any default artificial because it has the money to pay its debts but says sanctions have frozen its foreign currency reserves held abroad. In: Ukraine Russia Thanks for reading CBS NEWS. Create your free account or log in for more features. Please enter email address to continue Please enter valid email address to continue | Europe Politics |
A Tory MP has written to his local police force asking officers to "turn a blind eye" to pubs opening an hour early for the Women's World Cup final this weekend.
Pubs can choose when they open on Sundays, but the time from which they can start selling alcohol varies depending on each pub's individual licence.
Ministers have rejected calls from the Liberal Democrats to recall parliament and relax laws around alcohol licencing, while MPs have called on the authorities to ignore instances of publicans serving outside of their usual hours.
The Lionesses will take on Spain in the final of the Women's World Cup on Sunday, with kick off at 11am in the UK.
Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove has urged local councils to "do everything they can to help pubs get open earlier on Sunday, so people can come together and enjoy a drink before kick-off for this special occasion".
But Michael Fabricant, the Conservative MP for Lichfield, has gone further by asking his local police force to "turn a blind eye" to any pubs opening early.
In a letter to Staffordshire Police chief constable Chris Noble and Staffordshire police and fire commissioner Ben Adams, he wrote: "As you know, the Women's World Cup Final will be held at 11am (BST) on Sunday.
"I think it would be a marvellous gesture if pubs could be allowed to open early and, although this would be contrary to the law, the police might turn a blind eye on this one occasion only."
The sale of alcohol is widely prohibited before 10am on Sunday, but venues such as pubs also have specific hours they can stay open and serve alcohol depending on individual licences.
Read more:
Councils must do 'everything they can' to help pubs open an hour early
Home secretary urged to 'stand up' to France
Temporary changes to licensing laws in England and Wales have been made for special events in the past, such as the Euro 2020 final and the late Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee.
Under the Licensing Act 2003, tweaks to licensing laws have to be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords - both of which are currently in recess.
The Liberal Democrats have called on the government to recall parliament and "score a last-minute winner for our pubs and the Lionesses" - but that call has been rejected.
A government spokesperson told Sky News: "Recognising this momentous occasion, we want to encourage the police and local authorities to work together for maximum flexibility to make sure that the country can enjoy the match and get behind the Lionesses altogether."
Recalling parliament would involve the taxpayer funding last-minute travel for both MPs and peers to return to Westminster, which would likely be very expensive.
Pubs can still open from 10am, even if they cannot serve booze before kick-off at 11am. | United Kingdom Politics |
Labour's leadership has lost a showdown over the party's approach to nationalising critical infrastructure.
Delegates voted for a motion, proposed by Labour's largest backer, the union Unite, to "reaffirm" the party's commitment to public ownership of railways and the energy industry.
Labour must "make different choices", Unite's general secretary said.
Party sources said the proposals are unlikely to get into Labour's next manifesto.
The shadow business secretary Jonathan Reynolds told the BBC: "We're not going to nationalise the energy system."
Asked if they would follow the vote, he said: "No."
Mr Reynolds said votes reflected the interest of people at the conference - but that there would be disagreements in some areas.
Earlier in the day, Ms Graham got a standing ovation from the conference floor for tabling the motion.
Making the case for renationalisation, Ms Graham said: "Labour's job is to be the voice of workers and our communities.
"We must take our energy back into public hands.
"In France, they own their own energy, which has meant lower bills for the French people, while in Britain we have let energy monopolies fill their boots by picking the pockets of UK workers. How they must have laughed."
'Huge victory'
The motion passed with only a handful of votes against it, and was backed by three major Labour backing unions - Unite, ASLEF and TSSA.
Momentum, the left-wing pressure group set up to support former leader Jeremy Corbyn, called the vote "a huge victory - and a clear message to the leadership". "Trade unions and Labour members, like the public, overwhelmingly want our public services in public hands, not being run for profit."
Before the vote, Unite published a survey which found voters in seats known as the Red Wall - traditionally Labour areas where the Conservatives won in 2019 - were overwhelmingly in favour of putting energy utilities back into public ownership.
More than two-thirds of the 2,000 potential voters surveyed in those constituencies across the North, Midlands and Wales agreed that the UK's domestic energy industry should be in public ownership.
The motion also reaffirmed Labour's commitment to build HS2 in full and to retain or reopen fully staffed rail ticket officers.
On Thursday, Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer said he could not commit to building HS2's northern leg after the government "took a wrecking ball" to the project's finances.
Policy voted on by conference feeds into Labour's National Policy Forum, which debates and finalises Labour's policy.
The party's current policy include a commitment to public ownership of different industries - including renationalising the railways when contracts with existing operators expire or fail.
Labour have also promised to create GB Energy, a publicly owned national energy company that will compete with private industry and promote clean energy. | United Kingdom Politics |
A Labour government would be “for the builders not the blockers”. So Rachel Reeves told the Labour conference today. It went down well. The shadow chancellor’s attack on the “blockers” was specific. Not only did she give not an inch to the blocking cause, she offered a reward of “something in return” to nimbys who agree to turn builder. In exchange for not objecting to a wind turbine or row of pylons down their village street, they would get hard cash in the form of cheaper energy. It must be the most bizarre planning bribe in history.
Nor is that all. Labour wants to release developers into green belts and revive the Tory policy of forcing new housing estates on local people through central targets. Labour is back to the anti-localist days of David Cameron, when worrying about rural Britain was for wimps. Back then, as Reeves and Keir Starmer are seen doing now, politicians often wore hard hats and hi-vis jackets and hugged concrete mixers on television.
When Octavia Hill promoted the human value of nature and Clement Attlee’s government formed green belts around polluted cities, they never thought it was just for locals. The benefit of nature was for everyone, and its protection was a national priority. Now Reeves and her boss, Starmer, want to “buy” that benefit from locals and donate it to energy companies and property developers, Britain’s richest capitalists. The result might be similar to what we can see across modern Northamptonshire, with thumping great wind turbines on every horizon.
The two finest innovations of postwar British planning were green belts and urban conservation areas. The first have guarded hundreds of miles of nature from the sprawl that would have covered land-starved south-eastern England, incidentally enticing millions more northerners to migrate south. The second have guarded the historic character of British towns from ubiquitous demolition and rebuilding.
Both innovations are now at risk. Not a week passes without a politician attacking green belts and deriding those who defend them, while leaving acres of brownfield land untouched. At the same time, conservation areas are crumbling. In London alone, the City has defaced supposedly protected Fleet Street and Westminster council has done likewise to Paddington – without central government lifting a finger to intervene.
Of course there is sense in some of what Reeves says, notably in her desire for more and better planners. Renewable energy is good and needs encouraging. But bribing local people to despoil their environs rather than spending that money burying cables or generating offshore wind implies that the beauty of landscape has no value to others. That beauty is irreplaceable and belongs to the nation – and depends on the nation to defend it.
Likewise more houses are always needed, though with house prices now falling faster than they have done for 14 years and firms sitting on land banks, policy should be directed at densifying cities, promoting the rental sector and, above all, easing downsizing and conversion from commercial to residential use. Just because developers make higher profits from executive homes in green fields does not mean Reeves has to give them priority.
The villain of this piece was Cameron and his dismantling of strategic local planning, and with it the role of zoning in determining what countryside needs protecting. There are obviously places where energy infrastructure and new housing would not detract from rural beauty, even in a green belt. But there are others where protection needs certainty.
We need to know what is valued and guarded, and should not require endless planning battles. The English – and Welsh and Scottish – countryside needs zoning. It is not hard. I would even bet that it would find more land, rural and urban, actually suitable for development, without putting everything at risk.
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist | United Kingdom Politics |
Coal is seen as a heavy machinery unloads it from the barges into a truck to be distributed, at the Karya Citra Nusantara port in North Jakarta, Indonesia, January 13, 2022. REUTERS/Willy KurniawanRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comJAKARTA, June 23 (Reuters) - Indonesia's carbon tax, due to take effect next month, could be delayed due to global economic conditions and to give authorities time to prepare for it, an official said on Thursday.Among the top 10 carbon polluters globally and the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, Indonesia had already delayed the tax to July from April.The much-anticipated tax is part of Jakarta's commitment to reach net-zero emissions by 2060 and comes as it prepares to host the G20 leaders summit in November.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com"Considering global economic conditions that have not been conducive and we also are continuing to perfect our carbon market scheme ... the government is considering to review again the implementation of the carbon tax this July," said Febrio Kacaribu, the head of the finance ministry's fiscal policy office.He added, however, that Indonesia still aims to start charging a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emissions produced by coal-fired power plants in 2022 and this will be showcased as a strategic policy at the G20 summit.Local clean energy think tank CERAH argued the government should apply the carbon tax as soon as possible to generate funds to finance green energy development."By applying a carbon tax, the state revenues can be diverted towards renewable energy which has been proven to encourage economic recovery after the pandemic in other countries," Mahawira Dillon, a CERAH researcher, told Reuters.Indonesian authorities have faced criticism from environmentalists that the rate of its proposed carbon tax, at 30,000 rupiah ($2.02) per ton of CO2 equivalent, will be too low to discourage the burning of coal for power.Government officials have said the rate would be kept low initially due to concerns over affordability of electricity but raised to match market prices for carbon once such trading is established.($1 = 14,835.0000 rupiah)Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Gayatri Suroyo and Stefanno Sulaiman; editing by Kanupriya Kapoor and Jason NeelyOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
A row over his tax bill threatens to derail the career of the top Tory, who arrived in the UK from Iraq as a 11-year-old and has since held some of the most senior jobs in GovernmentNadhim Zahawi is under intense pressure over his tax affairsTory chairman Nadhim Zahawi is fighting for survival after an explosive row over his tax affairs. The multimillionaire former businessman admitted to a "careless and not deliberate error" related to shares in YouGov, the polling firm that he co-founded. Mr Zahawi reportedly paid a multi-million pound penalty to resolve the dispute with HMRC last summer, when he was Chancellor, meaning he was in charge of the UK's tax policy. Rishi Sunak has defied calls to sack the minister, who he appointed to serve in his Cabinet only three months ago. Instead he tasked his anti-sleaze adviser to launch an investigation - potentially kicking the issue into the long grass for months. The row threatens to derail the career of the top Tory, who arrived in the UK from Iraq as a 11-year-old and has since held some of the top jobs in Government. But with high office came a string of scandals, from attending the controversial President's Club dinner to claiming expenses to for his stables. So who is Nadhim Zahawi? Nadhim Zahawi leaves the Conservative HQ in London today (
Image:
Ian Vogler / Daily Mirror) Born in Iraq to Kurdish parents, his family fled Saddam Hussein in the 1970s and arrived in the UK when Mr Zahawi was only 11-years-old. He was educated at a West London comprehensive, where he described being bullied and racially abused by his classmates, then privately. He studied chemical engineering at UCL and went on to build a lucrative business career. The Tory co-founded pollster YouGov before being elected to Parliament in 2010. Mr Zahawi was elected a Tory MP in 2010 for safe seat Stratford - but spent nearly eight years on the back benches, where he raked in the cash in the oil industry. He was paid £350,000 a year by Gulf Keystone Petroleum between 2015 and 2017, where he served as the firm’s Chief Strategy Officer alongside his first job as an MP. But he was forced to leave this well-paying work behind when he became an Education Minister in 2018. But he certainly wasn’t out of pocket. His payoffs leaving Gulfstone included a £285,000 “settlement payment” in 2018 and and £105,000 he received in lieu of notice. Although he stood down from his family business Zahawi and Zahawi Ltd when he became a minister, his wife and two sons are all directors. The firm has a property empire in Surrey, London, East Sussex and Buckinghamshire, plus 31 acres of land and a stables in Warwickshire. A dressed-down Nadhim Zahawi was spotted in Downing Street (
Image:
PA) In 2013 the Sunday Mirror revealed the millionaire claimed for electricity at the stables, as part of a wider bill, other parts of which were allowed under the rules. Mr Zahawi at first defended his claims but now admits he made a “mistake”. He told us: “On investigation I have made a mistake with the electricity. “I will be paying back any money wrongly claimed immediately and I apologise unreservedly.” Mr Zahawi was loyal to Boris Johnson who made him a Business Minister before putting him in charge of the vaccine rollout during the pandemic. He was promoted to become Education Secretary in 2021 when Gavin Williamson was sacked and went on to become Chancellor in July last year after Rishi Sunak quit Boris Johnson's collapsing Government. Mr Zahawi was among the MPs to tell Mr Johnson to go - only two days after he'd been promoted to the second highest post in Government. He ran to be Tory leader but was eliminated after not getting enough MP backers. He later endorsed Liz Truss for the top job - but she sacked him as Chancellor in favour of Kwasi Kwarteng. After Liz Truss quit, he was forced into an embarrassing U-turn after he endorsed Boris Johnson to be PM shortly before he pulled out of the race. An opinion piece in the Telegraph singing Mr Johnson's praises was then swiftly removed. Regardless, Rishi Sunak brought him back into the Cabinet as Tory chairman and Minister without Portfolio when he became PM. Nadhim Zahawi stood to be Tory leader but was knocked out (
Image:
PA) The row over his tax affairs is not the first time he's found himself caught in a scandal. He faced questions weeks after becoming a minister - after he attended a men-only charity gala at which female hostesses were allegedly groped. He was at the Presidents Club gala dinner, where the Financial Times revealed 130 “tall, thin and pretty” women served 300 men at “the most un-PC event of the year”. The PM faced calls to axe the then-Children’s Minister, who went to the “sleazy” charity event twice. A No10 source said he would be “disciplined” and asked “to explain himself”. The minister tweeted about the event: “I condemn this behaviour. I will never attend a men-only function ever”. Sources said he “felt uncomfortable” and left when the hostesses were introduced. Despite all this, Mr Zahawi has rocketed up the rankings under Boris Johnson, serving as Vaccines Minister during Covid then Education Secretary. He also made controversial remarks in 2020 that some parents “prefer” having to pay for school meals - despite Covid economic woes at the time. Footballer Marcus Rashford was ramping up pressure at the time on ministers to feed hungry kids in the holidays. But former oil executive Mr Zahawi said he had worked on holiday club pilots for free meals with former MP Frank Field. "The research when we did the pilot demonstrates that families didn't just want the meals," he said. "Although they valued the meals, they didn't like the labelling of them being free. They actually prefer to pay a modest amount, £1 or £2.” Read More Read More Read More Read More Read More | United Kingdom Politics |
Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said this on Thursday, according to Interfax, Ukrinform reported.
"No, the president has no such plans. The trip is not on the agenda right now," Peskov told reporters, noting that he was referring to the format of participation directly related to the trip to the G20 summit.
"You know that the President participated in BRICS remotely. He has a really busy schedule now. The main emphasis is on a special military operation (i.e., a full-scale war with Ukraine - ed.)," the Kremlin spokesman added.
The G20 summit is scheduled to take place on September 9-10 in New Delhi.
As reported, Putin refused to attend the BRICS summit in South Africa because of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
He was also scheduled to visit Turkey in August, but canceled it. | Europe Politics |
EURACTIV.com with AFP Est. 2min 04-08-2023 Content-Type: News Service News Service Produced externally by an organization we trust to adhere to journalistic standards. Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (R) during their visit the Museum of Naval Glory in Kronstadt outside in St. Petersburg, Russia, 23 July 2023. [EPA-EFE/ALEXANDER DEMYANCHUK / KREMLIN / POOL] EURACTIV is part of the Trust Project >>> Print Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram The EU on Thursday (3 August) banned drone sales to Belarus and added prominent state TV presenters to its sanctions list over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Minsk’s crackdown on opposition. Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko is the closest ally of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and has allowed his country to be used as a staging post for Moscow’s assault on Ukraine. The EU has already imposed repeated rounds of sanctions on Minsk over Lukashenko’s brutal repression of the opposition since 2020 and the war in Ukraine. Those include blacklisting the Belarusian leader and his family members. The latest measures target a further 38 regime figures and three state-owned entities, including leading “propagandists” on state television, prosecutors and prison officials. In a bid to curb the flow of goods to Russia that could be used on the battlefield in Ukraine, the EU banned the export of aircraft engines and drones to Belarus. Iran seeks to build drone factories in Belarus, which would allow Russia to purchase Iranian drones more easily and provide Iran with numerous economic and military benefits, ISW reported.https://t.co/JcEcpa9qTz — Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) August 2, 2023 In addition the 27-nation bloc tightened restrictions on the sale of semiconductors, camera equipment and other technology that could help Moscow’s war effort. “Today we are also taking further measures against the Belarusian regime as an accomplice in Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said. EU states have been arguing over bolstering sanctions on Belarus since the start of the year to align the measures with those imposed on Russia. That move has been held up by a disagreement over calls by some countries to remove fertiliser producers from the blacklist amid worries over global food supplies. Officials complain that the failure to tighten sanctions on Belarus leaves a major loophole in the EU’s measures against Moscow, as sanctioned goods can be diverted to Russia from its neighbour. The European Commission said the more sweeping measures remain on the table and are still under discussion. Today, we welcome the adoption by the @EUCouncil of new measures to extend the scope of sanctions on Belarus. This is in response to Belarus's involvement in Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The new measures align EU sanctions targeting Russia and Belarus and ensure that… pic.twitter.com/g9nVbh9ucl — European Commission (@EU_Commission) August 3, 2023 Read more with EURACTIV Microsoft says Russia-linked hackers behind dozens of Teams phishing attacksA Russian government-linked hacking group took aim at dozens of global organizations with a campaign to steal login credentials by engaging users in Microsoft Teams chats pretending to be from technical support, Microsoft researchers said on Wednesday (2 August). Print Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Topics Alexander Lukashenko Belarus drones EU sanctions Europe's East Global Europe propaganda Russia Russian invasion World | Europe Politics |
A worker from the war crimes prosecutor's office takes in the damage from overnight shelling that landed on a building of Kharkiv's Housing and Communal College as Russia's attack on Ukraine continues in Kharkiv, Ukraine, June 21, 2022. REUTERS/Leah MillisRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryG7 leaders aim to ratchet up pressure on Russia at 3-day summitG7 wants to launch alternative to China's Belt and Road projectHost Scholz wants unity between G7, democracies of global southBERLIN/WASHINGTON, June 23 (Reuters) - The Group of Seven rich democracies will seek to demonstrate their long-term support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression at a summit starting on Sunday even as the war's growing impact on the world economy tests their resolve.The leaders of the United States, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada and Japan will discuss how to tighten the screws on the Kremlin at the three-day summit at Schloss Elmau, a luxury hotel in a Bavarian mountain valley.But as the war drags into its fifth month, they will be wary of any sanctions that could further darken the global economic outlook. The conflict has already created food and energy shortages that are stoking inflation and global hunger.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comPrice rises are hitting the global south particularly hard, where countries were already struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic and climate crises.Speaking ahead of the back-to-back European Union, G7 and NATO summits, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told the German parliament on Wednesday the task was greater than sending the message that the West was as united "as never before".The summits must also show "that the democracies of the world stand together in the fight against Putin's imperialism, as well as in the fight against hunger, poverty, health crises and climate change," he said.If the West did not show solidarity with the countries of the global south - many of which have criticised Western sanctions - Russia and China would benefit, he warned.Finding a new approach to China that reflected human rights concerns, supply chain problems and the often negative impact of its global investments would play a "very big role" at the summit, a German government official said.G7 leaders will launch a new infrastructure initiative aimed at offering low- and middle-income countries high-quality, transparent investments, senior U.S. officials said, a clear response to China's Belt and Road project, which has been criticised for opaque contracts and onerous loan terms. read more Scholz has invited as partner nations the leaders of Senegal - which holds the rotating chair of the African Union - and Argentina - which holds the presidency of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States - as well as India, Indonesia and South Africa.MARSHALL PLAN FOR UKRAINE?As Ukraine battles Russian forces in its East in a war that has killed thousands and flattened cities, the leaders will discuss the need for long-term financial aid to help the country rebuild, the German official said."We are talking about considerably bigger sums than the current 5 billion euros (of external aid) a month," the official said. Scholz said the country needed a "Marshall Plan", like the U.S. programme that rebuilt Europe after World War Two.On Monday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy will address them by video link.Attempts to hit Russia's war chest have been constrained by Europe's reliance on Russian energy imports. A sharp cut in deliveries over the past week has sent the region scrambling for alternatives. A senior EU official said on Wednesday a temporary shift back to coal would not derail longer term climate goals. read more G7 leaders are set to discuss setting up a climate club to better coordinate carbon pricing and other schemes for reducing emissions, not least in the hope of avoiding trade wars, the German official said.They will also discuss the darkening global economic outlook, the official said - the challenge being controlling government spending without sending the economy into shock.Nearly 20,000 police officers have been deployed to ensure security at the summit, with Scholz keen to avoid a rerun of the G20 summit he hosted as Mayor of Hamburg in 2018 that was marred by violent protests.The G7 was founded in 1975 as a forum for the richest nations to discuss crises such as the OPEC oil embargo.China, the world's second-largest economy, has never been a member of the G7. Russia, admitted as a G8 member six years after the fall of the Soviet Union, was suspended in 2014 after it annexed the Ukraine's Crimean peninsula.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Sarah Marsh in Berlin and Andrea Shalal in Washington; Additional Reporting by Andreas Rinke in Berlin, Elizabeth Piper in London, Elaine Lies in Tokyo, John Irish in Paris; Editing by Nick MacfieOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
In recent years, some of the U.S.’s best-known and largest companies - including Apple, Coca-Cola, ... [+] Goldman Sachs, Google, Hewlett-Packard and Walt Disney - have publicly pledged support for sexual minorities. Getty Images A growing body of research has in recent years shown that companies promoting gender and racial diversity tend to perform better financially, but fresh analysis out of Finland now provides evidence that the same is true of companies championing LGBT-friendly policies. Academics at two universities in the Nordic country assessed the financial performance of 657 publicly-traded U.S. companies between 2003 and 2016, and found that firms with LGBT-friendly policies tend to enjoy both higher profitability and higher stock market valuations. For the purposes of the survey, LGBT friendliness was determined based on the Corporate Equality Index constructed by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT civil rights advocacy organization in the U.S. HRC has published the index for large U.S. firms annually since 2002. In recent years, some of the U.S.’s best-known and largest companies, including Apple, Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, Google, Hewlett-Packard and Walt Disney, have all publicly pledged their support for sexual minorities, earnings them top ratings in HRC’s Corporate Equality Index. But corporate social advocacy can, as the researchers acknowledge in presenting their results, be “tricky business”. “While taking a public stand on potentially sensitive social or political issues may lead to positive outcomes and competitive advantages, the repercussions of social advocacy can also be detrimental if the stance taken is not aligned with the preferences and values of the firm’s key stakeholders,” they write. Against this backdrop, their research was motivated by a desire to determine whether the risk of alienating certain stakeholders by, for example, supporting same-sex marriage, outweighs the benefits of doing so. “Taken as a whole, our empirical findings provide strong evidence to suggest that LGBT-friendly corporate policies enhance firm performance,” they conclude. “These findings can be considered to support the view that socially progressive corporate policies and diversity management pay off and create value for the firm.” The report should foment an already well-documented economic incentive for creating workplaces that proudly reflect the demographic makeup of the broader communities in which they operate.
In May last year, global consultancy McKinsey & Co published an extensive report based on analysis that found that in 2019, companies in the top quartile of gender diversity on executive teams were 25 percent more likely to experience above-average profitability than peer companies in the fourth quartile. That number was up from 21 percent in 2017 and 15 percent in 2014.
In terms of ethnic and cultural diversity, McKinsey & Co’s conclusions were equally compelling. The consultancy found that companies in the top quartile outperformed those in the fourth by 36 percent in terms of profitability in 2019, marginally up from 33 percent in 2017 and 35 percent in 2014.
One explanation for both these findings and the correlation determined by the Finnish researchers from Aalto University School of Business and the University of Vaasa, is that employee retention and satisfaction tends to be higher in businesses where diversity is explicitly promoted, regardless of whether that relates to gender, race, sexuality or another identifying characteristic.
Greater retention tends to be a reasonable proxy for employee satisfaction, which is known to correlate with productivity and therefore financial performance.
Likewise, a diverse workforce and management that promotes LGBT‐friendly policies may also improve competitiveness in the job market by fostering a company’s ability to attract, recruit and retain the most talented employees. | Human Rights |
A TOP Tory MP has extended a welcome "with open arms" to the leader of the Labour party into the Conservatives.
In an interview with GB News, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg compared recent comments by Sir Keir Starmer that praised Margaret Thatcher to those of a Tory minister launching a leadership bid
The UK Labour leader came under fire over a Sunday Telegraph column in which he said Thatcher “sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism”.
Thatcher – who died in 2013 – presided over a privatisation agenda during her time in Downing Street in the 1980s which saw the decline of coal mining and steelworks industries in Scotland.
Rees-Mogg described the comments as “vintage Farage” adding: “As a Tory member, I would like to extend a welcome to the leader of the opposition with open arms.”
He used recent comments by Rishi Sunak on his open door policy for members, such as Nigel Farage, to return to the party as a transition onto Starmer.
“The more pressing question is not whether Nigel Farage will join the Tory Party, but whether Keir Starmer is planning to defect and launch a Tory leadership bid,” he told GB News.
A Labour spokesman said: “What Jacob Rees-Mogg knows is that the travel is all in the opposite direction with former Tory voters backing Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party to end thirteen years of Tory decline and give Britain its future back.”
Rees-Mogg said: “A man wrote an article for The Telegraph last week entitled ‘Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and Immigration'.
“This reads as if it were vintage Farage. The man in question went on to hail Margaret Thatcher, as the leader who dragged Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism.
“He then went on to criticise the wasted money, the high debt and the record-high tax burden. He sounds as if he could be a member of the ERG!”
Rees-Mogg added: ““So, who is this man? This great Conservative-sounding figure? Is he a cabinet minister waiting in the wings for a Tory Party leadership bid? One setting out his stall – along with a number of other ministers who seem to be circling.
“He must be among the most ardent of Eurosceptics, a member of the ‘Go for Growth’ movement, a Thatcherite – a Trussite even – a capitalist, a sensible, free market Conservative.
“But – the man I’m referring to is not Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or even me, for that matter.
“I’m of course talking about the leader of the Labour Party – the socialist party – Sir Keir Starmer.” | United Kingdom Politics |
The SNP "will be in trouble" unless the leadership takes "decisive action" on its internal affairs, former leadership candidate Kate Forbes has warned.
Speaking to the BBC, Ms Forbes said people were watching the SNP "with astonishment" and party finance claims were "mind-blowing".
She said there was "time to sort it out" but "continuity won't cut it".
The SNP has ordered a review of how the party is managed following recent controversy over its finances.
Speaking last week, newly-elected party leader Humza Yousaf said he wanted a "fresh approach" to ensure party members, as well as the public, could be "really confident" in the governance and transparency of the party.
Since the shock resignation of Nicola Sturgeon as party leader and Scotland's first minister in February, the SNP has descended into turmoil.
The subsequent leadership race exposed deep divisions in the party, and midway through the contest Peter Murrell, Ms Sturgeon's husband, stepped down as chief executive after the party misled the media about membership numbers.
Mr Murrell was arrested earlier this month as part of a police investigation into the SNP's finances. On Tuesday, SNP treasurer Colin Beattie was also arrested in relation to the same investigation. Both men were released without charge pending further investigation.
Ms Forbes - who came second in the leadership contest behind Humza Yousaf - was speaking to the Radio 4 programme - Leading Scotland Where? which airs on Wednesday at 20:30 BST.
It is her first broadcast interview since the contest and was recorded after Mr Murrell's arrest but before Mr Beattie's.
Ms Forbes told the programme: "I think we need decisive action or we will be in trouble.
"People are watching with astonishment but they want to see the leadership dealing with it and resolving it."
She added: "Right now with questions over integrity, trust, transparency - I think voters are watching extremely carefully."
Looking ahead to the next general election - expected to take place in 2024 - she said people would vote on "the basis of how we have sorted out our internal problems - even more than that how we govern".
"There is still time to sort it out. But I said throughout the campaign, I'm afraid I'm going to say it now: Continuity won't cut it."
Asked about the way the party had been run by Ms Sturgeon and Mr Murrell, she said: "They were obviously a very good team in the sense of managing the SNP.
"But there's no question that since then there have been lots of questions about transparency... it doesn't matter how slick the optics are, you need good governance."
She added: "We are at a pretty critical moment - and it will be the response and the reaction that determines how big a problem this is for the SNP."
Ms Forbes dismissed calls made by some in the party for a re-run of the leadership election.
But she suggested she could have won if the campaign had been longer.
She told the BBC: "One argument I think does have merit is that the contest was so short.
"I came from a standing start, I hadn't been in front line politics for about seven months, came right into the full glare of media scrutiny and the requirement to build a team and also build a policy platform pretty quick.
"There are some who have argued who I would probably agree with that if the contest had been longer each candidate would have had more time to connect with the electorate."
Asked if she thinks she could have won, she replies: "Yeah, there's only 2,000 votes in it. But then again I also have confidence SNP members know who they are voting for."
Despite calls for unity, Ms Forbes left the cabinet in Humza Yousaf's reshuffle.
At the time, the deputy first minister Shona Robison suggested this was for a better work life balance.
But Ms Forbes said: "The primary reason that I didn't take the job was because I couldn't do positions that I'd taken during the campaign.
"Having made much of integrity - I think it was important to be able to hold to those positions.
"I know how important it is within cabinet to work together and support the decisions made."
Ms Forbes did not rule out running for the leadership again in the future but said it was "highly unlikely".
