article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks during a news conference, ahead of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting, in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, July 14, 2022. Made Nagi/Pool via REUTERS/Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comWASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Sunday that U.S. economic growth is slowing and she acknowledged the risk of a recession, but she said a downturn was not inevitable.Yellen, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," said strong hiring numbers and consumer spending showed the U.S. economy is not currently in recession.U.S. hiring remained robust in June, with 372,000 jobs created and the unemployment rate holding at 3.6%. It was the fourth straight month of job gains in excess of 350,000. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com"This is not an economy that is in recession," said Yellen. "But we’re in a period of transition in which growth is slowing and that’s necessary and appropriate."Still, data last week suggested the labor market was softening with new claims for unemployment benefits hitting their highest point in eight months. read more Yellen said inflation "is way too high" and recent Federal Reserve interest rates hikes were helping to bring soaring prices back in check.In addition, the Biden administration is selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which Yellen said has already helped lower gas prices."We've seen gas prices just in recent weeks come down by about 50 cents (a gallon) and there should be more in the pipeline," she said.Yellen, who previously served as chair of the Federal Reserve, hopes the Fed can cool the economy enough to bring down prices without triggering a broad economic downturn. read more "I'm not saying that we will definitely avoid a recession," Yellen said. "But I think there is a path that keeps the labor market strong and brings inflation down."U.S. gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic health, shrank at a 1.6% annual rate in the first quarter, and a report on Thursday is expected to show a gain of just 0.4% in the second quarter, according to economists polled by Reuters.Yellen said that even if the second-quarter figure is negative, it would not signal that a recession has taken hold, given the strength in the job market and strong demand."Recession is broad-based weakness in the economy. We're not seeing that now," she said.Journalists, some economists and analysts have traditionally defined a recession as two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction. But the private research group that is the official arbiter of U.S. recessions looks at a broad range of indicators instead, including jobs and spending. read more Brian Deese, director of the White House National Economic Council, said on Twitter on Sunday that the upcoming second-quarter figures would be "backward looking," which he called important context. "Hiring, spending, and production data look solid," he said.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Joel Schectman and David Lawder; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Leslie AdlerOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
Suella Braverman's powerful and thought-provoking speech in Washington last week on clamping down on mass migration had cossetted liberals spluttering into their teacups in outrage.
If any tuned in to the Home Secretary's address to the Tory party conference, they'd have been advised to first put down their fine china. This was her previous oratory shot through with steroids.
To roars of delight from a packed auditorium, she reeled off the Conservatives' most popular hits. The need to strengthen Britain's borders, get tough on criminals, exploit the benefits of Brexit and eliminate the pernicious scourge of wokery.
For daring to hold such opinions, Mrs Braverman has been subjected to a vicious, sustained and deeply personal campaign of vilification by the liberal-Left.
Special condemnation was reserved for her predication that a 'hurricane' of migration could bring millions to Britain.
The virtue-signalling elite accused her of deploying the 'language of the far Right'.
But their reaction is mistaken. Her suggestion that borders are out of control, that immigration should be cut and that this poses a challenge to the West would be endorsed by the vast majority of voters.
The liberal insistence that illegal migrants crossing the Channel by the boatload are refugees is simply preposterous. Large numbers of these mainly young men, who have passed through safe countries before paying smuggling gangs thousands, are economic migrants looking for a better life.
It is deeply ironic that Mrs Braverman, a woman of Indian heritage, is accused of pursuing a racist agenda by rich, middle-class white males such as Gary Lineker.
What do they know about the difficulties communities face due to the effects of mass migration? Do they use the crumbling NHS? Have they tried to get children into oversubscribed schools? Or struggled to find an affordable home?
Of course not. They are insulated by their wealth. But there are signs they are falling on the wrong side of history.
Many countries are now seeking fair but radical solutions to turn back the tide of illegal migration. Mrs Braverman rightly refuses to be deflected from this mission.
The Home Secratary also spearheaded the fightback against Labour yesterday by igniting an intense new war on 'wokery'.
For some time, our public institutions – from Parliament to the NHS, BBC and even our great universities – have been captured by identity politics promoted by a vociferous minority. She is correct to warn that this country would 'go properly woke' if Labour won power, because the party is in thrall to the trans extremists, race ideologues and green zealots.
While Black Lives Matter activists vandalised the Cenotaph, Sir Keir Starmer 'took the knee'. As women's rights groups objected to transwomen – biological males – accessing female-only spaces, Labour's leader insisted women could have penises.
By standing up to woke fundamentalism, the Tories would be kicking at an open door politically. So Health Secretary Steve Barclay's proposal to ban trans people from wards reserved for the opposite sex is welcome. That would help protect the dignity, privacy and safety of women.
And Science Secretary Michelle Donelan's promise to reverse 'the steady creep of political correctness' within the research community should be applauded.
Yes, these moves might trigger howls of outrage on social media, Sky and the BBC. But in ordinary parts of Britain, right-thinking people who are increasingly exasperated and afraid of the relentless march of wokery will say 'good on you'.
It would draw a clear dividing line between the Tories and Labour before the election.
But mere rhetoric from the conference stage won't make it happen. Rishi Sunak and his troops must put their shoulders to the wheel and take action. | United Kingdom Politics |
June 29 (Reuters) - Ethiopia, one of Africa's fastest-growing economies, has asked to join the BRICS bloc of emerging markets, the foreign ministry said on Thursday.
The term BRIC was coined by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill in 2001 to describe the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The BRIC powers had their first summit in 2009 in Russia. South Africa joined in 2010.
"We expect BRICS will give us a positive response to the request we have made," foreign ministry spokesman Meles Alem told journalists, according to the state-run news agency ENA.
Ethiopia will continue to work with international institutions that can protect its interests, he said.
The horn of Africa nation has the second-largest population in Africa, but its economy ranks only 59th in the world according to the International Monetary Fund, and is less than half the size of the smallest BRICS member South Africa.
Last year Argentina, the world's 23rd-largest economy, said it had received China's formal support to join the group, which is seen as a powerful emerging-market alternative to the West.
South Africa said on Thursday it will host the next summit in August as planned, amid speculation it could be moved to a location where Russia's President Vladimir Putin would not be obliged to be arrested over war crimes accusations.
BRICS countries account for more than 40% of the world's population and about 26% of the global economy.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Africa politics |
Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, has said he expects to see a united Ireland in his lifetime and that British people in the country will become a minority in need of protection.
The Taoiseach said the new country would be judged on how it treated British people after reunification with Northern Ireland.
The debate over Irish reunification has gained impetus after Brexit and historic election victories for Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
“I believe we are on the path to unification. I believe that there will be a united Ireland in my lifetime,” Mr Varadkar said in his most explicit public comments on the subject so far.
“In that united Ireland there is going to be a minority. Roughly a million people who are British. And you judge the success and quality of a country by the wait it treats its minorities. That is something we are going to have to think about.”
In January, at the World Economic Forum, Mr Varadkar refused to say if he thought Ireland would unite in his lifetime.
Opinion polls last month showed Sinn Fein, the party making the most strident calls for Irish unity, increased its lead over Mr Varadkar’s Fine Gael and its coalition partner Fianna Fáil.
Sinn Fein’s support is at 34 per cent compared with Fine Gael’s 19 per cent and Fianna Fáil’s 18 per cent. Irish elections must be held by March 2025, but there has been speculation a snap vote could be held as early as this year.
Gavin Robinson, the deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, said: “Leo Varadkar’s optimism about a united Ireland in the past has had an all too close correlation with opinion poll results.
“Playing up republican credentials hasn’t worked before and it’s unlikely to work now,” he said.
Northern Ireland celebrated its centenary in 2021 and it is now 25 years since the Good Friday Agreement ended the Troubles.
The peace deal states that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should call a border poll if it “appears likely” a majority would be in favour of reunification.
The Irish government would also have to hold a border poll in the Republic.
“There have been predictions that a united Ireland is just around the corner virtually since the moment Northern Ireland was established,” said Mr Robinson.
‘Ill-fated overtures’
“Support for Northern Ireland within the Union however remains strong and the benefits are clear. Neither Mr Varadkar nor his ill-fated overtures will change that reality,” he added.
Polls show a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote to remain part of the UK if there was a referendum, while most people in the Republic would back reunification.
But Ireland’s recent strong economic performance, and the DUP’s almost 19-month boycott of Stormont over the Brexit treaty, which involves an Irish Sea border, have increased calls for Irish unity.
In the Brexit referendum 55.8 per cent of people in Northern Ireland voted to Remain and reunification with Ireland would see the six counties rejoining the EU.
In September last year, a census showed that Catholics, who traditionally favour unity, outnumbered Protestants, who are traditionally unionist, for the first time in the 1.9m strong region’s history.
Earlier this week, Wallace Thompson, a founding member of the DUP and close ally of Ian Paisley senior, told the Belfast Telegraph that there was an “inevitability” about Irish unity.
A UK Government spokesman said: “Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK for as long as its people wish for it to be.
“We are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom.
“Northern Ireland, its people, and future generations have a bright and prosperous future within the UK.” | Europe Politics |
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comSummaryCompaniesPelosi tells President Tsai "we will not abandon Taiwan"China steps up military activity around TaiwanTaiwan's military increases alertness levelChina summoned U.S. ambassador in BeijingTAIPEI, Aug 3 (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi left Taiwan on Wednesday after touting its democracy and pledging American solidarity during her brief visit, adding that Chinese anger cannot stop world leaders from travelling to the self-ruled island claimed by Beijing.China demonstrated its outrage over the highest-level U.S. visit to the island in 25 years with a burst of military activity in surrounding waters, summoning the U.S. ambassador in Beijing and halting several agricultural imports from Taiwan.Some of China's planned military exercises were to take place within Taiwan's 12 nautical mile sea and air territory, according to Taiwan's defence ministry, an unprecedented move that a senior defence official described to reporters as "amounting to a sea and air blockade of Taiwan".Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comTaiwan scrambled jets on Wednesday to warn away 27 Chinese aircraft in its air defence zone, the island's defence ministry said, adding that 22 of them crossed the median line separating the island from China. read more Pelosi arrived with a congressional delegation on her unannounced but closely watched visit late on Tuesday, defying China's repeated warnings, on a trip that she said demonstrated unwavering U.S. commitment to Taiwan's democracy. read more "Our delegation came to Taiwan to make unequivocally clear that we will not abandon Taiwan," Pelosi told Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen, who Beijing suspects of pushing for formal independence - a red line for China. read more "Now, more than ever, America's solidarity with Taiwan is crucial, and that's the message we are bringing here today," Pelosi said during her roughly 19-hour visit.A long-time China critic, especially on human rights, and a political ally of U.S. President Joe Biden, Pelosi met with a former Tiananmen activist, a Hong Kong bookseller who had been detained by China and a Taiwanese activist recently released by China.The last U.S. House speaker to go to Taiwan was Newt Gingrich in 1997. Pelosi's visit comes amid sharply deteriorating U.S.-Chinese relations. During the past quarter century, China has become a far more powerful economic, military and geopolitical force.China considers Taiwan part of its territory and has never renounced using force to bring it under its control. The United States and the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven nations warned China against using the visit as a pretext for military action against Taiwan."Sadly, Taiwan has been prevented from participating in global meetings, most recently the World Health Organization, because of objections by the Chinese Communist Party," Pelosi said in statement issued after her departure."While they may prevent Taiwan from sending its leaders to global forums, they cannot prevent world leaders or anyone from travelling to Taiwan to pay respect to its flourishing democracy, to highlight its many successes and to reaffirm our commitment to continued collaboration," Pelosi added. read more U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi talks with Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu before boarding a plane at Taipei Songshan Airport in Taipei, Taiwan August 3, 2022. Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Handout via REUTERS She later arrived in South Korea, according to local media.China's customs department announced a suspension of imports of citrus fruits and certain fish - chilled white striped hairtail and frozen horse mackerel - from Taiwan, while its commerce ministry banned export of natural sand to Taiwan.Fury on the mainland over Pelosi's defiance of Beijing was evident in Chinese social media, with one blogger railing: "this old she-devil, she actually dares to come!" Pelosi is 82. read more MILITARY DRILLSChina's military announced joint air and sea drills near Taiwan and test launches of conventional missiles in the sea east of the island, with Chinese state news agency Xinhua describing live-fire drills and other exercises around Taiwan from Thursday to Sunday.China's foreign ministry said Pelosi's visit damages peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, harms the political foundation of U.S.-Chinese relations and infringes upon China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken discussed the potential for Pelosi's visit with counterpart Wang Yi during a G20 meeting in Bali last month, and said any such trip would be entirely Pelosi's decision and independent of the Biden administration, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday. read more The State Department confirmed that China delivered a formal protest to U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns in Beijing, and that Burns reiterated U.S. readiness to work with China to prevent escalation and keep lines of communication open.The United States has no official diplomatic relations with Taiwan but is bound by American law to provide it with the means to defend itself. China views visits by U.S. officials to Taiwan as sending an encouraging signal to the pro-independence camp on the island. Taiwan rejects China's sovereignty claims, saying only the Taiwanese people can decide the island's future.Taiwan's military increased its alertness level. Its defence ministry said China was attempting to threaten key ports and cities with drills in the surrounding waters."We can see China's ambition: to make the Taiwan Strait non-international waters, as well as making the entire area west of the first island chain in the western pacific its sphere of influence," a senior Taiwan official familiar with its security planning told Reuters.Foreign ministers of the G7 - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Britain and the United States, as well as the European Union – in a statement urged China to resolve the Taiwan matter peacefully and expressed concern over China's "threatening actions," particularly live-fire exercises and "economic coercion." They added that it is "normal and routine" for legislators to travel internationally. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Yimou Lee and Sarah Wu; Additional reporting by Simon Lewis in Washington; Writing by Tony Munroe and Michael Martina; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore, Stephen Coates and Will DunhamOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises next week to announce a long-awaited cut in inheritance tax, I can confidently predict that the Left will go more or less bananas.
Why THEM, they will shriek.
After all the pain the nation has been through — the chronic pressure on domestic finances — why are we handing government money back to this tiny minority? These are the lucky-sperm club, the relatively rich, people whose parents or grandparents just happened to die leaving estates above a certain value.
Why should THEY have first call on the nation’s generosity?
Inheritance tax, or death duties, is currently paid on only 4 per cent of estates. The tax is set at 40 per cent on assets over £325,000 and takes in a total of about £7.2 billion.
Of all the taxes that afflict the population, it is hardly the most salient or the most widespread in its impact.
Why, the Left will complain, is the Government proposing a pre-election bung — for the very people who can most afford it, mainly homeowners in the South-East? They will have support from some respectable free-market Conservatives.
It was Adam Smith himself who noted the ‘justice and utility’ of taxes on estates; and there is in theory a good meritocratic argument in favour of inheritance tax. Inheritance, say some conservative thinkers, is like a drug; it saps the moral fibre.
Inherited money weakens the incentive to work; and there are indeed academic studies that seem to show that if a double-income household is hit by a meteorite of dosh, in the form of a legacy, then one of the spouses generally gives up work. The overall effect, therefore, is to rob the economy of human energy.
In the words of the Scottish-born tycoon and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, ‘the parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son and tempts him to lead a less useful and a less worthy life than he otherwise would’.
The critics of inheritance go further. They say the mere knowledge that you are going to leave huge sums behind, untaxed, may also be bad for the parents.
If you think you are going to pass on colossal wealth to your children, it may discourage you from vital parental investment — their educational needs, for instance, or emotional investment of every kind.
All things considered, they say, it is hard to think of a better or more sensible fiscal measure than inheritance tax. Imagine a tax that does not discourage effort. Imagine a tax that does not punish enterprise, or hard work, or investment. Imagine a tax that does not stop you enjoying a single one of the fruits of your labours, by hand or by brain.
Indeed, the tax does not even stop you enjoying the benefits of extra income — such as from the increase in the value of your property — that you have done nothing at all to deserve.
Inheritance tax is the one great anaesthetic tax in the sense that you don’t feel it at all; and why not? Because when you come to pay inheritance tax, you are pushing up the daisies.
You don’t feel a darn thing because you are dead; and since you are dead, the idea that you can be stimulated by a tax cut is totally ridiculous. In the case of many tax cuts, you will see what they call the Laffer Curve — whereby a cut in the rate will produce an increase in the overall yield, because people work harder in the knowledge that they will be united with a larger share of the wealth they create.
Cutting inheritance tax will do no such thing. Cutting inheritance tax won’t fire up your animal spirits because, sadly, your animal spirits will be extinct.
So why not cut taxes for the living? Why not cut taxes on income and business?
Wouldn’t that be a better and fairer way to encourage growth and investment?
As this column has several times remarked, the smart thing for post-Brexit Britain would be to hoist a giant ‘invest here’ sign by cutting corporation tax to below Irish levels — showing the world that things here are different now. All these points will be made — scornfully — in the days ahead. We Tories will be accused of political opportunism in cutting inheritance tax, and favouring a minority, and so on — and yet our critics will be wrong.
Cutting inheritance tax will at least do something to address an increasing unfairness. I think I technically belong to the last cohort of baby boomers, in that I was born in 1964.
As I look at the younger generations, the Millennials, the Gen Z-ers, I cannot help agreeing with them in their complaints — because there is a sense in which we had it easy.
When I went to university, I had my entire tuition paid for by the state, for four glorious years; and I had my battels* very largely covered by the generosity of Ken Livingstone’s Inner London Education Authority. When I left university, I was able to get a mortgage almost instantly thanks to Nigel Lawson’s Mortgage Interest Relief At Source (MIRAS).
I got my foot on the London property ladder, and I have never looked back.
Contrast young people today: they struggle for years to pay back the cost of their university education, and as for living in their own home — that great Conservative dream has become steadily more and more unattainable.
These young people are not all the scions of tech billionaires. I doubt very much indeed that the younger generation will have their moral fibre sapped — their willingness to work — simply because they stand to benefit from a legacy.
Andrew Carnegie may have feared that the eternal cascade of Carnegie riches would turn his progeny into a load of wastrels and loafers — but I see zero risk of that happening in Britain today.
A little bit more cash from a grandparent’s will: it could make all the difference in the world. It might allow a young couple to put down a deposit on a flat that would be otherwise out of their reach; it might help with the cost of childcare, and allow parents to go out to work. It might be absolutely crucial for exactly the hard-working people who need it most.
Of course, it is true that you won’t — personally — benefit from a cut in the tax on the wealth you leave behind.
But that is precisely why it is a good thing: because the whole point is that the money is not for you and cannot, under any circumstances, be spent or otherwise used by you — because you’re six feet under.
It’s for your hard-pushed posterity — and a cut in inheritance tax is now overdue because of the deep changes that have taken place in society.
We baby boomers had the full-fat pensions; we had the free university; we had the cheap housing.
Those benefits allowed us to accumulate phenomenal wealth, as a generation, and in the name of intergenerational fairness it is right that more of that wealth should now be passed on to our descendants.
Yes, we should cut taxes on income, and effort, and enterprise. But it’s now right to cut inheritance tax as well.
*Battels: A college account for food and accommodation expenses (at Oxford University) | United Kingdom Politics |
Boris Johnson was in crisis talks this morning after only learning his chairman Oliver Dowden was quitting moments after he got out of a swimming pool in RwandaVideo LoadingVideo UnavailableBoris Johnson reacts to ‘tough by-election results’Jolly Boris Johnson began an eight-day jaunt by comparing the Commonwealth to excrement. The Prime Minister said the alliance of 54 nations was “a miracle fertiliser of business”. “It’s organic, there are no phosphates, no nitrates, it won’t cause algal bloom!” he boasted. “S***, then?”, a weary observer in Rwanda told us. But now it’s the Tory leader’s premiership in the muck - and he’s stuck 4,000 miles from home. He rose before 6am Rwanda time - 5am UK time - and found out the result in a smart business hotel behind roadblocks and armed police in the capital Kigali. By 6am or so he was in the pool. Minutes after he got out at 6.15am, the PM received a phone call from Oliver Dowden confirming he would resign. Oliver Dowden's resignation letter (
Image:
OliverDowden/Twitter) Moments after that the Tory chairman published his letter at 6.35am Rwanda time. A party source admitted the letter - which demanded someone take responsibility - was critical of the Prime Minister. But they said the Prime Minister was surprised by Mr Dowden’s resignation - not least, the source claimed, because the chairman had already admitted they’d lose. The source fumed: “Oliver Dowden was there on Wednesday preparing him for PMQs - as he always is - and almost breezily running through the lines he would rehearse. “He was due to do the morning round today in the event of us losing the by-elections, which was not a shock. “So what changed from Wednesday morning, where Oliver was warning the PM the by-elections would be heavily lost - but he would be out on the morning round to defend them?” As Mr Dowden pulled out of a broadcast round this morning, officials scrambled to find a jumble of loyal replacements at the last minute - including Dominic Raab and Priti Patel. Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie arrive at the summit (
Image:
Getty Images) Tory chairman Oliver Dowden dramatically resigned this morning (
Image:
Wiktor Szymanowicz/REX/Shutterstock) Meanwhile the PM kicked off a 7am crisis meeting with aides in Kigali, where he vowed not to leave his eight-day diplomatic trip early, and said he would not resign. Mr Johnson told aides that if governments stood down after every bad by-election result, they wouldn’t have any post-war government that survived a full term. The PM also spoke to Chancellor Rishi Sunak and Chief Whip Chris Heaton-Harris on the phone among others - before facing the media at 8am and vowing to “keep going”. “He’s not going to leave, this is too important, he’s going on to the G7,” a source said. They said to skip the G7 summit would be an “abdication of responsibility” and to miss Nato in Madrid would be “ridiculous”. Mr Dowden will not be replaced as chairman immediately, with a source saying: “There’s no rush, we don’t need a party chairman by lunchtime.” It could take until after CHOGM, G7 and Nato. But it’s understood the Prime Minister is not ruling out a July reshuffle. A source said “we need to think calmly and rationally” when there are not “wall to wall engagements”. Keir Starmer was celebrating this morning after Labour reclaimed Wakefield from the Tories (
Image:
PA) Allies of the Prime Minister still furiously blame the Partygate scandal - broken by the Mirror - for many of Boris Johnson’s woes. A Tory source complained “the noise has been a lot louder about parties with a lot of misreporting” - while the PM was trying to focus “almost myopically” on the economy, cost of living, housing, immigration and care. “I don’t think feeding people a diet of Partygate helps them understand what this government is going,” the source fumed. “There is a perception and reality problem that has dominated a lot of this year.” They said in the context of government work, “the endless reportage and kremlinology of Partygate is nonsense if you choose to still go on and on and on about it.” Despite insisting the Prime Minister does not blame the media the source complained: “Whenever he starts to spell out a policy story he’s interrupted.” But Tory MPs will demand the PM takes responsibility - as Oliver Dowden said in his letter. A Tory source insisted: “He doesn’t disagree that somebody needs to take responsibility, he’s taken responsibility for the overall direction of the government. “But these were by-elections in particularly difficult circumstances. The events that led to the by-elections being called were less than ideal. Boris Johnson has been hit by by-election woes on a diplomatic trip to Rwanda (
Image:
REUTERS) “And governments in mid-term, particularly when they’ve been in power for more than one term, tend to lose by-elections mid-term. It’s not extraordinary.” After Boris Johnson returns from three summits next Thursday, his first appearance in Parliament is set to be to report on his time in Rwanda, Germany and Madrid. A close ally insisted the PM did not fear a coup while he was away - pointing out it’s nearly 11 months until MPs can hold another no-confidence vote. But the 1922 Committee could shorten that to six months. And after today’s extraordinary results - including the worst by-election defeat in history - claiming it’s “not extraordinary” may not be enough. Read More Read More | United Kingdom Politics |
MOSCOW, April 24 (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Monday that President Vladimir Putin would decide whether to attend a BRICS conference in South Africa in August closer to the time.
South Africa, a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), maintains good relations with Russia but would be theoretically required to arrest Putin under an ICC indictment issued in March over Moscow's actions in Ukraine.
Asked at a regular briefing whether Putin would attend the BRICS conference, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "...appropriate decisions will be made closer to the time."
"But in any case Russia will actively take part (in the conference)," Peskov added, describing the BRICS as "a very important association".
The BRICS group comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, a bloc seen as a powerful emerging-market alternative to the West.
The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin on March 17, alleging that Russia's forcible deportation of Ukrainian children amounted to a war crime.
Russia has not concealed a programme under which it has brought thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia but presents it as a humanitarian campaign to protect orphans and children abandoned in the conflict zone.
Peskov at the time described the ICC move as "outrageous and unacceptable".
Russia is not a member of the ICC and Putin is very unlikely to end up in court any time soon. But the warrant means that he could be arrested and sent to The Hague if he travels to any ICC member states.
The ICC has also issued a warrant for Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia's commissioner for children's rights, on the same charges.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
Britain has to 'strengthen' its preparations for the possibility of a new pandemic labelled 'Disease X', according to experts, after a string of infectious diseases hit the UK in the past six months.After traces of polio was found in sewage samples in parts of London for the first time in 40 years this week, an expert in diseases has said that after a series of health 'events' in the past six months, there is likely something 'on the horizon'.The UK detected a strain of H5 bird flu in a human in January this year, in the South West of England, and in February, three cases of Lassa fever - one of which died from the disease.Rodent-borne disease Lassa fever was brought into Britain for the first time since 2009 in February after a family returned to their home in the east of England from West Africa.And in March, Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever was brought into the country after a woman returned to the UK from central Asia. Britain could soon be hit by an 'impossible to predict' Disease X according to experts, who warn that after a string of infectious diseases to hit the UK in the past six months, a Black Death-scale outbreak could be just around the cornerThe UK Health Security Agency said the fever, a viral disease usually transmitted by ticks and livestock animals in countries where the disease is endemic, has only been identified in the UK three times since 2012.The most recent addition to the string of infectious diseases to come to Britain is Monkeypox in May, and since then nearly 800 cases of the virus have been recorded.Gay and bisexual men who are at a 'high risk' of catching monkeypox are set to be offered a Imvanex vaccine - which is 85 per cent effective - to protect against the infection, health chiefs announced today. Almost all infections so far have been spotted in men who have sex with men.Professor Paul Hunter of medicine at the University of East Anglia told the Telegraph: 'People going from this country to other countries and back is probably the biggest driver of disease importations.''We do need to pay attention, to strengthen pandemic preparedness and maintain our surveillance systems, because in the grand scheme of things Covid wasn't as bad as it potentially could have been.'When it comes to disease, we're not an island and it would be a mistake to consider ourselves as such.''In light of these recent outbreaks, Professor Mark Woolhouse of infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, also told the newspaper: 'There's a name for what we're seeing at the moment in the UK and elsewhere, it's called chatter.'It's a term anti-terrorist [units] use to describe the small events that might signify something more major on the horizon… infectious diseases work much the same way.'Last year, WHO warned that the next pandemic could be 'on the scale' of the Black Death' which killed approximately 75 million people between 1346 and 1353. The polio outbreak caused health chiefs to declare a 'national incident' and urged parents to ensure their children were up-to-date with their vaccinations.All British children are supposed to have had the first of three polio jabs as a baby, but uptake in London lags behind the rest of the country. The pandemic also caused a lull in immunisation uptake.Polio spreads through coughs and sneezes or contact with objects contaminated with faeces, causing permanent paralysis in around one in 100 cases. Children are at a higher risk.The UK Health Security Agency believes a traveller, likely from Pakistan, Afghanistan or Nigeria, who was given the live oral polio vaccine, travelled to the UK and 'shed' traces of the virus in their faeces. The virus was detected several times between February and May and has continued to mutate, according to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).Professor Woolhouse added: 'The early 21st century has been a perfect storm for emerging infectious diseases, and everything is pointing towards the likelihood of more and more outbreaks.'All the drivers of outbreaks are in fact getting worse, not better, over time.' The NHS are launching a campaign to contain polio by contacting the parents of unvaccinated children after health chiefs declared a national incident last night following the return of the disease for the first time in 40 years. File photoAnd scientists are said to believe that the next pandemic is to be caused by 'zoonotic' diseases which happens when infections come from animals on to humans.The factors behind the spread of new and existing viruses are likely due to growing economies of previously undeveloped nations, population growth, rise in the trade in wildlife and the human movement into jungles and forests.Brexit has also caused the massive increase of non-EU immigration from Asian and African countries.In January, Britain's 'patient zero' caught the H5N1 virus after 'very close and regular' contact with a large number of infected birds which they kept in and around their home, according to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).It is the first ever human case of H5N1 — which kills up to half of the people it infects — recorded in the UK and fewer than 1,000 people have ever been diagnosed with the strain globally since it emerged in the late 1990s.Lassa fever, which was spotted in three people and killed one of which in February, is thought to cause no symptoms in 80 per cent of patients and kill just one per cent of those it infects.Monkeypox has been the most recent and real threat to the UK and dozens of other countries around the world since it was first spotted in May.The US, Spain and Portugal have also been affected, and the World Health Organization said there is a 'real' threat monkeypox could become endemic in Europe unless the current cluster is stamped out urgently. UK promises £25million to help create new international fund to prevent or prepare for future pandemicsThe UK has promised £25 million to help found a new international fund to prevent or prepare for future pandemics.The money for a new World Bank fund is aimed at preventing another catastrophe with the health and economic impacts of Covid-19.The UK aid money will go to a 'financial intermediary fund' to provide support for countries whose healthcare systems are dangerously unprepared for large outbreaks of infectious diseases.Announcing the plan at the G7 summit at Schloss Elmau, Germany, Boris Johnson said: 'While the worst days of the coronavirus pandemic are, thankfully, behind us, we cannot be complacent.'The next potential pandemic could emerge any moment and with it the devastating human and economic consequences we have experienced over the last two-and-a-half years.'We must ensure we learn the lessons of Covid-19 and are better prepared next time. We owe it to the people of the world to say, 'never again'.'The funding announced by the Prime Minister will establish the UK as a founding donor to the fund, alongside the US, European Union and others.Officials fear the chance of a pandemic on the scale of Covid-19 occurring in the next 25 years could be as high as 50% and a key lesson since 2020 is that even small investments in preparedness can have huge returns.David Malpass, president of the World Bank Group, said: 'I welcome the UK's support for the new financial intermediary fund to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response functions in developing countries.'The fund will provide a dedicated stream of additional, long-term funding to complement the work of existing institutions and operate with high standards of transparency and accountability.'Covid-19 highlighted the urgent need for coordinated action to build stronger health systems and mobilise additional resources to prepare for the next pandemic in countries, regions, and around the world.' | United Kingdom Politics |
The prime minister may be out of the UK for eight days as he embarks on a diplomatic tour taking in a triumvirate of summits - CHOGM, the G7 and NATO - but he cannot escape the enormity of what's happening back home in his first ballot box test since this month's confidence vote in his leadership.These by-elections are particularly instructive because they cut across two electoral battlegrounds for Boris Johnson.
Wakefield is in his bank of Red Wall seats taken from Labour in 2019.Tiverton and Honiton is in true blue Devon, the rural Blue Wall of the South West, where the Lib Dems are hoping to take what should be an ultra-safe seat from the Tories.Follow live updates on a nervy night for Boris Johnson in two by-elections In Wakefield, Labour are quietly confident of winning back this West Yorkshire seat lost to the Tories in 2019, while in Tiverton, Lib Dems are hopeful that they can "climb a mountain" to win - providing they can turn out their vote.
Losing both seats will be deeply uncomfortable for Mr Johnson. More on Boris Johnson Boris Johnson accuses critics of Rwanda deportation policy of 'condescending attitudes' towards African nation Boris Johnson to meet Prince Charles in Rwanda after reported criticism of 'appalling' asylum policy Boris Johnson has not 'lifted a finger' to stop train strikes, says Sir Keir Starmer in PMQs clash The last time the Conservatives lost two by-election seats on one day was in 1991 (although the party went on to win back those constituencies in the 1992 general election).But this would be a record-breaking moment if both seats do fall, because it would mean the Lib Dems had overturned a 51.5% Tory majority - the biggest percentage Tory majority ever overturned in a by-election.Asked about whether he'd consider his position if he lost both seats, the prime minister looked aghast."Are you crazy?" he replied to reporters, as he sought to downplay the importance of these two by-elections.Mr Johnson brushed aside questions that his popularity had been badly damaged by partygate and the subsequent confidence vote, pointing out it was only a year ago that he defied all the odds with a historic win in Hartlepool.But he also sought to dampen expectations, telling reporters as he landed in Kigali, Rwanda, that while he was "always full of optimism and buoyancy", political observers knew only too well that "by-elections in midterm are never necessarily easy for any government". Image: Wakefield is a key target seat for Sir Keir Starmer But a double loss will rattle his already anxious party, as MPs in marginal seats ask themselves again whether the fallout from Mr Johnson's conduct might cost them their jobs in a general election.It all feeds into the narrative that the prime minister is potentially fatally wounded after partygate and won't be able to win the public back around.But for all that, even his opponents quietly acknowledge that these losses don't pose an immediate existential threat.Two former cabinet ministers told me this week that the defeats are baked in, while his success in the recent Conservative MPs' confidence vote makes it very hard to agitate to dislodge Mr Johnson for some months yet. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Are the Lib Dems back on the up? For Labour, winning Wakefield is a necessity if the party is to have any hope of repairing the damage of 2019 and retaking seats it will need to have any hope of taking power at the next general election. This is Sir Keir Starmer's 38th target seat, requiring a 3.7% swing on current boundaries, so well in reach.For the Lib Dems, taking Tiverton would quite simply be a political earthquake that will give the party belief that it is once more turning into a serious electoral force following its post-coalition routing in the 2015 general election. Tiverton is the Lib Dems 167th target seat and requires a 20.3% swing on current boundaries.And for the prime minister, losing these two seats would still leave his government with a working majority of 75 MPs.What he can't entirely count on any more is their loyalty and support in pushing his programme for government through parliament. The vote may have reached a conclusion, but the internal civil war is far from resolved, and ballot boxes will only add to the pressure on a prime minister suffering more than just midterm blues. | United Kingdom Politics |
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! President Joe Biden said Sunday that the Group of Seven will ban Russian imports of gold in retaliation to Moscow's war against Ukraine.The G-7 leaders will meet on the summit's opening day Sunday to discuss how to secure energy supplies and combat inflation, looking to keep the response to Russia’s invasion from hurting global allies hoping to punish the Kremlin.According to senior Biden administration officials, gold is Russia's second-largest export and banning imports would make it harder for the country to participate in global markets.Gold has been the biggest Russian export behind energy in recent years, reaching almost $19 billion or about 5% of global gold exports in 2020, according to the White House.About 90% of Russian gold exports was consigned to G-7 countries. Among these Russian exports, more than 90%, or nearly $17 billion, was exported to the U.K. The U.S. imported less than $200 million worth of gold from Russia in 2019 and under $1 million in 2020 and 2021.UKRAINIAN FORCES RETREATING FROM EASTERN CITY SIEVIERODONETSK TO AVOID BEING ENCIRCLED BY RUSSIANS President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz speak during a bilateral meeting at the G7 Summit in Elmau, Germany, Sunday, June 26, 2022. Biden is in Germany to attend the Group of Seven summit of leaders of the world's major industrialized nations. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said G-7 countries imposing a ban on Russian gold will "directly hit Russian oligarchs and strike at the heart of Putin’s war machine.""Putin is squandering his dwindling resources on this pointless and barbaric war. He is bankrolling his ego at the expense of both the Ukrainian and Russian people," Johnson said. "We need to starve the Putin regime of its funding."According to Britain, the value of gold exports to the Russian elite has spiked in the months since Moscow launched its war as wealthy Russians try to evade Western sanctions.The ban will be formally announced on Tuesday as the leaders meet for the annual summit.Biden arrived in Germany’s picturesque Bavarian alps early Sunday morning to join his G-7 counterparts for the annual meeting. The ongoing global impact of Russia's war on Ukraine is expected to be a key focal point in the discussion. The U.S. president and the international allies strive to present a united front in support of Ukraine.White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Saturday that the summit will address inflation and other "challenges in the global economy as a result of Mr. Putin’s war — but also how to continue to hold Mr. Putin accountable."TOP GUN UKRAINIAN PILOTS PUSH US FOR JETS, SENATOR SAYS LAWMAKERS WILL 'PRESS THE CASE' WITH WHITE HOUSE President Vladimir Putin (Getty Images)"There will be some muscle movements," Kirby said aboard Air Force One on Biden's flight to Germany.Price caps on energy designed to limit Russian oil and gas profits that Moscow can use in its invasion will be discussed.A senior German official said the U.S. suggestion pertaining to price caps was being discussed intensely regarding how exactly it would work and how it would fit with the U.S., EU, British, Canadian and Japanese sanctions regimes.Officials are also expected to talk about how to ensure commitments to tackling climate change while also addressing energy supply needs."There’s no watering down of climate commitments," Kirby said.BIDEN ATTENDING G7, NATO SUMMITS AMID 'THE MOST SERIOUS SECURITY SITUATION IN DECADES' U.S. President Joe Biden, right, waves as he walks past Bavarian mountain riflemen and traditional costumers after his arrival at Franz-Josef-Strauss Airport near Munich, Germany, Saturday, June 25, 2022, ahead of the G7 summit. Biden is in Germany to attend a Group of Seven summit of leaders of the world's major industrialized nations. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber) (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)Biden on Sunday will also formally launch a global infrastructure partnership intended to counter China’s influence in the developing world. The president introduced this initiative at last year's G-7 summit and had named it, "Build Back Better World."Kirby said Biden and other world leaders would announce the first projects to benefit from what the administration considers an "alternative to infrastructure models that sell debt traps to low and middle-income partner countries, and advance U.S. economic competitiveness and our national security."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPAfter the summit concludes on Tuesday, Biden will travel to Madrid to meet with the leaders of the 30 NATO countries to discuss strategy regarding Russia's war on Ukraine.The Associated Press contributed to this report. | Global Organizations |
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa says he'll use his chairmanship of the BRICS group of leading emerging economies to focus on advancing African interests. The bloc — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — is seen as an alternative to dominant Western economies. South Africa has just taken over the BRICS chairmanship from China and will host the group’s annual summit this year — with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa promising more African countries will be invited to attend.
“We want to use this opportunity to advance the interests of our continent, and we will therefore through the BRICS summit be having an outreach process or moment, where we will invite other African countries to come and be part of the BRICS because we do want BRICS in whatever BRICS does to focus on helping to develop our continent," said Ramaphosa.
"Our continent was pillaged and ravaged and exploited by other continents and we therefore want to build the solidarity in BRICS to advance the interests, of course initially of our own country, but also of the continent as a whole.”
Asked what form advocating for Africa might take, Mikatekiso Kubayi, a researcher at the Pretoria-based research organization the Institute for Global Dialogue, told VOA it would likely be focused on helping African countries gain greater access to the global economy.
He said BRICS is all about allowing the “voices of the marginalized to actually be heard” and said Africa wants to better the living standards of its people and create employment.
“The collective strength of the BRICS economy and the technological capability, market size, and other qualities that make BRICS a solid development partner for Africa is what South Africa will look to harness with the BRICS partners. I think that is what the president was referring to,” said Kubayi.
Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, of the South African Institute of International Affairs, said that trade would be a priority and there would be a focus on unlocking the potential of the recently formed African Continental Free Trade Area.
She noted that China, the world’s second-largest economy, is the continent’s single largest trade partner.
She said the summit is also about getting investment from external partners and sparking intra-continental trade.
“South Africa would want to advocate in the discussions on these issues with its other BRICS partners in terms of how we, we use the creation of a continental free trade area, not only to trade more with the external world, but primarily, which is what this initiative is really about, to trade, to create goods in the continent that we can trade within the continent,” she said.
Sidiropoulos said aside from trying to advance the economies of developing countries, BRICS is also about reforming the current multilateral system which “does not necessarily advance the interests of the global South.”
At the last BRICS summit, hosted virtually by Beijing, Ramaphosa took aim at the West, saying that during the COVID-19 pandemic rich nations did not adhere to “the principles of solidarity and cooperation when it comes to equitable access to vaccines.”
As well as an economic force, BRICS — which includes three democracies but also communist China and authoritarian Russia — is increasing a political force that positions itself as an alternative to the U.S.-led liberal world order.
Only Brazil voted against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the United Nations last year, while the other members abstained. South Africa, as the continent’s foremost democracy, was widely criticized for taking a neutral stance on the conflict.
And it looks like BRICS might soon expand. Saudi Arabia is reportedly interested in joining the bloc, as are Iran, Algeria and Argentina. | Global Organizations |
Biden’s ‘permissive environment’ strikes again
If the Biden administration has an overarching foreign policy or approach to U.S. national security, it is, as Winston Churchill famously said of Russia in 1939, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” Examples abound.
President Biden wants to help defend Ukraine. But he and his national security team also seemingly fear Russian President Vladimir Putin losing. Biden has pledged to defend Taiwan from China using military force; however, it is increasingly clear that the U.S. may not be adequately prepared to meet that pledge.
Now, like in August 2021, when Biden abandoned Afghanistan, the U.S. is abandoning a key region — this time by withdrawing U.S. diplomatic and military personnel under the cover of darkness from its embassy in Khartoum, Sudan.
Sudan on the surface may seem inconsequential. After all, the modern history of the troubled North African nation is a turbulent one, replete with political intrigue, infighting and coup d’états. In that vein, certainly, as the country devolves into civil war, the power struggles between two former putative allies (Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese military, and Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemedt, leader of paramilitary group Rapid Support Forces (RSF)) are par for the course.
But the global participants in the conflict and members of the audience are very different this time, and the outcome of the Sudanese conflict is highly likely to increase Moscow and Beijing’s influence throughout Africa at the expense of the U.S. and its Western allies.
Unlike Biden, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping seem to comprehend that they are in a global contest for supremacy with the West. Whereas the Biden administration keeps haphazardly “pivoting” from one regional crisis to the next, Putin and Xi are simultaneously challenging Washington globally — especially in resource-rich Africa and as evidenced recently with Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East as well.
Sudan is just one more Russian and Chinese master chess move that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has failed to anticipate, let alone counter. Spatially, Blinken tends to view crises as one-dimensional events and not part of a larger game. Further, both he and Biden fail to understand that it is their “permissive environment” that is enabling Moscow and Beijing to score wins on the “3D chessboard” against the U.S.
This “permissive environment” arose out of Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan and has continued unabated. The consequences were immediate. As retired Army Gen. David Petraeus presciently noted in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, “American adversaries” quickly realized they could globally sell the notion that “the U.S. is not a dependable partner and ally.”
On Tuesday, yet another African country in the audience referenced above took notice. South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that his ruling African National Congress announced its intent to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC) citing “bias in certain situations.” TASS, the Kremlin’s official Russian News Agency of record, wasted no time in trumpeting the decision — especially since it is the ICC that indicted Putin as a war criminal for crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
Ramaphosa’s move, which still needs to be ratified by South Africa’s National Assembly, was likely motivated by two things. One, the reality that Biden and Blinken are continuing to abandon Africa, and two, because in the wake of that void, Moscow and Beijing are substantially increasing their collective military, diplomatic and economic influence, if not grip, across Africa. From South Africa’s perspective, the Russian or Chinese enemy that you know is better than the American “friend” you cannot count on.
Washington, in Pretoria’s eyes, did not just abandon Sudan. The Biden administration left thousands of American civilians, many of them dual citizen African Americans, to fend for themselves. If Biden cannot safeguard U.S. citizens in Sudan, Ramaphosa justifiably has reason to believe Washington will not protect him either.
The Russian and Chinese threat Ramaphosa is facing is very real. As the Washington Post detailed in a comprehensive graphic, Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group has conducted or is now conducting paramilitary, political and economic operations in 13 African nations, two of which, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, directly border South Africa.
Ramaphosa cannot help but notice that the RSF in Sudan is being militarily supported by Prigozhin and the Wagner Group. Lest Putin turn Prigozhin loose on him, Ramaphosa has only one clear direction and that is to embrace the Russian president who has confirmed he is attending the upcoming BRICS summit to be held this summer in Durban, South Africa. Because of Russian and Chinese intimidation, personal and political survival are trumping right and wrong throughout Africa.
For Prigozhin, Africa is solely about funding his ownership of The Wagner Group globally. In Ukraine, he is doing so by robbing the continent of gold, especially in the Central African Republic and in Sudan. Yet, rather than confront this reality, especially as it relates to funding The Wagner Group in Ukraine, Biden once again has chosen the path of least resistance and has, at least for now, abandoned the U.S. Embassy and in the process yielding Sudan to Moscow — and by default to China.
How many more instances will Biden and Blinken require before they finally conclude that their piecemeal and ever-pivoting approach to U.S. foreign policy and national security is untenable — and is only enabling Putin and Xi to pick off U.S. and Western interests around the world despite Putin’s losses on the battlefields of Ukraine?
How long until the Biden administration realizes, as we have previously argued, that Washington is indeed late to a dystopian version of World War III that in many respects has already begun?
Enough “pivoting.” Enough “strategic ambiguity.” It is time for Biden’s “permissive environment” to come to an end. It has struck once too often and now again in Sudan — and it must be stopped lest it strikes again in Taiwan and destabilizes the entirety of the Pacific Rim and global economy by extension. Either the U.S. begins taking a global stand everywhere or it will risk not standing for the principles of democracy anywhere.
Mark Toth is a retired economist and entrepreneur who has worked in banking, insurance, publishing, and global commerce. He is a former board member of the World Trade Center, St. Louis, and has lived in U.S. diplomatic and military communities around the world, including London, Tel Aviv, Augsburg and Nagoya. Follow him on Twitter @MCTothSTL.
Jonathan Sweet, a retired Army colonel, served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. His background includes tours of duty with the 101st Airborne Division and the Intelligence and Security Command. He led the U.S. European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012-14, working with NATO partners in the Black Sea and Baltics. Follow him on Twitter @JESweet2022.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | Africa politics |
Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos Franca attends a news conference following talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2022. REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov/Pool/File PhotoRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comUNITED NATIONS, July 12 (Reuters) - Brazil is looking to buy as much diesel as it can from Russia and the deals are being closed "as recently as yesterday," Brazilian Foreign Minister Carlos Franca said on Tuesday, without giving further details on the transactions."We have to make sure that we have enough diesel to the Brazilian agribusiness and, of course, for Brazilian drivers," Franca told reporters during a visit to the United Nations in New York. "So that's why we were looking for safe and very reliable suppliers of diesel - Russia is one of them."Brazil is looking to buy "as much as we can" from Russia, he said.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comIt was not immediately clear how Brazil would buy Russian diesel without coming up against Western sanctions, imposed on Moscow over its Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine.When asked if there had been any Western pushback over the plan to buy diesel from Russia, Franca said: "I don't think so.""Russia is a strategic partner of Brazil. We are partners at BRICS," he said, referring to the group comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, a bloc seen as a powerful emerging-market alternative to the West."We rely heavily on fertilizers export from Russia and from Belarus as well. And of course, Russia it's a great provider of oil and gas. You can ask Germany about that. Can ask Europe about that. So Brazil, we are in short supply of this," he said.Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro said on Monday that a deal was close with Moscow to buy much cheaper diesel, in what would appear to be the latest tangible benefit stemming from his friendly relationship with President Vladimir Putin. read more High fuel prices have hurt Bolsonaro's re-election hopes ahead of an October vote, leaving him trailing in polls to leftist former leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Michelle Nichols at United Nations and Kanishka Singh in Washington
Editing by Matthew LewisOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Latin America Politics |
Good morning. Boris Johnson has been out of the country now for most of the last week but, as is often the case when a PM goes abroad to focus on international affairs, a domestic crisis remains a distraction. The two byelection defeats last week turbocharged (as they would say in No 10) Conservative party opposition to Johnson and his critics have been working on plans to get a slate of MPs elected to the executive of the 1922 Committee before the summer recess so they can change the rules, and allow a second no confidence vote to go ahead before next year.But there was good news this morning for Johnson when David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who has already publicly called for Johnson to quit, declared that he was opposed to the rules being changed. Having won the confidence vote, Johnson should be allowed to remain in office unchallenged for another year, Davis said. Davis stressed that he had not changed his mind about Johnson’s performance as PM. But a rule changing would set a bad precedent, because it would paralyse government decision making, he said.Whether it’s Boris or anybody else, dealing with stagflation is going [to require] some really difficult decisions. Do you want a leader, whoever it is, looking over his shoulder every month at this tax increase or whatever? So no, I don’t want the rules changed. I don’t think they will change either.Davis said that meant Johnson had a year to show that he could deliver on the promises he had made, and he said the key requirement was for the government to start cutting taxes.I campaigned in 16 rebel seats and in Wakefield. I got the same thing coming at me every time. ‘We expect you to be a low tax party. We are not seeing that any more.’ We got to the highest tax take in history last year.When it was put to Davis that the government did not have an agreed post-Brexit economic plan, he replied.We don’t really have an agreed economic plan full stop. I have people, working class voters in council estates, saying you’re not behaving like a Conservative government. You’re not Conservative. That is a terrible thing to have to face down if you are running the country. Here is the agenda for the day.9am: The G7 summit in Germany, which Boris Johnson is attending, starts with an address from Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president. During the day, as well as attending sessions on climate, energy and health policy, and on food security and gender equality, Johnson is recording an interview with the BBC’s Chris Mason, and holding a meeting with the South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa.12.15pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, holds a summit on setting up abortion buffer zones outside abortion clinics.1.30pm: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.2.30pm: Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, takes questions in the Commons.3pm: Kate Forbes, the Scottish government’s finance minister, gives evidence to the Commons Scottish affairs committee.After 3.30pm: Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, opens the second reading debate on the Northern Ireland protocol bill.I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.Alternatively, you can email me at [email protected] | United Kingdom Politics |
It had to be the subject of Israel and Gaza which would cause Keir Starmer the biggest rebellion of his leadership.
More than 60 Labour MPs have called for a ceasefire and a raft of councillors have resigned. There are those on the left who smell blood, desperate for any opportunity to undermine Starmer’s leadership – they always prefer to be in opposition. Revolution comrades! Intifada!
Weakness, naivety, stupidity – call it what you want – there is a fundamental blindness among some on the liberal left when it comes to Islamic extremism. These good, condescending folks don’t understand that however much peace and love you give out to the world, terrorists want to exterminate you because of, not despite of, your liberal values.
Slightly more worrying for Starmer is the fact that some of soft left of his party, Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham, as well as centrist Jess Phillips, have also joined the rebellion. It would be churlish to ask whether this was more about elections than ethics – 71% of Muslims voted Labour in 2019 – but one does have to wonder how credulous they have to be to think that a ceasefire will do anything other than prolong the pain for Israelis and Palestinians for years to come.
No one wants to see innocent Palestinians being killed. The scenes of crowded hospitals, destroyed buildings and dead children are devastating. But Hamas started this war knowing that ordinary civilians would pay a brutal price. How would those calling for a ceasefire rid the world of an organisation which would rather kill its own citizens than give up its guns? Being nice to terrorists won’t make them stop murdering you.
The most myopic of Hamas’ useful idiots is, of course, Jeremy Corbyn – who can forget the Labour conference where there were no British flags but several Palestinian ones?
But he’s not the only left winger to regard violent extremists implacably hostile to Western values as his friends. Academics and feminists like Judith Butler have claimed Hamas and Hezbollah are ‘progressive’. Earlier this week, UCL academics said of Hamas: ‘It is the duty of the international movement of workers to support this struggle’. Tell that to the women Hamas terrorists raped, Judith. Tell that to the workers Hamas tortured.
So far Keir is doing a good job holding the line. Yesterday he sacked Andy McDonald for not only breaking an edict on attending a demo about the conflict but also quoting the bloodthirsty song ‘from the river to the sea’. Ask people singing that song what it means – how Jews will be protected if their utopia comes true – and they always shrug.
Starmer, the perpetual fence-sitter, has finally found a side to step on. At a Chatham House event this morning, the Labour leader explained rather patiently, as if to children, that a ceasefire won’t solve anything in the longer term. There had been an Egyptian brokered ceasefire since 2021. It is probably part of the reason Israel didn’t take whispers of a Hamas attack seriously. On 7October Hamas broke that ceasefire by murdering 1400 Israelis – first torturing many of them – and kidnapping around 230 people (the numbers are still unclear as many of the bodies are so mutilated they can only be identified by DNA).
I’ve spent the last few weeks interviewing survivors of the attacks – people who have lost everything. And the irony is that these were among the most peace-loving people in Israel. Normally they would be demanding a ceasefire too. They are kibbutzniks who also believed that if you showed kindness and friendship to your nearest neighbours across the border, they would love you too. Many are now dead at the hands of Hamas terrorists. So, forgive me if I sound callous, but a ceasefire is simply not possible.
It is important that Starmer continues to hold the line – I am worried that he will waiver. But this is not just about his party’s internal problems with antisemitism, but about British values. We must support our democratic allies in defending themselves against terrorism, and everyone in the West shares an interest in expunging the threat of Islamic extremism. On this occasion, for peace there has to be war.
The Prime Minister is doing a good job too. It is easier for him to be strong on this even though he too is facing a smaller rebellion of councillors. Yesterday he also fired an MP – Paul Bristow lost his job as a PPS for calling for a ceasefire and the end of ‘collective punishment’.
Starmer and Sunak are, in this policy, perhaps more closely aligned than on most things. And it is right that they emphasise the need for humanitarian aid to keep reaching Palestinians.
At a time when we need cool heads, strong leadership and people who recognise the importance of Western values – it is good to see both leaders standing shoulder to shoulder. It also means that they will be in a good position to influence what happens after this war.
Meanwhile, let the Labour MPs continue their wrangling – it won’t make a jot of difference in how Israel wages its war against Hamas.
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. | Middle East Politics |
He has nearly 10 million Twitter followers; his YouTube interview with Ed Miliband received well over a million hits and counting; he is listened to by hundreds of thousands of disillusioned Britons, particularly young people who have been repeatedly kicked over the last few years. Russell Brand matters.
And however much bluff and bluster the Tories now pull – maybe more playground abuse from David Cameron, who called Brand a “joke” – his endorsement of Labour in England and Wales will worry them. More people have registered to vote than ever before: between the middle of March and the deadline to register, nearly 2.3 million registered, over 700,000 of them 24 years old or younger. In countless marginal seats, disillusioned voters who were either going to plump for a protest party or not vote at all could well decide whether we are ruled by David Cameron, George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith for another half a decade.
Naturally, Brand’s endorsement is being portrayed as a giant U-turn, and sure enough, he has abandoned his “no vote” stance. But Brand has been on a very public political journey, previously indicating his support for voting for Scottish independence and Syriza in Greece. He has been supportive of the Greens, and still calls on the people of Brighton Pavilion to return Caroline Lucas to parliament.
And it isn’t quite as big a U-turn as you might think. Brand has thrown his support behind grassroots struggles, particularly over housing. He believes that change “comes from below, movements putting pressure on governments”, but if those in power are resolutely hostile, then there are limitations to what such pressure can achieve. He’s not advocating a vote for Labour because he’s become a born-again Milibandite, but because he believes Labour are far more amenable to pressure than Tories who will happily shred the welfare state, the NHS, social housing and workers’ rights. When Ed Miliband met Brand, the comedian-cum-activist explained, he made it clear he “welcomes and wants pressure from below”.
Brand is sometimes bizarrely portrayed as the cause of voter disengagement: obviously, it’s our political and media elites who are responsible for that. But actually he is a symptom. He achieved such traction because he summed up how millions of people already felt. He has won the ear of a section of the population that practically no other public figure has.
And he is now directly appealing to those citizens with a clear message, which I will try to faithfully sum up: yes, what you’re being offered in modern politics is simply not good enough. But the Tories are already building a fractured nation of food banks and falling living standards and tax cuts for the rich, and another five years of this is unconscionable. Labour are the only means to evict them in three days’ time, but the real struggle begins on 8 May, when we will keep Ed Miliband to his word and pile pressure on him over housing, low wages, workers’ rights, public services, and whatever else. I would not so publicly shift my position so dramatically unless I believed this was a real emergency, an imminent threat to the futures of millions of people, and to the struggles for justice that we so desperately need.
