article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
Telfs-Buchen, Austria CNN — President Joe Biden may be overseas in the Bavarian Alps, but the political division and sour mood he left behind will be difficult to ignore as he begins this year’s Group of 7 summit. Rising costs – driven in part by the Russian invasion of Ukraine – will be central to Sunday’s agenda, where leaders will simultaneously work to sustain their pressure on Moscow while also looking for ways to ease price spikes that have cost them each politically. That could prove a challenging task. Bans on Russian energy have contributed to a spike in global oil prices, yet leaders are loathe to ease up on sanctions they believe are having an effect on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s economy. One area they have announced action: Banning imports of new Russian gold. “This is a key export, a key source of revenue, a key alternative for Russia, in terms of their ability to transact in the global financial system. Taking this step cuts off that capacity,” a senior administration official said. At the same time, Biden continues to confront fallout from Friday’s ruling fundamentally altering abortion rights for women in the United States, a decision that’s drawn condemnation from several of his fellow world leaders. The ruling put into sharp relief the divisions roiling American politics and institutions, which have acted as a worrying subtext for leaders observing Biden’s attempts at restoring American leadership. Here are several things to watch at Sunday’s G7 summit: Biden and fellow G7 leaders will discuss ways to punish Russia while still managing an unsteady global economy during their first day of talks Sunday in the Bavarian Alps. The conversations will produce some announcements and “muscle movements,” according to a senior White House official. “A large focus of the G7 and the leaders are going to be, you know, how to not only manage the challenges in the global economy as a result of Mr. Putin’s war, but how to also continue to hold Mr. Putin accountable and to make sure that he is being subjected to costs and consequences for what he’s doing,” said John Kirby, the coordinator for strategic communication at the National Security Council, as Biden was flying to Europe. Biden’s first engagement Sunday will be a bilateral meeting with the summit’s host, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, followed by the opening G7 session focused on global economic issues that have been aggravated by the Ukraine war. “I think leaders are going to be looking for ways to do two things: One, continue to hold Mr. Putin accountable and to increase the costs and consequences of his war on him and his economy,” Kirby said. “And two, minimizing as much as possible the effect of these rising oil prices and the way he has weaponized energy on nations, particularly on the continent but also around the world.” That balance will define this year’s G7, as leaders work to sustain their pressure campaign on Putin while also confronting rising inflation that has cost some leaders’ politically at home. The leaders have agreed to announce an import ban on new gold from Russia, Biden said on Twitter Sunday morning. Gold is the second largest export for Russia after energy. Biden has weathered some of the harshest blowback as he’s seen his approval ratings drop amid a rise in prices. “There may well be rising pressure in US politics, in the sense of some people in the primaries we’ve seen already have said I don’t care about Ukraine. What matters is cost of living,” one European official said ahead of this week’s trip. “And if the President did get a bounce in the polls because of his leadership on Ukraine, that’s very fast being dissipated. So there’ll be that effect.” Biden declared Friday the Supreme Court’s conservative majority “made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world” by stripping the nationwide right to abortion. Two days later, he will come face-to-face with the leaders of those nations in the Bavarian Alps, leaving behind a rapidly dividing country whose fractious politics have drawn the world’s concern. The White House doesn’t believe the ruling or the fractures now splitting America will factor into Biden’s discussions. “There’s real national security issues here that have to be discussed and the President is not at all concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision is going to take away from that at all,” Kirby said. Yet four of the six fellow leaders Biden is joining in Germany found the ruling monumental enough to weigh in themselves. “I’ve got to tell you, I think it’s a big step backwards,” said British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It’s a “devastating setback,” said Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. French President Emmanuel Macron and Scholz were also critical. Whether the ruling comes up in Biden’s private discussions remains to be seen. But the fundamentally changed and divided country he left behind will never be far from mind as he represents it on the world stage. At last year’s G7 summit on the Cornish coast in England, Biden pressed fellow leaders into inserting tough new language condemning China’s human rights violations into a final communiqué. Leading up to the document, the group had at-times heated conversations behind closed doors about their collective approach to China. The topic can make for fraught conversations since some European leaders do not necessarily share Biden’s view of China as an existential threat. Yet the President has made repeatedly clear he hopes to convince fellow leaders to take a tougher line. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has amplified the President’s oft-spoken warnings of autocracies versus democracies. On Sunday afternoon, Biden is expected to unveil, alongside other leaders, an infrastructure investment program targeting low- and middle-income countries designed to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Beijing has poured billions into building roads, railways and ports worldwide to forge new trade links and diplomatic ties. Biden has pitched a similar program in the past, dubbing it Build Back Better World. But with that name apparently retired, the White House is renewing the effort in Germany. | Global Organizations |
One of the seven migrants expected to be transferred to Rwanda this evening has had his removal called off following an urgent injunction from the European Court of Human Rights.It places the current number of UK asylum seekers due for removal on tonight's first plane to Kigali down to six, with speculation that other injunctions could imminently follow.An out-of-hours judge is understood to be reviewing the remaining cases, sparking suggestions that the flight may not depart at all.A group of protesters gathered this afternoon outside Colnbrook Detention Centre in Heathrow and lay on the ground in an effort to halt the flight, which is anticipated at around 9.30pm. The plane expected to make the journey has already appeared at MoD Boscombe Down - with defiant ministers vowing the flight will go ahead even if there is only one person on board. Two asylum seekers are understood to still be at Colnbrook. The exits outside of the centre were blocked as campaigners bound themselves together with metal pipes. A number of arrests are reported to have been made.One activist said: 'No one should be on this flight. No one should be deported under such racist and discriminatory policies. This flight represents the very worst of government legislation regarding refugees,' The Guardian reports.The Boeing 767 aircraft making tonight's flight was spotted earlier today at MoD Boscombe Down on the outskirts of Amesbury, Wiltshire. Ministers are vowing the flight will go ahead - even if there is just one passenger.The Boeing is operated by Spanish charter firm Privilege Style and was seen landing at the MoD testing site earlier today. The company has a permit to fly from Stansted to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, at 9.30pm tonight, according to Civil Aviation Authority records. Protesters gathered outside Colnbrook Immigration Detention Centre in Heathrow and lay on the ground in an effort to halt tonight's first flight transporting UK asylum seekers to Rwanda Police officers try to remove an activist blocking a road leading away from the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre The protest near Heathrow Airport was against the British Government's plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda A number of arrests were made during this afternoon's protest according to campaign group 'Stop Deportations!' The campaign group 'Stop Deportations!' issued an urgent call summoning activists to the detention centre at Heathrow Police officers stand near activists blocking a road leading away from the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre The coach with outriders leaves Colnbrook, Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre this afternoon on the day a flight to Rwanda is due to leave Six people are due to be transferred on tonight's first flight to Rwanda, after one asylum seeker's removal was called off by the European Court of Human Rights Police are seen guarding the entrance of the MoD Boscombe Down, where a Boeing 767 aircraft was spotted today A police van accompanied by motorised police personnel arrives at MoD Boscombe Down A minibus with outriders leaves Colnbrook, Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre, Heathrow this afternoon on the day a flight to Rwanda is due to leave carrying seven asylum seekers to RwandaThe airline has not yet commented on the claims. The site is managed by QinetiQ, the private defence company created as part of the breakup of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in 2001 by the UK Ministry of Defence.Activists say just six of the original 130 people originally told they would be deported to Rwanda are expected to be on the aircraft. The ECHR ruling stated: 'In the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it... the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings.'The High Court is due to hold a judicial review in July to decide on the legality of the Rwanda scheme.A charity said the ECHR ruling could also mean the others earmarked to go to Rwanda would not now be deported.'This means it is now possible for the other six to make similar claims. We are so relieved,' Clare Moseley of the charity Care4Calais.Four men who challenged their removal at the High Court in London had their cases dismissed today, while a fifth man lost a bid to bring an appeal at the Supreme Court. The result of the hearings mean the flight is expected to be leaving the UK for the east African nation tonight with six people on board. Demonstrators gathered in George Square, Glasgow, earlier today against the government plans to send migrants to Rwanda The controversial plans are due to undergo a Judicial Review in July and have attracted criticism from church leaders, lawyers and left-wing politicians (Pictured: today's protest in Glasgow)Baroness Chakrabarti, former director of Liberty and former Labour shadow attorney general, said that a 'substantive judicial review' of the Government's Rwanda policy is set to be considered in July.She accused the Government of going ahead with the plan before the Court of Appeal's final verdict on the lawfulness of offshore processing, because of an ongoing 'culture war'.She said: 'Would it not have been open to the Home Office to hold off removals until then or is it a confected culture war so that other ministers make these remarks about 'leftie lawyers' thwarting the will of the people, and that these souls, these seven or so souls, are collateral damage in that culture war.' Lord Coaker, shadow spokesman for home affairs and defence, branded the Government's Rwanda policy 'unethical, unworkable and expensive, and flies in the face of British values'.He argued, during a House of Lords debate on the policy, that it is not only 'shameful' in a moral capacity, but that the Government putting an RAF base on standby just to facilitate the flight of around seven people would be costly for the taxpayer.He asked: 'What will the cost to the taxpayer be of each person?'Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford replied that she did not believe it was moral to 'stand by and allow people to drown' or to 'line the pockets of criminal gangs who seek to exploit people trying to cross in small boats'.She added: 'In terms of the cost, I don't think we can put a cost on the price of human lives. I think we need to do all we can to deter these perilous journeys.' The Hallmark Residences Hotel in Kigali, Rwanda where it is believed migrants from the UK are expected to be taken when they arrive A Boeing 767 plane reported to be the first to transport migrants to Rwanda is seen on the tarmac at MOD Boscombe Down base in Wiltshire Police are seen outside Boscombe Down Air Base, as the first flight relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda prepares to leave the UK Vans arrive at Colnbrook - Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre - this afternoon ahead of the first flight to Rwanda A police van accompanied by motorised police personnel arrives at the British MoD Boscombe Down A 'privileged style' aircraft stands on the runway at MoD Boscombe ready to take the first migrants to the east African country tonight.This morning, Liz Truss said the first plane will take off today even if it is only carrying one migrant. The Supreme Court ruling means this condition will be met. 'We're expecting to send the flight later today,' Truss told Sky News but said she was unable to confirm the numbers due to be on board.'There will be people on the flights and if they're not on this flight, they will be on the next flight,' she added.It came as Boris Johnson vowed lawyers and Church of England critics would not deter the government from seeing the policy through. Opening Cabinet this morning, Mr Johnson said: 'What is happening with the attempt to undermine the Rwanda policy is that they are, I'm afraid, undermining everything that we're trying to do to support safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK and to oppose the illegal and dangerous routes,' he said. 'I think that what the criminal gangs are doing and what those who effectively are abetting the work of the criminal gangs are doing is undermining people's confidence in the safe and legal system, undermining people's general acceptance of immigration.'The Prime Minister added: 'We are not going to be in any way deterred or abashed by some of the criticism that is being directed upon this policy, some of it from slightly unexpected quarters. We are going to get on and deliver.' Challenges by four asylum seekers were rejected by the same judge earlier today. In the first case, the judge said a man's removal to Rwanda would not alter the quality or nature of his relationship with his UK-resident sister, after lawyers representing him argued that deportation would infringe his right to a family life. A barrister representing a second man told the judge that he had claimed asylum after receiving 'death threats from loan sharks' in Vietnam. Alex Grigg also alleged procedural failures, saying the man had been handed the letter informing him of his removal when no interpreter was present. However, the judge rejected this argument. The third man, who had travelled from Iran to the UK with his 21-year-old son, had asked the High Court to prevent his removal due to his mental health and right to a family life. However, refusing the application, Mr Justice Swift said: 'I accept the prejudice to the claimant will include distress due to being separated from his son.' The fourth man, a man, had his application to stop his removal rejected and he was also refused the right to appeal. Decisions on any other outstanding appeals could take place even if a migrant is already on the plane, ITV reported. In other developments in the unfolding Rwanda flight farce: Rwanda government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo defended the policy at a press conference in Kigali, saying: 'We were doing this for the right reasons ... We have the experience. We want it to be a welcoming place for people in precarious conditions and we're determined to make this work';UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said she did not know how many people would be on the first flight but it was important to establish the 'principle' of the policy and others would go in future; The archbishops of Canterbury and York along with the other Anglican bishops in the House of Lords condemned the 'immoral' plan; Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said: 'Deporting asylum seekers should shame us as a nation.'Ms Truss did not deny estimates that a charter flight could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, instead saying she 'can't put a figure' on the expense but 'it is value for money';Tory MP Peter Bone made a combative speech in the Commons in which he complained about 'lefty lawyers' sabotaging the policy; A government source suggested the chances of the first flight going ahead were 'very, very slim' even despite the government winning a key court battle; More than 100 migrants arrived in Dover after crossing the Channel in small boats today, with this week set to be one of 2022's busiest yet for crossings; The £20k-an-hour package holiday jet Priti Patel wants to use to send asylum seekers to Rwanda Priti Patel's £20,000-an-hour deportation jet being used to send people to Kigali, Rwanda Age 27 years Passengers 18 business class with 229 economy class Engines 2 Fuel capacity 91.380kg Max take-off weight 185,069kg Max landing weight 145,152kg Galleys 3 Lavatories 5 Charter cost £20,000-an-hour Maximum range 7,260 miles Top speed 567mph Maximum ceiling 43,000ft Take off distance 8,002ft Landing distance 5,052ft Priti Patel's deportation jet in figures Age 27 years Passengers 18 business class with 229 economy class Engines 2 Fuel capacity 91.380kg Max take-off weight 185,069kg Max landing weight 145,152kg Galleys 3 Lavatories 5 Charter cost £20,000-an-hour Maximum range 7,260 miles Top speed 567mph Maximum ceiling 43,000ft Take off distance 8,002ft Landing distance 5,052ft The government has hired Privilege Style Airlines to fly the first asylum seekers to their off-shore processing facility in Kigali, Rwanda. The Home Office chartered a Boeing 767-300ER with a maximum capacity of 18 passengers in Business Class with a further 246 in the back. The 27-year-old aircraft costs approximately £20,000-an-hour to charter and has a range of 7,260 miles, so it can travel the 4,100 miles to the Rwandan capital Kigali without needed to refuel en-route. The flight time from London to Kigali is approximately nine hours, meaning the trip down to will cost in the region of £180,000. The jet will be used to return Home Office officials on the flight to the UK, meaning a further £180,000 will be spent. Also, the jet flew empty from Dusseldorf to RAF Boscombe Down in Amebury, Wiltshire which would have cost the government at least £20,000 for the hour-long flight. Normally a charter aircraft will wait for up to two hours for its passengers before it starts charging extra, as it will have to turn down other clients. On June 13, the day before the jet arrived in the UK, it flew from Dusseldorf to Palma de Mallorca return before heading off to Tenerife and returning to Dusseldorf, where it took off this morning for the RAF base. The airline boasts that the aircraft has carried almost 500,000 passengers since it joined their fleet in 2013.Passengers on the jet are normally offered wifi, according to the airline and can follow the route of the aircraft on a moving screen. The aircraft offers 18 passengers business class seats, with two seats per row, rather than the two-three-two layout in the back which has space for a further 229 passengers This seating map shows the business class seats behind the aircraft's cockpit. The bulk of the passengers are seated in three rows across the aircraft in a two-three-two configuration The leather seats on board the aircraft are normally packed with holiday makers at this time of year travelling to sunshine destinations Passengers on the jet are normally offered wifi for in-flight entertainment. Those in business class have space to plug in their laptops This Boeing 767 - seen landing at RAF Boscombe Down in Wiltshire today - is expected to be used in the first flight to Rwanda tonight. Spanish carrier Privilege Style has not yet commented on the claims The company has a permit to fly from Stansted to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, at 9.30pm tonight, according to Civil Aviation Authority records. The airline has not yet commented on the claims. Three Iranians, one Vietnamese, one Albanian and one Iraqi Kurd are being held at Colnbrook detention centre by Heathrow, where a coach was seen parked today Boris Johnson, opening Cabinet today, turned his fire on lawyers who he accused of 'abetting the work of criminal gangs' Mr Johnson - pictured today at Cabinet with Rishi Sunak in the background - insisted the Government would not be deterred by the attacks 'not least from lawyers' and told his Cabinet ministers that 'we are going to get on and deliver' the planPriti Patel's Rwanda plan received a boost last night after judges refused to block today's flight. The Home Secretary is seen today Today, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss insisted the first flight would take off but could not say how few people will be on it Detainees in Brook House Detention Centre, Gatwick this morning on the day a flight to Rwanda is due to leave There have been protests at government removal centres including Brook House Detention Centre (pictured) Three cases rejected by High Court judge today CASE 1 In the first case, the judge said a man's removal to Rwanda would not alter the quality or nature of his relationship with his UK-resident sister, after lawyers representing him argued that deportation would infringe his right to a family life. CASE 2 A barrister representing a second man told the judge that he had claimed asylum after receiving 'death threats from loan sharks' in Vietnam. Alex Grigg also alleged procedural failures, saying the man had been handed the letter informing him of his removal when no interpreter was present. However, the judge rejected this argument. CASE 3 The third man, who had travelled from Iran to the UK with his 21-year-old son, had asked the High Court to prevent his removal due to his mental health and right to a family life. However, refusing the application, Mr Justice Swift said: 'I accept the prejudice to the claimant will include distress due to being separated from his son.' CASE 4 In a hearing on Tuesday afternoon, Mr Justice Swift refused the application of a Kurdish man against his removal. The judge also refused him permission to appeal. Today ministers have turned their fire on lawyers who they blame for sabotaging their flagship migration policy. 'All the lawyers who have been fighting in the courts will now turn their collective might elsewhere and direct all their resources at the remaining individuals due to be on board,' a government source told The Times. 'They'll be exploiting every single loophole possible and using every trick in the book to get those last people removed from the flight.'[The chances of it going ahead as planned] are very, very slim.' Last night, Tory MP Peter Bone made a combative speech in the Commons in which he complained about 'lefty lawyers' sabotaging the policy. The MP Wellingborough told MPs: 'We hear that a number of people who were meant to be on the flight tomorrow have, miraculously, got some lefty lawyer to intervene and stop it. 'Can I suggest that instead of booking 50 people on each flight to Rwanda, book 250 people on it then when they stop half of them from travelling you still have a full flight - come on, get on and send them.' Judges yesterday refused to block the inaugural flight scheduled for today to the offshore processing centre.Tory MPs cheered in the Commons as the Court of Appeal backed a ruling in the Home Secretary's favour last week, giving the policy the green light.A separate High Court bid to block the flight also failed yesterday when the charity Asylum Aid was denied an injunction.The Home Secretary has now won three victories in cases brought against the Government by Left-wing groups. A processing tent erected next door to the Hope Hostel accommodation in Kigali, Rwanda where migrants from the UK are expected to be taken when they arrive Ms Patel has now won three victories in cases brought against the Government by Left-wing groups . Pictured: Human rights protesters demonstrate outside the Home Office in London Revealed: The piously lefty cabal who have fought to ground Rwanda flight By David Wilkes for the Daily Mail A collection of Left-wing groups have made legal challenges in a bid to block ministers' plan to send migrants to Rwanda. They are represented by lawyers who in many cases have links to the Labour Party and a lengthy record of bringing cases against the Government.MATRIX CHAMBERSBarristers from the trendy London human rights chambers – co-founded by Cherie Blair – represented the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, Care4Calais and Detention Action on Friday and yesterday.One was top QC Raza Husain, who last month retweeted a message by Labour MP Chris Bryant criticising Boris Johnson's response to Partygate that said: 'Downing Street under him has been a cesspit of arrogant, entitled narcissists.' Mrs Blair left the chambers in 2014.LEIGH DAYA separate challenge to the Rwanda policy by charity Asylum Aid, heard in court yesterday, was lodged by law firm Leigh Day, which was accused of being behind a 'witch-hunt' of British troops in Iraq.The firm and three of its solicitors – including senior partner Martyn Day – were cleared of a string of misconduct allegations following a disciplinary hearing in 2017. They had been charged by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority after the Ministry of Defence submitted a lengthy dossier of alleged wrongdoing, including claims they caused innocent troops years of torment.Leigh Day worked with Birmingham solicitor Phil Shiner to represent Iraqi clients in parallel legal actions. Mr Shiner was struck off as a solicitor for dishonesty over his handling of war-crime allegations against the Army.DOUGHTY STREETAsylum Aid's legal team also includes several barristers from Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer's former chambers, Doughty Street.They include leading human rights lawyer Helena Kennedy QC, who has been an active and outspoken Labour peer since entering the House of Lords as Baroness Kennedy after the general election in 1997. It is also where Amal Clooney, the lawyer wife of film star George, practises.Robert Latham, who retains an associate tenancy at Doughty Street, supported Sir Keir's leadership campaign with a donation of £100,000.DUNCAN LEWIS SOLICITORSActing for the PCS union, Care 4 Calais and Detention Action, Duncan Lewis has a long track record of bringing challenges against government immigration measures.In 2020, The Mail on Sunday revealed the firm had received £55 million in legal aid from the British taxpayer in just three years. The paper also told how the company's staff have travelled to Calais and offered support to refugees hoping to reach Britain.Owned by entrepreneur Amarpal Singh Gupta, who has been dubbed 'Britain's legal aid king', the firm has forged a close relationship with charities that work among refugee camps on the French coast. Staff have also reportedly boasted of mixing with senior Labour Party figures, including deputy leader Angela Rayner and foreign spokesman David Lammy.DETENTION ACTIONBella Sankey, director of campaign group Detention Action, is a former would-be Labour MP endorsed by Sir Keir. Like the Labour leader many years before, Miss Sankey previously worked at Liberty, the campaign group for civil liberties which has long been a recruiting ground for Labour politicians.PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES UNIONThe union's firebrand general secretary Mark Serwotka was kicked out of the Labour Party in 1992 for being a member of the Trotskyist group Socialist Organiser. In 2016, he rejoined Labour, saying his long-time friend Jeremy Corbyn's leadership offered a 'genuine break from the past'. In recent years, he has called for a General Strike to 'bring the Tories down'.CARE4CALAISThe charity was at the centre of a scandal in 2017 when it emerged its married founder Clare Moseley, a former accountant and then 46, had a year-long affair with Mohamed Bajjar, then 27. He had falsely claimed to be a Syrian refugee, but was in reality a Tunisian market-stall trader married to another British woman.The charity is currently embroiled in a Charity Commission inquiry over 'serious governance concerns'.ASYLUM AIDIts Cambridge-educated director Alison Pickup leads a team providing legal representation to asylum seekers and refugees. She was previously legal director of the Public Law Project – and before that had a practice at Doughty Street Chambers, where she specialised in immigration, asylum and migrants' rights in the context of unlawful detention, community care, asylum support and access to justice.Among her achievements, Doughty Street Chambers' website lists her as having been junior counsel in 'two of the leading challenges to the legal aid cuts'.One was the successful challenge to the proposed 'residence test' for legal aid, the other established that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for private and family life – may require legal aid to be provided in immigration cases. Just seven names remained of the 130 on the original passenger list last night after lawyers submitted a series of challenges.Further individual appeals by these seven, who include Iranians, Iraqis and Albanians, were expected in the hours before the flight.At least six further cases are due to be heard at the High Court today under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and other legal measures. But the Court of Appeal's decision means Miss Patel's scheme to hand Channel migrants and other 'irregular arrivals' a one-way ticket to the east African nation has avoided falling at the first hurdle.The Home Secretary insists the policy is necessary to avoid further drownings in the Channel. 'People will see this as a good result for the Home Office, but now the policy is not facing a blanket ban, well-resourced lawyers will try to get their clients pulled off the flight individually,' a government source said.'They will try every tactic and exploit every loophole, probably waiting until the very last minute.'The leadership of the Church of England yesterday condemned the Rwanda operation as an 'immoral policy that shames Britain'. In a letter to The Times, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and 24 other bishops said: 'Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation.'Lord Justice Singh, chairing a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal yesterday, declined to 'interfere with the conclusions' made by a High Court judge on Friday.He said Mr Justice Swift 'did not err in principle' when he refused to grant an interim injunction that would have stopped the flight taking off.Lord Justice Singh was a leading human rights barrister and founded Matrix Chambers with Cherie Blair.The appeal was brought by the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents a majority of UK Border Force staff, and charities Care 4 Calais and Detention Action. They were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, although the applicants may lodge a further bid directly.Raza Husain QC, for the applicants, told the court the Rwanda policy featured 'a serious interference with basic dignity' and the High Court had wrongly assessed the strength of their claim. He added that if migrants were to be sent to Rwanda and a judicial review – due in July – rules the policy unlawful the Home Office would be required to return them to the UK.Migrants could then have 'significant claims' for damages, the QC suggested.But Rory Dunlop QC, for the Home Office, said: 'The flight tomorrow is important. This is a policy which is intended to deter dangerous and unnecessary journeys, journeys from safe third countries by people who do not need to make that journey to be safe, they can claim in France or wherever it is.'This is a policy that – if it works – could save lives as well as disrupt the model of traffickers.'Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has implicitly rejected Prince Charles's reported criticisms of the Rwanda plan.Mr Johnson declined to comment directly on whether the prince was wrong to call it 'appalling', but added: 'This is about making sure that we break the business model of criminal gangs who are not only risking people's lives but undermining public confidence in legal migration.'Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the scheme was 'shameful' and 'completely unworkable, deeply unethical and extortionately expensive'. It came as protestors were picturing scuffling with police last night after an emergency protest outside the Home Office in London.The demonstrations, which began at around 5.30pm and quickly swelled, included the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who was pictured speaking enthusiastically into a megaphone as a large crowd amassed.The scenes later turned chaotic after objectors were seen grappling with officers yesterday evening. The Met Police say no arrests were made.Charities had challenged an initial refusal to grant an injunction on Friday, with three Court of Appeal judges yesterday rejecting their appeal following an urgent hearing.The decision will not stop individual refugees from appealing their deportation, while a full judicial review of the policy is still due to take place in July.Yesterday afternoon, Lord Justice Singh, sitting with Lady Justice Simler and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, said Mr Justice Swift had 'conducted the balancing exercise properly' and did not err in principle nor in the approach he took.He added: 'He weighed all the factors and reached a conclusion which he was reasonably entitled to reach on the material before him.'This court cannot therefore interfere with that conclusion.' The Court of Appeal's decision means Miss Patel's scheme to hand Channel migrants and other 'irregular arrivals' a one-way ticket to the east African nation has avoided falling at the first hurdle. Pictured: Border Force and the military escort migrant ashore at Dover Docks Migrants travelling to the UK on small boats will be put on jets and sent to Rwanda while their applications are processedRwandan officials say deported migrants will be able to 'come and go as they please' from accommodation and only need to follow 'basic housekeeping rules' - as they slam Church critics' 'misconceptions' about Africa Rwandan officials today said deported migrants would be able to 'come and go as they please' from their accomodation and only need to follow 'basic housekeeping rules', as they slammed critics' 'misconceptions' of Africa. Government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo hit back at the Church of England's claim the plan was 'immoral', saying: 'We don't think it's immoral to offer a home to people.'People may have their own opinions on what this problem is like, depending on where they come from, but from where we come from we're doing this for the right reasons.'We want to be a welcoming place and we'll do our best to make sure that migrants are taken care of, and that they're able to build a life here.' Rwanda government spokeswomen Yolande Makolo (centre) holds a press conference regarding the refugees arring from the UK in RwandaAsked for the Rwandan government's response to comments from migrants who said they would rather die than be sent to the country, Ms Makolo said some people have 'misconceptions' about what Africa is like which 'does not reflect the reality'.She added: 'We do not consider living in Rwanda a punishment ... we do our best to provide a conducive environment for Rwandans to develop and for anyone else who comes to live here with us.'Ms Makolo described the agreement, which has been opposed by the UN and rights groups, as an 'innovative programme'.'Rwanda is proud to partner with the UK for this innovative programme that's intended to address the global migration crisis, which is causing untold suffering to so many. We are also keen to address the global imbalance in opportunities that is a major driver of irregular migration.'Rwanda has a strong record of providing safety for those in danger. Tomorrow when the first flight lands here in Kigali, the new arrivals will be welcomed and will be looked after and supported to make new lives here. We will provide support with their asylum applications, including legal support and translation services. We will provide decent accommodation and look after all their essential needs.'We also want to make it clear that if people apply for asylum in Rwanda and their claim is rejected, they will still have a pathway to legal residency in Rwanda. We welcome people from everywhere .. The new arrivals will be free to come and go as they please.'Questioned about whether there will be curfews or any other restrictions placed on migrants once placed in accommodation, Ms Makolo said they are not detention facilities and there will be some basic house-keeping rules, but they will effectively be able to 'come and go as they please'. Ms Makolo described the agreement, which has been opposed by the UN and rights groups, as an 'innovative programme'If migrants choose to leave, 'we will support them to travel to their country of origin' or another country where they have a legal right to stay, she said, adding: 'We do hope that they'll choose to stay with us and follow in the footsteps of so many who have made Rwanda their home and have flourished here.'Rwanda has a record of caring for refugees and welcoming migrants and will be able to provide not just a safe haven these people are looking for, but the opportunity to build new lives here and develop alongside Rwandans.'Asked whether they were concerned about the outcry over the plan and the legal challenges in the UK, Ms Makolo told reporters: 'We were doing this for the right reasons ... We have the experience. We want it to be a welcoming place for people in precarious conditions and we're determined to make this work.'We understand that there might be opposition to this but we are asking them to give this programme a chance because it's a solution.'There are not many solutions, people are suffering, the asylum system is broken and being taken advantage of by criminal gangs that exploit people making | United Kingdom Politics |
The metaphors keep piling up like a multiple car wreck. Or do they keep crashing down? It’s so hard to keep up. But you get the drift. Yet again, we have a government that’s out of control. That can do little else but bunker down in the cabinet room and pray for the roof not to fall in. Desperate for a break that just isn’t coming. Helpless to do anything but gradually disappear under the rubble of its own making. Policies in tatters and no sense of direction. Reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete is just the latest in a long line of shitshows.
This wasn’t the way Rishi Sunak had wanted to begin the new parliamentary session. He had been banking on drawing a line under previous failures and calling for a fresh start. To deliver a message of hope leading into next year’s general election. To make people grateful for all that the Tories had done. He was sick of the little people not appreciating him properly. Time for the country to bask in the hope of not being completely broke. Time to count your blessings that you hadn’t died on an NHS waiting list. The things that made life worth living.
Only it didn’t quite work out like that. Instead of setting the agenda, Rish! found himself on the defensive. Forced to answer accusations that he was to blame for cutting the school buildings fund as chancellor. So here was his chance to show some leadership. To show he was ready to acknowledge his own and previous Tory governments’ failings and tell us what he was going to do about them. Or maybe not.
What we got was Rish! on autopilot defence mode. Quick to shift the blame on to anyone but him. Just a jumble of nonsense. His own artificial stupidity. RishGPT. Schools had never been anything to do with him, even though he had signed off the schools budget. And he had committed to rebuilding as many as 50 schools a year. Er … precisely.
The Department for Education had estimated that at least 300 schools needed rebuilding each year. And maybe the department had capacity to do 200. But Sunak, in his brilliance, had given enough money for 50.
“It’s not true that I didn’t care,” wittered RishGPT. He had cared. Just not very much. If there was a victim in this, it was Sunak himself. Surely the country could see he was desperately unlucky that the schools had started falling down on his watch. Why couldn’t they have held together till after the next election, when Labour could carry the can?
All those questions from Labour over the last few years about unsafe buildings? He had never seen them. It was all the fault of his ministers. In whom he had complete trust. Trust that he would land them in it and they wouldn’t moan. It wasn’t fair that the boy prince had been landed with such a talent vacuum in the cabinet. Oh, and by the way, there were more than 1,000 schools that could fall down at a moment’s notice. But nothing to worry about. Look on the bright side. Around 95% of schools would still be standing by Christmas. People should stop talking Britain down.
In the meantime, Gillian Keegan was fighting a rearguard action herself. The education secretary is an unusual sort. A minister with no radar for danger. Her default position is overconfidence. Do nothing and let things sort themselves out. Hakuna matata. When news came in that A-level results were worse this year, her message to students had been to chill. It was no big deal. She couldn’t really work out why so many pupils had worked so hard in the first place, as in 10 years’ time no one would care. University was just a debt mountain. People would have been far better off doing nothing. Careers were so overrated. Not exactly an endorsement of the education system.
Keegan felt much the same way about school buildings. You could have too much of the nanny state. Not that it was her department’s responsibility to make sure the buildings were safe anyway. That was down to someone else. She wasn’t sure who. Probably the local authorities whose powers her government had stripped away.
So what if a few buildings fell? People were far too attached to their children. Modern wokery and all that. “Buildings can collapse for many reasons,” she said. Like earthquakes. These things happened all the time. So there was no point in trying to repair crumbling concrete.
Taking a leaf out of the RishGPT playbook, Keegan was taking no responsibility for anything in a broadcast interview. Rather than apologise to parents and children for badly mismanaging the return to school and decades of underfunding, Keegan went on the offensive.
“Everyone else has sat on their arse,” she moaned. The government’s very own Nicola Murray from The Thick of It. And how come no one had praised her “for doing a fucking good job”? Er, possibly because she hadn’t been doing one. And possibly because no one had asked her to become education secretary. But since she was there, they would rather she got on with the job. Not act as if she was doing everyone a favour. A sense of entitlement is the lifeblood of this government. Keegan looked as though she couldn’t wait for hospitals to start falling down and take the heat off her.
For her Commons statement late in the day, Keegan had been given a bit of coaching. Dial down your own brilliance. Look as though you might be a little bit sorry. “Nothing is more important than children’s safety,” she said. Failing to explain why the government had let the buildings fall to bits. But she wanted to say how grateful she was to all those she had imagined were sitting on their arses. And hey, there was an upside. The UK would soon know more about Raac in schools than anyone else. A big win.
None of this impressed the shadow education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, who shredded Keegan’s excuses. The short- and long-term negligence. Years of doing nothing when the department knew the buildings were past their sell-by date. Talk your way out of that one. Keegan couldn’t. She already felt she had done far too much for everyone. Give, give, give.
The Tory backbenchers were by and large supportive, if not enthusiastic. Preferring not to have a fight in public. Vicky Ford felt MPs shouldn’t frighten children by telling them they could get hurt if the roof fell in. We should all just pretend it was a cartoon. Mark Francois was the only one spoiling for a fight. What the minister had said didn’t square with what he had been told. Keegan ignored him. It was all she could do. Raac and ruin. | United Kingdom Politics |
Consumer group CHOICE is pushing for more transparency around the "creepy and invasive" use of facial recognition technology at Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys.A leading consumer advocacy group is cracking down on a "creepy and invasive" practice used by three major Australian retailers.CHOICE probed 25 of Australia's leading retail stores and found Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys were using facial recognition technology. Facial recognition technology captures and stores an individual's unique biometric information such as facial features. It also known as a person's "faceprint".Stream more business news with Flash. 25+ news channels in 1 place. New to Flash? Try 1 month free. Offer ends 31 October, 2022CHOICE consumer data advocate Kate Bower expressed concerns customers were largely unaware of the practice and had not given consent to the "invasive" technology."It's equivalent to Kmart and Bunnings collecting your fingerprints or your DNA every time you shop," she said.In a survey of more than 1,000 Australians, a majority of respondents (83 per cent) said retail stores should be required to inform customers about the use of facial recognition before they enter the store.More than three quarters (78 per cent) expressed concerns about the secure storage of faceprint data and 65 per cent said they were concerned stores would use the technology to create profiles of customers that could cause them harm.One survey respondent described the facial recognition technology as "creepy and invasive" while others labelled the operation "unnecessary and dangerous".Bunnings' chief operating officer Simon McDowell told SkyNews.com.au the warehouse giant was "disappointed by CHOICE's inaccurate characterisations of Bunnings' use of facial recognition technology" and insisted the practice was used "solely to keep team and customers safe"."In recent years, we’ve seen an increase in the number of challenging interactions our team have had to handle in our stores and this technology is an important tool in helping us to prevent repeat abuse and threatening behaviour towards our team and customers," Mr McDowell told SkyNews.com.au."There are strict controls around the use of the technology which can only be accessed by specially trained team. This technology is not used for marketing, consumer behaviour tracking, and images of children are never enrolled."We let customers know if the technology is in use through signage at our store entrances and also in our privacy policy, which is available via the homepage of our website." A spokesperson for The Good Guys told SkyNews.com.au some stores are trialling the use of a new CCTV system "solely for the purposes of loss prevention and the safety" of customers and team members. "We let our customers know the technology is in use in these two stores through our store entrance signage and in our privacy policy that is available on our website," the spokesperson said in a statement.Director of the Australia Institute's Centre for Responsible Technology Peter Lewis said using the technology to discourage theft and poor behaviour was not a good enough reason."It's not good enough for a business to say that it is implementing this technology to crack down on theft without the public knowing the way the data is being collected, how it's being stored, what it's being used for and whether it's being sold on to other parties," he said."We need comprehensive privacy law reform and a pause on implementation of this potentially harmful and invasive technology."The recommendations of the Australian Human Rights Commission for a moratorium should be implemented." SkyNews.com.au has contacted Kmart for a comment. | Australia Politics |
CAPE TOWN, South Africa -- South Africa's foreign ministry summoned the U.S. Ambassador to a meeting Friday over allegations he made a day earlier that the country had provided arms and ammunition to Russia for its war in Ukraine.
Amid the diplomatic fallout over the allegations by the United States, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor will also speak with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation (effectively the foreign ministry), said in a statement posted by spokesman Clayson Monyela on Twitter.
U.S. Ambassador to South Africa Reuben Brigety said at a press conference Thursday that South Africa had loaded weapons and ammunition onto a sanctioned Russian vessel at the Simon’s Town Naval Base near the city of Cape Town in December last year. The arms were then transported to Russia, Brigety said.
“We (the U.S.) are confident that weapons were loaded into that vessel and I would bet my life on the accuracy of that assertion,” Brigety said. He called South Africa's “arming" of Russia “fundamentally unacceptable.”
Following Brigety's comments, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa confirmed an investigaton was underway into the visit by the Russian cargo ship Lady R in December. That investigation had started before Brigety went public with his accusation and would use any evidence U.S. intelligence officials had over the alleged arms, Ramaphosa said.
But his office said in a statement there was “no evidence” currently that arms were loaded onto the ship in South Africa. The foreign ministry added in a statement Friday there was “no record of an approved arms sale by the state to Russia related to the period/incident in question.”
The Associated Press has independently verified that the Lady R did visit the South African naval base from Dec. 6-8, as Brigety claimed. A review of records by the AP has also shown that the Lady R is tied to a company that has been sanctioned by the U.S. for transporting weapons for the Russian government and aiding its war effort.
The issue threatens to seriously strain the relationship between the U.S. and one of its key African partners. Monyela said South Africa would issue a “demarche” against Brigety for his allegations, a diplomatic term that refers to a formal complaint. Monyela also said in his Twitter post that South Africa “values the relations we have with the United States of America. They're cordial, strong and mutually beneficial.”
Ramaphosa's office criticized Brigety on Thursday for making the allegations public.
South Africa's position on the war on Ukraine has troubled the U.S. and other Western nations ever since Africa's most developed country abstained last year in a United Nations vote condemning Russia's invasion. South Africa stated it would take a neutral stance over the war and rather call for a diplomatic solution and an end to the fighting.
Critics said that South Africa had effectively sided with Russia after it hosted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for talks in January and allowed Russian and Chinese warships to use its waters for joint naval drills off its east coast in February. The exercises coincided with the one-year anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The South African government has also indicated it would be unwilling to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin if he visits, as expected, for a meeting of leaders of the BRICS economic bloc in August despite the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant for him.
South Africa is a signatory to the international court and is obliged to arrest Putin if he sets foot on its territory.
South Africa has a historical relationship with Russia due to the former Soviet Union's support for the ruling African National Congress when it was a liberation movement fighting to end the apartheid regime of segregation that oppressed the country's Black majority. | Africa politics |
Discover more from Comment is Freed
Running on Empty
The King’s Speech and the dance of the dividing lines
For some months now the dwindling group of Tory MPs retaining any hope of electoral success have been putting their faith in an autumn reset. The Conservative conference, the King’s Speech, and the autumn statement, were to provide three big opportunities for Sunak to set out a refreshed offer to the electorate.
The conference has come and gone, with no impact on the polls, and none could have been expected after the shambolic confusion over the cancellation of HS2. The autumn statement is coming up in a few weeks, but Jeremy Hunt is desperately trying to play down suggestions he’ll be offering up juicy, if unaffordable, tax cuts.
So there was a lot riding on the King’s Speech – which set out the legislative programme for the rest of the Parliament. Any hopes, though, were quickly dashed when the list of Bills was published. The media quickly dismissed it as thin and lightweight and moved on to more interesting topics, like Suella Braverman’s increasingly desperate attempts to get fired and start her leadership campaign.
But it’s worth spending a bit of time on because it tells us a lot about why there really is no scope for a dramatic Tory recovery.
The content wasn’t just thin it was close to non-existent. The Telegraph noted that the 21 Bills were the fewest since 2014, but the crude number doesn’t tell the story. Take out the Bills that are carried over from the previous session; or are small single issue Bills (like giving Transport for London the right to regulate pedicabs); or are tidying up exercises (e.g. putting the Trans-Pacific partnership in law or the Arbitration Bill); and there’s barely anything left.
You can tell how desperate they were to pad things out because there’s both a Sentencing Bill and a Criminal Justice Bill, the latter of which contains various provisions for increased sentencing. There’s absolutely no reason to have two Bills rather than one, other than a lack of anything else to say. The whole thing resembles a student hurriedly adding conjunctions into a coursework essay to meet the word limit requirements.
Only three of the 21 Bills are both new and likely to have a significant impact on many peoples’ lives and two of those are from Michael Gove. The Leasehold Reform Bill will put limits on the fees that freeholders can inflict on the five million leaseholder households and ban leasehold sales of houses (but not flats) in the future. The long-awaited Renter’s Reform Bill promises to end “no-fault” evictions, but in a concession to landlord Tory MPs will not be brought in until a new court process and stronger possession grounds for landlords are in place.
Then we have the Tobacco and Vapes Bill which will make it illegal for anyone born after the 1st January 2009 to buy cigarettes. I will admit to being torn on this – it has the potential to be a big public health win but it is also undoubtedly illiberal, risks an increase in illegal trade, and will inevitably become a total ban in time given the absurdity of a 25 year old in 2034 having to ask a 26 year old to buy them some fags. It is, though, undoubtedly significant.
Beyond that there’s nothing. Just no substantive agenda. It is, of course, possible for the government to do things without legislation, or using existing vehicles, but when you look around there really is very little happening at all. Managed decline is too polite a term. The NHS is continuing its descent into chaos without ministers seeming overly bothered. Sunak and Hunt wouldn’t even cough up £1 billion to cover some of the costs of industrial action, leaving NHS Trusts having to scale back plans to reduce waiting lists, which are now at 7.8 million. Data for October showed almost twice as many people waiting more than four hours in A&E than in the whole of 2010, and it’s not even winter yet.
Braverman is too busy arguing with the police to consider any reforms to a criminal justice system that is failing to charge more than 6% of recorded crimes. Schools reform seems to have dropped off the radar completely. Housing starts have predictably collapsed after NIMBY Tory rebels persuaded Sunak to ditch statutory targets for local authorities. Nothing is happening anywhere.
It's partly exhaustion, partly a cabinet with too many talentless hacks, and partly an inability to pass anything through a fractious party impatient to get on with its post-election bust-up. Several proposed Bills from departments were killed because they were either too internally contentious or were at risk of being amended in a way that could lead to an embarrassing defeat. Every Bill was also vetted to ensure there was no risk of amendments from Labour that could force MPs into voting against electorally popular things. For instance I’ve been told that an education Bill was rejected on the grounds that there could be a “Marcus Rashford amendment” on free school meals.
Is there even a political strategy?
It’s true to say that legislative programmes in the last year of a government tend to be lighter, though the only one as thin as this was 2014/15 when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had fallen out and couldn’t agree on any substantive programme. Inevitably attention is increasingly focused on the election and creating “dividing lines” for the campaign, particularly for 2019 Tory voters who are currently saying “don’t know” or “Reform” to pollsters.
But this King’s Speech didn’t even fulfil that extremely limited and depressing goal. The crime and sentencing Bills were touted as creating some but there’s nothing in them that Labour can’t support. Opposition parties back the three substantive Bills on leasehold, evictions and smoking. The only Bill that Labour won’t support is the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill which will create an annual application window for new oil and gas licences in the North Sea. It is an understatement to say that this is not high on the list of voter concerns.
They can’t force dividing lines because Labour are just refusing to play that game. As Stephen Bush put it this week:
“Part of the problem is that there is a gap not just between the state of the country and Sunak’s political strategy, but a gap between the Labour party he would like to face and the one that he is actually facing. This is most visible on law and order….. There’s…no significant appetite or constituency within the Labour party to have a big row with the Conservative party over this area, and as such it badly needs a rethink.”
There are plenty of criticisms one can make of Labour but they are not going to get caught out by this strategy. Indeed they have figured out how to turn it to their advantage by picking a handful of the most misconceived Tory dividing lines on which to fight. Which means British politics at the moment rather resembles Wile E Coyote attempting to catch Roadrunner while repeatedly dropping a boulder on his own head.
The environment and net zero is a good example, which is why the north sea drilling Bill is the only one Labour will oppose. Sunak, partly through his own frustrations at what he saw as Boris Johnson’s overpromising on net zero, and partly to create a dividing line, has ended up pushing a message that sounds more anti-environmental than his actual policy agenda, and is extremely unpopular with voters. Labour know it, and have enthusiastically embraced the fight. As the Conservative strategist James Frayne has noted, based on large amounts of polling and focus grouping, this is a complete dead end for Tory electoral prospects:
“Time will also tell whether the Conservatives take up the theme of green scepticism more broadly. Many are encouraging them to go down this route. Here, I think we can be clear: our research shows this would be a more serious mistake.
In the poll, we paid special attention to those who have moved from the party since 2019 and those who are still intending to vote Conservative at the next election. Among both of these groups, a majority believe the UK should aim to reach Net Zero by 2050, and a very small proportion (15 per cent of wavering 2019 supporters) would support dropping the target outright.
We also discovered that 2019 Conservative voters who are wavering on voting Conservative again, would consider a party who dropped Net Zero to be out of touch (net +14), stupid (net +10), short-sighted (net +10), uncaring for the next generation (net +14), and unscientific (net +6).”
Pretty much the only genuine dividing line the Tories have created on their own terms, that Labour would prefer not to have to engage with, is on the Rwanda deportations, which remain popular with Tory 2019 voters. The Supreme Court is announcing its decision on whether these should be allowed to go ahead on Wednesday. If they are then its value in political terms will come down to whether they can make it work in practice – given Rwanda’s very limited capacity – and how the reality of people being forced, screaming and in tears, on to planes will play with the public. If they fail to make it work, or the courts prevent it from going ahead, then talking about immigration will keep pushing the most concerned voters towards Reform, while alienating more liberal conservatives.
The most fruitful source of dividing lines for the Tories in the past – Brexit excepted – was the economy, contrasting their prudence with the risk of a profligate, high taxing, Labour party. But Starmer and Reeves are refusing to play that game either, doggedly sticking to spending plans everyone knows are a fantasy. Labour could take more risks here. All the polling we have suggests the public are more worried about the state of public services than they are about taxes. They can also call on the ghost of Liz Truss every time the Tories try to emphasise prudence. But, whether you agree with the strategy or not, Labour have resolutely closed down the dividing line.
Even if Jeremy Hunt does offer up some tax cuts for his desperate MPs it’s unlikely to make any difference. Indeed it could well help Labour, given the absurdity of our economic debate, when the Tories decide to spend money on something it gives Starmer and Reeves a free pass to do the same. They could offer up an alternative package, perhaps mixing spending on key public priorities with some targeted tax cuts of their own. Labour haven’t yet shown us they have the ideas to fix the country but they have mastered the dance of the dividing lines, and in doing so completely suffocated the government’s political strategy.
The King’s Speech is, essentially, an acknowledgement that the game is up. There’s neither the time, pre-election, nor the will to fix the country’s problems. There’s not even the space left for a cynically coherent campaign. That group of Tory MPs who still hold out hope is now a very small one. It’s not clear the Prime Minister is even in it any more.
Comment is Freed is a reader supported publication. A monthly subscription is £3.50 and an annual one £35. It includes at least four subscriber only posts a month. | United Kingdom Politics |
I’ve always suspected that Europeans are incapable of understanding South Africa, the strange and complicated nation where I was born and often return. At bottom, the issue is this: how can people so accustomed to safety, stability and a well-functioning state really grasp the nature of a place where none of these things can be taken for granted?
I feel obliged to say that South Africa is a wonderful country, and a resilient one. For every horror story you see in the media — most recently the tragic blaze in Johannesburg — there are many things worthy of love. Nonetheless, three decades after the end of apartheid, it is obvious that the ruling African National Congress (ANC) has failed in its historic mission: to spread the living standards formerly enjoyed by the white minority to the broad mass of the population. It has, if anything, achieved the opposite, overseeing the dereliction of the infrastructure and human potential on which any such improvement would depend.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
Metaphors for this failure are everywhere. Railways that took my parents to their summer holidays as children now lie rusting and abandoned. Supermarkets sell asphalt for drivers to fill in potholes for themselves (the product is marketed as gatvol, which means both “hole-full” and “fed-up”). Criminal gangs, their numbers buoyed by an unemployment rate above 30%, cut down traffic lights for scrap, steal transformers from power stations and collapse roads with illegal mining operations. Eskom, the national power monopoly, is so ravaged by corruption that daily blackouts now last as long as nine hours.
Especially since the reign of former president Jacob Zuma, politics has descended into a looting operation that extends from multinational businesses down to local mafias, even as the impoverished majority finds its taps running dry and its sewage systems spilling over. Anger is quelled with promises to expropriate farmland and wealth from white citizens. Crime is rampant and the police are widely regarded as useless. As I say, Brits are far removed from this. They were heavily involved in Southern Africa during the 19th and early-20th centuries, sending settlers, redcoats, and gold and diamond prospectors, but today they mainly send nervous tourists. The pathologies of South African society seem as exotic as the hot, dry climate and the wild animals on the veld.
But are they really? Lately I’ve been questioning if the gulf separating the two countries is as vast as I assumed. At first it was just small things, sotto voce echoes of South Africa protruding into British life. A man begging from cars stopped at the traffic lights. An epidemic of urban homelessness. Universities renaming buildings to repudiate links with the past. A steady trickle of stories about police no longer bothering to investigate crimes. Now, a prison escape in the capital and parents scared to send their children to crumbling schools. Once I started paying attention, though, the resonances grew ever deeper. The media loves to measure Britain against the GDP of American states, European healthcare and Australian quality of life. This is supposed to be self-deprecating, but maybe it is more flattering than we care to admit. Analogies to South Africa can expose things that comparisons with rich countries leave obscured.
Consider the cloud of scandal and dysfunction which has settled over the UK’s privatised utilities, namely water, energy and railways. These services have increasingly been marked by cronyism, private gain, mismanagement and underinvestment, all familiar symptoms of corruption in South Africa. For years the water companies have been paying out huge dividends to shareholders, while racking up vast debt piles and spilling sewage on a daily basis. Last year, Govia Thameslink Railway was awarded a lucrative new contract, despite one of its subsidiaries, Southeastern, being caught defrauding the public purse of millions. Then again, bad trains may end up being the least of our problems, for the National Grid has warned that the UK may face power cuts in the coming winter, and is urging businesses to reduce their electricity use. There is a growing realisation that Britain does not have the grid capacity needed for the government’s decarbonisation plans.
It is becoming clear, in other words, that Britain’s post-Eighties regime of privatisation has led to a subtle form of the South African disease. The state fails to maintain and improve infrastructure, while allowing the asset-stripping of national wealth by private interests. Who needs criminal syndicates when you have hedge funds and private equity firms? There was something especially South African in ministers’ claims that Thames Water cannot be renationalised, despite its severe debt crisis, because doing so would scare away the foreign investors who prop up the UK’s economy.
Meanwhile, the Tory party does an increasingly passable impression of the ANC. Apparently convinced it will be in power forever, it has become little more than a vehicle for personal advancement and influence peddling, disguising its aimlessness with an occasional bout of populist rhetoric. This was especially evident during the Covid pandemic, when the genteel traditions of British corruption — peerages in exchange for political and financial support — gave way to the handing out of state contracts worth billions to politically connected companies, often lacking relevant experience.
The South African comparison also casts a revealing light on Britain’s social cleavages, though I am not talking about the kinds of ethnic tensions for which South Africa is infamous. It is true that the UK economy’s voracious appetite for immigration, an easy source of cheap labour and consumers, resembles South Africa’s habit of exploiting migrants from elsewhere in Africa. But one only has to look at the frequent anti-immigrant pogroms in South African townships to see that, for all the anxieties over integration, British society remains a relative picture of harmony.
The real issue is class. Brits often express shock that extreme inequality appears so normalised in South Africa, but an outsider to the UK could make a similar charge. In post-industrial Britain, working classes of all ethnicities are consigned to poverty wages in jobs such as cleaning, shelf-stacking and delivery driving, if they have not dropped out of the workforce altogether. London and its surrounding counties have become, like South Africa’s Western Cape, the luxurious facade Britain shows to the world; but other parts of the country are faring much worse, with healthy life expectancy trailing significantly in parts of Northern England, Scotland and Wales. Countless towns have fallen into abject poverty, regarded by polite society with little more concern than South African townships, their inhabitants ruled unfit for anything better by the very fact of remaining there. Social mobility, we are told this week, is at its worst in more than 50 years.
This wasted potential is tragic on its own terms, but it has wider ramifications, too. In South Africa, where 29 million people receive state welfare grants and only 7.4 million pay tax, the state is trapped in a doom-loop, with spending on social programmes hampering investment that could benefit the economy. But to look at projections for the British state’s ever-growing benefits, health care and social care bills, it seems we may be heading for a similar scenario. These parallels will doubtless seem absurd to many Brits, and doubly so to South Africans. Earlier this year, when I mentioned to some friends over there that the UK has its own problems with government incompetence, they literally laughed in my face.
After the Cold War, the rubric of “developed” and “developing” countries implied that the Western model was the endpoint of economic progress across the world. Three decades later, the distinctive features of that model — nation-states with strong civic cultures, meaningful democratic conflict, economic growth and a commitment to broad-based prosperity — have themselves been eroded by globalisation. Hence developing countries provide an increasingly plausible model for the future of developed ones, rather than vice-versa. In this sense, at least, Britain remains at the vanguard of global capitalism. And making this explicit ought to help in countering complacency. For all their gallows humour, the British are used to counting themselves among the world’s most advanced and admired nations, and so struggle to grasp the possibility that, in 50 years’ time, this may no longer be the case. Which brings me to the most disturbing echo of South Africa I’ve noticed in recent years.
This is something more amorphous: a matter of mood and mentality. South Africans have come to regard their chaotic and inept state with a weary resignation that borders on ridicule. It is a burden to be negotiated when necessary, and fended off where possible. For some time now, Britain’s attitude to its own governing class has been moving in the same direction. New Labour alienated large parts of the traditional Left, and now Tory incompetence has led to similar cynicism among conservatives. With each perceived betrayal, more people enter the reservoir of citizens who have given up believing that Westminster can do anything remotely useful.
These feelings have real consequences for a country’s prospects. Why do so many people stubbornly resist house-building and planning reform? Why do they see it as common sense to reject society’s claims on their resources? Part of the reason is surely that, once we lose faith in the nation’s political authorities, appeals to compromise for the greater good ring hollow. Or to put it in terms a South African would understand: the British are gatvol. | Africa politics |
Foreign ministers from the five-country BRICS group called for a "rebalancing" of the world order in Thursday talks in South Africa.
"Our gathering must send out a strong message that the world is multipolar, that it is rebalancing and that old ways cannot address new situations," Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in opening remarks. "We are a symbol of change and must act accordingly."
Jaishankar said that the
What BRICS foreign ministers discussed
The BRICS group comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Talks among top envoys from the group this week centered on the potential use of alternative currencies to the US dollar for international trade and strengthening the group's New Development Bank.
Members of the bloc also discussed reforming global decision-making, with South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor criticizing the lack of permanent African representation on the United Nations Security Council.
Could BRICS expand to include new members?
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that "more than a dozen" countries had expressed interesting in joining the BRICS group.
Possible expansion could include the oil-producing nations of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates.
Lavrov said that the issue of the enlargement was discussed with Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan, who was also in Cape Town.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhouxu said that Beijing expects the group to take on new members.
"We expect more countries to join our big family," Ma said.
Will Putin participate in the BRICS summit in August?
The talks come ahead of an August summit to be held in Johannesberg and to which Russian President Vladimir Putin is invited.
South Africa is a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued an arrest warrant against Putin. South Africa would thus be required to arrest the Russian president under the terms of the treaty that established the ICC.
South African Foreign Minister Pandor reiterated on Thursday that the Russian leader was invited to attend the summit. She said that the government was looking at its "legal options."
Putin has not confirmed his participation in the summit, with the Kremlin only saying that Russia would take part "at the proper level."
sdi/rt (AFP, Reuters) | Global Organizations |
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.So 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. More on Westminster Accounts Westminster Accounts: Transparency in politics often feels like it falls short - we want to shine a light on that Westminster Accounts: How the Owen Paterson scandal blew open the debate over MPs' second jobs Inside the Westminster Accounts - how the database was created 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.More 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 |
A view of a damaged building and a car at the site of a Russian military strike, as Russia's attack on Ukraine continues, in Vinnytsia, Ukraine July 14, 2022. REUTERS/Valentyn OgirenkoRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryAt least 23 killed in Russian attack: Ukrainian officialsRussia denies targeting civiliansYellen slams Russian officials at G20 meetingNations pledge to cooperate on war crimes investigationsVINNYTSIA, Ukraine, July 15 (Reuters) - Senior Western officials directly accused their Russian counterparts of war crimes on Friday after Russian missiles struck a Ukrainian city far behind the frontlines in an attack Kyiv officials said killed at least 23 people.Ukraine said Thursday's strike on Vinnytsia, a city of 370,000 people about 200 km (125 miles) southwest of the capital Kyiv, had been carried out with Kalibr cruise missiles launched from a Russian submarine in the Black Sea.President Volodymyr Zelenskiy called Russia a "terrorist" state, urged more sanctions against the Kremlin and said the death toll in Vinnytsia could rise.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com"Unfortunately, this is not the final number. Debris clearance continues. Dozens of people are reported missing. There are seriously injured (people) among those hospitalised,” he said in a video address.Zelenskiy told an international conference aimed at prosecuting war crimes in Ukraine that the attack had been mounted on "an ordinary, peaceful city"."No other state in the world poses such a terrorist threat as Russia,” Zelenskiy said.Russia reiterated that it does not target civilians in what it calls its "special military operation" in Ukraine, and said its attack struck a military training facility. Reuters could not independently verify battlefield accounts.Vinnytsia hosts the command headquarters of the Ukrainian Air Force, according to an official Ukrainian military website, a target which Russia used cruise missiles to try to hit in March, the Ukrainian air force said at the time. read more Ukraine's state emergency service said three children, including a 4-year-old girl named Lisa, were killed in Thursday's attack. Another 71 people were hospitalised and 29 others were missing.It posted a photograph on its Telegram channel of a toy kitten, a toy dog and flowers lying in the grass. "The little girl Lisa, killed by the Russians today, has become a ray of sunshine," it said.The attack overshadowed the start of a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Indonesia on Friday, where the top U.S. and Canadian representatives accused Russian officials in attendance of culpability in atrocities.U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen condemned Russia's "brutal and unjust war" and said Russian finance officials shared responsibility. read more "By starting this war, Russia is solely responsible for negative spillovers to the global economy, particularly higher commodity prices," she said.Russian officials participating in the meeting were "adding to the horrific consequences of this war through their continued support of the Putin regime", she added."You share responsibility for the innocent lives lost and the ongoing human and economic toll that the war is causing around the world," she said, addressing the Russian officials.Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told Russian officials at the meeting that she held them personally responsible for "war crimes", a Western official told Reuters.As Russia pressed its offensive in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, the United States and more than 40 other countries agreed on Thursday to coordinate investigations into suspected war crimes. read more GHOST TOWNThe war in Ukraine has sent prices soaring for grains, cooking oils, fuel and fertiliser, stoking a global food crisis. Negotiators hope a deal will be signed next week. read more The United States took steps on Thursday to facilitate Russian food and fertiliser exports by reassuring banks, shipping and insurance companies that such transactions would not breach Washington's sanctions on Moscow. read more Enabling those Russian exports is a key part of attempts by the United Nations and Turkey to broker a package deal with Moscow that would unlock a blockade on the Black Sea port of Odesa to allow for shipments of Ukrainian grain. read more The Kremlin has said that Russia is ready to halt what the West calls Moscow's unprovoked war of aggression if Kyiv agrees to its conditions, including formally recognising Russia's control of Crimea, annexed by Moscow in 2014, and the independence of two self-proclaimed Russian-backed statelets in eastern Ukraine.Ukraine has repeatedly said it is unwilling to concede any territory and will take back any land lost by force.The eastern Ukrainian town of Popasna that fell to Russian forces two months ago is now a ghost town with little sign of life. read more A Reuters reporter who visited the town on Thursday found it almost deserted, with nearly all apartment buildings destroyed or heavily damaged.Former resident Vladimir Odarchenko stood inside his damaged home and surveyed the debris strewn across the floor."I have no idea what I'm going to do. Where to live? I don't know," he said.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Reuters bureaux; Writing by Cynthia Osterman and Stephen Coates; Editing by Aurora Ellis & Simon Cameron-MooreOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
There has not been a more consequential meeting of the world's richest democracies.They must overcome huge challenges as they meet in Germany for this year's G7 summit.
