Who is Rushanara Ali? The homelessness minister facing calls to quit over London rent scandal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's assault on older drivers is wildly misplaced
Tougher measures reportedly being considered by the transport secretary to improve road safety in England and Wales will include compulsory eye tests for over-70s. These tests would have to be taken every three years, and failing them would result in a driving ban. Disqualifying those who struggle to see from driving can only be a good idea. But has the Government's proposed road safety strategy been able to correctly identify the problem which it is seeking to solve? It is worth setting out at the onset that Britain, according to the Department of Transport's data, is one of the safest countries to drive in Europe, with only Norway and Sweden scoring better than us. If figures from 2022 are taken into account, in the absence of more recent numbers, then the UK also scores very highly against countries beyond Europe such as the US, Australia and Japan. According to the RAC, while road collisions in 2024 resulted in an estimated 1,633 deaths, marking a 1pc increase from the previous year, the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) 'remained relatively stable at 29,537'. Total casualties of all severities declined by 3pc, falling to 128,375. It isn't immediately obvious to me that road safety is a policy area which is crying out for reform. The time and effort which the Government is willing to expend on this could perhaps be better spent elsewhere (see: public sector pensions, Britain's debt problem, crime, planning red tape, the high tax burden, wasteful council spending – I could go on). It is particularly curious that the Government focuses on whom it sweepingly defines as 'older drivers' – those over 70 years of age. I suspect many Telegraph readers would take umbrage with that classification.
Western Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
UK ‘agreed to drop' Apple data demand in privacy row, US chief says
Tulsi Gabbard posted on X that the UK has agreed to end the request for the US tech giant after working alongside American president Donald Trump, vice president JD Vance and British counterparts 'over the past few months'. She posted: 'As a result, the UK agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties.' Over the past few months, I've been working closely with our partners in the UK, alongside @POTUS and @VP, to ensure Americans' private data remains private and our Constitutional rights and civil liberties are protected. As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for… — DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) August 19, 2025 Earlier this year, it was reported the Government had issued a notice under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, asking Apple for the ability to access data from Apple users. This was said to include encrypted data protected by the tech giant's advanced data protection (ADP) tool, an opt-in tool within Apple's iCloud service which only an account holder can access, and is currently out of the reach of even Apple. The iPhone-maker subsequently said it was withdrawing the tool from the UK and brought legal action against the Home Office. Reacting to Ms Gabbard's statement, Conservative MP David Davis said: 'The Government's decision to drop its demands for a backdoor to Apple's encryption are to be welcomed. 'Such a backdoor would only serve to weaken the protection given by encryption to all of us from malicious actors.' The Government's decision to drop its demands for a backdoor to Apple's encryption are to be welcomed. Such a backdoor would only serve to weaken the protection given by encryption to all of us from malicious — David Davis MP (@DavidDavisMP) August 19, 2025 The Government's approach was widely criticised by online privacy campaigners and experts when reports of the request first appeared. However, some online safety charities, as well as police and security services around the world, have long warned of the dangers of end-to-end encrypted services, arguing that they allow offenders such as terrorists and child abusers to hide more easily. On Tuesday, a UK Government spokesperson said: 'We do not comment on operational matters, including confirming or denying the existence of such notices. 'We have long had joint security and intelligence arrangements with the US to tackle the most serious threats such as terrorism and child sexual abuse, including the role played by fast-moving technology in enabling those threats.' They added the agreements have 'long contained' safeguards to protect privacy and sovereignty, including for UK and US citizens. Apple has been contacted for comment.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour is sneaking through a wealth tax in all but name
It's impossible to overstate how dangerous this moment is for Britain. The economic choices of the chancellor this autumn will determine whether we as a country leave the door ajar, even if only slightly, for the aspirational and the affluent. The attitude of this Government, and sadly the last government to some extent, has so far has been little short of hostile. Changes to inheritance tax, a second home premium on council tax, VAT on private schools and the abolition of non-dom status are just the headline policies that make this country an increasingly barren economy for those with the temerity to be successful. After overnight reports that the Government is also considering radical reforms to council tax and stamp duty, it could be Christmas come early for Lord Kinnock and all the other Labour politicians who suffer from that most toxic of traits in British politics: the politics of envy. What is the proposal? Well, according to reports, what Labour are considering is a replacement of stamp duty and council tax with a tax on the value of a property, paid by the owner. It's not all bad, at least at face value. These proposals are based on a report by the think tank Onward, which seeks to radically reform council tax and stamp duty, two of Britain's worst, most despised taxes. The proposal is to replace the levies with a 'horizontal, proportional' property tax. Councils would levy an average rate of 0.44 per cent on homes up to the value of £500,000, with a minimum charge of £800. Revenues from this would go to local government. Above £500,000 there would be a national property tax at an annual rate between 0.54 per cent between £500,000 and £1,000,000. Above £1,000,000 it would be 0.81 per cent. These revenues would go to the national government. Confusingly, there are reports that the national property tax element would only be levied at the point of sale, although that would surely mean a loss of revenue. As part of a wholesale reform of the taxation system, these proposals are not without merit. There are reasonably sound, non-distortionary tax systems with echoes of these measures. If accompanied by, for example, the abolition of inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, the higher rate of income tax as well as stamp duty and council tax then the introduction of a tax directly proportional to the value of a property could be a feasible measure. But as for Labour's interpretation of these proposals, there are not just questions to be asked, there are fears to be addressed. Key to Onward's proposal is that any properties that have already been charged stamp duty at the point of purchase would be exempt from the national property tax. Will this be the case with Labour's policy if it is to bring it in? Also key is that it is revenue neutral, with the aim being to reshape the system in a less distortionary way while ensuring no increase in borrowing: a sound principle. Do not bet against Labour dismissing these questions though, and using the positive headlines of abolishing stamp duty to justify a revenue-raising tax raid on the nation's wealth. Because critically, if Labour does advance these proposals, it will not be accompanied by the broader reforms to the tax system needed. Instead, what we will more likely end up with is a wealth tax in all but name. A wealth tax that allows cowardly politicians to temporarily delay the confrontation with reality they need: the fact that we simply cannot go on spending the way we are. It would also protect the Prime Minister's vulnerable left flank. And at the level that is being proposed — a tax on the value of all homes above £500,000 — this will not be a mansion tax, it will be a family home tax. It almost feels hollow to warn of the many high earners and high net wealth individuals that may end up leaving Britain under these policies if they are bungled. Because in so many cases they've already left.
