Tag: United Kingdom

I’m sure you share my horror at the dreadful corrosive substance attack last week on a woman and her two young children.  Our prayers remain with the three of them.

Abdul Ezedi, an Afghan national, has been named as a suspect by the police. It’s since been revealed he was granted UK asylum on his third attempt, after having been convicted of sex offences committed in the UK, and being placed on the sex offenders’ register.

There will of course be a police investigation, and the public are privy to very few details.

However, for some politicians and much of the media, the concern has, strangely, not been about how the criminal justice system responds to – and indeed prevents – violence against women and children.

Instead they have focused on Ezedi’s conversion to Christianity, and have sought to lay the responsibility for his dreadful attack at the doors of the church – either for being naïve enough to be duped by ‘bogus’ conversions, or else for intentionally conspiring to keep people in the UK when they have no right to be here.

This has reignited a debate around whether the church should be opening its doors to asylum seekers and supporting them to find Christ. I wrote about this in relation to the attempted terror attack in 2021 in Liverpool by another Christian convert.

Firstly let’s make absolutely clear that it is the Home Office and the courts, and not the church, who are responsible for accepting or rejecting asylum claims. Church leaders may provide evidence that someone has regularly attended and made a profession of faith. But they do not judge whether that faith is genuine, any more than for a middle class family seeking to get their child into the local church school.

Declarations of conversion are rigorously tested by those considering asylum applications, and the bar is high.  Indeed many genuine asylum seekers report an innate disbelief from the authorities surrounding faith claims.

And let’s also remember that conversion to Christianity from another faith should not be seen as an easy option. There is often a huge cost to the individual. Converts may be treated with hostility or rejected by other asylum seekers from their own country – who may be the only people here that they know. Converts have to be very careful about sharing testimonies and may have to hide from their own families, as the danger of retribution can be very real. I refer you to last week’s conversation with Gareth Wallace about the persecution of Christians worldwide.

On top of this, members of their new churches might believe the shrill media commentary and reject them as fake believers.

So the risks for individuals are high. And the courts and Home Office need to take into account the risks of harm towards a genuine convert being sent back to a country hostile to their new faith.

The politicians and journalists who point the finger at the church surely know all this, though, so why is the church being so fiercely accused of “facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims” (in the words of Suella Braverman)?

Of course there will be some fake conversions, and the church should be alert to the fact that people do try to game the system. But who other than God can decide who has genuinely accepted Christ in their hearts and who has not?

At the heart of this debate is a tussle over what it means to be human.

God’s invitation is open to all – no matter where you come from or what you have done. If we believe that each human is made in God’s image, this means each one of us is valuable to him. No exceptions.

And it means that our human rights spring from this innate value. Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right. And so it is a massive contradiction to say on the one hand that we should be a Christian country – with laws and traditions based on Christian values – but also to deny some people the protection of gospel-inspired humans rights laws, because it suits a political agenda.

Of course the church should continue to proclaim the Christian faith and not be derailed by this row.  Sharing Christ’s love and grace is our main responsibility.

Jesus spent time with those who were rejected by his society – “tax collectors and sinners” – and so we should expect his church to do the same. We should rejoice that some of the asylum seekers on the Bibby Stockholm barge are reported to have to turned to Christ with the support of local churches. If we lazily assume these are all fake, we deny the power of the Gospel message.

If this latest development in the culture wars leads to the church being urged to close its doors to any group of people, that would amount to the church being directed to abandon Christ’s Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19).  Gently but firmly I say that this is a direction that we cannot follow and still be considered faithful.  Let’s instead be bold and pray that more refugees will genuinely respond to the Gospel this year.

Source

Keir Starmer dropping his flagship £28 billion green investment pledge would be the “most stupid decision the Labour Party has made”, a former adviser to Sir Tony Blair has said.

John McTernan, who served as Blair’s political secretary, said the move was “very disappointing”.

Reports have suggested that Keir Starmer will formally drop the £28 billion figure today.

Asked to comment on the reports, McTernan told the BBC’s Newsnight programme: “It is probably the most stupid decision the Labour Party has made.”