War, famine, runaway inflation, recession and an energy crisis are on the list of threats they must tackle.If they fail, they know the world will lose faith in their group of liberal democracies and their ability to stand up for the values they claim to believe in.For US President Joe Biden, the priority is to seize the upper hand in the war on Ukraine. From the start he pitched his presidency as a chance to reinvigorate the free world under his leadership. But since then, it has been threatened by President Vladimir Putin's audacious invasion of Ukraine and Russia's renewed alliance with China. The world is dividing between the free West and the autocracies of the East. The G7 The Group of Seven industrialised democracies are the UK, US, Canada, Japan, France, Germany and Italy, with the European Union also represented at the talks. As well as the permanent G7 members, the leaders of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa have been invited as guests. The summit is being held in Schloss Elmau, a luxury hotel in the German Alps from Sunday to Tuesday. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will address the leaders remotely, and the G7 leaders will consider the response to the war and its impact on the global economy and food supplies. But Germany, which holds the rotating G7 presidency, hopes the group's talks will not be limited to the crisis in eastern Europe. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the war must not lead the G7 to "neglect our responsibility for global challenges such as the climate crisis and the pandemic". He warned that if the G7 democracies do not support poorer countries "powers like Russia and China will take advantage". Russia's seizure of Severodonetsk makes for an ominous backdrop to the summit. Mr Putin now has control of much of the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The Russian advance will sharpen criticism of Mr Biden for not doing enough to lead the West's fightback against Mr Putin from the front. More on The G7 Boris Johnson: Prime minister confident he will win next general election - and eyeing up third term G7: Protesters at summit concerned fallout from Ukraine war is pushing climate down agenda The G7 faced an awesome challenge - but disappointed on climate change and vaccines for poorer nations The US has promised billions of dollars worth of aid, much of it military support, but critics say efforts to move American-supplied heavy weapons to the front have not been quick enough to stem the Russian advance.If Russia's offensive is not reversed, the war could grind on for years to come, with a crippling impact on the global economy and western prestige. It will embolden strongmen elsewhere, not least Chinese leader Xi Jinping in his belligerence towards Taiwan.West plagued by weak, unpopular leadershipMr Biden must steel his allies for the likelihood the war will go on indefinitely, well aware their unity is buckling. And he will remind them what is at stake, while some seem willing to negotiate with Mr Putin despite his naked aggression, murderous onslaught and the ominous disappearance of thousands of Ukrainians in land he has captured.The West is divided over Ukraine and plagued by weak, unpopular leadership. Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is clinging to power after two by-election defeats, his party riven with discord. French president Emmanuel Macron has failed to secure a majority in the French parliament. Mr Biden's approval rating has plummeted to 36%, only three points off Donald Trump's all time low of 33%.Read more:Protesters at G7 summit concerned fallout from Ukraine war is pushing climate down agendaThe disappearing ships: Russia's great grain plunderSeverodonetsk now under Russian control following weeks-long battleRussian blockade of Ukraine's ports could turn food crisis into a catastropheThe summit's German host, Olaf Scholz, is too new in the job for his popularity to be seriously tested. He says the priority in Bavaria is to project unity. Mr Putin seeks to drive a wedge in to the western alliance. France and Germany are thought to favour pressuring Ukraine to cede land in return for 'peace'. Britain and America fear that would only leave Mr Putin with a beachhead to launch further attacks and add up to appeasement. But Mr Putin's near complete conquest of the Donbas may give the idea more traction on the eve of this summit.Leaders cannot ignore warnings of hunger and starvationThe war is taking a huge toll on the world's economies. It has forced up prices of fuel and food, worsening post pandemic inflationary pressure. European nations know they need to wean themselves off Russian energy but know that doing so risks increasing inflation further. 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, SpreakerThe G7 must also address a massive food supply crisis caused by the war that is combining with climate change to threaten mass hunger and famine. The Russian blockade of Ukrainian grain, the worst drought in 40 years in the Horn of Africa and bad harvests in China and India could combine to cause hunger for millions and mass starvation in Africa. UNICEF says unless something is done, there will be the "mass death of children under the age of five". That is a warning that world leaders cannot ignore.Lukewarm climate commitments could be watered down furtherAt the end of a long list - but probably the most important long-term issue - is climate change.The G7 disappointed the world with lukewarm commitments when it met in Cornwall last year but even those diluted pledges may be watered down further. Germany is leading efforts to postpone plans to end funding of fossil fuel projects overseas while the current crises go on. In reality the world cannot afford any more delays in international efforts to tackle the threat of climate change if there is to be any chance of catastrophic temperature rises being avoided.This is a hugely important summit. The world is threatened by multiple challenges. Its leading liberal democracies will need to find strength and unity to overcome them. If they fail, their enemies will be strengthened and the bloodshed and turmoil of the last few months is likely to spread and worsen. | Global Organizations |
By Ross Gittins
When will we tire of all the bulldust that’s talked in the name of hastening productivity improvement? We never do anything about it, but we do listen politely while self-appointed worthies – business people and econocrats, in the main – read us yet another sermon on the subject.
Trouble is, when the sermons come from big business – accompanied by 200-page reports with snappy titles – they boil down business lobby groups doing what lobby groups do: asking the government for special favours – aka “rent-seeking”.
You want higher productivity? It’s obvious: cut the company tax on big business, and give us a free hand to change our workers’ pay and conditions as we see fit.
When the sermons come from econocrats, they’re more like professional propagandising: calls for “reform” – often of the tax system – that are usually theory-driven and lacking empirical evidence that they really would have much effect on productivity.
What we get in place of genuine empiricism is modelling results. Models are a mysterious combination of mathematised theory, sprinkled with ill-researched estimates of elasticity and such like.
We’ve become so inured to all this sermonising that we’ve ceased to notice something strange: although in a market economy it’s the behaviour of business that determines how much productivity improvement we do or don’t get, any lack of improvement is always attributed to the government’s negligence.
This is where the business rent-seekers and the econocrat propagandists are agreed. The econocrats willingness to point at the government comes from the biases in their neoclassical theory, which assumes, first, that businesses always respond rationally to the incentives they face and, second, that government intervention in markets is more likely to make things worse than better.
Big business is happy to use this ideology to hide its rent-seeking. (If you wonder why neoclassical economics has been dominant for a century or two despite surprisingly little evolution, it’s partly because it suits business interests so well.)
The other strange thing we’ve failed to notice is that the modern obsession with the tax system and regulation of the labour market has crowded out all the economists’ conventional wisdom about what drives productivity improvement over the medium term.
But before we get to that wisdom, a health warning: there’s a famous saying in economics that the sermonisers have stopped making sure you know. It’s that, for economists, productivity is “a measure of our ignorance”.
Just as economists can calculate the “non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment”, and kid themselves it’s next to infallible, when you ask them why it’s gone up, or down, all they can do is guess at the reasons, so it is with calculations of productivity. Economists can’t say with any certainty why it’s up or why it’s down. They don’t know.
It’s the behaviour of business that determines how much productivity improvement we do or don’t get.Ross Gittins
Even so, in the present opportunistic sermonising, all that the profession thought it knew has been cast aside.
Such as? That productivity improvement is cyclical and hard to measure. Recent quarterly results from the national accounts will probably change as better data come to hand, and the accounts are revised.
It’s true that the measured productivity of labour actually has fallen over the three years to June this year, but it’s likely this is, to a great extent, a product of the wild swings of the pandemic and its lockdowns. As Reserve Bank economists have argued, these effects should “wash out”.
It’s well understood that the main thing that improves the productivity of labour is employers giving their workers more and better machines to work with. But Australia’s level of business investment as a share of gross domestic product is low relative to other rich countries.
Growth in non-mining business investment has declined from the mid-2000s and stagnated over the past decade. It’s grown strongly recently, but it’s not clear how much of this is just tradies taking advantage of lockdown tax concessions to buy a new HiLux ute.
Point is, why do the sermonisers rarely acknowledge that weak business investment spending does a lot to help explain our weak productivity improvement?
Another factor that should be obvious is our recent strong growth in employment, the highest in about 50 years, with many people who employers wouldn’t normally want to employ, getting jobs. This will lower the workforce’s average productivity – but it’s a good development, not a bad one.
Again, why do the sermons never mention this?
Yet another part of the conventional wisdom it’s no longer fashionable to mention is the belief that productivity improvement comes from strong spending – by public and private sectors – on research and development. Have we been doing well on this over the past decade or so? I doubt it.
And, of course, productivity improvement comes from giving a high priority to investment in “human capital” – education and training.
So, why no sermons about the way we’ve gone for a decade or more stuffing up TAFE and vocational education, or the way school funding has given “parental choice” for better-off families priority over the funding of good teaching in public schools?
Too many of those sermons also fail to mention the small fact that all the other developed economies are experiencing similar weakness – suggesting that much of our poor performance is explained by global factors, not the failure of our government.
Related to this, the preachers usually compare our present performance with a much higher 30- or 40-year average, implying our weak performance is something new, unusual and worrying.
Or, we’re told that, whereas productivity improved at an annual rate of 2.1 per cent, over the five years to 2004, it worsened to 0.9 per cent over the six years to 2010, and improved only marginally to 1.2 per cent over the nine years to 2019, before the pandemic.
This is all highly misleading. The fact is that periods of weak improvement are more common than periods of strong improvement, which are rare.
Our period of unusually strong improvement from the late 1990s to the early noughties is paralleled by America’s strong period from 1995 to 2004, which the Yanks usually attribute to rapid productivity improvement in the manufacturing of computers, electronics and semiconductors.
We usually attribute our rare period of strong improvement to the belated effects of the Hawke-Keating government’s program of microeconomic reform. Maybe, but computerisation and the information revolution are a more plausible guess.
Either way, contrary to the sermonisers’ implicit claim that the present period of weak improvement is unusual, it may be closer to the truth that weakness is the norm, interspersed by occasional bursts of huge improvement, caused by the eventual diffusion of some new “general-purpose technology” – the next one likely to be generative AI.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning. | Australia Politics |
A No 10 source said Boris Johnson spoke to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservative 1922 Committee, to inform him of his decision to resignVideo 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 today. The disgraced leader 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. 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 blog10:49Alahna 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.09:33Alahna KindredMr Johnson 'needs to apologise to the Queen'George Freeman, who announced he had no confidence in the Prime Minister, said Boris Johnson must apologise to the Queen and advise her to call for a caretaker prime minister.He tweeted: "Boris Johnson needs to hand in the seals of office, apologise to Her Majesty and advise her to call for a caretaker prime minister."To take over today so that ministers can get back to work and we can choose a new Conservative leader to try and repair the damage and rebuild trust."09:22KEY EVENTNo10 has confirmed Mr Johnson will be making a statement todayBoris Johnson will make a statement to the country as the embattled Prime Minister prepares to finally resign.Tory MPs have abandoned their scandal-hit leader with more 50 Conservatives quitting since Tuesday night.Staff in No 10 have been told that Mr Johnson is quitting and his letter has been prepared, two sources told the Mirror.He is expected to make a statement around lunchtime.A No 10 spokesperson said: “The Prime Minister will make a statement to the country today.”Read more here09:17KEY EVENTBoris Johnson is preparing to resignBoris Johnson is preparing to resign as Prime Minister after being abandoned by his MPs.The Prime Minister has spoken to Tory 1922 Committee chairman Sir Graham Brady and agreed to stand down, with a new Tory leader set to be in place by the party conference in October, a No 10 source said.Staff in No 10 have been told that Mr Johnson is quitting and his letter has been prepared, two sources told the Mirror.He is expected to make a statement later today.Boris Johnson is preparing to quit this afternoon, it is said (Image:Getty Images)09:00Alahna KindredEducation Secretary quits after less than two days Education Secretary Michelle Donelan has resigned.Barely two days after being promoted to Education Secretary, Michelle Donelan has resigned.The MP for Chippenham replaced former Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi after he got promoted to Chancellor following Rishi Sunak's resignation.This morning, she shared a letter where she explained she "pleaded" for Boris Johnson to do the right thing and resign.She wrote: "You have put us in an impossible situation. I am deeply saddened that it has to come to this, but as someone who values integrity above all else, I have no choice."08:52Alahna KindredSuella Braverman said she isn't going to quitAttorney General Suella Braverman said she isn't planning on quitting, after sensationally throwing her name in the ring to replace Boris Johnson.She said: "For example, myself, I am in a role which is of constitutional and legal significance."I am still in situ, I am still discharging those duties and those functions in my capacity as a Government minister."She also revealed that she has not personally spoken to Mr Johnson to tell him to resign."I haven't actually spoken to him directly. I have informed the whips of my view. But it seems to me that yesterday there were a lot of people telling the Prime Minister directly this very message."08:48KEY EVENTNew Chancellor calls for Mr Johnson to throw in the towelNadhim Zahawi has sent a letter to the Prime Minister calling for him to leave, less than 48 hours after he was appointed Chancellor.He took over after Rishi Sunak resigned on Tuesday evening.He told Boris Johnson: ''You must do the right thing and go now.''Read more hereNadhim Zahawi has called for Boris Johnson to resign (Image:AFP via Getty Images)08:33Alahna KindredRishi Sunak dodges questions this morningThe former Chancellor was seen walking past reporters as he left his house this morning.He avoided answering questions following his bombshell resignation and the political events of the past two days.Mr Sunak became the second minister on Tuesday to resign from his post after Sajid Javid quit as Health Secretary.He said he had not taken the decision to step down lightly as Britain grapples with the cost of living crisis and the war in Ukraine.But he added: "The public rightly expects the government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously."I recognise this may be my last ministerial job, but I believe these standards are worth fighting for and that is why I am resigning."Rishi Sunak was seen avoiding questions outside his house this morning (Image:Sky News)08:26Dan BloomThe tally of resignations as it standsBetween 6pm on Tuesday and 8.15am on Thursday 51 MPs resigned from the government - 25 ministers, 21 parliamentary private secretaries, four trade envoys and one Tory vice chair.There now won't even be enough warm bodies to form a new government, yet the PM is trying to keep one together anyway.What's more, once the 1922 Committee's new executive is elected on Monday they are likely to have a new confidence vote - and simple maths tells us Boris Johnson will lose. Only 32 MPs needed to switch sides to oust him.Read more here08:12Alahna KindredAnother two ministers jump shipThe Technology Minister Chris Philp and Junior Minister James Cartlidge have both resigned this morning.Philp was once ultra-loyal to Mr Johnson, and said in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, told him that the events of the past few weeks meant he could not serve in Government anymore.He told Boris Johnson that it had been a "privilege to serve the people of the United Kingdom".Referencing the Online Safety Bill, currently moving through parliament, Mr Philp said: "If the Government requires any practical assistance in getting the Bill through Commons Report Stage given the current scarcity of ministers, I would be happy to provide it."He told the Prime Minister that "integrity, honesty and trust in politics" were important."Given events over the past few weeks and months I, therefore, think that you should resign as Prime Minister and it follows that I cannot serve in your Government any longer."Mr Cartlidge quit as courts' minister, telling Boris Johnson: "The positionis clearly untenable."A total of six ministers have resigned this morning. Chris Philp became the fifth minister to resign this morning (Image:Katie Pugh)08:00Kieren WilliamsPensions Minister becomes latest MP to quitPensions Minister Guy Opperman has become the latest Tory MP to quit.As this morning's flurry of resignations continue, the MP for Hexham added his name to the growing list trying to force Boris Johnson from government.Announcing his resignation, he said: "It has been a honour, and a great responsibility, to serve as a minister, but we need leadership change, and I have resigned. "I will continue to work for my constituents in Hexham from the backbenches. My letter to the PM."Guy Opperman previously spoke out against the government after he revealed that Downing Street staff partied as he was unable to be with his wife as their baby twins died.07:56Kieren WilliamsTory MP turns down ministerial role David Davies publicly revealed he turned down a ministerial role, offered to him by Johnson.After the Secretary of State for Wales resigned Davies said that he turned the role down once it had been offered to him, in another blow to Johnson's struggling government.He said: "It has been a privilege to work for Simon who did a great job as Sec of State for Wales. We should not be in the position of losing decent and hard working Ministers. I made clear last night that I will not take the role."07:53Kieren WilliamsFormer PM Brexit ally says Johnson must go by any means necessaryLord David Frost, a former ally of the Prime Minister, has spoken out to say Boris Johnson must quit.Lord Frost was a key Brexit supporter of Johnson's and helped him push it through.But now he has come out against the embattled PM after this morning has already seen four resignations.He said: "The Prime Minister cannot continue because the business of government cannot continue & because it is clear that he is not supported by his party in parliament. I hoped he might have reflected overnight and come to realise that."If the PM insists on fighting this out then he will cause serious damage to the Party and Government, and destroy his place in history."He went on to add that Johnson should be removed if he refused to go himself, calling on the 1922 comittee to hold an earlier vote, and on ministers to quit. | United Kingdom Politics |
Boris Johnson's legislation to scrap parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol has cleared its first Commons hurdle.The bill passed by 295 votes to 221 despite attracting fierce criticism from a number of MPs on the Tory benches as well as the opposition.
Critics, who include former prime minister Theresa May, say the plan is illegal and threatens to spark a trade war with Europe.The bill must now go through in-depth scrutiny by MPs and a further Commons vote and then pass to the Lords, before becoming law.Politics Hub: Cabinet ministers urged to oust PM Earlier, Mrs May delivered a stinging rebuke to Boris Johnson's plan to override parts of the protocol.
The former prime minister told fellow MPs she could not support the controversial legislation - which she said would be illegal, fail to achieve its aims, and diminish Britain's standing in the world. More on Boris Johnson Boris Johnson says plans to override parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol could become law 'fairly rapidly' as MPs to vote on controversial bill Boris Johnson says he is not worried by reports Tory MPs could be plotting to oust him and insists questions over his leadership have been 'settled' G7 summit: Zelenskyy to urge leaders to do more to help war effort as Johnson to demand action on Ukrainian grain In an excoriating takedown of the plans, she even drew on her own experience as an embattled prime minister to suggest that European leaders may now be doubtful about her successor Mr Johnson's future in Downing Street.The protocol, which governs Northern Ireland's post-Brexit trading arrangements, was designed to prevent the return of a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.But it means some goods being exported from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland are subject to customs checks, creating problems for some businesses and upsetting unionists - resulting in political deadlock as the DUP refuses to re-enter power-sharing.The UK government says it wants to renegotiate the deal, but accuses Brussels of intransigence and claims that it has no choice but to introduce legislation.It contains measures to remove checks on goods and animal and plant products exported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.Read more: What is the Northern Ireland Protocol, and why does it matter? Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player What is the Northern Ireland Protocol? 'Is it worth negotiating with these people?'Foreign Secretary Liz Truss told MPs preparing to vote on the legislation on Monday that the political situation cannot be allowed to drift and that the plan was "both legal and necessary".But Mrs May said that was wrong, because other legal options such as continuing to negotiate and to invoke Article 16 - unilaterally suspending parts of the protocol temporarily - remain available.She added that key aims of the legislation - bringing the DUP back into government and encouraging Brussels to negotiate - were also doubtful.She said when she, as prime minister, had faced a bruising confidence vote just like Mr Johnson, EU negotiators started to ask themselves: "Well, is it really worth negotiating with these people in government because will they actually be there in any period of time?"She added: "Also, actually, I suspect they are saying to themselves why should they negotiate in detail with a government that shows itself willing to sign an agreement, claim it is a victory, and then try to tear part of it up in less than three years' time."Read more: What is power-sharing, and why is it used in Northern Ireland? Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Who is opposing the NI Protocol bill? Truss and May clash over 'patriot' statusMs Truss said she was supporting the measures as she was a "patriot", but Mrs May said: "As a patriot, I would not want to do anything that would diminish this country in the eyes of the world."I have to say to the government, this bill is not, in my view, legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims, and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world, and I cannot support it." 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 SpreakerPM defends government's planMeanwhile, the prime minister has said the legislation could be enacted "very fast" if backed in parliament.Brussels has launched legal action against the UK in retaliation to the proposed legislation, which would effectively ditch key parts of the deal signed by Mr Johnson and the EU in 2019.European Commission vice president Maros Sefcovic has indicated further measures could follow if the UK pressed ahead with the bill. | United Kingdom Politics |
President Biden will visit Saudi Arabia in July on a trip that will include a meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a senior administration official told reporters Monday night. The announcement that the president would meet Mohammed had been expected for weeks and has drawn scrutiny from human rights advocates and tacit approval from Democratic allies in Congress. The meeting is part of a wider trip to the Middle East, between July 13 and 16, where the president will also travel to Israel and the West Bank before flying to Jeddah for the meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The senior official said that Biden’s meeting with the crown prince will take place as part of engagement with “over a dozen leaders,” to include Saudi King Salman, the official leader of the Kingdom. The president’s face-to-face with Mohammed marks a stark reversal from Biden’s promise on the campaign trail to make the Kingdom a “pariah” and vowed to make them “pay the price” over the gruesome killing of the dissident Saudi writer and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. Biden approved the release of a U.S. intelligence report concluding that Mohammed had approved a plot to “capture or kill” Khashoggi – who was lured to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul where he was killed and dismembered. The president imposed bans on dozens of Saudi officials for the writer’s death. The senior official on Monday night said that while the administration sought accountability for Khashoggi’s death, it did not seek to “rupture” relations with the Kingdom completely. The official called the crown prince “critical” to extending a ceasefire agreement until at least August in Yemen’s catastrophic seven-year civil war. “While we recalibrate relations, we’re not seeking to rupture relations, because Saudi Arabia has been a strategic partner of the United States for eight decades,” the official said, and added that the administration’s strategy is to raise human rights issues “behind closed doors.” “Human rights is always a part of the conversation… A lot of these conversations, we do hold them behind closed doors, and we think engagement – and that is the best way to get results,” the official said. The administration is also intent on working with Saudi Arabia to push back on Iran, which has accelerated activity necessary to build a nuclear weapon while supporting proxy fighting forces that have hit Gulf countries and U.S. military bases in the region with missiles. Biden’s meeting with Gulf leaders in Jeddah and his trip to Israel, comes in the wake of a resolution passed by member states of the IAEA last week, the international nuclear watchdog, criticizing Iran for its nuclear activities. “While there’s a great deal of work to do, this historic visit to the Middle East comes against that larger backdrop, both globally and in the Middle East region itself,” the official said referring to the IAEA vote itself. Biden’s trip to Israel will be his first visit to the country as president where the official said the president will reaffirm America’s “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s security. The president will also seek to build on rapprochement between Jerusalem and its Arab and Gulf neighbors through the Abraham Accords, the Trump-era agreement that established ties between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Biden will also travel to the West Bank to visit with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders, the official said, and reaffirm the U.S. commitment to a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians, They will also “discuss the ways in which we might rekindle a new political horizon that can ensure equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity, and dignity to Israelis and Palestinians alike,” the official said. | Middle East Politics |
Japanese Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki attends the G20 Finance Ministers Meeting in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia July 16, 2022. Sonny Tumbelaka/Pool via REUTERSRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comTOKYO, Aug 10 (Reuters) - Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has confirmed the line-up of his new cabinet, with Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki remaining in his post, a government spokesman said on Wednesday.Chief cabinet secretary Hirokazu Matsuno said Yoshimasa Hayashi would also keep his post as foreign minister, while the defence minister post would go to Yasukazu Hamada.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Sakura Murakami; Editing by Clarence FernandezOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
EU leaders in Kyiv support Ukraine's candidacy to join the bloc The four EU leaders from France, Germany, Italy and Romania have pledged their support to Ukraine's attempt at joining the bloc.That's according to Emmanuel Macron, France's leader, who visited the Ukrainian capital today.He also promised he would increase arms deliveries to the country.Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said after meeting the men that he discussed weapon deliveries during their meeting, as well as the imposition of more sanctions on Russia. Anyone from Hampshire missing a wheelie bin? Because if you are - one has been discovered in Ukraine...Yes, you read that correctly - a wheelie bin from Test Valley has turned up 1,200 miles away in the war-torn country.Philip Crowther, who works for the Associated Press news agency posted a video of the bin on Twitter and wrote: "Hey @TestValleyBC, how did one of your wheelie bins make it all the way to Ukraine, and when is pick-up?"The council, which covers the towns of Andover and Romsey, replied: "Hi Philip, umm, hmm. I've checked the notebook, but we don't seem to have a stock answer for this query..."Can I ask where in Ukraine this is? I'd just to make sure this collection address is added to our fortnightly rounds and not reported as missed."Waste and recycling portfolio holder at Test Valley Borough Council, Councillor Nick Adams-King, said: "It's good to see our bins are well travelled and to hear that it's still of use for the border guard station between Ukraine and Poland."Residents have been able to buy our bins for a number of years now, and therefore in theory they can end up anywhere, even eastern Europe."While we're not sure exactly how this one made its way there, it's always interesting to see where they end up - even if collection does prove to be a bit of a challenge."I'm afraid I can't promise we will be able to deliver a new blue bin and food caddy to accompany it when we roll the new recycling system out." Ukraine receiving enough weapons to win the war, defence secretary says By Deborah Haynes, security and defence editorRussia outnumbers Ukraine in artillery fire by 20 to 1 in some areas, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said.But he said allies are starting to give Ukraine the long-range artillery and rocket systems that will enable Ukrainian forces to win. He predicted they would soon be able to make "significant progress in the east of the country".He said training Ukrainian troops on how to use these more complex heavy weapons was also key as part of this effort. In addition, he said it was not just about numbers it was about the capability that a single western weapon system used properly could bring."In some areas they are out-numbered certainly in artillery tubes – 20:1 in some pockets," Mr Wallace said, speaking after a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Brussels. "That is the force Russia is putting on them."He added: "It is not just about a shopping list. You have the ingredients - the cookbook to make it into a meal and we can help with that."Asked by Sky News if he thought the allies were giving Ukraine enough weapons to be able to win the war, Mr Wallace said: "Yes I do. I think the Ukrainians have and will have in the next few weeks the capabilities in their hands to make significant progress in the east of the country or indeed to defend the likes of places like Odessa."The UK has purchased and refurbished more than 20 long range guns – M109s – from a Belgian arms company which it is sending to Ukraine, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said. The heavy weapons fire 155mm rounds.He also revealed that "tens if not hundreds" of anti-ship missiles are starting to flow into the country to help Ukraine defend against warships."I think you're going to see the direction of travel will be much more hostile for Russian forces. It is going to be harder for them to do that what want to do. The next big question is: Can the Ukrainians then push them back or push them out of the country and only time will tell." While we have got you... If you enjoy reading our Politics Hub, liveblogs and Q&As, do think about downloading our free app available for both iOS and Android.Click on this link: https://skynews.com/download-appAs well as keeping across the latest breaking news, you can easily watch Sky News on the go and listen to our podcasts. Russia's goal is 'complete destruction of Ukrainian statehood', Ukraine says The deputy defence minister of Ukraine has said she believes Russia's main focus is on establishing full control over the Luhansk and Donetsk regions of eastern Ukraine."Russia's main strategic, military-political and military-economic goals as regards our state remain the complete destruction of Ukrainian statehood and the (Ukrainian) nation, as well as the destruction of the military and economic foundations of our state," Hannah Malyar told a briefing.She added Russia's military goals also included the
destruction of weapons and equipment sent to Ukraine from abroad, and damaging transport infrastructure used to
transport military and civilian goods. Listen to the Ukraine War Diaries In Kyiv, Oksana finds a bittersweet escape from the war.In Poland, Ilyas' wife, Natalia speaks for the first time about her experiences as a refugee in Poland and efforts to try and make a functional life for her and her children, alone.Meanwhile Ilyas, writes something of a love letter to his wife Natalia and the two sons he still cannot see.Ukraine War Diaries uses first-person audio, recorded on the ground in Ukraine, to give an intimate day-to-day perspective of life in a war zone.From the producers of Sky News' multi-award winning series – StoryCast. Zelenskyy accepts invite to G7 meeting, Germany's Scholz says Following his visit to Kyiv, Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, says Volodymyr Zelenskyy has accepted an invite to attend the next G7 meeting in Germany this year.Mr Scholz was in the city with France's Emmanuel Macron and Italy's Mario Draghi. More images from Irpin this afternoon after French, Italian and German leaders visited Three dead in airstrike in Luhansk, governor says The governor of Lysychansk, close to the besieged Azot chemical plant, has said three people have died and seven have been injured in an airstrike.They claim Russian troops hit a residential building.Sky News cannot verify the information. European leaders sit down with Zelenskyy Emmanuel Macron, Mario Draghi and Olaf Scholz continue their visit to Kyiv by sitting down with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options | Europe Politics |
How To Build A Giant Power Station Without Spending A Cent
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In South Africa, building enough electricity generation to power 2 million homes is the sort of thing that can undermine the entire state.
Since work began in 2007, the Medupi and Kusile coal power stations — at 4.8 gigawatts each, some of the largest generators ever conceived— have become emblems for the chronic problems plaguing sub-Saharan Africa’s most developed economy. Nearly a decade late and billions over budget, the 300 billion rand ($15.8 billion) plants are mired in a welter of alleged corruption and mismanagement, will never turn an economic profit, and still haven’t been finished. Their parlous state, and the impact on crumbling state-owned utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd., is one of the many reasons why credit ratings companies downgraded the country’s debt to junk status six years ago. (1)
Imagine, then, if you could build the same capacity of new electricity generation without spending a cent of public money in the space of little more than a year(2). That’s what’s happened since looser regulations and hundreds of days of rolling power cuts driven by Eskom’s collapse opened the floodgates to a new wave of household solar.
South Africa was for many years a laggard on renewable generation. It still gets about 84% of its electricity from coal, by some margin the highest level among major economies. A thicket of red tape has until recently protected Eskom, requiring that all solar panels be made locally (a near-impossible task given the state of the manufacturing sector) and allowing the utility a veto on all but the smallest grid-connected renewable plants(3).
Coal has deep political roots, too: President Cyril Ramaphosa began his political career running a union for Black mineworkers in the struggle against apartheid. Mining unions remain central to the ruling African National Congress’s coalition, and about a fifth of pit workers dig for coal.
That makes the revolution of the past two years all the more remarkable. About $2.5 billion of solar equipment has been brought in during the first half of this year, equivalent to the combined total in the previous two years, according to Gaylor Montmasson-Clair, an economist at think tank Trade & Industrial Policy Strategies.
As a result, the estimated capacity of solar panels on rooftops has risen from 983 megawatts in March 2022 to a Medupi- or Kusile-sized 4.74 gigawatts last month, according to Eskom. BloombergNEF estimates that home systems will account for the majority of a further 3.2 gigawatts of panels that will be connected this year.
It’s not just individuals getting involved, either. Units of Daimler Truck Holding AG and Toyota Motor Corp. this year announced major solar installations to help power their operations. Another started last October at a Heineken NV brewery, while Sibanye Stillwater Ltd. and Anglo American Plc are partnering with renewable developers to provide electricity for their mines.
European logistics and engineering companies have lodged bids for a 50 billion rand project to export green hydrogen from the arid northwest, while a unit of Shell Plc and Norwegian renewables developer Scatec ASA are targeting customers seeking to escape the tyranny of Eskom’s rickety grid.
If only politicians in South Africa and beyond could grasp the potential of this transformation. The country’s electricity minister is planning to strike a major deal with China during the BRICS summit in Johannesburg this week to ensure a better supply of solar equipment, Bloomberg News reported recently. That sounds promising until you consider that he’s not looking to buy panels, but equipment for manufacturing them locally.
That’s a quixotic and counterproductive ambition. South Africa’s manufacturing activity is still running at pre-pandemic levels — thanks, not least, to those power shortages that make it costly and unpredictable to churn out the simplest products, let alone cutting-edge semiconductors. Meanwhile, the vast supply chain that’s been built in China drove the price of modules to a record low of 17.1 cents per watt in July, according to BloombergNEF’s Jenny Chase. That’s pushed her estimate for worldwide installations in 2023 up by 43 gigawatts in the space of a month, to 389 gigawatts. South Africa would be far better off further reducing impediments to solar imports and installations, instead of embarking on a doomed quest to become a panel manufacturing hub.
Political leaders in rich countries are little better. The US Department of Commerce last week announced that it would impose punitive tariffs on solar panels made by Chinese companies operating in Southeast Asia from 2024, overturning an exemption introduced by President Joe Biden last year.
That’s an unreasonable constraint on products essential for the energy transition. China’s solar industry is cheaper not because it’s cheating but because its scale, sophistication and complexity is vastly ahead of the competition everywhere else in the world. (The solar industry has gone to great efforts to ensure it’s not using materials made with forced labor in Xinjiang, after the US Congress passed a separate law on that topic.) By effectively banishing Chinese solar equipment from the US market, Washington will only succeed in raising costs for local consumers and protecting an uncompetitive coterie of local manufacturers.
South Africa’s example shows the potential and the risk of the shift to zero emissions. Where governments and local monopolies get out of the way and let individuals and businesses find the cheapest sources of energy, the world can decarbonize at a dazzling pace. Where they use their influence to coddle incumbents, however, they can still smother the transition in its crib. Those watching the wreck of South Africa’s once-envied power sector shouldn’t look to emulate it.
More From Bloomberg Opinion:
-
2024 Won't Be the End of South Africa's ANC Party: Melanie Verwoerd
-
A Novel Way to End an Energy Crisis: Let the Market Work: David Fickling
- South Africa Has Non-Aligned Itself Out of Relevance: Charles Onyango-Obbo
(1) South Africa's peak electricity demand is about 30 gigawatts, so a 4.8 gigawatt generator would be sufficient to supply about one sixth of peak loads. South Africa has about 18 million households, so that would be sufficient for 2 million households.
(2) There will eventually be a small fiscal cost. Tax incentive programs for renewables introduced in this year's budget and applying for 12 months from March will cost about 9 billion rand, according to the government.
(3) Across both peak and non-peak periods, rooftop solar generates at only about 15% of the output implied by its gigawatt capacity, compared to a 45% rate for South African coal generators.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | Africa politics |
De-dollarisation: ‘If BRICS uses own currency for trade, it will end dollar's hegemony,’ warns ex-White House economist
Joseph Sullivan said that the BRICS would be 'poised to achieve a level of self-sufficiency in international trade that has eluded the world’s other currency unions'
The US seems to be worried about dollar losing its dominance as the global reserve currency.
Amid the clamouring call for de-dollarization, former White House economist Joseph Sullivan has warned that if BRICS nations use the group’s own currency for international trade, it will put the dollar’s hegemony at risk.
Discussing de-dollarization and the potential impacts of a BRICS currency on the dollar, Sullivan in an opinion piece published by Foreign Policy said: “If the BRICS used only the bric for international trade, they would remove an impediment that now thwarts their efforts to escape dollar hegemony.”
Related Articles
BRICS currency could dislodge dollar
Sullivan, the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Trump administration, said: “… a BRICS-issued currency’s prospects for success are new…. such a currency really could dislodge the US dollar as the reserve currency of BRICS members.”
“Unlike competitors proposed in the past, like a digital yuan, this hypothetical currency (that BRICS nations are planning to introduce) actually has the potential to usurp, or at least shake, the dollar’s place on the throne,” he added.
Self-sufficiency for BRICS in international trade
Sullivan went on to say that the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — would also be “poised to achieve a level of self-sufficiency in international trade that has eluded the world’s other currency unions.”
He went on to explain that a BRICS currency union would likely help the members to be able to produce a wider range of goods than any existing monetary union. Also, it would not be restricted to only those countries united by shared territorial borders.
BRICS currency
The BRICS nations have been mulling creating a new currency to facilitate overseas trade. The idea was mooted by Russia as it faces economic sanctions from the West over its invasion of Ukraine.
It is expected that the new financial agreement could be seen as early as in August when the member nations meet in South Africa for their annual summit.
Meanwhile, some of the BRICS countries have already ditched dollar and are now trading in their local currencies.
Brazil and China signed an agreement last month to abandon the dollar as an intermediary and settle bi-lateral trade in their own currencies.
Russia and China have been carrying out their bi-lateral trade in yuan, while Moscow has been settling trade for most of the goods with India in INR.
also read
Oleksandra Romantsova advised that the Russian president attend the BRICS summit via Zoom, or send a minister who is not wanted by the ICC
The foreign ministers of BRICS nations will reportedly attend the discussions on a range of issues including the expansion of the bloc in June.
Dollar’s share of global reserves has declined by 11 per cent since 2016 on this adjusted basis, a report by Eurizon SLJ Asset Management said | Global Organizations |
Tory HQ sacks cleaners to boost elections war chest
The Conservative Party has sacked security staff and cleaners to try to bolster its election war chest after months of leadership chaos.
The Times has been told that members of security and cleaning teams, some of whom had worked at the Matthew Parker Street headquarters in London for many years, had been let go to save money before local elections next month and the general election, expected in 2024.
Tory sources feared donors might be “spooked” by the move, which is unlikely to save vast sums due to the relatively low salaries the staff were on. One said: “It will be interesting to know what the donors think. If they think, ‘If it’s that bad, why should I waste my money?’ Or will it prompt them to say, ‘I better shore them up with £1 million?’ ” They said: “It’s sad because, obviously, we all want to win the next election, but it’s not a great look.”
In data from the final quarter of 2022, the most recent available, the Tories brought in £4.7 million in donations, slightly below Labour’s £5 million. But insiders said funds for the first quarter of this year had improved.
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, have been wooing potential donors and business leaders, and secured £2 million from Lord Sainsbury, a big New Labour-era donor who has returned to the fold.
Advertisement
The Conservative source said: “I’ve not seen Labour’s new offices but as I understand it they’re massive and exciting and the switch from that to whatever it is we’re doing now, it’s a dreadful signal, and I’ve heard businesses love Rachel Reeves. I mean, ultimately, if it came to it, Rishi could just put his hand in his pocket.”
The source claimed that some donors who had given money when Nadhim Zahawi was party chairman wanted the funds back after he was sacked over his tax affairs. Zahawi was reported to have told staff in November that the party would have to focus on raising cash “because of its financial situation”.
“Obviously he was a good campaigner and knew a lot of donors. Greg Hands [the chairman] is nice but not the kind of guy to schmooze donors and bring in the money.”
Hands, who became party chairman in February, has been using the letter left by Laim Byrne, Labour’s chief secretary, to his Tory successor in 2010 saying “I’m afraid there is no money” as a campaigning tool. In recent days he has used a copy as chip paper, and had it blown up to a comically large size to use as a photo prop.
But the source said: “The irony is, he might end up writing a similar note to whoever takes over from him.”
Another Conservative source said that about £30 million would be needed for an election war chest.
The Times understands that numerous leadership elections — and therefore hustings — and changes in party chairmen had pushed up costs at headquarters. Donations also dropped because of the upheaval in the party. However, these have begun to return since Sunak became prime minister.
Advertisement
A third source claimed the position had “improved quite a bit” since October but admitted that the outlay for local elections this year and a general election next year, rumoured to be pencilled in for October, would put pressure on finances.
In December Sunak appointed Mohamed Mansour, an Egyptian billionaire, as senior party treasurer, giving him a key fundraising role. The Sunday Times reported that he had personally given as much as £4 million to the party.
The party has raised membership fees, for the first time in 16 years, and increased the charge for journalists to attend their party conference, in an effort to bring in more money. In December, Conservative headquarters announced fees would rise from £25 a year to £39.
Members were also charged £5 a ticket to attend hustings in last summer’s leadership race in order to “fund our campaigns”.
Organisations representing the news media have opposed the rise in accreditation fees for the party conference, which until last year was free. Last year it was £125, this year it will be £137. | United Kingdom 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.comWASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen heads to Asia next week to meet with officials from Japan, South Korea and other G20 economies as she seeks to build support for a price cap on Russian oil, the Treasury Department said on Friday.The trip, Yellen's first visit to the Indo-Pacific region as treasury secretary, comes amid nagging questions about how well a price cap on Russian oil could work absent the support of India and others now buying cheap Russian oil.Yellen will hold bilateral meetings in Tokyo on July 12-13 before gathering with Group of 20 finance officials in Bali, Indonesia, from July 15-16, followed by a day of talks in Seoul on July 19, Treasury said in a statement.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comThe trip is part of a broader push to "reassert America's leadership role in the region and globally," expand support for sanctions on Russia over its war in Ukraine, and strengthen efforts to respond to an increasingly assertive China, Treasury said.The United States and other Group of Seven rich nations - Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy and Japan, along with the European Union - last week agreed to explore imposing a ban on transporting Russian oil sold above a certain price in an effort to reduce Moscow's revenues and deplete its war chest. read more As the European Union prepares to impose a phased embargo on Russian oil and ban maritime insurance for any tanker that carries Russian oil, Yellen sees the cap as a way to keep oil flowing and avert a price spike that could prompt a recession.Washington was proposing a "price exception" that would rescind the maritime insurance ban in cases where the price cap was observed, a senior Treasury official said.Details were still being worked out on how to structure and implement such a cap, with each country needing to decide on its own approach, the official said.Some European officials say they are skeptical about how well a cap would work, especially absent India, China and others that are buying large amounts of discounted Russia oil.Washington was in talks with "a growing number" of countries about the cap, the second official said, citing "good progress" across the board."The more we talk to different countries about it, the more they understand the concept that we're putting forward and understand the rationale," the second Treasury official said. Failing to cap the price of Russian oil, the official said, would allow Moscow to continue to collect cash for its "war machine."Outreach to India would continue in coming weeks, the official added.A separate source told Reuters last week that G7 governments were still determining which services for oil transport could be withdrawn for cargoes above the price cap and were considering direct bans of shipping services, insurance, trade finance, brokering of cargoes and other services.Yellen planned to thank Japan for supporting the G7 initiative, Treasury said. The Kremlin last criticized Japan for adopting a "very unfriendly position" toward Russia by backing a study of the ban. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Andrea Shalal;
Editing by Mary Milliken and Leslie AdlerOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
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.
Cara Anna, Associated Press
Cara Anna, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Scores of women and girls in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region were sexually assaulted, often by multiple men alleged to be combatants, after a peace agreement last year ended the conflict there, according to a new study of medical records released on Thursday.
The youngest girl raped was 8 years old.
The Tigray conflict killed hundreds of thousands of people and left untold thousands of women and girls with the trauma of sexual assault.
At least 128 sexual assaults occurred after the peace agreement was signed last November, according to the study, which looked at records from the start of the conflict in November 2020 through June.
With most health facilities destroyed or looted as Ethiopian forces battled Tigray fighters, many women and girls were left without treatment for months. Some now have HIV or are raising the children of their rapists. Others live with incontinence or chronic pain, along with the cultural stigma around such attacks.
The study by Physicians for Human Rights and the Organization for Justice and Accountability in the Horn of Africa, along with a commentary in The Lancet medical journal, looked at more than 300 randomly selected medical records from Tigray health centers focused on helping survivors of sexual violence.
WATCH: War crimes committed by all parties in Ethiopia’s Tigray conflict, Blinken says
It is just a “small glimpse” of the toll, the authors say, and they fear the chance for justice will be lost if independent accountability efforts by the United Nations and others are shut down.
“All the community is a victim of sexual violence,” a Tigray-based researcher into conflict-related sexual violence told The Associated Press. A collaborator on the study, he has spoken with hundreds of women and girls and said not one feels healed.
“Rape survivors, they are suffering the most,” he said. Like many Tigrayans, he spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from Ethiopian authorities.
At least 128 sexual assaults occurred after the peace agreement was signed last November, according to the study, which looked at records from the start of the conflict in November 2020 through this June.
Overall, 76% of the 304 women and girls whose cases were reviewed were sexually assaulted by multiple people, often three or more. One was assaulted by 19 men.
In 94% of all cases, no condom was used. Many perpetrators also wielded guns, sticks or knives. Some women and girls were abducted for repeated assaults.
“They took her to their camp and raped her for six months,” one medical record cited by the study says.
Almost all the women and girls said their attackers appeared to be members of a military group, often from neighboring Eritrea, whose soldiers fought alongside Ethiopian forces against Tigray fighters and allegedly remain in parts of western and northern Tigray.
READ MORE: Kidnappings, looting reported in Ethiopia’s Tigray region in weeks after truce
The findings suggest that “these acts were neither isolated nor random but a systematic use of rape as a weapon of war,” the study’s authors write in The Lancet commentary.
Spokesmen for Ethiopia’s and Eritrea’s governments did not respond to requests for comment.
“It is absolutely horrifying and devastating to even read the narratives of the patients,” Ranit Mishori, a senior medical adviser with Physicians for Human Rights, said in an interview. “The brutality didn’t skip the children. Many were also raped by multiple perpetrators.”
Mishori and her colleague, senior program officer Lindsey Green, expressed concern that independent efforts to understand the conflict’s toll and bring accountability to the perpetrators are being weakened or shut down under pressure from authorities.
“Most disturbing to me is the lack of focus on these crimes,” Green said.
Ethiopia’s government is keen to re-engage with key partners such as the United States, the European Union and global financial institutions after the conflict. On Thursday, Ethiopia was announced as an incoming member of the BRICS economic bloc.
But Ethiopia has sharply criticized outside efforts to promote justice and accountability. An African Union human rights inquiry was quietly terminated earlier this year.
Now Ethiopia wants a United Nations inquiry ended, too, human rights experts say.
After a conflict marked by the blockade of the Tigray region of more than 5 million people, with internet and phone links severed and human rights researchers and journalists barred, the lack of independent inquiry means that the civilian toll could remain largely in the shadows as Ethiopia’s government moves on.
“The world has accountability mechanisms, but almost everything is in the hands of diplomats and politicians, which is a recipe for failure,” said Martin Witteveen, an international criminal law expert who worked with the government-created Ethiopian Human Rights Commission until early 2022. He says Ethiopia alone can hardly ensure accountability when its forces and allies committed most of the crimes.
Even now, the study says, survivors of sexual violence in Tigray are still coming forward, but others will never be known.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
World
Jul 27 | Human Rights |
Boris Johnson has issued an open invitation for disaffected Russian scientists to defect to the UK, as he used the G7 summit to argue that allowing Russia to prevail in Ukraine would usher in a highly damaging era of global instability.As part of an expansion to a twinning system with Ukrainian universities, allowing Ukrainian academics to continue their research at UK institutions, Johnson said this offer extended to their Russian counterparts.“To the Russian scientists and researchers who are looking upon Putin’s violence in dismay, and who no longer feel safe in Russia: you should feel free to apply to come to the UK and work in a country that values openness, freedom and the pursuit of knowledge,” Johnson said.The so-called researchers at risk scheme, which now has an expanded budget of almost £10m, will see about 130 Ukrainian academics brought to the UK and supported.The prime minister has focused significantly on Ukraine at the G7 gathering in southern Germany, and while UK officials say the summit has seen unprecedented unity among world leaders over long-term support, there has been little in the way of concrete action.Downing Street said it hoped this would happen at the subsequent Nato summit in Madrid, to which Johnson will travel on Tuesday.Johnson’s spokesperson said that while it remained to be seen what the end-of-summit G7 communique contained, Johnson’s main goal for the event had been to help ensure “complete unity”.He added: “Obviously, this G7 shouldn’t be seen in isolation, because we then move straight into Nato, where I think you might see more of the detailed elements of how that support and commitment might play out.”In efforts heightened by Russian rocket attacks on civilian targets during the summit, Johnson has argued that while support for Ukrainian resistance will bring more price rises and other economic pain, the consequences of a Russian victory would be far worse, including for Britons.Likening the need to oppose Russia to the situation in the second world war, Johnson said that while opposing fascism also brought enormous costs, it then led to decades of prosperity and stability.Speaking to BBC News, Johnson said there was a need for “strategic endurance”.He said: “Just in terms of staying the course, imagine if we didn’t. Imagine if we allowed Putin to get away with the violent acquisition of huge chunks of another country, a sovereign independent territory – the lessons for that would be absolutely chilling in all of the countries of the former Soviet Union.“In terms of the economic effects, that would mean long-term instability, and anxiety across the world.”Overall, the prime minister argued, “the price of freedom is worth paying”. He said: “Just remember, it took the democracies in the middle of the last century a long time to recognise that they had to resist tyranny and aggression. It was very expensive.“But what it bought in the end, with the defeat of the dictators, particularly of Nazi Germany, it bought decades and decades of stability, a world order that relied on a rules-based international system. And that is worth protecting, that is worth defending, and that delivers long-term prosperity.”The impact of a Russian victory would, Johnson added, “also be felt in east Asia”, an apparent reference to Chinese ambitions in Taiwan.Asked about this, Johnson’s spokesperson said he was not going to identify individual countries, “but I think the prime minister is aware of the sort of lessons of history about not being seen to take robust action when authoritarian leaders are watching carefully”. | United Kingdom Politics |
Good morning!Anthony Albanese will meet with the New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, today with the two leaders tipped to discuss how their nations can work together on climate change, including electric vehicle purchasing arrangements and more funding for the Pacific.Australia’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, is due to meet her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Bali today on the sidelines of the G20, which will be the first direct conversation between foreign ministers since 2019.The government has announced a new code of conduct that will require ministers to divest any shares they own, only allowing them to keep those in superannuation and putting an end to blind trust arrangements.The New South Wales flood threat continues to ease but there are still areas on the mid-north coast on alert this morning, as the clean up continues in western Sydney.I’m Natasha May and I’ll be updating you on all the latest this Friday morning. If you see something that you reckon ought to be on the blog, you can catch me by email at [email protected] or on Twitter at @natasha__may.Brownie points and eternal gratitude if you can provide any animal content as delightful as yesterday’s story about a seal pup far from home.Key events:18m agoGood morning!Show key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureRichard Marles says Boris Johnson’s resignation doesn’t change AukusThe deputy prime minister and defence minister, Richard Marles, is on ABC Radio and says Boris Johnson stepping down doesn’t change the Aukus agreement or Australia’s relationship with Britain or Australian/UK free trade agreement.He is asked about Penny Wong’s meeting with her counterpart in Beijing.Marles says China is Australia’s “source of greatest security anxiety” but as its largest trading partner “it’s a relationship we value.”ABC is asking Marles about whether Australia will need to see sanctions dropped and Australian Cheng Lei released in order to see the reset is genuine, Marles says he “wouldn’t frame the meeting in those terms.”Marles is emphasising “the power of diplomacy,” but says Australia will emphaise the importance of global rules based order and human rights.I can’t promise the power of diplomacy will deliver anything specific... what is important is making sure we are true to our national interests.Good morning!Anthony Albanese will meet with the New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, today with the two leaders tipped to discuss how their nations can work together on climate change, including electric vehicle purchasing arrangements and more funding for the Pacific.Australia’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, is due to meet her Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, in Bali today on the sidelines of the G20, which will be the first direct conversation between foreign ministers since 2019.The government has announced a new code of conduct that will require ministers to divest any shares they own, only allowing them to keep those in superannuation and putting an end to blind trust arrangements.The New South Wales flood threat continues to ease but there are still areas on the mid-north coast on alert this morning, as the clean up continues in western Sydney.I’m Natasha May and I’ll be updating you on all the latest this Friday morning. If you see something that you reckon ought to be on the blog, you can catch me by email at [email protected] or on Twitter at @natasha__may.Brownie points and eternal gratitude if you can provide any animal content as delightful as yesterday’s story about a seal pup far from home. | Australia Politics |
01.08.2023
The BRICS countries want to create their own currency to end the hegemony of the U.S. dollar. China holds a dominant position in the alliance.
In August, after several more or less concrete announcements since 2012, the time has finally come: At its upcoming summit in South Africa, the expanding group of BRICS countries wants to concretize plans to create its own currency in order to openly challenge the global hegemony of the U.S. dollar.
Founded in 2009, the alliance of the (then) emerging economies Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, which takes its name from their initials, also plans to discuss admitting more countries to the loose alliance. There are now 19 applications for membership, including from regional powers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, Argentina, Thailand and Venezuela.
It seems within reach that this alliance will achieve its strategic goal of breaking the hegemony of the West and the U.S. and establishing a so-called multipolar world order. A first step in the direction of de-dollarization is to be taken by the agreements of individual BRICS countries to use their domestic currencies in trade with each other.
At first glance, a replacement of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency seems quite realistic, given that the over-indebted U.S. has been in geopolitical and economic decline for years, while the BRICS alliance is on the rise. On the surface, the numbers speak for themselves: The share of the G7 countries (the U.S., Germany, Japan, France, Great Britain, Italy and Canada) in global gross national product has fallen from 50 percent in the early 1980s to 30 percent today, while the BRICS countries have increased their economic output from around 10 percent to 31.5 percent of global economic output over the same period. Thus, even before the upcoming enlargement, the ambitious alliance already has a larger production base than the Western states.
However, this rise is largely due to China; thus, the disparities and imbalances in the potential new currency bloc would be enormous. Between 2008 and 2021, China’s per capita gross domestic product increased by 138 percent. In India, the figure was 85 percent, while Russia saw only a modest increase of 14 percent. Brazil effectively stagnated with a meager increase of four percent, and in South Africa, GDP fell by five percent.
China now accounts for 70 percent of the gross national income of the BRICS countries, while Russia’s per capita income is five times that of India. These huge disparities make even the notorious imbalances in the eurozone, as exposed during the euro crisis, pale in comparison. Moreover, the BRICS grouping has so far had a very loose structure, hardly comparable to the results of the long process of institution-building and standardization that preceded the introduction of the euro in the EU. The alliance has no executive or legislative branch; it has not even established a central secretariat.
The alliance is also marked by a strong ambivalence. It was founded with the intention of ending the hegemony of the West and the imperial practices of the hegemonic power, the U.S. Attacking the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency is a central project within this strategy. But at the same time, the BRICS countries are not striving for a fundamental change in world trade, they are ultimately only seeking to inherit the West and the U.S. within the framework of the world capitalist system – and to fall into the same imperialist practices that the U.S. is accused of. This is evident not only in Russia’s imperialist war in Ukraine, but also in the conflicts within the alliance: China and India, for example, are often on the brink of war in the Himalayas over border disputes.
But the common economic interests are at least as strong as the centrifugal forces outlined above. It is not just a matter of intensifying trade relations and geopolitical cooperation in order to reduce dependence on the Western centers. The BRICS states are not only striving to create their own currency, but also their own development bank based in China. This is because the semi-peripheral states have to operate in a late capitalist world system whose structures and institutions are Western-dominated, from the leading role of the dollar to Western supremacy in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
What this Western supremacy leads to is illustrated by the central banks’ fight against inflation in the centers, which is leading to outright economic collapses in many poorer countries. As a result of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes, a quarter of all emerging and developing countries “have effectively lost access to international bond markets,” the Financial Times warned in mid-June. The World Bank’s growth forecast for this group of countries with particularly poor access to credit was cut from 3.2 to 0.9 percent.
This credit crunch, triggered by the fight against inflation in Western countries, is an important factor in the huge rush to join the BRICS group. Many crisis-ridden countries, such as Argentina and Venezuela, which are currently seeking membership, are simply hoping to tap alternative sources of financing – especially from China. In the future, not only will trade between these countries be conducted in the future BRICS currency, but it will also become the foundation of a new financial system geared to the interests of the semi-periphery.
This all sounds great in theory. But in practice, the emerging economies will find themselves similarly financially dependent on China, which, by creating a BRICS currency and an alternative financial system, will also seek to create alternative investment opportunities to reduce its vulnerability to U.S. sanctions. The potential BRICS currency would thus only be conceivable as a monetary vehicle for a hypothetical national hegemony, like the U.S. dollar.
Still, 60 percent of the world’s foreign exchange reserves are in dollars, down only slightly from an all-time high of 70 percent at the beginning of the 21st century. Some 74 percent of international trade, 90 percent of currency transactions, and nearly 100 percent of oil trade is conducted in U.S. dollars. To take the lead, China would ultimately have to bear the hegemonic costs inevitably incurred in a crisis-ridden late capitalism choking on its productivity: Chinese trade surpluses would have to be reduced and turned into deficits, while the Chinese financial market would have to be opened up.
Since the 1980s, the dollar’s hegemony has been based in economic terms precisely on global deficit cycles, in which enormous U.S. trade deficits generate credit-financed demand, while the U.S. financial market absorbs the resulting profits in the form of securities. China still holds huge amounts of U.S. securities and was for a time the United States’ largest creditor.
China would have to become a “black hole” of the world economy, like the U.S., whose gravitational pull sucks up, by means of trade imbalance and budget deficits, the surplus production of a late capitalist world economy choking on its hyperproductivity – at the cost of deindustrialization and destabilizing speculative bubbles. And this is hardly conceivable, given that the Chinese financial sector has already been and is being shattered by severe financial and debt crises. A new world reserve currency does nothing to change the causes of the economic and ecological crisis process, in which capital is coming up against its internal and external limits.
This is also illustrated by the current trade relations between Russia and India, where the U.S. dollar has been eliminated as a payment currency. After the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, Russia became by far the largest supplier of oil to India, which is running a large trade deficit. In the first eleven months after the outbreak of the war, Russian exports to India amounted to $41.5 billion, while Indian exports to Russia reached only $2.8 billion.
In fact, this is a classic beggar thy neighbor policy, as practiced by the long-time “world export champion” Germany: By running a trade surplus, they also export debt, deindustrialization and unemployment. The difference is that Russian banks and oil companies currently have to park their trillions of rupees in Indian bank accounts because there is no way to transfer or reinvest the money.
