Now ban the IRGC, Labour MPs tell Starmer
The Government announced it will list Palestine Action as a terrorist group after its activists breached security at an air base on Friday and damaged two RAF planes.
Labour backbenchers are now calling on the Prime Minister to take the same approach towards the IRGC as Iran's war with Israel entered its second week.
Initially founded as an ideological custodian of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, the IRGC has since become a major military, economic and political force.
Labour called for the IRGC to be proscribed while it was in opposition, but has failed to commit to the move almost a year on from winning the election.
Luke Akehurst, the Labour MP for North Durham, said: 'I thoroughly welcome the move to proscribe Palestine Action after their violent attacks on defence companies and, most alarmingly, on RAF Brize Norton.
'It's now urgent, given the conflict in Iran, that the Government moves to proscribe the IRGC, which is a terrorist organisation that represents a significant threat, including here in the UK.'
Charlotte Nichols, the Labour MP for Warrington North, added: 'As much as I have no time for Palestine Action, it's quite clear who the bigger threat to our national security is.
'They should have done it a long time ago, but the second-best time is now.'
The IRGC is openly supportive of the Iranian proxy groups Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which have been proscribed by the UK Government.
Like Hamas and Hezbollah, it has a hardline Islamist ideology. The IRGC has also publicly stated its ambition to seize all Palestinian territories and Jerusalem from Israel.
On Saturday, Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, also threw his weight behind calls to proscribe the organisation.
Mr Farage told The Telegraph: 'The Iranian regime has clearly been funding propaganda hubs and promoting terror throughout the UK.
'It's high time action was taken by the Government to safeguard our institutions and communities from Iranian influence. The Government must finally proscribe the IRGC.'
Palestine Action is a direct action group that has conducted a campaign of vandalism and trespass against companies and property it claims are linked to 'Zionism' since the Oct 7 massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas.
The group was founded in 2020 and has targeted an Israeli-owned arms company as well as a number of universities.
It claimed responsibility on Friday after two vandals broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, spraying red paint into the engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft. The attack is being investigated by counter-terror police.
Proscription will mean that assets and money can be seized from Palestine Action, something that supporters of a ban on the IRGC argue would help efforts to fight Islamist ideology and terror plots on British soil.
The Israeli military said on Saturday that it had killed a second commander of the IRGC's overseas arm during a precision strike on his vehicle in western Tehran.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
7 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer just one crisis away from a Labour coup?
On the Whitehall grapevine, Wes Streeting is seen as a rare success story for the government: a good communicator who is starting to deliver the change Keir Starmer promised. The chatter in Streeting's health department predicts his next stop will be 10 Downing Street. However, the health secretary might face an uphill battle to win over the Labour grassroots in the 'one member, one vote' ballot that chooses the party's leader. Even some of his admirers suspect he might be too right-wing, or 'Blairite', for many of them. Whitehall officials are less flattering about other cabinet ministers. Rachel Reeves 's autumn Budget is described by some as her 'last shot'. In other words, if she can't break out of the doom loop of 'one-off' tax rises to meet her fiscal rules, followed by exactly the same medicine in her next Budget, Starmer might be looking for a new chancellor next year. The prime minister is not immune to speculation about his future. Even his allies admit he cannot afford a repeat of his bad first year on the domestic front. 'Another crisis like the welfare climbdown and it would surely be curtains,' one Labour MP told me. Angela Rayner told last month's meeting of Labour's national executive committee that 'announcements are not enough: people have to see real improvements in their lives, soon.' Significantly, the deputy prime minister added: 'The next 12 months will decide whether Labour wins a second term.' She wasn't talking behind Keir Starmer's back; he was in the room. Few ministers would disagree with her 'one more year' theory. Starmer's problem is that first impressions of a government, prime minister or party leader usually stick, and Labour and his party's dire ratings are getting worse. Although Rayner didn't say it, the logical consequence of her statement is that if Starmer hasn't turned things round by next summer, the question of whether he should lead the party into the next general election will become a live one. The spark might be poor results in next May's mid-term elections, when Labour could lose out to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament, to Reform UK in the Welsh Parliament, and to the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn's new socialist party in English local authorities. Indeed, there's already gossip in Labour land about Starmer's future, which is fully in line with Labour's traditions. The party doesn't kill its leaders like the Conservatives, but makes up for that by debating endlessly in private who would take over if their leader fell under a Number 12 bus in Whitehall. Labour has more in common with the TV series Succession than it would admit. Despite Streeting's Whitehall fan club, the current strong favourite to succeed Starmer is Rayner. Although she insists she doesn't want the top job, it would be very hard to stick to that if it were likely to land in her lap. Rayner is performing a delicate balancing act well. She has carved out a position slightly to the left of Starmer, which is where Labour's heart beats. At the same time, she is publicly loyal to the PM; rocking the boat could damage her succession prospects. In theory, jittery Labour backbenchers, fearing they will lose their seats, could mount a coup against Starmer. In practice, they would need cabinet-level support. How loyal would the cabinet be if the PM came under real pressure? One largely forgotten factor is that only eight of today's 22-strong cabinet nominated Starmer in the 2020 Labour leadership contest – in other words, he was their first choice. They were: Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, John Healey, David Lammy, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson, Steve Reed and Jonathan Reynolds. That doesn't mean other ministers would dump Starmer in the event of a leadership crisis. When a leader is in real trouble, any politician is bound to consider self-interest. If Rayner still looked a shoo-in, it would suit those who don't want her to succeed Starmer to rally behind him rather than pull the rug. 