In three days’ time, millions will be voting. A Tory-led government propped up by the DUP and the “scapegoat immigrants while cutting taxes for the rich” Ukippers is one option. It will be a bleaker Friday morning than any of us currently imagine if so. The other outcome is a Labour minority government actively held to account every single day by those of us who want a country run in the interests of working people. Time is running out. But in recognising the gravity of the situation, Russell Brand has done his bit to stave off disaster and defend the struggles for justice that now beckon. | United Kingdom Politics |
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! JERUSALEM – President Biden is slated to make his first trip since taking office to the oil-rich nation of Saudi Arabia in July, with what some observers say is the goal of reducing gasoline prices for consumers and confronting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.U.S.-Saudi relations have hit a historic nadir. Earlier this year Saudi Arabia reportedly refused a request from Biden to speak amid rising oil prices due to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Mohammed Khalid Alyahya, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C., noted that the first thing to be done was "Fixing a relationship that has been beneficial for eighty-years to the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. It has not reached a low worse than recently." Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends a graduation ceremony and air show marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of King Faisal Air College in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, January 25, 2017. (REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser)To broker a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, Biden will have to abandon his campaign pledge to treat the kingdom as a "pariah" state after it, according to the CIA, carried out the assassination of Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul."There’s no way around the fact that the Saudi trip marks a reversal of President Biden’s original effort to downgrade the bilateral relationship while humiliating and ostracizing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman," John Hannah, a former national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, told Fox News Digital.WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL PRESSED ON BIDEN'S SAUDI TRIP IN LIGHT OF ‘PARIAH’ COMMENTHannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) stated the visit was "a major climb down for the administration that’s been forced on them by $5 per gallon gasoline prices, raging inflation, and an accommodationist policy toward Iran that has reached a dead end."Hannah continued, "All of the virtue signaling of the administration’s first few months in office, aimed at making good on the president’s campaign promise to turn the Saudis into pariahs, might have made the Democratic Party’s progressive left feel good," but he said Biden’s playing to the progressive constituency "backfired miserably when it came to serving U.S. national interests."GAS PRICES HIT $5 NATIONWIDEHe added that "it poisoned relations with the Arab and Muslim world’s most influential country to a point where it wouldn’t even take a call from the President of the United States in the middle of a European crisis (the Ukraine war) that posed the greatest challenge to the American-led international order in the past 30 years."WHITE HOUSE DECLASSIFIES KHASHOGGI REPORT BLAMING SAUDI CROWN PRINCEAccording to a White House statement on Tuesday, Biden will travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to discuss "the UN-mediated truce in Yemen, which has led to the most peaceful period there since war began seven years ago….expanding regional economic and security cooperation, including new and promising infrastructure and climate initiatives, as well as deterring threats from Iran, advancing human rights, and ensuring global energy and food security." The White House announced, Tuesday that President Biden will visit Israel and Saudi Arabia next month. ((AP Photo/Susan Walsh))Critics of the kingdom have urged Biden to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for alleged involvement in terrorism and human rights abuses, other critics have shown shock over his policy U-turn. Ali Al-Ahmed, the director of the Washington D.C. based Gulf Institute said Biden's decision to visit the Kingdom will be seen as, "one of the biggest mistakes," made by a U.S. president. Noting that Biden, who had called the Saudis a "pariah," is showing weakness to friend and foe alike. "Now American allies in the region are going to say maybe we will copy what MBS is doing. If he can bring the American president to his knees we can do that too." Al-Ahmed stated that, "the impact of this capitulation is strategic as it will encourage Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China to become more aggressive with a president who was outwitted by (the) young MBS."9/11 FAMILIES DEMAND RELEASE OF FBI DOCUMENTS DETAILING SAUDI ROLE IN TERRORIST ATTACKAlso, critical of Biden's visit are the families who lost relatives in the 9/11 terror attacks."We appreciate the President’s commitment to do everything he can to support the 9/11 family community, but empathy is not enough. President Biden must do what past Presidents have not, which is to demand transparency from Saudi Arabia and accountability for those who supported al-Qaeda and the hijackers who murdered our loved ones," said Terry Strada, National Chair of 9/11 Families United. The 9/11 Families United organization is a coalition of family members of victims and survivors of the terrorist attacks.According to 9/11 Families United, declassified U.S. intelligence showed "a document seized in the days after the 9/11 Attacks from a Saudi agent who is known to have provided substantial assistance to the hijackers, showing a drawing of a plane and formula used to calculate the rate of descent required of an aircraft to reach a target on the horizon at a given speed."Brian Katulis, a senior fellow and vice president of policy at the Middle East Institute in Washington told Fox News Digital "It seems that the Biden administration’s Middle East policy approach is growing up, moving from adolescence toward a more mature phase of a balanced engagement with close partners in the region."SAUDI ARABIA'S BIDEN-HARRIS SKIT HIGHLIGHTS RIYADH'S FRUSTRATION WITH D.C"The hyper-partisan noise and cheap politics in America aimed at trying to make the bilateral relationship a partisan wedge issue in America’s internal politics has actually damaged America’s ability to get things done in the Middle East and achieve its stated goals. This has been a problem in U.S.-Saudi relations as well as U.S.-Israel relations, and hopefully this visit will help set a new, steadier tone," he continued.On human rights and the Khashoggi murder, Katulis advised: "The Biden administration should instead use this opportunity for re-engaging Saudi Arabia more deeply to have candid conversations about how the kingdom’s practices on human rights create distance between itself and key parts of the rest of the world, and also aren’t compatible with its own efforts to social reform agendas at home."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPHe continued, "It would also be wise for the Biden administration to highlight human rights as an issue in its dealings with Iran, which has an awful record when it comes to respecting the basic rights of its own people," he said.For Mohammed Khalid Alyahya, a former editor-in-chief of the English edition of the Saudi news organization, Al Arabiya, noted that "US media are putting Iranians on mute and disproportionately focused on Saudi Arabia." Benjamin Weinthal reports on Middle East affairs. You can follow Benjamin Weinthal on Twitter @BenWeinthal. | Middle East Politics |
IMF Chief Sees Monetary Policy Divergence After Inflation Fight
International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva expects global monetary policies to diverge after most major central bankers have spent the last year tightening credit conditions to slow price gains.
(Bloomberg) -- International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva expects global monetary policies to diverge after most major central bankers have spent the last year tightening credit conditions to slow price gains.
“We’re going to see after a period of convergence in monetary policy action — tightening rates, fighting inflation — some divergence” as, for instance, the US economy grows faster than the European Union, Georgieva said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Friday.
Georgieva’s comments come ahead of a speech by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in Wyoming later Friday, which will be intensely monitored for clues on the path of interest rates. Central bankers from around the world are meeting in Jackson Hole for an annual three-day gathering, including Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank.
Read more: Fed’s Jackson Hole Conference Is Underway: Here’s What to Expect
“Central bankers will have to recognize that some specificity in how they approach the fight against inflation — and how they link this to their role in supporting growth and employment — how they approach that is going to be a matter of thorough assessment of national data.”
The IMF last month raised its outlook for the world economy this year, partly on expectations for a soft landing in the US, seeing global gross domestic product growing 3%. However, it warned of lingering downside risks from higher interest rates and Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Georgieva also highlighted the cost of economic fragmentation, which she wrote about earlier this week in an article in Foreign Affairs, describing it in the piece as “a process that begins with increasing barriers to trade and investment and, in its extreme form, ends with countries’ breaking into rival economic blocs.”
The fund has warned that increasing restrictions on the trade of goods and services could reduce global GDP by up to 7%, while foreign direct investment could be channeled into competing groups of countries, hurting output.
These warnings come amid worries about rising economic and political competition between the US and China. Earlier this week, the BRICS group of countries said it plans to more than double its membership, adding Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Egypt — among others — to the emerging-market bloc with heavyweights China, India and Russia.
Read more: BRICS Bloc Grows Heft With Saudi Arabia and Other Mideast Powers
--With assistance from Lisa Abramowicz, Jonathan Ferro and Tom Keene.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | Global Organizations |
Key events:3m agoNZ PM says UN morally bankrupt, failed to respond to war12m agoRussia to attend G20 meeting16m agoRussian troops push towards Sloviansk28m agoSummary and welcomeShow key events onlyNZ PM says UN morally bankrupt, failed to respond to warTess McClureNew Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, has said the world is “bloody messy” as she decried Russia’s “morally bankrupt” war in Ukraine and pointed rowards the failure of the UN to appropriately respond.In a speech to foreign policy thinktank the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Ardern decried Russia’s “morally bankrupt” war in Ukraine – but also argued against the hardening of alliances, saying that the war should not be presented as a conflict of “democracy v autocracy” or be seen as an inevitable direction for other tensions between competing nations.“In taking every possible action to respond to Russia’s aggression and to hold it to account, we must remember that fundamentally this is Russia’s war,” she said.As she charted New Zealand’s approach to trying to pursue “independent foreign policy” as a small player in an intensely pressured environment, Ardern re-articulated the country’s commitment to multilateral institutions – but also reflected on their recent failures. There was “no better example of that than the failure of the UN to appropriately respond to the war in Ukraine because of the position taken by Russia in the security council”, she said, describing it as “a morally bankrupt position on their part, in the wake of a morally bankrupt and illegal war”.Russia to attend G20 meetingRussian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has flown into Indonesia’s resort island of Bali for a meeting of G20 foreign ministers, which is set to be overshadowed by tensions in Ukraine. The G20 gathering runs until Friday in in Bali’s Nusa Dua area, as foreign diplomats descended on the tropical island for the meeting.German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said Russia must not be allowed to use the G20 meeting as a platform given its war in Ukraine.“It is in the interest of us all to ensure that international law is respected and adhered to. That is the common denominator,” Baerbock said in a statement.The summit will see the first face-to-face meeting between President Vladimir Putin’s long-serving foreign minister Lavrov and some of Russia’s biggest critics since the invasion of Ukraine.Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, will meet with G20 foreign ministers later today. Photograph: Luong Thai Linh/AFP/Getty ImagesLavrov had arrived in Bali and planned to meet some G20 counterparts on the sidelines of the summit, Russian news agency Tass reported, but ministers including Baerbock and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken have ruled out meeting Lavrov.The Group of 20 includes western countries that have accused Moscow of war crimes in Ukraine and rolled out sanctions, but also countries like China, Indonesia, India and South Africa that have been more muted in their response.Some officials from Europe and the United States have stressed the Bali summit would not be “business as a usual”, with a spokesperson for the German foreign minister saying G7 countries would coordinate their response to Lavrov in Bali.Discussion of energy and food security are on the agenda in the two-day meeting, with Russia accused of stoking a global food crisis and worsening inflation by blockading shipments of Ukrainian grain. Russia has said it ready to facilitate unhindered exports of grain. Russian troops push towards SlovianskThe Ukrainian military says it has so far staved off any major Russian advance into the north of Donetsk, but pressure is intensifying with heavy shelling on the city of Sloviansk and nearby populated areas.It said Russian forces were bombarding several Ukrainian towns with heavy weaponry to enable ground forces to advance southward into the region and close in on Sloviansk.In its latest operational update, the Ukrainian military said:The enemy is trying to improve its tactical position...[They] advanced ... before being repulsed by our soldiers and retreating with losses.”Residents of the city of Sloviansk and neighbouring towns wait for buses to be evacuated to the city of Dnipro, on 6 July. Photograph: Miguel Medina/AFP/Getty ImagesOther Russian forces, it said, aimed to seize two towns en route to the city of Kramatorsk, south of Sloviansk, and were also trying to take control of the main highway linking Luhansk and Donetsk provinces.“We are holding back the enemy on the (Luhansk/Donetsk) border,” Luhansk governor, Serhiy Gaidai, told Ukrainian TV. Later, he said Luhansk was still not entirely occupied by Russian forces and that Russia had sustained “colossal losses.”“They will continue to try to advance on Sloviansk and Bakhmut. There is no doubt about that,” he said.Sloviansk mayor, Vadym Lyakh, told a video briefing the city had been shelled for the last two weeks.Summary and welcomeHello it’s Samantha Lock back with you as we unpack all the latest news from Ukraine this morning.Russia’s near five-month conflict in Ukraine has left cities in ruins and thousands homeless.Here are all the latest lines as of 8am in Kyiv. The capture of the city of Lysychansk in eastern Ukraine has given Russia’s forces “genuine headway”, while its forces in the south have shown signs of “better cooperation”, analysts say. Western officials said the sustainability of Russia’s attacks on Ukraine was “challenging”, but described the impact on their munitions and morale as “remarkable”. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has said heavy weapons from western allies have finally begun working at “full capacity” on frontlines. In his nightly video address, Zelenskiy said the Ukrainian military has been able to target Russian warehouses and locations that are “important for logistics”. Resistance remains ongoing in villages around Lysychansk, where 15,000 civilians remain, according to Luhansk’s governor, Serhiy Haidai. On Telegram, Haidai said: “Today’s videos from Lysychansk are painful to watch.” He accused Putin’s troops of engaging in a scorched earth policy, “burning down and destroying everything on their way”. The evacuation of civilians from Sloviansk continued on Wednesday as Russian troops pressed towards the eastern Ukrainian city in their campaign to control the Donbas region. Mayor Vadym Lyakh said that about 23,000 people out of 110,000 were still in Sloviansk but claimed Russia had been unable to surround the city. The governor of Donetsk has also urged the region’s 350,000 people to flee. The battle for Sloviansk is likely to be the next key contest in the struggle for Donbas as Russian forces approach to within 16km of the Donetsk town, British intelligence said. Russian forces from the eastern and western groups of forces are likely now around 16km north of Sloviansk as central and southern groups of forces also pose a threat to the town, the UK Ministry of Defence has said. Ukraine has rejected the claim that Russian forces destroyed two advanced US-made Himars rocket systems and their ammunition depots in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine’s general staff said the claims by Russia’s defence ministry were fake and that it was using the US-supplied Himars to inflict “devastating blows” on Russian forces. Ireland’s taoiseach, Micheál Martin, visited the war-scarred suburbs of Borodianka, Bucha and Irpin on the outskirts of Kyiv on Wednesday. Martin said he and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, discussed a joint response to the threat to food security, the energy crisis and the preparation of the seventh sanction package against Russia. Martin reiterated his country’s solidarity with Ukraine. The head of the Russian-imposed administration of the occupied Zaporizhzhia region of Ukraine, Yevgeny Balitsky, has said the region plans to sell Ukraine’s grain to the Middle East. The main countries involved in the deal were Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Ukraine has repeatedly accused Russia of stealing grain, a charge that Moscow has denied. Russian forces have occupied about 22% of Ukraine’s arable land, according to Nasa’s Harvest mission. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Nasa has been focusing on the impact of the war on the global food system. Its findings have revealed that Ukrainian fields where 28% of winter and 18% of spring crops are sown are under Russian occupation. Sri Lanka’s president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, said he asked his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin to help import fuel to his country as it faces its worst economic crisis in seven decades. Rajapaksa tweeted that he had a “productive” telephone call with Putin, while thanking him for “all the support extended by his [government] to overcome the challenges of the past”. Zelenskiy called on the world’s largest independent oil trader to stop shipping Russian oil, accusing it of “brazen profiteering from blood oil”. Ukraine’s military announced plans to introduce a system of permits that would prohibit men eligible for conscription from leaving the region where they are registered. The move, based on legislation from 1992, was intended to enable the country’s armed forces to locate potential conscripts more easily, but it prompted an immediate backlash. Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, has admitted that he met the former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev, without officials present while foreign secretary. Johnson told MPs he accepted he met the former KGB agent on a trip to Italy. Asked whether he reported the meeting to officials, Johnson said: “I think I did.” Russia’s parliament has rushed through two bills imposing strict controls on the economy, requiring businesses to supply goods to the armed forces and obliging employees at some firms to work overtime. The bills will allow the government to introduce “special economic measures” once signed into law by Putin. Nearly 9 million people have left Ukraine since Russia invaded, the UN refugee agency has said. With Russia stepping up its offensive in the east of the country, there are increasingly loud calls from Ukrainian authorities for people to escape while they can from frontline areas. | Australia Politics |
Seven people are due to be on the first flight sending asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda, Sky News understands, as the foreign secretary insisted if they are not on that plane "they will be on the next".Liz Truss told Sky News she could not say exactly how many migrants would be on board the plane which is due to take off this evening.
But she rejected claims from Church of England leaders that the policy to put asylum seekers on a one-way flight to east Africa "shames Britain".Two legal challenges to the first flight under the Rwanda scheme have now failed but it is understood that it is currently scheduled to be carrying only seven people - and reports have put the cost of the flight at £500,000. Three further legal challenges are expected today.And 92 adults and 12 children have been brought ashore by Border Force officials this morning after attempting to cross the Channel. Asked where they had come from, they said Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Truss challenges critics of Rwanda deportations to come up with an alternative - Politics news live
Ms Truss told Sky News: "We are expecting to send the flight later today. More on Rwanda Rwanda deportations: 'Why must I go?' - Channel migrants 'nervous and unhappy' ahead of flight Rwanda deportation plan: First flight taking asylum seekers to African country can go ahead, says Court of Appeal Rwanda: Government's immigration policy facing test with Court Of Appeal ruling over migrant flights "I can't say exactly how many people will be on the flight."But the really important thing is that we establish the principle and we start to break the business model of these appalling people traffickers who are trading in misery."There will be people on the flight and if they are not on this flight they will be on the next flight."Ms Truss said she could not put a figure on the cost of the flight but insisted: "It is value for money."She rejected criticism from the bishops, saying the Rwanda policy was "completely legal" and "completely moral" and challenged opponents to come up with an alternative to the scheme, which she claimed "is effective and does work".Meanwhile, Boris Johnson hit back at lawyers challenging the policy - which the government claims will deter migrants from paying people smugglers to take them on perilous Channel crossings rather than other routes.He told the Cabinet on Tuesday: "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." Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Judges reject bid to stop migrant flight to Rwanda 'Unworkable and expensive'Labour's shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell told Sky News: "We think this policy is unworkable... it's incredibly expensive. It's going to cost possibly over a million pounds per unsuccessful or successful refugee going to Rwanda. And we do think it's unethical - and it's quite un-British actually."We've been known around the world as a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution and war - it's been part of our make-up in this country for decades."The Archbishops of Canterbury and York - as well as 23 other bishops - have written a letter to The Times that claims no attempt has been made to "understand the predicament" of those affected.After two legal challenges failed, a plane is scheduled to leave for the Rwandan capital of Kigali later, but it is unclear how many asylum seekers will be onboard.Their letter says: "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."More legal challenges todayReligious leaders have called for "evil trafficking" to be combatted by the provision of safe routes for refugees trying to reach the UK, adding: "Deportations and the potential forced return of asylum seekers to their home countries are not the way."It comes days after the Prince of Wales reportedly described the Conservatives' policy as "appalling", and after Imam Qari Asim, the senior imam at the Makkah Mosque in Leeds, said it "challenges our human conscience and compels us to speak up for human dignity".Read more:What is it like to be a refugee in Rwanda?Asylum seeker says he would rather die than be sent to RwandaWhy are migrants being sent to Rwanda and how will it work?The Archbishop of Wales and the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster have also criticised the policy - as have charities, human rights groups and the UN High Commission for Refugees.Three further legal challenges are expected to be heard at the High Court on Tuesday. These are being brought by people who face being removed on the first flight.'We welcome court's decision'The government has said it is aiming to deter people from making dangerous Channel crossings from France in flimsy small boats run by smugglers.A government spokesman said: "We welcome the court's decision in our favour, and we will now continue to deliver on progressing our world-leading migration partnership which will help prevent loss of life and break the business model of vile people smugglers."Rwanda is a safe country and has previously been recognised for providing a safe haven for refugees - we will not be deterred in delivering our plans to fix the broken asylum system which will ultimately save lives." Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Inside Rwanda's migrant hostel Last year, more than 28,000 people crossed the Channel in small boats - more than three times the number seen in 2020.More than half were either Iranian or Iraqi, with people from Eritrea and Syria also making crossings, according to Home Office figures. | United Kingdom Politics |
G-20 Latest: Tensions On War Wording; Japan’s Top Envoy Absent
Russia’s war in Ukraine — which has entered a second year — is the main focus of discussions as the foreign ministers of the Group of 20 nations begin a second day of meetings in New Delhi.
(Bloomberg) -- Russia’s war in Ukraine — which has entered a second year — is the main focus of discussions as the foreign ministers of the Group of 20 nations begin a second day of meetings in New Delhi.
A gathering of the grouping’s finance ministers and central bank heads over the weekend struggled and failed to reach a consensus on the language to describe Russia’s aggressions, forcing host India to issue a chair’s summary instead of a traditional joint communiqué. New Delhi has said it stands behind the final statement that emerged from last year’s leaders’ summit in Indonesia.
Japan didn’t dispatch its foreign minister for the first time to the G-20 meeting of the top diplomats, so he could attend a parliamentary budget committee meeting in Tokyo.
India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar met his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov late Wednesday, but few specific details were immediately known. India is trying to convince Moscow and Beijing to go along with a consensus on describing Russia’s war in Ukraine, similar to the one reached last November.
Key Developments
- Blinken Has No Plans to Meet Russia, China Counterparts at G-20
- Japan Foreign Minister Set to Attend Quad Talks Hosted by India
- India Pushes Russia, China to Join G-20 Consensus on War Wording
- India Buying Russian Oil Below Western Cap, US Officials Say (1)
- Russia’s War Sees G-20 Finance Chiefs End With No Communiqué
(All times local)
Japan Foreign Minister Hayashi to Attend Quad Meeting (6.00 a.m.)
Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi is set to attend a Friday get-together of top diplomats from the so-called Quad nations hosted by India — that also include Australia and the US — after he skipped the G-20 meeting in New Delhi to be present at a parliamentary committee in Tokyo.
Hayashi became the first Japanese foreign minister to miss a G-20 meeting of his counterparts, Kyodo reported, saying he only spoke for 53 seconds during the parliament session he was obliged to attend on Wednesday. The decision not to dispatch the foreign minister may have been more about internal politics in Japan, as opposed to sending any diplomatic message.
Read: Japan Foreign Minister Set to Attend Quad Talks Hosted by India
India, Russia Foreign Ministers Hold Bilateral Talks (9 p.m.)
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs issued no details after Jaishankar’s meeting with Lavrov. Moscow’s statement said the talks focused on strengthening a “privileged strategic partnership” and both sides were interested in increasing “co-ordination on a global level,” especially through multilateral formats such as BRICS, the SCO, the UN and G-20.
Moscow added both nations share a common commitment to forming a multi polar world.
India Buying Russian Oil Below Western Price Cap: US (4:58 p.m.)
The Biden administration will continue to discuss India’s purchases of Russian oil with government officials but are satisfied so far that New Delhi is buying the crude well below a western price cap, senior State Department officials told reporters on Wednesday.
India’s purchases of Russian oil are a constant topic of discussion between the US and India as Washington seeks to deny Russia the revenue it needs to fund the invasion of Ukraine, the officials said. They briefed reporters on condition of anonymity. India is buying deeply discounted crude well under the price cap in a way that’s both good for the Indian economy and stabilizing for oil markets, the officials said.
Blinken Has No Plan to Meet Russia, China Counterparts (5.40 p.m.)
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he will not meet with his Russian and Chinese counterparts in India, as relations remain frayed over Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine and US allegations that Beijing may offer Moscow weapons or other lethal aid.
“No plans to see either at the G-20,” Blinken told reporters at a briefing in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, on the last leg of a trip through Central Asia before traveling to New Delhi. Blinken added that he may participate in group sessions at the meeting alongside diplomats from those countries.
Britain Raises BBC India Tax Probe Ahead of Meetings (3:00 p.m.)
British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly raised the recent tax investigation at the BBC’s India offices during his bilateral meeting with his Indian counterpart Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, according to people familiar with the matter. The meeting took place ahead of the G-20 foreign ministers’ meeting, the people said asking not to be named because discussions were private.
Press Trust of India had reported the news earlier.
The New Delhi and Mumbai offices of the British broadcaster were searched by Indian tax officials last month for alleged violations. India’s External Affairs Ministry and the British High Commission in New Delhi did not immediately respond to text messages seeking comments.
Growing India Clout Prompts US, Europe to Ignore Modi Crackdown
India Should Make Russia Understand War Has to End, EU Says (1:30 p.m.)
India should convince Russia, through its diplomatic efforts, that its war in Ukraine must end, a senior European Union official said, asking not to be named.
The war has to be condemned, the official added, likely signaling to New Delhi and other countries that have stayed neutral on Vladimir Putin’s aggression.
India Says Russia’s War in Ukraine Will Be Discussed (12.00 p.m.)
At a media briefing ahead of the ministers’ meeting, Indian Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra said Russia’s war in Ukraine would be part of the discussions. However, New Delhi “cannot prejudge the outcome of the foreign ministers’ meeting.”
India stands behind the final statement that emerged from last year’s leaders’ summit in Indonesia, Foreign Ministry spokesman Arindam Bagchi added.
Russia to Urge Friendly Nations in G-20 to Ditch US Dollar (9 a.m.)
Russia will press its longstanding case to “constructive colleagues in the G-20” to break the dollar and weaken sanctions, according to a statement from its foreign ministry ahead of the meeting.
“The entire world is suffering from the cynical revelry of illegal sanctions, the artificial breakup of cross-border supply chains, the imposition of notorious price ceilings and, in effect, from attempts to steal natural resources,” the statement said, adding that Moscow will discuss in detail its plans to “diversify foreign economic ties and logistics corridors.”
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | Global Organizations |
Russian-flagged bulk carrier Matros Koshka sails in the Bosphorus, on its way to the Mediterranean Sea, in Istanbul, Turkey May 27, 2022. Picture taken May 27, 2022. REUTERS/Yoruk IsikRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comNEW YORK, June 22 (Reuters) - Countries should ask the United States for help if they have any problems importing Russian food and fertilizer, a senior U.S. official said on Wednesday, stressing that such goods were not subject to U.S. sanctions over Moscow's war in Ukraine."Nothing is stopping Russia from exporting its grain or fertilizer except to own policies and actions," U.S. State Department Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Assistant Secretary, Ramin Toloui, told reporters.But he added that concerns had been raised about "so-called over compliance with sanctions." Washington has slapped Moscow with a broad range of sanctions since Russia invaded neighboring Ukraine on Feb. 24.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comFacilitating Russian food and grain exports is a key part of attempts by U.N. and Turkish officials to broker a package deal with Moscow that would also allow for shipments of Ukraine grain from the Black Sea port of Odesa.A meeting between Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and U.N. officials would likely be held in Istanbul in coming weeks, sources in the Turkish presidency said on Tuesday. read more "We are fully supportive of this and want to see that play out," Toloui said of the U.N. efforts. "We'll continue close coordination with the U.N. delegation and the government of Ukraine on ways to mitigate the impacts to global food security of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's war in Ukraine."Russia's war has stoked a global food crisis. Russia and Ukraine account for nearly a third of global wheat supplies, while Russia is also a key fertilizer exporter and Ukraine is an exporter of corn and sunflower oil.Moscow denies responsibility for the food crisis, blaming Western sanctions and Ukraine for mining its Black Sea ports."The United States does not want there to be impediments to the ability of countries, companies to purchase Russian food, Russian fertilizer, and for those goods to access international markets," Toloui said.He encouraged countries to contact the U.S. Treasury Department or local U.S. embassies if they were having issues.U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken will attend a food security ministerial meeting in Germany on Friday ahead of a three-day Group of Seven (G7) nations summit, also in Germany, starting Sunday.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Michelle Nichols and Kanishka Singh
Editing by Marguerita ChoyOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Global Organizations |
Johannesburg – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Ethiopia and Argentina to become permanent members in BRICS, will be full members of BRICS with effect from 1 January 2024. Earlier sources close to the matter told Daily News Egypt.
The 15th BRICS Summit is being held in South Africa’s Johannesburg from 22-24 August.
BRICS has become increasingly influential in recent years, as its members have emerged as major players in the global economy. The bloc’s combined GDP is now larger than that of the G7 according to the IMF estimates, and its population makes up nearly half of the world’s total.
This growing influence has led to increased interest in bloc’s membership. So far, 22 countries have formally applied to join the group.
At the second day of the summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that India would welcome moving forward with consensus on the expansion. Russia and China are championing the expansion, with South Africa also in support.
In March, Egypt took an equity position within the The New Development Bank (NDB) of the BRICS group. Previous equity was divided equally among the initial members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.
The New Development Bank was set up by BRICS nations on the basis of the intergovernmental agreement signed at the sixth summit in Fortaleza in July 2014.
As per data released earlier this year from Acorn Macro Consulting, a British economic research firm, the BRICS group makes up 41% of the global population and accounts for 16% of world trade. The five countries now contribute about a quarter of the global GDP. | Global Organizations |
Politics Updated on: June 26, 2022 / 12:37 PM / CBS/AP Biden attends G-7 summit Biden travels to Germany for G-7 summit 01:14 President Joe Biden said Sunday that the United States and other Group of Seven leading economies will ban imports of gold from Russia, the latest in a series of sanctions that the club of democracies hopes will further isolate Russia economically over its invasion of Ukraine.A formal announcement was expected Tuesday as the leaders hold their annual summit.Biden and his counterparts will huddle on the summit's opening day Sunday to discuss how to secure energy supplies and tackle inflation, aiming to keep the fallout from Russia's invasion of Ukraine from splintering the global coalition working to punish Moscow. Hours before the summit was to formally open, Russia launched missile strikes against the Ukrainian capital Sunday, striking at least two residential buildings, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said. They were the first such strikes by Russia in three weeks.Senior Biden administration officials said gold is Moscow's second largest export after energy, and that banning imports would make it more difficult for Russia to participate in global markets. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details before the announcement. The U.S. Treasury will issue a determination to prohibit the import of new gold into the United States on Tuesday, which will further isolate Russia from the global economy by preventing its participation in the gold market, a senior administration official said. U.S. President Joe Biden attends the first day of the three-day G-7 summit at Schloss Elmau on June 26, 2022 near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Sean Gallup / Getty Images British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the ban on Russian gold will "directly hit Russian oligarchs and strike at the heart of Putin's war machine," a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin."Putin is squandering his dwindling resources on this pointless and barbaric war. He is bankrolling his ego at the expense of both the Ukrainian and Russian people," Johnson said. "We need to starve the Putin regime of its funding."In recent years, gold has been the top Russian export after energy — reaching almost $19 billion or about 5% of global gold exports, in 2020, according to the White House. Of Russian gold exports, 90% was consigned to G-7 countries. Of these Russian exports, over 90%, or nearly $17 billion, was exported to the UK. The United States imported less than $200 million in gold from Russia in 2019, and under $1 million in 2020 and 2021.Biden arrived in Germany's picturesque Bavarian alps early Sunday to join his counterparts for the annual meeting of the world's leading democratic economies. Reverberations from the brutal war in Ukraine will be front and center of their discussions. Biden and the allies aim to present a united front in support of Ukraine as the conflict enters its fourth month.Unity was the message Biden took into a pre-summit sit-down with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who holds the G-7′s rotating presidency and is hosting the gathering."We've got to make sure we have us all staying together. You know, we're gonna continue working on economic challenges that we face but I think we get through all this," Biden said.Scholz replied that the "good message" is that "we all made it to stay united, which Putin never expected," a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin."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," Biden said. "We can't let this aggression take the form it has and get away with it."Biden and the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, plus the European Union, were spending Sunday in both formal and informal settings, including working sessions on dealing with the war's effects on the global economy, including inflation, and on infrastructure. Biden was formally launching a global infrastructure partnership designed to counter China's influence in the developing world. The initiative aims to raise $600 billion over the next five years with the U.S. contributing $200 billion through private investment and government funding, the White House said. European Union Council Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida, Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and European Union Council President Charles Michel look on as US President Joe Biden speaks about the global infrastructure partnership during the G-7 summit in Schloss Elmau on June 26, 2022 near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Stefan Rousseau / Getty Images Among the issues to be discussed are price caps on energy, which are meant to limit Russian oil and gas profits that Moscow can put to use in its war effort. The idea has been championed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.A senior German official, speaking on condition of anonymity consistent with department rules, said the U.S. idea of price caps was being discussed intensely, in terms of how it would work and how it would fit with the U.S., EU, British, Canadian and Japanese sanctions regimes.Officials were also set to discuss how to maintain commitments to addressing climate change while also solving critical energy supply needs as a result of the war."There's no watering down of climate commitments," John Kirby, a spokesman for Biden's National Security Council, said Saturday as the president flew to Germany. Biden is also set Sunday to formally launch a global infrastructure partnership designed to counter China's influence in the developing world. He had named it "Build Back Better World" and introduced the program at last year's G-7 summit.Kirby said Biden and other leaders would announce the first projects to benefit from what the U.S. sees as an "alternative to infrastructure models that sell debt traps to low- and middle-income partner countries, and advance U.S. economic competitiveness and our national security." After the G-7 wraps up on Tuesday, Biden will travel to Madrid for a summit of the leaders of the 30 members of NATO to align strategy on the war in Ukraine. 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 | Global Organizations |
SummaryGrace period on $100 mln interest payment due May 27 ended SundayRussia default shows dramatic impact of sanctions-U.S. officialSome Taiwan bondholders did not get payment on Monday - sourcesRussia says it has funds to pay, sanctions are to blameLapsed U.S. waiver, EU sanctions on NSD scupper Russia paymentsLONDON, June 27 (Reuters) - Russia defaulted on its international bonds for the first time in more than a century, the White House said, as sweeping sanctions have effectively cut the country off from the global financial system, rendering its assets untouchable.The Kremlin, which has the money to make payments thanks to oil and gas revenues, swiftly rejected the claims, and has accused the West of driving it into an artificial default. read more Earlier, some bondholders said they had not received overdue interest on Monday following the expiry of a key payment deadline on Sunday. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRussia has struggled to keep up payments on $40 billion of outstanding bonds since its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24."This morning's news around the finding of Russia's default, for the first time in more than a century, situates just how strong the actions are that the U.S., along with allies and partners have taken, as well as how dramatic the impact has been on Russia's economy," the U.S. official said on the sidelines of a G7 summit in Germany. read more Russia's efforts to avoid what would be its first major default on international bonds since the Bolshevik revolution more than a century ago hit a roadblock in late May when the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) effectively blocked Moscow from making payments."Since March we thought that a Russian default is probably inevitable, and the question was just when," Dennis Hranitzky, head of sovereign litigation at law firm Quinn Emanuel, told Reuters ahead of the Sunday deadline."OFAC has intervened to answer that question for us, and the default is now upon us."A formal default would be largely symbolic given Russia cannot borrow internationally at the moment and doesn't need to thanks to plentiful oil and gas export revenues. But the stigma would probably raise its borrowing costs in future.The payments in question are $100 million in interest on two bonds, one denominated in U.S. dollars and another in euros , that Russia was due to pay on May 27. The payments had a grace period of 30 days, which expired on Sunday.Russia's finance ministry said it made the payments to its onshore National Settlement Depository (NSD) in euros and dollars, adding it had fulfilled obligations.In a call with reporters, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the fact that payments had been blocked by Euroclear because of Western sanctions on Russia was "not our problem". read more Clearing house Euroclear did not respond to a request for comment.Some Taiwanese holders of the bonds had not received payments on Monday, sources told Reuters. read more With no exact deadline specified in the prospectus, lawyers say Russia might have until the end of the following business day to pay these bondholders.The clock on Spasskaya tower showing the time at noon, is pictured next to Moscow?s Kremlin, and St. Basil?s Cathedral, March 31, 2020. REUTERS/Maxim ShemetovCredit ratings agencies usually formally downgrade a country's credit rating to reflect default, but this does not apply in case of Russia as most agencies no longer rate the country.LEGAL TANGLEThe legal situation surrounding the bonds looks complex.Russia's bonds have been issued with an unusual variety of terms, and an increasing level of ambiguities for those sold more recently, when Moscow was already facing sanctions over its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and a poisoning incident in Britain in 2018.Rodrigo Olivares-Caminal, chair in banking and finance law at Queen Mary University in London, said clarity was needed on what constituted a discharge for Russia on its obligation, or the difference between receiving and recovering payments."All these issues are subject to interpretation by a court of law," Olivares-Caminal told Reuters.In some ways, Russia has been in default already.A committee on derivatives has ruled a "credit event" had occurred on some of Russia's securities, which triggered a payout on some of Russia's credit default swaps - instruments used by investors to insure against debt default.This was triggered by Russia failing to make a $1.9 million payment in accrued interest on a payment that had been due in early April. read more Until the Ukraine invasion, a sovereign default had seemed unthinkable, with Russia having an investment grade rating shortly before that point. A default would also be unusual as Moscow has the funds to service its debt.The U.S. Treasury's OFAC had issued a temporary waiver, known as a general licence 9A, in early March to allow Moscow to keep paying investors. The U.S. let the waiver expire on May 25 as Washington tightened sanctions on Russia, effectively cutting off payments to U.S. investors and entities.The lapsed OFAC licence is not Russia's only obstacle. In early June, the European Union imposed sanctions on the NSD, Russia's appointed agent for its Eurobonds. read more Moscow has tried in the past few days to find ways of dealing with upcoming payments and avoid a default.President Vladimir Putin signed a decree last Wednesday to launch temporary procedures and give the government 10 days to choose banks to handle payments under a new scheme, suggesting Russia will consider its debt obligations fulfilled when it pays bondholders in roubles and onshore in Russia."Russia saying it's complying with obligations under the terms of the bond is not the whole story," Zia Ullah, partner and head of corporate crime and investigations at law firm Eversheds Sutherland told Reuters."If you as an investor are not satisfied, for instance, if you know the money is stuck in an escrow account, which effectively would be the practical impact of what Russia is saying, the answer would be, until you discharge the obligation, you have not satisfied the conditions of the bond."Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Karin Strohecker in London, Andrea Shalal in Elmau and Emily Chan in Taipei and Sujata Rao in London; Editing by David Holmes, Emelia Sithole-Matarise, Simon Cameron-Moore and Jane MerrimanOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
Is net zero a “luxury belief”? A strange assumption seems to have become knitted into the climate debate: that the burden of cutting carbon emissions will – must, inevitably – fall hardest on the poor.
This is the logic by which climate activists are sometimes deemed snobby, classist virtue-signallers – and the principle on which, earlier this year, Rishi Sunak signalled a tactical retreat on green policies. “It cannot be right for Westminster to impose such significant costs on working people,” the prime minister said. Because of course, this is the group such policies would hurt the most.
But this is not a law of nature. It’s a choice. There is nothing inherent to environmental policies that mean ordinary people must bear the brunt of them, although we have tended to organise things that way. A more progressive approach, whereby the richest pay more for the business of hoovering up carbon and blasting it into the atmosphere, is perfectly possible. But for some reason this seems not to have occurred to policymakers such as Sunak, who was reported in August to have taken a private plane or helicopter every eight days of his premiership.
When it comes to wealth and carbon emissions, flying constitutes an inverted pyramid of sin
In fact, let us take flying as an example of a carbon-guzzling activity that seldom comes under the spotlight in the way that, say, driving or heating does. This is a shame – especially for those, like Sunak, who worry about the effect of green policies on working people – because flying skews toward the rich, leisured and metropolitan.
When it comes to wealth and carbon emissions, flying constitutes an inverted pyramid of sin. One per cent of people account for half of all flight emissions. A Guardian investigation last week examined the carbon footprints of private jets belonging to 200 celebrities, oligarchs and billionaires. They were equivalent, it found, to the total emissions of almost 40,000 Britons.
Meanwhile, even for those who fly commercial, income links to pollution. Those stretched out and sleeping in first class are stamping a wider footprint than those upright but lounging in business, who are in turn sinning more than those squeezed agonisingly into Tetris shapes in cattle class. The less space per passenger, the fewer flights are needed.
Why, at a time when pro-environmental low-hanging fruit is supposed to have been plucked, have we not imposed a steep progressive tax on flying? Such a scheme would be fairly straightforward to devise. Those who fly once or twice a year for a holiday abroad needn’t face extra costs. But run through your carbon allowance, and taxes could rapidly accumulate in line with emissions, penalising those who fly in luxurious sin. Soon, even the wealthiest frequent flyers would start to think twice. Private jets would meanwhile burn money faster than fuel.
Of course, the sorts who can afford private jets in the first place may be able to absorb these extra costs and keep on flying. But that is exactly why we should impose them. We are missing out on a dollop of money that could be put towards home insulation, charging points for electric cars, or even transforming the air industry. Green jet fuel is already here. But the business of switching from kerosene to hydrogen lacks both urgency and cash.
But we don’t do this. Instead – extraordinarily – incentives run the other way. Jet fuel is not taxed, unlike the fuel used by all other forms of transport. On a private jet you pay the same air passenger duty as you would on a commercial flight. And then there are frequent flyer programmes – a reward system as perverse as, say, free pens for the largest oil spill, or a set of steak knives for the last rhino.
These put a further twist on an existing dynamic. Frequent flyer programmes create a new class system, existing only within the confines of airports and planes, that directly equate pumping out emissions with higher status. And the incentives work. A recent report into these schemes recorded the habit of “tier point running” – taking pointless flights for the purposes of bumping up into the next tier of privileges. “Seven of the other people in the front cabin were all doing the same thing as me – flying just to get their status…” ran one post on a frequent flyer forum. “It’s not a sensible thing to have to do from a personal health perspective.” Status is a powerful motivator.
When it comes to making sacrifices for the environment, we start with the necessities and leave the luxuries for later
But it’s not just flying, or yacht ownership, another means by which the rich out-pollute the rest of us. Penalties are weighted the wrong way everywhere. Flat taxes on the price of fuel punish those for whom energy takes up a larger share of household budgets. Poor people in inefficient housing stock end up paying more for their energy. Subsidies for electric vehicles mainly go to rich people who can afford to buy a new car anyway.
But it is not beyond our means to adjust the balance. The economist Thomas Picketty suggests that everyone get a carbon allowance covering ordinary needs – and that activities beyond that are taxed in ever larger increments. This would help avoid populist backlashes against pro-climate policies, he says.
If this seems radical, we should ask ourselves why, when it comes to making sacrifices for the environment, we have tended to start with the necessities and leave the luxuries for later. There is a bias that runs through environmentalism: people tend to be in favour of helping the climate until it inconveniences them. Could it be that this bias extends even to a particular bunch of frequent-flying high earners – policymakers themselves?
• Martha Gill is an Observer columnist | United Kingdom Politics |
Tory MPs and candidates have demanded that the race for the party’s London mayoral nominee be restarted after Daniel Korski dropped out following a sexual assault allegation.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) said on Wednesday night that the selection process for its candidate will continue with just two nominees on a ballot for London members next week.
Mr Korski resigned from the selection process on Wednesday after Daisy Goodwin, a television producer who has accused him of sexual assault, said three more women could make accusations against him.
He denies the claims but said that with a “heavy heart” he could not continue in the battle to find a candidate to attempt to beat Sadiq Khan at next year’s mayoral election.
Other candidates and their MP backers have called for nominations to be reopened and the process delayed until after Conservative Party Conference in October, amid claims it would be “unconscionable” for party members to be given a choice between just two candidates.
Under the party’s process, members must now choose between London Assembly member Susan Hall and barrister Mozammel Hossain, who has never held elected office.
‘Thorough and fair’
Samuel Kasumu, who announced his intention to stand but was not selected among the final three candidates by a CCHQ panel, said the process must be “thorough and fair” after Mr Korski’s decision to stand down.
“The selection process should be reopened, with more direct involvement from members,” he said, adding: “There is still time to put this right.”
Paul Scully, who until recently served as London minister in Rishi Sunak’s government, was among the candidates who did not reach the final three.
Az Chowdhury, who managed his campaign, told The Telegraph: “It is unconscionable that the choice for members is down to two.
“The only option for the party now is to re-run the selection from the very start. It isn’t fair that candidates who were not put forward to the final three are still excluded.”
Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, refused to be drawn on whether the process should be restarted but told LBC: “I think Paul Scully is an excellent minister and he obviously understands London extremely well.
“If the decision is taken that he is readmitted, then I think that would be an interesting move.”
A second senior MP said: “I think they should reopen the process. They should, at the very least, reopen nominations for that third place and make an informed decision as to who should be in the shortlist.”
Justine Greening
The Telegraph understands some Conservative MPs believe the situation could be resolved by nominating Justine Greening, the former Tory education secretary, without an internal contest.
Ms Greening has been linked to the mayoral race before but this option is unlikely to be palatable to Conservative members in London.
Mr Korski’s decision to withdraw came after all three candidates attended a meeting at Conservative Campaign Headquarters on Wednesday.
The meeting was scheduled, according to sources familiar with the mayoral contest, but was unsurprisingly dominated by discussions around Mr Korski’s predicament.
During the meeting with Conservative Party chairman Greg Hands, the three candidates were reportedly warned against “blue on blue” attacks.
The former Downing Street adviser’s campaign appeared doomed after Ms Goodwin, 61, claimed on Monday night that he had groped her breast during a meeting in Downing Street a decade ago.
She said she had spoken out now because she did not feel comfortable with the idea that someone who treated women in that way might be responsible for making the capital safer for women.
Formal complaint
On Tuesday, she followed up by making a formal complaint to the Cabinet Office, and on the same day Mr Korski dodged a question in a TV interview whether he had ever cheated on his wife.
Then on Wednesday Ms Goodwin said she had been contacted by three other women who had “interesting” stories about Mr Korski.
Mr Korski has always denied any allegations of inappropriate behaviour.
In his statement, he said: “I categorically deny the allegation against me. Nothing was ever put to me formally ten years ago. Nor seven years ago when the allegation was alluded to.
“No investigation has ever taken place. I have been clear I would welcome and constructively participate in any investigation.
“However, the pressure on my family because of this false and unproven allegation and the inability to get a hearing for my message of ‘The London Dream’ makes it impossible for my campaign to carry on.” | United Kingdom Politics |
Strong signal, pending action: Putin’s warrant shows limits of international law
Russian President Vladimir Putin is a wanted man, but his chance of avoiding judgment is high.
It’s a sad realization for many who are looking to hold the Russian leader accountable for launching a full-scale invasion against Ukraine and face responsibility for unimaginable horrors allegedly carried out by Russian forces.
Still, global justice advocates say the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant against Putin for war crimes, served last week, sends a powerful message of deterrence and animates a debate over enforcement.
An arrest warrant was also served for Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights. Both were charged with the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.
But there’s frustration over how the ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, can execute the arrest warrant.
Russia has rejected the ICC’s authority out-of-hand. Moscow is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that enshrined the court’s jurisdiction.
The forcible transfer of a population by an occupying power, in particular children, is a war crime under the Rome Statute.
Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin said that they have succeeded in bringing back 308 Ukrainian children who were abducted by Russia, but estimates that Moscow holds more than 16,000 of these children.
In a program reportedly overseen by Lvova-Belova, these children are submitted for “reeducation” that in effect denies their Ukrainian identity and are handed over for adoption by Russian families.
Acting on an ICC warrant
The 123 members of the ICC are generally compelled to act on an arrest warrant if an
y of the alleged perpetrator s travels to their countries. Still, they can refuse to act by citing domestic law, in particular if a country respects that a head of state enjoys unique protections and immunity from arrest.
Member-states South Africa and Hungary have already raised concerns over their commitments to the ICC.
“We can refer to the Hungarian law and based on that we cannot arrest the Russian President … as the ICC’s statute has not been promulgated in Hungary,” said Gergely Gulyas, chief of staff to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Reuters reported.
And South Africa’s international relations minister, Naledi Pandor, reportedly said Friday that the government is seeking legal advice over their obligations to the ICC if Putin arrives in Durban in August to attend the BRICS summit, the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
Pandor said South Africa wants to “be in a position where we could continue to engage with both countries to persuade them towards peace.”
Mary Glantz, senior adviser for the Russia and Europe Center at the U.S. Institute of Peace, said South Africa’s response to the ICC warrant sends an important signal of the power of the court.
“I think the initial mood in the Global South was business as usual. The fact that they’re even investigating what legal obligations they have and that they’re thinking about this, I think is a positive step,” she said, referring to South Africa.
“It’s a step in the right direction that maybe we’re moving the needle a little on global public opinion about what’s going on in Ukraine.”
It’s an unusual move by the ICC to make public its arrest warrants, Gantz said, and is likely a signal of the court’s confidence in the evidence it has for its case, and that it may have other secret warrants for members of Putin’s inner circle.
“They could show up somewhere and that country, as a state party, could get the information that ‘nope, there’s an arrest warrant’ and they could be picked up,” Gantz said.
“It leaves a pall of uncertainty around everybody in [Putin’s] inner circle when it comes to international travel.”
America’s relationship with ICC
The war crimes warrant has also brought up uncomfortable questions for the U.S., which walks a fine line between voicing support for international justice and clashing intensely with the ICC over its pursuit of war crimes investigations allegedly by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Biden administration has eased friction with the ICC by removing sanctions imposed on its chief prosecutor by the former Trump administration. The ICC, in turn, set aside investigations into alleged crimes committed by American forces in Afghanistan.
The U.S., which is not a member state of the ICC, has said the court’s most important function is to carry out justice in countries where the home courts are compromised, and that the strength of the American justice system should shield it from efforts to make it a target of the international court. Still, Congress has recognized the U.S. can do more and took recent action to amend U.S. law to better position itself to assist the ICC and apprehend alleged war criminals.
This includes the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, signed into law in January, which allows for America’s courts to carry out trials against alleged war criminals who are found to be in the U.S., even if they never targeted Americans or committed crimes in the U.S. The law is unlikely to be used to go after Putin, given the far-fetched scenario he’d travel to the U.S.
Another important piece of legislation, included in the 2023 funding bill, lifted a prohibition on the U.S. working with the ICC, but narrowly defined it to focus specifically on war crimes investigations surrounding Russia’s war in Ukraine.
“And so they changed it to say, ‘OK, for this very, very specific situation, there’s a certain amount of help we can give,’” said Celeste Kmiotek, staff lawyer with the Strategic Litigation Project at the Atlantic Council, which focuses in part on accountability for atrocity crimes and human rights violations.
“This is a very good opportunity for U.S. lawmakers to really consider, potentially being more open to the ICC.”
A delicate debate on U.S. involvement with the ICC is playing out behind closed doors between the Pentagon and the White House, the New York Times reported earlier this month, saying the Department of Defense is blocking the State Department from transferring war crimes evidence to the ICC.
The evidence reportedly includes material about decisions by Russian officials to deliberately target civilian infrastructure and related to the ICC’s case against Putin and Lvova-Belova.
On Friday, a bipartisan group of senators sent a letter urging President Biden to share U.S.-collected evidence with the ICC: “Knowing of your support for the important cause of accountability in Ukraine, we urge you to move forward expeditiously with support to the ICC’s work so that Putin and others around him know in no uncertain terms that accountability and justice for their crimes are forthcoming.”
A State Department spokesperson said that the administration has “worked hard” over the past two years to improve U.S. relations with the ICC, pointing to the lifting of sanctions and “a return to engagement,” but did not specifically address whether it is directly providing evidence to the international court.
Child relocation charges just the start?
The war crimes allegation
s over the forced relocation of children is significant, international law experts have argued, because it could lay the groundwork for more war crimes charges, including genocide and crimes against humanity.
There’s some optimism to believe Putin and his most senior officials will face justice.
Of the 18 heads of state or heads of major military forces wanted by international justice, 83 percent have faced accountability, Thomas Warrick, a nonresident senior fellow for the Atlantic Council wrote in an analysis.
Putin has few friends left in the world. Still, support he receives from Chinese President Xi Jinping, and the comments from Hungary and South Africa highlight that the Russian leader is not entirely isolated.
But a larger rap sheet, possibly including genocide and other heinous war crimes, could help pressure action from countries who have stayed on the sidelines.
“You got to wonder, how many states really want to be seen standing side-by-side with an accused war criminal,” Gantz said, “somebody who is accused of kidnapping children, at this point, and could potentially be accused of genocide, which I think could be even more poisonous, even more toxic to people standing next to him.”
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | Europe Politics |
Asda has become the first supermarket to start "Not for EU" labelling on some of its food in Northern Ireland.
The labelling is a requirement of the Windsor Framework, the revised Brexit deal for Northern Ireland.
It is not officially required until the start of October and is due to be rolled out across the rest of the UK in October 2024.
The protocol kept Northern Ireland inside the EU single market for goods, which allowed a free flow of goods across the Irish border.
However, it made trading from Great Britain to Northern Ireland more difficult and expensive.
Checks and controls on GB food products entering NI have been some of the biggest practical difficulties.
Under the Windsor Framework, UK public health and safety standards will apply for all retail food and drink in the UK internal market.
That means GB traders who are sending food for sale in Northern Ireland should face no routine checks and minimal paperwork.
The flipside of this is the introduction of the "Not for EU" labels on GB food products, to give a level of assurance to the EU that products will not wrongly enter its single market.
From October, prepacked meat and fresh milk being sent from GB to NI will have to be individually labelled in that way, with labelling of other goods being rolled out by July 2025.
Businesses will also have to be registered as trusted traders to benefit from the reduced controls.
Asda has so far introduced the labelling on some of its own brand meat products.
'Light touch' approach
There has been concern in the retail industry that businesses have not had enough time to prepare for the labelling changes, meaning not all operators will be compliant in October.
However, the government has indicated that it will initially take a light touch approach to enforcement.
For example in its most recent published advice it said that during the first few months of the new scheme "procedures will be in place" to ensure that businesses using an existing trusted trader scheme will benefit from the new arrangements.
The NI Retail Consortium, which represents major supermarkets, said: "Retailers and their suppliers have been working to be ready since the Framework was ready.
"Unfortunately, some of the guidance has only just been published and time is short to be ready so conceivably there may be minor teething issues, but we don't anticipate consumers noticing any significant problems." | United Kingdom Politics |
The world has very recently become obsessed with elites in society. But who are they? This used to be the central question in politics. As the franchise was expanded over nearly two centuries, the expectation was that those in power would be drawn from an ever-widening pool. This belief was reinforced as political elites resembled the country they ruled. Between 1906 and 1916 the number of commoners in cabinet finally overtook the number of aristocrats. In 1924 a Labour government saw the first working-class cabinet ministers.
However, the latest research by academics at Oxford University into the social composition of cabinets and shadow cabinets suggests progress has halted and even gone into reverse. A paper by the sociologists Erzsébet Bukodi, Geoffrey Evans, John Goldthorpe and Matthew Hepplewhite examines in detail Britain’s political leadership from 1945 to 2021. Politics now looks like the 19th century, where two major parties, led by the higher castes, vie for the votes of a marginalised working class.
Their work attempts to highlight the differences, and convergences, between the two parties. While the Conservative leadership often hails from families who own businesses or manage them, Labour politicians are more likely to grow up in professional households. The Tories frequently have previously worked in the private sector, in technical industries, whereas Labour politicians were employed in “sociocultural professions” in the public or charitable sector. The political elite has become predominantly a graduate elite, with Tories far more likely to attend Russell Group universities. So far, so familiar.
But what the study brings out is that the Tories have a class base for their politics, but Labour does not. The Oxford researchers argue that the “increasing proportion of [Conservative] cabinet members from a small business-owning background suggests that there is a social basis for a more rightwing position on both economic and social issues”, while in the Labour leadership there has been an almost “complete disappearance of those with their own adult experience of working-class life, and who could thus be regarded as more committed to serving working-class interests”. There are some glaring exceptions: Angela Rayner grew up on a council estate and was a care worker before becoming a Labour MP. But the trend, obvious since 1997, has almost certainly driven working-class voting abstention at general elections.
Labour’s quandary is that the traditional industrial working class has almost disappeared from Britain, either because of low-cost competition or by being displaced through automation. Instead, it is in the service sector where today working-class people can be found. They have been mobilising, and organising, but not to the extent that they can exert sufficient political pressure. Labour has turned towards the “progressive” professional for its survival. Under Sir Keir Starmer, the Oxford study suggests, there also has been a reversion to the “Blairite view” that Labour’s image as a working-class party costs votes. This seems a mistake in an age of economic insecurity.
