An arms trade protest and a tyre change: photos of the day
People take pictures and videos of Pope Leo XIV after his audience with members of the media in the Paul VI Hall Photograph: Ettore Ferrari/EPA
A group of people believed to be migrants are led through the Border Force compound after crossing the Channel Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
People wait with empty pots to get food distributed by charities Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images
People inspect the damage at a UN school turned shelter that was hit by Israeli military strikes Photograph: Jehad Alshrafi/AP
A man wearing a satirical mask of Keir Starmer poses with a replica of a MK-84 2,000lb bomb. The Global Legal Action Network and al-Haq have filed suit against the British government over its sale of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel despite the UK's suspension of arms transfers to Israel last year Photograph:People queue to vote at a school being used as a voting centre during national and local midterm elections Photograph: Rolex dela Peña/EPA
Emmanuel Macron meets staff on a visit to the laboratory of the French-Italian optics company EssilorLuxottica Photograph: Christophe Petit-Tesson/Reuters
People walk through a temple where Buddha statues have been placed on Vesak Day, an annual celebration of Buddha's birth, enlightenment and death Photograph: Thilina Kaluthotage/Reuters
Young women in Indigenous 'Panchitas' attire accompany a procession during the 43rd Cultural Festival of Palms and Flowers in the colonial city Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images
Christopher Bell's pit crew jumps the safety wall as he comes in for a tyre change during a Nascar Cup Series race at Kansas Speedway Photograph: Colin E Braley/AP
Models walk the runway during the Carla Zampatti show as part of Australian fashion week
Photograph:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Labour's unlikely strategy for beating Reform
Photo by Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images It's April. It's a few weeks to the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. Organisers know it's tight. Activists know it's tight. Some estates and a few villages are looking good for Labour. Others are looking dreadful. The Labour campaign is searching for a winning strategy. Keir Starmer is not to be found. Labour threw a lot of strategies at the Runcorn and Helsby by-election. But one stays with me. As the activists piled in for their morning briefings before taking to the doors, the advice was simple, and surprising: 'Don't say Reform.' Instead, campaigners were encouraged to ask what voters on the doorsteps thought of Nigel Farage himself. But why elevate Farage, some wondered. Why even mention his name? Activists discarded the advice immediately, adamant they knew better. But others saw the sense. Counterintuitively, it's a sound strategy. And there is public data to talk about it. Reform is polling in the lead right now. And the local elections prove it: the party didn't just win the coastal region of Lincolnshire, or Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, it won in what were traditional Con-Lab battlegrounds. Projecting what these numbers would mean in a General Election is a fool's errand. First past the post is not made for four/five party politics. So Reform could win as few as 150 seats in the House of Commons. Or as many as 350. That's where we are right now. But Nigel Farage, who polls better than anyone for voter favourability, is floundering on one key metric. He trails as a prime minister in waiting. Britain needs Reform? Yes, say most voters. But does Britain need Farage? There is surprising reluctance. Survation and YouGov have both done the polling and while Reform has party poll leads, Keir Starmer still – somehow – leads the country as the public's preferred prime minister. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This all exposes something critical: Farage struggles on the question of officialdom. He is the Wat Tyler of our time. He speaks for the many. He speaks for the rabble. But the many do not see him becoming one of the chosen few. Did the peasantry wish to elevate Mr Tyler to Kingship? Which brings us to the Labour strategy. Farage is both a strength and a curse for Reform. The more the voters and media take Reform and Farage seriously, the more the voters will have to give consideration to the rising reality that Reform and Farage may very well form the next government. This is a weak point for the party. 'Don't say Reform. Say Farage.' Reform is a sentiment. It arouses sympathy. Farage has his fans. But he has his detractors. Prompting him on the doorstep could concentrate voters' minds in a way 'it's us or Reform' doesn't. 'It's this government or reform' – the results write themselves. But 'it's us or Farage' – now that's a strategy. [See more: Nigel Farage chases the Welsh dragon] Related
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The Tories must do more than apologise for Liz Truss
Photograph by Henry Nicholls - Pool/Getty Images. Better late than never, and better something than nothing. The Conservative Party should have distanced itself from Liz Truss at the first opportunity – emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. On the steps of Downing Street on 25 October 2022, as his first act as Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak should have condemned the mini-Budget, apologised to the nation and made it clear that Truss would never be a Conservative parliamentary candidate again. It would have been a justified response to the chaos of the preceding few weeks and a signal that the party had changed. It did not happen. Sunak acknowledged that 'mistakes were made' but left it at that. He was too cautious about splitting his party. The membership had voted for Truss (he should have announced his intention to remove their rights to elect the leader, too) and a large minority of the parliamentary party had backed her. It would have been a bold gamble, and the case for such a move becomes more persuasive when one knows for certain of the electoral obliteration that lies ahead. Maybe we should not be too harsh on the last Conservative prime minister but we do now know how the infamous mini-Budget was brought up at every opportunity in last year's general election, and is continually referenced by Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. This is not just out of habit but will be a consequence of extensive polling research. The public remain furious at the chaos and uncertainty that was unleashed. Mortgage-holders, in particular, will not be quick to forgive. The Tories can survive many accusations, and still win elections. But they cannot win while being perceived as economically reckless. Not only is it a political vulnerability, but the Truss experience prevents them from delivering effective criticism of their opponents. At a time when Nigel Farage is advocating turning on the spending taps while also implementing massive tax cuts, the Conservatives are right to say he is being fiscally irresponsible. But when they say he is 'Liz Truss on steroids', it sounds amiss coming from Truss's party (especially when the line is delivered by those who served her loyally). And if the fears that the bond market vigilantes will turn against the UK come to pass, the Tory attack on Labour will also lack real punch. These factors resulted in the most substantial criticism of the mini-Budget from the Conservative frontbench. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride acknowledged that it had damaged the Tories' economic credibility, and that the party should show contrition. Stride – a reassuring figure who was critical of the mini-Budget at the time – was right to do so, but even then there was too much equivocation. Despite the advance briefing, there was no explicit apology. The language was characteristically measured and thoughtful, but what was needed was something a little more eye-catching and memorable. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Better still, the sentiments should have been expressed by the party leader, not the shadow chancellor. But when Kemi Badenoch was asked subsequently about the mini-Budget, she equivocated. She started to make the argument that the problem was the higher spending on energy support announced on 8 September, not the unfunded tax cuts set out on 23 September (she should check the dates of the market turmoil) and stated that she 'did not want to be commenting on previous prime ministers'. The strategy of distancing the Tory Party from Truss had been watered down after just a day. It is not good enough. Having left any serious criticisms for too long (31 months too long), this is no time for half measures. If the Conservatives want the right to be heard again by those voters who prioritise economic stability, they need to do this properly. Emphatically, unequivocally and ruthlessly. That means not just taking on Truss, but the thinking behind the mini-Budget. Contrary to the arguments made by the Trussites, tax cuts generally do not pay for themselves. Fiscal responsibility should come before tax cuts. Independent institutions such as the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility are not to blame for our economic difficulties. The events of autumn 2022 were not the result of a conspiracy but incompetence. The leadership of the Conservative Party should be making and winning those arguments now. This means that it will be impossible to offer unfunded tax cuts at the next general election as part of a retail offer, but that is the price that must be paid to recover economic credibility. While they are at it, there are other aspects of the party's recent history that should be addressed. The Conservatives were deeply damaged by the partygate scandal and the impression that the rules that applied to everyone else did not apply to them. According to a parliamentary committee on which there was a Tory majority, Boris Johnson misled the House of Commons about this matter and a 90-day suspension from the Commons would have been recommended had he not resigned as an MP. If the Tories want a reputation for economic competence and integrity (and that should not be too much to ask), they should make it clear that both Johnson's and Truss's days as Conservative parliamentary candidates are over. When distancing themselves from those aspects of their past that alienate the voters they need, what is required from the Tories are confident strides, not small, tentative steps. They have at least made a start, but it would be a grave mistake to think that the job is done. Related
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Family visa income threshold should not rise to skilled worker level
Skilled workers are only eligible to come to the UK if they earn a salary of £38,700 or more, compared to £29,000 required mainly for British citizens or settled residents to bring their partner to the country under family visas. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) set out its recommendations after a review requested by the Home Secretary to look at how to set a minimum income requirement (MIR) for family visas that balances economic wellbeing and family life. The previous government planned to introduce the higher threshold for family visa applicants to be equivalent to the skilled worker level. But the committee's report said: 'Given the family route that we are reviewing has a completely different objective and purpose to the work route, we do not understand the rationale for the threshold being set using this method. 'We do not recommend the approach based on the skilled worker salary threshold as it is unrelated to the family route and is the most likely to conflict with international law and obligations (e.g. Article 8).' Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to private and family life that can be applied to migration cases in the UK. The UK's current £29,000 threshold is high compared to other high-income countries reviewed by the MAC. The analysis found a high proportion of applicants for partner visas are women and 90% are under the age of 44. Pakistan is the largest nationality to use the route applying from outside the country. The committee's analysis gave some options that a threshold of £24,000 to £28,000 could give more priority to economic wellbeing, such as reducing the burden to taxpayers, than on family life. It also suggested a criteria of £23,000 to £25,000 to ensure families can support themselves but not necessarily require them to earn a salary above minimum wage. Chairman of MAC, Professor Brian Bell, said: 'While the decision on where to set the threshold is ultimately a political one, we have provided evidence on the impacts of financial requirements on families and economic wellbeing, and highlight the key considerations the government should take into account in reaching its decision.' While the committee said it is not possible to predict how different threshold changes would impact net migration, it said lowering the amount to £24,000, for example, could mean an increase of around one to three percent of projected future net migration. The report added: 'Determining the MIR threshold involves striking a balance between economic wellbeing and family life. 'Whilst a lower threshold would favour family life and entail a higher net fiscal cost to the taxpayer, a higher threshold (below a certain level) would favour economic wellbeing. 'But a higher number of families would experience negative impacts relating to financial pressures, prolonged separation, relationships, adults' mental health and children's mental health and education.' The committee advised against raising the threshold for families with children as despite them facing higher living costs, the impacts on family life appear 'particularly significant' for children. It also recommended keeping the income amount required the same across all regions of the UK. The MAC also said their review was 'greatly hindered' by insufficient data and urged for better data collection by the Home Office on characteristics of each applicant to be linked to outcomes to inform further policy decisions. Reacting to the recommendations, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the report shows that raising the salary threshold will drive migration numbers down and urged for the threshold to be increased to £38,000. 'Migration figures remain far too high. It's time to end ECHR obstruction, raise the salary thresholds, and take back control of who comes into this country,' he said. 'As Kemi and I said on Friday, if the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review. 'We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course. More broadly, the government has already committed to legislate to clarify the application of Article 8 of the ECHR for applicants, caseworkers and the courts.'