“This is a decision that we have to make now to decarbonise our economy and it is one which stands for a purpose, a great purpose, a grand purpose. Great parties have great causes”.

He added: “If you don’t have a great cause, you want to change from this Government, sure, but change to what? What is the change Labour now offers? It is very disappointing.”

Starmer’s reported decision to drop the £28 billion green pledge follows weeks of uncertainty about the policy.

In recent days, the Labour leader has insisted he still intended to meet the pledge, which was first made in 2021. But a public divide between him and the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had emerged — with Reeves repeatedly refusing to commit to the £28 billion investment target. 

Last week, the shadow chancellor was asked on ten occasions if she wanted to commit to the so-called Green Prosperity Plan as it previously stood. Instead, she told Sky News: “The Conservatives crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates and the cost of government borrowing soaring”.

“That does change what will be possible for an incoming Labour government.”

Starmer, on the other hand, cited the £28 billion figure as recently as this week. He told Times Radio: “We want to have clean power by 2030 … That’s where the £28bn comes in, that investment that is desperately needed for that mission.”

Reports have suggested an internal divide in the party over the figure, with supporters thought to be shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband, also a former Labour leader; deputy leader Angela Rayner; and shadow international development minister Lisa Nandy. 

Among those opposed to the £28 billion target were shadow Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden, top strategist Morgan McSweeney and Reeves. 

Announcing the plan in 2021 at Labour Party conference, the shadow chancellor promised that a Labour government would borrow £28 billion a year for five years to fund green energy projects and infrastructure.

Vowing to be Britain’s first “green chancellor”, she said: “As chancellor I will not shirk our responsibility to future generations and to workers and businesses in Britain”.

She added: “No dither, no delay. Labour will meet the challenge head on and seize the opportunities of the green transition. We will provide certainty and show leadership in this decisive decade.”

Jeremy Hunt has claimed the decision to axe the £28 billion green investment pledge showed “what sort of chaos” Britain would face if Labour is elected later this year.

He tweeted: “After four years of Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership it seems like Labour’s only economic plan is to copy the Conservatives.

“But if their policies flipflop like this in opposition, what sort of chaos would the British people have to endure if they got into power?”

Source

The government has neglected to tackle “obscene” levels of destitution, Gordon Brown has said. 

He argued Conservative ministers have “systematically shredded” the social security system over the last decade.

The former prime minister, who left office in 2010, has said Britain is experiencing a hidden poverty “epidemic”, with some of the worst-affected households going without food, heating and everyday basics.

Brown’s comments come as he published a review of UK hardship on behalf of his Multibank project — a network of local charities developed out of the Office of Gordon and Sarah Brown. 

The research suggests that almost four million people were now living below the so-called safety net.

Speaking to The Guardian newspaper, he said: “In years to come, I believe people will be asking how it was that government walked by on the other side when thousands of children were suffering abject deprivation, and failed to support them in their hours of need”.

He also described the poverty he had witnessed in his home town of Kirkcaldy, saying: “In 2010, we were helping 100 children at Christmas [through charity schemes]. Last Christmas, it was 1,800”.

Britain is “haunted by poverty we thought had been consigned to history”, he added.

Urging the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, to use his March budget to address the suffering of families, he said: “In an advanced economy, understanding these privations shouldn’t be a question of ideology but a question of decency”.

Brown, who served as chancellor under Tony Blair from 1997-2007, called on Hunt to extend the government’s £900 million cost of living crisis household support fund. 

He said: “The welfare state has been systematically shredded over the last decade. Instead of being supported in hard times, the consequence is that as many as four million of our fellow British citizens, many actually in work, are now trapped in life below the safety net.

“This life means being unable to afford basics such as clothing, toiletries, laundry and bedding.

“It means having to cut back on essentials such as food and heating because of cuts to benefits. For 700,000 children, it means having to share a bed. For nearly half a million, it means sleeping on the floor.

“Far from getting better, the poverty crisis we’ve seen over the winter is now turning into a public health and hygiene emergency with families unable even to keep their children clean.”

