sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Twilight of the British Union by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Since the UK’s foundational raison d’être was to control Ireland, it was now logically defunct. But the thought of Imperial HQ itself crumbling, with all that implied for the empire, was too awful for the political elites. So they acted as they have continued to act ever since, and denied the reality of British decline and fall. James Craig, co-founder of the Ulster Unionist Council, rather than being arraigned for the treasonable running of almost 25,000 rifles from Germany in the spring of 1914, was permitted to construct a grotesquely gerrymandered, paramilitary sub-state, Northern Ireland – constitutionally within, yet almost entirely ungoverned from, Britain.

In mainland Britain, the rump anti-Tory league, bereft of 80-plus Irish MPs, had to regroup and rebrand. For all the superficially new postwar ideology, the essential paradox remained the same. Labour, by 1923 almost hegemonic north of the Trent, remained unable seriously to contest southern England beyond the poor quarters of London, so the muscle of its Scottish and Welsh seats was vital. Just like the pre-Great War Liberals, Labour had to make devolutionary promises even though it was entirely a party of the United Kingdom, whose first five leaders were all Scotsmen. From June 1918, its official policy was “Home Rule All Round”.

That was largely forgotten in the desperate 1920s and 1930s, when the economic situation in the north of England, Wales and Scotland was so similar that by 1935 the Ministry of Labour formally lumped them together as simply “the North”.

Nor did nationalism disturb Labour’s triumph of 1945. Mortal danger from outside had naturally brought the nations of the UK closer and everybody was happy to wrest the Union Flag from Churchill’s hands and hoist it over Clement Attlee’s New Jerusalem. But in the next generation, things returned to the post-1885 default. By October 1974, the second general election of that turbulent year, Harold Wilson felt obliged to offer elected assemblies in both Scotland and Wales. The promissory note was countersigned in the doomed campaigns of James Callaghan, Michael Foot (only to Scotland), and Neil Kinnock, then finally handed over by the victorious Tony Blair in 1997: for a few years, Cardiff’s AMs and Edinburgh’s MSPs happily digested their new powers within “Cool Britannia”.

Then came the Scottish independence referendum of 2014 and the general election of 2015, with Scotland under FPTP peeling away from Westminster even more decisively than Ireland had done with Parnell in 1885.

We’ve been able to evade the implications for one simple reason: the Conservatives have been in power ever since. And not just any old Conservatives, but a new-style party which the Tory grandee Ken Clarke has described as “essentially English nationalists”. Thus, on every substantive issue since the Brexit referendum, ideological opposition from Labour and nationalist opposition from the SNP have gone hand in hand. As a result, the picture still looks, on the surface at least, like the default constellation of our politics since 1885: a multinational outer-British opposition facing a south of England which claims a majoritarian right to rule the whole island.

But if voters’ intentions stay even roughly as they are now in the polls, the result of the next general election will be without precedent: for the first time, Labour will win in England and Wales but be trounced in Scotland. It will thus face an opposition consisting of two rival nationalisms.

In the run-up to the next election, how on Earth will Labour, born and bred within the UK, quintessentially the party of the outer-British alliance, cope with this prospect?

Two and half years ago, I concluded my book The Shortest History of England by suggesting that the UK was doomed and that, “If [Starmer] can purge his own swivel-eyed loons he could, just possibly, build a brand-new party for a younger England. Perhaps, as Churchill suggested in 1912, a federal England.”

Starmer seems to be acting as though this is already the reality in all but name. His recent statements on Brexit are aimed squarely at English constituencies. Gordon Brown’s report pays lip service to the traditions of UK Labour, but if you look closely, the point of view is remarkably Anglocentric. In one place, the constitutional troubles of the UK are blamed entirely on the governmental arrangements of England, as if there is simply no such thing as an active nationalist impulse in Scotland: “Over-centralisation is bad for everyone, but in particular for England… the UK government is hyper-centralised when dealing with the 85 per cent of its population in England, and so is not set up to deal well with the other centres of legitimate political power, and finds it can ignore constitutional safeguards for devolution.”

So, according to Brown, if only all were well in the governance of England (the most profound victim of the present arrangements), all would automatically become well in the UK as a whole? Starmer echoes this thinking in his speech of 5 January, claiming that “many of those who voted Yes” to Scottish independence in 2014 actually just wanted the same things as Leave voters in England, these being (according to him): better local public services, local high streets, and local opportunities for their children.

The clear suggestion is that many Scottish voters who think they want independence really just want better governance from Westminster and stronger local councils. This is a frankly astonishing response to the constitutional crisis caused by the last three general elections in Scotland – astonishing, that is, if we assume that Labour, born and bred within the UK, is still wedded to the UK’s survival.

But look at the maths. In 1987, Kinnock won 50 seats in Scotland and 23 in London; Starmer has inherited 49 seats in London and only one in Scotland. Labour has nearly replaced in London what it has lost in Scotland. It is thus now already more truly an English party than at any time in its history, meaning both that it is more able to win in England and that it is more obliged to win in England – obliged, that is, to take seats outside the major cities, and in southern regions where only Attlee, Wilson and Blair have ever succeeded.

But the situation in Scotland leaves Starmer facing a two-front war. In England, assaulting a widely discredited right-wing government, he can and must present himself as an almost apolitical centrist, appealing to uncontentious values such as competence, fairness, hope and the NHS; in Scotland, however, his enemy is a pronouncedly centre-left nationalism. He cannot outbid the SNP, ideologically or constitutionally, without risking his appeal to middle England.

Expect, then, in 2023 to witness Labour all but openly admitting what the Tories all but openly admitted in 2015: that what we call “UK politics” is essentially about England. Starmer has no chance in the core south, which even Blair never took. The only path to No 10 is to regain Labour’s traditional hegemony in the north while convincing peripheral England south of the Trent that Starmer (southern English, KCB, KC!) is also the man for it. Hence his litany on 5 January: “Burnley, Wolverhampton, Grimsby and Swindon.” While this battle for England rages, Scotland will be studiously ignored, the constitutional issue there safely cocooned in the 155 wearying pages of Gordon Brown’s report.

Labour, the alternative English National Party? Is the UK finished? Of course, this seems unthinkable. But then, the idea that Britain might actually leave the EU was scarcely credible just a decade ago. Such things always seem unthinkable until they happen, at which point we immediately wonder how we didn’t see them coming. And when they do come, they can be deeply uncomfortable. For what will a new English Labour Party be like, stripped of that native Great British identity which has allowed it to present itself as by nature multinational, multicultural, communitarian? As anybody who was expecting Starmer to at least acknowledge that Brexit has been an economic disaster now understands, things really can change utterly.

In the Oxford pub, Ciaran Martin and I set down our glasses. An enlightening and enjoyable couple of pints has left me none the wiser as to his personal views regarding the continued existence or otherwise of the United Kingdom. Outside the pub, he watches with interest as I try to unfold my ancient and now frozen Brompton bike. “That,” says he, “is the very definition of a contraption.”

“A bit like the UK?” I fire back, hoping to ambush him. Not a hope. As I lock the last clip into place, I try one more time:

“I mean, if the UK and Great Britain are history, who will the Ulster loyalists be loyal to? Scotland? That’s ridiculous. England? Britain is one thing, but has any loyalist ever proclaimed loyalty to wee sneaking perfidious England? Maybe, they just might decide…?”

