Latest news with #Conservatives
The National
an hour ago
- Politics
- The National
Keir Starmer goes further than Blair and Brown on Labour rebels
Blair's time as PM was marked by numerous back bench rebellions from Labour MPs who were unhappy with the right-wing direction in which Blair took the Labour Party and above all his controversial decision to join in with the American invasion of Iraq on the flimsiest of evidence, evidence which was widely believed to have been fabricated. In February 2003 no less than 122 Labour MPs backed a Commons motion saying the case for war with Iraq had not been proven. Even so, the motion was defeated because the Conservatives voted along with government loyalists. This was followed in March that year by a back bench rebellion of 139 Labour MPs as Blair sought a [[Commons]] mandate for his war in Iraq. Again, Blair got his way with the support of the Conservatives. This was the largest rebellion against the party whip seen under any governing party on any issue for 150 years. These were by far the largest backbench rebellions Blair faced, but they were by no means the only ones. In February 2002, 45 Labour rebels voted against plans to promote faith schools in England. Blair faced this rebellion down, helped by Conservative support. In November 2001, more than 30 Labour MPs voted against the government on controversial anti-terror measures. The measures still went through. These are the measures which Starmer recently used to proscribe Palestine Action. The rebel Labour MPs cited their fears that the measures could easily be used by the government to clamp down on protest groups. In 1999, in shades of the recent [[Commons]] rebellion over cuts to disability benefits, 53 Labour MPs rebelled against plans to make changes to incapacity benefit. This was not Blair's first backbench rebellion, that came in December 1997, when his government was only seven months old. Forty seven Labour MPs rebelled over government plans to slash [[benefits]] for single parents. The rebellions continued throughout Blair's term in office. In 2007, 95 Labour MPs rebelled against plans to renew Trident missiles. Many of these revolts were tacitly stirred up by Blair's jealous chancellor Gordon Brown and his faction. Brown spent most of Blair's time in office plotting to take over as prime minister, but when he finally did so in 2007, it soon became clear that he was much better at plotting and backstabbing than he was at governing. Labour backbench revolts intensified under Brown. There were 103 Labour revolts in Gordon Brown's first full session as prime minister. The Labour MP who rebelled most often was Jeremy Corbyn, but at no point did he ever lose the Labour whip. Keir Starmer, with his markedly authoritarian instincts, is determined to run a very different kind of [[Labour Party]]. For all their many and serious faults, Blair and Brown respected the long-standing tradition of the [[Labour Party]] as a party which was a broad church and which welcomed and respected differences of opinion amongst party members. Starmer has a very different view: For him the Parliamentary Labour Party is merely an instrument of the will of the party leadership. Dissent will not be tolerated. Upon becoming party leader, Starmer set about ensuring that only those loyal to him would be nominated as Labour Party candidates, weeding out potential members of the awkward squad before they got a chance to rebel. Remember the shenanigans surrounding the imposition of the nodding donkey Michael Shanks as the Labour candidate in the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by election in October 2023 over the candidate favoured by the local constituency party. This was far from being an isolated incident. Within weeks of taking office, Starmer signalled his zero-tolerance for dissent, suspending seven Labour MPs who voted to support an SNP motion calling for the abolition of the two-child cap on [[benefits]]. Starmer faced his biggest rebellion over his plans to slash disability benefits earlier this month when 47 of his backbench MPs voted against the Government, which had been forced to contain a much larger rebellion by essentially offering to kick the issue into the long grass. Inevitably, Starmer has now hit back against this threat to his authority, removing the Labour whip from four of his MPs. However, Starmer's political fragility has been revealed by the fact that only four of the 47 rebels have had the Labour whip removed. The four are those who have most consistently shown a willingness to speak out against Starmer. They include Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchliff and Rachael Maskell. The MPs will sit as independents in the House of Commons until such time as the Labour whip is restored. One Scottish MP is amongst the four, Grangemouth and Alloa MP Brian Leishman, who not only rebelled over the disability benefit cuts but has also spoken out against the Labour Government's failure to keep its pre-election promises to the workers at the [[Grangemouth]] plant, which is in his constituency. All four of the suspended MPs have developed a track record of willingness to speak out against decisions of the Starmer iteration of Labour. Speaking to The Times newspaper, a senior Labour source said that the four had been suspended from the party for "persistent knobheadery". You might have thought a much better definition of being a knobhead was to throw 250,000 disabled people into poverty while refusing to countenance a wealth tax, or promising Waspi women that if they vote for you, you'll ensure they get fair compensation only once you get elected to go: "I've changed my mind, soreee." Speaking after he was booted out of the PLP, Leishman said in a statement that he wanted to continue as a Labour MP. Leishman is still in the denial stage of grief. He's got anger, bargaining and depression to process before he gets to acceptance of the reality that the Labour Party he's really a part of is not the Labour Party he wants it to be. Then he'll realise why so many people in Scotland who became disenchanted with the Labour Party under Tony Blair frequently used the figure of speech, 'I didn't leave the Labour Party, the Labour Party left me'. That is now what has literally happened to Brian Leishman.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Will extending the vote to 16-year-olds benefit Labour at the next general election?
