An MP has faced calls to resign as chair of a local charity for older people after she backed the government’s plans to cut the Winter Fuel Payment.

Labour’s Liz Twist, Blaydon and Consett, who is chair of the board of trustees at Age UK Gateshead, voted with her party to restrict the payment to the poorest pensioners.

A number of constituents have emailed the charity calling for her removal, with one telling the BBC she felt it was “hypocritical” she stayed, as she represents “one of the poorest parts of country”.

Twist said she would work with the charity to ensure “every pensioner is in receipt of their full entitlement”. The charity said it was “advocating against the government’s decision”.

One resident, who did not want to be named, told the BBC: “I feel the government has set the threshold just right so that it excludes millions who fall slightly over the criteria meaning they are still in fuel poverty and will need to decide between heating and eating.

“Given she [Twist] is a North East MP, representing one of the poorest parts of the country, I feel it’s very hypocritical for her to hold this position and it’s disappointing that she did not vote against the removal of the Winter Fuel Payment.”

Both Age UK Gateshead and Twist’s office said rumours she had resigned from the charity role were untrue.

Twist, who as Sir Keir Starmer’s Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) acts as the prime minister’s “eyes and ears” among backbench MPs, said the values and aims of Age UK Gateshead remained close to her heart.

“As a government, it is crucial to ensure that we can fix the foundations of our economy and deliver on the promise of change,” she said.

A spokesperson for the Age UK Gateshead said its trustees maintain “the highest standards of impartiality in their work”.

“Age UK Gateshead is fully aligned with the older people we support in advocating against the government’s decision to means test Winter Fuel Payments,” they said.

It added it was working alongside the national arm of the charity to highlight “the huge impact” the decision “is likely to have on older people”.

Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 18 months after admitting contempt of court by repeating false claims against a Syrian refugee.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, admitted 10 breaches of a High Court order made in 2021 during a hearing in Woolwich Crown Court.

Lawyers for the solicitor general accused Robinson, 41, of “undermining” the rule of law.

Barristers for Robinson said it was his “principles that have brought him before the court”.

The hearing on Monday was the culmination of events that date back to October 2018.

That month, a video went viral showing how Jamal Hijazi, a Syrian in West Yorkshire, had been attacked by another teenager at school.

Yaxley-Lennon then posted his own response to one million Facebook followers alleging that his investigation had established that Mr Hijazi was a violent thug, a claim that was untrue.

The Yaxley-Lennon video spread widely and the Syrian teenager and his family received death threats.

Three years later, Mr Hijazi won £100,000 in damages when the High Court ruled the Yaxley-Lennon’s claims against him had amounted to defamation.

The court imposed an injunction on Yaxley-Lennon, banning him from making the false claims again.

In February 2023, Yaxley-Lennon began repeating the claims and went on to post online a film claiming he had been “silenced” by the state.

That film may have been viewed at least 47 million times.

Eventually, this July, Yaxley-Lennon showed the film to thousands of his supporters in Trafalgar Square, saying he would not be silenced. The following day he left the country.

Aidan Eardley KC, for the solicitor general, told the court that Yaxley-Lennon had intended to repeat the false allegations, despite the injunction, and then take “evasive” measures.

“This is a high culpability case because of the high number of breaches,” said Mr Eardley.

“It is a continuing breach, the material is still out there and some of it is under the defendant’s control.”

Sasha Wass KC, for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, said he was a journalist who had been following his principles and was a passionate believer in free speech.

“This defendant has been neither sly nor dishonest nor seeking gain for himself,” she said.

She said that he was such a controversial figure he may be placed in solitary confinement by prison governors, as had occurred the last time he had been jailed, and there was medical evidence he had previously suffered trauma, panic attacks and nightmares.

Jailing Yaxley-Lennon for 18 months, Mr Justice Johnson said: “In a democratic society underpinned by the rule of law, court orders must be obeyed.

“Nobody is above the law. Nobody can pick or choose which laws or which injunctions they obey, or which they do not.

“Even if they believe that an injunction is… contrary to their views they must comply with the injunction.

“They are not entitled to set themselves up as the judge in their own court. Otherwise the administration of justice and rule of law would break down.”

The judge said that the contempt of court had been aggravated because the defendant had repeated the claims after the beginning of proceedings against him – and he had not taken steps to stop the false claims continuing to be in circulation.

The sentence could in future be cut by four months if the defendant showed the court that he had taken steps to remove the offending film.

But the judge added: “The defendant has not shown any inclination to comply with the injunction in the future. All of his actions suggest that he regards himself as above the law.”

This case was the fourth contempt case he has faced, having previously received a suspended sentence and a six-month jail term.

Yaxley-Lennon has been separately charged with failing to unlock his phone for police when he was stopped and questioned at a port under counter-terrorism powers. He will next appear in court in relation to that allegation in November.