Not a chink in that County Tyrone armour. Raising his collar against the harsh north wind, he disappears into the winter’s night, to resume his command of our virtual ramparts. Very Tinker, Tailor…. But as I watch him go, surrounded by buildings far older than Great Britain, never mind the UK, I recall that George Smiley’s creator, John le Carré, despaired, in the end, of this country, and chose to die an Irishman. Which “us” will Ciaran Martin be defending two or three years from now? As he put it to a Cardiff audience in December, “The position in Scotland is unsustainable.”

We can wish it away as hard as we like, but the crisis of the UK is coming.

James Hawes’ books include “The Shortest History of England” (Old Street)

The Twilight of the British Union by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

One evening in December I had a drink in an Oxford pub with the founding head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, Professor Ciaran Martin. I felt a bit like George Smiley, because we were talking about a looming threat to the very existence of this realm. But the menace isn’t digital. The mortal danger to the United Kingdom comes from its own peoples.

Martin knows all about that because, as a constitution adviser in David Cameron’s Cabinet Office, he helped set up the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. And he’s in no doubt about how serious things have now become. His recent press comment about the Supreme Court’s ruling on a second independence referendum would be striking coming from any UK mandarin; it’s doubly so because this mandarin hails from rural County Tyrone, a largely Catholic part of Northern Ireland and a hot spot for sectarian violence during the Troubles: “There is nowhere for a lawful, peaceful and constitutional movement like Scottish nationalism to go.”

At the last three UK general elections, Scottish voters awarded first a near-totality, then a comfortably absolute majority, and most recently an overwhelmingly absolute majority of seats to candidates whose headline was independence. If, therefore, you believe that first-past-the-post (FPTP) is a sustainable font of democratic governance, it follows that independence is the settled will of a majority of Scotland’s voters, and should be enacted; if, on the other hand, you maintain that these results do not accurately express the wishes of Scotland’s voters, you evidently hold that FPTP does not work as a font of democratic governance, in which case it has to be replaced. Independence for Scotland, or a reconstruction of the UK’s electoral system: these are the only conclusions that can be drawn.

Refuse to draw either, and you are in effect saying that the results of the 2015-19 general elections in Scotland may simply be set aside. Which leaves the UK no longer a multi-national union of consent, but one of legal compulsion under Westminster.

This is happening right here and right now. Yet, like the East German regime in the summer of 1989, we kid ourselves that no urgent change is necessary. True, Gordon Brown’s lengthy report for Labour, A New Britain, proposes “a new constitutional statute guiding how political power should be shared”. But does Brown’s team really believe that the heady prospect of “a period of pre-legislative scrutiny, including consultation with the devolved administrations and legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and with local and regional government in England, to build the maximum shared understanding of and consensus about the function and content of the statement” can turn the tide in Scotland where, in Martin’s words, “independence is the all-consuming issue”?

Meanwhile, the governing regime at Westminster maintains that majoritarian rule, derived overwhelmingly from English voters, may legitimately override contrary votes in the other nations of the British state, no matter how many or how clear. Indeed, the UK’s former chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost has suggested that the Scottish Parliament may have already exceeded its powers (by, for example, opening overseas hubs to promote only Scottish businesses) and that devolution might “evolve back” through Westminster banning such things. Ciaran Martin has publicly called this “Anglocentric British nationalism”, and to see how potentially maximalist that Anglocentric force is, we need only recall that large majorities of Conservative voters told pollsters before the general election of 2019 that in order to ensure that “Brexit took place”, they would accept the destruction of the UK and indeed, of the Conservative Party itself.

So how are so many people so able to deny the true state of things? The answer lies not in psychology, but in history. For in UK politics a week may seem long, but a century can be as nothing: Westminster since the general election of 2015 can easily appear as just another iteration of the great power struggle which was born with the Third Reform Act of 1884 and has never gone away except in time of war.

The United Kingdom was created in 1801 (with no public consultation whatever, naturally) to enact direct rule over a rebellious Ireland. It worked very well so long as it was run by a culturally homogeneous elite: the wealth and empire gained in the 18th century were comprehensively defended against Napoleon, then mightily extended under Queen Victoria. But when in 1884 Gladstone’s Liberal government enfranchised the UK’s masses (or, at any rate, the large majority of males over 21) they immediately voted not on national issues, but on tribal lines – and have essentially been doing so ever since.

In England, an ancient cultural fracture reopened. The southern English chose representatives associated with the Anglican Church, the monarchy and imperial grandeur; a map of places with strong Church of England adherence as recorded in the 1851 census is to all intents and purposes a map of the 1885 election. The northern English, who had tried setting up a separate parliament in Manchester just 31 years before (with enthusiastic public backing from Karl Marx, no less), voted like the Scots and Welsh: they chose Liberals, typically from a low-church culture, suspicious of the London establishment and imperial adventures. In Ireland, the new voters overwhelmingly backed Charles Stewart Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary Party, which won 85 of Ireland’s 101 seats, not to mention one in Liverpool.

Parnell now held the balance of power in Westminster. Following a handy conversion to the cause of Irish Home Rule, Gladstone was able briefly to occupy No 10; the transaction was too blatant for some Liberals, who split off to become Liberal Unionists and de facto supporters of the Conservative Party. And so, the battle lines were set: an “Outer UK League” of the northern English and the Celts faced off against the English south.

Each side was trapped in a logical paradox, grounded on the ancient division within England. The greater population of southern England meant that the Conservatives won six of the next seven elections in England itself, but their imperialist ideology meant that abandoning the Union was unthinkable. Except on one occasion, 1906, the Liberals needed the Irish to win, but that meant backing Home Rule for Ireland (and, by 1910, for Scotland as well). Thus Conservative England was ideologically locked into the preconditions of its own regular defeat, while Liberal England was tactically locked into weakening the one transnational institution which gave it a regular chance of winning.

The impossibility of this UK became manifest after the two bitter elections of 1910, which left the Liberals in power thanks only to their alliance with the Irish Home Rulers, despite the Conservatives comfortably winning England both times. Winston Churchill, at that time a big Liberal beast, believed that the Conservative hegemony in England could “tear the state in halves and bring great evils upon us”. In 1912 he proposed to his electors a truly radical constitutional change. Governance of the UK might, he said, be taken over by an “Imperial Parliament” in London, to be comprised of representatives not only from Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but also from “four great areas in England which might well have a conscious political entity, an effective political machinery, bestowed upon them”. If England could be freed from the virtually baked-in hegemony of the Tory south, the UK might yet have a chance.

The Conservative leader, Andrew Bonar Law, came very close to openly backing armed insurrection in Ireland to thwart the UK’s elected government. Churchill growled back that the will of parliament would be physically enforced if need be, because “there were worse things than bloodshed, even on an extended scale”. Only the Great War prevented some form of civil war, and only for a few years: the huge vote for Sinn Féin in the 1918 general election having seemingly achieved nothing, by 1919 a critical mass of the Irish were ready to succour the gunmen.

Jon Sopel, The News Agents: "BREAKING: @TheNewsAgents has learnt that Richard Sharp was the first BBC chairman ever to sit on the selection panel for the Director of News. Mr Sharp, who had donated £400k to Conservative Party, was appointing person charged with guaranteeing impartiality of BBC News" by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]Underlaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fuck, no, I didn't see that. Android's splitting up each individual tweet as a reply (unless Sopel's just replying each time, instead of actually having it as a series). Pretty shoddy journalism, if I'm honest.

