Connect with us
DAPA Banner
DAPA Coin
DAPA
COIN PAYMENT ASSET
PRIVACY · BLOCKDAG · HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION · RUST
ElGamal Encrypted MINE DAPA
🚫 GENESIS SOLD OUT
DAPAPAY COMING

Politics

Wings Over Scotland | Ping-Pong-Fiddle-Aye-No

Published

on

Alert readers will have found it hard not to notice that Wings is currently focused on trying to solve one mystery above all others: why nobody in Scotland has been prosecuted for a massive theft of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which happened in open sight, beyond any dispute, and has been openly admitted by someone who was there at the time.

Until this week, nobody in the two organisations responsible for criminal prosecutions in the country – Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (the Crown Office or COPFS for short) had issued any sort of explanation why the original Operation Branchform investigation apparently fell by the wayside when it led police to discover a second crime: that of embezzlement against the SNP by its then-Chief Executive, Peter Murrell.

But this week, with very little fanfare, the BBC quietly put out two extended interviews with senior representatives of those organisations, seemingly the unused footage from their half-hour televised documentary “Peter Murrell: The Man With The Money”.

The first was with Police Scotland’s Deputy Chief Constable, Stuart Houston.

Advertisement

?

The second was with the shadowy figure of John Logue, a Crown Agent at COPFS.

?

You can watch them in their entirety above, although we don’t particularly recommend it – they’re both pretty dull, and largely concerned with the embezzlement case, about which they provide no dramatic new revelations.

Advertisement

But both also touch on (the lack of) prosecutions over the original complaint. So what happened when the BBC’s Glenn Campbell brought the subject up?

?

Campbell admirably persists for several minutes, but Houston refuses to be drawn on any sort of answer other than that Police Scotland passed the question on to COPFS for “advice and guidance”, and when given several opportunities to confirm Sturgeon’s claim that she was “completely exonerated” by his force, steadfastly refuses to say whether the police wanted a prosecution or not.

Now without wishing to be rude to DCC Houston, much of what he says is barely in comprehensible English sentences, so let’s get it down in writing and tidy up all the ums and emms and ehs and see what it looks like.

Advertisement

GLENN CAMPBELL: Why was Nicola Sturgeon not reported for prosecution?

STUART HOUSTON: So again, part of the police investigation we’ve commented upon that Nicola Sturgeon was subject to arrest and interview during the investigation, as was Colin Beattie. The circumstances of those arrests, the information that the police held was all subject of [an] Advice And Guidance Report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, where it was laid out what their involvement or what their position was in relation to any crime. And –

GC: Did she do anything wrong?

SH: The police, you know, and I suppose for me to say that we report the circumstances to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service [to] allow them to make the decision whether someone is prosecuted. For us, we put in the circumstances to allow them to make an informed decision –

GC: You didn’t recommend prosecution in her case?

Advertisement

SH: We didn’t make any recommendations to prosecute or otherwise, our role is to report the circumstances.

GC: Well, the Crown are very clear that they accepted your recommendation that there was not enough evidence for a prosecution. Is that correct?

SH: So, our our role is to report all the circumstances to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to everything that’s happened. You know, whether that be any investigation and not necessarily unique to this inquiry. We then seek advice and guidance what way they think that that should go. It is their decision in relation to the prosecution of cases.

GC: Were you happy to leave it at that?

Advertisement

SH: Again, we we act and work in conjunction with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and we have to do that, and the fact is that we are there to act on their behalf to carry out investigations, and it’s essential that we work together and reach agreement on certain things to make sure how we take things forward, whether about progressing to get warrants etc.

So as I say we report the circumstances and again it is for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to assess that as well and provide any advice and direction.

GC: And just one last thing on that – were you in agreement with the Crown that there was no case to pursue that might lead to a prosecution?

SH: So again, our line was very much “Here is all the evidence that we have collated as much as we could find”. Our job is not to to have that final decision. Our job –

Advertisement

GC: But hang on a minute – in the case of Peter Murrell, you’re sending in a report saying that this guy’s committed a crime and should be prosecuted. I recognize that it was a different type of report that you sent in in relation to Nicola Sturgeon, but therefore can we conclude that you did not think there was the evidence there for her to be prosecuted or for further inquiries to be made?

SH: So I think to to distinguish between the two types of report is in the fact is of Peter Murrell there is a Standard Prosecution Report to say we have carried out an investigation and we can have evidence of certain offenses that we put forward.

An Advice And Guidance Report is that – the word is in it – is the fact is “here’s the circumstances that we’ve uncovered. We’re seeking your advice and guidance on where we go next” and that’s really important, and the fact is in those occasions where there is a circumstance that you need to examine, that’s for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to give us advice on where we go next.

GC: Would you be happy for that report, that advice and guidance file that you sent into the Crown, to be published?

Advertisement

SH: Again, I think that’s something that we need to be very mindful of the fact is that that is a lot of information. Some of that is sensitive information regarding other individuals. And again, that is a report that is shared between the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service –

GC: You’re not saying no.

SH: That wouldn’t be a matter for the police to release that that information.

GC: But would you be comfortable if eventually that was put into the public do?

Advertisement

SH: That [wouldn’t] be a matter for us. We’ve delivered that to the Crown Office and any release of information for that would be a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

Now, frankly that’s still pretty much just burbling word salad, but one theme does come across loud and clear:

“Not us, guv, you don’t wanna be asking us, ask the Crown Office, it’s all on them. We’re just evidence-gatherers, the Crown Office makes the decisions”.

In that short clip alone, DCC Houston mentions COPFS no fewer than eight times in nine answers. He couldn’t be any clearer where he wants us to look for accountability.

Advertisement

So what happened when Campbell DID go and ask the COPFS man?

?

John Logue (or as we believe he’s known to all his homies in the ghetto, J-Logue) is a rather more eloquent speaker than DCC Houston. But his theme is remarkably similar to the police officer’s:

“It weren’t me, guv, the police didn’t want to prosecute and we just agreed with them. They decided it. Not us. Them.”

Advertisement

He mentions the police 12 times in his answers, almost all asserting that the police had made a decision – something we’ve just watched the police unequivocally deny.

Again, here it is in text form:

GLENN CAMPBELL: Why no prosecution of Nicola Sturgeon?

JOHN LOGUE: There was no prosecution because the police came to the conclusion that while they had reported Peter Murrell to us for consideration of prosecution, the police came to the conclusion that before they would submit any report, they would check with us as prosecutors, which is a normal thing that happens in any other case, whether they had enough evidence to prosecute.

And it was clear, I think, to the police that if they had had enough evidence in their eyes to prosecute, then they would have reported Nicola Sturgeon. There would have been no reason not to having reported Peter Murrell. But their investigation in relation to Nicola Sturgeon reached a point where they felt the right thing to do was to check with us as the prosecutors whether there was enough.

Advertisement

And we looked at it and we agreed with their assessment that there was not enough evidence to report Nicola Sturgeon to us for prosecution. And so that police assessment was entirely correct.

GC: As you mentioned, you have a power of direction. Um, did you ask them to go and do more work on her?

JL: So, in looking at that evidence that they had investigated, our conclusion was we couldn’t see any further reasonable lines of inquiry that would allow you to develop and build the case.

So, that was an obvious point that we considered, but our conclusion was there didn’t appear to be anything else that could be done. And therefore the police assessment that they did not have enough to report Nicola Sturgeon to the prosecutor was an appropriate decision.

Advertisement

GC: So that’s not to say there was no evidence but insufficient evidence to develop into a prosecution.

JL: Well, we have to be very careful what we’re talking about when we talk about evidence because when you talk about evidence that doesn’t necessarily mean evidence of someone’s wrongdoing.

