UK: Defence spending, winter fuel payment U-turn
UK correspondent Dan Bloom joins Kathryn to talk about how Britain's plan to lift defence spending to 2.5 percent of GDP over the next decade is still not enough for the US. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is still locked in talks with holdout departments over funding for the next fuel years and PM Keir Starmer is set to deliver a U-turn to pensioners over their winter fuel payments. Dan Bloom is Political Editor of Politico UK
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Comedians Te Radar and Donna Brookbanks
Our comedians Te Radar and Donna Brookbanks contemplate why Madam Tussauds in London has a model of a sausage roll, the 700 Indian engineers who pretended to be an AI start--up and Walt Disney's family reject the idea of bringing him back as a robot at Disneyland Los Angeles.
RNZ News
12 hours ago
- RNZ News
The ugliest things Trump and Musk just said about one another
By Aaron Blake , CNN Photo: AFP Analysis - About 10 minutes into his bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Thursday, President Donald Trump was finally asked about the domestic elephant in the room: Elon Musk and his sharp criticisms this week of Trump's agenda bill. "He hasn't said anything about me that's bad," Trump said. "I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill." Trump certainly got his wish. By the end of the meeting, he and Musk had quickly moved from what had been a legislative difference of opinion into the realm of personal attacks . Musk effectively live-tweeted his responses to Trump's comments on his social media platform X, getting progressively more personal. And Trump ultimately hit back hard on his own platform, Truth Social. It was the kind of clash many predicted would eventually arrive when the two powerful, outspoken and unwieldy billionaires formed their alliance of convenience last year. And it's now arrived in a big way. Late Thursday afternoon, Musk responded to an X user who chose Musk over Trump and called for the president's impeachment by simply saying, "Yes". It's increasingly hard to see how this spat gets resolved without getting even uglier given what's being said. Shortly before the Oval Office event, Musk specifically invoked Trump's flip-flops on the national debt, citing years-old tweets from when Trump was much more of a professed spending hawk. ("Where is the man who wrote these words?" Musk asked. "Was he replaced by a body double!?") But Trump has never been particularly sensitive about his rhetorical consistency or fiscal conservatism. And as the minutes wore on, things got much more personal. Here are the comments (so far) that really stick out - and will seemingly be hard to move past. Musk really went there, accusing the Trump administration of withholding information about disgraced financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein because it invokes Trump himself. "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public," Musk wrote on X. "Have a nice day, DJT!" He later added: "Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out." Musk did not detail how he would have gained access to unreleased files. And the inclusion of a person's name in files related to the case does not by itself indicate they have been accused of any wrongdoing. CNN has reached out to the White House for a response. Trump's proximity to Epstein in the past is not exactly news; he's been photographed with Epstein. But Musk's allegation - made without providing any evidence of where it came from - feeds into concern in some right-wing circles about the lack of transparency about Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. After Trump talked during the campaign about potentially releasing more government files about Epstein, Attorney General Pam Bondi released an initial tranche of files in February that largely duplicated information that had already been made public. Exactly what Musk is getting at isn't clear or substantiated. But it's really going nuclear, given the subject matter. The most sacred of topics in Trump's eyes: his election wins. Trump claimed he would have won the crucial state of Pennsylvania even without Musk's help. But Musk, who spent hundreds of millions of dollars and campaigned for Trump, shot back that he was in fact the reason Trump won the presidency. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said. Musk then added in another post: "Such ingratitude." There are few topics Trump takes as seriously as his reputation as a winner. He often talks about how his endorsements help Republicans and has endlessly exaggerated the size of his electoral victories and mandate. It's clearly a point of emphasis, and Musk just went there. Trump, like other Republicans in recent days, suggested Musk's criticism of his "Big Beautiful Bill" wasn't really about excessive spending - as Musk has said it is - but instead about one of his personal businesses, Tesla. "Elon's upset because we took the [electric vehicle] mandate and - you know, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles," Trump said in the Oval Office. "He only developed a problem when he found out I would cut the EV mandate," Trump added. Trump later posted on Truth Social that Musk "went CRAZY" over the EV changes. Musk sought to call Trump's bluff, encouraging lawmakers to keep the EV subsidies cuts but trim spending. "Whatever," Musk said. "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." Musk pointed to past comments in which he actually discouraged lawmakers from enacting EV tax credits. He also pointed to a clip in which Trump himself said that Musk had "never asked me for a thing". But perhaps most strikingly, Musk promoted a post from the chief GOP critic of the bill in the House, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. "Some politicians get into politics to enrich themselves," Massie said. "Maybe that's why they can't imagine someone would judge a bill based on what's good for the country instead of what's good for their wallet." That seems a pretty sharp dig at Trump, who has intermingled his personal business with his role as president plenty in his second term. Trump's comments have, to this point, been largely suggestive about Musk's motives. But Musk has clearly taken offense. Despite the White House claiming this week that it had been previously aware of Musk's opposition to the package, Trump on Thursday claimed that he was in fact surprised. "I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people," Trump said in the Oval Office. "He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem." "But he knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left." Musk responded that Trump's version of events was "false." He wrote that "this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" Musk seemed to put to rest any illusions that this somehow isn't devolving into a power struggle. Responding to an X user who noted lawmakers are feeling pressured to pick a side, Musk made a case for them picking him. "Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years," Musk wrote. In other words: Tread carefully. I have lots of money - and time. Trump later posted on Truth Social that, if lawmakers wanted to really save money, they should "terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts." When a user claimed Trump's idea would mean effectively abandoning the International Space Station, Musk promoted the post and dared Trump. "Go ahead, make my day," he wrote on X. Musk later said he would "begin decommissioning" a key spacecraft. It remains to be seen where things go from here. Trump often reconciles with allies, even after ugly things are said. But rarely is the other figure someone as powerful and outspoken as Musk. The power dynamics are usually such that the other party feels pressured to cave to Trump. Musks suggests he's ready for that power struggle. If he is, buckle up. - CNN