She also said she would be a loyal backbencher to Mr Yousaf
Leading Scotland Where? will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 20:30 on Wednesday 19 April and available on BBC Sounds afterwards | United Kingdom Politics |
Boris Johnson is facing a titanic showdown with Tory backbench chief Graham Brady and a delegation of top ministers demanding he quits tonight.Behind the famous black door of No10, the PM is embroiled in a final struggle with Sir Graham and senior figures including chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris - who are telling him that the 'game is up' after a tidal wave of Tory resignations crippled the government. Newly-appointed Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps are among the group, while Home Secretary Priti Patel and Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan are in the building. Ultra-loyalist Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries has also entered, although she is still firmly backing the leader. Sir Graham was seen going into the Cabinet Office - another access point - after a meeting of the 1922 executive. Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis is returning from Belfast to make clear his position is 'untenable'. Kwasi Kwarteng also believes Mr Johnson must go, although he is travelling in the North East and not there in person.Despite the high drama at home, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has opted to board a flight to Indonesia for 'long-planned' meeting with G20 counterparts. But giving evidence to the powerful Liaison Committee before returning to Downing Street, the PM insisted 'of course' he will still be in office tomorrow, and dismissed the idea the government is wracked by inertia as 'nonsense'.Challenged on the delegation coming to see him Mr Johnson said he is 'not going to give a running commentary on political events'. 'I'm not going to step down,' he said. Asked how his week was going during one extraordinary exchange, Mr Johnson quipped: 'Terrific.' Quizzed by Labour's Darren Jones how he could justify clinging on when his government is disintegrating, the premier said the country is going through 'tough times' and faced the biggest war in Europe for 80 years.'I cannot for the life of me see how it is responsible just to walk away from that... particularly not when you have a mandate of the kind we won two, three years ago,' Mr Johnson said. He ducked on whether Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove - who notoriously stabbed Mr Johnson in the back to end his leadership hopes in 2016 - had urged him admit he is finished at a meeting this morning. He is not thought to be in the delegation tonight. The discussion, uncovered by Mail+, emerged as the situation slips further out of Mr Johnson's control, with ministers resorting to mass resignation letters and dozens gone.The scale of the losses sparked one senior Tory aide to quip grimly: 'We will need some ministers to stay to keep the lights on through the leadership contest.' Meanwhile, Sajid Javid today delivered a vicious parting shot after his bombshell resignation, saying the 'team is only as good as the team captain'.In a personal statement to the Commons immediately after PMQs, watched in silence by Mr Johnson, the former health secretary said that maintaining 'honesty and integrity matters.He said he had spent many months giving Mr Johnson the 'benefit of the doubt', but insisted there was a point when 'enough is enough'.Mutinous Tories have been urging Sir Graham to step in to end days of carnage. Tonight the executive stopped short of changing party rules so that the leader can face another vote of confidence immediately - but made clear that could still happen next week. Boris Johnson arriving back in Downing Street after his appearance at the Liaison Committee today Powerful 1922 committee chair Graham Brady has been seen going into the Cabinet Office tonight - another access point to Downing StreetThe famous black door of Downing Street tonight, and (right centre) Mr Johnson's communications director Guto Hari returning to the building New Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps (pictured) are among the group confronting the PM Home Secretary Priti Patel and Trade Secretary Anne_Marie Trevelyan (pictured) are in the building for the showdown Asked again if he will quit as he arrived for a grilling by the Liaison Committee this afternoon, Mr Johnson said: 'No, no, no.' Sajid Javid today delivered a vicious parting shot at Boris Johnson saying the 'team is only as good as the team captain'In his statement to the House, Mr Javid said ministers had been repeatedly send out to defend lines that 'don't hold up', and made clear the Chris Pincher crisis had been the final straw.'This week again, we have reason to question the truth and integrity of what we've all been told. And at some point we have to conclude that enough is enough,' he said. 'I believe that point is now.'In a stark message to ministers who have decided to stay in place, Mr Javid said 'not doing something is an active decision'. The intervention evoked memories of Geoffrey Howe's resignation speech in 1990 which helped topple Margaret Thatcher. In a tiny bright point for the premier, Rishi Sunak is not planning on making a similar statement.Mr Javid launched his assault minutes after Mr Johnson faced a barrage of criticism at PMQs.The premier received jeers and a few cheers as he took to his feet in the chamber with his prospects of survival looking increasingly tiny, but joked that it is a 'big day' because the government is implementing 'the biggest tax cut in a decade'. Flanked by a stony-faced Dominic Raab and new Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, Mr Johnson fended off a series of attacks from Keir Starmer saying Europe was enduring the 'biggest war in 80 years' and he was getting on with the job. Mr Johnson was visibly angry when Tory MP Tim Loughton stood up and demanded to know if there are 'any circumstances' under which he would quit.He snapped that he had been given a 'colossal mandate' and would 'hang on in there' to 'win another general election', adding: 'The job of a PM... is to keep going! And that's what I'm going to do.' Birmingham Northfield MP and executive secretary of the 1922 Committee Gary Sambrook told the House that in an 'attempt to boost morale in the tearoom' Mr Johnson had been arguing 'there were seven people, MPs, in the Carlton Club last week and one of them should have tried to intervene to stop Chris from drinking so much'.He added: 'As if that wasn't insulting enough to the people who did try and intervene that night. And then also to the victims that drink was the problem.'Isn't it the example that the Prime Minister constantly tries to deflect from the issue, always tries to blame other people for mistakes and that at least nothing left for him to do other than to take responsibility and resign?'Mr Johnson replied by pointing out Labour MPs had applauded the question. 'There is a very simple reason why they want me out, and that is because they know that otherwise we are going to get on and deliver our mandate and win another general election. And that is the reality,' he said. WHO HAS QUIT BORIS'S GOVERNMENT? Here is a list of the 35 MPs who have resigned from the Government since Tuesday evening.It is the equivalent of around one in five of the total 'payroll vote' in the House of Commons, which describes the number of MPs who hold positions from which they would have to resign in order to oppose the Government.The 35 comprises two Cabinet ministers, 15 ministers, 15 parliamentary private secretaries, two trade envoys and one vice-chair.1. Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care2. Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer3. Andrew Murrison, trade envoy to Morocco4. Bim Afolami, Conservative Party vice-chairman5. Saqib Bhatti, parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care6. Jonathan Gullis, parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland Office7. Nicola Richards, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Transport8. Virginia Crosbie, parliamentary private secretary at the Welsh Office9. Theo Clarke, trade envoy to Kenya10. Alex Chalk, Solicitor General11. Laura Trott, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Transport12. Will Quince, parliamentary under-secretary of state for children and families at the Department for Education13. Robin Walker, minister of state for school standards at the Department for Education14. Felicity Buchan, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy15. John Glen, minister of state at the Treasury16. Victoria Atkins, minister of state for prisons and probation at the Ministry of Justice17. Jo Churchill, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs18. Stuart Andrew, minister of state for housing at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities19. Selaine Saxby, parliamentary private secretary at the Treasury20. Claire Coutinho, parliamentary private secretary at the Treasury21. David Johnston, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Education22. Kemi Badenoch, minister of state at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities23. Julia Lopez, minister of state at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport24. Lee Rowley, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy25. Neil O'Brien, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities26. Alex Burghart, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Education27. Mims Davies, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Work & Pensions28. Duncan Baker, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities29. Craig Williams, parliamentary private secretary at the Treasury30. Mark Logan, parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland Office31. Rachel Maclean, parliamentary under-secretary of state for safeguarding at the Home Office32. Mike Freer, parliamentary under-secretary of state for exports at the Department for International Trade33. Mark Fletcher, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy34. Sara Britcliffe, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Education35. Ruth Edwards, parliamentary private secretary at the Scottish Office36. Peter Gibson, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for International Trade 37. David Duiguid, trade envoy for Angola and Zambia38. James Sunderland, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Former Cabinet minister David Davis called on Boris Johnson to 'put the interests of the nation before his own interests'.He said: 'Six months ago I called on the Prime Minister to resign because even then it was clear that his approach to leadership and integrity was already creating a pipeline of problems that will paralyse proper Government.'Today I ask him to do the honourable thing, to put the interests of the nation before his own interests and before, in his own words, it does become impossible for Government to do its job.'Mr Johnson replied: 'I just couldn't disagree with him more. Look at what the Government is doing today, cutting taxes … we've just completed a programme to get half a million people off welfare into work, thanks to the strength of our economy.'Housing minister Stuart Andrew, prisons minister Victoria Atkins, City minister John Glen, schools minister Robin Walker, and children's minister Will Quince all turned the screw by walking out just before the PMQs session. And even as he spoke Environment minister Jo Churchill was tweeting that she had quit. Five ministers - Kemi Badenoch, Julia Lopez, Lee Rowley, Neil O'Brien and Alex Burghart penned a joint message calling on him to go. Mims Davies, Rachel Maclean and Mike Freer have also added their names to the roll call leaving government, with most now believing it is question of how long rather than whether the PM can survive. Ms Atkins laid into the government's 'fractured values', while Mr Glen said he had a 'complete lack of confidence' in the premier and Mr Walker slammed 'mistakes and questions about integrity'. Mr Zahawi was in the middle of an interview on the BBC's flagship Today programme this morning when he was informed that Mr Quince had joined the exodus, slamming No10's 'inaccurate' claims about the Chris Pincher allegations.Asked whether it meant Mr Johnson is 'over', a sombre-looking Mr Zahawi responded: 'I am deeply sorry to see colleagues leave government.' More junior aides have also been voting with their feet as the challenge to the PM gathers pace. After running the gauntlet of PMQs will endure a three-hour grilling from the powerful Liaison Committee - including some of his fiercest critics from 3pm. In his statement, Mr Javid said he gave the PM the benefit of the doubt on Partygate but 'I do fear that the reset button can only work so many times'.He said: 'When the first stories of parties in Downing Street emerged late last year I was personally assured at the most senior level by my right honourable friend's then team that, and I quote, 'there had been no parties in Downing Street and no rules were broken'.'So I gave the benefit of doubt. And I went on those media rounds to say that I'd had those assurances from the most senior level of the Prime Minister's team.'Then we had more stories. We had the Sue Gray report, a new Downing Street team. I continued to give the benefit of the doubt.'After saying that 'enough is enough', Mr Javid said he appreciated the Prime Minister's 'kind and humble words, and his humble spirit when I went to see him yesterday'.He added: 'But I do fear that the reset button can only work so many times. There's only so many times you can turn that machine on and off before you realise that something is fundamentally wrong.'He told MPs: 'Last month I gave the benefit of doubt one last time… I have concluded that the problem starts at the top and I believe that is not going to change and that means that it is for those of us in a position who have responsibility to make that change.'I wish my Cabinet colleagues well and I can see they have decided to remain in the Cabinet. They will have their own reasons.'Laughter could be heard in the chamber, as Mr Javid went on: 'But it is a choice. I know just how difficult that choice is. But let's be clear, not doing something is an active decision.'Mr Quince tweeted: 'With great sadness and regret, I have this morning tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister after I accepted and repeated assurances on Monday to the media which have now been found to be inaccurate.' Senior backbenchers Robert Halfon and Chris Skidmore, as well as Red Wall MP Lee Anderson have also broken cover to say they have lost confidence in Mr Johnson. But despite fears of massive damage to the Conservative brand Mr Johnson is showing no signs of conceding, apparently responding 'f*** that' when asked by aides about the possibility. He told a meeting of Tory MPs last night that he wants to get on with cutting taxes, suggesting it had been Mr Sunak holding him back on the issue.And the Mail+ revealed Mr Johnson has told friends people need to 'stop bickering'. 'I'm not going anywhere,' he said. 'I'm going to smash on and deliver for the people who gave us a massive mandate.'Mr Zahawi - installed within hours of the resignations last night as the PM attempted to steady the ship - was sent out to broadcast studios to show support this morning. He denied that he had threatened to quit in order to be handed the coveted No11 post, and asked if he wanted to take over from Mr Johnson he replied: 'There is no vacancy.' He told Sky News: 'You don't go into this job for an easy life, sometimes it's easy to walk away, but it's important to deliver for the country.'Michael Gove (left) - who notoriously stabbed Boris Johnson (right) in the back to end his leadership hopes in 2016 - apparently urged the PM to admit he is finished at a meeting this morning In a personal statement to the Commons immediately after PMQs, the former health secretary said that maintaining 'honesty and integrity matters Mr Javid said he had spent many months giving Mr Johnson the 'benefit of the doubt', but insisted there was a point when 'enough is enough'The PM has been dubbed the 'Greased Piglet' for his ability to escape seemingly terminal political situations, but even former allies fear he might be cornered this time.In more signs of support ebbing away, Laura Trott quit as a ministerial aide. Alec Shelbrooke, Elmet & Rothwell MP, said Mr Johnson's premiership can 'go on no longer'.He said in a statement posted to Twitter: 'It has been my view that the seriousness of world events and the UK's leadership in support of Ukraine required stability in leadership at home; however, it is now clear to me that the Prime Minister's leadership of the Conservative Party can go on no longer as it is causing a distraction from the serious international issues we face as a country.'Honesty and integrity should be the watchwords of all politicians, and it remains so for the large majority of Conservative MPs. I no longer believe, after several resets, that these values can be re-embedded under the current leadership.'On Mr Johnson's insistence that he can carry on, Mr Shelbrooke said: 'People were pretty adamant that the Titanic couldn't sink.' Amid vain efforts to stop the situation escalating overnight, a Government source insisted that Mr Zahawi - promoted from Education Secretary in the chaos following the double-resignation - is the 'adventurous and buccaneering chancellor Britain needs'.And Mr Johnson himself delivered another swipe at Mr Sunak, claiming he had been a block on easing the tax burden.He told a hastily-convened meeting of Tory MPs last night: 'I know you're all avidly in favour of tax cuts and tonight's events might make that a bit easier to deliver.' Mr Johnson fended off a series of attacks from Keir Starmer saying Europe was enduring the 'biggest war in 80 years' and he was getting on with the jobFlanked by a stony-faced Dominic Raab and new Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, Mr Johnson fended off a series of attacks from Keir Starmer saying Europe was enduring the 'biggest war in 80 years' and he was getting on with the jobBoris Johnson left Downing Street for the House of Commons today - later than usual as pressure mounts on him to quit The Government source said Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who has long coveted No11, was doing a 'fabulous job' but was 'too critical to move' given the crisis in Ukraine and the Northern Ireland Protocol row.The PM appointed his chief of staff Steve Barclay to replace Mr Javid as Health Secretary. Highlights of Javid's devastating speech ENOUGH IS ENOUGH 'This week again, we have reason to question the truth and integrity of what we've all been told. And at some point we have to conclude that enough is enough,' he said.'I believe that point is now.'BLAME THE TEAM CAPTAIN 'I also believe a team is as good as its team captain and a captain is as good as his or her team. So, loyalty must go both ways. NO MORE RESETS I do fear that the reset button can only work so many times. There's only so many times you can turn that machine on and off before you realise that something is fundamentally wrong.' NOT QUITTING IS A CHOICE'Let's be clear, not doing something is an active decision.' PICK ME FOR NEXT LEADER? 'I got into politics to do something, not to be somebody. So it is hard in one way, but not in another. Being a good father, a husband, a son and a citizen is good enough for me.'If I can continue to contribute to public life and my party from the backbenches it will be a privilege to do so.' Universities minister Michelle Donelan was promoted to Cabinet to replace Mr Zahawi.The departure of two such senior ministers triggered speculation that the PM might face a mass walkout. Mr Javid said the public expected integrity and competence and warned Mr Johnson that voters were 'concluding that we are now neither'.Mr Sunak hinted at differences over tax and spending and said the public had a right to expect the Government to conduct itself 'properly, competently and seriously'.At a Cabinet meeting yesterday, the PM's top team were pictured looking grim-faced at the latest crisis to engulf the Government.One minister told the Mail: 'You've seen the pictures haven't you? It was a case of 'where are the cyanide pills?'' But a string of senior figures quickly confirmed they would be staying, giving Mr Johnson a glimmer of hope that he could survive. Andrew Mitchell, a former chief whip, compared Boris Johnson with Rasputin.'It's a bit like the death of Rasputin. He's been poisoned, stabbed, he's been shot, his body's been dumped in the freezing river and still he lives,' the Conservative MP told BBC Newsnight.He was adamant that it was 'over' for the Prime Minister.'This is an abnormal Prime Minister - brilliantly charismatic, very funny, very amusing, big, big character, but I'm afraid he has neither the character nor the temperament to be our prime minister.'It came after the release of a damaging letter by Lord McDonald of Salford which gave critics of Mr Johnson further ammunition over his appointment of alleged groper Chris Pincher to the whips office.In his resignation letter, Mr Sunak warned that 'we cannot continue like this' and he was ready to sacrifice his political career.'The public rightly expect Government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously,' he wrote.Meanwhile, Mr Javid questioned Mr Johnson's integrity, competence and ability to act in the national interest. Sajid Javid (pictured leaving home today) is expected to make a resignation statement in the Commons this afternoon - but Rishi Sunak is not set to use the platform to spell out his reasons Children's minister Will Quince joined the exodus saying he had repeated 'inaccurate' information from No10 about the Chris Pincher allegations Tory rebels are urging 1922 committee chair Graham Brady (pictured centre) to step in and tell Mr Johnson to go. The PM last month survived a ballot by a margin of 211 to 148 and in theory has a 12-month grace period before another challengeIn his resignation letter (left), Mr Sunak told the PM that 'we cannot continue like this'. Meanwhile, Mr Javid (right) publicly questioned Mr Johnson's integrity, competence and ability to act in the national interest YouGov polls suggest 69 per cent of Brits want Boris to resign but few have confidence that he will heed the calls HOW THE CHAOS IN THE CABINET UNFOLDED ON A DAY OF DRAMA 6.00pm - Mr Johnson releases pool clip taking responsibility for hiring alleged groper Chris Pincher as whip6.02pm - Sajid Javid announces resignation as Health Secretary on his Twitter - saying he could not serve under Mr Johnson in 'good conscience'.6.11pm - Rishi Sunak announces his resignation as Chancellor of the Exchequer - saying that the public 'expect government to be conducted properly'.6.31pm - Former Johnson adviser and adversary Dominic Cummings tweets '#RegimeChange' indicating a belief that Mr Johnson's time as Prime Minister is up.7.13pm - UK trade envoy to Morocco Andrew Murrison MP resigns his post.7.29pm - Conservative Party vice-chair Bim Afolami announces his resignation live on TalkTV's The News Desk7.48pm - Red Wall Tory MP Jonathan Gullis resigns as a PPS in the Northern Ireland Office - launching an attack on Johnson7.51pm - Saqib Bhatti MP quits as a PPS in the Department of Health and Social Care8.27pm - Nicola Roberts MP resigns as a Department for Transport PPS - saying she did not recognise the current Conservative party.8.47pm - Mr Johnson's chief of staff Steve Barclay announced as Health Secretary8.48pm - Nadhim Zahawi and Michelle Donelan are spotted entering No.10 Downing Street8.55pm - Virginia Crosbie MP resigns as a PPS for the Welsh Office.9.40pm - Nadhim Zahawi is announced as Chancellor of the Exchequer - with Michelle Donelan replacing him as Education Secretary10.02pm - Theo Clarke resigns as UK trade envoy to Kenya.10.47pm - Alex Chalk resigns as Solicitor General. In a round of interviews this morning, Mr Zahawi was pressed on whether he wants to be leader after Mr Johnson.'There is no vacancy,' he said.He added: 'First of all, I will be working very hard to make sure that this team continues to deliver. The Prime Minister is focused on delivery, delivery, delivery.'Pressed on whether his reason for taking the job was to do with personal ambition, he said: 'No, as I said to you, sometimes walking away may give you some respite, dare I say, but the idea that you have to deliver for the country, I think, is the right thing to do.'On Mr Quince's resignation, Mr Zahawi told ITV's Good Morning Britain: 'He felt let down, clearly. All I would say to my colleagues is people don't vote for divided teams.' Mr Zahawi said he is going to 'look at everything' when asked about his tax plans.The new Chancellor said 'nothing's off the table' when pressed on his vision for corporation tax.Asked what immediate plans he had made with the Prime Minister when it came to cutting taxes and tackling inflation, he told Sky News: 'As my first day in the job, the conversation we had is my task is to rebuild the economy and to grow the economy.'I will look at everything to make sure that we continue to be on the side of people.'Pressed on his plans for corporation tax specifically, he said: 'I will look at everything. There's nothing off the table. I want to be one of the most competitive countries in the world for investment.'I know that boards around the world, when they make investment decisions, they're long-term, and the one tax they can compare globally is corporation tax. I want to make sure that we are as competitive as we can be whilst maintaining fiscal discipline.'The exits of Mr Sunak and Mr Javid - which aides of both men claim were not coordinated - came despite Mr Johnson frantically trying to head off the crisis with a grovelling apology over his appointment of shamed MP Mr Pincher as deputy chief whip.Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, trade minister Penny Mordaunt, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, former health secretary Jeremy Hunt and ex-chancellor Rishi Sunak are the bookies' favourites if there is a leadership contest.Ms Atkins said: 'It is with sadness and regret that I resign as Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice.'Values such as integrity, decency, respect and professionalism should matter to us all. I have watched with growing concern as those values have fractured under your leadership, through Paterson, partygate and Pincher. I have given you the benefit of the doubt at each turn, out of loyalty to you as Prime Minister and to our great party.'The events of this week, however, have made these contortions impossible. The casual mistreatment of Minister Will Quince and the revelations contained in Lord McDonald's letter highlight just how far your government has fallen from these ideals. I can no longer pirouette around our fractured values. We can and must be better than this.'This is at a time when our constituents face grave cost-of-living pressures not experienced for decades. These challenges demand resolute focus and we must take the country with us. We cannot provide that focus at present.'It has been my pleasure and privilege to serve as a minister. I am proud to have led the landmark Domestic Abuse Act through Parliament which will help millions of victims in the coming years; to support prison officers and staff who protect the public each day; and to implement much-needed reforms in the criminal justice system for rape and vulnerable victims through the Rape Review and the Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy.'Sir Bob Neill, chairman of the Commons justice committee, told Times Radio that Johnson's position was 'untenable' but 'he may well seek to cling on' and said he will do damage to the Tories for as long as he does so.The 1922 committee, which sets rules for the parliamentary party, is expected to announce today that it will hold elections for executive positions next Wednesday.Supporters and opponents of Mr Johnson will battle for the places so they can influence whether he faces another confidence vote, which could happen almost immediately. The PM last month survived a ballot by a margin of 211 to 148 and has a 12-month grace period before another challenge. But since then there has been a fresh bout of crisis, with disastrous defeats in the Tiverton and Wakefield by-elections, and his critics are plotting to change the rules to enable another vote before the summer recess.Tory rebels yesterday revealed they were submitting letters of no confidence to Sir Graham so there can be an immediate confidence vote – if the rules are changed.If the 12-month grace period is removed, a leadership challenge will take place if 54 of the party's 358 MPs put in letters. Mr Johnson's critics would then need more than half of the party's MPs to back removing him in a subsequent confidence vote.If the leader fails to get a majority, he or she resigns and cannot stand in the contest.A Downing Street-issued photo of Mr Johnson appointing Mr Zahawi as Chancellor in the Cabinet Room last night HESELTINE GLOATS THAT BORIS'S EXIT WILL BE THE END OF BREXIT Lord Heseltine gloated last night that if Boris Johnson goes, Brexit will too.He claimed the departure from the EU had been a disaster, and the Tories must change course to stay in government.Asked if the party would oust a proven vote-winner, he told the BBC: 'It has an instinct for survival. They know that under Boris they will not win the next election.' The Remainer, who served in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet but lost the whip in 2019 after backing the Lib Dems in European Parliament elections, said: 'The cancer at the heart of this dilemma is Brexit. If Boris goes, Brexit goes.Lord Heseltine, whose Henley seat was taken by Mr Johnson in 2001, said he liked the PM, but added: 'That is often the case with real rogues – they can be entertaining... providing you can live with the lack of integrity.' A snap YouGov poll last night found seven in 10 Brits believe Mr Johnson should resign, while a majority who voted Conservative in 2019 also want him gone. Ben Wallace has been consistently the most popular potential leadership contender in regular surveys by the ConservativeHome website.In the latest poll this week, 15.8 per cent said the Defence Secretary should lead the party, just ahead of Penny Mordaunt on 15.5 per cent and Liz Truss on 13.9 per cent.Tom Tugendhat, who is chairman of the Commons foreign affairs committee, was backed by 7 per cent of members, with Mr Zahawi on 6.6 per cent and former leadership hopeful Jeremy Hunt on 6.4 per cent.Although the poll is not entirely scientific, it is closely watched by MPs and ministers. Leadership contenders need two nominations from colleagues to put themselves forward.A series of votes would be held among the party's MPs to determine which two candidates end up on the ballot paper.In the last contest in 2019, 66 per cent of members chose Mr Johnson over Mr Hunt.Mr Johnson's immediate survival chances were boosted by senior figures including Dominic Raab, Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Ben Wallace and Therese Coffey declaring they will not be resigning. However, the losses in the middle ranks are starting to rack up significantly.Cheltenham MP Alex Chalk quit as Solicitor General saying he could not 'defend the indefensible'.Tory vice-chair Bim Afolami announced his exit live on TV last night, while former loyalist Jonathan Gullis, Saqib Bhatti, Nicola Richards and Virginia Crosbie stepped down from PPS roles.Theo Clarke and Andrew Murrison also left as trade envoys to Kenya and Morocco respectively. Lord Frost, previously Mr Johnson's key Brexit minister, said Mr Sunak and Mr Javid had done the 'right thing' and the premier could not change. Even Cabinet ministers staying in place sounded a gloomy tone privately, with one telling MailOnline yesterday that some of their closest colleagues had 'run out of sympathy with the PM'. After Sunak and Javid quit - Boris moved quickly to replace them with Nadhim Zahawi and Steve Barclay Seven in 10 Britons - and even 54% of Conservative voters - say Boris Johnson SHOULD resign following bombshell departure of Javid and Sunak, poll reveals Seven in ten Brits believe Boris Johnson should resign his post, according to a new YouGov poll of thousands of UK adults, while a majority of people who voted Conservative in 2019 also want him gone.The Prime Minister's tenure has been called into question after two members of his Cabinet - Health Secretary Sajid Javid and Chancellor Rishi S | United Kingdom Politics |
Employees work on the production line of vehicle components during a government-organised media tour to a factory of German engineering group Voith, following the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, in Shanghai, China July 21, 2022. REUTERS/Aly Song/Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comBEIJING, July 28 (Reuters) - China will try hard to achieve the best possible results for the economy this year, state media said on Thursday after a high-level meeting of the ruling Communist Party, dropping previous calls that it will strive to meet its 2022growth target.In the second half, China should "stabilise employment and prices, maintain economic operations within a reasonable range, and strive to achieve the best possible results," Xinhua news agency reported, after the 25-member Politburo chaired by President Xi Jinping met to assess the economy.The world's second-largest economy narrowly avoided contracting in the second quarter due to widespread COVID-19 lockdowns and analysts said Beijing's full-year growth target of around 5.5% had been looking increasingly unattainable. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comChinese leaders "have signalled that they won’t embark on massive stimulus just to hit the national target," Capital Economics said, while noting Beijing said it would work to stabilise the distressed property market, which has been dragging heavily on activity for the past year."We expect official 2022 GDP growth of at most 4% and think that, in reality, the economy may not grow at all this year."Gross domestic product in the first half grew only 2.5% from a year earlier, pointing to huge pressure in the second half, amid fears of a global recession, uncertainties from the Ukraine war and worries of recurring COVID lockdowns. read more While much of the rest of the world has been trying to live with the virus, China shown no sign of backing off from its tough zero-COVID policy. read more After an April Politburo meeting, Xinhua reported China will "work hard to realise the annual economic and social development targets."On June 22, Xi, at the opening of a BRICS forum, said China would take more measures to achieve its annual economic goals while minimising the impact of its COVID-19 prevention and control measures as much as possible.But during an inspection tour in the central city of Wuhan on June 28, Xi said China will "strive to reach a relatively good level of the economic development this year".Similarly, last week, Premier Li Keqiang said at the World Economic Forum that China will "strive for relatively good results in economic development for the whole year".Xinhua said on Thursday that large provinces must take lead in growing China's economy, and those in a position to achieve their economic goals should do so."The government did not say what the relationship between the 'best possible' results and the around 5.5% GDP target is," said Qu Qing, head of investment consulting at Huachuang Securities."Instead, the 'best possible' results mean local economies should do their utmost to hit their economic goals."Qu does not expect massive new policies in the second half of the year, saying the focus will be on the implementation of previous measures.So far, authorities have deepened tax credit rebates, accelerated local government special bond issuances to buoy infrastructure investments, and lowered car purchase taxes.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Ryan Woo and Ellen Zhang; Additional reporting by Tina Qiao; editing by Philippa Fletcher and Kim CoghillOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
Thirty charities and non-profit organisations have written a letter to PM Rishi Sunak, urging him to pass a bill to ban 'no-fault' evictions.
The Renters Reform Bill would remove the right of landlords in England to evict tenants for no reason with only two months' notice.
The charities said they are "deeply concerned" about the lack of progress in passing the bill into law.
The government said it would resume its progress through parliament "shortly".
The Conservatives promised "a better deal for renters" - including a ban on no-fault evictions - in its manifesto ahead of the general election in 2019.
In May, the Renter Reform Bill was introduced to parliament, containing this measure. But it has not yet been brought back for the next parliamentary stage.
There are concerns the bill won't have time to pass through parliament before the next election, which is expected to take place next year.
What is a no-fault eviction?
A key piece of housing legislation, known as Section 21, allows landlords to evict tenants without giving a reason.
After receiving a Section 21 notice, tenants have just two months before their landlord can apply for a court order to evict them.
The letter, which was co-ordinated by the housing charity Shelter, cites a survey of 1900 renters in England which suggests a renter is evicted every three minutes in England under the no-fault rule.
"We are deeply concerned about the lack of progress of the Renters Reform Bill," the letter said.
"Any delay to the bill's progress causes more avoidable hardship and suffering, and with it, greater cost to the taxpayer."
The letter said scrapping no-fault evictions should be "at the heart" of the government's plans, warning that renters "cannot wait any longer".
"Together we are calling on the government to commit to progressing the Renters Reform Bill this parliament, and to pass it into law as promised in the party's manifesto."
Signatories include Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice, Liberty, the Centre for Mental Health and Disability Rights UK.
A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesperson said: "The government will deliver a fairer private rented sector for tenants and landlords through the Renters Reform Bill, which will have its second reading in Parliament shortly.
"The bill delivers our manifesto commitment and will abolish Section 21 'no fault' evictions to give tenants greater security in their homes.
"We are also determined to reduce the number of non-decent rented homes by 50% by 2030, as well as introducing the Decent Homes Standard to the private rented sector for the first time." | United Kingdom Politics |
By Matt MurphyBBC NewsPublished2 hours agocommentsCommentsImage source, Getty ImagesNato has announced plans to massively increase the number of its forces at high readiness to over 300,000 troops. The bloc's rapid reaction force currently has 40,000 troops at its disposal, with many of those based along the alliance's eastern flank.Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the increase followed a direct threat from Russia to European security. He earlier said that "the new military blueprint" would "drastically upgrade" the bloc's eastern defences. Mr Stoltenberg said several Nato battlegroups in eastern Europe would be bolstered to "brigade level" - tactical units of several thousand troops - which the bloc's civilian leader said was intended to send a clear message of deterrence to Russia. "I'm confident that Moscow, President Putin, understands our collective security guarantees, understands the consequence of attacking a Nato-allied country," Mr Stoltenberg told reporters at a news conference in Brussels. "It will trigger a response from the whole Alliance. And to underpin that message, we are increasing the Nato presence."Nato's rapid reaction force is a combination of land, sea and air assets designed to be deployed quickly in the event of attack. It has steadily grown in size from 13,000 troops to 40,000 since 2014. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, many of these forces were placed at "high readiness" for the first time. Multinational battlegroups are now active in a number of countries on Russia's border, including Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland. There are additional plans to deploy more battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The moves announced by Mr Stoltenberg are expected to be approved at this week's Nato summit in Madrid, which will follow the G7 meeting of industrial democracies currently taking place in Germany. Members are also expected to change the alliance's official stance towards Russia, which was adopted in 2010 and described Moscow as a "strategic partner". "That will not be the case in the strategic concept that we will agree in Madrid," Mr Stoltenberg told reporters. "I expect that allies will state clearly that Russia poses a direct threat to our security, to our values, to the rules-based international order." US officials have also briefed that new, "strong" language will be adopted towards China. Both the US and UK have reportedly pushed for a more forceful stance to combat what they see as an increasing threat of attack against the democratic island of Taiwan by Beijing. But Nato diplomats told the Reuters news agency that France and Germany prefer adopting more restrained measures to tackle China. | Europe Politics |
Gordon Brown accuses SNP ministers of wasting money on separate social security agency
The former prime minister said the money could have been better used to help alleviate poverty.
He said Social Security Scotland, which has responsibility for devolved benefits, was created for “status reasons”, rather than for the delivery of benefits.
But First Minister Humza Yousaf hit back, insisting: “Social Security Scotland delivers 13 devolved benefits, seven of which are only available in Scotland. A system with dignity, fairness and respect at its heart.
“Crucially, through our actions it is estimated we will lift 90,000 children out of poverty. That's not a waste of money.”
It came as a poll for Our Scottish Future, the think tank set up by Mr Brown, found more than half of Scots think wrangling over the constitution has left the country “stuck in a rut”. A total of 53 per cent of those questioned agreed that after a “decade of constitutional debate, Scotland now feels stuck in a rut”, with only 10 per cent disagreeing.
Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, Mr Brown insisted there is an urgent need for ministers at Holyrood and Westminster to work together to tackle poverty. He said rows between the SNP Government in Edinburgh and the Conservative administration in London have turned politics into a “Punch and Judy show”.
The former prime minister said he is now seeing poverty he never thought he would see again in his lifetime, and warned the next winter “is going to be as bad if not worse than the last”.
Mr Brown criticised the creation of Social Security Scotland, which was formed in 2018. He said: "Now what’s happened in Scotland with poverty, is that the Scottish Government has set up a separate social security agency. So you’ve got the Department for Work and Pensions and you’ve got the social security agency in Scotland.
"But the Department for Work and Pensions can pay the benefits – whatever benefits the Scottish Government decide, can be paid through the Department for Work and Pensions. Just like if you’re paying income tax in Scotland you’ve got a separate rate, and it’s paid through the Inland Revenue [now called HM Revenue and Customs].
"So why did the Scottish Government spend £700 million in resources setting up a separate social security agency, when if you wanted a child poverty payment, it could be paid through the Department for Work and Pensions? I’ve never heard a satisfactory answer to that question.
"And I think it’s the intransigence of the DWP and I think it’s the intransigence of the Scottish Government. You’ve got ultra-nationalism on the one hand and almost nihilism on the other hand.
"And so you end up with £700 million that’s probably about £2,000 per family in poverty, that could have been used to solve the problem of poverty, but we’ve set up two separate, expensive bureaucracies to administer payments for families. Now surely we can do things better than that.
"And the waste of money, simply because the Scottish Government wanted a separate agency for status reasons, rather than for the delivery of benefits.”
SNP MP David Linden said: “It is absolutely astounding to hear Gordon Brown siding with the Tories by attacking Scotland’s social security system – which is based on fairness, dignity and respect – and standing in the way of more powers to tackle poverty coming to Scotland.
“The SNP has fought long and hard to see additional tax and social security powers devolved to our Parliament, and we’ve used the limited powers we do have alongside our fixed budget, to make Scotland fairer – including through the delivery of 13 new benefits including the game-changing Scottish Child Payment, which is unique in the UK and we have increased to £25 per week per child.
“However, for as long as the key powers to tackle the cost of living remain at Westminster, and we are forced to spend hundreds of millions of pounds mitigating Tory welfare cuts and fighting Labour’s refusal to scrap the brutal two-child cap, in Scotland, we will be tackling poverty with one hand tied behind our back."
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article. | United Kingdom Politics |
Sticker reads crude oil on the side of a storage tank in the Permian Basin in Mentone, Loving County, Texas, U.S. November 22, 2019. REUTERS/Angus Mordant/Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comTOKYO/SINGAPORE, June 23 (Reuters) - Oil prices continued to pull back on Thursday, dropping more than 2% as investors recalibrated assessments of recession risks and fuel demand amid interest rate hikes in major economies.U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures had skidded $2.6, or 2.7%, to $103.46 a barrel by 0330 GMT. Brent crude futures slid $2.5, or 2.3%, to $109.22 a barrel.Both benchmarks tumbled by as much as $3 a barrel in the early morning of Asian trading, after plunging around 3% in the previous session. They are at their lowest levels since mid-May.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comInvestors are continuing to assess how worried they need to be about central banks potentially pushing the world economy into recession as they attempt to curb inflation with interest rate increases. read more "Oil markets remained under pressure as investors were concerned that U.S. rate hikes would stall an economic recovery and dampen fuel demand," said Kazuhiko Saito, chief analyst at Fujitomi Securities Co Ltd."The U.S. and European hedge funds have been selling off their positions ahead of the end of the second quarter, which is also cooling investor sentiment," he said, predicting WTI could fall below $100 a barrel before the July 4 holiday in the United States.U.S. Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell said on Wednesday thecentral bank was not trying to engineer a recession to stop inflation but was fully committed to bringing prices under control even if doing so risked an economic downturn. read more Analysts from Haitong Futures wrote: "With more data proving that Russian crude supply is less affected by sanctions than most people have previously estimated, the supply side may see a larger-than-expected increase in the near term."President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday that Russia was in the process of rerouting its trade and oil exports towards countries from the BRICS group of emerging economies in the wake of Western sanctions over Ukraine.China's crude oil imports from Russia in May were up 55% from a year earlier and at a record level. read more U.S. President Joe Biden, meanwhile, called on Congress to pass a three-month suspension of the federal gasoline tax to help combat record pump prices and provide temporary relief for American families this summer. read more "The news temporarily boosted the oil product prices, but it was later viewed that even if the gasoline tax was suspended, retail prices would remain high, making it difficult to stimulate demand," Fujitomi's Saito said.The U.S. Energy Information Administration said its weekly oil data, which was scheduled for release on Thursday, will be delayed due to systems issues until at least next week.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Yuka Obayashi in Tokyo and Muyu Xu in Singapore; editing by Richard Pullin and Bradley PerrettOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Associated Press
Associated Press
Leave your feedback
ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis on Monday pledged to keep up military support for Ukraine for as long as it takes and to help with post-war reconstruction. During his talks in Athens with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian leader suggested Greece could help train his country’s fighter pilots on new Western aircraft.
Zelenskyy flew to Athens for his fourth visit to a European Union capital in three days, where he later attended an informal meeting of Balkan leaders with top European Union officials.
READ MORE: Russia, China to advocate for their agendas among developing nations at BRICS summit
In statements following talks with Zelenskyy, Mitsotakis voiced full support for Kyiv against Russia’s invasion and condemned Russian “war crimes.” He pledged to “stay on the side of the government and the heroic people” of Ukraine, “however much time may be required.”
Mitsotakis also said NATO-member Greece would participate in the “titanic” task of reconstruction in Ukraine when the fighting is over.
Zelenskyy thanked Mitsotakis for Greece’s support, and suggested that Athens has agreed to train Ukrainian pilots to fly the U.S.-made F-16 warplanes that Denmark and the Netherlands pledged to provide to Kyiv.
“Today we have an important result for the aviation coalition — Greece will take part in training our pilots on F-16s,” he said. “Thank you for this offer.”
Greek officials did not respond to requests for comment, and Mitsotakis made no reference to pilot training.
Zelenskyy and Mitsotakis also signed a joint declaration on Greece supporting Ukraine’s NATO accession, “when allies agree and conditions are met.”
In the evening, Zelenskyy joined an informal dinner organized by Mitsotakis for nine Balkan leaders, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council head Charles Michel.
The dinner was to discuss the Western Balkans’ future in the EU, which many of the region’s countries have already joined and the rest are jockeying to enter.
Greece has joined its NATO and EU partners in strongly backing Ukraine against the Russian invasion and has provided military assistance in the form of armored personnel carriers and ammunition.
But Athens has resisted pressure to provide Kyiv with a Russian-made air defense missile system stationed on the southern island of Crete. Greece is engaged in a substantial weapons procurement program of its own amid testy relations with neighboring Turkey — its NATO ally and historic regional rival.
READ MORE: Neighbors Ukraine and Romania sign accord to boost grain exports through Romanian territory
Earlier on Monday, Zelenskyy was in Denmark, where he thanked lawmakers for helping his country resist Russia’s invasion. On Sunday, Denmark and the Netherlands announced they would provide Kyiv with F-16 warplanes that could be delivered around the end of the year.
The presidents of Serbia, Montenegro and Moldova, the prime ministers of North Macedonia, Kosovo, Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania, and the head of the council of ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina attended Monday’s dinner. Mitsotakis was also meeting several of them individually on Monday and Tuesday.
A notable absence was Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama. Relations between Greece and its northwestern neighbor have soured over the jailing of ethnic Greek minority leader Fredi Beleri, who was arrested before local elections in May on vote-buying allegations.
Beleri was elected mayor of the southwestern Albanian town of Himara despite being in pre-trial detention. Athens insists his detention is politically motivated and has called for his release.
“I believe we all understand that it was not possible to invite Mr. Rama to such an important initiative,” Greek government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis said.
“When we say that Albania’s European path passes through the basic respect of European rules and the rules of justice, we mean it,” he added, noting that Albania’s president had declined an invitation to attend.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | Europe Politics |
Former first minister Nicola Sturgeon’s rent cap and eviction ban have sent prices for Scottish tenants soaring faster than in London, new data reveals.
The cost of rent in Scotland is rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the UK after the SNP introduced restrictions on landlords’ ability to raise rent and carry out evictions.
Holyrood’s decision in September 2022 to freeze rent payments for hundreds of thousands of Scots and ban most evictions came in response to the cost of living crisis, which Ms Sturgeon labelled a “humanitarian emergency” at the time.
However, the move has since backfired with rental growth in Scotland climbing 12.7pc in the last year, compared with 10.5pc nationally and 12.4pc in London, according to property website Zoopla.
It comes after the Scottish government announced in January it was extending the measures and swapped the rent freeze for a 3pc cap on rent increases. The eviction ban, in place until the end of this month, is set to be extended until March next year.
Richard Donnell, executive director of Zoopla, said that the SNP’s rent laws meant that landlords were left with no option but to “push rent [up] as hard as they can” between tenancies, when prices can be increased by more than the cap”.