It can be evidence particularly in a case like this of the surrounding circumstances of what were the arrangements for the management of the funds within the SNP. Did Nicola Sturgeon have knowledge of how those funds were being used? Didn’t Nicola Sturgeon know that things that were being purchased were being purchased with SNP funds?

So you look at the evidence in the totality and we’re very careful when we say there was insufficient evidence.

Advertisement

That doesn’t mean there is always evidence that you’re looking at because you’re looking at these financial circumstances within an organisation.

But I want to be very clear that people shouldn’t read into that that there’s any sense of a quantity of incriminating evidence, but it just wasn’t enough. That’s not the way we look at it.

We look at the evidence in the round and some evidence can be incriminating, some evidence can be exculpatory. And our job as prosecutors is to look at it in its totality and reach a conclusion about could we persuade a jury to convict someone according to the normal procedures and laws in Scotland.

GC: So in her particular case, you didn’t think she knew what was going on.

Advertisement

JL: We thought the police were correct in their assessment that there was not sufficient evidence to report it to the prosecutor for the question of prosecution.

The reason I’m being quite careful about that is there are important legal differences. So this was not a case where the prosecutor decided not to prosecute having had a report from the police. That’s a very different type of decision and has different legal consequences.

So that’s why I think it’s important given the public interest in the issue to be as clear as possible that this was a case where no report was sent to the prosecutor and our view having looked at what the police had done was that that was the correct thing for the police to do.

GC: Why did it take seven months to reach that decision?

Advertisement

JL: Because of what I’ve explained about the need to look through the type of evidence that I’ve talked about. You’re talking about really complex financial records. Some pieces of evidence had tens of thousands of pages of files with many many lines of transactions.

GC: Not in her case, right?

JL: No, but the evidence was looked at together. We were looking at the question of the evidence against Peter Murrell and at the same time we were considering whether the police had reached the right conclusion in relation to Nicola Sturgeon.

And the other reason I think you’ve got to remember why this took time was the documents didn’t all easily match up. This wasn’t a financial case where you could easily get one set of records, get a second set of records and fit them together and they were a complete match because of what we could show Peter Murrell had done to change and alter the way in which the transactions were being recorded in the SNP. Nothing matched.

Advertisement

And so it takes time then you’ve got to really unpick all the records that are there which have for example reasons against them which turn out not to be true. And so you can’t just easily find a corresponding entry in each system.

GC: So is it reasonable for Nicola Sturgeon to say that she was cleared as a result of all this investigatory work that she was exonerated? Is that reasonable for her to say?

JL: All I can say is that Nicola Sturgeon was not reported to the prosecutor in Scotland by the police for consideration of prosecution. How anyone else chooses to characterize that, I have to leave it to them.

But my view of it is she was not reported to the prosecutor in Scotland for consideration of prosecution because the police took a view on the evidence that had come from their investigation and our view was that that was correct.

Advertisement

GC: Did Nicola Sturgeon fully cooperate with the police and the Crown in their inquiries?

JL: Nicola Sturgeon was interviewed by the police and after the interview provided information through her solicitor.

GC: Was that sufficient — that statement that she gave after her no comment interview?

JL: The statement was an explanation of her position and we were able to take that account into our assessment of the evidence and it didn’t materially change in one way or another the conclusion that we reached.

Advertisement

So what have we just learned? Basically it goes like this:

POLICE SCOTLAND: Here is all our evidence on Nicola Sturgeon. Please give us some advice and guidance on what to do next.

COPFS: We agree with your decision that we shouldn’t prosecute her.

POLICE: But that’s not what we said. We said we didn’t know what to do, and we asked you for advice and guidance.

COPFS: Our advice and guidance is that we agree with you.

Advertisement

POLICE: Agree with what? We asked you a question.

COPFS: Yes, we agree with your decision.

And so on, back and forth, ad infinitum. Ping follows pong follows ping follows pong. Neither man actually makes explicit reference to the disappearing fundraiser money, and Logue in particular keeps subtly trying to steer things back towards the separate crime of Murrell’s embezzlement.

Note this passage:

Advertisement

“Did Nicola Sturgeon have knowledge of how those funds were being used? Didn’t Nicola Sturgeon know that things that were being purchased were being purchased with SNP funds?”

That only makes sense with regard to the embezzlement. It is, plainly, ludicrous to suggest that the leader of the SNP wouldn’t know that SNP resources were being spent on what John Swinney described as the “ongoing activities” of the party.

Why, indeed, would anyone even attempt to hide that from her? “SNP spends SNP money on legitimate SNP activities” isn’t any sort of crime.

The problem, of course, and the trigger for there having been an investigation in the first place, was that this money expressly and explicitly WASN’T supposed to be spent on the normal “ongoing activities” of the party.

And in those circumstances it IS a crime. Sturgeon insisted there was no missing money, so she must have known that it had been spent intentionally, even if she didn’t know Murrell had diverted some of it into exotic tableware for her house rather than election leaflets.

Advertisement

?

So we have incontrovertible evidence of TWO crimes, only one of them dealt with, and the other being one that Sturgeon MUST have been up to her neck in.

But after 70 minutes of video from the two men whose job it was to decide who got prosecuted, we’re still absolutely none the wiser as to why she didn’t face charges, and indeed didn’t even have to face any proper questioning. We haven’t seen the report, and Sturgeon hasn’t produced the list of written answers she sent the police, despite saying she’d be happy to publish it, but it’s up to her lawyer.

Everyone’s batting the ball to everyone else, saying THEY’VE got the answers, and that we all need to stop asking, and that they’ll be making no further comment.

Advertisement

?

But we promise you this, readers: the questions are never going to stop. And unlike the SNP, we keep our promises.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

The House Article | The steps Burnham can take to safeguard our constitution

Published

on

The steps Burnham can take to safeguard our constitution
The steps Burnham can take to safeguard our constitution


3 min read

Over the past decade, political shocks like Brexit and Covid have combined with longer-term political, social and technological change to put the UK’s constitutional arrangements under pressure.

Advertisement

The Constitution Unit’s newly published report – Safeguarding the Constitution: Key Steps to Strengthen UK Democratic Resilience – lays out a set of practical reforms to respond to these challenges.  

Most obviously, these include measures to address known vulnerabilities or loopholes. For example, key ethics regulators should now be given a statutory footing so that they cannot be undermined or abolished at a prime minister’s whim. The process for appointments to the House of Lords should be reformed, ending the unconstrained power of patronage that currently allows a prime minister to appoint as many people as they wish, with no requirements for fair party balance and no enforceable propriety constraints.

In some cases, institutions and processes also need to evolve to match the changing context in which they operate. The arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements, for example, have changed little in the past 100 years; the limited role they afford MPs is increasingly out of kilter with the scope and impact of modern treaties.

Advertisement

Similarly, political finance rules have not kept pace with parties’ growing reliance on major donors, and the corresponding risk that a small group gains disproportionate political influence. The government has already promised some welcome changes in response to the Rycroft Review on foreign financial interference, and has requested a review of spending limits from the Electoral Commission. Detailed work on donation caps should take place alongside that.

Strengthening our constitution does not only mean safeguarding institutions: the ultimate check on power in any democracy is its citizens. This makes work to improve the information environment and support civic education vital.

Statutory codes of conduct could require social media platforms to mitigate democratic risks, while the government could invest in the provision of high-quality information. The new National Curriculum, to be delivered in English schools from 2028, offers opportunities to improve and expand Citizenship education.

The most significant constitutional changes need careful policy work and wide consultation, to deliver results that last and that meaningfully contribute to trust in the democratic system. For a new government with countless demands on its time and attention, some of these may appear low priority.

