Tag: United Kingdom

George Osborne has predicted that the next general election will take place on November 14.

The former chancellor urged voters to “save the date” after he was “told” the date had been worked into Number 10 plans for 2024.

In the newest episode of Political Currency, the podcast he hosts with the former Labour cabinet minister Ed Balls, Osborne said: “We know this is going to be the general election year… Nov 14, save the date.

“A little birdie has told me that the various work programmes required to get ready for a general election have that date singled out. I’m pretty certain that is the date that Downing Street has currently selected.

“It doesn’t mean, of course, they won’t be pushed off it.”

An election on 14 November would mean Sunak announcing it at Conservative Party conference in early October.

Osborne, who is close to many of those around Sunak, added that “logic leads you [to the date]” in the wake of opinion polls that show the Conservatives 18 points behind in the polls.

Rishi Sunak confirms election will be next year, despite legal right to wait until January 2025

He said: “By the way, logic leads you there because you’re not going to have it in the first half of the year. I mean, this pretence that Rishi Sunak could have a May election was something we discussed last year. It’s a non-starter. He’s more than 20 points behind in the opinion polls. He’s not going to have a spring election.

He added: “So then you’re left with the autumn. And you’re probably thinking: ‘I know, we’ll have the party conference as a kind of launch pad. We’ll fit in an autumn statement, like a mini-budget, either before that or immediately after it.’ And that kind of leads you into mid-November. So 14 November kind of writes itself.”

Speaking on a visit to Nottinghamshire last week, Rishi Sunak said: “My working assumption is we’ll have a general election in the second half of this year and in the meantime I’ve got lots that I want to get on with.”

Rishi Sunak suggests general election will be in ‘second half of the year’

Sunak has until January 2025 to hold an election, and Labour politicians had speculated that he would do so in May this year.

Osborne also said Sunak had made a mistake in the first few weeks of the year by focusing on immigration rather than the economy. 

“I was listening at home, I was thinking: why are you going on about immigration and asylum seekers and Rwanda again? That’s how we ended last year, and it’s a mess.

“I’m not saying immigration’s not a very important issue, but let’s be honest, it’s not like the public think that the Conservatives have got a grip on it at the moment. You should be talking about the economy.”

Week-in-Review: How Rishi Sunak lost control of the election narrative

Source

Those who have had the privilege of attending a Taiwanese election rally don’t forget it in a hurry. Noisy, vibrant and jubilant, they are a far cry from the quiet doorstep canvassing that British voters are more familiar with. Amidst the blasting pop music, larger than life banners and crowds of cheering activists, Taiwan is exhibiting all the signs of a thriving and enthusiastic democracy. 

As Taiwan goes to the polls this Saturday, its democratic freedoms are by no means taken for granted. Most voters are old enough to remember Taiwan’s first direct Presidential elections in 1996, which brought to an end the ‘White Terror’ period of political repression and martial law that preceded it. Memory of this dark period still spurs voters on. Even local elections consistently score above 65% turnout rates, putting the UK’s middling turnout figures to shame. 

Today Taiwan’s democracy is once again under threat. This year’s Presidential and Legislative elections come at a time of rising geopolitical tensions. Under President Xi Jinping, Beijing has been increasingly vocal about its desire to absorb Taiwan within the People’s Republic of China. President Xi used his new year speech to describe the so-called ‘reunification’ of Taiwan to mainland China as a “historical inevitability”. While Xi insists his desire is to achieve this peacefully, he refuses to rule out the use of force and has ordered China’s military to be ready to take the island by 2027.

President Xi’s veiled threats are part of a broader effort by Beijing to influence, confuse and coerce Taiwanese voters. Local NGOs warn of a deluge of deep fakes, misinformation and conspiracy theories flooding online debates. Last year, Facebook and Instagram uncovered a Chinese government influence campaign involving more than 7,500 fake accounts across different platforms, with many targeted at Taiwan. Combined with near daily incursions of military aircraft across the Strait, the PRC government is waging open cognitive warfare on Taiwan’s voters. 

Candidates vying for Taiwan’s Presidency have presented competing visions for how to navigate these turbulent waters. The frontrunner, Lai Ching-te of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party has painted himself as the continuity candidate. Vowing to follow in the steps of incumbent President Tsai Ing-wen, a Lai Presidency would cautiously challenge Beijing’s attempts to isolate Taiwan from the international stage while remaining ambiguous on questions of independence. Describing his approach as ‘pragmatic’, Lai will seek closer relationships with Taiwan’s allies while building up its defence capabilities to deter Chinese military aggression. 

