Churchill vs. the Far Right's Angry Historians
The far right's revisionism isn't the product of masterfully informed historians. It is the work of an uncredentialed and angry few in pursuit of a cause. Churchill, the product of more study and words than most leaders, is hard to defrock as Europe's savior, and the current spiteful crop won't succeed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Swinney has ‘no intention' of reshuffling Scottish cabinet before May election
John Swinney has made clear he has 'no intention' of reshuffling his cabinet team at Holyrood, despite a number of key figures in his government stepping down at next May's Scottish elections. More than 20 SNP MSPs are set to leave Holyrood when voters north of the border go to the poll next year. Mr Swinney's deputy First Minister Kate Forbes is among them, along with Finance Secretary Shona Robison, Transport Secretary Fiona Hyslop and Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon. However, Mr Swinney made clear he has no plans to reshape his top team in the light of the planned departures. Speaking at an event in Edinburgh organised by the think tank Enlighten, Mr Swinney said: 'I have no intention of reshuffling my team before the election.' While he spoke about his 'regret' about fellow MSPs leaving Holyrood, including 'close colleagues, friends and confidantes', he said he had reshuffled his cabinet team after government minister Mairi McAllan returned to work earlier this year following her maternity leave. She was given the newly created post of housing secretary, with Mr Swinney tasking her with tackling the housing 'emergency' in Scotland. Asked if the impending departure of senior members of his government would bring about a reshuffle ahead of May's Scottish elections, the SNP leader said he had 'decided, actively and purposefully' that he had people in his cabinet with 'experience and expertise in a number of roles that would help me to deliver to government's programme before the election'. And he argued that if he was to 'put in a whole host of new faces' then 'it would take a while to get things back up to the level of delivery' So he insisted: 'I have no plans to reshuffle the government.' His comments came as he spoke of his 'regret' over SNP MSPs leaving Holyrood, with the First Minister saying he 'very much' regretted Ms Forbes' decision to quit the Scottish Parliament. She announced earlier this month she would not be running for election next year, saying she did not want to 'miss any more of the precious early years of family life'. Meanwhile, former first ministers Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf are also stepping down. Mr Swinney said: 'Some of my colleagues are stepping down because they have done a very long shift.' While he said he was the 'longest serving' parliamentarian at Holyrood, having been first voted in as an MP 28 years ago before being elected as an MSP in the first devolved elections, he noted a number of those quitting had also been first elected in 1999. However, he added some MSPs were leaving because of the 'tough' nature of politics. 'We have to acknowledge that for many, I think particularly younger women, the climate is horrendous,' Mr Swinney said. He continued: 'The social media endurance is hard to bear for some people, and it makes public service look frankly unattractive at times.' In these circumstances, he said, he tries to 'support my colleagues, understand and be an ally'. But the SNP leader added: 'Ultimately, I can not protect people from what is thrown at them, and some of the behaviours are appalling, so that affects a number of people as well.'
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
County councils say rural taxpayers to face unfair burden under funding reforms
Council taxpayers in rural areas will contribute unfair levels of funding for services in urban communities under proposed Government reforms, county councils have warned. Large rural authorities have also highlighted that maximum council tax increases will be needed to deliver necessary core budget increases for essential services over the next three years. In its submission to the Government's consultation on planned reforms, known as the 'fair funding review 2.0', the County Councils Network (CCN) said the proposals were 'better than feared'. The network welcomed some elements that determine funding levels, such as an indicator for remoteness and a new formula for social care and school transport allocations, which it said 'better recognise the needs' of the 38 county areas. But CCN called on the Government to reconsider its broader approach, insisting the proposals 'place a disproportionate burden on council taxpayers in county areas to fund local services and redistribute funding to urban areas'. Modelling showed that under the proposals £1.6 billion in council tax income generated in county areas will be redistributed across the country. This is due to a decision by ministers to include 100% of local council tax receipts when allocating funds in a bid to 'equalise' revenue across the sector, in a departure from the previous approach which took in 85%. CCN said this means 32 of the 38 county and rural authorities will lose an additional £400 million in a process that would represent an 'overwhelming' benefit for urban metropolitan boroughs. The analysis showed 22 authorities will receive increases in direct Government funding totalling £845 million under the plans. But on average these councils will receive 70% of their overall increase in core spending power, the official measure of funding available for services, from council tax rises specifically. In addition, 16 other councils, including some located in the North and the Midlands, will experience funding cuts totalling £470 million. With no increase in direct Government funding, the entire increase in core spending power for these authorities will come from council tax rises, CCN said. 