Advertisement

But now is the time to begin these reviews, so that detailed proposals can be worked up in time for the drafting of the next general election manifesto. Meanwhile, there are plenty of things the Burnham government could do quickly to meaningfully strengthen the constitution.

The Representation of the People Bill is currently before Parliament. It has already been amended to increase the Electoral Commission’s independence, but more could be done. The legislation on removing peerages promised in the King’s speech could be broadened to address House of Lords appointments.

Many reforms can be delivered without legislation. Some would require standing order change – for example, to increase MPs’ influence over the Commons agenda, and more fairly allocate Commons time between opposition parties.

Others can be done by the government alone. Civil servants are working on a new edition of the badly outdated Cabinet Manual, and a process for future regular updating could be established at the same time. A duty to uphold democratic health could be included in the BBC’s promised permanent charter. The government’s lobbying transparency releases could be improved, as recently recommended by the Ethics and Integrity Commission.

Advertisement

Burnham has advocated a more collaborative approach to politics, and a less centralised state. Our proposed reforms offer practical ways of delivering those goals – and of safeguarding the UK constitution.

 

Lisa James is a Senior Research Fellow at UCL’s Constitution Unit

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | The Rundown Podcast: Burnham’s First Week, Plus Mel Stride On Reform UK

Published

on

The Rundown Podcast: Burnham's First Week, Plus Mel Stride On Reform UK
The Rundown Podcast: Burnham's First Week, Plus Mel Stride On Reform UK


2 min read

This week, The Rundown features an interview with the Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride, giving his views on his new opposite number in the Treasury, John Healey, what the new government should be doing to get growth going, and how the Tories plan to take on Reform.

Advertisement

Host Alain Tolhurst also takes a look at Andy Burnham’s first few days in Number 10, how his Cabinet picks and his initial policy blitz are going down with his Labour colleagues, as well as the voters, and what else we can expect from our latest Prime Minister alongside two colleagues: deputy editor of our sister title The House magazine, Sienna Rodgers, and editor at PoliticsHome, Adam Payne.

The trio discusses the thinking behind the ministerial appointments, as well as what was going on behind the scenes in Westminster this week, plus how the Burnham government is keen to avoid the mistakes of the Keir Starmer administration in its first weeks in office. 

They also look at what the new Prime Minister might have planned for the summer, with the government already facing questions about how it will fund its cost-of-living package.

As well as trying to oppose the new Labour government, the Conservatives are looking to close the gap on Reform UK in the polls. Stride was in bullish form, saying he thinks Nigel Farage’s party has been on a “steady decline” since last autumn.

Advertisement

“And it’s quite conceivable that decline will continue,” he told the podcast. 

“What has underpinned that souffléing down of Reform is the fact that the firework display, the shimmy of the sequin dress, the music, the razzmatazz, it can’t last forever before people say I’ve heard that before, play me another song.”


The Rundown is presented by Alain Tolhurst, and is produced and edited by Ewan Cameron for Podot

Advertisement
  • Click here to listen to the latest episode of The Rundown, or search for ‘PoliticsHome’ wherever you get your podcasts.

 

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Poll shows new problem for GOP: Americans think gas prices are worse than they are

Published

on

Poll shows new problem for GOP: Americans think gas prices are worse than they are

Gas prices are high. Americans think they’re even higher.

Three in five Americans believe gas prices in their area have risen by more than they actually have, according to an analysis of new results from The POLITICO Poll. It’s those perceptions that candidates will be running against this fall.

Voters’ anxieties about fuel prices could give Democrats a boost ahead of the midterms, further strengthening the Democratic voting base and putting strains on the MAGA coalition as the increasingly unpopular war in Iran drags on. A plurality of Americans — 46 percent — say the change in gas prices will impact how they plan to vote come November.

Most voters overestimated the change in gas prices in their area, according to the analysis of polling and granular pricing data provided by OPIS, a Dow Jones company that tracks gas prices. That includes majorities of voters who supported President Donald Trump and also those who supported former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Advertisement

Roughly one in four Americans say gas in their local area has risen by $3.00 or more. But no zip code has actually seen that degree of change on average in the year and a half since Trump took office, as of early July.

Frustrations over cost of living could be reinforcing existing negative views of the Trump administration: Harris voters are far more likely to overshoot the cost jumps than Trump voters, making it harder for Republicans to peel off Democratic voters.

And the analysis shows a fracture among Trump voters. Self-identified MAGA Republicans were more likely to underestimate cost increases than non-MAGA Republicans — another crack in the president’s winning coalition as Republicans scramble to hold it together for the midterms.

“It is a particularly tough dance that many Republican candidates will have to endure for the next three months,” said Arizona GOP strategist Barrett Marson. “How do you feel the pain of your voters without feeling the wrath of Donald Trump?”

Advertisement

What’s more, American’s perceptions do not quickly change even when prices do. The POLITICO Poll asked about gas prices in both May, when they were near their peak, and July, when they had dipped.

The results were the same in both.

“President Trump and his energy team anticipated these temporary market disruptions, communicated them openly to the American people, and implemented an aggressive plan to mitigate any impacts,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers. “As the U.S. military degrades the terrorist Iranian regime’s ability to attack commercial vessels and disrupt the free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, oil and gas prices will plummet back to pre-conflict levels.”

Gas prices could swing votes

Americans’ frustrations with prices and the economy overall are changing how they say they will vote in the fall.

Advertisement

Of the 46 percent of Americans who said gas prices will have an impact on their vote, just under 40 percent said they are considering voting for a different party than they normally would, including 49 percent of MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of non-MAGA Republicans.

“Three quarters of the country is confronting higher gas prices and feeling it,” said longtime Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson. “That leaves them … very vulnerable to the economic pain and very vulnerable to the economic argument the Democrats are going to make.”

To better understand public perception of gas prices, The POLITICO Poll asked Americans how the price of gas in their area had changed since Trump took office. Respondents could choose between buckets like “$1 to $2 higher per gallon,” “$1 to $2 lower per gallon,” or say prices had stayed roughly the same.

More than three-fourths said gas prices in their area have gone up.

Advertisement

Using OPIS data, POLITICO compared each respondent’s answer against the actual average cost of regular gas in their zip code during the first week Trump was in office and the week prior to the July poll, which was conducted by the independent polling organization Public First from July 12 to July 15.

That comparison revealed the difference between the pain the American public is feeling and where actual gas prices stand — and, in particular, how that pain is expressed differently among Democrats and Republicans. Roughly 70 percent of Harris voters and 54 percent of Trump voters overestimated the increase in gas prices in their area, according to POLITICO’s analysis.

“Democrats are highly motivated,” as a voting base, Marson said. “The longer the war goes on, probably the less motivated Republicans will be.”

The perception of higher gas prices is linked to how people see the economy — and who they blame for it.

Advertisement

Across the country, 57 percent of Americans say the cost of living is worse than they “can ever remember it being.” Those who overestimate gas price increases had more than twice the odds of agreeing with that statement, even after controlling for demographics and their 2024 vote.

Similarly, a plurality of Americans — 43 percent — blame Trump more than former President Joe Biden for the state of the economy overall. Those who overestimated their local increase in gas prices had nearly twice the odds of saying the same, compared with those who perceived the change in gas prices correctly or who underestimated the change.

It’s already affecting the battlegrounds

In the country’s most competitive races, Republicans will have to answer for the perceived cost pressures of rising gas prices more often than Democrats.

Thirteen of the most competitive districts have experienced gas price increases higher than the national average, according to POLITICO’s analysis. Of those, nine are currently represented by Republicans.