Lai’s main opponent is Hou Yu-ih of the Kuoming Tang (KMT). Hou’s vision of Taiwanese identity is rooted in its recent history. Rather than an independent island-state, the KMT sees Taiwan as the last bastion of the Republic of China, which once ruled the whole of China before fleeing to Taiwan as Mao Zedong’s Communists took power in 1949. The KMT still believes in a distant future for Taiwan as part of ‘one China’, but just not as part of the Chinese Communist Party ruled People’s Republic of China. Despite other differences, this gives Hou enough common ground with Beijing to talk feasibly about de-escalating cross-strait tensions and re-starting dialogues on business and trade. 

The Chinese government has made no secret of its preference for Hou over Lai. Chinese officials have urged Taiwanese voters to ‘make the correct choice’ in the upcoming election. Yet regardless of who wins the Presidency, closer alignment with mainland China is an increasingly hard sell to the Taiwanese electorate. All the main candidates in the Presidential election, including Hou, have rejected the possibility of unification under Beijing’s proposed ‘one country, two systems’ model. One only needs to look at the crushing of Hong Kong’s fledgling democracy to know why. While many support Hou’s desire to de-escalate tensions with Beijing, his vision of ‘one China’ is increasingly anachronistic to younger generations of Taiwanese – many of whom have never set foot on the mainland. 

The contradiction between President Xi’s plans for Taiwan and the desires of the Taiwanese people are starker than ever. This matters deeply for the UK. A military conflict or economic blockade around Taiwan would have a devastating impact on the global economy. Taiwan produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors, powering everything from smartphones to cars. Nearly half of the world’s container ships pass through the Taiwan Strait each year, the main route for trade between East Asia and Europe. The resulting supply chain disruption would add to inflationary pressures and shock global markets already rocked by wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Bloomberg estimates the costs to the world economy of a full scale conflict across the Taiwan Strait at around $10 trillion, equal to about 10% of global GDP. The Taiwan Strait may be much further away than Ukraine, but UK consumers will still feel the cost of the conflict just as keenly. 

All of this means that the UK cannot afford to turn a blind eye to Taiwan’s elections. The UK government should congratulate the new President, regardless of who wins. This will send an important signal affirming the right of Taiwanese people to determine their own future peacefully and free of coercion. Only by pushing back against Beijing’s attempts to isolate Taiwan can we hope to deter President Xi from escalating tensions further – and all of the cataclysmic humanitarian and economic fallout that would follow. Promoting Taiwan’s role on the international stage, bolstering its defence capabilities and deepening trade and cultural exchange must be at the forefront of the UK’s relations with the next Taiwanese government.

Source

I came to this country fleeing war and persecution. When I first arrived, I thought my suffering would be over, but what I didn’t know was that the UK would deny me the right to be a child.

After taking one look at me and refusing to believe my age, the Home Office changed my birthday and put me into accommodation with adults. I didn’t feel safe, I was scared and was thinking about all the things that could happen to me.

I don’t think any young person should be put in this experience. No young person should ever have to suffer. I was alone without my family and only 16 years old. I was so frightened. But those in charge just didn’t seem to care.

The Home Office disputed my age and I didn’t have any papers on me — I simply had no way to prove to them I was under 18. They determined age based on your appearance and behaviour – how you look, how you dress, or even because of things like if you can cook. If they do decide that you are over 18 you will be moved straight into adult accommodation. This is what happened to me.

I’m worried that others will face the same treatment that I did. Many children, some as young as 14 years old, are forced to share rooms with adults. In 2022 alone, over 800 people were put in adult accommodation or detention. It puts children at risk of exploitation and abuse, or the misery of detention. These are young people who have fled for their lives.

And now, things are getting worse. The government’s sinister new plans will cause even more damage to refugee children. The introduction of scientific age assessments will see refugees subjected to X-rays of teeth or wrist bones, and MRI scans of the collar and knee bones. These procedures are needless and inaccurate. And if children withhold their consent for these harmful methods they can barely understand, they will be considered ‘untrustworthy’.

Since I’ve been here, government policies are just getting worse and worse. Like the Home Office painting over cartoons in refugee reception centres. Instead of being cruel, I wish the politicians would refocus their efforts on creating a compassionate asylum system. Children’s rights are universal, and all children should be protected regardless of where they come from or how they got here.