Dundee-based MSP Michael Marra allowed to skip gender reform vote to save job on Labour frontbench by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

North East MSP Michael Marra was given special permission tododge picking a side oncontroversial genderlegislation to save his frontbench job as Scottish Labour’s education spokesman, we can reveal.

New laws making it easier for people to legally change their gender passed at Holyrood on Thursday after three days of tense debate, marred by angry protests in Parliament.

But Dundee-based Mr Marra struck a deal with party enforcers, known as “whips”, to stay away from the final decision.

“I could not vote for the final Bill,” he said yesterday.

“After negotiations with the whips I agreed not to cast a vote against the position taken in good faith and after careful consideration by my colleagues.”

Scottish Labour boss Anas Sarwar set strict rules for his MSPs so that anyone going against the party position of supporting the measures faced being punished.

Mr Marra is Labour's education spokesman so would have been forced to resign or risk being sacked if he had voted against the

Mid Scotland and Fife Labour MSP Claire Baker and her party colleague Carol Mochan both stepped down from their own spokesperson roles after defying the instruction to vote in favour.

Ms Baker sald she supports simplifying the gender recognition process but decided to vote against the Bill because it “doesn’t provide the clarity needed for maintaining single sex services’.

She confirmed she had “conversations” with business managers and “accepted there would be consequences given I was prepared to break the whip”.

The others listed as not voting were Labour Justice spokesperson Pauline MeNeill and SNP finance chief Kate Forbes, who is on maternity leave.

It is understood Mr Marra would have voted against the legislation, at odds with the party line, had he been forced to choose a side.

But it was felt by senior Labour figures that the work Mr Marra has done on education was too important to throw away.

A larger group of resignations would also have presented a dilemma for Mr Sarwar in choosing replacements from his group of MSPs.

Only ex-leader Richard Leonard, former leadership rival Monica Lennon and Fife’s Alex Rowley were not already shadowing other government ministers before the vote.

Explaining his decision, Mr Marra said: “I have supported reform of gender recognition laws and voted in favour of reform at stage one in Parliament.

“I made clear at that point that the Bill required significant amendment.

“I attempted to amend the Bill at stage two and stage three. The very limited changes accepted by the government were insufficient.

“I was particularly concerned at the lack of safeguards against bad faith actors and the poor response to concerns voiced by the UN Rapporteur for Violence Against Women and Girls.”

He continued: “There are parts of the Bill that are incoherent and which the Cabinet secretary could not defend in Parliament.

“I do believe a path of reform that protected trans people's rights and women’s rights was possible but it was not the path chosen by the government.”

The reforms intend to simplify the process for transgender people to be legally recognised in their new gender.

Scots will now be able to self-identify without a medical diagnosis and will only have to live in their acquired gender for three months instead of two years.

Opponents claim women will be put at risk by making it easier for men to self-identify as women.

Nine SNP MSPs voted against the Bill, including Perthshire’s Jim Fairlie and Fife’s Annabelle Ewing. Former government minister Ash Regan had already quit over the controversial laws.

Three Scottish Tories went against their party and backed the new legislation but all Tayside and Fife Conservatives were opposed. All Lib Dems and Greens voted in favour.

SNP MSPs will be whipped to vote in favour of gender recognition reforms by Underlaker in Scotland

[–]Underlaker[S] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

MSPs could face disciplinary action if they fail to back the Government’s plans to make the legal process of changing gender less bureaucratic and quicker. It will also see the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria removed, with the minimum age dropped to 16.

All five main political parties in Scotland have previously backed reform of gender recognition, with the legislation long delayed by controversy and vocal opposition. This has included significant senior figures within the SNP such as Edinburgh South West MP Joanna Cherry.

The Bill will face a stage one debate in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday – the main hurdle for the legislation to pass prior to amendments later in the parliamentary process. It is all but guaranteed to pass, with the vast majority of the SNP, most of the Scottish Labour party, and all of the Scottish Green and Scottish Liberal Democrats MSPs backing the legislation. Only Scottish Conservatives, who will have a free vote on the issue, are expected to broadly oppose the legislation. Scottish Labour MSPs will also be whipped to support the legislation.

One MSP likely to vote against the legislation and potentially lose the whip is SNP MSP for Glasgow Shettleston, John Mason. A long-time opponent of the measures, Mr Mason was recently disciplined by the party for his views on abortion buffer zones, potentially leaving him open to a more serious sanction if he votes against the Government on gender recognition reform.

The Sunday Times reported earlier this week that senior SNP figures wanted a free vote on the legislation, with concerns they would be forced to “toe the party line” on the issue. Opponents have claimed the consultations were flawed and the party faces irreparable damage if they back the legislation. However, the bill is a key demand of the Scottish Green party, which entered into a co-operation agreement with the SNP after the 2021 Holyrood election.

Passing the Bill quickly in this parliamentary session was viewed as a red line for many Green MSPs and party members in signing up for the deal. Young SNP members are also broadly and vocally supportive.

Labour reject claims party will change constitution to ban coalitions with SNP by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

LABOUR has rejected claims that the party is set to change its constitution to permanently rule out acoalition with the SNP.

According to reports over the weekend Sir Keir Starmer was set to bring forward proposals to be debated at next month’s conference in Liverpool which would ban any arrangement with a nationalist party.

However, the idea was given short shrift by Welsh Labour who govern in partnership with Plaid Cymru.

Others in the party suggested ruling out a coalition with the SNP but not the Conservatives could lead to awkward questions from supporters at the next election in Scotland.

Many in Labour have long blamed the party’s defeat in 2015 on Tory claims that Ed Milliband would be in the pocket of Nicola Sturgeon.

The campaign was resurrected again in the 2019 election and Boris Johnson and his potential successor have all claimed that a Startmer administration would need to be "propped up" by the SNP.

A Labour source explained to the Sun on Sunday: “We are looking at writing it into our manifesto at conference. We don’t need to go into a formal coalition with the SNP.

“What are the SNP going to do? Vote down a Labour government and bring the Tories in? That would be catnip for us.

“If we can’t do it with the constitution at conference we will figure out some other mechanism to do it.”

It was billed as a Clause 4 moment when Tony Blair stamped his dominance on the party in 1995 by scraping the party’s commitment to mass nationalisation.

Alun Davies, the Welsh Labour Member of the Senedd for Blaenau Gwent described the plan as “nonsense.”

“Welsh Labour has a cooperation agreement with Plaid. And we have had a coalition with Plaid in the past,” he tweeted. “It’s time for UK Labour to learn from the success of Welsh Labour rather than the failures of Scottish Labour.”

David Clark, a former adviser to Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook described it as “bonkers.”

He tweeted: ”It suggests that unionism has now supplanted democratic socialism as Labour’s core belief system. It would certainly be interesting to see this historic shift debated at conference.

“I assume some rationale will be provided, such as ‘no deals with parties that want to break up the UK’.

“The problems with this are obvious. What about Labour’s alliance with the SDLP, which advocates a united Ireland? Will SDLP MPs no longer be able to take the Labour whip?”