'Wes [Streeting], Yvette [Cooper] and other big beasts would bolster Keir rather than let Angie [Rayner] take over,' one Labour insider told me. Despite that, it is no longer certain that Starmer will lead his party into the next election. Starmer will soon reflect on his planned fightback during a much-needed holiday, which, knowing his wretched luck when it comes to taking a break, will probably be interrupted by the need to talk to other world leaders about Ukraine and Gaza. The first test of whether Starmer can turn the domestic tide will come in what is becoming an increasingly important speech to the Labour conference in Liverpool next month. 'It's going to be a hard slog from now on,' one close ally admitted.
BBC News
8 minutes ago
- BBC News
Gaza talks to focus on releasing all hostages in one go, Netanyahu hints
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated that Gaza ceasefire efforts are now focused on a comprehensive deal to release all the remaining hostages at plan previously being pushed was for an initial 60-day truce and partial release of living says a delegation of its leaders is in Cairo for "preliminary talks" with Egyptian say that mediators see a window of opportunity in the coming weeks to try to push a deal through. After indirect talks between Israel and Hamas broke down last month, Israel announced a controversial plan to widen its military offensive and conquer all the Gaza Strip - including the areas where most of its two million Palestinian residents have sought Israeli media do not expect the new operation to begin until October - allowing time for military preparations, including a mass call-up of the meantime, witnesses say that Israel has stepped up its attacks on Gaza City with intense air strikes in the past day, destroying on Wednesday, al-Shifa Hospital said seven members of one family, five of them children, were killed when tents were targeted in Tel al-Hawa. Al-Ahli Hospital said 10 people were killed in a strike on a house in the Zaytoun Israeli military chief Lt Gen Eyal Zamir also "approved the main framework for the IDF's operational plan in the Gaza Strip", a statement released by the army said. In an interview with the i24 Israeli TV Channel shown on Tuesday, Netanyahu was asked if a partial ceasefire was still possible."I think it's behind us," he replied. "We tried, we made all kinds of attempts, we went through a lot, but it turned out that they were just misleading us.""I want all of them," he said of the hostages. "The release of all the hostages, both alive and dead - that's the stage we're at."Palestinian armed groups still hold 50 hostages taken in the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023 that triggered the war. Israel believes that around 20 of them are still is under mounting domestic pressure to secure their release as well as over his plans to expand the week, unnamed Arab officials were quoted as saying that regional mediators, Egypt and Qatar, were preparing a new framework for a deal that would involve releasing all remaining hostages at the same time in return for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Israeli this will be difficult to do in a short time frame as Israel is demanding that Hamas give up control of Gaza as well as its is likely to be why, at a news conference on Tuesday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty told journalists that Cairo was still "making great efforts" with Qatar and the US - the other mediators - to revive the earlier phased plan."The main goal is to return to the original proposal - a 60-day ceasefire - along with the release of some hostages and some Palestinian prisoners, and the flow of humanitarian and medical aid into Gaza without obstacles or conditions," Abdelatty Israeli prime minister says Israel's goals have not changed. He says that the war will end only when all hostages are returned and Hamas surrenders. Netanyahu has said that, ultimately, Israel must keep open-ended security control over Gaza. Hamas has long called for a comprehensive deal to exchange the hostages it is holding for Palestinian prisoners in Israel jails. It also wants a full pull-out of Israeli forces and an end to the war. It refuses to disarm unless an independent Palestinian state is to i24, Netanyahu also reiterated an idea that Palestinians should simply leave the territory through "voluntary" emigration, saying: "They're not being pushed out, they'll be allowed to exit." He went on: "All those who are concerned for the Palestinians and say they want to help the Palestinians should open their gates and stop lecturing us."Palestinians, human rights groups and many in the international community have warned that any forced displacement of people from Gaza violates international Palestinians fear a repeat of what they call the "Nakba" (Catastrophe) when hundreds of thousands fled or were forced from their homes in the fighting that came before and after the state of Israel was created in 1948. Most Gazans are descendants of those original refugees and themselves hold official refugee experts have warned of widespread famine unfolding in Gaza, where Israel has greatly limited the amount of humanitarian aid it allows UN's World Food Programme has warned that starvation and malnutrition are at the highest levels in Gaza since the conflict 2023 attack killed about 1,200 people in Israel, with 251 taken into Gaza as offensive has since killed at least 61,722 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. It says that 235 people including 106 children have also died due to starvation and malnutrition.