'One third of council tax income raised in these areas over the three-year period is needed to offset cuts to funding and prevent them falling below a proposed 0% funding floor,' the network added. Across all 38 county and rural unitary councils, direct grant funding will increase by £374 million, with 90% of the total uplift in core spending power coming via maximum 5% annual council tax rises. The modelling suggests this scenario is in stark contrast to the impact on councils in urban areas, with nearly 50% of metropolitan authorities' extra resources coming from additional grant funding of £1.2 billion over three years. Overall, in the absence of maximum annual council tax rises over the period, the analysis showed 33 of the 38 county and rural unitary authorities would experience a real-terms reduction in funding, CCN said. The new Government grant would fund just 9% of the estimated £4.4 billion increase in the cost of providing services in county and rural areas over three years, while the boost in Government funding for metropolitan authorities would fund half of the total £2.4 billion increase in estimated costs of services in those areas. CCN said it is 'simply unrealistic' to expect some of England's largest social care councils to 'provide life critical services while receiving deep cuts in Government grant' and called for 'significantly' more funding to prevent 'unsustainable cuts'. Chairman of the CCN Tim Oliver said: 'Some 16 county and rural councils across the length and breadth of the country will see reductions in grant funding, while the Government's proposals place a disproportionate burden on council taxpayers in county areas to fund local services and redistribute funding to urban areas. 'Those facing cuts in Government funding will inevitably have to reduce vital frontline services, while the reliance on council tax rises leaves even those with modest funding increases facing an extremely challenging funding outlook. 'While we recognise the need to take account of how much councils raise in local taxation, the Government's proposals to fully equalise unfairly redistribute hundreds of millions of local council tax to other areas, while weakening the incentive to build homes.' Sir Stephen Houghton, chairman of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities, backed the Government's approach. He said: 'It is absolutely right that any new funding system must fully reflect the wide disparities in councils' ability to raise income through council tax. 'The failure to do so over the past decade has led to disproportionately deep cuts in the most deprived areas, worsening inequality across the country.' The Government's consultation on the reforms closed on Friday. A Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'We do not recognise the (CCN) analysis. The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded has left communities behind and damaged local services. 'This must change and is why we are taking decisive action as part of our Plan for Change to reform the funding system so we can improve public services, while maintaining the previous government's referendum threshold on council tax rises so taxpayers have the final say and are protected from excessive increases.' Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'Yet again the Labour government are showing utter contempt for people living in rural Britain. 'The family farms tax has been devastating for British farming and scrapping the rural services grant has put rural councils under enormous pressure. Now this latest spiteful change will steal more money out of the hands of county councils and send it straight into Labour-run urban areas. 'Only the Conservatives are serious about standing up for our rural communities' Liberal Democrat local government spokeswoman Vikki Slade said the reforms could be severely detrimental to some areas. Ms Slade said: 'Councils across the country are already teetering on the edge after years of Conservatives' neglect of local funding and services – from bus services cuts in rural areas to the rising costs of social care. These ill-thought-out reforms only risk leaving parts of the country significantly worse off. 'To truly help local authorities, the Government should urgently look at supporting councils who receive the least grant funding and those that face additional pressure on services in rural and coastal areas, to help them with spiralling costs.'
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukrainian diplomat involved in 90s nuclear deal with Russia warns Trump about 'very big mistake' with Putin
Ukrainians have given a lukewarm reaction to this week's White House summit. There is bafflement and unease here after US President Donald Trump switched sides to support his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, dropping calls for a ceasefire and proposing that Ukraine surrender territory. While allies are talking up the prospects of progress, people here remain unconvinced. Ukraine war latest - Trump rules out using US troops The Trump administration's contradictory statements on possible security guarantees are causing concern here. MP Lesia Vasylenko told Sky News it is not at all clear what the allies have in mind. "Who is going to be there backing Ukraine in case Russia decides to revisit their imperialistic plans and strategies and in case they want to restart this war of aggression?" For many Ukrainians, there is a troubling sense of deja vu. In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up not land but its nuclear arsenal, inherited from the Soviet Union, in return for security assurances from Russia and other powers. They know how that ended up to their enormous cost. Putin reneged on Russia's side of the bargain, with his invasion of Crimea in 2014 and once again with his full-scale attack three and a half years ago. We met veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko, who helped lead those negotiations in the 90s. He said there is a danger the world makes the same mistake and trusts Vladimir Putin when he says he wants to stop the killing, something Mr Trump said he now believes. "It's not true, it's not true, Russia never, never, it's my practices in more than 30 years, Russia never stop their aggression plans to occupy all Ukraine and I think that Mr Trump, if he really believes Mr Putin, it will be a very big mistake, Mr Trump, a very big mistake." Before the Alaska summit, allies agreed the best path to peace was forcing Mr Putin to stop his invasion, hitting him where it hurts with severe sanctions on his oil trade. But Mr Trump has given up calls for a ceasefire and withdrawn threats to impose those tougher sanctions. Instead, he has led allies down a different and more uncertain path. Read more on Sky News:Putin wasn't there, but influenced summitPeace further away, not closer Ukrainians we met on the streets of Kyiv said they would love to believe in progress more than anything, but are not encouraged by what they are hearing. While the diplomacy moves on in an unclear direction, events on the ground and in the skies above Ukraine are depressingly predictable. Russia is continuing hundreds of drone attacks every night, and its forces are advancing on the front. If Vladimir Putin really wants this war to end, he's showing no sign of it, while Ukrainians fear Donald Trump is taking allies down a blind alley of fruitless diplomacy.