Advertisement

In California’s 22nd District, where Republican incumbent Rep. David Valadao will face off against progressive political newcomer Randy Villegas, average prices across the district had gone up $1.17 by early July — the third highest increase of any district, according to POLITICO’s analysis.

Villegas said in an interview that he thought frustration over gas prices would mobilize turnout in the fall, driven by how the cost of gas is “tied to every other thing.”

“It’s the cost of gas when you’re driving to the grocery store, when you’re driving to, you know, see a doctor,” he said. Or, the cost of gas when driving 7 to 8 hours away to “go get cheaper health care.”

Valadao did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

In Colorado’s 8th District, where gas prices have risen by $0.73 on average since Trump took office, Republican incumbent Rep. Gabe Evans blamed local Democratic policies for increased costs more than the Iran war.

While “what’s happening halfway around the globe has some impact on global energy prices,” Evans said, high gas prices in the district are “a direct result of the local economic policies — the anti-energy policies — of the state Democrats who run the state of Colorado.”

But The POLITICO Poll results from this month show voters don’t necessarily feel the same. Roughly 63 percent of Americans selected “the war with Iran” as the primary reason why gas prices have increased since Trump took office, including 59 percent of Trump voters and 70 percent of Harris voters.

By the middle of May, the average price of gas across the country reached its highest point of the Trump administration to date: $4.50 per gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In July, average prices dipped to $3.78 per gallon, the lowest average price since March.

Advertisement

Still, in both months, more than 75 percent of Americans said gas prices had gone up, POLITICO’s polls show. And in both months, roughly 23 percent said prices had gone up by $3.00 or more.

This week, Trump said the upcoming midterms would not impact how he goes about fighting the war with Iran. “I can’t think about that having to do with this,” he said, referring to the elections. “I think people are very impressed.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Rob Bonta on blocking the Paramount merger, CNN concerns and Trump’s DOJ

Published

on

Rob Bonta on blocking the Paramount merger, CNN concerns and Trump’s DOJ

Rob Bonta on blocking the Paramount merger, CNN concerns and Trump’s DOJ

lead image

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | Labour MP Says Her Colleagues Are “On A Journey” To Support Her Summer Of Sex Campaign

Published

on

Labour MP Says Her Colleagues Are 'On A Journey' To Support Her Summer Of Sex Campaign
Labour MP Says Her Colleagues Are 'On A Journey' To Support Her Summer Of Sex Campaign

Make Love Not Porn founder Cindy Gallop, Labour MP Samantha Niblett and Coco de Mer CEO Lucy Litwack at the ‘Summer of Sex’ campaign launch party (Coco de Mer/John Lewis)


7 min read

Labour’s Samantha Niblett said she believes some of her MP colleagues are starting to come round to her campaign for lifelong sex education, which sparked fierce debate across Westminster earlier this year.

Advertisement

Three months on from kicking off her campaign for lifelong sex education via an exclusive interview with PoliticsHome, Niblett partnered with major retailer John Lewis and luxury lingerie and sexual wellness brand Coco de Mer to host an event on Wednesday evening to officially launch the ‘Summer of Sex’.

Speaking at the event with Coco de Mer CEO Lucy Litwack and Make Love Not Porn founder Cindy Gallop – who has partnered with Niblett for her campaign – Niblett laid out how the campaign has progressed over the last few months.

“If I get known as Samantha the sex MP, I just start making it easier for other MPs to start to talk about it. Many of them have gone ‘my god, good on you, this is amazing’.”

Advertisement

She said some supportive MPs have told her that some of the “original doubters” have started to see the point of the campaign.

“Some MPs that were critical of the way that I went about it, they don’t like the sex toys, they think it’s diminishing the campaign.

“But it’s not. I grabbed the mic. It did get the attention, and I am absolutely going to do a sex toys event in Parliament because I want it to not be shocking. I want it to not be pearl-clutchy. 

Advertisement

“Some colleagues are going on a journey. I honestly believe it: the more that the country gets behind this campaign, the more that Parliament will, because it will be led by what is palatable. We are as basic as that, seriously. People are interested in sex. Everybody wants to talk about sex.”

Samantha Niblett at the launch event
Coco de Mer CEO Lucy Litwack, Labour MP Samantha Niblett and Make Love Not Porn founder Cindy Gallop at the ‘Summer of Sex’ campaign launch party (PoliticsHome)

Niblett said she aims to pull together a briefing document by the end of summer recess to send to fellow MPs and promote the purpose of the campaign.

In her interview with PoliticsHome in April, Niblett said she wanted to push for more open, inclusive lifelong sex education by securing a debate in Parliament on the topic in the autumn. Niblett said she wanted to promote wider awareness of consent, prevent abuse and violence, and raise awareness of how childbirth, the menopause, stress and other health conditions can impact sexual satisfaction.

Niblett shared that she watched porn herself like “lots of other people” and that it was a “turn on”. She said she will host an event in Parliament where she brings in sex toys, which has since been confirmed to be allowed by the parliamentary authorities. 

The campaign took Westminster by storm, generating discussion in the chamber, in which Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour of “fiddling while Rome burns”, and heated debate within the women’s Parliamentary Labour Party WhatsApp group, in which other MPs accused Niblett of trivialising a serious topic. 

Advertisement

“I certainly found myself posting less in MP WhatsApp chats because there were slightly terse comments that went flying by in the women’s PLP chat,” Niblett said. 

“So I extricated myself from it, which is horrible because you think you’ve got comrades, but it didn’t feel like that. So that was a bit sad, but it’s politics.”

The interview generated many TV interviews and opinion columns, including an LBC interview with Labour deputy leader Lucy Powell in which she said: “I personally don’t own any sex toys, but each to their own”.

Niblett has since become the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for sexual and reproductive health.

Advertisement

The campaign launch event on Wednesday evening was attended by sponsoring brands John Lewis and Coco de Mer, sex education content creators, sexual intimacy coaches, charity campaigners and journalists. It was an exclusive affair, with the vast majority of the around 50 attendees being women. 

Summer of sex launch party
The ‘Summer of Sex’ launch party was hosted at the 1864 Rooftop Bar and Garden on the sixth floor of John Lewis in central London (Coco de Mer/John Lewis)

The event was located at the rooftop bar of John Lewis in central London, with servings of canapés and glasses of Aperol spritz, flowery decor and luxury goodie bags for attendees that contained biscuits, canned cocktails and intimate bodycare products. 

The ‘Yes sex please, we’re British’ campaign has a broad scope: covering lifelong sex education which Niblett describes as needing buy-in from government, the NHS and education systems, parents, and businesses.

Pressed on what specific demands she hopes to bring to government ministers, Niblett said she is continuing to speak to stakeholders and charities throughout the summer to learn as much as possible, before delivering a speech at the debate she has secured in Parliament, which is set to be held in the autumn. 

Talked about what she wants to systemic change and for positive sexual wellness should be “promoted” across the health and education systems.

Advertisement

“I have spoken to doctors and sexologists and people working within the NHS and educators that are just so grateful someone is taking this seriously within Parliament, that’s prepared to put their head above the parapet,” Niblett told PoliticsHome.

“We need to be talking about sexual wellness within the NHS, not just sexual health. Talking about the benefits of sex, not just let’s fix you when you’re broken.”

Niblett spoke of concerns raised by people working in the NHS that support is “patchy” for patients whose health conditions affect their sex lives: “Some doctors are embarrassed to talk about it; there isn’t a standard of sex education in GP training even.”

The MP also wants to start work on determining the economic value benefit of improving lifelong sex education, as a way of getting the Treasury on board by saving money for the NHS.

Advertisement

“How is it preventing other illnesses from happening? How is it making people better?”

Niblett also recently hosted a roundtable with Meta to express her opposition to the banning of accounts that share ‘positive’ sex education content.