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
New Zealand exporters try to see forest for the trees with new EU import rules
The new rules that aim to reduce deforestation in the supply chain. Photo: 123RF New Zealand exporters sending wood or beef and leather products to the European Union (EU) will soon have to comply with new rules that aim to reduce deforestation in the supply chain. New Zealand government officials and industry opposed the approach to anti-deforestation taken by the incoming European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), due to increased compliance costs exporters will face in proving their products have not contributed to the loss of trees. However, the European Commission was standing firm that imports of certain commodities had their part to play in addressing challenges related to deforestation , climate change and biodiversity loss. The EUDR covered seven key commodities, namely cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya and wood. Photo: Supplied A European Commission spokesperson said the EUDR covered seven key commodities, namely cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya and wood. "These commodities have been chosen on the basis of a thorough impact assessment identifying them as the main driver of deforestation due to agricultural expansion," they said. Deforestation was defined as converting forests to land for agricultural use. For New Zealand, this will affect the $213 million export trade of beef and leather exports into the EU, with new rules coming into force this December. Exporters of wood products - a trade to Europe valued at around $100m - would be required to provide traceability processes to show that their products did not contribute to deforestation too. Products that do not meet the new import requirements will be rejected at the border. Deforestation was defined as converting forests to land for agricultural use. Photo: 123RF In recent months, the European Commission released further clarifications about the rules for operators and traders . A spokesperson said it found New Zealand to be a country with "low risk of deforestation". "Sourcing from low-risk countries entails simplified due diligence obligations for operators and traders," the spokesperson said. "Concretely, this means that they need to collect information, but not assess and mitigate risks." It also announced a 12-month phase-in for the new regime in December 2024, a year's delay after the original enforcement date to give operators time to prepare, they said. "Given the EUDR's novel character, the swift calendar, and the variety of international stakeholders involved, a 12-month additional time to phase in the system is a balanced solution to support operators around the world in securing a smooth implementation from the start," they said. "This is essential to guarantee certainty about the way forward and to ensure the success of the EUDR." The Wood Processors and Manufacturers' Association chief executive Mark Ross said a working group with forest growers, wood processors and the government had been set up to work through some issues relating to the new requirement, like geolocation requirements. He said, overall, companies were "reasonably confident" they would be in a good position to meet the requirements. "At first glance the EUDR appears complex, but the best way to overcome any risks associated with the legislation and to ensure that our wood product exporters remain compliant, is for the forestry and wood processing industries to continue to work closely together on fulfilling the EUDR requirements," said Ross. "By taking the necessary steps to comply with EUDR, the New Zealand wood products industry can gain a market advantage in Europe and globally, which will further enhance our positive sustainable forestry and wood products reputation." However, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Trade and Investment Todd McClay wrote to the European Commission early last year, urging it to exclude New Zealand and the pastoral farming system from the regulation, among other bilateral efforts. "Without changes, this regulation risks making it too costly for many of our exporters to continue supplying the EU market, affecting over $200 million in Kiwi exports at a time when we should be growing this trade through the benefits of the NZ-EU Trade Agreement, not facing additional barriers," said McClay in October. "New Zealand does not have a deforestation issue, and while we share the EU's goals of promoting deforestation-free products, we already have stringent domestic protections in place. Imposing these compliance costs on our exporters is not justified." Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Trade and Investment Todd McClay. Photo: RNZ/Monique Steele Industry group Beef and Lamb New Zealand helped successfully lobby for the exclusion of sheepmeat with its British counterparts, the UK National Sheep Association, but senior trade policy advisor Nicholas Jolly said in May last year, it should also extent to beef. He said diverting products from the EU to other markets would significantly "devalue New Zealand's trade". "The loss in beef exports would begin at approximately $98 million annually, while the impact on leather exports would also be substantial, considering 45 percent of New Zealand's leather exports by value go directly to the EU and it would be extremely difficult to find alternative markets." Beef and Lamb New Zealand declined to comment further at the time of publish. Sirma Karapeeva, chief executive of the Meat Industry Association (MIA), said the deforestation regulation was "unlikely" to tackle global deforestation, as it was "poorly designed and poorly drafted". She said New Zealand already had strict environmental regulations with enforceable penalties for negatively impacting native vegetation. "New Zealand beef exports are backed by world-leading sustainability credentials and should be treated differently to products from countries where deforestation is a genuine concern," she said. Karapeeva said it was working closely with officials to advocate for a "more pragmatic and sensible solution" that recognised New Zealand's trend of afforestation . A spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the costs imposed on exporters were disproportionate to the risk that the product was actually linked to deforestation. "New Zealand shares the European Union's objective of addressing global deforestation, but has consistently raised concerns with the approach taken in the EU Deforestation Regulation." It also encouraged the Commission to address these concerns through the relevant committees of the New Zealand/EU Free Trade Agreement. Large exporters had to comply with the new rules by 30 December, 2025 and June 2026 for smaller-sized exporters. Ministry for Primary Industries' Bilateral Relations & Trade divisional manger Steve Ainsworth said it was continuing to liaise with beef and forestry sectors about the requirements. "MPI and MFAT have maintained an open and active dialogue with the beef and forestry sectors to understand their concerns, keep them informed of developments, facilitate opportunities for engagement with the European Commission, and support their preparations for EUDR." The MIA said it was supporting its members on how to comply.