Flattening socioeconomic hierarchies is part of Labour’s historic responsibility. The party will have to make the case that its economic policies can mitigate the worst excesses of globalisation that affect both workers and professionals, as well as seeing off the snake-oil sales pitch of the populist radical right. Whether Labour will succeed, time alone will show. | United Kingdom Politics |
Senior Conservatives and Labour believe the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill breaks international law and trashes the UK's reputation abroad - but Brexiteers threw their weight behind itPrime Minister Boris Johnson Boris Johnson today boasted he can railroad plans to rip up his Brexit deal through Parliament by the end of the year as key legislation cleared its first hurdle in the Commons. It means the PM's bid to unilaterally scrap parts of Northern Ireland’s Brexit deal has cleared its first Commons hurdle after MPs voted 295 to 221, majority 74, to give key legislation a second reading. The move has angered the EU and some Tories, who believe the legislation breaks international law and undermines the UK's global reputation. Theresa May, who confirmed she would not back the bill, launched a savage attack: "Do I consider it to be legal under international law? Will it achieve its aims? Does it at least maintain the standing of the UK in the eyes of the world? My answer to all three of those questions is no." The former PM said of the EU: "I expect 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". The PM has said the plan - which hands ministers powers to override parts of the post-Brexit trade pact in Northern Ireland - could now be carried out “fairly rapidly”, with proposals in law by the end of 2022. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, meanwhile, attempted to downplay concerns of MPs by arguing the Bill has a “strong legal justification” and the UK remains committed to seeking a negotiated solution. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss in the Commons (
Image:
via REUTERS) The legislation will hand ministers new powers to override elements of the protocol, in a move opposed by a majority of Stormont politicians, the EU and US President Joe Biden. The arrangements currently require regulatory checks and customs declarations on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as the protocol was originally designed to keep the Irish land border free-flowing. Under the new plan, green and red channels would be set up to remove extra paperwork for businesses trading within the UK, but with full checks on good entering the EU. Northern Ireland would qualify from the same tax and spending policies as the rest of the UK, including on VAT. Most controversially, any disputes would be resolved by independent arbitration and not by the European Court of Justice. EU Ambassador to the UK João Vale de Almeida also said the bill is both “illegal and unrealistic.” A number of senior Tories shared their concerns over the legal status of the bill which faces major obstacles in the House of Lords to becoming law. Former Prime Minister Theresa May in the Commons Ex-Cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell said: "Many of us are extremely concerned that the Bill brazenly breaks a solemn international treaty. "It trashes our international reputation, it threatens a trade war at a time when our economy is flat and it puts us at odds with our most important ally." But the hardline pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs was expected to back the bill. Labour's David Lammy warned that "hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy" after Britain urged countries like Iran, China and Russia to stand by international obligations. The hardline DUP said it would consider returning to power-sharing arrangements at Stormont once the Bill passed through the Commons. The EU has suggested repeatedly that its own proposals would resolve many of the worst delays at the Irish Sea border - and has restarted legal action against the UK. Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said he was "hugely disappointed" the Government is continuing to pursue its "unlawful" unilateral approach. But the hardline pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs supported the bill. Speaking at the G7 summit in the German Alps, Mr Johnson claimed fellow leaders were not even discussing the latest crisis in Britain’s EU deal. European Commission vice-president Maros Sefcovic (
Image:
REUTERS) “The interesting thing is how little this conversation is being had, certainly here,” he claimed. “What we're trying to do is fix something that I think is very important to our country, which is the balance of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. "You've got one tradition, one community that feels that things really aren't working in a way that they like or understand." The PM said the plan could be brought in "fairly rapidly" despite warnings the House of Lords could be a major obstacle to the bill becoming law. Asked if that meant by the end of the year, he added: "Yes, I think we could do it very fast, Parliament willing." The bill would create a “green channel” without any checks for goods passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that are not destined for the Republic. It would also allow products to be sold in Northern Ireland under either EU or UK rules and give ministers more power to alter tax and spending policies in Northern Ireland. Mr Johnson said: "You’ve got unnecessary barriers to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. "All we are saying is you can get rid of those whilst not in anyway endangering the EU Single Market.” The PM admitted he hoped it would pile pressure on EU chief negotiator Maros Sefcovic to be more flexible in talks aimed at overhauling the system. Naomi Smith, CEO of internationalist campaign group Best for Britain, responded after the vote, saying: “On the same day that he has pontificated to the G7 about defending the rules-based global order, the Prime Minister has progressed plans to break international law and undermine the hard won peace in Northern Ireland. “Johnson promised that Brexit would give sovereign control to the UK Parliament but the bill will instead grant unprecedented and unaccountable powers to his inept and servile cabinet. It is a stain on our international reputation." Read More Read More | United Kingdom Politics |
Mehray Mezensof’s life came crashing down in April, when a message from a contact in China’s far northwestern region of Xinjiang confirmed her worst nightmare. The 28-year-old had been waiting for news about her husband, Mirzat Taher, who was appealing against what she believed was his trumped-up terror conviction. Taher, 31, was hauled off by Chinese authorities in 2020, a fate that befell many Uyghurs—an ethnic group who are predominantly Muslims—in their neighborhood in Xinjiang’s capital city of Urumqi since 2017. Sitting at her current home in Australia, where he was supposed to join her, Mezensof trembled as she translated the text in the message word by word. It was a prison admission document that sealed his fate in black and white: Her husband, whom she described as easygoing and who ran a kebab shop, was sentenced to 25 years in prison on terrorism and separatism charges. “I just couldn't get those words out of my head. I felt like I lost a part of myself,” Mezensof told VICE World News.Taher is among more than a million estimated Uyghurs who have disappeared into China’s vast internment camps in Xinjiang. Beijing’s brutal crackdown on ethnic minorities in the region hold “a serious risk of genocide,” the European Parliament declared last week. Like many Uyghurs abroad who are searching for their family members back home, Mezensof had placed her hopes in Michelle Bachelet when the United Nations human rights chief in March announced her long-awaited visit to Xinjiang. “We had hoped that she would be the hero we are all seeking,” said Rayhan Asat, a Uyghur human rights lawyer based in the United States, whose brother has also been held by Chinese authorities since 2016.To their utter disappointment, instead of seeking accountability, the UN High Commissioner appeared to endorse China’s policies in a cautious statement at the end of her mission last month, which critics say did more harm than good to the Uyghurs’ cause. As the top envoy dragged her feet on a UN report on Xinjiang, her silence has drawn new scrutiny to China’s growing influence in the UN, which experts fear is undermining the credibility of the international body itself.“The stark reality is that the UN Human Rights officials are always working in the shadow of power,” said Richard Gowan, UN director of the Brussels-based think tank International Crisis Group.Mehray Mezensof and her husband Mirzat Taher in Xinjiang, before he was sentenced by Chinese authorities to 25 years in jail. Photo: Courtesy of Mehray MezensofBachelet, whose itinerary in China was tightly controlled by Beijing, did not have unhindered access for an independent review. The former president of Chile, Bachelet has defended her contentious trip as an opportunity to establish dialogues with Chinese officials. But critics, including the Biden administration, argued that by agreeing to China’s terms, Bachelet has allowed herself to be manipulated. Her statement, delivered at a press conference in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou when her trip ended on May 28, confirmed their fears. The envoy started with lengthy praises of China’s efforts to alleviate poverty and improve gender rights. When she finally mentioned the operations in question, she framed them as law and policies to “counter terrorism and radicalism,” borrowing a term China has routinely used to justify its mass detention camps. Instead of condemning the measures, she encouraged the Chinese authorities to undertake a review to ensure they are not “applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory way.”“Hearing her words just felt like a complete punch to the gut,” Mezensof said. “She played right into China’s hands.”Bachelet’s statement stood in stark contrast with new evidence that came to light during her visit. Published by a media consortium, the Xinjiang Police Files is a trove of information allegedly obtained by hackers from law enforcement servers that includes police reports and briefings and speeches by Chinese officials. The revelations added to mounting evidence of China’s repression of Uyghurs in the region, which goes far beyond extralegal confinement—the only aspect addressed by Bachelet. It includes forced labor, child separation, and forced birth control, as revealed by satellite images, government documents, and testimonies from survivors. State documents from the files also lend weight to the conclusion that the orders came from the top of the Chinese Communist Party, said James Millward, a professor at Georgetown University who studies Chinese and Central Asian history.Most unsettling among the leaked files were the photographs of thousands of detainees from one county of the Kashgar prefecture in Xinjiang alone, where 12.1 percent of all ethnic adults were behind bars in 2018. Many were arrested on dubious terrorism charges merely for practicing their religion and listening to scriptures. “By adopting the People’s Republic of China’s talking points, Michelle Bachelet has muddied the waters,” Millward said. “Anyone who looks at those pictures, particularly of small children, would realize that this is not about counter terrorism. Rather it is a massive collective punishment on Uyghur people.”Rian Thum, a senior lecturer at the University of Manchester who studies the history of Muslims in China, called Bachelet’s trip a “propaganda victory” for the Chinese government. Thum and Millward are among 38 scholars that signed a joint letter last week urging Bachelet to incorporate their findings and release her report on Xinjiang “without political interference or further delay.” In a motion passed by a landslide margin on Thursday, the European Parliament expressed regrets that Bachelet failed to clearly hold the Chinese government accountable for its abuses and weighed in on calls for the envoy to immediately publish her findings. On Friday, more than 40 UN experts and special rapporteurs issued a joint letter, urging China to grant full access to independent experts and renewing calls for the Human Rights Council to convene a special session on China.In a statement to VICE World News on Thursday, the UN Human Rights office said the report is being updated and will be shared with the Chinese government for comments before it is published. It does not have an updated timeline. The office also acknowledged the in-depth research many academics and others have undertaken on Xinjiang. “We have taken into account relevant information in making our own assessment of the human rights situation,” it wrote.An image from the Xinjiang Police Files shows detainee Ilham Ismayil in a detention centre in the Xinjiang Region of western China. Photo: HANDOUT / THE VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION / AFPBefore her recent trip in May, Bachelet first said in September last year her office was finalizing its assessment on the allegations of human rights violations in Xinjiang with a view to making it public. While it is well known that the UN can slow pedal politically sensitive reports for long periods—and even middle powers such as Saudi Arabia have successfully intervened in UN writing processes to remove criticisms—the report has been stalled for so long it is turning into a scandal, Gowan said. “If she doesn’t use this moment to put the report out, it will look like she is once again ducking a challenge to China,” he added. Dozens of human rights groups have demanded Bachelet’s resignation in a public letter last week, accusing her of “whitewashing the Chinese government’s human rights atrocities.”Given all the signs, few at this point expect Bachelet to deliver a highly critical report, but it remains an important text for Uyghurs who are building their case. “For all its weaknesses, a report from the UN still carries a degree of credence internationally that very few other reports can carry,” Gowan said. Despite the broad consensus among scholars and human rights groups on the scale and gravity of China’s crackdown on ethnic minorities, it remains a subjective issue in the UN world. China has constantly dismissed criticisms from the West as a plot to hinder its development and contain its rise. Although Washington designated China’s repression of Uyghurs as a genocide in July last year, the context of the move lessened its impact. “When it’s done by an outgoing Trump administration essentially as a final fuck you gesture to China, that doesn’t resonate very well with countries in Latin America or Africa,” Gowan said. “It’s ultimately a crisis where the structure of power in the UN system makes it impossible for the UN to act meaningfully.”Large swathes of the world, including many Muslim states, have not voiced any objection to China’s actions in Xinjiang. Some international companies, including Tesla, have shrugged off concerns of forced labor and continued to operate in the region. German car manufacturer Volkswagen has recently defended its presence by dismissing the Xinjiang Police Files as “desktop-only” research. A damning UN report could be the turning point Uyghurs need to turn the tide.United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet delivers a speech at the opening of a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Feb 28. Photo: FABRICE COFFRINI / AFPMore concerning, however, is the power play inside the UN system, where China has used its clout to rally other member states in the General Assembly to its side. In 2019, shortly after 22 countries, including Australia and Canada, condemned China’s treatment of Uyghurs in a letter to the UN Human Rights Council, China responded with a counter-letter, where 37 states, including Russia, North Korea, and Syria, endorsed its policies. “The common denominator among those signatories was their own atrocious human rights record,” Millward said. “It's quite ironic given that China often rejects what it calls the rules-based international order, it's now very keenly using certain international organizations to promote its message.” There are many vulnerability points across the international organization, which China could leverage to exert influence. For one, there is suspicion that Bachelet would be interested in succeeding António Guterres as UN Secretary General. “If this process ends up with her fundamentally out of favor with China, then China can always veto her selection as a Secretary General,” Gowan said. In addition, it could use its diplomatic strength to cut off financing to UN activities or block the reform efforts that Gutierrez was leading. Her office did not respond directly to a question on whether she intends to seek a second term after her mandate ends in August. “It’s ultimately a crisis where the structure of power in the UN system makes it impossible for the UN to act meaningfully,” Gowan said.“What is fundamentally broken about the UN is that powerful countries like China were able to shape the rules at the UN for the past few years, and just buy the silence of the vast majority of countries,” said Asat, who is also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the Washington-based think tank. For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, having denounced China’s treatment of Uyghurs as early as 2009, has in recent years abandoned public criticism of China’s policies and cracked down on local Uyghur activists as Turkey strengthened economic ties with China. Similarly, Pakistan, which received billions in loans from China, has also looked the other way when it comes to Beijing’s actions in Xinjiang across the border, even though its leader, Imran Khan, frequently speaks out against Islamophobia in the West.“If we’re not vigilant about it, I’m worried that the entire UN system would totally undermine its own credibility because you’re creating a system that is only applicable for smaller states when it comes to human rights,” Asat said.Ironically, the UN's failure to hold China accountable could serve its own purpose. As people have been waiting for years for it to act, if the report turns out to be a damp squib, it could take away the possibility of counting on the international organization and galvanize coalitions of countries or civil society into action, Gowan said. As for Mezensof, this faint silver lining is the hope that keeps her going, no matter how frustrated she is with each setback. “I will try to do everything I possibly can to make a difference,” she said. “At the end of the day, I am the only one who can be a voice for my husband.”Follow Rachel Cheung on Twitter and Instagram. | Human Rights |
Back in November 2015, I hardly knew Boris Johnson — so I was baffled when he invited me to have dinner with him at a Turkish restaurant in Waterloo.It was just six months since David Cameron had triumphed in the General Election. I was an energy minister and Boris was then both Mayor of London and an ordinary MP.He turned up on his bicycle, and we had a convivial meal with lots of laughter. Then he finally got to the point: if Cameron ever stood down, would I back him to become Prime Minister?I was a bit taken aback; there was certainly no sign of Cameron going anywhere.‘Well, yes, possibly,’ I replied, then added, to be mischievous: ‘If I don’t stand myself.’‘I could see you as a potential Chancellor in a Johnson government,’ he went on. Then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson leaves Downing Street alongside then-Commons leader Andrea Leadsom after a Cabinet meeting in March 2018My response had been tongue-in-cheek, but our exchange would prove remarkably prescient. Apart from anything else, I’d been telling my family for years that I wanted to be the first female Chancellor . . .Like Boris, I campaigned hard for Britain to leave the EU, becoming one of the go-to people at Vote Leave for media appearances. Following the referendum itself, I ended up in the early hours at the BBC.My timing could not have been more perfect. Minutes later, David Dimbleby looked down the camera lens and said those momentous words: ‘The British people have spoken, and the answer is: we’re out.’ He then turned to me. ‘So, Andrea, you campaigned for Leave; how do you feel?’What I felt was pure joy — I punched the air. ‘Brilliant, just brilliant,’ I said.That morning, I fell into bed thinking ‘This is the most fantastic day’ — only to be woken with the shattering news of Cameron’s resignation as Prime Minister. Leadsom stands with Michael Gove at the 2012 Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awardsIn walking away when he did, there is no doubt in my mind that David Cameron let his country down. He gave us the referendum and promised he would stick with the result come what may. Not to do so was a dereliction of duty at the worst possible time.With spectacularly bad timing, I had arranged to meet up in Derbyshire later that day with a group of close friends and family to celebrate my husband Ben’s landmark birthday with a big hill walk then a murder mystery dinner back at the hotel. While trying to figure out who’d killed Miss Scarlett in the dining room with the lead piping, I kept thinking: who should I support for the leadership? And should I go for the top job myself?I knew plenty of people thought I’d done well during the referendum. But I was only on my second job in government.On the plus side, I knew I had the right moral imperative for the job, as well as the determination and passionate belief in the great future offered by Brexit. I checked in with my immediate family. My mum said do it: ‘You would be brilliant. You’re a quick learner, just get on and do it.’My husband was pretty much the same: ‘I’ll be there for you; it’ll be tough, but we’ll do this and it will be amazing.’When I got back to London, other MPs’ campaigns were already in full swing.I was being asked by colleagues, in particular Penny Mordaunt and Tim Loughton, and getting thousands of supportive emails from voters, to put myself forward, but I resolved to back Boris rather than stand myself. I knew he’d been a successful mayor and I’d seen him work his magic from the referendum stage.So, at Boris’s invitation, I turned up at his office, feeling optimistic about the prospect of working with him as leader. He was there with his campaign manager, Michael Gove. Strewn around the room were the remnants of meals, as if a group of people had been in there for days, planning and strategising.Michael began: ‘It’s been great working with you on the debates — now we want you to join the team that’s supporting Boris.’ Leadsom (pictured in November 2021) was first pitched a role in a Johnson Cabinet in 2015That was it. I must admit I was quite taken aback not to be a more fundamental part of their plans — I’d been expecting to be offered a senior role in any new administration helping to deliver Brexit. Boris told me: ‘We’re not discussing jobs at this stage.’I pointed out: ‘OK, but you’ll need people with a lot of European Union knowledge around you to deliver on the referendum commitment.’‘Well, I’ve agreed with Michael that he will be our Deputy Prime Minister, our Chancellor and also the man leading on preparations to leave the EU.’I looked from one to the other: ‘You’re joking, surely?’But that really was the plan — the price it appeared that Michael had extracted for supporting Boris. I told Boris and Michael that in order to join the team I would want to take on either the job of leading EU negotiations or the job of Chancellor while we prepared to leave the EU. But Boris confirmed that Michael would be doing it all.In my view, this made no sense and was not in the country’s interests. The idea that one person could do all three jobs was incredible; it was far too wide-ranging a brief.Neither of them would tell me why one man needed three jobs, let alone how it would be possible.Since David Cameron had resigned, we had already seen the stock market drop and sterling fall. I was worried that unless there was a credible proposal for the new leadership, we would be in trouble. I was getting quite het up.He knew full well what I was getting at. Before I became an MP at 46, I’d put my political ambitions on the backburner while I held down a series of rewarding jobs in banking and finance.Throughout the meeting, Michael Gove remained inscrutable, saying nothing as I tried to persuade Boris to rethink. Michael is a very polite and highly effective politician — but he has shown that he goes his own way. So I pitched very hard that a combination of Boris, Michael and me would be a ‘dream team’, with my financial experience complementing Michael’s organisational skills and Boris’s flair for communication.No deal: Boris kept insisting that Michael would have all three roles. Our conversation was getting nowhere.In frustration, I left the room. But before I could make it to my office, my mobile rang. Would I go back in to see Boris and keep the talks going? The toing and froing dragged on all week.Boris offered me a Cabinet role as Business Secretary, but I declined because I wanted to make personally sure we delivered on the referendum.Having started the week certain I’d be backing Boris, the scales were beginning to tip. Should I stand after all? Quickly, I worked out strategy and policy with some senior colleagues and pulled together a step-by-step plan of how and when the UK would leave the EU.Finally, the day before nomination papers were due in, Boris got in touch again. We had a deal, he said: I’d be in his top team, as part of a gang of three made up of him, Michael and me.I was thrilled, but a little voice in my head warned me to be careful. ‘How does Michael feel about it?’ I asked.‘Oh, well, he accepts it.’Hmmm. I should get this in writing just to be sure. I asked Boris if he could send a letter over to my office by the end of the day, confirming I would be joining his top three.I also asked if he would tweet along the lines of: ‘I’m looking forward to announcing my top team with Michael and Andrea.’Looking back now, I wonder how key this was in Michael’s subsequent decision to back out of supporting Boris. I’d assumed at the time that he and Boris had agreed to include me. But clearly Michael was not fine with the change of plan.By the following evening, the promised letter still hadn’t arrived and I was feeling rather anxious. Hoping to bump into Boris, I decided to go with my husband Ben to a reception for Conservative MPs at the Saatchi Gallery.While I was chatting to colleagues at the party, my husband spotted him across the room and went over to greet him.‘Hi Ben. We’ve got ourselves a plan, haven’t we?’ said Boris.Ben said: ‘Yes, I think we have, but Andrea’s waiting for a letter.’‘Oh yes, that’s right,’ said Boris, but he then left the party before I’d had a chance to see or speak to him. I had to assume the letter would still arrive, so I returned to my office, where a group gathered: Penny Mordaunt, Chris Heaton-Harris, Will Wragg, Tim Loughton and my assistant Luke, all urging me: Come on, you’ve got to stand.As the evening ticked by, I sent Boris and Gove a text reminding them I was still waiting. No response.I sat there, waiting. And waiting. Still nothing. I was incredulous. Finally, my assistant said: ‘It’s nearly 10pm [the deadline for nominations] — surely now or never.’‘Fine,’ I said. ‘Let’s do it.’I texted Boris and Michael again: ‘I’m very sorry, but I was very clear I needed a public statement this evening. I would have been really keen to work with you but am now going to submit my nomination papers. No hard feelings!’Within five minutes, I got a text back from Boris: ‘Sorry Andrea my cock up .. . We can do tweet now or tomorrow first thing as u prefer.’I replied: ‘Really sorry.’ And left it at that.What conclusion to draw from this extraordinary turn of events? A couple of weeks later, Boris told me that his phone had been in the care of the MP Nick Boles for most of that evening. He also said he’d had the letter in his pocket at the Saatchi party and had simply forgotten to hand it over. Was it all an unfortunate mistake? I’ll leave it to others to decide, but it had a profound impact on what was to come. Anyway, just 45 minutes after the deadline for nomination papers, I had a call from Michael Gove: ‘I’m just rather amazed at the turn of events.’‘You’re amazed?!’He went on: ‘I just really want to know, if things had been different, if I hadn’t been at his side, would you still have wanted to join Boris’s team?’This was such an odd conversation. Michael was Boris’s right-hand man and presumably the reason I had been snubbed. When I came off the phone, I told the others it sounded as if Gove wished he hadn’t gone with Boris. It still never occurred to me that he was planning to betray him.Early the following morning, he entered the leadership race. I was totally shocked — at first I didn’t believe it. Or at least not until I heard him say publicly: ‘Boris is an amazing and an impressive person. But I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that Boris cannot provide the leadership or build the team for the task ahead.’It all began to make sense — the phone call I’d received from Michael the night before and his failure to answer my messages.It seemed that he’d completely stitched Boris up, not only by ditching him but also by blocking me from being part of the senior team — thus ensuring I wouldn’t back Boris either.A few hours after Michael’s announcement, Boris told the huge audience at his own launch that he would not be putting himself forward. At this point, I began to consider I might actually win.It felt to me that Gove could not now present a realistic challenge. The other two men in the race, Liam Fox and Stephen Crabb, seemed not to have enough support. So that left Theresa May.When Boris came out and endorsed me a few days later, saying, with typical Johnsonian panache, that I had ‘the zap, the drive, and the determination’ to lead the country, I really felt I was building momentum.We now entered the first stage of the contest, in which five candidates battled to win the support of Conservative MPs. In those first few days, dozens of colleagues wanted to talk to me. To their credit, only a few were seeking the promise of a ministerial job.One exception was David Davis, long-standing MP and a strong Brexiteer. He got straight down to business: would I appoint him in charge of negotiations to leave the EU? I said it was too early to agree Cabinet roles. He came out for Theresa later that day. Then the campaign started getting complicated by an amazing onslaught in the media, from claims that I was homophobic, to accusations that I supported fox hunting and that I had lied on my CV.Accusations came in so fast I was scrambling to find evidence to refute each accusation before it became tomorrow’s headline.Having only been in government for two years, I wasn’t used to the intensity of the spotlight, and wasn’t sure-footed enough to get ahead of the attacks. It felt like sticking a finger in a dam.At one point, I became aware of a message being circulated among Theresa’s supporters by Nick Boles, a Gove ally, urging them to vote tactically for Michael in order to stop me getting into the second voting round.‘I am seriously frightened about the risk of allowing Andrea Leadsom onto the membership ballot,’ it read. ‘Surely we must all work together to stop AL?’Michael Gove claimed to have no knowledge of the message. But thanks to the impression it left, it lost him some support: in the first round of voting, I came second to Theresa May — ahead of Michael.My one concern was the length of the leadership campaign. I called Graham Brady and said to him straight out: ‘I’m delighted with the result, feeling completely confident — however, I don’t think the country can afford a nine-week campaign.’And I gave him the reasons why I felt such a long contest would be a disaster, focusing on the risk of recession if the markets continued to plunge. Graham replied that it had to be nine weeks and that David Cameron and Andrew Feldman had insisted. Feldman was a close ally of Cameron and party chairman.My understanding was that Cameron had been keen to attend the forthcoming meeting of the G20 in China in September, but this didn’t seem a good enough reason to put the economy in jeopardy.Graham told me he had already put to them that a long leadership campaign might well spark a recession, and that the 1922 Committee preferred a short, snappy contest.I asked him whether this was their idea of saying ‘I told you so’ to voters. A meaningful silence followed. So on the same day, I thought I could win — but started to realise I would have to withdraw.Then came the day when everything seemed to go wrong, beginning with a supposedly ‘soft’ interview with the Times. It should have been clear to me that the journalist’s multiple questions about motherhood were designed to get me to draw a distinction between Theresa and myself.Instead, in trying to draw a line under the subject, I naively explained what I did NOT want to say — and thought no more of it.The front page dropped on Twitter at about 11pm. What on earth? The headline read: ‘Being a mother gives me edge on May — Leadsom.’ The words below were just as sickening: ‘Tory minister says she will be better leader because childless home secretary lacks “stake in future”.’It’s hard to convey my fury: this was hideously offensive not only to Theresa but also to anyone who’s ever struggled with infertility or lost a baby. (The journalist defended her reporting with selective clips from our conversation, and to my dismay, the Times has always refused to release a full transcript of the interview, revealing the context of what I said.)It was also deeply damaging to my campaign.The rest of the day hadn’t been much better. I’d asked Lynton Crosby — the Australian campaigner who’d run Boris’s mayoral elections — if he’d support my campaign, and the answer was no.Then I’d asked Boris himself if he’d be willing to become more closely involved with my bid. Understandably, he wasn’t up for it, but both responses were blows.I told Ben: ‘I can’t do this. It’s only going to get worse.’The next day, I sat down with my local association president to write a list of the pros and cons of remaining in the race.Many have suggested that the Times interview was the reason I withdrew, but the truth is that it was actually high on the list of reasons to stick with it, because I would then have a future opportunity to put the record straight.My chief reason for staying in the race was that I’d been responsible in part for the referendum result, and should see it through. But the cons kept mounting: my inexperience in government; the lack of support in the parliamentary party; the damage to the economy from a nine-week leadership campaign.By the following night, my mind was made up: I had to pull out. I texted Theresa to ask if we could speak urgently.She rang immediately, and we had the three- or four-minute conversation that paved her way to become Prime Minister.Just before I rang off, I told Theresa I would be announcing my withdrawal in about half an hour and asked her not to tell anyone until I had done so.‘I’m giving you a warning because I know if our situations were reversed, I would want time to get used to the idea that I was about to be Prime Minister.’She readily agreed to keep our conversation secret. I later learned she was so true to her word that she told no one she was about to become PM, not even her husband, Philip.The magnitude of what I had done in pulling out of the race hit me like a bus. For those first days after the contest I don’t think I slept for more than a couple of hours.Since then, many have asked if I regret pulling out of the leadership contest. It’s a question I returned to again and again, particularly during the tortuous years when Brexit hung in the balance.During my short-lived leadership campaign, I’d promised to trigger Article 50 straight away, not wasting any time to get us out of the EU. I’d also vowed not to use EU citizens’ rights as a pawn in the negotiations — their right to stay in the UK would be protected from day one.I still wonder what would have happened if I’d had my way. Maybe there would have been no time for a High Court ruling preventing the Government from triggering Article 50.Maybe there would have been no Gina Miller, no meaningful votes and none of the painful parliamentary battles that were to become such a hallmark of Theresa’s time in office.But no one has a crystal ball in politics. I could only take my decision based on the facts as they stood at the time.However disappointing it was for me personally to stand down, I had to put what I felt was best for the country first. So I have never regretted stepping aside when I did.Adapted by Corinna Honan from Snakes And Ladders by Andrea Leadsom, to be published by Biteback on July 12 at £20. © Andrea Leadsom 2022. To order a copy for £18 (offer valid to July 23, 2022; UK P&P free on orders over £20), visit mailshop.co.uk/books or call 020 3176 2937. | United Kingdom Politics |
India population to surpass China mid-year: UN
India is set to overtake China as the world's most populous country by the end of June, UN estimates showed Wednesday, posing huge challenges to a nation with creaking infrastructure and insufficient jobs for millions of young people.
The seismic shift will see India's population hit 1.4286 billion—almost three million more than China's 1.4257 billion—at mid-year, the United Nations Population Fund's State of World Population report forecast.
China has generally been regarded as the world's most populous country since the fall of the Roman Empire but last year its population shrank for the first time since 1960, while India's has continued to rise.
The South Asian giant spreads from the Himalayas to the beaches of Kerala, with 22 official languages, and nearly half its inhabitants are under 25.
The country faces huge challenges providing electricity, food and housing for its growing population, with many of its massive cities already struggling with water shortages, air and water pollution, and packed slums.
According to the Pew Research Centre, the number of people in India has grown by more than one billion since 1950, the year the UN began gathering population data.
China ended its strict "one-child policy", imposed in the 1980s amid overpopulation fears, in 2016 and started letting couples have three children in 2021.
Many blame its falling birth rates on the soaring cost of living, as well as the growing number of women going into the workforce and seeking higher education.
China said on Wednesday that it "implements a national strategy to actively respond to population ageing, promotes the three-child birth policy and supporting measures, and actively responds to changes in population development".
"China's demographic dividend has not disappeared, the talent dividend is taking shape, and development momentum remains strong," said foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin.
8 billion
India has no recent official population data because it has not conducted a census since 2011, with a follow-up in 2021 delayed by the COVID pandemic.
The initiative is now bogged down by logistical hurdles, making it unlikely the massive exercise will begin anytime soon. Some accuse the government of deliberately delaying the count until after national elections next year.
The census will shine a spotlight on how the Indian economy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi is struggling to provide jobs for the millions of young people entering the job market every year.
The new UN report also estimated that the global population will have hit 8.045 billion by mid-2023, by which time almost one in five people on the planet will be Indian.
Other countries, mostly in Europe and Asia, can expect a demographic slump over the coming decades, according to other UN figures published last July.
In Africa, the continent's population is expected to rise from 1.4 to 3.9 billion inhabitants by 2100, with about 38 percent of Earth dwellers living there, compared to around 18 percent today.
The population of the entire planet, meanwhile, is only expected to decline in the 2090s, after peaking at 10.4 billion, according to the UN.
Sleeping giant
India is on the frontlines of the effects of climate change, but generates most of its electricity from coal and its efforts will be vital in the global fight to reduce carbon emissions.
The nuclear-armed nation has started to become more assertive on the world stage, pushing for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Many Western countries are banking on the world's largest democracy, already a member of the US-led Quad alliance, becoming more of a geopolitical counterweight to China.
But it also co-founded the BRICS grouping with Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa to challenge the dominant US- and European-led global governance structures, and is a member of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization alongside Moscow and Beijing.
New Delhi has resisted Western pressure to freeze out Moscow, opting instead to strengthen trade ties with its long-standing ally and ramping up imports of Russian oil.
© 2023 AFP | India Politics |
Alex Gladstein has a lot to say about Bitcoin, human rights, financial privilege, and personal freedom. In Check Your Financial Privilege, he says it, starting with the fact that anyone born into a reserve currency like the euro, yen, or pound has financial privilege over the 89% of the world population born into weaker systems.In Nigeria, human rights activists depend on Bitcoin for donations after crackdowns by authoritarian regimes. In Cuba, after a dual-currency system devalued the peso, those who saved in Bitcoin managed to stay afloat. In El Salvador, where remittance fees and exchange rates can eat away a simple money transfer to family members in need, Bitcoin offers hope with lower fees and faster transactions (and now it's legal tender).As CSO of the Human Rights Foundation, Gladstein is uniquely positioned to detail the rise of Bitcoin from cypherpunk dream to the real-life Bitcoin stories happening to real people across the globe. For people around the world, outside of Wall Street, Bitcoin offers a means of freedom from inflation, political strife, and an outdated monetary system. For these people, the majority of the world’s population, it might even save their lives. *Proceeds from the purchase of Check Your Financial Privilege support the HRF
Author(s): Alex Gladstein
Published By: BTC Media Inc Learn From Leading Bitcoiners Check Your Financial Privilege is a must read for any Bitcoiner. Learn more about Bitcoin and be a part of hyperbitcoinization! Pay In Bitcoin Purchase Check Your Financial Privilege using Bitcoin! Payments are accepted at checkout via OpenNode. FAQ How long is shipping to my country? Shipping Times (On Average) North America: 2-5 Business Days UK, Europe: 6-8 Business Days Australia: 2-14 Business Days Japan: 4-8 Business Days Other Countries: 10-20 Business Days Shipping times above are averages based on shipping times we have observed. For accurate shipping times, prices, and options, please refer to our shipping page at checkout. Thank you! Where do you ship from? We ship out from the United States! All products are packed with extra care to ensure safe transport no matter how far they go! What type of payment options do you accept? We accept all payments by Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, & PayPal. We also take payments in installments by ShopPay and accept Bitcoin payments via OpenNode! | Human Rights |
In the next few days we will all see more of the new-look Rishi Sunak.
'Mr Safe Pair of Hands' is gone - it's 'No more Mr Nice Guy' now.
Less of the touchy feely "green crap", as his forerunner David Cameron once branded it - more of the red meat for motorists and rhetoric for Tory members. And if that means the home secretary riling up the left about refugees, so be it.
Meet Rishi Sunak the "change candidate", to use the political jargon. The man who wants to tell you why the country is going wrong - and how he'll fix it.
With the public grumpy, Conservative strategists reckon that voters will want something different at the next election. The idea is simple: pitch Mr Sunak as someone who wants to change the status quo - apart from him being in Number 10, that is.
It's a tactic that was clear in his big speech last week when he asked: "Do we want to change our country... or carry on as we are?"
A cunning scheme, perhaps, after months and months of dreadful polling. As one cabinet minister puts it, if you have kept trying the same thing and you're still miles behind, it is simple logic to "take a risk".
But after 13 years in charge, it might take a political superhero to make the rebrand work.
The first obstacle - which I'll be asking him about when he appears on my show tomorrow - is his reputation.
He was initially presented to the public as someone safe, responsible, and serious - in other words, not Liz Truss or Boris Johnson. He was the grown up in the room, the guy who read the briefing papers, understood the spreadsheets and did not upset the apple cart.
It may be a considerable job to convince the public that he was secretly a firebrand all along, bristling with zeal to change the world.
Second, having what Sunak calls an honest debate about the "consensus" means junking some government promises.
As far as the public is concerned, U-turns are not always the worst thing - better to stop a disaster than let it happen. But whether it's the shifting of green targets or the wobble over HS2, there is a political cost.
There have been noisy barbs from prominent Tories; businesses and campaigners are spooked.
While some insiders point to flickers in the polls after Sunak put the brakes on the green agenda, there is not yet much evidence that green scepticism is a big force influencing voters' behaviour - albeit the Uxbridge by-election win, widely attributed to Labour mayor Sadiq Khan's expansion of London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez), has piqued the attention of top Conservatives.
Switching tack risks the impression that the government doesn't know what it wants or stands for.
Flirting more overtly with the right of the party - whether on the environment or allowing the home secretary to speak pointedly about refugees - tickles some of the party's traditional backers. But again, there's a flip side.
Is this the "real Rishi", as allies have excitedly briefed? I'll be putting that directly to him too. One MP's response to the question was far too rude to write down here, but it translated into: "I fervently hope not."
Their real concern was that the right of the party is essentially insatiable. Measures for motorists or changing the rules for boilers won't quench the thirst of the increasingly vocal group who see themselves as real Conservatives - shouting about the level of taxes today, for example, and on the fringes at conference in the next few days.
And what's the biggest challenge for any wannabe political superhero trying an epic rescue?
Well, for Sunak to present himself as the man for change is a tacit admission that lots of things have gone wrong on his party's watch. One former cabinet minister asks simply: "How can you be the change candidate when the party has been in charge for so very long?" First-time voters for the next election were barely at primary school when the Conservatives took power.
- This week, Laura is joined by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
- For Labour, shadow health secretary Wes Streeting will be on the show
- Oscar-winning actress Dame Helen Mirren also joins Laura
- Watch live on BBC One and iPlayer from 09:00 GMT on Sunday
- Follow latest updates in text and video on the BBC News website from 08:00
Should we be surprised by what seems a sudden transformation? Well, over the summer the PM was already talking up the idea of pursuing net zero targets in a "proportionate way", and promised to review what were branded "anti-car" policies then.
He and his team study focus groups' reaction to government closely - but what's interesting is that those who know Sunak well have long whispered that he is "more right wing than people realise".
He was a Brexiteer - not automatically in the group of Conservatives who see themselves as the moderate middle. As the pandemic unfolded he was considered a 'hawk' in the debate over lockdowns, when ministers were trying to balance the economy and health.
As Boris Johnson's chancellor he certainly signed some big cheques - but his discomfort with the scale of government spending was widely understood. There was always a sense that he was making decisions based on circumstance, not conviction.
For a lot of this year he has been accused of being too blank, sticking only to what his critics saw as his pedestrian five pledges. Number 10 is filling that vacuum - perhaps saying something is better than nothing. And as the conference season trots on, it is harder for voters to wail: "They're all the same."
The big question is: will this work?
Some Conservatives sniff opportunity, an increasing vulnerability from Labour, who have opened themselves up to new attacks by saying more about immigration and their desire for a new relationship with the EU.
Sunak's allies say the PM has a passionate desire to win and to change the country, which they say the public will see in time. Remember that Boris Johnson ran as a change candidate in 2019 with staggering success (also remember, though, that he had a supersized political personality, both loved and loathed, and a brass neck).
Most voters don't sit around wondering about political strategy months before an election. Minds are made up firmly nearer the time. As one senior Conservative says, the broader feeling in the country when the ballot comes will be the strongest factor in whether Rishi Sunak manages to pull off political heroics.
"I don't think it's entirely, or even mostly about Rishi," they tell me. "It is the results on the ground, earnings and jobs, the NHS, strikes and the cost of living."
For all that the two big parties' positions in the polls have been pretty stable for a long time, politics can change like the wind.
We'll see on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg tomorrow morning, and in the coming days at the Tory get-together in Manchester, how determined Rishi Sunak really is to take a different approach.
What's clear is that, after so many months in the doldrums, he is switching style. He is refusing to lose by default. | United Kingdom Politics |
A new world order? BRICS nations offer alternative to West
Astrid Prange
March 27, 2023
Predictions about the BRICS countries as the fastest growing economies haven't quite panned out. Instead, the alliance is now offering a diplomatic forum and development financing, outside of the Western mainstream.
https://p.dw.com/p/4PFnR
Advertisement
The acronym began as a somewhat optimistic term to describe what were the world's fastest-growing economies at the time. But now the BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — are setting themselves up as an alternative to existing international financial and political forums.
"The founding myth of the emerging economies has faded," confirmed Günther Maihold, deputy director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, or SWP. "The BRICS countries are experiencing their geopolitical moment."
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are trying to position themselves as representatives of the Global South, providing "an alternative model to the G7."
The G7 is an "informal forum" of heads of state of the world's most advanced economies, founded in 1975. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Canada and the US are members, as is the EU.
The acronym BRIC, which initially stood for Brazil, Russia, India and China, was coined by Jim O'Neill in 2001 when he was chief economist of the multinational investment bank, Goldman Sachs. At the time, the four countries had sustained rates of high economic growth and the BRIC label stood for economic optimism about the future of those nations. Opponents of the label said the countries were too diverse to be grouped together like this and that it was really just a Goldman Sachs marketing ploy.
But what may have started as a marketing ploy to encourage investors has grown into a platform for intergovernmental cooperation similar to the G7. In 2009, the four nations met for their first summit in Russia's Yekaterinburg. In 2010, South Africa was invited to join the group, adding the "S" to BRICS.
Challenging the World Bank model
In 2014, with $50 billion (around €46 billion) in seed money, the BRICS nations launched the New Development Bank as an alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition, they created a liquidity mechanism called the Contingent Reserve Arrangement to support members struggling with payments.
These offers were not only attractive to the BRICS nations themselves, but also to many other developing and emerging economies that had had painful experiences with the IMF's structural adjustment programs and austerity measures. This is why many countries said they might be interested in joining the BRICS group.
The BRICS bank is open to new members. In 2021, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Bangladesh took up shares. However, these were much lower than the respective $10 billion investments made by the bank's founding members.
Set to expand
South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has said worldwide interest in the BRICS group was "huge." In early March, she told television interviewers that she had 12 letters from interested countries on her desk.
"Saudi Arabia is one," she said. "United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Algeria, and Argentina," as well as Mexico and Nigeria.
"Once we've shaped the criteria [for lending], we will then make the decision," she said, noting that the topic would be placed on the agenda for the upcoming August summit in South Africa.
The most recent economic developments in BRICS member states have little to do with the initial myths upon which the group was founded. Of the five members, only China has achieved sustained and extensive growth since then.
As China's gross domestic product grew from $6 trillion in 2010 to nearly $18 trillion in 2021, the economies in Brazil, South Africa and Russia stagnated. India's GDP grew from $1.7 trillion to $3.1 trillion, but was outpaced by China's growth.
No sanctions against Russia
Since the start of the Russian war in Ukraine, the BRICS countries have only distanced themselves further from the so-called West. Neither India, Brazil, South Africa or China are taking part in sanctions against Russia. This has become increasingly clear with near-historic levels of trade between India and Russia, or in Brazil's dependence on Russian fertilizer.
"Diplomatically, the war in Ukraine appears to have drawn a stark dividing line between an eastern-backed Russia and the West," political scientist Matthew Bishop from the University of Sheffield wrote for the Economics Observatory late last year. "Consequently, some European and US policymakers worry that the BRICS may become less an economic club of rising powers seeking to influence global growth and development, and more a political one defined by their authoritarian nationalism."
Ukraine: Are new alliances dividing the world?
Maihold of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs agrees. He said the BRICS alliance is not so much a counter to the West but more a forum for increased sovereign and autonomous thought. In a bipolar world, he believes South Africa, India and Brazil are simply "vying for better terms."
China, on the other hand, is using the platform for its global political ambitions, Maihold added, pointing to Beijing's offers to mediate the war in Ukraine and the joint military exercises it held with Russia in South Africa.
Maihold believes the West has noticed this change in tack and is trying to counteract it. "They are looking very closely," he said. "At the G7 summit in Germany in 2022, they made a point of inviting South Africa and India, in order to prevent the optics that the G7 was standing against BRICS."
This article was translated from German.
Editor's note: The article's previous top image showed Brazil's former president, Jair Bolsonaro, in a virtual conference with other BRICS leaders. It was replaced with an image of Brazil's current president, Lula da Silva, on March 29, 2023. | Global Organizations |
As Rishi Sunak prepares to launch his re-election pitch from the stage in Manchester this week, it's worth remembering that this time last year, the now prime minister - and many of his supporters - were put out to pasture and didn't even bother to turn up for the annual Tory jamboree.
Those who did looked on with widening eyes at the accelerating car crash of the Liz Truss premiership, as her mini-budget began to unravel in real time at party conference (remember the panicked decision to U-turn on cutting the top rate tax no sooner than conference kicked off), with her administration's complete collapse coming less than three weeks later.
It is a chapter of Conservative history that Rishi Sunak has sought to put right - spending his first year as PM trying to steady the ship and bring an air of competence and professionalism to government. There is no doubt that the tenor and tone of what could well be the final party conference before a general election will be a world away from the last.
But when it comes to the fundamentals, has that much changed? If you measure politics in its most brutal sense as victory at the ballot box, the answer is not much. The Conservatives were experiencing their worst polling since the last 1990s this time last year. Look at our Sky News poll tracker now, and you can see average support for the party is pretty much the same - about 26%. It's barely shifted at all.
To make matters worse, Mr Sunak - who will look in his leader's speech to the country to cast himself as the heir of Thatcher - goes to conference as the Conservative prime minister who is presiding over anything but a Thatcherite economy.
The tax burden is on course to rise by more in this Conservative parliament than during any other since the Second World War, according to analysis released by the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the eve of conference. It will rise from 33% of national income to 37% by next year. A record leap that sees families and businesses paying more than £100bn extra in tax by next year compared with the last election, it has left many Tory MPs in despair and angry at the Sunak approach to the economy.
The Sunak message will be that, during the pandemic, he had to do things and spend public money in a way that didn't come naturally to him. He will argue he is a Thatcherite in both his personal work ethic and philosophy - an instinctive tax cutter and small-state Conservative, but is doing the hard work now - growing the economy, halving inflation - to reap the rewards later.
But his detractors are quietly fulminating. As one put it to me this week: "This heir to Thatcher business, it's concocted vacuous stuff he's come up with - 'she grew up in a small shop, I [Sunak] grew up in a pharmacy'. Why didn't he do that last year in a leadership campaign?"
And if the message is stick to the plan and reap the rewards, there are some who have missed the memo. Divisions will surface on "economy day" as Liz Truss, Dame Priti Patel and Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg appear at the Great British Growth rally on Monday.
"The tax burden is now a 70-year high. That is unsustainable. And the people that pay the taxes are hard pressed Brits around the country," former home secretary Dame Priti Patel told GB News on Friday as she insisted taxes had to come down. "As Conservatives, we believe in lower taxes. As Conservatives, we believe being on the side of hard-working households and families. As Conservatives, we believe in hope and aspiration."
Poor polling and anxiety over the tax burden make for a tricky backdrop. Team Rishi insist that they can turn it around in the coming months, and the contour of that plan is taking shape.
On net zero, the PM is trying to drill dividing lines between the Conservatives and Labour over environmental policies. He will use conference to position himself on the side of the motorist as he looks to further mine the advantage he gained in the Uxbridge by-election over taxing polluting diesel cars.
The fanning of the immigration flames - with Home Secretary Suella Braverman threatening to withdraw from the ECHR last week - is helpful to a prime minister who is looking to win back lapsed 2019 Conservative voters and regroup on the right.
His team see a narrow path to victory with all pivots on economic recovery, coupled with the message "we're back on track, don't risk Labour" and winning back voters over core issues - environment, immigration - to narrow the polls (someone told me that 14% of lapsed Conservative 2019 voters have moved to Reform, get a chunk back and the gap begins to close).
"I wouldn't bet against us to turn it around in the coming months," said one No 10 insider. "Rishi genuinely believes he can make it better for the country and get into the best possible position for an election next year. Seeing how politics has changed over the past one, two years, I wouldn't bet against us being able to turn it around. We have got to be the party of change."
But the huge problem for Mr Sunak is that voters seem to have tuned out. He has been in No 10 for a year, and still the polls are unchanged. This conference, likely the last before an election, is his final chance to capture attention and start to regain voters' ears.
But he has a problem too with a party that is in despair. While No 10 were pleased that the net zero announcements didn't spark at backlash from pro-green One Nation Conservatives, the right of the party is restive over economy and waiting for the prime minister to placate them on spending and tax cuts. One figure suggested to me this weekend that Mr Sunak might use the cancellation of the Birmingham to Manchester leg of HS2 as a way of finding room for manoeuvre when it comes to promises on tax.
Closing the gap with Labour is the goal for now as speculation grows around whether it will be a May or October election. (If it's May you can run it with the local elections and not risk a small boats summer crisis or a vote in the autumn after a local election wipeout - but the PM might just want to hold out.)
But away from the No 10 bunker, and even his most ardent backers think the best Mr Sunak can achieve is holding Labour back from an outright majority.
As for some of his more seasoned MPs, they are resigned to what they see is their fate: "Instinctively, I don't feel that we can win. This feels like a damage limitation project."
Manchester will be the acid test as to whether Mr Sunak can shift the momentum. | United Kingdom Politics |
For months now, Keir Starmer has been at pains to tell the country that there are no easy answers to our problems. There is no magic money tree. We can’t spend what we haven’t got. We have to be realistic about the scorched earth a Labour government would inherit. This deliberate damping down of expectations doesn’t exactly make the heart sing, but it beats promising the earth to get elected and then trying awkwardly to wriggle out of it afterwards. What’s puzzling, however, is that this policy of brutally bursting voters’ bubbles never seems to be applied to immigration.
Last week’s Office for National Statistics figures, revising the net number of people coming to Britain in 2022 up to 745,000, were always going to induce apoplexy in the Conservative party, followed by the usual rhetoric about cutting the numbers in some draconian manner. But this time, Labour has met them halfway. The relatively new shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, suggested last weekend that Labour “probably would hope” to get immigration down in its first term, and when pressed on what would be a reasonable level, talked of “normal levels” being about a “couple of hundred thousand a year”. It wasn’t exactly an iron-clad commitment, but it’s nonetheless depressing to hear Labour falling back on the kind of promises that have been backfiring on the Tories ever since David Cameron vowed to reduce immigration to “tens of thousands”. It’s true that luck may be on Labour’s side, here: if the 2022 figures turn out to be a one-off, reflecting a labour market catching up with itself after a freeze on hiring and travelling during the pandemic, Labour could see immigration falling naturally on its watch anyway. But it’s nonetheless a wasted opportunity to level with the public about the real choices confronting a small country with an ageing population and a stagnant economy.
“Stop small boats, somehow” is now virtually the entirety of the present government’s immigration policy, to the point where voters could be forgiven for thinking it is Channel crossings that are driving the numbers so high. But the vast majority of the 1.23 million people who came to this country last year did so with the blessing of the government now feigning pantomime horror at their existence: they were granted leave to work, study, join family or seek sanctuary via compassionate routes like that offered to Ukrainians fleeing an invasion. Ministers signed off on two and a half times as many work visas last year as in 2019, with almost 40% of them for jobs in health and social care, for perfectly good reasons. Those jobs needed filling, and voters would not have liked the consequences of them standing empty. But ministerial reluctance to defend or explain those decisions has left the Tories in the farcical position of furiously trying to deflect attention instead to their own achilles heel, namely the small minority who came here illegally (85% of them in small boats).
Whether they like the idea of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda or not, polling suggests most voters don’t believe it’s ever going to happen. That the cabinet is now openly split over this policy only reinforces the impression of impotence and ramps up public anxiety, while obscuring what small progress Rishi Sunak’s government has actually managed to make. Home Office figures show the number of Albanians arriving by small boat plummeting from about 11,500 in 2022 to the end of September, to just 860 in the same period in 2023, suggesting the policy of rapid returns to Albania might have borne fruit. Channel crossings have consequently fallen, even as illegal immigration is rising across the rest of Europe. Yet by noisily banging its head against a brick wall marked Rwanda, the government has somehow managed to make even this modest success look like a failure – which helps explain why the new home secretary, James Cleverly, is now arguing that what matters is stopping the boats, rather than getting hung up on exactly how it’s done. But even if ministers had somehow managed to turn around every single dinghy leaving a French beach last year, legal migration would still have hit record levels.
So here’s what a prospective government would say if it were really honest: that the vast majority of immigration to Britain is the result of conscious choices to deliver things people actively want, such as an NHS that has a fighting chance of not collapsing this winter or universities that don’t go bust for lack of foreign students. Stopping it is, of course, technically possible, but the price will be public services falling over plus another dismal decade of low to nonexistent economic growth.
You want a radical immigration strategy? Here’s one: fund social care properly, so that care workers earn the kind of wage that makes this emotionally demanding, physically strenuous and technically skilled job attractive. Better still, create career pathways for them to progress in care as a profession. Not only would it vastly improve the continuity of care for vulnerable people, while saving several councils from going bust as a result of rising social care bills, but eventually ministers wouldn’t have to issue 77,700 care work visas a year to plug the gaps (though of course it would still take years to train a homegrown workforce).
But if that’s too radical – if you’d rather have tax cuts today, pretend the crisis in social care isn’t happening and just roll the dice on what happens to your parents in old age – then you’ll need cheap foreign labour to come and prop the system up. Of course, Jeremy Hunt did his best to pretend otherwise in his autumn statement, suggesting that somehow the long-term sick could be forced back to work as an alternative to rising immigration under Labour. It beggars belief that the kind of measures ministers are suggesting – asking disabled people to look for jobs they can do from home, for instance – are somehow a viable alternative, even if it could be achieved without the cruelty some see as inevitable. (How many social care jobs do you imagine can be done from the end of a phone? Who is going to provide the routine medical treatment that in some cases is standing in the way of them getting back to work in the first place?) There is no magic third way. Those are the choices.
At a time when the far right is on the rise across Europe, British politicians remain understandably nervous of spelling out such home truths. The Labour party’s traditional aim in the runup to an election isn’t to win the argument over immigration outright, so much as to change the subject. But in government, that isn’t going to cut it. If it is serious about power, sooner or later Labour will have to have that fight.
Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist | United Kingdom Politics |
When a party’s own natural supporters decide they have good reason to turn against it then the writing is normally on the wall. Things, though, are rather worse than that for Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives: Tory-leaning voters would now seem to have not one but two good arguments for hoping the party loses next year’s general election.
The first reason is obvious. There is a stone-cold fury at the multiple betrayals, losses of nerve, defenestrations and incompetent U-turns that have taken place since the sweet victory of December 2019 – and an ensuing wish to take revenge.
But the second is potentially more deadly still. There is a growing logical and reasoned case for anyone who wishes to see Britain heading in an avowedly Conservative direction to yearn for a Tory defeat in 2024.
To illustrate why, just ask yourself what the best achievable Tory performance on polling day would look like given the party’s precarious current polling position and the difficult political and economic outlook facing the government. How good could it get for Sunak under a reasonable best-case scenario? I would suggest that even an optimist would struggle to make the case for him winning more than a very slender overall majority of perhaps 20 seats at the maximum.
Now imagine what a fifth-term Tory administration with a majority of 20 or less could be expected to achieve. In effect, just a small number of MPs on the left flank of the party would exert a veto over policy measures. By siding with the opposition parties, or even just abstaining on key votes, the likes of Theresa May, Jesse Norman, Tobias Ellwood, Damian Green, Tom Tugendhat and others could torpedo any legislation they found uncongenial.
Were Sunak to decide that in order to get a grip on illegal immigration, Britain really would have to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and its supervisory court in Strasbourg, he’d have no chance of getting that measure through. Were he to come round to the case for radical welfare reform to make it harder to go on the sick and more worthwhile to earn an honest living, well he could forget about implementing that as well. Should he wish to resolutely tackle the march of ‘woke’ across the public realm, well, Caroline Nokes and her fellow travellers could sink that too.
In short, such a weak Tory administration would most likely be an utter shambles – worse by far than the standard achieved by the fourth-term regime after it banked a majority of 80 nearly four years ago. A 1992-style unlikely Tory win would lead to a hamstrung embarrassment of an administration to be followed by a 1997-style annihilation.
Now consider the likely course of events were the Conservatives to lose respectably in 2024. The party, so exhausted in office, would suddenly have the time and space to develop a coherent policy programme under a new leader with a clear set of principles. Let us call such a potential leader Bemi Kadenoch – any resemblance to any actually living Tory politician is clearly coincidental here – and the outlook immediately becomes rather exciting.
An energised and motivated new Toryism could emerge – one unashamed to go back to first principles on taxation, law and order, immigration, the size and scope of the state, support for the institution of the family and all the other things that we have seen turn to sludge. The Mayite ‘liberal Conservatives’ could be swept out so that the party could become, to use a horrible phrase, ‘fit for purpose’ in an era when social and cultural Conservatism has huge potential appeal.
And while Keir Starmer is undoubtedly a slippery character offering an unreliable prospectus, it is only fair to acknowledge that he isn’t Jeremy Corbyn. On key issues such as defence he can probably be relied upon not to advance the national handcart towards hell any faster than it has already been travelling. Yet Starmer would still fail to tackle the many deep-seated problems Britain faces because socialism – even in moderate form – is simply unable to harness the talents of the people.
The most likely course of events, I suggest, would then be a sweeping victory in 2028 or ’29 for an epoch-making Conservative party no longer weighed down by social liberals. If Sunak can’t convince Tory-leaning voters that he is going to win well next year – and that is one heck of a tall order – then the case for him not winning at all becomes very compelling indeed. | United Kingdom Politics |
The Tories have presided over a seismic demographic change
Boris Johnson has made his mark on British history. As a result of his brief tenure as prime minister, Britain is now undergoing its most significant period of demographic change since the Anglo-Saxon migration.
Yesterday’s ONS statistics — showing net immigration figures of 672,000 for 2023, as well as its upward revision of 2022 figures to 745,000 — are entirely unprecedented. The gross figures, revealing that 1.2 million people entered Britain last year, are now equivalent in absolute numbers to the turn-of-the-century immigration wave that transformed America’s demographics. This led to a 40-year restrictionist policy geared towards allowing that far larger and more populous country to integrate its diverse new population. As a surely unintended result of Brexit, the majority of Britain’s new population wave now comes from outside Europe: indeed, this year more migrants came from Nigeria alone than from the entire European Union.
Until recently, conservatives were wont to observe that New Labour’s immigration maximalism transformed Britain. As just one result, London’s ethnic British population fell from 80% in 1991 to less than 37% today, a statistic with few parallels in world history. But the Conservative Party’s devotion to mass migration dwarfs Tony Blair’s efforts, and the results will be even more transformative.
In 2022 alone, Britain saw more immigration than from every year between 1945 and 2000 combined. Yet, at the same time, the Tories have managed to alienate liberals with their entirely performative restrictionist rhetoric, to the point that many of Britain’s self-declared sensible centrists seem to sincerely believe the Conservatives to be a Right-wing party edging on fascism.
Precisely the opposite is true: Britain is indeed ruled by political extremists, but on the opposite side of the spectrum. The Conservative Party’s chosen policies reveal our government to be open-border zealots, whose policies are supported by only a tiny fraction of the population. At every available opportunity, British voters have demanded a clampdown on immigration numbers, yet every Tory leader has increased them as a willed policy choice. When even Keir Starmer can describe immigration numbers under the Tories as “shockingly high” and “a failure”, we can appreciate how far our government has departed from centrist norms, as well as from trends across the rest of Europe.
The ONS figures come at an interesting time, when we compare Britain to our closest European neighbours. What distinguishes the UK from the rest of the continent is not just our government’s extremism on migration, but the political placidity of its native population. Just last night, Dublin saw unprecedented anti-immigration rioting after an Algerian migrant was suspected of stabbing four people, including three children, in a primary school. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’s election victory, not to mention a majority among voters aged between 18-35, highlights how even proverbially tolerant, liberal European countries are responding to the continent’s mass migration experiment. Comparisons with France, Spain, Germany, Denmark and Sweden — our closest cultural and geographic neighbours — demonstrate what an extreme political outlier Britain under the Conservative Party has become.
Yet while the Tories are heading towards electoral oblivion, their radical migration policies present both a threat and an opportunity for Labour. On the one hand, Starmer can emulate the Danish Social Democrats, one of Europe’s few remaining governing Left-wing parties, whose political survival is precisely a product of its turn towards immigration restrictionism. The problem is that many among Labour’s activist base are, on immigration, as much British exceptionalists as the Conservative Party, ideologically committed to demographic change as a positive goal in itself.
But if we assume that Britain is not somehow immune to the strongly negative reactions to demographic change that have transformed Europe’s politics, then the most likely result, eventually, is the creation of a new political force on the British Right — or a convulsion to dwarf Brexit. The current order is a fragile interregnum: through this government’s failure to pursue moderate conservative policies, British Right-wing politics looks fated to move beyond mere conservatism. | United Kingdom Politics |
It is now a year since the short, disastrous premiership of Liz Truss. But when Rishi Sunak entered the House of Commons on Wednesday, politics at Westminster seemed just as disconnected from reality as during her chaotic 50-day tenure inside No 10.
Tory backbenchers and ministers greeted Sunak, after their long summer break, with customary roars as he took his seat for prime minister’s questions. The more difficulty their leader is in these days, the more noise they seem to make.
Quite why they were in such good voices must have been a mystery to any objective onlooker. In the week when pupils returned to class for the new school year, the government had just shamefacedly published a list of 147 state schools in England whose buildings were in danger of collapsing (having previously refused to name those affected).
Many of the schools are in Tory constituencies. Classrooms, assembly halls, dining rooms and corridors were cordoned off before term began, and returning children found themselves shunted into temporary “safe spaces”, wherever these could be found.
George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor and architect of austerity, used to accuse his Labour predecessors of “failing to mend the roof while the sun was shining”. But after 13 years of the cost-cutting he initiated, much of the school estate is in danger of total collapse. Former civil servants said the fault lay with politicians who wanted to save money rather than pay for repairs. As policy disasters go, it was up there with the worst.
Other stories last week added to the impression of national malaise.
Hours before the list of crumbling schools was made public, terror suspect Daniel Khalife had gone on the run, having escaped from Wandsworth prison on the underside of a delivery van.
Staff shortages and cuts to prison budgets were blamed. Questions were asked about why Khalife had been in a category B prison given the offences he is suspected of having committed. Was it cost-cutting, lack of staff or a system failure that had allowed this modern version of a “great escape”?
Then, as if the bad news agenda was not packed enough, Birmingham City Council – one of the biggest local authorities in the UK – announced that it had in effect declared itself bankrupt. Experts piled in to warn that many other councils across England were now living “hand to mouth” after 13 years of cost cutting. Was the country falling apart?
In the Commons Sunak, like his backbenchers, had given up on trying to make coherent arguments. Attempts at policy “resets” over the summer on health, immigration, schools had all flopped.
