PM fails to back tearful Reeves after welfare chaos
The prime minister refused to rule out new taxes to address a £5bn funding gap resulting from welfare U-turns, intensifying pressure for cabinet changes.
Rachel Reeves' emotional state at PMQs led to questions about her future, which Sir Keir Starmer avoided, though Downing Street cited a personal matter or an altercation with the Speaker.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that welfare reforms would cost money, not save it, causing unease in bond markets and a drop in the pound's value.
Calls for a wealth tax are growing, with support from within the cabinet and the Trades Union Congress, as a potential solution to the financial shortfall.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly, lawyer says
A jury 's decision to clear a suspended Labour councillor of encouraging violent disorder after he called for far-right activists' throats to be cut cannot be compared to the case of Lucy Connolly, lawyers have claimed. Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, said: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
Putin lands for high-stakes summit with Trump, who seeks ceasefire 'today'
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Alaska on Friday to greet a waiting U.S. President Donald Trump ahead of a summit that could determine whether a ceasefire can be reached in the deadliest war in Europe since World War Two. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who was not invited to the talks, and his European allies fear Trump might sell out Ukraine by essentially freezing the conflict with Russia and recognising - if only informally - Russian control over one-fifth of Ukraine. Trump sought to assuage such concerns as he boarded Air Force One, saying he would let Ukraine decide on any possible territorial swaps. "I'm not here to negotiate for Ukraine, I'm here to get them at a table," he said. Asked what would make the meeting a success, he told reporters: "I want to see a ceasefire rapidly ... I'm not going to be happy if it's not today ... I want the killing to stop." Trump is expected to formally greet Putin before the two presidents are due to meet at an Air Force base in Alaska's largest city at around 11 a.m. (1900 GMT) for their first face-to-face talks since Trump returned to the White House. Trump will be joined in his meeting with Putin by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump's special envoy to Russia, Steve Witkoff, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said. Putin is also expected to have senior aides at his side. At the subsequent larger, bilateral meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chief of staff Susie Wiles will also join Trump, Leavitt said. Trump hopes a truce in the 3-1/2-year-old war will bring peace to the region as well as bolster his credentials as a global peacemaker worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. For Putin, the summit is already a big win that he can portray as evidence that years of Western attempts to isolate Russia have unravelled and that Moscow is retaking its rightful place at the top table of international diplomacy. Russian special envoy Kirill Dmitriev described the pre-summit mood as "combative" and said the two leaders would discuss not only Ukraine but the full spectrum of bilateral relations, Russia's RIA news agency reported. Trump, who once said he would end Russia's war in Ukraine within 24 hours, conceded on Thursday it had proven a tougher task than he had expected. He said if Friday's talks went well, quickly arranging a second, three-way summit with Zelenskiy would be even more important than his encounter with Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a three-way summit would be possible if the Alaska talks bore fruit, Interfax news agency reported. Peskov also said Friday's talks could last six to seven hours. Zelenskiy said the summit should open the way for a "just peace" and three-way talks that included him, but added that Russia was continuing to wage war. A Russian ballistic missile earlier struck Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region, killing one person and wounding another. "It's time to end the war, and the necessary steps must be taken by Russia. We are counting on America," Zelenskiy wrote on the Telegram messaging app. Trump said there is mutual respect between him and Putin. "He is a smart guy, been doing it for a long time, but so have I ... We get along, there's a good respect level on both sides," Trump said of Putin. He also welcomed Putin's decision to bring businesspeople to Alaska. "But they're not doing business until we get the war settled," he said, repeating a threat of "economically severe" consequences for Russia if the summit goes badly. The U.S. has discussed internally using Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker vessels to support the development of gas and LNG projects in Alaska as one of the possible deals to aim for, Reuters reported. One source acquainted with Kremlin thinking said there were signs Moscow could be ready to strike a compromise on Ukraine, given that Putin understood Russia's economic vulnerability and costs of continuing the war. Reuters has previously reported that Putin might be willing to freeze the conflict along the front lines, provided there was a legally binding pledge not to enlarge NATO eastwards and to lift some Western sanctions. NATO has said Ukraine's future is in the alliance. Russia, whose war economy is showing strain, is vulnerable to further U.S. sanctions - and Trump has threatened tariffs on buyers of Russian crude, primarily China and India. "For Putin, economic problems are secondary to goals, but he understands our vulnerability and costs," the Russian source said. Putin this week held out the prospect of something else he knows Trump wants - a new nuclear arms control accord to replace the last surviving one, which is due to expire in February. The source familiar with Kremlin thinking said it looked as if the two sides had been able to find some common ground. "Apparently, some terms will be agreed upon ... because Trump cannot be refused, and we are not in a position to refuse (due to sanctions pressure)," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity. Putin has said he is open to a full ceasefire but that issues of verification must first be sorted out. One compromise could be a truce in the air war. Zelenskiy has ruled out formally handing Moscow any territory and is also seeking a security guarantee backed by the United States. Ukrainians who spoke to Reuters in central Kyiv on Friday were not optimistic about the summit. "Nothing good will happen there, because war is war, it will not end. The territories - we're not going to give anything to anyone," said Tetiana Harkavenko, a 65-year-old cleaner.
The Guardian
13 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why are London schools outperforming the rest of England?
This year, A-level results in England reached a record high outside the pandemic era, However, the stark regional divide between London and the rest of the UK, particularly the north-east and East Midlands, has widened. But why are London schools outperforming all other regions? Here are some reasons: In 2003, the Blair government launched an initiative to transform schools in the capital. At the time, London schools were perceived to be some of the worst in the country. At its peak, the London Challenge had a budget of £40m a year, working with local authorities, investing in school leadership, building new secondary schools and sixth forms, as well as radically expanding the academisation of new and existing schools. There was also an incentive to build extended schools that offered services to students and their families outside the classroom. As a result, 30% of London schools were graded as outstanding in 2010 by Ofsted, compared with 17.5% nationally. Although the Schools Challenge was later stretched to Greater Manchester and the Black Country, London is considered to be the success story. Due to higher pay and cultural attractiveness, teachers are more inclined to train and work in the capital, therefore a higher level of teaching is arguably available to London students. The Teach First programme was a targeted intervention that started in 2002 with the aim of recruiting university graduates to train as teachers in challenging schools. The first cohort of trainees were placed exclusively in London secondary schools between 2003 and 2006. Although trainees are distributed across regions, London has the highest concentration, with more than a quarter of Teach First schools being in the capital in 2019. The changing class demographics in London have had a noticeable effect on the quality of schools in the city. In the past few decades, young families have chosen to remain in there rather than moving to suburban areas, as once was the norm. As a result, formerly impoverished boroughs such as Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Brixton have become more middle class and, over time, schools in the capital have received an increased number of pupils from families with higher levels of education, improving the schools' results. London remains the most ethnically diverse region in the country. Research shows that parents from migrant families often have higher ambitions of social mobility through educational means, known academically as the 'London effect'. In 2017, the former education secretary Michael Gove said 'there's lots of evidence that London having become more diverse has contributed to educational standards rising'. However, research from King's College London shows that, if only white London pupils are considered, London still outperforms all other regions in the UK. London contains a higher concentration of schools within one region. This gives families more choice to send their children to schools and sixth forms that align with their interests and academic progression. Additionally, students are able to commute across the capital, granting the opportunity to attend specialist schools that may have otherwise been out of reach.