Goodie bag from Coco de Mer
Campaign launch event attendees were gifted luxury goodie bags by Coco de Mer, containing sexual wellness products (PoliticsHome)

The MP hopes that the sponsorship from John Lewis for the launch event will help to legitimise the campaign. John Lewis has seen a 22 per cent increase in demand for their sexual wellness products in the last year, which has been growing since the Covid-19 pandemic. John Lewis and Coco de Mer representatives told PoliticsHome at the event that both companies wanted to help take the “stigma” out of sex. 

Niblett has already won the support of Emma Thompson, who recorded a video with Niblett last month, saying that the campaign was “not party political, but it was critical”.

The MP has her sights on further celebrity endorsements: She is in conversation with LGBTQ dating app Grindr to get her an introduction to pop star Madonna, and with American media company Condé Nast to connect her with singer Harry Styles, who launched his own sex toy range last year.

Advertisement

“We’re trying to get the nation behind the campaign, because when you do that, MPs will fall in line,” Niblett said. 

“If it looks like a vote winner, people don’t want to look like the idiot who looks like the one who’s on the side.”

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Why Andy Burnham won’t end rough sleeping

Published

on

Why Andy Burnham won’t end rough sleeping

Britain has become very good at talking about compassion. We’re much less good at actually delivering it. Which is why, whenever you visit parliament, you’ll probably find people sleeping on the pavement next to a politician announcing a new policy to end homelessness.

Andy Burnham is right to make ending rough sleeping one of his first ambitions as UK prime minister. It is a national disgrace. It should be a priority. But there is one awkward problem: he’s promised this before.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham pledged to end rough sleeping there. He didn’t. Rough sleeping, begging and public drug use remain part of everyday life in central Manchester. Spend half an hour around Piccadilly Gardens and you’ll see exactly what I mean.

Advertisement

Despite his evident failure there, he’s now making the same promise to the whole nation. But why should Britain believe him this time?

His failure to end rough sleeping in Manchester – where he had nine years to do something about it – doesn’t mean he should give up. Failure is okay. But it does mean he needs to explain why he’ll succeed nationally when he couldn’t locally.

Rough sleeping can be ended. Not every individual case – life’s more complicated than that. But the long-term encampments, occupied shop doorways and places the public walks past every day can be cleaned up. Those don’t have to exist.

Advertisement

Enjoying spiked?

Why not make an instant, one-off donation?

We are funded by you. Thank you!

Advertisement




Advertisement

Please wait…

Advertisement

What you need isn’t another strategy. You need beds, trained workers and strict rules. You also need, heaven forbid, politicians prepared to make difficult decisions.

First, we should create around 6,000 safe individual sleeping pods. Very basic modular units with a bed, toilet, sink, window, light and a charging point. That’s enough to get someone off the street tonight.

Advertisement

Communal hostels don’t work for everybody. Some people fear violence or theft. Others have addictions or behavioural problems that make shared accommodation impossible. A private room with a lock on the door can make all the difference.

Second, every area with a serious problem needs properly funded outreach teams. Not more awareness campaigns. Not another glossy strategy document. We need trained people who get to know who’s sleeping rough, where they are and what help they need. Those staff can connect people with housing, addiction services, mental-health support, councils and the police.

A bed doesn’t fix a broken life. But it is the vital first step to a better life.

Advertisement

Now comes the bit politicians hate. Once suitable accommodation has genuinely been offered, people cannot be allowed to carry on sleeping in shop doorways, stations and public spaces. Not only should they be taken to the accommodation that’s available – there should be consequences for choosing to sleep rough in public places.

Some people will call that criminalising poverty. It isn’t. Leaving somebody to deteriorate in public isn’t kind or compassionate. It’s cowardly.

As mayor of Middlesbrough, I saw these things close up. Beds were available, yet some people stayed outside because they refused hostel rules, often around drugs or alcohol. Sometimes they just want to be on their own.

Advertisement

We never eliminated rough sleeping altogether. Nobody does. But we kept it under control.

Beyond the short-term pods, we need basic but decent modular homes on a mass scale, getting individuals and families out of the horrendous temporary hostels councils use and fund.

But none of this works unless Britain builds far more homes. Right now, we have more households than we have available homes. Until we build in big numbers, there will always be large-scale homelessness.

Advertisement

We also need to stop pretending every new housing development is a local outrage. Everybody in Britain agrees that we need more homes. They just don’t want them built nearby. Mayors need the powers and targets that hold them accountable – and to have their funding clipped if they fail to deliver.

Burnham should publish a funded timetable, measurable targets and tell us exactly where these emergency spaces will come from, who’ll staff them and what happens when suitable help is repeatedly refused.

Britain doesn’t need another promise on rough sleeping. It needs beds and then proper homes. And it needs rules, too. Andy Burnham has made this promise before – he needs to prove how this time will be different from the last.

Advertisement

Andy Preston was mayor of Middlesbrough from 2019 until 2023.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | Green Party Manchester Mayoral Candidate Pledges To Twin Manchester With Palestinian City Of Ramallah

Published

on

Green Party Manchester Mayoral Candidate Pledges To Twin Manchester With Palestinian City Of Ramallah
Green Party Manchester Mayoral Candidate Pledges To Twin Manchester With Palestinian City Of Ramallah

Geraldine Coggins is the Green Party candidate for the Greater Manchester mayoral by-election (Alamy)


5 min read

Exclusive: The Green Party candidate for the Greater Manchester mayoral by-election will pledge to twin the Greater Manchester region with Ramallah, the administrative capital of Palestine, if she wins the contest.

Advertisement

Geraldine Coggins will announce on Friday that she will seek to twin the Greater Manchester city-region with the Palestinian city of Ramallah in the West Bank if she is elected as mayor next week.

On 30 July, voters in Greater Manchester will head to the polls to elect a new regional mayor to replace Andy Burnham, who left the role to become the new prime minister of the United Kingdom.

The mayoral by-election is a hugely significant contest for the Labour Party, which wants to prove it can maintain its stronghold in the region, and Reform UK and the Green Party, which both made significant electoral gains in the local council elections in May and want to show they can challenge Labour on its home turf.

Advertisement

With Andy Burnham as the new Labour leader and prime minister, the Green Party are having to rethink their strategy to retain left-wing voters who have moved from Labour to support them during Keir Starmer’s premiership.

Asked by PoliticsHome how the party might have to change its campaign messaging to adapt to a Burnham premiership, Coggins said it would “depend on which version of Burnham we get” but insisted that the Greens had a clear dividing line with Labour over the war in Gaza, which the party believes resonates with voters in the Greater Manchester region.

“We’ve not seen the serious recognition of what is happening in Gaza, and a lot of people will not go back to Labour and really see Labour as morally bankrupt,” she said.

“That’s what we hear from people. That is not a thing that people just get over.

Advertisement

“We are still funding and fueling this war and sharing military intelligence. Our government is still complicit in that, and people are not just going to get over that because there’s a new prime minister at the front.”

The Greens included a pledge to partner with a Palestinian city in their mayoral election manifesto. The party has now chosen Ramallah as the proposed twin city because it has growing technology, creative, professional services, and education sectors which could create opportunities for collaboration between the cities.

Coggins will announce the pledge outside the Dar ul Uloom Mosque in Manchester’s Longsight District on Friday, where she is expected to say that Manchester has a “proud tradition of international solidarity, from the campaign against apartheid to welcoming refugees fleeing conflict”.

Advertisement

A Green Party source said: “People up and down the country have been outraged by Labour’s complicity in Israel’s genocide.

“It’s clear that this isn’t going to change now Andy Burnham has become Prime Minister. Greens will always stand up for human rights and international law. And, as mayor of Greater Manchester, Geraldine would continue to call out the government’s failings and show there is a different way.”