All he and they could do was shout louder, deny, dislocate from reality, and make out all was well.
“The Conservatives are getting on delivering for Britain!” the prime minister yelled. Before sitting down, he drew more cheers by accusing Keir Starmer of political opportunism for having had the cheek to raise the safety of schools as an issue in the first place.
When the political party conference season opens later this month, Sunak will hope that the prospects of inflation falling and a more stable economic outlook will somehow kickstart a Tory revival in time for a general election in a year or so.
But despite their shows of bravado in the Commons, few Conservative MPs really see much hope. Their party’s poll ratings have not declined markedly over the summer but neither have they showed any sign of improving, despite endless initiatives aimed at shifting the dial.
Conservative attempts to focus on “small boats” merely raised the issue more in the public consciousness and the overall effect on their ratings was negative, suggesting that even immigration is no longer a plus for them.
As they returned to the Commons last week, Tory MPs were, privately, gloomy.
“Six months ago, if you had asked, I would have told you we were in the game,” said one in a marginal “red wall” seat. “Now I think it has gone. I think the electorate as a whole has made up its mind. We don’t have anything to say on the doorstep.”
That “doorstep question” is raised by many worried Conservatives. What can they say after almost a decade and a half? Where is the story that can make sense of their three terms?
In 2010, when David Cameron and Osborne, with the help of Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems, ushered in austerity, they presented it as a short period of necessary pain that had to be forced on the country to put the public finances right.
Instead, today, the images and experiences are of under-resourced services and a general decline resulting from chronic, systematic lack of investment.
During the first term of Tory rule, austerity often went hand in glove with ideological arguments about creating a smaller state. But here, too, as Conservative MPs search for positive stories, there is instead evidence of mismanagement in pursuit of those ideological visions.
As we reveal today, some of the problems now coming to light in school buildings are in Michael Gove’s “free schools”, where buildings were approved without proper checks being carried out, to increase the numbers operating outside local authority control.
The Observer has uncovered evidence that the government was in such a rush to open new free schools in England that it was buying up old buildings – many built in the immediate postwar era, using aerated concrete and asbestos.
One free school on the government’s new list of 147 schools with confirmed Raac (reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete) is Northampton International Academy. When it opened in 2017, pupils had to work in temporary classrooms backing on to an area known for drug dealing as the former Royal Mail sorting office was refurbished to accommodate them. The project cost £40m, £10m over budget, which was blamed on “insufficient surveys” before the site was initially approved. Now the government has ordered the school to close part of the site because of fears that the roof isn’t safe.
In 2014, an air traffic control training centre by Bournemouth airport was bought to house another free school, Parkfield, after a four-page vendor’s report. Asbestos and bats were later found on the site and unexploded bombs have yet to be ruled out. Half of the buildings on the site were demolished because they were unsuitable, and local media estimates the cost at £35m.
Typically the Department for Education (DfE) closely guards all information about pre-purchase surveys on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. But the Observer has evidence of 13 free schools where only light-touch surveys – in some cases recommending further tests for possible Raac – were carried out before sites were bought.
The government’s education and skills funding agency (ESFA) revealed in a freedom of information request that often it just “isn’t practical to do an intrusive survey” before buying a building for a free school. But funding consultant Tim Warneford, says: “That’s just rubbish.”
He compares the situation to a normal house purchase. Typically, buyers don’t trust a vendor’s survey, so commission their own detailed one. “You understandably want a full survey, especially with an older place, to give you reassurance but also some leverage to negotiate on price,” he says.
Following Michael Gove’s scrapping of Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010, Warneford says there is ample evidence that the government paid “well over the odds” for derelict buildings to house its new free schools, and he is angrier still that its failure to have thorough surveys done first has led, in some cases, to millions of pounds of extra expense.
Another difficulty for Tories on the doorsteps is what to say about “levelling up”, the post-austerity vision for a more equal country. After the 2019 election, when the Conservatives won dozens of seats from Labour in the north of England and Midlands, Boris Johnson promised to “level up” the country in order to repay the faith of the new Tory voters. After the pandemic he repackaged the message and talked of “building back better”.
Large parts of the north and Midlands have seen precisely nothing in the way of levelling up, however. Birmingham City Council is not alone in being on the brink of bankruptcy and by no means all the authorities facing similar difficulties are Labour led. Since 2010 real-terms funding by central government has fallen by more than 40%.
Bradford Council’s director of finance, Christopher Kinsella, recently presented a report on the authority’s first quarter finances in which he painted a dire picture for it and many others in the region.
“Many councils are experiencing similar pressures across the country as a result of these systemic funding issues, and numerous councils are nearing Section 114 notices [meaning no new expenditure is permitted]. This is without precedent and reflective of a sector in dire need of support.”
A half an hour’s drive south of Bradford City Hall lies the town of Huddersfield, headquarters of Kirklees metropolitan borough.
On Wednesday afternoon there will be a full meeting of Kirklees Council, and it will not be a comfortable one. Councillor Cathy Scott is the interim leader of the 69-strong authority. “Since the Conservatives entered government in 2010, Kirklees has lost over a billion pounds in funding,” she says. “Our annual budget has pretty much been cut in half – over £200m a year lost – while demand for services has increased significantly.
“The cuts to local government have been huge. But it isn’t just about the amount of funding they have cut nationally – it is that they have redistributed it from areas that need it to places they want to have it. That isn’t levelling up. The Tories have levelled down our communities.”
Pressures are acute across the region. Four schools in Bradford are affected by the Raac crisis and the state of public transport is a constant source of anger. In March this year, train operator Northern made a swathe of cuts to services. Just under two years ago the government scrapped plans for a much-anticipated high-speed rail link connecting Leeds and Manchester.
At Leeds’s Armley Prison, a huge redbrick edifice opened in 1847, an HM Inspector of Prisons report this July said: “HMP Leeds remains an overcrowded inner-city Victorian reception prison holding just under 1,110 adult prisoners. When we last inspected in 2022, we found a prison that needed to be safer and to provide more meaningful activity for prisoners. In particular, we were concerned about the high number of prisoners who had taken their own lives.”
Next June marks 10 years since the launch of the original northern powerhouse, an economic mission by Osborne to drive up productivity in the north and tackle entrenched regional divides.
After Osborne left office in 2016, business and civic leaders set up the Northern Powerhouse Partnership (NPP), chaired by him and intended to act as a voice for the region’s public and private sectors and to hold government to account on its promise to tackle the north-south divide.
NPP analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics has found that northerners earn on average £8,400 a year less than Londoners, and that the north’s productivity is roughly 40% lower than that of London and the south-east.
Whether it is austerity, the rolling back of the state or, more latterly, promises to level up the country, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see where the Tories can claim to have really delivered.
In Kirklees, Scott put it like this: “Levelling up isn’t just a meaningless slogan. It has become a cruel joke at our expense.”
The road to Raac and ruin
2010: The coalition launches its austerity programme
After winning the May election, the Tory/Lib Dem coalition launched a period of “austerity”, saying that in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the UK could face financial ruin without it. “The age of irresponsibility is giving way to the age of austerity,” said prime minister David Cameron. George Osborne called for cuts of up to 40% in departmental budgets, ushering in a period in which ministers were judged according to how much spending they could slash.
2010: Building Schools for the Future axed
In one of his first acts as education secretary, Michael Gove axed the Labour government’s school rebuilding programme, Building Schools for the Future. Gove said he believed there was little evidence that new school buildings improved standards. He argued that Building Schools for the Future had been beset by “massive overspends, tragic delays, botched construction projects and needless bureaucracy”. The decision caused a huge row, including with some Tory MPs who had been promised new school buildings in their areas. No substantial rebuilding plan was put in its place.
2010-15: The drive towards academies and free schools
New Labour began the experiment with academies. When Michael Gove became education secretary, he turbocharged the project in line with his ideological aim of shrinking the state. Outside local authority control, academies are funded directly by government. Gove also introduced his pet project, “free schools”, which could be set up by charities, universities, community and faith groups or parents. The rush to do this led to many being set up in old buildings before proper checks were done.
2016: Brexit
The decision to leave the EU has, according to most respected economists, left the country with a smaller economy than would otherwise have been the case, leaving less to be spent on public services. The 2016 referendum result also means economic growth will be 4% lower than had the UK stayed in the single market and customs union. Less economic activity means less revenue to the Treasury and less money to spend on the public realm such as repairing schools build with crumbling concrete.
2019-2023: Levelling up
After Boris Johnson led the Tories to victory in 2019 and won dozens of seats from Labour in the north of England and Midlands, he promised to repay those who had switched sides by “levelling up” the country, and investing more in its less wealthy areas. Since then, the levelling-up agenda has been a bitter disappointment to many Conservative MPs as promised projects, including transport improvements, have been cancelled or delayed due to cost cutting. | United Kingdom Politics |
Russian missile kills 16 in Kremenchuk shopping centreSearch and rescue teams are digging for those who remain trapped beneath the rubble of a shopping centre in the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk after the building was hit by a Russian missile on Monday.Ukraine’s president, Volodoymyr Zelenskiy, said more than 1,000 people were inside the building at the time of the strike. Images from the scene showed giant plumes of black smoke and flames, with emergency crews rushing in to search for victims and put out fires.Serhiy Kruk, the head of Ukraine’s state emergency service, said at 2am local time on Tuesday: “We continue to work at the site of the rocket attack on the shopping centre in Kremenchuk. The main tasks currently performed by rescuers are to carry out rescue operations, dismantle debris and eliminate fires. So far, 16 people have been killed and 59 injured, 25 of whom have been hospitalised.”Ukrainian war crimes prosecutors told the Guardian earlier that 14 bodies had been found in the ruins, and one person died from their wounds in hospital. At least 40 missing persons reports had been submitted by locals searching for loved ones who had gone missing in the building.When the missile struck, it ignited a massive fire that took 300 emergency workers more than four hours to extinguish.Volunteers and State Emergency Service firefighters work to extinguish a fire at a shopping center burned after a rocket attack in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, early Tuesday. Photograph: Efrem Lukatsky/APMykola Lukash, from the Kremenchuk district prosecutor’s office, said cranes would be brought in on Tuesday to help lift the collapsed roof of the shopping centre. “We haven’t found any children’s bodies. A lot of bodies are burnt. We need to carry out DNA tests. At the current moment 14 bodies were found here on the site and another one died in the hospital.”Svitlana Rybalko, the head of communications of Poltava region State Emergency Service, said the exact number of casualties remained unclear and that “There might be survivors.”As night fell in Kremenchuk, emergency workers and soldiers combed through blackened debris and twisted metal.“We pulled out several bodies, but there are definitely more trapped under the rubble,” said Oleksii, 46, a firefighter. “This is normally a very crowded place.”Rescue teams work at a site of a shopping mall hit by a Russian missile strike in Kremenchuk, Ukraine. Photograph: ReutersSummary and welcomeHello it’s Samantha Lock back with you as we continue to report all the latest news from Ukraine.Rescue teams are searching for survivors in the rubble of a shopping mall in central Ukraine after a Russian missile strike killed at least 16 people in an attack condemned by the United Nations and the westHere are all the major developments as of 8am in Kyiv. A Russian missile hit a crowded shopping centre in the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk on Monday, killing and injuring scores of people, Ukrainian authorities said. Serhiy Kruk, the head of Ukraine’s state emergency service, said at 2am local time on Tuesday: “So far, 16 people have been killed and 59 injured, 25 of whom have been hospitalised.” Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, said more than 1,000 people were inside the building at the time of the strike and officials are “still establishing the number of people under the rubble.” Zelenskiy described the attack on Kremenchuk as “one of the most defiant terrorist attacks in European history”. “A peaceful city, an ordinary shopping mall with women, children, ordinary civilians inside,” he said. “Only totally insane terrorists, who should have no place on earth, can strike missiles at such an object. And this is not an off-target missile strike, this is a calculated Russian strike – exactly at this shopping mall.” The leaders of the G7 said Russian president Vladimir Putin’s attacks aimed at civilians were a “war crime” and condemned the “abominable attack” in Kremenchuk. “We stand united with Ukraine in mourning the innocent victims of this brutal attack. Indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians constitute a war crime. Russian president Putin and those responsible will be held to account,” a statement read. They said they would “continue to provide financial, humanitarian as well as military support for Ukraine, for as long as it takes”. Russian shelling of a residential area in Ukraine’s second largest city, Kharkiv, killed at least five civilians on Monday, the regional governor said. A further 19 people were wounded in the attack, Oleh Synehubov said. A Russian missile attack also killed at least eight civilians and wounded 21 in Ukraine’s eastern Lysychansk region. “Today, when the civilian people were collecting water from a water tank, the Russians aimed at the crowd,” Serhiy Haidai, Luhansk governor, said on Telegram. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said there can be no return to prewar ties with Russia. Scholz said that with its attack on Ukraine, Russia has broken “all the rules, all the agreements we have made with each other on countries’ cooperation” after the G7 summit. He said G7 leaders agree that it has led to long-term changes “which will mark international relations for a very, very long time. So it is clear that, in relations with Russia, there can be no way back to the time before the Russian attack on Ukraine.” The UN security council will meet on Tuesday to discuss Russia’s targeted attacks on civilians at the request of Ukraine. Nato will boost the number of troops on high alert by more than sevenfold to over 300,000 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said the military alliance’s forces in the Baltic states and five other frontline countries would be increased “up to brigade levels” – doubled or trebled to between 3,000 and 5,000 troops. That would amount to “the biggest overhaul of our collective defence and deterrence since the cold war,” he said. UK defence secretary, Ben Wallace, has reportedly written to the prime minister to call for the defence budget to be lifted to 2.5% of GDP by 2028. The leaked request, first reported by Talk TV, emerged on the eve of the Nato summit in Madrid, which will discuss the renewed threat posed by Russia and the anticipated commitment of hundreds more British troops to the defence of Estonia. Any encroachment on the Crimea peninsula by a Nato member-state could amount to a declaration of war on Russia which could lead to “World War Three,” Russia’s former president, Dmitry Medvedev, was quoted as saying on Monday. “For us, Crimea is a part of Russia. And that means forever. Any attempt to encroach on Crimea is a declaration of war against our country. And if this is done by a Nato member-state, this means conflict with the entire North Atlantic alliance; a World War Three. A complete catastrophe,” Medvedev told the Russian news website Argumenty i Fakty. The US is planning to buy and send more medium- to long-range missile systems to Ukraine, including Nasams, an advanced surface-to-air missile system, according to defence officials. The US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, confirmed on Monday the US is in the process of finalising a package that includes advanced air defence capabilities. Putin and his Brazilian counterpart, Jair Bolsonaro, discussed global food security and confirmed their intention to strengthen their strategic partnership, the Kremlin said on Monday. Putin assured Bolsonaro in a phone call that Russia would fulfil all its obligations to supply fertilisers to Brazil, the Kremlin said in a statement as reported by Reuters. Ukrainian State Emergency Service firefighters take away debris at a shopping centre burned after a rocket attack in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, early Tuesday. Photograph: Efrem Lukatsky/AP | Europe Politics |
- Summary
- Chandrayaan-3 rover exits spacecraft, all systems normal
- ISRO chief says probe could face issues such as lunar dust
- PM Modi says landing is achievement of all of humanity
- Media hails landing as India's biggest scientific feat
NEW DELHI, Aug 24 (Reuters) - The moon rover of India's Chandrayaan-3 exited the spacecraft on Thursday to begin exploring the surface of the lunar south pole and conducting experiments, and was braced for new challenges, the space agency chief said.
The soft, textbook touchdown by the lander after a failed attempt in 2019 sparked widespread jubilation and celebration in the world's most populous country. The media hailed the historic landing as India's biggest scientific feat.
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) chief S. Somanath said the lander and the rover were in good condition, and "both are working very well" but the experiments were yet to start.
"All activities are on schedule. All systems are normal," ISRO posted on X, formerly Twitter. "Rover mobility operations have commenced."
The rover, named "Pragyan", has two instruments to conduct element and chemical composition experiments, and a robotic path planning exercise for future exploration.
Chandrayaan means "moon vehicle" in Hindi and Sanskrit. The rover is expected to remain functional for two weeks, or one lunar day, the period of time its solar-powered equipment is built to last.
POSSIBLE CHALLENGES
Somanath said there were "many issues" on the moon's surface that ISRO will experience for the first time, especially lunar dust and temperatures that could impact moving parts.
"The mechanisms, the moving items...can get entangled with the dust there. It can get into the moving parts and jam them, the bearings of the system may not work, the motors may not work," he told the CNN News 18 TV channel.
Lunar dust is different from that on the surface of earth and in the absence of air on the moon, it could stick to materials of the rover, impacting its operation, he said.
"All this creates problems in those mechanisms...so let us see how it goes," the scientist said. "We will face it...that’s why we are exploring. If everything is known, what is the fun in doing it?"
Accomplished with a budget of about 6.15 billion rupees ($75 million), this was India's second attempt to touch down on the moon. A previous mission in 2019, Chandrayaan-2, successfully deployed an orbiter but its lander crashed.
The moon's rugged south pole is coveted because of its water ice, or frozen water, which could prove to be a source of fuel, oxygen, and drinking water for future missions, but its rough terrain makes landing challenging.
CELEBRATIONS
People across the country tuned in to watch the landing on Wednesday, with nearly 7 million people viewing the YouTube live stream alone.
Prayers were held at places of worship, and schools organised live screenings for students.
Besides boosting India's standing as a space power and its reputation for cost-competitive space engineering, the landing is also seen as a major moment of national pride.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he has been congratulated by everyone since Wednesday and that the world saw the successful landing not as one country's achievement but that of all of humanity.
"It is a matter of pride and a pat on the back for Indian scientists," Modi said at the BRICS summit in Johannesburg on Thursday.
Indian newspapers had banner headlines reading: "The moon is Indian", "India goes where no nation's gone before", and "India lights up the dark side of the moon", among others.
"Lunar landing is the most significant Indian scientific achievement," the Times of India said in an editorial.
"If India is now in a position to harvest the benefit of a spurt in interest in basic sciences there's one reason: ISRO," it said.
($1 = 82.4610 Indian rupees)
Reporting by YP Rajesh and Sakshi Dayal; Editing by Gerry Doyle, Toby Chopra and Bernadette Baum
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | India Politics |
It’s a troubling question with no palatable answer: What would President Joe Biden do if Russia used nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war?A half dozen current and former government officials briefed on the issue, and several outside experts, told NBC News there was no playbook and little agreement about how the U.S. would respond to a norm-shattering act of destruction that could obliterate a Ukrainian city, kill tens of thousands and send a cloud of nuclear fallout drifting over NATO countries in Western Europe.This isn’t new to the Biden administration. In fact, when the Obama administration conducted a war game simulating Russian use of nuclear weapons in the Baltics, there were fundamental disagreements about how to react. U.S. intelligence officials say they have seen no signs that Russian President Vladimir Putin is poised to employ so-called battlefield nukes, but several versions of Russian military doctrine published since 2000 have envisioned the first use of nuclear weapons in response to a conventional threat in a regional war. And military experts say Russia’s smallest warheads have many times the explosive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.As the U.S. continues to send ever more sophisticated weapons designed to help Ukraine destroy invading Russian forces, American officials tell NBC News the Biden administration has for months been thinking the unthinkable about what Putin could do — and war-gaming scenarios envisioning Russia using an atomic bomb on Ukraine.“We don’t see … practical evidence at this point of Russian planning for the deployment or even potential use of tactical nuclear weapons,” CIA Director William Burns said last month. But, he added, “given the kind of saber-rattling that ... we’ve heard from the Russian leadership, we can’t take lightly those possibilities.”NBC News talked to a half dozen current and former officials briefed on the issue, and several outside experts. Current officials declined to speak on the record, citing the sensitivity of the planning.It’s fair to say that the American response “would depend wildly on how the Russians used” a nuclear weapon, as one U.S. official regularly briefed on U.S. government deliberations put it.A demonstration shot over the Black Sea? A strike on Ukrainian troops in a remote area? Or far more provocative scenarios, such as a devastating blow to a major Ukrainian city or a nuclear attack on a NATO country?The menu of American options is stark, officials and outside experts say: Stay the course, up the sanctions and keep arming the Ukrainians, while building an international coalition against Russia that completely isolates the country; launch a conventional military attack on Russian forces in Ukraine or Russia; or respond with a nuclear attack. Unless a NATO country was hit, the U.S. would not have any obligation to respond.Some military and intelligence officials told NBC News they believe it’s unlikely the U.S. would retaliate militarily after a single Russian use of a so-called tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Others said Biden would have to unleash some conventional force, perhaps attacking Russian troops in Ukraine or the Russian military unit that launched the nuclear weapon, an option that could have serious repercussions, since Russian military leaders might be killed.If Russia used a nuclear weapon of any type, “I expect (the president) to say we’re in a new situation, and the U.S. will directly enter the war against Russia to stop this government that has not only broken so many international laws and violated human rights but also now violated the nuclear taboo,” said Evelyn Farkas, a former top Pentagon official for Russia and now executive director of the McCain Institute. “Putin will be signing the order on changing the regime.”But two U.S. officials briefed on the issue did not agree, with one saying, “Unless they use them on NATO we’re probably not going to respond militarily.”Under this thinking, Biden would not want to risk an escalation into a full-scale nuclear war that leads to the destruction of American cities. But he might not have to, because if Putin were to go nuclear, experts believe most other countries in the world, including many that are sitting on the fence in the current conflict, would quickly turn against and isolate Russia.“The whole world would stop,” said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear expert and distinguished fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.A remote possibility that can’t be taken lightlyAmerican and Western national security officials tell NBC News there has been no sign that Russia has moved tactical nuclear weapons out of storage facilities. Intelligence officials have said they assess that Putin would consider nukes only if he believed his regime was in mortal danger.But two U.S. officials, citing American intelligence assessments, say some in Putin’s inner circle have encouraged him to test a nuclear weapon as a show of strength during moments when his conventional forces have struggled in Ukraine. The officials said there is continuing concern that Putin could choose this option if he believes Russia has been backed into a corner. Putin placed Moscow’s nuclear forces on high alert shortly after his invasion of Ukraine began on Feb. 24, and he warned that “no one should have any doubts that a direct attack on our country will lead to the destruction and horrible consequences for any potential aggressor.” But U.S. officials told NBC News they did not see any changes to their footprint or movements at the time. In April, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov warned the West not to underestimate the elevated risks of nuclear conflict over Ukraine. Putin supporters on Russian state TV in recent weeks have talked openly about a nuclear war with the U.S. and Europe.All this comes against the backdrop of a Russian nuclear doctrine that has evolved in what Western officials consider disturbing ways. In a 1993 document, Russia said it would use nuclear weapons only when the existence of the country was threatened. But in versions published since 2000, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to any weapons of mass destruction used to attack Russia and its allies, according to scholars who have examined it.The doctrine also allows for the use of nuclear weapons “in response to large-scale aggression using conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation.” Experts have described that strategy as “escalate to de-escalate,” and they say it means that Russia is willing to make limited use of nuclear weapons to win what would otherwise be a conventional war.On paper, U.S. nuclear doctrine is similar, but in practical terms, experts do not believe an American president would ever use nuclear weapons in a regional conventional war, and the U.S. has not, through Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Officials say the main purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter or respond to a nuclear attack by an adversary. Still, the U.S. has not ruled out using nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, and in some limited circumstances, conventional attacks. It still maintains around 100 nuclear weapons in NATO countries, put there originally to stop Russian tanks from seizing Western Europe.Nuclear warning shot?Officials are struggling to understand exactly what could prompt Putin to use a nuclear weapon. To cement gains made on the battlefield? To reverse losses? To stave off a rout?“It’s not clear where that red line is. If Ukrainian forces were to enter Russian territory, would that be sufficient? I don’t know," said Chris Chivvis, who served from April 2018 to April 2021 as the U.S. national intelligence officer for Europe.Citing the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, its seizure of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election, he added, “The reality is we have been surprised by Russia three or four times in the last 15 years.” Although technology exists to make battlefield nuclear weapons smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Russia does not have warheads that small, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute. All of its so-called tactical nuclear weapons have enormous explosive power. There is no technological distinction between “tactical” nuclear weapons and “strategic” ones — the difference is in the targets and the goals. Tactical nukes are used to gain advantage on the battlefield, while strategic weapons are aimed at military infrastructure and even whole cities.If Russia decided to use one, its options could include an attack on an airbase or other military target, an attack on a Ukrainian city or a test of a nuclear weapon at a remote site — a warning shot designed to signal Moscow’s willingness to use the ultimate weapon, former officials said. It could deliver the weapon as a bomb, or via a missile.Although none of these scenarios are likely, the nuclear test could be the most attractive for Moscow, some experts said.Testing a nuclear weapon would be an extraordinarily provocative step, something only North Korea has done in this century. A test above ground would risk radioactive material drifting into populated areas in Russian territory or NATO countries, depending on where it was carried out and the weather conditions. The former Soviet Union’s last nuclear test was carried out underground in 1989.If Russia faced impending defeat in Ukraine, a single "demonstration attack," either on Ukrainian territory or possibly on the Black Sea, could seek to “convey their resolve, to try to force terror on the other party and get the Ukrainians to fold,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a former deputy secretary general of NATO who is now at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.“They would be trying to strike terror into the hearts of the Ukrainians, get them to back down, get them even to concede defeat,” Gottemoeller said.“Whatever he (Putin) did, he would do it in the belief that it would ensure his survival and perhaps compel surrender or retreat for the Ukrainians.”Instead of a nuclear exchange with the U.S., “Russia has many options that it could employ either in Ukraine or elsewhere that would be much smaller steps up the nuclear escalatory ladder, but that nevertheless would represent a sea change in world history,“ said Chivvis, now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment think tank. “I worry that people are not being open-minded to the reality that there are scenarios in which Russia could use nuclear weapons. They’re not the most likely scenarios, but to be responsible, we have to figure that into our thinking about this conflict,” he said.Strategic ambiguityThe Biden administration has intentionally avoided spelling out how it would respond if Russia launched a nuclear attack in Ukraine, leaving open the possibility of retaliating with nuclear weapons, conventional forces, a cyber operation or other means.“We have to be crystal clear in our policy of warning him of a swift and decisive response, without necessarily being unambiguous about what that would be,” said Alexander Vershbow, who served as deputy secretary general of NATO from 2012 to 2016 and as ambassador to Russia from 2001 to 2005.Biden would have to at least consider a major conventional military response in support of Ukraine, former U.S. officials said.A Russian attack on Ukraine with a tactical nuclear weapon would pose an excruciating dilemma for Washington and its NATO allies. Biden and Western political leaders would have to weigh a response that would avoid triggering a full-blown nuclear conflict with Russia, while still imposing a heavy cost on Moscow.Jeffrey Edmonds, an expert on the Russian military at the CNA think tank, says there are four possible response scenarios, only two of which are plausible: Capitulate and sue for peace; stay the course with sanctions and pressure; mount a conventional attack to punish Russia; respond with a nuclear attack on Russia.The real choice, he believes, is either staying the course or a conventional attack.Biden could decide that “what we’re doing is working, we’re just going to keep going, we’re going to take the moral high ground.” Presumably, Russia would become more isolated diplomatically and international sanctions pressure would ratchet up. But Edmonds noted that calls for a military response to a Russian use of nuclear weapons would be “deafening” in Washington.In his book “The Bomb,” about nuclear war planning, author Fred Kaplan writes about a National Security Council war game during the Obama administration that simulated a Russian tactical nuclear attack on a NATO country during a Russian invasion of one of the Baltic States. Lower level officials decided not to respond with a nuclear weapon, instead continuing to fight with conventional forces. But when the same scenario was presented to Cabinet level officials, they decided that the U.S. had to respond with a nuclear attack, and they targeted Russian ally Belarus. “I think that’s nuts,” Cirincione said. “There is a belief that you can have a limited nuclear exchange. You don’t want to get in that box, because once you are in that nuclear war-fighting mindset, you can’t control it.”The Biden administration’s track record so far suggests it would move cautiously, in consultation with its European allies, and seek to avoid plunging the world into a nuclear conflagration, former officials said. The administration has faced criticism that it has moved too slowly to send advanced weapons to Ukraine, but the White House’s supporters say the administration has focused on avoiding actions that could escalate the crisis into a direct clash between Russia and the U.S.Realistically, the U.S. would look for ways to respond short of launching a nuclear weapon, possibly through cyber operations or other support for Ukraine, said Gottemoeller. The United States would need to avoid any kind of nuclear escalation in the interest of the U.S. and its allies, but also for “global survival,” she said. | Europe Politics |
The smoke clears on our latest League Table to reveal a damaged landscape. Kemi Badenoch, on 63 points, and Penny Mordaunt, on 49.8, are the only Cabinet members who break the half-century barrier. Badenoch, second last month, is now first and Mordaunt, third last month, is now second.
The man who then pipped Badenoch to the top spot, James Cleverly, falls from first with 72 points to eleventh from bottom with 10.6 points. It’s fair to say that whatever you think of the new Home Secretary’s performance since he was appointed, pleasing Conservative activists seems to have been just about the last thing on his mind, for better or worse.
But the biggest news is that Rishi Sunak, whose ratings have yo-yoed around during the past few months, hits his lowest trough yet in the table. Last month, in our first survey since the Conservative Party Conference, he was on 7.1 points and ninth from bottom. The month before, in the wake of his Net Zero speech, he was up to 26 points and eighth. Three months ago, he was in the red on -2.7.
Minus 25.4 is a dire rating – though not as lamentable as the tooth-grindingly terrible -51.2 and -53.1 scores racked up by Theresa May and Philip Hammond in April 2019, let alone Chris Grayling’s record -71.6 score in the same poll. The fact is that during the last month every good piece of news for the Government has been followed by bad.
Inflation halved? The Supreme Court’s Rwanda judgement came only a few hours later. Autumn Statement? A day later came record legal migration figures. Many members of the panel will also have clocked the Prime Minister’s decision to cancel a meeting with Greece’s visiting Prime Minister over the Elgin Marbles rumpus. Labour leads by 19 points in Politico’s poll of polls.
“We are in a terrible hole,” Ken Clarke said of John Major’s Government during the mid-1990s. The same might be said of this one now. Compare and contrast this table with the first of this Parliament, returned by much the same panel in January 2020. Then, 17 Ministers broke the 50 point barrier, and Boris Johnson was on 91.6 points.
Five Ministers are now in negative ratings: four of these are familiar faces. Oliver Dowden (back in the red), Andrew Mitchell, Rishi Sunak – and Jeremy Hunt, whose Autumn Statement landed well with the Conservative media, but whose rating rises only from -23 to -13.4. Robert Jenrick is out of negative ratings, recording a lowly 6.6 from -8.9. Richard Holden gets no breathing space, coming in as Party Chairman at 3.6.
And David Cameron? He is welcomed back to the table with a negative score of -4.9. Some of this will be Leave-ish sentiment, some an unease about his record on China, some perhaps a memory of the Greensill saga. All rather unfair, in my view. But who am I to question that of the panel? Our Cabinet League Table question received some 750 replies. | United Kingdom Politics |
Boris Johnson is at the helm of a ghost ship government today as another seven ministers walked out demanding the PM accepts reality and quits.The PM has vowed defiance despite fresh evidence of his authority draining away - with Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis, previously a hugely loyal ally, leading the latest exodus. The exodus of ministers continues 6.47am: Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis - tweeted that he could not longer continue without 'honesty, integrity and mutual respect'. 6.49am: Treasury minister Helen Whately - said 'there are only so many times you can apologise and move on'. 7.15am: Security minister Damian Hinds - 'for our country, and trust in our democracy, we must have a change of leadership'7.21am: Science minister George Freeman - accused Mr Johnson of 'insults to the Conservatism I believe in and stand for'.7.50am: Pensions minister Guy Opperman - 'it should not take the resignation of 50 colleagues, but sadly the PM has left us no choice'8.02am: Technology minister Chris Philp - 'the PM should step down'. 8.09am: Courts minister James Cartlidge - 'The position is clearly untenable.' At 6.47am, he tweeted that he could not longer continue without 'honesty, integrity and mutual respect'. Minutes later Treasury minister Helen Whately followed suit saying 'there are only so many times you can apologise and move on'. Security minister Damian Hinds and science minister George Freeman had followed by 7.30am, and pensions minister Guy Opperman by 7.50am.Meanwhile, Wales minister David TC Davies publicly announced that he had refused a promotion to take over from Welsh Secretary Simon Hart, who quit last night. The Attorney General, Suella Braverman has called for Mr Johnson to resign and said she is only staying in place to keep the government functioning. With the resignation tally now standing at 52, the government has been unable to find a minister willing to go on the airwaves to speak up for the PM this morning - although his critics have been swarming to studios.Former Cabinet minister Julian Smith warned that the premier had seen how Donald Trump behaved in relation to the Capitol riots after the US election, and was looking to have a 'mini version in the UK'.There are even suggestions from allies that Mr Johnson could try to force a snap general election in a desperate bid to cling to office - something that could drag the Queen into a constitutional crisis. Veteran Tory MP Bernard Jenkin this morning urged Carrie Johnson to step in a convince her husband that he should throw in the towel. But the PM yesterday rejected pleas from a delegation of loyalists including Priti Patel and new chancellor Nadhim Zahawi for a seemly departure, vowing to fight until the bitter end. Despite the UK being a parliamentary democracy, he claimed to have a presidential-style mandate from the last election, apparently saying: 'If the party wants to overthrow the elected will of the people, they have to dip their hands in blood.'In a sensational twist late last night, Mr Johnson summarily sacked Michael Gove with No10 sources branding the Levelling Up Secretary a 'snake' who had tried to tell the premier that the 'the game was up'. Constitutional experts have branded the 'nuclear option' of asking the Queen for a dissolution 'deluded madness' which would spark a crisis as the monarch would be obliged to turned down his request. Prime Minister Boris Johnson (pictured today) is being bombarded with more resignations but has refused to quitNorthern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis has resigned, telling the Prime Minister that Government requires 'honesty, integrity and mutual respect'. Minutes later Helen Whately, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, also quit and told the PM: 'There are only so many times you can apologise and move on'. The lights in Boris Johnson's Downing Street living room burn through the night pictured at 4.26am todayThe exits of Lewis and Whatley is another huge blow to Boris - who is vowing to fight on Boris Johnson's allies have now raised the prospect of taking the 'nuclear option' and asking the Queen to dissolve parliament to trigger an election - which he does technically have the power to do - but the monarch could also refuse the requestMichael Gove (left) - who notoriously stabbed Boris Johnson (right) in the back to end his leadership hopes in 2016 - has tonight been sacked from his cabinet position as embattled Prime Minister Boris Johnson launched his own counterattack in a desperate bid to save his political careerBoris Johnson arriving back in Downing Street after his appearance at the Liaison Committee on WednesdayIn his resignation letter, Mr Lewis - a former party chairman who has been Northern Ireland Secretary since early 2020 - warned divided Conservatives cannot win elections.He said: 'A decision to leave Government is never taken lightly, particularly at such a critical time for Northern Ireland. I have taken a lot of time to consider this decision, having outlined my position to you at length last night.Mr Lewis told the Prime Minister that in recent months, the Conservative Party has been 'relentlessly on the defensive, consumed by introspection and in-fighting'.'A divided Party cannot win elections. It cannot deliver for those who trusted us with their votes for the first time in 2019.'Mr Lewis told Mr Johnson he had 'given you, and those around you, the benefit of the doubt'.'I have gone out and defended this Government both publicly and privately,' the Northern Ireland Secretary told Boris Johnson in his resignation letter.'We are, however, now past the point of no return. I cannot sacrifice my personal integrity to defend things as they stand now. It is clear that our Party, parliamentary colleagues, volunteers and the whole country, deserve better.'Ms Whately, MP for Faversham and Mid Kent and another loyalist, said: 'I have argued that you should continue as Prime Minister many times in recent months, but there are only so many times you can apologise and move on. That point has been reached.'Security minister and MP for East Hampshire Damian Hinds wrote on Twitter: 'It shouldn't take the resignation of dozens of colleagues, but for our country, and trust in our democracy, we must have a change of leadership.'In his letter of resignation, he wrote: '…more important than any government or leader are the standards we uphold in public life and faith in our democracy and public administration.'Because of the serious erosion in these, I have come to the conclusion that the right thing for our country and for our party is for you to stand down as party leader and Prime Minister.'I had hoped you would take this course sooner, of your own volition. But as it has become clear that you still intend to stay, I cannot continue to serve in your administration.'Mr Freeman said 'the chaos in your Cabinet and No 10 this month is destroying our credibility' and 'it can't go on'. Pensions minister and Hexam MP Guy Opperman wrote on Twitter: 'I resign with great regret, given there are serious ongoing issues that need addressing ranging from cost of living support, to legislation, & parliamentary debates.'It should not take the resignation of 50 colleagues, but sadly the PM has left us no choice. He needs to resign.'Deputy PM Dominic Raab is thought to have told the Prime Minister that he risked putting the monarch in an intolerable position if he tried to call a snap election, The Sun reports. The Queen, 96, was yesterday pictured being driven from Wood Farm near Sandringham, Norfolk, to her helicopter which flew her back to Windsor Castle. She typically holds a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister on Wednesdays, which have frequently taken place over the phone since the coronavirus pandemic broke out, but it is not clear whether it occurred yesterday amid the pandemonium surrounding Mr Johnson's leadership. Concern among MPs comes following the approval of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act which was brought into law this year, repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and allowing for the body to be dissolved by the Queen 'on the request of the prime minister'. Conservative MPs worry that the Prime Minister could try to use it to save his premiership.A government source told The Times: 'It is something that was talked about but it is completely deluded madness.'In two days of drama, more than 40 resignations have been sent to the Prime Minister since Sajid Javid sparked a tidal wave of revolt late on Tuesday evening in a move that now threatens to bring the Government to its knees. Home Secretary Priti Patel, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps and Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis were among the Cabinet ministers telling Mr Johnson to stand down.Attorney General and leadership hopeful Suella Braverman later joined the calls for the Prime Minister to quit as she launched a bid to replace him.And Mr Johnson was last night hit with the departure of another Cabinet minister - Welsh Secretary Simon Hart It is understood that senior Conservatives have been told by the Cabinet Office that the head of the civil service, Simon Case, would warn against the PM asking for a dissolution on the grounds that it would drag the Queen into politics. One senior MP said that the civil service would advise against putting the Queen in a 'difficult position', and his private secretary or cabinet secretary would tell him not to seek a dissolution because while the monarch could refuse it would be seen as constitutionally 'inappropriate' to put her in a position where she has to make a 'controversial decision'. Under the 'Lascelles principles', the monarch can turn down a request for a dissolution on three conditions, which are:The existing parliament is 'vital, viable and capable of doing its job'; An election would be 'detrimental to the national economy'; and if the monarch can 'rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority' The Prime Minister rejected calls to quit on Wednesday and dramatically sacked Cabinet rival Michael Gove, but was later hit with the departure of a third Cabinet minister - Welsh Secretary Simon Hart - and further demands to go from the Attorney General Concern among MPs comes following the approval of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act which was brought into law this year, repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and allowing for the body to be dissolved by the Queen, pictured Wednesday, 'on the request of the prime minister' Powerful 1922 committee chair Graham Brady was seen going into the Cabinet Office on Wednesday night - another access point to Downing StreetSenior Tory MPs think all conditions are met and, one Johnson supporter predicted the Queen would refuse to allow the dissolution of parliament by 'finding a way of being busy until we've sorted this mess out ourselves'. 'Samantha the Panther' lined up to restore order Former royal aide Samantha Cohen - known as 'Samantha the Panther' is now being lined up to restore order to the Downing Street operation, and was appointed Boris Johnson's interim Chief of Staff after Steve Barclay was moved to become Health Secretary. Cohen, who worked as Her Majesty's assistant private secretary for eight years, was in February brought in to control access to the Prime Minister in a role which has not been filled since David Cameron's premiership.The 50-year-old, nicknamed 'Samantha the Panther' due to her no-nonsense, professional approach, also acted as the Duchess of Sussex's private secretary for 18 months to help prepare Meghan for royal life.Mrs Cohen, who left the Palace in 2019 after 18 years there, took over the management of the Prime Minister's diary as the director of government relations.Mr Johnson is believed to have successfully poached her for the role.Mrs Cohen was a journalist and civil servant in her native Australia before landing her first job in the Palace. Behind the famous black door of No10, the PM had earlier struggled with backbench chief Sir Graham Brady and senior figures including chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris - who warned him that the 'game is up'.But an unapologetic PM shocked Sir Graham and his ministers by telling them he is going nowhere, effectively daring them to call another confidence vote and saying he will focus on the 'hugely important issues facing the country'. There are claims he has told friends 'if you are going to die, go down fighting'. The PM appointed his chief of staff Steve Barclay to replace Mr Javid as Health Secretary, and universities minister Michelle Donelan was promoted to Cabinet to replace Nadhim Zahawi.Mr Zahawi is believed to have agreed to launch a new economic plan alongside Mr Johnson today, but it is not known if this will go ahead amid the crisis surrounding Mr Johnson's premiership. Former royal aide Samantha Cohen - known as 'Samantha the Panther' is now being lined up to restore order to the Downing Street operation, and was appointed Mr Johnson's interim Chief of Staff after Mr Barclay was moved to become Health Secretary.Meanwhile, the dramatic sacking of Mr Gove, a long-standing ally who has served in Cabinet roles in successive governments since 2010, came after a whirlwind two days in Westminster that has seen Mr Johnson's core support hemorrhage.The PM's relationship with Mr Gove has long been troubled, with Mr Johnson's leadership campaign in 2016 derailed when his rival withdrew support and decided to run himself.Mr Johnson phoned the Levelling Up Secretary yesterday evening to tell him he was being removed from his Cabinet job, accusing him of 'treachery'.One senior Tory told The Sun: 'He has lost it. He has become like Caligula — the Roman emperor who wanted to make a horse a consul. Michael was one of the best ministers in the Cabinet.' The sacking came after the minister went alone to see Mr Johnson in his Downing Street study shortly before 10.30am yesterday and tried to persuade him to stand down.Mr Gove warned the PM his position was 'no longer sustainable', telling him: 'The party will move to get rid of you'.'It is better to go on your own terms,' he urged him.Despite his pleading, at the end of the amicable five-minute conversation, Mr Johnson told Mr Gove: 'Thank you, but I am going to fight on.'The pair then walked down the corridor to the Cabinet Room, where the Levelling Up Secretary helped Mr Johnson to prepare for Prime Minister's Questions. Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi and Transport Secretary Grant Shapps (pictured) are among the group who confronted the PM Asked if he would quit as he arrived for a grilling by the Liaison Committee Wednesday afternoon, Mr Johnson said: 'No, no, no.'Sajid Javid yesterday delivered a vicious parting shot at Boris Johnson saying the 'team is only as good as the team captain'But the minister was noticeably absent from the frontbench as the PM faced MPs.At 2.27pm, the news that Mr Gove had told Mr Johnson to go was broken on The Mail+. But the Levelling Up Secretary's allies insisted he was not quitting and was not planning to lead a wider delegation of ministers to Downing Street to call for the PM to stand down. WHO HAS QUIT BORIS'S GOVERNMENT SO FAR? Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health and Social CareRishi Sunak, Chancellor of the ExchequerAndrew Murrison, trade envoy to MoroccoBim Afolami, Conservative Party vice-chairmanSaqib Bhatti, parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Health and Social CareJonathan Gullis, parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland OfficeNicola Richards, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for TransportVirginia Crosbie, parliamentary private secretary at the Welsh OfficeTheo Clarke, trade envoy to KenyaAlex Chalk, Solicitor GeneralLaura Trott, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for TransportWill Quince, parliamentary under-secretary of state for children and families at the Department for EducationRobin Walker, minister of state for school standards at the Department for EducationFelicity Buchan, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial StrategyJohn Glen, minister of state at the TreasuryVictoria Atkins, minister of state for prisons and probation at the Ministry of JusticeJo Churchill, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStuart Andrew, minister of state for housing at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesSelaine Saxby, parliamentary private secretary at the TreasuryClaire Coutinho, parliamentary private secretary at the TreasuryDavid Johnston, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for EducationKemi Badenoch, minister of state at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesJulia Lopez, minister of state at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & SportLee Rowley, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial StrategyNeil O'Brien, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesAlex Burghart, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for EducationMims Davies, parliamentary under-secretary of state at the Department for Work & PensionsDuncan Baker, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & CommunitiesCraig Williams, parliamentary private secretary at the TreasuryMark Logan, parliamentary private secretary at the Northern Ireland OfficeRachel Maclean, parliamentary under-secretary of state for safeguarding at the Home OfficeMike Freer, parliamentary under-secretary of state for exports at the Department for International TradeMark Fletcher, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial StrategySara Britcliffe, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for EducationRuth Edwards, parliamentary private secretary at the Scottish OfficePeter Gibson, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for International Trade David Duiguid, trade envoy for Angola and ZambiaJames Sunderland, parliamentary private secretary at the Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsJames Young, Red Wall MP and PPS in the Department of Levelling Up David Mundell, UK Trade Envoy to New ZealandJames Daly, parliamentary private secretary for the Department for Work and Pensions Danny Kruger, PPS at Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Simon Hart, Welsh Secretary Ed Argar, health ministerJames Davies, PPS at Department of HealthGareth Davies, PPS to Department of Health An hour later the Prime Minister was questioned about his cabinet colleague's warning to him as he appeared before the Commons liaison committee.Mr Johnson did not dispute that Mr Gove had told him he should resign. Asked if the story was true, he replied: 'I am here to talk about what the Government is doing. I am not going to give a running commentary on political events.'At around 9pm, Mr Johnson rang Mr Gove to sack him. Neither Mr Gove nor his advisers were the source of The Mail+ story, but the PM said he believed the minister was behind the leak.A No 10 source last night accused him of being a 'snake', adding: 'You cannot brief the Press that you're calling on the PM to go and expect to stay in Cabinet.'It's not the first time he's been treacherous, appalling and disloyal. This is something he [Mr Johnson] should have done years ago. We need team players who share the PM's vision for Britain.'Danny Kruger, who had been a ministerial aide to Mr Gove at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) last night said he was quitting his post in response to the sacking. 'Very sorry indeed to hear Michael Gove has been fired by the PM,' he tweeted. 'As I told No 10 earlier today it should be the PM leaving office. I am resigning as PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary] at DLUHC.'Three ministers at the department – Kemi Badenoch, Neil O'Brien and Stuart Andrew – had earlier announced they were quitting. Duncan Baker, another PPS, also resigned.Tory former minister Tim Loughton said last night: 'Michael Gove has taken the PM the traditional whisky and revolver. The PM has downed the whisky and turned the revolver on Gove.'Mr Gove torpedoed Mr Johnson's Tory leadership bid in 2016 following the Brexit referendum, when he dramatically withdrew support for his campaign at the last minute and then ran himself.Ultimately it ended both men's hopes and left the field clear for Theresa May to reach No 10.In the 2019 Conservative leadership race, Mr Gove finished third place amid claims votes were switched from Mr Johnson to ensure Jeremy Hunt made the final two instead of him.A Johnson ally claimed at the time: 'He stabbed us in the back. We stabbed him in the front.'But Mr Johnson made Mr Gove Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his first Cabinet in July 2019 before moving him to become the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.Mr Gove has been in and out of Cabinet positions. David Cameron removed Mr Gove from his post as education secretary in 2014 and demoted him to the role of chief whip. When Theresa May became prime minister in 2016, she sacked Mr Gove as justice secretary, before bringing him back as environment secretary a year later.There was yesterday 'pretty strong view' across the 1922 Committee that Mr Johnson should go, a Conservative MP has said.Speaking to the PA news agency, David Simmonds, who represents the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency, said the Prime Minister should go as the 'message has been very clear from colleagues'.On the 1922 Committee meeting, Mr Simmonds said: 'There were a couple of people who would agree with that (that he should not go). Well, there was one person I can think of, but other than that, no, I think it was a pretty strong view across the piece.'Mr Simmonds said there are quite a few 'good candidates' that could replace Mr Johnson as leader, adding: 'I'm not canvassing for anybody. But I think we have got a fair few good people. I think Rishi Sunak has a good economic vision for the country.'I was a strong Remainer. But I think as somebody who believes in Brexit, he has actually got a plan. So I like that.'Energy minister Greg Hands has defended his decision to remain in the Government amid a slew of resignations and mounting pressure for Boris Johnson to resign as Prime Minister.Mr Hands told the PA news agency: 'Well I think the majority of the Government has not resigned, the majority of Government is carrying on and we will have to see what happens at the top, yeah.'Asked how in good conscience he can continue to serve in an administration beset by scandal, he added: 'Because I have got a job to do, to deliver on energy and climate change and that's exactly what I am going to be carrying on doing.'On whether his constituents support this decision, he added: 'Well, I think my constituents, they vote for me as their member of Parliament, I hope that they would continue to do so.'And Attorney General Suella Braverman says she will continue in her role despite calling for the Prime Minister to quit.The Cabinet minister, who has previously been a staunch supporter of Boris Johnson, told Peston on ITV that he had handled matters 'appallingly' in recent days.She said: 'The balance has tipped now in favour of saying that the Prime Minister - it pains me to say it - but it's time to go.'She said she will put her name into the ring if there is a leadership contest. Tory MPs were seen slumping in their seats in the House of Commons on Wednesday as the ex-Health Secretary delivered a devastating blow to Mr Johnson's premiership less than 24 hours after his bombshell double-resignation with Rishi SunakFlanked by a stony-faced Dominic Raab and new Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi, Mr Johnson fended off a series of attacks from Keir Starmer saying Europe was enduring the 'biggest war in 80 years' and he was getting on with the jobShe told Peston: 'My first duty is to the country, Robert, and as attorney I'm the senior law officer.'And we're in a crisis and I have statutory legal and constitutional duties... Could Theresa May be drafted in as caretaker Prime Minister? Theresa May could return as caretaker prime minister if Boris Johnson resigns, Tory sources said last night.A well-placed source said the former PM was 'uniquely placed' to step in if Mr Johnson tries to order a snap election or quits straight after being ousted in a break with convention.The source said Mrs May's position as a sitting MP with experience as prime minister left her better qualified than any member of the current Cabinet, most of whom are expected to be involved in the contest to succeed the PM.'She knows the ropes and the security stuff, she's a party woman through and through, she's definitely not interested in standing for it herself and would be credible,' the source added.'She is uniquely placed.'A Tory MP said last night that this would have an 'element of epic schadenfreude to it, given he knifed her in the first place'.Allies of the PM have discussed trying to wrong-foot his enemies by calling an immediate election before they can oust him.One said he had a 'mandate from the public' which could not be overridden by Tory MPs.During a grilling by MPs on the Commons liaison committee yesterday, Mr Johnson equivocated over whether he would countenance calling an election if his MPs tried to remove him.One Tory MP said such a move would put the Queen in a 'very difficult position', adding: 'She would have to ask is there anyone else who could command the support of MPs – while a broader leadership election took place – rather than go to a general election.'Catherine Haddon, from the Institute for Government think-tank, said the monarch did have the power to block an election.'Informally, the Palace could tell him no. The question is whether he would go against that informal advice and ask anyway – which would leave the Queen facing a very political decision,' she added.'Whatever you argue about the massive constitutional problems if she did refuse, she can act.'By convention, ousted leaders stay on to oversee the contest to replace them.David Cameron and Mrs May remained as prime minister while their successors were elected.But one MP close to the PM said: 'He could just go. It would be humiliating for him to stay on after being ousted. I'm not sure he's got the stomach for that.'Mr Johnson played a major role in the removal of Mrs May, with his resignation as foreign secretary over Brexit in 2018 seen as a pivotal moment in her downfall.The former Prime Minister has made little secret of her disdain for her successor.Last week she savaged his bid to rewrite parts of the Brexit deal on Northern Ireland, saying: 'As a patriot, I would not want to do anything that would diminish this country in the eyes of the world.'This Bill will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the UK in the eyes of the world, and I cannot support it.' 'I don't want to resign because I have that duty. We need an attorney in government.'Asked whether she recognises that Mr Johnson will likely sack her, she said: 'That is his choice, and I will do whatever the Prime Minister asks me to do.'The PM rejected calls to quit on Wednesday and dramatically sacked Cabinet rival Michael Gove, but was later hit with the departure of a third Cabinet minister - Welsh Secretary Simon Hart - as well as Ms Braverman's demand.The withdrawal of the attorney general's support marks a significant shift by the QC, who was elected as MP for Fareham in May 2015 before being appointed as the top legal official by Mr Johnson in February 2020.She became the first Cabinet-level minister to take maternity leave and was reappointed to her ministerial position in September.Special legislation had to be passed by Parliament to enable her to take time off from her ministerial duties.During her absence she was designated Minister on Leave (Attorney General) while her deputy, Solicitor General Michael Ellis, was made attorney general.During last month's confidence vote, Ms Braverman expressed hope the PM would win the poll with a large margin.The Euro-sceptic had been a supporter of Mr Johnson since her days as the chair of the Brexit-backing European Research Group.But Ms Braverman on Wednesday joined Home Secretary Priti Patel, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis and Welsh Secretary Simon Hart among Cabinet ministers telling Mr Johnson to stand down.It is understood that Ms Patel earlier spoke to the Prime Minister to convey the 'overwhelming view' of the parliamentary party.Mr Shapps is thought to have told Mr Johnson that he stood little chance of winning another confidence vote and should instead set out a timetable for a departure on his own terms.Nadhim Zahawi, who was only appointed Chancellor on Tuesday, was also thought to be among those taking part in the showdown with Mr Johnson.But Mr Johnson rejected suggestions he should seek a 'more dignified exit' and will instead fight for his political future.A No 10 source said: 'The Prime Minister has a mandate from 14 million people to get a job done. He's very conscious of his commitment to them'If the party wants to stop him they have to take that mandate away.'Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Tory 1922 Committee, spoke to Mr Johnson on Wednesday to set out the level of backbench opposition.A new executive for the committee will be elected on Monday which could change the leadership rules, allowing for another confidence vote just a month after the last one - which Mr Johnson may lose given the way MPs have deserted him since Tuesday.But a No 10 source said: 'He has called Graham Brady's bluff. All Graham could say is that there will be an election on Monday.'A new 1922 committee on Tuesday could change the rules - but it's not a given.'The party could then demand a re-run of the no-confidence vote - but not a given.'And the party could then decide to ditch the PM - but not a given.'The source warned that 'the choice is not Boris or no Boris.'The choice is a Conservative government with a new Chancellor who will soon outline a new economic programme of tax cuts, deregulation and the benefits of Brexit, or three months of tearing each other apart to elect a leader with no mandate.'Allies including Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and Brexit Opportunities Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg remained supportive of Mr Johnson.Ms Dorries said the Prime Minister's priority was to 'stabilise the Government'.Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab also remained loyal to Mr Johnson and defended him at a session of the backbench 1922 Committee.Boris Johnson left Downing Street for the House of Commons yesterday - later than usual as pressure mounts on him to quit The former Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretary had earlier urged Mr Johnson (pictured together above in 2019) to quit Downing Street as the Tory coup ramped up Mr Johnson's Cabinet was thinned after Welsh Secretary Simon Hart (above) announced he too would stand down from his position late on Wednesday eveningBut since the resignations of Mr Sunak and Mr Javid on Tuesday night, dozens of MPs have quit as ministers, PPSs or trade envoys.Mr Javid used his resignation statement in the Commons to say 'enough is enough' and challenged other Cabinet ministers to consider their positions.'Treading the tightrope between loyalty and integrity has become impossible in recent months,' he told MPs.'I will never risk losing my integrity.'He said 'the problem starts at the top and I believe that is not going to change'.In a message to Cabinet ministers who decided not to quit, he said: 'It is incumbent on all of us to set high standards for ourselves and to take action when they are not met by others.'The speech, which had echoes of Geoffrey Howe's 1990 resignation statement which helped topple Margaret Thatcher, was heard in silence in the Commons, with Mr Johnson sitting grim-faced on the front bench.Other ministers who quit on Wednesday were Will Quince, Robin Walker, John Glen, Victoria Atkins, Jo Churchill, Stuart Andrew, Kemi Badenoch, Neil O'Brien, Alex Burghart, Lee Rowley, Julia Lopez, Mims Davies, Rachel Maclean and Mike Freer.In their resignation letters:Ex-children and families minister Mr Quince said he could not accept being sent out to defend the Prime Minister on television with inaccurate information on the Chris Pincher row.Former justice minister Ms Atkins told Mr Johnson: 'I can no longer pirouette around our f | United Kingdom Politics |
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea discussed assigning additional operational duties to its frontline military units at a key military meeting, state media said Thursday, a suggestion the country may want to deploy battlefield nuclear weapons targeting rival South Korea along the two countries’ tense border.The discussion comes as South Korea officials said North Korea has finished preparation for its first nuclear test in five years as part of its possible efforts to build a warhead to be mounted on short-range weapons capable of hitting targets in South Korea.During an ongoing meeting of the Central Military Commission of the ruling Workers’ Party on Wednesday, leader Kim Jong Un and other top military officers discussed “the work of additionally confirming the operation duties of the frontline units of the Korean People’s Army and modifying the operation plans,” according to the official Korean Central News Agency.Kim also ordered steps to be taken to “enhance the operational capabilities of the frontline units,” KCNA said.In April, when North Korea test-fired a new type of tactical guided weapon,” it said the weapon has “great significance in drastically improving the firepower of the front-line long-range artillery units, enhancing the efficiency in the operation of (North Korea’s) tactical nukes and diversification of their firepower missions.”Its use of the words “tactical nukes” suggested the weapon is likely a short-range weapons system armed with a nuclear warhead. Some experts said at the time that North Korea intended to deploy such weapons threatening key facilitates in South Korea, including U.S. military bases there. Later in April, Kim said North Korea could preemptively use its nuclear weapons if threatened, saying his nukes would “never be confined to the single mission of war deterrent” in situations where the North faces external threats to its “fundamental interests.” That portended a possible escalatory nuclear doctrine by North Korea that could pose greater concern for South Korea, Japan and the United States.Kim convened the Central Military Commission meeting earlier this week to confirm “crucial and urgent tasks” to expand military capabilities and implement key defense policies. Cheong Seong-Chang, a senior analyst at South Korea’s private Sejong Institute, said North Korea is expected to preform its seventh nuclear test after the meeting, saying that its third nuclear test in 2013 also came days after another Central Military Commission meeting.Before this week’s meeting, Kim called a meeting of the Central Military Commission a total of 16 times since he took power in late 2011 but it’s the first time that a commission meeting has been held for more than two days, Cheong said.Wednesday was the second-day session of the commission meeting. KCNA said the commission continues its discussion on the presented agenda items, indicating the meeting would continue on Thursday. Earlier this year, North Korea test-launched a spate of missiles whose potential ranges place both the U.S. mainland and its Asian allies like South Korea and Japan within striking distances. Some experts say North Korea wants to modernize its weapons systems and boost its leverage in future negotiations with the United States to win sanctions relief and other concessions. South Korean and U.S. officials have warned North Korea to face consequences if it goes ahead with a nuclear test. But the divisions between permanent members of the U.N. Security Council make the prospects for fresh punitive international sanctions on North Korea unclear. Russia and China this year vetoed U.S.-sponsored resolutions that would have increased sanctions, insisting Washington should focus on reviving dialogue. | Asia Politics |
