Domenicali to tell Starmer how vital F1 is to UK
Half a million fans expected at British GP
Domenicali said he expected this weekend's British Grand Prix at Silverstone to have an all-time record crowd across the four days of about 500,000 people.But he said Silverstone had a responsibility to ensure it could manage the ingress and egress of that amount of spectators without causing major traffic problems.These had been consigned to the past, but became a major concern again at Silverstone last year.Domenicali said it was "important" for British GP organisers to create a network to minimise the "bottleneck" of people at the event.He added: "This is the most important element, which we're going to push them, to keep developing their plan."That is not only how they commercialise their packages, in terms of offers for the fans, but also how the fans can arrive in the right way."And he said that while "I cannot think, personally of not having a race in the UK", and that only Silverstone could host it, "the right approach would be not to, from their perspective, think that it is taken for granted".
'Plan' in case war affects season finale
Domenicali said F1 had "a plan" in case the conflict between Israel and Iran affected the season-closing races in Qatar and Abu Dhabi.He would not say what that plan was, but intimated that there were contingency arrangements in place to hold races elsewhere if necessary."I don't want to even think about it," he said. "But mainly because of the bigger picture."He said the promoters of the two races were "very serious".Domenicali added: "We are not worried at all that this will have an effect."Hopefully, from here to the end of the year, the situation will ease down and there will be no problem."But there will be an effect on the cost, because the logistics of the movement of the flights and so on will have an effect on them. But these are things that we can manage in a way to be proactive and to be reactive if needed."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Look at Wimbledon without human line judges and tell me this: do you really want life to be perfect?
It's the perfect Wimbledon. The sun is out, the Brits are firing and as for the scoring, that too will be somewhat perfect, this being the first Wimbledon since the tournament told the line judges, long the arbiters of accuracy, that after 148 years, their services will no longer be required. Arguments, unpredictability and, as the cameras zoom in to the line judge whose eyesight judgment prompts a participant explosion, buttock-clenching awkwardness in close-up: goodbye to all that. Hello, AI and sharp-eyed robots, analysing in real time 18 lots of footage. It's perfect now, but is it progress? After the first day, players complained that while the calls were perfect in their accuracy, they were imperfect in that the gizmo's volume was set too low and they could not hear the verdicts. To some extent, Wimbledon is falling into line – both the Australian and US Opens, and very many of the lesser professional tournaments, have waved goodbye to the humans and embraced electronic line calling. The players wanted it. They strive truly, madly and deeply for perfection; their short, explosive careers cannot hinge on the human fallibility of others. But look at Centre Court without the sentries posted around the border, and without the quiet ceremony that has always marked the departure of one set of line judges and the arrival of another. One day their absence will feel natural and maybe we'll forget they were ever there, barking their assessments. But for now, their absence feels like a loss. Game, set and match to the gizmos. Of the grand slams, the premier tournaments of world tennis, only the French Open has resisted the temptation to shoo away the line judges and embrace electronica, and you may think therein lies a morality tale of sorts. When the Wimbledon plan was mooted, one experienced line judge there spoke not just of the hurt of being abruptly discarded but also of her worry that line judges, drawn from clubs around the country, were a crucial link between the elite game, with its Wimbledon showpiece, and the grassroots, which has perennially felt neglected. They saw being asked to participate at Wimbledon as a reason to stay connected, a kind of lodestar. 'I worry that smaller tournaments will struggle to find line judges soon,' she said. At the French Open this year, French Tennis Federation president Gilles Moretton was asked why it remains loth to regulate battle on the red clay with technology and cleaves to its line judges. He thought the gizmos were not quite perfect, citing a 10% error rate. He said never say never, but primarily he said: 'We need those people working all year long in our tournaments, promoting tennis in small clubs, being there for club matches. If we stop having those linesmen, those referees, we feel that is not too good for tennis in France maybe, and I think it may be the same in other countries.' Perhaps Wimbledon is right – in lockstep with inevitability and history's sweep – but