“If you’re a landlord and your costs are going up and prices are going up, if you get a vacant property then you are going to try and reset it to the market rate which has been going up very fast,” he said.
“Landlords are just going to try and push rent as hard as they can. There‘s an incentive to try and push prices as hard as you can. Landlords don’t want vacancies.
“It’s [the rent cap] helping the people who are renting today and that’s great [but] it’s probably meaning people in a property and reluctant to move.”
He added: “Irrespective of all these policy changes…We’ve got this huge demand side stimulus from record immigration, higher student numbers and higher interest rates keeping more would-be first time buyers in the rental market.”
The average price of rent in Scotland has leapt from £7,068 a year in March 2020 to £8,796 in July this year, an increase of nearly £2,000, while Londoners have been handed increases of £4,488 over the same period.
Zoopla blamed the surge in rent in Scotland on laws that have seen landlords having to maximise the rent for new tenancies to cover costs because they are unable to do so once a lease is signed, upping the impetus for price growth versus other parts of Britain.
Patrick Harvie, the Scottish government’s tenants’ rights minister, said: “Our emergency legislation has led the way at a time when rents have been rising across the UK, stabilising rents to help tenants to stay in their homes.
“Since April 1, 2023, private landlords with a tenancy subject to the cap have been able to increase a tenant’s rent in-tenancy by up to 3pc or can apply to Rent Service Scotland for approval of an increase of up to 6pc in specific circumstances.
“Anywhere else in the UK, private tenants have faced a double whammy of uncapped rent rises both during and between tenancies.
“Our Programme for Government confirms our intention to introduce a Housing Bill to deliver a New Deal for Tenants, including the introduction of long-term rent controls for the private rented sector.” | United Kingdom Politics |
Speaking at a private dinner in London recently, a senior serving British military officer argued the west had no choice but to see Ukraine as just one phase in a decade-long battle with Russia. “If Ukraine wins, Russia will never accept that. If Russia wins, it will go further,” he warned.Yet in Whitehall they fear the “F word” – fatigue – and worry that the west with its TikTok-attention span and bias towards instant gratification does not have the resolve for the years-long sacrifice required to defeat Russia, or even stem the military tide in the villages of eastern Ukraine.That anxiety is shared by Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president, who in a speech to marketing professionals in Cannes this week pleaded with them to use their creative ingenuity to keep the world focused on his country’s struggle: “Don’t let the world switch to something else,” he said.President Volodymyr Zelenskiy visits frontline positions in the Zaporizhzhia region in June. Photograph: Ukrainian Presidential Press/AFP/Getty ImagesSo the succession of summits over the next week – European Council, the G7 and Nato – come at a pivotal moment in the four-month war, not just on the battlefield, but in the equally important parallel contests to maintain domestic support, damage the Russian economy and build geostrategic alliances.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BSTEvery effort at the summits will be made to show unity and resolve, but there is little disguising this is a dark point. Inflation across the eurozone rose above 8% last month. A gallon of petrol has risen above $5 (£4.09) in the US. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, the weaponiser of everything, is turning off gas supplies to Europe and and sub-Saharan Africa’s grain. US security assistance to Ukraine since the invasion began on 24 February is valued at $5.6bn, but it is estimated that the country needs $5bn-$7bn a month to function.Political heat rises in the westWestern leaders are already feeling the political heat.The US president, Joe Biden, stares at defeat in the November midterms, and Donald Trump is now the bookies favourite to win the White House in 2024. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, appears paralysed after losing his parliamentary majority and seeing the French electorate hand nearly 90 seats to the “Putin-ist” Marine Le Pen. Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has already lost elections in two states and struggles to convince that his turning point on defence represents a change of German mindset.In Italy, the prime minister, Mario Draghi, one of the steadiest European voices on Ukraine, is under pressure over arm sales to Kyiv and has seen his foreign minister, Luigi di Maio, quit the 5-Star Movement to form another parliamentary group to back him. The British prime minister, Boris Johnson, has survived a no-confidence vote within the Tory party, but now seems to see populist domestic dividing lines, not Ukraine, as his route to salvation. The socialist-led government in Spain, which host hosts next week’s Nato summit, has just seen itself obliterated in provincial elections in Andalusia – previously the bastion of socialism and where 20% of Spanish voters reside.Ukrainian service personnel fire towards Russian positions in the eastern region of Donbas in June. Photograph: Aris Messinis/AFP/Getty ImagesBulgaria’s six-month old governing coalition, which had been the leading anti-Russian government in the Balkans, fell in a confidence vote on Wednesday, a situation that could lead to a new Russian ally in the EU.Not all these crises can be attributed directly to Ukraine, or any voter sympathy for Putin, but the growing economic spillover from the war hardly make incumbents popular. The old adage “foreign policy is not important until suddenly it is very important” has never been more true.So what to do? One faction led by the UK and Poland demands these summits must be a hard-headed and honest council of war, not confined to discussions about abstract future strategic defence concepts, global investment funds or self-congratulatory praise of democracy. If Ukrainians are losing as many as 200 lives a day, as Kyiv has admitted, there has to be a strategic rethink, or else some of the big trends – in the global information war, on the battlefield and in the world economy – will keep going Putin’s way.Johnson hinted at his frustration when he told the Greek prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis “the international community needed to shift the dial on Ukraine”. His specific gripe is the number of Greek-owned vessels transporting Putin’s oil, but in interviews in the European press Johnson urged allies to recognise that more of the same risked Putin going into any talks “holding the high cards”.Boris Johnson arrives at RAF Brize Norton after a surprise meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Kyiv in June. Photograph: WPA/Getty ImagesJarosław Kaczyński, the leader of Poland’s governing party, also sounded a warning, saying: “The delivery of heavy weapons, here and now, not in a few months may decide the outcome of the war.” If the weapons were not delivered, events may take a really bad turn. If Russian forces launched an attack on the north-east city of Kharkiv and broke through the frontline in the eastern Donbas region, “there will be escalation and a big, terrible defeat for the west”.The Estonian prime minister, Kaja Kallas, told the Guardian “War fatigue is kicking in. Russia is playing on us getting tired. We must not fall into the trap. Ukraine’s position is deteriorating and Russia is more aggressive than ever because they want to show the victories back home, so it is getting more and more difficult.”Kallas wants very clear commitments on a seventh round of EU sanctions, on Nato’s new forward defence posture and on Ukraine being given EU membership candidate status. But she is the first to say Ukraine’s greatest requirement is longer range artillery and heavier weaponry.On the battlefieldGustav Gressel, a security expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, said Ukraine’s own defence industry had been destroyed, and its stocks of old Russian weaponry exhausted, leaving its military dependent on western life-support.Members of a Ukrainian tank unit in Donetsk in June. Photograph: ReutersGressel said the shortage of artillery vehicles would turn into a tank shortage in two or three months on the basis of the current attrition rate and the loss of Ukraine’s production line in Kharkiv. Supplying tanks requires longer preparation time in terms of logistics and training rather than ammunition.“If we always discuss the crisis, once it occurs and start the delivery programme only once the situation in Ukraine is urgent, we will always give the Russians the edge in the war, and they will use it,” said Gressel, adding that part of the problem was Germany continuing to insist Nato policy was not to supply tanks, even though no such policy exists.On top of the tank shortage is a lack of air defences. Ukraine’s manned portable missiles were produced in Russia. “In a war where the Russian air force is flying 250 to 300 sorties per day, Ukraine having 50 missiles to stretch across six months or until the next air defence system might be expected is not a good situation,” Gressel said. Here Germany has at least promised help in the shape of IRIS-T air defence system.Ukrainian forces fire a multiple rocket launch system near the town of Lysychansk in June. Photograph: Gleb Garanich/ReutersBut the pace with which Germany acts frustrates. On Tuesday at the DGAP thinktank, Jens Plötner, a foreign policy adviser to Scholz, pointed out a lot of pages were filled with discussions about the German delivery of 20 Martens tanks, but there were fewer larger articles about Europe’s future relationship with Russia. Scholz implicitly slapped him down, saying relations with Putin’s imperialist Russia were unimaginable in the foreseeable future.But the longer Germany debates its role and the longer the war is prolonged, the greater the risk of spillover as the combatants spread the theatre of conflict. Lithuania has cut off a rail route to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, home to Russia’s Baltic fleet. Ukraine has fired weapons at the Russian navy in the Black Sea. An oil refinery in southern Russia was hit by a drone, causing wide-scale damage. Biden’s aides are carefully watching how Ukraine uses its powerful new Himars launchers – it has promised not to target Russian soil because he does not want the war to spread.Economic warThe second theatre of war has been the economy. The EU rule has been that in its six round of sanctions nothing would be implemented that would hurt the west more than it hurt Russia. Putin claimed in his recent St Petersburg speech the sanctions blitzkrieg has not worked, but instead backfired, pointing to the rouble’s recovery to pre-invasion levels. Germany’s warning of a Lehman brothers-style contagion in the energy markets bore him out.Vladimir Putin and the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, leave Red Square after the Victory Day military parade in Moscow in May. Photograph: Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty ImagesJanis Kluge from the German Institute for international affairs thinktank said: “Russia is close to its sweet spot in gas trade with the EU. Volumes are small, putting pressure on the EU, yet prices are so high that revenues will still be more than enough, higher than in many previous years.” In essence the cut in supply, designed to reduce Europe’s stocks in the winter, is not affecting Gazprom profits.That is not to say sanctions are ineffectual. The head of Russia’s Sberbank said it may take Russia a decade to return to its pre-invasion performance. Half the country’s imports and exports were sanctions-affected. Inflation is at 17% and rising, while national output is expected to fall by anything from 8% to 30% this year. But there is no guarantee sanctions will bring Moscow to its knees.Influence warBut it is the third theatre of war – the influence war - where the west is faring unexpectedly poorly.There is a growing awareness that the west’s narrative that Putin is fighting a colonial war and is responsible for its ripple effects is meeting indifference and even resistance in the global south.A fire burns behind a field of wheat after shelling in Andriivka, the Kharkiv region, in June. Photograph: Leah Millis/ReutersWith more than 40% of wheat consumed in Africa usually coming from Russia and Ukraine, one of the key organisers of the G7 summit in Germany, Wolfgang Schmidt, said it was vital to prevent Moscow and Beijing dividing off the G7 from the so-called Brics countries by blaming western sanctions for the shortages. Germany had invited leaders from Indonesia, India, South Africa, Argentina and Senegal in part to prevent Russia and China succeeding in their goal.Schmidt said: “When you talk to leaders outside Europe and the alliance at the moment then you will realise their perception of the [ Ukraine] war is completely different from ours. They might say: ‘Yes, we are not OK with a country invading another.’ But and then comes the big but: ‘It is your sanctions that drive up food prices, energy prices and have a devastating effect on our population.’”Ann Linde, the Swedish foreign minister, said that during her meetings with Asian and African ministers she also came across a narrative that the west was more engaged in Ukraine, than it has been in wars in the south.Her Austrian counterpart, Alexander Schallenberg, said in his recent travels in India and the Middle East he discovered that although the EU may have won the information war on Ukraine in Europe, “a very different narrative” existed elsewhere. Outside Europe “we are the culprits. We are the reason for oil, seeds, grain and energy not being on the market or overpriced,” he said.“This is a war in Europe. But there’s another European war, because the shockwaves can be felt everywhere. It’s the first war since the second world war where you can feel the effects globally.”A massive battle is now under way to accuse Russia of using hunger as a weapon of war. The blame game could not have higher stakes. Largely due to drought in Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia, 16.7 million people in east Africa are already dependent on food assistance. That number is likely to increase by 20 million by September alone. The World Food Programme claimed the Ukraine ripple effect will mean a further 44 million people worldwide would be classified as “food insecure or at high risk”.Activists protest against food price rises in Nairobi, Kenya in May. Photograph: Tony Karumba/AFP/Getty ImagesSamantha Power, the head of USAID, argued this week that it was absolutely critical not just for Ukraine, but for democracy to regain the upper hand in the information war, especially on the issue of why Ukrainian and Russian food was not reaching the global south. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations thinktank she said it was inherently challenging for any government that was enduring high food and fuel prices, but it was even more so for governments trying to buck the anti-democratic trend and elected on anti-corruption tickets. She highlighted the Dominican Republic, Malawi, Moldova and Zambia,“You have said democracy delivers and then you find yourself with fertiliser and food prices skyrocketing, and inevitably you say: ‘This is a global phenomenon, Putin invaded Ukraine, Chinese debt is not doing us any favours.’ But whatever you say citizens are looking at their leader and asking: ‘Was my life better off when I had the corrupt leader hostile to the rule of law?’” Power said.It does not mean Putin has won. He has damaged himself irreparably. But more of the same for longer by the west is probably assigning Ukraine to a slow strangulation. | Europe Politics |
A surprise double by-election win for Labour that overturns records, sees two of the safest Tory seats in the country turn red and cut the Tory vote cut in half. Whatever Conservative ministers say, this matters.
The Tamworth by-election defeat is the second biggest Tory to Labour swing since 1945, and setting a record by overturning the 66% Tory majority at the last election. To put it another way, no governing party has lost a seat as safe as Tamworth.
Mid Bedfordshire, which some Tories hoped would remain in their hands at the start of the evening, went red because of - rather than in spite of - the Liberal Democrats.
Follow live: Terrible night for Tories as Starmer says Labour is 'redrawing the political map'
What could have been a low point for tactical voting ended with Lib Dems claiming partial credit for Labour taking control of Nadine Dorries's seat, to the gnashing of Labour teeth.
While true that by-elections are no automatic proxy for general elections, hearing a parade of Tory frontbenchers hiding behind this epithet doesn't hide the fact that these results point to a comprehensive defeat for their party.
If the 20 percentage point swings to Labour seen in four recent by-elections were repeated in a national poll next year - admittedly imperfect but nevertheless useful proxy - that would mean a comfortable Labour majority for Sir Keir Starmer.
Tory MPs with 10,000 and 15,000 majorities - which would usually be considered safe - now will be worrying whether they have a sufficient buffer to withstand any Labour tidal wave. Jitters divide parties at a time when they need to be united.
Yet the message from the government is that the response to this by-election to carry on with the existing plan.
Maria Caufield, a Tory frontbencher, suggested that Rishi Sunak should be credited for having previously already shown an appetite for change - albeit that was revealed at a chaotic Tory conference and appears to have failed to move the dial with voters in this by-election.
She also played down the big Tory to Labour swings as "statistical". It is true the number of Labour votes received in Mid Beds was down a fraction on the 2019 general election - a point clung on to by a succession of Conservative MPs - this argument ignores that the Conservative vote was a quarter of what it was.
There is no easy way for the Tories to spin their way out of this beyond the opening bluster.
It is true the number of Labour votes received in Mid Beds was down a fraction on the 2019 general election - a point clung on to by a succession of - this argument ignores that the Conservative vote was a quarter of what it was. There is no easy way for the Tories to spin their way out of this beyond the opening bluster.
Meanwhile Andrew Bowie, a Scottish minister, said that while it's important to listen "what is clear is that they do agree with our priorities" and "support what we are doing" but "they are not prepared to vote for us at the moment".
When asked if he thought the Tories were doing everything right, he replied: "Obviously there's always room for improvement but we are absolutely determined we are on the right course."
This suggests a government that speaks the language of listening without any intention of action.
Perhaps it is too difficult for the Tories to upend the plan at this point.
Mr Sunak has already done one reset this autumn - changing policies, cabinet members and the team in Number 10 and so far there is little sign it is paying off.
There are enough things already on the agenda to have to cope with: the plan is coming together for next month's King's Speech with legislation which has little parliamentary time to pass, followed by an autumn statement which may unveil a mega fiscal black hole.
The final roll of the dice is a possible reshuffle later in the year if Sunak thinks he is stronger than he was at the start of September.
This is enough change on the cards; inside Number 10 they likely do not think there is much need for any further revolution.
The question is how the wider Conservative movement now responds to the dreadful response.
The party conference in September suggested a membership already looking around for alternatives, and some MPs wanting to show they're listening.
Will this mean restless Tory MPs, pushing for yet more bolder, more distinctive policies - often ideas that appease factions on the right of the party?
Or will it mean a rush for the exit in the new year - more Tory MPs sniffing the wind and deciding not to stand again?
Mr Sunak will try and shrug off wider discontent, but the question is whether he's strong enough to do this successfully.
The unwelcome message the results send will be heard far and wide across the Conservative movement, meaning it is hard to predict what will happen next. | United Kingdom Politics |
Ukraine 'alone' should decide on potential territorial concessions - Macron Ukraine alone should decide
whether or not to accept any territorial concessions towards
Russia as part of an attempt to end the war, French President Emmanuel
Macron has said."This is up to Ukraine to decide," Mr Macron told TF1 television."I think it is our duty to stand by our values,
by international law and thus by Ukraine." The leaders of Germany, France and Italy visited
Ukraine on Thursday and offered the hope of EU membership.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly said his country will not give up any of its territory. Russian-flagged ships 'carrying grain harvested in Ukraine to Syria' Russian-flagged ships have
been transporting grain harvested in Ukraine to Syria, according to satellite image company Maxar.It said it had images showing two Russian-flagged bulk carrier vessels docked in Sevastopol, in Russian-controlled Crimea, being loaded with grain.Days later, it said it captured images of the same
ships docked in Syria.Their hatches were open and trucks were lined up to take the grain away, Maxar added.Ukraine has accused Russia of stealing grain from the
territories it has occupied since beginning its invasion in February.Ukraine is one of the world's largest grain exporters, with Western countries accusing Russia of potentially causing a global famine by closing Ukraine's Black Sea ports. More French Caesar howitzers potentially on way to Ukraine French President Emmanuel Macron has reportedly asked the French arms manufacturer Nexter to increase production
of its Caesar howitzers.It follows a pledge to send six more of the weapon systems to the Ukrainian army.Ahead of his visit to Kyiv on Thursday, Mr Macron asked Nexter to "review its organisation to be able to work in a 'wartime'
mode to be able to produce Ceasars much more quickly", a source close to France's
defence ministry told Reuters.Twelve Ceasars have already been sent to Ukraine. Russian peace overtures an 'attempt to deceive the world' A suggestion from Moscow that it is ready to resume peace negotiations has been dismissed by Kyiv as an "attempt to
deceive the world".Ukrainian negotiator
Mykhailo Podolyak said Russia wanted to give the
impression of being willing to talk while planning to stab his country in the back.
Ukraine will return to negotiations but only at
the right time, he added in an online post. An awkward-looking embrace between Macron and Zelenskyy We reported earlier that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a visit from the French, German and Italian leaders. This image of Mr Zelenskyy with French President Emmanuel Macron has since been doing the rounds on social media, given that it looks rather awkward. The Ukrainian president has had a strained relationship with each of the three leaders in recent months, accusing them of not taking a hard enough stance during the conflict with Russia. However, the trip to Kyiv was intended as an opportunity to show unity and support for Ukraine. Death toll in Lysychansk airstrike increases to four At least four people have been killed and seven wounded after an airstrike hit the eastern city of Lysychansk today. Earlier, Ukrainian authorities said three people had been killed when the strike hit a building sheltering civilians. Luhansk regional governor Serhiy Haidai said a rescue operation is still ongoing. A separate airstrike hit a medical facility in the city and caused it to collapse, although it is not yet known if there were any casualties. "It is likely that there are people trapped under the rubble," Mr Haidai said of the second strike. Lysychansk neighbours the city of Severodonetsk, which has become a battleground in recent days. The two cities are the only ones not to have fallen to Russia in the eastern region of Luhansk. Big Macs still on sale at McDonald's franchises in Russia Despite the fast-food chain pulling out of Russia in reaction to the war in Ukraine, some franchisees have managed to keep their locations open. They are still selling authentic McDonald's meals in restaurants with barely concealed branding from the chain, and in some you can still get a Big Mac. At train stations in Moscow and St Petersburg, the branding has been covered with transparent white fabric and the Big Mac burger is available but under the name Bolshoi Burger, or Big Burger.As we reported over the weekend, McDonald's sold most of its 850 restaurants in Russia to one of its local licencees - with some reopening on Sunday under the new name "Tasty and that's it" but without the flagship burger. The lingering presence of the McDonald's franchisees highlights the difficulties some Western companies are having in trying to extricate themselves from Russia. White House says it's 'working very hard' to find out more on missing Americans The White House has acknowledged yesterday's reports that two US citizens are feared captured in Ukraine. Alexander Drueke, 39, and Andy Huynh, 27, went missing around the Kharkiv region of eastern Ukraine last week. They have not been in contact with their families since 8 June. The White House has said it is "working very hard to learn more" about what happened. Meanwhile, two British men have been sentenced to death by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Shaun Pinner and Aiden Aslin were captured while fighting for Ukrainian forces. UN says Mariupol deaths likely in the thousands "Gross violations" of international human rights law occurred during the battle for Mariupol, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said.Presenting a report on the situation in the devastated city, Michelle Bachelet said the "tragedy" was far from over and the full scale of the destruction was not yet clear.Her office has verified 1,348 civilian deaths so far, but she warned the final death toll was likely "thousands higher". Ms Bachelet said the "horrors" inflicted on civilians in Mariupol would "indelible mark, including on generations to come". Reports have also suggested more than 2,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been taken as prisoners of war from the city, she said. Mariupol held out for weeks as it was bombarded nearly constantly by Russian forces, before it eventually fell last month. Hundreds of Ukrainian refugees in England facing homelessness Some families fleeing Ukraine to England have found themselves either homeless or at risk of homelessness after their accommodation was unavailable or arrangements to house them broke down.A total of 660 Ukrainian households were owed a statutory homelessness duty by local authorities in England in the period up to 3 June, according to government figures.This means they have either been assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness. Of these, 480 were households with dependent children. The figures do not reflect the true scale as more than a quarter of local authorities did not respond to the survey. "The overwhelming majority of people are settling in well but in the minority of cases where family or sponsor relationships break down, councils have a duty to ensure families are not left without a roof over their head," a government spokesperson said."Councils also have access to a rematching service to find a new sponsor in cases under the Homes for Ukraine scheme."More than 77,200 Ukrainians have arrived in UK since the conflict began. Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options | Europe Politics |
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has said his arms are open to independence supporters.
His party began a spiral into third place in Scotland following the 2014 referendum on separation, powered by voters who changed their view on the constitution and cast their votes for the SNP.
Speaking to The Herald, the Labour leader reiterated his opposition to independence, but said that “doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to support independence, or the right to wish a referendum at some point in the future”.
He said: “I’ve been really honest with people. I don’t support independence; I don’t support a referendum.
“But that doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to support independence, or the right to wish a referendum at some point in the future.
“I have an open-arms approach towards people who don’t share our view of the constitution.
“The Tories say we’re weak on the Union, which is nonsense, and the SNP say we’re hostile to people who support independence. I’m not hostile to anyone.”
The leader said he was not trying to persuade voters they were “wrong on independence”, but he was trying to convince them that “Labour can provide good governance for Scotland”.
He added: “I won’t pretend that Labour has not been in a divided, toxic place in the last 10 years, but I don’t think anyone can say I’ve been factional and tribal in my leadership.
“I think people can see that the Labour Party is back on the pitch and that we’re competing to win elections again.
“And that we can get rid of this rotten, economically illiterate, morally bankrupt Tory Government.”
Voters, he added, were coming back to Labour to send a message to the SNP.
“I think there’s a large chunk of people who would have been hostile to us around 2014-2015 and who would have been strong supporters of independence,” he said.
“But they’re now saying openly that while they still like and support the idea of independence and want a referendum at some point in the future, the SNP has lost its way, and that it’s time for a change.”
Sarwar was speaking as his party is locked in a by-election campaign in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, with Labour and the SNP expected to be the frontrunners.
The contest is a key indicator of any potential Labour revival north of the border, with a YouGov poll this week putting the party just four percentage points behind the SNP at a Westminster election. | United Kingdom Politics |
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are to retire – after a dramatic royal career filled with allegations of racism, suspected Russian links and rows over their palace rent.It comes just months after Prince Michael, the Queen’s first cousin and a fluent Russian speaker with a lineage to Tsar Nicholas II, was forced to sever his ties to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.He stepped down as patron of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, and handed back an Order of Friendship award, one of Russia’s highest honours. Princess Michael of Kent, 77, and Prince Michael of Kent, 79, are expected to retire early next month The couple were married in Vienna in 1978, in doing so he forfeited his place in the line of succession to the throne until it was reinstated in 2015An official announcement in the coming days is expected to say that Prince Michael, who turns 80 next month, and his wife, Marie-Christine, 77, will step down from public life, according to The Daily Telegraph. It is understood the retirement will coincide with the prince’s birthday on July 4.According to the official Royal Family website, Prince Michael is classified as a ‘non-working royal’ and partakes in more than 200 public engagements for the not-for-profit sector, which are funded by his own household, rather than the taxpayer.Princess Michael, who is nicknamed ‘Princess Pushy’ in some royal circles, is ‘actively involved in around 45 different charities and organisations’, according to the website, ‘including animal and wildlife trusts and health and welfare charities’.Born in 1942, his first memorable appearance was as a five-year-old as a page boy at the Queen's wedding to Prince Philip.While just outside the top 50 for succession to the throne, he is often seen at the side of the Queen at family events.He has two siblings who he is often seen with, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Kent.Prince Michael of Kent (left) handed back his Kremlin-issued award after previously presenting himself as a Russophile because of his relation Tsar Nicholas II (right) Prince Michael of Kent (right) received an honorary professorship from one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's oldest and most trusted cronies He is known for his love of Russia, which he would visit twice a year, and The Prince Michael of Kent Foundation works to benefit heritage, culture, health and post-graduate business education in Russia according to the royal website.His fascination may stem from his relation to Nicholas II, the last Tsar of the Russian Empire who was overthrown and killed in the Russian revolution.The prince bares a striking resemblance to the Russian monarch who was the first cousin of his grandmother Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna.He attended the burial of Nicholas and the entire Romanov family in 1998 - 70 years after they were shot by Bolsheviks, and is also patron to organisations with close links to Russia like the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce and the St Gregory's Foundation.However Prince Michael received a large amount of media attention last year after there were reports he was 'selling access' to Russian President Vladimir Putin's political representatives.Footage from a Zoom call emerged showing Prince Michael assuring what were undercover reporters that his close ties with the Russia would allow him to introduce them to high-ranking figures within their government for a certain fee.The call took place the day after the European Union imposed sanctions on the Kremlin, but he seemed pleased when he was offered £143,000 for a proposal and £36,000 a month by the faux businessmen.After a representative for Prince Michael insisted the royal has 'no special relationship with President Putin', adding they have had no contact since June 2003. Prince Michael and Putin were joint patrons of an event at Kensington Palace promoting sambo, an obscure Russian martial art (pictured, Prince Michael and Putin in London in 2003)He was highly criticised by several prominent figures including Alexander Litvinenko's widow Marina, who said the prince demonstrated that he didn't 'care about human rights, democracy, about the people who are dying in Russia or what he did to your own citizens on UK soil'.While Conservative MP Bob Seely said: 'We have sanctions against President Putin's regime for good reason. I'd love to know what Prince Michael thinks he is doing by making the UK's values and standards look optional.'When Russia invaded Ukraine this year, Prince Michael returned the Order of Friendship - which is awarded to individuals who have strengthened peace, friendship, cooperation and understanding between Russia and other nations. Princess Michael was at the centre of a controversy in 1985, surrounding her father's Nazi ties, with experts claiming she must have known about it. Pictured with Prince Michael on the day of their civil wedding in Vienna in 1978 Royal commentator Philip Dampier said the Princess Michael of Kent was deeply worried about how the scandal would affect the Royal family (pictured on her wedding day)A significant part of his career was spent in the army, from 1961 to 1981, being first commissioned into the 11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own). Rumours of infidelity have swirled for years around the Kents, including intimate detail that 'probably made the Queen splutter over her breakfast' 'Both Prince and Princess Michael a have been romantically linked with other people,' royal expert Phil Dampier told the documentary - Princess Michael: The Controversial Royal. 'Some other people have been married, some others not married.'She was linked to the Texan oil tycoon John Ward Hunt. It was suggested he wanted to marry her at one point. They met in Dallas at a trade conference, and they were seen together, and she denied there was an affair, but she was once photographed coming out of his house in a red wig with dark glasses obviously trying to disguise herself in the 1980s'Very significantly in 2006 she was seen in Venice, very much happy in the company of a Russian furniture tycoon Mickhail Kravchenko. They were photographed together joking, laughing, holding hands, even kissing, and floating around Venice on a gondola.'Prince Michael, similarly, has been linked to quite a few female friends. Bryony Brind, who was a ballet dancer, had quite a long standing relationship with him and eventually gave it up saying she didn't want to put his marriage in jeopardy.'He was also linked with an American, Lucy Weather, and she gave interviews later on about their eight year relationship. He was very much into their sex life and liked her to dress up in white lingerie and went into great intimate detail that probably had the Queen 'spluterring over her breakfast'.Broadcaster and political commentator Bidisha said that there wasn't anything unusual in an aristocratic couple pursuing their own love affairs. 'Going right back to the medieval period, right through until the Victorian period, it was completely accepted there's the public couple the aristocratic or royal family and they ware each other's royal consorts and they bear the royal children. They're titled, but certainly on the man's side and often on the woman's side aswell, there's other interests and other lovers'If Prince and Princess Michael have an open relationship, I don't think it's quite the same thing as one half of a couple deceitfully betraying and deceiving the other. Phil Dampier added: 'Princess Michael once said her marriage to Prince Michael was virtually an arranged marriage. I think in that sense, probably there was a bit of a throwback and this is how royals were in the past. It was acceptable for the upper classes and the royals to have affairs and it was alright as long as you didn't frighten the horses.' He saw service in Germany, Hong Kong, and Cyprus, where his squadron formed part of a United Nations peacekeeping force in 1971. He retired from the Army with the rank of Major in 1981.He married his wife, then Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, in 1978 after receiving Pope John Paul II's permission as the previous pope had barred them from having a Catholic wedding.The princess found herself at the heart of a scandal in 1985 when it emerged her father was a member of the Nazi party.She gave a TV interview denying all knowledge and describing her 'deep shame' over the revelation that Austrian and German aristocrat Günther von Reibnitz, was in the SS for 11 years, from 1933 until he was kicked out of the Nazi party in 1944. In 2019 it was reported that a company owned by Prince and Princess Michael of Kent turned over £1.3 million in three years – yet paid no tax.Accounts for Cantium Services, an umbrella firm for the couple’s commercial activities, showed it made a gross profit of £416,348 in 2018, £497,634 the previous year and £426,293 in 2016 – adding up to a total of £1,340,275.But its costs were so high that it actually recorded net losses and therefore, the documents added, ‘no liability to [pay] UK corporation tax arises.’Although not liable for tax, Cantium – also an ancient name for Kent and parts of neighbouring counties – paid more than £440,000 in salaries to its five members of staff, and spent over £100,000 on entertaining and travel, including leasing cars, over two years.Prince and Princess Michael, who were for years allowed to rent a plush Kensington Palace apartment for just £69 a week, do not receive funds from the Civil List.In addition to criticism over the cost of their Kensington Palace home for which they now pay £120,000 a year, it emerged in 2012 that Prince Michael had received £320,000 from the controversial exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky through offshore accounts.A huge leak of banking documents showed the couple had a secret Swiss bank account.They have consistently denied any wrongdoing and insist the account was closed in 2009.In 2005, the couple were embarrassed when an undercover reporter recorded them describing Princess Diana as ‘nasty’ and saying Prince Charles was ‘jealous’ of his ex-wife’s popularity.They have also previously faced allegations of trading on their titles – earning them the nickname ‘Rent-a-Kents’.In 2017 Princess Michael of Kent apologised after coming under fire for wearing a ‘blackamoor’ brooch to the Queen’s Christmas lunch at Buckingham Palace, attended by Prince Harry’s mixed race then fiancée Meghan Markle.A spokesperson for the royal said that she was 'very sorry and distressed' for wearing the brooch, adding it was a gift she's worn many times before, without controversy.The full statement said: 'The brooch was a gift and has been worn many times before.'Princess Michael is very sorry and distressed that it has caused offence.'Blackamoor jewellery and art was extremely popular in the 18th Century.But they are now considered to be highly racially insensitive and the word blackamoor has been condemned as a term of abuse for anyone with a dark skin.In recent years there have been petitions for galleries and hotels to remove them. | United Kingdom Politics |
Big beasts of Labour’s past descend on the North West as the “Battle for Birkenhead” continues in earnest.
The selection contest, which pits two sitting MPs in Alison McGovern and Mick Whitley against each other, is for the new enlarged seat of Birkenhead in Wirral, Merseyside, and comes amid the broader rejig of Britain’s electoral geography by the Boundary Commission.
The Commission has redrawn the political map of the Wirral Peninsula, with the number of seats in the area cut from four to three. McGovern’s present seat of Wirral South is lost to electoral history as her constituency is split between the new seats of Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (40.3 per cent of McGovern’s seat), Wirral West (38.9 per cent) and Birkenhead (20.8 per cent).
McGovern has now launched a bid to be the new MP for Birkenhead, where she is facing off against Whitley, presently the MP for the seat of the same name. The new Birkenhead constituency keeps 100 per cent of Whitley’s territory with that 20.8 per cent slice of Wirral South appended. McGovern stresses that the ward of her constituency being attached to Whitley’s seat includes her hometown.
McGovern’s Birkenhead bid comes after a previous ruling that stated MPs could only stake a claim to another seat that had 40 per cent or more of their old constituency moved to another one was changed by Labour’s National Executive Committee (NEC). The updated ruling means that an MP with any wards moved to a new constituency can choose to challenge one of their parliamentary Labour party colleagues. One party source told Politics.co.uk that this decision, made at the start of this year, was “not contentious at all” and was agreed with no seat in mind.
The process for managing a contest between two competing sitting Labour MPs is also different to the party’s standard selection process after the NEC resolved at a meeting on 23rd May to streamline such contests. Typically, general election candidates are chosen following a hustings event with the in-the-room count topped up with absent postal votes. But for a contest between two sitting Labour MPs, the voting will all be done by post, with hustings taking place earlier in the process. In Birkenhead, postal votes from the Constituency Labour Party (CLP) will need to be received by 14th June, after which the count will be held and the winner announced on the 16th June.
The result is a stand-off between two sitting Labour MPs, both of whom have legitimate claims to the territory they seek to represent and reasons to feel aggrieved by the process.
The Wirral West question
In a recent article for LabourList, in which Whitley laid out his pitch to be the Labour candidate for Birkenhead, the MP says: “I’m surprised and disappointed that the NEC has allowed this contest to take place”.
Whitley’s point is that the neighbouring MP in Wirral West, Margaret Greenwood, has announced she is standing down — a development which, in theory, frees up the area for the seatless McGovern. Politics.co.uk understands that Whitley allies on the NEC pushed for McGovern to run in the Wirral West constituency. Nonetheless, the Labour source quoted above insists that the central party cannot pick and choose where a candidate seeks to run. And, in any case, Greenwood’s decision to stand down in Wirral West is also said to have widely taken Labour figures by surprise, coming just one hour before May 23rd NEC meeting.
In an open letter to her constituents on May 22nd, McGovern had already indicated her intention to stand “for the new constituency which merges parts of Wirral South and Birkenhead and which will include my home”.
Birkenhead’s key battlegrounds
Naturally, in a selection dispute between a frontbencher and backbencher the question of seniority is likely to arise. Whitley is 71 and was the oldest MP to be elected for the first time in 2019. But McGovern, while only 42, has represented her Wirral South seat since 2010, serving on the frontbench in a variety of capacities. Presently she is the shadow minister for employment, having been appointed to the post by Keir Starmer in December 2021.
There is also no hiding the fact that Whitley and McGovern have entirely disparate political profiles, coming from two separate wings of the party. A former trade union organiser and merchant sailor, Whitley is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of left-wing Labour MPs and he backed Rebecca Long-Bailey in the 2020 Labour leadership election.
