Stephen Fry issues stark warning to Sir Keir Starmer and demands 'rethink'
Sir Stephen Fry joined forces with Stanley Tucci and Brian Cox as they piled pressure on the government to U-turn on controversial welfare cuts.
The Labour government estimates these measures will save more than £5bn a year by the end of the decade, while Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer insists that the current system is 'morally and economically indefensible'.
Stephen, who moved to Los Angeles with his husband Elliott Spencer in 2016, urged the government to "rethink" these plans, while other stars said they "make no sense."
Read more: Martin Lewis slams major power company for 'abominable' customer charges
The English comedian, actor, writer, director, producer, and presenter has an estimated net worth of $40 million (£30.92m), according to CelebrityNetWorth.com.
Stephen said cuts should not be targeted at 'the most vulnerable and overlooked of all our population' and told the government: 'It's not too late to rethink this.'
Scottish-born star Brian Cox said the government's plan regarding cuts 'makes no sense and will have a lasting impact on the lives of so many people already finding it difficult to afford life's essentials'.
The American actor based in London, Stanley Tucci said 'the reality of these cuts will be parents in disabled families having to skip meals so that they can feed their children'.
The biggest proposed change will be the new PIP (Personal Independence Payment) eligibility requirement, which will ensure that only those who score a minimum of 4 points in at least one daily living activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP.
It is broken down into two parts:
Daily living - for those who have a long-term physical or mental health condition
Mobility part - for people who have difficulty doing certain everyday tasks
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, said the system was 'failing the very people it is supposed to help and holding our country back'.
The MP also said she had rejected other proposals, including plans to bring in vouchers rather than cash for disabled people, means-testing PIP or freezing it.
The Jonathan Ross Show is available to watch on ITV1 at 9.20pm on Saturday, March 22nd.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump has gotten his way and will oversee a military parade in Washington, D.C., this summer on the Army's birthday, which also happens to be his own. Plans call for nearly 7,000 troops to march through the streets as 50 helicopters buzz overhead and tanks chew up the pavement. One option has the president presiding from a viewing stand on Constitution Avenue as the Army's parachute team lands to present him with an American flag. The prospect of all this martial pomp, scheduled for June 14, has elicited criticism from many quarters. Some of it is fair—this president does not shy away from celebrating himself or flexing executive power, and the parade could be seen as an example of both—but some of it is misguided. Trump has a genius for showmanship, and showcasing the American military can be, and should be, a patriotic celebration. The president wanted just such a tribute during his first term, after seeing France's impressive Bastille Day celebrations. Then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly refused, effectively threatening to resign by telling the president to ask his next secretary of defense. Three secretaries of defense later, Trump has gotten enthusiastic agreement from current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Criticism of the display begins with its price tag, estimated as high as $45 million. The projected outlay comes at a time of draconian budget cuts elsewhere: 'Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful,' Republicans Against Trump posted on X. 'Peanuts compared to the value of doing it,' Trump replied when asked about the expense. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.' [Read: The case for a big, beautiful military parade] Other prominent critics of the Trump administration have expressed concern that the parade's real purpose is to use the military to intimidate the president's critics. The historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack, 'Trump's aspirations to authoritarianism are showing today in the announcement that there will be a military parade on Trump's 79th birthday.' Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the progressive media company MeidasTouch, posted, 'The Fuhrer wants a Nuremberg style parade on his birthday.' Experts on civil-military relations in the United States also expressed consternation. 'Having tanks rolling down streets of the capital doesn't look like something consistent with the tradition of a professional, highly capable military,' the scholar Risa Brooks told The New York Times. 'It looks instead like a military that is politicized and turning inwardly, focusing on domestic-oriented adversaries instead of external ones.' Even the military leadership has been chary. During Trump's first term, then–Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Paul Selva reflected that military parades are 'what dictators do.' But these critics may well be projecting more general concerns about Trump onto a parade. Not everything the Trump administration does is destructive to democracy—and the French example suggests that dictatorships are not the only governments to hold military displays. The U.S. itself has been known to mount victory parades after successful military campaigns. In today's climate, a military parade could offer an opportunity to counter misperceptions about the armed forces. It could bring Americans closer to service members and juice military recruitment—all of which is sorely needed. The American military is shrinking, not due to a policy determination about the size of the force needed, but because the services cannot recruit enough Americans to defend the country. In 2022, 77 percent of American youth did not qualify for military service, for reasons that included physical or mental-health problems, misconduct, inaptitude, being overweight, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or being a dependent. Just 9 percent of Americans ages of 16 to 24 (a prime recruitment window) are even interested in signing up. In 2023, only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals; the Army and Navy recruited less than 70 percent of their goals and fell 41,000 recruits short of sustaining their current force. Recruiting picked up dramatically in 2024 but remains cause for concern. One possible reason for this is that most Americans have little exposure to men and women in uniform. Less than 0.5 percent of Americans are currently serving in the military—and many who do so live, shop, and worship on cordoned military bases. Misperceptions about military service are therefore rife. One is that the U.S. military primarily recruits from minority groups and the poor. In fact, 17 percent of the poorest quintile of Americans serve, as do 12 percent of the richest quintile. The rest of the military is from middle-income families. Those who live near military bases and come from military families are disproportionately represented. The Army's polling indicates that concerns about being injured, killed, or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are major impediments to recruitment. Women worry that they will be sexually harassed or assaulted (the known figures on this in the U.S. military are 6.2 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men). Additionally, a Wall Street Journal–NORC poll found that far fewer American adults considered patriotism important in 2023 (23 percent) than did in 1998 (70 percent)—another possible reason that enthusiasm for joining up has dampened. [Read: The all-volunteer