it's worth taking a moment to think about the value and cost of perfection. Talk to a football fan about VAR. The video assistant referee system was designed to help match officials make perfect decisions but has instead robbed too many games of flow, joy and spontaneity. Do I want glaring mistakes to stand? No. Do I want a brilliant goal disallowed because the gizmo picked up an attacker's elbow tip rendering them offside? No, I don't want that either. Do I want to wait five minutes to celebrate a goal while the gizmo and its handlers, pursuing their perfection, deliberate? No, I really don't. Do I want my team to lose because the referee made an error? No, of course not, but I also think that human fallibility is what makes it a flesh-and-blood endeavour. As the technological possibilities increase, with an AI model for everything now, we are going to have to face and answer some hard questions about whether we want perfect (or just good enough) and/or whether we prize humans. Of course there will be a need for both, but if we leave big tech and commerce to make those decisions, the society of the future may not be calibrated the way we'd like. I'm no luddite. Machines and tech do some things better. But humans are human. They smile at you at the supermarket checkout, can out-banter any bot at the bank or the hardware store and they added to the spectacle that is Wimbledon. They're not perfect, but I will always miss them when they've gone. Hugh Muir is a Guardian columnist
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
The government needs a viable plan to stop the small boats
There are some milestones that no government wants to meet early. Hitting 20,000 arrivals by small boats in the first six months of this year is one of them. According to the latest Home Office figures, the number of people who crossed the English Channel illegally was up 48 per cent compared with the first six months of 2024, and up 75 per cent on the same period in 2023. The warm weather this summer has played a role in this rise, but far more important has been the government's failing strategy on illegal migration. The 20,000 crossings threshold has been reached much earlier in 2025 than in previous years. In 2022, the year that total arrivals hit an all-time high of nearly 46,000, the threshold was not reached until August 14. The new figures suggest Britain is on course to break the 2022 record and that illegal crossings could reach 50,000 before the year end. Were that to happen, it would represent another blow for Sir Keir Starmer's credibility: the prime minister has repeatedly promised to succeed where his Conservative predecessors failed and 'stop the boats'. Ministers are said to be confident that new measures will begin to reduce the numbers, including a promise by French police to intercept boats up to 300 metres from the coastline. These tweaks may result in small decreases but they are no substitute for a serious deterrent for those seeking to cross the Channel. Until there is a realistic prospect that illegal immigrants will be immediately removed from this country and processed elsewhere, the demand for what has become the Channel taxi service will continue apace. The prime minister pledged in opposition to scrap the Rwanda scheme for processing illegal arrivals offshore, and duly did so on his first day in office. Although the scheme was thwarted by legal challenges, Sir Keir must regret turning his face against a deterrent strategy last year. Small boat crossings have risen relentlessly, forcing the government to accept the inevitable and explore the use of overseas 'returns hubs', most likely in the Balkans. However, Sir Keir is pinning his hopes for meaningful reductions on a returns deal with France, which has so far eluded him during his first year in office. President Macron will make a state visit to the UK next week, and a 'one-in, one-out' deal is in the offing. The prime minister hopes this can break the business model of smuggling gangs and choke off their trade. If such a pact is struck, Britain would finally be able to send illegal migrants back to France. But in return, it would have to admit an equal number of migrants who have a legitimate case for reuniting with relatives here. Of course, the success of the scheme relies on co-operation with France, which has happily taken British money for years while failing to turn off the flow of small boats. It can only be hoped that this deal, if concluded, will produce some results. It may do nothing to reduce overall admissions but at least the dangerous cross-Channel trade might be curtailed or ended. And it could end also the flow of images of boats crammed with refugees that has benighted successive administrations. The impact of illegal migration is stark. As well as the burden for the Home Office of processing the claims, analysis reported in The Times suggests that migrants arriving by small boat are 25 times more likely to end up in prison than an average Briton. Mired in the welfare fiasco, Sir Keir needs a win. He must hope Mr Macron will oblige.
