Lithuania Prime Minister Gintautas Paluckas steps down after investigations and protests
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda announced Paluckas' resignation to the media on Thursday morning. A spokesperson for Paluckas did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Paluckas, a newly established leader of the center-left Social Democrats, ascended to the role late last year after a three-party coalition formed following parliamentary elections in October. His entire cabinet is now expected also to resign, potentially leaving the country without an effective government weeks before Russia holds joint military exercises with neighboring Belarus.
Lithuanian foreign policy is unlikely to change as a result of the government shakeup. Nausėda, who was elected separately, is the country's face on the world stage and has been one of the most stalwart supporters of Ukraine in its fight against invading Russian forces.
Paluckas has recently been dogged by media investigations into his business and financial dealings. Several media outlets published investigations in July regarding Paluckas' past and present ventures and alleged mishandlings, including ones more than a decade ago. The Baltic country's anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies subsequently launched their own probes.
In a devastating blow to his reputation, the media also revealed that Paluckas never paid a significant part of a 16,500 euro fine ($19,039) in connection with a 2012 criminal case dubbed the 'rat poison scandal.'
Paluckas was convicted of mishandling the bidding process for Vilnius' rat extermination services while serving as the capital city's municipality administration director. Judges for the country's top court in 2012 ruled that he abused his official position by illegally granting privileges to the company that offered the highest price in the bid.
He was also sentenced to two years behind bars, but the sentence was suspended for one year and he ultimately was never imprisoned.
The Social Democratic party leader denied any wrongdoing regarding his business affairs, labeling the criticism as part of a 'coordinated attack' by political opponents.
He resigned before the opposition could formally launch impeachment proceedings. New coalition talks are expected to start shortly to form a new cabinet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
16 minutes ago
- BBC News
RAF Croughton's 'golf ball' structure to be dismantled
Work to dismantle and remove a distinctive golf ball structure at a US Air Force base is due to building, used to house communication equipment at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, has already been base said there were no plans to replace it and, according to a letter to residents of nearby villages, the work was expected to last until follows safety work around the base last year after motorcyclist Harry Dunn was killed by a US citizen driving on the wrong side of the road. Anne Sacoolas was given a suspended sentence in 2022 after pleading guilty to causing death by careless base is currently a United States Air Force communications station and headquarters of the 422d Air Base the letter, Abigail Jeffs from the base said residents of villages in the area "may notice some increased noise levels and a slight rise in traffic".It said the base would do its best to minimise any added the majority of the contractors would use the main entrance on the B4031 but some large vehicles, such as cranes, would use the emergency exit on the A43. Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Despite the chaos of its launch, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new party has struck a nerve
Less than a month into its existence, Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana's new leftwing party is already widely seen as a mess. Its leadership, its launch schedule and even its name: all have caused inconclusive, semi-public rows. The opportunity provided by political novelty appears to be being wasted. For the many journalists and politicians who always see the left as incompetent and naive, the stop-start, seemingly uncoordinated first weeks of Your Party, as it may or may not eventually be named, have felt like a gift – a summer silly season story after months of grim political acrimony. 'Thank Christ Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana are here to give us a laugh,' wrote Sebastian Murphy in the Daily Express. 'Labour's loopy Left have bravely broken free of Starmer's stultification to bring us a political party that is easily the funniest thing since the anti-Brexit centrists Change UK.' Now largely forgotten, Change UK lasted 10 months after splitting from Labour in 2019. For left-leaning Britons who've had enough of Labour's rightward shifts and intolerance of dissent, and have been hoping for a viable alternative, the new party's launch has been depressing. Why, in times which so obviously require a radical fightback, can't the left agree a clear way forward? Why is it still so dependent on Corbyn, who after 42 years in parliament can hardly be presented as a fresh figure? And where are the nimble strategists that the immensely difficult task of establishing a successful leftwing party is going to need? Some of the answers to these questions, which British leftists often ask each other with despairing shrugs and eye-rolls, lie in socialism's struggles in this country since the 1980s. These have left the movement with gaps and imbalances, which are exposed whenever it tries to take the initiative. Yet as well as considering these weaknesses, it's also important to acknowledge that, despite all the confusion and ridicule, Corbyn and Sultana's new party has struck a nerve. It says that more than 600,000 people have signed up on its rudimentary website for updates and information about how to get involved – almost as many people as the memberships of Labour, the Tories and Reform UK combined. In some of the most hostile coverage of the new party, there is a revealing note of alarm. 'Something has actually gone seriously wrong with British society,' wrote Camilla Tominey in the Telegraph, 'if a party such as this could poll at 18 per cent' – the proportion who told YouGov they would 'consider' voting for a new Corbyn-led party. 