Trump says ‘real starvation' in Gaza as he meets Starmer
There was praise for the UK prime minister, a difference of opinion with Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu over Gaza and a new deadline for Vladimir Putin.
The US President says he's giving Russia's President 10 to 12 days to reach a ceasefire in Ukraine or face sanctions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
7 minutes ago
- Spectator
Kate Forbes's exit is proof the SNP has lost its way
In little over a week, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has lost two of its greatest political stars. Mhairi Black, the left-wing MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, threw in the towel last week, citing the 'toxicity' of politics and the party's lack of support for transgender rights. Now, the deputy leader of the SNP, Kate Forbes – regarded as a social conservative – has stepped down to spend more time with her family. The trickle of nationalist departures risks turning into a flood. Forbes's departure is the greater shock. Many regarded the 35-year-old MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch as the leading leadership challenger from the right of the party. As the SNP's first female Finance Secretary, she championed a return to pro-business economics and strongly defended the oil and gas industry. Her statement today that she doesn't want to miss 'the precious early years of family life' – she has a three-year-old daughter – came as a complete surprise. Mhairi Black, on the other hand, had long expressed her disillusionment with Westminster politics and had made it clear last year that she was standing down as an MP. However, her many supporters on the left of the SNP hoped she might seek a political future in Holyrood. Instead, she announced on 25 July that she was quitting the SNP for good. Black was highly regarded as an articulate and dynamic champion of the youth vote. When she was elected to Paisley and Renfrewshire South in 2015, defeating the Labour cabinet minister Douglas Alexander, she became the youngest MP to be elected since 1832 at 20 years old. Black went on to become deputy leader of the SNP in Westminster and, with a prominent media profile, including a show at the Edinburgh Festival, was seen by many as the future of Scottish nationalism. But last week, she cited the SNP leadership's 'capitulations on LGBT rights, trans rights in particular' as the reason she could no longer remain a party member. She also criticised the SNP leader, John Swinney, for equivocating on the issue of Palestinian 'genocide'. There is little doubt that Black regarded Kate Forbes as a leading figure in those 'capitulations'. The deputy leader made clear that she 'unequivocally' supported 'single-sex spaces and women's rights', and Forbes openly praised the gender-critical author J.K. Rowling as a 'national treasure'. A committed Christian and member of an evangelical sect, Forbes also said she personally did not support abortion, although she accepted that it was the law of the land. She admitted that she would have voted against same-sex marriage had she been in Holyrood when the matter was debated in 2012. Black argued that the SNP could not remain a party of young people while clinging to such policies. Centrists may argue that the departures of these two controversial figures, in a sense, cancel each other out, allowing the party to stabilise behind John Swinney, the ultimate centrist dad. But this development will only further demoralise the party as it seeks to avoid defeat in next year's Holyrood election and has barely recovered from its drubbing in last year's general election when it lost 38 seats. The loss of two high-profile women only adds to the sense that the SNP has lost direction since the equally sudden departure of former first minister Nicola Sturgeon in February 2023. Of course, many will blame the difficulties that women face in politics, though neither Sturgeon nor Mhairi Black had young children to look after. The attrition rate for female politicians in Scotland is high. The former women leaders of the Scottish Labour party, Kezia Dugdale, and the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, also left politics at short notice. However, as far as the SNP is concerned, it is probably more a consequence of the failure of nationalist politics than of personal issues or misogyny. Kate Forbes stood for the party leadership as recently as 2023 and lost narrowly to Humza Yousaf, who is himself standing down at next year's Holyrood elections. The former SNP minister, Fergus Ewing, who left the party last month, has said: 'With Alex Salmond's passing last year, the SNP lost the best leader it ever had; with Kate's decision, the SNP has lost the best leader it never had.' The SNP has haemorrhaged electoral support since the departure of Nicola Sturgeon and is now polling in the low 30s. The current leader, John Swinney, has been heavily criticised for his lacklustre leadership and his failure to translate support for independence, which is running at over 50 per cent in many recent opinion polls, into support for the party of independence. This latest shock will only increase murmurs of discontent about Swinney's leadership. The main beneficiary is likely to be the party's Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, who is beginning to look like a shoo-in for SNP leader if and when John Swinney takes the long walk.
