Police warn of disruption due to Britain First protests in Birmingham
West Midlands Police have warned of potential traffic disruption in Birmingham, as rival protesters rally in the city centre.About 200 people supporting Britain First gathered from about midday, kept apart by police from a further 100 counter protesters.West Midlands Police said there was a planned operation to cover the demonstrations."We have a long history of upholding the right to protest, while balancing it with the rights of others, to keep the public safe and prevent crime and disorder," the force said in a statement.
A live stream by the far-right group on X showed a crowd standing outside Birmingham New Street Station holding British and English flags.After a claxon sounded, the crowd was seen to walk through the city, letting off red and white smoke flares and chanting the party's name, as well as that of Tommy Robinson, who founded the English Defence League.Robinson himself is not at the protest, but reposted a video of the scene.The group marched to the council house steps, kept apart from the nearby rival protesters.The counter-protest was organised by Stand Up to Racism Birmingham.A statement by the organisation said: "Birmingham belongs to all of us. We will not allow hate to march unchecked through our streets."It was signed by dozens of people and organisations, including Labour MP Zarah Sultana.
Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
14 minutes ago
- Times
Keir Starmer's citizenship plans ‘will increase illegal migrants'
Sir Keir Starmer's plans to double the time foreigners must wait to qualify for permanent settlement have plunged 1.7 million people in limbo and will increase Britain's illegal migrant population, experts have said. Immigration reforms announced last month will double the time foreign citizens must wait before they can settle in the UK and apply for British citizenship to ten years. The Times revealed that Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, wanted to apply these changes to all migrants who arrived in the UK in the past five years because of concerns that the record levels of immigration since the post-Brexit immigration system came into effect in 2020 would lead to hundreds of thousands of extra people being granted permanent settlement in the UK. Grants of British citizenship hit a record high of 269,621 last year, while 172,798 were given permanent settlement, the highest level in 13 years. Analysis by the IPPR think tank has found that plans to apply the ten-year wait on settlement rights will apply to 1.2 million migrant workers, 183,000 Hongkongers and 160,000 refugees who were on a route to settlement at the end of last year. They will now be forced to wait another five years — ten in total — to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Once an individual has been granted indefinite leave to remain, they can apply for British citizenship. • The IPPR warned that this would be detrimental to efforts to integrate migrants into society and would also risk increasing the number of illegal migrants in the UK. Gaining indefinite leave to remain grants foreign citizens the right to live, work and study in the UK without restriction and ends the need to pay visa fees and annual payments of more than £1,000 to access the NHS. It also removes the bar on accessing mainstream benefits. This 'gives people a secure foundation to put down roots, integrate into their communities and pursue long-term career goals — for instance by allowing them to move into new jobs without needing to reapply for a visa,' according to the paper by the IPPR's Marley Morris and Lucy Mort. They warned: 'Lengthening the route to settlement therefore risks holding up migrant integration and significantly expanding the group of people in the UK with insecure status.' There are no official figures on the size of Britain's illegal migrant population but unofficial estimates have ranged from 700,000 to 1.2 million. • They said extending the wait to secure permanent settlement would place pressures on household budgets, making it harder to find stable work and prevent people from feeling 'properly settled'. The need for additional visa extensions and the significant costs associated with applying increase the risk that people miss the window for extending and end up without status altogether, making them susceptible to exploitation and destitution, the pair warned. The IPPR said the changes were unfair given migrants originally came to the UK on the basis they would be eligible for settlement after five years not ten. The paper also argued that the reforms went against public opinion. The annual British social attitudes survey last year found 84 per cent of the public believed that migrants who were working and paying taxes in the UK should be able to access the same welfare benefits as UK citizens after five years or fewer. Seventy-eight per cent said migrants should be able to gain the same rights to political participation as UK citizens after no more than five years. The immigration white paper said migrants would be able to fast-track their route to settlement in the UK through 'contributions to the UK economy and society'. The Home Office has not set out how migrants can qualify for this fast-tracked process. Morris and Mort said there were various ways this policy could be implemented in practice. One of them is basing contributions on income, meaning higher-paid migrants can qualify for earlier settlement if they are contributing more to tax revenues. However, they warned that this approach risked entrenching child poverty because it would be harder for people with children to qualify for settlement. Another model could be basing it on social contribution, which would encourage migrants to integrate. For instance, people who are able to demonstrate 'exceptional integration' through volunteering or playing an active role in their community could obtain settlement more quickly. This would follow a similar approach introduced by the last German government when reforming its citizenship laws. Morris and Mort urged the government to provide urgent clarity on who would be affected by the changes and how the fast-track process would work. They said: 'The government has said that it will consult on its plans later this year. This will be a vital opportunity for shaping a pro-integration agenda on settlement and citizenship. But in the meantime, the government should try to clarify its position on how the policy will apply to people already here. Providing certainty would help to establish trust and confidence in the immigration system for the many hundreds of thousands who want to make the UK their home.'