Originally posted in jungle world on 06/22/2023 | Global Organizations |
FILE PHOTO: A man shelters under an umbrella as he walks past the London Stock Exchange in London, Britain, August 24, 2015. REUTERS/Suzanne PlunkettRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryCompaniesFTSE 100 down 1.2%, FTSE 250 off 1.4%UK May y/y inflation hits 9.1%, highest since March 1982UK extends trading plan to sell taxpayer stake in NatWest; stock shinesJune 22 (Reuters) - UK shares fell more than 1% on Wednesday after inflation in the country touched a 40-year-high in May, adding further pressure on the Bank of England to raise interest rates, while falling crude and metals prices sent commodity-linked stocks tumbling.The exporter-heavy FTSE 100 index (.FTSE) fell 1.2% despite weakness in the sterling , while the domestically-focussed mid-cap FTSE 250 index (.FTMC) declined 1.4%, erasing nearly all of this week's gains.Soaring food prices pushed UK consumer price inflation to a new 40-year high last month at 9.1% — the highest rate out of G7 countries and underlining the severity of the cost-of-living crunch. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com"The pressure is now on the Bank of England to apply much cooler compresses in the form of successive rate rises over the next few months to reduce demand and bring down prices," said Hargreaves Lansdown analyst Susannah Streeter."The pound has slipped back against the dollar and worries are mounting that this could flame inflation further by making imported goods even more expensive."UK's main indexes were on pace to end the month between 7% and 8% lower as investor confidence tumbles on rising worries about an impending recession.The Bank of England last week announced a quarter point rate hike to 1.25% and said it was ready to act "forcefully" to stamp out inflation dangers. read more Miners (.FTNMX551020) and energy stocks (.FTNMX601010) were the biggest drags, falling 3.6% and 3.8% respectively as industrial metals and crude prices plunged.Shares of NatWest Group (NWG.L) jumped 2.7% after the British government said it was extending a trading plan to help sell down the taxpayer's stake in the British lender by another 12 months. read more Harbour Energy (HBR.L) slid 3.5% after the oil and gas producer told the British government that Britain's planned windfall tax on the energy sector will shrink the company's investment in the country. read more Meanwhile, Britain is becoming a more closed economy due to Brexit, with damaging long-term implications for productivity and wages, as per a study. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Boleslaw Lasocki and Anisha Sircar in Bengaluru; editing by Uttaresh.VOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | United Kingdom Politics |
They may be gathering for the most important G7 in years, but Boris Johnson and Justin Trudeau couldn't help but compare the sizes of their official jets.The British and Canadian prime ministers have both flown from Rwanda's Commonwealth meeting to Germany for the gathering of world leaders - the first since Putin launched his brutal invasion of Ukraine.But the pair proved the truth of the old saying 'boys will be boys' as they found time to compare and joke about the relative sizes of their planes.Mr Johnson remarked that he had seen the so-called 'Canada Force One' on the tarmac, before Mr Trudeau poked fun at the Tory leader by insisting the British premier's Airbus was bigger than his. In response, Mr Johnson said his jet was 'very modest'. The Prime Minister also briefly spoke French during his exchanges with his Canadian counterpart.At 146ft long, the UK prime minister's A321neo is indeed smaller than Mr Trudeau's CC-150 Polaris, which is an impressive 153ft in length.The CC-150 Polaris, dubbed 'Canada Force One' after it was designated the Canadian prime minister's official jet, also boasts a wingspan of 144ft and a top speed of 639mph. Incredibly, it can fly nearly 6,000 miles without needing to refuel.By comparison, Mr Johnson's A321neo has a smaller wingspan of 117ft, a top speed of 544mph and a range of nearly 5,000 miles. However, unlike Mr Trudeau's jet, it can pack in more passengers - some 244, compared to Canada Force One's 194.Mr Johnson then met Emmanuel Macron at the G7, as the pair awkwardly embraced and posed for photos amid Anglo-French tensions over the Ukraine war, Channel crossings and Brexit trade disputes. In recent weeks, the British prime minister has urged NATO allies to 'hold firm' against Putin's aggression, in a thinly-veiled swipe at the French President after he urged Kyiv to effectively 'make nice' with Moscow by ceding territory to end the fighting. Boris Johnson holding a bilateral meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G7 in Germany today At 146ft long, the UK prime minister's A321neo is indeed smaller than Mr Trudeau's CC-150 Polaris, which is an impressive 153ft in length. The CC-150 Polaris, dubbed 'Canada Force One' after it was designated the Canadian prime minister's official jet, also boasts a wingspan of 144ft and a top speed of 639mph. Incredibly, it can fly nearly 6,000 miles without needing to refuel. By comparison, Mr Johnson's A321neo has a smaller wingspan of 117ft, a top speed of 544mph and a range of nearly 5,000 miles. However, unlike Mr Trudeau's jet, it can pack in more passengers - some 244, versus 194 Mr Johnson pictured giving a thumbs up as he gets off his official jet at last year's G7 in Cornwall Mr Trudeau pictured getting off 'Canada Force One' at Munich international airport in Germany today The two prime ministers shake hands and laugh as they pose for photos at the G7 in Germany today Mr Trudeau gestures with his hands as he and Mr Johnson hold a bilateral meeting at the G7 today The Canadian prime minister smiles and waves as he arrives at Munich airport in Germany today Mr Trudeau receives a bouquet of flowers from a girl in traditional costume at Munich in Germany today Biden announces G7 will ban Russian gold in response to Ukraine war as West tries to tighten financial noose around Vladimir Putin President Joe Biden announced on Sunday that the United States and its G7 allies will ban imports of Russian gold in another attempt to cut off Vladimir Putin's funding for his war in th Ukraine.Biden is seeking to strangle Putin financially in order to end the invasion. The gold ban comes as Russian continues to rake in billions from oil sales despite bans from the U.S. and other western nations.Gold, after oil, is Russia's biggest revenue generator.'The United States has imposed unprecedented costs on Putin to deny him the revenue he needs to fund his war against Ukraine,' Biden wrote on Twitter.'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.'A formal announcement was expected Tuesday.Mr Johnson was at a Commonwealth meeting in Rwanda as the Conservatives learned they had lost the by-elections in Tiverton and Honiton and Wakefield, and he is not expected to return to the UK until after a NATO summit in Madrid concludes on Thursday, meaning his ability to reassure wavering MPs - or snuff out Westminster plots against him - will be diminished.He will hope appearing on an international stage, focusing on the biggest war in Europe since the defeat of the Nazis, will persuade doubters that it is not the right time to consider a change in leadership in the UK.Amid speculation about the appetite of Western leaders to continue to support Ukraine during a prolonged conflict, Mr Johnson said Putin must not be allowed to 'hack' Russia's neighbour apart with impunity.Ahead of a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, Mr Johnson was asked whether France and Germany are doing enough over Ukraine.The PM praised the Germans 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 protect themselves.'He's made huge, huge strides. We have 4% of our gas from Russia, in Germany it's 40%.'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.'He said the Germans realise 'the price of freedom is worth paying', despite the domestic consequences.Mr Johnson added: '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.'Downing Street said Mr Johnson has stressed to Mr Macron that any attempt to settle the conflict in Ukraine now will 'only cause enduring instability'.A No 10 spokesperson said: 'They agreed this is a critical moment for the course of the conflict, and there is an opportunity to turn the tide in the war. Both the Prime Minister and President Macron stressed the need to support Ukraine to strengthen their hand in both the war and any future negotiations.'President Macron praised the Prime Minister's ongoing military support to Ukraine and the leaders agreed to step up this work. The Prime Minister stressed any attempt to settle the conflict now will only cause enduring instability and give (Vladimir) 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.'World powers today agreed to ban gold exports from Russia, in new concerted action to cut off Moscow's financial lifeline.US President Joe Biden and his counterparts from the world's most industrialised nations are gathering at Elmau Castle in the Bavarian Alps before they continue on to Madrid for talks with NATO partners. Mr Johnson greeting Emmanuel Macron ahead of their bilateral meeting, during the G7 summit in Schloss Elmau Mr Macron forces a smile while Mr Johnson awkwardly embraces the French President Mr Macron and Mr Johnson hold a bilateral meeting during a G7 summit in Germany Mr Johnson and his wife Carrie Johnson meet German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his spouse Britta Ernst Boris Johnson warns 'fatigue' over Ukraine war could fracture Western unity as he attends G7 summit Boris Johnson today warned that 'fatigue' over the Ukraine war could fracture Western unity - as the UK, US, Canada and Japan kicked off the G7 summit by banning imports of Russian gold.The PM said there was obvious 'anxiety' about the fallout from trying to defeat Vladimir Putin's aggression.But speaking at the gathering in Germany this morning, Mr Johnson said he hoped everyone recognised that 'the price of backing down, the price of allowing Putin to succeed... will be far, far higher'.Asked if he was worried about support fracturing, the premier said: '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.'They will seek to close ranks in their backing for Ukraine against Russia's invasion while grappling with the intensifying global fallout of the war.From soaring inflation to a looming food crisis and energy shortages, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, now in its fifth month, has mired the world in a series of crises.The leaders will also be confronted with the looming threat of recession as well as pressures over climate change.In a show of their resolve to heap pressure on Moscow, the G7 announced that it will outlaw imports of Russian gold which the US said is the second largest export for Russia and a significant source of revenue for Vladimir Putin and his allies.According to the White House, Russia accounted for about five percent of all gold exports in 2020 and 90% of Russia's output went to G7 countries - mostly to Britain.Western allies have been scrambling to coordinate their response since Russia sent its troops flooding into Ukraine on February 24.While they have hammered the Russian economy with unprecedented sanctions, Putin's armies have been digging in their heels for a drawn-out war.Ahead of the talks, Mr Johnson urged allies not to waver in their support.'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,' he said, as Britain announced another $525million in guarantees for World Bank lending later this year.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will make the same plea when he joins in via video-link tomorrow.John Kirby, National Security Council spokesman at the White House, said the G7 will be seeking to hold Russia accountable and to increase the costs and consequences of the war on Putin and his economy.At the same time, they will aim to minimise 'as much as possible the effect of these rising oil prices and the way (Putin) has weaponised energy'.The fallout on the economy will be at the centre of the G7's opening session.Just six months back, the global economy had been poised for a huge post-pandemic recovery but it is now staring down the barrel of a recession.'Core problems that are on the top of mind for all of us' include 'rising prices, supply chain disruptions, all exacerbated by this war in Ukraine', said Kirby.Scarred by a reliance on Russian energy that has hampered several European nations including Germany and Italy from going all out to punish Putin's Russia, the G7 was also warily looking at China - which it views as a systemic rival.'The impact that China's coercive economic practices, use of forced labour, intellectual theft - all those are front and centre for the G7, and I think you're going to see China very much at the forefront as the G7 goes on,' said Mr Kirby.As the gulf separating Western allies from Russia and China widens, the G7 will also be looking to rally other major players to its side.To this end, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has invited the leaders of Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa to the Alpine summit.While Argentina and Indonesia voted at a crucial UN vote to condemn Russia, the other three abstained.But all are being directly hit by a looming hunger crisis sparked by the holdup in grain and wheat exports from Ukraine, and India for instance has imposed restrictions on wheat exports. | Global Organizations |
It began with a grumble from a retired teacher passionate about punctuation. He was dismayed to spot that an apostrophe had vanished from the road sign of a tree-lined lane in the Hampshire village of Twyford.
The complaint led to intricate discussions at the local city council, during which the sometimes erratic punctuation of Jane Austen, the area’s most famous writer, was cited.
But after a 12-month battle, the status quo ante was restored and an apostrophe has been added back in to the sign for St Mary’s Terrace, to the delight not only of villagers but to a growing number of enthusiasts battling against the loss of the punctuation mark across the UK.
The controversy in Twyford began last year when a new road sign for St Mary’s Terrace appeared minus the apostrophe. The former teacher Oliver Gray expressed his discontent.
Consternation grew and the Lib Dem councillor Tony Bronk, who represents the village, formally put the question to Winchester city council – under procedure rule 15 (3), to be precise. The council clearly liked exact punctuation in its rules.
“Residents of St Mary’s Terrace in Twyford were surprised and disappointed to find that when their street name plate was replaced last year it was missing an apostrophe,” Bronk wrote.
“When this assumed error was questioned, the answer given was that the council’s policy required that all new street name signs must omit any apostrophe formerly shown on such signage.”
The council leader, Martin Tod, replied that while the administration’s priorities lay elsewhere, it was an issue that could lead to high emotions.
He set out the position thus: “Clear and unambiguous street and place names are vital for postal and other delivery services and also for the emergency services, and punctuation can make that more difficult, particularly with modern computer systems.”
Tod said the national guidance was that new street names should not have punctuation, but he said this did not mean scrapping all punctuation in existing street names and places.
He admitted the local authority had not always used punctuation “very consistently”, but added that neither had Austen, whose resting place is in the city’s cathedral. He also pointed out that there was no apostrophe in the name of Kings Worthy, another village near the city. But the Hampshire town of Bishop’s Waltham did have one.
Still, he agreed that the St Mary’s Terrace sign was “confusing” and “not in line with residents’ wishes” – and the apostrophe should be restored.
The Apostrophe Protection Society (mission: “to preserve the correct use of this important, though much misused, item of punctuation”; membership: 2,000 and growing) welcomed the decision.
Its chair, Bob McCalden, said it was not a trivial issue. “Apostrophes in road or town names generally have real significance. They are there for a reason. They were put in because there was some association with local history. I’m very much of the view we should be celebrating our social history.
“Getting rid of apostrophes from street names is a form of cultural vandalism. It’s like spelling it wrong. You wouldn’t dream of spelling a street name wrongly but taking an apostrophe out is tantamount to just that.”
He said there were examples of councils bowing to pressure to restore apostrophes. Cambridge city council did this after campaigners replaced vanished apostrophes with marker pens.
He said the idea that abolishing apostrophes helped the emergency services was “nonsense”. “Having worked in IT for many years it is absolutely standard to write algorithms that ignore punctuation and even spelling variations. I find it very difficult to believe the emergency services require precise spelling.”
In Twyford, the old sign was finally recovered and restored. Gray, the resident who had first raised concerns, was given the honour of touching up the apostrophe on the sign. “As an ex-teacher, I’m very, very interested in grammar and apostrophes in particular,” he said. Gray admitted that some people were now complaining that there shouldn’t be a full stop after the “St” in “St. Mary’s”. “I’m not getting involved in that - it’s too controversial.”
The punctuation police
The Apostrophe Protection Society (APS) has a page on its website dedicated to misplaced, omitted or extraneous apostrophes.
Fast food restaurants tend to be frequent offenders. Such as with the sign: “We are now recruiting for various roles within our Burger King’s.” The APS comments: “The plural of Burger King is Burger Kings! No apostrophe please!”
A sign outside a cafe reads: “Pizza’s, Kebab’s, Burger’s, Jacket’s, Chicken, Sausage’s, Dessert’s, Drink’s.” APS says: “I’d get indigestion from these!”
Another sign says: “Danger keep clear of propeller’s.” The APS responds: “Keep clear of loose apostrophes.”
Some misuses are confusing. A car repair place has the sign: “Were Open.” “Are they open or not?” ponders APS.
Even Hollywood films can get it wrong, says the APS. A poster for the film Booksmart reads: “Getting straight A’s. Giving zero F’s.” But the APS says: “Plurals of single capital letters don’t need an apostrophe.”
Some businesses have deliberately lost their apostrophes. It caused a stir when Waterstones did so. It explained: “Waterstones without an apostrophe is, in a digital world of URLs and email addresses, a more versatile and practical spelling.”
Cambridge and Winchester are not the only councils to have become involved in apostrophe controversies. There was an outcry when Mid Devon district council discussed formally banning the punctuation marks from its signs. At the time the council leader grumpily said there was no story there – and hadn’t the campaigners got better things to do? Clearly, for some, the answer is no, and the fight goes on. | United Kingdom Politics |
People prepare for arrivals of G7 leaders at Franz-Josef-Strauss airport in Munich to attend the G7 summit, which will take place in the Bavarian alpine resort of Elmau Castle, Germany, June 25, 2022. REUTERS/Michaela RehleRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comWASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden and his G7 counterparts will agree on an import ban on new gold from Russia as they broaden sanctions against Moscow for its war against Ukraine, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Saturday.The United States has rallied the world in imposing swift and significant economic costs on Russia to deny President Vladimir Putin the revenue he needs to fund his war in Ukraine.According to the source, the U.S. Treasury Department will issue a determination to prohibit the import of new gold into the U.S. on Tuesday, in a move aimed at further isolating Russia from the global economy by preventing its participation in the gold market.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comThe U.S. Treasury Department declined to comment.Western sanctions on Russia have not directly targeted commercial gold shipments but many banks, shippers and refiners stopped dealing with Russian metal after the conflict in Ukraine began.Gold is a crucial asset for the Russian central bank, which has faced restrictions on accessing some of its assets held abroad because of Western sanctions.Shares of Russian gold miners traded abroad have collapsed this year amid difficulties including selling gold and repaying loans to sanctioned banks.Russia produces around 10% of the gold mined globally each year. Its gold holdings have tripled since it annexed Crimea in 2014.Banning the import of Russian gold would be the latest of several rafts of sanctions targeting Moscow since its Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, which has killed or wounded thousands.Since starting what it calls a special operation to demilitarize Ukraine, Russia has bombed cities to rubble and civilian bodies have been found in towns where its forces withdrew. It denies targeting civilians and says, without evidence, that signs of atrocities were staged.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting Steve Holland and Trevor Hunnicutt; Writing by Daphne Psaledakis and Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Alistair BellOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
No 10 revives prospect of UK leaving European convention on human rights, saying 'all options on table'Downing Street has refused to rule out the UK withdrawing from the European convention on human rights to allow it to implement the Rwanda deportation policy more easily. At the post-PMQs briefing, asked if the UK could withdraw from the ECHR, the PM’s spokesperson said:We are keeping all options on the table including any further legal reforms that may be necessary. We will look at all of the legislation and processes in this round.This is more or less word for word what Boris Johnson said about this in a TV interview yesterday. But the significance of No 10 saying this now, when it has had almost 24 hours to prepare a line on this, is that it shows that Downing Street is serious about floating this as an option. If Johnson thought he went too far yesterday, and wanted to downplay the prospects of the UK leaving the ECHR, the spokesperson could easily have given a briefing stressing this was most unlikely.(And, realistically, ECHR withdrawal is unlikely. The Good Friday agreement, which Johnson professes to support, is based on the UK remaining committed to the convention, and the UK eventually agreed to include ECHR commitments in its Brexit deal with the EU.)The No 10 line also suggests that Guy Opperman and Thérèse Coffey, the two ministers who played down the prospect of the UK leaving the convention in interviews this morning (see 9.39am) were freelancing rather than delivering a No 10 message.Natalie Elphicke, the Tory MP for Dover, says many of her constituents have been in touch with her to say they are concerned that the Rwanda flight was not able to go ahead.Patel praises the people of Dover, saying they are on the front line in this issue.Stuart C McDonald, the SNP spokesperson, says the government should not have tried to deport asylum seekers before the courts had decided if the policy was lawful.She challenges Patel to say whether she agrees with what Boris Johnson once said about the European convention on human rights being a good thing.Patel says the European court did not say the policy was unlawful.She says the first ruling encouraged solictors to go back to the court to get more injunctions for other asylum seekers.Patel says she is concerned about 'opaque nature' of European court of human rights decision-making in Rwanda caseSir Mike Penning (Con) says parliament is supreme. So how can it be right that the European court of human rights overruled the domestic courts?Patel says the courts have not challenged the legality of the policy.She says the “opaque nature” in which the appeal to the European court was conducted is “concerning”.Patel is responding to Cooper.She says Cooper was wrong to say no other country is doing anything like this. Denmark is looking at this policy, she says.And she says Labour is happy to claim Rwanda is a suitable country of a summit. But it won’t accept that asylum seekers can be send there.And she claims that Cooper was in the last Labour government, she did not complain about the government introducing powers to allow the removal of asylum seekers whose claims fail.She also says Labour cannot logically accuse the policy of being unworkable and extortionately expensive.Cooper says Patel's Rwanda deportation policy has been 'shambles'Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, says the policy has been a “shambles”.She asks Patel to confirm that the Home Office decided to withdraw most of the cases at the last minute. That is why by yesterday only seven people were meant to be on the plane.She says Rwanda does not have the capacity to process large numbers of asylum seekers.She asks Patel to say how much the UK has agreed to pay Rwanda for taking asylum seekers.She says Rwanda has not address concerns with its asylum policies. In the past asylum seekers have been shot for protesting about food shortages. And asylum seekers have been returned to countries like Syria and Afghanistan, she says.She says Patel should be working night and day to get a better plan with France to stop people crossing the Channel in the first place. But Patel can’t, because her relationship with her French counterpart has broken down.The Home Office is failing to take asylum application decisions. That is why it is asking Rwanda to do it for them.Patel spent £500,00 chartering a plane she never expected to plane.That is because Patel is not interested in the policy working. She is only interested in picking fights, she says. Patel is trashing the British values of decency and fairness, she says.Patel says Labour does not have a solution to the problem of people crossing the Channel on small boats.And she says it does not have a solution because it does not believe in the need to control borders.Priti Patel's Commons statement on deportations to RwandaPriti Patel, the home secretary, is making a Commons statement now about the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda.She says the government is disappointed by the European court of human rights’ intervention last night.But she stresses that the court did not rule that the policy was illegal.The domestic courts approved the removals, she says.Britain is a generous and welcoming country, she says. But she says the country’s ability to help asylum seekers has been undermined by people arriving in the country illegally.She says the UK and Rwanda have shown a way forward to dealing with the problem of immigration.And she says she is saddened by how Rwanda has been “misrepresented” in coverage of this scheme.Johnson receives mild rebuke from deputy Speaker for saying Labour on side of people traffickersYasmin Qureshi (Lab) raises a point of order. She says Boris Johnson claimed that Labour was on the side of people traffickers. She says that should be struck from the record.Dame Rosie Winterton, the deputy Speaker, says the view of the Speaker is that that comment was not consistent with the good order expected of people in debate.Theresa May, the former Conservative PM, says she has a constituent who is a niece of Dom Phillips, the Guardian journalist who went missing in the Amazon. Will the government make this a diplomatic priority?Johnson says the government is deeply concerned about what happened to him. FCDO officials are working with the Brazilians on this. And he says the government has offered to provide all the support that may be needed.Sarah Champion (Lab) says sexual assult victims are being advised that if they seek counselling that might undermine their credility as a witness. Will the PM ensure this does not happen?Johnson does not address the problem directly, but he says the government is trying to ensure sexual assualt victims get better treatment. But some of the legal issues are complicated, he says.David Jones (Con) says the genetic technology (precision breeding) bill, being debated today, only applies to England. Will the PM ensure other countries in the UK can benefit?Johnson says “in a loving way” the government wants to ensure other countries can benefit too.Kerry McCarthy (Lab) asks the PM to support more suicide prevention programmes.Johnson says the government wants to focus ever more on mental health. It would be good if Labour supported the government’s health spending, he says.Anna McMorrin (Lab) quotes the new cost of living tsar asking (in a tweet posted before his appointment) why the worst people rise to become PM.Johnson says McMorrin wants to return to the single market and the EU. He is referring to this story.Johnson says he would encourage pensioners to check their eligibility for pension credit.Liz Twist (Lab) says ministers have not held any talks to attempt to avoid the need for next week’s rail strike. Has the PM had a meeting?Johnson says one union leader, asked about this, said: “I don’t negotiate with a Tory government.” He says Labour should condemn the strike.Neale Hanvey (Alba) asks if the PM will schedule a meeting to discuss the case of Jim Fitton, the Briton jailed in Iraq for collecting fragments of pottery.Johnson says he is glad Hanvey raised this, and he says he will arrange a meeting with a minister.Henry Smith (Con) says, as planning laws are updated, the “brownfield first” approach will continue.Johnson agrees, and says that principle will still apply. | United Kingdom Politics |
“I’m a long way from Manchester so I might be missing something,” tweeted one Westminster pundit, “but it surely takes a special kind of spin-doctor genius to decide to axe the Manchester leg of HS2 during your annual conference in, err, Manchester.” Well, I was in Manchester, and as I toured around the city centre pubs on Sunday night, it began to make more sense. Or at least, I could see why — through the prism of a particular game plan that relied on a particular last-minute Hail Mary pass — it might make sense.
Rishi Sunak’s decision to cancel the Birmingham-to-Manchester leg of HS2 has been described as an embarrassing PR blunder, a spectacular snub of a host city that immediately invited the ire of mayor Andy Burnham and dozens of very sensible think tanks and highly credentialed economists.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
These critics are almost certainly right. The building of a modern high-speed railway that will shorten the journey from Manchester to London to just over an hour — and free up the full-to-bursting West Coast Main Line to carry more regular and reliable local and freight services — seems to be a matter of when rather than if. Sure, we can kick it down the track for a few years, but the cost of doing so will only rise. And, in the meantime, local train services will continue to share tracks with faster intercity rail, and hordes of travellers will have to put up with the dismal services of Avanti West Coast, a company that sometimes charges us more to visit London than it would cost to fly to Italy, and then makes us stand up for two hours to drive home the humiliation.
“Make it make sense” goes the tagline of a popular online meme, and on the fact of it, cancelling this leg of HS2 just doesn’t. And yet, I think there’s a symbolism to this week’s decision that appeals to Sunak. It is the sign of a new last-gasp strategy, which involves killing what you might call Manchester-Toryism.
For most of the past 13 years, Manchester and the Conservative Party have been engaged in an awkward but mutually profitable embrace. Successive Tory governments have found the city to be a useful screen on which to project their claims to economic radicalism, starting with George Osborne’s Northern Powerhouse and reaching to Johnson’s unrealised notion of “levelling up”. Both men visited Manchester to make cliché-peppered speeches about reviving growth in the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, and both raised hopes that something might be done about the scandalous London-everywhere divide in this country.
Manchester, for its part, was a willing partner in this game. Play along, and you could get regeneration funding and devolved powers that rival cities will wait years to match. Since the late-Eighties, Manchester’s Labour leaders have become studied pragmatists in their dealings with Downing Street. In 2021, when I was researching a profile of Sir Richard Leese, Manchester’s council leader for a quarter of a century, one insider explained: “He understands the old adage that he doesn’t have allies; he has interests.”
“I always thought Richard was an incredibly practical, pragmatic, not particularly partisan person,” Osborne told me, having worked extensively with him on Greater Manchester’s pivotal 2014 devolution deal. Leese was willing to shake hands with Osborne in his office in the Treasury and then flog the chancellor over austerity just hours later to a reporter from the Manchester Evening News. The rules of the Manchester-Tory compact had been established, and everyone knew how to play by them.
Crucially, everyone’s interests seemed to be broadly aligned. Manchester needed lots of money to fix its embarrassing infrastructure, and the prospect of public investment reassured and enriched the city’s biggest private investors. Conservative governments needed to show they had a plan for the country that didn’t involve capitulating to a depressing narrative of post-imperial economic decline. And a phalanx of think-tankers loved the idea of an economic plan that might spread prosperity outside of London. The Tory-Manchester consensus was firmly in place, so firmly that holding the party’s annual conferences in deep-red Manchester actually seemed to make sense.
And then, this week, the consensus was shattered. Why?
Touring my local Manchester pubs on Sunday night — chatting to Conservative pollsters and lobbyists and gossip mongers, all astonished to be buying pints of Spanish lager for less than £4 — I gradually gleaned the answer: Dominic Cummings.
My understanding is that, after studying the Prime Minister’s dreadful polling numbers in recent months, Sunak’s close advisers called the exiled Cummings in from the cold. According to a source who works inside No. 10, the advice from Cummings was bracing: shifting the public’s perceptions of Sunak would be incredibly difficult. He made clear that only very big, very noisy moves would have any chance of persuading people that Sunak is an agent of change. No. 10 needed to pick some big public fights; the more blowback from former prime ministers and big business figures the better. Or, as one insider characterised Cummings’s advice: “Do mental stuff that proves you’re not the Establishment.”
I thought of that when I read in The Times this week that the PM’s HS2 move “has been opposed by a succession of senior Tories, including three former prime ministers — Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron”. That feels like a feature of Sunak’s strategy, not a bug.
Cummings, after all, is a long-term sceptic of HS2, having previously described it as a “disaster zone”. In one of his Substack newsletters, he wrote that his former boss Johnson had gone ahead with the project in January 2020 only after a “garbage model/graph was fed to a PM”. Cummings’s advice to Johnson, according to a later tweet, was “bin this farce”.
It looks like Cummings got through to Sunak. The recent U-turns on the Net Zero timeline and HS2 have created a lot of noise and a lot of heat, even if they still look like a middle ground between the Prime Minister’s cautious, managerial politics and what Cummings was truly gunning for. The next few months might reveal more about how much influence Cummings has around No. 10.
From the perspective of Manchester, where I write from, canning the northern extension of HS2 — the last northern leg still standing — represents a striking break from a settled consensus. As The Financial Times’s Henry Mance pointed out this week, since 2010 the country has elected three Conservative PMs, all of whom promised to build HS2 to Manchester. The years in question have not exactly been a glorious period for the British economy, but they have seen astonishing growth in Manchester, one of Europe’s fastest-growing cities. HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse Rail project (building new lines from East to West in the North) was supposed to be the oil on the fire – the bit that could finally allow our great northern cities to meaningfully narrow the gap to the capital.
Andy Burnham, who excels in moments like this, pointed to the Manchester skyline during one of his interviews this week, a panorama in which new tower blocks appear seemingly every few months. “Look at the place, the place is doing so well at the moment,” Burnham said. “And you’re going to pull the rug on us?”
The death of Manchester-Toryism — the severing of the stable quid pro quo that has existed between this city and the party it is somewhat awkwardly hosting this week — is significant. We will wait to see what Sunak promises to the North in exchange for stopping HS2 in Birmingham, but few expect the “phasing” of those plans to bring any good news soon. Cummings’s chaos politics — doing “mental stuff that proves you’re not the Establishment” — is unlikely to be compatible with the long, expensive and detail-oriented task of driving regional economic development.
“It’s a complete betrayal,” one senior political figure told me last night in Manchester as he made his way to a drinks reception for local bigwigs. “How can local leaders and businesses here ever trust what this party tells them again?” | United Kingdom Politics |
Politics June 27, 2022 / 11:34 AM / CBS News NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced Monday, ahead of of a gathering of NATO leaders in Madrid on Tuesday, that the alliance's high-readiness forces will significantly increase to over 300,000 from 40,000, and that more troops will be sent to the member countries bordering Russia. The nearly eightfold increase comes amid Moscow's continuing invasion of Ukraine, where Russian forces have pushed deeper into the eastern Donbas region and are poised to make additional gains. Over the weekend, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed Western leaders who had gathered for the G7 summit in Munich, Germany, renewing requests for heavier weaponry to confront Russia's forces, including anti-aircraft defense systems. In a virtual address, Zelenskyy said he wanted to end the war by the end of 2022. Briefing reporters after the address, national security advisor Jake Sullivan said Zelenskyy told the summit the Ukrainian leader believed a "grinding conflict is not in the interest of the Ukrainian people." Of the NATO's priorities — set to be outlined in the Strategic Concept, a document seeing its first update since 2010 — Stoltenberg said Russia will no longer be characterized as a strategic partner, but as "the most significant and direct threat to our security." For the first time, China will be addressed as a challenger to the alliance's security interests. The document will "also cover our evolving approach to...terrorism, cyber and hybrid" threats, Stoltenberg said. He outlined forthcoming changes to the alliance's capabilities, including more pre-positioned equipment and supplies. "Together, this constitutes the biggest overhaul of our collective deterrence and defense since the Cold War," the NATO chief said, adding that NATO investments are set to increase across its membership for the eighth consecutive year. Allies will agree on an additional comprehensive assistance package for Ukraine and put in place a plan to transition its forces from Soviet-era equipment to "modern NATO equipment," he said. Zelenskyy, along with representatives from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Georgia and the EU will participate in the summit. And senior officials from Finland, Sweden are meeting with Turkey in Brussels for continued talks Monday about accession to NATO; the leaders of all three will meet in Madrid Tuesday, although no breakthrough is expected before the summit. 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 |
The UK has been accused of “seeking to block the international court of justice (ICJ) from addressing important international humanitarian law matters” in a submission to the world court on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
A 43-page legal opinion, seen by the Guardian, was submitted by the UK last month as part of the ICJ’s fact-finding stage before an expected advisory opinion from the court on the legal consequences of the “occupation, settlement and annexation” of Palestinian land.
The UK’s “amicus brief” opposes the hearing of the case in the ICJ altogether – a position shared by only a handful of the 57 opinions sent to the court by member states and non-governmental organisations.
The UK statement has been met with dismay by Palestinian diplomats, as well as international humanitarian law experts, who say it ignores not just the fact that Israel’s occupation is entrenched, but that the situation is rapidly deteriorating.
Sitting in The Hague, the ICJ is the top UN court for dealing with disputes between countries: its rulings are binding, although the court has no power to enforce them.
This legal action is seen as important by Israel and the Palestinians, however, because while various UN bodies have found that aspects of the occupation are illegal, to date there has never been a judgment on whether the occupation itself, now in its 56th year, either is or has become unlawful.
A UN general assembly resolution in December requested the advisory opinion from the ICJ on the “legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory”. The UK, along with Israel and western states such as the US and Germany, voted against it, on the grounds it would push the parties away from negotiations.
The UK opinion submitted to the ICJ rests on four main arguments:
An advisory opinion would effectively settle Israel’s “bilateral dispute” without the state’s consent.
The court is not equipped to examine a “broad range of complex factual issues concerning the entire history of the parties’ dispute”.
An advisory opinion would conflict with existing agreements between the parties and negotiation frameworks endorsed by the UN.
The request is not appropriate as it asks the court to “assume unlawful conduct on the part of Israel”.
“[Assuming that the document is authentic] … this is a rather weak and uninformed document that portrays Israel’s longstanding occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its annexation of East Jerusalem, as a bilateral dispute between two states,” said Dr Victor Kattan, an assistant professor in public international law at the University of Nottingham who has written widely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to Kattan, the ICJ can issue an opinion on any legal question arising from the work of the UN, and the general assembly does not need Israel’s consent to refer a request to the court.
A senior Palestinian source, who asked not to be named in order to speak freely, said: “The UK submission is a complete endorsement of Israeli talking points. They are not arguing that this is not the right time to go to the ICJ, because the peace process is working. They are saying the Israeli violations Palestinians point out are not as important as negotiation frameworks from decades ago.”
Daniel Machover of Hickman & Rose solicitors in London, who has extensive experience in human rights litigation, said with the caveat that the document is authentic: “It is a matter of concern that the UK is seeking to block the court from addressing such important matters, something I am sure it would not do were the court asked to address comparable issues … such as Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory.”
Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories began in 1967, and the last round of peace talks aimed at a two-state solution collapsed in 2014. Since then, Israeli settlement and infrastructure building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has accelerated, and settler violence against Palestinian communities is at its highest level since records began in 2005.
Last year’s election of the most rightwing Israeli government in history has exacerbated these issues. Of particular relevance to the ICJ referral is the transfer of several aspects of the administration of the West Bank from military control to a pro-settlements civilian minister – a move rights groups point out constitutes de jure annexation.
On the Palestinian side, the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, lacks democratic legitimacy after clinging to power for 16 years without elections. His administration has also made no serious attempt to rekindle the peace process.
Unlike other ICJ submissions seen by the Guardian, including those of France and Ireland, the UK statement makes no mention of the dire political situation in either Israel or Palestine. It also does not reference relevant UN findings since 2016 that Israel has repeatedly failed to fulfil its obligation to uphold the rights of the Palestinian people and violated international humanitarian law.
A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office, whose legal director, Sally Langrish, signed the submission, said in a statement: “The UK is committed to working with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to advance a peaceful two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital. We are deeply concerned by instability in the West Bank and call on all sides to work together to urgently de-escalate the situation.”
Members have until 25 October to make comments on statements to the ICJ submitted by others. If the court accepts the request for an advisory opinion, as is expected, deliberations will last at least a year.
Whether the occupation is still a “temporary” measure will be central to the debate. The court could extend a previous finding of partial annexation, weigh in on allegations of apartheid, and suggest states would be obliged not to recognise or aid the occupation.
Israel has lambasted the ICJ referral, with its envoy to the UN, Gilad Erdan, calling the general assembly vote a “moral stain” that delegitimises Israel.
The last conclusive action related to Palestine at the ICJ was in 2004, when the court decided Israel’s West Bank security barrier was illegal. Israel rejected the ruling.
An international criminal court (ICC) investigation into alleged war crimes committed by both Israeli army personnel and Palestinian armed groups officially opened in 2021, but is progressing slowly. ICC rulings are only binding for states that recognise its jurisdiction, which Israel does not. | Middle East Politics |
The era of SNP dominance in Scotland appears to be over after a poll showed Labour is on course to win the same number of seats in next year’s general election following a dramatic shift in support.
The Survation survey for the True North public relations agency predicted both the SNP and Labour would win 24 seats north of the Border, in a major boost to Sir Keir Starmer’s hopes of becoming prime minister.
This would mean the SNP losing half the 48 seats they achieved in the 2019 general election, with Labour staging a major comeback in Scotland after winning only one seat last time.
Labour achieved 35 per cent support in the poll, the highest level since 2014 and only two points behind the SNP’s 37 per cent rating, with the Tories trailing on 17 per cent.
Sir John Curtice, the UK’s most eminent psephologist, said: “If Labour picks up two dozen seats in Scotland, you can probably knock four points off the lead over the Conservatives that the Labour Party would need UK-wide in order to achieve an overall majority.”
In another major blow to the SNP, Humza Yousaf, the First Minister, achieved a -22 net approval rating from voters – the difference between the number of people who like and dislike him.
Sir John compared his lack of popularity with that of Liz Truss when she became Prime Minister. He was only slightly more popular than Douglas Ross, the Scottish Tory leader (-26) and far behind Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader (-3).
Controversial environmental policies
Voters also expressed increasing dissatisfaction with the SNP’s power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens at Holyrood following a raft of controversial environmental policies.
A majority of people in Scotland now no longer support the arrangement, with 40 per cent actively opposing it, including almost a quarter of voters who supported the SNP at the 2019 general election.
That is an increase from when Survation last asked this question in May, when only 37 percent of overall voters – and 21 per cent of SNP 2019 voters – opposed the deal.
However, backing for independence remained at 48 per cent, in further evidence of a ‘decoupling’ of voters’ stance on the issue with support for the SNP.
Sir John said: “The SNP has had little success so far in shaking Labour off its tail. As a result, the party faces a continuing risk of losing a significant number of Westminster seats in next year’s UK general election.
“The party’s efforts are seemingly not being helped by Humza Yousaf’s apparent difficulty in making a favourable impression on the Scottish public.”
Dr Eilidh Whiteford, a Truth North advisor and former SNP MP, said the poll indicates “Scotland is on a knife edge and a significant change could be underway in the once-settled Scottish political landscape”.
She added: “The public’s ambivalence towards the SNP-Scottish Green Party cooperation agreement is also likely to only strengthen calls from some quarters for the arrangement to be reviewed.”
Andrew Liddle, another advisor for the firm and a former Scottish Labour advisor, said: “This poll provides further evidence that the Scottish Labour Party is finally recovering in Scotland after more than a decade in the wilderness.
“Were these numbers to be replicated at the general election, they would see the Scottish Labour Party make substantial gains across its former heartlands in the Central Belt, significantly increasing the chances of Sir Keir Starmer achieving an overall majority in the process.”
Lose their combined majority
The poll also found that the pro-independence parties, the SNP and Greens, would lose their combined majority at a Holyrood election.
It predicted the SNP would remain the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, with 49 seats, with Labour close behind on 42 seats.
The Tories would fall back from second place to third, dropping from 31 seats to only 17, with the Liberal Democrats on 11 and the Greens 10. The survey of 1,022 people was conducted between Aug 15 and Aug 18.
Support for the Nationalists has been in a tailspin since Nicola Sturgeon’s sudden resignation in February and the high-profile police investigation into the party’s finances.
Officers searched the home of Ms Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell, the SNP’s former chief executive, for two days and a luxury motorhome was confiscated from outside the Fife home of his elderly mother.
The couple has been arrested, along with Colin Beattie, the party’s former treasurer. After being interviewed by detectives, all three were released without charge pending further investigations. Ms Sturgeon has said she is innocent of any wrongdoing. | United Kingdom Politics |
Top ISIS leader is captured at his compound in northern Syria after daring seven-minute US helicopter raid that ended in a gun battleSenior ISIS leader and bomb-maker captured in Syria, US-led coalition says Officials identified him to US media as Hani Ahmed Al-Kurdi, 'governor' of Raqqa He was seized in raid near Turkey using Chinook and Black Hawk helicoptersGun battle broke out, but coalition says none of its troop or civilians were hurt Published: 02:19 EDT, 16 June 2022 | Updated: 04:41 EDT, 16 June 2022 A senior ISIS leader and bomb-maker has been captured in northern Syria after a daring helicopter raid that ended in a gun battle. US-led coalition forces said Thursday they had captured the terrorist commander in a 'successful' raid in which none of their troops or civilians were hurt. They did not give the name of the leader or location of the raid, but sources told US media the commander is Hani Ahmed Al-Kurdi and that he was captured in the village of Al-Humaira, close to the Turkish border.The seven-minute raid passed off 'smoothly' with only a 'few' shots fired, observer group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said. A senior ISIS leader - identified by US media as Hani Ahmed Al-Kurdi, or 'the governor of Raqqa' - has been captured after a raid on the village of Al-Humaira, close to TurkeyOfficials gave little information about Al-Kurdi but told the Washington Post that he is also known as 'Wali of Raqqa', which translates to 'Governor of Raqqa'.Raqqa, a city in north-central Syria, was known as the de-facto capital of ISIS's terror-state before it was taken by Kurdish-led coalition forces backed by the US in 2017.Al-Kurdi is thought to be a bomb-maker who rose to become one of the terror group's most-influential leaders in Syria.Major Youssef Hamoud, a spokesperson for the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army which controls the area where the raid took place, said it involved a Black Hawk and Chinook helicopter and was the first of its kind on SNA territory.The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based observer group, said a gun battle then broke out between coalition troops and local militants hiding out in houses in the Aleppo countryside.The gunmen eventually fled, allowing coalition troops to enter the target compound and seize Al-Kurdi, who is now in custody. His current whereabouts are unknown.At the peak of its powers, ISIS controlled a swathe of territory spanning Syria and Iraq before being worn down by US-led alliances in both countries.In Iraq, defeat came in the Battle of Mosul in 2017 when Iraqi army soldiers backed by Kurdish militias fought a months-long campaign to retake the city. Raqqa was once the de-facto capital of ISIS's sham terror-state (pictured) before being recaptured by US-backed Kurdish-led coalition forces in 2017In Syria, ISIS was wiped out when Kurdish coalition forces drove the last remaining fighters out of the town of Baghouz in the east of the country in March 2019.Though ISIS has ceased to be a territorial power in Syria - now divided between Kurds, the Russian-backed government of Bashar al-Assad, and Turkish-backed forces along the border - the group still operates as a guerilla force in remote areas.ISIS remains a threat to regional stability, carrying out deadly attacks in both Iraq and Syria through sleeper cells and maintains several affiliates in various countries.The coalition has conducted raids in the past to take out leaders of the violent group, though excursions into areas held by rebel groups are rare. In February, a raid deep into western Syria ended with the death of the group's leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi who blew himself up along with his wife and children to avoid capture as US forces closed in on his compound.His predecessor, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, died similarly along with his family in 2019 by detonating a suicide vest in a tunnel in northwest Syria as a military operation unfolded during the Trump administration.The IS group at the height of its power controlled more than 40,000 square miles stretching from Syria to Iraq and ruled over 8 million people. Its attacks in the region included a major assault last month to seize a prison in northeast Syria holding at least 3,000 IS detainees. Advertisement | Middle East Politics |
Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged this week to help advance four economic powers, despite pandemic problems at home and knock-on effects from Russia’s war in Ukraine. Analysts expect the pledges to take time, with no immediate results.
Xi made his remarks Thursday at the virtual BRICS Summit hosted by Beijing.
The other countries are Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, which together with China make up the grouping known as BRICS. These large emerging economies see themselves as an alternative to the U.S.-led world order.
The leader of China advocated BRICS cooperation in cross-border payments and credit ratings, the official Xinhua News Agency in Beijing reported Thursday. The report says he further recommended “facilitation” of trade, investment and financing.
Xi as host of the group’s 14th summit said he would work with the BRICS countries to support global development that is “stronger, greener and healthier,” Xinhua added.
The leader urged more countries to join the New Development Bank, a concessional lender founded by BRICS countries in 2015. He called, too, for improving the group’s emergency balance-of-payments relief mechanism, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, Xinhua added.
View toward future deals
Substantive progress on these goals will likely take time, analysts say, as the member countries do not always get along with one another and China’s ambitions may take time to evolve given issues at home and abroad.
“At the highest level, there’s a little bit of a discussion, then that may lead to further opportunities to be further engaged down the road,” said Song Seng Wun, a Singapore-based economist in the private banking unit of Malaysian bank CIMB.
China’s economy has outgrown the others after decades of export manufacturing for much of the world. But the keeper of a $17.5 trillion GDP has teetered this year amid lockdowns to contain a COVID-19 surge — which snarled world supply chains originating in China.
BRICS member Russia faces economic sanctions from the West over its war in Ukraine, which has sparked food shortages and inflation. China still faces tariffs on goods shipped to the United States, fallout from a bilateral trade dispute.
India and China have their own differences. The world’s two most populous countries contest sovereignty over mountain territories between them, and China bristles at India’s geopolitical cooperation with the West.
Developing countries, including those among the BRICS, can easily turn to Japan, the European Union and other alternatives to China for economic support, said Stuart Orr, School of Business head at Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia. Those choices will slow China’s ambitions to sow BRICS cooperation as developing states prefer not to over-rely on Beijing, he said.
“There’s a lot of talk but probably not so much real progress in that regard and I suspect things will probably end up sort of getting pushed back to the next BRICS meeting for further progress once the dust has settled,” Orr said.
China still “struggles with health issues” while its historic political rival the United States is finding new suppliers and customers for soy exports, Orr said.
Officials in Beijing want to expand cooperation with other countries as the United States sanctions Russia over the war and China over trade, said Huang Kwei-bo, associate professor of diplomacy at National Chengchi University in Taipei.
The BRICS countries might reassure one another over energy and food shortages linked to the war, Song said. Later, he said, they could “flesh out” substantive agreements.
Anti-West position
China regularly offers economic aid, investments and COVID-19 vaccines to friendly developing countries from Africa into Central Asia. Its flagship is the Belt and Road Initiative, a 9-year-old, $1.2 trillion list of foreign infrastructure projects aimed at opening China-linked trade routes.
Chinese officials feel the BRICS nations will welcome their support, and in turn, accept some of their political views, analysts say. Of the BRICS states, only Brazil voted against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations earlier this year. China, India and South Africa abstained.
India, despite its West-leaning political activity and reservations about China’s Belt-and-Road, still takes Russian oil.
“India-China relations are very sensitive, but outside these existing relations, like in the Caribbean and Latin America, those spots are where India and China wouldn’t have clashes of interest,” Huang said.
Brazil in particular is looking for more international support to overcome the “devastating impacts” of COVID-19 in the country, Orr said.
“There should be some other countries that would think about joining this kind of regime,” Huang said. “Then, if a lot of those countries don’t have such good relations with the U.S. side, doesn’t that mean it’s one more thing causing a headache for the United States in terms of geopolitics?”
A declaration issued at the summit Thursday says the five countries support talking further about expanding their group. | Global Organizations |
World June 20, 2022 / 9:43 AM / CBS News Could the Supreme Court strip other rights? Could the Supreme Court strip away other established rights? 06:52 A district court in Japan has upheld the country's ban on same-sex marriage. The ruling is a blow to LGBTQ activists in the country, who reached a small victory when a court in Sapporo last year found the government's failure to recognize same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.Three same-sex couples filed a suit in Osaka, claiming that being unable to marry was unconstitutional, and they asked for 1 million yen (about $7,406) in damages for each couple, according to BBC News. They argued that under the current law that prevented them from getting married, they suffered "unjust discrimination."The Osaka court, however, ruled the ban on same-sex marriage is constitutional, since Japan's constitution defines marriage as one between "both sexes." "I actually wonder if the legal system in this country is really working," one of the plaintiffs, Machi Sakata, told Reuters. Sakata was able to marry her partner, who is a United States citizen, in the U.S. They are expecting a baby. "I think there's the possibility this ruling may really corner us," she said.While the court did not legalize same-sex marriage, it did acknowledge it could be possible. "From the perspective of individual dignity, it can be said that it is necessary to realize the benefits of same-sex couples being publicly recognized through official recognition," the court said in its ruling, BBC News reports. "Public debate on what kind of system is appropriate for this has not been thoroughly carried out," the court said.The majority of Japan is for same-sex marriage and some cities, like Tokyo, have begun issuing partnership certificates to same-sex couples. These can help them rent properties and gain hospital visitation rights, according to BBC News.However, since same-sex couples cannot legally marry, they can't inherit each other's assets and they have no parental rights over each other's children, Reuters reports.In the 2021 suit in Sapporo, the plaintiffs also asked for $9,100 each for the difficulties they've suffered. While the court ruled the "legal benefits stemming from marriages should equally benefit both homosexuals and heterosexuals," they did not award the plaintiffs the money. Several same-sex couples have filed similar suits, the Japan Times reports. Many filed their suits on Valentine's Day 2019.Marriage equality is legal in 31 countries, according to Human Rights Campaign. Japan is the only country in the G7, a group of the world's largest developed nations, that doesn't allow same-sex couples to wed. Caitlin O'Kane Caitlin O'Kane is a digital content producer covering trending stories for CBS News and its good news brand, The Uplift. 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 | Asia Politics |
Posie Parker’s political party rejected by electoral commission
A political party proposed by gender-critical activist Posie Parker has been rejected by the Electoral Commission.
Parker, whose real name is Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, is one of the UK’s best-known anti-trans campaigners and has courted controversy for her views on the transgender community, with Nazi groups attending her Let Women Speak events.
In May, Parker posted on X, previously known as Twitter, that she would be launching the Party of Women.
She urged her followers to “join me as candidates” as the party intended to “stand in as many UK constituencies and council seats” as possible.
“This party will be launching in as many countries as possible,” she added. “For the constituency of women, there is the Party of Women.”
However, earlier this month, the Electoral Commission – the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK – announced that the application to register the party had been rejected, citing “application incomplete” as the reason.
The application was rejected “as the party’s constitution and financial scheme were not compliant with the law”, a spokesperson for the commission told PinkNews.
“The constitution did not accurately set out the structure and organisation of the party, and the financial scheme was not properly adopted.”
Parker told PinkNews: “Like many applications for registration that were rejected on the same day, we were advised how to reapply for the optimum chance of being accepted.”
She has “no intention of abandoning the women of Great Britain” and will form the Party of Women “as soon as possible”.
Posie Parker to launch second political party
Parker went on to label the trans community a “pernicious cult [where] children are indoctrinated”.
She has frequently used such language and narratives and has previously compared trans people to sex offenders and serial killers, suggesting that men with guns should use women’s toilets in order to protect them.
Alongside the Party of Women, Parker’s website makes reference to The Other Party, a separate political party that was set to be launched in the spring or summer of 2023.
“Since 2004 one dangerous legal fiction has gripped our national conversation,” the description for The Other Party reads, which has been taken as a reference to the Gender Recognition Act that came into effect that year.
“The effect on the truth has had a profound impact on our people. We’re going to make it history.”
The Electoral Commission confirmed it has received an application to register The Other Party but “cannot comment on the progress of ongoing applications, or on the likelihood of an application being approved”.
Parker confirmed to PinkNews that the Party of Women and the Other Party are separate and latter was “was a holding name for an idea”.
How did this story make you feel?
MyPinkNews members are invited to comment on articles to discuss the content we publish, or debate issues more generally. Please familiarise yourself with our community guidelines to ensure that our community remains a safe and inclusive space for all. | United Kingdom Politics |
The government has announced plans to reinstate EU equality laws before they expire at the end of the year – admitting the move is required to avoid a "clear gap in protections" for workers.
Ministers will today lay a statutory instrument intended to "enshrine" key rights and principles derived from the European Union into British law.
It follows questions over whether some employment protections related to things like equal pay and maternity leave would be scrapped from January when The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill comes into effect.
The controversial legislation - also known as the "Brexit Freedoms Bill" - will dispense with hundreds of Brussels-derived laws still on British statue books. It will also end the supremacy of EU law over UK law, erasing previous case law principles.
Trade unions and employment lawyers had warned this would create uncertainty over key protections for British workers which derive from the EU and don't exist in British law.
The government said its update today means "that necessary protections are clearly stated in our domestic legislation".
One legal expert welcomed the announcement - but said it raised "legitimate questions" around what gains had been made from post-Brexit sovereignty if EU laws are simply going to be replicated.
The protections being retained include the "single-source" test, which gives women the right to equal pay with men for doing work of equal value, and preventing women from experiencing less favourable treatment at work because they are breastfeeding.
Protecting women from unfavourable treatment after they return from maternity leave, where that treatment is in connection with a pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness occurring before their return;
Ensuring that women can continue to receive special treatment from their employer in connection with maternity, for example through enhanced occupational maternity schemes;
Confirming that the definition of disability in the context of employment will explicitly cover working life;
Holding employers accountable if they create or allow discriminatory recruitment conditions, such as if they make public discriminatory statements about access to employment in their organisation;
Providing explicit protections from indirect discrimination by association, so that those who may be caught up and disadvantaged by discrimination against others are also protected.
The move could risk angering Eurosceptic Tories, who want to see the UK move away from the EU's influence.
Max Winthrop, the chair of the Law Society's Employment Law Committee, welcomed the clarification that vital rights "would not be for the legislative dustbin as of December 31st".
However, he said the move does raise "legitimate questions" about the point of Brexit, from a sovereignty standpoint.
"When we are effectively replicating legislation from the EU, and I can understand why the government have done that because it would not be particularly popular to say 'let's scrap maternity rights', it does leave the big question as to what exactly is it that we've gained from leaving the EU," he told Sky News.
"We haven't gained what was sometimes referred to as the Singapore-on-the-Thames approach. In other words, to deregulate the marketplace. So you then have to ask yourself the question, is the loss of seamless trade throughout the European Economic Area really worth the cattle?".
He added that the announcement shows why the original plan to scrap all remaining EU laws by the end of this year "would have probably been disastrous".
"It shows the complexity of junking 40 years worth of (EU) legislation, and the sorts of steps we've had to go through to maintain the protections that a lot of people probably thought they already had."
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill was originally intended to scrap all EU-era laws which were kept in place after the Brexit transition period in order to minimise disruption to businesses.
But the promised bonfire of Brussels rules and regulations was dramatically scaled-back in May, with less than 600 now set to be junked by the end of this year.
Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch said the change was necessary because of the "risks of legal uncertainty" caused by automatically scrapping some 4,000 laws, but there was significant backlash from within the Conservative Party, with arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg accusing the prime minister of "behaving like a Borgia".
Notes accidently left on the press release announcing today's measures suggest some concern that retaining the protections could rile up the right wing of the party.
The notes discussed how to answer questions about why the government isn't scrapping the protections, and whether maintaining discrimination laws would threaten free speech and "make businesses feel they must follow the woke agenda".
Read more:
Government to unveil plans centred around criminal justice
Hard to see how Rishi Sunak's first King's Speech won't be his last
The document stresses that if the EU laws aren't retained, "employers would in some circumstances be able to make statements, for example, that they wouldn't hire people because they are black. That is not right and not in line with Britain's proud history of equality and fair play".
"We are only restating laws where there would otherwise be a clear gap in protections: this is an area where we think the law needs to be strong and clear," the document says.
A government spokesperson said: "We are committed to ensuring that the fundamental rights and freedoms of people in the United Kingdom remain protected.
"Our work is ensuring that necessary protections are retained and will end the inherent uncertainty of relying on judicial interpretations of EU law.
"Today's update will ensure that Great Britain maintains its proud history of equality and that necessary protections are clearly stated in our domestic legislation."
