Japan to hold upper house election on July 20, government spokesperson says
TOKYO, June 24 (Reuters) - Japan plans to hold an upper house election on July 20, government spokesperson, Yoshimasa Hayashi, said on Tuesday.
The election follows Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's decision not to extend the last parliamentary session, which ended on June 22.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
17 minutes ago
- STV News
Terrorism charges hit five-year high amid rise in online offending
The number of terrorism charges in Scotland has hit a five-year high, with Police Scotland attributing the rise in part to a surge in 'online offending'. Between 2020 and 2024, a total of 66 terrorism charges were brought forward, with 23 recorded last year alone. Seven of the individuals charged in 2024 were under the age of 18. Of the total, just three were female and 20 were male. The 2024 figure is four times higher than the number recorded in 2023, and more than triple the total from both 2020 and 2021. So far this year, officers have charged two men aged between 18 and 34 with terrorism offences. In January, a 16-year-old boy appeared at Greenock Sheriff Court following his arrest outside Inverclyde Islamic Centre on Laird Street. He cannot be named for legal reasons. He was charged with three terrorism offences. One of the charges alleges he prepared to commit terrorism or assist another person to do so. The other two allege he collected or made a record of information likely to be useful to someone committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or that he possessed a document or record containing such information. The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act was introduced in 2019 to better tackle online radicalisation and the expression of support for proscribed organisations. Assistant chief constable Stuart Houston told STV News the increase in online offending has led to more people 'contravening counter terrorism legislation'. He said: 'We will not hesitate to act on all reports of terrorism offences and investigate behaviour which constitutes a terrorism offence or attempts to radicalise others. 'Police Scotland is committed to tackling all forms of terrorism within our communities and help and support from the public is vital. Anyone with information about this kind of crime should contact us immediately.' The Scottish Government said it continues to work with key partners across Scotland and the UK to 'identify and tackle' terrorism threats. A spokesperson said: 'We work closely with key partners in Scotland and the UK to ensure we are able to identify and tackle the threat of terrorism.' Scottish Conservative shadow community safety minister Sharon Dowey MSP described the rise in charges as 'concerning'. She said: 'It is deeply alarming to see such a concerning rise in terrorism related charges especially amongst young adults. 'It is crucial that sufficient resources are in place to provide the police and other services with everything they need to curb these numbers from rising further. 'Given recent atrocities, it is vital that the police and security teams across the UK work collaboratively to keep communities as safe as possible.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Herald Scotland
42 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court gives Trump a win on deporting migrants
Sotomayor wrote that her colleagues are "rewarding lawlessness." "Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," she wrote in a dissent joined by Kagan and Jackson. "That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." The majority did not provide an explanation for their decision, which is common in emergency appeals. The administration said the order is preventing potentially thousands of deportations by requiring an "onerous set of procedures" aimed at preventing migrants from being sent to a country where they reasonably fear they could be persecuted, tortured or killed. "The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in his emergency appeal. He complained that the order is forcing the government to hold "dangerous criminals" at a military base in Djibouti so they can contest their removal to South Sudan - a problem attorneys for the migrants said the administration created for itself. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston said the migrants need to be told where they are going and given a meaningful opportunity to tell the United States that they might be harmed if sent there. "This small modicum of process is mandated by the Constitution of the United States," Murphy wrote. To back up his order, Murphy in part cited the Supreme Court's April decision that migrants must be able to contest whether they can be removed using a wartime law. On May 21, Murphy said the Trump administration violated his order by removing eight migrants to conflict-ridden South Sudan without giving them an opportunity to object. The migrants' lawyers said the administration has "repeatedly sought to remove people as a punitive measure, to some of the most dangerous places on the planet, and with only hours' notice." Many, if not most, of the migrants covered by the judge's order have no criminal convictions, the lawyers said. And those with serious criminal convictions who were chosen for the flights to Libya and South Sudan are equally protected under the law from basic human rights violations, they argued. One of the migrants represented by the attorneys, a Guatemalan man, who was deported to Mexico, was flown back on June 4 after the judge ordered his return. Murphy issued that directive after the Justice Department said it had wrongly told the court the man was not afraid of being sent to Mexico.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Overblown infrastructure projects damage lives and imperil democracy. Why is Britain addicted to them?