The photos also show some landscaping that suggests a pending visit by senior officials like Kim Jong Un, who are known to watch nuclear tests. Recent satellite imagery shows new indications of activity below the entrance to Tunnel No. 4 (West Portal) at North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear test site.Airbus DS 2022June 15, 2022, 9:43 PM UTCNew satellite imagery may indicate North Korea is preparing to conduct another nuclear test at its Punggye-ri test site and could do so at any time, according to a new report by Beyond Parallel, a project focused on Korea at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Analysis of images from Sunday, June 12, shows ongoing work at one tunnel area, called Tunnel No. 3, and new construction at another, Tunnel No. 4, said the authors of the report. The rebuilding and preparation at Tunnel No. 3, which began approximately four months ago, appears to be complete, said the authors, and it is “ready for an oft-speculated seventh nuclear test.” The report also found that the new construction activity at Tunnel No. 4 strongly suggests “an effort to reenable it for potential future testing.” “The timing of a seventh nuclear test now rests solely within the hands of Kim Jong un,” said the report. Earlier this week South Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs Jin Park said North Korea appears to be ready to test. “It is being observed that preparations for a nuclear test are completed, so now only a political decision remains,” he said. U.S. officials also believe North Korea could be planning an underground nuclear test this month. The new construction activity at Tunnel No. 4 began since the last Beyond Parallel report on May 17, 2022, which the authors said indicates the work is recent. The imagery shows a new caisson wall under construction and construction materials are seen near the entrance to the portal. Tunnel No. 4 was believed to have collapsed when North Korea disabled the site in 2018, but the report found that “the extent of actual damage inside the tunnels due to the disabling was unclear and these new indicators of activity suggest that the disabling was not complete, as is the case with Tunnel No. 3.”The report also said the new imagery suggests possible preparation for a VIP visit. Senior North Korean military leaders and even Kim Jong Un himself often watch tests or visit after tests. “A close-up view of the portal area shows the actual concrete portal with an adjacent caisson retaining wall and some minor landscaping with small trees or bushes — likely in anticipation of a visit by senior officials,” the report said.Courtney Kube is a correspondent covering national security and the military for the NBC News Investigative Unit. | Asia Politics |
Rwanda hits back at British left-wingers' 'insulting' criticism of plan to fly asylum seekers to the country - and posts clip of US talk show host Trevor Noah mocking 'narrative that living in Africa is a punishment'Government spokesperson said criticism of Rwanda's asylum plan was 'insulting'Called on people to 'come and see' Rwanda's progress before passing judgementShe tweeted the comments with a clip of comedian Trevor Noah criticising planHe warned people not to judge Rwanda by standards from movie 'Hotel Rwanda' Published: 05:29 EDT, 17 June 2022 | Updated: 07:39 EDT, 17 June 2022 Rwanda has hit back at British left-wingers for their 'insulting' criticism of a plan to fly asylum seekers to the country. Government spokesperson Yolande Makolo warned people should 'come and see' the progress Rwanda has made before passing judgement on the asylum plan. She was responding to critics who have branded Rwanda unfit to host asylum seekers because of the country's human rights record. Opponents have also argued that it is illegal and inhumane to send people thousands of miles to a country they do not want to live in.Makolo tweeted: 'The narrative that living in Africa is a punishment is insulting for those who live here and are working hard to build our countries. 'We want Africa to succeed. Rwanda has made tremendous progress. People should come and see.'Makolo made the comments alongside a clip of South African comedian Trevor Noah speaking on his US satirical news show, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah on Comedy Central, criticising the backlash to the asylum plan on Thursday's show. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an agreement with Rwanda in April in which people who enter Britain illegally will be deported to the East African country. In exchange for accepting them, Rwanda will receive millions of pounds in development aid. The deportees will be allowed to apply for asylum in Rwanda, not Britain. Government spokesperson Yolande Makolo warned people should 'come and see' the progress Rwanda has made before passing judgement on the asylum plan Makolo made the comments alongside a clip of South African comedian Trevor Noah criticising the backlash to the asylum plan A security guard stands in the reception area of the Hope Hostel, which is one of the locations expected to house some of the asylum-seekers due to be sent from Britain to RwandaAsante @Trevornoah - when real Africans say real things! The narrative that living in Africa is a punishment is insulting for those who live here & are working hard to build our countries. We want Africa to succeed. Rwanda has made tremendous progress. People should come & see. pic.twitter.com/oRNN8Plwfu— Yolande Makolo 🇷🇼 (@YolandeMakolo) June 16, 2022 Noah said: 'I know some parts of Africa have it tough, but we've also have cities, we've have Wifi, you know, we've also got racist white people. You guys left them behind! Acting like we don't got sh*t. 'Some of these Europeans think the only hotel in Rwanda is the Hotel Rwanda. Actually, they've got a Radisson, a Radisson Blu, by the way. There's a waffle bar and everything.'This is the problem. This is the problem when only one well known movie takes place in your country. It's all the people go on. It's like judging France based on Ratatouille. Not all the restaurants are run by rats! 'Because here Rwanda was trying to do something nice. And then, now they have to hear everyone talk sh*t about them? 'Imagine if you offered to donate a kidney to someone and then the person was like "Uh, no thank you, I'm going to see if there's a more developed kidney." I'd be like "Man, go pee blood then, b*tch".' It comes after the first flight that was scheduled to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda from the UK was cancelled late on Tuesday after the European Court of Human Rights intervened, saying the plan carried 'a real risk of irreversible harm.'The decision to scrap the flight capped three days of frantic court challenges from immigrant rights lawyers who launched a flurry of case-by-case appeals seeking to block the deportation of everyone on the government's list.British government officials had said earlier in the day that the plane would take off no matter how many people were on board. But after the appeals, no one remained. British media reported that the number of potential deportees had been more than 30 on Friday.After the flight was canceled, Home Secretary Priti Patel said she was disappointed but would not be 'deterred from doing the right thing.' She added: 'Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.'Prime Minister Boris Johnson had emphatically defended Britain's plan, arguing that it is a legitimate way to protect lives and thwart the criminal gangs that smuggle migrants across the English Channel in small boats. Britain in recent years has seen an illegal influx of migrants from such places as Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, Iraq and Yemen. A convoy believed to be carrying asylum seekers leaves MOD Boscombe Down after a private charter jet was grounded just before it was due for take-off to Rwanda tonight Crew members board the Rwanda deportation flight Boeing 767 at Boscombe Down Air Base. Legal wrangling continued throughout Tuesday evening before the first flight due to take UK asylum seekers to Kigali was dramatically grounded A tracker for the Rwanda deportation flight shows the aircraft's journey after it departed the UK without carrying any of the seven asylum seekers who were due to board Home Secretary Priti Patel issued a strongly-worded rebuttal of the Strasbourg judge's ruling, saying she was disappointed the flight to Rwanda was not able to leave but would not be 'deterred from doing the right thing' 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 RwandaThe leaders of the Church of England joined the opposition, calling the government's policy 'immoral.' Prince Charles was among those opposed, according to British news reports.Activists have denounced the policy as an attack on the rights of refugees that most countries have recognized since the end of World War II.The UN refugee agency condemned the plan out of concern that other countries will follow suit as war, repression and natural disasters force a growing number of people from their homes.Politicians in Denmark and Austria are considering similar proposals. Australia has operated an asylum-processing center in the Pacific island nation of Nauru since 2012. Advertisement | United Kingdom Politics |
Nadine Dorries is mulling adding her name to the laundry list of Tories bidding to succeed Boris Johnson.The Culture Secretary wants to be a 'continuation Boris' candidate and believes she can be a disruptor, friends have told Mail+.The latest contender emerged as Conservative chiefs frantically hunt ways to avoid the battle turning into a mud-slinging 'wacky races' and plunging the party into chaos for months.More than a dozen MPs are seriously considering tilts after the PM's bombshell exit, with warnings they will 'shred each other to pieces' to gain an advantage. The friend of Ms Dorries - who encouraged Mr Johnson to call a snap election rater than bow to the huge rebellion - said: 'Nadine is seriously considering throwing her hat in the ring, as she is passionate about Boris's levelling up agenda, defending Brexit and fighting woke culture. She wants to keep Boris's flame alive.' 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 today pledging 'change', and hinting that he would slash fuel duty and national insurance. But 'Blue-on-Blue' attacks have already begun, with Rishi Sunak 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'. One Conservative MP swiped that Sajid Javid's pitch was already over after he 'completely lost the room' while delivering his resignation statement in the Commons.And they slammed Foreign Secretary Liz Truss - who has flown back from Indonesia to kick-start her campaign - 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 Tom Tugendhat is 'too left wing' and 'dodgy on Brexit', Ben Wallace is the 'son of Boris' and 'only knows about defence' 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'. Attorney General Suella Braverman was slated for having 'no name recognition' with the public, while one 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 Jenkison 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. Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries (pictured heading for the Cabinet meeting yesterday) wants to be a 'continuation Boris' candidate and believes she can be a disruptor, friends have told Mail+ 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 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'.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 from relative obscurity to household name came as he turned on the spending taps to protect jobs through the furlough scheme when the coronavirus pandemic struck.His calm and measured delivery during televised Covid briefings, and his viral declaration of love for a popular soft drink, will have endeared him to those perhaps not always plugged in to the political goings-on, as well as his resignation on matters of principle on Tuesday.But his stock took a tumble more recently following disclosures that his wife had non-dom status for tax purposes, and criticism that he was too slow to respond to the cost-of-living crisis.LIZ TRUSS The Foreign Secretary kept her powder dry as the Tory top brass turned on the mortally wounded Prime Minister, despite being a Johnson loyalist, though she did cut short a foreign trip to Indonesia to head back to Westminster as he announced his resignation.Social media aficionado Ms Truss has made little secret of her leadership ambitions, with a series of high-profile interventions and photo opportunities in which she appeared to be channelling late PM Margaret Thatcher.She has the experience of working across many Whitehall departments, while her hard line on Ukraine, insisting Russian forces must be driven from the country, and threats to tear up the Northern Ireland Protocol with the EU play well with sections of the party.SAJID JAVID Undeclared, but understood to be seriously considering a leadership bid, he is perhaps buoyed by the response to his clinical farewell speech in the Commons on Wednesday, after his and Mr Sunak's double-resignation effectively kickstarted the slew of departures from government, thus hastening Mr Johnson's demise.State school-educated Mr Javid, known as 'The Saj' in some circles, is the son of a bus driver who arrived in England from Pakistan in the 1960s, and held ministerial roles in housing, business and culture before becoming chancellor, and then health secretary in the middle of the pandemic.Mr Javid made it to the final four in the contest to replace Theresa May as Tory leader in 2019, but dropped out and subsequently endorsed Mr Johnson.He told reporters after his resignation on Tuesday evening that he was looking forward to spending time with his family – but for how long?NADHIM ZAHAWI An outside bet among the bookies, the former education secretary is regarded by some as a 'safe pair of hands' if other candidates prove too divisive.Indeed, he was the man trusted to take on the broadcast round of interviews on Wednesday morning, on his first full day in his new job as chancellor, before later urging the PM to resign.Iraqi-born Mr Zahawi was a successful businessman and came to wider prominence as vaccines minister during the pandemic where he was credited with playing a key part in the successful rollout of the jab.TOM TUGENDHAT Not a household name, but among the early contenders.The multi-lingual chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee became the first to announce his intention to stand for leader should Mr Johnson be turfed out, with his declaration made in January, a position he repeated in Friday's Daily Telegraph, saying he was putting together a 'broad coalition' offering a 'clean start'.His odds shortened almost immediately as a result.The former soldier wrote in the paper: 'I have served before, in the military, and now in Parliament. Now I hope to answer the call once again as prime minister.'A Remainer in 2016, the former soldier has been a trenchant critic of Mr Johnson, a stance that would appear to have cost him any chance of ministerial preferment under the current leadership.JEREMY HUNT The former foreign secretary and ex-health secretary has been a persistent backbench critic of Mr Johnson and has called on the Prime Minister to quit.Mr Hunt is widely expected to make a fresh bid for the leadership, having been runner-up to Mr Johnson in 2019, though is seen as a bit of a Thatcher reboot.As chairman of the Commons Health Committee, he has used his position to make a number of critical interventions on the Government's handling of the pandemic, although his strong support for lockdown measures will not have pleased all Tory MPs.STEVE BAKER Prominent Brexiteer and former minister Steve Baker, a senior Tory backbencher, confirmed on Thursday that he is seriously considering putting himself forward for the top job.He told PA that Tory blog ConservativeHome 'consistently put me in their top ten for next Prime Minister, they sometimes put me in their top five', but said it would be 'very difficult' to persuade colleagues to back him for the party-wide ballot without Cabinet experience.Mr Baker successfully plotted to oust Theresa May as prime minister but, despite his credentials as a Brexit die-hard, he is not a household name.SUELLA BRAVERMAN The Attorney General launched an unlikely leadership bid as support for Mr Johnson crumbled around him on Wednesday night.Ms Braverman, who was first elected as an MP in 2015, is regarded as something of an outsider for the leadership given the party grandees already tipped to be in the running.A Suella Braverman for PM Twitter account has sprung up, with Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne becoming the first to tweet his support for her bid.WE still love you, daddy! Sweet moment Boris is welcomed back into the arms of his son Wilf, two, inside Downing Street after finally facing the music and resigningBy Adam Solomons for MailOnline Boris Johnson was pictured embracing his son Wilf before hugging wife Carrie and nine-month old daughter Romy after announcing his intention to resign at lunchtime yesterday.The prime minister smirked at Wilf, two, after returning to Number Ten from the short speech given after 12.30pm.Aides and ministerial colleagues applauded the doomed PM, with some reportedly crying at the news.Images released by Downing Street overnight also showed Mr Johnson speaking with Ukrainian president Zelensky on the phone yesterday afternoon.In another image, the prime minister is pictured looking down at his resignation speech solemnly.After giving the address, Johnson returned to his study to plot his latest - and final - Cabinet.Number Ten took the rare decision to release the images taken by photographer Andrew Parsons, which showed the prime minister in the immediate aftermath of his momentous speech.Their official caption described Johnson's family 'comforting' him following the statement. Boris Johnson holds son Wilf, two, who already appears the spitting image of his father. The PM resigned at lunchtime yesterdayMr Johnson embraced wife Carrie and baby daughter Romy, who was held in a carrier as she attended his resignation speech Special relationship: Wilf was born just days after his father survived a life-threatening bout of Covid at St Thomas's Hospital After making his speech, Mr Johnson was applauded by aides and ministerial colleagues including Johnny Mercer (centre left), who was now been re-appointed to the Cabinet as Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The PM smirks at Wilf (below) as wife Carrie (right, in red) beams. Downing Street aide Ross Kempsell (furthest left) also applauds Mr Johnson By yesterday afternoon, Jacob Rees-Mogg (centre) and Nadine Dorries (right of Mr Johnson) were among the only Cabinet ministers still in support of the PM's continued tenure. Johnson is pictured conferring with colleagues after making his speech yesterday Boris Johnson was pictured yesterday afternoon in conversation with President Zelensky, perhaps his last as prime minister Downing Street photographer Andrew Parsons captured the moment Johnson strode out of Downing Street to give the speech In another pensive image, Johnson goes through his statement in the minutes before stepping out in front of Number TenAdmirers: standing in front of the podium and watched by close aides and Carrie with baby Romy (pictured, centre right), Mr Johnson pointed to his achievements since winning the 2019 general election. Staff reportedly cried before and afterwards Mrs Johnson kisses nine-month-old Romy who was with her to hear the resignation speech yesterday. Ms Dorries is also presentJacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and Alister Jack, his most loyal trio of Cabinet lieutenants, feature prominently. From a rocky start to political power couple: A timeline of Boris and Carrie Johnson's relationship2009: Carrie Symonds, then 21, joins the Conservative Party as press officer. Her association with Mr Johnson dates back to the early years, having worked on his successful re-election bid at City Hall in 2012.February 2018: Boris, then still married to wife Maria Wheeler, is spotted with Carrie outside the Conservative party Black and White Ball at the Natural History Museum. It is thought to be the first time the pair were photographed together. September 2018: News breaks that Boris has been kicked out of the marital home by his wife of 25 years amid reports he was seeing another woman. First photo: Boris, then still married to Maria Wheeler, is spotted with Carrie outside a Conservative party fundraiserJune 2019: By now Boris and Carrie are living together in her flat in Camberwell, South East London. Reports emerge that police were called to the property after neighbours heard a loud altercation involving screaming, shouting and banging. Symonds could allegedly be heard telling Johnson to 'get off me' and 'get out of my flat'.Police initially said they had no record of a domestic incident at the address, but later issued a statement saying: 'At 00:24hrs on Friday, 21 June, police responded to a call from a local resident in [south London]. The caller was concerned for the welfare of a female neighbour.'Police attended and spoke to all occupants of the address, who were all safe and well. There were no offences or concerns apparent to the officers and there was no cause for police action.'Neither Boris nor Carrie have spoken publicly about the incident. Front and centre: Boris Johnson is elected as the leader of the Conservative party. Carrie is pictured alongside his family as he arrives at Downing StreetJune 2019: A few days later the couple were pictured holding hands in the countryside. July 2019: The couple buy a £1.3million house in Camberwell after Boris sells the £3.7million mansion he shared with wife Marina.23 July 2019: Boris Johnson is elected as the leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. Carrie is pictured alongside his family as he arrives at Downing Street.29 July 2019: Spokesperson confirms Carrie Symonds will move into Downing Street. They are the first unmarried couple to officially live at the address. September 2019: Couple adopt a rescue dog, Dilyn. December 2019: Boris Johnson wins the general election and the couple flies to St Lucia and Mustique to celebrateFebruary 2020: Boris Johnson's divorce from Marina Wheeler is approved to proceed29 February 2020: Boris and Carrie announce they are engaged and expecting a baby. A spokesperson for the couple said: 'The prime minister and Miss Symonds are very pleased to announce their engagement and that they are expecting a baby in the early summer.'27 March 2020: Boris Johnson tests positive for Covid-19 and is subsequently hospitalised.29 April 2020: Couple welcome their son Wilfred. Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas Johnson in full – was named after Mr and Mrs Johnson's grandfathers and partly in tribute to two doctors, Nick Hart and Nick Price, who helped save Mr Johnson's life when he was in hospital with Covid in 2020. Family life: Couple welcome their son Wilfred. Wilfred Lawrie Nicholas Johnson in full – was named after Mr and Mrs Johnson's grandfathers and partly in tribute to two doctors, Nick Hart and Nick Price, who helped save Mr Johnson's life 26 May 2020: Boris and Carrie Johnson wed at Westminster Cathedral with a small garden party the following day. News was made public a few days later. 31 July 2020: Couple announce they are expecting a second child and reveal they suffered a miscarriage earlier in the year.June 2021: Carrie joins Boris at the G7 summit and introduces son Wilfred to President Biden and his wife Jill 9 December 2021: Carrie and Boris announce birth of a baby girl16 December 2021: The couple announced they have named their daughter Romy Iris Charlotte Johnson. Baby girl: Carrie and Boris announce birth of a baby girl. The couple later revealed they had named their daughter Romy Iris Charlotte Johnson (pictured with brother Wilf)Mrs Johnson explained the choice of name: 'Romy after my aunt, Rosemary. Iris from the Greek, meaning rainbow. Charlotte [after] Boris's late mum whom we miss so much.'June 2022: Carrie joins Boris at a series of high profile events including the Platinum Jubilee, a Commonwealth visit to Rwanda and the G7 summit. Daughter Romy joins her parents on the latter two.7 July 2022: Boris Johnson announces he will resign following a slew of ministerial resignations.Also present were Tory MPs Johnny Mercer, Sarah Dines, James Duddridge, and Downing Street staffers Andrew Griffith, Ross Kemps | United Kingdom Politics |
But the paper has forbidden staff from incorporating AI-generated text into copy except in limited circumstances, which require the sign-off of top Telegraph editors and the legal department.
The guidelines reveal significant concerns within Telegraph Media Group over the legal and editorial risks of using AI for editorial purposes – including a fear that sensitive information entered into chatbots may surface elsewhere.
Other major UK and US publishers, including The Guardian, Financial Times, BBC, Associated Press and Reuters, have previously published their guidelines and principles for using generative AI, a list of which can be found here.
Telegraph warns staff AI-generated text may be subject to future copyright claims
The Telegraph’s managing editors sent the policy to staff on Tuesday morning, saying the guidelines were “intended to be broad and very high level” with “specific guidance in the future for various business use cases”.
Saying AI will be “an increasingly valuable tool” for the business, the editors warned their journalists it also “presents a fundamental challenge to our relationship with our readers.
“The trust and investment of readers in our content requires accountability of attribution: they must be confident about who has created what they are consuming on any Telegraph platform.”
Generative AI companies such as OpenAI have not disclosed what data they used to train the large language models (LLM) that power their chatbots. Because of this, the Telegraph editors said, “there is the danger of plagiarism as the engines rely on ingested content from multiple sources… It may be in the future that this content will be subject to copyright claims”.
As a result, Telegraph journalists filing copy generated even partly by ChatGPT “will be subject to the same sanctions as there would be for plagiarism”.
The only occasions on which The Telegraph will publish AI-generated copy, the editors said, “would be the use of AI generated content to illustrate a piece about AI”.
However such cases must be signed off by editor Chris Evans, a managing editor or a deputy editor, and head of editorial legal Rachel Welsh must also be notified.
Any AI-generated text that gets published must be “clearly signalled to the reader” and staff must make sure The Telegraph has the rights to use the content: “This must be checked with editorial legal and cleared.”
AI-generated images – even those created by an agency and supplied to The Telegraph – are subject to the same rules.
Because of the widely-acknowledged tendency of generative AI to “hallucinate”, or confidently state false information as though it were true, Telegraph journalists are to “assume as a starting point that any information gathered or created with a GenAI is false…
“You are the human-in-the-loop, and anything you produce that is based on GenAI output(s) is your responsibility and you are accountable for it both in terms of the law and company regulations.”
Telegraph editors: please don’t put our IP into ChatGPT
The Telegraph’s guidelines prohibit the use of generative AI tools for copy editing.
“There are too many instances of incorrect information being produced by AI engines,” the editors said. “Equally, platforms will not sufficiently understand the Telegraph’s style and precepts; neither will there be the required nuance to edit pieces optimally.
“In any case we should on no account be entering entire Telegraph pieces into third party AI services.”
The managers explained that, because generative AI companies have not explained where they obtain the information on which their models are trained, “you are expected to be mindful that anything you type into an GenAI-based tool may resurface elsewhere externally”.
OpenAI says it no longer trains its LLMs on text entered by users into ChatGPT. Nonetheless, Telegraph staff were asked not to enter significant amounts of proprietary copy into an AI, pre- or post-publication, and to avoid entering information that was “company confidential or editorially sensitive” or that contains personally identifiable information such as names or email addresses. Doing so, employees were told, “could breach data protection laws”.
What has The Telegraph permitted staff to do with generative AI?
Despite the prohibitions, Telegraph editors said the company “will adopt a more pragmatic and permissive approach to uses of AI for ‘back office’ activities that do not involve direct publication of AI output”.
These include:
- Generating story ideas (“but the journalist is responsible for critiquing the ideas and ensuring that if one is advanced it is coherent, relevant and correctly prosecuted”)
- Coming up with ideas for a story illustration (but the illustration suggested by the AI must then be commissioned separately)
- Suggesting headlines
- Research assistance (“but all links and ‘facts’… must be traced back… and verified”).
Staff were also permitted to use AI “to predict story development and lines that might be pursued on a long-running story”.
But the editors said that even when using AI-generated information in “non-publication contexts… employees bear the responsibility to ensure it is correct and appropriately used”.
Telegraph Media Group chief executive Nick Hugh said earlier this year that while there were opportunities in generative AI, “I’m much less pro-automated content generation”.
He was speaking on a panel alongside Guardian Media Group chief executive Anna Bateson, whose publication in June issued its own “three broad principles” on AI use. Like The Telegraph’s, The Guardian’s AI policy encourages staff to only include chunks of GPT-created text with “human oversight” of its claims and “the explicit permission of a senior editor”.
Email [email protected] to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog | United Kingdom Politics |
Australia’s trade minister has extended an olive branch to China, suggesting a “compromise situation” or “alternative way” to settle trade disputes might emerge in talks between the two countries. Don Farrell made the comments in an interview with Guardian Australia hailing “positive signs” in Australia’s relationship with China, including the foreign minister, Penny Wong, planning to meet her counterpart, and China’s consent to a trade dispute appeal process.Since the Albanese government was elected in May, Australia and China have reopened lines of communication including the deputy prime minister, Richard Marles, meeting China’s defence minister in Singapore in June.Farrell has asked to meet his counterpart, Wang Wentao, but was unable to do so when both attended the World Trade Organization meeting in June. Farrell said the offer to “sit down any time” remained open.Australia is currently pursuing trade disputes in the WTO over anti-dumping tariffs on products including wine, barley, meat and crayfish. Wong has vowed to take every opportunity to demand the Chinese government scrap “unjustified trade strikes”.But Farrell struck a more conciliatory note.“So, at the moment the plan is to proceed with those [disputes],” he said.“Obviously if the opportunity arises to have a different set of discussions, whereby we can nut out a compromise situation – then I’d be fully supportive of going down that track.“At the moment it’s the WTO process, that’s the proper way that these issues should be determined.“But, if an alternative way emerges, then we’ll certainly be happy to look at that.“I’ve issued the invitation, I’ve held out the olive branch. There’s not much more I can do until we find out if that’s going to be reciprocated on the Chinese side.”Farrell said the WTO appeals process had “completely broken down” due to Donald Trump’s failure to appoint appeal judges when he was US president. Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning But Farrell noted China was “one of the parties that has agreed to allow other appeals processes”, meaning if Australia’s claims are unsuccessful at first instance it could enter a form of arbitration. “I take that as a good sign – that they want the WTO process to work.”Farrell said Australian producers were “not getting what they used to for their product, and that’s having an impact on their prosperity and living standards”.He cited examples including neighbours of his Clare Valley vineyard who allowed their shiraz grapes to rot on the vine, and the price of crayfish in Robe falling from $109 a kilogram to $75.Farrell said Australia had “differences of philosophy” with China and the Aukus deal was another point of tension, but both countries had an “interest in trying to get the trade relationship back to where it was”.“It would be good if in my time as the minister we can get back to some sort of sensible arrangement with the Chinese [government].”Farrell confirmed that Wong was in talks to meet China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi. Asked if the pair could meet soon, such as at the upcoming G20 meeting in Indonesia, Farrell said: “I don’t exactly know, but it looks like the answer to that is yes. I think there are positive signs.”Farrell said Australia’s talks with the European Union could produce a free trade agreement “sooner than most people expect” despite sticking points on access to agricultural markets and name of origin rules.The trade minister said talks had progressed due to two “obstacles out of the way”: with an “almost audible sigh of relief” that Australia now has a more ambitious climate policy; and efforts to reconnect with France after the cancellation of Australia’s submarine contract by the Morrison government.“You saw the prime minister meet the president Emmanuel Macron and the Spanish president, and both of those were clearly supportive.” | Australia Politics |
Rishi Sunak unleashed a Tory civil war on Wednesday by announcing the scrapping of the northern leg of HS2 as the former prime minister David Cameron said the decision showed the country was heading in the wrong direction.
After days of frenzied speculation over the future of the flagship levelling-up project, Sunak confirmed he was axing the Birmingham to Manchester line and would use the £36bn of savings to fund a number of other transport schemes, described as “Network North”.
Cameron led a torrent of criticism of the announcement, which it emerged was made without consulting the cabinet, parliament, local councils or Network Rail, saying it passed up a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
“It will help to fuel the views of those who argue that we can no longer think or act for the long-term as a country; that we are heading in the wrong direction,” he warned.
Cameron said the announcement threw away “15 years of cross-party consensus, sustained over six administrations, and would make it much harder to build consensus for any future long-term projects”.
However, Sunak told Tory activists in Manchester that he was focused on the long term as he presented himself – the fifth Tory prime minister in 13 unbroken years of the party’s rule – as the change candidate at the next election.
“At the next election the choice that people face is bigger than party politics,” he said.
“Do we want a government committed to making long-term decisions, prepared to be radical in the face of challenges and to take on vested interests, or do we want to stand still and quietly accept more of the same?
“You either think this country needs to change, or you don’t. And if you do, you should stand with me and every person in this hall, you should stand with the Conservatives.”
He directly challenged critics of his HS2 plans including former prime ministers Boris Johnson and Theresa May, as well as the West Midlands mayor, Andy Street, who pulled back from the brink of quitting the Tory party.
“I say to those who backed the project in the first place, the facts have changed. The right thing to do when the facts change is to have the courage to change direction,” he said.
Sunak was accused of the “biggest and most damaging U-turn in the history of UK infrastructure” by the rail industry despite a promise to divert funds into transport schemes in the Midlands and north, including some already under way, as well as projects previously paused or cancelled by the government.
Sunak had insisted all week that no final decision had been made on scrapping the Manchester leg. However, he later posted a video online – outlining why he had made the decision – that had been recorded in No 10 at least three days before the conference.
In an hour-long speech that was introduced by Akshata Murty – the first political spouse to do so since Sarah Brown introduced Gordon in 2009, the year before he lost power – Sunak announced just two policies that were entirely new.
One was a major change to secondary school qualifications bringing together A-levels and T-levels to create a new “Advanced British Standard”, which will involve students covering more subjects. However, it will take more than a decade to introduce.
The bonus for new teachers in key subjects such as science and maths, where there is a recruitment and retention crisis, will be doubled to up to £30,000 over the first five years of their career to encourage them to stay on. No 10 could not say where the £600m to pay for it would come from.
Sunak also confirmed a plan, first revealed by the Guardian, to in effect phase out smoking by raising the legal age to buy cigarettes by one year every year, meaning a 14-year-old today will never legally be able to buy them. He pledged to restrict the availability of vapes to children.
Downing Street could not say when a free vote on the crackdown on buying cigarettes would be held, but the prime minister’s press secretary said: “Rishi Sunak is a man in a hurry.” Liz Truss has said she would vote against the plans, in a sign of a further Tory split.
Sunak’s speech was peppered with references to the future. However, Sunak glossed over the Tories’ 13 years in power and Truss’s disastrous 49-day premiership in particular. “I came into office in difficult circumstances, and I don’t want to waste time debating the past because what matters is the future,” he said.
Despite speculation that Sunak could offer tax cuts before the election, as Tory MPs have repeatedly urged him to do, he refused to do so in his speech. “I know you want tax cuts, I want them too – and we will deliver them,” he said. “But the best tax cut we can give people right now is to halve inflation and ease the cost of living.”
The speech otherwise stuck to largely familiar Conservative themes such as immigration, crime, the unions and the benefits system, in addition to a section on culture wars that included a strong attack on trans rights.
“We shouldn’t be bullied into thinking people can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man and a woman is a woman and that’s just common sense,” he said.
Sunak told the Tory right, who have been urging withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, that while he was “confident” his hardline Rwanda policy would not breach international law, he would do “whatever is necessary” to stop Channel crossings.
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt gave Sunak’s warm-up speech, framing the battle against Labour as a return to the 1980s.
She paid tribute to Tory former cabinet minister Norman Tebbit and described Labour as “the sons and daughters of [Arthur] Scargill”, adding: “They want to return us to the 1980s. We are not for returning.”
She concluded by channelling US senator John McCain’s 2008 Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech to “stand up, stand up, stand up and fight”. McCain later lost the US election to Barack Obama. | United Kingdom Politics |
Police hunting in the Amazon for the bodies of British journalist Dom Phillips and his local guide have dug up human remains after being led to the site by the suspect fisherman who allegedly confessed to killing, dismembering and burying the pair.Brazil's federal police said at a news conference in the city of Manaus on Wednesday night that prime suspect Amarildo da Costa de Oliveira, 41, confessed to fatally shooting the father-of-three British reporter, 57, and his Brazilian companion Bruno Pereira, 41, in the Amazon.Federal investigator Eduardo Alexandre Fontes said Oliveira, nicknamed Pelado, told officers he used a firearm to kill the two men who went missing 10 days ago.Pelado's family had said previously that he denied any wrongdoing and claimed police tortured him to try to get a confession. Police said they expected more arrests to be made soon. The suspect had 'recounted in detail the crime that was committed and indicated the place where he buried the bodies', police said. The suspect's brother Oseney, who has also been arrested, denies any involvement. The investigator added that the remains are expected to be identified within days, and if confirmed as the missing men, 'will be returned to the families of the two'. In a statement, Mr Phillips' devastated wife Alessandra Sampaio said: 'Although we are still awaiting definitive confirmations, this tragic outcome puts an end to the anguish of not knowing Dom and Bruno's whereabouts. Now we can bring them home and say goodbye with love. Today, we also begin our quest for justice. I hope that the investigations exhaust all possibilities and bring definitive answers on all relevant details as soon as possible.'It comes after former Tory prime minister Theresa May insisted the UK must do 'everything it can' to press Brazilian authorities to uncover the truth about the disappearances.Mrs May made the plea on Wednesday to Boris Johnson in the House of Commons after police arrested a second suspect in connection with the case.The Prime Minister replied: 'FCDO officials are working closely now with the Brazilian authorities following his disappearance on June 5. The minister responsible has raised the issue repeatedly, the search and rescue efforts, with Brazil's justice and public security minister and what we told the Brazilians is we stand ready to provide all the support that they may need.'As police dig up remains:Officers arrested a second suspect, a man reported to be Oliveira's brother, Oseney da Costa Oliveira, in Atalaia do Norte - the city Phillips and Pereira were returning to when they disappeared in the Javari Valley after receiving threats during a trip;Police are also investigating the possible role of a third person;Earlier, the Brazilian ambassador to the UK apologised to Mr Phillips' family after they were incorrectly told his body had been found. Police with a man believed to be Amarildo da Costa de Oliveira in Brazil's Amazonas state of Atalaia do Norte on June 15, 2022 Federal Police officers escort a man accused of being involved with the disappearance of missing British journalist Dom Phillips and indigenous expert Bruno Pereira in Atalaia do Norte on June 15, 2022 Pictured: British journalist Dom Phillips, 57, whose remains are thought to have been discovered Mr Phillips went missing in the Amazon with Brazilian companion Bruno Araújo Pereira, pictured The Javari region is an area notorious for illegal mining and drug trafficking, and the pair had reportedly faced threats before their disappearance Oseney da Costa, 41, or 'Dos Santos,' is pictured leaving a courthouse in Atalia do Norte, Brazil on Wednesday June 15 after he was detained by military and civil officers the previous night Federal Policemen carry seized material, pictured Tuesday, including an oar during a search operation for British journalist Dom Phillips and indigenous expert Bruno Pereira Federal Police officers seen Tuesday conducting a search operation for British journalist Dom Phillips and indigenous expert Bruno Pereira Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro (pictured speaking in Florida, USA on Saturday) said he expected the case to be wrapped up 'in the coming hours' Pictured: Federal police officers carrying boxes at the pier after searching for Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira and freelance British journalist Dom Phillips in Atalaia do NorteMr Pereira and Mr Phillips were last seen on their boat in a river near the entrance of the Javari Valley Indigenous Territory, which borders Peru and Colombia. That area has seen violent conflicts between fishermen, poachers and government agents.Developments began moving Wednesday when federal police officers took a suspect they didn't identify at the time out on the river toward search parties looking for Phillips and Pereira.An Associated Press photographer in Atalaia do Norte, the city closest to the search zone, witnessed police taking the suspect, who was in a hood. Alessandra Sampaio, Mr Phillips' wife, said bodies have been found in the AmazonOn Tuesday, police said they had arrested a second suspect in connection with the disappearance. He was identified as Oseney da Costa de Oliveira, 41, a fisherman and a brother of Pelado, who police already had characterized as their main suspect.Police investigators said Wednesday that de Oliveira had not confessed to any participation in the crime, but added they had evidence against him.Indigenous people who were with Mr Pereira and Mr Phillips have said that Pelado brandished a rifle at them on the day before the pair disappeared.Official search teams concentrated their efforts around a spot in the Itaquai river where a tarp from the boat used by the missing men was found Saturday by volunteers from the Matis Indigenous group.Authorities began scouring the area and discovered a backpack, laptop and other personal belongings submerged underwater Sunday. Police said that evening that they had identified the items as the belongings of both missing men, including a health card and clothes of Pereira. The backpack was said to belong to Phillips.Police previously reported finding traces of blood in Pelado's boat. Officers also found organic matter of apparent human origin in the river that was sent for analysis.Authorities have said a main line of the police investigation into the disappearance has pointed to an international network that pays poor fishermen to fish illegally in the Javari Valley reserve, which is Brazil's second-largest Indigenous territory.Pereira, who previously led the local bureau of the federal Indigenous agency, known as FUNAI, took part in several operations against illegal fishing. In such operations, as a rule the fishing gear is seized or destroyed, while the fishermen are fined and briefly detained. Only the Indigenous can legally fish in their territories.'The crime's motive is some personal feud over fishing inspection,' Atalaia do Norte's Mayor Denis Paiva speculated to reporters without providing more details.While some police, the mayor and others in the region link the pair's disappearances to the 'fish mafia,' federal police have not ruled rule out other lines of investigation, such as narco trafficking. Flavia Farias (R), a relative of Dom Philips, cries with her friend Luis Fabiano (L) during a protest against their disappearances Amarildo da Costa de Oliveira was taken into custody by authorities in Amazonas, Brazil. His family claim he has been waterboarded by police in an effort to extract a confession The Amazon hunt for missing British journalist Dom Phillips and Brazilian Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira was set to continue today. Pictured: Indigenous people in the Amazon rainforest take part in the search for the missing men in in Vale do Javari on Monday Pictured: Boats belonging to members of the Union of Indigenous Peoples of the Javari Valley (UNIVAJA) are seen in this aerial photograph during the search for the two missing men Brazilian officials suggest disappearance of British journalist and his local guide may be linked to 'fish mafia'Mr Pereira and Mr Phillips were last seen on their boat in a river near the entrance of the Javari Valley Indigenous Territory, which borders Peru and Colombia. That area has seen violent conflicts between fishermen, poachers and government agents.Authorities have said a main line of the police investigation into the disappearance has pointed to an international network that pays poor fishermen to fish illegally in the Javari Valley reserve, which is Brazil's second-largest Indigenous territory.Pereira, who previously led the local bureau of the federal Indigenous agency, known as FUNAI, took part in several operations against illegal fishing. In such operations, as a rule the fishing gear is seized or destroyed, while the fishermen are fined and briefly detained. Only the Indigenous can legally fish in their territories.'The crime's motive is some personal feud over fishing inspection,' Atalaia do Norte's Mayor Denis Paiva speculated to reporters without providing more details.While some police, the mayor and others in the region link the pair's disappearances to the 'fish mafia,' federal police have not ruled rule out other lines of investigation, such as narco trafficking.Torres, the federal police officer, reiterated that point Wednesday night, saying he could not discuss specifics of the investigation.'We are working with several lines of investigation,' he said.Another officer, Guilherme Torres of the Amazonas state police, said the missing men's boat had not been found yet but police knew the area where it purportedly was hidden by those involved in the crime.'They put bags of dirt on the boat so it would sink,' he said. The engine of the boat was removed, according to investigators.The news conference at Brazil's federal police headquarters in Manaus also included military leaders, who joined the effort to find Phillips and Pereira a few days after their disappearance was reported.President Jair Bolsonaro, a frequent critic of journalists and Indigenous experts, has drawn criticism that the government didn't get involved fast enough. Earlier on Wednesday, he criticized Phillips in an interview, saying without evidence that locals in the area where he went missing didn't like him and that he should have been more careful in the region.The efforts to find the two were started by Indigenous peoples in the region. UNIVAJA, an association of Indigenous peoples of the Javari Valley, mourned the loss of 'two partners' in a statement Wednesday, adding they only had help and protection from local police.As federal police announced they would hold a news conference, colleagues of Pereira called a vigil outside the headquarters of the Brazilian government's Indigenous affairs agency in Brasilia. Pereira was on leave from the agency.The two men were on a reporting trip in the remote jungle area near the border with Peru and Colombia that is home to the world's largest number of uncontacted indigenous people.The wild and lawless region has lured cocaine-smuggling gangs, along with illegal loggers, miners and hunters.News of the pair's disappearance resonated globally, with Brazilian icons from soccer great Pele to singer Caetano Veloso joining politicians, environmentalists and human rights activists in urging President Jair Bolsonaro to step up the search.Reuters witnesses saw the stretch of riverbank were Mayaruna discovered the clothing cordoned off by police on Sunday morning as investigators scoured the area, with a half dozen boats ferrying police, soldiers and firefighters back and forth. Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro (pictured last week) announced yesterday that human remains had been found in the search, saying 'something wicked' had been done to them Pictured: An indigenous member of the Union of Indigenous Peoples of the Javari Valley trecks through the rainforest during the search for Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira Pictured: Indigenous members of the Union of Indigenous Peoples of the Javari Valley search for clues as to the whereabouts of Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira Pictured: Indigenous members of the Union of Indigenous Peoples of the Javari Valley search for clues as to the whereabouts of Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira Pictured: Boats belonging to indigenous members of the Union of Indigenous Peoples of the Javari Valley as they search for clues as to the whereabouts of Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira Indigenous people march to protest against the disappearance of Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira and freelance British journalist Dom Phillips, in Atalaia do Norte, Vale do Javari, Amazonas state, Brazil, Monday, June 13, 202 Dozens of indigenous protesters marched Monday (pictured) in Atalaia do Norte, the small city Phillips and Pereira had been headed to, demanding answers on their whereabouts Pictured: Indigenous people protest over the disappearance of Phillips and Pereira on Monday People hold signs during a vigil following the disappearance of British journalist Dom Phillips and indigenous expert Bruno Pereira in front of the headquarters of Brazil's National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), in Brasilia, Brazil June 13, 2022 A woman cries during a demonstration to protest the disappearance, in the Amazon, of British journalist Dom Phillips and expert on indigenous affairs Bruno Araujo Pereira, in Copacabana beach, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sunday, June 12, 2022 Federal police officers arrive at the pier with items found during a search for Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira and freelance British journalist Dom Phillips in Atalaia do Norte, Amazonas state, Brazil, Sunday, June 12 Police officers and rescue team members sit on a boat during the search operation for British journalist Dom Phillips and indigenous expert Bruno Pereira on Sunday Phillips talks to two indigenous men while visiting a community in Roraima, Brazil, on November 16, 2019 Bruno Pereira takes part in an Indigenous protest in Brasilia, Brazil, 2019 in this picture obtained by Reuters on June 10, 202Bolsonaro, who last year faced tough questioning from Phillips at news conferences about weakening environmental law enforcement in Brazil, said last week that the two men 'were on an adventure that is not recommended' and suggested that they could have been executed.State police detectives involved in the investigation have told Reuters they are focusing on poachers and illegal fisherman in the area, who clashed often with Pereira as he organised indigenous patrols of the local reservation.Some 150 soldiers had been deployed via riverboats to hunt for the missing men and interview locals, joining indigenous search teams who had been looking for the pair for more than a week.A GoFundMe page to aid the efforts to help Phillips and Pereira's family has also been set up, raising $37,139 (£30,765).Friends of the pair said: 'At this tragic moment, when these families have so much to worry about, money should not be another concern. 'Dom, Bruno, Alê, Beatriz, and their children need our help not only to pay the bills, but also to cover new costs that emerge as they continue the search. Even the smallest donation is valuable. 'Together we can show that these brave souls are not alone and that we are united behind them.' | Latin America Politics |
It was one of the abiding mysteries of public life. How did Piers Morgan rise so far? I see him as a buffoon, a bully, a windbag. Yet, despite scandals that would have killed most people’s careers, he rose like a methane bubble in a slurry lagoon, occupying some of the most prestigious and lucrative positions in the media. This week, reflecting on the life and abuses of the plutocrat Mohamed Al Fayed, Private Eye magazine produced an explanation. It came from Morgan himself, writing about Fayed in 1999. “I’ve always made it a strict rule in life to ingratiate myself with three categories of people: newspaper owners, potential newspaper owners and billionaires. And since Mohamed Al Fayed is a billionaire and would love to own a newspaper, sucking up to him seems an extremely sensible move.”
The strategy is not unusual. But voicing it is. Morgan expressed the unspoken rule of public life out loud. If you want to get ahead, grovel to billionaires, especially those who own the media. The obvious coda to the rule is: “because they are the people with real power”.
Plenty of rules are broken without consequence. You can appear on the BBC while hiding your financial interests, breaking its editorial guidelines, as long as you are channelling the demands of the very rich. You can breach parliamentary rules without punishment – by lying, or by failing to update your register of interests, or by taking a second job without clearance when your ministerial career ends – as long as you remain a loyal servant of big money. But Morgan’s Rule is the one that must not be broken. If you are a political party and you want a sniff at power, if you are a commentator who wants to appear on the BBC, you must observe it. Otherwise you will be vilified or excluded.
Morgan and journalists like him are members of the concierge class, which provides a wide range of services to economic power. Some of them, such as editors of the billionaire media and the junktanks of Tufton Street, specialise in translating the outrageous demands of oligarchs and corporations into what looks like political common sense, or in attacking plutocrats’ critics or transferring blame for their impacts on to immigrants, the Labour party and other customary scapegoats.
Some of them, such as lobbyists, specialise in reputation-laundering: brokering deals between grim plutocrats and cultural institutions – universities, museums, opera houses, charities – which, in return for lavish donations, will name faculties, professorships, galleries, funds and prizes after their sponsors, transforming violent kleptocrats into pillars of society.
Others, including lawyers, accountants, bankers and wealth managers, specialise in hiding and washing their money, buying them special visas, or suing and hounding their critics. This is why organised crime loves London. It takes advantage of both England’s ultra-permissive financial laws and its ultra-repressive libel laws.
The government is always ready to help. In 2021, while Rishi Sunak was chancellor of the exchequer, lawyers acting for Yevgeny Prigozhin, the late brutal chief of Russia’s Wagner mercenary group, applied to the Treasury for permission to override the sanctions against him, so that he could sue the investigative journalist Eliot Higgins. Sunak’s Treasury granted the special licences they requested and even approved sanctions-busting flights to St Petersburg so they could plan their legal attack.
In this way a few dozen people, assisted by thousands of concierges, can dominate our lives. The system we call democracy is a mere patina, sticky and dimpled, on the surface of oligarchic power.
There are many ways in which economic power translates into political power, and none of them are good for us. The most obvious is campaign finance: the sponsorship not only of political parties but of entire systems of political thought and action. These transactions muscle the interests of society out of politicians’ minds. Some of them are enormous. Last year, the US website the Lever exposed a $1.3bn (£1bn) transfer of money from a little-known billionaire, Barre Seid, to a new political advocacy group run by an ultraconservative. How can mere citizens compete?
Financial power also ensures that the rules supposed to stop economic crime and the laundering of its proceeds contain loopholes wide enough for a superyacht to sail through. For the past few months, members of the House of Lords have been battling to remove the obvious get-out clauses from the economic crime bill passing through parliament. The government has thwarted it at every turn. In the debate on Monday, the Conservative peer Lord Agnew – the very opposite of a radical firebrand – complained that “the government continue to say one thing and then do something different”. Sunak’s administration, run by an oligarch for oligarchs, produces heart-thumping assurances that it will close the loopholes, then subtly tweaks the legislation to keep them open.
Money’s might ensures that its environmental impacts are unrestrained. Recently, I was told about a multimillionaire who had intended to fly in his private jet to a luxury resort, only to change his mind at the last minute and decide to go to a different place, with a shorter landing strip. The plane was too heavy to land there, so it sat on the tarmac and burnt off $15,000 of fuel before setting out. Sunak treats the UK as a flyover state, travelling by helicopter and private jet to places he could easily reach by train. Kylie Jenner and Floyd Mayweather zip about on private flights of less than 20 minutes. Each of them negates the efforts of thousands of ordinary mortals to live within the limits of a habitable planet.
But these specific impacts fail to capture the aggregate effect: the remarkable way in which society comes to reflect the demands of the ultra-rich. Almost everyone in public life accepts the same set of preposterous beliefs. That economic growth can continue indefinitely on a finite planet; that the unhindered acquisition of enormous fortunes by a few is acceptable, even commendable; that they should be allowed to own as much natural wealth as their money permits; that there’s nothing objectionable about a few offshore billionaires owning the media and setting the political agenda; that anyone who disputes such notions has no place in civil society. We are free to speak, up to but not beyond this point: the point on which everything hangs.
Morgan’s maxim is not just the unspoken rule. It is also the unspeakable truth. Everyone knows it, hardly any will mention it. It underpins our august institutions, our legal codes, our manners and mores. It is the great silence we need to break.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist | United Kingdom Politics |
Last year, the world watched as punishing heat and drought killed people in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, and floods destroyed parts of Pakistan and the Philippines. This year, we’ve seen torrential rain drowning sections of coastal California. These events underscore the devastating role water can play in a changing climate, something I have been studying for the last two decades.
Between all these events I attended my first COP—the United Nations’ major climate change conference. My expectations here were mixed; in conversations with members of the water networks with whom I work, it was evident that we would have a lot of work to do to make it a more critical component of the climate negotiations process. Yet, to my joy and surprise, COP27 did just that—policy makers and advocates focused on, for likely the first time, the interactions between climate change and water. The international agreement (called the COP cover decision) that came out of the days of negotiations prioritized the need to focus on “water systems” and “water-related ecosystems in delivering climate adaptation benefits.” This agreement solidified the idea that water is a valuable resource that can help society become more resilient to the impacts of climate change.
This was a huge win. Talks at COP27 also reinforced the need for international cooperation to support countries and communities as they build water security—creating a reliable system in which society has enough clean water (not too much, not too little).
Last year, the Sixth IPCC report showed clearly that climate change is causing water insecurity. The report, which comes from the United Nations, also showed how the extremes of water—floods, shortages and droughts—are linked to the natural water cycle. This, in turn, is affected by climate. In addition, water and climate influence food availability, and global food crises reflect that link. What we are seeing now, more than ever before, is failing agriculture and increasing food insecurity, culminating in heightened levels of inequality, fragility and instability. We are witnessing this cruel scenario play out in the poorest, most vulnerable communities.
My institution, the International Water Management Institute, and other groups working on water can help address these crucial issues by supporting governments (the Parties, in the parlance of COP) in their efforts to meet the bold goals of the Paris Agreement. We can do this through the better provision of new scientific data. This will enable us to account for the growing unpredictability of water. In addition, we can use scientific innovation to develop new ways to measure and respond to unexpected changes in rainfall. Our collective effort at COP27 has laid some of that groundwork.
IWMI and several other organizations that focus on water use and water security planned several events at the Water Pavilion, a space set up and managed by the government of Egypt at COP27 to discuss and share experiences on the role of water in a changing climate. Our goal there was to emphasize the need to put water security at the center of the climate crisis. Led by the Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, the Water Pavilion events mobilized more than 30 global organizations, institutions, governments and companies to deliver cutting-edge science-based advice to decision makers and negotiators.
Among what we shared was how satellite-based early-warning systems and scenario modeling can help identify robust solutions for water management. We showcased the importance of climate-smart agriculture as a means to ensure food security. Along with sessions on linking climate science to policy and financing, and the work my organization did at an important discussion on water security called a High Level Roundtable, we came together to make water a key part of climate discussion in a country and region where calling water security challenging is an understatement.
Our work at the Water Pavilion reflected the complex challenges of water in policymaking—allocation, sourcing, remediation, finance and investment—and the need for a fund to help countries cope with the water losses they will experience because of climate change. Our collaboration clearly explained the need for extreme hazard management, the effect of water instability on health and food availability, what happens to the environment when water changes, and how water is a driver of peace and cooperation. It showed what could happen when all the groups with a vested interest in some aspect of water did away with fragmented approaches and worked together. We were one voice at COP27, and that one voice built on last year’s effort to do what we have never truly been able to do before: put water on the table and make it one of the most important things there.
In reflection, and as we move forward to preparations for COP28, perhaps water organizations like mine need to change how we approach negotiations and commit to supporting COP representatives by delivering on a new scientific agenda for water, one that is capable of equipping decision makers, often governmental, with the best data and evidence they can use to navigate uncertainty and support their negotiations. The representatives have the clout, not us, and their decisions can change how governments and policymakers treat water in remediating and adapting to the climate crisis.
If the people in power leave water out of their decision-making, the world would face extreme loss. In addition to water as a destructive force and a life-giving force, it’s an economic force. The exorbitant costs of grain and the resulting food crisis caused by trade disruptions caused by the Ukraine war have been amplified locally because of water insecurity. Less food, less water, less productivity, more instability—it’s a cycle that will continue if we do not plan now how to survive both the dangers water can pose and the life it can give.
Resilient, nature-based solutions for water security are possible and yielding positive results. A project I work on in the Middle East and North Africa called Al Murunah is developing action-oriented field demonstrations and recommendations to improve the resilience of crop, livestock and fisheries production systems while protecting, sustainably managing and restoring ecosystems. The objective is to increase water security in Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian Territories and Egypt through the integration of nature-based solutions for water and agricultural water management.
Water is complicated and simple at the same time. In the end, it’s about too much, too little, too poor quality in a particular place and time. A united voice for water accomplished something groundbreaking in November. We finally convinced the global political stage that the climate crisis is a water crisis. The real work starts now. | Global Organizations |
Brazil's newly elected president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva may be from the other side of the political spectrum from his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro, but the leftist also known as Lula may be just as much of an ally to Vladimir Putin regarding the war in Ukraine.In February, only days before his full-scale invasion, Putin hosted Bolsonaro at the Kremlin in what looked like a meeting of minds between the strongman leaders and afterwards, Brazil's outgoing president took a neutral stance towards Russia's aggression.This week, Putin was quick to welcome the victory of Lula which Russian state media reported with relish, as an interview he gave re-emerged in which he said it was "not just Putin" who was guilty for the war. "Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine," Lula told Time in May, before he added that the U.S. and Europe "should have said 'Ukraine won't join NATO'— that would have solved the problem."Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) greets Brazilian President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva on May 14, 2010 in Moscow. Lula has also blamed the West for Putin's invasion of Ukraine.ALEXEY DRUZHININ/Getty ImagesIn August, Lula's foreign policy adviser Celso Amorim criticized the U.S.-led sanctions against Russia and said that if elected his boss would not endorse such measures. While the West is relieved at Lula's election, especially for its environmental implications, when it comes to the war in Ukraine, the two Brazilian leaders, past and present, so different politically, are paradoxically in lockstep over Ukraine."I don't think it's another country falling into Putin's lap," said Jonathan Eyal, associate director of the London thinktank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)."What is true, however, is that the statements of Lula have given added credibility to Putin's claim that it's only Western countries that accused Russia of the aggression, and that the global south somehow has a different position.""In that respect it's a win for Putin," he told Newsweek. "Russia is not gaining something new apart from perhaps a diplomatic victory that someone else is now echoing the talking lines from Moscow.""While Lula's position is deeply disappointing, since he wasn't in power when the invasion took place, and therefore he had a much greater freedom to think outside the box...it's not surprising," Eyal added.Putin has repeatedly pushed a narrative that Moscow is at the forefront of a geopolitical shift away from the U.S. and the European Union. Meanwhile, the West's condemnation of his war in Ukraine has been absent in other parts of the world, such as Brazil."It's not just autocrats around the world who are supporting Putin or Russian narratives. Lula's case indicates that leftist progressives in the Global South are also susceptible to Russian views," said Dionis Cenusa, risk analyst for the Lithuania-based Eastern Europe Studies Center."That also says that the West has weak diplomacy outside the Western world, even after more than eight months of war," he told Newsweek. "Both the U.S. and the EU fall short in extending Russia's effective international isolation beyond the West, both in terms of strategic communication and sanctions."It is traditional for Brazilian governments not to take sides in any conflict that does not affect the country directly and Lula has not made any direct pronouncements about his foreign policy. However, he is expected to focus on its relationship with other emerging economies bound by the BRICS acronym, which includes Russia, China, India and South Africa.Vinicius Mariano de Carvalho, reader in Brazilian and Latin American Studies at King's College London, told Newsweek: "We can expect that BRICS will be again on the top of the agenda for Lula" and this will have "interesting consequences" as it could push Brazil "to decide which side to take on this question of the invasion of Ukraine.""It's also important to remember that (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelensky also congratulated Lula," he said. This shows both Ukrainian and Russian presidents are "thinking how that [Lula's election] will influence the relationship between the countries."Kathryn Hochstetler, professor of international development at the London School of Economics, said that Lula had enthusiastically embraced the BRICS countries in his previous stint as president between 2003 and 2010."At the same time, though, Lula is much more committed to multilateralism than Bolsonaro was and is keenly interested in Brazil being seen as a global partner and not a pariah," she told Newsweek. "So he will not only be looking to the BRICS, but is likely to significantly rebuild ties with the U.S. and Europe."Most of the focus on Lula's environmental policy has been on what it would mean for Amazonian deforestation and indigenous rights and where he will reverse Bolsonaro's policies and provide greater protection."But on other environmental agenda items, like developing Brazil's oil and gas reserves, Lula will share more in common with Putin than with the Colombian (President Gustavo) Petro, who has called for a moratorium," Hochstetler added. | Latin America Politics |
It won’t be his efforts to get schools to focus more on maths. Or his drive to get us playing more chess, as worthwhile as that might be. And it definitely won’t be his management of the economy, or improvements in public services.
