Publish pothole plans or lose funding, Starmer orders councils
Sir Keir Starmer will force town halls to publish their plans to tackle potholes or risk losing crucial funding.
For the first time, every council in England will be told they must report the number of potholes filled, with their share of road funding at stake if they fail to comply.
The Prime Minister said that that fixing the nation's 'broken roads' was essential for economic growth.
It comes after a new report suggests Labour will miss its manifesto pledge to fix a million potholes per year.
The Asphalt Industry Alliance said last week that the cost of restoring Britain's roads back to a good condition had reached £16.8 billion, a record high.
Sir Keir said: 'The broken roads we inherited are not only risking lives but also cost working families, drivers and businesses hundreds, if not thousands of pounds, in avoidable vehicle repairs.
'Fixing the basic infrastructure this country relies on is central to delivering national renewal, improving living standards and securing Britain's future through our Plan for Change.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
19 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Have your say on whether the UK should get involved in the Iran-Israel conflict
As the Israel-Iran conflict rages on, we're asking: should the UK join the fighting? With tensions rising and Western involvement looming, is military action the right move - or should we continue pushing for diplomacy? As Keir Starmer continues to call for de-escalation between Israel and Iran - we're asking if you think the UK should join the fighting. The seventh day of conflict came 24hrs after Iran's supreme leader rejected U.S calls for surrender - and warned that any military involvement by the Americans would cause "irreparable damage to them." There's little sign so far that either side is willing to back down, and with that comes mounting concern the conflict will draw Western powers into it - but would you want our country getting involved? Take our poll below. The Prime Minister has refused to rule out defending Israel against Iranian attacks, despite a warning from Tehran that this could lead to British bases in the region being targeted. However, a No. 10 spokesperson said the UK would not support efforts aimed at regime change in Iran, with Keir Starmer urging that Iran's nuclear program be addressed through negotiations rather than military action. Meanwhile, last night Donald Trump continued to consider whether to deploy American forces to assist Israel in targeting Iran's military facilities. This comes after days of Israeli airstrikes on Iran, followed by Tehran's missile attacks on Israeli towns and cities in response. Speaking to broadcasters this morning, the Prime Minister said: "Obviously all of us, the UK included, are very concerned about the nuclear programme that Iran is developing, long been concerned about that. "We also completely recognise Israel's right to self defence. But the principle is that we need to de-escalate this. There's a real risk of escalation here that will impact the region, possibly beyond the region, into Gaza and obviously It's already having an impact on the economy." Should the UK get involved in the Iran-Israel conflict? Take our poll below and if you can't see it, click here Mr Starmer went on: "I've been absolutely clear about this - yes the nuclear issue has to be dealt with, but it's better dealt with through negotiations than by way of conflict." When Donald Trump took office in 2018, he withdrew the US from the nuclear deal with Iran, which had restricted Iran's nuclear activities since its signing in 2015. While Britain has consistently called for de-escalation, it has deployed two refueling tankers and 14 Typhoon jets to Cyprus to safeguard British personnel and interests in the Middle East. The Foreign Office has evacuated family members of British Embassy staff from Israel but has not advised UK nationals to leave the country. Asked if Mr Starmer would prefer Mr Trump to go down the route of diplomacy rather than military action, a No 10 spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has been clear that his priority is de-escalation. Clearly de-escalation is the priority, and we would not want to see anything that ramps up the situation. That is our priority. We have been clear on that for a number of days now. De-escalation remains this Government's priority." What do you think? Should the UK get involved in the Iran-Israel conflict? Take our poll above and expand on your feelings in the comments below.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How Britain could help Trump hit Iran's nuclear sites without deploying UK forces
As Keir Starmer considers whether Britain should support the US if Donald Trump decides to bomb Iran, the attorney general, Richard Hermer, has reportedly warned him that UK involvement could be illegal. The prime minister was an outspoken opponent of the 2003 Iraq war when he was a human rights lawyer and will be well aware of the thorny legal issues around engagement in strikes against Iran. British officials have repeatedly emphasised that the UK is not expected to deploy its military forces in any attack on Iran. Instead, a key issue would probably be whether to give permission for the US to fly B-2 stealth bombers from the Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia, which is the subject of a new 99-year lease agreement with Mauritius that leaves the UK in full operational control, is mainly used by the US. But the fact it is ultimately a British base means that Starmer would have to approve its use for an attack. RAF Akrotiri, Britain's base in southern Cyprus, is also a potential launch site for US aircraft. Any use of the base by US forces would require the green light from the British government. The UN's founding charter outlines the principles governing the use of military force. There are three possible justifications: self-defence (which may include collective self-defence); exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and authorisation by the security council acting under chapter VII of the charter. In the case of the bombing of Iran, the justification given by Israel – and one that would presumably be offered by the US and any of its allies – would be self-defence under article 51 of the charter. Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack. It must be the only means of averting an attack and the force used must be proportionate. The US has taken a broad view of 'imminence' in cases of threats of terrorism or mass destruction in the past but it could prove difficult to argue that a US attack against Iran's nuclear programme or leadership would constitute an act of self-defence against an imminent armed attack on the US. The White House would probably argue that it was acting in collective defence of Israel. The strength of this argument would rest on whether Israel has acted in accordance with international law in attacking Iran in the first place and then whether the US use of force was limited to protecting Israeli civilians and US interests from an Iranian attack. Israel says its goal is to damage Iran's nuclear programme and prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. This is a broad interpretation of self-defence and its legality would depend on stressing the imminence of a nuclear attack. Israel would need to argue that it was the last window of opportunity to stop such an outcome. In 1981, Ronald Reagan's administration backed a security council resolution that condemned Israel for launching an attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Baghdad. The resolution stated that 'diplomatic means available to Israel had not been exhausted'. Comments from some Israeli politicians also throw doubt on the self-defence rationale. Israel Katz, the defence minister, said on Tuesday that the purpose of the campaign was 'to remove threats to the state of Israel and undermine the ayatollahs' regime'. There is no distinction between a state carrying out the attack and those in support if the latter have 'knowledge of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act', according to the UN. In 2021, John Healey, the defence secretary, asked in the Commons for clarification from the then Conservative government over the ground rules on the use of British bases by US forces. He was told that a proposed military operation would need to be accordance with UK law and the UK's interpretation of relevant international law. The UK's position on pre-emptive strikes is well known. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, argued that international law permitted force only in self defence where there was an actual or imminent attack and that 'the development of [weapons of mass destruction] was not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence'. Goldsmith argued only later that a UN resolution relating to Iraq made it a legal war. Writing in the Guardian at the time, Starmer, then a human rights lawyer, said article 51 might authorise a pre-emptive strike 'in a nuclear world' but that any threat to the UK or its allies would have to be imminent and any force used in response to that threat would have to be proportionate. 'The mere fact that Iraq has a capacity to attack at some unspecified time in the future is not enough,' Starmer wrote.
Powys County Times
40 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Powys councillors to be asked to explain meeting absences
TWO councillors will be asked to appear in front of Powys County Council's standards committee to explain why they have missed so many meetings. Reform's Cllr Karl Lewis, who defected from the Conservative group and is a former planning chair, is one of two councillors who will be asked to explain why they have not reached the 60 per cent threshold of meetings from May 16, 2024, to May 14 this year. Labour's Cllr Sarah Williams is the other. Members of the Standards committee at their meeting on Wednesday, June 18, heard that three councillors had failed to hit the 60 per cent attendance rate. Head of legal services and monitoring officer, Clive Pinney said that Cllr Josie Ewing (Liberal Democrat) had explained why her meeting attendance level had been 57 per cent. Cllr Ewing had been on maternity leave and had informed her group leader at the time, former council leader Cllr James Gibson-Watt, that her attendance would drop after returning from maternity leave while she found day care for her children. The committee accepted her 'very reasonable' explanation. Mr Pinney then brought up Cllr Lewis who had attended 59 per cent of meetings while Cllr Williams (Labour) had only attended 40 per cent. Cllr Karl Lewis Mr Pinney told the committee that letters asking for an explanation had been sent to Cllr Lewis on June 3, he had been asked during a phone-call conversation with democratic services officer Carol Johnson on June 12, and a further email reminder was sent in June 17, all of which had not received a response. Committee chairman and lay member, Stephan Hays asked Ms Johnson if Cllr Lewis had given an explanation verbally during their phone call. Ms Johnson said: 'He said he would get back to me about it.' Similarly, Cllr Williams had been contacted three times and asked to explain her absences. Mr Pinney told the committee that they had not had 'any communication' from her on the issue. Cllr Liz Rijnenberg (Labour) said: 'In these circumstances when someone has been contacted and not responded I wonder whether or not it would be appropriate for the group leader to check how they are and if there is anything that needs to be done in terms of support. 'It's unusual for someone not to respond at all, there could be something quite serious going on with that person.' Mr Pinney said that they have 'not traditionally' contacted group leaders, but this could be done in the future. Cllr Baverley Baynham (Powys Independents) said: 'I think we should ask them to come in front of committee and explain. 'Cllr Ewing has given a perfectly adequate explanation, as a committee we need to set the stall out and say it's not acceptable not to give a reason for not turning up. 'They have both had the opportunity to provide reasons.' Cllr Ian Harrison (Conservative) said: 'For me invitation seem a little bit weak. 'I would like the letter to be a little stronger and if you can't attend you need a very good reason why not, because we have professional standards to maintain and county councillors should be held accountable.' Member agreed that Cllrs Lewis and Williams will be asked to attend the next meeting of the Standards committee to explain themselves.
