Subsriber of the week: Giovanni Vitulli
What do you do?
I work in pharmaceuticals, R&D.
Where do you live?
Welwyn Garden City, in Hertfordshire
Do you vote?
Any time my EU settled status allows me to (local elections).
Just over 20 years.
What made you start?
I wanted to learn about British politics after settling in the country.
Is the NS bug in the family?
Not yet.
What pages do you flick to first?
The Leader.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
How do you read yours?
I upload all articles of interest on my e-reader.
What would you like to see more of in the NS?
A selection of landmark essays from the magazine's past 112 years.
Who are your favourite NS writers?
Alison Phillips, Will Dunn and Phil Whitaker.
With which political figure would you least like to be stuck in a lift?
Morgan McSweeney.
All-time favourite NS article?
Too many to name.
The New Statesman is…
a mind-sharpening tool.
[See also: Why George Osborne still runs Britain]
Related
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
3 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans
The Deputy Prime Minister, who as Housing Secretary is responsible for overseeing planning matters, has given Beijing two weeks to explain why areas of its plans for the sprawling new embassy site in central London are blacked out. China hawks in Westminster have raised alarm that the embassy site could be used to conduct surveillance from British soil. Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong, as well as Uighurs and Tibetans, meanwhile, fear that intimidation and reprisals from the Chinese state could result from the embassy going ahead. This follows reports that bounties have been issued by China for dissident Hong Kongers now living in the UK. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is also Housing Secretary (Peter Byrne/PA) In a letter seen by the PA news agency, Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asks planning consultants representing the Chinese embassy to explain why drawings of the planned site are blacked out. The letter gives two weeks, until August 20, for an explanation to be provided. It also suggests that a final planning decision on the embassy site, at Royal Mint Court, just east of London's financial district, will be made by September 9. Copies of the letter were also sent to the Home Office and the Foreign Office by email. It notes that the Home Office requested a new 'hard perimeter' be placed around the embassy site, to prevent 'unregulated public access', and acknowledges this could require a further planning application. Plans for the super-embassy were previously rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022, with the Chinese opting not to appeal. However, Beijing resubmitted the application a fortnight after Sir Keir Starmer's election victory last year, believing Labour may be more receptive to the application. Since entering office Sir Keir's Government has sought closer links with Beijing after a cooling during the final years of Conservative Party rule. The final decision will be made by Mr Rayner in her role as Housing Secretary. Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, said: 'No surprises here – Labour's rush to appease Xi Jinping's demands for a new embassy demonstrated a complacency when it came to keeping our people safe. Having deluded themselves for so long, they've recognised we were right to be vigilant. 'The disturbing bounty notes urging British citizens to kidnap and deliver their Hong Kong neighbours to the current CCP embassy laid bare the risks – yet the Foreign Secretary didn't even summon the Chinese ambassador in the face of direct threats to those seeking refuge in our country. 'CCP ambitions for a larger embassy would only amplify opportunities for espionage and transnational repression.'
Powys County Times
3 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans
Angela Rayner has told China to explain why parts of its plans for a new super-embassy in London are redacted. The Deputy Prime Minister, who as Housing Secretary is responsible for overseeing planning matters, has given Beijing two weeks to explain why areas of its plans for the sprawling new embassy site in central London are blacked out. China hawks in Westminster have raised alarm that the embassy site could be used to conduct surveillance from British soil. Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong, as well as Uighurs and Tibetans, meanwhile, fear that intimidation and reprisals from the Chinese state could result from the embassy going ahead. This follows reports that bounties have been issued by China for dissident Hong Kongers now living in the UK. In a letter seen by the PA news agency, Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asks planning consultants representing the Chinese embassy to explain why drawings of the planned site are blacked out. The letter gives two weeks, until August 20, for an explanation to be provided. It also suggests that a final planning decision on the embassy site, at Royal Mint Court, just east of London's financial district, will be made by September 9. Copies of the letter were also sent to the Home Office and the Foreign Office by email. It notes that the Home Office requested a new 'hard perimeter' be placed around the embassy site, to prevent 'unregulated public access', and acknowledges this could require a further planning application. Plans for the super-embassy were previously rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022, with the Chinese opting not to appeal. However, Beijing resubmitted the application a fortnight after Sir Keir Starmer's election victory last year, believing Labour may be more receptive to the application. Since entering office Sir Keir's Government has sought closer links with Beijing after a cooling during the final years of Conservative Party rule. The final decision will be made by Mr Rayner in her role as Housing Secretary. Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, said: 'No surprises here – Labour's rush to appease Xi Jinping's demands for a new embassy demonstrated a complacency when it came to keeping our people safe. Having deluded themselves for so long, they've recognised we were right to be vigilant. 'The disturbing bounty notes urging British citizens to kidnap and deliver their Hong Kong neighbours to the current CCP embassy laid bare the risks – yet the Foreign Secretary didn't even summon the Chinese ambassador in the face of direct threats to those seeking refuge in our country. 'CCP ambitions for a larger embassy would only amplify opportunities for espionage and transnational repression.'