“To everyone’s astonishment, the vulgar insurgent has won!”

So wrote a British foreign minister in his diaries on 9 November 2016 after Donald Trump unexpectedly beat Hillary Clinton to the White House.

“This looked remarkably like an abuse of power.”

So wrote the then prime minister in her memoirs after waking up to realise that a Trump-led Washington had said US troops would be pulled out of the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria “without any reference to the UK and other nations whose troops were operating alongside them”.

Sir Alan Duncan and Theresa May are the authors of these remarks which the present prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, would do well to note as he ponders what difference a Trump or Kamala Harris presidency could make to the so-called special relationship between the UK and the US.

“Dealing with Donald Trump and his administration was like dealing with no other world leader,” writes the now Lady May in her book reflecting on her career.

“He was an American president like no other.”

There will be challenges, too, if the Democratic vice-president wins. She has yet to meet Sir Keir and has shown limited affinity for Europe – but she will be a vastly more conventional president than her rival.

On the off-chance that Sir Keir thought things might be different this time if Trump wins next week, the last few days showed him otherwise.

The accusation of election interference made by the Trump campaign, courtesy of an, at best, foolishly written LinkedIn post blew up into a transatlantic spat.

“This needs to be seen for what it is. It’s happened every election, every political party does it,” Sir Keir told me, in reference to people volunteering to work for one side or the other in American elections.

But the difference was obvious. On previous occasions it hasn’t caused an almighty row.

It was a reminder that Team Trump can be brash, unpredictable and have a long memory for perceived slights – and don’t appear to really give a stuff about their relationship with the British government.

What on earth might happen to the UK’s most cherished overseas partnership if he wins?

Until the row in the past week, things had, on the face of it, been going well for the new prime minister and US relations.

A few weeks ago Sir Keir and Foreign Secretary David Lammy were in New York to meet the former president, with me accompanying them.

Teetering on a pavement on Fifth Avenue with the 58-storey Trump Tower behind me, we were trying to perfect the angle for broadcast so the garish gold lettering spelling out “TRUMP TOWER” was visible to viewers, even if a giant lorry barrelled down the road as I started talking.

I think we managed it. But a similar balancing act faced the two men – they were in New York for the United Nations General Assembly but much of the chat on the trip was not about them meeting one of the world leaders present but whether they could get time with a candidate hoping to become one, Donald Trump.

And they did get that meeting – which tells you rather a lot about the work British diplomats in America and London have been putting in and the determination of Sir Keir and Mr Lammy to build bridges with the man who may be president again before long.

The prime minister later told me on BBC’s Newscast that “we both wanted to ensure we have a good relationship”.

“It’s up to me as prime minister to make sure I have a good relationship with whoever the president is,” he said.

“I believe strongly in personal relations. Have the ability to, as necessary, pick up the phone to them to sort out issues or talk about issues. So it was a good dinner and I’m really glad that we managed to do it.”

Glad, no doubt at least in part, because of the buckets full of disobliging quotes there are about Trump, not least from David Lammy, who once described his host as a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath” and a “tyrant in a toupee”.

There are no shortage of verbal skeletons in Labour’s cupboard about the man who could soon be back in the Oval Office.

In policy terms, a Trump presidency would likely bring rapid change – on climate change, on international trade (whacking up import taxes, tariffs) and on Ukraine.

Unlike a Harris administration, they would likely offer the UK a free trade deal, but it seems unlikely the terms of it would tempt London to sign up.

So what of Trump’s Democratic rival, the vice-president Kamala Harris?

Diplomatic niceties suggest if you meet one candidate in a foreign election contest, you meet the other one too.

But that isn’t likely to happen with Harris, despite Sir Keir visiting America three times since July.

No 10 blames the pressures on the vice-president’s diary in an election campaign.

It is worth stating the obvious too – while Sir Keir and Harris have never met, she is a vastly more known quantity and far more likely to be conventional in her approach to high office than her rival.

And Sir Keir has gone out of his way to spend a lot of time with President Biden in the last four months, including two trips to the White House and a recent meeting in Berlin.

An imperfect way of getting a sense of how his vice-president might govern – and with no opportunity to build a personal relationship – but not entirely useless at getting something of a handle on it.

Oh and it is worth making a very big picture point too – whoever wins. Increasingly, America’s focus is on the rise of the east and in particular China. Europe matters less to Washington than it did and that holds true whatever the result.

And so Westminster and the world awaits.

Whatever happens, expect the conversation to quickly turn to if and when the prime minister gets an early invite to Washington in the new year.

There will be a queue of leaders heading to the White House.

And what about a state visit to the UK – as Donald Trump revelled in, in 2019 – for a returning president like no other or for America’s first woman president?

Let’s see.

Between now and the US election on 5 November, BBC correspondents around the world are exploring the impact its outcome could have where they are, and what people around the globe make of this White House race.