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How could Rachel Reeves change inheritance tax - and what would it mean for you?
The Autumn Budget might be two months away, but speculation over which taxes the Chancellor will increase has already begun. Rachel Reeves is constrained by her manifesto pledges to keep income tax, VAT and National Insurance at the same level, despite calls to 'substantially' increase taxes. She is reportedly eyeing further changes to inheritance tax (IHT), less than a year after she announced plans to charge the tax on inherited pensions from April 2027. One of her options is to impose a lifetime gifting allowance, which would hit those who try to avoid IHT by giving away money and assets to their family before they die. Why is IHT reform on the cards again, what could Reeves' plans entail - and what does it mean for you? What inheritance tax do people pay now? IHT has historically only affected the very wealthy. At the moment, just 4 per cent of estates pay it. That is set to rise because house prices are increasing, while the threshold over which people pay inheritance tax stays the same. IHT being levied on private pensions left to descendants from 2027 will drive a further increase. Since 2009, an individual has needed to be worth £325,000 if you are single, or £650,000 if married or in a civil partnership, for beneficiaries to incur any death duties. This allowance is known as the nil-rate band. If you are married, own a property and leave your main home to direct descendants (children or grandchildren) you each get a further £175,000 allowance, known as the residence nil rate band. Collectively, it means a couple that meet this criteria could pass on £1million tax-free. The £325,000 nil rate band has been unchanged for 16 years, which means that rising property prices have dragged more people into paying IHT. Had it risen in line with inflation, it would be £585,996, meaning fewer people would be affected. How gifting can reduce inheritance tax There are some ways to minimise the amount of IHT paid, by gifting money to beneficiaries while you are still alive. You can gift £3,000 a year, and unlimited small gifts of up to £250, free from tax. However, if you die less than seven years after making the gift then you will start to pay IHT. This is levied on a sliding scale, from 8 per cent if gifts were made 6-7 years before death, to 40 per cent, if made within a year. This rule is designed to stop people making large gifts to family just before they die, in a bid to avoid IHT. Like the nil rate band, the gifting allowance has not changed since its introduction in 1986. If it had risen in line with inflation, it would be quadruple its current level at £12,297. As more people gift cash or assets to beneficiaries, they are more likely to fall foul of the rules. Why is Reeves looking at the gifting rules? Financial advisers tell This Is Money there has been a significant behaviour shift among their clients. More individuals are gifting their money to children and grandchildren to minimise their inheritance tax burden ahead of the pension changes in 2027. However, figures show that most people are not paying tax on their gifts, even if the giver has died within seven years. This is because you can actually gift far more than the £3,000 gifting allowance, so long as it doesn't breach the £325,000 nil rate band. These gifts will form part of your estate - but if it is below that threshold, you still won't pay tax. For example, if you have very few assets and you gift £10,000, and remain within the nil rate band, your estate will not pay tax on it. It means that it's very difficult to know how many people are gifting money tax-free, and likely why Reeves is eyeing changes to the rules. How much does the Treasury make from tax on gifts? A Freedom of Information request by This Is Money shows the number of families that are taxed on gifting was relatively low in the three years to 2021-22, the latest figures available. The figures have remained stable, with around 1,000 families being stung by IHT on their gifts each year, but some advisers suspect this doesn't paint the full picture. 'There will be people who gift and die within 7 years and then it's clawed back from the nil rate band, which don't appear in the figures,' says Lisa Caplan, director of advice and guidance at Charles Stanley. Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, also suspects 'people are gifting within the allowances and not suffering tax on the gifts.' For example, a gift of £250,000 wouldn't appear in the gifting table, but the estate will pay the tax because they've lost that amount from the nil rate band. Caplan predicts that the number of people who fall into the 'gfiting trap' will be higher as more people take out their tax-free cash early and start the seven-year clock. But this may not go far enough for Reeves, who needs to plug a £40billion black hole. What could Rachel Reeves change? Reeves is reportedly looking at a lifetime gifting allowance to minimise the amount people can pass on to their beneficiaries without incurring tax. The Guardian reported that the Treasury is mulling a lifetime cap to limit the amount of money or value of assets an individual can give away. This would be an additional administrative burden and mean HM Revenue & Customs would have to hold long-term records of gifts over decades. Rachel Griffin, chartered financial planner at Quilter says a cap 'might encourage people to make large gifts earlier in life to use up their allowance, potentially moving significant assets out of their control before they are financially ready.' Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus, thinks Reeves could introduce lifetime capital transfer charges, as is already the case with trusts. 'They might do something like the French system where you can give a certain amount within a 15 year period [but] I think it would be very difficult logistically.' Another option for Reeves is to extend the seven-year rule to 10 years, although this would fly in the face of the reduction to five years, as first explored by the now-defunct Office for Tax Simplification. This is likely to receive significant backlash and only encourage people to gift earlier before they can afford to do so, experts say. Instead, it is more likely that the Treasury, which the Guardian reports is reviewing taper relief rules, removes the taper entirely. Taper relief is widely misunderstood and is generally only available to small numbers of the very wealthiest. Individuals only get taper relief if the value of the gift takes you above the nil rate band of £325,000. So if you gave someone £100,000 and then you died within 7 years, all that has done is reduce the available nil rate band, and the taper relief would not apply. I suspect there is under-reporting of gifts - a solicitor might not know unless they go through bank records Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus As such, taper relief tends only to benefit the very wealthy, according to advisers. This could be a more palatable way for Reeves to change IHT rules for the wealthy, without imposing a wealth tax. One of Reeves' other options is to hand over more powers to HMRC and the Probate Office to ensure people are properly reporting gifts. 'I suspect there's a bit of underreporting [of gifts],' says Mantini. 'The solicitor doing probate might not know of any gifts made within seven years unless they go through bank records to see large sums given out. 'Unless the family or beneficiary declares it to the executor might not have any realistic way of knowing. 'A lot of gifts are small in nature and the larger ones might not always be fully declared.' This would mean more investment in public services at a time when the public purse is stretched as is, and it would prove difficult to establish whether a large sum is a gift or payment. Finally, Reeves could change capital gains tax (CGT) rules - the tax people pay when they make a profit on selling assets such as a house or shares. Currently, when you inherit assets the CGT slate is wiped clean and the base cost of is reset at the value at the date of death. So if someone inherited their parents' house, then sold it straight away, capital gains tax would only be payable on any profit they made above the value of the property when they inherited it - likely nothing. Reeves could change this, so families may have to pay tax on the entire 'profit' made by the child. It could make some families pay the double hit of CGT - up to 24 per cent - and IHT at 40 per cent. What it means for you Any changes to the IHT rules are intended to bring more people into the tax net. A lifetime gifting cap would mark a significant departure from the way IHT has historically been imposed, and advisers say it would mark a huge change to the way families pass on wealth. 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into scope for IHT and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members,' says Griffin. Ingrid McCleaver, partner at DMH Stallard, says a lifetime cap could spell the end of the 'bank of mum and dad', with children who receive a house deposit potentially facing an IHT bill. 'Not only are parents that work hard and save having to pay income tax on their salaries and savings, they may after the next budget suffer an additional tax on death, on amounts they have not had the benefit of for possibly years,' she says. Despite possible changes to how IHT is imposed, experts advise not to make drastic changes. Daniel Hough, wealth manager at RBC Brewin Dolphin says: 'There is a fine line between passing down wealth as efficiently as possible and enjoying a comfortable retirement. 'There are important discussions you need to have about the sustainability of your retirement pot and that may require scaling back ambitions – or you may find that you have to live with the consequences of your pension running out in your 80s or 90s.'