Breaking down barriers to democratic participation, or electioneering that tilts the scales in the government's favour? Labour have announced plans to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in time for the next general election. The Greens, the Lib Dems and the SNP are in favour, but the Conservatives and Reform UK are not. If you look at the latest polling, and indeed historical polling, you might be able to work out why. A ballot of more than 22,000 under-18s, carried out prior to the 2024 general election, had the Greens in second place with the Conservatives in fifth. In the real election, the Conservatives ended up in second place, recording a vote share 15 points higher among the general population than they received among those not old enough to vote. The Greens, in contrast, ended up in fifth, with a vote share more than 20 points lower than that recorded in the youth poll. A year is a long time in politics, and Labour have slipped in popularity since that vote, while Reform have surged to a lead in recent polling. But not so among the youngest age group of currently eligible voters. Labour still lead with 18-24-year-olds, while Reform sit in fifth, according to the latest YouGov poll carried out for Sky News. Sky News election analyst Professor Will Jennings says there is no reason to expect that voting behaviour among 16 and 17-year-olds will be significantly different to those closest to them in age. "Young people tend to vote for parties of the left, but this change will not lead to a dramatic rebalancing of electoral power" Prof Will Jennings, Sky News election analyst Giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds has significant electoral implications, though the consequences may be overstated. As a group, young people tend to vote heavily for parties of the left - not just Labour, but also the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP in Scotland. In the 2024 general election, according to the British Election Study online panel, Labour secured 41% of the vote among 18-25s, with the Liberal Democrats on 17% and the Greens on 16%. The latest YouGov polling for Sky News puts Labour much more narrowly ahead of the Greens (by 28% to 26%) - a shift that highlights that the government cannot take the support of young people for granted. For both Reform UK and the Conservatives, young people are the group of voters where they have lowest support - compared to other age groups. One of the defining characteristics of young people is that they tend to turn out to vote at lower rates than older age groups. In recent elections the percentage of over-65s who have turned out to vote has been approximately 15-20% greater than the share of those aged between 18 and 25. Also, in terms of the UK's population 'pyramid' - generational differences in birth rates mean there are considerably fewer 16-year-olds than 50-year-olds (750,000 vs 900,000). Combined, this means that while the electorate at the next general election will now include a slightly more left-leaning demographic, this will not lead to a dramatic rebalancing of electoral power. Older voters continue to be a dominant part of the electorate and this change will only shift the dial a fraction in a leftward direction. How significant will their votes be at the general election? This is another question entirely. Adding 16 and 17-year-olds to the electorate only adds an extra 2.9% of potential votes. There are fewer 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK than there are people aged 60 or 61, or people aged 86+. That might still be enough to make an impact in some constituencies, but it's not enough to bring about any huge nationwide swings. The fact that it's only an extra 2.9% of "potential" votes is significant as well. Young people already turn out to vote at lower rates than older people. In 2024, people aged 65 or older were twice as likely to vote as someone aged between 18 and 24. And it doesn't look like 16 and 17-year-olds are about to buck that trend. A poll of 500 16 and 17-year-olds, carried out by Merlin Strategy this week on behalf of ITV News, found that only 18% said they would definitely vote if there was an election tomorrow, while 49% said they didn't think that they or their peers should be given the chance to vote at all. What's happened in other countries? We don't need to look too far for evidence on this. In fact, we can stay within the UK - Scotland gave the vote to 16-year-olds at the 2014 independence referendum and extended that for the 2016 and 2021 Scottish parliament elections. Analysis suggests that it has been successful at boosting electoral engagement in both the immediate and longer-term. At the 2014 referendum, voters aged 16 and 17 turned out in higher numbers than other young voters, albeit still at lower rates than the population at-large. And voters who were first eligible to vote at 16 also continued to vote in higher numbers than their slightly older peers in subsequent elections - according to joint research from the Universities of Sheffield and Edinburgh, and political participation think tank d-part. The Welsh government also extended the vote to 16-year-olds for the 2021 Senedd elections, while the crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have allowed 16-year-olds to vote in their assembly elections since before 2010. Globally, however, there are only seven sovereign nations that currently allow 16-year-olds to vote in national elections. Two are in Europe (Austria and Malta), while the remainder (Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua) are all in Latin America. The United Arab Emirates has the oldest voting age in the world, at 25, a full four years older than the next set of countries. The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Scotsman