King's Speech live: Watch our special programme on Sky News, hosted by Sophy Ridge, from 10.30am on Tuesday. You will also be able to follow the event live via the Politics Hub on the Sky News app and website. | United Kingdom Politics |
Rishi Sunak had his campaign website domain name registered six months before Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister and just four days after the infamous photo of Downing Street staff eating cheese and drinking wine in the No 10 garden was leaked.Records on DomainTools show that his website – readyforrishi.com – was registered on December 23, 2021. This domain now automatically redirects to his current website – ready4rishi.com – which was set up on July 6, the day after the Chancellor quit.The Partygate photo was leaked on December 18, 2021, and showed Mr Johnson, his then-fiancée Carrie, and 17 other staff members in the garden on May 15, 2020, with bottles of wine and a cheeseboard on a table in front of the Prime Minister. It comes as Mr Sunak officially declared his bid to replace Mr Johnson as he promised to 'restore trust, rebuild the economy and reunite the country'.In a slick video, the ex-Chancellor today pledged his Tory leadership campaign would be based on 'patriotism, fairness and hard work'.The 42-year-old also unveiled a website as part of a very polished campaign launch - with the slogan 'Ready For Rishi' - as he looks to make the early running in what could prove to be a bloody battle to become the next PM.Mr Sunak said: 'Our country faces huge challenges, the most serious for a generation. Someone has to grip this moment and make the right decisions.'Because the choices we make today will decide whether the next generation of British people will have more opportunities than the last.'Ready for Rishi? Key parts of ex-Chancellor's slick campaign video His background:'This young woman came to Britain, where she managed to find a job, but it took her nearly a year to save enough money for her husband and children to follow her.'One of those children was my mother, aged 15. My mum studied hard and got the qualifications to become a pharmacist. She met my dad, an NHS GP, and they settled in Southampton.'His experience: 'I ran the toughest department in Government during the toughest times when we faced the nightmare of Covid.'My values are non-negotiable. Patriotism, fairness, hard work. We’ve had enough of division. Politics at its best is a unifying endeavour, and I have spent my career bringing people together.'His swipe at Boris Johnson:'Do we confront this moment with honest, seriousness and determination?'Or do we tell ourselves comforting fairytales that might make us feel better in the moment, but will leave our children worse off tomorrow?'His campaign launch - the professional nature of which raised questions over the length of time Mr Sunak has been preparing a leadership bid - came less than three days after he quit as Chancellor in a dramatic move that precipitated Mr Johnson's downfall as PM.Following his announcement, Mr Sunak has tonight picked up the support of former Conservative chair Oliver Dowden, ex-Cabinet minister Liam Fox, rising Tory star Laura Trott and Angela Richardson. Mr Sunak quit as Treasury chief on Tuesday night within minutes of Sajid Javid's resignation as health secretary, which prompted claims the pair had coordinated their bombshell exits from Mr Johnson's Cabinet.It was revealed today how Mr Sunak's campaign website, www.ready4rishi.com, was registered on Wednesday - before Mr Johnson had declared he would be stepping down as PM. In his resignation letter to Mr Johnson, Mr Sunak publicly questioned the PM's competence and seriousness. He also described 'fundamental' differences between himself and Mr Johnson on economic policy.The ex-Chancellor appeared to take another swipe at the outgoing PM in his campaign video.With Britain in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis with households suffering from soaring inflation, Mr Sunak asked: 'Do we confront this moment with honest, seriousness and determination?'Or do we tell ourselves comforting fairytales that might make us feel better in the moment, but will leave our children worse off tomorrow?'Someone has to grip this moment and make the right decisions.'Mr Sunak also used the video to detail his family background - with his grandparents having emigrated to Britain from East Africa in the 1960s.He described his mother, Usha, studied to become a pharmacist before meeting his father, Yashvir, who was an NHS GP.Mr Sunak grew up in Southampton before going on to study at Oxford University and then Stanford University, in the US. After the PM announced his resignation on the steps of Number 10 yesterday, Mr Sunak spent the evening with key Conservative powerbrokers at the summer party of the Spectator magazine.Earlier this year, Mr Sunak's hopes of being Mr Johnson's successor were viewed as having been fatally damaged by the controversy over his family's finances and tax affairs.The revelation that his billionaire heiress wife, Akshata Murty, had non-dom tax status caused a furious political row and saw Mr Sunak plummet in popularity among Tory members.He then suffered a further blow when he, alongside Mr Johnson, was fined as part of the Metropolitan Police's investigation into Partygate.Ms Murty was this week photographed bringing hot drinks - in £38 mugs - and snacks to a press pack waiting outside her and her husband's London home.Mr Sunak and his family's wealth is likely to attract accusations from rival Tory contenders that he is not best-placed to empathise with Britons during the cost-of-living squeeze. Rishi Sunak had his campaign website domain name registered six months before Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister and just four days after the infamous photo of Downing Street staff eating cheese and drinking wine in the No 10 garden was leakedRecords on DomainTools show that his website – readyforrishi.com – was registered on December 23, 2021. This domain now automatically redirects to his current website – ready4rishi.com – which was set up on July 6, the day after the Chancellor quit The Partygate photo was leaked on December 18, 2021, and showed Mr Johnson, his then-fiancée Carrie, and 17 other staff members in the garden on May 15, 2020, with bottles of wine and a cheeseboard on a table in front of the Prime Minister It comes as Mr Sunak officially declared his bid to replace Mr Johnson. He used his campaign launch video to talk about how his mother, Usha, came to Britain from East Africa at the age of 15 He described how his mother studied to become a pharmacist The former Cabinet minister also spoke of how his father, Yashvir, was an NHS GP in Southampton Mr Sunak also shared pictures of his childhood in the three-minute long video Mr Sunak grew up in Southampton and was head boy at Winchester College before going on to Oxford University The ex-Chancellor's campaign has the slogan 'Ready For Rishi' as he bids to replace Boris Johnson as PMMr Sunak's campaign launch didn't get off to an entirely smooth start when one of those Tory MPs backing him, Paul Maynard, erroneously posted on Twitter some instructions he appeared to have received from Team Rishi.In a swiftly-deleted tweet, Mr Maynard posted: 'If you're happy, can you tweet and include the hashtag Ready4Rishi and crucially the website Ready4Rishi.com.'But Mr Sunak was handed an early boost in his leadership campaign when a Opinium poll for Channel 4 News tonight showed he was the top pick of the Tory grassroots.The poll of Conservative Party members found he was backed by a quarter (25 per cent) of those asked, just ahead of Foreign Secretary Liz Truss who was supported by 21 per cent.Defence Secretary Ben Wallace was backed by 12 per cent of members, with Nadhim Zahawi - who replaced Mr Sunak as Chancellor this week - supported by six per cent.The survey also found Mr Sunak (37 per cent) would narrowly beat Ms Truss (33 per cent) if they went head-to-head in a ballot of Tory members. James Crouch, head of policy and public affairs at Opinium, said: 'Rishi Sunak appears to be the favourite to replace Boris Jonson as Prime Minister, but Liz Truss is in a close second place.'At this early stage it’s all too common for a front runner to slip behind, but the closeness of these numbers show that no candidate has an easy ride into Number 10.'One of those Tory MPs backing Mr Sunak, Paul Maynard, erroneously posted on Twitter some instructions he appeared to have received from Team Rishi - before then tweeting a corrected post An Opinium poll, for Channel 4 News, of Conservative Party members showed Mr Sunak was the top pick of the Tory grassroots Rishi Sunak, pictured with Channel 4 presenter Andrew Neil at last night's Spectator summer party, today officially launched his Conservative leadership bidMr Sunak quit as Treasury chief on Tuesday night within minutes of Sajid Javid's resignation as health secretary, which prompted claims the pair had coordinated their bombshell exits from Mr Johnson's Cabinet Mr Sunak was at the centre of a furious political row earlier this year when it was revealed that his billionaire heiress wife, Akshata Murty, had non-dom tax statusMs Murty was this week photographed bringing hot drinks - in £38 mugs - and snacks to a press pack waiting outside her and her husband's London homeRishi Sunak: Once high-flying Chancellor who took a tumble in the springBy David Wilcock, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline At the end of 2021 the Chancellor was the number one candidate to succeed Boris Johnson. His largesse with taxpayers' cash during the Covid crisis - furlough payments and other measures - and slick social media campaigns made him widely popular within the party and with the wider electorate.It was a rapid rise to the top for a minister who only became Chancellor weeks before lockdown kicked in early in 2020. But the popularity of 'Brand Rishi' has taken a tumble in 2022 amid a series of controversies and rows with No10 - culminating in his resignation this evening.Quitting his role and abandoning Boris, may have helped save his tarnished reputation. At the end of 2021 the Chancellor was the number one candidate to succeed Boris Johnson.Rishi Sunak was hit by a political backlash over the news that his heiress wife Akshata Murty was domiciled in India for tax purposesIn the spring it was revealed his multi-millionaire heiress wife Akshata Murty was revealed to be living in Downing Street while having non-dom tax status.She has legally avoided paying a huge UK tax bill by paying £30,000 a year to register as based in India.He insisted she hasn't 'done anything wrong' while accusing his critics of 'smearing her to get at him'. She later agreed to pay full UK tax.Later it emerged Mr Sunak, a father of two and former international banker, himself held a US Green Card for a year into his term leading the Treasury. While the status would not save him any money on his tax bill, it carries a responsibility to make the United States 'your permanent home'.There were also a series of rows with No 10 after recovery spending and his involvement with Partygate: he received a £50 fine for attending Boris Johnson's surprise - and rule-breaking - birthday party in No10 in June 2020, even though he claimed he was just passing through on his way to a meeting.His supporters blamed No10 for embroiling him in the controversy, souring an already acidic relationship within Downing Street.Here's what Rishi Sunak said - in full - in his slick leadership campaign video'Let me tell you a story about a young woman almost a lifetime ago who boarded a plane armed with hope for a better life and the love of her family.'This young woman came to Britain where she managed to find a job, but it took her nearly a year to save enough money for her husband and children to follow her.'One of those children was my mother, aged 15. My mum studied hard and got the qualifications to become a pharmacist.'She met my dad, an NHS GP, and they settled in Southampton. Their story didn't end there, but that is where my story began.'Family is everything to me and my family gave me opportunities they could only dream of.'But it was Britain, our country, that gave them and millions like them the chance of a better future.'I got into politics because I want everyone in this country to have those same opportunities to be able to give their children a better future.'Our country faces huge challenges, the most serious for a generation.'And the decisions we make today will decide whether the next generation of British people will also have the chance of a better future.'Do we confront this moment with honesty, seriousness, and determination, or do we tell ourselves comforting fairy tales that might make us feel better in the moment but will leave our children worse off tomorrow?'Someone has to grip this moment and make the right decisions.'That's why I'm standing to be the next leader of the Conservative Party and your Prime Minister.'I want to lead this country in the right direction.'I ran the toughest department in government during the toughest times when we faced the nightmare of COVID.'My values are non-negotiable. Patriotism, fairness, hard work.'We've had enough of division. Politics at its best is a unifying endeavour, and I have spent my career bringing people together because that is the only way to succeed.'In the coming days and weeks, I will set out my vision for how we can build a better future for our country.'I've told you a bit about my story, but I'm running to be our next Prime Minister because it's your stories that matter most.'Your futures.'Tugendhat 'too left wing' and 'dodgy on Brexit', 'Bungling' Ben Wallace is 'the son of Boris' and Poundshop Maggie Liz Truss is 'too dangerous': Tory fur flies as more than a DOZEN leadership contenders emergeBy James Tapsfield, Political Editor for MailOnline The battle to succeed Mr Johnson is in danger of turning into a mud-slinging 'wacky races' with fears the Conservative Party will be plunged into chaos for months.More than a dozen MPs are seriously mulling bids for the leadership after the PM's bombshell exit, with ministers alarmed that they will 'shred each other to pieces' to gain an advantage. How will the Tory leadership contest happen? The race to replace Boris Johnson as Tory leader - and consequently as PM - will get under way in earnest next week.But the first issue will be setting the exact rules for the contest.The powerful backbench 1922 committee is due to elect its new executive at the beginning of the week.And the body's first duty will then be to decide on how to conduct the leadership race.Under the existing template, any candidate can feature on the ballot as long as they are nominated by eight MPs.However, senior figures on the 1922 are pushing for this to be increased - perhaps to 20 or 25.That would avoid a 'grand national' style field, with more than a dozen politicians seriously considering a tilt at the top job today. MPs expect that they will start to vote on the candidates on Thursday, after a brief spell of hustings at Parliament and some intense lobbying in the tea room and corridors.The normal format is for the lowest-scoring candidate to be ejected after each round - but in reality when they see which way the wind is blowing others also pull out.Deals are frequently done to throw support behind other hopefuls, as happened when Matt Hancock opted to withdraw and support Mr Johnson in 2019.Sir Graham Brady, the 1922 committee chair, is determined that the numbers will be whittled down to a final two by the time the Commons goes into recess on July 21.This pair are then expected to go head to head in a national vote of the Tory membership.Hustings events will be hosted in each region during August, with a postal ballot.The winner should be announced in time for the return of Parliament at the beginning of September.At this point the new leader will be able to command a majority in the House of Commons - and the Queen will invite them to take over as PM. Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Tugendhat officially launched his effort earlier today pledging 'change', and hinting that he would slash fuel duty and national insurance. But 'Blue-on-Blue' attacks have already begun, with Mr Tugendhat branded 'too left wing' and 'dodgy on Brexit'. An MP told MailOnline that Ben Wallace is the 'son of Boris' and 'only knows about defence'.Sajid Javid's pitch has been judged as already over by some hypercritical colleagues who say he 'completely lost the room' while delivering his resignation statement in the Commons.And Foreign Secretary Liz Truss - who has flown back from Indonesia to kick-start her campaign - is being dismissed by opponents as 'bad, mad and frankly dangerous to know'.Ms Truss is expected to pitch herself as the 'female Boris' in the Tory leadership race – a candidate who can win seats both in the South and the Red Wall. But critics have previously dismissed her as a 'Poundshop Thatcher'.Other MPs told MailOnline they were in despair about who to support, as and Priti Patel has failed to tackle the Channel migrant crisis.A grumpy floating voter said they would not be able to plump for Mr Javid despite his attributed because he is 'very wooden'. And Rishi Sunak was blasted by one rival who said it is 'not obvious that he's got an economic plan or is a tax cutter from his record'. Attorney General Suella Braverman was slated for having 'no name recognition' with the public, while a backbencher said of former minister Steve Baker: 'Every now and again he's prone to crying. We don't want a PM who blubs too much.' Rehman Chishti, the Gillingham MP, has also surprised colleagues by suggesting he could add his name to the long list. Backbencher Mark Jenkinson summed up the view of many with a joke candidacy announcement today.He quipped that he had 'sought counsel from those I can trust to blow smoke up my a***'.'That, when weighed against my own inflated sense of self-importance, leads me to conclude that I should throw my hat into the ring and stand for election as Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party,' he wrote.'Over the next six weeks I will be available to promise you the moon on a stick. Ask and it shall be yours. Let me worry about how I deal with three chancellors and a cabinet of 160. It is having the answers to those questions that makes me the most suitable candidate.' The politicians considering a run also include Nadhim Zahawi and Penny Mordaunt.Although the PM's exit was only cemented yesterday, many of the hopefuls have been cranking up campaigns for months - and have spent the last week desperately getting finalising teams. But much will depend on the exact rules of the contest, which are due to be decided by the powerful backbench 1922 committee executive next week. They are believed to be looking at raising the threshold for how many MP nominations are needed to enter the ballot, which could block some less popular options.MPs will whittle down the list in a series of votes over the next fortnight, before the final two candidates are put to the membership in a run-off. However, the wider party does not always get a say - in 2016 Theresa May was returned unopposed after her last rival Andrea Leadsom pulled out. In a round of interviews this morning, newly-appointed Education Secretary James Cleverly has said it was 'right' that Mr Johnson resigned and called for a 'quick' leadership contest.He told Sky News: 'It's right that he has stood down and it's right that he has put a team in place to continue governing whilst the selection procedure flows for his successor.'And we should do that I think pretty quickly, pretty promptly.'He added that Mr Johnson 'has said that he is not going to make decisions that would limit the options for his successor, that would be wrong'. Boris Johnson was spotted on the phone as he left Downing Street today for his constituencyLiz Truss (left) will pitch herself as the female Boris Johnson in the Tory leadership race – a candidate who can win seats both in the South and the Red Wall. New Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi (right) chats at the Spectator summer party in WestminsterSuella Braverman (left), the Attorney General, has thrown her hat in the ring for the Tory leadership contest - although she has been given slim odds. Jeremy Hunt (right) is also mulling another run SO WHO WILL BE NEXT TO MOVE INTO No10? LIZ TRUSS, 46 - Not declaredForeign Secretary who has also been international trade secretary, justice secretary, chief secretary to the Treasury and Lord Chancellor.Strengths: Popular with Tory grassroots for championing low taxes and free trade.Weaknesses: Backed Remain but now claims to regret decision.Odds (Betfair): 11.5 BEN WALLACE, 52 - Not declaredFormer Army officer who has been Defence Secretary since 2019.Strengths: Popular with grassroots Tories, particularly over the handling of the Ukraine war.Weaknesses: Opposed Brexit and is not believed to be sure about running for leader.Odds: 4.6 RISHI SUNAK, 42 - Not declaredEx-banker who was Chancellor until this week.Strengths: Long-standing Brexit supporter who kept economy afloat during the pandemic.Weaknesses: Questions about his personal wealth, behind recent tax rises.Odds: 6.2 SAJID JAVID, 52 - Not declaredTriggered this week's wave of resignations by quitting as health secretary.Strengths: Has served as Chancellor and home secretary.Weaknesses: Backed EU membership and is seen as a wooden speaker.Odds: 16.2 JEREMY HUNT, 55 - Not declaredEx-Cabinet minister who came second to Boris Johnson last timeStrengths: Seen as a competent minister who played a prominent role chairing the Health Committee during Covid.Weaknesses: Another low-key performer, many on the right are dubious about his Brexit credentials. Odds: 14 SUELLA BRAVERMAN, 42 - DeclaredThe second ever female Attorney General who became the first Cabinet minister to receive paid maternity leave last year.Strengths: Strong pro-Brexit views and has vowed to wage war on woke.Weaknesses: Surprised many when she launched her leadership bid before Boris Johnson had quit.Odds: 44 PENNY MORDAUNT, 49 - Not declaredFirst female defence secretary who is currently a junior trade minister.Strengths: Was a key figure in the Leave campaign and popular within the party.Weaknesses: Has told MPs controversial mantra that 'trans women are women'.NADHIM ZAHAWI, 55 - Not declaredDramatically promoted to Chancellor from education secretary this week.Strengths: Successfully delivered the vaccine rollout.Weaknesses: Accepted promotion then told Boris to quit.Odds: 15 PRITI PATEL, 50 - Not declaredCombative darling of the Tory grassrootsStrengths: Unshakeable Tory instincts and street-fighting attitude.Weaknesses: A Marmite figure who some fear would turn off floating voters, and has lost standing over the Channel migrant response.Odds: 90 STEVE BAKER, 51 - Not declaredFormer RAF engineer and junior Brexit minister.Strengths: Chaired pro-Brexit ERG and challenged lockdown restrictions.Weaknesses: Potentially alienating libertarian views.Odds: 26 TOM TUGENDHAT, 49 - DeclaredServed in Iraq and Afghanistan, currently chairs the foreign affairs select committee.Strengths: Already won support of several MPs.Weaknesses: Voted Remain, has no ministerial experience.Odds: 9 JAKE BERRY, 43 - Not declaredCurrently chairs the Northern Research Group of MPs.Strengths: Popular among Red Wall MPs and keen on levelling up agenda.Weaknesses: Admitted he was wrong to oppose Brexit.Odds: 270 However, 1922 committee Treasurer Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown warned that the decision should go to the full membership.He told BBC's Today programme: 'In this case, I think there is a lot of competition.'And I would be surprised if it didn't go to the membership in the country.'I think, actually, under these circumstances with the division in the party, I think it is a good thing that it goes to the to the membership so they have an opportunity to have their say and a vote.'There have been calls for Mr Johnson to step aside immediately, but Sir Geoffrey said he believed 'that ship has sailed' and he will now stay as PM until a successor is appointed.'I think that ship has sailed I think yesterday, everybody (on) this board, they decided that Boris Johnson should remain and he has said very clearly that he won't be making any major changes during that period. And I think that is a good thing,' he said.'Those ministers who are coming back in a caretaker role, having had resigned (from) work, it will be a little awkward for them.'I think in an ideal world, Dominic Raab, as Deputy Prime Minister, should have been the caretaker prime minister, but that ship I think has sailed and we must we must now live with the fact that Boris Johnson will be Prime Minister until a successor can be voted on.'Writing in the Telegraph today, Mr Tugendhat said: 'This nation needs a clean start and a government that will make trust, service and an unrelenting focus on the cost of living crisis its guiding principles.'That is what the British people deserve and it is what we will be judged on. It cannot be achieved without a clean start – unsullied by the events of the past, but also with proven experience and leadership.'Mr Tugendhat said 'taxes, bluntly, are too high and there is an emerging consensus across the party that they must come down'. 'We should immediately reverse the recent national insurance hike and let hard-working people, and employers, keep more of their money. Fuel tax must come down. And un-conservative tariffs, that push up prices for consumers, should be dropped.'Yesterday's cabinet meeting is said to have concluded with ministers banging tables in tribute to Mr Johnson. Tories have been speculating that whoever eventually come out on top will have to cope with Johnson causing trouble for them. One said: 'He is a hugely charismatic person. He is a rock star and a big figure on the world stage. He is not going to fade away in the background.'But another MP told MailOnline that Mr Johnson's words would not carry weight any more: 'I'm not sure whether anyone would want him to endorse them now.' An ally of Johnson who was with him on Wednesday night said: 'I'm angry with him, he could have done everything with an 80-seat majority but he's blown it.''There is nobody who enthuses me massively,' said one former minister.'After Theresa everybody knew it was going to be Boris. But this time round there is nobody really.'A lot of people are just not known to the voters. They are not household names, and we are 12 years into government.'Some Tories complained that Mr Wallace does not have the breadth of interest to rise higher. 'He is bang on when it comes to defence but how much does he know about economic policy,' one MP said.There is also disquiet on the Tory benches about Mr Zahawi's behaviour this week, after he accepted the job of Chancellor only to call for Mr Johnson to resign within 48 hours.'Nadhim has damaged himself very badly over the last few days,' one senior Conservative told MailOnline. 'The whole Nasty Nadhim thing.' Ms Truss will land in Britain this afternoon after she cut short a trip to a G20 foreign ministers summit in Indonesia yesterday.The minister, who is finalising plans for her campaign, will argue she can keep together the coalition of voters who backed Mr Johnson at the 2019 general election when he won a thumping majority.A close ally said last night: 'She is popular in both the Red Wall and the Lib Dem-facing marginals we need to keep hold of.'In a swipe at Mr Sunak, who raised national insurance, Ms Truss will declare that she is a 'low-tax' Tory who will 'get the economy moving again'. The ally added: 'She is vastly experienced and knows how to drive difficult policy through Whitehall... She is tough and delivers and gets things done.'Defence Secretary Mr Wallace is also planning to run for the top job after discussing a leadership bid with his family.The former Army officer, 52, is expected to confirm his intentions in the coming days. He has emerged as a front-runner after a survey of Conservative Party members.The father-of-three, who is separated from his wife, topped a YouGov poll with 13 per cent support, just ahead of Miss Mordaunt on 12 per cent, Mr Sunak on 10 per cent and Miss Truss on 8 per cent.Former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who was beaten by Mr Johnson in the 2019 Tory leadership contest, trailed in on 5 per cent – the same as new Chancellor Mr Zahawi. Bookies installed Mr Wallace as favourite following the poll.The MP for Wyre and Preston North has gained plaudits across the political spectrum for his handling of the war in Ukraine. Miss Mordaunt, who was the first female Defence Secretary before being fired by Mr Johnson, already has a campaign team in place. The resignations of Mr Sunak and Mr Javid from Cabinet on Tuesday triggered the mass exodus which ultimately crippled Mr Johnson's leadership.Mr Sunak was regarded as a front-runner for the Tory crown before his stock took a tumble following disclosures earlier this year that his wife had non-dom status for tax purposes. Last night it was reported he has set up a temporary campaign base in a Westminster hotel.It is understood that former Health Secretary Mr Javid and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps are seriously considering running.Rivals last night gloated that Mr Zahawi's campaign was 'falling apart' after he took the job of Chancellor only to call for Mr Johnson to go 24 hours later.But his allies said he would pitch himself as a successful former businessman who had delivered Britain's Covid vaccine rollout.Chancellor Rishi Sunak (right) and trade minister Penny Mordaunt (left) are among the bookies' favourites to replace Mr Johnson, as the field of candidates begins to take shapeNadine Dorries, right, next to Carrie Johnson and her daughter Romy outside 10 Downing Street on July 7. The culture secretary - one of the Prime Minister's most stringent supporters - warned colleagues that they have to 'keep the cabinet sailing steadily and keep the government running smoothly' Sajid Javid, who stepped down as health secretary within minutes of Mr Sunak's resignation, has 7/1 odds of taking his party's reigns Boris Johnson chairs a Cabinet meeting on Thursday after delivering his statement resigning as the leader of the Tories Workington MP Mark Jenkison summed up the view of many with a joke candidacy announcement todayFormer Territorial Army officer Mr Tugendhat, a backbench MP who heads the Commons foreign affairs committee, has already won the backing of several top Tories, including Theresa May's ex-deputy Damian Green.Last night it emerged that Kemi Badenoch, who quit as a Levelling Up Minister on Wednesday, was 'actively considering running'.A source close to the 42-year-old, who was first elected to Parliament in 2017, said: 'Some MPs are urging Kemi to run and she has started the process of taking soundings.'She is speaking to MPs to find out what they are looking for in a new leader to see if she has it. A poll last night showed Mr Sunak is the only one of the main candidates who can beat Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer in a head-to-head contest. His closest rival in the JL Partners poll was Mr Javid, who was three points behind Sir Keir. Who are the runners and riders jostling to take over from Boris Johnson as Tory leader? BEN WALLACE The early frontrunner, according to many bookmakers, with some offering odds as low as 9/4 on him getting the leadership, while another firm reported more than half of all bets in that market had been placed on Mr Wallace.The latest YouGov poll also regards him as the favourite.The Defence Secretary is thought to have significant support among Westminster colleagues who like his straight-talking and straightforward approach, though he does not have the cross-departmental experience of his rivals.The Johnson loyalist, who served in the Scots Guards, remains a key voice in the UK’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and this increased exposure could assist any leadership bid.PENNY MORDAUNT Ms Mordaunt was Mr Wallace’s predecessor as defence secretary, and the first woman to hold the post before being sacked by Mr Johnson shortly after becoming Prime Minister in 2019.Ms Mordaunt has many strings to her bow, she is a Royal Navy reservist, the current trade minister and a former reality TV contestant, having appeared on the Tom Daley-fronted diving show Splash.She played a prominent role in the Leave campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, and has previously reportedly enjoyed the backing of Dame Andrea Leadsom among others.She remains among the early favourites, and second only to Mr Wallace in the YouGov poll.RISHI SUNAK One of the main front-runners, attracting odds of 4/1 with several bookmakers, the former chancellor’s rise fro | United Kingdom Politics |
Russia's Foreign Ministry has announced it has banned 121 high-profile Australians from entering Moscow in response to Canberra's sanctions as one person on the list slams the "Russophobic agenda" claims as a "lie". SEE THE FULL LIST.Moscow has banned 121 Australians from travelling to Russia in response to the sanctions from the Australian government amid Ukraine's ongoing war.Russia's Foreign Ministry announced on Wednesday night the "Russophobic agenda" from the individuals on its list meant they were "indefinitely" banned.Those on the list include Australian Defence officials, billionaires, media and newspaper bosses, academics, journalists and even a state leader.Stream the latest news on the war in Ukraine live & on demand on Flash. 25+ news channels in 1 place. New to Flash? Try 1 month free. Offer ends 31 October, 2022Sky News Australia journalist and host Andrew Bolt and political reporter Jonathan Lea were among those named on the "stop list".They were joined by Lachlan Murdoch and Prudence Murdoch Macleod - two children of News Corp boss Rupert Murdoch - Channel Seven's executive Kerry Stokes and Nine's chairman and former treasurer Peter Costello.Mining magnates Gina Rinehart and Andrew "Twiggy Forrest were among the billionaires in the group.Atlassian co-founders Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar, property tycoon Harry Triguboff and Rio Tinto Iron Ore chief Simon Trott also won't be allowed to fly to Russia.Defence Force Chief Angus Campbell, Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty, Navy Chief Rear Admiral Mark Hammond, Royal Australian Air Force Air-Vice Marshal Darren Goldie and the Australian Defence Force's Vice Admiral David Johnson were among the government officials on the list.A surprising addition was newly-elected South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas."Entry to the Russian Federation for these persons is closed on an indefinite basis in response to the growing sanctions of the Australian government, which apply to an increasing number of Russian citizens - both officials and their families, as well as representatives of the business community and the media,” a statement said.The Foreign Ministry flagged it will likely add further names to the list."Taking into account the fact that Canberra does not intend to abandon the anti-Russian course and continues to produce new sanctions, work on updating the Russian ‘stop list’ will continue,” it said.Latrobe University Russian politics lecturer Robert Horvath, who is one of the academics banned, hit back saying claims he was part of the "Russophobic agenda" is a "lie"."In fact, I have repeatedly and insistently defended Russian culture against its detractors," he wrote to Twitter on Wednesday."I have highlighted it most humane voices and the lessons about human rights and freedom that Russian dissidents have taught the West."But in Putin's twisted, Orwellian world, 'Russophobia' means criticising his kleptocracy, repression and genocidal war."It means drawing attention to brave Russians who oppose him. It means pointing out that there is more to Russian culture than his totalitarian despotism".In April, the Australian government slapped sanctions on an additional 147 individuals in Russia in response to President Vladimir Putin's invasion into Ukraine.It took the number of Russians on Canberra's list to 750 following the naming of 338 Duma MPs who voted in favour of recognising the two break-away regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent.The dictators two daughters Maria Vorontsova, 36, and Katerina Tikhonova, 35, were also listed by Australia."We will continue to increase costs on Russia, in coordination with partners, targeting those who bear responsibility for Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked aggression in Ukraine or hold levers of influence," the government said in a statement.Full banned listRebecca Armitage (ABC) Gay Alcorn (The Age) Monica Attard (University of Technology Sydney) Justin Bassi (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) Simon Benson (The Australian) John Blaxland (Australian National University) Greg Bilton (ADF) Olga Boichak (University of Technology Sydney) Andrew Bolt (Sky News) Michael Brissenden (ABC) Annika Burgess (ABC) Rick Burr (ADF) Ita Buttrose (ABC) Angus Campbell (ADF) Eric Campbell (ABC) Mike Cannon-Brookes (Atlassian) Peter Costello (Nine) Anthony Dalton (ADF) Jason Dasey (ABC) Mark Davies (Rio Tinto) Malcolm Davis (Australian Institute for Strategic Policy) Anthony De Ceglie (West Australian) Robert Denney (ADF) Paul Dibb (Australian National University) Christopher Dore (The Australian) Tim Elliott (Sydney Morning Herald) Ben English (Daily Telegraph) Scott Farquhar (Atlassian) Andrew Forrest (Fortescue Metals Group) Natasha Fox (ADF) Anthony Fraser (ADF) John Frewen (ADF) Michael Fullilove (Lowy institute) Anthony Galloway (Sydney Morning Herald) Kate Geraghty (Sydney Morning Herald) Darren Goldie (ADF) Stan Grant (ABC) Carrie-Anne Greenback (Nine) Justine Greig (ADF) Chris Griffith (The Australian) Darren Goldie (ADF) Steven Groves (Department of Defence) Mark Hammond (ADF) Peter Hartcher (Sydney Morning Herald) Rob Harris (Sydney Morning Herald) Samantha Hawley (ABC) Liz Hayes (Nine) Amanda Hodge (The Australian) Robert Horvath (La Trobe) Peter Hoysted (The Australian) Mel Hupfeld (ADF) Sumeyya Ilanbey (The Age) Peter Jennings (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) Stephen Jobson (ADF) David Johnston (ADF) Gemma Jones (The Advertiser) Anastasia Kapetas (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) Patricia Karvelas (ABC) Paul Kelly (The Australian) Paul Kenny (ADF) Peter Layton (Griffith University) Jonathan Lea (Sky News) Jacquelin Magnay (The Australian) Jess Malclom (The Australian) Peter Malinauskas (Premier of South Australia) Jonathan Mead (ADF) Stephen Meredith (ADF) Michael Miller (News Corp Australia) Tanya Monro (ADF) Greg Moriarty (Department of Defence) Lachlan Murdoch (News Corp) Prudence Murdoch MacLeod (News Corp) Robert Murray (Southern Cross Austereo) Sean Nicholls (ABC) Michael Noonan (ADF) Ben Packham (The Australian) Kellie Parker (Nine) Aaron Patrick (Australian Financial Review) Matthew Pearse (ADF) Stephen Pearson (Department of Defence) Celia Perkins (Department of Defence) Robert Plath (Department of Defence) Pete Quinn (ADF) Kishor Napier-Raman (Sydney Morning Herald) Ellen Ransley (News Corp Australia Newswire) Katherine Richards (ADF) Graham Richardson (The Australian) Gina Rinehart (Hancock Prospecting) Gavan Reynolds (Defence) Geoffrey Roberston (Barrister) Mick Ryan (Military expert) Daniel Sankey (The Australian) Ben Saul (University of Sydney) George Savvides (SBS) Greg Sheridan (The Australian) Bevan Shields (Sydney Morning Herald) Michael Shoebridge (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) John Silvester (The Age) Brian Paul Schmidt (Australian National University) Christopher Smith (ADF) Mike Sneesby (Nine) Kerry Stokes (Seven West Media) Simon Stuart (ADF) Michael Stutchbury (Australian Financial Review) Matthew Sussex (Australian National University) Will Swanton (The Australian) Lucy Sweeney (ABC) Peter Tesch (Defence) David Thomae (ADF) Harry Triguboff (Meriton) Simon Trott (Rio Tinto) Jarrod Villani (Paramount Australian and New Zealand) Toby Walsh (Academic) Sam Weir (Herald Sun) Geoff Winestock (Sydney Morning Herald) Scott Winter (ADF) Tony Wright (The Age) Richard Wood (Nine) Matt Yannopoulos (Defence) Сhris Zappone (Sydney Morning Herald) Misha Zelinsky (Australian Financial Review) | Australia Politics |
Labour sources at the Rutherglen and Hamilton West count were either playing a game with us about the scale of their party's victory or were genuinely surprised.
Early on at the count, they said they thought the swing from the SNP to Labour would be 7% to 8%, suggesting a gain of 15 to 22 seats in Scotland in a general election.
They said a 10% swing, which they claimed they didn't expect, would suggest Labour gains of 24 seats. Later, they admitted the Labour lead was nudging up towards 10%.
But when the result was declared at around 1.30am, Labour's majority wasn't far short of 10,000 and the swing was a massive 20%.
In the trade - the rough old trade of politics - it's known as expectation management. But I'm prepared to be charitable and suggest that not even the most optimistic Labour official was expecting a 20% swing.
It's all hypothetical, of course, but the great Michael Thrasher - "the Prof" - suggests that if you take the votes cast for each party in this by-election and apply them to a general election Labour would have 42 seats in Scotland.
Fanciful? Possibly. That would take Labour back to the level it was at in 2010, when under the "great clunking fist", Gordon Brown, it had 41 MPs in Scotland.
In 2015, when under Nicola Sturgeon the SNP won 56 of Scotland's seats, Labour held just one, Ian Murray in Edinburgh South. After winning seven in 2017, Labour slumped to one again, the resilient Mr Murray, in 2019.
Does this by-election mean Sir Keir Starmer is on course to win a clear working majority next year. Not necessarily. It's only a by-election and Labour has been through enough false dawns to fall for that. In 1992, for example.
Read more politics news
Sunak speech to Tory conference 'falls flat with public'
Tories accused of 'dishonesty epidemic'
Starmer criticises PM for not mentioning cost of living crisis
No wonder Labour sources at the Rutherglen count were being extremely cautious, managing expectations or were indeed genuinely surprised.
Labour is on the way back, though. In its tartan fightback, this is an excellent start. Potentially, this by-election could be a defining moment in the battle to win the next election and put Sir Keir on the road to Downing Street.
It coincided with a YouGov poll showing Labour's lead over the Conservatives back up to a hefty 21 points. So much for a conference bounce, prime minister.
The SNP weren't the only losers in this by-election. If Labour is on the way back and on course to win big numbers of seats in Scotland, the biggest losers after Rutherglen and Hamilton West will be Rishi Sunak and the Conservatives. | United Kingdom Politics |
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryRussia says it is stepping up operationsSouthern city latest target of long-range bombardmentAround 40 killed in bombardments since Thursday, says UkraineWar overshadows G20 meet, no communique agreedKYIV, July 16 (Reuters) - Russia said on Saturday its forces would step up military operations in Ukraine in "all operational areas" as Moscow's rockets and missiles pounded cities in strikes that Kyiv says have killed dozens in recent days.Rockets hit the northeastern town of Chuhuiv in Kharkiv region overnight, killing three people including a 70-year-old woman and wounding three others, regional governor Oleh Synehubov said. read more "Three people lost their lives, why? What for? Because Putin went mad?" said Raisa Shapoval, 83, a distraught resident sitting in the ruins of her home.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comTo the south, more than 50 Russian Grad rockets pounded the city of Nikopol, on the Dnipro River, killing two people who were found in the rubble, the region's governor Valentyn Reznichenko said.Ukraine says at least 40 people have been killed in such attacks on urban areas in the last three days. Russia says it has been hitting military targets.Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu ordered military units to intensify their operations to prevent Ukrainian strikes on eastern Ukraine and other areas held by Russia, where he said Kyiv could hit civilian infrastructure or residents.Shoigu, a close ally of President Vladimir Putin, was shown in military fatigues at a command post on the defence ministry's Zvezda TV channel being briefed on the war and awarding "Golden Star" medals for heroism to two generals.His remarks appeared to be a direct response to what Kyiv says is a string of successful strikes carried out on 30 Russian logistics and ammunitions hubs using several multiple launch rocket systems recently supplied by the West.Ukraine's defence ministry spokesperson said on Friday that the strikes were causing havoc with Russian supply lines and had significantly reduced Russia's offensive capability. read more WAR OF ATTRITIONWhile the focus of the war has moved to Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, Russian forces have been striking cities elsewhere in the country with missiles and rockets in what has become an increasingly attritional conflict.Moscow, which launched what it called its "special military operation" against Ukraine on Feb. 24, says it uses high-precision weapons to degrade Ukraine's military infrastructure and protect its own security. It has repeatedly denied targeting civilians.Kyiv and the West say the conflict is an unprovoked attempt to reconquer a country that broke free of Moscow's rule with the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991.A family's picture is seen amidst debris at the site of a military strike in Chuhuiv, about 6 km from the frontline, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in Kharkiv region, Ukraine July 16, 2022. REUTERS/Nacho DoceIn one recent attack that stoked outrage from Ukraine and its Western allies, Kalibr cruise missiles hit an office building in Vinnytsia, a city of 370,000 people about 200 km (125 miles) southwest of Kyiv, on Thursday. read more Kyiv said the strike killed at least 23 people and wounded dozens. Among the dead was a 4-year-old girl named Liza with Down's Syndrome, found in the debris next to a pram. Images of her playing shortly before the attack quickly went viral.Russia's defence ministry has said the strike on Vinnytsia was directed at a building where top officials from Ukraine's armed forces were meeting foreign arms suppliers. read more Late on Friday, Russian missiles hit the city of Dnipro, about 120 km (75 miles) north of Nikopol, killing three people and wounding 15, Reznychenko, governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region that includes both cities, said on Telegram, adding that an industrial plant and a busy street next to it were hit."When the blast wave hit, there were few shards because all my windows were taped up," a local woman who gave her name as Klavdia told Reuters."I have a small injury on the left of my body but the people whose windows were not protected like this, there was a lot of blood, their injuries were horrible. I saw a small child all covered in blood. It was awful."Russia said it had destroyed a factory in Dnipro making missile parts.CONFLICT DIVIDES G20The war dominated a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Indonesia. U.S Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said differences over the conflict had prevented the finance chiefs and central bankers from issuing a formal communique but that they agreed on a need to address a worsening food security crisis. read more "This is a challenging time because Russia is part of the G20 and doesn't agree with the rest of us on how to characterize the war," Yellen said.Western countries have imposed tough sanctions on Russia and have accused it of war crimes in Ukraine, which Moscow denies. Other G20 nations, including China, India and South Africa, have been more muted in their response.In one spillover from the conflict, a blockade restricting exports of Ukrainian grain has prompted warnings it could put millions in poorer countries at risk of starvation.Despite the bloodshed, both Russia and Ukraine described progress towards an agreement to lift a blockade in recent talks. Mediator Turkey has said a deal could be signed next week.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Reuters bureaux
Writing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Alex Richardson; Editing by William Mallard, Nick Macfie and Frances KerryOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
The UK news landscape is tightly controlled by a handful of corporate moguls, new analysis by the Media Reform Coalition suggests.
Share
A free press is one of the pillars of a democracy. But Britain’s Tory-sympathising media “isn’t truly free”, experts have warned.
The UK news landscape is tightly controlled by a handful of corporate moguls, new analysis by the Media Reform Coalition suggests.
Just three companies – DMG Media, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK and Reach – dominate 90% of the UK’s national newspaper market. The same three organisations account for more than 40% of the total audience reach of the UK’s top 50 online news brands.
This concentrated ownership is “terrible” for democracy, warns Des Freedman, a founding member of the MRC.
As a result of decades of corporate cuts, closures and consolidations in the local press industry, an estimated 4.1 million people live in news ‘deserts’, with no local paper.
The situation is similarly bleak online. DMG Media, Reach and News UK account for more than two-thirds of the combined online reach of all of the UK’s ‘newsbrands.’
This is partly due to “opaque” algorithms that privilege already-dominant publishers, the report warns. 10 of the top 15 online platforms used to access news in the UK are owned by Meta, Google and X Corp (owners of X/Twitter), meaning these tech giants have huge sway over how news is consumed.
What does high media concentration mean for politics?
Intense media concentration pushes public debate to the right, Freedman warns – and politicians follow suit.
“It contributes to a nasty kind of politics that victimizes marginalised populations, and penalises the most vulnerable,” he says.
DMG and Murdoch-owned papers lean heavily Conservative. After Labour were smashed at the polls in 1992, the Murdoch-owned Sun – which had run a series of vicious articles about Labour – claimed “it’s The Sun wot won it”. In recent years, they’ve lavished praise on Boris Johnson and “heaped criticism” on Labour, Loughborough University research suggests.
This bias encourages ”dog whistle” politics on issues like immigration and prevents the Labour party from taking radical stances, Freedman said.
“It keeps politics in this narrow, neoliberal box,” he warned. “Politicians who stand up to vested interests get attacked. So they will be playing to what they perceive as the audience preferences, or rather, the proprietor and the editor preferences of these major news organizations. It’s a real disincentive to say things that editors are likely to jump on.”
The Daily Mail, for example, has regularly run editorials supporting the government’s ‘Stop the Boats’ manifesto pledge.
How can we save Britain’s free press from Tory media moguls?
Ofcom, parliament and government must act to break up the dominant media companies, and regulate the tech companies that profit off of UK audiences, report author Tom Chivers said.
“As an election year looms, which political party will be brave enough put genuine democratic media reform at the heart of its manifesto?” he asked.
Subsidies and support for independent media organisations public interest journalism are also crucial. Independent outlets like the Big Issue have an outsized role to play, Freedman says.
“Organisations like yours are able to actually ask tough questions, assume unpopular positions where necessary, and represent voices that are all too often ignored by bigger organisations,” he said.
“The independent media sector are crucial to extending the diversity of views and perspectives that would otherwise be largely shut out.”
Urgent action is needed to prevent even more people being pushed into homelessness. A secure home is the first step in addressing the cruel cycle of poverty to ensure people can fulfil their potential. Join us to keep people in their homes. | United Kingdom Politics |
The high seas are supposed to belong to everyone: New UN treaty aims to make it law
It may come as a surprise to fellow land-dwellers, but the ocean actually accounts for most of the habitable space on our planet. Yet a big chunk of it has been left largely unmanaged. It's a vast global common resource, and the focus of a new treaty called the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement.
For 15 years, UN member states have been negotiating rules that will apply to the ocean lying more than 200 nautical miles from coastlines, including the seabed and the air space above, referred to as the "high seas."
Covering nearly half the Earth's surface, the high seas are shared by all nations under international law, with equal rights to navigate, fish and conduct scientific research. Until now, only a small number of states have taken advantage of these opportunities.
This new agreement is supposed to help more countries get involved by creating rules for more fairly sharing the rewards from new fields of scientific discovery. This includes assisting developing countries with research funding and the transfer of technology.
Countries that join the treaty must also ensure that they properly assess and mitigate any environmental impacts from vessels or aircraft in the high seas under their jurisdiction. This will be especially relevant for novel activities like removing plastic.
Once at least 60 states have ratified the agreement (this may take three years or more), it will be possible to establish marine protected areas (MPAs) in high sea locations of special value.
This could protect unique ecosystems like the Sargasso Sea: a refuge of floating seaweed bounded by ocean currents in the north Atlantic which offers breeding habitat for countless rare species. By restricting what can happen at these sites, MPAs can help marine life persevere against climate change, acidification, pollution and fishing.
There are obstacles to all nations participating in the shared enjoyment and protection of the high seas, even with this new treaty. Nations joining the new agreement will need to work with existing global organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which regulates shipping, as well as regional fisheries management organizations.
The new treaty encourages consultation and cooperation with existing bodies, but states will need to balance their commitments with those made under other agreements. Already, some departments within governments work against each other when implementing broad, international treaties. For example, one division may chafe at greenhouse gas pollution regulations imposed at the IMO while a sister agency advocates for more stringent climate change measures elsewhere.
A new research frontier
A key element of the new treaty addresses the disproportionate ability of developed countries to benefit from the scientific knowledge and commercial products derived from genetic samples taken from the high seas. More than 40 years ago, when the law of the sea convention was being negotiated, the same issue arose over seabed minerals in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Industrialized nations had the technology to explore and intended to eventually mine these minerals, while developing countries did not. At that time, nations agreed that these resources were part of the "common heritage of humankind" and created the International Seabed Authority to manage a shared regime for exploiting them.
The extreme conditions for life in the open ocean have nurtured a rich diversity of survival strategies, from the bacteria that thrive in the extremely hot hydrothermal vents of the deep sea to icefish that breed in the intense cold of the Southern Ocean off Antarctica. These life forms carry potentially valuable information in their genes, known as marine genetic resources.
This new agreement provides developing states, whether coastal or landlocked, with rights to the benefits of marine genetic resources. It does not establish an administrative body comparable to that created for seabed mining, however. Instead, non-monetary benefits, such as access to samples and digital sequence information, will be shared and researchers from all countries will be able to study them for free.
Economic inequality between countries will still determine who can access these samples to a large extent, and sharing DNA sequencing data will be further complicated by the convention on biological diversity, another global treaty. The BBNJ agreement will establish a financial mechanism for sharing the monetary benefits of marine genetic resources, though experts involved in the negotiations are still parsing what it will eventually look like.
The best hope for robust marine protected areas and equitable use of marine genetic resources lies in rapid implementation of the BBNJ agreement. But making it effective will depend on how its provisions are interpreted in each country and what rules of procedure are established. In many ways, the hard work is beginning.
Although areas beyond national jurisdiction are remote for most people they generate the air you breathe, the food you eat and moderate the climate. Life exists throughout the ocean, from the surface to the seabed. Ensuring it benefits everyone living today, as well as future generations, will depend on this next phase of implementing the historic treaty.
Provided by The Conversation | Global Organizations |
Boris Johnson pledges a further £430MILLION to Ukraine and pushes for 'Plan B' to free grain from Russia's clutches, with Putin 'running out of puff'The Government will back more loans for the war-torn eastern European nationThe Prime Minister urged the UN to move onto 'Plan B' to get grain out of UkraineHe added Russia might use famine as a bargaining tool in sanctions negotiationsMr Johnson said it looks like Russian forces in Ukraine are 'running out of puff' Published: 20:59 EDT, 25 June 2022 | Updated: 03:01 EDT, 26 June 2022 Boris Johnson has pledged a further £430 million to Ukraine as he pushes for a 'Plan B' to free grain from Russia's clutches. Speaking on the eve of the G7 meeting in Germany, the Prime Minister confirmed the UK would back more World Bank loans to Ukraine later on in the year, bringing its total support up to £1.2 billion.Mr Johnson, who is attending the summit on the back of a Commonwealth meeting in Rwanda, said: '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.'It comes as he criticised current United Nations plans to get grain out of the war-torn country, saying they are doomed to fail because Russian President Vladimir Putin will use famine as a bargaining chip to ease sanctions. Instead, he says a 'Plan B', which would involved de-mining the Black Sea, providing further weapons and offering insurance for commercial vessels trying to run the Russian blockade, is needed. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, pictured here today in Kigali, Rwanda, has called for the UN to have a 'Plan B' when trying to get grain out of war-torn Ukraine Around 23 million tonnes of grain are currently stuck behind a Russian blockade. Pictured is a military vehicle in a grain field in Ukraine's Chernihiv regionCurrently there is 23 million tonnes of grain trapped by the blockade, something that is set to cause an impending global food crisis and is increasing food prices across the world.The UN was Turkey, which is a member of NATO, and Russia to agree a safe corridor for exports.Mr Johnson told reporters: 'Now the problem is that Putin is going to use that as a pretext, as a way to try and get sanctions relaxed.'And he is going to say I'll let the 23 million tonnes of grain out if you'll go easy on this, this and this.'I don't think that's a runner.'So we have to think about a plan B which would be to find ways of empowering the Ukrainians to control the sea lanes from the shore with various bits of kit.'And there are two things in particular which the UK has expertise in.'One is de-mining, remote de-mining, and the other is insurance of commercial vessels in contested waters and how to make it possible for people to take on that job.'He said Britain is in talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the Turks to get an agreement. Boris Johnson says Britain is in talks with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and Turkey over a potential safe corridor for exports Mr Johnson added that he felt the Russian's are 'running out of puff' in the ongoing war in Ukraine. Pictured is Russian president Vladimir Putin, seen here talking with Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko'At some stage the world is going to have to move from Plan A which is the UN plan with Russian help, which I think is probably going to be a non-starter, to a Plan B,' he added.Mr Johnson insisted Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan 'definitely wants the grain out' when asked if he is too close to the Putin regime.The Prime Minister said Ukraine is at a 'critical point' in the war where it appears that the Russians are 'running out of puff'.'And you know, just mincing, mincing up the Ukrainians, let me choose a better word, can you strike mincing out, just keep grinding forward, that's a better way of putting it, keep grinding forward, that's a better way of putting it.'That is the risk,' he added.Mr Johnson was in Rwanda discussing the grain crisis with leaders at a Commonwealth summit and will travel on to G7 and Nato meetings in Europe.He warned allies against becoming 'exhausted with this thing', arguing it would be a 'disaster' for the world if Mr Putin wins ground.'I'm going to make it today in the (leaders) retreat, but tomorrow in the G7. I think it's just repeating that basic point that a victory for Putin is a disaster,' Mr Johnson said.Foreign Secretary Liz Truss was also warning against getting 'tired' support for Ukraine, as she warned against a peace deal that would be a 'concession' to Moscow.After holding talks with Turkey in Ankara, she told reporters in Kigali that 'we've only got a month to do this'.'My concern is that Russia is currently prevaricating,' she said. Advertisement | United Kingdom Politics |
Head of delegates prepare for a meeting on the last day of the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in Jakarta, Indonesia, February 18, 2022. Mast Irham / Pool via REUTERSRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comJAKARTA, July 13 (Reuters) - G20 finance leaders will meet in Bali this week for talks that are due to include issues like global food security and soaring inflation, as host Indonesia tries to ensure frictions over the war in Ukraine do not blow discussions off course.Russia's invasion of Ukraine overshadowed a meeting of foreign ministers from the Group of 20 major economies last week, as Russia's top diplomat walked out of a meeting and accused the West of "frenzied criticism". read more Indonesia hopes to issue a communique when talks wrap up on Saturday though its central bank governor said the meeting would be summarised in a chair's statement if that is not feasible.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com"We hope for the best, but of course prepare for the worst," said Indonesia's central bank governor Perry Warjiyo."I don't want to speculate, we are still trying very hard to reach a communique," he said in an interview last week.Indonesian officials have noted disagreements between Western countries and Russia on how to word a draft communique to describe the state of the global economy and how it is being affected by the war in Ukraine, which Moscow calls a "special military operation".At the last G20 finance leaders' meeting in Washington in April, no communique was issued and officials from some Western nations left the room when it was the turn of the Russian representative to speak.U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Japanese Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki, after a bilateral meeting in Tokyo on Tuesday, blamed the war for volatility in currency markets and for increasing the risk of global recession. read more Yellen and Suzuki are due to attend the Bali meeting in person.Indonesia has said Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov will address the meeting virtually, with his deputy travelling to Bali. Ukraine's finance minister has also been invited and is due to attend one session virtually.Putting aside issues related to the war, Warjiyo said the G20 had made substantial progress on topics like regulatory principles on crypto and central bank digital currencies.Indonesia's G20 deputy for finance, Wempi Saputra, said the group will try to come up with actions to help poor countries tackle a looming food crisis, by ensuring supply and affordability of food and fertilisers.Other topics on the agenda include the setting up of a fund under the World Bank to better prepare for future pandemics and a Resilience and Sustainability Trust at the International Monetary Fund that could be accessed by countries in need of funds, as well as debt relief for poor countries.Yellen urged China and other non-Paris Club creditors to cooperate "constructively" in helping low-income countries facing debt distress, saying Beijing's lack of cooperation has been "quite frustrating".Indonesia's Wempi said a multinational signing of a global tax agreement, initially scheduled on the sideline of meetings, has been pushed back. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has set a new target for the major tax overhaul to take effect in 2024, instead of 2023. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Gayatri Suroyo, Stefanno Sulaiman and Fransiska Nangoy in Jakarta and Andrea Shalal in Tokyo; Editing by Ed Davies and Michael PerryOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
Boris Johnson has indicated he plans to retain and extend steel tariffs despite claims that this might put Britain in breach of World Trade Organization rules.Speaking at the G7 summit in Germany, the prime minister said he wanted to protect the British steel industry, and that the proposed protectionist measures would be in line with what other European countries were doing.The issue recently became linked to the controversy about Johnson’s ethical standards when Lord Geidt cited the proposed tariff policy in his letter announcing his resignation as the PM’s independent adviser on ministerial standards.In what was understood to be a reference to being asked to approve a tariff policy that would go against international legal obligations, Geidt said he had been put in an “impossible and odious position” and that, because he was being asked to sanction a breach of the ministerial code, he would have to quit.Why Geidt was asked to give advice on WTO tariff policy – which has not previously been a matter for the No 10 ethics adviser – has never been fully explained.Responding to reports that the government is to extend tariffs already imposed on steel imports from China, supplemented with further tariffs affecting imports from countries such as India and Turkey, Johnson said: “It’s very important people understand the context of this, and that is that the UK steel industry has been going through a difficult time, partly because of energy prices.“We have a system in the UK where we don’t privilege our industry in the way that some other countries do.“We need British Steel to be provided with much cheaper energy and cheap electricity for its blastfurnaces but until we can fix that, I think it is reasonable for UK steel to have the same protections that absolutely every other European steel economy does.”Johnson said there would be “tough choices” over what action to take. He said: “The difficulty is, is that [helping the industry] possible to do while staying within our World Trade Organization obligations? That’s the problem.”While Geidt appeared to question the tariff proposal on legal grounds, some of Johnson’s ministerial colleagues are reportedly more worried about the policy undermining free market principles.The prime minister’s spokesperson on Sunday stressed that no final decision has yet been taken.“We’re consulting with foreign counterparts on our proposals before making a final decision ahead of the deadline. That will be made shortly and will balance our international obligations and the national interest,” the spokesperson said.The spokeperson said the collapse of the steel industry would have “wider knock-on impacts for UK capability and security”.The shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, told the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme that, as he understood it, the government was planning to extend protections for domestic steel that were also in place in the US and the EU and that Labour was in favour of this too. | United Kingdom Politics |
Tory MPs are at loggerheads as competing factions engage in last-minute lobbying efforts to try to change Rishi Sunak’s flagship Rwanda legislation before it is published in the coming days.
The prime minister is due to announce a new bill as soon as this week, which Downing Street says will deal with concerns raised last month by the supreme court over the government’s scheme to send asylum seekers to east Africa. It follows the signing of a new treaty with Rwanda on Tuesday by the home secretary, James Cleverly, in Kigali.
By Tuesday night, sources said Sunak had still not made a final decision on whether the Rwanda bill would override the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights in an attempt to get the scheme off the ground.
While centrist Tory MPs are calling on him to stick by Britain’s human rights commitments, those on the right of the party say they will not accept a new bill unless it explicitly overrides them.
Mark Francois, the chair of the rightwing European Research Group, said the group would not back any new legislation that does not “fully respect the sovereignty of parliament, with unambiguous wording”.
The ERG and two other backbench groups met in Westminster on Tuesday night, after which they announced they would only support the bill if it won the approval of a group of legal experts chaired by the veteran MP Bill Cash, in an echo of the Brexit vote that divided the party.
Moderate MPs have issued their own warnings. Damian Green, the chair of the One Nation group, said on Tuesday: “The UK has for generations been a world leader on human rights … The government should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and HRA and not rush such long-term, difficult decisions.”
Amid a febrile atmosphere on the Tory benches, Cleverly met One Nation MPs before flying to Kigali on Monday. Rightwing groups say they have not been contacted by the Home Office or Downing Street in the same way, leading some to fear they had lost the argument with the prime minister.
One rightwing Conservative source said: “The government is nowhere to be seen. They are not reaching out to us. There have been no overtures from No 10. And we don’t have anyone in the cabinet. So people are thinking the worst.”
Sunak has said that whatever form the new legislation takes, it will be sufficient to deal with the supreme court’s objections in time for flights to begin taking off by next spring.
The bill is designed to work in conjunction with the new treaty, under which British taxpayers will have to bear extra costs to pay for Rwanda to institute a new asylum appeals process.
The new agreement will mean that the UK will pay for British and Commonwealth judges to preside over a newly established appeals process as well as the costs of all legal fees from anyone sent to Rwanda.
Cleverly’s trip to Kigali this week saw him become the third UK home secretary in 19 months to sign an agreement with the Rwandan government.
So far ministers have handed over £140m to the Rwandan government but they have declined to disclose how much has been paid out in extra costs as legal battles have raged over whether the scheme should go ahead.
Asked if there would be additional money for the new treaty, Cleverly said: “The financial arrangement which inevitably comes as part of an international agreement reflects the costs that may be imposed on Rwanda through the changes that this partnership has created in their systems – in their legal systems and their institutions.
“No money was asked for by the Rwandans for this treaty. No money was provided to the Rwandans for this treaty. Dealing with migration is important and it is not a cost-free option, but we regard it as the right thing to do.”
He added: “The UK and Rwanda are working on this because it is important, not because it is easy nor because it buys you cheap and quick popularity.”
The new treaty means British and Commonwealth judges will preside over a newly established appeals process within Rwanda’s high court for exceptional cases.
People sent to Rwanda will have free legal assistance funded by the taxpayer throughout the process. The Rwandan government has said no one will be removed to any other country other than to the UK, resulting in a situation where asylum seekers who commit crimes in Rwanda could be deported to the UK.
Experts paid for by the UK will be seconded to Rwanda to assist with the processing of asylum decisions.
The Home Office claims that the treaty enhances the functions of a monitoring committee in Rwanda.
Rwanda’s foreign affairs minister, Vincent Biruta, said the country had been “unfairly treated” by the courts, international organisations and the media. He suggested “internal UK politics” may have played a role.
New Home Office figures show there are now 28,318 asylum seekers in the queue potentially facing removal to Rwanda. | United Kingdom Politics |
Keir Starmer is a politician probably more suited to governing than campaigning. Yet the confidence and unity of Labour’s Liverpool conference make it ever more likely he will get to test that theory in Downing Street next year.
Starmer’s unflappable response to the incivility of a thankfully harmless protestor made that incoherent disruption a net gain. There was more grit than glitter in the speech itself.
We know Keir grew up working-class, but most voters won’t
That Sir Keir grew up working-class may be familiar to the party audience – but most of the country does not know this yet. Yet this was less back-story than front-story – about the argument that Starmer wants to put to the country next year.
Mission-led government has given Starmer – the technocratic ‘fixer’ – his framework for power. The Liverpool speech showed it is the mission to break down barriers to opportunity – a story about social class – which resonated with party members as giving a social democratic heart to the Starmer project.
And while Starmer’s caution is often described as “small target” politics, the clarity of Starmer’s YIMBY house-building agenda saw Starmer adopt the “big target” politics of 1.5 million new homes in a five year term.
I grew up working class.
I’ve been fighting all my life.
As Prime Minister, I’ll fight for you. pic.twitter.com/5OhxUExvT3
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) October 10, 2023
Labour was strikingly on message
If jaded political veterans know what to expect from the party conference routine, the 2023 season had several strikingly unfamiliar features.
The discombobulating break with political tradition so that Labour’s event was held after the Conservative conference, rather than before, for the first time in living memory.
The dramatic mood swing to exuberant happiness of the Scottish Labour Party. By-election winner Michael Shanks and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar were feted everywhere as the cavalry that might have the SNP on the run at last – moving the goalposts for a UK-wide majority too.
In Michael, the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West have an MP who is on their side.
With Labour, people across the UK will have a government that is on their side. pic.twitter.com/OM9uQCnLN0
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) October 6, 2023
There was much the largest entourage too of non-party attendees from civic society, business and the media seen since New Labour was in office. Visitors who spent time with both party tribes saw a stark contrast between the volatile cacophony of the Tory conference and Labour’s strikingly on-message seriousness.
Labour was preparing for government while the excitement on the Tory fringe came from those in the governing party already preparing for the battles of opposition.
No leader gains huge poll leads from opponents’ woes alone
Staunch support for Israel was a central theme of a Labour Party conference, from the pin-drop solemnity of the conference silence to a Labour Friends of Israel vigil attended by a thousand people, with many more in a queue which snaked around the conference unable to get in.
The dominance of global events meant Labour was speaking to itself more this week than it may have hoped. Yet Stamer’s Labour leaves Liverpool in a position of strength it could not have dared to dream of three years ago.
Starmer has been lucky too: a triple meltdown of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Nicola Sturgeon shifted the political kaleidoscope in his favour. Yet no leader established a 16 point poll lead without getting his own decisions right to benefit from those mistakes.
130 gains looked an impossible mountain in a single term yet Labour’s members will return to their constituencies and prepare to campaign for a majority government.
They have a stronger sense of the core election argument that the party will put to the public –not simply the time for change from the Conservatives, but how to start to sing Labour’s own song for change too. | United Kingdom Politics |
He is one of Latin America’s most influential and enduring politicians – a silver-tongued statesman Barack Obama once hailed as “the most popular president on Earth”.But had it not been for a chiding from Fidel Castro nearly four decades ago, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva might well have abandoned what would prove one of the most storied political careers the region has ever known.“He gave him a bollocking,” Lula’s biographer and friend, Fernando Morais, said of the moment the Cuban revolutionary took the Brazilian unionist to task for considering throwing in the towel after failing in his bid to become São Paulo’s governor in 1982.“Listen, Lula … you don’t have the right to abandon politics. You don’t have the right to do this to the working class,” Castro told the Brazilian during a trip to Havana, according to Morais’s bestselling biography. “Get back into politics!”Lula’s chronicler believes it was a pivotal moment in the life of his 76-year-old subject, who took his Cuban host’s advice to heart.Four years later, in 1989, the former shoe-shine boy and factory worker, launched his first, ultimately unsuccessful bid to become Brazil’s first working-class president. He lost two more presidential elections, in 1994 and 1998, before finally achieving his goal in 2002 – a historic triumph that sparked a nationwide outpouring of emotion and of hope.“I cried so much,” Morais remembered of the moment he saw Lula address crowds on São Paulo’s main avenue, Paulista, after his victory. “They were tears of joy and of fulfilment,” said the writer. “It moved me profoundly.” The story of Lula – who is now on the verge of reclaiming the presidency – begins in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco where he was born into rural poverty in 1945.Age seven, Lula migrated south with his mother, Dona Lindu, and six siblings in search of a better life, ending up near the port city of Santos on the São Paulo coast. Three years later Lula’s family moved to the state capital and, strapped for cash, rented the backroom of a bar which Lula remembers as a “pigsty”.“In the middle of the night [drunks] … would come in to piss or to puke. When it rained … rats and frogs would be swept in from the street and the next day they’d have to clear it all up,” Morais said.Lula’s biographer believes those hard-knock experiences were – and continue to be – what made millions of Brazilians place their trust in a leader whose own life story reflected their own.“[People think], this guy’s just like me. He’s faced all the same tragedies I’ve faced. He’s shared a two-room house with 27 other people,” Morais said.In São Paulo, a teenage Lula worked as an office boy before training as a lathe operator during the early 1960s as Brazil was plunged into two decades of military dictatorship.Lula greets supporters during a campaign rally on the eve of the presidential election in São Paulo. Photograph: Miguel Schincariol/AFP/Getty ImagesAccording to Morais, who met Lula in the late 1970s in São Paulo’s manufacturing heartlands, in those days Brazil’s future president was more interested in football than politics. When an agent from the then underground Communist party tried to recruit him on a bench outside a church, “Lula was livid”.But the grind of factory work and the repression of Brazil’s 1964-85 military regime served as a wake-up call.“It was only through witnessing the daily suffering of being a Brazilian worker – the low salaries, the worst imaginable working conditions – that his mind began to change,” Morais said.When Lula’s brother was kidnapped and tortured by security forces in 1975, that was the final straw. “It was a watershed moment,” Morais said.Lula immersed himself in the labour movement and in 1979 led a series of historic strikes, cementing his position as Brazil’s most famous union leader and paving the way for the creation of the Workers’ party (PT) Lula leads to this day.After claiming power in 2002, Lula used the windfall from a commodities boom to help millions of citizens escape poverty and became a respected international statesman, helping Brazil secure the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics.“He made Brazil a significant player on the world scene … Brazil was a serious country – it helped create the G20, it established relations … with the Brics [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa]. Brazilians were nominated to run the WTO and the FAO,” said Richard Bourne, Lula’s British biographer.Lula left power in 2010 with approval ratings nearing 90%. But the following decade was a brutal one for the leftist and his party. The PT became embroiled in a series of sprawling corruption scandals and was blamed for plunging Brazil into a savage recession. Lula’s successor, Dilma Rousseff, was impeached in 2016 in what many supporters called a political “coup”.Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva after his 2002 victory. Photograph: Orlando Kissner/AFP/Getty ImagesTwo years later Lula was jailed after being convicted on corruption charges that were last year quashed, paving the way for his sensational bid to reclaim the presidency.Lula would spend 580 days behind bars, during which time the far-right former soldier Jair Bolsonaro was elected, ushering in an era of Amazon destruction and international isolation.But the veteran leftist appears to have used his jail time wisely, plotting what just a few years ago seemed an unthinkable return to the presidential palace in Brasília.On Saturday, Lula said he would hit the streets of São Paulo on election night to party. “To rise from the ashes as we have risen,” he said, “is cause for great, great joy and celebration.” | Latin America Politics |
Boris 'is ready to fight Rishi' over tax: PM backed by senior Tories as he pushes to axe hike in corporation levy - despite fears of £15bn black hole in Treasury financesPM backed by senior Tories amid claims he's ready for tax row with ChancellorRishi Sunak is planning to increase Corporation Tax to 25% from next AprilBut Boris Johnson is now reportedly seeking to reverse the increase Published: 06:48 EDT, 15 June 2022 | Updated: 06:49 EDT, 15 June 2022 Boris Johnson is being backed by senior Tories as the Prime Minister gears up for a 'big fight' with Rishi Sunak over the Chancellor's planned tax hike for businesses.In last year's Budget, Mr Sunak announced that Corporation Tax would increase by six percentage points to 25 per cent in 2023. The Chancellor insisted it was 'fair and necessary' to ask firms to contribute to the recovery of the national finances after the Covid pandemic.But it has now emerged the PM is seeking to reverse the planned increase, even if it could leave a £15 billion-a-year black hole in the Treasury's coffers.A Conservative source told The Times the PM was prepared to have a 'big fight' with Mr Sunak.'He doesn't want to put up corporation tax but the Treasury and Rishi are holding him to it,' they said.'It is a constant battle. He's going to try and cut (the planned rise) in Corporation Tax. He's going to have a big fight with Rishi on it.'Senior Tories welcomed suggestions Mr Johnson was willing to battle Mr Sunak over the tax increase. Boris Johnson is reportedly seeking to reverse the planned increase in Corporation Tax, even if it could leave a £15 billion-a-year black hole in the Treasury's coffers In last year's Budget, Rishi Sunak announced that Corporation Tax would increase by six percentage points to 25 per cent in 2023Former Cabinet minister Lord Frost said it was 'good news', adding: 'Treasury will of course oppose - they always do oppose tax cuts.'But the PM has the final say and we need to get our offer to investors right.'Ex-Brexit minister David Jones also backed moves for the tax hike to be reversed.He told MailOnline: 'The last thing we want to do right now is to impair the profitability of companies that are providing employment to so many people.' In his Budget speech last year, Mr Sunak defended the rise in Corporation Tax from 19 per cent to 25 per cent, scheduled for April next year.He told MPs that, even after the increase, the UK would still have the lowest Corporation Tax in the G7 - lower than the US, Canada, Italy, Japan, Germany and France.Mr Sunak also claimed the higher rate would not be in place until 'well after the point' when the UK economy was expected to have recovered from the Covid crisis.However, amid the cost-of-living crisis and the Ukraine war, economic growth has since stalled to spark fears of a full-blown recession.This has increased the appetite among Tory MPs for tax cuts. Former Cabinet minister Lord Frost welcomed suggestions Mr Johnson was willing to battle Mr Sunak over the tax increase GDP was down for the second month in a row by 0.3 per cent in April, after a 0.1 per cent dip in March Mr Sunak this week reiterated his promise of greater tax breaks for businesses - but these are focussed on incentives for firms to invest.The Chancellor has pledged to cut the tax rates on business investment at his Budget this autumn.He has also vowed to reform research and development (R&D) tax credits and to consider whether to make R&D expenditure credit more generous.Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank, said: 'We know Rishi Sunak is thinking about significant changes to the corporate tax system, in particular how it could be reformed to encourage investment.'That's likely to mean changes to the structure of the system rather than a reversal of the rate increase.'He may be tempted to go ahead with a tax rise at a time of high inflation, since it will take some money out of the economy.'But using some of the money raised from increasing the rate to increase incentives for R&D and investment could have long-term positive impacts on growth and productivity.' Advertisement | United Kingdom Politics |
U.S. President Joe Biden listens while meeting virtually with Xi Jinping, China's president, in the ... [+] Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, Nov. 15, 2021. Photographer: Sarah Silbiger/UPI/Bloomberg © 2021 Bloomberg Finance LP The leaders of the U.S. and China may be on a path toward a face-to-face meeting in November even as the two countries face a “difficult, unstable” period in ties, the leader of an influential Beijing think tank said in an interview. “There could be a summit” between the two during a meeting of the G20 nations scheduled for November 15-16 in Bali, Henry Huiyao Wang, president of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, said in New York earlier this month. That meeting would occur after an important China Communist Party gathering in the fall in which Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping will likely win backing for a third five-year term as chairman. “China will probably have had its 20th Party Congress, and President Xi will have a new mandate” by mid-November, Wang said. “It will be a good time to let the world know where China is heading.” Xi last month traveled to Hong Kong for the 25th anniversary of Hong Kong handover from Britain to the People’s Republic of China government. The settlement of China’s leadership for the next five years and a summit with President Joe Biden could in turn could pave the way for U.S. and China relations to “enter a relatively stable period for some time,” Wang said. “I still think there is a possibility that we can really make this relationship manageable, which means we recognize differences. We can have bottom lines,” he said. “We can have guard rails. But more importantly, we can keep the relationship from getting into a conflict or a hot war.” Henry Huiyao Wang, president of the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization Center for China and Globalization Geopolitical strains between the two, expected by some to ease after President Joe Biden’s election haven’t. Earlier this month, China said it drove away the USS Benfold from South China Sea waters it claims; the U.S. says the area is international waters. That came after U.S. Secretary of State and China Foreign Minister held talks in connection with a G7 ministry-level meeting last week.
