Labour MP accuses Reform of sucking up to Putin in heated clash
A Labour MP accused Reform of sucking up to Russian leader Vladimir Putin during a heated clash on live television.
Jeevun Sandher, Labour MP for Loughborough appeared alongside Reform's head of press Gawain Towler on BBC Politics Live on Tuesday (6 May) to discuss results of the recent local elections.
Mr Towler accused the Labour government of 'not liking' farmers and pensioners, with Mr Sandher explaining the importance of 'doing huge amounts' for veterans and armed forces.
Mr Sandher then said: 'The difference between us and you is that we stand up to Putin and your leader(Farage) sucks up to Putin.'
Mr Towler responded: 'Absolute rubbish... we don't suck up to foreign dictators.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
Rough sleeping to be decriminalised
Rough sleeping is to be decriminalised after the government pledged to get rid of a 200-year-old law against vagrancy. Labour said the Vagrancy Act, which became law in 1824 and criminalises 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds, in England', will be repealed by next spring. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, who is also housing secretary, said Labour was 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'. She said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' Rushanara Ali, the homelessness minister, said the 'archaic' law was 'neither just nor fit for purpose'. She added: 'Scrapping the Vagrancy Act for good is another step forward in our mission to tackle homelessness in all its forms, by focusing our efforts on its root causes.' The government said new 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe — filling the gap left over by removing previous powers'. These will be brought in through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. There will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime. Ministers said that means organised begging by criminal gangs will remain a crime. It will be illegal for anyone to organise others to beg. Homelessness charities hailed the law change. Matt Downie, the Crisis chief executive, said: 'This is a landmark moment that will change lives and prevent thousands of people from being pushed into the shadows, away from safety.' He praised the government for showing 'principled leadership in scrapping this pernicious act'. He said: 'We hope this signals a completely different approach to helping people forced on to the streets and clears the way for a positive agenda that is about supporting people who desperately want to move on in life and fulfil their potential. We look forward to assisting the UK government with their forthcoming homelessness strategy to do exactly that.' Emma Haddad, chief executive of St Mungo's, said the act's repeal 'cannot come soon enough' and called for a 'focus on tackling the health, housing and wider societal issues that are causing homelessness in the first place'. Centrepoint, the youth homelessness charity, warned that a challenge would be 'ensuring that proposed amendments don't have the unintended consequences of punishing people instead of supporting them'.
Evening Standard
43 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Starmer and Reynolds meet US commerce secretary in push to implement trade deal
Mr Lutnick was in London for talks with China on resolving the trade war between Washington and Beijing, and Mr Reynolds took the opportunity to meet him in person to push for the UK-US trade deal announced last month to be implemented as soon as possible.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Royal College of Pathologists comes out against assisted dying
The Royal College of Pathologists, which represents medical examiners, has come out against assisted dying. It said it could not support Kim Leadbeater 's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill because of the role that it was expected to play in the assisted dying process. Under the Bill, assisted deaths will not be automatically referred to a coroner, which is usual practice for potentially unnatural deaths and when a drug, authorised or otherwise, brings about death. This will mean that it is for medical examiners to scrutinise assisted deaths. The professional body that represents them says that they are not qualified to do so and warn that a lack of resourcing means that medical examiners may be pulled away from other parts of their vital work. Ms Leadbeater on Tuesday defended not involving coroners in the process. She said there was 'no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry' because adequate safeguards were in place. It comes as the Bill returns to the Commons for a debate on Friday, and a vote on the legislation is expected next week. Dr Suzy Lishman, senior adviser on medical examiners for the Royal College of Pathologists, said that the college had no position on the 'ethical issues' of legalising assisted dying. In a statement, Dr Lishman said: 'The college's concerns relate only to the involvement of medical examiners after an assisted death has taken place. 'As part of their scrutiny, medical examiners would need to review the process leading up to the decision to authorise an assisted death and the circumstances of the assisted death, which they are not qualified to do. 'Notification to the coroner following an assisted death would ensure independent judicial review, which is particularly important given the concerns raised by many individuals, organisations and medical royal colleges about the lack of adequate safeguards in the Bill for vulnerable people. 'Lawyers, not doctors, are the most appropriate professionals to review these deaths. The medical examiner system was implemented to detect problems with medical care, not to identify discrepancies or malintent in the legal process required for assisted deaths.' Dr Lishman also raised concerns about the need of 'significant' training and resources needed for medical examiners to be able to perform the role in the process. She said that this would risk 'potentially taking medical examiners away from their current important role'. The Royal College of Pathologists concluded: 'Coronial referral for assisted deaths would be in line with current regulations, with all deaths due to a medical intervention or medicinal product being notified.' Last year, Thomas Teague KC, the former chief coroner for England and Wales from 2020-24, expressed concern about the lack of coroner involvement in the Bill. In a letter to The Telegraph, he wrote: 'Since the coroner's jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard.' A letter signed by around 1,000 doctors from across the NHS published this week said that the Bill is a 'real threat to both patients and the medical workforce'. They said: 'We are concerned that the private member's Bill process has not facilitated a balanced approach to the collection of evidence and input from key stakeholders including doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.' The Royal College of Pathologists is the latest royal college to come out against the legislation, after the Royal College of Psychiatrists voiced their opposition to the Bill last month. Ms Leadbeater said: 'The Bill does not prevent any assisted death being referred to a coroner, however this would not be required in the majority of cases. 'Coroners investigate deaths that have been reported to them if they think that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death is unknown, or the person died in prison or in custody. None of these would apply to a legal, assisted death under the terms of this Bill. 'Eligibility for an assisted death would have been assessed in advance by two independent doctors and a multi-disciplinary panel overseen by a commissioner who would be a High Court judge or retired judge. 'Each of these assessments would be subject to the extensive safeguards contained in the Bill to protect everybody, including the most vulnerable. 'Consequently, most cases would not require a judicial investigation after a person has died, and there would be no justification for putting the family and loved ones of the deceased through an unnecessary and potentially traumatic coroner's inquiry. 'However, in the event of any doubt at all, it would be open to a medical examiner, a family member or anybody with concerns to ask a coroner to investigate.'