I’ve been able to rebuild my life in this country. Thanks to the kindness and protection of the people I’ve met here. Now, I stand up for the rights of young refugees by campaigning against child detention and the harmful impact of age assessments. It’s time for the people in charge to abandon this brutality and instead provide a welcoming, safe space for children to be children. They all deserve the chance to recover and rebuild their lives.

Source

Labour will introduce supervised toothbrushing for young children in free breakfast clubs if it wins the next election, as part of plans to boost the health of children across the country.

Announcing plans to boost dental services to ensure children can get appointments when they need one, party leader Keir Starmer has said tooth decay should be “consigned to the history books” as he a

Labour had previously said it would introduce supervised toothbrushing in schools for children aged three to five. But the announcement faced a backlash from teaching unions, who argued it is “not the role of teachers to be making sure children brush their teeth each day”.

Labour now says it will introduce a “targeted” national supervised toothbrushing programme to be rolled out in “fully funded breakfast clubs”.

Speaking yesterday, Keir Starmer vowed to boost dental services to ensure children can get appointments when they need one as part of a plan to create the “healthiest and happiest generation of children”.

Asked by reporters if supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds was nanny state politics, Starmer said: “We want to encourage good parenting, but I don’t think we can just turn our back on it.”

He added: “When I first read the statistic that for six to 10-year-olds that the biggest admission to hospitals I was really struck. That is shocking – and I don’t think you can simply say, ‘That’s none of our business’”.

“It’s saying there is a role for the state in this,” he said – adding that he was “up for that fight”.

Other aspects of Labour’s child health action plan, which is being launched today, include introducing a 9 pm watershed for junk food ads, banning vape adverts aimed at children, better access to mental health support, cutting waiting times for hospital care for children, ensuring more dental appointments and making sure child health is a cross-government priority.

The Labour leader also told reporters yesterday: “Frankly if this was a parent who had treated children this badly – as badly as the UK government – they would probably be charged with neglect.”

Source

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned the prime minister he will look “hopeless” if the Government’s Rwanda bill fails to result in migrant deportation flights finally taking off.

Speaking on his GB News show last night, the former cabinet minister argued the Rishi Sunak could not afford to fail on the issue again. 

He said: “Passing an ineffective bill would make the government look hopeless. In many ways it would be better to do nothing than to fail again because this is actually the third go at trying to get people deported to Rwanda.”

It comes as Conservative MPs on the right of the parliamentary party look to amend the bill to toughen up the legislation.

It is thought that more than 40 Conservative MPs have agreed to back four key amendments to significantly strengthen the bill.

The tabled amendments aim to prevent migrants blocking their deportation to Rwanda through individual appeals; automatically block injunctions from European judges; and disapply the European Convention on Human Rights on asylum cases.

However, they are expected to fail without support from the government.

Week-in-Review: The political inanity of Rishi Sunak vs the ‘five families’

With the crunch vote on the bill as a whole coming as early as Wednesday next week, the government faces losing if more than 28 Conservative MPs vote against it or if 55 abstain.

Rishi Sunak has insisted that his version of the bill is the “only approach” and going a further “inch” would risk Rwanda pulling out of the deal.

Damian Green, the former de facto deputy prime minister and a chair of the One Nation caucus, told The New Statesman: “The prime minister’s looked me in the eye and said that he doesn’t want to go any further.”

Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary and moderate Conservative, is also due to table an amendment on Thursday designed to make the bill more compliant with the rule of law.

Senior Conservatives warn Rishi Sunak not to ‘pick fight’ with ECHR over Rwanda response

Source

The first question at PMQs today did not come from some lucky MP listed on the order paper — rather, it emanated from a chorus of Conservative backbenchers who collectively queried: “Where is Ed Davey?”.

The Liberal Democrat chief, under intense pressure over his role in the Post Office scandal, was absent from his usual spot above the SNP benches today. But that did not stop Lee Anderson, together with a horde of MPs on the government benches (many of whom likely preside over Lib-Con marginal seats), calling for Davey to quit. 

Referencing the Lib Dem chief’s infamous habit of calling on ministers to relinquish their high office, Anderson reasoned that the AWOL Sir Ed deserves a taste of his own medicine. “He should take his own advice and start by clearing his desk, clearing his diary, and clearing off”, the Conservative Party deputy chair blasted. 