China’s cozy friendship with Russia at a time of the latter’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has damaged the country’s image in the U.S., according to a Pew survey published in June which found 82% of Americans have a negative view of the country. For its part, China didn’t know of Russia’s invasion plans in advance, Wang said.
Wang stands out among China’s foreign policy experts for his international background. After obtaining his bachelor’s degree in English and American literature from the Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, he earned an MBA and a PhD in international management at the University of Windsor, the University of Western Ontario and University of Manchester, successively. He later studied at the Harvard Business School and was a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. He has been a visiting fellow at Brookings Institution. He once served as chief trade representative for Canadian Quebec Government Office in Hong Kong and Greater China. He also served as counselor of China’s State Council. In Wang’s view, relations between the two sides – the world’s two largest economies – are facing two “traps.” The first, the “Thucydides Trap,” occurs when an existing power doesn’t provide enough room for an up-and-comer to ascend in the world. The second is the “Kindleberger Trap,” the result of an existing power not providing enough global public goods compared with an up-and-coming rival. China is willing to fill gaps not being filled by the United States, Wang said. “China will become the country with the largest economy in the world,” and wants more room for itself globally, Wang said. “We’re entering a difficult adjustment period, which could take five, 10, maybe 15 years,” he said. The end of the pandemic – whenever that will be – will likely bring improvement in ties as people-to-people exchanges resume, Chinese tourism revives, and student exchanges between the U.S. and China will recover, Wang said. “Zoom meetings cannot replace face-to-face meetings,” he added.
Though lockdowns have led many businesses in the mainland to suffer, many U.S. companies and multinationals will likely take a long-term view of China’s deep industrial base and state of the art telecommunications infrastructure, Wang believes. U.S. investors in the country include many members of the Forbes Global 2000 list, including Tesla, GM, Ford and Intel. The U.S. and China should try to work together on providing infrastructure to developing countries and, along with Europe, promote tighter global partnership among development banks, Wang said. Though the G7 has launched a “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment,” it was ridiculed in China state media this month as “an instant laughingstock for its empty rhetoric and its bid to ‘counter’ the China-led Belt and Road Initiative.”
It’s that kind of rhetoric that underscores the current “difficult, unstable” period between the two countries. See related posts: U.S.-China Business Ties Are “Better Than The Headlines”
China’s Ambassador Talks Pew, Trade Travel: Exclusive Interview
Negative Views Of China Remind High In 19 Countries, Pew Survey Finds
@Rflannerychina | Asia Politics |
Boris Johnson says Government may 'very well' have to change the law to deport asylum seekers to RwandaPrime minister asked about human rights law at Falklands War memorial eventMr Johnson said: 'Will it be necessary to change some rules? It very well may be.'Added: 'The legal world is very good at finding ways to try and stop Government'PM refused to rule out withdrawal from European Convention on Human Rights Published: 13:33 EDT, 14 June 2022 | Updated: 13:33 EDT, 14 June 2022 Boris Johnson said the Government could 'very well' change human rights law in order to enforce its Rwanda migrants plan.Asked earlier today about a series of legal challenges to the offshore processing policy, the prime minister refused to rule out pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).Mr Johnson told broadcasters: 'The legal world is very good at picking up ways of trying to stop the Government from upholding what we think is a sensible law.'Will it be necessary to change some rules to help us as we go along? It very well may be.' Boris Johnson, pictured at today's Falklands War service, said 'All options are under review' Border Force staff are pictured escorting Channel migrants ashore at Dover earlier todayAnswering a follow-up question about the ECHR, the PM said: 'All these options are under constant review.'At least four asylum seekers will be onboard a Boeing 767-300 to the east African country set to take off tonight after their legal appeals failed at the High Court. The ECHR was drafted in 1948 by a panel of politicians including Winston Churchill to guarantee 'liberty of thought, assembly and expression'.It has been enforced in the UK since 1998 through Tony Blair's Human Rights Act.Three Iranians, one Vietnamese, one Albanian and one Iraqi Kurd are being held at Colnbrook detention centre, Heathrow. A woman is attended to by Border Force workers after making the perilous journey to Dover A family of Channel migrants wearing life jackets are escorted by staff onto shore at DoverA second Iraqi Kurd is at Brook House near Gatwick, the BBC reported.Earlier today, the Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch appeal to block the removal of one of the Iraqi asylum seekers.A panel of three justices refused permission for the man to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling yesterday which upheld the earlier decision of a High Court judge not to grant an injunction stopping the flight.The court's president, Lord Reed, said there had been an 'assurance' that, if the policy is found to be unlawful in an upcoming judicial review, steps would be taken to bring back any migrants flown to Rwanda in the interim. The PM has sought to crack down on unsafe routes into the UK. Pictured: migrants at DoverThis morning, Liz Truss said the first plane will take off today even if it is only carrying one migrant. The Supreme Court ruling means this condition will be met.Priti Patel's initiative has sparked controversy among human rights campaigners, who have pointed out the lack of freedoms in the east-central African country. The United Nations' refugee chief labelled the plan 'catastrophic'.Migrants held at the UK's offshore processing centre in capital Kigali will be brought to the UK if their asylum appeals are successful.If they are unsuccessful, migrants will be left in the country.Boris Johnson maintains the policy will 'support safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK and to oppose the illegal and dangerous routes'.Opening today's Cabinet meeting, the PM said: 'I think that what the criminal gangs are doing and what those who effectively are abetting the work of the criminal gangs are doing is undermining people's confidence in the safe and legal system, undermining people's general acceptance of immigration.'He added: 'We are not going to be in any way deterred or abashed by some of the criticism that is being directed upon this policy, some of it from slightly unexpected quarters. We are going to get on and deliver.' Advertisement | United Kingdom Politics |
By Joel GunterBBC NewsImage caption, Mansoor Adayfi on the balcony of his Belgrade apartment. "Guantanamo follows you everywhere you go," he said. (Joel Gunter/BBC)Mansoor Adayfi knew next to nothing about Serbia when a delegation from its government came to visit him in 2016, in his 14th year in the prison at Guantanamo Bay.The only thing Adayfi did know was that Serbian forces had massacred Bosnian Muslims in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. All of the prisoners set for release from Guantanamo that year knew this part of the history, Adayfi said, and no-one wanted to go to Serbia.By that point, Adayfi had been in Guantanamo all his adult life - picked up in Afghanistan aged 19 and held without charge until he was 32. The previous year, the US had officially downgraded its assessment of him to acknowledge that it was unclear whether he had ever been connected to al-Qaeda, and he had been cleared for release under a complex system of classified deals to resettle detainees abroad. Adayfi wanted to go to Qatar, where he had family, or to Oman, which had gained a reputation at Guantanamo for treating former detainees well. But when the time came for his delegation meeting in the designated room in Camp Six, Adayfi found a Serbian team waiting for him. He listened to them, he said, then gave them a polite no."I told them thank you very much, but I know the history."According to Adayfi, the head of the delegation assured him that Muslims were welcome in Serbia. The government was going to treat him like a citizen, they said - help him finish his education, give him financial assistance, and arrange for a passport and ID. They were going to help him start over. After the meeting, Adayfi told the US officials at Guantanamo that he did not want to go. But they were frank about the extent of his influence on the process, he said. "A state department envoy came to see me after the delegation meeting and she said, 'Mansoor, you have no choice. You are going to Serbia.'" Image source, Getty ImagesImage caption, Detainees in orange jumpsuits at the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, in January 2002.Adayfi is 39, charismatic and quick to smile, with a childlike quality he attributes to being locked away at the moment he was becoming an adult. His long journey to Belgrade began in Yemen, where he grew up in a rural village without running water or electricity. As a teenager he moved to the capital Sanaa to finish school and study computer science. According to his account, he travelled to Afghanistan in 2001 for an assignment as a research assistant, arranged by an educational institute in Sanaa. Four months after Adayfi arrived, the US invaded Afghanistan and began hunting for members of al-Qaeda. Leaflets were dropped from planes promising large cash rewards for turning people in. Adayfi says the car he was travelling in in northern Afghanistan was ambushed by militants, just days before he was due to return to Yemen, and he was taken captive and handed to the US.Adayfi's first stop was an American black site, where he says he was stripped naked, beaten, interrogated and accused of being an Egyptian al-Qaeda commander. From there he was flown, hooded and shackled, to Guantanamo Bay. His 14 years in the notorious prison are recounted in Don't Forget Us Here, a memoir published late last year. It chronicles torture, psychological abuse, and the death of his brother and sister while he was incarcerated. He taught himself English from scratch in the camp, as well as some computer science and business theory. But the story ends shortly after his release, as he lands in Belgrade in the dark one night in July 2016 and is taken by the secret service to a small apartment in the city centre, where he later found surveillance cameras, he said. Adayfi stayed awake that first night, wondering what lay ahead of him."I was exhausted but I couldn't sleep, hungry but I couldn't eat," he said, sitting in his current Belgrade apartment late one night in February. "There was loneliness in Guantanamo, but this was a new kind," he said. What came next is what Adayfi calls "Guantanamo 2.0" - an isolated and restricted existence in Serbia, which he is not allowed to leave and where he says he is followed by police who warn off anyone he tries to befriend. Half a dozen former Guantanamo detainees across different countries - all released without charge - described similar experiences: lives in limbo; limited by a lack of documents, police interference, and travel restrictions that confine them to a country or even a single city, making it hard to find work, visit family or form relationships."Welcome to our life," Adayfi said. "This is life after Guantanamo."Image caption, Mansoor Adayfi near his apartment in Belgrade, where he was resettled from Guantanamo in 2016. (Joel Gunter/BBC)The resettlement deals spread the former detainees across the globe - to Serbia, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Albania, Kazakhstan, Qatar and elsewhere. Some had the relative good fortune of being repatriated to their home nations, including the UK, others were sent somewhere alien.Adayfi was barred from returning to Yemen, where his family lives, because the US congress decided it was a security risk to return detainees to what it deemed unstable countries. Yemen has also refused to grant Adayfi a passport, and so has Serbia, so he is effectively stateless, marooned in Belgrade. The deal that took him there, like a lot of things about Guantanamo, remains shrouded in secrecy. "I don't know anything officially, because the United States does not tell the lawyers anything," said Adayfi's lawyer, Beth Jacob, a New Yorker who has now represented nine Guantanamo detainees pro-bono. "Most of the information I have about my clients I cannot share with them because it is classified as secret, and what I have is heavily redacted - five-page documents with a few words floating in a sea of blackness." The US state department told the BBC that it obtained assurances from all third countries that the former detainees would be treated humanely, as well as "security assurances designed to mitigate the threat a former detainee may pose after transfer" and a "framework to facilitate a detainee's successful reintegration into society". The state department had on occasion assisted with the costs associated with supporting former detainees, a spokesperson said - though the amounts involved and the duration of the assistance remain unclear. Serbia's government did not respond to the BBC's questions.To Adayfi, the resettlement deal feels like an invisible net. He is not sure where it begins and ends. He cannot leave Serbia because he has no passport, and he cannot leave Belgrade without applying for permission in advance. He is followed by police, he says, and has found listening software installed on his government-issued phone. He is not allowed to drive, so he rarely attends Friday prayers anymore because it involves a long round trip by bus to the nearest mosque. He has a residence permit, and he has received financial assistance for rent and further education, but it is difficult to find work because he cannot explain away the 15 years he spent in Guantanamo, so he struggles to make ends meet. He lives in an apartment found for him by the government in a suburb of the city where there are few other Muslims and no places to buy halal meat. He mostly eats at home alone, and to break his loneliness he takes the bus to a nearby shopping mall and wanders around. When he passes young families there, Adayfi often stares for too long. "I cannot help myself," he said, one day, on a circuit of the mall. "I feel like a shell, empty within."Image caption, A mailbox at Adayfi's apartment, and Guantanamo books on his bookshelf. (Joel Gunter/BBC)Shortly after he arrived in Belgrade in 2016, Adayfi gave his first interview to US media and told them he was unhappy about his new life. In response, a widely-read Serbian tabloid published a full-page story referring to him as an "al-Qaeda jihadist" and "convicted terrorist" who was ungrateful to his host nation.Those he has tried to befriend have been warned off by police, he says. He has screenshots of WhatsApp conversations in which people described these interactions to him - from his first solitary visit to a cafe, a few weeks after he arrived, when police apparently questioned a group of Libyans at an adjacent table, to his most recent interaction, last year, when he had coffee with a young Muslim man he met at the mosque."They stopped him and asked him, 'Do you know Mansoor from al-Qaeda?'", Adayfi said. "In the end I told him to delete my number. I don't want anyone to get hurt."After an interview with PBS Frontline in 2018, Adayfi was taken in by police and beaten, he said. Two friends from his language course were also arrested. A woman from a phone repair course he took was confronted by officers after she spoke to him in the library, he said. He still has messages she sent him afterwards, asking why plainclothes police were warning her off.And so Adayfi spends most of his time alone in his apartment. He rarely engages with his neighbours, and he has been going to the mall less, he said, since he was seen praying in an outdoor area last year and escorted off the premises by police. "After a while you give up, you withdraw," Adayfi said. "But it means you are isolated. I mostly live inside my head now."Adayfi's closest substitute for friends in Belgrade is an international network of former Guantanamo detainees he has helped to connect and which he calls "the brothers", who communicate through various WhatsApp groups or over the phone. The content of the groups is largely apolitical, to avoid putting anyone at risk in their host countries. "We sing songs, tell jokes, share photos, talk to each other about our health. We share memories of Guantanamo - the clothes, the food," Adayfi said. "It helps keep us going."Image caption, Mansoor Adayfi shows a drawing from his business plan for a milk and honey farm in Yemen, completed in Guantanamo. (Joel Gunter/BBC)Among the former detainees Adayfi talks to most is Sabry al-Qurashi, a fellow Yemeni who spent nearly 13 years at Guantanamo before he was forcibly resettled to Semey, a small city on a former nuclear test site in far-eastern Kazakhstan which he is not allowed to leave. Al-Qurashi was transferred to Kazakhstan in 2014 with four other former detainees, including Asim Thahit Abdullah Al Khalaqi - who died of kidney failure four months after arriving - and Lotfi Bin Ali, who couldn't get the medical care he needed in Semey for a heart condition, and died of heart disease last year after being deported to Mauritania.With Bin Ali gone, al-Qurashi remains alone in Semey, where he "lives in a state worse than jail", he said. He has written letters to the Kazakh president and prime minister, US embassy and ICRC asking to be set free or sent back to Guantanamo, but received no replies. The Kazakh government did not respond to the BBC's questions."Guantanamo was better than here, because at least there I had hope I would one day be in a better place," al-Qurashi said. "When the government delegation came from Kazakhstan, they told me I would be treated like a citizen of Kazakhstan. But it was a lie. I have no status, no ID, no family, and no friends. I am stuck here and there is no end."Al-Qurashi is often stopped by the police when he leaves his apartment, he said, and asked to produce ID he does not have. Sometimes he is taken to the police station and forced to wait seven or eight hours until someone from the ICRC comes to get him. He needs specialist medical care for damaged nerves in his face after he was punched by a plainclothes policeman for refusing to remove his jacket one day, he said, but like his old friend Lotfi Bin Ali, he has been refused permission to travel to the capital to get it. "I went to the police station to ask what happened to the guy who hit me, and they said, 'Shut your mouth, you are nothing here, go home.'"Image caption, Selections from two paintings by Sabry al-Qarashi, who began painting in Guantanamo. (Sabry al-Qarash)The incident summed up his existence in Semey, al-Qurashi said - a life lived totally at the mercy of the local authorities, who regard him as a convicted terrorist. "The first pain is the punch," he said. "The second pain is that you have no access to justice. You have no rights."Al-Qurashi was never charged by the US, which alleged that he was a member of al-Qaeda who attended a training camp in Afghanistan. He was arrested by Pakistani security forces at an alleged al-Qaeda safehouse in Karachi, but he denies he was ever a member of the group. During his detention in Guantanamo, al-Qurashi began painting, producing a large volume of work which was subsequently confiscated. He has tried to maintain the practice in Semey. It is "the only thing that keeps me sane," he said. He is not allowed to order anything online, so his access to paint and canvases is limited. He was asked to contribute work to an exhibition of art by former detainees, but he has no Kazakh ID card and is unable as a result to get the work authenticated as his own and sent."I asked the ICRC, should I burn my paintings?" al-Qurashi said. "They told me their only job was to make sure I had a roof and food, and that was it."Seven years ago, al-Qurashi was married, by family arrangement, to a woman in Yemen, whom he has never met because he is not allowed to leave Semey and she cannot travel to Kazakhstan to live with him. He has pleaded with various Kazakh authorities for permission to leave but his situation remains unchanged. "I have been waiting for seven years for my life to begin," he said.In total, 779 men passed through the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. Twelve have been charged with a crime. Only two have ever been convicted. According to a 2006 analysis of US defence department data by Seton Hall University law school, just 5% of the 517 detainees left in the prison that year had been actually detained by US forces. Eighty-six per cent had been detained either by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance militant coalition in Afghanistan, and "handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies". This was Adayfi's fate, he says - caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. "I was a package deal," he said, "sold to the US and then sold to Serbia". In a 2007 Guantanamo administrative review board, seven years into his detention, Adayfi stated that he was a "jihadist" and a "son" of Osama Bin Laden, and it was an "honour to be an enemy of the United States". He claims now that the outburst was a protest. The administrative review boards were pseudo legal hearings at which the detainees had no lawyers present."We didn't understand the review board, we thought it was another interrogation," he said. "For us, everything was an interrogation. So I thought, today I am going to beat them, I'm going to tell them, I am your enemy."Adayfi had emerged by that point as an informal leader of fellow detainees - organising hunger strikes and other protests. He earned himself a nickname among the guards, "smiley troublemaker". He also devoted himself to education, teaching himself fluent English from scratch, and to writing. He wrote his memoir of Guantanamo twice. The first version, written on contraband pieces of paper, was confiscated and destroyed. When he realised that legal letters were privileged, he sat for hours in the camp classroom, his feet shackled to the floor, and wrote letters, which later became the basis of his book.Image caption, A title page listing contents for Adayfi's book, approved to be passed out of Guantanamo to his lawyer. (Joel Gunter/BBC)Adayfi is now working on a new book charting the struggles of his post-detention life in Serbia. One wall of his Belgrade apartment is filled with colourful sticky notes describing events that will make up its contents. The notes record interrogations by police, thwarted attempts to make friends and find a wife, and efforts to draw President Biden's attention to his plight. Every day he communicates with other former detainees - more than 100 in total - across various online and WhatsApp chat groups. Many have faced the same sorts of restrictions as Adayfi."The United States has created a uniquely terrible situation for these men," said Daphne Eviatar, director of security and human rights at Amnesty USA. "Many of them were tortured and have received no acknowledgement, no compensation, no real rehabilitation," she said. "To then transfer them into another situation where they are restricted, can't travel, can't earn a livelihood, can't move on - it's unconscionable."To Adayfi, the only path to a new life after Guantanamo is to find a wife and have a family of his own. It is what he thinks about at night when he has run out of distractions. But efforts to meet someone in Serbia have not been a success. His faith dictates that he must marry a Muslim woman and meet her in a traditional way, through her family, but his attempts to integrate into the Muslim community in Belgrade have failed, because of a pervasive fear in the community, he says, of being associated with terrorism.Adayfi did find a match in 2019, with a woman abroad, he said. She was from a good family, and they communicated for a year while he appealed to Serbian authorities for permission to travel to join her. She was his first love, he said. In the end he begged the authorities to allow him to go to her, he said, but they refused. Eventually, her family ran out of patience and she married another man. "The worst pain I ever felt was not the black site, it was not the 15 years in Guantanamo, it was when I lost someone I loved," Adayfi said. "At Guantanamo they torture you but they cannot touch your soul. Love is a pain that touches your soul, and you suffer a lot."Image caption, Sticky notes on one wall of Adayfi's apartment chart the contents of his new book, on his life in Belgrade. (Joel Gunter/BBC)In July 2004, more than two years after the first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo, the Pentagon launched its first formal review of the status of the detainees and cleared 38 men for release with "NEC", or "non-enemy combatant" status. The status effectively acknowledged that the men were not associated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban and had not undertaken hostile actions against the US.Among the 38 were five Uyghurs picked up in Afghanistan that the US said it suspected were members of the East Turkestan Independence Movement - a small militant group dedicated to independence for the Chinese region also known as Xinjiang. It was unsafe to send the men back to their home nation of China, where Uyghurs are persecuted by the state, so the US struck a deal with Albania to take them. They were finally released in 2006 and landed late at night in the Albanian capital Tirana. Their initial joy at being free subsided when they were taken straight to a squalid refugee camp on the outskirts of the city, where they would spend more than a year."It was like another world," said Abu Bakker Qassim, a 52-year-old Uyghur now living a quiet life with his family in a poor and run down suburb outside Tirana. "Five years we were in Guantanamo, in the heat, and suddenly we were in Albania in the deep cold. Every day we dressed heavily and ate tasteless food among the strangers in the camp."Qassim denies ever being a member of the East Turkestan Independence Movement. He was travelling to Turkey via Pakistan when he was picked up by militants, he said, and handed to the US. Like Adayfi, Qassim and the other former detainees bound for Albania were promised financial assistance, passports, citizenship and apartments that were ready for them, they said, only to discover a very different reality on the ground. "Guantanamo had six camps at that time, and the refugee camp in Albania was camp seven," said Zakir Hasam, an Uzbek detained in Guantanamo from 2002 to 2006. "There were four or five people to a room, barbed wire around the camp, and we had no money and no good food," said Hasam. "The authorities told us their only job was to keep us safe politically and physically, and that was it."Image caption, Abu Bakker Qassim at his home in Tirana. "This is not freedom," he said. (Joel Gunter/BBC)After a year in the refugee camp, and a series of protests, the former detainees in Tirana were relocated to apartments. They are now further along in their post-Guantanamo lives than Adayfi and al-Qurashi, and in some ways more fortunate. Several have married or remarried. Qassim and Hasam both have children. They benefit from monthly financial assistance for rent and bills and have enjoyed success integrating into their local communities. Their good fortune was to end up in a majority-Muslim country. But in other ways they live under the same restrictions as the former detainees in Serbia, Slovakia and Kazakhstan. They have no passports or work permits, so they cannot travel or legally earn a living to supplement their modest financial assistance."This is not freedom," said Qassim. "Thank God we are out of prison, but we are not free."Qassim's wife "buys the cheapest vegetables, the cheapest fruits, the ones that are a little spoiled," he said. "We cannot buy in the market because we run out of money in 15 days. So we save wherever we can. We are here alone, we are foreigners, we have no family who can help."The financial assistance keeps them afloat but it also keeps them in a precarious situation, because it is attached only to the former detainees and not their families. When Qassim's friend and fellow former detainee, Ala Abd Al-Maqsut Mazruh, died from Covid five months ago, his wife Hatiche received a letter from the Albanian government telling her that the assistance would be immediately cut off. She was also told that the government-rented property she lived in with their three young children would be taken back this coming September.Like Qassim, Ala was released without charge in 2005, after being designated a non-enemy combatant. Hatiche went to the ministry of the interior in person, she said, to plead her case, but wasn't allowed in, and she has not received a reply to her messages. She cannot afford a lawyer. In order to support her three children she will need to find full-time work, while caring for them. Her biggest fear is that she will not be able to shelter and feed her children. Her second biggest fear is that they will persecuted in the future because their father was in Guantanamo."I am afraid for my children tomorrow and the day after tomorrow," she said. "I am afraid they will be followed by the stigma of Guantanamo."The Albanian government did not respond to requests to comment for this story.Image caption, Zakir Hasam at the junk market near his home in Tirana. 'We have no ID, it interferes with every part of life," he said. (Joel Gunter/BBC)"Our biggest problem is we have no ID," said Hasam. "It interferes with every part of life. You have no choices, you cannot choose where to live, you cannot choose to travel to see your family abroad, you cannot choose where to work - everyone asks for ID and documents and your work history," he said. Hasam goes every week to a sprawling junk market where he looks for electronic and mechanical items he can buy, repair and resell - broken smartphones and laptops, radios, drills, anything he can pry open and restore. But the pickings - and margins - are slim. A two-hour visit to the market one February weekend netted only a single set of damaged speakers.He wants above all to be able to get a good job, based on his mechanical skills, and provide better for his two autistic children, who cannot currently get proper care. He found out in 2020 that his name was listed on "World Check" - a global database that meant nothing to him at the time but is used by banks everywhere to screen customers for criminal backgrounds. Being listed on the database can limit a person in ways they cannot see, and Refinitiv, the company behind it, doesn't inform those who are listed.It emerged that year that many former Guantanamo detainees had been added to the database, many to its "terrorism" category despite never having being charged with a crime. Now, with the help of a British legal firm, they are slowly getting small payouts. Hasam got $3,000. Qassim got $3,000. Mansoor Adayfi hasn't received a payout yet, he is disputing the offer. "When you take into account that the lawyers take 30%, it's not much," he said.Last month, Adayfi was cut off without explanation from the money transfer service Western Union. He had been using the service to send small amounts of money home to his family in Yemen to help pay for his mother's monthly medical expenses, he said, as well as receive donations or payments for work from abroad. Citing company policy, Western Union said it could not disclose to Adayfi or the BBC why he was cut off. A spokesman said the company "takes its regulatory and compliance responsibilities very seriously", and had reached out to Adayfi about his case. Adayfi is convinced that it is Guantanamo. The long shadow of his extrajudicial detention has been cast over so many parts of his life that he sees it everywhere. "It follows you every place you go," he said, ruefully. "America punishes you for 15 years, and then the rest of the world punishes you for the rest of your life." One night back in February, a few days after the 20th anniversary of his arrival in Guantanamo, Adayfi was setting up his apartment to give a video talk to a group of students in the US state of Virginia about the art produced in Guantanamo. He moved his small writing desk in front of his preferred Zoom background - the wall of post-it notes that chart the structure of his new book - and took a silk orange scarf from a hook and tied it around his neck. Orange was the first colour Adayfi saw when his blindfold was removed at Guantanamo - the colour of the jumpsuits the men were forced to wear, that came to symbolise America's human rights abuses at the camp.He clicked on a cheap ring light he purchased online for these kinds of appearances and it lit up one corner of the apartment. Adayfi rarely turns down an offer to give an interview or talk - he has a book to promote, and he sees it as his responsibility to educate younger generations about Guantanamo. And it brings people into his life, briefly.Adayfi gave an introductory talk about the catalogue of art produced by Guantanamo detainees and the artists' ongoing battle to take their work out of the prison with them. Then he encouraged the students to ask questions. Many of the school and university age groups he talks to have a hazy understanding of what happened at Guantanamo and how the story began, and Adayfi has to remind himself that most of them weren't born when he was sent there.Adayfi has probably, by this point, been asked just about every question there is to ask about Guantanamo. But he cheerfully engaged with each one. "At what point did you give up?" a student asked. "There was no giving up, the moment you give up you have lost," Adayfi said. "We paint and they take the paintings away. We write and they destroy our words. We hunger strike and they break the strike. We hunger strike again. I wrote my book twice. They first time they took it away and it broke my heart. But I wrote it again."Image caption, Adayfi often gives online talks about Guantanamo. Many students were not born when he was sent to Guantanamo. (Joel Gunter/BBC)Adayfi completed his manuscript in Belgrade, with the help of an American writer, and it was published at the end of last year. He has also finished a bachelor's degree in business - his thesis an analysis of the successes and failures of former detainees re-entering social life and the labour market wherever they were sent. Guantanamo still circumscribes Adayfi's world - there is hardly anything he does that is not an exploration of or battle with the consequences of his detention.When the online talk was over, Adayfi clicked off his ring light and rearranged his apartment. It was late at night but he wanted to talk. The conversation turned again to family, and at one point Adayfi began mimicking a father trying to corral his small children and get them to behave. Soon he got carried away with the fantasy, jumping up to chase his imaginary son and daughter around the room, beaming with a wide smile and laughing as he called out their imaginary names. Then he caught himself, and stopped, and sat for a while in silence.For Adayfi, turning this fantasy into something he can touch will be the only real escape from Guantanamo. Until that day, he is locked in the strange phase of his life defined by his long extrajudicial detention. "No matter what I do, there will be suspicion around me," he said, dejectedly. "People just cannot believe that America would make a mistake." In April, Adayfi's lawyer received a cryptic email from his government minder, telling her the government was "done with Mansoor" and the "programme was finished". She asked the minder if that meant the restrictions on Adayfi's ability to work, drive and travel would be lifted. He replied to say it would be discussed at the next meeting of officials. Nearly six years after Adayfi was sent to Serbia, it was the first acknowledgement - albeit tacit - that the restrictions against him even existed. They are waiting to hear back.Human rightsWar in Afghanistan (2001-present)Guantanamo BayUnited States | Human Rights |
In Russia, schools to start teaching Swahili this September
Swahili, one of three official languges of the East African Community, is the native language of the Swahili people.
___________________
For the first time ever, young learners in at least four schools in Russia's capital Moscow will study Swahili and Amharic languages starting this September, according to Russian news agency Sputnik.
As revealed during a Sputnik roundtable, this is part of a "new special programme" aimed at strengthening Russia-African ties.
Swahili, also locally called Kiswahili, is the native language of the Swahili people, who are predominantly found in eastern Africa.
Kiswahili is widely spoken in Kenya
It is one of three official languges of the East African Community (EAC), with English and French being the others.
Already spoken by more than 200 million people around the world, Swahili now appears set to penetrate the Russian society — starting in schools.
It will debut alongside Amharic, which is the most widely spoken language in Ethiopia.
According to a Thursday release by Sputnik, Yoruba — a language spoken primarily in southwestern and central Nigeria in West Africa — is also being considered for introduction in Russian schools.
Alexei Maslov is the director of Moscow-based Institute of Asian and African Studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University.
He is quoted as saying during the roundtable that from Russia's point of view, "an abrupt turn to Africa requires a completely different type of specialists who could work directly with the economy and would realize that Africa is not just one big continent, but in fact, a patchwork of diverse national, religious and linguistic traditions".
'Joint ventures'
The hybrid discussion, also featuring participants from different parts of Africa, centred around the prospects for economic co-operation between Russia and Africa.
One of the participants was Philani Mthembu, the executive director at the Institute for Global Dialogue in South Africa.
Speaking virtually, he underlined the role of bilateral projects in agriculture and food.
Beyond potential trade in minerals and resources, Mthembu thinks it will also be important for Russia and Africa to consider "potential mechanisms for attracting Russian investment, as well as the creation of joint ventures".
Lubinda Haabazoka, the director of the Graduate School of Business of the University of Zambia, spoke of the need for an alternative international monetary system.
The growth of American power decades ago saw the US dollar become the basis for the international monetary system.
It was formalised in the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944 in the US state of New Hampshire.
'Kind of aburd'
During the Sputnik roundtable, Haabazoka said the Bretton Woods system is "holding back Africa’s growth".
"We are very dependent on the dollar, but at the same time, we do not trade with America. That is, thinking logically, we are not receiving the dollars to continue trading with other countries," he said.
"Even neighbouring Zambia and South Africa use dollars in mutual trade. This is kind of absurd.
"Therefore, we need to have BRICS create an alternative international monetary system as soon as possible," added Haabazoka.
BRICS is an acronym for five regional economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Heads of the BRICS during their 10th summit on July 26, 2018
Relatedly, Sevias Guvuriro from South Africa's University of Free State discussed the ongoing change in the existing world order and emphasized the special role of BRICS in relations between Russia and South Africa.
Also part of the discussion was the issue of food insecurity in some parts of Africa, including the Horn of Africa.
Since late 2020, countries in that region of the continent, including Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan and Sudan, have endured the worst drought in four decades.
Crops and millions of livestock are reported to have been destroyed as a result of failed rainy seasons, also leaving millions of people in desperate need of assistance.
“The problem of hunger in countries such as Ethiopia can be largely resolved through smart management of the food security system in that country," suggested Andrei Maslov.
He is the director of the Centre for African Studies at Russia's Higher School of Economics National Research University.
Maslov added that his university is developing a training programme in digital public administration for African officials.
On his part, Tunde Ajileye, a partner at Nigeria's SBM Intelligence, said Russia and Africa need to resume student exchange programmes like was the case in the past.
He also spoke of the importance of intensifying co-operation in agriculture, energy and investment.
The roundtable discussion was part of a series of educational and expert events organized with the support of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund and the Centre for Assistance to Humanitarian and Educational Programmes.
The engagements explored “new horizons of co-operation between Russia and the countries of the Middle East and Africa". | Global Organizations |
Comedian Eddie Izzard is to run to be Labour’s candidate in Brighton Pavilion at the next election.
Eddie is hoping to become the party’s first MP in the constituency for 13 years and oust the Greens from their only seat in Parliament.
Labour currently holds the seats of Hove and Brighton Kemptown in Westminster but lost Brighton Pavilion to Caroline Lucas in 2010.
In an exclusive interview with The Argus, Eddie Izzard said she would bring passion and energy into representing Brighton on a national and international stage.
Eddie said: “I really want to be in politics. My heritage is down here and I will bring all the energy from everything I’ve done before.
“I want to promote the successes of Brighton so people in this country and around the world can know more and more about it.”
Eddie praised Caroline Lucas, who is standing down at the next election, but said it is important to elect a Labour MP in Brighton Pavilion so the city can have a voice in government.
“Caroline Lucas has done a wonderful job. She has been a great MP and has protested strongly for 13 years and I salute the hard work that she has put in," said Eddie.
“However, one MP can’t make a government. The Green Party is the party of protest, the Conservative Party is the party of chaos and Labour is the party of governance.
“We have a very good chance of being in government at the next election and if you want green policies in and if you want good governance, then vote me in.
“I am a hard worker, I have a vision of the future that is everyone in the world has the right to a fair chance in life and I want to fight for Brighton and for a world where everyone has an equal chance.
“If Brighton wants that, vote for me and I will put all this energy in - I’m not coming into politics to sit on my hands.
“My mum died when I was six years old and I’ve been a fighter since then.
“If you want that energy, I’m right here and ready to go.”
Among the issues Eddie hopes to “fight like crazy” on in Westminster are those facing renters in the city as well as homelessness and the state of the health service.
“My mother was a nurse, so the NHS is very close to my heart. It’s something that the Labour Party invented - if we hadn’t got in with a landslide in 1945 with Atlee, then it probably wouldn’t have come in until Tony Blair’s government in 1997," said Eddie.
“It is something we need to concentrate on so that people can get appointments for doctors and NHS dentists, which are very difficult to find in the Brighton area.”
Eddie would like to see GB Energy, the publicly owned clean energy company Labour has committed to establishing, have its headquarters in Brighton.
“Why not bring it to Brighton - a very positive, very green and progressive city? I think that would be a perfect thing."
If Eddie Izzard is successful and chosen to represent Brighton Pavilion by voters at the next election, she would be Labour’s first transgender MP.
Eddie said: “That would be very positive but just like Obama being an African-American man becoming president, it wasn’t the thing that defined his presidency."
The comedian said she would stop performing and commit full-time to Westminster if elected, looking towards the late Glenda Jackson, who had a career in acting before serving as an MP for 23 years, as an example to follow.
She said a range of skills from her time on stage will be an asset in the corridors of the House of Commons, in particular communication.
Eddie said: “Comedy is kind of useful in politics because you can say the things that you believe and are positive about and then say ‘let me tell you about the other team’.
“People need a bit of that because it does get quite dry in the world of politics.”
Born in Aden in what is now Yemen, Eddie Izzard attended St Bede’s Prep School in Eastbourne and Eastbourne College growing up. She has lived in Bexhill since the age of seven.
The award-winning actor, activist and fundraiser joined the Labour Party in 1995 and took part in campaigning in Brighton and Hove during the local election in May.
Eddie attempted to be Labour’s parliamentary candidate in Sheffield Central last year but came second in a vote of members.
Several other Labour members are expected to throw their hat into the Brighton Pavilion ring, with some current and former councillors rumoured to be considering a bid to be the party’s candidate.
No timetable has been announced for Labour’s selection process but it is thought it will be in the autumn.
Brighton Pavilion elected the UK’s first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, in 2010, taking the seat from Labour. Ms Lucas will step down at the next general election after serving almost 25 years as an MEP and an MP.
Former Green Party co-leader Sian Berry has been selected as the party’s next candidate for Brighton Pavilion, with activists already beginning the campaign to ensure she is elected and holds the party’s only seat in Westminster.
In March, Eddie Izzard announced she would begin using the name Suzy in addition to Eddie, but would continue to use her stage name since it is more widely recognised. | United Kingdom Politics |
10:51AM
Russian McDonald's sells 'record' number of burgers The new, rebranded McDonald's in Russia appears to be off to a roaring start: The chain sold a record 120,000 burgers on its opening day, the chain's CEO told Reuters.
"We have never seen such daily turnover in the whole time McDonald's has worked in Russia," Oleg Paroev told Reuters in an exclusive interview published on Tuesday. Mr Paroev was the former CEO of McDonald's Russia.
McDonald's exited the Russian market in May after 32 years in the country, citing "the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, and the precipitating unpredictable operating environment."
The US fast-food chain sold the Russian business to local licensee and businessman Alexander Govor, and it reopened on June 12 under the new name 'Vkusno & tochka', which translates to "tasty and that's it." A total of 15 rebranded shops opened in and around Moscow on June 12, with another 35 opening the next day, according to Reuters.
Photos from Vkusno & tochka's opening in Russia earlier this month show restaurants packed with diners.
Last week, James Kilner sent this report on the opening of Vkusno & tochka. 10:33AM
Despite the horror, Ukrainians carry on with daily life Citizens of Irpin, outside Kyiv, chat outside a bullet-riddled building Credit:
Anadolu Agency /Anadolu A view of devastation after conflicts as Ukrainians trying to rebound back to life in Irpin Credit:
Anadolu Agency /Anadolu Bohdan Matsyk, a Ukrainian chess player with disability, visits his family house that was destroyed in Bucha Credit:
Anadolu Agency /Anadolu 10:14AM
Russia's lowering of gas flows a 'rogue move' Russian reductions of gas flows to Europe are "very rogue moves" a senior European Commission official has said, adding plans to step up coal use in the bloc would be temporary and climate goals remained intact.
"The unlawful invasion by Russia of Ukraine has resulted in an emergency situation in the EU," Elina Bardram, acting director for International Affairs and Climate Finance at the European Commision, told the Africa Energy Forum in Brussels.
"With the very rogue moves we are observing from the Putin administration in terms of Gazprom lowering the flow very suddenly, we are doing some very important measures, but all of those measures are temporary", she added, referring to coal use.
The EU and other developed economies have widened sanctions on Russia to include its oil and coal but have held off on banning gas imports.
However, gas prices have hit record highs as a slowdown in flows from Russia in recent days has deepened worries over supply in higher-demand winter months. 9:56AM
'Kamikaze drone' causes fire at Russian oil refinery A fire at Russia's Novoshakhtinsk refinery in the Rostov region began after two Ukrainian drones were spotted over the plant, TASS cited an unidentified source in the local authorities.
"One of them made an impact, crashing into a heat transfer unit, after which the blaze started. The second one flew away," the source told TASS.
The local emergency service said the blaze has been put out, Interfax news agency reported. #Ukraine: A Kamikaze drone struck the Novoshakhtinsk oil refinery, in #Rostov Oblast, Russia; causing a large fire.Although the precise type is unclear, it appears to be based on the UA PD-1 or PD-2 series of reconnaissance UAVs. The area is around 150km from the front line. pic.twitter.com/EssUu6PxyB— 🇺🇦 Ukraine Weapons Tracker (@UAWeapons) June 22, 2022 9:35AM
Dozens of civilians killed in Kharkiv region after heavy Russian shelling 9:18AM
Fight with Russia in Severodonetsk 'hell' - Kyiv Ukraine has said that the eastern industrial city of Severodonetsk was "hell" as Russian forces moved to encircle two key cities in the Donbas where Moscow has concentrated its military efforts.
"For four months all our positions have been under fire from everything - and I just want to emphasis this - from all the weapons that the Russian army has," the Luhansk regional governor Sergiy Gaiday said in a statement on social media.
"It's just hell out there," he added, referring to Severodonetsk. "Our boys are holding their positions and will continue to hold on as long as necessary," he added. 8:57AM
Ukrainians use American weapons to fire at Russians Ukrainian soldiers fire an M777 howitzer, supplied by the U.S., at Russian positions in Donetsk Credit:
TYLER HICKS /NYTNS / Redux / eyevine In recent days, Russian forces have made steady gains in fierce and costly battles in Ukraine's east, though American supplied heavy artillery have helped to slow their advances Credit:
TYLER HICKS /NYTNS / Redux / eyevine 8:29AM
Sergei Lavrov heads to Iran for talks Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was due in Iran Wednesday for talks on boosting trade and energy cooperation as the two countries grapple with Western economic sanctions.
Tehran and Moscow both have huge oil and gas reserves but are constrained by sanctions that limit their ability to export their output.
"Lavrov will meet our foreign minister (Hossein Amir-Abdollahian) tomorrow (Thursday)," Iran's official IRNA news agency said.
Russia was slapped with sanctions following its February invasion of neighbouring Ukraine, while Iran's economy has been reeling under biting sanctions reimposed by the US in 2018, following Washington's withdrawal from a nuclear accord between Tehran and major powers. 8:18AM
The moment a Russian journalist auctions his Nobel Peace Prize for £84m to aid Ukrainian refugees 8:04AM
Ukraine continues to fight for Severedontesk, in pictures A Ukrainian serviceman inspects situation through a hole of splinter at a position in Severodonetsk Credit:
OLEKSANDR RATUSHNIAK/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock /Shutterstock Ukrainian service members patrol an area in Severodonetsk Credit:
STRINGER/REUTERS A Ukrainian service member with a dog looks out in the industrial city Credit:
STRINGER/REUTERS A Ukrainian serviceman grabs some sleep near his fighting position Credit:
OLEKSANDR RATUSHNIAK/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock /Shutterstock 7:52AM
Indonesian president to visit Kyiv, Moscow this month Indonesian President and G20 chair Joko Widodo will visit the leaders of Ukraine and Russia this month to discuss the economic and humanitarian fallout of Moscow's invasion, his foreign minister said on Wednesday.
The G20 summit - which will be held on the Indonesian island of Bali in November - has been shrouded in controversy thanks to Jakarta's decision to invite Russia despite alleged war crimes in Ukraine.
Indonesia holds the rotating presidency of the G20 this year, and has come under pressure from some Western countries, led by the United States, to exclude Russia from the meeting.
Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi said Mr Widodo would visit Kyiv and Moscow after representing Indonesia as a guest country at the G7 summit in Germany on June 26 and 27, becoming the first Asian leader to travel to both countries since fighting began.
"In the visit to Kyiv and Moscow, the president will meet with President (Volodymyr) Zelensky and President (Vladimir) Putin," Mr Marsudi said in an online briefing on Wednesday. 6:59AM
Britain says casualty rate nears 55pc among forces of Donetsk Republic Casualties have amounted to about 55 per cent of the original strength of the forces of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR), one of Russia's proxies in eastern Ukraine, Britain said on Wednesday.
Figures published by the DPR showed that by June 16, 2,128 military personnel had been killed in action, with 8,897 wounded since the beginning of 2022, the defence ministry said in a daily Twitter update.
Russian authorities have not released the tally of military casualties in Ukraine since 25 March, it added. 5:41AM
Key Ukrainian city under 'massive' Russian bombardment Ukrainian forces are facing "massive" and relentless artillery attacks in a battleground eastern city, Kyiv warned, as Russian troops gained ground throughout the Donbas region.
Moscow's troops have been pummelling eastern Ukraine for weeks and are slowly advancing, despite fierce resistance from the outgunned Ukrainian military.
With President Vladimir Putin's forces tightening their grip on the strategically important city of Severodonetsk in the Donbas, its twin city of Lysychansk is now coming under heavier bombardment.
"The Russian army is massively shelling Lysychansk," Sergiy Gaiday, governor of the Lugansk region, which includes both cities, wrote on Telegram.
"They are just destroying everything there... They destroyed buildings and unfortunately there are casualties." 4:33AM
Howitzers arrive in Ukraine, first in pledged weapons package from Germany German self-propelled howitzers have arrived in Ukraine in the first delivery of heavy weapons promised by Berlin, Ukraine's defence minister said on Tuesday.
Ukraine has pleaded with the West to send more and better artillery as the country runs out of ammunition for its existing Soviet-era arsenal, which is dwarfed by Russia's.
"We have replenishment!...The German Panzerhaubitze 2000 with trained Ukrainian crews joined the Ukrainian artillery family," Ukraine's Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov said on social media. 3:47AM
EU to welcome Ukraine candidacy on Thursday In a symbolic decision, Ukraine is set to become an official candidate for European Union membership on Thursday, EU diplomats said.
Russia's failure to make a major breakthrough so far since invading Ukraine means time is on the side of Ukrainians, according to some military analysts.
"It's a heavyweight boxing match. In 2 months of fighting, there has not yet been a knockout blow. It will come, as RU forces become more depleted," retired US Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, a former commander of US ground forces in Europe, wrote on Twitter. 3:31AM
Italy's government hit after Five Star party split over war Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi's coalition government was rocked by fresh turmoil on Tuesday after the largest party in parliament split, with the foreign minister starting a breakaway group.
Luigi Di Maio said his decision to leave the Five Star Movement (M5S) - the party he once led - was due to its "ambiguity" over Italy's support of Ukraine following Russia's invasion.
But it follows months of internal tensions in the party, which has lost most of the support that propelled it to power in 2018 and risks being almost wiped out in national elections due next year.
As many as 60 former Five Star lawmakers have already signed up to Mr Di Maio's new group, "Together for the Future", media reports said. 3:21AM
Latest photos of the war in Ukraine as fighting continues in the east The building of a Housing and Communal College damaged by recent shelling in Kharkiv Credit:
SERGEY KOZLOV/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock A destroyed building in the center of Kharkiv Credit:
ORLANDO BARRIA/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Ukrainian servicemen move to positions in the city of Severodonetsk, Luhansk Credit:
OLEKSANDR RATUSHNIAK/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Ukrainian soldiers take a break with a cigarette in Severodonetsk Credit:
OLEKSANDR RATUSHNIAK/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Ukrainian soldiers in an industrial area of Severodonetsk Credit:
REUTERS/Oleksandr Ratushniak 2:55AM
Ukraine strengthening defences in Luhansk Ukrainian and Russian forces remained entrenched in eastern Ukrainian battlegrounds going into Wednesday, a day of commemoration in both countries to mark the anniversary of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
Fighting in the months-long war has favoured Russia in recent weeks because of its huge edge in artillery firepower, a fact Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged in a late Tuesday night address.
"Thanks to tactical maneuvers the Ukrainian army is strengthening its defences in the Luhansk region," he said. "That is really the toughest spot. The occupiers are also pressing strongly in the direction of Donetsk."
"And just as actively as we are fighting for a positive decision by the European Union on Ukraine's candidate status, we are also fighting every day for modern weaponry for our country. We don't let up for a single day," Mr Zelensky said, urging those nations supporting his country to speed up arms deliveries. 1:10AM
Today's Top Stories Mariupol was once a thriving city of 400,000 people lying on Ukraine’s southern coast, along the Sea of Azov. A predominantly working-class place, with Europe’s largest steelworks at the centre of its relatively prosperous economy. Now, instead, it is a place of death. Death, here, assaults the senses Germany has “finally” delivered its first shipment of heavy weapons to Ukraine nearly five months into the war with Russia, Kyiv said on Tuesday
Ukrainian forces have launched a “massive” night-time mission to retake Snake Island, the Black Sea outpost captured by Russia at the start of the war
Vladimir Putin warned that Russia would deploy its newest intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of reaching Britain in three minutes, by the end of the year | Europe Politics |
Imagine demanding an “honest” debate over the cost of net zero in a report full of errors that even a schoolboy would be embarrassed about. Then imagine getting coverage of your report in the Sun, Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Spectator.
On Wednesday, Civitas published a pamphlet on net zero by Ewen Stewart, whose consultancy, Walbrook Economics, works on “the interaction of macroeconomics, politics and capital markets”.
Stewart is also a climate sceptic, having written in 2021 that human-caused warming is a “contested theory”. Along with Civitas, 55 Tufton Street also houses the climate-sceptic lobby group the Global Warming Policy Foundation and its campaigning arm Net Zero Watch. These groups previously attempted to spark an “honest debate about the cost of net-zero” in 2020.
The Civitas report claims to offer a “realistic” £4.5tn estimate of the cost of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and says “the government need to be honest with the British people”.
This estimate is much higher than the figure produced by the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which has said that reaching net zero would require net investments of £1.4tn by 2050. Note the difference between Civitas’s “costs” and the CCC’s “net investments”. The CCC also found that reaching net zero would generate savings in the form of lower fossil fuel bills worth £1.1tn, resulting in a net cost of £0.3tn.
In his report for Civitas, Stewart adopts the well-worn climate-sceptic tactic of simply ignoring these savings. He also ignores what the Office for Budget Responsibility has called the potentially “catastrophic economic and fiscal consequences” of unmitigated climate change.
The report was timed to follow hot on the heels of Rishi Sunak’s big climate speech, in which he called for an “honest” approach to net zero that ends “unacceptable costs”.
Unfortunately the report’s author has confused power capacity in megawatts (MW) with electricity generation in megawatt hours (MWh). As a result, he presents a distinctly unrealistic “£1.3m per MWh” figure for the cost for onshore wind power. The true number is around £50-70/MWh – more than 10,000 times lower. He then compounded his embarrassment by mixing up billions with trillions.
Nevertheless the report got supportive coverage in the Daily Mail. A piece by the paper’s deputy political editor had a headline that claimed net zero “could cost households £6,000 a year”. At the Sun, the story also landed on the deputy political editor’s desk, and also inspired an editorial denouncing “dishonest rhetoric” on net zero.
In the Spectator, the climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark hedged his bets a little, given the many errors in the report, but argued: “There is no reason to suppose Civitas’ figures will turn out to be right … But they are an important contribution to a debate.”
The Daily Telegraph and the Times – both of which have experienced teams of specialist energy and environment reporters – declined to give news coverage to the Civitas report. The Times, however, did give a prominent comment slot to Tim Knox, the former director of Civitas’s neighbours, the Centre for Policy Studies . The paper failed to mention his association with the report, which acknowledges on one page that it would not have been possible without him.
The Daily Express gave space to another Tufton Street thinktank to weigh in, with the Taxpayers Alliance also writing a comment in support of Civitas’s work.
Despite the report’s errors, the Tufton Street playbook had, at this stage, worked flawlessly, laundering a set of embarrassingly wrong numbers into the nation’s newspapers and giving the likes of the rightwing gossip blog Order Order the chance to promote them.
An extremely hastily issued “update” on the Civitas website says: “There has been criticism on social media of two paragraphs on page 47 of this report, where capacity and output are confused. These paragraphs will be amended and updated. The author is happy to acknowledge this and correct the report.”
It then adds: “The fact remains that we are facing a huge bill for net zero that is many times more than official estimates.”
Stewart could easily have avoided this embarrassment. After seeing an embargoed copy of the report, I had emailed him pointing out the error over units the day before it was published. He never responded.
The update from Civitas ignored the many other problems with the report, including areas where it included costs for doing the same thing twice.
It is littered with assertions unencumbered by facts or evidence. It states, for example, that it is “not unreasonable to assume” that net zero would add £403bn to the cost of food.
Actual evidence that the impacts of climate change and high fossil fuel prices has added an estimated £11bn to UK food bills in 2022 alone, on the other hand, is conveniently ignored.
Similarly, Civitas cites a 2019 report from the Faraday Institute to claim that net zero could result in 114,000 job losses in the car industry, while ignoring the same report’s finding that, on the contrary, a well-marshalled shift to electric vehicles could support 246,000 jobs in the sector.
As well as ignoring the savings from net zero in terms of lower fossil fuel bills, the Civitas report sidesteps the costs of unmitigated climate change – and ignores the cost of business-as-usual.
This amounts to assuming that the UK could continue to get energy from fossil fuels for free, as well as being able to replace old gas boilers, cars with internal combustion engines and fossil-fuelled power stations as they retire with new fossil-fuelled infrastructure without ever having to pay for it.
At the time of writing, only one newspaper – the Times – had acknowledged any of these issues, albeit only half-heartedly. It has added a note to the Knox comment piece that repeats Civitas’s assertion that only two paragraphs of its report were in error. All of the other uncritical coverage remains. | United Kingdom Politics |
Jon Lansman was 16 when he first visited Israel in 1973 and worked on the Sde Boker kibbutz in the Negev, the desert region in the country’s south.
“I was living in basically a shed with around 30 other people about a hundred yards from [Israel’s founding prime minister, David] Ben-Gurion’s house, picking peaches and pistachios,” the lifelong socialist recalled when we met recently. “That was a radicalising experience, doing manual labour. I was enthused by the collectivism, though it was clearly being eroded.”
This experience – Lansman’s aunt lived in Be’er-Sheva and he has five cousins in Israel today – means he can offer a rare perspective on the left’s fraught relationship with the country.
I met Lansman, who founded the Corbynite activist group Momentum in 2015 and led it until 2020, at his partner’s townhouse in Highbury, north London. We spoke in his study, which features a 4-foot-high red statue of Karl Marx, a Gilbert & George print (“Are you angry or are you boring?”) and a mini-library devoted to Labour history. Lansman, 66, who divides his time between London and his home in St Ives, Cornwall, appeared relaxed after several years away from the political front line, but he has been troubled by the left’s response to Hamas’s 7 October massacre in Israel.
“Most of all I feel sorrow and I find it difficult to relate to how much of the left responded,” Lansman, who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family in north London, told me. “There isn’t an understanding, or there isn’t much sympathy, for the feeling in Israel that they need to prevent such an attack again. And part of that is about how the left sees war, or in fact how all of us in Britain have seen war for a long time. We’ve seen a lot of unjust wars, Iraq most importantly.
“There isn’t an understanding that there could be a just military response to horrific events. It’s difficult for the left to adjust to that but I do think that it needs to adjust. I think that some level of response by Israel is justified – not all of it, by any means: I am horrified by the extent of civilian deaths in Gaza.”
But in common with another Jewish socialist, the US senator Bernie Sanders, Lansman is wary of supporting an outright ceasefire in Gaza. “I want to see the violence stop as soon as possible… but calling for a ceasefire from the comfort of Britain? I can understand that Israelis need to ensure such attacks [by Hamas] don’t happen again.” The left, he said, “absolutely” needs to demonstrate greater empathy towards Jews and criticised the popular protest chant: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
“The language you use at times when there are emotionally driven responses to violence on both sides matters. The Jewish community in Britain, understandably, sees the phrase ‘from the river to the sea’ as an attack on Israel’s existence, people should understand that. Why not find another phrase?”
Lansman similarly rejects the description by some leftists of Israel as a “settler colonial state”.
“It’s not a characterisation I would make at all. Most Jews who’ve migrated to Israel have been refugees, they’ve been arriving recently from Ukraine. The reason for Israel’s existence is the Holocaust, the fact that no other place would take them! Not Britain, not the US, who introduced immigration controls.
“In Britain’s case it was ironically [Arthur] Balfour, who’s treated as if he’s some kind of hero for Israelis [for signing the 1917 declaration stating Britain’s support for Israel’s founding], but actually introduced the Aliens Act, which ended Jewish immigration, and for those who couldn’t get in… it didn’t end well.”
Lansman harbours no illusions about the nature of the Israeli government, which includes extremist ministers and is led by Benjamin Netanyahu who is facing corruption charges. “It’s a far-right government… they are encouraging terrible things while eyes are on Gaza – the persecution of Palestinians on the West Bank and in mixed cities in Israel is appalling.”
It was as coordinator for Tony Benn’s 1981 deputy Labour leadership campaign that Lansman came to political prominence. Benn, in common with much of the party’s left, initially identified as a Zionist and admired Israel as a socialist experiment. After visiting it in 1956, Benn wrote in his diary of “the miracle of a home for Jews after 1,900 years of pogrom and ghetto” and mused that “perhaps the kibbutzim have the answer – stay rooted to the soil and pass it on more richly fertile than before to your sons and grandsons”.
When did the left’s relationship with Israel fracture? Lansman cited the 1967 war – when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank – and the 1982 Lebanon war as key turning points, but also spoke of a wider political sea change. “It ceased to be a left that had grown out of a broad front between Labour and the Communist Party in the 1930s. The New Left didn’t have a sense of the injustice that had been done to Jews who had migrated to Israel for that reason, they hadn’t lived with Jews as a persecuted people.”
The constituency in which I met Lansman – Islington North – has been represented by Jeremy Corbyn since 1983. If Corbyn, as expected, stands as an independent candidate at the general election, would Lansman support him?
“It’s a mistake for him to stand as an independent. I do think that Jeremy has been unreasonably treated. He didn’t handle anti-Semitism well but he is not an anti-Semite. He shouldn’t have been put in this position but I don’t think he should stand against the party.” Has he had much contact with Corbyn since Labour’s 2019 election defeat?
“I haven’t. I bumped into him in parliament many months ago and spoke to him. I have no animosity towards him, but that’s not to say I think he did a good job – I don’t think he did a good job. But he didn’t expect to win and none of us expected him to win at the start of that leadership campaign [in 2015].”
