JD Vance expected to host Robert Jenrick during UK trip – but not Tory leader
A Conservative spokesman said the party leader's team had spoken to Mr Vance's but that 'scheduling' had proved difficult.
Both sides have played down the notion of a snub, the Telegraph reported.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick (Yui Mok/PA)
Former leadership contender Mr Jenrick has strayed well beyond his justice brief in recent months, building a prominent social media presence with campaigns on a range of issues, from the impact of immigration on housing to tackling fare-dodgers on the London Underground.
He and the vice-president have voiced similar concerns about the erosion of freedom of speech, as well as opposition to equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives.
It comes after Mr Vance joined David Lammy at Chevening, the Foreign Secretary's grace-and-favour country estate in Kent, last week.
The vice-president, who has also been tipped for a future leadership bid, described the Labour Cabinet minister as his 'good friend' but said there were 'disagreements' between the US and the UK governments on how best to respond to the humanitarian crisis and war in Gaza.
A Liberal Democrat source claimed Mrs Badenoch was 'losing out to her leadership rival' while 'she messes up her efforts to mimic Nigel Farage and drag the Conservative Party ever further to the right'.
'Bungling Badenoch strikes again – JD Vance has apparently joined the electorate in giving Kemi the cold shoulder,' they said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Palestine Action ban reveals Labour's dangerously authoritarian instincts
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... 'Why can you not just be Labour?' It is a question I have been asked since I was a teenager, often by Labour friends in an exasperated tone. It is not an entirely unreasonable question. In many areas of policy on health, education, transport etc, Labour and Liberal Democrats seek broadly similar outcomes and, the argument goes, our electoral system punishes the centre left for splitting. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The question, however, ignores the fact that sometimes what matters in politics is the first principles from which you start. For all the similarities between Liberal Democrats and Labour, the differences matter too. Labour has centralising instincts that will always be anathema to liberals who champion community empowerment. Then there is the freedom thing. READ MORE: Why Palestinians in Gaza are protesting with photos of Israeli children killed by Hamas Police and protesters confront each other during a demonstration in support of Palestine Action outside the High Court in London (Picture: Dan Kitwood) | Getty Images Labour's socialist roots remain Scratch any Labour government and you will find a deep authoritarian streak. It is increasingly apparent that this is every bit as true of Yvette Cooper's Home Office as it was of those headed by David Blunkett, John Reid and Jack Straw. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We hear talk of introducing digital ID cards (with no consideration of how to protect the data held). Now live facial-recognition technology is to be rolled out on our streets with no thought given to how it is to be used and against whom. Labour may no longer style themselves as socialists but their roots in a politics that expects government to control the people are there for all to see. For liberals, protecting freedoms of speech, assembly and protest is a given. It runs to the heart of how we see the relationship between the citizen and the state. For Labour, these freedoms are rarely more than 'nice to have' when circumstances allow. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So it was that last weekend we saw the Metropolitan Police's finest in hand-to-hand combat with the serried ranks of retired teachers, social workers and academics armed with placards proclaiming their opposition to genocide – something that would be uncontroversial in most normal times – and their support for Palestine Action (which seems to be the sticking point). Palestine Action's unacceptable tactics Let me make a few things clear at this point. I am not a supporter of Palestine Action. The tactics that they employ in protesting against government policy on Palestine are wrong-headed and counter-productive. Targeting military installations for acts of vandalism is not an acceptable tactic to promote the Palestinian cause. It does not, however, make you a terrorist organisation and the decision to proscribe Palestinian Action was disproportionate and a mistake. That proscription would lead to the sort of scenes that we witnessed at the weekend was inevitable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Using anti-terror legislation to arrest peaceful protestors is not just illiberal and oppressive. We give government extra power to tackle terrorism and trust them to use it for that. Anti-terrorism laws should be used to deal with terrorists, not our own citizens who wish to demonstrate their disagreements with their government. Ultimately the biggest threat to our safety could turn out to be Labour's authoritarian instincts.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Rise in no-fault evictions despite Labour's pledge to ban them
Thousands of people have had their homes seized after receiving controversial 'no-fault' eviction notices despite Labour pledging to abolish them, new data shows. Labour said in its election manifesto it would abolish Section 21 eviction notices 'immediately' after winning the election. A year on, and the relevant legislation still progressing through parliament means that the ban is still not in effect. According to Ministry of Justice figures released on Thursday, 11,400 households received no-fault evictions by bailiffs in the year to June. The number of bailiff evictions is an eight per cent rise on the previous year, continuing a trend of a heightened use of the notices. Housing charity Shelter said it is 'unconscionable' that renters 'continue to be marched out of their homes by bailiffs' a year after Labour 's election victory. It warned that nearly 1,000 households could be evicted from their homes by bailiffs every month until the ban on the notices is finally put in place. Section 21 notices grant landlords the power to evict tenants from their properties at two months' notice without needing to give any reason. Former prime minister Theresa May first announced the Conservatives' intention to abolish Section 21 notices in April 2019. Shelter described no-fault evictions as one of the leading causes of homelessness. Mairi MacRae, its director of campaigns and policy, said: "It is unconscionable that more than a year after the government came to power, thousands of renters continue to be marched out of their homes by bailiffs because of an unfair policy that the government said would be scrapped immediately. 