The Sun
35 minutes ago
- The Sun
Rachel Reeves admitted ‘I'm under so much pressure' before tears at PMQs sparked riddle & sent markets crashing
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves broke down in tears at PMQs — minutes after admitting she was 'under so much pressure'. In another meltdown day for Downing Street following the benefits vote fiasco, TV cameras showed her sobbing on the frontbench. 5 5 5 Money markets took fright at the extraordinary scenes, forcing Sir Keir Starmer later to give Ms Reeves his full backing. No 10 denied the pair had rowed. The Chancellor was said to be upset about a personal matter. Her tears at PMQs plunged Labour into a fresh crisis — and sparked panic on the money markets. Speculation mounted about Reeves's future when Starmer publicly refused to guarantee her job. She admitted feeling 'under so much pressure' minutes before her outburst, dubbed ' waterworksgate '. It followed Tuesday's last-minute climbdown on cuts to personal independence payments (PIP) to fend off a Labour revolt and pass the flagship Welfare Bill. Sources dismissed rumours Ms Reeves and Sir Keir had a bust-up before noon's PMQs, but claimed she'd had terse words with Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle. Ms Reeves's spokesman insisted her crying was down to personal reasons he 'would not be getting into'. And allies denied she was on the brink of quitting. The Chancellor, 46, was comforted by sister Ellie, a Labour minister, but Sir Keir did not speak to her as she was led to her office next to the Commons chamber. No 10 had to delete a clip from Sir Keir's X because it showed Ms Reeves crying next to him, though it insisted the Chancellor was 'going nowhere'. The PM and Ms Reeves were said to have spoken last night and were working 'business as usual'. Money markets earlier panicked at the prospect of a change of Chancellor and possible abandonment of her spending rules. UK ten-year borrowing costs surged to 4.6 per cent and the Pound fell by one per cent against the Dollar to less than $1.36. Tuesday's gutting of the welfare reforms left Ms Reeves needing to plug a bigger hole in public savings — either by spending cuts, tax rises or borrowing. Squirming Keir Starmer refuses to say Rachel Reeves will be Chancellor at next election after horror Budget Tory leader Kemi Badenoch pounced at Prime Minister's Questions — quizzing Sir Keir about whether Ms Reeves would remain in place. Taking aim at the puffy-eyed Chancellor, Ms Badenoch said: 'She looks absolutely miserable. 'Labour MPs are going on the record saying the Chancellor is toast. The reality is she's a human shield for his (the PM's) incompetence. Will she really be in post for the next election?' In response, the PM did not confirm Ms Reeves would remain in post until 2029. COMMONS MELTDOWN 11.50: Rachel Reeves says she is under 'so much pressure' just before Prime Minister's Questions. 12.00: She appears at PMQs. 12.13: Sir Keir Starmer dodges the question, and Ms Reeves is seen shedding tears in the background. 12.45: Downing Street insists the Chancellor is 'going nowhere'. 13.00: A spokesperson says Ms Reeves was dealing with a 'personal matter'. He would only tell Ms Badenoch: 'I have to say I'm always cheered when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.' Ms Reeves is said to have been given a ticking off by the Speaker on Tuesday for taking too long to answer questions, to which she snapped back. It is believed he again collared her before PMQs yesterday when she is understood to have welled up and confided to being 'under so much pressure'. A spokesperson for Sir Lindsay did not comment. In her first year in the job, Ms Reeves has faced fierce criticism over winter fuel, welfare cuts, the National Insurance raid, sluggish growth, taxing farmers and taking freebies. Health Secretary Wes Streeting defended her last night, calling her a 'tough cookie'. He told The Sun: 'We are not invincible and superhuman as politicians.' But senior Tory Robert Jenrick said: 'Rachel Reeves's benefits Bill is dead, and so is her career. 'She's been humiliated by her backbenchers and been forced into her most embarrassing U-turn yet. 'By her own metric she's crashed the economy, lost the confidence of the markets and now, it seems, the confidence of the Prime Minister too. It's time for Reeves to go.' 5 5 Yesterday Cabinet Minister Pat McFadden warned about Labour's U-turns, telling Times Radio: 'The process of the last couple of weeks does have financial consequences. 'They will all be taken together with other moving parts in the economy, in the fiscal picture at the Budget. 'Recent antics' 'But I'm not denying that when you set out on a plan that has a cost attached to it, then you have to change that or take it forward in slower time, that is a decision with financial consequences.' One Labour MP hit out at Ms Reeves's mutinous colleagues for forcing the concessions, saying: 'We've got to live within our means, and I'd gently point out to colleagues that their recent antics have not helped that cause.' JP Morgan says the Chancellor could face a financial black hole of up to £18billion. The bank's Allan Monks added: 'It appears likely that there will be pressure to raise taxes at the Budget.' Business confidence remains fragile after firms swallowed the jump in tax and labour costs in April, according to research by the British Chambers of Commerce.