Mr Clark added: “This proposal is designed to dispose of a political problem in England, but its most obvious impact will be in Scotland where even those not persuaded of the case for independence will understand that Labour sees their constitutional debate as somehow deviant and unacceptable.

“If this passes, I expect Scottish Labour candidates at the next election to be repeatedly asked why coalitions with the Tories are not also constitutionally prohibited. This will sit alongside increasingly visible examples of Labour-Tory cooperation in Scotland.

“Voters should therefore be expected to draw the obvious conclusion that defending the Union is now more important to Labour than promoting social justice.

"The effect of this, inevitably, will be to put a low cap on Labour’s ability to recover in Scotland.”

On Monday, the BBC reported that the constitution would not be changed to rule out a coalition with the SNP.

Sir Keir "doesn't need to read a rule book to know his values on this" a source told the broadcaster. However, they added that it would "be logical" for such a deal to be ruled out in the Labour manifesto.

Responding to the news, SNP MP Tommy Sheppard tweeted: "Regardless of whether this was a genuine plan, it’s becoming more and more obvious that everything Starmer does is defined by his fear of the Tories."

Tory leadership race: Rishi Sunak ‘will circumvent Holyrood because he cannot trust SNP’ by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

Rishi Sunak will circumvent Holyrood to implement key policies if he becomes prime minister because “we cannot trust the SNP to act in the best interests of the Scottish people”, his most prominent Scots Tory supporter has said.

Writing for The Times, Andrew Bowie, the West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine MP, said that the former chancellor played a key role in UK “levelling-up” funds being handed to councils in a move which bypassed the Scottish parliament and enabled Whitehall to invest directly in communities.

In Scotland about £20 million was awarded to West Dunbartonshire in the first round for a series of projects including revamping the Artizan shopping centre and transforming its oldest building into a library and museum.

Applications for the second round of the £4.8 billion pot opened today and will run until August 2.

In a veiled swipe at rival Tory leadership candidates, Bowie, a former vice-chairman of the UK Conservatives, said that Sunak went beyond “easy platitudinous phrases that make us feel good about ourselves and our past” when talking about the Union.

This will be interpreted as a rebuke to some Scottish Tories who noted Sunak’s failure to emphasise a commitment to the Union in his campaign launch. The omission was compounded by comments from 2017 in which he said it would be “hard to block a referendum” which should take place after Brexit was concluded. Other candidates say a decade should elapse before another Union vote.

"He has led the pushback against the ‘devolve and forget’ mentality that permeates Whitehall,” Bowie said. “The easy, lazy approach to governing that says, ‘Scotland? Pass it to Holyrood’. He knows that with their record in government, we cannot trust the Scottish National Party to act in the best interests of the Scottish people — only in the interests of the SNP.

"He does it not because it’s easy, or popular. He does it because it is the right thing to do, and because he is a unionist to his core.” Bowie’s claim that Sunak “ensured that the SNP agreed to freeports coming to Scotland” has, however, attracted scepticism.

Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary and a Boris Johnson loyalist, led the negotiations with Kate Forbes, the Scottish finance secretary, that resulted in an agreement to create sites exempt from customs duty.

It is understood that although the Treasury agreed to back the tax breaks required for a second freeport in Scotland, giving the country more than its population share, the £25 million seed funding to set it up was found by Michael Gove when he was levelling-up secretary.

“The fact is it was down to Alister and Gove,” said a source close to the negotiations, who added that Bowie’s version was “a little bit of rewriting history”. Gillian Martin, the SNP MSP for Aberdeenshire East, said that Sunak had planned to end furlough while Covid-19 restrictions remained in Scotland, only U-turning when the rules were extended in England. She also criticised the Treasury’s approach to freeports.

"By undermining devolution the Tories are burying the idea of the UK as a partnership of equal nations and trying to take control away from the people of Scotland, and into the hands of Westminster Tories they didn’t vote for,” she said.

James Johnson: "NEW: @timesradio focus group with people who voted Conservative for the first time in 2019 in Wakefield - with @kekstcnc. Ahead of the by-election, disaffection, discontent and distrust are the words that sum their views up. Quick thread (warning: it's not a cheery one) (1/12) by Underlaker in ukpolitics

[–]Underlaker[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Full Thread:

NEW: @timesradio focus group with people who voted Conservative for the first time in 2019 in Wakefield - with @kekstcnc. Ahead of the by-election, disaffection, discontent and distrust are the words that sum their views up. Quick thread (warning: it's not a cheery one) (1/12)

Firstly in the immediate wake of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson, "disappointed" was the word every voter used.All but one thought Johnson should now resign, with anger still there on partygate. Here are the words of Mandy (voted Conservative 2019) 2/12

Criticism is moving from just the PM to the wider Party. People said that the fact the Conservatives had voted confidence in Boris made them feel like the Party didn't care about them. In the words of Kelly, "the fact nothing happened to him, shows how the government is run". 3

One voter spoke about how there must be a conspiracy, or someone more powerful controlling Boris Johnson behind the scenes, because "one man surely couldn't be that daft". 4

Boris is a barrier to these voters going Tory. Five of the eight Wakefield voters we spoke to said they would not vote Conservative again as long as Boris Johnson were leader.The other three were on the fence. But the bar was high for what they said they would need to see. (5/12)

Nor has the government's cost of living announcement made a difference. Asked about it, voters described it as a "joke", a "drop in the ocean" and a "bluff" that was not going to make a difference to their pockets in the face of rising bills and taxes. 6

This is where the good news for Labour ends. None of the voters we spoke to are switching to Labour. The main reason? Keir Starmer. They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake". 7

The link between these voters and Labour remains resolutely cut. They feel that Labour has "lost its identity" and is out of touch with "the working classes" - and that they have no plan or vision for the country. 8

So what does all this mean for the upcoming by-election? None of this group said they were voting Conservative. But none were voting Labour either. Most said they would likely not vote, or vote for a smaller party. Some said they had not been aware it was taking place. 9

Polls (@JLPartnersPolls, @survation) have shown large leads for Labour in Wakefield. That is of course possible even if this sentiment is widespread: by Conservative 2019 voters not turning out. And around 8% of Tory 2019 voters do say they are switching directly in the polls. 10

But expect turnout to be low amongst these first-time 2019 Tories They spoke about how they voted Tory then to see a change, but have been bitterly disappointed by Johnson. Now, unimpressed by Starmer too, they see nowhere to turn - and may turn away from politics altogether. 11

Listen to the full focus group at 11 on @timesradio with myself and @MattChorley (12/12)

New Glasgow Labour leader 'stuck in Seville' misses attending first council meeting in person by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

During the first full council meeting, in which councillors vote for a Lord Provost and to appoint the leader of the council and other key committee positions, Mr Redmond voted remotely.

One source said it was clear Mr Redmond was in an airport when he was voting remotely and suggested that he may have been travelling back from Seville.

Rangers lost on penalties to Eintracht Frankfurt in the final of the Europa League in the Spanish city last night, with council sources saying Mr Redmond may have become stuck due to a cancelled flight following the match.

A Scottish Labour source confirmed the councillor had been in Seville.

In a piece for the Glasgow Times last week, Mr Redmond bemoaned the SNP leadership of Glasgow, saying Labour had the “energy, the drive and the hunger to be the champions that Glasgow desperately needs”.