'For far too long, tenants' lives have been thrown into turmoil by the rank injustice of 'no-fault' evictions. At the whim of private landlords, thousands of tenants are being left with just two months to find a new home, plunging them into a ruthless rental market and leaving many exposed to the riptide of homelessness.' The government's Renters' Rights Bill, sponsored by the Ministry of Housing, is currently in its final stages. It is expected to pass before the end of the year, or early 2026 at the latest. Alongside abolishing Section 21 notices, it would give tenants a 12-month protected period at the beginning of their tenancy, alongside increasing the notice requirement for landlords to evict on other grounds from two to four months. The bill would also provide protection against 'backdoor eviction ', where tenants are effectively pushed out by above-market rent increases, by giving them greater powers to challenge them. Housing charity Crisis has called on the government to bring forward the legislation and name a date when it will be implemented. Matt Downie, chief executive at Crisis, said: 'Despite good intentions from the Westminster government, thousands of people are still being unjustly evicted from their homes and threatened with – or even forced into – homelessness.' The new data comes after Labour MP Rushanara Ali recently resigned her role as homelessness minister following reports she gave tenants in a property she owned four months' notice to leave, before relisting the property with a £700 rent increase just weeks later. Such a move would likely not be allowed under the Renters' Rights Bill, which is set to introduce new protections for tenants, including banning landlords who evict tenants in order to sell their property from relisting it for rent for six months. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'No one should live in fear of a Section 21 eviction and these new figures show exactly why we will abolish them through our Renters' Rights Bill, which is a manifesto commitment and legislative priority for this government. 'We're determined to level the playing field by providing tenants with greater security, rights and protections in their homes and our landmark reforms will be implemented swiftly after the bill becomes law.'
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Labour's prisons gamble has made our streets less safe
When Labour came to power they inherited a justice system in crisis. Our prisons, awash with violence and drugs, were almost full. The country was weeks away from running out of jail cells, then running out of court and police cells in short order. So Labour gambled. They chose more controlled early releases under 'SDS40', under which certain prisoners would be released 40 per cent of the way through their sentence. The Government's aim was to buy enough time for prison-building, the Sentencing Review and Courts Review to avert catastrophe. Now, a year later, thanks to Charles Hymas's reporting, we know that gamble is failing. For every four prisoners released in the first three months of the year, three have been 'recalled' to prison. This happens either when an offender commits another offence, fails to attend meetings with probation officers or 'breaches their licence' – breaking conditions designed to prevent future offending and protect victims. The data from the Ministry of Justice covers the first quarter of this year and shows that recalls are up 36 per cent. The statisticians explicitly blame SDS40 and a 2024 change to recall rules for the increase, saying that the 'combined effect expected from these changes is… more opportunities for offenders to be recalled'. In theory prison should rehabilitate inmates, making them less likely to offend after release, and then the probation service should manage those people in the community, keeping them out of trouble. The reality is very different. We know that offenders who leave prison with a job, a home and a good social network are much less likely to reoffend. However, fewer than a third of prisoners have a job six months after release while over a quarter don't have a stable home three months after release. Part of the problem is overcrowding. When prisons have no room, they are often more violent and drug-filled, meaning staff struggle to maintain order. Often the first thing to go is 'purposeful activity' – work, study and training – which might help prisoners avoid crime on release. This is why the Government announced a significant prison-building programme last year, but it has admitted this week it is 'unachievable'. Meanwhile the probation service, desperately understaffed and struggling to retain experienced officers, is being asked to do more and more. If people spend just 40 per cent of their sentence in prison then that means they are supervised by probation for longer, meaning more work. Despite being a crucial part of the justice system and doing difficult, complex work, officers have seen their pay collapse both in real terms and in comparison to other public sector workers. In 2004 a probation officer's pay was equivalent to that of a police sergeant's whereas now it is equivalent to a police constable's. Staff often describe a management culture of fear and excessive demands. As a result of these pressures, Napo, the probation union, are balloting for strike action. The result will be known on August 22, and may herald another headache for Labour. More risks are on their way. In June, in a desperate attempt to delay prisons running out of space again, the Government announced a change meaning that most offenders recalled to prison would be sent back for a shorter 'fixed-term' recall of 28 days, rather than a much longer 'standard recall'. The idea is that with recalled prisoners spending less time back in jail, the prison population should fall. However, this may have the opposite effect. Probation officers may feel that recalling someone for just 28 days is less serious, and so may be more willing to use the power. Short recalls are also the worst of all worlds – 28 days is enough time for someone to lose any employment or home they may have, but provides no time for any real rehabilitation to take place. When the recall policy was announced in the spring, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson acknowledged that they had not conducted any modelling to estimate these risks. So this policy too is a gamble. When Parliament returns the Sentencing Review will begin its journey into law. This, along with the Courts Review, will increase the use of non-prison punishments, placing yet more pressure on probation. If the gamble goes wrong we may well see soaring reoffending, yet more recalls, and an ever more lawless Britain.