The Manchester mayoral by-election is shaping up to be less closely fought than was initially expected following Labour’s devastating losses in the region in the May local elections.

Richard Kilpatrick, Bev Craig and Geraldine Coggins at an LGBT hustings in Manchester
Lib Dem mayoral candidate Richard Kilpatrick, Labour candidate Bev Craig and Green candidate Geraldine Coggins spoke at an LGBT hustings in Manchester on Tuesday evening (PoliticsHome)

A YouGov poll on 17 July put Labour candidate Bev Craig at 62 per cent in the second round of the by-election voting, beating Reform UK’s Sian Astley on 38 per cent. The poll also showed Craig leading on 38 per cent on first preference votes, compared to Astley’s 24 per cent and the Greens in third on 17 per cent.

Nevertheless, the Greens say they are continuing to campaign hard after their former leader Caroline Lucas told PoliticsHome it was the party’s intention to “throw everything” at the contest.

Advertisement

Speaking to PoliticsHome in Manchester this week, Coggins criticised Burnham’s announcement to cut VAT on household electricity as a measure that would only save the average household less than a pound a week.

“That’s a continuation of the sort of incrementalism that we had under Starmer,” she said.

“It is not the wholesale change to the rip-off Britain model that we really need. I don’t think people are going to be fooled by that.”

Coggins highlighted suggestions that Burnham intends to continue drilling in the North Sea, and his failure to eradicate homelessness in Greater Manchester during his time as mayor, with the new PM now making the same pledge from Downing Street.

Advertisement

She also criticised Burnham’s approach to ‘Manchesterism’, arguing that the way housing development had been carried out in Manchester was seen primarily as an “investment opportunity for wealthy individuals and big corporations”.

In contrast, she said the Greens see housing as “bringing back homes for people” in Greater Manchester, with a pledge to create 20,000 “genuinely affordable” homes over 10 years.

At an LGBT hustings in Manchester’s Gay Village on Tuesday evening, Coggins was keen to draw a dividing line between the Greens and Labour on housing in particular. PoliticsHome previously revealed that the Greens were hoping to target unease about gentrification in the region to attack Labour in the contest.

“Unlike Bev, I can tell you what genuinely affordable means,” Coggins told the hustings. 

Advertisement

“That means that if you are on housing benefit, you will be able to afford to rent them.”

She described a system where housing benefit money was being “funnelled into big corporate landlords who own these shiny towers in other countries who aren’t even paying tax here” and said she wanted to “really radically change our housing”.

Craig responded by saying that Coggins’ comments got a “little bit personal”.

“If you want to know what I think genuinely affordable homes look like, you can look at the Manchester living rent,” the Labour candidate said.

Advertisement

“And you can look at the record numbers of council and social homes that we built last year, building more in the city than we’ve done in 25 years.”

The full list of Greater Manchester Mayoral Candidates:

Sian Astley (Reform UK)

Geraldine Coggins (The Green Party)

Advertisement

Bev Craig (Labour and Co-operative Party)

Phil Eckersley (The Conservative Party)

Marcus Farmer (Independent)

Richard Kilpatrick (Liberal Democrats)

Advertisement

Marlon West (Restore Britain)

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home Article | Bruised Starmer Loyalists Threaten Budget Payback

Published

on

Bruised Starmer Loyalists Threaten Budget Payback
Bruised Starmer Loyalists Threaten Budget Payback


5 min read

Labour MPs unhappy with the treatment of Keir Starmer loyalists have warned that they could make life difficult for Andy Burnham at the Budget.

Advertisement

“Andy’s Starmerite purge has created an incredibly powerful phalanx of skilled political operators who intimately know the government’s fiscal position,” one Labour MP told PoliticsHome

“Some sought assurances about the direction of travel before nominating Andy and have been alarmed at how quickly those assurances seem to have turned hollow.

“After the undoubted conference euphoria in Liverpool, the Autumn Budget will loom very large on the Horizon. That will be a big event,” they added.

While it was widely expected that Burnham would remove Starmer loyalists from ministerial positions after entering office, the scale of what is being described as a ‘purge’ has angered those close to the former prime minister, who argue it went too far.

Advertisement

Starmer allies David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Darren Jones, Steve Reed and Jo Stevens were all removed from Cabinet, as were Lord Hermer, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Baroness Chapman, who were ministers who attended Cabinet.

Defenders of Burnham’s approach have stressed to PoliticsHome that the former Manchester mayor sold himself as a departure from the last Labour leadership, which inevitably means making significant changes to the team. Several key Burnham allies have secured jobs in the new ministry, including Lou Haigh, Anneliese Midgley and Angela Rayner.

“It’s not what Andy said he would do, which is a real shame,” said one Labour MP who Burnham sacked from Cabinet.

Advertisement

Another MP complained: “There is a large group of MPs who believe in whole-PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] collective responsibility, who expressed disagreement privately but were publicly loyal to Keir Starmer. What they are seeing in Andy’s new team is punishment for anyone who showed loyalty and a reward for the disrupters.”

They added: “It feels like an early breach of trust for MPs who, for the sake of unity, gave their endorsements to Andy. We were promised an end to factionalism and recruitment based on merit.”

Bev Craig
Labour’s candidate in the Greater Manchester mayoral contest, Bev Craig, told PoliticsHome that Darren Jones may come to regret his public criticism of the PM’s first cost-of-living announement (Alamy)

The treatment of Jones has become a particular source of frustration among Starmer’s supporters. 

Jones, former chief secretary to the prime minister, was encouraged by Starmer allies to challenge Burnham for the leadership but ultimately ruled out a run, saying that he decided against it after recieving reassurances from Burnham about his economic policies. He was not offered a ministerial role in the new government on Monday.

“It’s understandable after taking power in such a way to be insecure about those around you, but the new Prime Minister has shown naivety here. The purge has been far too obviously targeting those loyal to Keir Starmer,” a different Labour MP said. 

Advertisement

They warned: “It will cause problems for him in the future.”

Just hours after leaving government, Jones publicly criticised Burnham’s first cost-of-living announcement, posting on X that the new government’s plan to scrap digital ID and use the money to take VAT off energy bills was unfunded.

Several Labour MPs told PoliticsHome that Jones’ attack was a sign of things to come later in the year when Burnham sets out his spending plans.

The new Prime Minister has faced questions over how he would fund his cost-of-living policies, which also include capping bus fares at £2 and a 20 per cent cut to business rates for some hospitality settings, but full details are not expected to be confirmed until his first fiscal event as PM.

Advertisement

Bev Craig, the Labour candidate looking to succeed Burnham as Greater Manchester mayor, told PoliticsHome that Jones might come to regret his public criticism. “I wonder if Darren will look back and regret making a bit of a barbed dig,” said Craig during an interview in Manchester earlier this week. 

While he may have angered Starmer loyalists, there are early signs that Burnham’s first few days in Downing Street have been well received by the public.

A More in Common survey published on Wednesday showed that the Prime Minister’s personal ratings had increased 10 per cent in the last week, rising from +3 to +13. The poll indicated that Burnham has started particularly strongly with 2024 Labour voters, with 57 per cent saying he’s doing a good job, and 8 per cent bad. 

Burnham also faces needing to reassure Labour MPs not in the north of England that his government will focus on all parts of the country.

Advertisement

Perron Moon, the Labour MP for Camborne and Redruth, told PoliticsHome that it was “troubling” to see what he described as a lack of regional representation in Cabinet. As PoliticsHome analysis illustrates, there are six MPs from seats in the northwest in Burnham’s Cabinet, compared to one from the southwest, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander.

