Former Bristol MP takes seat in House of Lords
Thangam Debbonaire had served as the Labour MP for Bristol West since 2015 but lost to the Green Party's co-leader Carla Denyer in the new seat of Bristol Central in the 2024 general election.
She will now be Baroness Debbonaire of De Beauvoir Town in the London Borough of Hackney.
During her time as an opposition MP, she held a number of shadow cabinet positions over a period of four years - most recently as shadow culture secretary.
Baroness Debbonaire wore the traditional scarlet robes for the introductory ceremony.
Her election defeat marked a rare loss for Labour as they cruised to a resounding majority win in July.
She later said she expected to lose her seat over the Labour Party's "lack of a strong narrative" over the war in Gaza.
Baroness Debonaire is the second Bristol politician to enter the Lords in recent weeks after former city mayor Marvin Rees took his seat on 24 February, becoming Lord Rees of Easton in the process.
Former city mayor takes seat in House of Lords
What is the House of Lords and how does it work?
Bristol 'makes history' by electing its first Green MP
House of Lords
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
U.S. to probe "anti-American" views of those applying for immigration benefits under Trump directive
The Trump administration has directed government officials to probe any "anti-American" views and activities of immigrants applying for immigration benefits like green cards and work permits, further expanding the grounds that can be cited to deny those applications. The policy unveiled on Tuesday by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is the latest front in a broader Trump administration effort to restrict access to legal immigration benefits, including by broadening the levels of scrutiny and vetting to which applicants are subjected. The guidance issued this week directs officials at USCIS to determine whether applicants for certain immigration benefits have "endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused anti-American views or the views of a terrorist organization or group," including on social media. USCIS said those groups could include organizations that espouse or promote antisemitic views and terrorism. If officials find applicants have any ties to these groups or share their views, the directive instructs the officials to consider that an "overwhelmingly negative factor" justifying the denial of an application. The policy will affect requests for immigration benefits that are discretionary, meaning that USCIS can deny them even if applicants meet the qualifications outlined in U.S. law. Those cases include many applications for permanent U.S. residency (also known as a green card), work permits and status changes for foreign students. While it wasn't immediately clear how expansively USCIS will define "anti-American" views and activities, the agency said it would make the determination based on a provision of U.S. immigration law that bans immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens if it is found that they advocate for world communism, totalitarianism, violence against officials or the overthrow of the U.S. government. The guidance issued Tuesday also orders USCIS officials to probe whether applicants improperly used an immigration policy known as parole to enter the U.S. In the immigration context, parole allows for the arrival of immigrants who are otherwise ineligible to enter the U.S. It was used by the Biden administration on an unprecedented scale, mainly to ease pressure at the U.S.-Mexico border by offering migrants a legal way to enter the country. USCIS said it would look into whether applicants' parole applications contained "false or fraudulent" information. Matthew Tragesser, USCIS' top spokesperson, said Tuesday's memo underscored that U.S. immigration benefits should not be granted to people who "despise the country." "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible," Tragesser added. Stephen Yale-Loehr, an expert in U.S. immigration law, expressed concerns about how USCIS would implement its latest guidance, calling the language in it "very subjective." "This memo gives USCIS adjudicators even more reasons than before to deny a petition on discretionary grounds," Yale-Loehr said. While President Trump has made cracking down on illegal immigration central to his second-term agenda, his administration has also tightened access to the legal immigration system. Last week, USCIS said it would expand a "good moral character" assessment in the U.S. citizenship process. That requirement was historically satisfied when applicants lacked serious criminal histories or disqualifying conduct on their record. But now, officials have been instructed to weigh different positive factors, like applicants' involvement in the community, and negative factors, like repeat traffic infractions, to determine whether someone has good moral character. The Trump administration also previously announced measures to more aggressively screen those applying for a U.S. immigration status, including by placing a greater emphasis on the social media activity of applicants.