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Opinion: Starmer is signing his political death warrant
Why are Sir Keir Starmer and Labour unable to reduce the number of migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats? Last week, as Vice-President J.D. Vance accused Europe of 'engaging in civilisational suicide', our Government established a bleak record. More than 25,000 migrants have come across the Channel so far this year, a 50 per cent increase on 2024. It seems certain that 2025 will be the worst year ever. Starmer vowed to stop the boats, though of course has been completely ineffectual. The Government has introduced a multitude of measures, all to no effect. In July last year, a few weeks after the election, the PM promised in a newspaper article that he would 'smash the vile criminal gangs' organising the small boats. With breathtaking arrogance he wrote: 'As leader of the Crown Prosecution Service I worked on operations that took down terrorist networks across Europe. I will never accept the same approach cannot be applied to the people smugglers.' He used similar language many times. A year has passed, and 'the same approach' manifestly hasn't worked. There are daily protests outside hotels housing migrants (average nightly bill £119, admittedly down from £162 in March 2023) which could spiral into something nasty. Following last month's disturbances near a hotel in Epping housing migrants, anti-racism activists clashed with police and anti-migrant protesters on Saturday in Islington, north London , outside a hotel where asylum seekers are being accommodated. Over the weekend, anti-immigrant protests also took place outside a hotel in Newcastle. The group was met by demonstrators carrying placards proclaiming 'refugees welcome'. Some of them reportedly waved Palestinian flags. None of us can know whether these so far relatively isolated protests will become more widespread, as happened last August in the wake of the Southport attack. But the mood of the country does seem febrile. All this illuminates the enormity of Starmer's failure over the small boats. So I repeat my question. Why, despite his undertaking to smash the gangs and his evident realisation that unless he fulfills his promise he and Labour are political toast, have things only got worse? It's simple. Sir Keir has been chasing the wrong people. Yes, the leaders of the gangs are ruthless, mercenary, heartless criminals who don't give a fig for the lives of the migrants whom they load into often defective boats. At least 18 people have died so far this year. But smashing the gangs is an operational impossibility. Arrest one leader and another will emerge. The trade is so lucrative. All the new intelligence of which Starmer boasts plus the extra boats and the enhanced powers of Border Security Command are likely to be of marginal benefit. The Government's latest feeble policy is to outlaw social media adverts promoting journeys on small boats. Perpetrators – if caught – could be sentenced for up to five years in prison and receive a hefty fine. How gang leaders must be quaking. Instead of trying and failing to smash the gangs , the Government should be turning its attention to the people who enable the Channel crossings and make the whole thing possible. I mean the migrants themselves. In Labour's misguided conception, the gang leaders are vile but the migrants are innocent victims. The first proposition is true, the second is false. Those crossing the Channel are trying to break into this country without having been invited . Some are the victims of persecution but most are simply in search of a better life. The majority are young men, among whom there are bound to be a few whose values and standards are at odds with people who live here. The latest example is that of two Afghan asylum seekers who have been charged over the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton . Sources told The Mail on Sunday that Warwickshire Police advised local councillors and officials not to reveal the background of the two suspects for fear of 'inflaming community tensions'. As migrants look at the white cliffs of Dover , they know that once they have been picked up by a Border Force boat they'll be fed and housed and given a small allowance. Most important of all, they are well aware that, although they came to this country uninvited, they will very likely be permitted to stay. In the year to March 2025, 99 per cent of migrants from Sudan were granted asylum. The figure for Syria was 98 per cent, and 86 per cent from Eritrea. At the other end of the scale, only 30 per cent of migrants from Iraq were allowed to remain and 19 per cent from Vietnam. Even those refused asylum may well appeal, and will have to be looked after by the taxpayer as their cases wend their way through a costly and overstretched system of tribunals. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said yesterday that she intends to speed up the process. She'll have her work cut out as battalions of human rights lawyers looking for briefs succeed in clogging up the works. In March there were nearly 51,000 outstanding appeals, almost seven times the number in 2023. The Government is tinkering at the edges when it should be focused on how best to deter migrants from arriving in the first place. That is the only way Sir Keir Starmer can solve this problem – and save his party from electoral annihilation. In its dying days the last Tory Government finally grasped the importance of deterrence. Migrants who crossed the Channel were not permitted to claim asylum and in theory could be removed to a third country such as Rwanda . Unfortunately, the Rwanda plan never got off the ground because it was subject to repeated legal challenges on the basis that the African nation is authoritarian, and migrants might not be safe there. But at least the Tories tried. Not so Sir Keir Starmer, who in his pig-headed way recklessly binned the Rwanda scheme, and permitted those crossing the Channel once again to claim asylum. Unless the Government comes up with some way of discouraging cross-Channel immigration, the numbers will continue to increase. Starmer won't eat humble pie and revive the Rwanda plan, but he could do something similar. Or he could locate a windswept British island and send migrants there. That would certainly act as a deterrent. It's hard to see how the Government will be able to act effectively as long as lawyers can challenge it in the European Court of Human Rights. Withdrawing from it would be a bridge too far for Starmer, while the very idea would cause palpitations in Attorney General (and ex-human rights lawyer) Lord Hermer. But unless Starmer finds a way – and quickly – of deterring illegal migration, he might as well sign his own political death warrant, and that of his party. More worrying for me is the prospect that, without action, there will be more civil unrest. People have had enough. There is a general weariness about uncontrolled legal mass migration but an even greater resistance to large groups of young men from alien cultures being housed unsupervised in our midst. Smashing the gangs is a futile policy. Deterring migrants is the only solution – and Starmer had better get on with it while he still has time.