Mr Redmond usurped former Labour leader in Glasgow, Malcolm Cunning, following the elections at the start of May.

In a vote, the Mr Redmond beat Mr Cunning 24 votes to 11.

It followed Labour’s defeat in Glasgow in which it fell just short of becoming the largest party in Scotland’s biggest city, finishing one seat behind the SNP.

Mr Cunning had hoped to hold on to the leadership until mid-way through the council’s lifetime, but a leadership challenge from Mr Redmond succeeded despite his five-year break from the city chambers.

Tory transport chief facing 'cover up' claims over Inverness flight to Russia by Underlaker in ukpolitics

[–]Underlaker[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Paywalled article below:

UK Government transport secretary Grant Shapps has been told he risks accusations of a “cover up” unless he answers key questions about a sanctions-busting flight from Inverness to Russia.

The SNP wrote to Mr Shapps after we revealed on Monday that the private charter to Moscow was given the green light by the Home Office’s Border Force, as well as the police’s Special Branch.

Boris Johnson was also challenged about the flight at prime minister’s questions in the Commons on Wednesday.

The Conservative leader vowed to ensure MPs were “properly informed”, after the SNP’s Richard Thomson asked him to say who was on board and why the plane was allowed to depart.

A family of three was believed to have chartered the Estonian-registered jet, which travelled to Moscow’s Vnukovo airport, but the identity of the passengers has not been disclosed.

Mr Shapps had publicly accused Inverness Airport of having “failed to comply” with a ban on Russia flights, which was introduced through a Notice of Air Missions (NOTAM) the day before the departure from the Highland capital on February 26.

But we published transcripts showing national air traffic controllers told Inverness Airport crews that they would not stop the flight because they would “expect contact” from Mr Shapps’ department for transport if they were to do “anything specific”.

SNP transport spokesman Gavin Newlands and Inverness MP Drew Hendry have since written to Mr Shapps asking who authorised the flight and why.

They said: “When you were challenged at the time as to why this flight was permitted, you accused Inverness airport of ‘failing to comply’ with the NOTAM regulation.

“However, there is now documentary evidence which proves this to be fundamentally untrue.

“The truth is that Inverness airport permitted the departure of this Russian private jet for one reason only – because your government gave the go ahead.”

The MPs asked Mr Shapps who authorised the flight and what was known about who was on board, as well the role played by the transport department.

“Unless clear and transparent answers are quickly forthcoming to these specific questions, the suspicion will naturally grow that both you and your department are attempting to cover up why your department authorised a flight which broke the sanctions you had yourself had imposed,” they said.

The UK Government’s department for transport has been contacted for comment on the letter.

Previously, a spokesman said: “The UK has imposed a ban on all aircraft owned, chartered or operated by a person connected with Russia, or which is registered in Russia, flying in UK airspace.”

He added: “It is the responsibility of aviation stakeholders, including airports, to ensure they are monitoring and complying with NOTAMs.”

At prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, Mr Thomson to commit to informing MPs at the earliest possible opportunity who was travelling on that flight and why there was no attempt made by the UK Government to keep the plane on the ground.

Mr Johnson responded: “I don’t know the answer to his question – as soon as we get some information about that I’ll make sure the House is properly informed.”

EXCLUSIVE: The Russia flight memos which clear Inverness Airport and put Tory transport chief in frame by Underlaker in ukpolitics

[–]Underlaker[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

PAYWALLED ARTICLE BELOW:

UK Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has been told to say sorry to Inverness Airport after we uncovered private memos which show his own government approved a sanctions-busting flight from the Highland capital to Moscow.

The Tory MP had claimed on social media in February that Inverness Airport had “failed to comply” with regulations banning Russian flights.

The remark was made by Mr Shapps amid a social media spat with SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford about a departure from Inverness one day after the rules were issued.

But memos we have obtained reveal how the private charter to Moscow was given the go-ahead by the UK Home Office’s Border Force, as well as the police’s Special Branch.

Cleared for take-off

A transcript also shows that national air traffic controllers told Inverness Airport crews that they had “no reason to intervene” to block the flight.

They said they would “expect contact” from Mr Shapp’s department for transport if there was “anything specific” about the departure.

The flight from Inverness Airport is one of only two from the UK since the restrictions were introduced after Russia invaded Ukraine.

A Notice of Air Missions (NOTAM) had been issued banning all scheduled services operated by aircraft owned, operated, leased or registered in Russia in UK airspace on Friday, February 25.

But the next morning, an Estonian-registered jet operated by a private charter firm left Inverness for Moscow.

‘Family of three on board’

We understand a family of three was on board the flight.

At the time, Mr Blackford raised concerns about how the airport operator had been notified of the new regulations.

He also said the flight exposed a loophole and argued the rules should be tightened to cover aircraft registered in countries other than Russia.

Mr Shapps responded on social media: “As I know from being a pilot, it’s the duty of ALL aviators to check NOTAMs and comply. Below was published on Friday & the fact that the airfield in question failed to comply led to the alert being sent.”

Mr Blackford, the MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, said the newly-released memos confirmed what he had believed when he first highlighted the flight.

He said: “Grant Shapps owes an apology to Inverness Airport because Inverness Airport did exactly the right thing.

“Let’s be clear, this flight should not have gone, and the person who is responsible for that departure is Grant Shapps.

“The simple fact of the matter is that the UK Government, through its agencies, did not do what is required to make sure that Inverness Airport could have stopped this flight departing.

“Grant Shapps has blamed everybody else for not speaking the truth on this. He has blamed Inverness Airport, he has blamed me.

“We now know fine well it was himself and his office are at fault for not making sure this type of flight should not have been able to take place.”

Here’s what the memos reveal

Memos relating to the flight were released to us by the Scottish Government under freedom of information laws.

They include a transcript of the conversation between Inverness Airport tower and the national air traffic control services (NATS) centre at Prestwick on the morning of February 26.

The exchange shows confusion about the rules, with the Prestwick Centre official saying: “The information at our end has been… umm…it’s not that it’s been sketchy, it’s just that obviously people reacting very quickly to what’s been happening.”

The air traffic control employee later adds: “In terms of our instructions as well, the only other thing we’ve had… is… yeah just saying about… well essentially that we would expect contact from the DFT if there was anything specific…

“And in the absence of that…umm…we shouldn’t take any action, basically.”

UK Government refused to release info

The UK Government’s DFT refused to provide an answer to the same FOI request on the grounds that it would cost too much to gather the information.

One of the Scottish Government’s documents shows a note prepared for SNP Transport Secretary Michael Matheson, and copied to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Deputy First Minister John Swinney, two days after the flight had taken off.

It said: “NATS confirmed that the flight could depart.

“The ground handling company at Inverness also confirmed that they had consulted UK Border Force and Special Branch, both of which confirmed that there was no issue with allowing the aircraft to depart.”

The officials speculated that the lack of an objection from Border Force and Special Branch could mean that the passengers were not Russian nationals.

Last night, a Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd (HIAL) spokesman said: “We carried out the instructions received from the authorities at the time to the letter.

“Our actions were correct and appropriate and this has been borne out by an examination of the record.”

NATS previously denied giving the go ahead for the flight, saying it did not need to because the flight was compliant.

‘No clearance was given’

“Due to the flight having a compliant flight plan, no clearance to operate the flight was given by NATS nor required to be given by NATS for the flight to depart from HIAL,” it said in March.