“As the most southerly Labour MP in the UK with some of the highest levels of deprivation, I find the ongoing focus on the North of England troubling,” Moon said. 

“Devolution and industrial regeneration are as important here in Cornwall as any part of the UK, if not more so. But it feels like the current narrative is about a model that is imposed on us.

“Whilst I’ve heard many other towns, cities and regions mentioned by this new administration, I haven’t heard Cornwall mentioned once. Sadly, I think some carry with them outdated and inaccurate stereotypes of Cornwall. That needs to change, and I’m hopeful that working with colleagues we can help to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.”

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Zoë Crowther

 

 

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The House | Britain helped drive back the world’s deadliest diseases. Now it is abandoning the fight

Published

on

Britain helped drive back the world's deadliest diseases. Now it is abandoning the fight
Britain helped drive back the world's deadliest diseases. Now it is abandoning the fight


4 min read

The current Ebola outbreak is back on the front pages with the news that a British aid worker recently returned from DRC is being monitored at a London hospital after displaying possible symptoms.

Advertisement

Those of us who work in public health are not surprised. Infectious diseases do not respect borders. The current Ebola outbreak is now the fastest-growing on record, outpacing even the 2013-16 West Africa epidemic, with more than 2,000 confirmed cases and 750 deaths by mid-July.

An estimated 63,000 pregnant women are due to give birth in the outbreak zone, in a country that already has one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates. Those rates are expected to rise even higher as women are too scared to go to hospital to give birth in case they contract Ebola.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned that countries neighbouring the DRC are at high risk, and that the outbreak is still expanding into new areas. Diseases do not stop at borders.

Yet this week, in the middle of that outbreak, the Foreign Office published its annual report. Buried in its annexes are three years of planned cuts to bilateral aid, country by country. The DRC will receive £34 million less this year, a 29 per cent cut. UK bilateral aid to Africa as a whole is falling by £733 million this financial year compared with 2024-25, and by £875 million, more than half, by 2029. It is the largest cut facing any region in the world. 

Advertisement

Over the last two decades, we have shown again and again that major infectious disease threats can be contained, driven back, and in some cases defeated.

HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was for millions of people. Malaria deaths have been reduced substantially. Polio has been pushed almost to the brink of eradication. Previous Ebola outbreaks have been brought under control. And smallpox has been removed from the face of the earth.

None of this happened by chance. It happened through hard work, science, partnership and money.

Advertisement

You would not know it from the annual report. A year ago, the same document set out the UK’s global health work in detail, naming Gavi and the Global Fund and pointing to Britain’s role in helping vaccinate over half the world’s children. This year’s report contains none of that. The words malaria, HIV, tuberculosis and maternal health do not appear anywhere in its 264 pages.

The countries where British aid helped drive down deaths from these diseases, including Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Rwanda, will have their bilateral programmes all but ended, reduced to an influencing budget of £5 million a year.

Also, in recent months, the UK Government has cut critical global health funding for vaccines, for tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, for pandemic preparedness, and for reducing our defences against the risk of antimicrobial resistance. The Government’s own equality impact assessment states that its multilateral global health investments will fall by roughly a quarter.

UNAIDS estimates that the loss of previously US-supported HIV programmes could lead to an additional six million infections and four million deaths between now and 2029, including 300,000 children. The UK cuts continue to bite deeper.

Advertisement

Supporting health beyond our own shores as part of UK overseas aid is in our own interests. Think of it this way. Wouldn’t you want your next-door neighbours to have working smoke alarms? In the same way, we need our global partners to have strong and effective health systems and healthy populations.

Investing in global health is not a ‘forever project’. The past decades of successful international partnerships mean that most health services in low- and middle-income countries are now funded by those countries themselves. That has meant that the resources the UK provides are more focused on where it is most needed, where the risks are greatest, and where cuts and sudden policy changes do the most damage.

The right response to President Trump’s widespread USAID cuts would have been for the UK to step up: to help fill the gaps, smooth the transition, and act as a counterweight for countries negotiating new agreements with the United States.

Instead, in some areas, the UK has compounded the damage by cutting our own funding. This retreat is an abdication of responsibility by the current Government. The consequences were predictable, and they are already becoming apparent.

Advertisement

It is not too late to reverse these damaging cuts. Andy Burnham inherits this decision, but he is not bound by it. There could be no better moment for our new Prime Minister to show that the UK still understands that its own health security begins beyond its own borders.

Professor Timothy Hallett is Professor of Global Health in the School of Public Health at Imperial College London and an Affiliate Professor at the Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Politics Home | The Winners And Losers In Andy Burnham’s First Set Of Ministerial Appointments

Published

on

The Winners And Losers In Andy Burnham's First Set Of Ministerial Appointments
The Winners And Losers In Andy Burnham's First Set Of Ministerial Appointments

Prime Minister Andy Burnham arrives to host his first Cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street, 21 July 2026 (PA Images / Alamy)


10 min read

Andy Burnham has delighted many of his supporters and largely dismayed Starmerites with the Cabinet and wider frontbench appointments made in his first week as Prime Minister.

Advertisement

Friends and supporters of Burnham have secured top jobs over recent days, while those closest to Keir Starmer have been jettisoned.

“When you take the lid off Labour factionalism, you can’t put it back on. They are storing up problems for the future,” warned one Starmer loyalist source. “This is far from a clean slate.”

Defenders of Burnham’s approach to ministerial appointments have stressed that he sold himself as a departure from the last leadership, which inevitably means making significant changes to the team.

Advertisement

They also point out that the retention of Emma Reynolds and Pat McFadden, among others, shows the Prime Minister has not shunned the Labour right.

Below Cabinet level, in the hires announced later in the week, Starmerites and non-Burnhamites have done better. Josh MacAlister and Jake Richards are among those who have held on to their ministerial jobs. The decision to make Dan Tomlinson a minister for growth is notable and a win for the Labour Growth Group.

On the Labour left, there is disappointment that Ed Miliband was not made chancellor and a view that John Healey’s appointment ends any chance of the Burnham premiership representing bold change as they see it. No Socialist Campaign Group MPs have been picked for roles so far.

Advertisement

The soft left are delighted, meanwhile, by their dominance in the new Cabinet – which has done much to reverse Starmer’s September 2025 reshuffle.

THE WINNERS

The Makerfield crew

Louise Haigh, who is now First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Anneliese Midgley, the new Chief Whip (The House reported in early June that she was interested in this position), were the two Labour MPs who ran Burnham’s Makerfield by-election bid as the political leads. In managing the campaign day-to-day, the pair established themselves as integral to the Burnham operation and have been promoted accordingly. 

Advertisement
Lou Haigh
Burnham ally Lou Haigh will play a lead role in Burnham’s expanded No 10 operation (Alamy)

Miatta Fahnbulleh, meanwhile, led on policy for Burnham, working from the South during the by-election in preparation for government – which came sooner than Burnham allies expected. Although she was thought to be interested in becoming housing secretary, she will instead head up the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, having worked as a minister there until Starmer’s September reshuffle. 

And despite being energy secretary at the time, Miliband also played a role in the Makerfield by-election, even advising on the minute details of how the campaign was run according to Labour sources. Ultimately, after much briefing and counter-briefing, he did not secure the coveted role of chancellor but did nab a ‘great office of state’ by being appointed the new Foreign Secretary.

Other Burnham allies

Heidi Alexander is among the survivors of Starmer’s Cabinet, remaining as Transport Secretary. It comes as little surprise considering she is a longtime supporter of Burnham’s leadership ambitions, having nominated him for the post on all three of his bids – in 2010, 2015 and 2026. She was also understood to have told Starmer to set a timetable for his departure.