'It's a rebellion against the broken status quo.' Superficially, this rebellion seems little different from the half dozen that have tried and failed to break Labour's left-of-centre monopoly over the past 30 years: Respect, Left Unity, the Workers party of Britain, the Socialist party, the Socialist Labour party, the London Socialist Alliance. Well-known leftists such as Arthur Scargill and George Galloway attempted to turn strong local power bases, personal charisma and leftwing credibility into something bigger, at times when Labour was alienating its more radical supporters. A few parliamentary and council seats were won, but rarely for long. The new parties were both too narrow – dominated by one person – and too broad – prone to ideological differences – to sustain their initial momentum. With their ageing figureheads and traditional leftwing sectarianism, the new parties did not seem new enough. This time, the involvement of Sultana, one of the most digitally fluent young MPs, sends a different signal. So does the involvement of innovative and ambitious political operators, such as Momentum co-founder James Schneider, who helped make Corbyn's Labour leadership, at times, surprisingly dynamic and popular– despite it being widely written off, as the new party is now. Six years on from Corbynism's defeat, there is finally a movement, largely undetected by the mainstream media, of bright, youngish leftwing activists back into the political game. And yet, as the frictions between Corbyn and Sultana have shown, it remains tricky to unite two leftwing generations, very different in age and levels of political patience – while also appealing more effectively to middle-aged Britons, who grew up under New Labour and often absorbed its centrist assumptions. These difficulties afflicted Corbyn's Labour leadership, and ultimately helped destroy it. The British left has so often been excluded from power over the past 40 years that it frequently lacks the skills that experience of power can bring: building and sustaining coalitions, maintaining message discipline, creating political organisations that are representative without being too fractious. Truly leftwing British parties, in short, tend to be a bit rickety, yet they must stand up against our conservative political culture's strongest winds. Then again, such deficiencies may matter less nowadays. The deep discontent and many crises left by 14 years of rightwing rule, impatience with Starmer's methodical but patchy reforms, and outrage at his government's Gaza evasions, mean that many voters are in an adventurous – or reckless – mood. A radical party with a highly divisive leader, thrown-together structure and frequent internal rows already exists, and it's called Reform. Its poll lead suggests that voters are less interested than journalists in party processes, and more interested in stories about what's wrong with Britain, compellingly told. Whether at rallies or on social media, Sultana and Corbyn are just as capable of this as Nigel Farage. A new poll shows that Reform voters strongly prefer Corbyn to Starmer, which suggests that the new party could take Reform votes. Reform has more media backing than the new party ever will. Yet it's likely that rightwing journalists will keep giving the leftwing party publicity, and even some favourable coverage, in order to hurt Labour. So the new party will need to pull off a balancing act: keeping its personalities and factions happy, developing populist but not fantastical policies, and wounding the government without helping Farage into Downing Street. Labour loyalists will say that a left divided is a left defeated. But if they truly believed that, Starmer's party and government would be much more pluralist. What these loyalists really think is that the left should only ever be divided on their terms. That entitled and coercive logic has now had consequences. A new leftwing party, risky and imperfect, could be here to stay. This time, it's possible that our politics will never be quite the same again. Andy Beckett is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Are Labour's plans to offset Heathrow expansion emissions all pie in the sky?
Expanding Heathrow would result in increased carbon dioxide emissions and could put the UK further off track on its climate goals, but the government is claiming it can offset that by investing in research on new low-carbon fuels for aircraft and on electric planes. However, any such technology is still decades away, if it ever reaches commercial scale, making it certain that any new runway in the near future would be used by the same kerosene-fuelled, high-carbon aircraft that we have today. The Climate Change Committee, the government's statutory adviser on net zero, has warned repeatedly that airport expansion would breach the UK's carbon budgets, which are set years in advance on a pathway to meet the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. While the CCC cannot prescribe government policy, especially in the case of specific decisions, it has noted that any expansion of airports would be possible within the UK's carbon budgets only if far steeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made elsewhere within the economy. In its most recent report to parliament, the committee said: 'Any plan to increase airport capacity needs to be based on realistic projections of future demand. These demand projections need to be consistent with climate change targets and take account of the costs to the sector of getting aviation to net zero emissions.' Campaigners do not believe it is possible for an expanded Heathrow to operate within the UK's carbon budgets. Alethea Warrington, the head of aviation at the climate charity Possible, said: 'It is unlikely that this expansion can be done within the current carbon budget as a new runway would bring additional flights, with a huge chunk of additional emissions, with no way of removing them.' Doug Parr, the policy director of Greenpeace UK, said: 'Anyone who is serious about tackling climate change would be very cautious about making that problem even bigger without a coherent plan for dealing with it. Wishful thinking about future technological advances and cost reductions are not a coherent plan, and certainly not a plausible basis to allow the huge increase in emissions from a third runway at Heathrow. This policy amounts to announcing infrastructure now and kicking the carbon cost down the road for a future government to deal with.' Yet there could be alternatives if the government is brave enough to grasp them. The CCC has advised that the aviation sector should be forced to 'pay for permanent engineered removals to balance out all remaining emissions'. That would be expensive – ways of permanently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as capturing the gas and storing it, are still under development. Simpler than that, why not substitute train journeys for flying? In 2021, there were more than 3m flights within the UK between July to September alone and there are 15 flights a day to Brussels, which is just over two hours away by train from London. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion But flights are often cheaper than trains, even over short distances – flying is in effect subsidised, through the tax system. To encourage people on to trains instead of domestic flights, the government would need to make rail journeys cheaper or flights more expensive. The former would require investment, and the latter would annoy some middle-class voters. Therefore neither seems likely.