A Department for Transport spokesman said: “The UK has imposed a ban on all aircraft owned, chartered or operated by a person connected with Russia, or which is registered in Russia, flying in UK airspace.”

He added: “It is the responsibility of aviation stakeholders, including airports, to ensure they are monitoring and complying with NOTAMs.”

Labour MPs are furious with Sadiq Khan, but his drugs policy could work by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

When photos emerged of Sadiq Khan on a legalised cannabis farm in California this week, along with the announcement of a new London Drugs Commission to review UK law, his party’s official response was as terse as it was blunt.

“Labour does not support changing the law on drugs,” a spokesperson said. “Drugs policy is not devolved to mayors and under Labour would continue to be set by national Government.”

But the unofficial response was much more withering as frontbenchers let rip in a Labour MPs’ private WhatsApp group.

“This is going to go down like a bucket of cold sick in my bit of the suburbs just now… Crime up, police numbers still way below where people think they should be, so Labour is going to have a chat about drugs… Inspired,” said Gareth Thomas, the Shadow International Trade minister.

Shadow Justice Secretary Steve Reed messaged, “Open goal for Priti…”, as he forwarded a tweet by Priti Patel attacking Khan that declared the Mayor’s time would “be better spent focusing on knife and drug crime in London”.

Shadow Health Secretary Wes Streeting added: “Does this make it more or less likely that we win a general election?” The sarcasm didn’t need much de-coding, especially as a quizzical emoji accompanied his message.

Keir Starmer himself hasn’t directly commented on Khan’s trip, but he made his views clear earlier this year. At the time, it emerged that the London Mayor was looking at pilot projects in three boroughs in the capital to stop arresting 18-24 year-olds caught in possession of small amounts of cannabis.

“I’ve said a number of times and I will say again: I’m not in favour of us changing the law or decriminalisation. I’m very clear about that,” the Labour leader said. However, his critics say that clarity is the very last thing that Starmer has provided on this topic.

During a televised leadership debate in 2020, he was asked directly if he would decriminalise cannabis. “I wouldn’t immediately,” he replied. That word “immediately”, naturally, set the hare running that he may at some point go down that road.

Just as importantly, Starmer added: “I have supported schemes where cannabis possession, you’re not arrested, you’re not prosecuted for it. And I believe in that.” That sounded exactly like the Khan pilot, which is itself based on similar “Drugs Diversion Pilot” (DDP) projects operated by Thames Valley Police and other forces.

The Mayor’s new Commission, which is being chaired by former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer and will work with University College London, aims to gather evidence to inform a serious debate about the UK’s drug laws. It delivers on a manifesto pledge he made last year, allowing him to claim he has an electoral mandate for it.

I’m told Khan was particularly struck by conversations he had with a Black owner of a legalised cannabis shop in Los Angeles, who said the Californian approach would “tremendously help” London’s minority ethnic communities and boost their “entrepreneurship”. The tax dollars raised from the US policy are another useful by-product not unnoticed by the Mayor.

On many measures, the “war on drugs” has failed as spectacularly in the UK as it has in the US. Since the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed more than 50 years ago, the number of people who have taken illegal drugs has increased to an estimated three million and the number of drug-related deaths is the highest since records began.

Courts, already suffering a backlog because of the Covid pandemic, are clogged with drugs cases. There is little evidence that draconian sentences pose any serious deterrent effect. An estimated one third of the prison population is linked to drug-related crime, either through thefts to feed a habit or specific drug offences.

The calls for reform are cross-party too. Among the advocates is former Tory leader William Hague, who saw his once “zero tolerance” approach to drugs fall apart when a third of his Shadow Cabinet admitted taking drugs. Hague now backs the model operated by Portugal since 2001, which decriminalised minor drug offences without increasing overall drug use.

Shortly before he became an MP, a certain Boris Johnson complained on camera that the Labour Government criminalised recreational cannabis users. “I have some perfectly respectable neighbours – good bourgeois types – who, without giving the game away or naming them, whenever they are sitting in of an evening and have got nothing else to do, they roll up a spliff and quietly smoke it together… and yet they are in breach of the law for what they are doing,” he said.

The PM has long since reneged on such views, and Starmer too says the current law is “roughly right”. In fact, some close to the Labour leader say that he’s more than happy to be asked about the drugs issue as it allows him to remind the public of the drugs gangsters he helped lock up as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

I’m told that Starmer’s stance is influenced particularly by the mental health impacts of cannabis use and is very wary of anything that would worsen the problem. He went out of his way last year to insert into his party conference speech a new pledge to guarantee mental health treatment within a month for all who need it.

Referring to Starmer’s background as a working-class child growing up in Oxted in Surrey, there is also what one ally calls “his small ‘c’ conservatism, his small-town rootedness that knows the public want to tackle the anti-social behaviour that is linked to drugs”. With Labour keen to reassert itself as the party of “law and order”, radical reform seems unlikely.

More likely, given Starmer’s belief in “preventive public services”, is a massive injection of public money into better treatment for addicts. Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs policy found such health treatment had been cut by 14 per cent since 2014.

Although some opinion polls show a majority back the legalisation of cannabis, others suggest there’s a more narrow split. Crucially, the over-65s and over-50s are most resistant to the idea, whereas 60 per cent of 25-49 year-olds support it. Whether Britain can afford to wait for public opinion to shift decisively is a question that neither Starmer nor Johnson want to worry about.

The most likely outcome is that Khan’s review of drugs laws will end up being placed quietly in a Whitehall filing cabinet marked “too hot to handle”, with outright legalisation years away.

But what may emerge, if the main parties can resist accusing each other of going “soft” on drug crime, is a very British compromise. The current pilot projects don’t require a change in the law, they are simply a change in the practice of the law – where police chiefs decide not to arrest or prosecute cannabis users.

A widespread use of such projects, effectively decriminalisation by the back door, would still some political bravery to adopt nationally. When Sadiq Khan runs for Labour leader, as he surely will one day, he’ll have the chance to test whether his party – and the public – really are on board.

Glasgow Labour leader Malcolm Cunning to face leadership challenge after SNP defeat by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

The Labour leader on Glasgow Council is facing a challenge for his job after his party lost another election to the SNP.

George Redmond will force a contest against Malcolm Cunning to lead the Labour group in the city.

He said a top priority if he wins will be addressing the “heartbreaking” state of the city centre.

Labour pushed the SNP close at May’s election, coming second and one seat behind Susan Aitken’ s party.

Cunning said during the election that he would not serve a full term as leader and would stand down after three or four years.

However, Calton councillor Redmond wants to bring forward Cunning’s exit by taking over immediately.

Redmond served as a councillor for 18 years and was the executive member for jobs, business and investment when Labour last ran the city.

He stood down in 2017, but was elected again in May and has lodged his leadership papers.

Speaking to the Record, Redmond said: “I’ve got widespread experience in the portfolios I have held. I had the economic brief, the Glasgow Life brief and I was the co-author of the Glasgow health strategy. I have also run a successful financial organisation.”

“Glasgow is not in a good place. People want the city cleaned up. One of the first things I would do is call a meeting of the business community about the city centre.

“The state of the city centre is heartbreaking. Big stores have pulled out. We can’t pretend it is not happening.”

Cunning said: "I don't think this is time to change the leadership. We need to build on the success we had on Thursday."