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review
Rachel Reeves has been locked in a standoff over the policing and council budgets just days before this week's spending review, which is set to give billions to the NHS, defence and technology. Yvette Cooper's Home Office and Angela Rayner's housing and local government ministry were the two departments still at the negotiating table on Sunday fighting for more cash, after weeks of trying to reach a settlement. Whitehall sources said the policing budget would not face a real terms cut, but there was still disagreement over the level of investment needed for the Home Office to meet its commitments. Rayner's department is understood to have reached an agreement with the Treasury late on Sunday night after last-minute wrangling over housing, local councils and growth funds. However, any failure to strike a deal would raise the prospect of a budget being imposed on an unwilling department. The spending review, taking place on Wednesday, is a chance for Reeves to hold up billions of pounds of capital spending as a sign she is working to repair public services after years of Tory austerity. After tweaking her fiscal rules last autumn, she has an additional £113bn funded by borrowing for capital spending. Her plans will include £86bn for science and technology across four years and an extra £4.5bn for schools – taking funding per pupil to its highest level ever. However, day-to-day spending is more constrained in some areas, while the NHS and defence swallow up higher allocations. As well as policing, the Home Office budget covers the border force and spending on asylum costs, while the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for funds for the affordable homes programme, councils, homelessness and regional growth. Labour has manifesto pledges to build 1.5m homes and deliver 13,000 new police officers. Pressed on the policing budget, the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, said Home Office and others would have to 'do their bit'. Funding for the police has the potential to become a politically difficult issue for Keir Starmer. Tory former shadow cabinet minister Robert Jenrick has been campaigning against transport fare dodging and Nigel Farage's Reform are also highlighting the issue. Asked about which public services will be prioritised, Kyle said 'every part of our society is struggling' and numerous sectors had asked Reeves for more money. 'On the fact that the police have been writing to the chancellor, they have,' he told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme. 'We also have letters from the universities, we have letters from doctors about the health service, we have letters from campaigners for child poverty writing to us, and other aspects of challenges in Britain at the moment. 'Every part of our society is struggling because of the inheritance that we had as a country and as a government.' He pointed to the £1.1bn extra funding already earmarked for police this year, as he defended Reeves's handling of the spending review process. 'We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do, to do their bit for change as well. We are doing our bit,' Kyle said. 'You see a chancellor that is striving to get investment to the key parts of our country that needs it the most … You will see the priorities of this government reflected in the spending review, which sets the departmental spending into the long term. 'But this is a partnership. Yes, the Treasury needs to find more money for those key priorities, but the people delivering them need to do their bit as well.' While some areas of spending may be cut or receive only low increases, the NHS is set to receive a boost of up to £30bn by 2028, while defence spending is expected to rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Kyle defended the chancellor's approach to public spending, saying she was like Apple founder Steve Jobs who turned the company around when it was 90 days from insolvency. He told Sky News's Trevor Phllips: 'Now Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod. 'Now we're starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future. Some of the hi-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We're investing in our space sector. All these really high, highly innovative sectors. 'We are investing into those key innovations of the future. We know that we cannot break this vicious cycle of high tax and low growth by doing the same as we always have done. We have to innovate our way out of this and we are doing so by investing in those high-growth sectors.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