McGovern, on the other hand, supported Owen Smith in his failed bid to replace Jeremy Corbyn in the 2016 Labour leadership election and backed Jess Phillips in 2020. She also previously chaired Progress, a think tank widely seen as on the right of the party and now rebranded as Progressive Britain following a merger.
Of the two candidates, it seems to be Whitley who is most embracing the race’s ideological elements. On the campaign, he has drawn attention to his support for striking workers. He says: “As the cost-of-living soared I made sure that striking workers knew they had my support. I joined the picket lines. I believe that a Labour MP should always stand in the front ranks”.
He adds: “I genuinely believe socialist policies can begin to fix our broken country and bring back hope to Birkenhead”.
Bad blood in Birkenhead?
There is also the question of how or whether the constituency’s sui generis recent electoral history will impact the contest.
Whitley won Birkenhead seat with a 17,705 majority in 2019, replacing and defeating Frank Field — now Lord Field of Birkenhead — the former MP who in 2018 resigned the Labour whip after 40 years as the area’s representative. Field’s resignation, which he blamed on antisemitism and a “culture of nastiness, bullying and intimidation” in the Labour party, came after he had lost a vote of no confidence by the local Birkenhead party the previous month.
Whitley resoundingly won the subsequent selection process. Backed by the campaign group Momentum, Unite the Union as well as shadow cabinet members including John McDonnell, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Dan Carden, he won with 224 votes compared to his nearest challenger who accumulated 116. At the time, Corbyn-sceptics cited the exclusion of Theresa Griffin, then MEP for the North West region and chair of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, from the selection shortlist. The decision was viewed as being firmly factional. A Labour source says there may be some “resentment” of Whitley in the erstwhile Corbyn-sceptic corner of the CLP as a consequence.
One reading of the “Battle for Birkenhead”, therefore, is that it is a microcosmic illustration of the ideological contest which continues to rumble on inside Keir Starmer’s Labour party. Selection processes have of course become keenly implicated in the party’s factional dynamics, with figures on the Labour left accusing the leadership of isolating and overlooking potential inter-party opponents.
The Battle for Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Cynon
In this way, the “Battle for Birkenhead’s” key dividing line reflects that of the recently resolved contest in Merthyr Tydfil and Upper Cynon, which saw Labour MPs Beth Winter and Gerald Jones contest the new seat.
On Wednesday, it was declared that Jones, a shadow minister for Wales, had won the contest — after which, Winter, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group like Whitley, released a statement saying the selection process was “not a fair contest”. She complained that “unacceptable obstacles” were placed in her way.
Momentum accused the party’s leadership of “taking a sledgehammer to the democratic rights of local Labour members in order to purge socialists and instal loyalists” in the aftermath of Winter’s defeat.
The frontbencher versus the backbencher
But while McGovern and Whitley’s ideological differences certainly feature in the campaign, both camps stress other dividing lines.
Whitley’s camp touts his record as a local MP, including his representations to the department for levelling up, housing and communities as he won additional support for the cash-strapped Wirral Council. His recent article for LabourList was entitled: “My hometown Birkenhead needs a backbench champion”.
Conversely, McGovern’s campaign highlights her frontbench position as a means by which she could make direct representations to the Labour leadership, with which, unlike Whitley, she is closely aligned. McGovern’s campaign calls the shadow minister for employment a “frontbench champion”.
Gordon Brown versus Mick Lynch
The McGovern campaign has also garnered the support of two former Labour leaders in Neil Kinnock and Gordon Brown. Brown, whom McGovern once served under as his parliamentary private secretary, recently visited the Birkenhead constituency.
The former prime minister told assembled activists: “I’m asking you to support Alison not just because she’s a great MP, and she is a great MP. And not just because she’s a great frontbench spokesperson for the Labour party, because she speaks on employment, she speaks on labour rights, and she speaks on poverty and all these issues”.
Whitley’s campaign boasts a series of endorsements among the local Labour party, as well as the support of Paula Barker, the MP for Liverpool Wavertree, and Margaret Greenwood, the outgoing MP for Wirral West. Mick Lynch, general secretary of the RMT, has also pledged his support, calling Whitley a “Working-class trade unionist who hasn’t forgotten his roots”.
The Battle for Birkenhead’s only hustings event, held on the 3rd June, was attended by around 80 CLP members. One wonders whether the lowish turnout (the FA Cup final was on the same day) might benefit Whitley’s campaign, given his established familiarity with activists in Birkenhead and the McGovern camp’s consequent desire to reach out as far as possible in the CLP.
A battle for Labour’s future?
In the end, given the scale of the boundary changes, the level of internal strife in the Labour parliamentary party has been relatively little.
But for a variety of reasons, in Birkenhead, the dispute arisen as a consequence of boundary changes could not resolved without an MP versus MP contest. It has led to a battle which is clearly implicated in wider disputes over the party’s present ideological trajectory.
It is no secret that Starmer’s team is managing the candidate selection process in minute detail. And so this result, set to be announced on 16th June, will be watched by Labour figures of all factions and all levels of seniority with serious interest. | United Kingdom Politics |
Former Tory leader Michael Howard says Johnson should resignMichael Howard, the former Conservative party leader, is calling for Boris Johnson’s resignation. In a recent interview Howard (who sacked Johnson as a frontbencher in 2004 for lying about an affair, but who now says that he was wrong to do so) refused to say how he would have voted in the recent no-confidence ballot, had he still been an MP. But Howard has now turned against Johnson in an interview recorded for the World at One. These are from the BBC’s Chris Mason.Asked if he thinks the PM should resign he says ‘I do,’ adding ‘the party and more importantly the country would be better off under new leadership.’— Chris Mason (@ChrisMasonBBC) June 24, 2022
Lord Howard on @BBCRadio4: ‘Members of the Cabinet should very carefully consider their positions.’‘It may be necessary for the executive of the 1922 committee to meet and to decide to change the rules so another leadership could take place.’Listen to the full interview 1pm— Chris Mason (@ChrisMasonBBC) June 24, 2022
Boris Johnson speaking from Kigali: 'We've got to listen, we've got to learn'Speaking at a news conference after a double byelection defeat and the resignation of a Conservative party co-chair, Johnson was pressed by journalists on the blow to his authority, the government’s Rwanda policy and the US supreme court overturning abortion rights.Boris Johnson delivers his speech in Kigali, Rwanda. Photograph: Eugene Uwimana/EPAJohnson said of the defeats in Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton: “I’m not going to pretend these are brilliant results. We’ve got to listen, we’ve got to learn.”Citing inflationary pressures, supply chain shocks and the war in Ukraine, Johnson added: “When people are finding it tough they send messages to politicians. We’ve got to respond.”He also announced the government’s £372m package to support the UN’s emergency response for countries hardest hit by food security. Attending the G7 summit in Germany in the coming days, Johnson said they will be focused on looking at what richer countries can do to bring down global commodity prices and get the economy “back on track”.Asked about the government’s policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, Johnson said it was “notable that so far no UK court has found it unlawful, and no international court has found it to be unlawful”.Speaking in Kigali, Johnson also said the supreme court ruling that there was no constitutional right to abortion in the United Stateswas “a big step backwards”.“I’ve always believed in a woman’s right to choose and I stick to that view. And that’s why the UK has the laws that it does,” said Johnson. Andrew SparrowA Tory MP who did not want to be identified told PA Media that they wanted Boris Johnson to go. They said:When we suffered by-election losses during the Cameron years for instance, it was taken on the chin because the government back then was actually doing Conservative things. Their economic policy, for instance, was far more conservative than today’s literally 80-seat majority Conservative government. People in the party held their nerve because there was a long-term economic plan, which Cameron and Osborne were competent at selling. That’s why a loss in Tiverton and Honiton can’t just be shrugged off. It precipitates electoral disaster, which can only be avoided by replacing Boris Johnson with the better leadership the Conservative party needs and deserves.That is all from me for today. My colleague Geneva Abdul is taking over now.These are from ITV’s Harry Harton on the seats in Yorkshire and the Humber that the Tories would lose on a Wakefield-sized swing to Labour.Analysis for @itvcalendar by YouGov's @PME_Politics projects the Conservatives would lose 14 seats to Labour in Yorkshire & Humber if the 12.7% swing to Labour in the Wakefield by-election was replicated at a general election.— Harry Horton (@harry_horton) June 24, 2022
Calder Valley, Colne Valley, Dewsbury, Don Valley, Great Grimsby, Keighley, Morley and Outwood, Penistone & Stocksbridge, Pudsey, Rother Valley, Scarborough & Whitby, Scunthorpe, Shipley, and York Outer would all flip from Conservative to Labour.— Harry Horton (@harry_horton) June 24, 2022
Obviously big caveats around by-election results and there are different characteristics in each of those constituencies. But it shows the challenge the Conservatives would face in Yorkshire & Humber if a general election were held imminently.— Harry Horton (@harry_horton) June 24, 2022
This is from Sophia Sleigh from HuffPost, who says the report from the privileges committee inquiry into whether or not Boris Johnson lied to MPs over Partygate is now being cited as the danger moment for the PM.Rumour mill overdrive. Will another minister go? Will any leadership hopefuls fire the starting gun? Some Tory sources think leadership contenders won't pounce until outcome of privileges committee inquiry into whether Johnson lied to MPs. So yet *another* deadline...— Sophia Sleigh (@SophiaSleigh) June 24, 2022
We have been here before. Other events cited by Tories who said they wanted to wait until X before deciding whether to act against the PM include:1) The publication of the Sue Gray report into Partygate.2) A decision by the police to fine Johnson over Partygate.3) The end of the police investigation into Partygate.4) The local elections.5) Johnson’s Commons response to the Partygate.6) The end of the platinum jubilee celebrations.7) The Wakefield, and Tiverton and Honiton byelections.These are from the academic Robert Saunders, explaining why he thinks Boris Johnson is unlikely to be forced out by a delegation of cabinet ministers.I'm sceptical of claims that "senior ministers" could force Johnson out.First, there are no senior ministers: no one with independent standing in the party & strong name recognition with the public. The current cabinet has no one of the stature of Howe, Lawson,Brown or Prescott— Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) June 24, 2022
Of those ministers who do have a public profile, half would lose their jobs if Johnson went.The others fear that resigning would wreck their own leadership chances.That leaves a few middle-ranking figures, like Oliver Dowden.Not the most fearsome political hit-squad.— Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) June 24, 2022
It's hard to see an exit for Johnson that doesn't involve Tory MPs voting to oust him. It's no good hoping Sue Gray, the Met, the Procedure Committee, the Cabinet or the "men in grey suits" will do it for them. That's why I've always thought his chances of survival are underrated— Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) June 24, 2022
(The one high-profile minister who might not quite fit with the above is Rishi Sunak. If he decided that his own leadership ambitions were toast, and that he'd had enough of British politics, he might conceivably be the one to attempt a Reichenbach Falls).— Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) June 24, 2022
These are from Nadhim Zahawi, education secretary, on the significance of the byelection results.The voters have spoken, and we need to listen. Conservative voters in particular stayed at home & we need to give them reasons to come back at the next election. We do that with a laser-like focus on delivery; this Government did it with 💉, we are doing it on cost of living 1/2— Nadhim Zahawi (@nadhimzahawi) June 24, 2022
The voters will judge this Conservative Government on what we deliver next. For me, it's a focus on skills, schools & families. New buildings for Tiverton High School was a big issue in the Tiverton result. We hear you; delivering on real issues like this should be our focus. 2/2— Nadhim Zahawi (@nadhimzahawi) June 24, 2022
Zahawi partly adopts the “Tory voters stayed at home” thesis advanced by David Frost this morning. (See 11.16am.) Patrick English from YouGov explains in these tweets why he thinks Frost is wrong.This is very poor analysis for 3 reasons.Firstly, it is mathematically illiterate. Turnout dropped by 17,000 not 20,000.So, even if we humour Lord Frost for a moment and assume everyone who didn't turn out was a 2019 Con voter, still 3000 Con voters must have switched parties https://t.co/cFQ3Y1cx4Z— Patrick English (@PME_Politics) June 24, 2022
It's difficult without individual level data (e.g. a Tiverton and Honiton poll) to properly gauge what exact proportion of the Conservative to Lib Dem swing was caused by differential turnout changes (more Con voters staying at home than other party voters), but it is not 100%.— Patrick English (@PME_Politics) June 24, 2022
Lastly, back to humouring here...How would *twenty thousand* of your party's voters staying at home in a by-election *not* be something to be deeply concerned about?If anything like that amount of apathy and disengagement replicated at the next GE, the Conservatives are toast— Patrick English (@PME_Politics) June 24, 2022
As my colleague Patrick Wintour reports, Boris Johnson has suffered a further defeat at the Commonwealth conference today.Extraordinary rebuff for Johnson who tried everything to get rid of Baroness Scotland. Officials insisted it was not about politics, but her competence and financial irregularities. Problem remains the big Commonwealth funders want her out and institution now riven. https://t.co/ehZIoVhDus— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) June 24, 2022
This story from Patrick last month explains the background to this dispute.Ed Davey with the new MP for Tiverton and Honiton, Richard Foord, and other party activists in the constituency earlier today. Photograph: Finnbarr Webster/Getty ImagesThe two byelection defeats are not an “indictment” of Boris Johnson, the Conservative Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen has said. He told Radio 4’s World at One programme:It’s a simplification to suggest this is an indictment of Boris Johnson.Asked about calls by Michael Howard for Johnson to resign, Houchen said: “Obviously what he said should be listened to.”But Houhen said it would look “ridiculous” to the public if the Conservative party embarked on a leadership contest. People wanted the government to be addressing the cost of living and inflation, he said.Commonwealth secretary general Patricia Scotland, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, and Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson gathering for a group photograph at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) opening ceremony in Kigali, Rwanda, today. Photograph: Muhizi Olivier/APWhat can Tory MPs do to get rid of Boris Johnson?Here is a question from below the line that is worth addressing. A VONC is a vote of no confidence.Andrew, is there any way the tories can get rid of the PM, other than waiting a year for a VONC?There are probably at least five options - although only one (the first one) seems probable. They are:1) Changing the 1922 Committee rules, so that MPs do not have to wait another year before they can trigger a second vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson. This now seems increasingly probable. (See 10.36am, 12.24pm and 1.40pm.) What is not clear, though, is when a second one might be held. Six months after the last one (which was on 6 June)? Three months? The 1922 executive can change the rules when it wants, and a new executive is being elected by Tory backbenchers before the summer recess.2) A vote of no confidence by the voluntary party. In the dying days of Theresa May’s leadership, her opponents dug up an obscure rule in the Conservative party’s constitution saying if at least 65 Conservative association chairs sign a petition, the party has to summon a meeting of the national convention (the voluntary party). This could pass its own motion of no confidence in Johnson. There has been talk of this mechanism being used now.But the no confidence motion would be non-binding. And the Conservative party rule book is a remarkably flexible document that allows the leadership to do more or less whatever they want. As Paul Webb and Tim Bale point out in The Modern British Party System, the party constitution includes a line saying: “The board shall have the power to do anything which in its opinion relates to the management and administration of the party.” It is not certain that a meeting would take place.3) A coup against Johnson by his ministers. Michael Howard said today he would like to see this happen (see 1.40pm), and Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggested that just 12 ministers would be enough to force Johnson out (see 1.08pm.) But that seems unlikely. Other prime ministers would humiliated by the withdrawal of confidence of their most senior colleagues. But if Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss were to tell Johnson that they could no longer serve under him, it seems just as probable that Johnson would replace them with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries, calling in people like Peter Bone to fill in any remaining vacancies. (I originally included Bone in this sentence as a joke, but with Johnson it would be unwise to rule anything out.)4) A coup against Johnson by his MPs. There is nothing to stop a website like ConservativeHome trying to get a majority of Conservative MPs to sign a petition calling for Johnson’s resignation. But Johnson could just ignore this too. He does not have much in common with Jeremy Corbyn, but both of them are equipped with heroic stubbornness, and in 2016 Corbyn ignored the result of a 172 t0 40 no confidence vote against him by Labour MPs. Corbyn went on to do much better than his MPs expected at the subsequent election.5) A Commons no confidence vote. Labour could table a vote of no confidence in the government in the Commons, and hope that Tories might join them in voting against Johnson. But that would never happen because it would be a vote against their party and, if it passed, it would probably trigger a general election. Labour could also table a vote of no confidence in Johnson personally. But, unlike a proper no confidence motion, the government would not have to schedule an immediate debate on this, and even if such a motion were passed (debated in opposition time) it would have no constitutional force. | United Kingdom Politics |
When Labour last met in Liverpool for its annual conference, Liz Truss had just delivered her mini-Budget, sterling had fallen to a 37-year low and the markets were about to be plunged into turmoil.
With her government imploding and weeks after the Johnson collapse, Labour were on a high.
Sir Keir Starmer had clocked up a 17-point lead over the Tories - Labour's best poll performance against its adversaries for two years. It was the conference where we saw hope give way to belief - from the top of the party to the bottom - that Labour was going to win the next general election.
A year on, and Sir Keir will arrive back in Liverpool with a growing body of the evidence to back it up.
He's riding in on a high, smashing through the SNP in Scotland with a whopping win in the Rutherglen & Hamilton by-election. It's the sort of result that doesn't just put Sir Keir a nose ahead, it puts him in outright majority territory.
I know it's only one by-election and extrapolating it out has to be treated with caution, but the 20-point swing to Labour smashed internal expectations and, if replicated across Scotland, would garner Labour 40-plus seats.
There is no route to Number 10 for Sir Keir that doesn't go through Scotland; not since 1955 has the Labour Party formed a government with fewer than 40 seats north of the border
"It was beyond what we hoped for," one delighted senior Labour figure told me after the Rutherglen result.
"We have to build on it. We are the change."
Change: the simple reason Mr Sunak is trying to position himself as a change candidate despite leading a party in power for 13 years. He has no option, however much of a stretch it may seem.
Both parties' polling shows that voters overwhelmingly want things to change.
What they are yet to be convinced of is that the change has to be a Labour government. Sir Keir's task in Liverpool this week then is to answer the question: "If not them, why us?"
"Sunak may have had 'long-term decisions' written up on the wall for his speech, but he didn't have any long-term decisions in the speech," says one senior Labour figure. "There was nothing on the economy, no plan for growth, nothing on tackling the cost of living."
Fleshing out the five missions
What Sunak does have though, are five pledges plastered over everything he's done for the past 10 months, which is far more than Sir Keir has got.
At the beginning of the year, the Labour leader set out five missions for government.
I know what the missions are because it's my job to go to his press conferences and read his speeches; analyse and explain to you what he's doing and why - but I suspect most of you haven't a clue.
Growth for higher living standards; clean energy super power; NHS fit for the future; safer streets; breaking down barriers to opportunity: this conference will be the moment where Sir Keir gets to the brass tacks of how these missions translate into real policies.
There'll be announcements on the "first steps of what each of the missions are", says one of Sir Keir's core team. We are going to see concrete policies, specific first steps, campaigning elements for activists. It will be the equivalent of Sir Keir's pledge card to voters.
The approach will be different too.
In Manchester, the Conservatives used their conference to set down dividing lines for their opponent - trans and gender issues, motorists, immigration, high-speed rail, smoking - to try to draw Labour into rows they hope will play well with undecided voters.
Labour, meanwhile, wants to show it's a government-in-waiting, that it has more important stuff to do than taking pot shots at opponents, or each other.
"We don't need to make the case for change," explains one senior figure. "We'll do a bit of red meat for the hall, but we don't need to spend our conference attacking the Tories.
"We will be telling people what will be different with Labour."
So the tone will be professional, confident, but in no way complacent.
It's been nearly 20 years since Labour last won an election and they are desperate not to slip up, no matter how many banana skins the Tories toss at their feet.
Sir Keir will position himself as PM-in-waiting, while Rachel Reeves also has an enormous task this week to show herself to be the chancellor-in-waiting, and the person voters can trust with the nation's finances.
Labour knows Mr Sunak's election approach rests on falling inflation, economic upturn and tax cuts, with a lot of 'you can't trust Labour on the economy' thrown in. Ms Reeves has to prove to voters they can.
"Tony Blair was said to be a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor as he approached the 1997 general election. The Ming vase now has economic credibility written on it," one adviser joked to me.
Be it the economy and spending, high-speed rail, immigration or social wedge issues around gender, Starmer's team is all too aware of the risks of being drawn into territory where the Conservatives want to fight, and will want to run the shadow cabinet with iron discipline in Liverpool.
Read more:
Labour vow to 'get Britain's future back' as conference kicks off
"The Tories are like a boxer going into the final round and losing," explains one senior party operative.
"They are going to throw some wild punches. Some will hit and some won't, but they have won the past four elections and won't be going down without a fight."
The task for Labour is to try to dodge the attacks, stick to their battle plan and finish the course.
But the task this week is also to not just offer reassurance, but hope.
Sir Keir needs to come out of the crouch position and assert a plan and vision of Britain that gives people a reason to vote for him that goes beyond being fed up with the incumbents.
How he does that without reverting to the spending lever for public services isn't an easy task, but it's one he needs to pull off as he looks to seal the deal with voters. | United Kingdom Politics |
'I urge China to de-escalate,' says Truss Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has criticised China's "inflammatory" response to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan and called on the nation to "de-escalate".Speaking to a Conservative Party leadership campaign in Shropshire, Ms Truss said: "I do not support China's inflammatory language on this issue."It's perfectly reasonable what is taking place and I urge China to de-escalate."In June, Ms Truss called on Western allies to provide greater support for Taiwan so it could defend itself in the event of an attack from China.When asked if this meant providing arms, the Tory leadership candidate said: "There are different ways of doing that, and Finland and Sweden have joined NATO as a way of making sure that they are defended."Ultimately, it is making sure that those countries have the capabilities that they need." Taiwan scrambles jets as 27 Chinese aircrafts enter air defence zone Taiwan quickly mobilised jets to warn away 27 Chinese aircraft in its air defence
zone today, a Taiwan defence ministry statement has said.In its latest update, the ministry said 22 of the aircrafts had crossed the Taiwan Strait median
line, which separates the self-ruled island from China.Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory, said it dispatched aircraft and deployed missile systems to "monitor" the Chinese activities into its air defence identification zone.The latest Chinese mission included 16 Chinese Su-30 fighters and 11 other jets, Taiwan's defence ministry added.A source familiar with Taiwan's security planning told Reuters that the 22 jets that crossed the median line did not fly too far into the unofficial buffer from the Chinese side. Neither side's aircraft normally cross the median line.The move comes after Taiwan said some of China's military actions around Taiwan were within 12 nautical miles of shore. Pelosi visit was raised with Chinese diplomat during G20 meeting, US official says A US official has said the possibility of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan was raised with the Chinese government's top diplomat during a G20 meeting in Bali.US Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed the potential for Ms Pelosi's visit with counterpart Wang Yi during a G20 meeting that lasted more than five hours, the official said.Mr Blinken also said that any such trip would be entirely Ms Pelosi's decision and independent of the US government. "The question is whether Beijing will try to use the trip as some kind of excuse to take steps that could be escalatory or that could somehow produce conflict," the senior state department official told reporters in Tokyo, adding that Beijing should not overreact to a trip that was neither unusual nor unprecedented."China should not use this as a pretext to continue what it's been doing, which is seeking to change the status quo with regard to Taiwan," the official said."And if any escalation or crisis were to somehow follow her visit, it would be on Beijing." Taiwanese politician says it is 'very difficult to appease China' It is "very difficult to appease China" as the country will always display anger when Taiwan tries to get involved with its international friends, Taiwanese politician Freddy Lim has said. Mr Lim todl Sky News the whole of Taiwan welcomed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the country and also supported international friends visiting the island.He said: "I think it's very difficult to appease China because China is always angry when Taiwan tries to get involved with our international friends on the international stage."Mr Lim went on to say that in recent years many politicians from different countries had visited the country. "We welcome all friends to visit Taiwan to strengthen our relationship with different countries," he continued."So Nancy Pelosi is a strong supporter of Taiwan and for human rights and democracy."Asked if he would like to see British politicians visit Taiwan, he added: "I think it will be a great idea to come to Taiwan because there are so many British politicians that have shown strong support for Taiwan." Ministers in Asia urge de-escalation of tensions over Taiwan Foreign ministers of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have expressed concern over rising tensions concerning Taiwan, an official
from chair country Cambodia said today. Kung Phoak, secretary of state of Cambodia’s foreign ministry, told a news conference that the ASEAN hoped all sides would try their best to de-escalate
tensions in Taiwan and avoid actions that contributed to an
escalation.Earlier today, Taiwan said it expected to be the target of increased "psychological warfare" in the coming days as China continued to escalate its rhetoric in response to Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan's capital of Taipei. Germany 'striving for de-escalation in Taiwan Strait' Germany has now chimed in on the growing tensions between China and the US, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan this week.Berlin is striving for a
de-escalation in the Taiwan Strait with international partners,
said a German foreign ministry spokesperson.They added that
military threats were unacceptable. Germany retains close relations with Taiwan, which is an
important partner, said the spokesperson at a regular government
news conference on Wednesday. Germany's government supports a clear "One China" policy
like the US, added a government spokesperson. In pictures: Pelosi departs Taiwan after visit We brought you live updates earlier as US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi left the Taiwanese capital of Taipei after a short - and controversial - visit.The images below capture Taiwan's foreign minister Joseph Wu waving Ms Pelosi off as she departs from Taipei's Songshan Airport. Could Taiwan defend itself against China? Retired Air-Vice Marshal Sean Bell has spoken to Sky News about the growing tensions between China and Taiwan.He said: "According to China there are six areas where they are conducting live military operations all around Taiwan - and according to the Taiwanese, they've seen the Chinese aircraft operating out to the west."This is enormous sabre-rattling."See more of what Mr Bell had to say in the clip below... Why Nancy Pelosi went to Taiwan - and why China is angry When US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flew into Taiwan, she became the highest-ranking American official in 25 years to visit the self-ruled island.China announced military manoeuvres in retaliation, even as Taiwanese officials welcomed her in the capital of Taipei.The reason her visit bolstered tensions between China and the US is that China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and views visits by foreign officials as them recognising the island's sovereignty.US President Joe Biden has sought to calm that complaint, insisting there is no change in America's longstanding "one-China policy", which recognises Beijing but allows informal relations and defence ties with Taipei.Ms Pelosi portrays her high-profile trip as part of a US obligation to stand with democracies against autocratic countries, and with democratic Taiwan against China.One of the most pressing issues at play now is the possibility of armed conflict - but both Beijing and Washington have made clear they want to avoid this.In a call with Mr Biden last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping echoed a thought of Mr Biden's - their countries should co-operate on areas where they can.The biggest risk is likely to be an accident if China tries the kind of provocative manoeuvre it has increasingly been executing with other militaries around the South China Sea. Those include close fly-bys of other aircraft or confronting vessels at sea. Taiwan says it 'will be target of increased psychological warfare' in coming days This afternoon, Taiwan said it expects to be the target of increased "psychological warfare" in the coming days.Officials were referring to misinformation campaigns meant to sway public opinion in favour of China.The latest follows a flying visit by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.China has continued to escalate its rhetoric in response to Ms Pelosi's trip to Taiwan's capital of Taipei, which concluded earlier today.Beijing's foreign minister, Wang Yi, described the situation as a "complete farce". | Asia Politics |
Nigel Farage has said the things he fought for have become “quite mainstream within the Conservative Party”.
The former UKIP and Brexit Party leader told ITV that his views had previously been characterised by senior Conservatives as “extreme”, “bad” and “wrong”.
Mr Farage added: “Those things we have fought for have become quite mainstream within the Conservative Party. I was welcomed with open arms”.
He said: “It was very nice of Rishi to say that ‘we’re a broad church and we’d have him back’ which previous conservative leaders would never have said”
Asked about the electoral prospects of the party, Farage added: “They’re in very, very real trouble and they’re particularly in trouble in the red wall. And those red wall voters that went Conservative in 2019 had nearly all come through UKIP.
“They were old Labour had gone to UKIP — had gone to the Conservatives, so you can see why they’re being nice to me”.
Pressed on the substance of the prime minister’s speech yesterday, he said: “I think it’s what wasn’t said yesterday that was significant. I mean, he said we’re going to stop the boats, but didn’t even mention our membership of the ECHR”.
Farage had been a hot topic at the Conservative Party conference, and several senior Conservatives were asked whether they would welcome the former UKIP leader back to the party. He left the Conservative Party in 1992.
Former businesses secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg told the BBC that Farage is a “very effective campaigner” and said he shared “most of his political views”.
He said: “I think Nigel is broadly a Tory and always has been. If he wanted to join I can’t think his membership would be refused.”
At the suggestion of Farage rejoining, Sir Jacob said: “We’re always delighted if people cross the floor.”
Asked by GB News if this could happen, prime minister Rishi Sunak refused to rule out the prospect, saying: “Look, the Tory party is a broad church. I welcome lots of people who want to subscribe to our ideals, to our values.”
When asked if this could include Farage, Sunak avoided the question, saying: “The thing I care about is delivering for the country and the more people as we’ve seen at this conference – we’ve had record attendance I think at this conference. Lots of energy, lots of engagement.”
However, Greg Hands, the Conservative Party chairman, told the BBC: “I think he [Farage has] been most recently advocating voting for another political party. That is not consistent with being a member of the Conservative party.”
Asked if he would welcome Farage, Hands said: “No, I don’t think I would because I think he’s repeatedly for the last 30 years or more advocated voting for other political parties. I think he said he doesn’t want to see the Conservative party succeed so I don’t think I would.”
Farage, asked on GB News whether he would consider returning to the party he quit in 1992, said: “Would I want to join a party that’s put the tax rate up to the highest in over 70 years, that has allowed net migration to run at over half a million a year, that has not used Brexit to deregulate to help small businesses?
“No, no and no.”
He added: “I achieved a lot more outside of the Tory party than I ever could have done from within it.” | United Kingdom Politics |
Japan's former prime minister Shinzo Abe has died after being shot twice in the chest from behind by a gunman in a horrifying assassination attempt. Two shots were heard before Mr Abe collapsed to the ground while giving a public speech on the campaign trail for a national election, with public broadcaster NHK saying a man armed with an apparently homemade gun opened fired at him from behind. Current prime minister Fumio Kishida had said Mr Abe was in a "severe condition" after being shot, and has asked all members of the cabinet to return to Tokyo. Police identified the suspected shooter as Tetsuya Yamagami, a 41-year-old resident of Nara, western Japan, where the shooting took place. Japanese media said he had served in Japan's military. Security police tackle the suspected shooter in Nara, Japan (
Image:
The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag) Struggling to keep his emotions in check, Mr Kishida earlier told reporters: "As far as I've heard, everything that can be done is being done to revive him. "I am praying from the depths of my heart that his life will be saved. "I am not aware of the motives and background behind this attack, but this attack is an act of brutality that happened during the elections - the very foundation of our democracy - and is absolutely unforgivable." Mr Abe had been standing while making an election campaign speech ahead of Sunday's election for the parliament's upper house and witnesses said that he was shot from behind - by a distance of about three metres, leaving him with an open wound to the neck. Shinzo Abe lies on the ground after an apparent shooting in the city of Nara on Friday (
Image:
via REUTERS) Witnesses have said that he remained standing after the first shot and then collapsed to the ground after the second. Reports say he was shot in the chest and neck. NHK quoted the suspect, Yamagami, as telling police he was dissatisfied with Mr Abe and wanted to kill him. "Such an act of barbarity cannot be tolerated," Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno told reporters, adding that Mr Abe had been shot at about 11:30am. A security police officer seizes the suspected gunman in front of Yamatosaidaiji Station on Friday (
Image:
The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag) NHK showed footage of Abe making a campaign speech outside a train station when two shots rang out, after which the view was briefly obscured and then security officials were seen tackling a man on the ground. Kyodo published a photograph showing Abe lying face-up on the street by a guardrail, blood on his white shirt. People were crowded around him, one administering heart massage. "I thought it was firecrackers at first," one bystander told NHK. A man believed to have shot former Japanese PM Mr Abe is restrained by officers (
Image:
via REUTERS) Officials said CPR was carried out at the scene and he was airlifted to hospital. Current Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has suspended election campaigning and is returning to Tokyo. A crisis management committee has been set up at the government offices. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed deep concern over the condition of Mr Abe. Mr Abe making a campaign speech shortly before he was apparently shot in Nara, Japan (
Image:
The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag) "Our thoughts, our prayers are with him, with his family, with the people of Japan," Blinken said on the sidelines of a G20 meeting on the Indonesian island of Bali. "This is a very, very sad moment. And we're awaiting news from Japan." The US ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, added: "Abe-san has been an outstanding leader of Japan and unwavering ally of the United States." Security police detain the suspect in front of a train station, where Mr Abe had been making a campaign speech (
Image:
The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag) "The U.S. government and American people are praying for the well-being of Abe-san, his family, and the people of Japan." UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he was "utterly appalled" at the shooting. He tweeted: "Utterly appalled and saddened to hear about the despicable attack on Shinzo Abe. My thoughts are with his family and loved ones." Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also wrote in a tweet: "Shocking news from Japan that former PM Shinzo Abe has been shot - our thoughts are with his family and the people of Japan at this time." A man armed with an apparently homemade gun opened fired at Mr Abe from behind (
Image:
The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag) Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted: "Deeply distressed by the attack on my dear friend Abe Shinzo. Our thoughts and prayers are with him, his family, and the people of Japan." And New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: "I was deeply shocked to hear the news about the past Prime Minister to Japan, Shinzo Abe. "He was one of the first leaders I formally met when I became Prime Minister. Security police and staff surround the former Prime Minister on Friday (
Image:
The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag) "He was deeply committed to his role, and also generous and kind. I recall him asking after the recent loss of our pet when I met him, a small gesture but one that speaks to the kind of person he is. "My thoughts are with his wife and the people of Japan. Events like this shake us all to the core." Reactions from other politicians around the world continued to pour in on Friday, with Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, telling Mr Abe to "stay strong". Workers at the scene after Mr Abe was apparently shot in Nara on Friday (
Image:
JIJI PRESS/AFP via Getty Images) She added: "Our thoughts and prayers are with your family and the people of Japan." Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said he was "deeply shocked" by the "heinous" shooting. He tweeted: "My thoughts are with him and his family. Nato stands with the people of our close partner Japan and PM @kishida230." Political violence is rare in Japan, a country with strict gun regulations. A man, believed to be the shooting suspect, is tackled by police officers (
Image:
via REUTERS) In 2007 the major of Nagasaki was shot and killed by a yakuza gangster. The head of the Japan Socialist Party was assassinated during a speech in 1960 by a right-wing youth with a samurai short sword. Airo Hino, political science professor at Waseda University, said such a shooting was unprecedented in Japan. "There has never been anything like this," he said. The suspect was identified by police as Tetsuya Yamagami (
Image:
via REUTERS) Mr Abe served as prime minister of Japan and president of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) from 2006 to 2007 and again from 2012 to 2020. He is the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history. Mr Abe has remained a dominant presence over the ruling LDP, controlling one of its major factions. His protege, Prime Minister Kishida, faces an upper house election on Sunday in which analysts say he hopes to emerge from Mr Abe's shadow and define his premiership. Mr Abe is seen on a stretcher before being taken to hospital via an helicopter (
Image:
The Asahi Shimbun via Getty Imag) Mr Abe is best known for his signature "Abenomics" policy featuring bold monetary easing and fiscal spending. He also bolstered defence spending after years of declines and expanded the military's ability to project power abroad. In a historic shift in 2014, his government reinterpreted the postwar, pacifist constitution to allow troops to fight overseas for the first time since World War Two. The following year, legislation ended a ban on exercising the right of collective self-defence, or defending a friendly country under attack. Mr Abe is seen speaking to the media in August 2020 (
Image:
AFP via Getty Images) Mr Abe, however, did not achieve his long-held goal of revising the US-drafted constitution by writing the Self-Defence Forces, as Japan's military is known, into the pacifist Article 9. He was instrumental in winning the 2020 Olympics for Tokyo, cherishing a wish to preside over the Games, which were postponed by a year to 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Abe first took office in 2006 as Japan's youngest prime minister since World War Two. Mr Abe poses with an Akita Inu puppy presented to a Russian figure skating gold medalist in May 2018 (
Image:
REUTERS) After a year plagued by political scandals, voter outrage at lost pension records, and an election drubbing for his ruling party, Abe quit citing ill health. He became prime minister again in 2012. Mr Abe hails from a wealthy political family that included a foreign minister father and a great-uncle who served as premier. First elected to parliament in 1993 after his father's death, Abe rose to national fame by adopting a tough stance toward North Korea in a feud over Japanese citizens kidnapped by Pyongyang decades ago. Read More Read More | Asia Politics |
Our national malaise is that nothing works and that the country is falling apart. Two recent episodes have captured the gloomy zeitgeist. On Monday, the national air traffic services (Nats), thrown into crisis by the input of a small amount of mismatching data, went down for several hours, spreading mayhem across Britain’s skies, with 1,600 flights cancelled and many others delayed, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of returning holidaymakers disrupted. And on Thursday, days before the start of the new school year, we learned that more than 100 schools are to be closed, all or in part because of fears the light concrete with which they are made could collapse.