There appear to be two main determinants of what infrastructure gets built. The first is whether it provides large and lucrative contracts for powerful corporations. The second is whether ministers can pose beside it in hard hats and yellow jackets. Otherwise, it is hard to explain the decisions made. Both determinants favour large and spectacular schemes. Big corporations don't want to dabble in minor improvements: real money comes from prestige projects over which governments cannot afford to lose face, ensuring that they keep throwing cash, however high the budget spirals. And few ministers want to pose beside a new bus stop: a grand ego demands a grand setting. Last week, the government quietly flicked another £590m at the planned Lower Thames Crossing, to the east of London. That's the kind of money other public services must beg for. Compare it, for example, with the funding allocated in this month's spending review for local amenities such as parks, libraries and swimming pools. Across the whole of England, they received £350m. But the extra money for the Lower Thames Crossing buys less than a mile of road. It means that the total costs of the scheme, according to the government, have risen to £9.2bn, for 14 miles of road. Even this is a major underestimate. As the Transport Action Network (Tan) points out, several aspects of the project, such as necessary upgrades to junctions and connecting roads, to take the extra traffic, have been excluded from the total, disguising the full cost. TAN estimates it at £16bn. That's more than all the new money (£15bn) trumpeted by Rachel Reeves this month for buses, trains and trams in England, outside London. It's seven times as much as the Treasury allocated to fixing England's school classrooms. Or the government could use it to double the amount invested in the National Housing Bank, to build social and affordable homes: which, by contrast, we need. The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is shocking, whichever way you slice it. Using the official figure for costs, the government body National Highways estimated the BCR at 0.48: in other words, a net loss of 52 pence for every pound spent. It then threw in some vaguely defined 'wider economic benefits' to deliver an 'adjusted BCR' of 1.22. That's still low value for money. Compare it with fixing potholes and maintaining local roads, which has a BCR of 7, officially 'very high' value for money. Oh, and guess what? The maintenance backlog for England's local roads is just over £16bn. I asked the Campaign for Better Transport to estimate what else might be done with the official figure of £9.2bn. It told me the money would enable every community in England to have what the government defines as a 'reasonable level' of bus services for the next nine years. Or it could pay for 11,400 miles (18,400km) of cycle lanes, or 5,700 miles (9,200km) of bus lanes. So why is this vastly expensive white elephant endlessly inflated while crucial services and benefits are cut? The clue is the 'vastly expensive' bit: a single project on this scale can be extremely lucrative for large corporations, and they will lobby for it with commensurate vigour. The government insists the new road will relieve congestion. But even 30 years ago, official assessments showed that new roads generate new traffic, a phenomenon called 'induced demand'. They shift congestion to the next pinch point, which becomes another issue for the government to solve: jobs-for-life for the construction industry. Using modelling data from National Highways, Thurrock council estimates that traffic on the Dartford crossing, which the new road is supposed to relieve, will return to current levels in just five years. Given that the Lower Thames Crossing will take at least seven years to build, with massive disruption throughout, it's hard to detect the public benefit. It will also funnel more traffic on to the M25, A13 and M2, greatly increasing congestion. TAN has done what successive governments, astonishingly, have failed to do: commissioned a report on how demand for freight and passenger transport in the region and on the wider network might best be met. It found that new heavy freight and passenger rail connections would provide a far more effective solution, at roughly a quarter of the price. Even with added rail loading gauge upgrades and electrification, bus routes, ferries and trams, this approach would remain far cheaper, while meeting public need, reducing pollution and social exclusion and catalysing the long-overdue transition to rail freight in the UK. But neither successive governments nor National Highways have seriously examined such alternatives to the crossing. For the past 60 years, the answer has been roads, regardless of the question. Not only has National Highways ignored other means of solving the problem, it has become promoter as well as planner of the scheme, engaging in a public relations offensive that looks to me like a crashing conflict of interest. If you want what transport planners call a 'modal shift' from one kind of travel to another, first you need a conceptual shift. But we won't get it from existing agencies. National Highways is a relic of another age, unfit for purpose, driving us towards disaster. It should be scrapped. The greatest costs of schemes such as this are felt not in our tax bills, but in our bodies, minds and surroundings. The government estimates the new road will generate 6.6m tonnes of carbon dioxide. It would greatly increase both air pollution and traffic noise, and commit us to an even greater extent to car driving, with all its destructive implications for health, fitness and mental wellbeing, community cohesion and social attitudes. As a rule, though there are exceptions, what improves our lives are multiple small interventions, tailored to local needs and responsive to local democracy. What damages our lives are prestige projects tailored to the demands of big finance and corporate shareholders. The capital behind them, that sometimes seems more powerful than governments, treats democracy and public need as traffic engineers treat pedestrians – obstacles to be designed out of the way. Sometimes big infrastructure is necessary, but at all times it is a threat to democracy. This is why governments should approach it with caution and scepticism. Instead, they act as hucksters for corporate boondoggles. Such schemes allow politicians to stamp their mark on the nation, to don the hard hat and announce: 'I did this.' Look on my works, ye mighty … One measure of a nation's success is the extent to which it can reduce its dependence on road transport, in favour of inclusive, low-impact travel. Our government seems committed to failure. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist