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
The future of the ‘special relationship' between the US and UK
Anyone who works in British foreign policy knows that we talk about 'the special relationship' with the U.S. infinitely more than Americans do. But there is a straightforward reason: it really matters to us. It is not just an emotional response, nor an attempt to cling to great-power status. Those are lazy and only partial explanations. The International Relations and Defence Committee in the House of Lords is currently conducting an inquiry into the U.K.'s future relationship with the U.S. In the evidence I submitted, I said very clearly that the U.S. is Britain's most important bilateral ally, in terms of trade, defense, intelligence, diplomacy and myriad cultural and historical connections. But that relationship is always evolving. What Socrates said about the unexamined life applies just as well to unexamined policy assumptions — and in international affairs particularly, nothing is unchanging. The Coalition for Global Prosperity is a nonpartisan group launched in 2018 by former Prime Minister David Cameron and ex-Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt. It argues for three inseparable pillars in British foreign and security policy: an effective development budget, active diplomacy and a strong defense strategy. Last month, it published a report titled ' Transatlantic Ties: U.K.-U.S. Relations to 2045,' which examines the changing political landscape and proposing ways for the U.K. to strengthen and renew the alliance. (Full disclosure: I was recently appointed senior fellow for national security at the group, but I took the position after the report had been written and had no involvement in its content.) Donald Trump's return to the presidency has shifted U.K.-U.S. relations in ways that have sometimes been uncomfortable for Britain, and which have put new strain on the relationship between our two countries. The report acknowledges that Britain needs to increase its defense expenditure and footprint as part of a fairer burden-sharing. London also has to appreciate Washington's very different perspectives on matters like trade and tariffs, Ukraine and international aid. Disagreements will remain, but they can be managed, provided they are properly understood. Underpinning the report's recommendations is what Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, recently described as a 'reverse-Kennedy' in the age of Trump. European nations should 'ask not what the Americans can do for you, ask what you can do for America.' This does not mean accepting any kind of military or diplomatic vassalage, but identifying areas of common interest where the U.K. can use its particular influence or capabilities for mutual benefit. The report recommends that, while the British government must meet the new NATO defense spending target, it should go further and show leadership, setting out a concrete plan for increasing expenditure on core defense commitments to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2030, well in advance of the agreed upon 2035. No one seriously doubts that the British armed forces need this kind of investment, but putting ourselves ahead of the curve would make a powerful statement of intent to partners and adversaries alike. America's focus on China as the principal threat to its interests over the coming decades is shaping policy across the board, shifting the strategic focus towards the Indo-Pacific. China presents itself as an alternative ally and patron for smaller nations — think of the Belt-and-Road Initiative and Chinese-sponsored maritime facilities in Cambodia, Peru and Sri Lanka. The report urges the U.K. to do much more to challenge this narrative, highlighting China's human rights abuses, repression and self-interest. The U.K. is well placed in this respect because of its membership in so many overlapping forums, including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Trade Organization and the Commonwealth. The other recommendations concern what are called 'minilateral' organizations, combinations of a small number of countries to achieve specific, limited objectives. There are several areas in which this approach offers real opportunities: Pillar Two of the tripartite AUKUS agreement, on research, development and production of new technologies; the Joint Expeditionary Force, the U.K.-led alliance of 10 European states that provides rapid response and expeditionary capability in the Baltic and the Arctic region; a proposal to develop a U.S.-U.K.-led minilateral group for 'a radical rethink about priorities and mechanisms of development.' There are two fundamental messages underpinning this. The transatlantic relationship has brought huge benefits to both countries. The U.K. cannot assume it will endure through the simple momentum of history, but it can work to strengthen and renew the relationship through specific, discrete projects that will yield tangible benefits for both countries. This would include an increase in defense spending; taking a harder public line on China; proving how AUKUS can deliver even more for its participants; and inviting U.S. observers to Joint Expeditionary Force summits, so they can see what Europe is doing independently to strengthen its security. Yes, Trump is transactional and wants to see how America gains from every situation. The U.K. has to be focused on issues where it can deliver. If that sounds less elevated and more businesslike than the Atlantic Charter or the emotional bond of the Reagan-Thatcher years, it is only a reflection of a new reality. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
The tax traps Reeves must fix to grow the economy