Lisa Nandy, Burnham’s Wigan neighbour who called on the party to allow him to run as a parliamentary candidate, has again defied critics by staying in post as Culture Secretary, while Lucy Powell – the only officer on Labour’s ruling body to vote in favour of permitting Burnham to stand in Gorton and Denton – has been brought back to the Cabinet as Education Secretary. Angela Rayner is another ally who was always expected to make a return and has done so, going back to her old job of Housing Secretary.

Advertisement

Less well-known is former Unison official Alex Norris, the new Justice Secretary who represents a Nottingham seat but is originally from Altrincham. He was expected to be rewarded after being seen to have handled a tricky brief well in the Home Office, where he handled illegal migration – but it also helps that he is close to a tight-knit circle of people around Burnham. He is seen as a “people person” who, accordingly, has been given another difficult job where those skills will come into play.

Starmer rebels

Like Heidi Alexander, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood are known to have made clear to Starmer that his time was up. All three have stayed in Cabinet. 

Anas Sarwar, who as Scottish Labour leader publicly called on Starmer to go, is leaving his post in Holyrood to enter the Lords and become a trade minister.

Advertisement

Streeting and Healey, meanwhile, both resigned in Starmer’s final weeks, representing big blows to his authority – particularly in the case of the former defence secretary. Healey’s damning verdict on the ex-PM being “unable” and the Treasury “unwilling” to sufficiently increase defence spending was a final nail in the coffin for the Starmer era.

Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip last year amid the welfare rebellion, has returned as a DCMS minister.

Losers of the September 2025 reshuffle

Many of the notable moves in the infamous September 2025 reshuffle triggered by Rayner’s resignation – now back in her old Cabinet job – have been reversed by Burnham. 

Advertisement

The top-level sackings at the time were Powell and Ian Murray; the former is the new Education Secretary while the latter (who was ultimately demoted rather than removed completely, following an outcry) has stayed under Burnham as a minister of state in DCMS.

Aside from Powell, it was notable that Jonathan Reynolds was also moved from business and trade secretary to chief whip in a switch that baffled Westminster. Under Burnham, he has been returned to his former position, to which he is widely thought to be far better-suited, and will lead a “beefed up” DBT.

In the ministerial ranks, Rayner ally Justin Madders was the most noteworthy sacking, being removed as employment rights minister. He has now returned as a transport minister.

Rayner ally Jim McMahon, similarly, was a local government minister until his September sacking, and will now return to the department.

Advertisement

The North West

The North of England has done well under Burnham – and the North West especially so. Powell, Rayner, Reynolds, Nandy, Midgley and Angela Eagle all hail from Burnham’s region. This is up from just two Cabinet members from the North West under Starmer. See the changes mapped out on PoliticsHome.

The Co-operative Party

Labour’s sister outfit, the affiliated Co-operative Party, has much to celebrate under Burnham, who is himself the first ever officially Co-op Prime Minister. 

Advertisement

Reynolds will be able to put Co-op priorities into action as head of the bolstered Department of Business, Innovation, Science and Trade. Fahnbulleh will have the same opportunity to do so in Desnz, building on Miliband’s ‘Local Power Plan’ developed in conjunction with Co-op.

The appointments of Co-op MPs Norris (husband of Emma Foody, a whip who was Co-op assistant general secretary before entering Parliament) and Powell are wins too. Douglas Alexander, who remains in Cabinet, is also Co-op.

While Rayner is not officially a Labour and Co-op MP, she is often regarded as “spiritually” Co-op in that she has worked with the affiliate and is particularly sympathetic to its aims.

With peers Baroness Smith also reappointed, a quarter of all ministers attending Cabinet under Burnham are Co-op, and there are 22 Co-op ministers in total across 15 departments – a historic high.

Advertisement

Below Cabinet level, Co-op wins include Florence Eshalomi, who is leaving her Housing Committee chair role to go straight into MHCLG at ministerial level, Kirsty McNeill, promoted from junior Scottish minister to minister of state at the Foreign Office, Kate Dearden, bumped up from parliamentary under-secretary to become a minister of state at DBIST, and McMahon who has made a return to MHCLG. Luke Pollard, Stephen Doughty and Lord Coaker have also been reappointed.

Trade unions

There is some apprehension from those trade unions that lobby against net-zero over Fahnbulleh replacing Miliband as Energy Secretary – as a strong ally of his and an enthusiastic backer of decarbonisation, she is not generally expected to be less radical than her predecessor on the subject.

But unions have done well, overall, with Rayner, Midgley and Haigh in key roles and union-friendly Reynolds in DBIST.

Advertisement

The whips’ office, led by Midgley, is particularly good news for the unions, complete with GMB’s Laurence Turner and Usdaw’s Michael Wheeler being picked.

There was a call from the Prospect union last month for continuity around the government’s work on employment rights, with Mike Clancy writing for The House: “The Employment Rights Bill, as it once was, started with Angela Rayner, Jonathan Reynolds and Justin Madders in charge but was passed under Peter Kyle and Kate Dearden. 

“That personnel change caused delays, and I hope the new Prime Minister will reflect carefully on how they deliver continuity to this vital area of work. Minister Dearden in particular has skilfully conducted the various discussions needed to progress the consultation process.”

Dearden, formerly of Community union, now has a ‘future of work’ brief in the same department.

Advertisement

THE LOSERS

Starmer allies

The most notable losers from Burnham’s appointments are, of course, allies of Starmer, from David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Darren Jones, Steve Reed and Jo Stevens being removed from Cabinet to Lord Hermer, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Baroness Chapman leaving as ministers who attended Cabinet.

Bridget Phillipson, who despite being briefed against during the Starmer era was kept in place by him as PM, was heavily demoted – losing her education brief and being left with the women and equalities role only, albeit remaining in Cabinet. A source said Burnham’s team were surprised she accepted the downgrade.

Advertisement
Bridget Phillipson
There was upset among Starmer loyalists that Burnham removed the education brief from Bridget Phillipson (Alamy)

Neither Dan Jarvis nor James Murray, who stepped up to Cabinet roles when John Healey resigned as defence secretary and Streeting as health secretary, have been kept in Cabinet – though both have become ministers again.

Chris Ward, a former Starmer staffer before becoming an MP and perhaps his closest ally in the Parliamentary Labour Party, has left government as expected.

The Socialist Campaign Group 

On the other end of the Labour Party’s factional spectrum, the Socialist Campaign Group and other MPs on the Corbynite or ‘hard’ left are deeply disappointed – and some angry – to have been completely overlooked for ministerial roles. This is despite many having backed Burnham’s return and nominated him for the leadership.

“A lot of people are very unhappy,” one Labour left MP said. “So much for using all talents.” Although pleased about the cost of living policies announced, they added: “Everyone knows politics is brutal but this is just a big two fingers up to people.”

Advertisement

Londoners

Streeting and Fahnbulleh are the only full Cabinet members representing London seats under Burnham, whereas Starmer’s Cabinet had himself, Reed, Murray and David Lammy. The new PM does have Ellie Reeves and Matthew Pennycook as ministers attending Cabinet, however.

This shift away from London is defended by Burnham allies as a shift towards being more representative of the country.

YOU WIN SOME, YOU LOSE SOME

Advertisement

Blairites

Blairite Cabinet members Peter Kyle and Liz Kendall have both been sacked. The picture is mixed, however. McFadden remains Work and Pensions Secretary. Reynolds has been moved from Defra to become Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Streeting stays too, of course, though he is a unique case.

Among non-Cabinet ministers, some have been kept on – Baroness (Jacqui) Smith and Georgia Gould remain in post, and Alison McGovern has been moved sideways to health, for example – while others, like Sharon Hodgson, have not.

 

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025