How Keir Starmer is sticking to Margaret Thatcher's flawed ideology that only helps wealthy elite
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It was an ordinary 1970s' day, in the Students' Representative Council office in St Andrews, when I first encountered the emerging ideology of Thatcherite neoliberalism, in all its questionable glory. It appeared in the form of a pale youth from Arbroath wearing an undergraduate red gown – a garment which itself amounted to a political statement, in an age when regulation student gear involved bell-bottomed jeans, tank tops and duffel coats. Michael Forsyth – for it was he, now Baron Forsyth of Drumlean – began to ask me searching questions, in my capacity as SRC treasurer, about what the council's officers were up to, with the modest amount of public money we received; and although I was able to provide him with answers, I remember being slightly shocked by his apparent assumption that we were all up to no good, making expensive rail trips to London for sheer pleasure, rather than for tedious National Union of Student meetings, or some soggy and rainswept demonstration. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Over the next few months, I met a few more of the group of Tories to which the young Mr Forsyth seemed to belong; and I soon began to recognise, if never fully to understand, their profound and mocking hostility to the postwar settlement in which we had all grown up, with its emphasis on a new international order based on human rights and equality, its generous state provision in some areas including higher education, and its assumption that some areas of the nation's life and economy were sacrosanct public goods, to be kept free of commercial motives and pressures. Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit waves to the crowds from Conservative Central Office after the Conservatives won the 1987 general election (Picture: Rebecca Naden) | PA A lavishly funded cause From the outset, it seemed clear to me that their politics was based on the demonstrably false assumption that human beings are motivated almost entirely by individualistic self-interest, that they value nothing unless they have personally paid for it, and that all the more altruistic, convivial, collaborative and creative aspects of humanity should therefore be sidelined, in constructing political and economic systems. Yet within a few years, these young proto-Thatcherites and their disruptive ideas – badged as radical, but often simply reactionary – had taken control of the Conservative party, and then of the UK Government. Their strength, of course, lay not in the quality of their thinking, but in the popularity of their ideas about deregulation and the rolling back of the state with those who already had wealth, and wanted to be free to make more. Their cause was therefore lavishly funded from the outset; and their greatest success – as Margaret Thatcher herself pointed out – was not their triumph over more moderate forms of Conservatism, but their huge impact on the politics of the Labour party, which – under Tony Blair and since – simply absorbed many of their ideas, tropes and values. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So fast-forward, if you will, to the world this ideology has created for us, and which we inhabit today; a world not only destabilised at global level by a growing culture of contempt towards the universal values on which the postwar generation tried to found a rule-based international order, but apparently trapped, at UK level, in a Groundhog Day of ideological attachment to a Thatcherite revolution which, it is now widely acknowledged, did not fundamentally revive the UK economy, but instead profoundly weakened it. Labour's performative cruelty This is a UK, after all, in which Labour politicians still apparently think it clever, as a badge of political strength and economic wisdom, to stage acts of performative cruelty against some of the weakest in society. It's a country crippled by chronic under-investment in its people and infrastructure, where politicians both Labour and Tory still prate about reducing public spending, and avoiding taxes on ever-increasing accumulations of wealth. And it's a society surrounded and weighed down by the wreckage of a whole raft of failed privatisations of public utilities – energy, railways, England's water – where we still, in defiance of all evidence, see further involvement of private health care companies constantly touted as the way forward for the NHS. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We are living, in other words, in an age of almost unique ideological stalemate, when the consensus of the last four decades and more has clearly failed, socially, environmentally, and in terms of global security; but where all other political ideologies have been so successfully marginalised that we have nowhere else to turn – except, of course, to the professional hate-mongers of the far-right, always ready to supply malign and practically useless myths of 'belonging', to replace more progressive and effective forms of solidarity. At the height of the Industrial Revolution, and again after the Depression of the 1930s, it was the power of organised labour, and its emergent political wing in the Labour party and the US Democrats, that eventually provided a progressive counter-force in society, demanding a more just and sustainable future. Green-democratic revolution Today, though, the ideological chaos and evident confusion of the Starmer government suggests that that powerful progressive alliance no longer exists in any meaningful form; and that any positive moves the UK Government makes, in terms of workers' rights or public spending, may well be undermined by their lack of of any new macroeconomic strategy, and their weirdly uncritical addiction to the idea of 'growth', at any price.