These disparate events have common roots: they underline the lack of system resilience of so much British infrastructure and the unwillingness to plan for unforseen contingencies, so that reactions to unexpected failures are ad hoc and on the hoof. And when things do go wrong, the processes for redress and compensation are feeble – in these cases, organised around minimising a duty of care to schoolchildren and parents, and to airlines and passengers. There is a complete lack of accountability. Be sure the same is true for so much else.
Nats says it has established how one rogue, incorrectly completed flight plan – apparently so alarming that it did not want to corrupt its backup systems by triggering their use – disrupted its entire computer network. It promises it will never happen again, and that the systems that manage so many planes using British airspace are the “envy of the world”. It’s the same vainglorious boast of successive Tory ministers as they try to explain away the latest Brexit debacle: anyone who falls back on it must know it is a desperate, surefire signal that we are anything but the envy of the world.
Passengers whose journeys took days longer than expected are rightly furious, as are airlines forced to reschedule flights at a cumulative cost of at least £100m. But little remarked is the scale of the disaster that was so narrowly averted. Planes that don’t take off are at least safe, but those in the air have limited fuel – they cannot circle indefinitely waiting for instructions on when and where they can land. The risk of a crash or collision suddenly becomes very real. It is not good enough to have a backup system that cannot be operated for fear it might become corrupted by the same virus that has hit the frontline operating system. Safe flying demands that the backup system is discrete and capable of taking over the full load of flight information instantly.
Moreover, Nats should not be able to stand aside in the face of claims for compensation: indeed, being able to do so disincentivises it from making the necessary investment – 49% of which will need to be funded by government as owner of 49% of the equity. It is the monopoly provider of a crucial public service. If it fails, it should compensate for the losses incurred. Rishi Sunak’s intervention – he said airlines should accept their responsibility to passengers – was wildly off the mark. That is not the issue. The issues are why it happened, the extent of compensation and governmental refusal to accept accountability. Similarly with the schools, 104 of which have been newly notified that they are at risk of concrete failure and must close for a period. To do this just days before the beginning of a new term is outrageous, and speaks to a lack of duty of care – and poverty of planning for failures. Education, where spending in real terms will still be below 2010 levels by 2024/5, is the last of Tory priorities. It may be true that the concrete used dates back to the 1950s, 60s and 70s, but that only underlines how weak the investment in school infrastructure has been.
Between 1949 and 1978, according to an important paper by Jagjit Chadha and Issam Samiri for the Productivity Institute, net public sector investment averaged 4.5% of GDP. It then fell precipitately in the Thatcher years to zero, before climbing under New Labour from those depths to nearly 3% of GDP in 2010. Austerity prompted another steep fall, since when it has bumped along at about 2% of GDP.
Overall, the rate of public sector investment from 1979 to 2021 has run at less than half the rate of the previous 30 postwar years. Cumulatively (even allowing for privatisation), that means the evisceration of our public services – from schools that are unusable to weak backup systems at Nats.
In France, arch-representative of the economic EU corpse to which Brexiters claim we were shackled, public investment has run at levels half as high as ours again for the past 20 years. As a result, the country works – from its high-speed train network to mandatory enrolment of three-year-olds in nursery schools. A generous welfare system and sector-wide collective bargaining arrangements mean it has much less poverty than Britain – and the investment in research and development is paying off too, with France registering twice as many patents as we manage. It has more companies in the global top 100 than any other European country. True, the tax to GDP ratio is 45% and social conditions in some run-down suburbs are execrable, but in terms of levelling up, its four new battery gigafactories in the depressed north-east stand in stark contrast to our paltry efforts. But, as France’s six out of Europe’s 10 richest billionaires (more than any other country) would concede, the overall approach leads to economic success. In the 21st century, the route to prosperity is not lower but higher taxes, which buy infrastructure, fairness, R&D and high skills.
Reacquainting myself with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations over the past few days, I have been intrigued to read how the father of political economy would have been unsurprised at France’s success. He favoured strong universal education, progressive taxation and “combinations” (trade unions) that raised labourers’ wages – he thought inequality a scourge. Indeed, Conservatives in the 1790s thought his ideas were dangerously radical – a man who favoured the new commercial society shaking the foundations of the old feudal order as much as Tom Paine, Rousseau or Voltaire. He would have hated being appropriated for the Conservative cause.
The remedy for our decline stares us in the face. Do the exact opposite of what almost every conservative commentator and politician urges. Reread Adam Smith, copy France, borrow from the Keynesian 30 years up to 1979 and invest in ourselves. It’s not so hard. | United Kingdom Politics |
It is traditional for the Chancellor, during his Budget speech, to thank the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) for its work in preparing new economic forecasts. In recent years those thanks may well have been expressed through gritted teeth as the OBR continually downgraded economic forecasts and warned of further turbulence ahead. At today’s Budget, Jeremy Hunt’s gratitude sounded more heartfelt. The new OBR numbers permitted him space to tell a more positive story without sounding deluded.
The global economic environment has certainly brightened since the last set of official forecasts in November and, five months after the ousting of Liz Truss, Britain is no longer first in the firing line for financial markets. The biggest change has been a halving in wholesale gas prices over the last few months. That directly lowers costs for firms and eases the cost-of-living squeeze on households. In dry economic terms, the sharp rise in energy prices experienced between 2021 and 2022 was a deeply negative trade shock to the UK, that is to say the price of things it has to import rose much faster than the prices of things it sells overseas, leaving the country as a whole poorer. Lower wholesale energy prices can be viewed as an easing of that shock.
Hunt was able to trumpet the fact inflation has peaked and is forecast to fall to 2.9 per cent by the end of the year and even to boast that the UK was no longer expected to suffer a technical recession – usually defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth – in 2023. But despite the Chancellor’s best efforts, the actual details of the OBR’s assessment make for grim reading. Real household disposable income, a measure of living standards that takes account of prices, taxes and benefits, is set to fall by 2.6 per cent in 2023 following a drop of 2.5 per cent in 2022. That represents an improvement over the previous forecast but is still the worst two-year hit to living standards since records began in 1956-57. Unemployment is now expected to peak at a lower level (4.4 per cent) but joblessness is still forecast to rise over the next two years.
If last autumn’s numbers were the economic equivalent of a torrential downpour, then today’s forecasts are heavy rain; certainly preferable to what came before but not what anyone would call good weather. Despite the upgraded forecasts, the economy is still forecast to shrink by 0.2 per cent this year – the worst predicted performance of any G7 country.
That Hunt felt able to use this miserable outlook as an opportunity to reject “declinist” assumptions says more about diminished expectations than any objective assessment. For all the talk of growth being one of the government’s central objectives, the OBR expects productivity growth to remain abysmal over the next five years. It should not be understated how acute this crisis has become: the economic historians Terence Mills and Nicholas Crafts recently calculated that the undershoot in productivity growth, relative to pre-2008 performance, is the worst since the 1760s.
On the policy side, a Budget widely billed as “boring” was more eye-catching than expected. The better-than-forecast performance of recent months left Hunt with more room for manoeuvre. Compared with the November outlook, the underlying budget position has improved by almost £25bn per year due to a combination of lower energy prices and lower government borrowing costs. The Chancellor has spent around two-thirds of that fiscal windfall on his policy interventions. The biggest move was an expansion of free childcare to the under-threes. The policy has the dual benefit of both being economically sensible – measures which encourage more parents (and in particular women) to work at a time of labour shortages are well-targeted – and politically advantageous as a direct offer to young families, who will be a defining demographic at the next general election.
The devil is, of course, in the detail. The new arrangements will be phased in slowly over the coming years with most of the extra help not expected until after the immediate cost-of-living crunch has abated. Still, the Chancellor should be praised for taking long-demanded action, especially since he may no longer be in office once the benefits are felt. Similarly, the move to allow firms to deduct the cost of their capital spending from their tax bills is another welcome step which should help address an economic problem – chronic weakness in business investment – but which will do little to support growth in the near-term.
Hunt played a bad hand relatively well today. He made some sensible decisions for the medium term and avoided any obvious blunders. But his attempt to spin the economic outlook as anything other than grim may not age well. While a technical recession will hopefully be avoided, 2023 will still feel like a recession for most people as real incomes fall and unemployment rises. Telling people that things are getting better while they still feel worse off is always a risky strategy. | United Kingdom Politics |
G7 leaders commit to providing Ukraine with financial, military, humanitarian and diplomatic support for 'as long as it takes' G7 leaders have reemphasised their condemnation of Russia's "illegal and unjustifiable" war in Ukraine following a three-day-long summit. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US have said they will continue to provide Ukraine with financial, military, humanitarian and diplomatic support for "as long as it takes". "At a time when the world is threatened by division and shocks, we, the G7, stand united," the leaders said in a joint statement. "We are ready to reach arrangements together with interested countries and institutions and Ukraine on sustained security commitments to help Ukraine defend itself and to secure its free and democratic future." The leaders also committed to spending more than $2.8 billion in humanitarian aid for Ukraine and continuing to impose "severe and enduring costs" on Russia. To help tackle worldwide food security issues, the alliance has said it will spend an "additional $4.5 billion to protect the most
vulnerable from hunger and malnutrition". This means more than $14 billion will be spent on trying to solve the problem this year. However, plans to impose a price cap on exports of Russian oil appeared to have been watered down - with a commitment only to explore such a measure."We will take immediate action to secure energy supply and reduce price surges driven by extraordinary market conditions, including by exploring additional measures such as price caps," the statement said. 'Some positive progress' made in talks with Turkey over Sweden joining NATO, Finland's president tells Sky News By Deborah Haynes, security and defence editorFinland's president says there has been "some positive progress" in talks with Turkey over his country and Sweden joining NATO and that a meeting on Tuesday with the Turkish leader will be "very interesting and even exciting".With Finnish and Swedish membership to NATO still not decided, Sauli Niinisto warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin could well enjoy the spectacle of allies failing to overcome Turkish concerns about, in particular, Sweden joining the NATO alliance during a landmark summit this week."I try to avoid being optimistic or pessimistic," the Finnish president told Sky News in an interview at the Finnish ambassador's residence in Madrid.NATO allies and partners are gathering in the Spanish capital for a three-day summit this week. The leaders of Finland, Sweden and Turkey are due to meet in Madrid before the summit formally kicks off."With a very open mind, we will have a discussion today with [Turkey's] President Erdogan and let's see," said Mr Niinisto. "There are certain indicators that it has been possible to go deeper in discussions just yesterday and maybe that's a good signal, but you never know. So it will be a very interesting and even exciting meeting." Allies are holding out hope that the process to start welcoming two historically neutral Nordic states into the club could still begin during the Madrid summit in what would be the ultimate snub for the Kremlin.Stockholm and Helsinki both chose to ask to join NATO out of concerns about Russian aggression in a dramatic U-turn in their security policy following President Putin's all-out invasion of Ukraine in February.Last-ditch talks have been taking place between NATO, Turkish, Finnish and Swedish officials, with the United States and the UK also trying to find a solution in time for Madrid.Turkey is seeking assurances from Sweden over its ties with Kurdish militants. Ankara accuses Stockholm of supporting Kurdish militants, who it views as terrorists.Asked whether he thought Russia would enjoy seeing allies fail to overcome this rift in time for the summit, Mr Niinisto said: "I don't know what they would think but you could well image it." He said it would also be a blow for his country and Sweden as well as for NATO, which has an "open door" policy for new countries to seek to join at a time of rising tensions with Russia.As for whether Finland, which is not experiencing the same Turkish resistance, would ever join NATO without its next-door neighbour, the Finnish leader said: "I don't go that far because our position now is very clear: we discuss together and work together." In pictures: Emergency workers continue clearing site of destroyed shopping centre As we have been reporting throughout the day, Ukrainian emergency workers are still at the site of a destroyed shopping centre in Kremenchuk. Russia carried out a missile strike on the mall yesterday, killing at least 18 people and wounding dozens of others. A huge fire broke out at the centre following the attack, leaving behind large piles of rubble and mangled pieces of metal. It should be noted that while the West has called the strike a war crime, Russia has denied targeting the building. Sky's specialist producer Michael Greenfield has been at the site, where he captured these photos. Russia's 'unusually intense' wave of shelling - and the civilian casualties The number of strikes on civilian targets seems to have intensified in recent days - with analysts suggesting Vladimir Putin has sought to display his strength and indifference to consequence at a time when world leaders are meeting in Germany.Indeed, the UK's MoD noted this morning (see 6.52 post) that the Russians had conducted an "unusually intense" wave of shelling over the last few days.As well as the shelling on Ochakov we told you about in the previous post, here is a round-up of the notable attacks we've been reporting on...Five people were killed in a shelling attack on an apartment building and a primary school in Kharkiv on Monday;Eight people, including one child, were killed after Russian troops "opened fire" on a crowd of locals in Luhansk on Monday;At least 18 people were killed in a Russian missile strike on a shopping centre in Kremenchuk on Monday;A 21-year-old woman and a 57-year-old woman died following shelling in the Kharkiv region in an attack overnight on Sunday;One person was killed and six were wounded in a missile strike on an apartment block and nursery in Kyiv on Sunday;Ukraine claimed Russian soldiers broke a 70-year-old woman's spine after she refused to hand over her passport;Two people were hospitalised after rocket strikes were carried out on residential buildings in Kharkiv on Saturday night;An airstrike hit a chemical plant in Severodonetsk where hundreds of civilians were trapped but no casualties were reported. Three-month-old baby in a coma and six-year-old dead after overnight shelling, says Ukrainian official A six-year-old girl has died and a three-month-old baby has been left in a coma after a shelling attack in the southern coastal town of Ochakov, a Ukrainian official has said. Vitalii Kim, head of the Mykolaiv regional military administration, said three people were killed in the shelling and six were wounded. As a result of the attack, there is "no water, gas, energy or internet" in some areas, he explained. He added that "about 11 missiles" were fired on Mykolvaiv, a city also in the south, overnight. Mr Kim said some missiles had been shot down by air defences but provided no further details.Mykolaiv has come under a barrage of attacks since the war started in February. Last week, the mayor of the embattled port city called for "everyone who wants to survive" to leave. Joe Biden's wife and daughter added to Russia's sanctions list Joe Biden's wife, Jill Biden, and his daughter, Ashley Biden, have been added to Russia's sanctions list. The country added the two women to its US "stop-list" along with a number of other prominent figures. Russia's foreign ministry has said the step was taken "as a response to the ever-expanding US sanctions against Russian political and public figures". Russia claims fire at Kremenchuk shopping centre was caused by strike on weapons depot Russia has claimed a fire at the Kremenchuk shopping mall was caused by a strike on a weapons depot in the area and not by hitting it directly. Russia's defence ministry said it fired missiles against a weapons depot in the city and it was a subsequent explosion of ammunition that caused the blaze. At least 18 people were killed in the attack, which Ukraine said was carried out against the shopping centre. Local Ukrainian governor Dmytro Lunin insisted there was no military target nearby that Russia could have been aiming at.World leaders have backed Ukraine's claim, calling the strike a war crime. Russia has continually denied targeting civilian infrastructure during its invasion, with its deputy ambassador to the United Nations previously claiming this particular attack was a "Ukrainian provocation". G7 summit was overshadowed by Russian missile attacks but another meeting intends to project a message of strength and unity G7 leaders are holding their final working session at their summit in the secluded Bavarian resort Schloss Elmau, writes Sky's international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn. Their meeting has been upstaged by NATO announcing a radical shake-up in the way the West defends itself and overshadowed by renewed Russian missile attacks on Ukraine.Vladimir Putin has used cruise missiles to cast a pall of tragedy over proceedings, eliciting outraged condemnation from world leaders. Prime Minister Boris Johnson described the attack on a shopping centre in Kremenchuk as a stupid move that has backfired. The Russian attacks will have only increased the resolve and unity of the leaders gathered here but are most likely intended as a warning to the West not to send more heavy weapons to Ukraine.NATO has announced its biggest changes since the end of the Cold War.Its rapid response force will be increased sevenfold and the numbers of troops in the Baltics on Russia's borders will be reinforced too. World leaders move to Madrid next for the NATO summit also intended to project a message of strength and unity to Russia as it continues to seize the upper hand in the war in Ukraine. Russia likely to be 'even greater threat to European security' after Ukraine war, says new British Army head The new head of the British Army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has been giving his first speech since taking up his post as the chief of the general staff. He has warned that Russia will likely be an "even greater threat" to Europe after the invasion in Ukraine and the UK must act "rapidly" to make sure it is not drawn into war. "Let me be clear, the British Army is not mobilising to provoke war. It is mobilising to prevent war," he explained. The general said he has not seen "such a clear threat to the principles of sovereignty and democracy and the freedom to live without fear of violence" in all his years in the army. "I will do everything in my power to ensure that the British Army plays its part in averting war," he said. It comes, as reported by defence and security editor Deborah Haynes yesterday, as NATO is to significantly increase the number of forces on high alert to over 300,000 from 40,000 as part of the biggest overhaul of the alliance's defences since the Cold War.However, despite General Sanders' warnings, it is understood that the number of British soldiers currently available could be significantly reduced from around 82,000 to 72,000. The general said the British Army would "play its part" alongside its allies in Ukraine but did not say how many troops would be mobilised.He went on: "Put simply, the threat has changed and as the threat changes, we'll change with it. My job is to build the best army possible."We don't know how the war in Ukraine will end, but in most scenarios, Russia will be an even greater threat to European security after Ukraine than it was before."His speech comes as Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to announce an uplift in UK defence spending later this week. Dozens unaccounted for as rescuers don't expect to find more survivors of shopping centre attack As we reported earlier, at least 18 people have been killed during an attack on a shopping centre in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk. It's clear this is now a grim recovery operation, writes our correspondent Sally Lockwood at the scene.Rescuers don't expect to find anyone else alive. And you can see why.There is nothing left. The fire that ripped through the shopping centre after the missiles hit has reduced it to ash and rubble. Just a burned frame reveals where it stood.And not all the casualties are recognisable. A senior rescuer tells me they've found human remains, which makes it very hard to know how many people have died at this stage. Dozens remain unaccounted for. A local police station is collecting DNA from relatives who've reported their loved ones missing.Far from the frontline, innocent shoppers have become victims of this war.The mayor of Kremenchuk told me people had fled to his city for safety. People who came here to escape the fierce fighting in the eastern Donbas region have found themselves caught up in this attack.War crime investigators are at the scene collecting evidence. One tells me there is nothing to suggest the site or area had any military links.This was an indiscriminate attack on civilians, shopping in the middle of the afternoon. "We don't have Russians here but we still don't feel safe," one man tells me. "We go to bed. Or we go shopping. And we know this could happen at any moment."Ukrainians are living in a state of fear. You sense their anxiety everywhere. Because nowhere is safe. | Europe Politics |
Living standards have fallen. Net after tax earnings have gone down, and so have the numbers of self-employed, and participation in the labour market.
There is, however, one set of statistics in which the UK is still booming. Net migration. According to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, the number of people coming to the UK hit an estimated 672,000 in the year to June, while the figure for the whole of 2022 was revised up to an astonishing 745,000.
That comes at a time when we were meant to reduce the economy’s dependence on cheap imported labour, not increase it. The political class spends so much time obsessing over minor tweaks to the tax system of the sort the Chancellor announced in his Autumn Statement. But we keep ignoring the far larger problem. Our dependence on mass migration is turning into an economic, social and political catastrophe – and until we start getting to grips with that nothing will start to improve.
It probably won’t come as any great surprise to anyone that net immigration has hit yet another record. A country that was meant to be gradually weaning itself off foreign labour after the vote to leave the European Union has been doubling and tripling it instead. We are adding the equivalent of a city the size of Manchester to the population every year. With businesses clamouring for more and more workers every year there is little sign of that ever stopping. On current trends we could add 10 million people over the next 15 years, and perhaps more.
There is a consensus that immigration always and everywhere increases the growth rate and makes us all richer. Sometimes, of course, it does. Every vibrant economy should be open to new people, new skills, and exceptional talents, and we have plenty of evidence to show that entrepreneurs, artists, and political leaders are often predominantly drawn from a highly-driven, ambitious and hard-working immigrant population. And, of course, companies need access to a global talent pool if they are to build world-class businesses.
There are three big problems, however. First, the UK has turned into a country that is chronically unable to build anything. We hardly construct any new houses, we can’t build new roads, or railway lines, and we won’t secure our own energy resources to generate the gas and electricity that all the extra people will need. Sure, we could make the reforms necessary to unblock all of that, but there is absolutely no sign that any of the major political parties have the appetite. Once we figure out how to build the extra 250,000 new homes, on top of the existing demand, plus a couple of nuclear power stations to power them all, then it might make sense to run immigration at 700,000 annually. To do it before then is simply crazy.
Second, it creates dependency. For more than two decades now the UK has been trapped in a low-skill, low-wage, high immigration cycle. Companies don’t invest in machinery or training because it is always cheaper simply to bring in foreign workers instead. And because they haven’t invested they need more and more people to keep filling all the vacancies. We can’t blame businesses for that. They are simply adapting to the economy they are part of. But it means that the UK remains dependent on more and more cheap foreign workers.
Finally, the economics doesn’t add up. We keep being told that we need immigration as our population ages to fill all the vacancies, and to keep the public finances stable. And yet that is looking less and less true all the time. Professor David Miles, member of the Budget Responsibility Committee at the Office for Budget Responsibility, argued in a paper published in September that very often the overall quality of life is better in countries with static or even shrinking populations. “Predictions of dire effects” from falling populations, he wrote, “are implausible”.
There is mounting evidence of the truth of that conclusion. The UK has been running very high levels of net migration for the last 20 years without becoming noticeably richer. Indeed, according to World Bank figures, GDP per capita has fallen from $50,000 in 2007 to $45,000 in 2022. By contrast, Japan, an advanced economy with a shrinking population, and one that has only increased immigration modestly over the last few years, although the country is almost twice the size of the UK), has grown steadily wealthier despite its challenging demographics. As Miles argues, immigration adds to total output, but it also means higher costs in infrastructure and extra state services. Net-net you are not necessarily better off.
In reality, political leaders from all the major parties are simply fiddling to little consequence. Some tax breaks for big corporations are helpful, although they only mitigate the damaging rise in their overall tax bill. Tweaking national insurance contributions for the self-employed is all very well, but it hardly makes up for the punitive IR35 regime that tries to turn them into employees when they are contractors. The real economic challenge for the UK is facing up to our complete dependency on higher and higher levels of immigration to keep the show on the road even while it puts an intolerable strain on our infrastructure and housing stock. We could start to end that if we wanted to, even if it will be costly in the short-run. But right now there is very little sign that anyone is willing to make a start. | United Kingdom Politics |
Indonesian President Joko Widodo listens as U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during an event with leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as part of the U.S.-ASEAN Special Summit, in Washington, U.S., May 13, 2022. REUTERS/Elizabeth FrantzRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comJAKARTA, June 22 (Reuters) - Indonesian President and G20 chairman Joko Widodo will visit counterparts in Ukraine and Russia next week and press for a peaceful resolution to their conflict, his foreign minister said on Wednesday, the first such trip by an Asian leader.The Ukraine war has overshadowed meetings of the Group of 20 (G20) major economies this year, with Indonesia struggling to unify its members while resisting pressure from Western states threatening to boycott a November leaders' summit and pushing for Russia's exclusion.Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi said the visits by Jokowi, as the Indonesian president is known, to both Kyiv and Moscow would be conducted in a "not normal" situation.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com"The president is showing compassion on the humanitarian crisis, will try to contribute to the food crisis caused by the war, and the impact felt on all countries, especially the developing and low-income ones," she told a news conference."And he'll keep pushing for the spirit of peace."The months-long fighting in the region began in February with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which Moscow calls a "special military operation".The conflict has caused major disruption to supply chains, stoking a food and energy crisis that has seen inflation soar in many countries, some of which have imposed export curbs to ensure domestic supplies.Jokowi will meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, having previously invited both to attend the G20 summit on the island of Bali.Retno did not elaborate on what Jokowi would raise at the talks, which would follow the G7 Summit in Germany and bilateral meetings with leaders of those countries and others.Jokowi's office did not immediately respond to a request for further details.The president would discuss food security issues at those meetings in Germany, noting the global importance of Russia and Ukraine in terms of natural gas, oil, wheat and barley, Retno said."The situation is very complex right now. The continued war will have an impact on humanity including food, energy, and financial crises," she said, adding as G20 chairman Jokowi had spoken to leaders of the United Nations, Germany, Turkey recently."We've decided not to use a 'megaphone diplomacy' so that big benefits for the world can be achieved," she added.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Stanley Widianto; Editing by Martin Petty, Ed DaviesOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
The UK is providing technology to allow grain to be tested to make sure it has not been stolen by Russia from Ukrainian silos and sold abroad for profit.George Eustice, the environment and food secretary, says the government is giving £1.5m to fund the DNA analysis of wheat to find where it comes from.
He told Sky's Kay Burley: "Russia, it appears, are stealing some wheat from those stores and so what the UK government is doing is making available technology we've got to... test the provenance of wheat."We're working with other countries, including Australia, on this so that we can ensure that stolen Ukrainian wheat does not find a route to market."You can test the DNA of the grain and we've got samples of Ukrainian grain. We did a lot of work on this - remember the horsemeat scandal about a decade ago? "The UK is a world leader in being able to test the provenance - that's the precise region in which a crop was grown - through the testing of DNA. And that's what we've made available."
It comes after a Sky News investigation that tracked one ship that turned off its transponder as it approached Ukraine in the Black Sea, adding evidence that Russian forces are illegally expropriating Ukrainian resources. More on Russia Russia in first foreign debt default in over a century, bondholders claim Ukraine war: G7 leaders under pressure to stand together and not buckle in face of Putin's aggression Ukraine war: Kyiv attacked by Russia for first time in weeks as one killed and several injured in missile strikes Read more: The disappearing ships: Russia's great grain plunderThe US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also said the US possesses "credible reports" that Russia is stealing Ukrainian grain and selling it internationally.He was speaking with reference to a New York Times story that said Washington had last month warned 14 countries, mostly in Africa, that Russia was trying to ship stolen Ukrainian grain to buyers overseas.The Sky News investigation showed a shipment of grain that was likely to have come from occupied Ukraine before being moved to a Turkish port. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Eustice: World must keep markets open Last week Ankara said it was looking into claims that Ukrainian grain had been stolen by Russia and transferred to countries including Turkey, but added investigations had not found any stolen shipments so far.Russia has denied allegations it has stolen Ukrainian grain.Mr Eustice did not explain how and where the British technology would be used and where the money would be spent.Sky News has asked the government to provide a more thorough explanation about how it would work but has yet to have a full reply.Mr Eustice ruled out using the Royal Navy to escort Ukrainian grain ships through the Black Sea to help Kyiv export the 25 million tonnes of wheat in its silos. But, he said, the UK was doing what it can to help them get the grain to market.He said: "Although it's a small proportion of the overall total (of grain in worldwide storage), in the current context it's quite significant and unless we can get it out, there won't be stores for this year's harvest to go into."So we're looking at what we can do to help - to repair railways, to look at a land bridge so that we can get that wheat out across the land border. It's now very, very perilous to try to get ships into the Black Sea... because the area is mined and in fact Ukraine themselves have closed their ports for security reasons."There have been fears expressed that there will be growing calls from countries affected by a worldwide hike in food prices as a result of the Ukraine war for Russia and Kyiv to end their conflict, even if it means Ukraine loses territory.On Monday, it was reported that Indonesian President Joko Widodo, the chair of the Group of 20 (G20) nations, will urge Russia and Ukraine to rekindle peace talks, and seek ways to free up exports of grain to global markets when he visits Moscow and Kyiv in the coming days.Also on Monday, disruption in wheat supplies caused by the Ukraine war were said to have contributed to a decision by the World Food Programme to further reduce rations in Yemen, where millions face hunger. | United Kingdom Politics |
Kremenchuk death toll rises to 18, officials sayThe death toll from the Russian missile strike on a crowded mall in the central city of Kremenchuk has risen to 18, according to Ukrainian officials.Search and rescue operations continue this morning as workers dismantle damaged building structures to look for those who may still be trapped by fallen debris. Ukraine’s state emergency services provided an update about 7am local time, confirming that 18 people died in the attack, inclduing one person who succumbed to their injuries in hospital. A further 59 people sought medical help and 25 were admitted to intensive care at a hospital in Kremenchuk.A total of 440 people (including 14 psychologists) and 70 units have been involved in the rescue work, the agency added.Footage after a Russian missile strike on a crowded mall in the central city of Kremenchuk on Monday was shared earlier by Kyrylo Tymoshenko, the deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office. The Russian attack killed at least 16 people and wounded dozens more, a senior Ukrainian official said. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said more than 1,000 people were inside when the missiles struck.Aftermath of Russian missile strike on Ukrainian mall – videoRussian missile strikes Kremenchuk shopping centreSearch and rescue teams are digging for those who remain trapped beneath the rubble of a shopping centre in the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk after the building was hit by a Russian missile on Monday.Ukraine’s president, Volodoymyr Zelenskiy, said more than 1,000 people were inside the building at the time of the strike. Images from the scene showed giant plumes of black smoke and flames, with emergency crews rushing in to search for victims and put out fires.Serhiy Kruk, the head of Ukraine’s state emergency service, said at 2am local time on Tuesday: “We continue to work at the site of the rocket attack on the shopping centre in Kremenchuk. The main tasks currently performed by rescuers are to carry out rescue operations, dismantle debris and eliminate fires. So far, 16 people have been killed and 59 injured, 25 of whom have been hospitalised.”Ukrainian war crimes prosecutors told the Guardian earlier that 14 bodies had been found in the ruins, and one person died from their wounds in hospital. At least 40 missing persons reports had been submitted by locals searching for loved ones who had gone missing in the building.When the missile struck, it ignited a massive fire that took 300 emergency workers more than four hours to extinguish.Volunteers and State Emergency Service firefighters work to extinguish a fire at a shopping center burned after a rocket attack in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, early Tuesday. Photograph: Efrem Lukatsky/APMykola Lukash, from the Kremenchuk district prosecutor’s office, said cranes would be brought in on Tuesday to help lift the collapsed roof of the shopping centre. “We haven’t found any children’s bodies. A lot of bodies are burnt. We need to carry out DNA tests. At the current moment 14 bodies were found here on the site and another one died in the hospital.”Svitlana Rybalko, the head of communications of Poltava region State Emergency Service, said the exact number of casualties remained unclear and that “There might be survivors.”As night fell in Kremenchuk, emergency workers and soldiers combed through blackened debris and twisted metal.“We pulled out several bodies, but there are definitely more trapped under the rubble,” said Oleksii, 46, a firefighter. “This is normally a very crowded place.”Rescue teams work at a site of a shopping mall hit by a Russian missile strike in Kremenchuk, Ukraine. Photograph: ReutersSummary and welcomeHello it’s Samantha Lock back with you as we continue to report all the latest news from Ukraine.Rescue teams are searching for survivors in the rubble of a shopping mall in central Ukraine after a Russian missile strike killed at least 16 people in an attack condemned by the United Nations and the westHere are all the major developments as of 8am in Kyiv. A Russian missile hit a crowded shopping centre in the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk on Monday, killing and injuring scores of people, Ukrainian authorities said. Serhiy Kruk, the head of Ukraine’s state emergency service, said at 2am local time on Tuesday: “So far, 16 people have been killed and 59 injured, 25 of whom have been hospitalised.” Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said more than 1,000 people were inside the building at the time of the strike and officials are “still establishing the number of people under the rubble.” Zelenskiy described the attack on Kremenchuk as “one of the most defiant terrorist attacks in European history”. “A peaceful city, an ordinary shopping mall with women, children, ordinary civilians inside,” he said. “Only totally insane terrorists, who should have no place on earth, can strike missiles at such an object. And this is not an off-target missile strike, this is a calculated Russian strike – exactly at this shopping mall.” The leaders of the G7 said Russian president Vladimir Putin’s attacks aimed at civilians were a “war crime” and condemned the “abominable attack” in Kremenchuk. “We stand united with Ukraine in mourning the innocent victims of this brutal attack. Indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians constitute a war crime. Russian president Putin and those responsible will be held to account,” a statement read. They said they would “continue to provide financial, humanitarian as well as military support for Ukraine, for as long as it takes”. Russian shelling of a residential area in Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv, killed at least five civilians on Monday, the regional governor said. A further 19 people were wounded in the attack, Oleh Synehubov said. A Russian missile attack also killed at least eight civilians and wounded 21 in Ukraine’s eastern Lysychansk region. “Today, when the civilian people were collecting water from a water tank, the Russians aimed at the crowd,” Serhiy Haidai, Luhansk governor, said on Telegram. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said there can be no return to prewar ties with Russia. Scholz said that with its attack on Ukraine, Russia has broken “all the rules, all the agreements we have made with each other on countries’ cooperation” after the G7 summit. He said G7 leaders agree that it has led to long-term changes “which will mark international relations for a very, very long time. So it is clear that, in relations with Russia, there can be no way back to the time before the Russian attack on Ukraine.” The UN security council will meet on Tuesday to discuss Russia’s targeted attacks on civilians at the request of Ukraine. Nato will boost the number of troops on high alert by more than sevenfold to over 300,000 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said the military alliance’s forces in the Baltic states and five other frontline countries would be increased “up to brigade levels” – doubled or trebled to between 3,000 and 5,000 troops. That would amount to “the biggest overhaul of our collective defence and deterrence since the cold war,” he said. UK defence secretary, Ben Wallace, has reportedly written to the prime minister to call for the defence budget to be lifted to 2.5% of GDP by 2028. The leaked request, first reported by Talk TV, emerged on the eve of the Nato summit in Madrid, which will discuss the renewed threat posed by Russia and the anticipated commitment of hundreds more British troops to the defence of Estonia. Any encroachment on the Crimea peninsula by a Nato member-state could amount to a declaration of war on Russia which could lead to “World War Three,” Russia’s former president, Dmitry Medvedev, was quoted as saying on Monday. “For us, Crimea is a part of Russia. And that means forever. Any attempt to encroach on Crimea is a declaration of war against our country. And if this is done by a Nato member-state, this means conflict with the entire North Atlantic alliance; a World War Three. A complete catastrophe,” Medvedev told the Russian news website Argumenty i Fakty. The US is planning to buy and send more medium- to long-range missile systems to Ukraine, including Nasams, an advanced surface-to-air missile system, according to defence officials. The US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, confirmed on Monday the US is in the process of finalising a package that includes advanced air defence capabilities. Putin and his Brazilian counterpart, Jair Bolsonaro, discussed global food security and confirmed their intention to strengthen their strategic partnership, the Kremlin said on Monday. Putin assured Bolsonaro in a phone call that Russia would fulfil all its obligations to supply fertilisers to Brazil, the Kremlin said in a statement as reported by Reuters. Ukrainian State Emergency Service firefighters take away debris at a shopping centre burned after a rocket attack in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, early Tuesday. Photograph: Efrem Lukatsky/AP | Europe Politics |
Putin, Zelensky to host ‘African leaders peace mission,’ South Africa president says
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have separately agreed to host an “African leaders peace mission” to try to reach a deal to end the war, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said Tuesday.
