The former West MPs with new roles in the House of Lords
To MPs in the Commons it is known as "the other place".But being elevated to the House of Lords has provided a way back to the political fray for two former West Country MPs.Former Conservative Transport Secretary Mark Harper and ex-Shadow Culture Secretary Thangam Debbonaire were awarded life peerages following their respective defeats at last year's general election.Harper said: "I'm hoping to be working hard. I'm going to be a working peer, so I shall be here as much as I can when the House is sitting and I'll get stuck in."
The new role marks a return to politics for Harper, who lost his Forest of Dean constituency in Gloucestershire by less than 300 votes in July 2024.He added that in his new position he hoped to contribute to internal Conservative party debates around how to be competitive again and "hopefully win the next general election".Labour's Debbonaire, defeated by the Green Party in Bristol Central, expressed a similar desire to immerse herself in her new role, calling it an "incredible privilege"."It wasn't a hard decision, primarily because I went into politics because I believe in public service, like most politicians of all parties," she said. "It was a new way to serve the public, which is your first and primary duty."
She added: "Bringing my skills to work on a daily basis is really, I think, of benefit to my service to the public and the country."Critics have pointed to Debbonaire's previous criticism of the honours system and Labour's former committal to abolishing the House of Lords.However, Debbonaire said that a second chamber was necessary, and the government was following through on commitments to remove hereditary peers.Harper and Debbonaire join another familiar face who has recently taken his seat in the chamber, Bristol's former Mayor, Marvin Rees.Now known as Lord Rees of Easton, the new Labour peer made his maiden speech on 3 April.They are all back in the political fray, spending time in the House debating and voting, but also having other roles elsewhere.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
These are Britain's options for tactical nuclear weapons. We must choose, and act
As the dust begins to settle on the Strategic Defence Review, Lord Robertson's interview with the Telegraph 's Roland Oliphant answered a number of important issues. However his lordship danced around the critical and pressing issue of re-introducing a tactical nuclear capability to our national deterrent. This is vital against the background of continuous nuclear threats against the UK and Europe from President Putin and the gangsters who advise him. The need to show military strength to Moscow could not be more pressing. The re-introduction of a tactical nuclear capability would impact Putin's decision-making far more than a few hundred tanks or half a dozen capital ships, but it is not quite so straight forward as strapping a nuclear bomb to a jet or on the end of a cruise missile. If the UK sticks with our closest ally, probably still the US, we will most likely purchase some F-35A runway stealth jets to go alongside our existing jumpjet F-35Bs. The Bs have the advantage of being able to operate from our carriers, but their vertical thrust equipment means that they lack range and cannot carry larger weapons in their internal bays. The F-35A is also the only 5th generation stealth jet that is certified to carry nuclear weapons – specifically the American B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb. This can be carried by German jets, will soon be certified on Italian ones, and would most likely be our tactical option also. But this may not be a credible enough option to effectively deter Putin. Though the F-35 is paraded as the stealthiest thing in the sky it is not actually invisible to radar and it might be shot down before it could get above its target to drop its B61-12s. This brings up the need to be able to knock out Russian air defences in order to make our tactical nukes (or other air power) effective. Air defence is nowadays hugely important and has been possibly the defining issue in the Ukraine war. In my day, you became an air defence officer – a 'cloud-puncher' – if no other path was open. Today the air defence officers are the first pick. Air defences, even modern and powerful Russian ones such as the S-400, can be suppressed: we have seen Israel do this against Iran's S-300s before bombing some of Iran's nuclear research establishments this and last year. Recent Ukrainian attacks, most especially the strike last week on the Russian military air base at Bryansk show that Russian AD is not as water-tight as the Kremlin would have us believe. Nonetheless it might be a big ask to get F-35s almost on top of their target in order to deliver a free-falling gravity bomb like the B61-12. The other option possibly available to the UK is to do what the French have done: rather than a free-falling nuke, France has the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMPA) supersonic cruise missile, which can be released from its carrying jet hundreds of miles from the target. The ASMPA is supersonic, making it harder to knock down than a normal subsonic cruise missile. Our missile making capability is joint with France and Europe anyway, so if we went down this route we could partner with the French, who already know what they're doing in this area. Our existing subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missile is actually French too – the warhead is the only British part. It has been put to good use against Russia in Ukrainian hands, though it appears to need help – either US defence-suppression technology or special forces operations against Russian defence radars – to be fully effective. It could be argued that it is now Monsieur Macron and France who are our closest allies, as President Trump seems to shun us 'pathetic' Europeans. This could be a viable way forward. Even I, a soldier, can recognise that reintroducing a tactical nuclear air delivered capability is not an insignificant task. It is complicated by our current lack of any AWACS radar planes and other specialist defence-suppression equipment. Nonetheless we have been in the nuclear deterrence game almost since the beginning and our Atomic Weapons Establishment can at least furnish us with the key: the actual warhead. We might alternatively make a beginning by developing a home-grown nuclear tip for our stock of US-made, submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise weapons: the Tomahawk was originally developed to deliver nukes, so we know it can do that job. One thing I am sure of is the need. As a former commander of the UK and Nato's chemical and nuclear defence