He added of Corbyn’s handling of anti-Semitism: “He had a real problem talking to Jewish communal bodies. If what you do when you see the Board of Deputies or the Jewish Leadership Council is read out a statement that Seumas [Milne, Corbyn’s director of communications] has written, it’s not going to work – and it didn’t.”
Lansman was for decades regarded by many in Labour as an arch-sectarian. He has long argued for the mandatory reselection of MPs and the empowerment of local activists. But he also has a pragmatic streak and speaks more favourably of Keir Starmer than some of his former Corbynite allies. “Keir Starmer does not have the politics of Tony Blair… He talks too much to Blairites, he listens to them too much, but I don’t think he is at heart a Blairite, he is a social democrat.”
Once asked why he remained in the Labour Party throughout the Blair years, Corbyn recalled Benn’s response to him: “You know what, comrade, we’re just in it, aren’t we?” Jon Lansman takes a similar view today. “I will be canvassing for the Labour Party at the next election. There is no alternative on the left to a Labour government. You can criticise it afterwards, you’re not giving anyone a blank cheque. But I was deeply depressed at times during the Blair government. And if I could stick with the party then, I can stick with it now.”
[See also: GB News isn’t a news channel – it’s Tory TV] | Middle East Politics |
Honduras opened an embassy in Beijing on Sunday, Chinese state media reported, months after the Central American nation broke off relations with Taiwan to establish diplomatic ties with China.
China’s Foreign Minister Qin Gang and his Honduran counterpart Enrique Reina took part in the inauguration of the embassy on Sunday morning, China’s official CCTV said. The report said Honduras still needed to determine the embassy’s permanent location and would increase its number of staff.
Qin pledged that China would establish a new model with Honduras of “friendly cooperation” between countries with different sizes and systems, according to a statement from China’s Foreign Ministry.
The symbol of the two sides’ strengthening diplomatic ties came during Honduran President Xiomara Castro’s six-day visit to China.
Honduras established formal relations with China in March, becoming the latest in a string of countries to break diplomatic ties with Taiwan. China sees self-governed Taiwan as a breakaway province, to be retaken by force if necessary, and prohibits its own diplomatic partners from having formal ties with Taipei.
Castro arrived in Shanghai on Friday on her first visit since the establishment of relations. During her stay in Shanghai, she visited the headquarters of the New Development Bank, a bank established by the BRICS nations, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Honduras requested admission to the bank, Castro’s office tweeted Saturday.
The president also visited a research center for technology giant Huawei before arriving in Beijing on Saturday night, China’s official Global Times newspaper reported.
The ties formed in March were a diplomatic victory for China amid heightened tensions between Beijing and the United States, including China’s increasing assertiveness toward Taiwan. It also signaled China’s growing influence in Latin America.
China and Taiwan have been locked in a battle for diplomatic recognition since they split amid civil war in 1949, with Beijing spending billions to win recognition for its “one China” policy. | Latin America Politics |
It can be hard to gauge an election result purely from what everyone says about the mood on the doorstep. Those with the best data concerning that mood will inevitably be the activists being told to sod off from such doorsteps. But different parties are prone to radically different temperaments. Many Tories seem cheerfully to assume the voters are with them, even when the polls suggest otherwise; Labour activists, by contrast, seem permanently shrouded in pessimism, assuming the worst and being rarely disappointed. Throw in the tendency for everyone to spin like crazy in an attempt to manage expectations, and it can be all but impossible to work out what’s actually going on.
All of which means that I went to bed on Thursday night convinced Labour would probably take Tamworth, on the grounds that even Tories seemed to have accepted as much; but believed that the party winning two by-elections requiring a 20-point swing in instinctively hostile territory seemed just a bit unlikely. My talent for predicting election results remains on a par with that of Matthew Goodwin or Mystic Meg, though, and I woke to find I’d been wrong. It was brilliant.
Not everyone was quite so happy, alas. On Friday morning, lobby journalists reported “astonishment” among those Tory MPs who were finally realising that, just maybe, the voters didn’t like them very much. That in itself feels like a mark of quite how much trouble the party is in. Polls have shown Labour with a 20-point lead for over a year now, and almost every election result except one – the Uxbridge by-election – has shown an overwhelming public urge to get these people out. (I keep imagining how it must feel today to be the person who decided it was a good idea to ditch all Tory green policies on the basis of one narrow win in what should have been a safe seat.) And yet, a significant minority of the Conservative Party is still genuinely surprised to find that – amid collapsing public services, a cost-of-living crisis and rising mortgage rates – the voters are not actually very happy.
[See also: Danger still lies ahead for Labour]
If the party had any sense, it would spend the weekend agonising about how it ended up this out of touch, and working out how to fix it. Discounting reports from any newspaper that was instinctively favourable to the Conservative agenda, and seems to see its role as to present the interests of the party to the public, and not the other way around, would be a good start. So would switching off GB News, a comforting bubble in which the party’s MPs quite literally talk to themselves. In all these places, the party thinks it’s looking at a country made in its own image, when what it actually sees is a mirror.
But of course the Conservative Party doesn’t have any sense, which is how it got into this mess, and so it’s not doing that. Instead, obsessive Liam Byrne fanboy Greg Hands has been on the television to claim that the conversations he’s had with voters in Tamworth and Mid Beds suggest that “people were happy with the job that Rishi Sunak is doing as prime minister”. (You wouldn’t know them, they go to another by-election.)
Meanwhile, previously unknown junior ministers such as Andrew Bowie have been popping up to suggest the result showed that “voters are reserving judgement”, on the grounds that these “weren’t gigantic defeats”. ( The result in Tamworth was the second-biggest swing from the Conservatives to Labour at a by-election since 1945; the win in Mid Bedfordshire was the largest Conservative majority overturned by Labour at a by-election since 1945.) “What that tells me,” he went on, “is people are supportive of what we are doing: they just aren’t prepared to come out and vote for us.” Even leaving aside that people being prepared to come out and vote for you is not a small matter when it comes to election results, it’s not remotely clear what the evidence for this public support is supposed to be. He might as well claim his imaginary friend still backs the Prime Minister.
The idea that this is just standard mid-term blues, that at a general election those missing Tory voters would inevitably come crawling back, that these seismic defeats can be explained by specific local factors – these are all standard forms of denial and are, at least, unlikely to make things any worse. Other coping strategies might. Already, there are Tory outriders going around claiming that the problem is that the party has not been conservative and culture war-y enough, and given the insatiable hunger for such policies from the weirder parts of the Tory commentariat, there must be a fair chance the party convinces itself its best option is to move even farther to the right.
The dramatic swing to Labour, and the absence of any sizeable protest vote for Ukip or Reform, though, suggests few Tory MPs will be saved by such a strategy, no matter how flattering the right-wing press is about it. It can be hard to gauge an election result from the mood on the doorstep. Being unable to gauge public mood from actual election results, though: that takes real talent. | United Kingdom Politics |
Pressure mounts on Downing Street over ethics chief resignation Nick Thomas-Symonds, Labour's shadow international trade secretary, has mounted pressure on the government over the resignation of their ethics chief, Lord Geidt.Mr Thomas-Symonds tells Sky News: "I don't think it is surprising, given the appalling conduct of this prime minister over a sustained period of time that we see, again, an independent ethics adviser leaving. "This isn't the first time - Sir Alex Allen - a very respected civil servant, left his post back in 2020. "On that occasion, it was the home secretary who'd broken the ministerial code by bullying, and yet it was the independent adviser who was the one offering their resignation, not the home secretary. "On this occasion, we again, after the serial rule breaking the absolute contempt for the British public - [who were] following the rules - the prime minister has shown, we now see another independent ethics advisor leaving. "It's the prime minister who should be offering his resignation." 'Not right' for European courts to intervene - Dominic Raab Dominic Raab, who is both the justice secretary and deputy prime minister, tells Sky News it is "not right" for European courts to "intervene in the way they did" over the deportation flight to Rwanda.He highlighted that three UK courts had rejected attempts to stop the plane taking off, before an 11th hour order from the European Court of Human Rights blocked the craft getting airborne.He said: "One of the issues that's arisen is whether Strasbourg has a power of injunction. "Now, this issue on whether these deportation flights should be stayed pending a further hearing of all the issues in a few weeks time was considered by the high court. "Mr Justice Swift - read the judgement, very interesting - he clearly said, no, there's no need for an injunction."It was then considered by the Court of Appeal. They backed him wholeheartedly. The Supreme Court said there was no leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. "I think when three courts and I have got great respect for the judiciary in this country, have dismissed the issue, it is not right for Strasbourg to intervene in the way it did."Mr Raab also states the government will be "introducing and publishing our Bill of Rights shortly". 'We're human, we're fallible' - deputy PM Dominic Raab has said he does not know why Boris Johnson's ethics adviser quit - and said there would be an update from Number 10 later.Mr Raab batted off the suggestion that the departure of Lord Geidt reflected badly on the prime minister in an interview with Sky News.Asked if the government always operates ethically, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab, initially responds saying "yes", before going on to say that mistakes "happen" and the government is "human" and "fallible".He went on: "I think you've seen that through the pandemic with the vaccine rollout. "I think you've seen it with getting the economy back up and running. I think you've seen the moral leadership the prime minister has shown on Ukraine."Do we make mistakes? Look, it happens. We're human, we're fallible. "But actually in relation to partygate, which is what you're alluding to, prime minister held up his hands. "He's apologised. He's overhauled Number 10."The cabinet minister went on to say "it's not clear" to him exactly why Lord Geidt resigned.He says: "He'd been engaged with the prime minister in Number 10 this week and discussing staying on for six months. "So I think my understanding has been that he was committed to the role. "I think he had a pretty rough grilling by MPs this week. "I think sometimes we in the media as politicians maybe underestimate how civil servants feel with that kind of scrutiny. "And thirdly, there was a particular issue, a commercially sensitive matter in the national interest, which was asked to look at." Three new specialised rape courts announced Three crown courts are to get enhanced resources to support rape victims, the government has announced as part of a pilot scheme.It comes a year after the government's landmark rape review was released. An apology was released after the report noted a downwards trend in bringing sexual offenders to justice.Today's announcement will see the crown courts in Leeds, Newcastle and Snaresbrook get extra support.Staff, police and prosecutors working on serious sex offence cases will get specialist training, and an Independent Sexual Violence Advisers will also be made available to victims.Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, who will be speaking to Sky News at 7.15am, said: "These pilots will focus on improving support for victims, tackling the backlog and reducing delays." What are the papers saying this morning? Today's front pages lead on a mix of the resignation of the prime minister's ethics chief, and the fallout from the Rwanda deportation flight being halted at the 11th hour by the European Court of Human Rights.See the full line-up below: Sweeping changes to rental market proposed Plans to ban "no-fault" evictions and to make it easier for tenants to keep pets will be unveiled as part of the government's new deal for private renters published later.The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is set to publish its Fairer Private Rented Sector White Paper, which it describes as "the biggest shake up of the private rented sector in 30 years".Among the proposals are a pledge to outlaw Section 21 "no-fault" evictions that allow landlords to terminate tenancies without any given reason.The move comes after reports suggest more than a fifth of private renters who moved in 2019 and 2020 did not end their tenancy by choice, including 8% who were asked to leave by their landlord.These types of eviction notices are controversial - and three years ago, the government promised to ban them. Lord Geidt resignation piles further pressure on Boris Johnson Boris Johnson's leadership has come under fresh pressure after the resignation of Lord Geidt, who has quit as the prime minister's adviser on ministerial interests.He tendered his resignation to Boris Johnson, according to a brief statement on the government's website on Wednesday evening."With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post as Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests," the statement reads.A government spokesperson said: "We are surprised by this decision, given Lord Geidt's commitment to the role, to the prime minister, and in his evidence to the House of Commons just yesterday."This week, the independent adviser was asked to provide advice on a commercially sensitive matter in the national interest, which has previously had cross-party support. No decision had been taken pending that advice."Whilst we are disappointed, we thank Lord Geidt for his public service. We will appoint a new adviser in due course."Watch the latest report from deputy political editor Sam Coates here: Downing Street says Lord Geidt's resignation a 'total surprise' A senior Number 10 source has told Sky News: "This is a total surprise. And a mystery to the PM. "Only on Monday Lord Geidt asked if he could stay on for six months. "And in hours of questioning in parliament yesterday there was no hint that he'd even considered resignation." 'Next resignation should be the PM's': Opposition reaction to Lord Geidt's resignation "The prime minister has now driven both of his own handpicked ethics advisers to resign in despair," Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner says."If even they can’t defend his conduct in office, how can anyone believe he is fit to govern? "Yet he remains propped up in office by a Conservative Party that is mired in sleaze and totally unable to tackle the cost of living crisis facing the British people. "The person who should be leaving Number 10 tonight is Boris Johnson himself. "Just how long does the country have to wait before Tory MPs finally do the right thing?"Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey says: "When both of Boris Johnson's own ethics advisers have quit, it is obvious that he is the one who needs to go."This prime minister has constantly lied and broken the laws he wrote. It's clear as day that he has broken the ministerial code too."For the good of Britain, the next resignation we should be hearing about is that of Boris Johnson."Kirsten Oswald, the SNP's deputy leader at Westminster, says: "This is now the second ethics advisor to resign under Boris Johnson's leadership which tells you everything you need to know."Lord Geidt's resignation completely undermines the credibility of the system which keeps ministers in line, which demonstrates just how rotten the Westminster system has become and why Scotland needs independence. "This law-breaking prime minister should have been removed from office long ago, but this should really signal the end of his premiership."It is time for Tory MPs do to the right thing and finally show Boris Johnson the door." Lord Geidt's resignation came out of the blue, but he clearly felt unable to continue in role Lord Geidt's resignation as the PM's ethics adviser has come out of the blue, deputy political editor Sam Coates says.The timing of it, he says, suggests his departure is linked to his appearance in front of a committee of MPs yesterday.Sam says Lord Geidt struggled to give a clear and convincing account as to why he could continue giving his job after effectively admitting he was not truly independent.In his latest update, Sam says Lord Geidt clearly felt it was no longer sustainable for him to remain in post: | United Kingdom Politics |
The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) came into force over the weekend. It is part of the EU’s strategy to tackle climate change and carbon leakage by imposing a charge on the embedded carbon content of certain imports such as cement, iron, and steel that is equal to the charge imposed on domestic goods under the EU’s Emission Trading System, with adjustments being made to this charge to take into account of any mandatory carbon prices in the exporting country.
The UK steel industry put out a dire warning that steel normally bound for the EU would be diverted to the UK and at a much lower cost, thereby decimating the domestic steel sector. There were quite a few bad takes among my fellow free marketeers, who accused UK Steel of being protectionist and were relishing the prospect of cheap steel arriving on our shores. I would normally agree with them. The government should not attempt to protect businesses or industries from foreign competition. If firms in other countries can produce certain goods more efficiently than in the UK then this leads to cheaper products for consumers, forces UK businesses to up their game, and ultimately spurs economic growth. The government should be on the side of ordinary people who benefit from free trade and not industries with powerful lobby groups.
However, on this occasion the government should listen to UK Steel and not just emulate the EU’s CBAM, but be even more ambitious in order to keep the country on board with both free trade and protecting the environment.
The steel industry is right to be concerned. If this high-emission steel enters the UK market it will lead to a glut of steel which will drive down prices, adversely affecting profits for UK steel producers. What is more, if the UK doesn’t implement a scheme similar to the EU’s CBAM it will raise the price of UK steel in the EU, thereby making it less competitive in the EU market. The end result would be the UK steel sector being destroyed or being propped up with massive subsidies at taxpayers’ expense.
It is only free trade when all sides are playing by the rules. The UK steel industry going under would therefore not be the result of free trade but it would be weaponised by those who would rather the UK pursue protectionism. Given the importance of free trade and the role it plays in creating jobs, increasing wages, and boosting growth this cannot be allowed to happen.
Moreover, it also risks the public becoming disenchanted with environmentalism. We have already seen the government water down its stance on Net Zero and if people see jobs being lost and entire industries disappearing then they may decide that tackling climate change is not worth it. Again, given the risk posed to our planet by climate change we cannot risk abandoning the push to Net Zero or leaving environmentalism in the hands of the degrowth cranks.
We have found ourselves in this situation due to the government failing to take action earlier. When I joined the Department for International Trade all the way back in 2020 I warned that something like this would happen. It is encouraging that the government has carried out a consultation on introducing a CBAM but this comes after successive prime ministers and trade secretaries have dragged their feet and kicked the proverbial emission-heavy can down the road. Why should hard working people lose their jobs due to the failures of politicians?
As such, the government needs to introduce its own scheme. However, rather than simply copying the EU’s CBAM it should go further and faster by introducing a border-adjusted carbon tax levied on all products form the UK and overseas based on the carbon emissions associated with their production.
Such a move would be more ambitious and bolder than the EU’s CBAM which will only initially apply to the most carbon-intensive products. This should hasten the shift towards more environmentally friendly methods of production and allow the UK to start leading the way rather than playing catch up and simply following the US or EU.
Finally, a border-adjusted carbon tax would be a significant revenue raiser for HM Treasury. This raises the question of what the government should do with it. An obvious answer would be to provide a rebate to industries most adversely affected by the introduction of a tax such as those in energy-intensive industries such as steel. However, this is likely to be looked on unfavourably by the EU and US who probably would not welcome the UK going further and faster and may claim that such a move would be unfair as it is essentially a subsidy to domestic producers.
Another possibility would be to use the revenue to invest in the green technology sector. This would help to speed up the UK’s transition to a green economy and help the country to meet its Net Zero target. However, again the government would have to be careful to avoid this being challenged at the WTO.
Alternatively, the revenue could be used to create room for cutting more economically damaging taxes. Not only would this bring economic benefits but would also allow the Chancellor to be seen as a tax cutter while also being prudent with the public finances.
Perhaps the best use of the money would be to redistribute it to low income households. These are the people who are already struggling with the cost of living and so would be most adversely impacted by any increase in prices. Such a move would mean they might possibly be better off than before and encourage them to stay on board with the push towards Net Zero.
Free trade and environmentalism are too important to be abandoned due to the failings of successive politicians. However, if the government does not take appropriate action in response to the EU’s CBAM then there is a very real danger of this happening. Our economy and environment are at risk and the UK government must respond.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation. | United Kingdom Politics |
UK Labour party: The curious case of Britain's forgotten 2017 election
“They are cheering and we are silent and grey-faced,” texted one to a WhatsApp group, in comments that later found their way into the media. “Opposite to what I had been working towards for the last couple of years!”
Labour’s bureaucracy was dominated by the right wing of the party. They had assumed that the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader in 2015 would lead to electoral armageddon. It was a view that was widely shared, which was precisely why the Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May had called an early election seven weeks before.
Labour had begun the campaign on just 25 percent in the polls. Yet on polling day it hit 40 percent, depriving May of an overall majority.
Corbyn had faced almost universal hostility from the British media and had had to fend off repeated plots to oust him by his own parliamentary party.
“The whole of the political world was … turned upside down,” wrote Lewis Goodall, political correspondent of Sky News. “Our jaws hit the floor.”
Memory of 2017 buried
Six years later, not only is Corbyn no longer Labour leader, he has been suspended from the parliamentary party and banned from standing as a Labour candidate in Islington North, where he has been an MP for 40 years.
He is routinely referred to as one of the most disastrous leaders in Labour’s history. And the entire British political-media class appears determined to bury the memory of 2017, along with any lessons that might be learned from it.
A Martian arriving on Earth and simply looking at the hard statistics of Labour's election performances from 1997 till 2019 would be mystified. Here they are:
The vicissitudes of support for the centrist Liberal Democrats and the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party (Ukip) mean the elections of 2010, 2015 and 2017 are not directly comparable.
The much-maligned Theresa May also saw a sharp increase in her party’s vote share in 2017.
But not by as much as Corbyn. And the main difference with 2015 was that, with Brexit achieved, the 12.6 percent who’d voted for Ukip were widely expected to switch back to the Conservatives.
Labour’s support leapt by 10 percentage points. And in terms of votes cast, the party was just a few hundred thousand short of Tony Blair’s total in 1997, when, although the electorate was a fraction smaller, the turnout had been higher.
Vision of social justice
Corbyn presented a vision of social justice and reform that many clearly found inspiring, particularly the young. Sixty-two percent of 18-to-24-year-olds voted Labour.
Two years of vicious, relentless character assassination followed in which, to its shame, the supposedly impartial BBC joined.
It took its toll. By the election of 2019, there is no question that Corbyn was unpopular with many voters and a drag on the fortunes of his party.
Even then, Labour's vote share was higher than it had been in 2010 and 2015 and, if pensioners are excluded, the party actually won.
Corbyn was also peculiarly ill-served by the vagaries of Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system.
In 2017, he’d come within 0.7 percentage points of Blair’s vote share in 2001. But where Blair won 412 seats and a landslide victory, Corbyn won just 262.
In 2019, Corbyn’s share of seats - 31.1 percent - was actually smaller than his share of the vote (32.1 percent), the only time this has happened to the Labour Party since the Second World War.
A key factor in his defeat was the belief among many Brexit-supporting Labour voters that the party would overturn the 2016 referendum. It’s galling for Corbyn that his desperate attempts to cobble a compromise were undermined by support for a second referendum from his own Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer - the man who succeeded him as leader, and now firmly opposes any reopening of the Brexit issue.
Vicious purge
Corbyn had nevertheless achieved two things. Firstly, he overturned the consensus on austerity which had dominated British politics since the financial crash of 2008.
Secondly, he’d dealt a mortal blow to the certainties of triangulation - the belief, which had held sway for the previous 30 years, that left-wing parties could only achieve power by cleaving as closely as possible to the centre ground.
Combined with Bernie Sanders’s run for the US presidency in 2016, it opened up the possibility that radical politics could enter the mainstream.
Yet today it is as if it never happened.
Having campaigned on a pledge to end factionalism and bring the party together, Starmer launched a vicious purge of the left, blaming it for all of the Labour Party’s ills.
At the same time, he led a headlong retreat back to the discredited dogmas of austerity and triangulation.
As if operating on muscle memory, the British media obediently fell into line.
“Keir Starmer is hard-working and methodical,” Liz Bates, political reporter for Sky News, recently told her viewers. “He saw where the Labour party was at and where it needed to be… He’s moved the party into the centre ground because he knows that that is where political parties win elections.”
Fact, not opinion, apparently.
Wilful amnesia
Following Labour’s disastrous defeat in the May 2021 Hartlepool byelection, shadow cabinet member Steve Reed declared that the problem remained Corbyn - who had stood down more than a year before - and that Labour hadn’t “changed enough” from the party that voters “comprehensively rejected in 2019”.
It made no sense. Yet political reporters solemnly nodded along.
The entire British political-media class appeared to be gripped by a wilful amnesia.
Starmer supporters would point out that the Labour Party has been ahead in the polls by a solid 20 points for much of the last year. His opponents would counter this reflects the unpopularity of the Conservatives rather than any enthusiasm for Labour.
Certainly when it comes into contact with the electorate, the party performs rather less impressively. The May 2022 local election results, when extrapolated to national vote share, gave Labour just 35 percent - well below what Corbyn achieved in 2017 - at a time, mid-term, when the opposition would be expected to be performing strongly.
Local council byelections also provide a fascinating study. They tend to feature very low turnouts. But there have been more than 500 since the 2019 election.
Remarkably, on average, the Labour vote share has dropped by 2.2 percentage points - which is worse than the Conservatives.
There is a profound dissonance between the way the electorate sees the world, and the way politicians and journalists tell them they see the world
A recent poll showed Corbyn to be the most popular politician in Britain. Admittedly, the bar is low. He won with an approval rating of just 30 percent.
But perhaps more startling was his approval rating of 55 percent among Labour voters. This compared with a figure of just 40 percent for Starmer.
For a politician who, as far as the British media is concerned, has been dead and buried for almost four years, this is astonishing.
The electorate, it would appear, has a mind of its own. And there is a profound and jarring dissonance between the way they see the world, and the way politicians and journalists tell them they see the world.
Deep discontent with status quo
The determination to erase 2017 from the national psyche has two adverse effects.
Firstly, the great upsurge of enthusiasm and optimism that marked the early years of Corbyn’s leadership has been throttled. Membership of the Labour Party, which had soared to 564,000 under Corbyn, has plunged to fewer than 400,000 - a development welcomed by Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves as a “good thing”.
Those leaving “should never have joined the Labour Party”, she said.
To respond to a sharp rise in the membership of your own party by seeking to expel or repel as many as possible is perverse, and surely unique in the annals of modern politics.
Effectively an entire generation has been told their engagement with the political process is not welcome, unless it be on terms set by the Labour right.
Secondly - it limits the ability of the country to have an intelligent conversation about the many deep, structural problems that confront it.
The reasons people turned out in such numbers to vote for Corbyn in 2017 are many and complex.
But one thing is clear. Combined with the Brexit referendum of 2016, it revealed a deep discontent with the status quo and hostility to the political establishment.
Now the people of Britain find themselves presented with a choice between an entirely discredited government and an opposition whose main concern, it seems, is to indulge in performative “grown-upness” and to demonstrate slavish adherence to the very conventions and orthodoxies that created the mess in the first place.
British politics isn’t working.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. | United Kingdom Politics |
I’ve always felt just a little bit sorry for William Hague. One of the most impressive Tories of his generation, he won his party’s leadership aged just 36, at a time when every holder of that post who’d come before him had gone on to be prime minister. He must have thought he was a shoo-in, the 21st century’s answer to Pitt the Younger.
Unfortunately for Hague, though, he got the job in 1997, after Labour had won a 179-seat majority. Nobody could see the rising star, who’d go on to be one of the few senior ministers to escape the current government with his reputation intact. All they could see was a young fogey, spouting cringey comments about how much he liked a pint from below an even cringier baseball cap. There was simply no political space, in those early Blair years, to consider whether the Tory leader might have a point: all that mattered was the parliamentary arithmetic. He’d failed before he’d even begun.
Once upon a time we all understood that Britain was an elective dictatorship: win a decent majority and be willing to put up with short-term unpopularity, and you can do, if not anything, then a hell of a lot. You certainly don’t need to listen to the other side.
That, though, has been largely forgotten, because a decade in which no one managed a decent majority was followed by a PM who was absolutely petrified of unpopularity. Liz Truss, it’s possible, did remember – how else to explain those Budget policies – but she made the critical error of doing something that scared the markets as well as the voters and we all know what happened there. So now we have a majority government that’s terrified to bloody do anything. We’ve all lost the sense of quite what an administration with a decent majority and a willingness to use it can do.
Which is why, I think, the commenting classes are not remotely prepared for what it’d mean if the next election result looks even slightly like the polls suggest. A lot of things everyone “knows” about politics right now will simply no longer hold true.
Top of the list, of course, is Europe. One of the big barriers to a slightly less self-harming trading relationship with our nearest neighbours is that the Leave coalition which elected this government won’t wear it. Polls showing widespread Bregret haven’t changed that, partly because the people in charge don’t want them to, but also because they’re not going to tell their own voters to stick it.
[See also: Can Murray Foote save the SNP?]
If Labour wins a healthy majority though, taking back the Red Wall despite the hysterical squeaking coming from the direction of Matthew Goodwin, then they’ll no longer be the government’s voters. If a new prime minister were to announce he’s looked at the books and it’s worse than we thought so we need to move back towards Europe, then who’s going to stop him? Brexit may not be reversible, but its supporters’ ability to keep limiting political choices now will be effectively dead.
Or consider the other major drag on growth, this country’s chronic inability to actually bloody build anything. Whether it’s the water, energy or transport infrastructure needed to make the economy function, or homes that allow workers to live on the same landmass as their jobs, almost any proposal to build is likely to face opposition.
Such campaigns are dominated by the older voters on which this government depends, and so have latterly been coddled. But these will not be the voters who make up Labour’s electoral coalition. Here, too, a new government will be able to bypass a barrier by simply ignoring it. (If it’s feeling brave, in fact, the first year after the election might be a great time to cynically design a formula which magically dumps new homes on those seats foolish enough to have voted against them. This is, after all, how the current lot distributed council funding.)
Both a closer relationship with Europe and planning reform are, essentially, free. But even in areas where Labour needs to spend money, an election victory will make life easier. By setting its own fiscal rules, the government essentially defines how much headroom it has, which is one reason – others are available – why Labour is asked to explain how it will fund its policies a lot more than than the Tories are. Control of the Treasury won’t give Labour infinite wriggle room, but it will nonetheless make Labour’s life easier and the Tories’ harder.
In all these ways, the parameters of British politics will change, hugely and instantaneously the moment Labour wins a majority. There is little commentary out there to suggest anyone has absorbed this fact.
That doesn’t mean the party will actually use this political space, of course: it must be at least possible that the cynics are right, this isn’t an electoral strategy and Starmer’s Labour is exactly as gutless and unambitious as it seems. Nor does it mean we’ve heard the end of the reactionary whining – about the referendum, the Red Wall, the idea that this patch of scrubland off the M25 is more important than either affordable housing or the fact the planet is visibly starting to burn.
But once they’re on the losing side of an election, those people will largely cease to matter. They can whine all they want: the people with all the power won’t have to listen to them. There’ll be other new categories of voter to absorb all the attention instead, and even the parts of the media which support the current lot will to some extent pivot, because the mechanics of reporting require journalists to follow power. Everything will change, in ways that are hard to predict right now.
And the next Tory leader, if they’re very, very lucky, will get to be the 21st century’s answer to William Hague.
[See also: Prisons are at breaking point] | United Kingdom Politics |
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! The U.S. Justice Department said it is seeking to seize a mysterious Venezuelan-flagged cargo plane that has been grounded in Argentina since June, arguing that the plane was previously linked to a U.S.-sanctioned Iranian airline with alleged ties to terrorist organizations."Today’s coordinated actions target the unlawful transfer of an Iranian cargo plane to a Venezuelan airline and the airline’s subsequent operation of that plane in violation of our rules," Assistant Secretary of Export Enforcement Matthew S. Axelrod of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security said in a press release Tuesday. "We will continue to take significant and direct enforcement action against foreign airlines operating U.S.-origin aircraft in violation of U.S. export controls."The mysterious plane landed at Ezeiza International Airport in Argentina nearly two months ago, arriving with a crew of 14 Venezuelans and 5 Iranians. The plane was grounded two days later, and Argentinian federal police found material used for military cyber defense operations on board.The cargo raised fears that the U.S.-made plane, which the Justice Department said was illegally transferred from U.S.-sanctioned Iranian airline Mahan Air to Venezuela's state-owned Emtrasur Air, could be a cover for Iranian intelligence operations in South America. The Justice Department alleges that Mahan Air has a history of supporting Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force.IRAN GAINS FOOTHOLD IN SOUTH AMERICA AS BIDEN ADMIN PURSUES NUCLEAR DEAL Target aircraft in 2022 with Venezuelan EMTRASUR logo. (Justice Department)The request comes after Argentinian media reported Monday that a federal judge allowed 12 of the plane's 19 crewmembers to leave the country, while four Iranians and three Venezuelans were ordered to stay as the investigation continues. The pilot of the plane, Gholamreza Ghasemi, a former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and board member and manager of U.S.-sanctioned Iranian airline Fars Air Qeshm, was among those ordered to stay in the country.The Justice Department alleges that the plane was transferred from Mahan Air to Emtrasur around October 2021 without U.S. authorization, a violation of U.S. export control laws. More violations of export control laws occurred earlier this year, with the Justice Department alleging that the plane was transferred between Caracas, Venezuela, Tehran, Iran, and Moscow, Russia, without U.S. authorization. Target aircraft in 2019 with Iranian Mahan Air logo. (Justice Department)"The Department of Justice will not tolerate transactions that violate our sanctions and export laws," Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen of the Justice Department’s National Security Division said in the press release. "Working with our partners across the globe, we will give no quarter to governments and state-sponsored entities looking to evade our sanctions and export control regimes in service of their malign activities."The request to seize the plane comes as fears grow that Iran may be gaining a greater foothold in Latin America, a troubling development as the Biden administration attempts to negotiate with the country to rekindle the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal. President Joe Biden. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)BIDEN LACKS COHERENT STRATEGY ON IRAN THAT IS 'WEEKS' FROM BUILDING NUCLEAR BOMB, AIDS RUSSIA: EXPERTBoth Iran and Argentina applied for membership in the BRICS Group earlier this year, an international organization including Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa that cast itself as an alternative to Western alliances.The mysterious plane's landing in Argentina also comes after Iranian Vice President for Economic Affairs Mohsen Rezaee was an invited guest to the inaugural ceremony of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. Rezaee is a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and is wanted in Argentina for allegedly masterminding the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires.FBI Acting Assistant Director of Counterterrorism Kevin Vorndran said that the agency is seeking to hold Iran accountable for violations of U.S. sanctions and "malign activities" in places such as South America.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP"This seizure demonstrates the FBI’s persistence in using all of our tools to hold the Iranian Government and affiliated individuals and companies accountable when they violate U.S. laws," Vorndran said in the press release. "The FBI, along with our international partners, will continue to seek out those individuals who contribute to the advancement of Iran’s malign activities and ensure they are brought to justice, regardless of where, or how, they attempt to hide." Michael Lee is a writer at Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @UAMichaelLee | Latin America Politics |
BRASILIA, May 29 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and Brazilian leader Luis Inacio Lula de Silva on Monday assailed U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and Maduro said he hopes a regional South American summit in Brasilia will call for their removal.
Lula called the U.S. sanctions "extremely exaggerated" and criticized the United States for denying the legitimacy of fellow leftist Maduro, who is considered by Washington an authoritarian leader who has not allowed free elections.
Maduro was on his first visit to Brazil since 2015 taking advantage of warmer relations before 11 South American presidents meet in Brasilia on Tuesday.
The Venezuelan president also said his country wants to be part of the BRICS group of leading emerging nations, which Lula said he would personally favor.
Brazil's former hard-right President Jair Bolsonaro had banned Maduro from entering Brazil when he took office in 2019, a measure that Lula lifted when he returned to power this year.
"We are living a historic moment ... it's hard to believe so many years went by with no dialogue with a neighbor with whom we share the Amazon region," Lula said at a joint press conference.
Among the issues on their agenda was a large debt Venezuela has run up with Brazil's National Development Bank, Brazilian officials said. Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad was due to meet with Maduro and Lula, they added, and the president of state-run oil company Petrobras, Jean Paul Prates.
Lula said he argued with the United States and fellow Social Democrats over Maduro's legitimacy and the "900 sanctions" Venezuela faces. "I think it is really absurd that they deny that Maduro is president of Venezuela," he said.
The South American presidents, all except Peru, will discuss the launch of a cooperation bloc in place of the defunct UNASUR, which was created in 2008 during the previous presidency of Lula with the leftist leaders at the time of Venezuela and Argentina, Hugo Chavez and Cristina Kirchner, respectively.
The organization floundered when several South American countries elected right-wing governments, creating diplomatic fissures on the continent.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Latin America Politics |
Here is a rundown of the full list of bills from the King’s Speech 2023:
GROWING THE ECONOMY
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
“Legislation will be introduced to strengthen the United Kingdom’s energy security and reduce reliance on volatile international energy markets and hostile foreign regimes. This Bill will support the future licensing of new oil and gas fields, helping the country to transition to net zero by 2050 without adding undue burdens on households”
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill
“My Ministers will take steps to make the economy more competitive, taking advantage of freedoms afforded by the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. A bill will be brought forward to promote trade and investment with economies in the fastest growing region in the world”
Automated Vehicles Bill
“My Ministers will introduce new legal frameworks to support the safe commercial development of emerging industries, such as self-driving vehicles”
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
“[My Ministers will] introduce new competition rules for digital markets”
Data Protection and Digital Information Bill
“[My Ministers will] encourage innovation in technologies such as machine learning”
Media Bill
“Legislation will be brought forward to support the creative industries and protect public interest journalism [Media Bill”
- Arbitration Bill
- Draft Rail Reform Bill
STRENGTHENING SOCIETY
Tobacco and Vapes Bill
“My Government will introduce legislation to create a smokefree generation by restricting the sale of tobacco so that children currently aged fourteen or younger can never be sold cigarettes, and restricting the sale and marketing of e-cigarettes to children”
Leasehold and Freehold Bill
“My Ministers will bring forward a bill to reform the housing market by making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to purchase their freehold and tackling the exploitation of millions of homeowners through punitive service charges”
Renters (Reform) Bill
“Renters will benefit from stronger security of tenure and better value, while landlords will benefit from reforms to provide certainty that they can regain their properties when needed”
Football Governance Bill
“My Government will deliver a long-term plan to regenerate towns and put local people in control of their future. Legislation will be brought forward to safeguard the future of football clubs for the benefit of communities and fans”
Pedicabs (London) Bill
“A bill will be introduced to deal with the scourge of unlicensed pedicabs in London”
Holocaust Memorial Bill
“My Government is committed to tackling antisemitism and ensuring that the Holocaust is never forgotten. A bill will progress the construction of a national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens”
- Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill
- Economic Activities of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE
Sentencing Bill
“A bill will be brought forward to ensure tougher sentences for the most serious offenders and increase the confidence of victims”
Criminal Justice Bill
“My Ministers will introduce legislation to empower police forces and the criminal justice system to prevent new or complex crimes, such as digital-enabled crime and child sexual abuse, including grooming”
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill
“At a time when threats to national security are changing rapidly due to new technology, my Ministers will give the security and intelligence services the powers they need and will strengthen independent judicial oversight”
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
“Legislation will be introduced to protect public premises from terrorism in light of the Manchester Arena attack”
- Victims and Prisoners Bill | United Kingdom Politics |
A Tory MP has complained about 'lefty lawyers' blocking deportations, as Foreign Secretary Liz Truss insisted the first flight today would depart even if there was just one asylum seeker on board to establish the 'principle'. Peter Bone made a combative speech in the Commons as campaigners revealed that just seven of the original 130 people notified they would be on the first flight are still set to be on board. The MP Wellingborough told MPs: 'We hear that a number of people who were meant to be on the flight tomorrow have, miraculously, got some lefty lawyer to intervene and stop it. 'Can I suggest that instead of booking 50 people on each flight to Rwanda, book 250 people on it then when they stop half of them from travelling you still have a full flight - come on, get on and send them.'Meanwhile, Liz Truss insisted the first flight - reportedly taking off from RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire - would definitely depart but she could not say how few people will be on it.She told Sky News: 'We are expecting to send the flight later today. I can't say exactly how many people will be on the flight but the really important thing is we establish the principle and we start to break the business model of these appalling people traffickers who are trading in misery.'That is why we're doing this policy and that's why it's important we get the flight out today.'Asked if there could be no one on this flight, she said: 'There will be people on the flight and if they are not on this flight they will be on the next flight.' Pressed if it could be just seven individuals, she said: 'I don't have a figure. The important point is the principle.' Today, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss insisted the first flight would take off but could not say how few people will be on it Detainees in Brook House Detention Centre,Gatwick this morning on the day a flight to Rwanda is due to leave Protestors gathered outside Downing Street to halt the first flight - and might get their wish Priti Patel's Rwanda plan got a boost last night after judges refused to block today's flightIt came as a government source suggested the chances of the first flight going ahead were 'very, very slim' even despite the government winning a key court battle.'All the lawyers who have been fighting in the courts will now turn their collective might elsewhere and direct all their resources at the remaining individuals due to be on board,' the source told The Times. 'They'll be exploiting every single loophole possible and using every trick in the book to get those last people removed from the flight. Liz Truss defends Rwanda plan as 'completely moral' after Church criticism Foreign Secretary Liz Truss insisted the Rwanda flights policy is 'completely moral' after criticism from the Church of England.Asked about criticism from senior bishops, she told Sky News: 'I don't agree with that, the people who are immoral in this case are the people traffickers trading in human misery.'Those people need to suggest an alternative policy that will work.'Our policy is completely legal, it's completely moral.'What I'm saying to the critics of the policy who don't have an alternative about how we deal with this illegal migration, is they don't have an alternative, they are criticising our policy which is effective and does work.''[The chances of it going ahead as planned] are very, very slim.' Judges last night refused to block the inaugural flight scheduled for today to the offshore processing centre.Tory MPs cheered in the Commons as the Court of Appeal backed a ruling in the Home Secretary's favour last week, giving the policy the green light.A separate High Court bid to block the flight also failed yesterday when the charity Asylum Aid was denied an injunction.The Home Secretary has now won three victories in cases brought against the Government by Left-wing groups. But there is still only a slim chance that any migrants, including those who crossed the Channel in small boats, will be on today's flight to Rwanda.Just seven names remained of the 130 on the original passenger list last night after lawyers submitted a series of challenges.Further individual appeals by these seven, who include Iranians, Iraqis and Albanians, were expected in the hours before the flight.At least six further cases are due to be heard at the High Court today under the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and other legal measures. But the Court of Appeal's decision means Miss Patel's scheme to hand Channel migrants and other 'irregular arrivals' a one-way ticket to the east African nation has avoided falling at the first hurdle.The Home Secretary insists the policy is necessary to avoid further drownings in the Channel. 'People will see this as a good result for the Home Office, but now the policy is not facing a blanket ban, well-resourced lawyers will try to get their clients pulled off the flight individually,' a government source said. The Home Secretary has now won three victories in cases brought against the Government by Left-wing groups . Pictured: Human rights protesters demonstrate outside the Home Office in London The leadership of the Church of England yesterday condemned the Rwanda operation as an 'immoral policy that shames Britain''They will try every tactic and exploit every loophole, probably waiting until the very last minute.'The leadership of the Church of England yesterday condemned the Rwanda operation as an 'immoral policy that shames Britain'. In a letter to The Times, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and 24 other bishops said: 'Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation.'Lord Justice Singh, chairing a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal yesterday, declined to 'interfere with the conclusions' made by a High Court judge on Friday.He said Mr Justice Swift 'did not err in principle' when he refused to grant an interim injunction that would have stopped the flight taking off.Lord Justice Singh was a leading human rights barrister and founded Matrix Chambers with Cherie Blair.The appeal was brought by the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents a majority of UK Border Force staff, and charities Care 4 Calais and Detention Action. The Court of Appeal's decision means Miss Patel's scheme to hand Channel migrants and other 'irregular arrivals' a one-way ticket to the east African nation has avoided falling at the first hurdle. Pictured: Border Force and the military escort migrant ashore at Dover DocksThey were refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, although the applicants may lodge a further bid directly.Raza Husain QC, for the applicants, told the court the Rwanda policy featured 'a serious interference with basic dignity' and the High Court had wrongly assessed the strength of their claim. He added that if migrants were to be sent to Rwanda and a judicial review – due in July – rules the policy unlawful the Home Office would be required to return them to the UK.Migrants could then have 'significant claims' for damages, the QC suggested.But Rory Dunlop QC, for the Home Office, said: 'The flight tomorrow is important. This is a policy which is intended to deter dangerous and unnecessary journeys, journeys from safe third countries by people who do not need to make that journey to be safe, they can claim in France or wherever it is.'This is a policy that – if it works – could save lives as well as disrupt the model of traffickers.'Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has implicitly rejected Prince Charles's reported criticisms of the Rwanda plan.Mr Johnson declined to comment directly on whether the prince was wrong to call it 'appalling', but added: 'This is about making sure that we break the business model of criminal gangs who are not only risking people's lives but undermining public confidence in legal migration.'Labour's shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the scheme was 'shameful' and 'completely unworkable, deeply unethical and extortionately expensive'.'This policy shames Britain': Entire Church of England leadership calls Government's plan to send failed asylum seekers to Rwanda 'immoral' as first flight is set to go ahead tomorrow By Jacob Thorburn for MailOnline Senior leaders at the Church of England have ripped into the Home Office's 'immoral' plan to deport migrants to Rwanda.The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are among those who have lent their pens to a strongly worded letter that denounced the policy as one that 'shames Britain'.Signed by the Most Rev Justin Welby and the Most Rev Stephen Cottrell, the senior leaders, alongside 23 bishops that sit in the House of Lords, criticised the plan for lacking morality.Writing to the Times, the co-signed letter states: 'Whether or not the first deportation flight leaves Britain today for Rwanda, this policy should shame us as a nation. 'The shame is our own, because our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have for centuries.'It comes just hours after three Court of Appeal judges struck down lawyers, charities and campaigners' latest bid to thwart the first Kigali-bound flight leaving on Tuesday.The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS), which represents more than 80 per cent of Border Force staff, and charities Care4Calais and Detention Action challenged refusal to grant an injunction on Friday, which meant the first flight to the east African country could go ahead on Tuesday. But, following an urgent hearing in London on Monday, three senior judges dismissed the appeal, saying there was no error in the decision of Mr Justice Swift. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are among those who have lent their pens to a strongly worded letter that denounced Boris Johnson's policy as one that 'shames Britain' Rev Justin Welby previously blasted the government's Rwanda plan for asylum seekers as the 'opposite of the nature of God' The letter is also signed by the bishops of London, Durham, Exeter, Birmingham and Manchester.The Home Office's proposals to fly migrants who entered the UK illegally to Rwanda have split opinion and drawn the ire of several high profile figures. Rev Welby had previously used his Easter sermon to describe 'serious ethical questions' around the plan to send asylum seekers to the East African nation.The Archbishop told his Canterbury congregation that the UK has a duty as a 'Christian country' to not 'sub-contract our responsibilities' after anyone who arrived in Britain illegally since January 1 could be relocated to Rwanda under a new deal. He later said it would have been 'cowardly' not to have spoken out against the plan. Cabinet ministers hit back at Mr Welby after his outspoken intervention in April. MPs later called Mr Welby's stinging intervention over the government's plan to send thousands of migrants with a one-way ticket to Rwanda 'clumsy'. Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, a committed Catholic, said the government is not 'abandoning' migrants but taking on a 'very difficult responsibility' with the 'intention' of doing good' which he said is important within Christianity. Other Tory MPs John Redwood, Mike Wood and Tom Hunt also blasted Mr Welby's comments with Mr Hunt saying the Archbishop should be wary of 'clumsily intervening' into political issues. Repeatedly asked about the Prince of Wales's (left) apparent view that the proposals are 'appalling', Boris Johnson (right in Cornwall today) insisted they were essential to 'break the business model' of people-smugglers There are fears ministers could be banned from putting Channel migrants on the first flight to RwandaThe Archbishop's comments were later echoed by Prince Charles, after The Mail revealed he had privately condemned the Rwanda asylum plan, saying giving Channel migrants a one-way ticket to Africa was 'appalling'.Downing Street tried to cool the tensions later, saying Mr Johnson has 'nothing but respect and admiration' for the Prince.The PM's official spokesman said: 'The Prime Minister has nothing but respect and admiration for the Prince of Wales, who's spoken out on a number of issues, not least the environment.'The tetchy exchanges with Mr Johnson came amid fears ministers could be blocked from putting Channel migrants on the first flight to Rwanda. Mr Johnson, according to sources who attended a private meeting between the Prime Minister and Tory MPs after Easter, claimed the senior clergyman had 'misconstrued the policy'. Dozens of protestors are pictured scuffling with Met Police officers outside the Home Office during the 'Stop Rwanda flights' protest on Monday evening Migrants travelling to the UK on small boats will be put on jets and sent to Rwanda while their applications are processed. Pictured: A map detailing the plan proposed by the Prime MinisterMr Johnson told LBC the Government had expected that 'very active lawyers' would try to challenge the Rwanda policy.'We have always said that we knew that this policy would attract attacks from those who want to have a completely open-doors approach to immigration, who want people to be able to come across the Channel without let or hindrance,' he said.'There are very active lawyers in this field. I have the utmost respect for the legal profession but it is also important we stop criminal gangs.'Asked if the policy will be worth it if it results in just one person being removed, Mr Johnson said: 'I think it's very important that the criminal gangs who are putting people's lives at risk in the Channel is going to be broken – is being broken – by this Government.A Government spokesperson said: 'Our world-leading Partnership with Rwanda will see those making dangerous, unnecessary and illegal journeys to the UK relocated there to have their claims considered and rebuild their lives.'There is no one single solution to the global migration crisis, but doing nothing is not an option and this partnership will help break the business model of criminal gangs and prevent loss of life.'Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers and we are confident the agreement is fully compliant with all national and international law.'It comes just months after the former archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan William, was locked in a war of words with the Government over its £120m scheme to halt a surge in Channel crossings.He joined his successor and the incumbent Archbishop Justin Welby, and Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell in questioning the morality of the plan, labelling it 'sinful'. | United Kingdom Politics |
Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar has said if an opportunity is missed to restore the Northern Ireland Executive in the autumn, talks about alternatives will be needed.
Earlier, Mr Varadkar met Stormont's political parties in Belfast 18 months on from the collapse of the executive.
It comes after he accused Westminster of a lack of co-operation.
There has been no devolved government since February 2022 when the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) withdrew.
Mr Varadkar was speaking on a visit to Northern Ireland's national football stadium, Windsor Park, where he met representatives of Linfield Football Club.
"I do think there is an opportunity to restore the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, the assembly and the executive in the autumn," he said.
"Certainly from the Irish government's point of view, we want to do everything that we can to assist that, whether it is political support or co-funding infrastructure projects or helping out in any way that we can.
"We are very keen to do that and I said that to the party leaders today.
"I do think though that if that opportunity is missed, if it is the case that the institutions can't be re-established in the autumn well then I do think at that point we have to start having conversations about alternatives, about plan B.
"That's very much a conversation I am keen to have with the UK government."
Earlier, Mr Varadkar called for the UK and Irish governments to "work hand-in-glove and apply both pressure and support - in a co-ordinated way".
He said a closer partnership was crucial to restoring power sharing.
But Mr Varadkar told the Financial Times there had been a reluctance in Downing Street to "go down that route".
Relations between London and Dublin have improved since their post-Brexit slump.
Nevertheless, these comments show this is a work in progress.
The DUP has blocked the formation of an executive and assembly in protest at the post-Brexit trading rules for Northern Ireland.
After being the first party delegation to meet Mr Varadkar on Wednesday, Sinn Féin vice-president Michelle O'Neill said she believed "public patience is wearing thin with the DUP".
"I have heard more urgency from the taoiseach today than I have heard from the British government in terms of the need to restore the executive," she added.
DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said he had a "very useful" conversation with the taoiseach on subjects of mutual interest and concern, including cross-border trade.
"Our focus at the moment is on resolving the major problems that were created by the Northern Ireland Protocol," he added.
"We continue to engage with the government, that engagement has intensified in recent weeks and I hope that within the next few weeks we will have a definitive response from the government and we will be able to put a proposition forward.
"The government knows that more needs to be done and we need to see that progress."
'Frank exchange'
Alliance leader Naomi Long said her party's delegation had a "very productive and frank exchange" with the taoiseach.
"It has been clear now for some time that whilst some kind of a deal that could restore devolution is not necessarily that far away, neither is it any closer than it appeared to be at any time frankly throughout the spring," she said.
"I remain very concerned that as time passes the crisis that faces our public services and our public finances is deepening."
Mrs Long said there was a "short window of opportunity" to resolve the situation and that it was "incumbent on the DUP to step up now and do the job they were elected to do".
Ulster Unionist Party leader Doug Beattie said his conversation with Mr Varadkar was "nothing more than a neighbourly catch-up".
He said it was "all well and good the taoiseach saying that the UK government needs to talk to them more, I would argue that the UK government needs to talk to us more".
"I want to be involved, I want to add value, I want to fix the problems and the impasse that we are on now," he said.
The Social Democratic and Labour Party's Matthew O'Toole said the he had a useful engagement with the taoiseach.
"For the past few decades, this place has only made progress whenever the British and Irish governments have been operating together in order to bring focus to delivery and making this place work," he added.
"It is clear that the Irish government want to do that and the taoiseach was clear about that today."
He said a resolution was needed quickly as "devolution could be moving past a point of no return".
Responding to Mr Varadkar's remarks, the Northern Ireland Office said the two governments had "long agreed to co-operation in line with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, including through the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference".
"The UK government firmly believes that the three-stranded approach set out in the agreement offers the best route to securing the timely restoration of the NI institutions, and our commitment to it remains unchanged."
Mr Varadkar also held engagements with business leaders and met with representatives from the Gaelic Athletic Association. | Europe Politics |
A local resident looks out of a broken window of a damaged apartment following recent shelling at the Petrovsky district in the course of Ukraine-Russia conflict in Donetsk, Ukraine June 25, 2022. REUTERS/Alexander ErmochenkoRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comLONDON, June 25 (Reuters) - 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 a G7 meeting in Germany."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.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by David Milliken; Editing by Sandra MalerOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
Labour will begin drafting its own legislation in priority areas such as energy and planning while still in opposition, senior party sources have said.
The news comes after historic by-election victories in Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire last week suggested Labour is on track to oust Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives at the next election.
A Labour source said: “Anyone who wants to be a party of government… what they don’t want to be doing is drafting stuff on the hoof in between an election result and a King’s Speech.”
As the election approaches, attention within Labour is gradually shifting to preparations for government, including a legislative programme for a first King’s Speech.
Reform of the planning system – which was central to Sir Keir’s speech at Labour’s party conference earlier this month – and setting up a publicly owned clean energy company, Great British Energy, are viewed as priorities for drafting.
A Take Back Control bill to devolve power to local communities, plans for a new National Wealth Fund and a legal guarantee that the Office for Budget Responsibility will produce forecasts on all major changes to tax and spending could also be worked up in advance, Labour figures have indicated.
To draft the bills, Sir Keir will draw on the expertise of organisations such as the Society of Labour Lawyers, though the party could also buy in external legal advice.
While Labour is sensitive to accusations of complacency and claims it is “measuring the curtains” for Downing Street, a consistent polling lead and a string of by-election victories have given frontbenchers the confidence to begin thinking in earnest about how they would translate their policies into action.
The Labour source said: “We’re not getting overconfident. If it looks like you stand a good chance – and clearly we seem to be in a better position than we have been for a long time – then you start to invest a bit more time and resource and effort into being able to hit the ground running.”
The source said that Sir Keir’s “five missions” for Britain would inform the legislative priorities for a first King’s Speech.
The approach mirrors the planning New Labour did when it was on the cusp of power. In 1997, Gordon Brown was able to announce independence for the Bank of England four days after entering Number 11 because of the preparatory work undertaken by his adviser Ed Balls.
Sir Keir’s preparation is likely to step up a gear when shadow ministers are permitted to meet civil servants for “access talks” to discuss Labour’s policies.
“The drafting would be done within the party… but at some point you share your plans with your department as part of your ongoing access talks,” the Labour source added.
The timing of such talks is a matter of convention, with the decision ultimately resting with Mr Sunak about when to let officials meet with Labour. Sources predict that the talks may start in the early new year.
Short notice
A Whitehall insider said the fact that the last two elections in 2017 and 2019 were called at short notice meant there was less time for the Opposition to prepare for the possibility of government.
“It’s not really since 2010 and 2015 that we’ve had an Opposition in a position to think in this way,” they said.
The source said Sir Keir would not necessarily need to have detailed draft legislation worked up in all areas.
However, they said Labour would be talking to legal experts to pin down “the sorts of questions they’re going to need to know the answers to in order to instruct the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who are the government lawyers who draft the legislation”.
“What they do obviously need is a plausible sense of what would go into their first King’s Speech and a sense of prioritisation,” they added.
Labour’s legislative work is only one example of the party getting ready for government.
The party’s political advisors have received coaching from New Labour heavyweights such as Lord Mandelson and Jack Straw, while shadow cabinet members have been getting 90-minute training sessions from the Institute for Government.
In 2010, the Conservatives arrived in government with detailed plans for education reform which allowed Michael Gove to get his Academies Act on the statute book within three months of the election.
The Labour Party under Ed Miliband also undertook extensive planning for government in 2015, before ultimately losing that election | United Kingdom Politics |
Exclusive: This year's Telluride Film Festival guest directors discuss their decision to leave their country, and how they're planning a future together in the U.S. On February 24, when Russia launched an unprompted military invasion of Ukraine, directors Kantemir Balagov and Kira Kovalenko hit the streets to protest.
“We really thought we could change something,” Balagov told IndieWire by phone this month from Los Angeles with Kovalenko on the line. “But later, when we found out real people in our homeland support this, we understood something terrible was happening. This Russian TV propaganda has brainwashed a lot of people. That moment was kind of a breaking point for us and we understood that we needed to get out of Russia.”
Over the past two years, the couple have been among the rising stars of the Russian film community: The 32-year-old Kovalenko’s 2021 drama “Unclenching the Fists” was the country’s official Oscar submission last year, while 30-year-old Balagov’s “Beanpole” was the submission the year prior. Once they realized that opposing the war would put them at risk, they looked for an exit strategy. Balagov credits Telluride Film Festival co-director Julie Huntsinger with encouraging the filmmaking pair to leave Russia and helping them secure six-month tourist visas. Now, they’re repaying the favor, by serving as guest directors at this year’s festival, set to take place on Labor Day weekend. “We keep saying she’s our guardian angel,” Balagov said. “She was the first person who said, ‘You need to leave.’”
Balagov and Kovalenko will be among the youngest to hold the guest director position at the festival, a role that was filled last year by Barry Jenkins. They were in the process of finalizing a selection of films. While they declined comment on potential choices until the lineup was announced, the opportunity was an ironic twist for the two natives of Nalchik, the southwestern Russian city situated some 900 miles from Moscow, where neither of them initially harbored an interest in cinema.
“I wasn’t a cinephile,” Balagov said. “Sometimes I would watch good films like ‘Dancer in the Dark,’ ‘Kill Bill,’ and ‘Amores Perros.’ But I watched a lot of shit films, too.”
The couple were both looking for new opportunities veteran Russian director Alexander Sokurov (“Russian Ark”) opened a film school in their town. Balagov had launched a YouTube series with friends that Sokurov saw potential in, while Kovalenko just wanted some kind of cultural education. “Sokurov was saying that cinema can save us, and that inspired me so much,” she said. “He showed us that cinema was a kind of immortality, and that made it something I wanted to do.”
“Unclenching the Fists”Mubi
Balagov said he entered the program wanting to be the next Quentin Tarantino, but quickly adapted a more personal perspective. “At that time, I understood that cinema could be more than just entertainment,” he said. “I wanted to tell stories about people from my region.” Kovalenko said she felt the same way. “We both really wanted to make films about our hometown,” she said. “We always were inspired by people there but we wanted the world to be inspired by them as well.” They were off to a good start when Balagov’s “Closeness” and “Beanpole” both premiered at Cannes, while “Unclenching the Fists” won the Un Certain Regard section at the festival; all three titles went to Telluride and other fall festivals as well. However, as the invasion of Ukraine divided Russia, the couple’s initial goal became harder to envision for the future. “Each time we posted something on social media, our parents got a call from a friend of someone who knew people in some circles,” Balagov said. “They advised our parents to tell their children to be quiet, because it could affect them, too. It’s really hard for us also because we were trying our best to speak about the war. In a small town, it’s easier to frighten people.”
Leaving Russia wasn’t easy on several fronts. “We started to look for flights and they were hella expensive,” Balagov said. They flew to Istanbul and Georgia before making their way to the United States, where the film community has welcomed them for now. “It’s still hard for us,” Balagov said. “Our family is still there. But we thought it was better for us to be here than to go to jail in Russia because of our opinion about the war.”
The couple was in the process of attempting to extend their stay by obtaining O1B visas, and exploring their future career prospects. Balagov, who recently directed two episodes of HBO’s upcoming series “The Last of Us,” had been developing a project called “Monica” that he originally planned to shoot in Nalchik. Now, he’s in the process of rewriting it to set the story in a Circassian diaspora community of New Jersey and plans to set up shop in New York for the production, which will be partly in English. L.A.-based Ukrainian producer Alexander Rodnyansky (who previously lived and worked in Russia) is attached to produce.
“Beanpole”
Rodnyansky, who recently signed a first-look deal with Apple, has also been developing ideas with Kovalenko. Though her English needs work — Balagov translated for her in their interview with IndieWire — she said she hoped to figure out her own way to make movies in the U.S. “I want to do a story here,” she said. “In general these stories we’re telling can be universal, versatile, and complex.”
They had been monitoring recent discussions about how festivals chose to respond to the war. While this year’s Cannes included a Russian-directed film in its Official Competition, “Tchaikovsky’s Wife,” the festival said it would not welcome official Russian delegates at the festival. Other festivals have made similar decrees.
“We keep asking ourselves, ‘If our films were at big festivals now, would we postpone them because of the war?,’” Balagov said. “We really want to believe that we would, but we can’t answer that for sure. It’s theoretical. We’ve never been in that situation. But we understand it and we’re not against it.” They had no sense of when they might try to return to Russia and make films there during Vladimir Putin’s reign. “We decided to ourselves that there’s no way for us to turn back while this butcher is in charge of our country,” Balagov said. “This nightmarish war will end someday. It’s a question of faith and kindness — and a willingness to wait.”
For now, they were looking ahead to Telluride, and the friendly crowds therein. “You can relax and watch movies with people,” Balagov said. “There’s a unity in there, and kind of a magic. So we’re really grateful for this opportunity, especially right now.”
The 2022 Telluride Film Festival runs September 2-8. Sign Up: Stay on top of the latest breaking film and TV news! Sign up for our Email Newsletters here. | Europe Politics |
Judged a liar. Chucked out of the building. Condemned by colleagues.