When Rishi Sunak is freed from office, as he almost certainly will be some time next year, he won’t have a great deal to show for his tenure.
But he might have this: a trade deal with India that will cement Britain’s pivot towards the East, and prevent us from ever re-joining the EU. The only snag is, he needs to show some genuine drive and energy to make it happen.
There is plenty of high-level contact. The trade secretary Kemi Badenoch was in India this week for a meeting of the G20 trade ministers, and Rishi Sunak is due to visit the country in September.
Either event would have been the perfect moment to finally unveil the long-awaited free trade agreement between the countries. And yet, there were briefings over the last few days that there are still many issues to be ironed out.
The timetable keeps slipping and slipping. Even Boris Johnson at one point promised to get it wrapped up before Diwali in the autumn of 2022 – and yet, as so often, he over-promised and under-delivered. A year on, there is still little sign of it getting over the line.
That is not good enough. In fact, a trade deal with India is by far the biggest short-term prize of Brexit, and one the Government needs to seize as soon as it can.
Hardcore Remainers are quick to dismiss any trade deals outside of Europe, such as the ones recently signed with Australia and New Zealand, as if the EU Single Market was the only one that mattered or made any difference to the economy.
That, however, is blinkered nonsense. The EU is shrinking all the time, and now accounts for something like 15pc of the global economy, while its top-heavy system of regulation means it often suffocates growth and innovation, leading to less trade overall.
Other trade blocs are increasingly attractive alternatives. And India is the crucial one right now. Here’s why.
First, since a deal with the United States looks to be off the table for the foreseeable future – the Biden administration is not interested, and no one has any idea yet who will be in power after the next presidential election – India is a natural alternative.
It has already overtaken the UK as measured by total GDP (although admittedly that is not much of an achievement anymore) and is expected to overtake Germany and Japan to become the third largest economy in the world by 2030.
It will become an undeniable force in global trade that is set to keep growing.
Next, a deal will cement the UK’s critical pivot towards Asia that it started when we signed up for the CPTPP free trade zone, which stretches across much of the continent, as well as parts of South America.
Again hardcore europhiles may try to deny it, but the Asia-Pacific region is growing at a rapid pace, becoming a lucrative market for the mix of legal, financial and consulting services that the UK has become very good at exporting.
With a much deeper economic relationship with India as well, Britain will have the opportunity to embed itself deeply into Asia’s commercial infrastructure.
Thirdly, there are already well-established family and historic links between the two countries.
The investment by Tata, the Indian owners of Jaguar Land Rover, in a £4bn electric vehicle battery factory is just the latest example of the flow of money between the two economies.
Plenty of major British companies already have a presence in India and vice-versa, and with lower tariffs, easier movement of executives and staff, and common trading and product standards, that can only grow.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, are the geopolitical ramifications. A UK-India pact will help steer India towards the Western trading system, and away from President Xi’s attempts to lock it into a Chinese-dominated Brics alternative complete with its own rules and potentially its own currency system.
Moreover, it will effectively prevent the UK from ever re-joining the EU.
With the combination of the CPTPP and a deal with India, as well as our huge trade with North America, the UK will be locked into an Atlantic-Pacific trading arrangement that will be very different from the Brussels system operating across mainland Europe.
As much as a Starmer-led administration might try to steer Britain back into the EU, it will have become virtually impossible.
There would be too much to give up, with the economy already on a divergent path. The disruption of trying to move back towards a slow-growth Europe would no longer be tenable.
For Sunak, that would be a genuine legacy, and with his family links he is surely the right man to tie up a trade deal.
The trouble is, there are worrying signs it is getting bogged down in details. It is very easy for officials to start dragging their feet, and for lobby groups and vested interests to block progress with demands for extra protection for one sector or another.
There might not be enough time left to get it signed by the time he visits India in September. But the PM should put everything into getting it wrapped up before Christmas. It is simply too important. | United Kingdom Politics |
Don’t they have children? Don’t they have grandchildren? Don’t rich and powerful people care about the world they will leave to their descendants? These are questions I’m asked every week, and they are not easy to answer. How can we explain a mindset that would sacrifice the habitable planet for a little more power or a little more wealth, when they have so much already?
There are many ways in which extreme wealth impoverishes us. The most obvious is money-spreading across our common ecological space. The recent reporting by Oxfam, the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Guardian gives us a glimpse of how much of the planet the very wealthy now sprawl across. The richest 1% of the world’s people burn more carbon than the poorest 66%, while multibillionaires, running their yachts, private jets and multiple homes, each consume thousands of times the global average. You could see it as another colonial land grab: a powerful elite has captured the resources on which everyone depends.
But this is by no means the end of the problem. Some of these pollutocrats also go to great lengths to thwart other people’s attempts to prevent Earth systems collapse. Billionaires and centimillionaires fund a network of organisations that seek to prevent effective environmental action. Many of the junktanks founded or funded by Charles and the late David Koch, owners of a vast business empire incorporating fossil fuel extraction, oil refineries and chemical plants, supply the arguments that disguise industrial self-interest as moral principle. So do their opaquely funded counterparts in the UK, in or around Tufton Street in Westminster.
The multimillionaire Jeremy Hosking, who poured millions into Vote Leave and the Brexit party, is also the main funder of Laurence Fox’s Reclaim party, which claims there is no climate emergency and campaigns against net zero policies and low traffic neighbourhoods and in favour of fracking. Coincidentally, an investigation by openDemocracy last year found that his company, Hosking Partners, had $134m invested in the fossil fuel sector.
Harder to explain perhaps are the oligarchs who are not heavily or directly involved in fossil fuels, yet foster opposition to environmental action. A recent investigation by the website DeSmog found that 85% of opinion pieces about environmental issues published in the Telegraph over the past six months either denied the science or attacked the measures and campaigns seeking to prevent environmental breakdown. The current owner, Sir Frederick Barclay, is not a fossil fuel baron. But if the newspaper is now sold, as seems likely, to a fund controlled by Abu Dhabi’s royal family, bankrolled by oil and gas, it could scarcely be worse.
At the core of Elon Musk’s empire is Tesla, which makes electric vehicles. But he has turned his recent acquisition Twitter (now X, soon to be Ex) into an intensely hostile place for environmental discussion: research suggests that almost 50% of its environmentally oriented users have either gone quiet or been driven off the platform since its emuskulation. Musk himself has contributed to the denial of environmental science that has boomed on X since he bought it.
A broad coalition of interests – fossil fuel companies, billionaires and their newspapers and other members of the economic elite – has lobbied for and achieved the criminalisation of environmental protest in many parts of the world, including the UK. Here, as in several other countries, gentle environmental protests now attract long prison sentences, facilitated by silencing in court: campaigners in some cases are prohibited from telling the jury why they took their action. In the US, organisations funded by oil companies and billionaires draft laws including the most draconian and chilling penalties for protesters, then seek to universalise them across numerous states and nations. Entirely peaceful protesters are demonised as extremists and even terrorists. A widespread hostility towards environmental campaigners has been manufactured by dark-money junktanks and the billionaire press. It is obscene that those who seek to protect the living planet by democratic means are arrested en masse and imprisoned by the authorities, while the people and organisations trashing our life-support systems are untouched by the law.
So why do oligarchs who do not have direct investments in environmental destruction appear so hostile to environmental protection? Part of the reason is that any opposition to business as usual is perceived as opposition to its beneficiaries. Those who are billionaires or centimillionaires today are, by definition, well-served by the current system. They correctly perceive that a fairer, greener world means curtailing their immense economic and political power. Even those who have invested in green technologies or who donate to green causes doubtless feel an instinctive sense of threat.
Networks funded by fossil fuel companies deliberately aggregate the issues, connecting green policies with communism and violent revolution, while promoting political candidates who will clamp down simultaneously on environmental action, democracy and redistribution. The property paranoia often associated with extreme wealth – the sense that everyone is plotting to take it away from you – is easily triggered.
But we cannot discount the possibility that some of these people really don’t care, even about their own children. There are two convergent forces here: first, many of those who rise to positions of great economic or political power have personality disorders, particularly narcissism or psychopathy. These disorders are often the driving forces behind their ambition, and the means by which they overcome obstacles to the acquisition of wealth and power – such as guilt about their treatment of others – which would deter other people from achieving such dominance.
The second factor is that once great wealth has been acquired, it seems to reinforce these tendencies, inhibiting connection, affection and contrition. Money buys isolation. It allows people to wall themselves off from others, in their mansions, yachts and private jets, not just physically but also cognitively, stifling awareness of their social and environmental impacts, shutting out other people’s concerns and challenges. Great wealth encourages a sense of entitlement and egotism. It seems to suppress trust, empathy and generosity. Affluence also appears to diminish people’s interest in looking after their own children. If any other condition generated these symptoms, we would call it a mental illness. Perhaps this is how extreme wealth should be classified.
So the fight against environmental breakdown is not and has never been just a fight against environmental breakdown. It is also a fight against the great maldistribution of wealth and power that blights every aspect of life on planet Earth. Billionaires – even the more enlightened ones – are bad for us. We cannot afford to keep them. | Human Rights |
Who knows what lies in store for the men who received a last-minute reprieve from being shipped thousands of miles across the globe to Rwanda. The UK government still wants to press ahead: Priti Patel pronounced herself disappointed. But have no doubt, Tuesday night’s botched attempt – halted after a legal injunction from the European court of human rights – is a watershed moment, in government policymaking, in the country’s global standing and for our collective moral compass.It’s been a tale of numbers. Up to 130 people were initially notified they could be removed. On Friday, the high court heard that 31 people were due on the first flight. On Tuesday night, seven were due to be flown to Rwanda from a military airport in Wiltshire.But this is not about a tally: behind every individual we see in our daily work at the Refugee Council, there’s a harrowing story of upheaval, war, persecution and personal tragedy. From the teenager whose relatives have been killed, to the young man who is at risk for joining an opposition party, to the mother whose city has been bombed, or the journalist who has received death threats from a new regime – each one has a good reason to flee.Somehow, we have forgotten something that many of our grandparents learned during the second world war. When we ignore the human rights of those less fortunate than us, and the vital global warning system which refugees represent, we can no longer be proud of ourselves or confident in our world. The government has shown two fingers to the UN refugee convention, which Britain helped draft in 1951, and of which we were a founding signatory. It’s also a huge step backwards in the long and controversial history of UK immigration policy. Patel called the Rwanda agreement “groundbreaking” – but it is so for all the wrong reasons. Our government has never before sought to evade its responsibilities so completely, by shipping people seeking safety in this country off to another jurisdiction.It’s more extreme even than the Australian near-equivalent, when refugees were detained on Nauru and Manus Island, because we are not merely off-shoring, but outsourcing the entire delivery of our asylum system to another state. Quite apart from the well-documented concerns over Rwanda being a safe country, the principle is also deeply wrong. The vast majority of refugees (86%) stay in countries bordering their own. This is just another way in which we are shifting the responsibilities we should share, away from richer countries, on to the global south.It’s also a terrible blow to our international role and standing. With this policy, so-called “global Britain” is signalling a withdrawal from efforts to seek multilateral solutions to major global challenges. And for what? Boris Johnson says shipping people to Rwanda will tackle people smugglers and deter men, women and children from risking their lives in flimsy vessels to cross the Channel from France. But even the top civil servant at the Home Office was unable to say this awful solution will act as a deterrent.We know the reality. Desperate people have continued to cross the Channel in greater numbers than last year, because of the different crises from which they are escaping. Asked why they want to come to the UK in particular, they often cite family ties, knowing the language, and the poor treatment they receive from police and authorities in other countries they have passed through. A very small proportion end up in the UK – many European countries take in more refugees, and our contribution is tiny when compared with other countries such as Pakistan, Uganda, Lebanon, and now – thanks to the war in Ukraine – Poland.And we know the solutions. We must look at the reasons people are forced from their homes. The vast cost of removing one person to Rwanda could be far better spent on improving hundreds of lives.We must also work with other countries in Europe to develop a humane response. We should create safe routes for refugees, so that far fewer have to make dangerous journeys. One simple way is through extending family reunion rights, but instead the government is taking these away from people seeking asylum. Another is putting in place humanitarian visas. We don’t need immoral chaotic flights. We need to focus on creating a fair, orderly and humane asylum system.Time after time, our asylum system counts the numbers, but fails to see the faces of very terrified and vulnerable people. Last night, as British ministers looked away from the tarmac, it took the European court of human rights to see those faces and to act with humanity. A country that seeks to abandon compassion is in very bleak territory. Enver Solomon is chief executive of the Refugee Council | United Kingdom Politics |
UK trade talks with India are reaching their "final but trickier" stages, according to government sources.
Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch is visiting India for a meeting of G20 trade ministers this week.
There has been speculation about whether a trade deal may be struck before Rishi Sunak visits India in September.
But the BBC has been told there is currently no expectation in government a full deal will be agreed by then.
Government sources said they hoped a deal could now be "months" away, but they stressed there were still some "big nuts to crack".
A trade deal with India has long been seen in government as one of the biggest prizes of all deals the UK could strike with other nations following Brexit.
Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised in April last year to get an agreement "done" by Diwali in the autumn of 2022 - but that deadline was missed.
The UK has been particularly keen to strike an agreement that could bring down tariffs on UK exports including cars and whisky, which currently face triple-figure tariffs, or import taxes, in India.
Those tariffs mean UK products can have a much higher price tag in India, making them less competitive.
Trade talks have faced some hurdles in the last year, in particular due to British ministers' refusal so far to grant more visas to Indian workers.
The UK has been keen to get India to allow more UK City firms and service industries to set up business in the country.
William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said this would be the "big win" for British businesses - particularly UK travel, business or financial services.
"Up to 80% of the UK economy is services-based," he said.
But he added: "That's one of the last areas that India would want to make agreement at this point, because that's where it has leverage.
"Having much more visa access to the UK will be part of the key things to get a deal over the line.
"If there is a future stage later in the year where the two prime ministers meet face to face for a further push - it's really going to be that issue of services access in return for better access for Indian nationals in the UK.
"It is a bigger export market and it's one which is rapidly increasing its prosperity. Also India hasn't done many trade agreements, so the UK is relatively front of the queue here."
More talks expected
Ms Badenoch is travelling to India to meet fellow trade ministers in the G20 group of wealthy nations, rather than to hold formal negotiations on a UK-India deal.
However, talks between officials from both sides will be ongoing in India during the visit, and she is set to have a one-on-one meeting with her Indian counterpart after the G20 meeting is over.
She will also be talking to the so-called B20, the business equivalent of the G20, chaired by Indian conglomerate Tata, which recently announced more than £4bn of investment in a gigafactory in Somerset.
The UK is hoping to proactively encourage other Indian investors to invest in the UK.
There have been some media reports, particularly in India, suggesting that a deal is "close" and could be reached to coincide with Rishi Sunak's visit for the G20 leaders' summit in September.
But officials have indicated that it is unlikely a full deal will be agreed by then.
September visit
Government sources stressed that, while the last round of talks "closed some chapters", negotiations get "harder, not easier".
UK officials are preparing for there to be a need for further talks following the trade secretary's visit this week.
Mr Sunak is expected to receive a warm welcome when he visits in September. His appointment as the first British Indian prime minister was one of the top stories across Indian media.
Indian broadcaster NDTV ran a headline at the time saying: "Indian son rises over the empire. Rishi Sunak first Indian origin UK PM. History comes full circle in Britain."
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has described him as the "living bridge" of UK Indians, while the Times of India suggested the appointment of a Hindu PM had brought India Diwali cheer.
A department for business and trade spokesperson said: "The UK and India are committed to working towards the best deal possible for both sides.
"We've made good progress in closing chapters, and are now laser-focused on goods, services and investment.
"While we cannot comment on ongoing negotiations, we are clear that we will only sign when we have a deal that is fair, balanced, and ultimately in the best interests of the British people and the economy." | India Politics |
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi attends a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Denpasar, Indonesia July 7, 2022. Russian Foreign Ministry/Handout via REUTERS Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comBEIJING, July 7 (Reuters) - Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Indian counterpart on Thursday that both their countries had effectively managed and controlled their differences.Bilateral relations have generally shown momentum in recovery, Wang told Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in Bali, Indonesia.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Ryan Woo
Editing by Peter GraffOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
Moscow: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday held a “meaningful” conversation over the phone, and reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthen the bilateral strategic partnership while exchanging views on the conflict in Ukraine, the Kremlin said.
The telephone conversation between the two leaders came days ahead of the virtual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) which is being hosted by India.
“The conversation had a meaningful and constructive character. The leaders reiterated mutual commitment to strengthening the privileged strategic partnership between Russia and India and agreed to continue communication,” the Kremlin press service said.
Russian President Putin informed Modi of Ukraine’s categorical refusal to settle the conflict through diplomacy, it said about the raging war in Eastern Europe since February last year.
“The two leaders discussed the situation around Ukraine. The Russian president assessed the current situation in the special military operation zone, pointing to Kyiv’s categorical refusal to take political and diplomatic steps to resolve the conflict,” the statement said.
India has not yet condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and it has been maintaining that the crisis must be resolved through diplomacy and dialogue.
The two leaders also discussed their countries’ cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the G20.
“Special attention was focused on cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the G20, where India holds the presidency, as well as within the BRICS format,” the statement said. | Asia Politics |
US President Joe Biden waves as he makes his way to board Air Force One before departing from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on June 14, 2022. - Biden is traveling to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to deliver remarks at the 29th AFL-CIO Quadrennial Constitutional Convention. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images)WASHINGTON — President Biden will travel to Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Palestinian territory of the West Bank next month, the White House said on Tuesday. During the trip, he will confront a bevy of overlapping issues, including energy production, human rights and the future of a Palestinian state.The trip will begin in Israel on July 13 and continue for four days.Biden “will also meet with counterparts from across the region, to advance U.S. security, economic, and diplomatic interests,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement announcing the trip.A trip to the Middle East had been in the works since last month, and the White House has faced intense questioning about how it would keep to its commitments to human rights in dealing with Saudi Arabia, whose vast oil reserves afford leverage over the United States.On Monday, Jean-Pierre rejected the notion that Biden was heading to Saudi Arabia to ask the petroleum-rich nation to help lower energy costs by increasing the number of oil barrels it releases on the global market. Framing the trip as an effort to bring down domestic energy prices was “simply wrong and a misunderstanding of both the complexity of that issue and our multifaceted discussions with the Saudis,” she said during a press briefing.At the same time, Saudi Arabia is the effective leader of the oil-producing consortium known as OPEC Plus, making it implausible that energy would not be a primary topic of discussion. Jean-Pierre acknowledged as much, even as she and the president have attempted to paint the trip as more than just a plea to pump more oil in order to compensate for shortfalls stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.OPEC Plus announced it would increase oil production earlier this month.Saudi Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud addresses the 29th annual Middle East Petroleum and Gas conference in the Bahraini capital Manama, on May 16, 2022. (Mazen Mahdi /AFP via Getty Images)Biden is in an especially uncomfortable position because he has portrayed himself as a leader on human rights and democracy, especially when it comes to the abuses committed by the Kremlin against its own people and in Ukraine. He has also spoken about the rise of authoritarianism at home.Saudi Arabia is a kingdom where the rights of women, members of the LGBT community and other minorities are severely repressed. And the kingdom’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is widely suspected to have ordered the gruesome murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul four years ago.In its announcement of the trip, the White House highlighted that the president was invited by Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the nation’s ailing king. In truth, the crown prince — known colloquially as MBS — is widely believed to wield true power in the kingdom.Biden is expected to meet with MBS. “We’re not shying away from that,” White House spokesman John Kirby said on MSNBC on Tuesday morning.On Monday, Jean-Pierre said she was "going to just let [the president's] word stand” on whether he would confront Saudi leaders about the killing of Khashoggi, who lived and worked in the United StatesSaudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends the G20 Leaders' Summit via videoconference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on October 30, 2021. (Royal Court of Saudi Arabia/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)In 2019, when he was in the midst of seeking the presidency, Biden vowed to “make them pay the price, and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.” Earlier in his administration — well before inflation became an existential threat to his presidency — he released an intelligence report that plainly pointed the finger at MBS for the Khashoggi killing, which took place after the dissident journalist was lured inside a Saudi consulate in the Turkish capital.In response to the report, the State Department banned 76 Saudi nationals from the United States, in what has come to be casually known as the Khashoggi ban.But with oil prices spiking as a result of several factors — increased demand, coupled with an aversion to Russian supply from much of the West — the world’s second most prolific producer of oil (the U.S. is first; Russia is third.)“I do think the desperation of the trajectory of the global economy is driving everything," a government official told CNN earlier this month, describing the Biden administration as “desperate.”The White House said Biden and Saudi leaders would discuss the kingdom’s war with Yemen, as well as the persistent regional threat that is Iran.In what appears to be an effort to mitigate the complexities of the Saudi relationship, Biden will begin his trip in Israel, where he will “reinforce the United States’ iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security and prosperity,” according to the White House statement announcing the trip.U.S. President Joe Biden and Israel's Prime Minister Naftali Bennett shake hands during a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S. August 27, 2021. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)Former President Donald Trump was a loyal ally to the Jewish state, moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which cheered by political conservatives in both the U.S. and Israel. He also fostered the so-called Abraham Accords, which brought Israel into closer partnership with some of its Arab neighbors.The issue of Palestinian statehood remains one that no president has come even close to solving. President Barack Obama visited the West Bank in 2013, but his own attempts at a peace deal were halting and came to naught.During his visit to the West Bank, Biden will “consult with the Palestinian Authority” and “reiterate his strong support for a two-state solution, with equal measures of security, freedom, and opportunity for the Palestinian people.”It is not clear if he will raise the issue of Shireen Abu Akleh, a journalist who holds U.S. citizenship and was reporting in the West Bank for Al Jazeera in May when she was killed by Israeli soldiers. | Middle East Politics |
James Cleverly will announce he is still reviewing measures to reduce legal migration on Monday, as the government fights to convince its own backbenchers it can exercise control over UK borders.
Next month Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will then set out the results of the review alongside details of the new treaty with Rwanda and emergency legislation to enable migrants to be sent to Rwanda for processing, amid a growing split inside the Conservative Party over the way forward on migration.
The new home secretary will on Monday concede that Britain has not yet reasserted control of who is coming into the country in front of MPs, in his first Commons appearance since the ONS revealed more than a million people have net arrived in the UK in the last two years, according to the Politics at Jack and Sam's podcast by Sky News and Politico.
In the most important moment since becoming home secretary, Mr Cleverly is likely to say that legal migration must be brought down and that illegal migration should be zero.
Click to subscribe to Politics at Jack and Sam's wherever you get your podcasts
He will nod to the range of options that the government will suggest to curb legal migration, from banning workers from bringing dependants, or restricting them to one relative, increasing the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers and a cap on overall care worker numbers.
He will emphasise that the existing plan to stop students bringing dependants which are about to be implemented could also make a big difference.
Read more from Sky News:
Reform leader denies offering Lee Anderson money to defect
Former England manager Terry Venables dies
More wintry weather on the way after temperatures plunge
However he is likely to face challenges from MPs concerned at his emphasis that the Rwanda policy is not a "silver bullet" and his resistance to the idea that leaving the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) might ultimately make the decisive difference to stopping small boats crossing the channel.
In the coming days, Sunak and Cleverly must make one of the most critical decisions of this government's time in office over how draconian to be in emergency legislation to force through Rwanda.
There is huge pressure from the Tory right to pass a law saying that the ECHR and other human rights legislation does not apply to the Rwanda policy, while there is concern in government that even doing this will anger those allies in the international community who need to strike returns deals.
For details of this dilemma, and the other ways post-Brexit Britain is seeking to establish itself on the world stage, listen to Politics at Jack and Sam's above or download it wherever you get your podcasts. | United Kingdom Politics |
We have all been told that Suella Braverman is an evil racist, yet the “deplorable” speech she gave on immigration last week echoed the sentiments of at least one lovely liberal: Jack Straw.
In 2001, Straw, then Labour’s home secretary, argued for reforming the Geneva convention on refugees so as to tackle people smuggling. “The convention was designed for an era when international flows of people were on a much smaller scale than they are today,” he explained, whereas mobile technology and cheaper travel now mean “long-distance migration is a realistic option – and a widespread aspiration… Thousands of would-be migrants are taking advantage of one aspect of the convention – namely, that it places an obligation on states to consider any application for asylum made on their territory, however ill-founded.”
Straw was worried about the pressure on Britain of 76,000 refugee applications, of which a majority were initially refused. By contrast, 2022 saw 81,000 applications, of which just 24 per cent were initially rejected – the lowest point since 1990. If, as Braverman has suggested, so many asylum seekers are false, why are arrivals approved in such numbers?
You might say the Tories have been historically more pro-immigration than Labour. Yes, Labour welcomed arrivals early from Eastern Europe: Straw later expressed regret for that decision. But at its peak, net migration ran at 268,000 under New Labour, within the EU, whereas last year it hit 606,000, despite Brexit. The Government will probably never rewrite the Human Rights Act because a minority of Tory MPs would block it – and if the Tories are the KKK in tweed, how do we explain the ethnic mix of the Cabinet?
No, the Conservatives are not far-Right, and Braverman is only articulating a growing global consensus that developed nations must, once again, strengthen their borders in the wake of a mass movement of people.
Why, then, do some lobbyists characterise the rhetoric of her party as almost uniquely political and wicked? Because these critics have a desire to help the unfortunate, no doubt, but also because many of them regard the nation state as outdated, borders as illiberal, and the line between economic and humanitarian migration as a mirage. They have a desire to trust the weak, much as when a fellow knocks on your door selling sponges, one desperately wants to believe he is a rehabilitated offender trying to get back on his feet, not a conman casing the joint for antiques.
This debate isn’t just about who we let in but what kind of country we see ourselves as, hence the horror at Suella’s suggestion that multiculturalism might have failed. Straw was always a fan of the project. But even he caused a stir by asking constituents to remove their veils in his surgery, and Tony Blair once called the veil a “mark of separation”. It is rational to worry that a society cannot cohere if some groups live apart from it.
If left uncontrolled, mass migration confirms Right-wing anxieties and undermines Left-wing projects. The South African state, for example, confers limited rights upon all residents, regardless of nationality, and attracts millions in search of work; truly, it is a rainbow nation.
It is also weakened by competition for jobs and resources, and has an anti-immigration party, Operation Dudula, that makes Ukip look like the New Seekers. Last year, even a spokesman for the sainted ANC said foreigners “come here to sell drugs”, to live “here illegally, undermine our sovereignty, create illegal business”. Sound familiar?
A UK poll found that 66 per cent of Britons agree with Braverman’s core argument that uncontrolled and illegal immigration is an existential challenge to the West – because it is. This view can be shaped by philosophy or prejudice, of course, but it’s also a plain statement of fact. By contrast, the conviction that the West’s primary responsibility is to fling open its doors seems to be wholly ideological and the most radical position. I guess we all have our hobby horses. The same people who will tell you global warming is beyond debate, and fighting it a matter of survival, will also insist that immigration, even as it is propelled by climate change, is merely “dogwhistle politics”.
Dog eat...
Sometimes, you’ve just got to escape the liberal metropolis, so I put my dog, Bert, in the car and drove to Norfolk – to a small village with no commerce, bar a fish and chip shop that opened for 45 minutes each day. This was the boy’s first time away from home, and he loved running about the beach, barking at waves. He shall remember it as the holiday when he found the severed head of a rabbit on the sand. I shall remember it as the holiday when I prised the severed head of a rabbit from my dog’s mouth.
On our way back to Kent, I stopped off at the house of Simon Heffer and his lovely wife, and Bert played with their two dogs. Autumn arrived at that moment; the sun cast cold shadows across the lawn.
“I’m very proud of how well Bertie has behaved on this trip,” I said over tea, “which proves what I’ve always thought about strict parenting.” On cue, he stole a piece of cake from Mrs Heffer’s plate. | United Kingdom Politics |
Labour has tried to clarify its intended post-Brexit relationship with the EU, after comments from Sir Keir Starmer at a conference.
A video has emerged of the Labour leader saying the party doesn't want to "diverge" from the bloc's regulations.
Cabinet minister Michael Gove said the remarks showed Labour would "compromise" potential Brexit benefits.
But Labour suggested his remarks were limited to the areas of food, environmental and labour standards.
A spokesperson added it did not support the process, known as dynamic alignment, under which the UK would pledge to maintain similar laws to the EU in a number of areas.
Sir Keir's remarks, made on Saturday during a conference of centre-left leaders in Canada, were first reported by Sky News but were also livestreamed at the time.
He told an audience at the summit: "Most of the conflict with the UK being outside of the (EU) arises insofar as the UK wants to diverge and do different things to the rest of our EU partners.
"Obviously the more we share values, the more we share a future together, the less the conflict, and actually, different ways of solving problems become available," he said.
"Actually we don't want to diverge, we don't want to lower standards, we don't want to rip up environmental standards, working standards for people at work, food standards and all the rest of it.
"Suddenly you're in a space where notwithstanding the obvious fact that we are outside the EU and not in the EEA, there's a lot more common ground than you might think."
It was not immediately obvious from the remarks whether he was talking about divergence in the specific areas he mentioned, or in general.
'Real Keir Starmer'
After the Sky report, a series of Conservative ministers seized on the remarks to suggest the Labour leader was changing his Brexit stance.
Housing Secretary Michael Gove said they revealed "the real Keir Starmer," and reduce the UK's "power" after Brexit to design better regulations in a number of areas.
Posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said it showed Sir Keir "wants to rejoin the EU in all but name".
A Labour spokesperson rejected the idea the party would take the UK back into the EU, adding that Sir Keir had also ruled out rejoining its single market or customs union.
They added: "The Tories have not used Brexit to diverge on food, environmental or labour standards and if they have a plan to do so then they should come clean with people."
Starmer triggers Brexit critics
In the dictionary of Brexit, there are certain trigger words. "Diverge" is one of them.
That is because diverging from the European Union, its institutions but also its rules, is at the core of Brexit.
Those who advocated Brexit from the outset will always point to the fact that Keir Starmer not only campaigned for Remain, but also wanted a second referendum.
So his language will always be poured over by his critics, seeking to argue that his instincts to are to dilute the consequences of withdrawal, or fail to maximise the benefits, depending on your point of view.
This is the context in which Labour has made this clarification.
Without agreeing to "dynamic alignment", the UK is set to move away from EU laws in a number of areas over time, as the bloc updates its own regulations.
But the government has also actively moved away from EU regulations in areas including farm subsidies and rules on providing taxpayer support to businesses, and has plans to do so in areas like data protection.
However, it has also ditched a plan for thousands of EU-era laws to expire automatically at the end of the year, instead announcing 600 regulations it wants to change or get rid of before the end of the year.
Sir Keir recently raised questions over the relationship a future Labour government could have with the EU, saying his party would seek a "much better" Brexit trade deal with the bloc.
He said the deal, originally negotiated by Boris Johnson and up for review in 2025, was "too thin" and said he would improve it, although he did not specify how.
Labour says it would negotiate a new agreement on the movement on animal products, and recently said it wanted a new deal with the EU to stop migrant crossings over the English Channel. | United Kingdom Politics |
For more than two years, the people of Bali have been looking forward to this day: Borders are open again, aircraft are coming into land and travellers are once more stepping out in the world’s favourite holiday destination. The coronavirus pandemic has caused untold hardships for those employed in Bali’s travel sector – which is virtually the entire population of the island, either directly or indirectly – but today there is excitement and a genuine sense that this paradise will soon be ringing with the sounds of children playing on its perfect beaches, laughter and conversation over dinner in its high-end hotels and gasps of wonder at its temples, the jungle-clad interior and those unforgettable sunsets.The upside of Bali’s enforced absence from travel itineraries is that the natural environment is once again pristine and the travel sector has been working hard to prepare world-class dining and accommodation options, as well as exciting new attractions and events.Visitors around the world are no longer required to obtain a visa before touching down in Indonesia’s favourite destination but can get one on arrival. And with borders reopening, there are direct flights to Bali from several countries, including Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, UAE, Qatar and Hong Kong. Please check availability from your region.As the people of Bali are ready to welcome you back and there are no longer any quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated travellers, it’s time to book your tickets for the holiday of a lifetime. #ItstimeforBali in Wonderful Indonesia. For the most up-to-date information, please visit – Wonderful Indonesia official website. The DriverDrivers waiting to pick up tourists in I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport, Bali.I Wayan Yusandi Oka is a driver for a local car rental – and his smile goes from ear to ear in anticipation of seeing foreign faces back in Bali.“Everyone that I know is very happy that the borders are opening again,” he says. “We have already seen the first foreign tourists starting to arrive and there is a real sense of optimism that the worst is behind us now.Wayan emphasises that everyone involved in the travel sector is working hard to comply with the government’s health protocols – and he has no hesitation in identifying the reasons why anyone planning a vacation should put Bali at the top of their wish-list.“The culture of Bali and the hospitality of the people,” he says with that irrepressible grin.The Resort General ManagerA general view of the Anantara Seminyak Bali Resort. Image courtesy of Anantara Seminyak Bali ResortTerence T. Lee, general manager of the Anantara Seminyak Bali Resort, is “thrilled” that travellers are returning to Bali, although he insists that the all-important tourism sector needs to remain watchful.The last two-and-a-half years have been like an extended “Nyepi,” the Balinese day of silence that is observed at New Year, which falls in March according to the Balinese “saka” calendar. But life is returning to its communities, he says, and there is no time like the present to visit. “Now is the time to come,” he says. “While the island is still recovering, why not experience the finest hotels, top cuisine, shop - and then party until you drop at a fraction of the price of previously? Meet a diverse culture and experience an appreciation of personal peace and simplicity that is unique on this planet. And that makes it a true paradise.”And he is convinced that the outlook is bright for the island and its people.A couple relaxes in the swimming pool of the Anantara Seminyak Bali Resort. Image courtesy of Anantara Seminyak Bali Resort“Like a phoenix, Bali is rising out of the ashes, higher and brighter,” he said. “I am sure that no-one can copy Bali anywhere else in Indonesia, let alone on Earth. It is just too unique that you can’t beat it. You can’t even match it.”The Beach Club CEOThere is no escaping the fact that the coronavirus hit Bali hard, says Simon J. Pestridge, CEO of the Potato Head beach club in Seminyak. But there has also been a silver lining, he insists. The crisis has brought foreigners who have made Bali their home close to the locals, with many Balinese also returning to their traditional roots in agriculture and fishing.Tourist enjoys the sunset in Sunset Park, Potato Head Village, Seminyak. Image courtesy of Potato Head Beach Club.“The past two years has created a stronger sense of community,” he says. “It is amazing how everyone on the island has reached out to help their neighbours.”And that is spilling over into the travel sector, Pestridge believes.“I’m very optimistic about the future,” he adds. “I see people shifting focus to meaningful travel - longer and more immersive. They are traveling with a purpose; not just to experience the destination, but to actually get to know the community with deeper integration.”That desire is the inspiration for the Residencies for the Potato Head Studios, which offers opportunities for travellers to Bali “to truly immerse in the culture, get inspired and regenerated,” Pestridge says.“We have a magical island where we live in a clash between traditional and modern cultures,” he adds. “There’s this beautiful yin and yang between the heritage of craft with our innovations with recycled materials, and rich yet healthy food offerings.Visitors practice yoga at Potato Head Beach Club. Image courtesy of Potato Head Beach Club“Our village represents that special duality of Bali, the kind of world we want to live in and create in, and we hope it will be the same for our guests.”The Small Business OwnerI Made Dedi Wirama worked hard to build up his car rental company but has felt the pinch during the downturn. Now, however, he senses change is in the wind – and it is positive change.“Across the tourism sector, there is optimism now that the spread of the virus has been largely brought under control,” he says. “Major events are being held again, visitors are beginning to return and we feel that everything is gradually returning to normal.”Made says tourists must not miss Bali’s unrivalled natural attractions and unique local customs, and that visitors should try to capture the essence of the island’s “Taksu.” Difficult to accurately define, “Taksu” is the energy of the visible world and the blessings of the spiritual realm as they emerge in a Balinese person’s dance, knowledge, music, art or any other talent.The Cultural Park DirectorStefanus Yonathan Astayasa, Operation Director of Garuda Wisnu Kencana Cultural Park, agrees that with the pandemic in retreat, the island’s tourism sector is building back better.General view of Bali’s Garuda Wisnu Kencana Cultural Park“The GWK Cultural Park is one of the most visited attractions in Bali, we have felt the impact of the health crisis,” he said. "We have learned a lot from the last two years, so we are not just surviving but improving what we do.”“We believe we are on the right track for a full recovery,” Astayasa says, adding that the island has high hopes for Bali hosting the G20 meeting in November, with the global event acting as a showcase for the destination.“The people of Bali are keen to see the tourism industry revived and with so much effort being made during the difficult times, our community has a great deal of positivity that the island is going to come back better and stronger in the future,” he adds.And he knows the message that he intends to share with as many new arrivals as possible: “Welcome to Bali! Welcome to your home away from home.”The Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy There are countless reasons to visit the Island of the Gods, believes Ni Wayan Giri Adnyani, but top of her personal list is the warmth of the Balinese people.Sandiaga Uno, Minister of Tourism and Creative Economy, welcomes a tourist to I Gusti Ngurah Rai International Airport, Bali.Acting Deputy Minister for Marketing of the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy of the Republic of Indonesia, Giri says visitors are once again visible on Bali’s beaches, exploring its interior and enjoying its unique attractions. But an equally important asset are the local people. “Anyone who has been to Bali will agree that the local residents are the friendliest that you will find anywhere,” she said. “Making new friends is easy here as locals are happy to chat with anyone that they meet, including tourists from overseas.“The genuine hospitality and warmth of the Balinese people have made tourists – both foreign and domestic – feel as if they are among family.”Part of Giri’s remit over the last two years has been to make sure that effective health protocols are in place for when the visitors return. The vast majority of locals are triple vaccinated, certificates to cleanliness, health and safety have been adopted by local businesses and everyone working in the travel sector is aware of the importance of following health regulations, she said.With that guarantee in place and local people ready to welcome visitors more, Giri is confident that the “extraordinary tourist attraction” that is the island of Bali is about to bounce back.InDOnesia CARE:The InDOnesia CARE initiative has implemented comprehensive anti-coronavirus protocols to ensure cleanliness, health, safety, and environment sustainability throughout the travel industry.Thorough guidelines have been introduced for all sectors of the industry, from hotels through restaurants and bars, scuba diving operators, homestays, spas, golf courses, rafting tours and other tourism operators.Employers and staff are aware of the updated healthcare requirements, which include mandatory personal protective equipment, regular disinfectant procedures and frequent training.Facilities are also required to obtain a certificate of CHSE (Cleanliness, Health, Safety and Environment Sustainability) to demonstrate that they meet the necessary standards and are vigilant in the campaign against the virus.To prevent the coronavirus spreading, the Indonesian government is regularly updating requirements for anyone planning to visit the region. The situation remains fluid and the regulations for travellers can change, but for the most up-to-date information, visit - l.ead.me/indtravel ;The Reuters editorial and news staff had no role in the production of this content. It was created by Reuters Plus, part of the commercial advertising group. To work with Reuters Plus, contact us here.for-phone-onlyfor-tablet-portrait-upfor-tablet-landscape-upfor-desktop-upfor-wide-desktop-up | Asia Politics |
For all the risks, for all that was riding on a successful landing, the descent to the moon’s surface was remarkably uneventful, if not exactly stress-free. The Vikram lander, part of India’s Chandrayaan-3 mission, dropped steadily on its thrusters to the rock below, slowed to a hover as it approached the ground, and finally came to a rest on the dusty terrain.
When confirmation came that the lander was down, anxiety in the control room gave way to cheers and applause. With the soft touchdown, India becomes the first country to land a probe at the moon’s south pole, a rugged region where deep craters lie in permanent shadow and where ice could provide water, oxygen and fuel for future missions. The first will be on the moon itself, and in lunar orbit, but they could also supply trips to Mars, with the benefit that the materials do not need to be lifted off the Earth’s surface at great cost. It is a region of key scientific interest.
It may be half a century since the last Apollo mission, but landing on the moon remains a huge technical feat. India is only the fourth country to pull off a controlled landing on the surface, after the US, China and the former Soviet Union. That India chose one of the moon’s poles as its destination – a tougher prospect than landing near the equator – makes the success that much sweeter.
“Knowing that it can be done doesn’t make it easy,” said Prof Martin Barstow, director of strategic partnerships at Space Park Leicester. “Landing at the poles is much more difficult than landing at the equator. You’ve got to get into a polar orbit to release the lander and nobody has done that before. The US hasn’t landed anything at the poles on the moon.”
There is more to the achievement than the technical feat. The landing boosts the prestige of the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) less than a week after a Russian probe spun out of control and crashed into the moon’s surface. The ill-fated Luna-25 mission was Russia’s first attempt to land on the moon in 47 years.
“This is an exciting moment for Indian space exploration,” said Prof Andrew Coates at UCL’s Mullard space science laboratory. “Following their earlier successful orbiters to the moon and Mars, this cements their position as one of the key spacefaring nations and is an impressive scientific and engineering achievement.”
The prime minister, Narendra Modi, followed the landing from the Brics summit in South Africa and appeared on the Indian space agency’s live stream with a message for the world. “India is on the moon,” he said, adding that all countries, including those from the global south, were capable of such missions. “The sky is not the limit.”
The landing raises India’s profile as a spacefaring nation at a crucial time. Like other countries, India has privatised its rocket launches. Through foreign investment, India plans to expand its share of the global launch market fivefold over the next decade. That ambition will be helped by India being seen as a low-cost provider of space launch services.
There will certainly be demand. The global space launch market is expected to grow from $9bn (£7bn) this year to more than $20bn in 2030. Beyond satellite launches, big space agencies including Nasa, the European Space Agency, Russia and China are gearing up for a return to the moon, a long-term commitment that involves building a moon-orbiting space station and lunar habitats for astronauts to live in. “There’s so much that needs to be done that no one country can do it all,” said Barstow. “There will be a place for many countries in going back to the moon.” | India Politics |
Liz Truss rules out future PM bid but 'doesn't regret' her short time in Downing Street
Liz Truss has said she still wants to be part of "promoting a pro-growth agenda" but is "not desperate" to enter Number 10 again.
Monday 6 February 2023 18:36, UK
Liz Truss has said she would never want to be prime minister again but "doesn’t regret" her time in Downing Street.
In an interview with The Spectator, the former PM ruled out a future bid at the top job after her tumultuous 44 days in the position last year.
Asked whether she would want to be prime minister again she simply replied: "No."
Pressed on her typical "never say never" outlook, Ms Truss said she "definitely" wants to be part of "promoting a pro-growth agenda" but insisted she had no ambition to be back inside Number 10.
"You know, I definitely want to carry on as an MP," she said.
"I'm positive about the future of Britain. I'm positive about the future of the Conservative Party.
"I think we need to start building more of a strong intellectual base. But I'm not desperate to get back into Number 10 now."
Ms Truss became the shortest-serving PM in modern British history when she resigned 44 days into the job after her mini-budget caused turmoil in the financial markets and sent the pound crashing.
Asked if she regrets going for the job in the first place she said: "No, I don't. I don't regret it."
On whether she backs Rishi Sunak, who was drafted in after losing out to her in the summer leadership race, Ms Truss said: "I will be supporting him."
The former PM also addressed her decision to sack her close friend and chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng following the backlash to her mini-budget.
She said it was an "extremely difficult" decision but at the time she was getting some "very serious warnings from senior officials that there could be a potential market meltdown the following week".
"I needed to do as much as I could to indicate that things were different, and that's why I took the decision I did," she said.
"I weighed up in my mind about whether I needed to do that. But the reality was I couldn't in all conscience risk that situation."
Ms Truss also admitted that she "wasn't really focused on my long-term future" once she started reversing all of the economic policies that brought her into office, adding: "I was focused on making sure the country wasn't in a serious situation."
She also accepted that one of her most controversial measures - cutting the 45p tax rate for the country's highest earners - was "maybe a step too far" and she underestimated the political impact of it.
However, she said she still believes "it's the right thing to do for Britain" as she doubled down on her economic ideology.
She said: "I think if you have lower taxes right across the board, the country becomes more successful...and I think that's the argument we fundamentally haven't won.
"Was I trying to fatten the pig on market day? Maybe. There's a long history of failing to make the case. And that's what I'm thinking now. I'm thinking, how can we make the argument?"
The former PM has largely kept a low profile since stepping aside in October, sparking the second leadership contest in a matter of months which quickly became a one-horse race as Mr Sunak was voted in by MPs to calm the markets.
However, on Sunday Ms Truss shared an essay in The Sunday Telegraph which described how her economic plan for growth - centred around cutting taxes - was not given a "realistic chance".
The comments sparked speculation of a comeback following the International Monetary Fund's warning that Britain's economy will go into reverse this year and will fare worse than all other advanced nations - including Russia.
However, they faced a backlash from cross-party politicians.
Tory peer Lord Barwell, who was Theresa May's chief of staff, was scathing about Ms Truss's explanation for the failure of her premiership.
"You were brought down because in a matter of weeks you lost the confidence of the financial markets, the electorate and your own MPs," he tweeted.
"During a profound cost of living crisis, you thought it was a priority to cut tax for the richest people in the country."
Labour shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said: "The Conservatives crashed the economy, sank the pound, put pensions in peril and made working people pay the price through higher mortgages for years to come.
"After 13 years of low growth, squeezed wages and higher taxes under the Tories, only Labour offers the leadership and ideas to fix our economy and to get it growing." | United Kingdom Politics |
A version of this story first appeared in CNN's Meanwhile in the Middle East newsletter, a three-times-a-week look inside the region's biggest stories. Sign up here.Abu Dhabi, UAE (CNN)NATO formally invited Finland and Sweden to join on Wednesday after Turkey dropped its opposition following an arduous process that has served to remind the alliance of its deepening fault lines. Finnish President Sauli Niinistö said that Ankara had agreed to support the membership bids of his country and Sweden, removing a major hurdle to the two joining the alliance.While the move was a big win for NATO and a setback for Russia, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan didn't give in without a fair share of political chest-thumping as a display of his nation's weight in the grouping. Before signing a joint memorandum with the two Nordic nations, Erdogan on Tuesday declared that NATO "cannot afford" to lose Turkey as a member. He was responding to frustration in the Western alliance over Ankara's opposition to the admission of the two traditionally neutral countries that felt compelled to join the grouping by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Turkey has become a headache for NATO. But recent geopolitical events have shown that it's one the alliance will have to tolerate. Experts say Erdogan knows that well and has used his country's place in the grouping to serve its national interests. In a European war that has essentially become a conflict between the Kremlin and NATO, Turkey has positioned itself as a neutral party, opting not to join its allies in sanctioning Russia while offering to mediate between the warring parties. It has supported Ukraine in the war but has been careful not to antagonize Moscow. Experts say Turkey is today more valuable than ever to NATO. The country sits at the south-eastern flank of the alliance, a key buffer between Russia and the West. It maintains the second-largest army in the alliance after the US, and borders a swathe of Middle Eastern nations with a history of political instability, and where Western states have major interests. Ankara, however, hasn't always been a thorn in the side of the alliance. Turkey joined NATO in 1952, three years after it was formed in the aftermath of World War II, and it considers the alliance to be "the cornerstone" of its defense and security policy. But analysts and historians say that while Turkey served the group's strategic interests historically, it has become more of a disruptive force under Erdogan's rule. Erdogan served as prime minister from 2003 to 2014, and president since 2014. "During the Cold War, Turkey [was] well-embedded in Western security infrastructures," said Oya Dursun-Ozkanca, a political science professor at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania and author of "Turkey-West Relations: The Politics of Intra-Alliance Opposition," adding that the country had been a "fairly reliable" Western ally for over half a century. The frequency and the intensity of disagreements between Turkey and NATO allies have however increased over time as Ankara adopts proactive and anti-Western foreign policy positions, she said. Erdogan has disagreed with NATO allies on a number of issues, including Syria and Libya, and has used his country's strategic location to extract concessions from his European neighbors by threatening to open the floodgates of refugees from neighboring conflict zones. In 2009, Turkey opposed the appointment of Denmark's Anders Fogh Rasmussen as head of NATO until then-US President Barack Obama pledged that one of Rasmussen's deputies would be a Turk. Turkey had argued that Rasmussen's handling of the offenses to Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper in 2006 were problematic. In perhaps its boldest and most controversial move, Turkey in 2019 bought the Russian S-400 missile defense system, calling into question a decades-long alliance with both the US and NATO. The S-400 missiles were designed to shoot down NATO planes. Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat and chairman of Istanbul-based think-tank EDAM, said Erdogan's "hyper-centralized decision-making" and his "combative, more aggressive, [and] less consensus-driven" leadership style has caused difficulties for NATO. "This is also a reflection of the increased unpredictability of Turkish foreign policy," he said. But experts say that it's only natural that a member of an alliance will prioritize national interests where it can. The problem arises when those interests diverge from NATO's agenda. "The Turks complicate NATO's consensus-based decision-making because they refuse to go with the flow until national interests are satisfied," said Rich Outzen, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC and former US military officer and State Department official. "This is not bad alliance behavior; it is typical alliance behavior for states with the weight to pull it off," he added. While Turkey understands its value to NATO, it also sees its own benefit in its membership, analysts say. Ankara has gone to NATO more than once for strategic security support, said Ulgen. "It is a security and political relationship that is mutually beneficial. "Ultimately Turkiye and NATO do need each other," he said, using the country's new name. The digest Iran applies to join BRICS group of emerging countries Iran has submitted an application to become a member in the group of emerging economies known as the BRICS, an Iranian official said on Monday. Membership of the BRICS group, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, "would result in added values for both sides," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson said. Background: Russia has long been pushing to forge closer ties with Asia, South America and the Middle East, but it has intensified its efforts recently to weather sanctions imposed by Europe, the United States and other countries over its invasion of Ukraine. Why it matters: Russia cast the applications as evidence that the West was failing to isolate Moscow after the invasion of Ukraine. "While the White House was thinking about what else to turn off in the world, ban or spoil, Argentina and Iran applied to join the BRICS," Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. BRICS account for more than 40% of the world's population and about 26% of the global economy. Jailed Egyptian blogger entering danger zone in hunger strike - mother The mother of jailed Egyptian-British activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah says she is worried there could be a rapid deterioration in her son's health after nearly 90 days on hunger strike, despite some improvements in his prison conditions. Abd el-Fattah, a 40-year-old blogger who rose to prominence with Egypt's 2011 uprising, has become too weak to do his own washing or climb to look out of a high window in his cell, his mother Laila Soueif said. Background: Abd el-Fattah was sentenced to five years in December on charges of spreading false news for sharing a social media post about the death of a prisoner, and had previously been jailed for protesting without authorization. He began the strike on April 2 against his detention and alleged legal violations in prison. Why it matters: His cause has attracted attention in Britain after he obtained UK citizenship last year, part of the family's campaign to secure his release. Egypt's state press center did not respond to a request for comment. On June 9, the interior ministry said it had clips proving that Abd el-Fattah was not on hunger strike, though it did not publish footage. UN estimates 1.5% of Syria's population was killed during war The United Nations human rights office on Tuesday said that roughly 1.5% of Syria's pre-war population, or 306,887 civilians, were killed between 2011 and 2021 due to the conflict. The number is the highest estimate by the UN to date. Background: Syria descended into a civil war after protests against President Bashar al-Assad and his regime sprang up in March 2011. The conflict drew in several world powers and left the country in ruins, with thousands of civilians killed and millions displaced. The report also estimates that "on average, every single day, for the past 10 years, 83 civilians suffered violent deaths due to the conflict." Why it matters: While the conflict has been frozen for years as Assad regained control of most of Syria, the humanitarian crisis has continued. The report also notes that the record estimate is only a portion of deaths, and that the analysis gives "a clearer sense of the severity and scale of the conflict." Around the region Long seen as an integral part of Cairo's modern history and a mark of the capital's artistic landscape, some of the River Nile's houseboats are facing a fate similar to much of the city's other famous features: removal for the sake of modernization. Dozens of the floating structures line the Egyptian capital's main river. Some are home to residents, while others are nightclubs, restaurants or cafes where the city's artists, writers and scholars are known to gather. Some of the houseboats are as old as 100 years, said Ahdaf Souef, a famous Egyptian novelist and owner of a houseboat that she says has been ordered for removal by the state. Many such vessels have also been featured in acclaimed Egyptian films, including the 1971 movie "Chitchat on the Nile." Social media campaigns have swept several platforms, with the hashtag #SaveCairoHouseboats trending on Twitter in the country after the first removals began two weeks ago. "This is my home," said Ahdaf Souef, speaking in a video posted on Twitter, "Others were born on these boat houses, they don't know anything else." The North African country has been on a massive construction boom, backed by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. But activists and residents have criticized the building spree, saying that the city's heritage and character is being lost in the name of modernization. Authorities say that each act of removal is being carefully studied and assessed to make sure that historical sites remain untouched. In a talk show with Egyptian host Amr Adeeb, head of the Nile Protection Department in Greater Cairo, Ayman Anwar, said the orders for removal of certain houseboats began in 2020, and that notice was given to those living in them. Anwar also noted that boats classified as "historic" by the state or those that serve touristic purposes won't be removed. Most of the houseboats marked for removal are worn out and must be removed for safety reasons, he added. Three houseboats have been removed since June 18, and 15 others are due for removal by June 28, Anwar said. By Nadeen Ebrahim $561 billion The value of petroleum exports by the 13-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 2021, up 77% from 2020, OPEC's Annual Statistical Bulletin published on Tuesday showed. Photo of the day | Europe Politics |
Discover more from Striking 13
By-election results: The Tories are finished
These kinds of swings are indicative of one thing and one thing only: a massive Labour majority at the next election.
These are not normal results. They're batshit: the kinds of outcome that indicates the arrival of a biblical political flood. Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth have fallen to Labour.
The simple scale of it is enough to defeat any kind of psephological restraint. The swing in Tamworth was 23.9%, overturning a 19,634 Tory majority. The swing in Mid Bedfordshire was 20.5%, overturning a 24,664 Tory majority. These are just silly numbers. Brazenly preposterous. They just don't happen.
Mid Beds has been Conservative since Ramsay MacDonald was prime minister. Its never had a Labour MP. It's the biggest majority overturned in modern byelection history.
Indeed, this is all so silly it needs to be put in some sort of context, so here are the caveats.
Firstly, Mid Beds is an unusual seat which makes it hard to project out to a national level. It's been shaved a bit in the recent boundary review in a way that arguably made it easier for Labour to win.
Honestly, there's no way it'll remain Labour at the next general election. There's just no way. In a by-election, parties can direct all of their resources into a seat without having to worry about the national campaign. Once you start spreading yourself more thinly, the dynamics change.
Look at the turnout - 44% in Mid Beds was better than most predicted, but lower than you'd expect at a general election. That increased turnout next year will probably switch the seat back to blue.
In the long run, this result is arguably better for the Conservatives than the alternative. If the government had won, it would have made the Lib Dems and Labour smarten up about the handful of seats in which they're both viable competitors. But with this kind of result, there'll be no need to for that kind of soul searching. That means that a handful of seats will likely return Tory MPs at the general election because of the two parties cannibalising the anti-Conservative vote.
In both these seats we're also certainly seeing some element of protest voting. Tamworth's Chris Pincher accidentally brought down Boris Johnson's government over his appointment as deputy chief whip after allegations of sexual misconduct. He was subsequently suspended from the House for eight weeks following an investigation by the standards committee, at which point he resigned.
Mid Bed's Nadine Dorries delivered one of the most graceless departures from British politics we've ever seen. She announced that she would quit as an MP on June 9th in a fit of pique over not being given a peerage, then failed to actually step down until August 29th. But in reality, she's been absent for much longer than that. She hasn't said a word in the Commons since June 2022, nor, as far as we can tell, engaged in any meaningful constituency case work. Instead, she seems to have used the time to write a conspiracy theory polemic called The Plot about a shadowy force which removed Johnson as prime minister.
In both cases, constituents have been completely betrayed - ignored, taken for granted, left politically unrepresented by people whose primary concern was their own career. That'll naturally prompt a backlash and last night provided it. By autumn 2024, when the general election is likely to take place, this locally specific element will probably have faded.
But honestly, these caveats are small fry in the light of what has happened here. These kinds of swings are indicative of one thing and one thing only: a massive Labour majority at the next election. A really big, crushing, era-defining majority.
It's not just the swing itself. Look beyond the result to what is happening to other anti-Tory parties. The Greens were down 0.4% in Tamworth. The Lib Dems were down 3.6%. In Mid Beds the Greens were down 2%. And even in this seat, in a contest which was defined by Labour and the Lib Dems running against each other, the Lib Dem vote was actually relatively subdued - only up 10.5%.
Is that because people are turning against the Greens and Lib Dems? No. It's because Labour is squeezing other anti-Tory parties as voters search for the most likely vehicle to hurt the government.
Take a good look at that shit, because that's what an efficient vote looks like. It's precisely what we saw in the local elections and now we're seeing it again, sustained across multiple by-elections. People are voting tactically, to damage the Tories, just as they did in 1997. They'll take anyone, they really don't seem to care who it is. They just want a clear sense of what the most effective way to do it is. And even where they're not given it, as in Mid Beds, they're showing they're able to assess the problem accurately and secure the result they want.
There's only one really compelling conclusion to draw from all this. It's that the Tories are buggered. Properly, existentially, historically buggered. The polls will presumably narrow at some point. But the scale of the swings we're seeing and the quality of the voting breakdown means it's really very hard - borderline impossible - to imagine a way in which they can avoid defeat.