force is in crisis] A celebratory parade could be helpful here, and it does not have to set the country on edge. Americans seem comfortable with thanking military men and women for their service, having them pre-board airplanes, applauding them at sporting events, and admiring military-aircraft flybys. None of those practices is suspected of corroding America's democracy or militarizing its society. Surely the nation can bear up under a military parade once every decade or two, especially if the parade serves to reconnect veterans of recent wars, who often—rightly—grumble that the country tends to disown its wars as matters of concern to only those who serve in them. The risk, of course, is that Trump will use the occasion not to celebrate the troops but to corrode their professionalism by proclaiming them his military and his generals. This is, after all, the president who claimed that Dan Caine, his nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wore a MAGA hat and attested his willingness to kill for Trump, all of which Caine denies. This is also a president known to mix politics with honoring the military, as he did in Michigan, at Arlington National Cemetery, at West Point's commencement, and in a Memorial Day post on Truth Social calling his opponents 'scum.' Even so, the commander in chief has a right to engage with the military that Americans elected him to lead. The responsibility of the military—and of the country—is to look past the president's hollow solipsism and embrace the men and women who defend the United States. Being from a military family or living near a military base has been shown to predispose people toward military service. This suggests that the more exposure people have to the military, the likelier they are to serve in it. A big celebration of the country's armed forces—with static displays on the National Mall afterward, and opportunities for soldiers to mix with civilians—could familiarize civilians with their armed forces and, in doing so, draw talented young Americans to serve. A version of this essay originally appeared on AEIdeas from the American Enterprise Institute. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
San Francisco Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Here's what to know about American Samoans in Alaska who are being prosecuted after trying to vote
WHITTIER, Alaska (AP) — FOR MOVEMENT AT 9 A.M. EASTERN ON SATURDAY, 6/7. WITH VOTING-AMERICAN SAMOANS MAINBAR. They were born on U.S. soil, are entitled to U.S. passports and allowed to serve in the U.S. military, but 11 people in a small Alaska town are facing criminal charges after they tried to participate in a fundamental part of American democracy: voting. The defendants, who range in age from their 20s to their 60s, were all born in American Samoa — the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship at birth. Prosecutors say they falsely claimed American citizenship when registering or trying to vote. The cases are highlighting another side of the debate over exaggerated allegations of voting by noncitizens, as well as what it means to be born on American soil, as President Donald Trump tries to redefine birthright citizenship by ending it for children of people who are in the country illegally. Here's what to know about the prosecutions in Alaska and the status of American Samoans when it comes to voting. What is the Alaska case about? The investigation began after Tupe Smith, a mom in the cruise-ship stop of Whittier, decided to run for a vacant seat on the regional school board in 2023. She was unopposed and won with about 95% of the vote. That's when she learned she wasn't allowed to hold public office because she wasn't a U.S. citizen. Smith says she knew she wasn't allowed to vote in federal elections but thought she could vote in local or state races, and that she never would have voted if she knew it wasn't legal. She says she told elections workers that she was a U.S. national, not a citizen, and was told to check a box saying she was a citizen anyway. About 10 months later, troopers returned to Whittier and issued court summonses to her husband and nine other American Samoans. While Smith appeals the charges against her, the state filed charges against the others in April. The state argues that Smith's false claim of citizenship was intentional, and her claim to the contrary was undercut by the clear language on the voter application forms she filled out in 2020 and 2022. The forms said that if the applicant did not answer yes to being over 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, 'do not complete this form, as you are not eligible to vote.' Why can't American Samoans vote in the U.S.? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution promises U.S. citizenship to those born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction. American Samoa has been U.S. soil since 1900, when several of its chiefs ceded their land and vowed allegiance to the United States. For that reason, Smith's lawyers argue, American Samoans must be recognized as U.S. citizens by birthright, and they should be allowed to vote in the U.S. But the islands' residents have never been so considered — Congress declined to extend birthright citizenship to American Samoa in the 1930s — and many American Samoans don't want it. They worry that it would disrupt their cultural practices, including communal land ownership. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that in 2021 when it declined to extend automatic citizenship to those born in American Samoa, saying it would be wrong to force citizenship on those who don't want it. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. People born in all other U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam — are U.S. citizens. They can vote in U.S. elections if they move to a state. American Samoans can participate in local elections on American Samoa, including for a nonvoting representative in Congress. Have other states prosecuted American Samoans for trying to vote? Supporters of the American Samoans in Whittier have called the prosecutions unprecedented. One of Smith's attorneys, Neil Weare, suggested authorities are going after 'low-hanging fruit' in the absence of evidence that illegal immigrants frequently cast ballots in U.S. elections. Even state-level investigations have found voting by noncitizens to be exceptionally rare. In Oregon, officials inadvertently registered nearly 200 American Samoan residents to vote when they got their driver's licenses under the state's motor-voter law. Of those, 10 cast ballots in an election, according to the Oregon Secretary of State's office, but officials found they did not intend to break the law and no crime was committed. In Hawaii, one resident who was born in American Samoa, Sai Timoteo, ran for the state Legislature in 2018 before learning she wasn't allowed to hold public office or vote. She also avoided charges. Is there any legislation to fix this? American Samoans can become U.S. citizens — a requirement not just for voting, but for certain jobs, such as those that require a security clearance. However, the process can be costly and cumbersome. Given that many oppose automatic citizenship, the territory's nonvoting representative in Congress, Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, has introduced legislation that would streamline the naturalization of American Samoans who do wish to become U.S. citizens. The bill would allow U.S. nationals in outlying U.S. territories — that is, American Samoa — to be naturalized without relocating to one of the U.S. states. It would also allow the Department of Homeland Security to waive personal interviews of U.S. nationals as part of the process and to reduce fees for them. ___ Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska, and Johnson from Seattle.