Ramaphosa said he spoke to Putin and Zelensky by phone over the weekend, and they agreed to participate in meetings with leaders from six African countries in Moscow and Kyiv, respectively. He said he would join the leaders of Egypt, Zambia, Senegal, Congo and Uganda as part of the delegation to Russia and Ukraine.
“Principal to our discussions are efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the devastating conflict in the Ukraine,” Ramaphosa said.
He did not state what timeframe or parameters the talks would have, but he said the two leaders authorized him to start “preparations” for them.
He said United Nations Secretary General António Guterres has been briefed on the plan and “welcomed” the proposal.
White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said that the United States would “welcome” any “credible” peace proposal, even if a third party proposes it. He said the proposal must have support from Zelensky and the Ukrainian people.
“We would support any third-party peace proposal, as long as it can be seen as credible, enforceable and sustainable,” he said at a press briefing.
South Africa, Congo, Senegal and Uganda abstained from a vote in the U.N. from last year to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while Egypt and Zambia voted for it.
South Africa has also been grappling with how to deal with an international arrest warrant issued earlier this year for Putin, who was supposed to attend a BRICS summit in Johannesburg in August.
The news of the African peace mission comes as Ukrainian air defense shot down 18 missiles, including six hypersonic missiles, that were aimed at Kyiv on Tuesday.
Ukraine is also expected to launch a counteroffensive soon to take back territory that Russia has captured during the war. Zelensky said earlier this month that the offensive would be delayed to give the Ukrainian military more time to prepare and gain additional equipment.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | Africa politics |
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen testifies during a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed 2023 U.S. budget, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 8, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan ErnstRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryU.S. Treasury Sec, Japan finmin agree to 'further strengthen' ties - statementCommitted to address higher food, energy and commodity pricesTwo sides say Russia's invasion of Ukraine has raised FX volatilityAgree to cooperate 'as appropriate' on FX issues in line with G7, G20 commitmentsTalks come before weekend G20 meetingTOKYO, July 12 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Japanese Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki agreed on Tuesday to work together to address rising food and energy prices, as well as volatility in currency markets, exacerbated by Russia's war in Ukraine.They said the war had increased exchange rate volatility, which could have adverse implications for economic and financial stability, and pledged to "cooperate as appropriate" on currency issues in line with their commitments as part of the Group of Seven (G7) and Group of 20 economies."We will continue to consult closely on exchange markets and cooperate as appropriate on currency issues, in line with our G7 and G20 commitments," the two sides said in a joint statement following their meeting.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comThe two leaders also said they were united in their "strong condemnation of Russia's unprovoked, unjustifiable, and illegal war against Ukraine", adding they continued to increase Russia's cost of its war by implementing economic and financial sanctions.Russia has described the invasion of Ukraine "a special military operation."The Ukraine crisis has raised the risk of a global recession by stoking a surge in cost pressures and exacerbating supply chain disruptions in a blow to demand.Yellen and Suzuki also urged China and other non-Paris Club creditors to cooperate "constructively" in working out debt treatments for low-income countries facing debt distress, while also touching on issues such as climate change and global tax reforms.RUSSIAN OIL PRICE CAPTheir joint statement also referred to a price cap on Russian oil that the United States has proposed to prevent Moscow from benefiting from using higher oil prices to fund its war in Ukraine, but stopped short of laying out any concrete agreement on a scheme."We welcome G7 efforts to continue exploring ways to curb rising energy prices, including the feasibility of price caps where appropriate, while considering mitigation mechanisms to ensure that most vulnerable and impacted countries maintain access to energy markets," the two leaders said in the statement.The global price of oil could surge by 40% to around $140 per barrel if a proposed price cap on Russian oil is not adopted, along with sanction exemptions that would allow shipments below that price, a senior U.S. Treasury official said earlier.The U.S. official said the goal was to set the price at a level that covered Russia's marginal cost of production so Moscow is incentivized to continue exporting oil, but not high enough to allow it to fund its war against Ukraine. read more YEN WOESThe Japanese finance minister, who had fired off a fresh warning shot against the renewed yen weakness earlier on Tuesday, said he told Yellen that the Japanese government is concerned about the yen's recent rapid weakening."As G7 agrees, excess volatility and disorderly moves can hurt economic and financial stability, and we are carefully watching the market with high sense of urgency," Suzuki told reporters after the meeting.Asked about Yellen's reaction to his remarks, Suzuki said she was listening earnestly, without commenting.The Japanese currency, which hit a fresh 24-year low beyond 137 yen to the dollar on Monday, has given up about 16% against the greenback this year.Yellen, who formerly chaired the U.S. central bank, met separately with Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda on Tuesday, the Treasury said. A senior U.S. official said Yellen's discussions would likely touch on the divergent monetary policy trends in the United States and Japan, and their likely implications. read more The U.S. Treasury Secretary also met with leading Japanese economists at the U.S. embassy in Tokyo to discuss monetary policy, inflation, fiscal policy and the two countries' economic outlooks. read more Meanwhile, Yellen paid her respects to slain former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan's longest serving modern leader at a private wake on Monday evening, lauding his work to increase Japan's prosperity and advance the status of women.On Wednesday, Yellen will travel to Indonesia to meet with Suzuki and other Group of 20 finance officials for their July 15-16 gatherings.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Andrea Shalal and Tetsushi Kajimoto; Writing by Daniel Leussink; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama & Shri NavaratnamOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
Wives and partners of the G7 leaders have held their own summit, one somewhat more active than the tense diplomatic talks going on in the halls of the Schloss Elmau alpine resort.As Boris Johnson and his global counterparts met for discussions over the war in Ukraine, his wife Carrie and the spouses of other premiers chatted in the sunshine as they tried a spot of Nordic walking.
She was joined by Britta Ernst, wife of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Amelie Derbaudrenghien, partner of EU Council President Michel, and Brigitte Macron, wife of French president Macron.Ms Ernst - a politician in her own right as education minister of the eastern German state of Brandenburg - took her guests on a Nordic walk with former professional skiers Christian Neureuther and Miriam Neureuther.Miriam Neureuther is a former German biathlete and cross-country skier who won Olympic silver medal in cross-country skiing and two biathlon world championship titles, while Christian Neureuther is a former World Cup alpine ski racer who competed for West Germany in three Winter Olympics. The group were seen smiling and talking as they took on the brisk, sunny walk on Sunday.
Meanwhile, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to call on G7 leaders today to do more to support his country's fight against Russia.Mr Zelenskyy will address world leaders, including Boris Johnson and Joe Biden, via video link from Kyiv after he urged allies to be "partners not observers" in his nightly address on Sunday.Mr Johnson will use Monday's session in Germany to call for urgent action to help get grain supplies out of Ukraine, with countries across the world suffering from shortages. | Global Organizations |
After multiple years of debate, the highly criticized Online Safety Bill will be passed into law in the coming weeks, with massive consequences for the ways people in Great Britain access online services.
During one of its last readings in the House of Lords Sunak's government backed down by confirming that it would not plan to break encryption and only require messaging apps to scan for illegal content when it became "technically feasible".
This statement was hailed as a "victory" by privacy advocates. There was a minute of hope that Britain would re-write the co called playbook for dictators. For instance, security expert Alec Muffett tweeted:
"RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, IN TERMS OF POLICY, LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE ONE THING: After years - especially after the bluster of the past 6 months - that there is acknowledgement from the government of the intractability of client-side scanning, is a HUGE WIN."
And Signal's Meredith Whittaker tweeted:
"WOW. I'm so moved, a bit stunned, and more than anything sincerely grateful to those who came together to ensure sunlight on the dangerous OSB Spy Clause, and to those in the UK gov who synthesized the facts and acted on them."
"I knew we had to fight. I didn't know we'd winâ¤ï¸ð"
However, Meredith also adds:
"Of course this isn't a total victory. We would have loved to see this in the text of the law itself. But this is nonetheless huge, and insofar as the guidance for implementation will have the force to shape Ofcom's implementation framework, this is, again, very big and very good."
Because, crucially, while the government said it would not force tech companies to break encryption, that phrase didnât make it into the amended legislation. What is worse, government representatives only said it would hold its fire until "technically feasible".
Stephen Parkinson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Arts and Heritage, said to the House of Lords: Companies will not be required to scan encrypted messages until it is "technically feasible and where technology has been accredited as meeting minimum standards of accuracy in detecting only child sexual abuse and exploitation content." He also directly mentioned the controversial clause 122 of the Online Safety Bill:
"If the appropriate technology doesnât exist which meets those requirements, then Ofcom will not be able to use clause 122 to require its use."
While the UK government has admitted that currently no technology to scan for child sexual abuse material exists that does not violate the human right to privacy, it is still seaking such technology. When discussing options, most often politicians talk about client-side scanning, which is also eyed closely by the EU as the 'holy grail' for law enforcement.
Services that use end-to-end encryption guarantee that only the sender and the recipient can see the content of the messages. For being able to decide whether the messages contain CSA material, one would need to scan the data locally on people's devices so that it can still be sent with end-to-end encryption. The scanned data would need to be compared to a dataset on another server, which in fact would break the end-to-end encryption and violate people's privacy.
Because scanning and respecting people's right to privacy is essentially impossible, Apple killed its plans to develop client-side scanning for iCloud, stating that it couldnât make the scanning process work without infringing on usersâ privacy.
Ultimately, today no feasible technology to scan for abuse material on encrypted data exists.
Yet privacy activists are claiming a victory. For instance, Wired wrote:
"Britain Admits Defeat in Controversial Fight to Break Encryption: The UK government has admitted that the technology needed to securely scan encrypted messages sent on Signal and WhatsApp doesnât exist, weakening its controversial Online Safety Bill."
In parts it is a victory, because - at least for now - the so-called "spy clause" in the UKâs Online Safety Bill, which would have required messaging apps to break end-to-end encryption for being able to scan for abuse material, will no longer be enforced.
Finally, after months of convincing from security and privacy experts, the government admitted the technology to securely scan encrypted messages for signs of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) without compromising usersâ privacy, doesnât exist - yet.
However, other privacy experts are not so optimistic. Matthew Hodgson, CEO and co-founder of UK-based Element, a decentralized messaging app said:
This is "not a change, itâs kicking the can down the road."
"Itâs only whatâs actually written in the bill that matters. Scanning is fundamentally incompatible with end-to-end encrypted messaging apps. Scanning bypasses the encryption in order to scan, exposing your messages to attackers. So all âuntil itâs technically feasibleâ means is opening the door to scanning in future rather than scanning today."
A spokesperson for the campaign organisation Index on Censorship said:
"The online safety bill as currently drafted is still a threat to encryption and as such puts at risk everyone from journalists working with whistleblowers to ordinary citizens talking in private. We need to see amendments urgently to protect our right to free speech online."
Another expert, Martin Albrecht, a professor of cybersecurity at Kingâs College London and a critic of clause 122 of the Online Safety Bill, said he would not see any possible way that a message-scanning technology could be "feasible". How would such a technology be able to accurately scan only for abuse material while still protecting people's privacy?
Albrecht said to the Guardian:
"I am relieved to see the government accepting the scientific consensus that the technology does not exist to scan encrypted messages without violating usersâ privacy. However, it is not clear what test the government plans to apply to decide on whether the technology is feasible in the future."
Since the government did not change the wording of the bill, the option to force companies to scan later still exists. The media regulator Ofcom still has the power to declare any technology good enough for the task of scanning for abuse content while respecting people's right to privacy - whether the technology can actually achieve this or not doesn't matter.
Listening closely to politicians and their statements about the Online Safety Bill, the current plan is not to break encryption, but this could only be a lip service.
Minister for tech and the digital economy, Paul Scully MP said:
"Our position on this matter has not changed and it is wrong to suggest otherwise. Our stance on tackling child sexual abuse online remains firm, and we have always been clear that the Bill takes a measured, evidence-based approach to doing so."
This means: The UK government still wants to scan every message and every text you send, no matter if it's end-to-end encrypted or not.
If the Online Safety Bill is passed in its current form, Ofcom will be able "to direct companies to either use, or make best efforts to develop or source, technology to identify and remove illegal child sexual abuse content â which we know can be developed," Scully said.
In the end, all we have is a promise. The UK government says they won't force messaging apps to use unproven technology to scan for child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, but the powers to do so are still in the bill. The government can change their mind any minute.
The new tone of the UK government came about due to heavy pressure from tech companies. For instance, WhatsApp and Signal threatened to leave the UK if the Online Safety Bill is passed as they would not weaken or break their end-to-end encryption in order to comply with UK legislation.
We at Tutanota will not accept the Online Safety Bill.
We at Tutanota took a different approach, stating we would not leave the UK, but that the UK would need to block access to Tutanota, just like Russia and Iran.
We focus on our users' security and privacy, now and in the future. Instead of thinking about how to break or bypass encryption, we make encryption stronger by already investing into post-quantum secure encryption.
As tech experts we understand the need for end-to-end encryption and as freedom fighters we would rather fight the Online Safety Bill in court than tinker with our built-in encryption that protects the data of millions of users around the world. We have not given in to China or Iran who already block access to Tutanota and we will not do so for the UK.
Our passion is to fight for your right to privacy.
What is the Online Safety Bill?
The Online Safety Bill aims at making the UK the most secure space online. The bill forces platforms to remove illegal content such as child sexual abuse material as well as remove content that is banned according to their own terms.
The bill contains a set of new laws with the goal of protecting children and adults online. Social media companies should take more responsibility over the content that is published on their sites and remove illegal content faster.
The first draft of the Online Safety Bill was published in May 2021, and it's highly likely that the current form of the bill will be passed into law in autumn 2023. | United Kingdom Politics |
Downing Street is expected to ditch its manifesto commitment to increase the defence budget by at least 0.5% above inflation every year, putting Boris Johnson on a potential collision course with the defence secretary.Ben Wallace, who is joining Johnson at the Nato summit in Madrid this week, has reportedly written to the prime minister to call for the defence budget to be increased to 2.5% of GDP by 2028. It is currently just over 2.1%.Wallace was expected to publicly call for an increase in a speech later on Tuesday to the Royal United Services Institute defence thinktank.The 2019 Conservative manifesto pledged to keep defence spending above the 2% of GDP target sought by Nato, and also “increase the budget by at least 0.5% above inflation every year of the new parliament”.But with inflation above 9% and expected to rise further, this would mean a very significant increase. A senior government source warned the pledge was unlikely to be met.“There is a reality check on things that were offered in a different age,” they said.“The intention is always to honour manifesto commitments but they were made before £400bn was spent coping with a global pandemic that none could have possibly foreseen.”Johnson refused to comment on Wallace’s demand, and talked down the prospect of a direct conflict between the UK and Russia.“I don’t think it’ll come to that and clearly we’re working very hard to make sure that we confine this to Ukraine,” the prime minister said in Germany on the final day of the G7 summit before heading to the Nato gathering in Spain.“The Kremlin are going to try to widen the conflict and say this is something to do between Nato and Russia; that’s not it at all.”Johnson added that the UK was already making “massive commitments” to defence spending and that the 2% spend of GDP on defence was a “floor, not a ceiling”.The prime minister’s official spokesperson said of the 0.5% promise: “We are committed to that and the 2% [Nato GDP target] but again I’m not speculating on future fiscal commitments.”A failure to meet the 0.5% above-inflation rise would face likely resistance from the Ministry of Defence. Wallace’s leaked request for defence spending to reach 2.5% of GDP, first reported by Talk TV, came as newly released figures from Nato showed the proportion spent by the UK had fallen for a second year running.A UK defence source refused to comment on a leak, but added: “The defence secretary and the prime minister have always said that the government will respond to any changes in threat, which is why in 2020 the Ministry of Defence received a record defence settlement.”Figures released by Nato on Monday show that Britain is projected to spend 2.12% of national income on defence in 2022, above the alliance’s 2% target but below the 2.26% spent in 2021 and 2.3% in 2020.During the Nato summit, the UK is expected to confirm it will commit up to 1,000 more soldiers to help protect Estonia, on top of 1,700 stationed there. It is part of a wider Nato policy to increase the forces defending frontline states in eastern Europe to the size of a brigade.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BSTGen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the army, has also hinted that Britain will have to spend more on defence in response to Russian aggression. The chief of general staff said that the British army had to mobilise “to prevent war”, arguing that the military faced a “1937 moment” in which it had become necessary to modernise and adapt “to meet today’s threat”.The service chief did not directly call for extra spending but told a land warfare conference that the UK and other European Nato members had to assume more of the cost of defending Europe given the US’s growing concern with China.He said: “Given the commitments of the US in Asia in the [coming decades], I believe that the burden of conventional deterrence will fall increasingly to European members of Nato.”Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons defence committee, told the Guardian it would be better to move gradually to a target of 3% of GDP over the next three years.Asked if he would be concerned at the 0.5% measure being ditched, he said: “Very much so. The last integrated review was cost-neutral, so a tilt to cyber and space defence came at the expense of our conventional capabilities, which we now need.” | United Kingdom Politics |
The future of the proposed Great British Railways (GBR), one of the biggest planned shake-ups of Britain’s rail sector in decades, is at a crossroads.
Initially put forward by Boris Johnson in 2021, the plan was to create a state-owned public body to act as a unifying ‘guiding mind’ for Britain’s struggling rail sector.
The body would reduce pesky ministerial meddling and provide oversight and accountability for the complex web of different groups which make up Britain’s rail network.
It was seen as a fix for a crisis-hit railway service that has never truly recovered from the pandemic, with delays across the network and industrial action now commonplace.
But the reforms have been delayed and have fallen well down the legislative agenda of recent governments.
GBR was initially included in last springs’ Transport Bill, but was scrapped in October by the then-transport secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who said it would not go ahead in the current session.
The government insists it “remains fully committed” to the plans, but recent reports have hinted at attempts to water down or scrap it entirely.
The rail sector believes that bringing GBR legislation forward is the number one priority right now, and are concerned a fast approaching general election could push things back further.
Writing in The Times last month, Iain Stewart, chairman of the Transport Select Committee warned that “without legislation soon… the chance to fix Britain’s railways and deliver rapid improvement for the customer is slipping away and alternative reforms could become more salient.”
Stewart told City A.M. that although some of the work on GBR could be done without legislation, bringing it forward, in either primary or secondary form, would give “passengers and the industry much reassurance.”
There is also the vital aspect of giving businesses and infrastructure investors’ the confidence to invest in a sector that has faced huge financial difficulty since the Covid pandemic.
In May, 60 business leaders in the rail and infrastructure sector wrote to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for that reason, urging him not to delay legislation that would establish GBR beyond the current parliament.
Darren Kaplan, chief executive of the Railway Industry Association – a representative body who organised the letter – told City A.M. the government must push on with the legislation to give “rail customers, businesses and infrastructure investors the certainty they require.”
Underpinning it all however, is Network Rail, the body who manages the entire system’s infrastructure.
The group has faced significant financial and operational issues under a system which gives the Treasury and the Department for Transport close control of its operations.
It swung to a £1.1bn loss earlier this year and has come under political and regulatory pressure for ongoing poor performance.
A Network Rail official described the current degree of involvement of the government in running the rail network as “not sustainable,” adding that “reform is needed and a new ‘guiding mind’ created to take on the responsibility for the strategy and direction of the industry.”
The spokesperson told City A.M. that “GBR is currently the only way on the table to resolve the biggest issues of responsibility and cost on the railway.”
Britains’ railways need an urgent fix and while there is no one solution, the sector remains surprisingly unified in giving its backing to GBR – it just needs to be delivered. | United Kingdom Politics |
Home Secretary James Cleverly has defended emergency laws to revive plans to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda, as a former Supreme Court justice said the measures would be extraordinary.
Lord Sumption said the move "won't make any difference" after the Supreme Court ruled the policy was unlawful.
Mr Cleverly disagreed with the criticism and said a new treaty with Rwanda would allow flights to depart.
He did not deny previously describing the Rwanda policy as "batshit".
In their ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court justices said there were "substantial grounds" to believe the Rwandan government could deport people sent to the country to places where they would be unsafe.
After the ruling, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rejected calls to drop the plans and said he was working on a new treaty that would prevent genuine refugees from being sent back to where they had fled from.
Facing pressure from Tory MPs on the right of his party, Mr Sunak promised to "do what is necessary" to enact the Rwanda policy, including changing UK laws.
Mr Cleverly told the BBC the government was in the "final stages" of agreeing the new treaty with Rwanda.
When asked when flights would take off, the home secretary said: "We are working to make sure we can do that some time in the new year. We're keeping to the timescale we originally proposed."
Mr Cleverly claimed MPs could vote to approve the treaty once it was agreed and pass new laws within days.
But many expect a new treaty to be challenged in the courts and Tory MPs will be demanding more detail on how the government thinks it can bypass human rights laws and international conventions.
The Supreme Court made it clear in its judgment that domestic legislation, as well as international treaties, were relevant to its decision to rule the Rwanda scheme unlawful.
With a general election expected next year, time is running out to changes laws and pass legislation, which can take months.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, former home secretary Priti Patel said she expected the government's attempts "may prove to be harder and longer to implement than suggested".
"Both those options risk being bogged down in Parliament, especially in the House of Lords, and again in the courts," she wrote. "Claims of a quick solution are sometimes easier said than done, but will have my support in being pursued."
Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court, told The Today Podcast on BBC Sounds the "profoundly discreditable" plan to use a law to declare Rwanda as safe was "constitutionally really quite extraordinary".
He argued it would "effectively overrule a decision on the facts, on the evidence, by the highest court in the land".
"I've never heard of a situation in which parliament intervenes to declare the facts - the safety or unsafety of Rwanda - to change the facts from those that have been declared by the courts to be correct," he said.
"The courts have perused hundreds of pages of documents to reach this decision. For Parliament simply to say the facts are different would be constitutionally really quite extraordinary."
The prime minister is facing calls to withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), an international treaty.
Mr Cleverly played down the possibility of the UK leaving the ECHR, which ensures human rights cases can be heard at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
The first Rwanda flight was scheduled to depart in June 2022 but was cancelled after an intervention from the European Court of Human Rights.
When asked if the government was prepared to leave the ECHR treaty, Mr Cleverly replied: "I don't believe that will be necessary. I believe we can act in accordance with international law and we are very determined to do that."
He did not deny having previously called the Rwanda policy "batshit", saying "I don't remember a conversation like that", and claiming the question was a Labour "trap". | United Kingdom Politics |
PMQs: Rishi Sunak accuses Greek PM of grandstanding over Elgin Marbles
Rishi Sunak has accused the Greek prime minister of trying to "grandstand" over the Parthenon Sculptures, also known as the Elgin Marbles.
Mr Sunak defended cancelling a meeting with the Greek PM this week.
At a fiery PMQs, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "Never mind the British Museum, it's the prime minister who has obviously lost his marbles."
The PM said it had become clear the meeting was "not to discuss substantive issues for the future".
He said it was "rather to grandstand".
The PM's comments are likely to escalate a row about his last minute decision to cancel a meeting on Monday with Greek PM Kyriakos Mitsotakis.
Sir Keir - who held a meeting with Mr Mitsotakis on Monday - said the Greek PM was "a fellow Nato member, an economic ally, one of our most important partners in tackling illegal immigration".
But instead of using a meeting with him to "discuss those serious issues", the prime minister "tried to humiliate him and cancelled at the last minute".
He asked: "Why such small politics?"
Mr Sunak said: "Of course, we're always happy to discuss important topics of substance with our allies, like tackling illegal migration or indeed strengthening our security.
"But when it was clear that the purpose of a meeting was not to discuss substantive issues for the future, but rather to grandstand and relitigate issues of the past, it was inappropriate.
"Furthermore ... when specific commitments and specific assurances on that topic were made to this country and then were broken, it may seem alien to him, but my view is when people make commitments they should keep them."
The debate then turned to migration, with Mr Sunak claiming Sir Keir wanted closer cooperation with the EU, claiming the Labour leader backed "Brussels over Britain every single time".
Sir Keir accused the PM of suggesting that meeting the prime minister of Greece is "somehow supporting the EU instead of discussing serious issues".
He accused Mr Sunak of digging "further into that hole he's made for himself", adding: "Instead of dealing with the facts, he is prosecuting his own one-man war on reality."
Downing Street has claimed it received assurances that Mr Mitsotakis would not publicly push for the return of the Elgin Marbles during his visit, but the Greek leader discussed the topic with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday.
Mr Mitsotakis has, meanwhile, said his falling out with Mr Sunak will not have a long-term impact on Greece and the UK's relationship.
After returning from his ill-fated trip to the UK, the Greek PM insisted that the two countries enjoy a relationship of "significant historical depth" which would not be negatively affected by the spat.
He claimed events in London had actually benefitted the Greek people.
"There was a positive side to the cancellation of this meeting," he said.
"That the fair request of Greece for the reunification of the Parthenon Sculptures gained even more publicity, not only in the UK, but also to the global public opinion."
Earlier on Wednesday, Greece's foreign minister had said he hoped the two countries needed to work together to find a solution to return the marbles to Greece.
Giorgos Gerapetritis, who met his British counterpart Lord Cameron on Tuesday after the row had escalated, said: "The reunification of the Parthenon sculpture is a claim based not only on history and justice but also on ecumenical cultural value."
The Elgin Marbles is the name commonly used for a collection of ancient Greek treasures from the Parthenon in Athens which were taken and brought to the UK by British diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 19th Century.
They have been in the British Museum since 1832, aside from a stint in Aldwych Tube station during World War Two to prevent damage and one marble being loaned to a Russian museum in 2014.
Both Greece and the UK have long-standing positions on the sculptures. | United Kingdom Politics |
Net zero is a project which is about the next 30 years. If the polls are to be believed, Rishi Sunak won’t last another 30 months as prime minister. That is the context in which his speech today (20 September) has to be seen.
A prime minister whose premiership was predicated on political recovery seems close to lifeless. The Conservatives are polling close to the nadir reached under Liz Truss (one Deltapoll survey puts them 24 points behind Labour). Sunak’s personal ratings are at their lowest ever.
Time is running out. In a political environment as poor as this, the thinking goes that Sunak must do something different to shift his fortunes. One of the few glimmers of hope was the Tories’ victory in the Uxbridge by-election, propelled by voters’ fury over the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone to outer London.
Decarbonisation is the most ambitious enterprise in global political and economic history. Net zero is the transition to an entirely different method of powering human civilisation, away from the one which has delivered nearly all of modern prosperity. The only reason it is being attempted in just a few decades is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the alternative would be far worse. It was inevitable that net zero would be politically contested. But few might have thought that it would be Sunak, a man hailed as a political “grown-up” and a Cameron-esque liberal, who would change course.
[See also: Liz Truss’s return is a gift to Labour]
Anyone surprised hasn’t been listening. Today was confirmation, if any more were needed, that the Conservative right have their man, that Sunak is willing to give them all they ask for, with little resistance. Labour mocked Sunak for following Truss’s demands in her ill-advised speech on Monday. But Truss isn’t the pivotal player – it’s Nigel Farage and the wider right-wing media ecosystem that is developing in Britain without much notice or regard. Much of what Farage has demanded, Suank has got. An unrelenting focus on “stopping the boats”; a government-wide obsession with “debanking” after the NatWest/Coutts affair, and now net zero. More moderate Tory MPs must brace themselves for Farage to turn his attention to UK withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights – and for Sunak to be dragged along.
Something that has been missed today is that Sunak’s intervention is likely to end up in court. A case would argue that the government’s actions are not compatible with the UK’s 2050 net zero target, a target enshrined in law by Theresa May’s government. Though Sunak is nominally still committed to the target, the truth about today is that the government is left willing the end but not the means. Investment will almost certainly be hit, as Ford and other major corporations have warned.
Britain has enjoyed a broad consensus on climate change, even running through the Conservative governments of the last decade, a rare thread of consistency across an ideologically unmoored set of administrations. Many of these measures could be reversed by an incoming Labour government but the past consensus is unlikely to be restored – it ended today. The Conservatives are probably heading to opposition, free of any responsibilities that remain. This is a fissure within our politics that is only likely to get wider. | United Kingdom Politics |
JOHANNESBURG -- JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Iran and Saudi Arabia were among six countries invited Thursday to join the BRICS bloc of developing economies in a move that showed signs of strengthening a China-Russia coalition as tensions with the West spiral higher.
The United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Egypt and Ethiopia were also set to enter BRICS from Jan. 1, 2024, joining current members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to make an 11-nation bloc.
The announcement came after two days of talks at a summit in Johannesburg involving Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Russian President Vladimir Putin participated in the discussions virtually after his travel to the summit was complicated by an International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued against him over the war in Ukraine.
Putin welcomed the six countries by video link. He did not mention Wednesday's plane crash that left Russian mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin and some of his top lieutenants presumed dead.
While there has been momentum for a BRICS expansion for months - pushed largely by China and Russia - the five leaders were locked in closed-door discussions for two days Tuesday and Wednesday before emerging with an agreement on expanding and a list of countries on the last day of the summit.
BRICS is a consensus-based organization that needs all members to agree on decisions.
The bloc was formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China in 2009 and added South Africa in 2010, making Thursday's announcement in the heart of Johannesburg's high-rise Sandton financial district its most significant decision in more than a decade.
Mohammad Jamshidi, the political deputy of Iran President Ebrahim Raisi, called joining BRICS a "strategic victory for Iran’s foreign policy.”
“Felicitations to the Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution and great nation of Iran,” Jamshidi wrote on X, the website formerly known as Twitter.
Raisi attended the summit, as did Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, who said the oil-rich kingdom could be a leader of the bloc given its resources, wealth and access to the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.
However, in a twist, Saudi Arabia's membership appeared uncertain after Prince Faisal told the Saudi-owned broadcaster Al Arabiya later Thursday that the kingdom appreciated the invitation but would first study the details before the proposed Jan. 1 joining date and take “the appropriate decision.”
BRICS currently represents around 40% of the world’s population and more than a quarter of the world’s GDP, with that set to increase. The potential new members include three of the world’s biggest oil producers: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Iran.
“This membership expansion is historic,” Chinese leader Xi said. “It shows the determination of BRICS countries for unity and development."
“Over the years, China has stood in solidarity with developing countries through thick and thin.”
Saudi Arabia and the UAE might provide new capital for BRICS' New Development Bank. However, economists also noted that Argentina and Egypt are the International Monetary Fund's two biggest debtors and have required bailouts.
Ethiopia, Africa's second most populous country with 120 million people, has been at odds with the U.S. and European Union over their criticism of the recent conflict in the country’s Tigray region.
Argentinian President Alberto Fernández said that joining BRICS was “a new opportunity” that “strengthens us.”
BRICS has a stated aim to amplify the voice of the Global South. All five current members and dozens of other developing countries represented at the summit repeatedly called this week for a fairer world order and the reform of international institutions like the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank.
Many in the developing world view those institutions as Western-led and unfair to them and a stream of leaders made speeches Thursday calling for change.
While that sentiment and challenging the current international order is useful for China and Russia's geopolitical aims, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a speech to the BRICS summit that the calls for reform were valid.
He quoted figures that said, on average, African countries pay four times more for borrowing from international financial institutions than the United States and eight times more than the wealthiest European countries.
“Redesigning today’s outdated, dysfunctional and unfair global financial architecture is necessary, but it won’t happen overnight," Guterres said. "Yet we can and must take practical action now.”
More than 20 countries had formally applied to join BRICS ahead of the Johannesburg summit and more than 20 others had expressed interest, indicating how the bloc might resonate with many as an alternative.
“Cooperation is key to our collective survival,” Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed said.
South African officials pushed back against characterizations that BRICS was taking an anti-West turn under the influence of China and Russia. Putin and Xi laced their speeches with criticism of the U.S. and its allies earlier in the summit, although Xi did also call for a “lowering of the temperature” in reference to the geopolitical climate.
Putin used a 17-minute prerecorded address on the opening day of the meetings to lash out at the West over the financial sanctions imposed on Russia as punishment for its invasion of Ukraine.
The expansion of BRICS also appears to expand China and Russia's sphere of influence, especially in the Persian Gulf. While Saudi Arabia had been touted as a likely new member, Iran’s inclusion wasn't expected. In the end, three Gulf nations were in line to possibly join.
Until recently, the inclusion of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE together in the same economic or political organization would have been unthinkable, as tensions escalated following the collapse of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal.
But the UAE became the first to reengage diplomatically with Iran, and Saudi Arabia and Iran announced they had reached a separate détente in March, notably with the help of Chinese mediation.
China has recently pushed for more of a presence in the Gulf and has sought closer relations with all three nations, particularly Iran, from which it has imported oil. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also maintained relations with Russia amid the war on Ukraine, annoying the U.S., which has long provided security guarantees for the major oil-producing nations.
The U.S. and its Western allies clashed with Russia and Iran at the U.N. Security Council last month over Tehran’s uranium enrichment and its reported supply of combat drones to Russia that are being used to attack Ukraine.
___
Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. AP writers Amir Vahdat in Tehran, Iran, Samy Magdy in Cairo, Cara Anna in Nairobi, Kenya and Almudena Calatrava in Buenos Aires, Argentina contributed to this report.