Glasgow Times
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Glasgow Times
Ex-minister says no ‘fierce opposition' to Afghan route amid data breach fallout
James Heappey, who was armed forces minister at the time the data breach came to light, said claims he had backed a 'new entitlement' for people affected by the breach but not eligible for other schemes were 'untrue'. His comments on social media on Thursday appeared to contradict those of former immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who said he and former home secretary Suella Braverman had 'strongly opposed' plans for the Afghan Response Route in 'internal meetings'. Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has said he 'strongly opposed' plans for a new route to bring Afghan refugees to the UK while a Home Office minister (Yui Mok/PA) But Mr Heappey, himself a former Army officer who served in Afghanistan, said the cross-government committee responsible for the policy 'tried to extend entitlements by the smallest number possible'. He said: 'This was led by legal advice & I don't recall fierce opposition. There was frustrated resignation that it was necessary.' Mr Heappey did, however, recall 'rancorous' meetings in which departments 'fought fiercely for their priorities and/or to avoid unresourced responsibility'. He also denied that a new 'secret route' was not under consideration at the time he resigned as armed forces minister in March 2024. The data breach, which saw a defence official release the details of nearly 19,000 people seeking to flee Kabul in 2022, became public on Tuesday after an unprecedented superinjunction banning reporting of the breach was lifted. Since then, Conservative former ministers have sought to distance themselves from the handling of the breach and the subsequent creation of a secret relocation scheme, the Afghanistan Response Route, in April 2024. Along with Mr Jenrick's claims of having opposed the route prior to his resignation in December 2023, Ms Braverman herself has said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD (Ministry of Defence), both ministers and officials'. Former veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul, and has described the handling of the breach as 'farcical'. Sir Ben Wallace, who applied for the initial injunction as defence secretary, has said he makes 'no apology' for doing so, saying it was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. Mr Heappey backed up his former boss, saying the superinjunction was 'needed' to protect people from 'mortal danger'. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak (Chris Radburn/PA) He said: 'The intelligence assessment was clear: if the Taliban got their hands on the list, violent and even lethal reprisal was likely.' Mr Heappey added that, although a review by retired civil servant Paul Rimmer found there was now little threat to those on the list as a result of the breach, this did not mean the threat had never existed. He also sought to defend the individual responsible for the leak, saying they had been 'incredibly dedicated to those we served with in Afghanistan'. Grant Shapps, who was defence secretary by the time the superinjunction was granted, has not yet publicly commented on the revelations. The data breach saw a dataset of 18,714 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released in February 2022 by a defence official who emailed a file outside authorised government systems. Defence sources have said that details of MI6 spies, SAS and special forces personnel were included in the spreadsheet, after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the UK. The Ministry of Defence only became aware of the blunder when excerpts from the dataset were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023, and a super-injunction was granted at the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban from finding out about the leak. The leak also led to the creation of the secret Afghanistan Response Route, which is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the scheme. The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there… and we are sorry for that.' Meanwhile, Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has demanded to see intelligence assessments relating to the data breach 'immediately' as MPs and peers begin inquiries over the incident. The Commons Defence Committee has also indicated it will call former ministers to give evidence on the breach, and Mr Heappey said he would be 'happy to contribute' to the committee's inquiry.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Reform accused of hypocrisy after Richard Tice welcomed Afghan refugees