And what, realistically, can they do? They can't change leader again, that would be too absurd even for them. And Rishi Sunak quite evidently does not have anything approximating the political ingenuity to correct the situation. I mean, his last big idea was to cancel HS2, ban smoking and reform A-Levels - like a pick and mix bag of disconnected half-arsed bullshit.
No, they're doomed. They're done.
It's game over, man. Game over.
Thanks for reading Striking 13! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. | United Kingdom Politics |
Politics June 26, 2022 / 7:34 AM / CBS/AP Biden attends G-7 summit Biden travels to Germany for G-7 summit 01:14 President Joe Biden said Sunday that the United States and other Group of Seven leading economies will ban imports of gold from Russia, the latest in a series of sanctions that the club of democracies hopes will further isolate Russia economically over its invasion of Ukraine.A formal announcement was expected Tuesday as the leaders hold their annual summit.Biden and his counterparts will huddle on the summit's opening day Sunday to discuss how to secure energy supplies and tackle inflation, aiming to keep the fallout from Russia's invasion of Ukraine from splintering the global coalition working to punish Moscow. Hours before the summit was to formally open, Russia launched missile strikes against the Ukrainian capital Sunday, striking at least two residential buildings, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said. They were the first such strikes by Russia in three weeks.Senior Biden administration officials said gold is Moscow's second largest export after energy, and that banning imports would make it more difficult for Russia to participate in global markets. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details before the announcement. The U.S. Treasury will issue a determination to prohibit the import of new gold into the United States on Tuesday, which will further isolate Russia from the global economy by preventing its participation in the gold market, a senior administration official said. U.S. President Joe Biden attends the first day of the three-day G7 summit at Schloss Elmau on June 26, 2022 near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Sean Gallup / Getty Images British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the ban on Russian gold will "directly hit Russian oligarchs and strike at the heart of Putin's war machine," a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin."Putin is squandering his dwindling resources on this pointless and barbaric war. He is bankrolling his ego at the expense of both the Ukrainian and Russian people," Johnson said. "We need to starve the Putin regime of its funding."In recent years, gold has been the top Russian export after energy — reaching almost $19 billion or about 5% of global gold exports, in 2020, according to the White House. Of Russian gold exports, 90% was consigned to G-7 countries. Of these Russian exports, over 90%, or nearly $17 billion, was exported to the UK. The United States imported less than $200 million in gold from Russia in 2019, and under $1 million in 2020 and 2021.Biden arrived in Germany's picturesque Bavarian alps early Sunday to join his counterparts for the annual meeting of the world's leading democratic economies. Reverberations from the brutal war in Ukraine will be front and center of their discussions. Biden and the allies aim to present a united front in support of Ukraine as the conflict enters its fourth month.Unity was the message Biden took into a pre-summit sit-down with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who holds the G-7′s rotating presidency and is hosting the gathering."We've got to make sure we have us all staying together. You know, we're gonna continue working on economic challenges that we face but I think we get through all this," Biden said.Scholz replied that the "good message" is that "we all made it to stay united, which Putin never expected," a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin."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," Biden said. "We can't let this aggression take the form it has and get away with it."Biden and the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, plus the European Union, were spending Sunday in both formal and informal settings, including working sessions on dealing with the war's effects on the global economy, including inflation, and on infrastructure. Among the issues to be discussed are price caps on energy, which are meant to limit Russian oil and gas profits that Moscow can put to use in its war effort. The idea has been championed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.A senior German official, speaking on condition of anonymity consistent with department rules, said the U.S. idea of price caps was being discussed intensely, in terms of how it would work and how it would fit with the U.S., EU, British, Canadian and Japanese sanctions regimes.Officials were also set to discuss how to maintain commitments to addressing climate change while also solving critical energy supply needs as a result of the war."There's no watering down of climate commitments," John Kirby, a spokesman for Biden's National Security Council, said Saturday as the president flew to Germany. Biden is also set Sunday to formally launch a global infrastructure partnership designed to counter China's influence in the developing world. He had named it "Build Back Better World" and introduced the program at last year's G-7 summit.Kirby said Biden and other leaders would announce the first projects to benefit from what the U.S. sees as an "alternative to infrastructure models that sell debt traps to low- and middle-income partner countries, and advance U.S. economic competitiveness and our national security."After the G-7 wraps up on Tuesday, Biden will travel to Madrid for a summit of the leaders of the 30 members of NATO to align strategy on the war in Ukraine. 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 | Global Organizations |
Delhi-based Oye! Rickshaw is electrifying the most popular form of transit in India: Auto-rickshaws. In India’s cutthroat ride-hailing market, companies like Uber and homegrown rival Ola have been going head-to-head to be the go-to provider of cheap and convenient rides. Their apps offer a variety of vehicle options in India, including auto-rickshaws—the backbone of the country's urban transportation. Auto-rickshaws are one of the most popular and easily accessible modes of transit, usually for short trips (under 5 km) to offices, markets and schools. It's also the cheapest way of getting around India, with the three-wheeler costing half the price of a taxi. In recent years, an electrified version of auto-rickshaws have been gaining steam in India, the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, fueled by a global push to lower carbon emissions. The world's biggest democracy is especially keen to reduce carbon pollution as it is home to some of the world's most polluted cities. In January, the Indian government approved a 120 billion rupee (about $1.5 billion) infrastructure plan to boost green energy in the country, aiming to meet a net carbon zero target Prime Minister Narendra Modi made at the UN COP26 summit in November last year. A few months later, in April, the Indian government announced battery-swap plans for e-rickshaws and scooters in congested cities, where charging stations are scarce due to limited space. Riding on this trend is Delhi-headquartered startup Oye! Rickshaw, which is making inroads in India's ride-hailing market with its affordable and subscription-based services. Oye operates a fleet of e-rickshaws run on swappable batteries, emitting nothing but sound. With 120 battery-swapping stations across four cities in India, Oye provides quick services due to zero charging time. "It was a matter of building the technology, and now we have it," says Mohit Sharma, cofounder and CEO of Oye, in a video interview from his office in Delhi. Sharma cofounded Oye with Akashdeep Singh, who serves as COO, in 2017 and has since completed over 11 million rides and boasts a subscriber base of 200,000. Last year, the startup made the inaugural Forbes Asia 100 to Watch list, which highlights notable small companies and startups on the rise across the Asia-Pacific region.
MORE FROM FORBESForbes Asia 100 To WatchBy Forbes Asia TeamTo be sure, Oye faces an uphill battle. Though Ola and Uber do not break down their users by vehicle type, their numbers dwarf those of Oye. Ola has more than 200 million users in India, while Uber says it has more than 95 million riders and drivers combined.
But Oye is building a war chest to bankroll the battle. The startup is preparing to raise a Series B round of about $15 million to $25 million over the course of the next few months. Oye is already backed by leading companies such as Chinese tech giant Xiaomi, as well as top investors like Bengaluru-based Chiratae Ventures, an early backer of Indian online retailer Flipkart, and Matrix Partners in San Francisco, best known for its early investments in Apple and FedEx. Indian billionaire Pawan Munjal, chairman and CEO of motorcycle maker Hero MotoCorp, where Sharma worked for two years, is also an investor in Oye. Oye Origin
Sharma and Singh have known each other since their school days in the eighth grade. They both earned degrees in mechanical engineering—Sharma from Indian Institute of Technology and Singh from National Institute of Technology. Now both 32 years old, they took the decision to turn their entrepreneurial dreams as teenagers into reality.
Sharma, together with his uncle, started an e-rickshaw startup prior to Oye called Jangid Motors in 2015; Singh joined Sharma as chief strategy officer. Jangid Motors focused on the production of India’s first locally developed e-rickshaws. “We manufactured the e-rickshaws but we didn't have any services once we sold the vehicles off the shelves,” Sharma says. With just 120 million daily commuters in India, the duo saw huge potential for an economical and eco-friendly ride subscription service in the fast-developing country. “With huge market opportunity, plus our know-how of how to build that vehicle and how to build that tech layer, is something that ultimately triggered us to start Oye Rickshaw,” says Sharma. A view of of electric auto rickshaws or e-auto rickshaws, at IP Depot on March 31, 2022 in New Delhi, India. Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal flagged off 20 E-Auto consisting of 11 Piaggio Ape electric E-auto and Mahindra electric auto based on the exclusive permits issued by the Government of Delhi.Sanchit Khanna/Hindustan Times via Getty Images In India, new EV passenger car registrations, which refer to any electric or hybrid vehicles, excluding motorcycles and mopeds, are expected to reach 65.4% in 2040 from its current low level of 0.2%, according to Fransua-Vytautas Razvadauskas, a senior consultant focused on cities and mobility at market research firm Euromonitor International.
“In the future, there's going to be more electric vehicles on the roads,” says Razvadauskas. “If supply doesn't change, then you're going to have an increase in the price,” pointing to it being a possible challenge for startups such as Oye. Another challenge is safety. Videos of battery-powered two-wheelers catching fire in India emerged on social media, which resulted in casualties and skepticism regarding the safety of battery vehicles.
Some are turning to R&D to improve safety. Warren Buffett-backed Chinese automaker BYD, for example, launched its Blade battery in 2020, which it claims is a safer option compared to conventional lithium-ion batteries due to its lower surface temperature. Solid-state technology is another promising area. Solid-state batteries use solid electrolytes rather than flammable liquid ones in conventional lithium-ion cells. However, research has shown that solid-state batteries could react violently under certain conditions, which give consumers a false sense of security, notes Razvadauskas. Still in its developing stages, a lot of research continues to go into rectifying the industry’s weak points, such as battery safety. Even with the challenges, the e-rickshaw market still has a lot going for it. Growing sustainability awareness and climate consciousness, especially amongst younger generations such as Gen Z, would be some of the other reasons consumers choose to ride e-rickshaws over fossil-fuel-powered vehicles, says Razvadauskas. “It's a bit more of a useful and practical mode of transport in a country where congestion can be an issue,” he adds. Oye has adapted more to local consumer preferences for urban travel than bigger players who entered markets with passenger cars that don’t appeal to local consumer needs in India. This trend can be seen in Southeast Asia as a whole, where Uber was ousted from Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand over keen local competition. “This gave rivals such as Grab and Gojek a bit more leverage to actually fight off Uber and essentially ended with Uber leaving the markets in those industries,” says Razvadauskas. Pedestrians walk past e-rickshaws drivers waiting at a stand in New Delhi, India, on Saturday, Sept. 22, 2018. The South Asian nation is home to about 1.5 million battery-powered, three-wheeled rickshaws – a fleet bigger than the total number of electric passenger cars sold in China since 2011.Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg At the height of the pandemic two years ago, Oye saw a decrease in their ride-hailing service, so they decided to start Oye! Delivery, partnering with Indian grocery giants such as billionaire Mukesh Ambani’s JioMart and Ninjacart for delivery services to customers’ doorsteps. Other ride-hailing service apps in the Asian region, such as Grab and Gojek, have pivoted towards adding delivery services to their apps as the pandemic fueled a need for at-home delivery. Oye says they are currently in talks with Indian food tech giant companies such as Swiggy and Zomato to venture out into the food delivery service market. Unlike Oye’s competitors such as Ola and Uber, which take a cut from trips made by drivers, their revenue flows in from their customer’s subscriptions. They charge subscribers based on how many rides they want to take per month, which come in three tiers: 5, 15 and 50 rides.
Oye is looking to develop an AI-based algorithm that would help them look at each customer’s history and orders and develop a tailor-made pass for them to subscribe to. “Every ride they charge 25% to 30% commission and that’s what we don’t do,” says Sharma.
The startup has also developed a customized map for drivers on their app which uses an algorithm based on a driver’s trip history and guides them on routes that allows them to receive more orders while completing rides. Their mapping solution aims to bridge the supply and demand gap and has the potential of allowing drivers to earn 1200 to 1300 rupees (about $15-$17) a day, as opposed to regular auto-rickshaw drivers who earn 700 to 800 rupees (about $9-$10) per day, according to Oye.
“Most of the [EV] growth that's going to happen between now and 2040 is being projected to occur in emerging and developing countries like India,” says Razvadauskas. “There's going to be a large growth in the middle class, more consumer purchasing power, and a lot more opportunities to develop such sorts of ride hailing mobility opportunities in those markets.” | India Politics |
Canada’s finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, has told Russian officials at a meeting of G20 finance officials that she held them personally responsible for “war crimes” committed during Russia’s war in Ukraine, a western official said.Freeland directly addressed the Russian delegation taking part in the meeting of the Group of 20 major economies, telling them on Friday: “It is not only generals who commit war crimes, it is the economic technocrats who allow the war to happen and to continue,” the official said.Freeland, whose maternal grandparents were born in Ukraine, told the opening G20 session that the war was the “single biggest threat to the global economy right now”, the official said.A day before the meeting, the US Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, set the tone, calling Russia’s war in Ukraine the “greatest challenge” to the global economy and saying members of Putin’s government “have no place” at the talks.“We are seeing negative spillover effects from that war in every corner of the world, particularly with respect to higher energy prices and rising food insecurity,” she said.Yellen was expected to press G20 allies for a price cap on Russian oil to choke off President Vladimir Putin’s war chest and pressure Moscow to end its invasion while bringing down energy costs.The two-day meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank chiefs from top economies started on the resort island of Bali under the shadow of a war that has roiled markets, spiked food prices and stoked breakneck inflation, a week after Moscow’s top diplomat walked out of talks with the forum’s foreign ministers.The talks’ host warned delegates that failure to tackle energy and food crises would be catastrophic.In her opening remarks, the Indonesian finance minister, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, called on ministers to work together with a spirit of “cooperation, collaboration and consensus” because “the world is watching” for solutions.“The cost of our failure is more than we can afford,” she told delegates. “The humanitarian consequences for the world and for many low-income countries would be catastrophic.”Top global finance figures are to discuss the rebound from the coronavirus pandemic, but the impact of the Ukraine war – weighing on an already brittle global recovery – will top the agenda.Both the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, and the Ukrainian finance minister, Serhiy Marchenko, are participating virtually in the meeting.Yellen in April led a multinational walkout of finance officials as Russian delegates spoke at a G20 meeting in Washington. No communique was issued at the end of that meeting.It is unclear if a similar walkout will take place at this meeting.There is also unlikely to be a final communique issued when talks end on Saturday because of disagreements with Russia. The G20 chair, Indonesia – which pursues a neutral foreign policy – has refrained from uninviting Russia despite Western pressure.Italy and Canada’s finance ministers are in attendance, but the Chinese finance minister, Liu Kun, and Britain’s new finance minister, Nadhim Zahawi, are only attending virtually.The International Monetary Fund chief, Kristalina Georgieva, will appear in person after saying on Wednesday the global economic outlook had “darkened significantly” because of Moscow’s invasion.The meeting is a prelude to the leaders’ summit on the Indonesian island in November that was meant to focus on the global recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.Other issues to be tackled by the ministers include digital financial inclusion – with more than a billion of the world’s population still without access to a bank account – and the deadline for an international overhaul of tax rules.With Reuters and Agence France-Presse | Global Organizations |
G20 Finance Ministers, Central Bank Governors and head of delegates attend the second day of G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 16 July 2022. Made Nagi/Pool via REUTERSRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comJAKARTA/LONDON, July 30 (Reuters) - Zambia's creditors pledged to negotiate a restructuring of the country's debts on Saturday, a move IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva welcomed as "clearing the way" for a $1.4 billion Fund program.The creditor committee, co-chaired by China and France, said in a statement released by G20 chair Indonesia that it supported Zambia's "envisaged IMF upper credit tranche program and its swift adoption by the IMF Executive Board".In 2020, Zambia became the first African country in the pandemic era to default. The restructuring of its external debts, which amounted to more than $17 billion at the end of 2021, is seen by many analysts as a test case.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com"Very pleased the Official Creditor Committee for Zambia has provided its financial assurances clearing the way for a Fund program," IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva said in a tweet."The delivery of these financing assurances will enable the IMF Executive Board to consider approval of a Fund-supported program for Zambia and unlock much needed financing from Zambia's development partners," Georgieva said in a statement released by the IMF after her tweet.Zambia reached a staff-level agreement with the IMF on a $1.4 billion three year extended credit facility in December, conditional upon its ability to reduce debt to levels the Fund deems sustainable.Zambia's government welcomed the creditors' pledge and its unlocking of IMF support."Zambia remains committed to implementing the much needed economic reforms, being transparent about our debt and ensuring fair and equitable treatment of our creditors," finance minister Situmbeko Musokotwane said.Zambia's creditor committee said that the restructuring terms would be finalised in a memorandum of understanding, without providing further details.It also called on private creditors to "commit without delay" to negotiating debt relief on terms at least as favourable.On Friday, Zambia's finance ministry said it was cancelling $2 billion in undisbursed loans. read more The first creditor meeting was held in June, after Zambia's government complained of delays to the restructuring. Talks are taking place under the Common Framework, a debt relief process launched by the Group of 20 major economies in 2020 that has been criticised by some for being slow to yield results."This shows the potential of the #G20CommonFramework for debt treatment to deliver for countries committed to dealing with their debt problems," Georgieva said in the tweet.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Gayatri Suroyo in Jakarta and Rachel Savage in London; Additional Reporting by Chris Mfula in Lusaka; Editing by Stephen Coates and Christina FincherOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Africa politics |
Ukraine Recap: Zelenskiy Weapons Talks; Missile Hits Chernihiv
Wheat prices rose Friday following a report that a Ukrainian sea drone attempted to attack two Russian warships in the Black Sea.
(Bloomberg) -- President Volodymyr Zelenskiy visited Sweden for what he said was the first of a new round of talks with allies on weapons systems needed to shore up Ukraine’s defenses and drive its counteroffensive against Russia’s occupation.
Russian forces struck Chernihiv in northern Ukraine with what appeared to be a ballistic missile. At least seven people were killed and more than 100 injured in the rare daytime attack, Ukraine’s interior ministry said.
Russia reported a drone attack on the Solsty-2 air base in the Novgorod region, northwest of Moscow. The facility is the base of Russia’s Tu-22M bombers. The Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin traveled to the headquarters of Russia’s Southern Military District in Rostov-on-Don, his first known visit since June’s attempted mutiny by the Wagner mercenary group.
Latest Coverage
- Putin Visits Rostov-on-Don For First Time Since Wagner Mutiny
- Third of Ukraine Crop Exports Wiped Out After Black Sea Block
- Zelenskiy Kicks Off New Round of Allied Defense Talks in Sweden
- Ukrainian Sunoil Maker Sees $20 Million in Damage From Strikes
- Troop Deaths, Injuries in Ukraine War Near 500,000: New York Times
Markets
Wheat Rises, Oil Posts a Weekly Loss
Wheat prices rose Friday following a report that a Ukrainian sea drone attempted to attack two Russian warships in the Black Sea.
Oil posted its first weekly loss since June as low trading volumes left the market vulnerable to macroeconomic concerns, overshadowing signs of a tight physical environment.
Coming Up
- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at BRICS summit next week
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | Europe Politics |
BRICS: How an acronym from Goldman Sachs morphed into a strategic economic bloc
The BRICS economic bloc is made up of five of the world's biggest emerging economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
The acronym started as "BRIC" in 2001, when Goldman Sach's then-chief economist Jim O'Neill predicted that the economic weight of Brazil, Russia, India and China could eclipse the world's biggest economies in the next decade.
A decade passed, and that didn't happen. But leaders of BRIC nations did hold their first official summit in Russia in 2010, with South Africa joining the group a year later. Since then, they have met regularly to discuss cooperation on global issues.
One of the group's major achievements was the establishment of the New Development Bank, set up in 2015 by the BRICS countries to support infrastructure and development projects in BRICS and other developing countries.
Over recent months, BRICS has generated buzz partly due to other emerging markets expressing interest in joining the bloc. Argentina and Iran have submitted applications to join, while countries like Indonesia were named as potential new members.
In the wake of Russia, a key BRICS member, waging war on another sovereign state, how will BRICS move forward in the future? Watch the video above to learn more about the positioning of BRICS in the global order. | Global Organizations |
British politics, like every politics, is built on myths; stories which animate and structure everything its practitioners think about themselves and what they can enact over those they govern. But Britain might be especially dependent on them. It has a political and media culture largely driven by a series of competing narratives: terrain which must never be crossed, “iron rules” which cannot be broken. And few myths are as undying as the idea that there is a “war on motorists”.
This cry has gone up repeatedly throughout the summer as the expansion of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) has inched closer. Every day a newspaper proclaims that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, abhors cars and those who drive them. This fits into a longer-running narrative, central to British political life, that “the motorist” is a persecuted and put-upon minority, misunderstood and despised by political elites.
It is such a potent idea that it has led the British state into some very odd and very expensive places. It meant petrol duty was one of the few taxes to remain untouched for 13 years, at a cost of £80bn a year to the Exchequer. It meant the 1999-2000 petrol strikes were the only real moment of peril for the first half of Tony Blair’s first parliament. This week it led to the absurdity of Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a former cabinet minister, excusing vandalism against government property, as Ulez cameras around the capital were damaged. It is impossible to imagine Duncan Smith, or any other senior Conservative figure, condoning violence or disorder from any other group – Just Stop Oil protesters, for example. But he does so without being accused of hypocrisy precisely because of the power of the myth.
The myth has, if anything, become more entrenched in recent years because the ideas that anchor it have become more common in other parts of our politics: the (relatively) powerful portraying themselves as powerless; the “in” groups portraying themselves as the “out”. Car owners are in fact likely to be richer, older and of greater social status, though we rarely hear that expressed. It is often the poor and the young who rely on public transport, if it exists, but how often are they part of the conversation? This is the context in which at least part of the vituperative reaction against Ulez must be understood. It is one of the very few occasions on which “the motorist” has lost, perhaps intuiting that the world ahead will be less favourable to them than the world behind.
[See also: You can thank Boris Johnson for Ulez]
The Ulez furore draws on other, deeper Conservative instincts about what the car is and what it represents. When the Channel Tunnel was under construction there were fierce battles between the Thatcher government and François Mitterand’s about what sort of transport the connection should offer. Thatcher wanted only cars, calculating that another unionised rail network was the last thing her new Britain needed. The French insisted. That deep Conservative attachment to the car lives on. If an Englishman’s home is his castle, his car is his inalienable means of getting there, offering independence and freedom from the indignities of collective transport.
We rarely recognise how deeply the car is cherished in British political culture. We mock the American attachment to giant vehicles and vast multi-lane freeways, and their non-existent public transport systems – but we are far closer to them than we would like to admit. Far from there being a “war on the motorist”, much of British economic and transport policy is oriented in their direction.
This is despite the fact that cars are self-evidently bad for cities. It isn’t just a matter of air pollution, though that remains a menace across Britain. Rather, in our urban environments, cars can be bullies, the forever kings of the road. They will always win out against the pedestrian or the cyclist, who is forced to breathe their toxic fumes, to wait, to move around them.
Consider, for a moment, your favourite cities, or your favourite parts of your city. I suspect they are pedestrianised, spaces where cars are absent or rare. I suspect they are cities like Amsterdam or Toulouse, which prize the walker, or quarters like London’s South Bank or Liverpool’s riverside. It has become commonplace in recent years to hear conservative thinkers rail against ugly buildings; rarely do they rail against ugly roads and all that goes with them. But when cars are banished from cities, the air improves and so do the cities themselves. The humans move in and do everything humans do: set up markets, play sport, make art, have conversations, start dining. They resume living.
Cars are a necessity in many places, especially more rural areas. And it is true that few cities enjoy the benefits of a properly integrated transport system like London’s. But is that because we rely too much on our cars, allowing innovation to be strangled and investment denied? It would be a start if we could recognise the trade-offs we make when we put the car at the centre of city life, and if we recognise the power of the myth. The war against the motorist? In the cities, more often than not, it can be the motorists who wage war on the rest of us. For too long in British politics it has been their way, or the highway.
[See also: Rishi Sunak can’t save the British motorist] | United Kingdom Politics |
The SNP’s Rutherglen and Hamilton West candidate, Katy Loudon, has branded comments from Keir Starmer, “ludicrous”, after the Labour leader insisted that there was no division between Scottish and UK Labour.
Loudon's comments come following the Labour leader voicing that anyone looking for division between Scottish and UK Labour would have a "very long search."
Pointing out objections from senior Scottish Labour figures to Starmer’s plans to maintain the two-child cap and 'rape clause' - Loudon said divisions within the party were “glaringly obvious”.
Download the Lanarkshire Live app today
The Lanarkshire Live app is available to download now.
Get all the news from your area – as well as features, entertainment, sport and the latest on Lanarkshire’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic – straight to your fingertips, 24/7.
The free download features the latest breaking news and exclusive stories, and allows you to customise your page to the sections that matter most to you.
Katy Loudon said: “It only takes seconds to find the glaringly obvious divisions between Starmer, and his Scottish branch office. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
“Some Scottish Labour figures have come out in strong opposition to Starmer’s pro-austerity and pro-two child cap policies, but their appeals have repeatedly fallen on deaf ears, proving that Anas Sarwar holds no real influence.
“And strong words from senior Scottish Labour figures mean nothing while their MPs and candidates gleefully sign up to voting through Starmer’s Tory-replica agenda in the House of Commons.
“The views of the branch office are clearly secondary to Keir Starmer’s desire to prop up the Tories’ punishing welfare agenda and damaging Brexit.
“It’s abundantly clear there’s no real difference between Labour and the Tories. Only the SNP offers a real alternative. With the full powers of independence we can reverse Westminster’s damaging policies and rid ourselves of governments we don’t elect for good.”
Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Angela Rayner, refuted Loudon’s claims that the party is divided, she said: “It is pretty astonishing that anyone from the SNP can accuse the Labour Party of being divided.
“We want to be in Government and change the country around. We have seen the SNP squabbling like children and acting in a way that is not that of a public servant.
“We have come together as the Labour Party because we want to govern to improve people’s lives.
“People have never had it so difficult for a generation. You can’t hide from your food, energy, mortgage or rent costs. People cannot afford to live at the moment. The stakes are too high for people to have their own self-interests.
“We are a united front as a shadow cabinet with a plan on how day one we can improve people’s lives across the UK and Scotland. Far too many politicians have overpromised and not delivered. That’s why we have made the difficult decisions.
“Politicians are different but the difference between the Labour Party and the Tories and the SNP at the moment is that our differences don’t divide us but give us the strength and depth in our policy making because each of us will challenge each other on why we think that.
“Policy is being challenged robustly to ensure that we get the right outcome.”
*Don't miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here. | United Kingdom Politics |
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken attends a meeting with India's Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar during the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Nusa Dua on the Indonesian resort island of Bali on July 8, 2022. Stefani Reynolds/Pool via REUTERSRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comNUSA DUA, Indonesia, July 8 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Friday "shocking" and "profoundly disturbing," describing him as a leader of great vision and an extraordinary partner for the United States.Blinken made the comments at the start of a trilateral meeting with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts on the sidelines of a meeting of Group of 20 foreign ministers in Bali.Blinken said that to the United States, Abe "was an extraordinary partner and someone who was clearly a great leader."Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comHe said Abe brought the relationship between the United States and Japan "to new heights" during his time in office.Blinken said Abe was "a man of great vision for what a free and open Indo-Pacific could look like and also an incredible ability to really work towards that vision," referring to Abe's signature foreign policy of pushing back against China's expanding regional influence, which Washington also adopted.Blinken called Abe's death "a loss for Japan, a loss for the world."At the same event, South Korea’s Foreign Minister Park Jin condemned the shooting, saying that such violence should not be tolerated.Abe, Japan's longest-serving leader, died on Friday hours after he was shot while campaigning for a parliamentary election in Japan, shocking a country in which political violence is rare and guns are tightly controlled. read more Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by David Brunnstrom, Editing by William Maclean and Chizu NomiyamaOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Asia Politics |
Newsletter offer
Receive our Behind the Headlines email and we’ll post a free copy of Byline Times
The Liberal Democrat candidate to replace absentee MP Nadine Dorries has told Byline Times she would not take any second jobs if elected, with her party leader Ed Davey telling this paper that he would back the creation of new ‘minimum service levels’ demands on Lib Dem MPs.
Emma Holland-Lindsay, a Central Bedfordshire councillor and public affairs lead for the Women’s Institute, is running to unseat the Conservatives should TalkTV host Nadine Dorries make good on her promise 10 weeks ago to stand down “with immediate effect” after she was denied a peerage.
Speaking on the campaign trail in Mid Beds, Holland-Lindsay said: “My absolute number one top focus is to be a hard working strong voice. I want to be a full time MP, standing up for local people locally, out and about meeting communities, listening to local residents’ concerns and standing up for them in Westminster. So I won’t be taking any other jobs.”
Asked whether she would take any paid TV slots – such as hosting news or current affairs programmes, she told Byline Times: “No, because I should be a strong voice, which we haven’t had for so long in this area.
“Residents are really concerned whether they can’t get a GP appointment. People are waiting up to five weeks for a routine GP appointment. Or they’re concerned about their shopping bill going up every time they go to the supermarket. So of course, my absolute number one job is to stand up for those people in Westminster and locally.”
Don’t miss a story
Nadine Dorries has failed to speak in the Commons in well over a year, and has only voted ten times since last July. Yet there are no minimum service standards for MPs – so no way to boot her out on that basis. MPs are currently exploring using obscure and rarely-used parliamentary methods to evict her and trigger a by-election.
Asked if minimum service levels were needed for members of parliament, Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey told Byline Times he “certainly wouldn’t be against them for myself and for Lib Dem MPs.”
“The issue is making sure MPs are more accountable. And to my mind, the way you do that is you change the electoral system. The problem with first past the post is you get seats where there are large Conservative and Labour majorities, and it is very difficult to remove them at a general election,” the former coalition minister said.
He added: “The best way to make sure MPs are held to account when politicians are forced to listen to their public is to have electoral reform.”
Davey also told this newspaper he was “not in principle against” a ban on second jobs for MPs. In 2021, Sir Ed Davey earned £60,000 for 72 hours work for Herbert Smith Freehills, an international law firm, focusing on political issues and policy analysis. He also sat on the advisory board of Next Energy Capital, earning £18,000pa for 48 hours. The money was used to “benefit Sir Ed’s disabled son,” Sky News reported his team as saying.
However, he added the focus on any new rules should be to “make sure that everything is completely and utterly transparent, and that MPs have to put their constituents first.
“In some cases I don’t think it’s unreasonable that they do odd activities elsewhere. It would be hypocritical for me to say otherwise.”
He admitted Lib Dem MPs – including himself – have taken second jobs, as have Labour and the Conservatives. “But the key thing is massive transparency on it, so people know what’s actually happening. And that the MP involved puts their constituents first. And that’s not been the case under Nadine Dorries, and I’m afraid many Conservative MPs,” Sir Ed said.
“Right Housing in the Right Places”
In her interview with Byline Times, candidate Emma Holland-Lindsay also suggested she opposed housing developments that do not come with the “right infrastructure.” Lib Dems often campaign on unpopular housing developments in a bid to win votes – and are sometimes dubbed NIMBYs as a result (i.e. Not in My Back Yard).
“Clearly, we have a need for more affordable housing to be built in the right place with the right infrastructure around it. What we found in this area, we have these top down Conservative policy targets around housing, which has meant that housing has been built often in the wrong place.
“Often the wrong housing [is built] and it doesn’t have the infrastructure going with: it the health services, the schools, the transport services that they need,” the Mid Beds candidate stressed.
Top down housing targets for local councils were controversially scrapped by Rishi Sunak last year, as he faced a shires revolt among backbenchers from his own party.
Pressed on whether her stance would mean fewer houses being built – and more house building projects being jettisoned altogether – Emma Holland-Lindsay said: “We have to trust local residents. Residents aren’t saying to me on the doorstep ‘we want no housing’. People are saying to me actually, we’re having these things forced upon us. It’s in the wrong place. This housing is not affordable to local people.”
“They’re not getting the infrastructure sorted. So, there’s no GP surgery being built alongside it. There’s no new transport services. So we have to trust local communities, that they know what they need and actually listen to them”, she told Byline Times.
It suggests an opposition to any house building projects which do not come with new GP surgeries, schools or public transport attached.
The candidate responded: “A huge priority for me is infrastructure, because I’m going around knocking on doors and that is what people are saying to me: they’re saying we can’t get a GP appointment is someone saying to me as a five week wait, or you’ve got to battle through the phone system, because there isn’t the capacity there?…
“So yes, absolutely. We need to have the infrastructure to sit alongside all this development, otherwise, our local communities can’t cope.”
Dorries in Disgrace
Sir Ed Davey branded Rishi Sunak a “complete disgrace” for not withdrawing the Conservative whip from Dorries.
“Our Prime Minister has allowed her to continue to take the Tory whip and be a part of the Conservative party when she has failed the people of Mid Bedfordshire so badly. So increasingly, this is not an issue of Nadine Dorries. It’s an issue about the Conservative Party. They are taking the people of Mid Bedfordshire for granted and are completely out of touch,” he said.
He noted that Sunak has “known what it’s like for a long time” that Dorries is not turning up for constituents. “Why haven’t they taken action?”
The Lib Dem leader, who has helped win a string of recent by-elections for the Lib Dems including just last month in Somerton and Frome, noted that taking the seats off the Conservatives was a “tall order”. Labour is also gunning for the constituency – whenever a byelection will be called.
“It may come down to whether a few people do vote Labour and let the Tories sneak in. Labour are going to finish third, that’s for sure,” he said.
Why was he so sure? Because, in his eyes, a Lib Dem MP would be “someone who’s been brought up in this area knows this patch, cares about the patch – and doesn’t use it as a stepping stone to get on I’m a Celebrity: Get Me Out of Here.”
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected] | United Kingdom Politics |
Discover more from Striking 13
Matt Hancock's broken half-formed brain
The man is a dimwit. But the truth about covid is much more disturbing than that.
Matt Hancock has a variety of problems. They are, in order of importance: his brain, his face, his manner and his record. Over the course of this week, they've put him in an extraordinary level of jeopardy.
It felt like you could almost see the steel jaws of the trap close around him as he gave evidence to the covid inquiry yesterday. And once they clamped down, nothing would prise them apart again. He knew it. Inquiry Chair Baroness Hallett knew it. Counsel Hugo Keith KC knew it. He's a useful fall guy.
Several witnesses have marked him as a particularly egregious example of failure. Dominic Cummings said he was a "proven liar". Helen MacNamara said he made confident assertions without any evidence to back them up. Patrick Vallance said he said things which "were not true". Most of them attack each other too - Cummings hates MacNamara and MacNamara hates Cummings. But everyone hates Hancock.
There's good reason for that. He is plainly inept and ill-suited for the role of health secretary. Indeed, he's ill-suited for any role above that of a regional manager for a third-tier domestic company.
You could see this in the various attempts he made to save himself. At one point he tried to dismiss Vallance's testimony, which was critical of him, by pointing out that it had been written later and was therefore unreliable. "I don't know whether these parts of Sir Patrick's diaries were contemporaneous," Hancock insisted, "because I know that some was written after the fact."
The only trouble with that argument was that his own diaries were written months after the event they described. He had admitted to this only moments before, but was seemingly oblivious to the fact that it would undermine his own defence. "These were evening notes," Hugo Keith KC said of Vallance's account, "made certainly more contemporaneously than your book."
Hancock tried to present himself as a brave warrior for tough covid action, pushing for lockdowns weeks before they took place. He insisted that he had demanded Boris Johnson lockdown on March 13th 2020, ten days before the decision was eventually made.
The trouble was there was no evidence of this. His diaries had noted all sorts of events that day - flights, meetings with first ministers of devolved nations - but no mention at all of the pivotal moment the secretary of state for health had marched into the prime minister's office and told him in no uncertain terms to instigate a lockdown. "To tell the prime minister of this country for the first time that he had to call an immediate lockdown is surely worthy of some recollection is it not?" Keith asked, civil but deadly.
It's quite rewarding watching KCs, rather than journalists, go after politicians. They're much better at it. No need to cultivate contacts, no requirement to ensure balance, no pressure to let them talk so they'll come on the show again - just cutting right through the bullshit.
Shortly afterwards, there was a quick coffee break. When Hancock returned he looked full of confidence and vigour, as if he was about to be vindicated. He had found an email from March 13th. It argued for a suppression strategy. That was it, he suggested. That was the hard evidence. Keith sighed. "Mr Hancock, the inquiry is well aware of that email," he said. The trouble was it did not constitute the proof Hancock said it did. "Do you use the word 'immediate' or 'lockdown'?" he asked. Hancock staggered, then replied: "I don't have it in front of me." Keith asked again. Hancock gave the same answer.
The witness testimony was otherwise full of moments of supreme cerebral failure, a straight-up infantilism suggestive of a half-developed mind. Here is a typical excerpt: "I phoned up the prime minister and I remember it very well because he didn't take the call and then he called me back and I was in a classroom in a primary school in Suffolk and I had to say to the kids 'I'm really sorry the prime minister's calling I have to go' and it was quite a moment." Hours and hours of this stuff, like finding something thin and glutinous leaking out of your brain.
It played out like farce, but at its core was tragedy. The decisions Hancock made were not of the normal magnitude. They were judgements about life or death and typically weighed on the latter end of the ledger. On May 15th 2020, Hancock said: "Right from the start, it's been clear that this horrible virus affects older people most. So right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes." In reality, the government discharged covid patients into care homes. There were 28,000 excess deaths in care homes between April and May 2020.
But there is a deeper, more disturbing truth to Hancock. If only we could pin all the blame on him, we would sleep easier in our beds at night. But we cannot. In reality, he is not actually particularly stupid compared to the others in his ministerial cohort. He is a completely average example of the ministerial class during the post-Brexit period.
Certainly he's no worse than figures like Dominic Raab, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Robert Jenrick, Steve Barclay, Gavin Williamson or the others. They are all utterly redundant examples of humanity, the political equivalent of the slop left over on the floor of a pub when the lights go up. You only have to watch Esther McVey, the "minister for common sense", on Question Time last night. She is a mouth attached to a face without a brain to coordinate it. On and on it goes, a perpetual stream of vacuity and non-sequiturs, leading nowhere. A wall of meaningless sound, with all the logical relevance of a TV tuned to a dead channel.
Hancock is singled out not because he is stupid, but because he is oafish. That's the reality of it. You can see it in the cringe-worthy kiss with Gina Coladangelo that led to his resignation. Or the video of him standing freakishly close to Conservative candidate Wendy Maisey during a TV interview, or his mock crying during the vaccine rollout, or his preposterous black turtleneck interview, or his attempt attempt to use I'm a Celebrity as a form of reputational resuscitation, or when he's called a "weasel-faced cunt" on reality television.
The barrier between his internal self and his social self is perilously thin. You need a big thick wall between your private thoughts and your public presentation in politics. You need to hide your weakness, your hesitancy, your desires and your prevarication. You are always on display, always on show, and you must therefore project strength and certainty no matter the situation you are presented with.
Look at McVey on Question Time last night. Perilous halfwit that she is, she still remains utterly unaffected by her surroundings. The audience looks at her as if she were a stain on the floor. The presenter is openly mocking her. The other guests are sniping away from the sidelines. None of it affects her. None of it causes her to blink. There is no access to her private thoughts or character.
Hancock does not have that quality. He looks vulnerable and half-formed, not quite able to summon up the solidity of his colleagues. There is a gaping chasm between how he thinks he looks and how he actually looks. And that is his great weakness. That's what makes him an easy target. The trap door closes. The army of people pinpointing him for blame grows. He becomes the fall guy.
That would be a betrayal of the people that died in those years. The situation is much worse than any one figure, particularly one who is singled out because of his presentational failure. It's about a ministerial class that cannot operate with anything even approaching basic competence. Whoever was in the health secretary post - whether it was Raab, or McVey, or Gavin Williamson, or any of the others - would have been just as bad. In many cases they would probably have been considerably worse. For all his inadequacy, Hancock did at least eventually grasp the basics of the virus and distanced himself from the nihilistic scientific illiteracy of the herd immunity crowd.
Yesterday was a strange day. Reading about Alistar Darling while hearing Hancock's testimony was a visceral and profound demonstration of how far we have fallen, of how starkly political standards in this country have declined.
There were plenty of structural flaws in British government when Darling's moment of crisis came. At the moment the financial crash hit, there were just three people in the Treasury civil service team dealing with financial stability issues. But the difference was that Darling had the basic intellectual competence to grapple with the issues that arose. He was motivated by a sense of public service and defined by a modesty about his own prominence and accomplishments. In short, he was a serious person, who was capable of approximating the seriousness of the time he lived in.
When covid hit, those conditions were reversed. The structural flaws remained, but the quality of ministers had plummeted. They did not have the intellectual competence to grapple with the issues. They were not motivated by public service, but by social division and personal prominence. They were not serious people. And they could not approximate the seriousness of the time they lived in.
That did not happen because Hancock is clodding and ungainly. It happened because of the priorities and incentives at the top of government. And it'll happen again, unless we take a structural view of what took place.
Hancock is a clown. He giggles and dances and makes farting noises and it's all very distracting. But we need to focus our attention on the circus.
Thanks for reading Striking 13! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. | United Kingdom Politics |
Geopolitical Wrangling Seen Shadowing India’s G-20 Finance Meeting
Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors convene in Gandhinagar in coming days.
(Bloomberg) -- The most important takeaway from next week’s gathering of finance chiefs from the world’s biggest developed and emerging economies won’t be on the official agenda: who’s gaining in the battle for global influence between the US and its allies on one side and China and Russia on the other.
Group of 20 finance ministers and central bank governors convene in Gandhinagar, the capital of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state Gujarat, in coming days, with key meetings set for July 17-18. Policymakers aim for progress on bolstering the resources of multilateral development banks, encouraging greater flows of credit to limit climate change and executing on a global corporate-tax deal that’s proven tough to finish.
Several top officials, including the German and UK finance heads and European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, are expected to skip the meeting — which is sandwiched between last month’s global finance summit in Paris and the G-20 leaders’ conclave in September — a move that will lend importance to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s attendance. She’ll be making her third visit to India in nine months, amid a concerted US push to strengthen ties with China’s giant neighbor.
India, the rotating head of the G-20 this year, was unable at the last finance meeting in April to secure either a joint statement or even a chair’s statement of summary, underscoring deep divisions in a group that includes Russia. In February, the chair’s statement had reiterated G-20 language from last year pointing out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had led to a United Nations vote of condemnation.
But things have evolved: Yellen has just re-established high-level economic engagement with China, and Modi recently delivered an historic second address to the US Congress, with a Bastille Day-welcome in Paris looming for him on Friday. Russia, meantime, saw internal dissent on public display last month with the Wagner Group incident.
“Whether China is going to shift” its stance on G-20 statement language with regard to Russia will be key to watch, said John Kirton, director for the G-20 Research Group at the University of Toronto. “Maybe Russia just has less influence in vetoing all of the problematic passages.”
The G-20 members have also been deadlocked on debt relief for developing nations, after conceiving a coordinated plan known as the Common Framework in 2020. While the US and allies have pressed China, by far the largest official creditor to poorer countries, to step up, Beijing has urged multilateral lenders such as the World bank to participate in taking haircuts.
China, represented by Premier Li Qiang, helped the French hosts make the Paris financial summit a success by participating in a long-awaited agreement in principle to restructure Zambia’s debt. No such breakthroughs are anticipated in the coming days, in part thanks to the absence of the highly indebted nations needing relief, but further discussion alone may be a good sign.
Debt Relief
“We still are in this world where the Common Framework is not living up to its potential, but it is making progress,” said Stephanie Segal, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Another issue to monitor for progress will be talks to overhaul the World Bank and other large multilateral lenders. Yellen has been among those pressing for those banks to work harder to incentivize private capital flows toward developing nations. She’s also urged them to take a bigger role in combating climate change.
The US estimates that these lenders — as a system — could unlock as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years by implementing change, a senior Treasury official said Thursday.
Divisions have emerged over the extent to which aid to the poorest nations, who qualify for so-called concessional financing, ought to be prioritized, risking diminished credit for lower-middle income economies.
The G-20 are also slated to touch base on an initiative to revamp global corporate taxes. While most of the world agreed in 2021 on a two-pillar deal to end a so-called race to the bottom on business levies, getting it finalized has been a challenge.
Read More: US Wins Conditional Digital-Tax Truce as Global Deal Advances
“It’s a very crowded agenda,” and it’s unlikely there’ll be major developments on any particular front, Segal said.
Ahead of the full G-20, the Group of Seven industrialized nations meets on Sunday, where the finance chiefs are expected to focus on support for Ukraine, the reform of multilateral development banks and the G-7’s push to recalibrate global supply chains. Boosting support for Ukraine is also on the agenda.
Gandhinagar will be the debut outing to a G-20 finance chiefs gathering for newly installed World Bank President Ajay Banga. It also offers Turkish Finance Minister Mehmet Simsek and central bank Governor Hafize Gaye Erkan the opportunity to attend for the first time since President Recep Tayyip Erdogan unveiled his post-election economic team.
Finance ministries and central banks not sending their principal policymakers typically are represented by other senior officials.
For Yellen, the trip offers another chance to deepen ties with India, a location she’s singled out for “friend-shoring” supply chains. A senior Treasury official said the India relationship was one of the three reasons for Yellen’s attendance at Gandhinagar, alongside multilateral development bank reform and debt relief.
Read More: Yellen Heads to G-20 for Third Visit to Friend-Shoring Pal India
The G-20 was set up in the wake of the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, and was hailed during the global financial meltdown in 2008 for helping to limit the damage of that economic disaster. In more recent years, a slew of alternative groupings has gained attention, including the BRICS forum for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, which is scheduled for a summit next month.
“The Biden administration has used these forums to reinforce and demonstrate the power of unity of like-minded countries — developed economies/democracies — to continue assert the US views and influence,” said Philippe Dauba-Pantanacce, an economist and global geopolitical strategist at Standard Chartered Plc in Paris, of the G-20. “There is a competition on who will influence the next global order, and how.”
--With assistance from Alexander Weber, Ruchi Bhatia and Erica Yokoyama.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | Global Organizations |
In many ways it was impressive to get a whole two days into Boris Johnson’s world statesman tour before it emerged he’d tried to get a Tory donor to fund a £150,000 treehouse for his then infant son. No matter what Commonwealth/G7/ Nato posturing comes after that, you’ll have found it rather difficult to suspend your disbelief. It’s like hearing that Churchill whined and whined to get some mid-century sad-sack to buy his grandson a pony. Fine: 30 ponies.The story of the treehouse somehow still retains the power to shock, if only as a reminder that there really is no beginning to the prime minister’s financial morality. As reported by the Times, Johnson and his wife planned to build an eye-wateringly expensive treehouse in the grounds of Chequers in autumn 2020, potentially funded by the Tory donor Lord Brownlow. “He was told it would look terrible,” a government source told the paper, yet the PM pressed ahead. It was only when the Johnsons’ security staff objected definitively on the basis that the treehouse was visible from the road that the welfare king and queen of Downing Street had to reluctantly abandon their plans. At the time, their son would have been about six months old.Who builds a baby a treehouse for £150,000, which can currently buy you a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Wakefield? Answer that question without using a four-letter word. But then, it’s all there, isn’t it, from the mind-boggling discovery that this got all the way to design modification stage, to the reappearance of the unflushable Lord Brownlow, fast becoming the Zelig of stories in which a greedy and venal prime minister apparently takes him for a soft touch. The fact that a child’s pleasure dome was being decreed at the very same time Johnson was demanding his MPs voted against a plea to extend free school meals for the poorest children over the Christmas holidays locates it even more firmly in the realms of the grotesque. One Conservative MP, Ben Bradley, claimed the latter scheme would simply lead to increased dependency on the state. (Needless to say, Bradley has never uttered a word on the worry of increased dependency on rich donors, and continues to back Johnson to the hilt.)Still, after the £840-a-roll gold wallpaper and the rest of the Downing Street flat refurbishment saga, it’s good to see the holder of the highest public office in the land amassing almost enough mad folly projects for a whole series of Grand Designs. Do picture the Johnsons telling the cameras: “I think we’d call our aesthetic for the project, MPs’ Expenses meets Louis Quatorze. Think duck house, except with bulletproof glass and costing a full 91 times as much.” Had the prime minister been allowed to do what he wanted, it would have been good to see the usual political interviewers make way for Kevin McCloud, who would don his hard hat of hardheadedness and observe mildly to the couple: “Well actually, you’ve gone an infinite per cent over your budget, haven’t you, because NONE OF THIS IS YOUR MONEY.” The less entertaining reality is that the MPs’ expenses era now feels like the halcyon days of taking responsibility, given that Peter Viggers, the MP who tried to get his duck house funded, never even succeeded, but did at least end up quitting when his attempt came to light, for what he admitted was a “ridiculous and grave error of judgment”.All of this, then, is the inescapable backdrop to the prime minister’s current gadding about on the world stage. Are Downing Street’s strategists hoping that Fake Boris (the statesman) can save Real Boris (the treehouse guy)? You can see why Fake Boris is the preferred role. This year, support for Ukraine is almost the only policy Johnson has delivered on. Everything else is either U-turned on, deliberately designed not to work, or pulled out of his arse with no thought as to what it even is, let alone how you’d achieve it. So yes – Johnson is taken seriously in Ukraine, where he is rightly perceived as top of the tree in terms of wartime allies. But it’s increasingly difficult to see how people back home are supposed to forget the grubbier reality of what he truly is. Do you really want to hear about wage restraint from a guy who wanted someone to spaff 150 grand on a treehouse?'A bare-chested horseback ride': Johnson and Trudeau mock Putin at G7 summit – videoJohnson has never received a great bounce for his leadership on Ukraine, with many holding a view along the lines of “he did what any of us would have done”. None of which is to denigrate the UK’s clearly hugely valued assistance. But it must be said that in straitening times, another view can be now heard rather more loudly than before. Recent polling suggests the mushrooming cost of living crisis has focused concern away from justice for Ukraine, with a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations (covering 10 European countries, including the UK) pointing to “a growing gap between the positions of many governments and the public mood in their respective countries”.This could leave even Fake Johnson in trouble. Acting like a world statesman might be the right thing to do (though actually being one is obviously better). But even that could well end up a liability for a man increasingly cemented in the public imagination as selfish and feckless. What are we making sacrifices for, people might wonder, if not yet another of his vanity projects? What Just Happened?! by Marina Hyde is now available at guardianbookshop.com Marina Hyde is a Guardian columnist | United Kingdom Politics |
For full coverage of the crisis in Ukraine, visit Flashpoint Ukraine.
The latest developments in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. All times EDT:
2:30 p.m.: 2:04 p.m.: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says there can be no return to the pre-Ukraine war relationship with Russia, The Associated Press reported. Scholz said at the Group of Seven summit on Monday that with its attack on Ukraine, Russia has broken “all the rules, all the agreements we have made with each other on countries’ cooperation.”
He said G-7 leaders agree that it has led to long-term changes “which will mark international relations for a very, very long time. So it is clear that, in relations with Russia, there can be no way back to the time before the Russian attack on Ukraine.”
Scholz was speaking after hosting the leaders of five leading democratic emerging economies at the G-7 summit in the Bavarian Alps. He noted that those countries -- India, Indonesia, Senegal, South Africa and Argentina -- “see the war in Ukraine from different perspectives, everyone knows that.”
He said that “that’s why it’s important that we speak to each other about it and exchange our respective points of view.” Scholz didn’t say whether their differences narrowed as a result of Monday’s discussion and took no questions. 1:47 p.m.: 1:09 p.m.: The father of a Moroccan man sentenced to death by a court in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) on mercenary charges urged his country on Monday to open a dialogue with pro-Russia Donetsk authorities to help release his son, Reuters reported.
Tahar Saadoun said although Rabat did not recognize the DPR, it should find channels to communicate with authorities there over his son Brahim Saadoun, 21.
He was found guilty last month of "mercenary activities and committing actions aimed at seizing power and overthrowing the constitutional order" of the DPR along with two Britons, Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner. 12:36 p.m.: A Russian missile strike that hit a crowded shopping center in the central Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk has killed at least 10 people and injured at least 40 others, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.
Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, Russia has claimed repeatedly that it is not targeting civilians in the unprovoked war it launched on Ukraine just over four months ago. It has not commented on the strike. 12:13 p.m.: A display of war-damaged Russian weapons in downtown Warsaw, Poland, serves as a reminder of the horrors of the war in Ukraine but also that Russia’s aggression can be defeated, The Associated Press reported Monday.
The display, called “For Our Freedom and Yours,” opened on the eve of a NATO summit in Madrid that aims to boost the strength of the military alliance’s rapid reaction force and military support for Ukraine.
11:53 a.m.: The United States said Monday that the G7 is closing in on a plan to force a lower price for Russian oil in what would be a major escalation of the campaign to punish the Kremlin for its invasion of Ukraine, Agence France-Presse reported. "There is also consensus emerging... that the price cap is a serious method to achieve that outcome," President Joe Biden's national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, told reporters at the G7 summit in Germany. A senior US official described talks within the G7 -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States -- as advancing. "We're still in final discussions with other G7 counterparts working to finalize this, but we're very close to a place where G7 leaders will have decided to urgently direct relevant ministers to develop mechanisms to set a global price cap for Russian oil," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The goal of the plan is to starve the Kremlin of its "main source of cash and force down the price of Russian oil." 11:47 a.m.: A senior U.S. defense official provided the latest assessment on the war in Ukraine Monday. VOA’s National Security correspondent Jeff Seldin shared some of the details on Twitter. 11:38 a.m.: Scores of civilians are feared killed or injured after a Russian rocket strike hit a crowded shopping mall in Ukraine’s central city of Kremenchuk, The Associated Press reported Monday, quoting Ukrainian officials. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a Telegram post that the number of victims was “unimaginable,” citing reports that more than 1,000 civilians were inside at the time of the attack. Minutes later, Kyryl Tymoshenko, the deputy head of the presidential office, said in a Telegram post that at least two people were dead and about 20 were hurt, of whom nine were in serious condition. Zelenskyy stressed that the target presented “no threat to the Russian army” and had “no strategic value.” He accused of Russia of sabotaging “people’s attempts to live a normal life, which make the occupiers so angry.” “Russia continues to take out its impotence on ordinary civilians. It is useless to hope for decency and humanity on its part,” Zelenskyy said.
11:26 a.m.: 11:08 a.m.: Faced with a deepening personnel crisis within its military, Russia is scrambling to find fighters for its war in Ukraine and recruiting heavily from its North Caucasus region to form new units along ethnic lines who are then deployed with minimal training, according to Caucasus.Realities, a regional news outlet of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s North Caucasus Service.
Regional officials from Daghestan, Ingushetia, and Kalmykia have announced plans to form rifle companies that are each made up of soldiers from a particular Russian republic.
These national units are formed primarily of contract soldiers who have previous military training and have been targeted by local recruitment drives aimed at pressuring and enticing men of military age to join the war in Ukraine.
10:55 a.m.: 10:39 a.m.: The U.N. World Food Program said it has further reduced rations in Yemen, where millions face hunger, due to critical funding gaps, global inflation and knock-on effects of the Ukraine conflict, Reuters reported Monday. The number of people living in near-famine conditions in the Arabian Peninsula country is expected to rise to seven million in the second half of 2022 from around five million. Disruption to global wheat supplies due to the Ukraine war and a wheat export ban by India risk deepening Yemen's hunger crisis and pushing up food price inflation, which had already doubled in just two years in some parts of the country.
10:28 a.m.: U.N. World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley warned on Monday that the global food crisis, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, could trigger starvation and social unrest if not immediately addressed. 10:14 a.m.: Indonesian President Joko Widodo, the chair of the Group of 20 (G20) nations, will urge Russia and Ukraine to rekindle peace talks, and seek ways to free up exports of grain to global markets when he visits Moscow and Kyiv in coming days, Reuters reported Monday. President Widodo, better known as Jokowi, is one of six world leaders the United Nations appointed as "champions" of a Global Crisis Response Group (GCRG), formed to address the threat of an "unprecedented wave of hunger and destitution" resulting from the war in Ukraine.
9:56 a.m.: 9:42 a.m.: Russian President Vladimir Putin will hold talks with his Tajik counterpart, Emomali Rahmon, in Dushanbe on Tuesday as Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, launched more than four months ago, continues to raise concerns in Central Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters in Moscow on Monday that the talks will be held in a face-to-face format. He did not elaborate.
Putin's visit to the Tajik capital will take place three days after he told another ally, Belarus's authoritarian ruler Alyaksandr Lukashenka, that Moscow will supply Minsk with an Iskander-M mobile missile system with a range of up to 500 kilometers as the standoff between Russia and the West over the war in Ukraine escalates.
Russia, Belarus, and Tajikistan, along with Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan, are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). 9:29 a.m.: 9:14 a.m.: President Maia Sandu traveled to Ukraine on Monday in her first trip to Moldova's neighbor since start of the war and visited the towns of Bucha and Irpin -- sites of alleged Russian atrocities against civilians, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.
“No matter the economic costs, no matter the political costs we have to stop war and we have to make sure that these kinds of atrocities will never repeat,” Maia Sandu said. She said it was “heartbreaking” to hear accounts from witnesses and victims of the war.
"Was left speechless by the level of violence & destruction we saw," Sandu wrote separately in English on Twitter. "It’s an unimaginable tragedy & we wholeheartedly wish the brave selfless Ukrainian people peace, freedom & prosperity, & life of their own choosing."
Sandu was expected to meet with her Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, during her visit, her office said on social media.
8:58 a.m.: 8:41 a.m.: Leaders of the Group of Seven wealthy democracies on Monday pledged to stand with Ukraine "for as long as it takes" by cranking up sanctions on Russia and backing security commitments for Kyiv in a post-war settlement, Reuters reported.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the global economic fallout such as soaring energy and food prices has dominated this year's summit of the leaders of Germany, the United States, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and Britain.
"We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes," said the statement.
The statement was issued on the second day of the summit taking place at a castle in the Bavarian Alps, shortly after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed G7 leaders on the war via video link.
The G7 leaders said they would continue to coordinate efforts to meet Ukraine's urgent military needs and were ready to work with interested countries and institutions on sustained security commitments. It was up to Ukraine to decide on a future peace settlement, free from external pressure or influence, they said, but they stood ready to support an international reconstruction plan, drawn up and implemented by Ukraine in coordination with partners.