It is no secret that Rachel Reeves is strapped for cash. Against a backdrop of rising inflation and weak growth, the Chancellor is staring down a black hole that some predict could be as high as £50bn. Worse still, some efforts to save money have already been killed off by Labour backbenchers, while bond market vigilantes have driven up Britain's borrowing costs to their highest level since the 1990s. That is without even taking into account the impact of Reeves's Budget tax raid last year, which has crushed business confidence and dampened investment. All of which means that the Chancellor is now scrambling for reforms that will boost the economy at minimal cost. Here are some of her options. Clean up the income tax trap The top rate of income tax is supposed to be 45pc, but for those earning between £100,000 and just over £125,000, it is in effect 60pc. That is because workers in this bracket lose the tax-free allowance, which applies to the first £12,570 of pay for workers on lower incomes. As a result, it can appear rather unattractive to earn more if most of this extra income will be taken by the taxman. 'Where we have these kinks in the income tax schedule, those will tend to act as a disincentive to people to work more – I might not want to take that promotion, or I might want to go four days a week,' says Isaac Delestre, at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Scrapping this baffling tax quirk would help ease the pain. Smooth out benefits Losing child benefit can see families' effective tax rate rise to almost 60pc. This applies when one parent in a three-child household earns between £60,000 and £80,000. Believe it or not, that is an improvement on the old situation. Before Conservative reforms, a family with three children faced a tax rate of more than 70pc. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor at the time, called the system 'confusing and unfair'. Following changes introduced by the Tories, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) calculated reforms would encourage parents to work more hours, amounting to the equivalent of an extra 10,000 full-time jobs. However, perhaps the most egregious tax trap applies to adults with young children. The Government has ramped up subsidies for childcare in recent years to try to get more parents back to work. Yet for a cohort of highly productive workers, the way the system operates can be an enormous disincentive to seek out a promotion or put in extra hours. That is because the support schemes are withdrawn entirely once one parent's taxable income rises above £100,000. It means an extra penny of earnings can cost a family with two young children £14,500 in disposable income, according to the IFS. The think tank estimates that their disposable income – after tax and childcare – will not recover to its previous level until the parent earns £134,500. These parents have an enormous incentive to cut their taxable income, whether by pouring money into their pension to reduce their taxable income or by cutting the number of days they work each week. Turning the cliff edge into a smooth slope might cost the Treasury money, but would no doubt ease families' worries. Ramp up VAT Companies face similar cliff edges. Small businesses have to register for VAT when their turnover hits £90,000. That creates a huge incentive to stay below that threshold. Businesses and sole traders often stop earning once they edge closer to the limit as they seek to avoid the threat of introducing a 20pc tax on sales. Whether that means working only four days a week or closing for a month to keep takings down, it undermines growth in their business and the wider economy. The Conservatives cited this 'bunching' as a reason to raise the threshold from £85,000, but that just shifted the problem instead of abolishing it. Slashing the threshold would be a blow to small businesses and their customers, but might encourage more growth in the long term by removing it as a barrier altogether. That was the argument of the Resolution Foundation when it was run by Torsten Bell, now a Treasury minister. The think tank previously called the high threshold 'a tax on growth', claiming that: 'The best outcome would be lowering it to the point where almost no business owner would consider the option of deliberately staying below that level of turnover.' Cutting it to £30,000 could raise £1.5bn for Reeves. Cut stamp duty To say that reform of property tax is overdue is an understatement. The IFS has described council tax, which is still based on valuations from 1991, as 'out of date, regressive and distortionary'. The think tank has also branded stamp duty one of Britain's most hated taxes because it penalises people for moving. Back in 1988, a typical homeowner moved house every nine years, according to property website Zoopla. In the first six months of 2022, the gap was 21 years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has previously urged the UK to move away from 'transaction taxes which constrain housing and labour mobility'. Instead of a property sales tax, the Fund suggested adopting a new annual levy based on land or property values – a system some argue this would be fairer. After all, the average London house price is now more than seven times what it was in 1991, compared with a four-fold increase in the North East, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the same time, the distribution of central government funding to local authorities is still based on property values in 1991. This effectively means councils in Newcastle must now levy more tax on a property worth £250,000 than in Kensington and Chelsea to deliver essentially the same on valuations. However, as the think tank points out, any major revaluation would produce winners and losers. Back in 2020, the IFS suggested that a simple revaluation that reflected relative increases in property values would hit homeowners primarily in London and the South East. Back then, it said residents in Hackney and Wandsworth could see increases in their bills of up to 45pc, while people living in Fylde near Blackpool could see a 15pc reduction. A more radical reform that linked bills proportionally to a property's value could see bills in Stoke-on-Trent slashed in half. But it would also see bills quadruple in Kensington and almost double in parts of Surrey. There was a reason that Margaret Thatcher backed away from a poll tax. ... and planning red tape It is not just moving house that matters. Building them would boost the economy too. That is why bats and newts are high up on Reeves's hit list. The Chancellor has repeatedly grumbled about the many obstacles to getting things built in Britain, telling the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month that she cares 'more about getting a young family on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails'. She has a point. In a now infamous example, the chairman of the HS2 rail line admitted it was spending £100m on a shield to protect bats in ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire. Sir John Thompson said this was just one example of 8,276 'consents' required from public bodies, and expressed frustration at red tape across the UK. Reeves also knows there is a big prize on offer if she manages to reduce bureaucracy. The OBR said Labour's planning reforms were already expected to drive an increase in housebuilding of 170,000 homes until the end of the decade, which would in turn increase Britain's medium-term growth prospects by 0.2pc. Reeves has since ordered officials in the Treasury to go further. Prepare for more red tape to be slashed. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