You would think you'd want to crawl under the duvet and stay there for a good while after a massive public disgrace. Perhaps not Boris Johnson.
"He loves oxygen and he doesn't care about Parliament. Everyone is talking about him and he'll be delighted," suggests a former ally who knows him well.
And his remaining die-hard backers claim the verdict of the privileges committee, which investigated whether he deliberately misled Parliament over lockdown parties at No 10, is a vindictive strike against a politician loved by party members and much of the public.
Is that true?
When it comes to the public, the polls have suggested for many months that claim is tripe - to use Boris Johnson's terminology for the report into his conduct.
He did have an unusual ability to connect with voters. But he long ago fell out of favour with the public.
And what about inside the Conservative Party, that is again indulging in what seems like its favourite hobby, arguing with itself?
I've been talking to activists and MPs from around the country to test that out. Like in any big organisation there are differing views, but repeatedly, different sources describe three distinct groups.
One experienced party member describes the different tribes as Boris Johnson's "super fans, never fans, and only fans while he was an asset".
The reference to the Only Fans website - known for its adult content - may be a mischievous hint that perhaps there was a transactional element all along.
The super fans
This is the group for whom Boris Johnson is a political rock star.
Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has made her views plain - warning that Conservatives who endorse the privileges committee's findings could be chucked out of their seats.
Another former cabinet minister told me there was such unhappiness the party might even split over how Mr Johnson has been treated.
A different senior backer told me their colleagues were totally underestimating the anger among members and Mr Johnson's magic ability to win, warning that "people are making a terrible mistake" which could undermine democracy.
The never fans
The howls of rage from the super fans are matched by massive sighs of relief from the "never fans".
One former president of the Conservative National Convention, the top brass of the voluntary party, told me: "I am so relieved he is gone - and really gone. Boris was never suited to the top job."
One Scottish activist said: "For goodness sake man, just go. If you really care about our party and our country then go quickly and quietly. You made your bed and you were caught lying in it."
Even if members do still have affection for Mr Johnson, this activist argues they "aren't who we need to appeal to" to win elections, saying the super fans are "delusional idiots".
Only fans
The biggest group by far however is those who were content to back Boris Johnson for as long as he was useful.
This is summed up by one activist who backed him as PM: "It was a transaction. At the time I absolutely realised and knew what his flaws were.
"But I took the view that you have to decide what is the bigger issue and it was keeping Corbyn out."
Another association chair in south-east England said his members absolutely do not want Mr Johnson back, apart from a few die-hards, telling me: "It's like when someone has had a really exciting but disastrous boyfriend, afterwards, you have a pang occasionally and you miss the excitement but you don't really want them back."
An activist in the Midlands who once backed him said: "Everyone liked him to start with and were willing to take a punt. He has smashed his credibility and his likeability."
One MP, in a constituency with one of the highest Brexit Leave votes, told me: "Practically nobody has got in contact. He's so popular he appears to have rendered my constituents incapable of using their fingers to tap out an email or pick up a phone - it's been staggering.
"It's like all those X Factor winners, one of their songs comes on and you think, 'oh yeah people actually used to love that'. Then you think 'but why?'."
Not so much the rock star any more.
- This week's guests are Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar
- Also on the show is Oscar, Bafta and Tony Award-winning actor Sir Mark Rylance
- Watch live on BBC One and iPlayer from 09:00 BST this Sunday
- Follow the programme in text and video here on the BBC News website from 08:00
It is impossible to be scientific about the size of each group, but in each of my conversations it is clear the super fans are very definitely a minority.
One source calculates "you have gone from 70% being supportive of him to only around 20%", adding: "The sensible middle ground of members has definitely gone away."
Another party chair says only "10% of the grassroots are pro - who would actually want him back". There is a desire to move on, not just from the political melodrama, but also the era that Boris Johnson defined.
As one activist says: "What we need is Boris Johnson to go away. And most people want Covid and Brexit to go away. He represents both of those."
A regular peep at the Telegraph letters page would suggest its readers gave up on him months ago. If Boris Johnson is no longer tickling the tummies of the party's most traditional media backer then the notion he's still the Tory darling just does not hold.
There still is the possibility of a vote on the report into his conduct in the Commons on Monday.
Having promised to uphold integrity and accountability it is tricky for the prime minister to sit it out, but that does seem the most likely outcome. One minister joked: "He is likely to be many miles away."
And it's worth noting that Boris Johnson's camp has backed away from turning the vote into another bout of a fight it has already lost.
His remaining supporters are not going to vote against the committee's findings, which would have been a way of protesting against what they saw as its vicious judgement.
It seems, realising the support might have looked embarrassingly paltry - maybe "20 votes on a good day" as one minister said - they now won't turn up at all.
There is evidence of some campaigning to make the vote count at the margins. Tory website the Conservative Post is encouraging MPs to vote against the report, along with circulating some wild claims that the committee ignored the rule of law.
Separately, the Liberal Democrats have been making hay in local media, demanding their Conservative rivals vote to endorse the verdict that Johnson lied. If they don't, you can imagine they'll use that to try and embarrass their opponents.
But neither Labour nor the Lib Dems are at the moment planning to force a vote to endorse the report. It may therefore go through "on the nod", where MPs do not have to vote, sparing Tory blushes.
There is a small irony in MPs not even bothering to vote on the departure of the most prominent politician of his generation. Alternatively, it tells you all you need to know.
But however messy his exit, the end of the Johnson era is prompting questions about what he leaves behind.
Rishi Sunak is yet to sketch out a bold, new canvas. His brand - and it very much is a brand - is designed to create an impression of quiet competence rather than create fireworks.
The risk - or maybe the reality - is that's created a sense of quiet drift.
One of the activists I spoke to said this "is the beginning of whatever will be the story after the election" - assuming Rishi Sunak will lose - and "it is going to be brutal and nasty - you can see the various wings in the party already beginning to manoeuvre themselves".
One of the other members just wants the Conservatives to concentrate on what the public needs: "I just feel what people want to talk about on the doors is health and the cost of living."
As the pressures of rising mortgage costs in particular become horrifyingly clear, the Conservative Party - already well behind in the polls - can ill-afford another week like this.
It is not clear yet how much trouble Boris Johnson wants to cause. Will he use his new newspaper column to sledge Rishi Sunak at every opportunity? Or actually, as he did yesterday, confine himself to writing about battles with his weight?!
That seems vanishingly unlikely. Whatever he chooses to do there is a sense that the Conservative Party is exhausted by it all. Years of drama. Years of fighting. Years of its majority being spent on arguments with each other.
One of the activists I spoke to warned of a spreading sentiment: "More than half the grassroots are just disillusioned - too apathetic to campaign, too apathetic to vote, some talking about spoiling ballot papers."
Whether super fans, never fans, or only fans, Conservatives have to deal with the legacy of Boris Johnson.
But after all the drama, all the political pain and adrenalin mixed in, they may have to confront the horror of apathy too. | United Kingdom Politics |
Zelenskyy: Strike at shopping centre one of the most defiant terrorist attacks in European history Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the Russian strike at a shopping centre in Kremenchuk today "one of the most defiant terrorist attacks in European history".In his nightly address, Mr Zelenskyy said fortunately many people had managed to get out of the shopping centre in time but there were "still people inside"."Only totally insane terrorists, who should have no place on earth, can strike missiles at such an object," he said."And this is not an off-target missile strike, this is a calculated Russian strike - exactly at this shopping mall.
It is not yet possible to establish the number of victims for now. "Mr Zelenskyy went on to say that he had appealed to the United States to recognise Russia as a "state that sponsors terrorism".He added: "The Russian state has become the largest terrorist organisation in the world. And this is a fact. And this must be a legal fact. And everyone in the world must know that buying or transporting Russian oil, maintaining contacts with Russian banks, paying taxes and customs duties to the Russian state means giving money to terrorists."The comments come as G7 leaders said in a statement: "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." Eight killed in Russian missile attack on Lysychansk A Russian missile strike in the eastern Ukrainian city of Lysychansk has killed at least eight people and wounded 21, Serhiy Haidai, governor of the Luhansk region has said."Today, when the civilian people were collecting water from a water tank, the Russians aimed at the crowd," Mr Haidai said in a statement on Telegram.Earlier, civilians had been urged to evacuate the eastern city as Russian forces continued to bombard the region. The city is the last major Luhansk city still held by Ukrainian troops. Death toll for Kremenchuk strike rises to 13, authorities report Officials have updated the death toll for the Russian missile strike on the shopping centre in Kremenchuk to 13.In a statement on the Telegram messaging app, Dmytro Lunin, governor of the central Poltava region, said: "It is too early to talk about the final number of dead people"Mr Lunin also confirmed that 50 people had been wounded in the attack.Earlier, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said more than 1,000 people were in the shopping centre at the time of the attack, which witnesses said caused a huge fire and sent dark smoke billowing into the sky. European Council chief condemns 'horrendous' Russian missile strike on shopping centre European Council chief Charles Michel has condemned the Russian missile attack in Kremenchuk and called it a "horrendous indiscriminate strike"."Russian scare and intimidation tactics will never work. Ukraine will prevail with support of its partners at G7 and beyond. My profound condolences to families of the victims," he said.Elsewhere, the French foreign ministry said the Kremlin "must be held accountable for its actions".In a statement, the ministry said: "By indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure throughout Ukraine, Russia continues its appalling violations of international humanitarian law."Russia must be held accountable for its actions. France supports the fight against impunity in Ukraine." Five killed after shelling in Kharkiv Earlier today we reported that a 21-year-old woman and a 57-year-old woman had died following shelling in the Kharkiv region, northeast Ukraine.Now, it has emerged the attack killed five people and wounded 22, including five children."All of them are civilians of Kharkiv , who were walking on the streets, on playgrounds," Oleh Synehubov, governor of the Kharkiv region, said on the Telegram messaging app."My sincere condolences to their families." In pictures: Damaged kindergarten after missile strike in Kyiv These images show a damaged kindergarten after Russian missile strikes on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv yesterday.Officials said yesterday one person had died and six others were injured after the attack.It came as Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko claimed the airstrikes may have been a "symbolic attack" by Moscow ahead of this week's NATO summit in Madrid. World 'horrified' by missile strike on shopping centre, says Antony Blinken The Russian missile strike on a shopping centre in Ukraine today is the latest in a "string of atrocities" in the country and the world is "horrified", US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said.In a statement on Twitter, Mr Blinken wrote: "We will continue to support our Ukrainian partners and hold Russia, including those responsible for atrocities, to account."Elsewhere, United Nations spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the UN was concerned about intensifying fighting in Ukraine and the "deplorable" attack on the shopping centre."It is deplorable, to say the least. Any sort of civilian infrastructure, which includes obviously shopping malls, and civilians should never ever be targeted," Mr Dujarric told reporters.Ukrainian officials have said scores of civilians are feared dead or injured after the attack earlier today. PM praises 'Dunkirk spirit' being shown to get grain out of Ukraine Boris Johnson has praised the "Dunkirk spirit" being shown to help get grain out Ukraine, a government source has said.Last month, reports emerged that a Russian blockade, combined with the shortage of overland shipping routes, meant that significant supplies of grain remained in storage in Ukraine and could not be exported.The UK has promised funding to repair Ukraine's damaged railways to move grain overland, but Mr Johnson was struck by the ingenuity already being shown in the country."One of the things the PM has been struck by is people are talking about all kinds of smaller ways in which things are happening at the moment," a government source said."Whether it's boats on canals, lorries, railways, he saw a bit of the Dunkirk spirit. You can achieve a lot through small micro movements."It's not a substitute for the mass transit of grain as it used to be shipped, but it's not as if all the grains are sitting there about to rot and none of it is getting out."What is getting out is increasing week by week and so there are micro solutions as well as an exploration of a big solution."That is important as they've all been discussing the world needs it and the more of it that is there, the lower prices go."But also because the Ukraine needs the money that it gets for selling that grain, so there's a double hit for the world and Ukraine in not solving it, which is why it's a big priority." Canada to impose additional sanctions on Russia Canada will impose another wave of sanctions on Russia amid its invasion in Ukraine, it has been announced.The new sanctions will target six individuals and 46 entities linked to the Russian defence sectors, 15 Ukrainians supporting Russia, and two entities in Belarus, according to a statement from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's office.They will also include a ban on the export of technologies that could help improve Russia's defence manufacturing capability.The Canadian government has also said it intends to introduce sanctions against Russian state-sponsored disinformation and propaganda agents. In pictures: Firefighters battle blaze after shopping centre attack Images are emerging of firefighters battling the fire after Russian missiles struck a crowded shopping centre in Kremenchuk.Kyrylo Tymoshenko, deputy head
of the presidential office, said: "Rescuers from all surrounding areas are heading to the
scene to put out the fire and work to liquidate the
consequences."The attack came as Russia launched an all-out assault on the last Ukrainian stronghold in the eastern Luhansk region, "pouring fire" on the city of Lysychansk from the ground and air, according to the local governor. Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options | Europe Politics |
Britain is to rejoin the EU’s flagship £85bn science research programme, Horizon Europe, in a long-anticipated deal welcomed by scientists.
Britain’s membership of Horizon, which funds research projects tackling crucial issues from the climate crisis to terminal diseases and improving food and energy security, was agreed as part of the post-Brexit trade deal in 2020. But it was never ratified in a tit-for-tat row between the EU and the UK over Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements.
A senior EU source said the return to the programme, three years into a seven-year funding cycle, was discussed by the EU’s College of Commissioners this week. The Guardian understands a deal has been reached and is expected to be announced on Thursday.
Prof Carsten Welsch, a physicist at the University of Liverpool who lost leadership of a £2.6m research project on a novel plasma generator that could be used in cancer treatment when the UK was excluded from Horizon, said: “I am absolutely thrilled about this news as we have been in a limbo situation for far too long. Horizon Europe is stronger with the UK and UK research is stronger in Horizon.”
Mike Galsworthy, the chair of European Movement UK, attacked the government for disadvantaging science by delaying associate membership of Horizon for so long. “The UK used not just to participate in Horizon, but to lead. Any agreed deal will be carefully combed over by UK scientists, who are desperate to rejoin the Horizon programme. UK science has been losing opportunities and funds hand-over-fist for every week that this inexplicable paralysis has lasted.”
It is understood the standoff over how much the UK should pay into the programme every year has ended with an agreement discussed at the highest level at the European Commission this week.
The UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has spent the last five months holding out for the “underperformance clause”, which was agreed in 2020, to be readjusted to guarantee a greater rebate if Britain failed to achieve previous levels of grants from the programme.
The UK is expected to pay in about £2bn a year, with effective rebates if the grants from the programme fail to match the country’s contributions.
Diplomats in the EU cautioned that any deal would have to be agreed by member states so official membership may drag on for some time yet. The source said EU members would want to be assured that the new financial deal was within the terms of the trade deal with no special favours to the UK and the new calculations were “reasonable” for both sides.
The path for the UK’s return to Horizon was cleared as far back as March after London and Brussels resolved their dispute over the Northern Ireland protocol, with the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, promising a “swift” decision. But stop-start talks over the following months were marred by demands by the UK for extra discounts to take account of the absent years, much to the fury of the science community, many of whom opposed Sunak’s plan B to go it alone.
Earlier on Wednesday Sunak gave his strongest hint yet that a deal had been sealed, saying he had given the go-ahead for his officials to finalise an agreement.
Questioned about the continued delays to rejoining the programme, he told a Labour MP during prime minister’s questions that the UK had been “extensively involved” in negotiating a return to Horizon. “I hope to be able to conclude those successfully and when we do I hope you’ll be the first to stand up and congratulate the government,” he said.
Before Brexit, the UK was one of the top beneficiaries of the Horizon programme and scientists are still eligible to apply for funding, which is underwritten by the UK government. However, the uncertainty over the UK’s membership and its inability to lead pan-EU research while outside the programme has dealt a blow.
Data from the European Commission shows a huge drop in awards to British science programmes since 2019. In that year, €959m (£829m) went to the UK in 1,364 grants, compared with €22m in 192 grants in 2023 to date.
According to sources in the science community, the UK wanted the discount and to exit the parallel Euratom programme, which the EU rejected.
The 2020 trade and cooperation deal contained a “correction mechanism” to allow for adjustments if the UK put more into the programme a year than it received in grants. Sunak was concerned that the loss of three years meant the UK had fallen so far behind in the programme that the mechanism needed to be adjusted to the UK’s greater benefit.
Before Brexit the UK received about £2bn in research funding, about £500m more than it put in. Under the 2020 deal it agreed to put in about £2bn a year.
The government declined to comment. | United Kingdom Politics |
A future Labour government would not be able to easily reverse Rishi Sunak’s decision to scrap the northern leg of HS2 as he has “spitefully” authorised the sale of properties that were subject to compulsory purchase orders on part of the route.
Steve Rotheram, the mayor of the Liverpool city region, said the move killed HS2 “stone dead” and would “tie any future government’s hands and make the delivery of HS2 for the north all but impossible”.
Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, on Thursday refused to commit to building HS2, telling ITV News Meridian: “What I can’t do is stand here now they have taken a wrecking ball to this project, and say that we will simply reverse it.
“What I will say is we will work with leaders across the country to make sure that we have the transport we need between our cities and within our cities and projects that can actually be delivered.”
The government failed to deny that HS2 would not be extended to Euston unless enough private investment was secured to pay for the new station.
“There is already support and interest from the private sector. Ministers have had discussions with key partners since the announcement,” a government spokesperson said.
Mark Harper, the transport secretary, also conceded on Thursday that paying off contracts previously awarded for the cancelled HS2 sections would cost hundreds of millions of pounds.
He told BBC Breakfast that the cost of pulling out of the agreements would “broadly balance out” with money recovered from selling land and property acquired for the high-speed railway.
National Labour proponents of HS2 were blindsided on Wednesday when the prime minister not only cancelled the Manchester leg but made it extremely difficult for the project to be restarted. “We expected him to kick it into the long grass,” said one party source. “We are now trying to understand where this leaves us. Selling off the land was unexpected.”
Gareth Dennis, a railway engineer and writer, said the decision to sell off the land was motivated by “spite” and was, in effect, “salting the earth” to make it extremely difficult for Labour to restart the project.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said that within “weeks” it would lift the so-called “safeguarding” order on phase 2a of the route, which would have run from Birmingham to Crewe in Cheshire. Safeguarding is the process HS2 Ltd and the government use to buy up land needed for the railway.
As of last week, HS2 Ltd had bought up 239 properties on phase 2a at a cost of £219.3m. “Any property that is no longer required for HS2 will be sold and a programme is being developed to do this,” said the DfT in its Network North prospectus, released on Wednesday.
“Phase 2a safeguarding will be formally lifted in weeks,” said the document.
However, the DfT confirmed on Thursday that safeguarding would remain for now on the Crewe to Manchester leg (phase 2b west) as well as the Birmingham to Leeds spur (phase 2b east), which was paused by the government in November 2021. “Phase 2b safeguarding will be amended by summer next year”, said the government, to retain any land needed for Northern Powerhouse Rail, a new east-west line across the Pennines.
Dennis said: “I knew Sunak would cancel HS2 to Manchester but I didn’t expect him to be so spiteful that he would authorise the sell-off of land on the route. There are barely any votes in lifting the safeguarding. It’s pure salting the earth to make it extremely hard for Labour to build it.
“What will happen now is essentially a fire sale. The land is not going to be returned to nature. It’s going to be developed on. That will make it much more expensive and much more complex should any future government want to build it.”
Rotheram said: “After weeks of uncertainty and confusion, Rishi Sunak’s lifting of the HS2 safeguarding order means that he has not only cancelled HS2 but he’s killed it stone dead. The consequences of this decision will tie any future government’s hands and make the delivery of HS2 for the north all but impossible.
“The Liverpool city region was set to benefit from a £15bn economic boost from the delivery of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. Almost overnight, the prime minister has robbed us of that chance to grow and develop our economy. He has turned the northern powerhouse into the northern powerless with this latest act of a long line of pronouncements that are holding the north down, not levelling us up.”
In his first interview since his speech to the Conservative party conference, Sunak declined to apologise for the decision to scrap the rail line, saying that he sometimes needed to take “decisions that aren’t always easy”.
Sunak said “the facts have changed” on HS2, pointing to costs doubling since the project was approved more than a decade ago and changes in passenger behaviour since Covid as evidence that the economic case for it had been “severely eroded”.
He denied that the line would be reduced to a mere “shuttle service” between London and Birmingham, insisting that many more people would be helped by paring back plans for the project and boosting other transport schemes instead. | United Kingdom Politics |
Former culture secretary Nadine Dorries has put forward several lurid claims and elaborate conspiracies about those at the top of government in her new book The Plot: the Political Assassination of Boris Johnson, which is published on 9 November. They are based largely on anonymous sources, as well as her own hunches and observations and some on-the-record interviews including with Johnson himself. Here are the main claims.
Boris Johnson believes the Conservatives are ‘drifting to defeat’
The former PM tells Dorries: “People still feel hacked off. They voted for change in 2019 and they are drifting back to Labour in those Brexit seats because they’re not seeing a changed government. Nothing to rally behind, nothing; we are just drifting into defeat …
“The whole thing needs a massive kick in the pants … unless we grip it, the results of the local elections will be repeated at a general election, and Starmer will be a complete disaster … I feel a massive, massive sense of frustration that we had an eighty-seat majority. We had a fantastic agenda. We could have kept the whole thing going.”
‘Where is the vision?’: Johnson laments the ditching of his programme
Johnson is quoted saying: “We just aren’t doing enough to fix our energy supply problems, we aren’t doing enough to build nuclear reactors. HS2 has become a total joke. Levelling up has been all but forgotten. What’s happening to gigabit broadband? I don’t hear and don’t know what’s happening to all the infrastructure stuff. We hear nothing on skills. The whole social care reform has been junked and so much work went into that. Leave Brexit to one side, there was a massive agenda we had as a government to transform the country, and it doesn’t seem to be happening in any form of articulated way. I’m particularly concerned that there’s no grand economic strategy for growth. Why? Where is the vision for the country?”
‘I’m a coiled mamba’ Johnson wants to slash corporation tax
Johnson told Dorries: “If you can have a post-Brexit Britain, why the hell are we putting up corporation tax in this way? Why not cut corporation tax to 10%? You know, why don’t we just do what the Irish do? Why not just outbid the Irish? We don’t have to obey international norms on corporation tax …
“I’m frustrated. I’m seething. I’m a caged beast. I’m a coiled mamba … We’re drifting; we are losing the plot.”
Rape allegations against a Tory MP covered up by the party
Citing a Conservative colleague Dorries said a woman alleged that she had been raped by an MP, but “no action was taken by the party”.
Dorries’ source said: “An MP gave a young female a date rape drug; the next thing she knew was she woke in a country hotel the following morning. He wanted her out of the room because, he told her, he had visitors coming for breakfast.”
Another source said: “It was later discovered that someone in the party secretly sent out regular cheques to the Priory Clinic to pay for the treatment of one of this man’s later victims, and still nobody spoke out … If action had been taken when that first rape was reported, those other women would have been saved from their life trauma.”
A shadowy cabal, Dorries calls ‘the movement’, has been pulling strings in the Conservative party for years
Dorries names the key members of the movement as long-serving cabinet member Michael Gove, former adviser Dominic Cummings, and Dougie Smith, a seasoned insider and husband of Johnson’s former policy chief Munira Mirza.
Quoting a source she says: “When Munira did her big resignation thing over Boris throwing the Jimmy Savile criticism at Starmer for never having prosecuted him when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, it was so obviously the ‘time to kill Boris’ trigger. When you know how they operate, you can sniff out what was behind it and how it was staged.”
Sunak said to rely on the advice of a rumoured rabbit killer, Dorries calls Dr No
Dorries says another member of the movement is “a very frightening individual I have codenamed Dr No”.
She writes: “He is paid by Central Office, has a pass to No 10 and, some say, Rishi Sunak doesn’t move without first seeking his advice. And yet people can spend years working in No 10 and never hear his name mentioned.
“Dr No was once on remand in prison for alleged arson. When a girlfriend ended their relationship, it is rumoured that he had her little brother’s pet rabbit chopped into four and nailed to the front door of the family home to greet him when he got home from school, in true Mafia style.”
Michael Gove frequently plotted against Johnson and is now grooming Kemi Badenoch for Tory leader
Dorries quotes a source saying: “He [Gove] has been a big part of the plan to nuke Boris forever, and here he was in no way benefiting from all of his plotting and meddling. He’s also been building up Kemi Badenoch as the next leader of the Conservative Party, because that was part of the plan and it still is. He’s been mentoring Kemi for a long time, possibly, originally, at Dougie’s behest.”
Dorries writes she told Johnson “You know all roads lead to Gove, don’t you?’ I said to Boris, not for the first time. ‘Cummings is Gove, Gove is Cummings. Smith is Gove and Gove is Smith. Dr No, he is everywhere and everyone. Whenever any of them are exposed, it’s Gove who dives straight in to protect them. He fights for them all.’
Boris turned to the window and clasped his fingers together on the desk. He thought for what felt like an age. ‘I think you’re right,’ he said. ‘I think you’re right. There were people telling me, I should have sacked Gove long ago. He wasn’t delivering; he was insubordinate.”
Rishi Sunak also plotted against Johnson, Dorries and her sources allege
Dorries quotes someone whom Boris was said to trust implicitly, who said of Sunak: “He just wouldn’t play ball on anything. So it’s bloody obvious, his plotting, led by Rishi and his Chief of Staff, Liam Booth-Smith, it was hiding in plain sight. And then we find out that Rishi had asked his ministers in the Treasury to back him in a leadership election, back in February, five months earlier. Rishi’s duplicity was the unspoken elephant in the room.”
The same source claimed Johnson and Sunak had dinner together the night before Sunak resigned in July 2022. The source said: “Of course the next day Rishi blindsided Boris and resigned. Yeah, genuinely, even for a cut-throat world that was very shitty behaviour.”
Dorries claims Rishi resigned a day earlier than his actual resignation statement, and coordinated with Sajid Javid. “Rishi had already vacated his position as Chancellor the day before; he just hadn’t told anyone yet other than his own confidants,” she wrote.
‘Sunak lacklustre’
Dorries writes: “I had seen enough of his behaviour at first hand to know he didn’t possess the essential personality to put him into the Thatcher, Blair, Boris camp. He was firmly in the category of Major, May and Brown.
She says she followed him at a speaking event: “His oratory was lacklustre, he had no presence, and frankly, his speech was hesitant, squeaky and disappointing.”
Dowden: ‘so little talent’
Dorries writes: “Oliver Dowden was invariably the first [to try to speak at Cabinet]. I have never heard anyone talk for so long and say so little. Oliver used a hundred words when ten would do, and when he finished speaking I wasn’t the only one left inwardly groaning and wondering at the greatest mystery of the Cabinet: how a man of so little discernible talent had risen so far.
Hancock’s security cameras were tampered with before CCTV footage emerged of him kissing an aide
Dorries, a health minister under Hancock, writes: “Matt was caught kissing Gina [Coladangelo], the security camera was facing Matt’s inner office and inner door when other cameras were turned away from the offices and out to the roof balconies. The inquiry found that the camera had been facing the door because of access to the roof, only the door it was facing didn’t have access to the roof … The camera had been tampered with.”
Johnson was bullied into keeping Cummings after Barnard Castle incident
A source told Dorries: “He nearly did sack him. Remember Barnard Castle, there were three people allowed into the room with Boris when all of that kicked off. They were Dougie Smith, Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain, with Dr No on speaker phone, and all of them reinforced the narrative that Cummings had to stay, that Boris could not allow the mob and MPs (God, how they hated MPs) to dictate via social media and pressure via the whips the decisions to be taken by the Prime Minister. I mean, it was intense. I’d say Boris was bullied into keeping him.”
Johnson says Cummings was a nihilist he should have sacked sooner
Boris told Dorries: “We should have moved on from him much, much earlier… We needed a strong team and Vote Leave had been a winning team. It was always a bit odd though how Lee Cain and many of the people working in No. 10 always referred to Cummings as ‘the Dark Lord’. I could never get my head around that one. Quite odd.
“Lots of people said I was mad to take him on … The country had become bogged down because of the failure to get Brexit done and I was going to need a mailed fist to help to get things done.
“But he just wasn’t that man. He was very good at nihilism and breaking things down but not so great at building or repairing things, or at delivering on instructions. We didn’t make enough progress on anything. He didn’t make things happen; he wasn’t doing his job.”
The Plot by Nadine Dorries (HarperCollins Publishers, £25). To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply. | United Kingdom Politics |
Only a “massive” and immediate scaling-up of funds and humanitarian relief can save Somalia from famine, a UN spokesperson has warned, as aid workers report children starving to death “before our eyes” amid rapidly escalating levels of malnutrition.In a message to G7 leaders who are meeting from Sunday in Germany, Michael Dunford, the World Food Programme’s (WFP) regional director for east Africa, said governments had to donate urgently and generously if there was to be any hope of avoiding catastrophe in the Horn of Africa country.“We need money and we need it now,” said Dunford. “Will we able to avert [a famine in Somalia]? Unless there is … a massive scaling-up from right now, it won’t be possible, quite frankly. The only way, at this point, is if there is a massive investment in humanitarian relief, and all the stakeholders, all the partners, come together to try to avert this.” The Horn of Africa has suffered four consecutive failed rainy seasons and is experiencing its worst drought in four decades, a climate shock exacerbated by ongoing conflict and price rises caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Across the whole of east Africa, 89 million people are now considered “acutely food insecure” by the WFP, a number that has grown by almost 90% in the past year.“Unfortunately, I do not see [that rate of growth] slowing down. If anything, it seems to be accelerating,” said Dunford.Last year, the UK and other G7 leaders promised to provide $7bn (£5.7bn) to help countries prevent famine, but appeals for east Africa have not managed to raise enough funds to stave off hunger.Now those same leaders are being urged to commit to an immediate funding package as Somalia, the worst-affected country, descends into catastrophe. By September, at least 213,000 people in the worst-hit areas are expected to be facing famine, according to the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) report.On a recent visit to the country, Claire Sanford, deputy humanitarian director of Save the Children, said she met mothers who had already buried multiple children in the last year, and whose surviving children were now suffering severe malnutrition. One acutely malnourished three-month-old baby whom Sanford met “never made it through the night, and we heard of a number of stories where that was the case”. “I can honestly say in my 23 years of responding to humanitarian crisis, this is by far the worst I’ve seen, particularly in terms of the level of impact on children,” she said. “The starvation that my colleagues and I witnessed in Somalia has escalated even faster than we feared.”A Somali woman who fled drought-stricken areas gives water to her baby in a camp for displaced people on the outskirts of Mogadishu, Somalia Saturday, 4 June 2022. Photograph: Farah Abdi Warsameh/APIn 2011, Somalia experienced a famine that killed more than 250,000 people, mostly children, but Sanford said many of the people she met said the conditions now were even worse.“We have genuinely failed as an international community that we have allowed the situation to get to the extent it is at the moment. In 2011, we vowed as a community that we would never, ever let this happen again. And yet we have failed in that promise,” she added.Dunford said inadequate funding had hampered efforts to learn from the 2011 famine. “We are seeing children dying before our eyes, seeing populations that have lost their livelihoods. It’s not that we didn’t learn the lessons of 2011; there was a lot of very good learning from that crisis. It’s just we haven’t been able to implement it to the extent required because of the lack of funding.”In April, the UN had received only 3% of funds for its $6bn appeal for Ethiopia, Somalia and South Sudan.Danny Sriskandarajah, chief executive of Oxfam GB, said the current crisis was partly due to the British government’s “compassion failure” and decision to slash the overseas aid budget by £4.6bn last year.According to the latest IPC assessment for Somalia, an estimated 1.5 million under-fives face acute malnutrition by the end of the year, including 386,400 who are likely to be severely malnourished. Those numbers are only expected to go up. | Africa politics |
An oil tanker is docked while oil is pumped into it at the ships terminal of PDVSA's Jose Antonio Anzoategui industrial complex in the state of Anzoategui April 15, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia RawlinsRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSCHLOSS ELMAU, Germany, June 27 (Reuters) - France wants sanctions-hit Iran and Venezuela to return to the oil markets to alleviate a Russian squeeze of energy supplies that has spiked prices, a French presidency official said on Monday.It also wants a planned mechanism to cap the price of oil to be as broad as possible and not be limited to Russian output.The French official also said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told G7 leaders on Monday morning that the conditions were not right to negotiate with Russia and wanted to be in a position of strength before began any negotiations.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by John Irish; writing by Philip Blenkinsop; editing by Angelo AmanteOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
A TORY bid to delay the short-term lets licensing scheme deadline by a year has failed despite both Labour and the LibDems backing the move.
Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Tories' tourism spokesperson, led an opposition debate on Wednesday afternoon calling for a pause to the scheme that is set to go live on October 1.
Both Labour and LibDem MSPs said they would back the Tory motion during the debate, but the joint opposition attempt was unsuccessful.
The Scottish Greens later accused Labour of "betraying" communities by supporting the Tory motion.
After the deadline, it will be a criminal offence to let either a room in a home or an entire property without a licence.
The scheme covers bed and breakfasts, guest houses and self-catering sites, but will not apply to hotels, and requires hosts to display energy performance ratings on listings, have adequate buildings and public liability insurance, as well as various fire and gas safety precautions.
Fraser’s motion passed, but amended by the Scottish Government, meaning that the delay will not go ahead.
Housing minister Paul McLennan told MSPs that 7763 applications have been received by local councils, and 4708 applications have been issued so far.
“There are no caps, there is no cliff edge, there have been no refusals to date,” McLennan told the debate.
McLennan’s amendment, which voided Fraser’s (above) as it committed to the October 1 deadline, was successful.
Scottish Labour’s amendment, lodged by Mark Griffin but moved by Daniel Johnson after technical issues during the debate, was unsuccessful. It called on the Scottish Government to remove B&Bs, house swaps, those renting out a room in their home, and purpose-built accommodation from the scheme.
Moving the motion to force a vote on the scheme, Fraser told MSPs that “no one in this debate is opposed to sensible and proportionate legislation”.
“What is being proposed is the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut,” he added.
He said that the vote would be the first test of the Scottish Government’s attempt to reset the relationship with business and if the approach “amounts to anything more than empty words”.
Earlier, Fraser, Mid Scotland and Fife region MSP, described the licensing scheme as an “existential threat” to the tourism industry in Scotland that “could see the shedding of thousands of jobs”.
McLennan, East Lothian MSP, while moving his amendment said that the Tories were asking for a pause to a scheme live date that has been open since October 2022.
He added: “A scheme that has been open since October 2022, a scheme in which 7763 applications have been received and growing and where 4708 applications have been issued. “So long, and this is a really important point, so long as existing hosts submit a licence application by the 1st of October there is nothing to fear.
“Let me say to operators out there, loud and clear, your local authority will work with you to be able to process the application.”
Griffin, Central Scotland region MSP, attempting to move the motion remotely, said that the licensing scheme in its current form is “completely unnecessary for large parts of the country”.
He said that Scottish Labour MSPs voted against the scheme in 2021 and feel it still needs to be reformed, adding they supported the Tories' call for a delay, a detailed review of the “badly drafted” regulations and changes to be made.
Later, Johnson (above), Edinburgh Southern MSP, moved the Scottish Labour motion, claiming that the legislation was supposed to tackle AirBnBs but “we didn’t need to tackle BnBs, but that’s precisely what these measures do.”
Willie Rennie, speaking for the LibDems, said the party would be supporting the Tory motion, because the “burden is too high for many” and claimed the scheme would lead to a “major hole” in Scottish tourism.
SNP MSP Ben Macpherson, Edinburgh Northern and Leith, intervened to point out that LibDem members on Edinburgh City Council have been supportive of applying regulations to the “greatest extent”. He asked what dialogue had been had between LibDem councillors and MSPs.
Rennie replied: “There has been dialogue because we recognise there are different issues in different parts of the country.”
Ariane Burgess (below), Scottish Greens MSP for the Highlands and Islands, pointed to the "substantial consultation" that had taken place before the legislation was passed.
She told the chamber: "I recognise a heated debate about short-term lets, I recognise that the Tories have picked a side of that debate, but what I don’t accept is that we should set aside those community voices crying out for change.
"Rural communities have been placed under huge pressure by the rapid expansion of this sector, it is time to restore some balance."
Speaking after the debate, she said that communities across Scotland will feel "betrayed" by Scottish Labour MSPs for "lining up with the Tories" in an attempt to halt the regulations.
“They are at odds with their own colleagues in Labour-run Edinburgh Council, who have said that they support sticking to the October 1st deadline," she said.
"They are also at odds with the Labour government in Wales which is developing a licensing scheme that follows the Scottish model.
“There is no direction and no principle behind these attempts to block our progress. It is opposition for its own sake."
Fiona Campbell, CEO of the Association of Scotland’s Self Caterers (ASSC), said after the debate that MSPs "fail to understand the legislation".
"The Scottish Government doesn’t need a repeat of the DRS fiasco on its hands, but it is repeating the same mistakes, blindly forcing through incompetent legislation," she said.
"It must listen to the voice of small business and pause this disastrous scheme now, enabling a much-needed rethink before it is too late."
McLennan’s amendment, which focused on “supporting and encouraging” outstanding applications, passed with 65 votes for Yes, 51 for No, and 0 abstentions.
Scottish Labour’s amendment fell because McLennan's passed.
Fraser's motion, amended by McLennan's changes, passed with 62 votes for Yes, 54 for No, and 0 abstentions.
Overall, 30 Tory MSPs, 17 Labour MSPs, five SNP MSPs and two LibDems voted against. A further 13 MSPs did not vote on the motion.
The SNP MSPs who voted against included Justice Secretary Angela Constance (above), Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth, Fergus Ewing, Christine Grahame and Clare Adamson.
It's understood that Constance and Gilruth did not intend to vote against the Scottish Government motion.
Jackie Baillie was the only Scottish Labour MSP to vote in favour of the final amended motion but raised a point of order after the vote stating that she meant to vote against. | United Kingdom Politics |
The ‘I’s Have It: Rishi Sunak Puts Himself Before Party on Social Media
UK opposition leader Keir Starmer likes to put his Labour Party front and center in his social media messaging. For Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, it’s all about himself.
(Bloomberg) -- UK opposition leader Keir Starmer likes to put his Labour Party front and center in his social media messaging. For Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, it’s all about himself.
The British premier is more than 25 times likelier to use the word “I” than name his own Conservative Party in posts on the social media site X, formerly Twitter, according to research by Bloomberg. Starmer, for his part, is twice as likely to name Labour than use the personal pronoun.
The language reflects the fortunes of the men and their respective parties in national polling. The Tories have trailed Labour by a double-digit margin for approaching a year, according to YouGov, which last gave the governing party a lead in December 2021. While Sunak regularly out-polls his party, voters rate Labour more than they do Starmer.
Sunak’s office declined to comment. The Conservative Party didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“It is in the party’s interest to let Sunak be the front face, because he’s the one with higher credibility,” said Despina Alexiadou, a politics lecturer at the University of Strathclyde. “The party is discredited on the basis of the past leaders.” Starmer’s approach makes sense because “he needs to be the unifying leader,” she said.
YouGov’s latest poll puts Labour 20 points ahead, giving Sunak a mountain to climb to win a general election that he must hold in January 2025 at the latest. But while focusing on the individual may have served Boris Johnson well in the last vote in 2019, the technocratic Sunak lacks his charisma.
“It takes a very brave politician to place themselves above their party,” said Carl Shoben, Director of Strategic Communications at polling company Survation. “Individual politicians like to think that they’re a driver, but incredibly rarely are.”
Former Prime Minister Theresa May found that out to her cost when she called a snap election in 2017. Her campaign focused heavily on her own reputation and she urged voters to “make me stronger” by increasing her slim majority to help get a Brexit deal through Parliament.
Instead, voters weakened her. While May enjoyed a strong lead at the outset of campaigning, her fortunes waned, and she lost seats.
In the run-up to the 2019 election, Johnson mentioned his party seven times as often Sunak does now, Bloomberg found. While May mentioned her party during the losing 2017 campaign more than Sunak does now, she did so less than a third as often as Johnson.
Bloomberg analyzed posts on the personal X accounts of Sunak and Starmer between Oct. 25 last year, when the prime minister took office following Liz Truss’s disastrous 7-week term, and Aug. 27. Starmer posted 657 times, while Sunak made 848 posts. Sunak’s posts on the feed of his office as UK prime minister weren’t analyzed, because they are less party-political.
Over that period, Sunak used the word “I” 530 times and Starmer did so 236 times. The leaders mentioned their parties 20 and 531 times respectively. For Sunak, Bloomberg counted use of the terms Conservative and Tory, and their plurals. Derivatives of “I,” such as “I’ve” were tallied.
Sunak started as he carried on: His first post as prime minister began with the word “I.” It took him more than 6 months to mention the Conservatives. Starmer mentions the Conservatives more often than Sunak does, Bloomberg found.
This made sense because when Sunak became premier, the conventional thinking was his “main problem is that the party he leads is toxically unpopular,” said Adrian Drummond at the polling company Opinium.
The premier’s use of X echoes his previous actions during the Covid-19 pandemic, when as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he regularly highlighted government assistance to individuals and businesses using posts emblazoned with his own signature rather than the party logo.
Bloomberg’s analysis also revealed that thematically, the economy is a top issue for both leaders, perhaps unsurprisingly given Britain’s months-long battle with soaring inflation and stagnant growth. Sunak mentioned the topic on 129 occasions, while Starmer did so 86 times.
Sunak, has made five core pledges to voters, three of which are economic. He’s promised to halve inflation, restore growth, and cut debt as a proportion of GDP.
His other pledges — to get National Health Service waiting lists down and stop asylum seekers reaching UK shores via small boats are also reflected, with mentions of “NHS,” “migration,” and related words among his top terms.
While the NHS also features prominently in Starmer’s posts, small boats barely appear. The Labour leader’s main focus is energy. High energy costs have helped fuel the UK’s cost-of-living crisis over the past year, with Sunak’s government forced into subsidizing domestic gas and power bills. Goals on reducing emissions also form a major part of Labour’s platform.
Tax is another prominent subject of Starmer’s tweets, after Sunak presided over the highest tax burden in seven decades, providing a foil for Labour attacks.
Posts by Sunak and Starmer also reveal an interesting divergence in how the two men refer to the country. Sunak refers to the UK about twice as much as he mentions “Britain” or “British.” Starmer’s posts heavily favor “Britain.”
That could be reflective of different concerns: Sunak, as prime minister, is concerned about the country’s territorial integrity, which is threatened by Republicans in Northern Ireland and separatists in Scotland. Starmer, meanwhile, will be mindful that his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, was often portrayed by the Tories as unpatriotic because of his anti-monarchy views, opposition to nuclear weapons, and criticisms of NATO.
“The threat of the breakup of the United Kingdom could mean the Sunak wants to emphasize the United Kingdom more,” said Eoin O’Malley, a politics lecturer at Dublin City University. “Britain strikes me as a word that is more patriotic and UK more technical.”
Whether Sunak continues his strategy as the election draws closer is up in the air. Opinium’s Drummond noted that like his party, the premier’s ratings are now “quite bad as well.” And for Shoben, in the UK, “the party label is by far the biggest driver of people voting.”
This story was produced with the assistance of Bloomberg Automation.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | United Kingdom Politics |
It’s always the cover-up. The cliché, born of Watergate, applies equally to the clumsy attempt by people around Boris Johnson, who should have known better, to “fix” who got to be the head of Ofcom, the UK’s supposedly independent media regulator.
This may feel a little arcane, but bear with me. If a director of an energy company or bank tried to fix who got to be the industry regulator we’d all, I hope, shout about it—and we’d look to hold someone accountable. But because this story involves the BBC, an opaque government appointments process and the notoriously rackety Johnson Downing Street operation, it’s apparently just something to be shrugged at.
New readers start here.
Ofcom regulates the broadcast media in this country (including the BBC and, for instance, GB News) and is, as they say, arm’s length from government. Its independence is crucial, otherwise the government itself would regulate the BBC – and that sort of thing only happens under unpleasant authoritarian regimes. Not Britain.
Things started to go badly wrong when Johnson let it be known that he wanted Paul Dacre, the then former editor of the Daily Mail, to chair Ofcom. Much more qualified candidates than Dacre were thus deterred from applying. Why would you, if the fix was in?
Alas for Johnson, Dacre badly flunked the interview and—despite attempts to give him a second chance—eventually dropped out.
The process was thus re-run and ended up with two candidates—both, funnily enough, Conservative peers: Michael Grade, 79; and a man described as “long-standing party apparatchik”, Stephen Gilbert. The decision was for Johnson to make, on the advice of his secretary of state, Nadine Dorries.
This is where it gets interesting.
According to Dorries’s recent book, The Plot, she was at a late stage summoned to meet Sir Robbie Gibb at Number 10 with no note-taker. Sir Robbie, former spin doctor to Theresa May is, and was then, a non-executive director of the BBC, which is (as above) regulated by Ofcom. He describes himself as “not a Chris Patten apologist-type Conservative, I’m a proper Thatcherite Conservative.”
Dories alleges that Gibb allegedly spent the meeting trying to persuade Dorries to appoint Gilbert, the party apparatchik (her words). If true, as a BBC director, this would clearly have been improper. He had no business having any sort of conversation about the role.
The pressure didn’t work. According to Dorries, Munira Mirza, who’d worked under Johnson as a special adviser, tried again to make her change her mind—swiftly followed up by her husband, Dougie Smith, the shadowy fixer at the heart of Downing Street. She says that he, too, insisted that Gilbert, not Grade, should get the job in an “intense and formidable” phone call also described as “intimidating, bullying even.”
Dorries refused to budge, and her advice note recommending Grade duly went into the prime minister’s red box. A Number 10 mole, she says, rang her the next day to tell her that something “scandalous” had happened: the note had been “interfered with and someone else’s name is in there.”
Dorries rang Johnson to tell him what had happened. Grade was duly appointed.
There’s a final curiosity to this story which Dorries mentions in passing but doesn’t explore. The panel which had interviewed the final candidates (and “bizarrely scored Gilbert equally with Grade”) included Michael Simmonds, husband of MP Nick Gibb and thus Sir Robbie’s brother in law. Another was a lobbyist, Michael Prescott, an old friend of Gibb. The panel had been agreed by Dorries’s predecessor, Oliver Dowden, described by Dorries as “a close friend of Smith and Gibb.”
Obvious question: is the story true? Since the allegation involved improper behaviour by a BBC director, I sent 10 questions to the BBC and a further five to the Board’s acting chair, Professor Dame Elan Closs Stephens. You’d honestly think they’d be interested. Instead, they ignored the 15 questions I had asked and answered one I hadn’t.
Next, I texted Sir Robbie himself. Total silence. Finally, I emailed the Cabinet Office press office in relation to Smith and Mirza. They passed it on to DCMS, which was odd as Smith and Mirza don’t work there Like the BBC, the culture department ignored the seven questions I asked and answered one I hadn’t. Can you spot a pattern?
In my experience, individuals and institutions tend to deny untrue and/or damaging stories. Why wouldn’t you? I’m inclined therefore to believe that the Nadine Dorries account is true.
Now I can quite see why Gibb might wish to keep his head down in the hope that the moment passes. But why should the Cabinet Office, DCMS and the BBC effectively cover up for this attempt to fix the regulator? They all claim to stand for the highest standards in public life. So why come over all shifty instead of frankly acknowledging that things happened which shouldn’t have happened?
This lack of candour causes damage all round. The BBC—which should be dedicated to transparency and the pursuit of truth—ends up looking evasive. The most junior reporter who tweets something ill-advised will be hauled over the coals. But a Board director? The corporation looks the other way.
Ofcom has also been damaged by this unedifying appointments saga. The last five years of Conservative government have seen relentless attacks from the top on the BBC, while cheering on the fledgling GB News, which pumps out a stream of right-wing commentary (you should have seen its X stream in the wake of Suella’s resignation letter). With Downing Street’s forceful interest in who heads the regulator now more fully revealed, people are bound to ask how independent Ofcom actually is. And why did Downing Street so badly want their own man in post?
And the process of public appointments has been damaged. Who in their right minds would apply for a prominent job in public life knowing that the process could be tainted by behind- the-curtains skulduggery and arm-twisting?
It boils down to this. I think Nadine Dorries has written a broadly accurate story about a shabby episode in public life. It is, if you like, an inconvenient truth and, rather than face up to it, it seems institutionally easier to pretend it didn’t happen.
It’s always the cover-up. | United Kingdom Politics |
Nadine Dorries slams Rishi Sunak in bitter resignation letter: ‘History will not judge you kindly’
Conservative MP Nadine Dorries has launched a scathing attack on prime minister Rishi Sunak in her resignation letter, saying he runs a “zombie parliament” where “nothing meaningful has happened” in the year since he took office.
The no-holds-barred letter sees Dorries take aim at Sunak’s record as prime minister and directly accuse him of “demeaning his office by opening the gates to whip up a public frenzy” against her.
The Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire declared back in June that she would be stepping down with “immediate effect” after she failed to receive a peerage from former PM Boris Johnson in his resignation honours list.
However, it took until Saturday (26 August) for the former culture secretary to officially resign.
Dorries had been facing increased pressure to act on her promise to step down as she has not spoken in the House of Commons since June 2022, despite still receiving the £86,584 MPs get for representing the views and interests of their constituents in parliament.
In the letter, which was published exclusively in the Mail on Sunday, the former nurse-turned-politician wrote critically of Sunak’s time in charge.
“Since you took office a year ago, the country is run by a zombie parliament where nothing meaningful has happened,” she wrote. “What exactly has been done or have you achieved?
“You hold the office of prime minister unelected, without a single vote, not even from your own MPs.
“You have no mandate from the people and the government is adrift. You have squandered the goodwill of the nation, for what?”
Dorries went on to say that she feels there is “no affection” for Labour leader Keir Starmer out on the doorsteps because he does not have “the winning X factor qualities” but, she continued, “Prime minister, neither do you”.
The letter sees Sunak and allies accused of establishing a “modus operandi” that resulted in “clearly orchestrated and almost daily personal attacks” targetting first Johnson, then his short-lived successor Liz Truss, and finally Dorries herself.
Finishing off her blistering attack, she claimed Sunak has “abandoned the fundamental principles of Conservatism” and “history will not judge you kindly”.
During her stint as culture secretary, Dorries devoted significant attention to trans athletes’ participation in sports, and calling on representatives from football, cricket, rugby, tennis and athletics to limit women’s sports to “people born of the female sex”.
In 2022, she also announced Tory plans to privatise Channel 4 – home of groundbreaking queer TV offerings like It’s a Sin, Queer as Folk and Sugar Rush – which were formally abandoned in January this year.
Nadine Dorries resignation letter in full
Dear Prime Minister,
It has been the greatest honour and privilege of my life to have served the good people of Mid Bedfordshire as their MP for eighteen years and I count myself blessed to have worked in Westminster for almost a quarter of a century. Despite what some in the media and you yourself have implied, my team of caseworkers and I have continued to work for my constituents faithfully and diligently to this day.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. Over five elections this has increased to almost 25,000, making it one of the safest seats in the country. A legacy I am proud of.
During my time as a Member of Parliament, I have served as a back bencher, a bill Committee Chair, a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State before becoming Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care during the Covid crisis, after which I was appointed as Secretary of State at the department of Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport. The offer to continue in my Cabinet role was extended to me by your predecessor, Liz Truss, and I am grateful for your personal phone call on the morning you appointed your cabinet in October, even if I declined to take the call.
As politicians, one of the greatest things we can do is to empower people to have opportunities to achieve their aspirations and to help them to change their lives for the better. In DHSC I championed meaningful improvements to maternity and neonatal safety. I launched the women’s health strategy and pushed forward a national evidence-based trial for Group B Strep testing in pregnant women with the aim to reduce infant deaths. When I resigned as Secretary of State for DCMS I was able to thank the professional, dedicated, and hard-working civil servants for making our department the highest performing in Whitehall. We worked tirelessly to strengthen the Online Safety Bill to protect young people, froze the BBC licence fee, included the sale of Channel 4 into the Media Bill to protect its long-term future and led the world in imposing cultural sanctions when Putin invaded Ukraine.
I worked with and encouraged the tech sector, to search out untaught talents such as creative and critical thinking in deprived communities offering those who faced a life on low unskilled pay or benefits, access to higher paid employment and social mobility. What many of the CEOs I spoke to in the tech sector and business leaders really wanted was meaningful regulatory reform from you as chancellor to enable companies not only to establish in the UK, but to list on the London Stock Exchange rather than New York. You flashed your gleaming smile in your Prada shoes and Savile Row suit from behind a camera, but you just weren’t listening. All they received in return were platitudes and a speech illustrating how wonderful life was in California. London is now losing its appeal as more UK-based companies seek better listing opportunities in the U.S. That, Prime Minister, is entirely down to you.
Long before my resignation announcement, in July 2022, I had advised the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, of my intention to step down. Senior figures in the party, close allies of yours, have continued to this day to implore me to wait until the next general election rather than inflict yet another damaging by-election on the party at a time when we are consistently twenty points behind in the polls.
Having witnessed first-hand, as Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss were taken down, I decided that the British people had a right to know what was happening in their name. Why is it that we have had five Conservative Prime Ministers since 2010, with not one of the previous four having left office as the result of losing a general election? That is a democratic deficit which the mother of parliaments should be deeply ashamed of and which, as you and I know, is the result of the machinations of a small group of individuals embedded deep at the centre of the party and Downing St.
To start with, my investigations focused on the political assassination of Boris Johnson, but as I spoke to more and more people – and I have spoken to a lot of people, from ex-Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers both ex and current through all levels of government and Westminster and even journalists – a dark story emerged which grew ever more disturbing with each person I spoke to.
It became clear to me as I worked that remaining as a back bencher was incompatible with publishing a book which exposes how the democratic process at the heart of our party has been corrupted. As I uncovered this alarming situation I knew, such were the forces ranged against me, that I was grateful to retain my parliamentary privilege until today. And, as you also know Prime Minister, those forces are today the most powerful figures in the land. The onslaught against me even included the bizarre spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary claiming (without evidence) to a select committee that he had reported me to the Whips and Speakers office (not only have neither office been able to confirm this was true, but they have no power to act, as he well knows). It is surely as clear a breach of Civil Service impartiality as you could wish to see.
But worst of all has been the spectacle of a Prime Minister demeaning his office by opening the gates to whip up a public frenzy against one of his own MPs. You failed to mention in your public comments that there could be no writ moved for a by-election over summer. And that the earliest any by-election could take place is at the end of September. The clearly orchestrated and almost daily personal attacks demonstrates the pitifully low level your Government has descended to.
It is a modus operandi established by your allies which has targeted Boris Johnson, transferred to Liz Truss and now moved on to me. But I have not been a Prime Minister. I do not have security or protection. Attacks from people, led by you, declared open season on myself and the past weeks have resulted in the police having to visit my home and contact me on a number of occasions due to threats to my person.
Since you took office a year ago, the country is run by a zombie Parliament where nothing meaningful has happened. What exactly has been done or have you achieved? You hold the office of Prime Minister unelected, without a single vote, not even from your own MPs. You have no mandate from the people and the Government is adrift. You have squandered the goodwill of the nation, for what?
And what a difference it is now since 2019, when Boris Johnson won an eighty-seat majority and a greater percentage of the vote share than Tony Blair in the Labour landslide victory of ’97. We were a mere five points behind on the day he was removed from office. Since you became Prime Minister, his manifesto has been completely abandoned. We cannot simply disregard the democratic choice of the electorate, remove both the Prime Minister and the manifesto commitments they voted for and then expect to return to the people in the hope that they will continue to unquestioningly support us. They have agency, they will use it.
Levelling up has been discarded and with it, those deprived communities it sought to serve. Social care, ready to be launched, abandoned along with the hope of all of those who care for the elderly and the vulnerable. The Online Safety Bill has been watered down. BBC funding reform, the clock run down. The Mental Health Act, timed out. Defence spending, reduced. Our commitment to net zero, animal welfare and the green issues so relevant to the planet and voters under 40, squandered. As Lord Goldsmith wrote in his own resignation letter, because you simply do not care about the environment or the natural world. What exactly is it you do stand for?
You have increased Corporation tax to 25 per cent, taking us to the level of the highest tax take since World War two at 75 per cent of GDP, and you have completely failed in reducing illegal immigration or delivering on the benefits of Brexit. The bonfire of EU legislation, swerved. The Windsor framework agreement, a dead duck, brought into existence by shady promises of future preferment with grubby rewards and potential gongs to MPs. Stormont is still not sitting.
Disregarding your own chancellor, last week you took credit for reducing inflation, citing your ‘plan’. There has been no budget, no new fiscal measures, no debate, there is no plan. Such statements take the British public for fools. The decline in the price of commodities such as oil and gas, the eased pressure on the supply of wheat and the increase in interest rates by the Bank of England are what has taken the heat out of the economy and reduced inflation. For you to personally claim credit for this was disingenuous at the very least.
It is a fact that there is no affection for Keir Starmer out on the doorstep. He does not have the winning X factor qualities of a Thatcher, a Blair, or a Boris Johnson, and sadly, Prime Minister, neither do you. Your actions have left some 200 or more of my MP colleagues to face an electoral tsunami and the loss of their livelihoods, because in your impatience to become Prime Minister you put your personal ambition above the stability of the country and our economy. Bewildered, we look in vain for the grand political vision for the people of this great country to hold on to, that would make all this disruption and subsequent inertia worthwhile, and we find absolutely nothing.
I shall take some comfort from explaining to people exactly how you and your allies achieved this undemocratic upheaval in my book. I am a proud working-class Conservative which is why the Levelling Up agenda was so important to me. I know personally how effective a strong and helping hand can be to lift someone out of poverty and how vision, hope and opportunity can change lives. You have abandoned the fundamental principles of Conservatism. History will not judge you kindly.
I shall today inform the Chancellor of my intention to take the Chiltern Hundreds, enabling the writ to be moved on September the 4th for the by-election you are so desperately seeking to take place.
Yours sincerely,
Nadine Dorries
How did this story make you feel?