Source

In an otherwise low-energy session, Rishi Sunak lost prime minister’s questions today with a single, ill-judged quip. 

As the party leaders tussled over their chosen issues and pre-election talking points — from the NHS to the non-dom tax status, Labour’s £28bn green pledge and, even, simply “getting Britain” — one of the prime minister’s pre-scripted anti-Starmer spiels fell singularly flat.

As he reeled off the Labour leader’s purported vices, the prime minister referenced his position on transgender rights, suggesting Starmer struggles with “defining a woman”. He joked that Starmer had made “99 per cent” of a U-turn over the issue of gender self-identification, invoking the Labour leader’s stated position that 99.9 per cent of women “of course haven’t got a penis”.

It was evidently lost on the prime minister that only moments ago Starmer had welcomed Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey — a 16-year-old transgender girl who was murdered last year, to the commons gallery. Starmer said in his opening comments: “This week the unwavering bravery of Brianna Ghey’s mother, Esther, has touched us all. As a father, I can’t even imagine the pain that she’s going through and I’m glad that she’s with us in the gallery here today”.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, Sunak’s remarks today were quickly met with cries of “shame” from opposition MPs; and they crescendoed as Keir Starmer took to his feet and gripped the despatch box. “Of all the weeks to say that – when Brianna’s mother is in this chamber. Shame”, the visibly furious Labour leader bellowed. He added: “Parading as a man of integrity, when he’s got absolutely no responsibility”

“I think the role of the prime minister is to make sure every single citizen of this country feels safe and respected, It’s a shame the prime minister doesn’t share that”

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle was forced to intervene to quiet the shocked noises emanating from the opposition benches. Rishi Sunak then took to his feet, neglecting to comment on his previous remarks or Starmer’s righteous rebuke. 

What is more, in response to a question from Labour MP Liz Twist later in the session, the prime minister refused to apologise for the comment. Subsequently, at the post-PMQs huddle with lobby journalists, Sunak’s spokesperson appeared to double down, stating that “it is totally legitimate for the prime minister to point out [Keir Starmer’s] U-turns”.

As it happens, Starmer is due to meet Esther Ghey this afternoon; and the Labour leader’s spokesperson relayed at the opposition’s own post-PMQs briefing: “We don’t think that the country wants or deserves a prime minister happy to use minorities as a punch bag. The comments were really, deeply offensive to trans people, and [Rishi Sunak] should reflect, reflect on his response there and apologise”.

In the end, if the PM — upon hearing that Esther Ghey was in the commons gallery — had the political nous to drop his maladroit punchline, he would have probably emerged unscathed from today’s low-stakes, pre-recess PMQs. But the result is a news agenda-driving, deeply ill-judged slip-up. 

Moreover, this gaffe — while clearly exceptional in some striking ways — is the latest in a long line for the beleaguered Rishi Sunak. In fact, during the session today, Keir Starmer helpfully went on to list a series of the prime minister’s recent foot-in-mouth brain fades. 

The Labour leader told the House in his final question: “Last week, [Sunak] and his MPs were laughing at someone whose mortgage had gone up £1,000 a month. This week, he’s casually made a £1,000 bet in the middle of an interview”.

PMQs verdict: Rishi Sunak stumbled as he vied for ‘Phil from Iceland’s’ vote

This latter comment, of course, was a reference to the prime minister’s apparent acceptance of a bet with TalkTV’s Piers Morgan, who doubts Sunak can succeed in securing flights of asylum seekers to Rwanda before the next election. The episode, released unto the world as part of an hour-long interview this week, was similarly castigated as tone deaf by the PM’s critics. 

Starmer went on: “Last week, he thought even raising a question about the cost of living was ‘resorting to the politics of envy’. And this week he’s finally found the cause he wants to rally around, the non-dom [tax] status.

He rallied: “When [Sunak] finds himself backing tax avoidance over NHS appointments, does he start to understand why his own MPs are saying he simply does not get what Britain needs?”