forces, I know the overwhelming impact that tactical nuclear weapons can have on the battlefield, and the huge advantage they give to an aggressor against somebody who does not possess these weapons. We must be ready to deal with the Russian bear. Putin will not be deterred by 12 more submarines in the ocean in the next decade, and Dad's Army covering the White Cliffs perhaps sooner – useful and vital as these things will be. As Uncle Sam backs away from the fight, the prospect of the UK joining France in fielding a tactical capability which could cripple a Russian army in the field would likely get Putin talking peace quicker than most other threats. For 80 years there has been nuclear equilibrium in Europe, but this has become unbalanced. It is the major metric in Putin's decision making, psychologically if not physically. It isn't very important which tactical nuclear option we choose – F-35A, a French style standoff weapon, or Tomahawk. What is important is that we choose at least one and get it into service.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk slaps down salacious claims by his own AI Grok about Trump aide Stephen Miller's wife
Elon Musk has slapped down a salacious claim from his own AI fact checker involving Katie Miller, the wife of top Donald Trump aide Stephen Miller. Grok, Musk's AI chatbot integrated into X, responded to a screenshot of an X posting purported to be from Musk, which appeared to mock Stephen Miller by saying 'just like I took your wife.' The chatbot answered that the post 'likely existed and was deleted.' Musk disputed this, sounding exasperated as he responded: 'No, it's fake ffs [face palm emoji]. I never posted this.' Katie Miller, a prominent figure in Trump's first administration, was spokesperson for Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and she left that job to follow Musk to the private sector, taking a job with his companies. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller, who is the president's deputy chief of staff, was repeatedly defending Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' in posts on X at the same time Musk was criticizing it. Musk later unfollowed Miller but, as of Monday morning, is now following him again. The competing stances on Trump's signature legislation and the movement of Katie Musk away from the administration to the employment of Musk set the internet on fire with unfounded speculation about the Miller, Musk, Miller relationship. But Musk's post appears to be the first time he's directly responding to any of the gossip. Meanwhile, Katie Miller may face a tough choice between keeping her job with Musk or showing her loyalty to the president. 'It's unsustainable for her to remain on his payroll and remain a Trump ally,' an administration official told Daily Mail. Stephen Miller and Elon Musk were said to have a good relationship in the White House. But Musk left the administration in a burst of fury, publicly slamming Trump's budget plan to fund the federal government. Musk claimed it would add to the federal deficit and undo the work of his DOGE agency. White House officials said the Tesla founder was angry because he didn't get tax credits for electronic vehicles that he wanted. Stephen Miller, a longtime Trump loyalist who served in the first administration, has defended the legislation. But his rallying cry for Trump came as Katie Miller left the administration with Musk. Stephen Miller was said to be supportive of the Tesla founder's efforts to slash the size and scope of the federal government. And there were reports Katie Miller's main job at DOGE was to babysit the volatile and unpredictable Musk. But one official told DailyMail there was a 'conflict of interest' during her time in the administration as she was also being paid by Musk. For her work at DOGE, Katie Miller was designated a 'Special Government Employee,' which allows private sector figures to work for the federal government, but restricts them to 130 days per year. The designation also allows a person to collect a government salary and a private sector salary. The Millers have been married five years and have three small children. They met and married in Trump's first term. After Trump lost the 2020 election, Katie became a consultant. And her friends say she was just continuing that role when she opted to go with Musk instead of work for the second Trump administration. 'She's a mom of three,' one of them pointed out, noting her consultant job gave her a flexible work schedule. Others have different theories. 'Clearly a financial decision. She can make more in a month there than she can in a year here,' one official said of Miller's new employer. Both Stephen and Katie Miller are MAGA loyalists. In the first term, he worked for the president and she became Vice President Mike Pence's spokesperson. Their 2020 wedding at what was then Trump's Washington D.C. hotel was the MAGA social event of the year. President Trump attended. An Elvis impersonator serenaded them for their first dance.
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate
As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism. Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line. Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.' The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction. Here's what you had to say: I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Not a U-turn, just a high threshold It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill. KrakenUK Means test still not right Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income. We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do. WokeUp 4,000 lives at risk The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics? MrBishi We manage, give it to those who need it I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab. Ian Why should wealthy pensioners get it? I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more? OnlyFishLeft Social care funding was the original point I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Help paying the gas bill on £35k? Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill? Truly outrageous. This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below. BigDogSmallBrain A compromise, but poorly communicated This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage. ruthmayjellings What if one earns over the limit? I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear. SteveHill Why not last year? Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high. No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year? And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it? Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer. ListenVeryCarefully