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
The case for an independent Kent
I'm just back from Vancouver, where I was speaking at a fundraiser for the Free Speech Union of Canada. At the dinner afterwards I sat next to an Alberta separatist, a movement I was unaware of until now. Dating to the 19th century, it advocates for the secession of the province of Alberta and has been given a renewed impetus by the federal government's hostility to fossil fuels under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney. Petroleum is Alberta's biggest industry by far, and the revenue generated by energy exports means the province is a big contributor to Canada's national budget, with its net contributions dwarfing those of other provinces. Shouldn't Canada's liberal prime ministers just say 'thank you' instead of wagging their fingers at Albertans for not doing more to save the planet? Not surprisingly, the separatist party has done well in recent elections, and 65 per cent of United Conservative party voters say they would vote for independence in a referendum. I was told this could take place within a year. This gave me an idea about how to fix Britain's immigration problem. Why doesn't Kent county council, which changed hands from the Conservatives to Reform in May, demand that Kent secede from the United Kingdom? If it became independent it would not be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and would have much more latitude when it comes to turning back the boats, processing asylum seekers offshore and deporting those illegal immigrants currently accommodated in hotels. I suppose it's possible the people-smugglers might steer their dinghies towards East Sussex instead, but that county could then follow suit. Indeed, the entire south coast could become an independent sovereign state. I know, I know. Wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw from the ECHR than to break up the UK? That's the policy of Reform UK, but there are political difficulties. For one, it might jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement, which refers to the ECHR in several of its provisions. That's because the only way to persuade Sinn Fein to sign up was to assure them the human rights of former terrorists would be protected by Strasbourg rather than the hated British judiciary. Would they regard the agreement as void if Britain withdrew from the Convention? Another problem with withdrawing is that it might derail the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The EU has the right to terminate the part relating to 'Law Enforcement and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters' if the UK is no longer bound by the Convention. Not everyone thinks these are insurmountable obstacles. Lord Lilley, one of my Tory colleagues on the red benches, wrote an excellent paper last month for the Centre for Policy Studies in which he argued that the Belfast Agreement could survive Britain's departure from the Convention provided ECHR rights remain incorporated into Northern Ireland law, and while it's true that the EU could stop co-operating with the UK when it comes to tackling crime, why would it? 'To forgo that co-operation would be a self-inflicted loss,' he says. But I'm not confident that Nigel Farage, newly installed in No. 10, would hold his nerve when Sir Humphrey pointed out these problems. 'I think you'll find there are some more nuanced positions you could take that would confound your critics, Prime Minister.' A wily cabinet secretary would also point out that even if the UK did withdraw, it would still be party to the Geneva Refugee Convention and obliged to offer asylum to anyone with a 'well-founded fear of persecution'. The beauty of my proposal is that the newly independent country of Kentland wouldn't be bound by the Refugee Convention either. According to Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States: 'A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any treaty by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.' Admittedly, that Convention has not yet been widely ratified, but m'learned friends tell me this 'clean slate' principle is broadly accepted. So there's the solution. Make Kent – or the entire south coast if necessary – an independent sovereign state and dispatch a bunch of Reform councillors armed with harpoons to intercept the small boats. Any undocumented migrants that got through could be sent to the Isle of Sheppey for 'processing'. I imagine the prospect of being held in a pen on Sheep Island for several years would be enough to put off even the most determined.