This final comment was a reminder that PMQs today was ostensibly focussed on NHS dentistry — that was the topic, at least, that comprised the bulk of Starmer’s questioning. But Sunak’s throwaway remark regarding the Labour leader’s alleged inability to “define a woman” — an attempt to exploit a totemic “culture war” issue — will dominate commentary in the aftermath. 

It is a reminder, too, that Sunak, while slick in some respects (especially relative to his two immediate predecessors), struggles at crucial politically charged moments. Never has the prime minister, who has only been an MP since 2015, remember, looked so politically inexperienced — or, worse still, out of his depth. 

PMQs verdict: Keir Starmer 5, Rishi Sunak 1

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.

Source

A Conservative MP has warned that his party “will move into oblivion” if it continues on a “right wing approach”. 

Tobias Ellwood, a former minister and defence select committee chair, has suggested his party will move itself “out of British politics” if it heeds the advice of individuals like former PM Liz Truss, who launched a new right-wing grouping yesterday. 

Truss yesterday launched the Popular Conservatism movement, aimed at restoring “democratic accountability” across the UK, with the support of former cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and former party deputy chair Lee Anderson. 

Addressing the event, Truss argued Conservative governments “have not taken on the left-wing extremists”.

She added: “Wokeism seems to be on the curriculum. “There is confusion about basic biological facts, like what is a woman.

“Look at the net zero zealots, if you listen to the [BBC’s] Today programme, I don’t recommend it, you’ll hear demands for more public spending”.

PopCon: Liz Truss to launch group ‘demonstrating’ the popularity of right-wing policies

Truss went on to warn that the left were “on the march and actively organising”.

“These people have repurposed themselves, they don’t believe they are socialist or communists anymore. They say they’re environmentalists, they say they’re in favour of helping people across all communities, they are in favour of supporting LGBT people or groups of ethnic minorities.

“So they no longer admit that they are collectivists but that is what their ideology is about.”

Rees-Mogg and Anderson also gave speeches at the event launch with other MPs in attendance including Dame Andrea Jenkyns, Dame Priti Patel, Wendy Morton, Alec Shellbrooke and David Jones.

Reacting to the launch of “PopCon”, Tobias Ellwood told GB News: “This is very confusing to the electorate at a time when they want to see discipline, they want to see unity, they want to see a sense of purpose, and at the moment, they’re not actually sure what Labour stands for. We don’t give them the opportunity because yet another sub-tribe is formed”.

“But there’s another concern here that I have, which is look at the bigger picture. Authoritarianism is on the rise across the world, Britain is looked at as an exemplar of what democracy should be all about what transparency should be all about. Yet, here we have a group, or a series of groups, wanting to introduce populism. We saw what happened in the United States. It can’t happen here”.

He added: “This is about whether or not the Conservative Party is going to exist in the future. If we move to the extreme right, we will actually move ourselves out of British politics. The most successful parliamentary party in the world will move itself into oblivion. If we continue down this right wing approach”.

Opposition parties also took aim at the new movement, with the Liberal Democrats calling it a “carry-on horror”, suggesting the Conservative Party had of become a “pathetic Donald Trump tribute act”.

Labour shadow minister Jonathan Ashworth wrote a two-page letter to Liz Truss, Sir Jacob and Ranil Jayawardena, who dropped out of the event at the eleventh hour, asking a series of pointed questions.

Listing seven of the right-wing Conservative factions that already exist in the crowded field, including the Brexiteer European Research Group, the New Conservatives and Common Sense Group, Ashworth said: “I know you will be keen to carve out a unique space for this latest party within the Tory Party.”

Among his questions he wrote: “Liz: Do you still believe that the £45 billion worth of unfunded tax cuts in the 2022 mini-budget were the right course of action for the British economy?”.

Daisy Cooper, deputy leader of the Lib Dems, claimed the “Conservative MPs have become a pathetic Donald Trump tribute act and said it was “time for a general election to boot them out of office.”

“Lifelong Conservative voters in the Blue Wall will look on at this carry-on with horror,” she said.

“The Conservative Party has given up on governing and is acting like fighting school children. They are a national embarrassment who would rather shout about the National Trust than cut hospital waiting times.”

Source