Lords does not need ‘Putin apologists like Farage', minister says
In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, the Reform UK leader said that a 'democratic disparity' in the upper chamber needed to be addressed.
Reform has four MPs and controls 10 councils in England.
Asked about the party leader's demands, Defence Secretary John Healey said: 'I'm not sure that Parliament's going to benefit from more Putin apologists like Nigel Farage, to be honest.'
Asked whether that accusation was 'a bit strong', Mr Healey told LBC: 'Look at what he's said about Russia, look at what he's said about Putin in the past.
'At this point, when maximum pressure needs to be put on Putin to support Ukraine in negotiations, when the maximum condemnation of Putin is required from someone who is sitting down with Trump in Alaska but turning up the attacks on Ukraine, it needs all voices.
'And I have to say, the voice of Reform is conspicuously absent in any of our discussions and any of our defence debates about Ukraine and about Russia.'
The Cabinet minister urged Mr Farage, the MP for Clacton, to start 'weighing in alongside us and the other parties in the House of Commons' in condemning the Russian President.
The Reform leader has previously called for Lords reform, writing in an article for the Telegraph in February that 'a smaller chamber is needed'.
In his letter to the Prime Minister, first reported by the Times, Mr Farage said: 'Reform UK wishes to appoint life peers to the upper house at the earliest possible opportunity.'
In what he described as a 'modest request', he said it was time that Reform was represented in the unelected second chamber.
'My party received over 4.1 million votes at the general election in July 2024. We have since won a large number of seats in local government, led in the national opinion polls for many months and won the only by-election of this parliament,' he said.
Political appointments to the Lords are made at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is under no constitutional obligation to elevate opposition figures but will sometimes ask other leaders to nominate individuals.
In December, Sir Keir appointed 30 new Labour peers, including his former chief of staff Sue Gray – which Mr Farage said at the time showed the ruling party's 'lofty ambition' to abolish the Lords had 'fallen by the wayside'.
The Conservatives appointed six new peers, while the Liberal Democrats appointed two.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
22 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly
Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'
North Wales Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly
Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Another 60 people to be prosecuted for ‘showing support for Palestine Action'
A further 60 people will be prosecuted for 'showing support for the proscribed terrorist group Palestine Action', the Metropolitan Police have said. The force said this follows the arrest of more than 700 people since the group was banned on July 7, including 522 in central London last Saturday. More prosecutions are expected in the coming weeks, and arrangements have been put in place 'that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary', the Met said. Palestine Action was proscribed in July after the group claimed responsibility for damage to jets at RAF Brize Norton and was also linked to allegations of a serious assault on staff and police officers at a business premises in south Gloucestershire, the force said. Last weekend in central London 15,000 people demonstrated peacefully in support of the Palestinian cause with only one arrest, police said, adding that 522 were arrested 'for an illegal show of support for Palestine Action on the same day'. Stephen Parkinson, director of public prosecutions, said: 'The decisions that we have announced today are the first significant numbers to come out of the recent protests, and many more can be expected in the next few weeks. We are ready to make swift decisions in all cases where arrests have been made. 'The public has a democratic right to protest peacefully in this country, and I understand the depth of feeling around the horrific scenes in Gaza. 'However, Palestine Action is now a proscribed terrorist organisation and those who have chosen to break the law will be subject to criminal proceedings under the Terrorism Act. 'When protest conduct crosses the line from lawful activity into criminality, we have a duty to enforce the law. ' People should be clear about the real-life consequences for anyone choosing to support Palestine Action. A terrorism conviction can severely impact your life and career – it can restrict your ability to travel overseas and work in certain professions. 'I urge people to think very carefully about their actions at protests. Anyone who chooses to disobey the law will have to face the consequences.'