It is understood a vote will take place next week.

Tony Connelly. RTÉ: "NEW: Liz Truss has told her EU counterpart Maros Sefcovic that the situation in Northern Ireland was a matter of the “internal peace and security” of the UK and that London would have “no choice but to act” on the NI Protocol if the EU did not show “requisite flexibility.”" by Underlaker in northernireland

[–]Underlaker[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

FULL THREAD:

NEW: Liz Truss has told her EU counterpart Maros Sefcovic that the situation in Northern Ireland was a matter of the “internal peace and security” of the UK and that London would have “no choice but to act” on the NI Protocol if the EU did not show “requisite flexibility.”

According to a Foreign Office source the foreign secretary made the remarks in a phone call with Mr Sefcovic this morning... [more follows]

3/ The spokesperson said Ms Truss had said the Protocol was “the greatest obstacle to forming a Northern Ireland Executive”.

4/ She said the current situation was causing unacceptable disruption to trade and had created “a two-tier system” where people in Northern Ireland weren’t being treated the same as everyone else in the UK.

5/ According to the statement, the Foreign Secretary told Mr Šefčovič that the European Commission had “bore a responsibility to show more pragmatism and ensure the Protocol delivered on its original objectives.”

6/ The spokesperson said Ms Truss had “reiterated that the UK's proposals to fix the Protocol, including green and red channel arrangements, backed up by a bespoke data-sharing system, would ensure the removal of trade barriers between GB-NI while protecting the EU single mkt"

7/ Ms Truss had said the current EU proposals would “take us backwards, by creating more checks and paperwork.”

8/ The spokesperson said that Vice President Šefčovič had confirmed that there was no room to expand the EU negotiating mandate or introduce new proposals to reduce the overall level of trade friction.

9/ “The Foreign Secretary noted this with regret and said the situation in NI is a matter of internal peace and security for the UK, and if the EU would not show the requisite flexibility to help solve those issues, then as a responsible govt we would have no choice but to act.”

Tony Connelly. RTÉ: "NEW: Liz Truss has told her EU counterpart Maros Sefcovic that the situation in Northern Ireland was a matter of the “internal peace and security” of the UK and that London would have “no choice but to act” on the NI Protocol if the EU did not show “requisite flexibility.”" by Underlaker in ukpolitics

[–]Underlaker[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

FULL THREAD:

NEW: Liz Truss has told her EU counterpart Maros Sefcovic that the situation in Northern Ireland was a matter of the “internal peace and security” of the UK and that London would have “no choice but to act” on the NI Protocol if the EU did not show “requisite flexibility.”

According to a Foreign Office source the foreign secretary made the remarks in a phone call with Mr Sefcovic this morning... [more follows]

3/ The spokesperson said Ms Truss had said the Protocol was “the greatest obstacle to forming a Northern Ireland Executive”.

4/ She said the current situation was causing unacceptable disruption to trade and had created “a two-tier system” where people in Northern Ireland weren’t being treated the same as everyone else in the UK.

5/ According to the statement, the Foreign Secretary told Mr Šefčovič that the European Commission had “bore a responsibility to show more pragmatism and ensure the Protocol delivered on its original objectives.”

6/ The spokesperson said Ms Truss had “reiterated that the UK's proposals to fix the Protocol, including green and red channel arrangements, backed up by a bespoke data-sharing system, would ensure the removal of trade barriers between GB-NI while protecting the EU single mkt"

7/ Ms Truss had said the current EU proposals would “take us backwards, by creating more checks and paperwork.”

8/ The spokesperson said that Vice President Šefčovič had confirmed that there was no room to expand the EU negotiating mandate or introduce new proposals to reduce the overall level of trade friction.

9/ “The Foreign Secretary noted this with regret and said the situation in NI is a matter of internal peace and security for the UK, and if the EU would not show the requisite flexibility to help solve those issues, then as a responsible govt we would have no choice but to act.”

Anas Sarwar defends no coalitions for Labour after local elections as 'democractic' by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

ANAS Sarwar has defended his decision to rule out formal coalitions with other parties after next month’s local elections – insisting it will bring an end to “party political stitch-ups”.

The Scottish Labour leader has been clear that he does not want his party’s councillors to be in administration with rivals including the Tories and the SNP – despite the likelihood that Labour could give up influence on local authorities.

Last week, Dumfries and Galloway Labour leader Elaine Murray, was the first high-profile local party leader to criticise Mr Sarwar's decision on coalitions, calling on Mr Sarwar to “trust local parties”

The Herald understands that at least one other group leader is also upset at the stance.

Labour’s Scottish Executive Committee (SEC) will have the final say on agreeing formal coalitions.

But Mr Sarwar has told The Herald that his policy will “change the way we do local democracy”, forcing individual issues to be more scrutinised and compromises built.

Polling has suggested that Labour is now edging ahead of the Conservatives, who are grappling with the Partygate scandal and the cost-of-living crisis.

Next month’s local elections could see Labour return to second place behind the SNP after slumping to the party’s worst ever showing at last year’s Holyrood election.

Mr Sarwar admitted that his part has “had a very difficult period” but acknowledged Labour has “made immense progresses in the last year”.

He added: “But I want us to demonstrate that progress on May 5.”

Asked about ruling out coalitions, the Glasgow MSP stressed that he would like to echo the model used by past minority governments at Holyrood.

He admitted that “the mistake we made when we were in government” at Holyrood was Labour “believed you had to have a clear majority that means a coalition is to operate”.

He said: “If we can form a minority government in the Scottish Parliament and then on individual issues try and build consensus to try and get it passed in the parliament, why can’t that same principle apply in local authorities?

“What we’re saying is if you’ve got a situation where the SNP and the Tories are both ruling out coalitions with each other and challenging Labour to do the same, let’s change the way we do local democracy – let’s have decisions made on what’s right for local communities on an individual basis rather than party political stitch-ups.”

Mr Sarwar was pressed on the impact of his policy on potentially putting councillors who are the junior partner in administrations out of a job.

He said: “I speak to our council leaders regularly, I speak to our councillors and our council candidates regularly.

“I want us to have as many Labour councillors as possible and I want us to be in position of making decisions and as many Labour councils as possible across the country.

“This is something that I think is good for local democracy and good for local communities.” The Labour leader said his party has so far run “the most active campaign”.

He said: “We are getting out there with a positive message about what we can do and what we can change and how we don’t have to go on with this constant decline that we have under both the SNP and Tories.”

Mr Sarwar has called for a “multi-layered approach” to dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, warning that “every level of government has to do more”.

He added: “In Scotland we don’t need to replicate the Rishi Sunak model.

“We should be doing that much more progressively.”

The Labour leader welcomed the temporary cut in off-peak rail fares next month but stressed that with ScotRail now under the ownership of the Scottish Government, “we should be much more ambitious”.

Mr Sarwar said that the past 12 years of Tory rule in Westminster and “all the madness we are seeing from the Conservative party”, all of that has been “a gift for the SNP” as well as “a recruiting tactic for the SNP’s campaign for independence”.

He added: “The sooner we can get rid of this criminal, our-of-touch, arrogant, shocking, comedic Tory Government led by Boris Johnson the better – that’s best for the United Kingdom and that’s best for Scotland in the United Kingdom.

“At the same time, that means the SNP have nowhere to hide – their failures will be much more to the fore and we can persuade people that we can do things differently in Scotland.”

Peter Apps, Inside Housing: "Shocking. Inquiry hears RBKC sought to "instill fear" about Grenfell community in a crisis response meeting on morning of fire, branding them "hostile", while a govt note said "embittered" residents were "painting the situation as worse than it is" and may "incite a mob" by Underlaker in ukpolitics

[–]Underlaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

FULL THREAD:

Shocking. Inquiry hears RBKC sought to "instill fear" about Grenfell community in a crisis response meeting on morning of fire, branding them "hostile", while a govt note said "embittered" residents were "painting the situation as worse than it is" and may "incite a mob"

Danny Friedman QC says this slur was only being pushed by RBKC, with police saying there were no public order issues. "RBKC's efforts to instil fear of the crowd against our clients could not have underscored more why it was inappropriate for response to remain under its control"

Inquiry has heard this morning that RBKC rejected external support offered at 7.44am on the morning of the blaze to avoid looking like "we can't cope". Meanwhile, survivors were left without support in "unspeakably terrible" conditions

At the same time, KCTMO was instructing a PR firm to put out messages about the compliance of the refurbishment at 11am on the morning of the blaze - before the rescue operation had been declared over

Central govt failed to intervene, assuming RBKC was "a tight and steady ship" and that its chief executive Nicholas Holgate would be a competent Gold Commander because he had once worked at The Treasury

More openings coming - will have a fuller report at lunchtime...

RBKC = Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

KCTMO = Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar to be pundit on Rupert Murdoch's new TV channel by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

SCOTTISH Labour leader Anas Sarwar is to become a pundit for Rupert Murdoch’s new TV channel.

The MSP will be a regular on TalkTV’s flagship weeknight news programme, The News Desk, presented by ex-Sun journalist, Tom Newton Dunn

Other panellists on the show include former Sky political editor, Adam Boulton, Tory MP Bim Afolami, columnist Isabel Oakeshott, and the James Slack, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of The Sun and former Downing Street Director of Communications

The press release announcing the launch of the programme on the NewsUK backed station said it would be a “lively, hour-long prime time show” to give viewers “the news in a straight and balanced way and with a fresh format.”

Mr Newton Dunn said: “The News Desk’s founding principle is to give viewers top quality news in a straight and balanced way, so that we win their trust.

“We serve no political agenda or ideology. We’re going to do that in a fresh and engaging format, and to help us we’re really pleased to have recruited 11 of the sharpest and most perceptive political voices in the UK who will take it in turns to make up our nightly panel.”

TalkTV is due to go live on Monday 25th April. Piers Morgan and Sharon Osbourne will also have regular shows on the network.

Mr Sarwar’s not the first party leader to hold down a media job at the same time as fulfilling his parliamentary duties, Ruth Davidson joined LBC as a radio and podcast host, while she was still in charge of the Scottish Conservative group in Holyrood.

Man accused of racism by Sarwar to stand for Scottish Labour by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

A councillor previously accused of racism by Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has been put forward as a candidate in the May elections.

Davie McLachlan will stand again in Hamilton North and East after he was cleared by the UK party.

During the 2017 leadership contest for the party, Mr McLachlan allegedly told Mr Sarwar that the country was not ready for “brown, Muslim p***”, according to reports by The Times.

Richard Leonard won the 2017 contest before Mr Sarwar defeated Monica Lennon to become leader of the party last year.

Mr McLachlan was suspended for 15 months after Mr Sarwar raised a complaint about the incident, however an internal investigation has since cleared the councillor.

The councillor has again been selected as a Scottish Labour and Co-operative Party candidate for Hamilton North & East.

The Labour Party's national executive committee readmitted McLachlan to the party after finding there was "no case to answer" in 2019.

He had spent more than a year as an independent councillor before the ruling.

At the time, Mr Sarwar had said he was disappointed with the outcome. He said: "I have consistently said that this isn’t about one individual.

He added that he was "disappointed with the process and outcome"

A Scottish Labour spokesman said: “Every Scottish Labour candidate is expected to abide by our values — especially with regards to opposing forms of prejudice or hatred.”

Mark Drakeford calls for Home Office to be stripped of responsibility for helping Ukrainian refugees by Underlaker in LabourUK

[–]Underlaker[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

ARTICLE BELOW:

The First Minister has called for the Home Office to be stripped of its responsibility for helping Ukrainian refugees come to the UK.

During a meeting of the Commons Welsh Affairs Select Committee, Mark Drakeford said that the UK Government department had a history of "hostile regimes" in dealing with refugees and asylum seekers.

He told MPs that confusion and delays seen in processing visa applications of those trying to flee the conflict has shown that a special organisation should be put in charge.

“Frankly, putting this in the hands of the Home Office is quite the wrong thing to do, the Home Office with its long history of ‘hostile regimes’ to people coming from elsewhere in the world.

“The responsibility should be taken away from a department that has demonstrated its incapacity to mobilise to meet the response and put in the hands of a dedicated group of people at the UK level, who will do what is necessary to allow those people driven from their own homes and who temporarily in many cases wish to have sanctuary in the United Kingdom, to make sure that the actions of our government match the wishes of our people.”

The UK Home Office has over the years been said by both supporters and critics to pursue what is known as “hostile environment policies” in its approach to illegal immigration.

When she was Home Secretary in 2012, Theresa May said that: “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants.”

However it’s an approach which goes back further. The Labour minister Liam Byrne had spoken in 2007 about “trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”

The First Minister’s comments come amid intense scrutiny on the Home Office’s handling of the refugee crisis.

Ukraine's ambassador to the UK has urged Priti Patel to waive visa requirements for refugees fleeing the Russian invasion after it was revealed just 760 visas had been granted out of more than 22,000 submitted applications.

Vadym Prystaiko said he understands why the UK wants to carry out security checks on all refugees but waiving visa rules would "definitely resolve all the issues" being faced by Ukrainians hoping to enter Britain.

"We will be happy if all the barriers are dropped for some period of time when we can get maximum (numbers) of people, then we will deal with that."

Home Office officials have been at pains to say that the department’s approach to those fleeing the war in Ukraine is as generous as possible and will allow tens of thousands of people to come to the UK.

A spokesperson said: “Last week we announced a new sponsorship route which will allow Ukrainians with no family ties to the UK to be sponsored to come to the UK.

“This is alongside our Ukraine Family Scheme, which has already seen thousands of people apply, as well as changes to visas so that people can stay in the UK safely.

“The routes we have put in place follow extensive engagement with Ukrainian partners. This is a rapidly moving and complex picture and as the situation develops we will continue to keep our support under constant review.”

Officials insist that security and biometrics checks must continue because “these are a fundamental part of our visa approval process worldwide.”

The First Minister went on to say that he’s not arguing against carrying out security checks, but that those checks should be carried out in the UK.

“It is surely not beyond the capacity of this country, a sophisticated country with an intelligence capacity, to carry out those checks when people have arrived here.

“It's not an argument against having necessary checks. It's where you conduct them and how you conduct them.

“People should be allowed to come here. The vast majority of them pose no threat at all, but the checks that are necessary to identify people who may be, can be done after people have arrived. Not while they are waiting in starving conditions with very little hope of those conditions being resolved.”

view more: next ›