8:22 a.m.: 8:14 a.m.: One of the last Ukrainian defenders of Sievierodonetsk said he withdrew in a boat, bitter to be leaving after weathering a weeks-long Russian onslaught on the ruined city but happy to be alive as he and others crossed the river to higher ground, Reuters reported.
Russian forces fully occupied the frontline eastern city on Saturday, both sides said, confirming Kyiv's biggest battlefield setback for more than a month following some of the war's bloodiest fighting.
"It was a shame of course because a lot of effort was put into defending it - it went on for months," Danylo, a 24-year-old soldier who said he was among almost the last to leave, said. "But... we're not too upset as we also want to live."
7:51 a.m.: 7:47 a.m.: Finnish President Sauli Niinisto and Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson will discuss their stalled NATO bids with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on June 28 ahead of a summit of the 30-member alliance in Madrid, Helsinki said on Monday, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. "President Niinisto will meet tomorrow in Madrid with Turkish President Erdogan, Swedish Prime Minister Andersson and NATO Secretary General [Jens] Stoltenberg," the Finnish presidency tweeted.
It said the meeting "will be preceded today (June 27) by a round of talks between Finnish, Swedish, and Turkish officials hosted by NATO in Brussels."
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO.
7:35 a.m.: 7:26 a.m.: The Group of Seven rich democracies will commit on Tuesday to a new package of coordinated actions meant to raise pressure on Russia over its war in Ukraine, and will finalize plans for a price cap on Russian oil, a senior U.S. official said on Monday. "The dual objectives of G7 leaders have been to take direct aim at Putin's revenues, particularly through energy, but also to minimize the spillovers and the impact on the G7 economies and the rest of the world," the U.S. official said on the sidelines of the annual G7 summit.
G7 nations, which generate nearly half the world's economic output, want to crank up pressure on Russia without stoking already soaring inflation that is causing strains at home and savaging the global south, according to Reuters.
7:04 a.m.: A special train with medical facilities constantly runs between eastern and western Ukraine. It has an intensive care unit, beds for 30 seriously ill patients, its own oxygen facilities, and a team of doctors and nurses. 6:51 a.m.: A U.S. official said news that Russia defaulted on its foreign sovereign bonds for the first time since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 showed how effective Western sanctions have been, Reuters reported.
"This morning's news around the finding of Russia's default, for the first time in more than a century, situates just how strong the actions are that the U.S., along with allies and partners, have taken, as well as how dramatic the impact has been on Russia's economy," the official added.
The Kremlin, which has the funds to make payments thanks to rich energy revenues, swiftly rejected the U.S. statement, accusing the West of driving it into an artificial default. In a call with reporters, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russia made bond payments due in May but the fact they had been blocked by Euroclear because of Western sanctions on Russia was "not our problem".
Few expected the Kremlin's invasion of Ukraine to elicit such a ferocious response from the West, which has all but severed Russia from global financial and payment systems. Here is a history looking back at Russia's major debt events over the past century.
6:47 a.m.: 6:31 a.m.: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged Group of Seven (G7) leaders to do everything in their power to end Russia's invasion of his country by the end of the year as Ukraine's military says it continues to fend off an attempted encirclement in the eastern city of Lysychansk, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported. Addressing the G7 summit in Germany via video link on Monday, Zelenskyy told the leaders of the West's most advanced economies that he wanted the war to end before the winter sets in and battle conditions will make it tougher for his troops as they mount their fightback, several diplomats were quoted as saying by international media outlets after the speech. The G7 group of rich nations is expected to issue a statement of support for Ukraine, including new sanctions commitments, before the summit ends on June 28.
6:23 a.m.: 6:15 a.m.: Russia sanctioned 43 Canadian citizens on Monday, barring them from entering the country in a tit-for-tat response to Western sanctions on Moscow, Reuters reported.
The list, published by the foreign ministry, included the chairperson of Canada’s governing Liberal Party, Suzanne Cowan, and the former governor of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada, Mark Carney.
In April, Moscow sanctioned 61 Canadian officials and journalists. It has barred dozens of other Western politicians, journalists and business figures from entering Russia.
5:30 a.m.: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiyy on Monday asked for anti-aircraft defense systems, more sanctions on Russia and security guarantees as he addressed leaders of the Group of Seven summit, a European official told Reuters.
Addressing the summit in the Bavarian Alps via video link, Zelenskiyy also asked for help to export grain from Ukraine and for reconstruction aid, the European official said, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
5 a.m.: The United States announced Monday new sanctions it and other G-7 countries are enacting against Russia in response to its war in Ukraine, including measures to cut off Russia from materials and services needed by Russia’s industrial and technology sectors.
The White House said the United States will commit $7.5 billion as part of a G-7 effort to help Ukraine cover its short-term budget needs, and that the governments are making “an unprecedented, long-term security commitment to providing Ukraine with financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support as long as it takes.”
The announcement came as G-7 leaders met in Germany where they awaited an address by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Additional specific U.S. sanctions include blocks on Russian state-owned defense enterprises and defense research organizations, limiting Russia’s ability to replenish equipment it has lost in the war, and prohibitions on gold imports into the United States.
4:30 a.m.: Regional authorities urged civilians on Monday to urgently evacuate the eastern Ukrainian city of Lysychansk which is being attacked by Russian forces.
“The situation in the city is very difficult,” Serhiy Gaidai, the governor of the Luhansk region which includes Lysychansk, wrote on the Telegram messaging app.
4 a.m.: A price cap on Russian energy imports pushed for by the United States would only be effective with sufficient support internationally, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck said in Luxembourg on Monday ahead of a meeting of EU energy ministers.
“This is a good idea if enough countries take part,” Habeck said speaking to reporters. 3:30 a.m.: Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said on Monday that France is working on energy contingency plans because of cuts to gas flows from Russia which have hit the European market, but it has not yet had to put them into action, according to Reuters.
Le Maire said talks were already underway on the issue with French Energy Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher, although details had still to be finalized. Russia has reduced gas flows to a dozen European countries in response to unprecedented EU sanctions imposed on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.
“We will determine which companies are of the most strategic importance, namely those for whom we can allow gas to be cut off and those for whom we cannot allow any cuts,” Le Maire told RMC Radio, Reuters reported.
3:10 a.m.: Britain’s environment minister George Eustice said on Monday that his country is providing technology to ensure that any wheat stolen from Ukraine by Russia does not make it to the global market, Reuters reported.
Russia’s February 24 invasion of Ukraine and blockade of its Black Sea ports has prevented the country, traditionally one of the world’s top food producers, from exporting much of the more than 20 million tons of grain stored in its silos.
Last week Turkey said it was investigating claims that Ukrainian grain had been stolen by Russia and shipped to countries including Turkey, but added the probes had not found any stolen shipments so far.
Russia has previously denied allegations that it has stolen Ukrainian grain.
“Russia, it appears, are stealing some wheat from those stores,” Eustice, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told Sky News.
“What the U.K. government is doing is making available the technology that we’ve got to be able to test the provenance of wheat. We’re working with other countries including Australia on this so that we can ensure that stolen Ukrainian wheat does not find a route to market.”
Eustice said Britain was also looking at what it could do to help Ukraine repair its railways to get the wheat out of Ukraine via land.
General Richard Barrons, former commander of Joint Forces Command, said it is “impossible” to move Ukraine’s grain stores by sea without an agreement from Russia. 2:30 a.m.: U.S. President Joe Biden comes to the Group of Seven summit with the war in Ukraine showing no signs of stopping and China’s ambition spreading. The White House says they are committed to countering these issues. VOA White House correspondent Anita Powell reports from Telfs, Austria. 2:05 a.m.: 1:15 a.m.: Russian forces were fighting on Monday to capture Lysychansk, the last major city still held by Ukrainian troops in eastern Luhansk province, after Moscow-backed separatists said they were advancing on multiple fronts, Reuters reported.
In a victory for Kremlin's campaign, Lysychansk's twin city of Sievierodonetsk, the scene of some of the bloodiest fighting, fell to pro-Russian forces on Saturday. Russian missiles also struck Kyiv for the first time in weeks on Sunday, attacks condemned by U.S. President Joe Biden as “barbarism.”
Tass news agency on Sunday quoted a separatist official as saying Moscow's forces had entered Lysychansk from five directions and were isolating Ukrainian defenders.
Reuters could not confirm the report.
1 a.m.: Russia moved closer Sunday to defaulting on international debt payments for the first time in a century.
Interest payments totaling $100 million on two bonds were originally due May 27, but carried a 30-day grace period.
Russia has struggled to make such payments due to restrictions on its financial activities related to sanctions imposed in response to its invasion of Ukraine that began in late February.
12:30 a.m.: The United States and other G-7 countries are expected to announce on Tuesday that they will ban imports of gold from Russia, according to a report in The Washington Post.
The intent of the move is to further isolate Russia from the international financial system, reported the newspaper.
12:01 a.m.: Russia may be on track for its first major external sovereign debt default, two sources told Reuters. This is because some Taiwanese holders of Russian Eurobonds have not received interest due on May 27 after a grace period expired on Sunday evening.
Russia was due to make $100 million in coupon payments on two Eurobonds on May 27. Sweeping sanctions imposed by Western capitals on Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 as well as countermeasures by Moscow have all but severed the country from the global financial ecosystem. Russia calls its actions in Ukraine a “special operation.”
Despite the plethora of curbs, Russia had managed to make payments on seven bonds since its invasion of Ukraine before the latest interest payments. Russian debt makes up less than half a percent of Taiwanese bond holdings, Reuters reported.
Some information in this report came from The Associated Press, Reuters. | Europe Politics |
Weapons supplied by the West are starting to have an impact on the war in Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said.Ukrainian fighters are making "tangible strikes" on Russian logistical targets, the president revealed in his nightly video message, adding that strikes were affecting Moscow's offensive potential.
He said: "The Western artillery - the weapons we received from our partners - started working very powerfully."Its accuracy is exactly as needed. Our defenders inflict very noticeable strikes on depots and other spots that are important for the logistics of the occupiers, and this significantly reduces the offensive potential of the Russian army."The losses of the occupiers will only increase every week, as will the difficulty of supplying them." Key developments:
• Ukrainian flag flies again over Snake Island• Western artillery working 'very powerfully', President Zelenskyy says• Representatives from G20 countries including Russia gathering in Bali• Heavy shelling along the front line in Donetsk but no advances by either side, UK MoD says• Ukraine feels 'betrayal' as giving up territory 'not an option', Kyiv mayor says More on Ukraine Ukraine feels 'betrayal' from international partners as giving up territory is 'not an option', Kyiv mayor says Russians ratchet up efforts to take full control of Donbas - and there seems very little that will stop them Ukraine war: What will happen in the Donbas now Luhansk has fallen to Russia? It comes after Sky News reported how Ukrainian military social media was increasingly reporting the use of the HIMAR System, a US made and supplied multiple rocket launcher that analysts said had been used over the weekend to target Russian forces.Kyiv has repeatedly pleaded with the West to send more weapons to repel the Russian invasion.Mr Zelenskyy said that his forces were advancing in several tactical directions - in particular in the south, in the Kherson region, in the Zaporizhzhia region - and that Ukrainians "will not give up our land".Meanwhile, a Ukrainian flag has been raised on Snake Island in the Black Sea after defence forces liberated it from Russian troops.The blue and yellow colours flutter once more over the strategic island, which has been in the spotlight many times during the war - not least when a Russian warship was told to "go f*** yourself" when it demanded that Ukrainian troops surrender early in the conflict.In a reference to that episode (now a feature on Ukrainian stamps) the flag had a message to the Russian warship written on it, saying that the island is Ukrainian and signed by the head of Odesa region Maxim Marchenko. Image: Pic: Ukraine Ministry of Internal Affairs Read more:Hit, hit, hit, destroy: Russia's terrifying tactics in the DonbasWhat will happen in the Donbas now Luhansk has fallen to Russia?The UK Ministry of Defence said on Wednesday heavy shelling continued along the front line in Donetsk but that no advances were made by either side.The intelligence update said it was believed that Russian forces involved in last week's gains were "reconstituting".It comes as foreign ministers from the G20 gather on the Indonesian island of Bali for talks set to be dominated by the conflict in Ukraine, despite an agenda focused on global cooperation and food and energy security.It is understood to be the first time that Russia's top diplomat Sergei Lavrov has met many of the G20 leaders since Russia invaded Ukraine in February.The G20 includes Western countries that have accused Moscow of war crimes in Ukraine, and countries like China, India and South Africa that either support Russia or have abstained in UN votes calling for moves to oppose Russian aggression.Many of its members oppose sanctions imposed by the West.Germany's foreign minister said G7 countries would coordinate their response to Mr Lavrov in Bali. | Europe Politics |
Unionist John McDonnell - who has been a Labour MP since 1997 - was quizzed on BBC Radio Scotland on Sunday about whether he felt Scotland should be handed another vote by Keir Starmer if the Labour leader becomes prime minister.
And he said that if the Scottish people determine they want another say through Holyrood, then Westminster should not be blocking a referendum.
He told the programme: “I’ve always said - and sometimes it’s got me into trouble with some people in the Labour party - but I’ve always said if the Scottish people determine themselves through their own parliament that they want a referendum then Westminster should not block it.
“I think tactically and politically it would be wrong as well [to block it] because it would simply make more people in Scotland pretty angry and therefore in favour of independence.”
Asked if he would like Starmer to grant a referendum if that is the will of the Scottish people, he said: “That’s been my consistent view. I can’t see any other route really.
“If the Westminster parliament continues to block it, it alienates even more people and pushes them on the side of independence.”
Insisting he remained in favour of Scotland staying part of the UK, McDonnell - who was shadow chancellor under Jeremy Corbyn - added he felt if a referendum was held now, the No side would win again.
It comes after Corbyn said he hoped there would be a referendum on Scottish independence "soon" and that a future Labour government would support it.
Throughout the interview McDonnell was also critical of Labour’s economic policy, insisting they need to be more ambitious.
Labour have been extremely cautious in outlining spending commitments and have put “stable public finances and prudent spending” at the heart of their offer for the 2024 manifesto, according to the party’s new National Policy Forum document.
McDonnell said he understood their caution but people will expect them to be more radical.
He said: “People look around them and the way their standard of living has been hit over the last 13 years of austerity and I think people realise you need more radical solutions to the problems we face because the problems are so immense.
“One of the arguments I’m trying to put forward with the Labour party is we need to face up to the scale of the problems we’ll inherit and I don’t think any Labour government, apart from the Atley government after the second world war, has ever inherited such a mess and therefore people are thinking well you need to do more than you’re saying at the moment.
“They will expect Labour to demonstrate within the first term breaking the back of the problems. It does need Labour to be more ambitious than they are at the moment.”
McDonnell has previously accused the Labour leadership of allowing a “right-wing faction” to become “drunk with power” and attempt to “destroy” the left of the party.
McDonnell was also asked about whether he felt the Scottish Labour party should disagree with the UK Labour party on policy, after former first minister Jack McConnell expressed last week to the BBC that the party north of the Border should never be afraid to go its own way.
McDonnell said: “If we believe in devolution, when you’re elected as leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, you speak for Scotland. That’s the whole point and if there’s a disagreement, have an honest disagreement. Be authentic, stand up for the Scottish people.” | United Kingdom Politics |
Efrem Lukatsky/AP
toggle caption
An injured man walks in Krasna Square in front of the Taras Shevchenko Chernihiv Regional Academic Music and Drama Theatre, after a Russian attack on Chernihiv, Ukraine, on Saturday.
Efrem Lukatsky/AP
An injured man walks in Krasna Square in front of the Taras Shevchenko Chernihiv Regional Academic Music and Drama Theatre, after a Russian attack on Chernihiv, Ukraine, on Saturday.
Efrem Lukatsky/AP
Here's a look ahead and a roundup of key developments from the past week.
What to watch
Leaders of the BRICS countries will gather for an Aug. 22-Aug. 24 summit in South Africa — minus Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is sending his foreign minister instead. Putin is set to participate virtually. In addition to South Africa, the BRICS nations include Brazil, Russia, China and India.
Ukraine's Independence Day is on Thursday — which also marks 18 months since Russia's invasion began. On the same day, the U.N. Security Council will hold a briefing on Ukraine, with remarks by Under Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Rosemary DiCarlo and a civil society representative.
Russia's Flag Day is celebrated on Tuesday.
What happened last week
A Russian missile strike on Sunday killed seven people and injured at least 90 in Chernihiv, Ukraine. The missile hit just as many were leaving church, and damaged a theater building. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was on a visit to Sweden at the time, where the two countries announced an agreement on production and use of Swedish CV90 infantry fighting vehicles.
Denmark and the Netherlands confirmed they will send F-16s to Ukraine, after the U.S. agreed to allow it. The timeline for delivery is unclear. Ukrainian pilots will have to be trained to use the sophisticated fighter jets, which are not expected to be deployed until after this year. Earlier in the week, Germany's Finance Minister Christian Lindner held talks with Ukrainian officials in Kyiv and signed a joint declaration to boost cooperation.
China's Defense Minister Li Shangfu visited Russia and Belarus. It was his second visit to Russia this year, and he met with top officials and spoke at the Moscow Conference on International Security. "Whether it is on Afghanistan, Syria, the Korean Peninsula, Ukraine or the Iranian nuclear issue, China will promote peace talks and help reach an international consensus," Li said at the conference. Putin also addressed the gathering via a prerecorded video on Tuesday, as Russia launched missile strikes across Ukraine.
The first ship left Odesa's port since Russia terminated the United Nations-backed Black Sea Grain Initiative. According to Ukraine's infrastructure minister, the container ship, carrying cargo including food, left the port on Aug. 16, bound for the Bosporus along the temporary corridor established for civilian vessels. It had been moored at the Odesa port since Feb. 23, 2022.
The total number of Ukrainian and Russian troop deaths and injuries in the Ukraine war is estimated at nearly 500,000, the New York Times reported, citing U.S. officials.
Russia's central bank increased interest rates from 8.5% to 12%, in an attempt to stabilize the ruble after the Russian currency tumbled past 100 to the U.S. dollar due to the sanctions Western countries have imposed over the invasion of Ukraine. The ruble has shed more than a third of its value this year.
Gene Spector, a Russian-born U.S. citizen imprisoned for bribery in Russia, is also being charged with espionage, Russian news agencies reported. A State Department spokesperson said the U.S. is "aware of reports of charges against a U.S. citizen in Russia" and is monitoring the situation.
Russian Gen. Gennady Zhidko, a senior Russian military leader, died "after a long illness," Russian officials said. Zhidko was briefly in charge of the military campaign in Ukraine before a series of setbacks on the battlefield during the summer of 2022 led to his removal.
In-depth
With a simple question, Ukrainians probe mental health at a time of war.
Remembering the Ukrainian musical duo the Similar Girls, killed by a Russian missile.
Russia is trying to recover from currency dip by hiking interest rates.
Women's professional soccer flourishes in Ukraine even as war touches some players.
Special report
Russia's war in Ukraine is changing the world: See our report on its ripple effects in all corners of the globe.
Earlier developments
You can read past recaps here. For context and more in-depth stories, you can find more of NPR's coverage here. Also, listen and subscribe to NPR's State of Ukraine podcast for updates throughout the day. | Europe Politics |
London will be first to be bombed in World War Three, says Russian TV propagandist as he rails against West and claims 'it's clear the threat to the world comes from the Anglo-Saxons'Andrey Gurulyov, a member of the defence committee, threatened NATO todayFears are growing that Russia could attack Lithuania, sparking global conflictGurulyov said if war breaks out with NATO, Putin will strike London first Published: 09:23 EDT, 24 June 2022 | Updated: 09:23 EDT, 24 June 2022 The Kremlin's propaganda machine has warned that London would be the first city bombed if a world war broke out, in Russia's latest sabre-rattling against the West.Andrey Gurulyov, a State Duma politician who is a close ally of Vladimir Putin, made the threat to Britain on the state-run Rossiya 1 channel.The doomsday warnings come amid renewed fears of the Ukraine war escalating into a global conflict due to NATO member Lithuania blocking sanctioned goods to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Gurulyov said the only way to prevent the blockade in a Russian invasion of NATO countries, which would trigger clause five and likely spark World War Three.He said: 'We'll destroy the entire group of enemy's space satellites during the first air operation. Andrey Gurulyov, a State Duma politician who is a close ally of Vladimir Putin, has threatened London 'No one will care if they are American or British, we would see them all as NATO.'Second, we'll mitigate the entire system of anti-missile defence, everywhere and 100 percent.'Third, we certainly won't start from Warsaw, Paris or Berlin. The first to be hit will be London.'The 54-year-old, who is a member of Russian parliament's defence committee, added: 'It's crystal clear that the threat to the world comes from the Anglo-Saxons.'As part of the operation to destroy critically important sites, Western Europe will be cut off from power supplies and immobilised.'All power supply sites will be destroyed. And in the third stage, I shall see what the USA will tell Western Europe on continuing their fight in the cold, without food and electricity. NATO member Lithuania blocked sanctioned goods to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, angering Putin Russian President Vladimir Putin makes a toast as he takes part in a virtual format at the opening ceremony of the BRICS Business Forum today'I wonder how they (the US) will manage to stay aside. This is the rough plan, and I deliberately leave out certain moments because they are not to be discussed on TV.'The general dismissed plans advocated by other Russian experts to snatch a corridor through Lithuania, to supply Kaliningrad which is wedged between NATO states Poland and Lithuania.The so-called 'Suvalkovsky Corridor' is from Belarus to Lithuania.He sees such a strategy as a Western trap because Putin's army would be flanked on two sides by NATO troops.'It's the desire of our Western partners that we clear the Suvalkovsky Corridor,' he said.'If you look at the map, it would be a big mistake from our side to make the corridor just to end up with NATO troops to the right and left… The Kholmogory cargo ship is seen moored at the port of St. Petersburg amid Lithuania's blockade'And we also need to pull Belarus into this…'Let's look at the map…'His strategy is to revert Lithuanian capital back to its former identity as Vilno, and Estonian capital Tallinn back to its tsarist identity as Reval.'We calmly….turn Vilnius back into Vilno, remind ourselves what is Reval [the tsarist name for Tallinn], and free up the right Baltic flank, so we don't worry that we can be hit from the back,' he told state TV.'From the military point of view it is impossible to get a clear corridor [through Lithuania],' he said.'But if the West decides to block the Kaliningrad region, a decision to carry out a strategic operation to unblock it will be taken.'But as a serviceman, I clearly understand that no-one will bother with just doing a corridor.'If we start working, we will work properly.'Everything will be cleared out, because why leave enemies behind your back?'Gurulyov is a former deputy commander of Russia's southern military district.He served with Russian forces in Syria.He has been sanctioned by the US for his close links to Putin.In February he was allegedly overheard on an intercepted call ordering subordinates to burn the homes of Ukrainians after throwing out families into the street.Such action would be a war crime. Advertisement | Europe Politics |
Rishi Sunak has said his "patience is worn thin" by stumbling blocks to his Rwanda asylum plan as he said the government was "finalising" legislation to push through the controversial deal.
The prime minister aims to salvage the scheme by signing a new treaty with the African country and introduce an emergency law to ensure the agreement is legally watertight following the Supreme Court defeat, but this has been delayed.
The policy, which will see some asylum seekers sent on a one-way trip to Rwanda instead of being able to try to stay in the UK, is seen by the government as central to its efforts to deter small boats crossing the English Channel.
Just hours after the Supreme Court ruled the plan unlawful on 15 November, Downing Street said measures would be brought forward in the "coming days" so deportation flights could take off "as soon as possible".
The holdup has angered right-wing Tory MPs, further fuelled by the new Home Secretary James Cleverly suggesting the scheme was not the "be all and end all" of the government's immigration approach.
But speaking in Dubai during his trip to the COP28 climate talks, Mr Sunak signalled legislation to pave the way for the asylum plan was imminent.
He said: "We're finalising that at the moment. And it's important that we get it right because this is such a vital issue.
"But I'm clear about the goal here - the goal is to make sure that parliament can declare unequivocally that on the basis of everything that we've done that Rwanda is a safe place to operationalise our scheme.
"Once we've done that and parliament's affirmed that, there should be no more domestic blocks to us putting in place this programme that we've been working on for a long time."
He added: "But I've also been clear that I won't allow a foreign court to block us from flights taking off.
"My patience is worn thin, the British people's patience is worn thin.
"And although we've made great progress on this issue - reducing the number of small boat crossings by a third this year, something that everyone thought was impossible when I got this job - we've got more to go.
"I want to finish the job and that's why I'll get the Rwanda scheme up and running."
Read more from Sky News:
Former chancellor Alistair Darling dies
Hancock: UK 'should've locked down 3 weeks earlier'
But the move faces stiff opposition at Westminster, particularly in the unelected House of Lords where the government does not have a majority.
The prime minister has been urged, including by sacked home secretary Suella Braverman, to adopt tough legislation that includes "notwithstanding" provisions that can prevent judges from applying protections in the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to asylum cases.
But government lawyers have reportedly warned instructing the courts to ignore the ECHR risks opening up more avenues for migrants to challenge the legality of deportation flights, on the grounds it would breach Britain's convention obligations. | United Kingdom Politics |
When future scholars take to writing the history of Rishi Sunak’s premiership perhaps they should begin with this week: a King’s Speech spurned, spiralling intra-party antagonism and, at the centre of the controversy — as ever — Suella Braverman.
The home secretary, of course, occupies a significant place in the still-unfurling Sunak story. During the fast-tracked October 2022 leadership contest, the Home Office was essentially surrendered to Braverman by the PM-to-be. At a time of heightened political psychodrama, Braverman and Sunak’s much-purported “pact” was an act of relative elegance. Conservative MPs were fumbling for a prime minister to fill the gap left by the Trussite interregnum; but here were two former opponents agreeing to put their differences aside in favour of mutually assured career development. Home Office keys to Braverman, No 10 to Sunak — “Granita pact”-esque.
Whether Braverman’s support was sufficient or necessary in Sunak’s successfull bid to burst the bring back Boris bubble is moot. But her appointment as home secretary sent important signals to the right-wing of the Conservative Party that Sunak would, in fact, pursue a “big tent” mode of governance — despite his support deriving mainly (and incongruously, as I have suggested before) from “one nation” MPs. Historians, then — less interested in the content of controversial Times op-eds than they are in the political environment in which they are created — will locate in this fateful episode the seeds of Sunak’s present tumult.
For any junior partner of a pre-ascension “deal”, the immediate windfall tends to be the creation of a personal fiefdom in government — with the rising minister reigning tyrannical in the desired department. Thus, Braverman, literally empowered by Sunak, sees fit to act essentially as secondus inter pares in government — freelancing at Nat Con, in Washington and in her Times article.
In this way, the real story here is far bigger than Braverman, a conclusion I’m sure posterity’s judgment will vindicate. Rather, it’s about Rishi Sunak’s ailing authority after a year of failing to revive his party’s dire polling prospects. It underlines that as we approach a general election, Conservative discipline is getting worse, not better; for as we edge closer to a national poll, so too do we creep inexorably closer to a potential post-Sunak leadership contest.
But let’s hone in on the home secretary: what does she stand to gain from the outbreak of disharmony in Conservative ranks? On the surface, she seems to want to scorch her party before she leads it.
Perhaps tellingly, Braverman’s loyal advocates have today assumed defensive formations. Miriam Cates cautions: “At this very serious time for our country, do we really think that the public are interested in who cleared what article or do they want to see leadership from our politicians?”.
Danny Kruger comes in: “Terrorist sympathisers are marching thru [sic] London calling for the destruction of the Jewish state while the police stand by — but hey let’s all focus on which version of an article was cleared by No 10. Can the media possibly please focus on the things that actually matter?”. (Notably, several other Braverman acolytes have shared similar Tweets, or issued analogous briefings to friendly journalists. The level of coordination would suggest that, (1), Braverman’s support base remains loyal and organised and, (2), they are worried about the future of their ideological standard-bearer).
For their part, Kruger and Cates are co-chairs of the “New Conservatives”, a faction which — together with the rump European Research Group — provides a rough outline of the extent of Braverman’s support in the party. It is usually suggested that Braverman’s support in the Conservative parliamentary party amounts to 40 or so MPs. In this way, while such individuals might be organisationally savvy, loud and backed by powerful media voices, is such a backbone of support enough for Braverman to emerge strengthened by a cabinet exit?
On top of this, the past few days have also exposed the level discord in the Conservative Party when it comes to the controversial home secretary. Ultimately, for every Miriam Cates or Danny Kruger, there are rather more Sir Bob Neills — the justice select committee chair who yesterday described the home secretary’s position as “untenable”.
And do not forget also: consecutive cabinet ministers in Alex Chalk, Claire Coutinho, Steve Barclay and, most recently, chancellor Jeremy Hunt have all refused to clearly back the home secretary over the last week. One unnamed cabinet minister even told the Times: “[Braverman] has been a totally useless minister and is now making the mistake of believing her own publicity. She is toast”.
When it comes to Conservative leadership contests, winning the support of senior colleagues is significant: Kemi Badenoch was bolstered by the patronage of Michael Gove in the summer 2022 leadership contest, for instance. As far as Braverman is concerned, is Sir John Hayes’ consummate support — devout though it is — really enough?
How might the Conservative Party figure factionally after an election?
This analysis begs a few other questions — including the matter of whether the ideological dynamics of the Conservative Party will alter, and shift rightwards, in the outcome of defeat in 2024. That is unlikely, according to new data from Survation and Royal Holloway; in fact, there seems to be no correlation between the size of an MP’s majority and their estimated position on left-right economic issues.
But here’s another pertinent point: the Conservative right’s political power and potency is borne of media-conspicuous, outspoken individuals — while the party’s one nation clique is strong on account of its sheer numerical weight.
This would suggest that a potential electoral pruning in 2024 (or 2025) bodes ill for Braverman’s long-term political prospects. Kruger, who boasts a 23,993 majority in Devizes will be safe; but I count few other New Conservatives who look set to survive an election defeat — even on a swing someway short of that currently forecast by the polls. The rump ERG will, all other things being equal, remain — but many of Braverman’s most prominent media supporters will be lost.
Competition on the Conservative right
On top of this, the prevailing view is that — in orchestrating her own downfall — Braverman will emerge stronger in her party, with a readily deployable betrayal narrative, ready for a future leadership contest. But is the still-home secretary really the far-and-away frontrunner for the mantle of right-wing candidate in a future leadership contest?
Of course, the home secretary’s most obvious competition for this is Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, who like Braverman is understood to be enduringly ambitious. Her performance at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference, an international gathering of conservatives, showed she has far from given up the fight for the right — in spite of upsetting ERGers on the Retained EU Law Act.
Meanwhile, Miriam Cates is another viewed as a rising star on the Conservative right, and her loyalty to Braverman could be tested if she continues to be touted as a potential leadership candidate. And if Cates’ majority of 7,210 doesn’t survive the next election, step up Danny Kruger — considered to be something of a party right intellectual and former political secretary to Boris Johnson.
Personalities aside, the key point here is that Braverman is going to emerge from her current travails with serious political baggage. A saintly martyr needs both a devout hagiographer as well as a mass following to transmit their story to posterity; Braverman seems to have the former — but does she have the latter? Indeed, a betrayal narrative might be concocted by her most ardent advocates; but the incessant briefing from critics yesterday and today shows she has alienated some powerful, very senior colleagues with her recent antics.
What do the Conservative membership think?
Another point worth raising is the question of how Conservative members will view Braverman’s recent manoeuvring. The Conservative membership is a frequently caricatured collective — and, in at least one sense, such curiosity is justified: they produced prime minister Liz Truss against the better instincts of their parliamentary representatives.
So step up Conservative Home’s “cabinet league table”, which samples the tastes of party members on all cabinet-attending Tories once a month. This collective consciousness of the Conservative Party is viewed as offering crucial hints as to its future ideological direction. And this week it noted that Suella Braverman had a 43.5 net satisfaction rating, down four points from the previous month — despite (or maybe because) of her criticism of multiculturalism, and conference performance. Ahead of her were veterans minister Johnny Mercer, leader of the House Penny Mordaunt, Badenoch and, topping the table, foreign secretary James Cleverly.
Where next for Suella Braverman?
In the end, it is clear Braverman now has several enemies in the Conservative parliamentary party — rather more than she did at the beginning of this week. Her continued presence in the headlines may in time expose that she is a more isolated figure than her media conspicuousness justifies.
Importantly, the relevance of these points is not conditional on whether Sunak sacks or saves Braverman. But that both the home secretary and the media are potentially overstating the still-home secretary’s political power might mean that if Sunak does sack her, the consequent intra-party feuding could, perhaps, be contained.
Step back, and the reason for this all round overestimation is a consequence of, (1), the fact that Sunak saw fit to empower her in October 2022 and, (2), the enduring quietude of the sleeping giant that is the Conservative one nation faction. Now, if those factors are both about to change, expect the mood music around the controversialist-in-chief Braverman to change, too.
Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here. | United Kingdom Politics |
Yury Vorobyov, a deputy speaker of Russia’s upper house of parliament, brought up the issue during a meeting of Armenian and Russian lawmakers held in the Siberian city of Irkutsk. He referred to the Armenian Constitutional Court’s decision in March to give the green light for parliamentary ratification of the treaty, also known as the Rome Statute.
“While we proceed from the assumption that this step by our Armenian partners does not have an anti-Russian subtext, in practice it is causing significant damage to Russian-Armenian relations,” Russian news agencies quoted Vorobyov as saying.
“We call on our allies to once again carefully consider the implications of joining the Rome Statute and assess potential risks to allied relations with Russia,” he told deputy speaker Hakob Arshakian and other pro-government members of the Armenian parliament attending the meeting.
According the Armenian parliament’s press office, Arshakian assured the Russian side that Yerevan’s plans to submit to the ICC’s jurisdiction are “in no way directed against Russia” and are aimed instead at “preventing Azerbaijani attacks on the sovereign territory of Armenia.”
Other Armenian officials made similar statements following the Constitutional Court ruling which came one week after the ICC issued the arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes allegedly committed by Russia in Ukraine. Moscow was not convinced by those assurances. It warned Yerevan later in March that the ratification of the Rome Statute is “absolutely unacceptable” and would have “extremely negative” consequences for bilateral ties.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s government appears to have ignored the warning, sending the treaty to the National Assembly for ratification late last month.
Arshakian revealed on Friday that “active discussions” on the matter are now underway between Armenian and Russian diplomats. He expressed confidence that a “legal solution acceptable to Armenia and Russia” will be found.
Independent legal experts believe that recognition of the ICC’s jurisdiction would require the Armenian authorities to arrest Putin and extradite him to The Hague tribunal if he visits the South Caucasus country.
Armenian opposition lawmakers have expressed serious concern over such a dramatic possibility, saying that it would ruin the country’s relationship with its key ally. One of them claimed in March that Pashinian engineered the Constitutional Court ruling to “please the West.” Most of the court’s current judges have been installed by Pashinian’s political team.
Russian-Armenian relations had already soured in the months leading up to the March ruling due to what Pashinian’s administration sees as a lack of Russian support for Armenia in the conflict with Azerbaijan.
Earlier this week, South Africa announced that Putin will not attend a summit of the BRICS nations in Johannesburg scheduled for August. South Africa is a signatory to the ICC treaty. | Europe Politics |
Boris Johnson has said he is not worried Conservative MPs could be plotting to remove him while he is out of the UK at the G7 summit.Speaking to broadcasters from Germany where the world leaders are convening, the prime minister said doubts over his premiership were "settled" after he survived a confidence vote "a couple of weeks ago".
The PM added that he is now "getting on with the agenda" and "the things that matter to people".He said this includes creating a stronger economy and reforming the country's supply side in energy, transport and housing.Politics latest: Tory backbenchers urge cabinet to move against PM Earlier this morning, George Eustice told Sky News that Mr Johnson still has the support of his cabinet despite one of his top team resigning last week.
Asked whether the PM has the full support of his cabinet, the environment secretary said: "We work as a team". 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 G7 summit: Zelenskyy to urge leaders to do more to help war effort as Johnson to demand action on Ukrainian grain Boris Johnson 'right person' to lead Tories into next general election, says cabinet minister Brandon Lewis He continued: "We have the support of the prime minister. The prime minister has our support."We work together and, you know, we stick together through difficult times."And even when, yes, you have very disappointing election results, as we undoubtedly did last Thursday, we have got an important agenda that we're working on - and that's what we're all focussed on."Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said Mr Johnson is capable of winning the next general election.It came after the PM said he was confident of winning the next election and was "thinking actively" about a third term, despite recent political turmoil."I am thinking actively about the third term and what could happen then. But I will review that when I get to it," Mr Johnson told reporters on the final day of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kigali, Rwanda. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player PM has full support of the cabinet? A Downing Street source later suggested he may have been joking.The last few days alone saw the resignation of cabinet minister Oliver Dowden, after the Tories lost their former stronghold of Tiverton and Honiton to the Liberal Democrats and the red wall seat of Wakefield to Labour.The electoral beatings have reignited questions within the Conservative Party over Mr Johnson's leadership.Standing down as Tory co-chairman in the wake of the losses early on Friday morning, Mr Dowden said he and Conservative supporters were "distressed and disappointed by recent events" and told Mr Johnson that "someone must take responsibility".Speaking to Trevor Phillips on Sky News' Sophy Ridge On Sunday programme, Mr Lewis also acknowledged the party had suffered "a bad set of results" but said Mr Johnson is "the right person to take us into the next general election"."I think he will do that successfully," he continued."He's proven that time and again, where people have written him off, both before London elections and before in the 2019 election, and then we've been able to come back and win, and win successfully. And I think he's got the ability to do that."Mr Lewis also argued the PM looking to the long term was an asset."Having that ability to look forward is a good thing. This is somebody I think who is capable of winning a general election, delivering for our country," he said."I want a prime minister who's looking at the long term, and doing so with enthusiasm and focus."That's what we've got in Boris Johnson and that's why I support him, and will continue to." Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player PM has 'zest and enthusiasm The PM is meeting counterparts at the G7 summit in Germany on the latest leg of a series of international visits as questions loom over his premiership.Asked in Rwanda if he believed questions over his leadership were settled, Mr Johnson replied: "Yes."But Labour has challenged the Conservatives to call an early general election, with leader Sir Keir Starmer telling Mr Johnson to: "Bring it on." | United Kingdom Politics |
German chancellor Olaf Scholz has argued the world is more unified in its support for Ukraine than Russia suggests, as the war dominated a G7 meeting also tasked with crises in food supply, the climate emergency and a breakdown in global order.“We must not walk into the trap Putin sets of asserting that the world is divided into the global west – the G7 and its friends in the north – and all the rest. That’s not true,” Scholz told Germany’s ZDF television.“There are democracies all over the world and they have very similar perspectives,” added Scholz, who is hosting this week’s summit of the smaller Group of Seven industrial powers.In a bid to prevent the G7 from being seen as a rich man’s club obsessed only by a war in Europe, Scholz had invited five counterparts from South Africa, India, Argentina, Senegal and Indonesia to join the discussion on world hunger, development and the environment.However, his appeal was weakened by the fact that only 90 minutes were set aside at the summit to discuss food, health and climate. Discussion of debt or the injection of new ‘Special Drawing Rights’ funds, two issues of central concern to Africa, were absent, now largely seen as issues to be discussed by the wider G20 later this year.Green groups also complained that climate crisis commitments in the draft G7 communique risk being watered down, especially the passages on ending public sector investment in gas, and a commitment to zero-emission vehicles.None of the visiting leaders have been enthusiastic about the war in Ukraine, and especially not for its effect on their economies already battered by Covid and the climate crisis. Three of them abstained from the war in the key UN security council vote.The president of Senegal, Macky Sall, as chair of the Africa Union, has warned the poorest countries are “caught between the hammer of war and the anvil of sanctions”. The Indonesian president, Joko Widodo, and current chair of the G20, has advocated a ceasefire and offered himself as a mediator in the conflict.Cyril Ramaphosa, the president of South Africa, has avoided criticism of Vladimir Putin, taking aim instead at the west for not adhering to “the principles of solidarity and cooperation when it comes to equitable access to vaccines”.The Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, has frustrated the west by buying Russian oil at discount prices and suddenly imposing a ban on wheat exports. The fifth guest, Alberto Angel Fernandez, the president of Argentina, the world’s sixth-largest wheat exporter facing 60% inflation, has also increased levies on food exports. None of them seemed taken by Scholz’s argument of a war between democrats and autocrats.One of the problems is a weariness in Africa about the G7’s failure to deliver on pledges made in long-forgotten G7 communiques. The last time G7 leaders met in 2015, they pledged “to lift 500 million people in developing countries out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030”. Oxfam pointed out “when the goals were set in 2015 there were 630 million in hunger, as of 2021 this figure is thought to be 950 million”.In the critical diplomacy over the food crisis, the west has belatedly gone on the offensive by insisting that it is Putin, and not western sanctions, that are responsible for the collapse in grain exports, and spiralling prices.But Russia has counter-propaganda claiming its food exports are hampered by EU sanctions, something Brussels denies. The complex negotiations on reaching an agreement on safe passage for grain convoys, overseen by Turkey and the UN, have lasted a month, and some countries on the brink of starvation want a solution.The G7 is also aware that it is no longer the only game in town. China in concert with Russia is all too willing to expand its rival Brics club – which includes Brazil, India and South Africa – to attract more countries away from the western orbit and so create two rival multilateral orders. China has created a Brics Plus group of countries inviting foreign ministers from Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Thailand.In a sign of G7’s need to compete, its leaders signalled they are unlikely to create a vacuum for China to fill by boycotting the scheduled November meeting of the G20 – the group of major economies that also includes Russia.Scholz said the west has no intention to “torpedo” the G20. Meanwhile, EU Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen has said: “We have to think very carefully about whether we paralyse the entire G20, I’m not advocating it. In my opinion, the G20 is too important, also for the developing countries, the emerging countries, for us to let it be destroyed by Putin.” | Europe Politics |
U.S. President Joe Biden meets with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson alongside the G7 leaders summit at Bavaria's Schloss Elmau, near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany June 28, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan ErnstRegister now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comGARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN, Germany, June 28 (Reuters) - G7 leaders have agreed to study placing price caps on imports of Russian oil and gas to try to limit Moscow's ability to fund its invasion of Ukraine, G7 officials said on Tuesday.The European Union will explore with international partners ways to curb energy prices, including the feasibility of introducing temporary import price caps, a section of the final G7 communique seen by Reuters said. The officials said this meant both oil and gas.The Group of Seven rich nations have been debating a global price cap for Russian energy to prevent Moscow profiting from its invasion of Ukraine, which has sharply raised oil and gas prices.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comRussian oil export revenues climbed in May even though sanctions reduced its export volumes, the International Energy Agency said in its June monthly report. read more The United States was the first to call for a mechanism that would cap the price other countries pay for Russian oil.The idea is to tie financial services, insurance and the shipping of oil cargoes to a cap on Russian oil prices. So if a shipper or importer wanted these services, they would have to commit to the Russian oil being sold for a set maximum price.Italy, whose economy is reliant on Russian energy, pushed to extend the price cap to gas.Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi last week warned of the need to tackle energy prices to contain inflation and said the main objection to a gas cap from fellow Europeans was fear it could lead Russia to reduce supplies further. read more France has said the price cap mechanism should extend beyond Russian products to reduce prices more broadly, including for the G7 nations that are looking to source energy from elsewhere.Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.comReporting by Angelo Amante and Philip Blenkinsop; editing by Sarah Marsh and Barbara LewisOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | Europe Politics |
AP-Felipe Dana Ukrainian servicemen walk among debris of damaged buildings after a Russian attack in Kharkiv, Ukraine, Saturday, April 16, 2022. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana) Human rights group Amnesty International said on Monday they have documented 28 indiscriminate Russian strikes in Kharkiv, Ukraine that have killed and injured hundreds of civilians, arguing the attacks constitute war crimes. Amnesty said civilians have been killed while queuing for humanitarian aid, walking by a playground, visiting loved ones’ graves and sitting outside their homes. “The continued use of such inaccurate explosive weapons in populated civilian areas, in the knowledge that they are repeatedly causing large numbers of civilian casualties, may even amount to directing attacks against the civilian population,” Amnesty concluded. The group called for institutions with jurisdiction to take “immediate steps” to collect and preserve evidence of the alleged war crimes, arguing that the International Criminal Court (ICCC) is the “most immediately viable forum” for the investigation. “Amnesty International calls for justice processes to be as comprehensive as possible, ensuring that allperpetrators are brought to justice through independent, impartial and fair trials for all crimes underinternational law,” the group said. Amnesty also called on the Ukrainian military to cease operating in residential neighborhoods to protect civilians. The group interviewed 160 people and investigated 41 strikes in the northeastern Ukrainian city over 14 days in April and May. Amnesty’s 44-page report offers chilling accounts of civilians who were killed, had limbs amputated or suffered serious injuries as Russia shelled the city for two months, before Moscow’s focus shifted to other regions of Ukraine. The Kharkiv Regional Military Administration’s medical department director told Amnesty that 606 civilians had been killed and 1,248 injured in the Kharkiv area as of April 28. Ivan Litvynyenko, 40, told Amnesty several cluster munitions exploded in a Kharkiv playground on April 15 as he was walking with his wife and their four-year-old daughter. Litvynyenko’s wife died on June 11. “When my daughter saw her mum on the ground in a pool of blood, she said to me, ‘let’s go home; mum is dead and the people are dead,’” Litvynyenko told Amnesty. “She was in shock and so was I.” Amnesty said another cluster munition attack on March 24 killed six and injured 15 people. The munitions largely struck a parking lot outside a post office where hundreds of people were queuing for humanitarian aid. Explosions also rained down at a supermarket entrance about 400 feet away and a nearby pet food shop, according to Amnesty. “Now I am too scared to go out or to stay anywhere above ground,” 45-year-old post office employee Sasha told Amnesty. “So I’m not staying in my apartment. I’m living in the metro station. I can’t get over the fear.” Amnesty said two cluster munitions also exploded on the roof of Holy Trinity Church, a separate humanitarian hub, destroying rooms and a hallway where a dozen people had been standing minutes earlier. In a series of cluster submunition explosions on April 26 in the Saltivka neighborhood, Amnesty said Russia’s blasts killed three and injured six. Cancer survivor Olena Sorokina, 57, lost both her legs in the attacks while sitting outside her building waiting for a humanitarian aid delivery. “After the battle with cancer, now I have to face another battle to learn to function without legs,” she told Amnesty. | Europe Politics |
Tactical voting: How much can the Lib Dems help Labour, and vice versa?
Several sharp minds have noticed an important sea change in opposition politics: Labour and Liberal Democrat voters are coming together. As Ben Ansell notes in a recent analysis of how voters divide up, “there is a huge strategic opportunity for a Lib-Lab pact. The parties’ bases differ in their emphasis... But they are both firmly in the [same political space]…with people switching between them like bored Tinder users.” Paula Surridge has noticed that a lot of voters who are flirting with Labour now have backed the Lib Dems in the past . And John Curtice has suggested that, as in the mid 1990s, the government is now so unpopular with some parts of the electorate that voters “will take whatever stick is available to beat it with.”
The current context should encourage tactical switching between Labour and the Lib Dems. The two parties are close together on most issues, supporters of each realise this and regard the other as an acceptable second choice. And many supporters in both camps regard removing the Conservatives as a priority.
This could matter a lot at the next contest, in part because none of this was true in 2019. Many Lib Dem leaning voters were hostile to Jeremy Corbyn, suspicious of Labour’s Brexit policy and opposed to many of the opposition’s big spending commitments. The legacy of Clegg and Coalition left many 2019 Labour voters wary of the Lib Dems, and doubtful of the party’s progressive credentials. Conservative Remainers who disliked Boris Johnson were put off tactical voting for the Lib Dems by fear the smaller party would let Jeremy Corbyn into office. As a result there are a lot of voters who didn’t see much merit in tactical co-ordination then, but may see and respond to tactical incentives now. There are often many third placed Lib Dem votes to squeeze in Conservative-Labour marginals, and lots of third placed Labour votes to squeeze in Conservative-Lib Dem marginals. This creates real potential for tactical voting to impact the election result.
Tactical gains 1: Seats Labour could pick up with Lib Dem help
How big could this impact be? Lets’ start with Conservative vs Labour marginals, where the Lib Dems are in third place (or lower). Many of these seats are tight enough that they will fall anyway if the tide goes out for the Tories, whatever happens with tactical voting. We want to focus on the places where tactical voting can tip the balance after accounting for the likely overall swing. To do that, I apply a uniform national swing of ten points to Labour (so Conservatives down ten, Labour up ten, everywhere). All other parties’ shares are left constant. I also focus only on England and Wales - the tactical voting situation in Scotland is very different, and is something I’ll return to in a future post. Finally, this is all done on the constituency boundaries that applied in 2019. New boundaries are coming in for the next election, and will introduce further complications. We will return to these another time.
A ten point swing is lower than the implied swing in the current polls, but taking a lower figure is consistent with the historical tendency for governing parties to recover some ground as election day approaches - a tendency which is stronger for Conservative governments:
A ten point England and Wales only swing also delivers an evenly divided Commons, one where tactical voting would therefore have the biggest political impact by altering the balance of power. Applying such a uniform swing in England and Wales, and changing nothing else, gets us to 307 Labour seats, 250 Conservative seats and Lib Dems on 23 seats: a hung Parliament, with Labour around 15-25 seats short of a working majority.How much could tactical voting change this picture?
First, I look at the most marginal Conservative-Labour contests in our new Commons and see what share of the third place Lib Dem vote would need to go Labour for each seat to fall. This gives us a sense of how many extra seats Labour could in theory gain through ‘loaned’ Lib Dem votes, and what level of tactical voting they would need to deliver each gain. Table 1 presents the results, ranked by the share of the 2019 Liberal Democrat vote Labour would need to secure to win the seat.
Table 1: Extra seats Labour could gain with tactical Liberal Democrat votes in a 10 point uniform swing scenario
Tactical voting can indeed make a difference in quite a lot of seats. I have divided the table into three categories. The first category, in dark green, is the lowest hanging fruit: seats Labour could gain by winning a quarter or less of the 2019 Liberal Democrat vote. Even a modest level of tactical voting enables Labour to defeat an extra five Conservative incumbents, including several prominent figures - Grants Shapps, Chris Philip and Conor Burns.
The medium green indicates seats which would fall if between a quarter and a half of local 2019 Lib Dem supporters tactically switched to Labour, along with a 10 point Con-Lab swing. Labour’s gains now rise to fifteen seats, and the opposition fell some further big beasts including Jacob Rees-Mogg and Liam Fox. Finally, the light green adds in seats Labour could gain by squeezing between half and three quarters of the Lib Dem vote - this adds in another 11 seats where the Conservative incumbent could be vulnerable to an intensive and unusually successful tactical voting squeeze.
All told, more than 20 additional Conservative seats would be vulnerable with large scale Lib Dem to Labour tactical voting on top of a ten point swing. These extra seats could be crucial in a tight contest - indeed in our current scenario they would take Labour from minority to majority status in the Commons.
Tactical gains 2: Seats the Lib Dems could pick up with Labour help
The Lib Dems also stand to gain by squeezing third placed Labour votes, but they can also benefit by diverting some of the national Conservative to Labour swing their way. Disgruntled Tory voters may switch to the Lib Dems rather than Labour when the former are best placed to defeat a local Conservative incumbent. Disaffected socially liberal, Remain leaning Tory voters who refused to back the Lib Dems in 2019 due to the risk of letting Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street do not have the same anxiety about the prospect of a Keir Starmer led government.
To estimate Lib Dem tactical voting opportunities, I start with the same ten point national Conservative to Labour swing as before. But now, in seats where the Lib Dems came second, I make a second adjustment. The Conservatives still lose ten points, but in these seats the ten point gain is split evenly between Labour and the Lib Dems. I therefore assume about half of the Conservative to Labour swing voters vote tactically for the Lib Dems where it makes sense to do so locally. This step alone is enough to deliver five extra seats to the Lib Dems, all in London and its surrounding suburbs - Cities of London and Westminster, Finchley and Golders Green, Hitchin and Harpenden, Wokingham and Surrey South West - Jeremy Hunt’s seat, where the Lib Dem vote rose by a whopping 29 points in 2019.
Having handed local Lib Dems half of the national swing, we now repeat the same exercise as before - ranking seats in terms of what proportion of the third placed Labour vote would need to tactically switch to put the Lib Dems over the top. Table 2 shows the seats in play.
Table 1: Extra seats the Lib Dems could gain with tactical Labour votes in a 5 point Con to Lib Dem swing scenario
The Lib Dems can put an extra half a dozen seats in play in this scenario by winning over a quarter or less of the third placed Labour vote. Top of the list is Sutton and Cheam, where I grew up. Tactical voting helped defeat my local Conservtive MP in 1997, the first of many elections I have stayed up all night to watch. Even a modest tactical swing in 2024 could be enough for history to repeat 27 years later. Bigger squeezes could deliver further gains, with a total of thirteen seats available to the Lib Dems if they can persuade three quarters of local Labour voters to switch, including David Cameron’s former seat of Witney.
The Lib Dems start with 23 seats in our scenario, gaining a dozen seats on 2019 just from the national swing against the Tories. If half the anti-Tory swing is diverted to Lib Dem challengers, they pick up another five seats. Squeezing third placed Labour votes could deliver another ten or more on top of this, putting them close to 40 seats.
Putting our sums together, what do we get? Without tactical voting, we have a very hung House of Commons - with Labour on 307 and the Lib Dems on 23, the two parties combined would have 330 - a very narrow and unstable majority of 10. But if half of the voters with the strongest incentives to vote tactically loan their votes to the strongest local challenger, then these figures rise to Labour 322, Lib Dems 38, two parties combined 360. Labour are now very narrowly short of a majority, while Labour and Lib Dems combined have a solid majority of 70. If Labour and Lib Dem voters co-ordinate effectively at the local level, they could enable their parties to form a dominant alliance at Westminster.
When would tactical voting matter most?
So far we have taken one fixed national scenario - a ten point Labour to Conservative swing - and looked at what outcomes tactical voting could influence given that swing. But what happens when we vary the swing? When would tactical voting matter most? We once again need to break this down into two aspects. For tactical voting by third placed Lib Dems in Conservative-Labour contests, I applied national swings varying from 5 points to 15 points in England and Wales, took at look at the new winners in each seat, then took at look at how many additional seats Labour would win if they could bring over half of the local third placed Lib Dems. The results are in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Labour seat totals at different levels of swing in England and Wales, without tactical voting (dark bars) and with 50% tactical switching by Lib Dems (light bars)
Labour can make substantial gains from tactical voting at every level of swing. The extra seats on offer vary from 13 to 20 seats through most of the range, but then really take off at the top end. In the event of a landslide level Labour swing of 14 or 15 points in England and Wales, large scale tactical switching from the Lib Dems could deliver 30 extra seats or more, turning a solid Commons majority into a dominant majority, and reducing the Conservatives to well below 200 seats.
Looking at how tactical voting impacts on Lib Dem seat totals requires some extra steps. I start by varying the Conservative to Labour swing, as before. Then, as in the first exercise, I divert half of that swing to the Liberal Democrats in the seats where they are local challengers to the Conservatives. Finally, I also give the Lib Dems half of the third placed Labour vote in those seats. This way we can see how both aspects of tactical switching - Conservative to Lib Dem and Labour to Lib Dem - impact on Lib Dem prospects at each level of swing.
Figure 2: Lib Dem seat totals at different levels of swing in England and Wales, without tactical voting (dark bars) with 50% tactical switching by Conservative switchers in Con-LD seats (medium bars) and with 50% tactical switching by both Con switchers and 3rd place Lab voters (lightest bars)
The gains the Lib Dems can make from tactical switching increase as the overall swing increases. This is in part by design - larger swings mean my model diverts more disaffected Tories into the Lib Dem column in Con-LD contests. But this also reflects a real feature of the current polling landscape - right now, the big change since 2019 is a large swing from Conservative to Labour, with the Lib Dems treading water in national polls. Lib Dem performance on election day will depend heavily on getting swing voters to behave differently in seats where they are the local challenger. Convincing unhappy former Tories and third place Labour supporters that the Lib Dems are “winning here” brings double digit seat gains once the national Con-Lab swing hits 8 points. If high levels of tactical voting combine with a massive anti-Conservative national swing, the Lib Dems could gain 20 or more MPs, an advance not see since 1997, which was also the last election with both of these features.
All of this modelling involves a bunch of simplifying assumptions - a uniform swing applied everywhere with no personal votes or local variations, and uniform rates of tactical voting regardless of local circumstances and campaigning. These are of course unrealistic - the real results will be more complex and variable than this. But this simple toy model is useful for getting a handle on how much tactical co-ordination between Labour and Lib Dem voters might matter in different election scenarios. It matters a lot, potentially delivering dozens of extra Conservative gains. These could be more than sufficient to change the political outcome in a closely divided Commons.
Nor is Lab-Lib Dem tactical co-ordination the only form of tactical shift with the potential to impact outcomes. Scottish Conservative leader recently suggested Scottish Conservative voters should “do what is best for the country” and back “the strongest candidate to beat the SNP”. Such Unionist tactical voting could prove very important in many Scottish seats with modest SNP majorities and fragmented opposition votes. ReformUK leader Richard Tice has also vowed to reverse his predecessor Nigel Farage’s 2019 decision not to stand candidates in Conservative held seats. This means new ReformUK candidates could appear to split the Conservative vote in such seats, even as opposition votes are coalescing. I will consider the potential impact of unionist tactical voting, and of local right splits, in future posts.
In theory, in a 650 seat House of Commons, a party has a majority once it reaches 325 seats. In practice things are a bit more complicated - Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats, while the Speaker of the House and the three deputy speakers do not participate either. Very narrow majorities are also not much different from hung parliaments in practice, as they are hostage to tiny rebellions and to events such as death and scandal which can and very often do reduce a governing party’s effective number of votes. The point where a ‘working majority’ which enables governments to get legislation passed is therefore often a bit fuzzy, hence the use of a range | United Kingdom Politics |
Subsets and Splits