___
AP world news: https://apnews.com/world-news | Global Organizations |
Boris Johnson is at the helm of a ghost ship government today as another five ministers walked out demanding the PM accepts reality and quits.The PM has vowed defiance despite fresh evidence of his authority draining away - with Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis, previously a hugely loyal ally, leading the latest exodus. The exodus of ministers continues 6.47am: Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis - tweeted that he could not longer continue without 'honesty, integrity and mutual respect'. 6.49am: Treasury minister Helen Whately - said 'there are only so many times you can apologise and move on'. 7.15am: Security minister Damian Hinds - 'for our country, and trust in our democracy, we must have a change of leadership'7.21am: Science minister George Freeman - accused Mr Johnson of 'insults to the Conservatism I believe in and stand for'.7.50am: Pensions minister Guy Opperman - 'it should not take the resignation of 50 colleagues, but sadly the PM has left us no choice' At 6.47am, he tweeted that he could not longer continue without 'honesty, integrity and mutual respect'. Minutes later Treasury minister Helen Whately followed suit saying 'there are only so many times you can apologise and move on'. Security minister Damian Hinds and science minister George Freeman had followed by 7.30am, and pensions minister Guy Opperman by 7.50am.Meanwhile, Wales minister David TC Davies publicly announced that he had refused a promotion to take over from Welsh Secretary Simon Hart, who quit last night. The Attorney General, Suella Braverman has called for Mr Johnson to resign and said she is only staying in place to keep the government functioning. With the resignation tally now standing at 51, the government has been unable to find a minister willing to go on the airwaves to speak up for the PM this morning - although his critics have been swarming to studios.Former Cabinet minister Julian Smith warned that the premier had seen how Donald Trump behaved in relation to the Capitol riots after the US election, and was looking to have a 'mini version in the UK'.There are even suggestions from allies that Mr Johnson could try to force a snap general election in a desperate bid to cling to office - something that could drag the Queen into a constitutional crisis. Veteran Tory MP Bernard Jenkin this morning urged Carrie Johnson to step in a convince her husband that he should throw in the towel. But the PM yesterday rejected pleas from a delegation of loyalists including Priti Patel and new chancellor Nadhim Zahawi for a seemly departure, vowing to fight until the bitter end. Despite the UK being a parliamentary democracy, he claimed to have a presidential-style mandate from the last election, apparently saying: 'If the party wants to overthrow the elected will of the people, they have to dip their hands in blood.'In a sensational twist late last night, Mr Johnson summarily sacked Michael Gove with No10 sources branding the Levelling Up Secretary a 'snake' who had tried to tell the premier that the 'the game was up'. Constitutional experts have branded the 'nuclear option' of asking the Queen for a dissolution 'deluded madness' which would spark a crisis as the monarch would be obliged to turned down his request. Prime Minister Boris Johnson (pictured today) is being bombarded with more resignations but has refused to quitNorthern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis has resigned, telling the Prime Minister that Government requires 'honesty, integrity and mutual respect'. Minutes later Helen Whately, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, also quit and told the PM: 'There are only so many times you can apologise and move on'. The lights in Boris Johnson's Downing Street living room burn through the night pictured at 4.26am todayThe exits of Lewis and Whatley is another huge blow to Boris - who is vowing to fight on Boris Johnson's allies have now raised the prospect of taking the 'nuclear option' and asking the Queen to dissolve parliament to trigger an election - which he does technically have the power to do - but the monarch could also refuse the requestMichael Gove (left) - who notoriously stabbed Boris Johnson (right) in the back to end his leadership hopes in 2016 - has tonight been sacked from his cabinet position as embattled Prime Minister Boris Johnson launched his own counterattack in a desperate bid to save his political careerBoris Johnson arriving back in Downing Street after his appearance at the Liaison Committee on WednesdayDeputy PM Dominic Raab is thought to have told the Prime Minister that he risked putting the monarch in an intolerable position if he tried to call a snap election, The Sun reports. The Queen, 96, was yesterday pictured being driven from Wood Farm near Sandringham, Norfolk, to her helicopter which flew her back to Windsor Castle. She typically holds a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister on Wednesdays, which have frequently taken place over the phone since the coronavirus pandemic broke out, but it is not clear whether it occurred yesterday amid the pandemonium surrounding Mr Johnson's leadership. Concern among MPs comes following the approval of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act which was brought into law this year, repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and allowing for the body to be dissolved by the Queen 'on the request of the prime minister'. Conservative MPs worry that the Prime Minister could try to use it to save his premiership.A government source told The Times: 'It is something that was talked about but it is completely deluded madness.'In two days of drama, more than 40 resignations have been sent to the Prime Minister since Sajid Javid sparked a tidal wave of revolt late on Tuesday evening in a move that now threatens to bring the Government to its knees. Home Secretary Priti Patel, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps and Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis were among the Cabinet ministers telling Mr Johnson to stand down.Attorney General and leadership hopeful Suella Braverman later joined the calls for the Prime Minister to quit as she launched a bid to replace him.And Mr Johnson was last night hit with the departure of another Cabinet minister - Welsh Secretary Simon Hart It is understood that senior Conservatives have been told by the Cabinet Office that the head of the civil service, Simon Case, would warn against the PM asking for a dissolution on the grounds that it would drag the Queen into politics. One senior MP said that the civil service would advise against putting the Queen in a 'difficult position', and his private secretary or cabinet secretary would tell him not to seek a dissolution because while the monarch could refuse it would be seen as constitutionally 'inappropriate' to put her in a position where she has to make a 'controversial decision'. Under the 'Lascelles principles', the monarch can turn down a request for a dissolution on three conditions, which are:The existing parliament is 'vital, viable and capable of doing its job'; An election would be 'detrimental to the national economy'; and if the monarch can 'rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority' The Prime Minister rejected calls to quit on Wednesday and dramatically sacked Cabinet rival Michael Gove, but was later hit with the departure of a third Cabinet minister - Welsh Secretary Simon Hart - and further demands to go from the Attorney General Concern among MPs comes following the approval of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act which was brought into law this year, repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and allowing for the body to be dissolved by the Queen, pictured Wednesday, 'on the request of the prime minister' Powerful 1922 committee chair Graham Brady was seen going into the Cabinet Office on Wednesday night - another access point to Downing StreetSenior Tory MPs think all conditions are met and, one Johnson supporter predicted the Queen would refuse to allow the dissolution of parliament by 'finding a way of being busy until we've sorted this mess out ourselves'. Samantha the Panther lined up to restore order Former royal aide Samantha Cohen - known as 'Samantha the Panther' is now being lined up to restore order to the Downing Street operation, and was appointed Boris Johnson's interim Chief of Staff after Steve Barclay was moved to become Health Secretary. Cohen, who worked as Her Majesty's assistant private secretary for eight years, was in February brought in to control access to the Prime Minister in a role which has not been filled since David Cameron's premiership.The 50-year-old, nicknamed 'Samantha the Panther' due to her no-nonsense, professional approach, also acted as the Duchess of Sussex's private secretary for 18 months to help prepare Meghan for royal life.Mrs Cohen, who left the Palace in 2019 after 18 years there, took over the management of the Prime Minister's diary as the director of government relations.Mr Johnson is believed to have successfully poached her for the role.Mrs Cohen was a journalist and civil servant in her native Australia before landing her first job in the Palace. Behind the famous black door of No10, the PM had earlier struggled with backbench chief Sir Graham Brady and senior figures including chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris - who warned him that the 'game is up'.But an unapologetic PM shocked Sir Graham and his ministers by telling them he is going nowhere, effectively daring them to call another confidence vote and saying he will focus on the 'hugely important issues facing the country'. There are claims he has told friends 'if you are going to die, go down fighting'. The PM appointed his chief of staff Steve Barclay to replace Mr Javid as Health Secretary, and universities minister Michelle Donelan was promoted to Cabinet to replace Nadhim Zahawi.Mr Zahawi is believed to have agreed to launch a new economic plan alongside Mr Johnson today, but it is not known if this will go ahead amid the crisis surrounding Mr Johnson's premiership. Former royal aide Samantha Cohen - known as 'Samantha the Panther' is now being lined up to restore order to the Downing Street operation, and was appointed Mr Johnson's interim Chief of Staff after Mr Barclay was moved to become Health Secretary.Meanwhile, the dramatic sacking of Mr Gove, a long-standing ally who has served in Cabinet roles in successive governments since 2010, came after a whirlwind two days in Westminster that has seen Mr Johnson's core support hemorrhage.The PM's relationship with Mr Gove has long been troubled, with Mr Johnson's leadership campaign in 2016 derailed when his rival withdrew support and decided to run himself.Mr Johnson phoned the Levelling Up Secretary yesterday evening to tell him he was being removed from his Cabinet job, accusing him of 'treachery'.One senior Tory told The Sun: 'He has lost it. He has become like Caligula — the Roman emperor who wanted to make a horse a consul. Michael was one of the best ministers in the Cabinet.' The sacking came after the minister went alone to see Mr Johnson in his Downing Street study shortly before 10.30am yesterday and tried to persuade him to stand down.Mr Gove warned the PM his position was 'no longer sustainable', telling him: 'The party will move to get rid of you'.'It is better to go on your own terms,' he urged him.Despite his pleading, at the end of the amicable five-minute conversation, Mr Johnson told Mr Gove: 'Thank you, but I am going to fight on.'The pair then walked down the corridor to the Cabinet Room, where the Levelling Up Secretary helped Mr Johnson to prepare for Prime Minister's Questions. Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps (pictured) are among the group who confronted the PM Asked if he would quit as he arrived for a grilling by the Liaison Committee Wednesday afternoon, Mr Johnson said: 'No, no, no.'Sajid Javid yesterday delivered a vicious parting shot at Boris Johnson saying the 'team is only as good as the team captain'But the minister was noticeably absent from the frontbench as the PM faced MPs.At 2.27pm, the news that Mr Gove had told Mr Johnson to go was broken on The Mail+. But the Levelling Up Secretary's allies insisted he was not quitting and was not planning to lead a wider delegation of ministers to Downing Street to call for the PM to stand down. WHO HAS QUIT BORIS'S GOVERNMENT SO FAR? Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health and Social CareRishi Sunak, Chancellor of the ExchequerAndrew Murrison, trade envoy to MoroccoBim Afolami, Conservative Party vice-chairmanSaqib Bhatti, parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Health and Social CareJonathan Gullis, parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland OfficeNicola Richards, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for TransportVirginia Crosbie, parliamentary private secretary at the Welsh OfficeTheo Clarke, trade envoy to KenyaAlex Chalk, Solicitor GeneralLaura Trott, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for TransportWill Quince, parliamentary under-secretary of state for children and families at the Department for EducationRobin Walker, minister of state for school standards at the Department for EducationFelicity Buchan, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial StrategyJohn Glen, minister of state at the TreasuryVictoria Atkins, minister of state for prisons and probation at the Ministry of JusticeJo Churchill, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStuart Andrew, minister of state for housing at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesSelaine Saxby, parliamentary private secretary at the TreasuryClaire Coutinho, parliamentary private secretary at the TreasuryDavid Johnston, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for EducationKemi Badenoch, minister of state at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesJulia Lopez, minister of state at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & SportLee Rowley, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial StrategyNeil O'Brien, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesAlex Burghart, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for EducationMims Davies, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Work & PensionsDuncan Baker, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesCraig Williams, parliamentary private secretary at the TreasuryMark Logan, parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland OfficeRachel Maclean, parliamentary under-secretary of state for safeguarding at the Home OfficeMike Freer, parliamentary under-secretary of state for exports at the Department for International TradeMark Fletcher, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial StrategySara Britcliffe, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for EducationRuth Edwards, parliamentary private secretary at the Scottish OfficePeter Gibson, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for International Trade David Duiguid, trade envoy for Angola and ZambiaJames Sunderland, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsJames Young, Red Wall MP and PPS in the Department of Levelling Up David Mundell, UK Trade Envoy to New ZealandJames Daly, parliamentary private secretary for the Department for Work and Pensions Danny Kruger, PPS at Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Simon Hart, Welsh Secretary Ed Argar, health ministerJames Davies, PPS at Department of HealthGareth Davies, PPS to Department of Health An hour later the Prime Minister was questioned about his cabinet colleague's warning to him as he appeared before the Commons liaison committee.Mr Johnson did not dispute that Mr Gove had told him he should resign. Asked if the story was true, he replied: 'I am here to talk about what the Government is doing. I am not going to give a running commentary on political events.'At around 9pm, Mr Johnson rang Mr Gove to sack him. Neither Mr Gove nor his advisers were the source of The Mail+ story, but the PM said he believed the minister was behind the leak.A No 10 source last night accused him of being a 'snake', adding: 'You cannot brief the Press that you're calling on the PM to go and expect to stay in Cabinet.'It's not the first time he's been treacherous, appalling and disloyal. This is something he [Mr Johnson] should have done years ago. We need team players who share the PM's vision for Britain.'Danny Kruger, who had been a ministerial aide to Mr Gove at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) last night said he was quitting his post in response to the sacking. 'Very sorry indeed to hear Michael Gove has been fired by the PM,' he tweeted. 'As I told No 10 earlier today it should be the PM leaving office. I am resigning as PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary] at DLUHC.'Three ministers at the department – Kemi Badenoch, Neil O'Brien and Stuart Andrew – had earlier announced they were quitting. Duncan Baker, another PPS, also resigned.Tory former minister Tim Loughton said last night: 'Michael Gove has taken the PM the traditional whisky and revolver. The PM has downed the whisky and turned the revolver on Gove.'Mr Gove torpedoed Mr Johnson's Tory leadership bid in 2016 following the Brexit referendum, when he dramatically withdrew support for his campaign at the last minute and then ran himself.Ultimately it ended both men's hopes and left the field clear for Theresa May to reach No 10.In the 2019 Conservative leadership race, Mr Gove finished third place amid claims votes were switched from Mr Johnson to ensure Jeremy Hunt made the final two instead of him.A Johnson ally claimed at the time: 'He stabbed us in the back. We stabbed him in the front.'But Mr Johnson made Mr Gove Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his first Cabinet in July 2019 before moving him to become the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.Mr Gove has been in and out of Cabinet positions. David Cameron removed Mr Gove from his post as education secretary in 2014 and demoted him to the role of chief whip. When Theresa May became prime minister in 2016, she sacked Mr Gove as justice secretary, before bringing him back as environment secretary a year later.There was yesterday 'pretty strong view' across the 1922 Committee that Mr Johnson should go, a Conservative MP has said.Speaking to the PA news agency, David Simmonds, who represents the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency, said the Prime Minister should go as the 'message has been very clear from colleagues'.On the 1922 Committee meeting, Mr Simmonds said: 'There were a couple of people who would agree with that (that he should not go). Well, there was one person I can think of, but other than that, no, I think it was a pretty strong view across the piece.'Mr Simmonds said there are quite a few 'good candidates' that could replace Mr Johnson as leader, adding: 'I'm not canvassing for anybody. But I think we have got a fair few good people. I think Rishi Sunak has a good economic vision for the country.'I was a strong Remainer. But I think as somebody who believes in Brexit, he has actually got a plan. So I like that.'Energy minister Greg Hands has defended his decision to remain in the Government amid a slew of resignations and mounting pressure for Boris Johnson to resign as Prime Minister.Mr Hands told the PA news agency: 'Well I think the majority of the Government has not resigned, the majority of Government is carrying on and we will have to see what happens at the top, yeah.'Asked how in good conscience he can continue to serve in an administration beset by scandal, he added: 'Because I have got a job to do, to deliver on energy and climate change and that's exactly what I am going to be carrying on doing.'On whether his constituents support this decision, he added: 'Well, I think my constituents, they vote for me as their member of Parliament, I hope that they would continue to do so.'And Attorney General Suella Braverman says she will continue in her role despite calling for the Prime Minister to quit.The Cabinet minister, who has previously been a staunch supporter of Boris Johnson, told Peston on ITV that he had handled matters 'appallingly' in recent days.She said: 'The balance has tipped now in favour of saying that the Prime Minister - it pains me to say it - but it's time to go.'She said she will put her name into the ring if there is a leadership contest. Tory MPs were seen slumping in their seats in the House of Commons on Wednesday as the ex-Health Secretary delivered a devastating blow to Mr Johnson's premiership less than 24 hours after his bombshell double-resignation with Rishi SunakFlanked by a stony-faced Dominic Raab and new Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, Mr Johnson fended off a series of attacks from Keir Starmer saying Europe was enduring the 'biggest war in 80 years' and he was getting on with the jobShe told Peston: 'My first duty is to the country, Robert, and as attorney I'm the senior law officer.'And we're in a crisis and I have statutory legal and constitutional duties... Could Theresa May be drafted in as caretaker Prime Minister? Theresa May could return as caretaker prime minister if Boris Johnson resigns, Tory sources said last night.A well-placed source said the former PM was 'uniquely placed' to step in if Mr Johnson tries to order a snap election or quits straight after being ousted in a break with convention.The source said Mrs May's position as a sitting MP with experience as prime minister left her better qualified than any member of the current Cabinet, most of whom are expected to be involved in the contest to succeed the PM.'She knows the ropes and the security stuff, she's a party woman through and through, she's definitely not interested in standing for it herself and would be credible,' the source added.'She is uniquely placed.'A Tory MP said last night that this would have an 'element of epic schadenfreude to it, given he knifed her in the first place'.Allies of the PM have discussed trying to wrong-foot his enemies by calling an immediate election before they can oust him.One said he had a 'mandate from the public' which could not be overridden by Tory MPs.During a grilling by MPs on the Commons liaison committee yesterday, Mr Johnson equivocated over whether he would countenance calling an election if his MPs tried to remove him.One Tory MP said such a move would put the Queen in a 'very difficult position', adding: 'She would have to ask is there anyone else who could command the support of MPs – while a broader leadership election took place – rather than go to a general election.'Catherine Haddon, from the Institute for Government think-tank, said the monarch did have the power to block an election.'Informally, the Palace could tell him no. The question is whether he would go against that informal advice and ask anyway – which would leave the Queen facing a very political decision,' she added.'Whatever you argue about the massive constitutional problems if she did refuse, she can act.'By convention, ousted leaders stay on to oversee the contest to replace them.David Cameron and Mrs May remained as prime minister while their successors were elected.But one MP close to the PM said: 'He could just go. It would be humiliating for him to stay on after being ousted. I'm not sure he's got the stomach for that.'Mr Johnson played a major role in the removal of Mrs May, with his resignation as foreign secretary over Brexit in 2018 seen as a pivotal moment in her downfall.The former Prime Minister has made little secret of her disdain for her successor.Last week she savaged his bid to rewrite parts of the Brexit deal on Northern Ireland, saying: 'As a patriot, I would not want to do anything that would diminish this country in the eyes of the world.'This Bill will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the UK in the eyes of the world, and I cannot support it.' 'I don't want to resign because I have that duty. We need an attorney in government.'Asked whether she recognises that Mr Johnson will likely sack her, she said: 'That is his choice, and I will do whatever the Prime Minister asks me to do.'The PM rejected calls to quit on Wednesday and dramatically sacked Cabinet rival Michael Gove, but was later hit with the departure of a third Cabinet minister - Welsh Secretary Simon Hart - as well as Ms Braverman's demand.The withdrawal of the attorney general's support marks a significant shift by the QC, who was elected as MP for Fareham in May 2015 before being appointed as the top legal official by Mr Johnson in February 2020.She became the first Cabinet-level minister to take maternity leave and was reappointed to her ministerial position in September.Special legislation had to be passed by Parliament to enable her to take time off from her ministerial duties.During her absence she was designated Minister on Leave (Attorney General) while her deputy, Solicitor General Michael Ellis, was made attorney general.During last month's confidence vote, Ms Braverman expressed hope the PM would win the poll with a large margin.The Euro-sceptic had been a supporter of Mr Johnson since her days as the chair of the Brexit-backing European Research Group.But Ms Braverman on Wednesday joined Home Secretary Priti Patel, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis and Welsh Secretary Simon Hart among Cabinet ministers telling Mr Johnson to stand down.It is understood that Ms Patel earlier spoke to the Prime Minister to convey the 'overwhelming view' of the parliamentary party.Mr Shapps is thought to have told Mr Johnson that he stood little chance of winning another confidence vote and should instead set out a timetable for a departure on his own terms.Nadhim Zahawi, who was only appointed Chancellor on Tuesday, was also thought to be among those taking part in the showdown with Mr Johnson.But Mr Johnson rejected suggestions he should seek a 'more dignified exit' and will instead fight for his political future.A No 10 source said: 'The Prime Minister has a mandate from 14 million people to get a job done. He's very conscious of his commitment to them'If the party wants to stop him they have to take that mandate away.'Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Tory 1922 Committee, spoke to Mr Johnson on Wednesday to set out the level of backbench opposition.A new executive for the committee will be elected on Monday which could change the leadership rules, allowing for another confidence vote just a month after the last one - which Mr Johnson may lose given the way MPs have deserted him since Tuesday.But a No 10 source said: 'He has called Graham Brady's bluff. All Graham could say is that there will be an election on Monday.'A new 1922 committee on Tuesday could change the rules - but it's not a given.'The party could then demand a re-run of the no-confidence vote - but not a given.'And the party could then decide to ditch the PM - but not a given.'The source warned that 'the choice is not Boris or no Boris.'The choice is a Conservative government with a new Chancellor who will soon outline a new economic programme of tax cuts, deregulation and the benefits of Brexit, or three months of tearing each other apart to elect a leader with no mandate.'Allies including Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and Brexit Opportunities Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg remained supportive of Mr Johnson.Ms Dorries said the Prime Minister's priority was to 'stabilise the Government'.Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab also remained loyal to Mr Johnson and defended him at a session of the backbench 1922 Committee.Boris Johnson left Downing Street for the House of Commons yesterday - later than usual as pressure mounts on him to quit The former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretary had earlier urged Mr Johnson (pictured together above in 2019) to quit Downing Street as the Tory coup ramped up Mr Johnson's Cabinet was thinned after Welsh Secretary Simon Hart (above) announced he too would stand down from his position late on Wednesday eveningBut since the resignations of Mr Sunak and Mr Javid on Tuesday night, dozens of MPs have quit as ministers, PPSs or trade envoys.Mr Javid used his resignation statement in the Commons to say 'enough is enough' and challenged other Cabinet ministers to consider their positions.'Treading the tightrope between loyalty and integrity has become impossible in recent months,' he told MPs.'I will never risk losing my integrity.'He said 'the problem starts at the top and I believe that is not going to change'.In a message to Cabinet ministers who decided not to quit, he said: 'It is incumbent on all of us to set high standards for ourselves and to take action when they are not met by others.'The speech, which had echoes of Geoffrey Howe's 1990 resignation statement which helped topple Margaret Thatcher, was heard in silence in the Commons, with Mr Johnson sitting grim-faced on the front bench.Other ministers who quit on Wednesday were Will Quince, Robin Walker, John Glen, Victoria Atkins, Jo Churchill, Stuart Andrew, Kemi Badenoch, Neil O'Brien, Alex Burghart, Lee Rowley, Julia Lopez, Mims Davies, Rachel Maclean and Mike Freer.In their resignation letters:Ex-children and families minister Mr Quince said he could not accept being sent out to defend the Prime Minister on television with inaccurate information on the Chris Pincher row.Former justice minister Ms Atkins told Mr Johnson: 'I can no longer pirouette around our fractured values. We can and must do better than this.'Ms Churchill quit as environment minister, saying: 'Recent events have shown integrity, competence and judgment are all essential to the role of Prime Minister, while a jocular self-serving approach is bound to have its limitations.'The leadership crisis followed the scandal surrounding former deputy chief whip Mr Pincher, who quit after allegedly assaulting two men while drunk at London's Carlton Club.Downing Street initially said Mr Johnson had no knowledge of previous allegations against Mr Pincher, but the Prime Minister later acknowledged he had been informed of inappropriate behaviour dating back to 2019, and said he regretted keeping him in government beyond that point.The Prime Minister's authority had already been damaged by a confidence vote which saw 41% of his own MPs withdraw their support in June.The loss of crunch by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton and Honiton later that month triggered the resignation of party chairman Oliver Dowden, while there is still lingering resentment over coronavirus lockdown-busting parties in Downing Street.Now the leadership race is REALLY on: Rishi sends out Mrs Sunak to serve tea to waiting press (in £38 mugs) – while Attorney General Suella Braverman shamelessly launches her bid during TV interviewTory hopefuls have started leadership jostling as Boris Johnson's tenure teeters on the brink Rishi Sunak's wife Akshata Murty brings out tray of hot drinks for waiting press - in £38 mugsTobias Ellwood and Tom Tugendhat both grilled the PM in Commons committee hearingWhile Liz Truss and Jeremy Hunt highlighted their efforts on their day jobs amid Westminster dramaBy Greg Heffer, Political Correspondent For MailOnline Tory leadership jostling was on full display on Wednesday afternoon as Boris Johnson teetered on the brink.With the Prime Minister facing a torrent of Conservative MPs calling for him to go, those hoping to replace him were making themselves visible in a variety of ways.Some used Parliament's set-piece occasions while others paraded how they were getting on with their day jobs.And even the family members of leading Tories were thrust into the spotlight as speculation about who could replace Mr Johnson intensified.Rishi Sunak's wife delivers (very expensive) mugs of tea for waiting pressRishi Sunak, 42, was among the first to thrust the knife into the PM as part of the Tory revolt.He dramatically quit as Chancellor last night to throw Mr Johnson's premiership into fresh peril.And while reporters were camped outside his London home on Wednesday - hoping for a first appearance from Mr Sunak since his departure from Government - the ex-Chancellor's wife popped out to offer refreshments.Akshata Murty, the heiress of an Indian billionaire, was pic | United Kingdom Politics |
Humza Yousaf accused of false claim cover-up
Humza Yousaf has been urged to refer himself to a parliamentary watchdog after opposition MSPs said he may have knowingly misled parliament.
They suggested civil servants retrospectively created statistics to justify an incorrect statement the first minister made about Scotland's renewable energy capacity.
Mr Yousaf later said he intended to say "per capita" in his original answer.
His spokesperson denied a cover-up and said the record was now accurate.
At First Minister's Questions on 22 June, in a response to Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, Mr Yousaf said that Scotland had "the majority of the renewables and natural resources" in the UK. The correct figure for 2022 was 26%, according to Scottish government figures.
After being challenged by Scottish Tory MSP Liam Kerr, the first minister wrote a letter on 29 August that stated he had intended to say "per capita" in his original answer.
Scottish government emails released under freedom of information (FOI) to pro-Union organisation These Islands show officials established after FMQs on 22 June that Scotland had 26% of UK renewable capacity and 26% of generation in 2022.
But it was not until 3 July that the "per capita" figure appeared in the email chain, much of which was redacted.
The updated figure put Scotland on 651.6GWh per 100,000 people, compared with 649.7GWh for the rest of the UK combined.
In a letter to Mr Yousaf, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said the emails suggested the figures had been "reverse engineered" to "save embarrassment" for the first minister.
This article contains content provided by Twitter. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. You may want to read Twitter cookie policy and privacy policy before accepting. To view this content choose 'accept and continue'.
End of Twitter content, 1
He urged Mr Yousaf to refer himself to the independent advisers of the Scottish Ministerial Code.
"I am concerned that in the course of correcting the record in relation to the exchange on 22 June that you may have knowingly misled Parliament in your letter of 29 August," he wrote.
Tory MSP Mr Kerr, who has also called for Mr Yousaf to refer himself to the independent advisers, accused the civil service in Scotland of becoming "increasingly politicised" at FMQs on Thursday.
The first minister responded and said that he would not take lessons on "truth and honest from the party that gave us Boris Johnson".
The Scottish government has also rejected the claim.
Mr Yousaf's spokesman told reporters the cover-up claims were untrue.
He said: "The fact that we corrected the record speaks for itself and the fact that we disclosed under FOI the discussions that took place in terms of civil servants surely also speaks for transparency."
The first minister is able to refer matters to the independent advisers to "provide advice on which to base their judgement about any action required in respect of ministerial conduct".
Ministers are expected to tell the truth when they speak in the Holyrood chamber. And if they inadvertently say something inaccurate, they should correct the record.
So when Humza Yousaf wrote his letter explaining he meant to say "per capita" that probably should have been the end of all this.
But some are claiming these civil service emails, obtained under FOI laws, show that the per capita figure didn't exist back in June.
They ask, therefore, how could the first minister have meant to quote it at that time?
Those close to Mr Yousaf say he knew the per capita details were accurate, and that the civil service work was done to help with an official response.
It seems unlikely the first minister will refer himself to the independent advisor on the ministerial code.
This looks like it will stay a political fight. And a slightly complicated one at that.
Top Stories
Features & Analysis
Most read
Content is not available | United Kingdom Politics |
During a debate last week on populism at London’s Conway Hall, the name of David Goodhart was invoked more than once. Goodhart worked as a journalist at the Financial Times for over a decade before establishing Prospect magazine in 1995 and serving as its editor until 2010. In 2013, he published his first book, The British Dream—a provocative examination of the successes and failures of immigration policy, which attracted harshly critical reviews from the intellectual circles in which its author moved, not to mention accusations of racism from those who either misunderstood or misrepresented his arguments (or both).
After Brexit, Goodhart found popular fame with his 2017 book, The Road to Somewhere, in which he described the world, or at least the European part of it, as divided between the Anywheres and the Somewheres. The former are cosmopolitans who see the nation as a malleable institution with inconvenient borders to be transcended wherever possible, especially by commerce; the latter live a life more closely defined by place, family, friendship circles, and occupation. The conceptual division Goodhart identified is now routinely referenced to show a nodding acquaintanceship with a social problem: Anywhere and Somewhere people are used, all but universally, to describe a fundamental schism at the heart of the Western world.
The Anywheres, overwhelmingly drawn from the more affluent end of society, still determine most of our politics, economy, and social relations. The Somewheres, for their part, have become more restive, and trade unions are showing signs of growth following a long decline, while the new far-Right parties report, in many cases, that the bulk of their supporters are from the working class. The Anywheres tend to be the highly educated, the Somewheres less so. In his 2020 book The Tyranny of Merit, American philosopher Michael Sandel describes a US similarly divided, in which the Anywheres increasingly define personal and institutional progress by “aligning worldly success with moral deservingness,” while large numbers of the Somewheres continue to service their needs.
Goodhart had found a phrase that seemed to describe one of the essential features of the modern West—a great gash dividing the rich from the poor, high from low status, and comfortable affluence from relative hardship. Citizens may be equal in the abstract quality of their citizenship, but they are unequal in the homes and places in which they can afford to live. It is from the latter cohort that Donald Trump and other populists draw much of their support. “For seven years,” Trump told an entranced crowd in Georgia earlier this year, “we’ve been engaged in an epic struggle to rescue our country from the sinister forces within who hate it. … And on November 5th, 2024, we’re going to stand up to the corrupt political establishment.”
The Conway Hall event convened to debate these matters was organised by Prospect (now helmed by former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger), and joined by two vividly argumentative men. On one side, postliberal polemicist Matthew Goodwin, a professor of political science in his early 40s, and on the other, liberal writer and broadcaster David Aaronovitch, now in his late 60s.
Goodwin believes that British society is divided between an out-of-touch ruling elite of Anywheres, who help themselves to the best places in the universities, the media, the government, the civil service, publishing, NGOs, the main state institutions, and increasingly, corporations. Such people, Goodwin told the audience, don’t see themselves as an elite, but rather as radicals dedicated to change. Nevertheless, they have “the same social and liberal beliefs, they are usually graduates of one of the Russell Group universities, and they often come from privileged backgrounds.” Though dominant, they “no longer understand what other people are thinking,” so instead, they create, broadcast, or follow policies which bolster their own position, while stridently policing the speech and tastes of working- and lower-middle-class people, determining “what is and what is not okay to talk about.”
As a theorist, Goodwin now stands accused of crossing an academic line. No longer content to merely explain and analyse the New Right’s “populist” parties and movements (as he did in National Populism, the book he co-authored with Roger Eatwell in 2018), Goodwin increasingly behaves like a would-be spokesman for populism itself. That charge is difficult to deny (and when Aaronovitch made it during the debate, Goodwin didn’t try). National Populism eschewed the politically loaded language that Goodwin now routinely employs when speaking about migration controls and the fondness for strong families and Christianity that are part of most of the New Right parties’ political offering. He’s now a nearly full-time, passionate, and committed polemicist, talking to political parties and corporations (such as Santander), posting on Twitter and his Substack, and participating in public debates like this one. His students at the University
of Kent must see precious little of him. Besides, most of his fellow academics,
who are heavily biased to the Left, see him as an ideological enemy.
Aaronovitch, on the other hand, is at once a more singular and more familiar figure in the media-intellectual world than Goodwin (though both men are part of the “chattering classes” and both would dislike being so described). He has spent his professional life working all over the British media establishment, including lengthy stints at the Guardian and the Times (from which he was recently fired after 18 years). He continues host The Briefing Room on BBC Radio 4 and he writes for a range of magazines. In that respect, he is similar to other high-profile, high-output journalists like Andrew Marr and Matthew Parris.
But Aaronovitch grew up in a family entirely devoted to working for the Communist Party—his father was a leading member, and for eight years, the National Cultural Organiser. He initially followed in his father’s political footsteps before breaking away to liberal centre-leftism, where he still resides today. His 2015 memoir Party Animals told the story of a family who lived according to the dictates of meetings, demonstrations, and electioneering. These were people, I observed in a review for the FT, who “lived in Britain’s capital but were militantly not of it: they saw their country as imperialist, aggressively capitalist and with a Labour Party drawn rightward in betrayal of the socialism it proclaimed.”
Aaronovitch retains something of the Party-educated sniffer of reactionaries about him, and he maintains that Goodwin is constructing a fantasy. The new elite, he protested, does not command society in the vaguely conspiratorial form Goodwin proposes. On the contrary, if there is a new elite, it is to be found on the right of the Conservative party, where he believes Goodwin has found (or hopes to find) a new political home. He also pointed out that Goodwin’s inclusion of teachers in the new elite covers many thousands of men and women whose incomes are quite modest, which is hardly the mark of an elite.
A longstanding supporter of relaxed controls on immigration, Aaronovitch ducked a question about what he regards as a reasonable net level, dismissing as temporary the estimate of 600,000 net immigrants this year because it will certainly drop in the future. Goodwin, by contrast, said that if present trends continue over the next 10–15 years, the British immigrant population would grow to 10 times that of a city the size of Birmingham (1.15m). If that prediction is realised, it will no doubt be used to lend credence to Le Grand Remplacement theory developed by the French writer Renaud Camus in 2011. Most Muslim immigrants, Camus argued, openly display their disdain for France and wish to destroy or fundamentally change it from within, and their entry into the country had been promoted by self-serving elites.
The debate was an enjoyable spectacle, and often witty, especially on Aaronovitch’s side. Goodwin had the initiative because he was proposing a dynamically changing state of affairs, while Aaronovitch’s response was to say, in various different ways, “You must be joking!” Interestingly, Aaronovitch, the former communist and present left-leaner, frequently found himself defending the status quo, while Goodwin, the allegedly would-be Tory, demanded radical change on behalf of a neglected working class. In that sense, the encounter provided a microcosm of the way in which the debate is pitched to society at large—a growing number of people on the Left and the Right believe that British society is fundamentally unequal and unfair, while their opponents reject their concerns as a product of paranoia and resentment not thoughtful analysis.
At one point, Aaronovitch seemed to imply that Goodwin’s positions were motivated by personal chippiness, when he pointed out that Goodwin neither teaches at nor attended one of the Russell Group universities he says provide a training ground for the new elites. It was a cheap point, but it appeared to receive some support after the debate. “One of the more amusing aspects of last night's debate w @DAaronovitch & @arusbridger,” Goodwin complained on Twitter the following day, “is they all went for dinner afterwards and didn't even bother to invite me, despite me giving up my time for free to help make Prospect Magazine money! Classic New Elite.” | United Kingdom Politics |
A recent meeting between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ended with a high level of agreement on potential joint initiatives, openness but also with "acknowledging where we have differences," a senior US official told Reuters news agency.
This comment highlights the fact that the Saudi-US relationship has long ceased to be an unbreakable and taken-for-granted partnership.
"The relationship between the two countries has deteriorated, especially under the presidency of Joe Biden," Stephan Roll, a Saudi Arabia researcher at the Berlin-based think tank German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), told DW.
Another reason may have been the murder of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, allegedly orchestrated from Riyadh, which led to a low point in their relations.
According to Roll, ties to Western countries as a whole have deteriorated. "These are seen in Riyadh as arrogant, unreliable and demanding," he told DW.
Rapprochement with China
The extent of the good relations between Saudi Arabia and China is also appreciated in Beijing, as was seen last December when Chinese President Xi Jinping paid a three-day state visit to Riyadh. He wanted to usher in a "new era" between the two countries, Xi declared at the time.
This also involves economic interests. For example, investment agreements worth about $50 billion (€46 billion) were signed during the talks, according to comments made by Saudi Investment Minister Khalid al-Falih. Furthermore, the Kingdom will supply 690,000 barrels of oil a day to China and in turn, the Chinese telecommunications company Huawei is to set up the highly efficient 5G technology in the Kingdom.
Easing tensions in the Gulf
China is moving swiftly to establish its new political role in the region. In April, the foreign ministers of the two previously hostile major powers in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iran, shook hands in Beijing under Chinese auspices. The danger of an armed escalation in the Persian Gulf thus appears to have been considerably reduced.
"In principle, both countries do have an interest in bilateral relations, but it is Saudi Arabia in particular that is keen on it," Roll said. The rapprochement with Iran, he said, is indispensable in order to be able to settle the conflict in Yemen where the two adversaries are indirectly opposed to each other. "The end of the war is indispensable so that Saudi Arabia can make itself more attractive as a business and investment location and free up financial resources that were previously needed because of the war," Roll said.
He also suggests that Riyadh is grateful to the Chinese for their mediation work. "The US, for example, would not have been able to do that," Roll said, referring to the fact that the US and Iran do not maintain diplomatic contacts.
Russia, war & oil
Riyadh has also been recalibrating its relations with Moscow, and is cooperating with Russia even at a time when Western countries have imposed sanctions over Russia's attack on Ukraine. Following a recent meeting of the OPEC+ cartel, Saudi Arabia promised to start cutting its oil production by one million barrels per day from July. The kingdom appears to be tolerating the fact that Russia has not given any assurances that it, in turn, would also limit production levels. Since the beginning of its attack on Ukraine and the loss of exports to Europe, Russia has been in urgent need of exports to Asia, especially India and China, to finance the war.
Tapping into BRICS
Saudi Arabia is also seeking proximity to Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the BRICS nations. During a meeting in Cape Town a few days ago, they discussed the admission of new members. Saudi Arabia is attractive to them not least as a potential investor in the BRICS' New Development Bank.
Saudi Arabia's possible accession could provide the country with a host of potential partnerships and stronger trade relations. At the same time, this bloc — already accounting for 30% of oil and 22% of gas consumption worldwide — would grow as a counterweight to the Western energy market.