Rishi Sunak passed up the chance to echo Anderson’s attack, instead ploughing on with his trailed Post Office announcement. Indeed, after much hinting yesterday and this morning, the prime minister told MPs: “Today I can announce that we will introduce new primary legislation to make sure that those convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal are swiftly exonerated and compensated”. 

The PM later accused Stephen Flynn of “trying to politicise” the Post Office scandal — it came after the SNP Westminster leader listed those allegedly culpable from all corners of the House. Sunak notably did not confront his deputy party chairman with the same constructive criticism. 

Gripping the despatch box first the first time in 2024, Keir Starmer welcomed the prime minister’s announcement of new legislation on the Post Office scandal and “a new upfront payment of £75,000” for the wrongly convicted postmasters.

But 2024 is an election year and such bipartisanship will prove an evermore fleeting phenomenon. In this way, quickly dispensing of the frontbench consensus, Starmer turned to the government’s flagship Rwanda deportations scheme — apparently his preferred subject matter at Prime Minister’s Questions. 

One of the major stories that broke over the Christmas recess was the report that Rishi Sunak, in his former role as chancellor, had once questioned the efficacy of the Rwanda scheme. Referencing the reports, Starmer pilloried the PM: “What happened” to the “ambitious” MP who said the deportation plan was “the latest in a long line of gimmicks?”, he asked.

It wasn’t word-for-word Sunak’s reported objection to the plan — but such poetic licence is allowed in the theatre of the commons. Still, the PM did not deny the allegations outright; although he did dismiss them as “second hand” accounts. 

There emerged a distinct pre-election feel to the exchanges as Starmer hit back by claiming it is “hardly a surprise” the PM wanted to scrap the scheme “when he was trying to sneak in as Tory leader”. The Labour leader continued his line of attack: who should we listen to, he queried, the MP “before us today” or the one who “used to believe in something?”.

Sunak smirked — but so often at these sessions, such smiles are used to mask genuine hurt. That said, the Conservative backbenches found it hilarious that Starmer could accuse another politician of profligacy on principle. 

The prime minister refused to accuse the Labour leader of projection — a move which might have dampened the effectiveness of attacks to come. Rather, he insisted he had been “crystal clear” that an effective deterrent is needed to solve the issue of small boat arrivals.

Then came another pre-election jibe: “Every time he picks the people smugglers over the British people”, Sunak said, adding: “He doesn’t believe in controlling migration”.

Starmer again rose his feet, this time to accuse the prime minister of “flip flopping” over his choice of strategy. “Mr Steady, Mr Change, now he’s switched back to Mr More of the Same. It doesn’t matter how many relaunches and flip-flops he does. He’ll always be Mr Nobody”, he declared. 

Again, this “flip flop” line is a favoured attack line of Conservative MPs. CCHQ has even mocked up flip flops depicting Starmer’s face for sale on the party’s website (they can be yours for a mere £16.99). 

At PMQs today, therefore, the Labour leader was attempting to co-opt one of the Conservative Party’s most frequently used attack lines: that he is a principle-less, values-deficient politician. But today it was Sunak accused of being spineless. It must only be a matter of time before Sunak is mocked as “captain hindsight” by some Labour apparatchik — or as a “plastic, pointless human bollard”. 

But soon, Starmer retreated to more typical anti-Sunak territory, attacking the prime minister as out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Britons. Listing a series of issues facing the country, including access to dentists, flood defences and children out of school, the Labour leader continued: “While he’s tending to the Tory party, the country is left without government”.

Deploying other tried and tested lines, Starmer accused Rishi Sunak of being “blissfully unaware of what is going on outside the walls of Westminster”, calling it “ludicrous” that he “boasts” about his achievements as PM “while Britain is breaking”. Stop the boasts!

Sunak responded by saying he was glad Starmer brought up schools as “in spite of Labour opposing every reform… our children are now the best readers in the Western world”.

“New year, new nonsense”, concluded Starmer. But, in truth, it was a pretty standard, relatively tame PMQs. In this first session of 2024, the respective party leaders could be seen debuting some new attack lines and honing some old ones ahead of an election still likely months away.

In fact, perhaps the biggest loser at PMQs was the absentee Sir Ed Davey. He, perhaps more than Rishi Sunak today, has some difficult questions to answer. 

PMQs Verdict: Rishi Sunak 3, Keir Starmer 3.

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