Reuters
8 minutes ago
- Reuters
Switzerland's government to hold special meeting over Trump's huge tariff shock
ZURICH, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Switzerland's government was due to hold an extraordinary cabinet meeting on Monday to discuss its response to President Donald Trump's 39% tariff on Swiss imports, which threatens to inflict heavy damage on its export-driven economy. Switzerland was left stunned on Friday after Trump hit the country with one of the highest tariffs in his global trade reset, with industry associations warning that tens of thousands of jobs were at risk. The duties are scheduled to go into effect on Thursday, giving the country, which counts the U.S. as its top export market for pharmaceuticals, watches, machinery and chocolates, a small window to strike a better deal. The White House said on Friday it had made the move because of what it called Switzerland's refusal to make "meaningful concessions" by dropping trade barriers, calling the two nations' current trade relationship "one-sided". Swiss industry leaders and politicians, however, have struggled to understand why the country was singled out. Trump has stated that he is seeking to rebalance global trade, claiming that current trade relations are stacked against the United States. And Switzerland had a 38.5 billion Swiss franc ($48 billion) trade surplus with the U.S. last year. But Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter told Reuters on Friday that Switzerland had given U.S. goods virtually duty-free access to its market, and Swiss companies had made very important direct investments in the United States. "The president (Trump) is really focused on the trade deficit, because he thinks that this is a loss for the United States," she told Reuters. The EU, Japan and South Korea, which have negotiated 15% tariff rates with Washington, all have larger trade surpluses with the U.S. - around $235 billion for the EU, $70 billion for Japan, and a nearly $56 billion surplus for South Korea. Any further concessions to Washington as part of efforts to negotiate a better tariff rate would have to be discussed by the full Swiss cabinet, Keller-Sutter said. "I'm not ready to make an offer today. I think we have to discuss that in government," she said in her comments on Friday. The government is open to revising its offer to the United States in response to the tariff rate, Business Minister Guy Parmelin said over the weekend. He said options included Switzerland buying U.S. liquefied natural gas or further investments by Swiss companies in the United States. The new tariff rate - up from an originally proposed 31% tariff that Swiss officials had already described as "incomprehensible" - would deal a major blow to Switzerland's export-focused economy. Swiss economic output would be reduced by 0.3% to 0.6% if the 39% tariff was imposed, said Hans Gersbach, an economist at ETH, a university in Zurich. That figure could rise above 0.7% if pharmaceuticals, which are currently not covered by the U.S. import duties, are included. Prolonged disruptions could shrink Swiss GDP by more than 1%, Gersbach said. The tariffs could also see the Swiss National Bank cut interest rates in September, according to Nomura. An index of Swiss blue-chip stocks (.SSMI), opens new tab briefly hit its lowest since mid-April, as shares in banks, luxury retailers and pharma companies tumbled. The SMI index was last down 0.6% on the day, compared with a 0.6% rise in the regional STOXX 600 index (.STOXX), opens new tab. In Zurich, shares in high-end watchmakers such as Richemont (CFR.S), opens new tab and Swatch (UHR.S), opens new tab fell in volatile trading. Richemont stock was last down 1.6%, having dropped as much as 3.5% earlier, while Swatch shares were down 2.1%, having fallen by as much as 5%. On Monday, the Swiss franc was the worst-performing major currency against the dollar, which was last up 0.4% at 0.807 francs, not far off Friday's one-month highs. ($1 = 0.8088 Swiss francs)