Joining the BRICS countries could, however, also help Saudi Arabia become a key political player. If competition between the West and a possibly emerging Eastern power bloc around Russia and China were to intensify, Saudi Arabia would have good ties to both sides.
Venezuela to Israel
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's recent visit to Riyadh is another indication of Saudi Arabia's policy of establishing good contacts with many sides and not allowing itself to be tied down to one partnership alone. By welcoming the authoritarian leader, Saudi Arabia demonstrated that it shapes its foreign policy according to its own criteria.
However, the fact that Saudi Arabia also wants to continue to cultivate its relations with the Western world is evident not least in its relationship with Israel. Even if the country, unlike some of its neighbors, has not yet officially normalized its relations with the Jewish state, it is committed to maintaining a good relationship — despite its recent rapprochement with Iran, which regards Israel as an arch-enemy.
Here, too, Riyadh is pursuing concrete interests. For example, with the help of the US, it would like to build a nuclear power plant that would supposedly serve exclusively civilian purposes — a request the US is unlikely to agree to without the fundamental consent of Israel, whose security interests could be affected.
In order to foster Israeli approval, Saudi Arabia appears to have focused on culture and education issues and has largely purged Saudi textbooks of anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish passages.
The UK-based Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se), whose research includes the issue of anti-Semitic sentiment in textbooks around the world and particularly in Islamic-majority countries, said that Saudi Arabia had recently revised its teaching materials accordingly. "Problematic examples" with regard to Jews and Christians had been removed, IMPACT-se said.
This article was adapted from German. | Middle East Politics |
NEW DELHI, India—In the heart of the capital, less than three miles from the prime minister’s office, Rajendra Nagar is where dreams go to die. Tens of thousands descend upon this densely-packed neighbourhood from across the country every year to prepare for one of the world’s toughest exams. Many bring their family’s life savings. Many are themselves their family’s life savings. Hopeful families pour everything they earn and own and take loans, so their child can be coached in Rajendra Nagar, and get a chance at India’s golden ticket: becoming a powerful bureaucrat in the world’s largest democracy. This month, 685 Indians out of 500,000 test takers passed the civil services exam after a lifetime of preparing for it. Their chance of succeeding was close to zero. The exam’s success rate is not even 0.2 percent.Broadly divided into three stages – the preliminary, mains and interview – the exam is roughly spread over nine months. The candidate must pass every stage, and their cumulative marks decide whether they make the list of India’s prestigious and powerful new bureaucrats.Hopeful families pour everything they earn and own and take loans, so their child can get a chance at India’s golden ticket: becoming a powerful bureaucrat in the world’s largest democracy.In India, passing the dozen civil services’ tests and interviews is a matter of great prestige and social mobility. Besides bureaucratic power, it increases eligibility in India’s marriage market manifold. Recently, a man fraudulently posing as a civil servant demanded a dowry of Rs 40 million ($52, 500), while a real civil servant almost fatally hit his wife because he felt her dowry didn’t do justice to his “rank and stature.”VICE World News analysed lists of successful exam finalists in the last 15 years and uncovered a disturbing trend. Ever since the rise in India of Hindu nationalism, and the right-wing Hindu ideology of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP party gained power and popularity, the number of minorities in civil services has dwindled – and are increasingly not passing the exam. Data analysed by VICE World News suggests this expensive and impossibly multi-layered exam has become even more impenetrable for minorities. Muslims who passed the exam stagnated between 3–5 percent over the past 20 years, even though Muslims make up 15.5 percent of the country’s population, and despite more Muslims sitting for the exams since 2007. The 2021 results released on May 30 revealed the most dismal results for the community in over a decade – no Muslim candidate made it to the top hundred ranks, when usually, at least two to three do. In 2020, out of a total of 761 selected candidates, only 25 were Muslims – just 4 percent – with no Muslim candidate in the top 100 ranks.Inside the basement of a coaching centre in Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi. One reason is the bloated syllabus requires years of intense and expensive coaching – and non-English speaking Dalit or Muslim candidates are the most economically disenfranchised in India. According to an UN-supported report presented by the University of Oxford, every third Dalit and Muslim in India is multidimensionally poor. In contrast, only 15 percent of upper caste Hindus are poor.“The Muslim community in India is lagging in all the socio-economic parameters and the same is reflected in the civil services exam results,” Mohammed Tarique, the director of Jamia Milia Islamia University’s Residential Coaching Academy (RCA), which also produced this year’s top-scoring candidate, told VICE World News. Rajendra Nagar offers coaching in geography, science, physics, law, history, international affairs, ethics – the works. Enrollment in a reputed English language coaching centre in Rajendra Nagar costs nearly $24,000 a year, and the monthly rent for a matchbox shared flat is $200 a person – a cost that poor minorities, in the current political and economic climate, are finding more and more difficult to afford. “The Muslim community in India is lagging in all the socio-economic parameters and the same is reflected in the civil services exam results.”The recent rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in India also appears to have seeped through the exam itself. VICE World News reviewed a mock interview of Muslim candidate Junaid Ahmad. While he went on to secure the third rank in the 2018 exams, almost all the questions he was asked sprung from his Muslim identity: his views on Egypt’s Muslim brotherhood, whether India is becoming intolerant towards minorities, fatal police encounters, and the Arab spring.“Even though the commission is a constitutional and autonomous body, it is always the case that a Muslim candidate will be asked questions almost solely related to their identity,” said Tanwar, a 30-year-old Muslim candidate from Delhi who preferred the use of a pseudonym for fear of safety to his life. In Delhi’s Rajendra Nagar, street vendors sell snacks and study materials. Tanwar added that every single Muslim aspirant he knows who reached the interview stage had this experience. This, he said, puts them in an awkward position, almost testing their patriotism in a way other candidates are not. “If I become a high-ranking bureaucrat, my only allegiance is to the constitution, why must I be judged from the lenses of my faith? Why should I be asked questions about Muslim men having four wives, triple divorce and a hundred other things? How is my faith relevant to the way I work?” he said. “This completely breaks the confidence of the Muslim aspirant because we genuinely want to serve the country – this makes them awkward, stifles their body language and affects their interview scores. In an exam where the qualifying marks are less than 50 percent, every single mark matters.” Despite their dwindling numbers, right-wing Hindu circles pushed a conspiracy theory that Muslims are out to “infiltrate” the bureaucracy all the way to the Indian Supreme Court.While Muslims are India’s largest religious minority group, there have been no laws guaranteeing their inclusion in everything from bureaucracy to education. The last Muslim Vice President of India, Hamid Ansari, had years ago pointed out how legally requiring affirmative action or reserved spots in bureaucracy for Muslims is the only way for any meaningful inclusion of the community in the country’s socio-political fabric.Even though India’s caste-disadvantaged Dalits make up 16.6 percent of the country's population, there is only one member of this community occupying a top bureaucratic secretary position in the country. Vidhi, a 23-year-old candidate from a less-privileged Hindu caste, asked for a pseudonym for fear of legal repercussions. In her tiny room in Rajendra Nagar, stacks of books on Indian polity, physical geography and ancient history corner the walls. Six months after Vidhi arrived in Rajendra Nagar from Mumbai, her funds ran out. The rent was exorbitant, and on top of it, she had to buy books and feed herself. A job posting in Delhi promising $120 dollars for sex work services. Many civil services' exams candidates remain unemployed for years. “I had to literally build a new life for myself and I couldn’t even get jobs right away,” she said. “There would be days where I literally didn’t know how I was going to survive the next day.” Those like Vidhi are forced into a cycle of poverty unless they find other means to earn money to continue pursuing the exams. She shared her financial predicament with a friend who presented Vidhi with an offer: she could earn money on the side through OnlyFans, with her face either masked or blurred. “There was a rate chart,” she said explaining that rates range from lowest, if it’s a braless video where there is no sex, to highest if there is sex without a condom. “When you add up all this, it’s a lot of money for someone like me.” Despite the extreme efforts minorities like Vidhi undertake, data shows that of the 761 candidates from 2020, only one from a “scheduled” caste scored above 200 in the interview stage – a crucial benchmark for making it to the final merit list for a higher post. Scheduled castes are the most disadvantaged socio-economic caste groups in India, and there are many old laws meant to protect them against biases in situations like this exam, such as reserved seats for them for government jobs and admission into educational institutions, but those protections appear to be eroding. For instance, when a less privileged Hindu candidate does make it to the services, caste-based scrutiny and harassment are rampant. After Tina Dabi, a Dalit, topped the civil services exam in 2015, right-wing news outfits suggested she got “bonus marks” because she’s from an underprivileged caste. In 2019, a former government official told the media, “casteism still plagues our society and the civil services are just a micro-picture.”Such discrimination has become so commonplace that a minister from the government of Delhi recently requested the chairman of the civil services commission not to disclose a candidate’s caste to the exam’s interview board to ensure they get a fair chance. “I had to literally build a new life for myself and I couldn’t even get jobs right away. There would be days where I literally didn’t know how I was going to survive the next day.”Akhil Kang, a Ph.D. candidate from the anthropology department of Cornell University, said that even getting to the personality interview stage of the civil services exam is a big deal for many Dalit candidates. “This is a common feature in such cases – if you make it to the interview stage, you will mostly be the only one from your village. Even in the history of Cornell, I am the first and only Dalit candidate in the anthropology department. So, with upper-caste candidates, most of them already have their parents or relatives in the civil services. The intergenerational privilege and the experience that comes with it will always benefit them.” Damanjeet Kaur lost her husband in a car accident within a week of their wedding. After that, the civil services exam became the only way she could escape the patriarchal, limiting life of her village. She dreams of becoming a politician one day, via the bureaucracy.Kang said that this sort of embedded bias is not solvable by simply having a Dalit bureaucrat on the interview panel. “It’s like assuming that having a lone woman judge in a court will result in a better conviction rate for perpetrators of rape and sexual assault. Caste supremacy works in such a way that even a Dalit bureaucrat will go out of his way to show the upper caste members on the panel that he is not biased towards the candidate.” Shyam Meera Singh, who is from a small town in Uttar Pradesh state, thought the civil services exam was going to be a ticket out of the many woes of his family. “My father had a lifetime savings of $1,000 in his pension fund that he gave me when I moved to Delhi,” he told VICE World News. “I lived so frugally that I remember not even having literally a single penny in my pocket on some days. All my life, my education has been financed through loans, and the civil services exam was no different. The only difference with civil services is that you don’t want to stop.” For Shyam Meera Singh, a non-English speaking candidate from north India, the civil services exam tested everything from his finances, to his will to live.Any taste of success, also ironically comes with additional challenges. “If you clear even one of the three stages [of the civil services exam], you get the confidence to start all over again but simultaneously, you also keep falling into the cycle of debts.” But Singh is one of the fortunate ones. He falls into the newly formed Economically Weaker Section (EWS). The EWS reservation is meant for low-income upper-caste Hindus like him. It's a kind of safeguard for upper-caste Hindus at the expense of spots reserved for Dalits and less privileged castes. The government claims that this separate category had to be carved out because, according to them, upper-caste, poor Hindus were not adequately represented in government jobs and educational institutions. However, there is no adequate data to back this claim. A VICE World News analysis of the most recent annual report of the Union Public Service Commission (a constitutional body that conducts the exams) showed that out of the 1,115 candidates recommended for various posts in 2020–21, seven candidates were from the newly formed EWS reserved criteria. Still, many other students and their families continue to pile up debt for India’s impossible dream, VICE World News learned, after speaking to a dozen Indians preparing for the exam. Many candidates spend five to seven years reviewing, all the while being unemployed and not developing skills for other careers. Some, like Reetika Bansal, persist because the weight of the dreams they hold is simply too heavy to quit. “At this point, clearing the civil services exam is not for me, it is only for my Dad,” the 28-year-old candidate said. “He has sacrificed so much for me that I cannot give up.”Many candidates enroll at libraries where booth-like desks provide distraction-free space for studies for all-nighters. Much like Singh who is burdened by the use of his father’s $1,000 life savings, the aspirant Reetika Bansal’s father kept funding her exam coaching by taking loans from informal lenders because he simply didn’t own any property to give as collateral to the banks. “The house he lives in is almost half a century old, so there are no wirings to even install hot water. If I think about it, I am a 28-year-old woman who has not been able to do anything for my father because I’ve been trapped in the black hole of the civil services exam,” Bansal said.Alleys in Delhi are filled with stalls selling books for civil services candidates. For some of those who have made it out of the endless loop of Rajendra Nagar, there may be no triumphant sense of achievement either. Sharma, who asked to only be referred to by his last name due to government rules prohibiting civil servants from criticising the government, secured a high rank in his state’s civil services exam recently after nearly seven years of failed attempts. “Despite the private sector and capitalism creeping into the bureaucracy, the glorification of the Indian civil services still continues,” he said. But isn’t it all worth it?“The system will go on even without officers like me,” he said. “The realisation comes quite early on that you are just another cog in the wheel. You are no hero and you are absolutely disposable. When we entered Rajendra Nagar, we were told by family and by society that getting into the services was a big deal. So we delude ourselves into proving that point for the rest of our lives.”Follow Arman on Instagram and Twitter. | India Politics |
‘Money is like muck,” wrote Francis Bacon in 1625. “Not good except it be spread.” No one accuses the father of the scientific method and British empiricism of being a socialist, although doubtless the many Tory critics of inheritance tax will now want to group him with Karl Marx and the liberal elite as dark enemies of aspiration.
They should also add the Greek philosopher Aristotle to their list of leftwing enemies. “Man is by nature a social animal,” he wrote. “Society precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.”
Bacon and Aristotle identify two maxims widely shared until the birth of the modern Anglo-American right, and its unashamed advocacy of yet greater wealth for those who already have it in the name of “aspiration”. Yet we are all members of society living a common life that has claims on us as well as our claims on it; and wealth is best the more it is spread. Bacon approvingly expanded on his theme, quoting a contemporary: “When wealth lay upon a heap, it gave but a stench and ill odour; but when it was spread around, then it was cause of much fruit.”
To avoid that stench, and to finance the common life that underpins society, civilisations as disparate as feudal Europe and ancient Rome have all insisted that when wealth is transferred from one generation to another there should be a levy on the transfer. It is only fair: a recognition that we are social animals, and that to spread wealth around is the “cause of much fruit”.
Children are not deserving solely because they got lucky and came from a rich womb. Not an argument accepted by today’s Conservative right and their media outriders. As one Daily Telegraph columnist wrote last week, inveighing against inheritance tax: “At the stroke of an HMRC pen, the fruits of a lifetime of love and labour is diverted to a profligate and ungrateful state. No wonder the levy is so bitterly resented.” This “pernicious” tax should just be abolished.
Where to begin? First, almost all inheritance tax is levied on property passing overwhelmingly to adult children and relatives, generally in their late 50s or early 60s, who are already well off and whose parents lived in London and the south-east where house prices are high (businesses and farms enjoy exemptions). The reason why the yield from inheritance tax is rising is partly because the threshold has been frozen, but mainly because of the extraordinary increase in house prices. House prices are now 12 times average earnings in London – nine times in the country as a whole. The idea that being the beneficiary of this house-price boom is the result of a “lifetime of love and labour” is sentimental tosh.
To be the children of parents who own a house is already to have a phenomenal advantage in life. The bank of mum and dad passes £11bn a year to help their kids get on the housing ladder – lifetime gifts that will attract no inheritance tax as long as the donor lives seven years. By the age of 35, a study by London’s UCL finds, home ownership levels are three times higher for those lucky enough to have high-income parents owning their homes who can help them buy, compared with the unlucky whose parents are poorly educated renters. By the age of 35, the lucky group holds approximately 10 times the level of housing wealth compared with the unlucky. The number is set to double again in the decades ahead. Britain is creating a network of mini family dynasties, largely in the south-east and driven entirely by unearned good luck. The unfairness could hardly be more vivid.
As Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, says, over the last generation wealth as a proportion of GDP has roughly doubled but proportionally tax revenue from wealth has remained the same. As in the US, the British wealthy have proved wonderfully adept at avoiding contributing proportionally to the common pot. If inheritance tax were abolished, the IFS calculates that about half (47%) of the benefit would go to those with estates of £2.1m or more on death, who make up the top 1% of estates. For these wealthiest it would mean an average tax cut of about £1.1m. Aspiration? This cash from the house-price boom will go to adults nearing the end of their working lives who on average already have wealth of £830,000. The idea that this is going to unleash a wave of entrepreneurship (recall that businesses don’t pay) or entrench aspiration is for the birds. This is to reward those who already have a lot.
In any case, is aspiration a value so unambiguously at the top of the hierarchy of values that it should trump others? Aristotle argued that what brings human beings satisfaction is to use whatever gifts we have to make the world incrementally better in some way – not pocket as much loot as we can and devil take the hindmost. What about ensuring society in the round is healthy?
Inheritance tax may yield “only” £7bn a year, but there is a lot £7bn can buy. Britain’s five-year-olds are among the shortest in Europe largely as a result of poor nutrition; child credit being denied to third and fourth children is one of the chief reasons that by 2027, 77% of four-child families are projected to be living in poverty. Funding training and apprenticeship places is capped. Incredibly, spending in real terms in sixth forms and further education is lower than it was in 2010. The backlog of unheard crown court cases is at an all time peak. A profligate state?
There is certainly scope to reform inheritance tax – arguably the reliefs on businesses, farms and personal pensions are too generous and by broadening its base it should be possible to lift and reform tax-free thresholds and lower taper rates. The 30% of the population who crazily think they may be liable to inheritance tax (the actual number is 4%) need to be assured there is no risk. It should be clear that the state will only ever claim a fraction of the value of bequests and gifts. But the principle is unarguably right.
There will be much jubilation and cheering from the greying Tory members at their conference this week if, as trailed, Rishi Sunak promises to abolish or eviscerate inheritance tax. Bacon and Aristotle will turn in their graves. In their denial of society are the Tories beasts or gods? The stench of yet more muck going unspread will be overwhelming. | United Kingdom Politics |
Britons 'face MORE tax rises' as Defence Secretary Ben Wallace urges £10bn-a-year boost for military to counter growing threat from RussiaBen Wallace call for UK's defence budget to rise from 2% of GDP to 2.5 % by 2028The hike would be worth around £10billion a year amid growing Russia threatExperts warned that Britons could face tax rises to meet the extra commitment It comes as Volodymyr Zelensky pleaded for the firepower to end Russia's war Published: 05:59 EDT, 28 June 2022 | Updated: 06:04 EDT, 28 June 2022 Britons were today warned they face more tax rises to fund higher defence spending as the West counters the threat from Russia.Economists said the Treasury could need to raise more revenue if it agrees to a demand from Ben Wallace for £10billion extra funding. In a letter to Boris Johnson, the Defence Secretary highlighted alarming gaps in capabilities such as a lack of drones, not enough pilots to fly multi-billion-pound stealth jets and a shortage of crew aboard Royal Navy nuclear submarines.In a landmark speech at a RUSI conference today, Mr Wallace will argue that the UK's annual defence budget should rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2028 - well above the Nato minimum of 2 per cent.The respected IFS think-tank said the increase would be a 'big deal' and take funding back to 1990s levels.Director Paul Johnson pointed out that the tax burden is already due to reach record levels as the government tries to balance the books in the wake of Covid. Tweeting a chart showing how more money for health budgets had been found by easing back on military spending since the 1950s, Mr Johnson said: 'Reduction in defence spending over past 60 years made way for welfare state without need to raise taxes. 'No further scope to cut it and taxes are rising to record levels. If spending on defence *rises* again then more tax rises, or curtailing of welfare state, will be needed.' In a landmark speech at a RUSI conference today, Ben Wallace will argue that the UK's annual defence budget should rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2028 - well above the Nato minimum of 2 per cent Director Paul Johnson pointed out that the tax burden is already due to reach record levels as the government tries to balance the books in the wake of Covid Mr Johnson tweeted a chart showing how more money for health budgets had been found by easing back on military spending since the 1950sThe speech is the second time in recent months Mr Wallace has called for more cash to prop up the Armed Forces. In March he wrote to Chancellor Rishi Sunak warning spending is at risk of dropping below the 2 per cent Nato minimum.Mr Wallace would use the additional funding to target specific capability gaps rather than upping the size of the Army – which is expected to shrink to just 72,500 by 2025.In another dramatic intervention at the RUSI conference, the new head of the Army General Sir Patrick Sanders said the country faces a '1937 moment' over Vladimir Putin's 'brutal aggression'.In a reference to the notorious policy of giving ground to the German dictator before the Second World War, he said the will to 'act rapidly' was the only way to prevent Russia's expansionism ending in all-out conflict in Europe.'I will have an answer to my grandchildren should they ever ask what I did in 2022,' General Sanders said, adding that Beijing will be 'watching carefully' to see how the West responds. 'If we fail to deter there are no good choices,' he said. 'We must therefore meet strength with strength and be unequivocally prepared to fight.' Volodymyr Zelensky pleaded with world leaders yesterday to give him the firepower to end Russia's war on Ukraine before winter. The Ukrainian President fears freezing temperatures in the country's eastern regions later this year will favour the Russian invaders and limit his troops' ability to defend their lands.In an impassioned address to the G7 summit, he asked for long-range weapons and air defence systems to be supplied before then. Speaking on a live-link to the Bavarian resort where the leaders are gathered, Mr Zelensky also asked for tougher sanctions on Moscow to thwart the Kremlin's war machine.He also requested further Western assistance to breach Russia's blockade of Ukraine's Black Sea ports which is preventing the export of the country's grain stocks. 'If Ukraine wins, you all win,' he said during his speech by video link.It came as Nato announced a seven-fold increase in numbers of troops on high readiness, from 40,000 to more than 300,000, as the defence alliance gathers for its own summit today. Soldiers would respond to any Russian incursion into Nato territory but would not enter Ukraine. National troops would be put on different alert levels so the alliance has more combat-ready forces ready on short notice.Pressure on the government's finances was laid bare last week when figures for May showed the cost of servicing the near-£2.4trillion debt mountain surged to £7.6billion, a record for the month The government has been bringing in more revenue taxes as it struggles to balance the books after the Covid crisis Last night it was claimed that as part of the Nato pledge, Boris Johnson could announce a significant reinforcement for Estonia, potentially more than doubling the number of British troops available to the Baltic State.Urging the Western allies to increase their support for the war effort, Mr Zelensky pleaded yesterday: 'Don't let it drag on over winter' and urged them 'not to lower the pressure' in terms of sanctions.In a joint statement, the G7 leaders promised to support Ukraine 'for as long as it takes'. Ukrainian military chiefs want to mount a counter-offensive against the Russians this summer and autumn but lack the necessary firepower.Mr Zelensky is also desperate to address the vulnerability of his country's major cities to Russian missile attacks and yesterday received a boost from Washington with Joe Biden pledging the same air defence system which protects the White House and the Pentagon.More than 20 UK-purchased M109 howitzers are expected to reach the front line in days while the US pledged to provide the NASAMS system, which can destroy incoming missiles and aircraft at a range of up to 86 nautical miles. Military sources said it could be used to protect Kyiv and other cities. Advertisement | United Kingdom Politics |
Centre Introduces Jan Vishwas Bill In Rajya Sabha With 'Ease Of Business' Promise
The Centre on Wednesday introduced the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023 in Rajya Sabha, which seeks to promote ease of business by decriminalising minor offences, amending 183 provisions in 42 acts.
The Centre on Wednesday introduced the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023 in Rajya Sabha, which seeks to promote ease of business by decriminalising minor offences, amending 183 provisions in 42 acts.
The Lok Sabha passed the bill on July 27 in the current session.
Piloting the bill in the upper house, Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal said it will promote the ease of doing business by decriminalising a number of provisions.
The bill converts several fines to penalties, meaning that court prosecution is not necessary to administer punishments. It also removes imprisonment as a punishment for many offences. All offences under the Post Office Act of 1898 are being removed.
"Since 2014, the Prime Minister prioritised, that government will have faith in the citizen of the country and with that faith, the business of this country and the government would function," Goyal said.
"In last nine years, 1,500 laws have been repealed," he said, adding, some of these laws originate from the British period.
The minister said around 40,000 provisions and procedures which had the possibility of creating problems for people were either simplified or removed by the Narendra Modi government over the last nine years.
More than 3,600 provisions have been decriminalised by the government, he said.
This is a continuous process that goes on with discussions with various stakeholders such as state governments and business communities, he said.
The minister said there were three dissent notes against the bill from three members of three different parties--AITC, INC, and DMK.
The members of these parties were not present in the house as they had boycotted the parliament proceedings over their demand for a debate on the Manipur issue under rule 267.
"If they were present and expressed their views, then I would have responded to them well... Their dissent, clearly reflects they have neither trust in common man nor businessmen. They also do not trust the people operating MSMEs and SMEs," Goyal said.
He also said one of the opposition members opposed the Hindi name of the bill, which reflects a slavery mentality.
The bill was first introduced in the Lok Sabha on Dec. 22, 2022.
Subsequently, it was referred to the Joint Committee of Parliament.
The Joint Committee on the bill held detailed discussions with all 19 ministries and departments, along with the Legislative Department and Department of Legal Affairs.
Initiating the debate, Sujit Kumar of BJD called the bill forward-looking as he suggested its expansion to a few more provisions and acts.
"The government should come up with a periodic SOP, which will review all such old obsolete laws and come with some legislations," he said and argued that with fast-changing technology, several rules have now become obsolete.
State governments should also look at their own laws and decriminalise such obsolete laws, he suggested.
Masthan Rao Beeda of YSRCP supported the bill and argued that several penalties were impacting the marginalised and vulnerable community due to their limited financial resources and the problem was compounded by the lack of legal resources accessible to them.
"Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between punishment, restitution and prevention. While ensuring accountability and justice in financial misconduct. The bill enhances the ease of doing business," Beeda said.
M Thambidurai of AIDMK also supported the bill.
Dr K Laxman of BJP said the bill was in line with the Modi government's vision of 'maximum governance minimum government' and shows its commitment to bringing reforms to reduce the compliance burden for businesses and citizens.
Removal of such roadblocks will only help India achieve its aim of becoming a $5 trillion economy, he said. | India Politics |
The Russian missile strike on a Ukrainian shopping centre amounts to a war crime, according to the G7. On Monday, two air strikes in the city of Kremenchuk left at least 18 people dead and dozens injured.President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said shortly after the attack that more than 1,000 civilians were inside the mall at the time of the strike.Mariupol residents 'forced to hunt pigeons' - Ukriane war liveThe leaders of the G7 have been meeting at a summit in Germany and said: "We, the leaders of the G7, solemnly condemn the abominable attack on a shopping mall in Kremenchuk."We stand united with Ukraine in mourning the innocent victims of this brutal attack. Indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians constitute a war crime."Russian President Putin and those responsible will be held to account." More on Russia Britain and allies face '1937 moment' following Ukraine war, head of army to warn Brittney Griner: US Olympic basketball star appears in Russian court on drug charges as trial date set Ukraine war: UK to supply grain DNA testing technology to combat 'Russian thefts of wheat' The G7 leaders' comments come after Mr Zelenskyy described the attack as "one of the most daring terrorist acts in European history"."A peaceful city, an ordinary shopping centre, inside - women, children, ordinary civilians. Before the announcement of the air alert, there were about a thousand people (inside)," he said."Fortunately, as far as we know at this time, many people managed to get out. They managed to get out. But there were still people inside; workers, some visitors."Only completely heartless terrorists, who should have no place on earth, can strike missiles at such an object. And this is not a mistaken hit by missiles, this is a calculated Russian strike at this shopping centre."Russia's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyanskiy, said the attack was a "Ukrainian provocation."He said on Twitter: "Exactly what Kiev regime needs to keep focus of attention on Ukraine before (the) NATO Summit." Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Video shot from inside the shopping centre hit by a missile shows people escaping the destruction No military targets near the mallDmytro Lunin, the governor of the Poltava region, insisted there was no military target nearby that Russia could have been aiming at.Video footage reportedly from inside the building moments after the attack showed scenes of panic as people ran through masses of debris to get out.One person shouted "is there anyone there?", while another called out for his mother, as smoke covered the area and shoppers appeared dazed. A rescue operation was underway and nine of the wounded were in a serious condition, said Kyrylo Tymoshenko, the deputy head of the Ukrainian presidential office.Kremenchuk, which is the site of Ukraine's biggest oil refinery, lies on the Dnipro river in the region of Poltava.Mr Zelenskyy stressed the shopping centre target presented "no threat to the Russian army" and had "no strategic value". Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Zelenskyy condemns Russian 'terrorists' He accused Russia of sabotaging "people's attempts to live a normal life, which make the occupiers so angry".NATO mobilise more rapid reaction troopsOn the same day as the attack, the Ukrainian president spoke with the G7, saying that he wants the war to be over by the start of winter and urged Western leaders to send more military support.Tuesday marks the final day of the G7 summit, with leaders moving to Madrid for the NATO summit.G7 leaders are expected to announce an agreement to pursue a price cap on Russian oil, before turning their attention to the NATO summit. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player NATO increases high-readiness forces NATO's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on the eve of the summit that the alliance will agree to a new assistance package for Ukraine.The military alliance also placed 300,000 troops at high readiness, with the number of forces in the Baltic states and five other frontline country increased "up to brigade levels".That would amount to "the biggest overhaul of our collective defence and deterrence since the cold war," he said.The rapid-reaction NATO Response Force currently numbers up to 40,000, and the proposed change amounts to a broad revision in response to Russian militarisation.Under the plans, NATO will also move stocks of munitions and other supplies farther east, a transition due to be completed in 2023.Read more:The lessons the MoD is learning from Ukraine and what it means if the UK went to war with RussiaZelenskyy says he wants war over by winter before conditions make fightback more difficult Truss warns against 'uneasy peace'Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, warned against an "uneasy peace" in Ukraine that would mean the country giving up land it has lost to Russia since 2014.In an interview with Die Welt, La Repubblica and El Pais, Ms Truss said the West should provide "all the equipment", training and "all the support we can" to Kyiv. Podcast Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options Follow the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or Spreaker"What we cannot have is some uneasy peace, where Russia is still present in Ukraine; that is not going to work."We know what happened in 2014 with the Minsk agreements, ultimately, Russia regrouped and came back for more afterwards, so we cannot allow that situation to happen again," she said.Speaking to Sky News on Friday, Technology minister Chris Philp said the incident should be described as an act of terrorism."Yes. I would go that far and say that it is because it is intentionally targeting civilians," he said."There is no military necessity to bombing a shopping centre, just as there was no military necessity to bombing a maternity hospital, which we saw, or that theatre in Mariupol."We saw them bombing that theatre where civilians were taking shelter. It was clearly marked as containing civilians."So this is not a one off act is part of a consistent pattern of atrocities being committed by the Russian government." | Europe Politics |
As good citizens, we are told, we should report extremism to the authorities. It hasn’t always been clear what this term means, so we should be grateful to Michael Gove’s levelling up department, which has proposed a new definition. “Extremism is the promotion or advancement of any ideology which aims to overturn or undermine the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy, its institutions and values.” As a responsible member of society, I would like to report a gang of malcontents whose behaviour clearly fits this description.
For several years, this extremist organisation has been undermining the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy. It has blocked access to voting, deterring perhaps some hundreds of thousands of people from participating in the most recent local elections. One member of the extremist gang freely admitted that this attack on democracy was deliberate, describing it as “gerrymandering”.
Through a combination of organised lying, cheating and a flagrant disregard for the lives of people in this country, expressed most obviously during the pandemic, this gang has trashed public confidence in democracy. A poll this year found that as a result of its antics, only 6% of voters now fully trust the political system. This raises a difficult issue as, under Gove’s definition, it could mean that 94% of us are now extremists. Perhaps we should also report ourselves.
As for our institutions and values, the same extremist organisation, apparently intent on destroying national morale, has turned our rivers into open sewers; allowed schools to face bankruptcy while their buildings collapse through lack of maintenance; undermined the NHS until it is thrown into permanent crisis; excluded millions from economic life, leaving them underhoused and dependent on food banks; failed to prevent the involvement of organised criminals in the waste disposal industry; allowed the City of London to become the world’s major entrepot for money-laundering and corrupt transactions; promoted the extraction of fossil fuels during a climate emergency; and enabled blatant profiteering during a national health emergency.
Mr Gove might also take an interest in this gang’s incitement of hatred for political gain: a mark of extremism by any definition. One leading member of the organisation, for example, has recently described homelessness as a “lifestyle choice” and peaceful protests as “hate marches”. Another proposes that asylum seekers should “fuck off back to France”. Isn’t it time the authorities investigated such people? They’re not hard to find. Gove knows where they live.
Of course, charges of extremism and terrorism have long been wielded as weapons to suppress dissent. They are constantly redefined to include political enemies and exclude political friends. For example, in the 2000 Terrorism Act, the charge was cast so loosely that MPs and campaigners warned it would be used against entirely peaceful people.
They were right. As soon as it was passed into law, the act was used to justify the widespread use of stop and search powers, which the police deployed, to general gasps of surprise, to harass Black and Brown people and arrest and detain peaceful protesters. One police force cited the possession of “anti-Blair info” as grounds for suspecting terrorism. When, in 2005, the 82-year-old delegate Walter Wolfgang shouted “nonsense” while the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was justifying the Iraq war at the Labour party conference, he was bundled out of the hall and refused readmission by the police on the grounds that he had breached section 44 of the act (pushed through Parliament by one Jack Straw).
Until its dissolution in 2015, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), a private limited company financed by the government, seemed to operate like a private militia, unaccountable to the people of this country. It ran something called the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, which was supposed to monitor and root out “extremism”. It was this unit that employed the police spies sent to infiltrate peaceful protest movements, some of whom, using their false identities, seduced activists and fathered children with them to enhance their cover: actions that look to me like state-sanctioned rape.
Acpo units ran lists of “domestic extremists”. A typical example was Dr Peter Harbour, a 70-year old retired physicist and university lecturer who had peacefully marched and petitioned against a proposal by a power company to drain a beautiful lake and fill it with pulverised fly ash. Police working for these units were given spotter cards to help them identify the “extremists” on the list, and their targets were repeatedly stopped, regardless of whether they had ever broken any law. The charge of extremism was used then, and is used today, to deter people seeking to hold power to account.
It is not just the law that seeks to tar dissenters as extremists. Those who challenge unaccountable power are largely excluded from public life, on the grounds that their views are “unreasonable” and “extreme”. You might be allowed to contest the outcomes I listed in paragraphs two and three, but not the doctrines that caused them.
When, for example, did you last hear an overt critique of capitalism on the BBC? This is the system that dominates our lives, and is driving Earth systems towards collapse. If we’re not able to discuss it, or to have an honest conversation about what it really is, how can we address our common challenges? But even to raise this – one of the most important issues on Earth - is to find yourself, as I know to my cost, labelled an extremist by senior BBC managers .
When did you last hear a discussion about access to natural wealth – land, water, atmospheric space – an issue that should dominate global discussions as we race towards a series of crises driven disproportionately by the consumption of the very rich? The wealthy can seize and hoard as much natural wealth as their money allows, causing pollution and destruction out of all proportion to their numbers, while billions are excluded from even the barest prosperity.
While those who raise such issues, legitimate and essential as they are, are excluded, genuine extremists now populate the House of Lords. Among these is Claire Fox, who has never disowned her comment, after the IRA’s Warrington bombing, that she defended “the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures necessary in their struggle for freedom”. Why? Because her extreme views on other issues – the freedom of the powerful to do as they please – align with the demands of Tory sponsors.
The kind of extremism that destroys national life is sanctified by power. Under Liz Truss, the neoliberal junktanks of Tufton Street got everything they wanted, and caused an economic shock from which millions still suffer. Since then, they’ve continued to populate the airwaves, promoting their outrageous demands as if nothing ever happened. Liz Truss is seeking to send some of them to the House of Lords.
Laws and powers ostensibly designed to counter extremism, such as the 2022 Police Act and the 2023 Public Order Act, and widespread abuses of the Prevent programme, are themselves a form of extremism: dictator’s instruments undermining a system that claims to be a democracy. The new proposals by Gove are also, under his own definition, extremist, attacking the political freedoms supposed to sit at the heart of British life. He should do us all a favour and hand himself in.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist | United Kingdom Politics |
Subsets and Splits