MyPinkNews members are invited to comment on articles to discuss the content we publish, or debate issues more generally. Please familiarise yourself with our community guidelines to ensure that our community remains a safe and inclusive space for all. | United Kingdom Politics |
People living in constant fear, knowing their fragile sense of normality can be shattered By Sky News correspondent Sally Lockwood"This is my life," says Larysa Liaskovska as she shows us the blown out windows in her apartment.Living in constant fear, she describes her terror as cruise missiles hit her neighbourhood early this morning.Around 6.30am I heard at least three loud bangs from our hotel in the centre of the city. We drove west towards the scene and followed the smoke rising into the air. We didn't have to travel far.Around two minutes drive from the heart of the city, we saw a destroyed apartment block.A woman is being ushered away crying by the police. Another is rushed into an ambulance on a stretcher. Tired firefighters are covered in soot and some appear burned. Debris crashes from the building as rescuers search for residents in the rubble of their apartments.The first information we receive is from a senior adviser to the Ministry of Internal Affairs who arrives at the scene. Anton Geraschenko is holding the passport of a Russian woman he says has been taken to hospital. "Russia is targeting their own people," he tells us.Mr Geraschenko says the woman's husband is believed to have died and their young daughter has been taken to hospital. We haven't been able to independently confirm this.Nearby, a missile has also hit a kindergarten playground. A crater smoulders next to a slide and children's chairs. The shattered windows framed by colourful murals. The contrast is horrible. Mercifully, it's a Sunday and no children were there.The sites of both explosions are close to a warehouse that it's believed is being used as a weapons depot. This military target has made the area particularly vulnerable. It's not the first time civilians have been hit here. A burnt-out apartment block next door to the one that was destroyed this morning was bombed in April when the UN Secretary General was visiting Kyiv.It's perhaps no coincidence this latest attack comes as G7 leaders gather in Germany.A rhythm of daily life has resumed in Kyiv in recent weeks. People are back at work, back in their homes, taking walks in parks. But there's an anxiety beneath the humdrum of the city. People live with the constant fear of an attack, knowing their fragile sense of normality can be shattered in an instant. Kyiv mayor says latest strikes 'may be symbolic attack ahead of NATO summit' as officials confirm one civilian killed Russian strikes on Kyiv may may be "a symbolic attack" ahead of this week's NATO summit in Madrid, the mayor of the Ukrainian capital Vitali Klitschko said today.The comments came as officials confirmed one person had been killed and five wounded following Russian strikes on Kyiv today.Up to four explosions shook central Kyiv in the early hours,
in the first such attack on the city in weeks. Two more blasts
were heard on the southern outskirts of the city later in the
day, a Reuters reporter said. Ukrainian fiancee of British man facing death sentence joins demonstrators in Nottingham By Sky News correspondent Becky JohnsonThe Ukrainian fiancee of a British man facing a death sentence in Donetsk has joined a demonstration in Nottingham calling for his release.Aiden Aslin, 28, originally from Newark in Nottinghamshire, was sentenced to death earlier this month by a court that is not internationally recognised in the Russian occupied region.Mr Aslin was captured along with Shaun Pinner, 48, from Bedfordshire in April. Both British men have Ukrainian partners and had been living in Ukraine and serving with the country's armed forces since before the Russian invasion.The Russian proxy court claimed that they were "mercenaries".Mr Aslin's fiancee Diana Okovyta joined his parents, Ang and Andrew Wood, brother Nathan Wood and sister Shannon Tinegate at the rally in Nottingham.His grandmother, Pamela Hall, addressed the crowd, saying: "I just wanted to say thank you to all of you for taking the trouble to come here and show support for my grandson."We need peace in Ukraine, we need peace across the world. All of our prisoners of war need to be released. They need to be treated as human beings." 'G7 must respond with more sanctions on Russia', Ukraine's foreign minister says Ukraine's foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba has urged G7 countries to impose further sanctions on Russia after missiles struck a
residential building and the compound of a kindergarten in
central Kyiv.Mr Kuleba shared an image of a seven-year-old girl who was pulled from alive from the rubble after residential buildings in the region were targeted.He wrote: "This seven-year-old Ukrainian kid was sleeping peacefully in Kyiv until a Russian cruise missile blasted her home. "Many more around Ukraine are under strikes. G7 summit must respond with more sanctions on Russia and more heavy arms for Ukraine." UK and France agree to give more support for Ukraine Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron have agreed to provide more support for Ukraine as Russia's invasion continues.During a meeting at the G7 summit in Germany, both leaders stressed the need to support Ukraine to strengthen their hand in both the war and any future negotiations.A Downing Street spokesperson said: "They agreed this is a critical moment for the course of the conflict, and there is an opportunity to turn the tide in the war."Mr Macron also praised the prime minister's ongoing military support to Ukraine and the leaders agreed to step up this work, the spokesperson added.It comes as Mr Johnson urged Western allies to stand firm over Ukraine as he sought to put his domestic political difficulties to one side.Amid speculation about the appetite of Western leaders to continue to support Ukraine during a prolonged conflict, Mr Johnson said Vladimir Putin must not be allowed to "hack" Russia's neighbour apart with impunity. In pictures: Scenes from Kyiv after Russian strike Images are emerging of damaged buildings and rubble strewn across the ground after Russia attacked the Ukrainian capital Kyiv for the first time in weeks.Before the attack, Kyiv had not faced any Russian air strikes since 5 June. Strike on Kyiv was 'murderous cowardice', UK ambassador to Ukraine says We have been reporting on the Russian strikes that hit the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv overnight.Journalists in the city reported seeing rescue services battling flames and rescuing civilians in the early hours, and Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said four people were taken to hospital and a seven-year-old girl was pulled alive from the rubble.Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko wrote on the Telegram messaging app that "according to preliminary data, 14 missiles were launched against Kyiv region and Kyiv".This morning, the UK's ambassador to Ukraine, Melinda Simmons, wrote on Twitter: "Kyiv was shelled overnight by Russia."A residential district was targeted. Nothing military there. What murderous cowardice." Putin hopes West will 'splinter' amid war, Biden warns Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes the West will "splinter" as his invasion of Ukraine wages on, US President Joe Biden has warned.Speaking at the G7 summit in Germany, Mr Biden praised the allies who had stuck together and stood up to the Kremlin over the past four months.However, he warned: "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."We can't let this aggression take the form it has and get away with it."The US leader also praised German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for helping to sustain pressure on Russia and urged him to keep at it.Mr Scholz, hosting the annual Group of Seven summit in the Bavarian alps, greeted the US president on a balcony overlooking what the US president called a "magnificent" view of lush greenery and towering peaks.Mr Biden credited Mr Scholz for helping to lead Europe in standing up to Russia, saying his tough response "had a great impact on the rest of Europe to move". Johnson and Macron meet at G7 summit in Germany Boris Johnson and French President Emmanuel Macron had a bilateral meeting as fellow G7 leaders also gathered in the Bavarian resort of Elmau for a summit, where Ukraine and rising energy costs were two of the topics set to dominate. Explosions heard in central Ukrainian city of Cherkasy - governor Explosions have been heard in the
central Ukrainian city of Cherkasy, the regional governor
Oleksandr Skichko said on the Telegram app.He did not give further details.Cherkasy has been largely
untouched by bombardment since Russia invaded Ukraine in
February. Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options | Europe Politics |
Tech companies and privacy activists are claiming victory after an eleventh-hour concession by the British government in a long-running battle over end-to-end encryption.
The so-called “spy clause” in the UK’s Online Safety Bill, which experts argued would have made end-to-end encryption all but impossible in the country, will no longer be enforced after the government admitted the technology to securely scan encrypted messages for signs of child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, without compromising users’ privacy, doesn’t yet exist. Secure messaging services, including WhatsApp and Signal, had threatened to pull out of the UK if the bill was passed.
“It’s absolutely a victory,” says Meredith Whittaker, president of the Signal Foundation, which operates the Signal messaging service. Whittaker has been a staunch opponent of the bill, and has been meeting with activists and lobbying for the legislation to be changed. “It commits to not using broken tech or broken techniques to undermine end-to-end encryption.”
The UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport did not respond to a request for comment.
The UK government hadn’t specified the technology that platforms should use to identify CSAM being sent on encrypted services, but the most commonly-cited solution was something called client-side scanning. On services that use end-to-end encryption, only the sender and recipient of a message can see its content; even the service provider can’t access the unencrypted data.
Client-side scanning would mean examining the content of the message before it was sent—that is, on the user’s device—and comparing it to a database of CSAM held on a server somewhere else. That, according to Alan Woodward, a visiting professor in cybersecurity at the University of Surrey, amounts to “government-sanctioned spyware scanning your images and possibly your [texts].”
Opponents of the bill say that putting backdoors into people’s devices to search for CSAM images would almost certainly pave the way for wider surveillance by governments. “You make mass surveillance become almost an inevitability by putting [these tools] in their hands,” Woodward says. “There will always be some ‘exceptional circumstances’ that [security forces] think of that warrants them searching for something else.”
Although the UK government has said that it now won’t force unproven technology on tech companies, and that it essentially won’t use the powers under the bill, the controversial clauses remain within the legislation, which is still likely to pass into law. “It’s not gone away, but it’s a step in the right direction,” Woodward says.
James Baker, campaign manager for the Open Rights Group, a nonprofit that has campaigned against the law’s passage, says that the continued existence of the powers within the law means encryption-breaking surveillance could still be introduced in the future. “It would be better if these powers were completely removed from the bill,” he adds.
But some are less positive about the apparent volte-face. “Nothing has changed,” says Matthew Hodgson, CEO of UK-based Element, which supplies end-to-end encrypted messaging to militaries and governments. “It’s only what’s 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 ‘until it’s technically feasible’ means is opening the door to scanning in future rather than scanning today. It’s not a change, it’s kicking the can down the road.”
Whittaker acknowledges that “it’s not enough” that the law simply won’t be aggressively enforced. “But it’s major. We can recognize a win without claiming that this is the final victory,” she says.
The implications of the British government backing down, even partially, will reverberate far beyond the UK, Whittaker says. Security services around the world have been pushing for measures to weaken end-to-end encryption, and there is a similar battle going on in Europe over CSAM, where the European Union commissioner in charge of home affairs, Ylva Johannson, has been pushing similar, unproven technologies.
“It’s huge in terms of arresting the type of permissive international precedent that this would set,” Whittaker says. “The UK was the first jurisdiction to be pushing this kind of mass surveillance. It stops that momentum. And that’s huge for the world.” | United Kingdom Politics |
The Treasurer has hit back at the "ridiculous" suggestion Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should say sorry for "being far too slow" to reinstate COVID-19 pandemic support payments for casual workers forced to isolate.Treasurer Jim Chalmers has hit back at the Coalition after it demanded an apology be made to workers over the "far too slow" reinstatement of COVID-19 leave payments.Deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley demanded on Saturday Prime Minister Anthony Albanese say sorry to casual workers over the "flip flopping" of the pandemic support.Mr Albanese bowed to intense pressure this week from state and territory leaders, unions and the Australian Medical Association to extend the Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment to September 30 after an urgent meeting of National Cabinet.Stream Sky News live & on demand with Flash. 25+ news channels in 1 place. New to Flash? Try 1 month free. Offer ends 31 October, 2022Ms Ley said the Coalition had called for the payments to be restored for a week and hit out at the Prime Minister for his refusal to budge despite an emotional confrontation with a casual female worker who had struggled financially during COVID-isolation.“To sort of put his hands up and say ‘not my problem’ two weeks in with people who have actually had to do without these payments," she told the ABC.“Putting them in this impossible position is unacceptable and Anthony Albanese needs to apologise to every casual worker who suffered stress as a result of this flip-flopping.”Sunday Agenda host Kieran Gilbert posed the comments made by the Deputy Liberal leader to Mr Chalmers in an interview while he was at the G20 in Bali.The Treasurer slammed the comments as "obviously ridiculous" and reference it was the Coalition that had set out the June 30 deadline for the pandemic payments."I think one of the reasons why that comment is so obviously ridiculous is because it was her government a little eight weeks ago that designed this program at the end of June," he told Sky News Australia on Sunday."I think whether it is this or the comments the other day about the jobs summit, but they should be able to be invited to it, I think it fails at the first credibility hurdle."They will whinge and they will complain, we will get on with our work with state and territories led by premier and chief ministers of both political persuasions."He stressed it was Ms Ley's government that had left the incoming Labor Party with a trillion dollars in debt and "restricted" them from doing "the right thing by people"."I think that those comments, from whether its Sussan Ley or others, are frankly ridiculous in the context of us trying to do the right thing by people," Mr Chalmers added."But restrained and restricted in lots of ways by the enormous amount of debt our predecessors racked up and handed over to us."Mr Albanese also referenced the bill left over by the former government as justification as to why the payments had not been restored during questions after National Cabinet.Ms Ley said Labor’s blaming of the former government was “just another ridiculous excuse”, arguing the Prime Minister was the one receiving health briefings and responsible for the Commonwealth’s COVID response.“We're not sitting at the National Security Committee table. We're not getting those briefings. He knew, as those payments were concluding, exactly what was the health situation was turning into with new waves of COVID,” she said on Saturday.The Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment was reinstated on Saturday after state and territory leaders met at a pushed forward National Cabinet.The $750 payments will be split 50-50 between the Commonwealth and the state and territories which the Prime Minister said was a “fair way going forward”.Mr Albanese said the decision recognised the “risks that are associated with the more infectious new variants” following a week of pressure on the government from both parties around the country and unions to backflip on its scrapping of the payments."I want to make sure that people aren't left behind,” he said.COVID-19 isolation requirements across the country have forced thousands of casual workers into isolation without pay as the third wave of the virus continues to spread.But while the Prime Minister did not flag an end to COVID-19 isolation, he said the payments “can’t continue forever” given the economic constraints on the government.The payments will be made available through Service Australia from July 20 and scheduled to end September 30 after the third wave peak in August. | Australia Politics |
Like a proselytising lay minister naively intent on calming troubled waters, foreign secretary James Cleverly flew into Beijing this week on a whinge and a prayer. The whinge comprised a long list of British grievances, ranging from China’s attitude to Ukraine and Hong Kong to its spying on UK officials and sanctions on MPs.
Cleverly’s prayer was that his hosts would not realise that, when it comes to pursuing a coherent China policy based on deliberate, principled choices backed by political will and economic muscle, rudderless Britain is all at sea – but that Chinese leaders would kindly take notice of what he had to say anyway.
If they did, they hid it well. Cleverly’s core message – “It’s better to talk than fight” – was not exactly gamechanging. After all, that’s the definition of diplomacy. As the Chinese played it polite and cool, it was plain that Tory hawks and cold warriors back home, shooting arrows at his back, were the ones who needed to hear the message most.
China’s emergence as a global leader is hugely challenging for all the western powers. But successive Tory governments have fumbled Britain’s response, blowing hot and cold, constantly sending mixed signals. Post-imperial Tories simply can’t agree what they want from a relationship in which they are not the dominant partner.
Even as he stepped forward to meet China’s vice-president, Han Zheng, and foreign minister, Wang Yi, Cleverly was being accused of appeasement by hawkish colleagues. Meanwhile, parliament’s Tory-controlled foreign affairs select committee published a report, supposedly coincidentally, demanding a tougher line on China’s human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet, and a stronger commitment to defend Taiwan.
In July, in a similar broadside, the intelligence and security committee said UK policy towards China had been characterised by short-termism and inconsistency. It’s hard to argue. David Cameron hailed a “golden era” and took President Xi Jinping down the pub. Boris Johnson slapped on sanctions over Hong Kong and banned Huawei. Liz Truss declared China a threat and called for an Asian Nato.
Now Rishi Sunak, ambiguity personified, flaps around terminologically, skipping from challenger and competitor to rival and threat, always watching what the Americans say, visibly torn between the claims of security and commerce. The galling bottom line is that the government wants it both ways – to stand up for “British values” while trading profitably – and as a result fails to advance either objective.
Cleverly’s visit was less a fundamental relationship reset, more a change of battery in the remote. No surprise, then, when it fails to alter the bigger picture, or halt China’s most egregious abuses.
This is hardly all his fault. The UK once had a reputation for skilled diplomacy: pragmatic, hard-headed, informed, clever, devious. But as its economic power and geopolitical leverage have diminished, along with the quality of decision-making, so too has traditional foreign policy realism. Now is the age of British foreign policy unrealism. Between fantasising post-Brexit Tories and the world as it truly is a huge, growing gap yawns.
The China conundrum perfectly illustrates this disconnect. It’s true Beijing deliberately tore up the Hong Kong joint declaration when it imposed direct rule. It’s equally true that ultimately UK lacked the will, as well as the physical means, either to stop or meaningfully punish it.
It’s true China commits terrible abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet. But it’s also true it knows the UK, huffing and puffing, will do next to nothing. Cleverly’s undemanding, conciliatory visit will reinforce that impression.
The foreign affairs committee can demand as loudly as it likes that the UK treat Taiwan as an independent state. Yet calls for Britain to build Asia-Pacific alliances with India, Japan and others seem weirdly far-fetched. The reality is that if China decides to seize Taiwan by force, there will be precious little that faraway Britain, with its under-resourced armed forces, can or – crucially – will do about it, with or without allies.
Cleverly stressed the need to engage with China on the climate crisis. Sure, but not at the expense of other issues. Why believe a country that is the world’s biggest carbon emitter, and that is approving the equivalent of two new coal-fired plants a week, will take the slightest notice of British pressure? If China wants to cut carbon, it will, for its own hard-nosed reasons – not because that nice Mr Cleverly dropped in for a chat.
The foreign secretary’s delayed Beijing trip comes some months after post-pandemic visits by Germany’s Olaf Scholz, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and the EU commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen. US secretary of state Antony Blinken was in Beijing recently, too. They all seek to influence a China whose behaviour appears ever more aggressive, authoritarian and threatening.
It’s not easy. But the difference is that they are following, roughly, an agreed plan: it’s called “de-risking” the relationship. They work together, or at least try. Together they can apply leverage.
Not so, isolated, failing, ill-led “global Britain” which, vainly going it alone, up against a superpower, courts oblivion and oddball irrelevance. So there was Cleverly, all on his tod, under fire from hawks at home, lacking a joined-up strategy, spouting platitudes about dialogue, trying desperately to persuade the smirking Chinese to take him (and us) seriously.
So sad. This politically illiterate, unilateralist international posturing is unreal. It’s un-realist. It’s humiliating for Britain, and it’s bound to fail.
Simon Tisdall is a foreign affairs commentator. He has been a foreign leader writer, foreign editor and US editor for the Guardian | United Kingdom Politics |
They were hardly the presents Rishi Sunak would have wanted to celebrate his first anniversary as prime minister: two more crushing by-election defeats in hitherto safe Tory seats to add to those he lost in July.
Once again the Tories were on the wrong end of 20 per cent-plus swings, this time in Tamworth and Mid Bedfordshire, which both fell to Labour in the early hours of yesterday morning.
It was, opined the country’s premier election guru, John Curtice, ‘one of the worst by-election nights any government has had to endure’.
He’s right. Of course, by-elections are a chance to protest, not choose a government. Turnouts are usually low, as they were on Thursday. Prime Ministers have lost such elections heavily in the past and still gone on to victory in the subsequent general election. But the scale of these latest defeats is staggering and Tory party managers cannot easily shrug them off.
In Mid Beds, Labour overturned the biggest Tory majority faced in a by-election since 1945. Until now, it had been a Conservative stronghold since it was created in 1931.
The Tories lost Tamworth to Labour even though it had voted for Brexit 67 per cent to 33 per cent. Clearly, the dynamics that gave the Tories their big majority in 2019 no longer apply. It all adds to the growing sense, already embedded in much of the Tory psyche, that the next election is all over bar the shouting.
Tory by-election defeats under Sunak are eerily on the same scale as those suffered by John Major’s hapless Tory government between 1992 and 1997 — and we all know how that ended.
I don’t yet sense that Labour is heading for a landslide. Keir Starmer, after all, is no Tony Blair. But the best the Tories can hope for — that, far from being 1997, the next election will be a repeat of 1992 when, against the odds, they held on by the skin of their teeth for another term — is starting to look like a fantasy.
Starmer may be no Blair. But he is no Neil Kinnock either. By 1992, the country was truly scunnered by the Tories but they were still not prepared to entrust its fate to Kinnock, given his record of Left-wing posturing, especially on unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Today people don’t fear Starmer in the same way. They’re not gagging for him to be PM. But they’re not frightened by the prospect, as they were of Kinnock.
It is not clear what Sunak does now before the die is cast and Labour victory is universally regarded as inevitable (as it was by 1996 during the Major years).
Tories grow increasingly despondent at how little difference Sunak has made after 12 months. The polls remain dire for the Tories: Sunak was 27 points behind when he entered No 10 and, while he has clawed back some ground, Labour still leads by 17 per cent.
There’s been no ‘new leader’ bounce the way there was when Major took over from Margaret Thatcher in 1990. The Tory conference in Manchester failed to move the dial.
Sunak has had his successes. But they have not amounted to enough to be the catalyst for a Tory fight back. He has steadied the ship after the chaotic 45 days of the ClusterTruss interregnum a year ago, which almost brought the country to its knees.
But that was inflicted on the nation by his own party, which chose Liz Truss as PM even though she would obviously be out of her depth, so he was only cleaning up an unnecessary Tory mess.
Moreover the high interest rates which her cack-handed stewardship of the economy produced have remained elevated, with mortgage rates and government borrowing costs rising everywhere.
Sunak’s ‘Windsor Framework’, though far from perfect, has stabilised Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom and largely removed it as a cause of friction with the European Union.
But, again, that was cleaning up a problem created by the Tories (this time Boris Johnson). So voters are not inclined to accord Sunak much credit.
He’s backtracked somewhat from the expensive folly that is net zero, though not by nearly enough. And, at a time of acute geopolitical unrest and danger, the PM has been a safe pair of hands and shown resolute support for Ukraine and Israel.
But he does not cut a distinctive figure on the world stage. His visit to Israel this week, welcome as it was, seemed almost like a footnote to President Biden’s.
Nor are there many votes in foreign policy which, on the big issues, is now largely bipartisan. Starmer has been careful to echo government policy at every important turn. Neither Sunak nor Starmer brings any particular authority or expertise to these troubled times. Foreign policy does not differentiate them. Nor, as things stand, will it determine the next election.
Sunak’s biggest problem is the economy. After a year in power, it is still mired in sclerotic growth, stubbornly strong inflation, a record high tax burden, a fierce cost of living squeeze, rising national debt (which high interest rates are making ever more expensive to service) and stagnant productivity, which hinders increased prosperity.
It is a dismal catalogue of woe which has condemned the Sunak government to inaction. No radical supply side reforms — such as a bonfire of red tape — to pep up the economy, à la Thatcher (the Treasury has convinced Sunak they don’t work), no tax cuts to encourage enterprise and incentives (we ‘can’t afford them’), no strategy for growth, without which nothing is possible. Instead, the policy is simply to plough on regardless.
The consequences are enough to give any self-respecting Tory the heebie jeebies. Over 6.5 million low-paid workers will start paying income tax again, reversing a decade of Tory efforts to take them out of tax.
Over 4.5 million folks on middling incomes are being dragged into higher tax brackets that were designed only for big earners. Business faces higher tax on profits with a corporate tax regime that has plummeted down the global competitive league tables.
Together it amounts to a £52billion tax grab in which families will pay considerably more tax for the privilege, when they fall ill, of joining the 7.6 million already on NHS waiting lists.
If Sunak does go down to defeat at the next election it will not be because he’s been too Tory. It will be because he has not been Tory enough — or even Tory at all.
Time is running out for him. He continues to brandish his five pledges for 2023 — halving inflation, growing the economy, cutting debt, reducing NHS waiting lists, stopping the small boats. Some he will succeed in delivering, just (such as inflation), others he will fail (debt, small boats, waiting lists, too little growth to notice). Even if he does better it will not be an election-winning prospectus.
There is a last chance. The British people want to feel their own circumstances are improving again — that the worst of the cost of living crisis is behind them — and that they live in a country of which they can be proud (and in which the things that matter work).
Sunak needs to focus relentlessly on the policies that will deliver on both fronts and eschew all other diversions (his Manchester speech was full of diversions irrelevant to winning the election, like a 10-year reform of A-levels or tougher anti-smoking laws).
It will not be easy. Global turmoil could yet bring more economic pain. There is less than a year to make a difference. It will require vision, discipline, a willingness to say no to the myriad rent-seekers that lobby government for favours, distracting from the only two tasks that matter — getting living standards to rise again and making sure Britain stands tall in the world again.
Chancellor Hunt needs to make a start in his autumn statement next month, though I’m not holding my breath. ‘Time for a change’ is the most potent slogan in politics and it is already a powerful rallying cry in today’s Britain, as the by-elections show.
Without the ruthless focus I’m talking about from Sunak and his ministers it will have swept this government out of power by this time next year. | United Kingdom Politics |
A united Ireland referendum should need the support of a super-majority of voters in Northern Ireland and the Republic, Britain’s Northern Ireland minister Steve Baker has said, citing his own experience during the UK’s Brexit campaign.
Mr Baker, one of the leading figures behind the leave campaign in the run up to the 2016 vote, said he regretted now it did not require the support of 60 per cent of those who voted in the often-bitter referendum.
He said he believed the referendum would not have been carried had that been the case and that the UK would not have left the European Union.
If the campaign to take the UK out of the EU had succeeded, however, a super-majority rule would have meant it would have been accepted by everyone, he added.
Speaking in Co Kildare at the half-yearly meeting of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly on Monday, Mr Baker said: “Would anyone here seriously want a 50 per cent plus one united Ireland result in Northern Ireland? I speak personally,” he told the meeting.
“I deliberately say it like that because some of you I know would (want a 50+1 result). But just reflect on the trouble we had from running a 50 per cent plus one referendum in the United Kingdom.”
Noting his own support for the UK’s exit from the EU, Mr Baker, who led the Conservatives Party’s pro-Brexit European Research Group, said they had not “properly prepared” for some of the consequences of Brexit.
Speaking at the meeting, Mr Baker faced repeated criticism from Irish members of the assembly who were unhappy about the British government’s legacy legislation.
He urged the Irish Government, Northern Ireland’s political parties and others to give the legacy commissioner, former senior PSNI officer Peter Sheridan, a chance to show what the new body can do to bring closure for victims.
Sinn Féin TD Rose Conway-Walsh asked if there is not “an onus” on the Irish Government to challenge the controversial legacy legislation before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Noting the criticism, Mr Baker said there is no chance of the British government “starting afresh” on the legacy legislation, though it accepted that the legacy commission will face “an uphill path” to persuade people that it can deliver a sense of justice to families.
Fianna Fáil senator Niall Blaney said the families of those who lost loved ones during the Troubles are being “retraumatised” by the British legislation, and many of them now feel like “giving up”. | United Kingdom Politics |
As a million Britons marched through London in 2003 against war with Iraq, William Rees-Mogg gazed on from outside the Athenaeum Club in Pall Mall. In the Times, he sniffed at the protesters’ outfits (“they dressed as they might for a football match”) and scowled at their arguments. However well-intentioned, their very presence helped “maintain the torture chambers of Baghdad”. They were, he said, “Saddam’s useful idiots”.
Those protesters were as British as the former Times editor, but that didn’t matter. The country was at war against an “axis of evil”. It was us versus them, and those who objected or worried or wanted more evidence were little more than traitors.
Journalism’s finest minds agreed. It may have been Britain’s biggest ever march, but the copy merchants could confect even larger generalisations. So the Sun’s Richard Littlejohn huffed that protesters were all “stuck in a students’ union timewarp”, while Barbara Amiel claimed in the Telegraph that their “real purpose was to attack Israel, America and free enterprise”. The Times warned that “the presence of many Muslim groups and masked anti-globalisation activists could provide cover for terrorists”.
Two decades on, and Iraq stands as a gigantic, elite-manufactured debacle. However scruffy, the “CND veterans, hard-left agitators, Muslim activists” (as a Telegraph editorial described them) were proved right – and their highly paid, heavily lunched detractors in the press completely wrong. Yet as the world lurches towards a worsening conflagration in Gaza, the fourth estate has, in Talleyrand’s old phrase, learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
This week, the UN secretary general was plastered over front pages for what the Telegraph called a “defence of Hamas” and the Mail deemed an “attack” on Israel. This followed a short speech in which António Guterres began by condemning “unequivocally the horrifying and unprecedented acts of terror by Hamas” and calling for the immediate release of Israeli hostages before setting the atrocities of 7 October in a longer history.
Before that, the Independent depicted a huge march against war in Gaza as “actively championing a proscribed terrorist organisation”. (After an outcry, the offensiveness was toned down.) When a separate, small gathering by Hizb ut-Tahrir chanted for “jihad”, it was leapt upon by Suella Braverman as hate speech – an area of expertise for the home secretary, since she produces so much of it.
The Telegraph dutifully provided a rant about “imported” extremists holed up in “Londonistan” in order “to plot Britain’s destruction”. Any more dog whistling and the whole newsroom could have moved to Crufts.
And so the British media and political class is again preparing for the vicarious thrill of war. As our prime minister told Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv: “We want you to win.” Something similar is happening elsewhere in Europe. France has tried to ban pro-Palestinian rallies. In Germany, the leader of the CDU – the party of Angela Merkel and Helmut Kohl – has called for all immigrants to pledge their commitment to Israel’s security.
In the UK, anyone not willing to join the cheerleaders should prepare to have their motives questioned. No matter that 6,500 Palestinians have already been slaughtered these past three weeks, to sling on the pile of 1,400 Israelis murdered by Hamas. No matter that more children have died in Gaza this October than all the people killed on 9/11. No matter that war is hardly the right noun for conflict between one of the most militarised states on Earth – Israel has 10 times more tanks than the British army – and Gaza, which has no planes, no Iron Dome (all-weather air defence system), barely any money. It is a daily pulverising.
The organisers of last weekend’s rally for Palestine estimate that about 350,000 people trudged through the pelting rain in central London. That is nearly four Wembley stadiums. In any gatherings of that size, there will inevitably be some ugliness. Stupid slogans, cruel sentiments and every so often, some fools doing a street corner re-enactment of Four Lions. But it is wrong to take that as representative of any such mass movement, just as one guy with a flare up his arse isn’t an ambassador for all football fans.
If we want to gauge public mood, we could look at the polling that shows three out of four Britons want an “immediate ceasefire” – an overwhelming majority that neither of the two main parties cares to represent. Nor are any of Westminster’s supposed Serious People talking about how to rebuild homes, schools, hospitals that have been razed to the ground or where a million displaced Palestinians are meant to go.
But why think about such hard questions when you can posture? This brings us naturally enough to Keir Starmer. The former human rights lawyer began by pledging his support for Israel, even as it broke international human rights law. As his own party began to protest, Starmer’s team dismissed it as grumbling from a few Muslim malcontents and continuity Corbynistas. Posters went up in Luton and Birmingham, naming Labour councillors who had acquiesced in their leader’s views and advising local people not to vote for them any more.
Last week, council leaders held a virtual meeting with the Labour leadership team, where, I’m told, the greatest discontent came not from the party’s metropolitan elite but from towns and cities outside London, including many stretches of the “red wall” with large Muslim electorates. In response to the discontent, Starmer went to a mosque in south Wales, where he tweeted a demand for the return of hostages. Then the mosque issued a statement repudiating his views on Gaza. By Wednesday evening, Starmer had made his third U-turn (after an ITV interview, where he denied supporting Israel’s right to cut off water and food; then an open letter to councillors stressing how much he felt the plight of Palestinians), to call for a “humanitarian pause” in bombing, which Sunak had already demanded some hours earlier.
The Labour leadership had no grasp of their own grassroots’ feelings, just as the press has shown no curiosity about the hundreds of thousands of people – often strikingly young – taking to the streets. The commentators would rather vilify those protesting at the slaughter of Palestinian babies than find out who they are and what’s driving them. It is the same strategy adopted with the protesters against Iraq, enthusiasts for Scottish independence, voters for Brexit, or supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Ignore, stereotype, then demonise.
Yet if a liberal democracy is to live, it cannot keep marginalising those it believes hold the wrong views. Rather than exclude voters or offer up token identity politics, mainstream politics has to be able to engage with them. Otherwise the likes of Starmer and Sunak merely dismiss an ever-increasing number of Britons as “extremists” – and then send them off to the political extremes.
Aditya Chakrabortty is a Guardian columnist | United Kingdom Politics |
Boris Johnson and President Macron have agreed to hold an Anglo-French summit to improve ties after pledging to help Ukraine to mount a military “surge” against Russia.The two men’s relationship has been fraught but yesterday the prime minister jokingly referred to it as “le bromance” and said they were “100 per cent aligned”. Although Britain has previously questioned France’s commitment to Ukraine, during a bilateral meeting at the G7 summit yesterday the pair agreed that the outright defeat of Russia remained the best outcome.If that failed Macron said that they needed to put President Zelensky in the best position to strike a deal. Johnson was said to be effusive after he emerged from the meeting because Macron’s firm line on Ukraine exceeded British | United Kingdom Politics |
Like an old-time music hall conjuror, the most important accessories for a Chancellor of the Exchequer are smoke and mirrors. He needs to convince the markets and the country that he not only has the public finances under control, but has so brilliantly managed the economy that he has scope for both tax cuts and higher spending.
It is all a trick and everybody knows it. But it spoils the illusion to point this out. Magicians who show how they bamboozle us are likely to have a dwindling audience.
In the Commons, Jeremy Hunt will make Dynamo look like a rank amateur, his Autumn Statement such a sleight of hand that we will all gasp in astonishment. We are to be told that, because tax revenues are buoyant, he has room for some tax cuts now with more to come next year.
Tax revenues have been pouring in because of higher inflation, wage growth and the fiscal drag caused by freezing allowances. This means that, instead of borrowing £115 billion, as forecast in the March Budget, the Chancellor will have borrowed “only” £98 billion.
This happens to be £21 billion more than in the same period last year; but in the Alice in Wonderland world of modern economics, it is seen as a saving of £17 billion which can now be spent.
In fact, things are getting worse. The figures for October published yesterday showed borrowing of £15 billion – £4 billion more than this time last year and largely pushed up by higher inflation-linked benefit payments. There was a time when such an amount borrowed in a whole year, let alone a single month, would have caused palpitations, but it is now seen as a rounding error.
You might have noticed that, on Monday, Rishi Sunak unveiled five new pledges (despite only one of the existing five having been achieved so far). This hastily arranged press conference disguised as a speech seems to have been triggered by the Conservative Party’s woeful polling. Two opinion surveys at the weekend put the Tories on around 20 per cent of the vote, which in a general election is wipe-out territory.
Mr Sunak evidently felt it was time to launch Phase Two of his strategy, emphasising the long-term ambitions he has for the country which he outlined at the Manchester conference last month.
Top of the new list is reducing debt, a laudable aim but one that is simply unachievable without cutting borrowing. And to do that he needs to reduce the size of the state dramatically. Yet of his now 10 pledges, not one mentions spending.
Mr Sunak is said to be seeking to emulate Mrs Thatcher in cutting taxes, though she did not seriously start on this until well into her premiership. Moreover, her early years were obsessed with controlling spending. Each year there was a battle royal between the Treasury and Whitehall departments to rein in their budgets, overseen by a so-called Star Chamber chaired by an eminent minister such as William Whitelaw to decide where the axe would fall.
In the run-up to every Budget, the political narrative was not about tax but spending. Only if the latter could be brought under control could there be scope for cutting the former.
This annual blood-letting was ended by Gordon Brown when he entered the Treasury in 1997, riding a tide of economic growth. Labour was committed for two years to match Tory spending plans but after that the spigots were opened. Brown managed to run a budget surplus in 2001, one of just five since 1972. There hasn’t been one since.
After the financial crash, George Osborne reinstated tighter spending controls, misconstrued as austerity, but the discipline of annual spending rounds was soon sacrificed to three-year budgets. These helped with planning but did little to stop the upward drift of overall public spending. Now, no one mentions austerity. We have apparently found the magic money tree at last.
By 2010, public sector debt amounted to 65 per cent of national income; today it is 100 per cent, partly swelled by the cost of the pandemic, although the trend was clear in any case. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), if nothing changes, on the current spending trajectory, debt will amount to more than 300 per cent of GDP within 50 years.
To keep debt from rising above 100 per cent of GDP over the long term would require a permanent increase in taxes and/or a cut in annual spending of 4.4 per cent of GDP, said the OBR. Yet real-terms spending is scheduled to rise further in the next parliament, even if the Tories win, leave aside what Labour might do.
For politicians, 50 years is an impossibly long way away. They fret over what will happen next year or in five years’ time at most. They imagine something will always turn up and, in any case, they won’t be around to take responsibility if it doesn’t.
Yet my grandchildren will only be in their early 50s by the time we reach that OBR milestone – which is not even its worst-case scenario and assumes no major crises. Running deficits that push debt up to 300 per cent of national income is unsustainable. There will be no public services of the sort we have now when today’s youngsters reach middle age, let alone their dotage. Furthermore, the real national liability – set out in the Whole of Government Accounts – is more than £5.5 trillion, twice the debt figure usually given.
Mr Sunak’s commitment to the long term has to be more than a slogan. Politicians need to be recasting the state now, moving more services such as health and social care into insurance-based provision. They need to reduce public spending, which crowds out private investment and holds back productivity, if there is to be any chance of generating the growth to sustain our population half a century from now.
The Chancellor has told Whitehall to find efficiency savings, but we have heard that before, and there is to be a rumoured crackdown on benefit abuse, with recipients required to take jobs when they are offered. With nearly eight million people of working age no longer in the labour market pushing up the welfare bill to stratospheric levels, conditionality is essential. But much more is needed.
Mr Hunt will tell MPs today that the economy has “turned the corner” and there is now room for tax cuts. But until he gets a grip on spending, he might as well be wearing a top hat and wielding a magic wand. | United Kingdom Politics |
In Levenshulme, south Manchester, residents are at war. Half of the neighbours in this once-poor but now steadily gentrifying suburb want controversial traffic-calming measures.
They are keen on the closures of “school streets” and the creation of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) – areas into which only the residents and staff of local businesses can drive. The other half are infuriated by them, worried about rising council tax and angry about incursions on their liberty.
“Two of my neighbours had an argument on the street about it,” one resident, too anxious to be named, says. “It’s a subject I wouldn’t go near, having to live here. I see all sides of the issue: it’s benefiting some streets, but it’s definitely displacing traffic to boundary roads – because sometimes I am that traffic.”
Angry rows like this are taking place in towns and cities across the country. And the conflict is leading some in national politics to sense an opportunity. In the aftermath of the Conservatives’ unexpected victory in the Uxbridge by-election credited to motorists’ opposition to the expansion of the London wide Ulez (ultra-low emissions zone) – Rishi Sunak is seeking to expand his party’s appeal to fed-up drivers.
In a precursor to this week’s controversial dilution of the Government’s net zero policies, July saw the Prime Minister announce a national review of low traffic neighbourhoods. And it could go beyond the proliferation of LTNs set up during lockdown. Whitehall insiders have not ruled out the possibility of a review taking in school streets – the partial closures of roads outside schools that keep them free of cars while children are dropped off and collected.
These traffic calming measures have been sold as key components of local authorities’ plans to reach net zero by “helping to drive down congestion” – the agenda that Mr Sunak has now decided he wants to achieve in a “more proportionate way”.
But the politics of low-traffic neighbourhoods and school streets are more complicated than simply relieving voters of a looming financial burden in the way that a delay on the petrol car ban might. While many fiercely oppose the inconvenience that closing off streets to traffic brings, others welcome the safe, quieter and less polluted roads, particularly where school children are concerned.
So would scrapping these really be canny politics that will bring electoral rewards. Or could it backfire for Mr Sunak?
Last year, Lutfur Rahman, the controversial Tower Hamlets politician, provided something of a test case in his successful bid to become the directly elected mayor of the east London council. The former local Labour leader made opposition to LTNs, or “Liveable Streets” as they are branded in the borough – a central issue in his campaign.
At the top of the list of pledges in Mr Rahman’s manifesto was a promise to: “Reopen our roads, and abolish the failed Liveable Streets scheme, which has seen emergency services and vulnerable residents’ access blocked.” He said he would “only introduce traffic reduction measures through consultation with, and by the consent of the people of this borough”.
Mr Rahman went onto to win the mayoralty and his party, Aspire, gained enough councillors to take control of the council. Within months Tower Hamlets had removed school streets schemes from outside schools in Bow, to a mixed reaction from parents.
As ever with elections, the cause and effect of individual policies is hard to definitively untangle. The politics of Tower Hamlets are particularly complex and on the other side of the debate, the Green Party, which campaigned in favour of LTNs, won its first-ever seat on the council. But it was Aspire that was propelled into power having campaigned hard on scrapping them.
In Levenshulme, where the debate still rages, it is hard to discern which way the issue is playing from election results. Labour, which has run Manchester Council for years, and is responsible for introducing LTNs and school streets – has held onto to all three council seats in the suburb in recent elections. And this year the Green Party, which has been campaigning strongly in favour of street closures, boosted its position in a Levenshulme seat to second place behind the Labour candidate for the first time and took 31 per cent of the vote.
But independent candidate Jeremy Hoad, who has criticised the council’s LTNs policy, has also seen a rise in his popularity in both the 2022 and 2023 council elections.
A study published by the University of Westminster this year that investigated the relationship between political messages on social media regarding LTNs and councillors’ share of the vote might give Mr Sunak some pause for thought.
Professor Rachel Aldred told i her research found that Labour councillors were more likely to receive a slight uplift in their vote share after posting positive messages about LTNs. But for Conservative candidates, there was no immediate impact in taking a negative stance.
However, national pollsters have much more positive news for the PM, with evidence suggesting that he could benefit electorally from scrapping low-traffic neighbourhoods and school streets. Ipsos Mori carried out countrywide research in 2022 to look at the level of support for creating LTNs.
“Last year we found that half of people support creating low-traffic neighbourhoods in principle, but this has a small fall to 45 per cent if you point out that it would mean you personally could not drive in certain areas unless you lived or worked there, and a bigger fall to 22 per cent if it means a financial trade-off in terms of higher levels of council tax,” Gideon Skinner, Ipsos Mori head of political research, told i.
In 2021, a similar Ipsos study found that the most successful arguments in favour were not linked to climate change but to local benefits such as making areas safer and reducing street accidents. Voters found the most convincing arguments against were the inconvenience of making longer journeys and the disadvantages for those with mobility issues.
According to Mr Skinner, the data gathered by Ipsos suggests that Mr Sunak’s gamble might be worthwhile. “Clearly it can have an impact in a local setting if you can turn it into an issue, as we saw in Uxbridge, and it is an issue that may have some potential to help shore up the Conservatives’ political base – especially if it’s framed more about impact on drivers and perceptions of unfairness rather than climate change or health benefits, or if there is big media campaign about it,” he says.
“It’s not unusual in human nature to see people pay more attention to the negative impacts and those who lose out from any policy than those who benefit.”
And election analyst Sir John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, says that given it is now a national conversation, a backlash against LTNs may be felt by Tory candidates in Conservative areas that had trialled them buoyed by Boris Johnson’s early championing of the scheme.
However, data gathered by Ipsos Mori also suggests that in the wider political context – with the pressure of rising cost of living and concern about the health of the NHS – the issue isn’t an election-winning one. All these issues, and broader existential matters such as the sense that it’s “time for a change”, poll more highly on voters’ lists of concerns.
Ipsos Mori Global chief executive Ben Page told i that, in his estimation, the campaign on scrapping LTNs could secure “the core vote in a few places, but is not something that is going to reverse a 20-point Labour lead”. | United Kingdom Politics |
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
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House announced Tuesday that President Joe Biden will attend next month’s Group of 20 summit in New Delhi, India.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that meetings—and Biden’s talks with leaders on the sidelines of the summit—will focus on climate change, Russia’s war in Ukraine and more. The White House has not said which leaders the president will hold individual meetings with but China’s President Xi Jinping and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, are among officials from leading global economies who have been invited to attend the leaders’ meeting.
READ MORE: Putin remotely attends BRICS summit in South Africa while facing war crimes warrant
“He’ll discuss a range of joint efforts to tackle global issues from the clean energy transition and combating climate change to mitigating the economic and social impacts of Russia’s war in Ukraine to increasing the capacity of multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, to better fight poverty and take on the significant transnational challenges that are afflicting countries across the world,” Sullivan said.
The leaders’ summit is scheduled to take place Sept. 9 -10.
Sullivan said Vice President Kamala Harris will travel to Jakarta from Sept. 4 to 7 to take part in the US-ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) summit and East Asia Summit to engage with Indo-Pacific leaders.
ASEAN is a 10-nation regional economic and political bloc that includes Indonesia, the Muslim world’s most populous country, and Myanmar, where a military coup in February 2021 led to massive repression that triggered armed resistance spanning most of the country.
ASEAN has barred Myanmar’s junta leaders from the bloc’s high-level meetings.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | India Politics |
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryCapture of Sievierodonetsk big gain for RussiaUkraine says it carries out 'tactical withdrawal'Dozens of missiles hit Ukrainian military basesKYIV/POKROVSK, Ukraine, June 25 (Reuters) - Russian forces fully occupied the eastern Ukrainian city of Sievierodonetsk on Saturday, both sides said, confirming Kyiv's biggest battlefield setback for more than a month following weeks of some of the war's bloodiest fighting.Ukraine 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 - was Russia's biggest victory since capturing the port of Mariupol last month. It transforms the battlefield in the east after weeks in which Moscow's huge advantage in firepower had yielded only slow gains.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRussia 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. 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.""The city is now under the full occupation of Russia," Sievierodonetsk Mayor Oleksandr Stryuk said on national television. "They are trying to establish their own order."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 Russian forces had established full control over Sievierodonetsk and the nearby town of Borivske.Not long after that, however, Ukrainian shelling from outside Sievierodonetsk forced Russian troops to suspend evacuation of people from a chemical plant there, Russia's Tass news agency quoted local police working with Russian separatist authorities as saying.Oleksiy Arestovych, senior advisor to Zelenskiy, said some Ukrainian special forces were still in Sievierodonetsk directing artillery fire. 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 and were fighting in urban areas there. read more Russia also launched missile strikes across Ukraine. At least three people were killed 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 local regional military administration.Russia denies targeting civilians. Kyiv and the West say Russian forces have committed war crimes.Ukrainian service members patrol an area in the city of Sievierodonetsk, as Russia's attack on Ukraine continues, Ukraine June 20, 2022. Picture taken June 20, 2022. REUTERS/Oleksandr RatushniakSeeking to 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 A German government source said G7 governments also were having "very constructive" conversations on a possible price cap on Russian oil imports. read more '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 arriving 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."As Europe's biggest land conflict since World War Two entered its fifth month, Russian missiles also rained down on western, northern and southern parts of the country."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."Russian President Vladimir Putin sent tens of thousands of troops over the border on Feb. 24, unleashing a conflict that has killed thousands and uprooted millions. It has also stoked an energy and food crisis which 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.The Russians crossed the river in force in recent days and have been advancing towards Lysychansk, threatening to encircle Ukrainians in the area.The capture of Sievierodonetsk is likely to seen by Russia as vindication for its switch from its early, failed attempt at "lightning warfare" to a relentless, grinding offensive in the east.Moscow says Luhansk and Donetsk, where it has backed uprisings since 2014, are independent countries. It demands Ukraine cede the entire two provinces to separatists.Ukrainian officials had never held out much hope of holding Sievierodonetsk but have sought to exact a high enough price to exhaust the Russian army.Ukraine's top general Valeriy Zaluzhnyi wrote on the Telegram app that newly arrived, U.S.-supplied advanced HIMARS rocket systems were now hitting targets in Russian-occupied areas. read more The war has had a huge impact on the global economy and European security, driving up gas, oil and food prices, pushing the European Union to reduce reliance on Russian energy and prompting Finland and Sweden to seek NATO membership.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comAdditional Reporting by Max Hunder, Alessandra Prentice and Reuters bureaux; Writing by Madeline Chambers, Peter Graff and Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Peter Graff and Alistair BellOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government has appealed for more international aid as it struggles to cope with the devastating earthquake in a mountainous eastern region that has left more than 1,000 people dead and many more injured.With the war-ravaged nation already stricken by an economic crisis, the hardline Islamist leadership said sanctions imposed by western countries after the withdrawal of US-led coalition forces last year meant it was handicapped in its ability to deal with Wednesday’s disaster in Khost and Paktika provinces.The death toll climbed steadily Wednesday as news of casualties filtered in from hard-to-reach areas in the mountains, and the country’s supreme leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, warned it would probably rise further.The earthquake struck areas that were already suffering the effects of heavy rain, causing rockfalls and mudslides that hampered rescue efforts.Describing the aftermath as people dug through the rubble to retrieve the dead and injured, Mohammad Amin Huzaifa, the head of the information and culture department in Paktika, said: “People are digging grave after grave.”Footage released by the Taliban showed residents digging a long slit trench to bury the dead. Huzaifa said more than 1,500 people were injured, many critically. “People are still trapped under the rubble,” he told journalists.A woman in Paktika province left homeless by the quake tries to keep warm. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty ImagesThe disaster comes as Afghanistan grapples with a severe economic crisis that has gripped it since the Taliban takeover last year, and amid rapidly mounting concerns over the ability of the Taliban and international agencies to respond quickly.While major international agencies still operate in Afghanistan, the Taliban takeover saw other agencies and governments reduce their assistance programmes in a country where about 80% of the budget came from foreign assistance.Abdul Qahar Balkhi, a senior Taliban official, said the government “appreciated and welcomed” help that has been pledged by some other governments and relief agencies such as Médecins Sans Frontières and the Red Cross.But the 5.9-magnitude earthquake – initially reported as magnitude 6.1, and the country’s deadliest for more than 20 years – had caused such widespread damage and suffering that more help was needed.“The government sadly is under sanctions so it is financially unable to assist the people to the extent that is needed,” he said.quake map“The assistance needs to be scaled up to a very large extent because this is a devastating earthquake which hasn’t been experienced in decades.”The United Nations secretary-general, António Guterres, said the global agency has “fully mobilised” to help, with UN officials confirming the deployment of health teams and supplies of medicine, food, trauma kits and emergency shelter to the quake zone.Tomas Niklasson, the European Union’s special envoy for Afghanistan, tweeted: “The EU is monitoring the situation and stands ready to coordinate and provide EU emergency assistance to people and communities affected.”Pakistan, where officials said one person was killed in the quake, said it would send emergency aid – including tents – across the border.Médecins Sans Frontières said its teams in Khost and the Afghan capital Kabul were liaising with the Taliban government and other organisations about lending support.“We know many of the healthcare facilities are under-resourced, and a natural disaster such as this will push the ones in the affected area to their limit,” MSF Afghanistan said in a tweet.The British Red Cross said its teams were organising the dispatch of food, medicines, housing, water and temporary shelter to the region which lies close to the border with Pakistan.An ambulance takes victims of the earthquake to hospital in Paktika province. Photograph: EPAThe disaster poses a huge challenge for the Taliban, who have largely isolated the country as a result of their hardline Islamist policies – particularly the subjugation of women and girls.Even before the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan’s emergency response teams were stretched to deal with the natural disasters that frequently strike the country.But with only a handful of airworthy planes and helicopters left since the Taliban returned to power, any immediate response to the latest catastrophe is further limited.Karim Nyazai was in the provincial capital and returned immediately to find his village devastated and 22 members of his extended family dead.“I was away from my family who live in a remote village in the Gyan district. I went there as soon as I could find a car in the early morning,” he told the Guardian.“The entire village is buried. Those who could manage to get out before everything fell down were managing to take out the bodies of their loved ones out of the rubble. There were bodies wrapped in blankets everywhere.“I lost 22 members of my [extended family] including my sister, and three of my brothers. More than 70 people in the village died.”One survivor, Arup Khan, 22, who was pulled out of a collapsed guesthouse, described the moment the earthquake struck. “It was a horrible situation. There were cries everywhere. The children and my family were under the mud.”The United States, whose troops helped topple the initial Taliban regime and remained in Afghanistan for two decades until Washington pulled them out last year, was “deeply saddened” by the earthquake, the White House said.“President Biden is monitoring developments and has directed USAID (US Agency for International Development) and other federal government partners to assess US response options to help those most affected,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement.Wednesday’s quake occurred at around 1.30am at a depth of 10km (six miles), about 47km south-west of Khost, according to the United States Geological Survey.It was felt as far away as Lahore in Pakistan, 480km from the epicentre in Khost. | Asia Politics |
It was only an aside. Keir Starmer wasn’t planning to talk about Brexit, but a subject almost as perilous for his party: migration. Still, Good Morning Britain wanted to know if his plan to strike a deal with the European Union in order to stop the small boats crossing the Channel meant he was weakening his stance on EU withdrawal. “There’s no case for going back to the EU,” he said, “no case for going into the single market or customs union, and no freedom of movement.”
Those words were hardly a shock. Starmer has said similar things before, though sometimes adding the gentle qualification that he could see “no political case” for rejoining the EU, a formulation that hints that while restored membership might be desirable, it’s not feasible. The balder declaration he deployed on Thursday insists that there’s not even an argument to be made in principle for British re-entry.
The calculation behind the remark is clear enough. It’s the same logic that propelled Starmer to wrap his new migration policy in muscular language and to launch it in the Sun, in an article that used the word “tough” four times in two sentences. He needs to win back those former Labour supporters in so-called red wall seats who voted for Brexit on the promise that, outside the EU, Britain could “take back control” of its borders. He needs to appear tough on both Brexit and immigration – the two go together.
Even so, the comment was striking, in part because of the context in which the Labour leader was making it. For Starmer was saying there was no point reversing Brexit, just as he was proposing a solution to a problem caused or aggravated by Brexit and its aftermath.
The connection is spelled out in a report on the small boat phenomenon by Prof Thom Brooks of Durham University, published in February. Can you guess what it concluded was “the primary factor behind the current problem”? The government’s post-Brexit deal, and specifically its failure to reach a “returns agreement with the EU”, whereby unauthorised migrants to the UK could be returned to the first safe EU country they had entered.
Before Brexit, there was just such an arrangement. But it expired once Britain left – and the government put nothing in its place. People traffickers spotted the opportunity almost immediately, offering to take people to a country, Britain, from where they could no longer be sent back. Staggeringly, Brooks found “no records of any individuals travelling by small boat to claim asylum in 2017 or before” – not one case. But as “the UK prepared to leave its returns agreement, small boat journeys started”. And the people making those journeys grew in number, from the low hundreds in 2018 to tens of thousands in 2023.
No wonder those Brexit-backers who voted to leave the EU because they did not want Britain to be a refuge for desperate people seeking asylum are disappointed: when Britain was in the EU, covered by a returns deal, there was no opening for the traffickers to exploit. Now there is.
This is what Starmer is trying to fix, striking a new bargain with the EU that would destroy the trafficking gangs’ business model. In return, Britain would take its share of people approved for asylum in the EU. Those on the right always so keen to insist they welcome “genuine” refugees and loathe only the criminal gangs profiting from their misfortune should be delighted by Starmer’s proposal. Naturally, they have condemned it. In characteristically dehumanising language, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, said it would make the UK a “dumping ground” for Europe’s migrants.
The point, though, is that Starmer’s plan would not be needed, had we stuck with the pre-Brexit setup. What he proposes is a solution that attempts to get us closer to what we had – without admitting that we’ve lost anything.
It’s becoming a habit, with the Conservatives the most frequent offender. In one area after another, the government has sought to patch up holes left by Brexit. Last week, UK scientists celebrated rejoining the Horizon Europe research programme. It was hailed as a big breakthrough – even though it simply restores something we once took for granted.
Last month, the government announced it was indefinitely delaying – scrapping – its once-promised plan to introduce a UK-only product safety mark, choosing instead to retain the familiar CE mark of the EU. It was bowing to pressure from manufacturers – and to reality. Why ask industry to spend a fortune jumping through hoops to get a mark that only brings access to the UK market? Obviously it’s better to stick with the CE mark we already had.
It’s a similar picture with checks on imports of EU food, another supposed bonus of Brexit that has been serially “delayed” in order to save costs. Whether it’s delays or side deals, the purpose is the same: to devise workarounds that address the damage caused by Brexit by seeking to remove the Brexit element, quietly undoing the bit where we move away from the EU.
Hilariously, the government sometimes spins these moves as exercises of our newly won sovereignty, in which we choose, as an independent nation, to be closer to the continent we left behind. As Prof Chris Grey, sage writer on these matters, put it to me, capturing the paradox: “Brexit works best when it’s not implemented.”
All the same, there will be some who look at these patch-and-mend solutions and think, well, they might be perverse, but if they get the job done, why would we ever need to rejoin the EU? The answer is that all these fixes are worse than what we had before. To be in Horizon without freedom of movement is to be denied the ability to mobilise project teams across Europe. Delayed import controls might allow EU food to come in smoothly, but now the UK is shut out of the EU databases that track animal health, leaving the country vulnerable to disease. UK manufacturers can still use the CE mark, but now they have to pay an EU “notified body” to formally prove they’re worthy of it – and all without a UK seat at the table where the big decisions on regulations affecting products are taken. As Grey says, “being outside the EU means less, not more, control”.
So yes, we can stick on a patch here or bolt on a bit of pipework there, hoping to make it look like the machine we had before Brexit – but it will never run quite as smoothly. The lunacy of Brexit is we won a right not worth having – the right to diverge from our nearest neighbours in ways that make it harder and costlier for us to trade with, or even just to live alongside, them.
Starmer is a good lawyer, and there was reasoning behind his words this week. But “no case” to rejoin the EU? On the contrary: the case only gets stronger.
Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist. He will host a Guardian Live event with Gordon Brown on Tuesday 26 September at 7pm BST. The event will be live in London and livestreamed - book tickets here | United Kingdom Politics |
Senior civil servant admits one name was removed from Sue Gray's partygate report Back to the issue of partygate and Darren Tierney has confirmed that one individual's name was removed from the Sue Gray report into partygate on "staff welfare" grounds.Mr Tierney, director general of propriety and ethics at the Cabinet Office, told the PACAC that senior civil servant Alex Chisholm had looked at the draft report to see if there were any "staff welfare concerns that would get in the way of publication".Asked whether any other members of staff had requested their names be removed, he said: "Not as far as I'm aware, no."Meanwhile, Conservative chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee William Wragg asks Simon Case whether Gina Coladangelo declared her personal connection to Matt Hancock when she was appointed a non-executive director at the Department of Health."I'm not sure that was declared to us," Mr Case replies.Mr Hancock resigned as health secretary last June after he breached social distancing guidance by kissing a colleague. Sturgeon confirms plans for 'consultative referendum' and sets date of 19 October 2023 Nicola Sturgeon confirms the independence referendum would be consultative - meaning legislation would have to be passed before Scotland becomes independent. Much like the Brexit referendum in 2016, a majority "yes" vote would not immediately make Scotland independent.The legislation would have to be passed by both the UK and Scottish parliaments.A new Bill will be published at Holyrood for the consultative vote, with a proposal for the referendum to be held on 19 October 2023. The question asked will be the same as in the 2014 vote: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" The first minister says she has asked Scotland's top law officer to ask the Supreme Court if the Scottish government has the power to legislate for the consultative referendum. However, she says if the Supreme Court decides it does not then this would not be "the end of the matter, far from it". Referendum row must be 'resolved democratically' with UK government, says Sturgeon Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon says she is "ready and willing" to negotiate with the Westminster government on the terms of holding a second independence referendum. Revealing she is writing to Boris Johnson today, to raise the subject of a section 30 order which would give the Scottish parliament power to hold a referendum.But she says: "What I will never do is allow Scottish democracy to be a prisoner of Boris Johnson or any British prime minister."She says Scottish democracy "cannot be suppressed" and the issue must be "resolved democratically". The two sides should be "sitting down together" and "responsibly agreeing a process" to "put the legal basis of a referendum beyond any doubt", she says. The first minister says the referendum must be "lawful" and that this is non-negotiable."My determination is to secure a process that allows the people of Scotland, whether yes, no or yet to be decided, to express their views in a legal, constitutional referendum so the majority view can be established fairly and democratically," she adds. Scotland has 'paid a price for not being independent', says Sturgeon The Scottish first minister is setting out her argument for how and why a second independence referendum should go ahead.Speaking from the Scottish parliament, she says Scotland has "paid a price for not being independent" and has suffered under Westminster policies. She accuses the Conservative government of having "ripped us out of the EU against our will" and creating the "worst cost of living crisis in the G7". Meanwhile, she says she has seen "compelling evidence" of how a range of independent countries across Europe that are comparable to Scotland have stronger economic and social performance. It is also "powerless to stop our budget being cut", Ms Sturgeon says."While we invest billions in measures to help with the cost of living, tens of thousands of children can be pushed deeper into poverty at the merest stroke of the chancellor's pen," she says. Civil servants put in 'an incredible difficult situation' over partygate investigation - Case Simon Case is asked how appropriate it is for civil servants to be asked to conduct investigations into the prime minister."Very difficult - and to be avoided wherever possible," the cabinet secretary replies.Mr Case says "I agree" when asked if he believes it is inappropriate to be investigating someone who is in charge of their career prospects."Asking civil servants to do these investigations put these civil servants in an incredibly difficult situation," he adds.Mr Case states that he is "not going to go into detail" about the advice given to the prime minister. Wallace: Defence spending must 'continue to grow' in face of global threats Defence secretary Ben Wallance has said the UK must continue to increase investment in defence.Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute he said: "I've always said as the threat changes, so must thefunding."He went on to say the increased threat came from several different sources:"Russia is not are only problem: An assertive China ready to challenge the rules-based system and democracy, terrorism on the march right across Africa, Iranian nuclear ambitions to date still unresolved, the threat is growing... and investment needs to continue to grow."Speaking at a New Statesman conference earlier Mr Wallace denied he had asked for a 20% increase in spending but admitted he always "battles other colleagues for budgets." Propriety and ethics 'definitely' the most difficult part of being cabinet secretary - Case Answering the first question put to him, Simon Case admits that propriety and ethics are "definitely" the most difficult part of his job.The cabinet secretary says there can be a "juxtaposition" between supporting the government and upholding ethical values "which can create challenges"."The government of the day is one that is not remotely afraid of controversial policies, it believes it has a mandate to test established boundaries, takes a robust view of the national interest," he adds.Chair of the PACAC committee William Wragg later asks Mr Case what proportion of his time he finds he spends on issues of propriety or ethics."To guess, 10 or 30% of my time" he replies. Cabinet Secretary Simon Case to be probed by MPs on partygate Cabinet Secretary Simon Case and Darren Tierney, Director of General, Propriety and Ethics at the Cabinet Office, are up in front of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.We'll be listening out for any interesting comments on the Downing Street partygate scandal.Mr Case was initially responsible for the investigation into the partygate events, but was forced to recluse himself after admitting an event had taken place outside his own office in December 2020.While Mr Johnson and Mr Sunak were fined for attending the event, Mr Case escaped being fined in the Metropolitan Police investigation. Small boat pilots crossing Channel with migrants to face life in prison, says Home Office People caught piloting small boats that carry migrants across the Channel could face life in prison under new laws.The Nationality and Borders Act came into force today, introducing tougher penalties for those who smuggle migrants into the UK.The legislation also increases the maximum penalty for illegally entering the UK or overstaying a visa, rising from six months in prison to four years.And it will enable the government to deport foreign national offenders up to 12 months before the end of their prison sentences.Home Secretary Priti Patel said it was "one of the most crucial milestones in delivering on our promise to the British public to take back control of our borders".Read more here: What’s the point of the G7? G7 leaders have been meeting in Germany to discuss a range of issues from inflation to securing energy supplies amid the war in Ukraine – and to display a sense of unity.But, with a resurfaced international division between East and West, has the G7 lost its power? On the Sky News Daily with Niall Paterson, senior diplomat and national security adviser to David Cameron, Sir Peter Ricketts shares some behind-the-scenes insight in why there is no real replacement for face-to-face diplomacy.Plus, our international affairs editor Dominic Waghorn, in Bavaria, explains the issues leaders at this week’s summit are discussing. Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options | United Kingdom Politics |
Subsets and Splits