Reform UK and the Conservatives are locked in a bitter hypocrisy row over the Afghan data leak, striking a major blow to hopes of 'uniting the Right'. Tory sources accused Reform of double standards after it emerged Richard Tice, its deputy leader, welcomed a refugee scheme for Afghans as Kabul fell to the Taliban in 2021. But Mr Tice insisted he was referring to about 1,200 people who fought alongside British soldiers and not the 24,000 offered asylum in the wake of the data breach three years ago. While Reform had spent recent months turning its fire on Labour instead of the Tories, the lifting of the super-injunction has reignited high tensions between the political rivals. On August 12 2021, Mr Tice shared a letter to The Telegraph which called on the Government 'to protect all whose lives are threatened because of their service to the crown'. He added: 'We must protect those brave Afghans who helped us and their families by settling them in the UK. Simple. No ifs, no buts.' Mr Tice came under fire over the remarks on Thursday. A former Cabinet minister said: 'If you jump on every bandwagon, you'll end up embarrassing yourself like this.' A second Tory source added: 'Tice called for the Government to welcome Afghan refugees, and [Reform MP Sarah] Pochin helped resettle them. Now they're on the attack. It's Reform reborn. '[Nigel]Farage knows what's what on this. He's focused on the scandal and the c--k-up.' But Mr Tice told The Telegraph: 'The key word is 'brave', in other words those who were fighting alongside our own soldiers. That's bravery and as I understand that accounts for 1,200 as the reported number. So I completely stand by that. 'But I also utterly reject the idea that tens of thousands of chancers, trying their arm, could be considered brave. So my line is entirely consistent.' The Government launched the Afghan Relocations and Assistance (Arap) scheme in 2021 to offer sanctuary to Afghans who had worked for or with the UK Government. Following the data leak, the Government earmarked a further £7 billion to relocate Afghan refugees to the UK over five years as part of a separate programme. Mr Tice went on to accuse the Tories of 'mischief-making' and said they were behind 'one of the greatest acts of deception and misinformation ever imposed on the British people '. It comes amid fury over Zia Yusuf, Reform's efficiency tsar, taking aim at Suella Braverman, the former Tory home secretary, who has long been the subject of defection rumours. Mr Yusuf accused her of 'covering up' the leak and later shared a post on X claiming every ex-Tory cabinet minister was 'guilty of treason and should face the possibility of prison'. In a statement on Wednesday night, Mrs Braverman said of the asylum scheme: 'In all this disgraceful betrayal of the people by their own government, I feel only shame. 'I, and a handful of others, fought this, but we failed to stop it.' Rael Braverman, Mrs Braverman's husband, quit Reform hours after Mr Yusuf's initial post. Informal work which aims to 'unite the Right' has been going on for some time, with Reform and Tory Right figures seeking to establish common ground between the parties. Both Mrs Braverman and Esther McVey, a former Tory cabinet minister, abstained on a vote on the two-child benefit cap earlier this week. Reform has committed to lifting the cap, while the Tories would keep it in place. But several sources told The Telegraph that this work had been damaged by Mr Yusuf's attacks on Mrs Braverman, seen by some as a deliberate attempt to 'blow up' her defection. The Telegraph has also learnt Mrs Braverman will not work with Reform in any capacity while Mr Yusuf, a former chairman of Reform, continues to have a formal role in the party. Mr Yusuf, who was contacted for comment, also took aim at Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary who has outflanked his party leader Kemi Badenoch on the political Right. Splits in Reform A well-placed source suggested there were splits in Reform over the prospect of coming to some sort of accommodation with the Tory Right in the future. 'There are some elements of Reform who completely embrace that and others see it as completely undermining them,' they said. It is understood some figures close to the party attempted to talk Mr Braverman out of resigning. Others are said to be 'livid' over Mr Yusuf's remarks. A Reform source said: 'We will continue to shine a light on the dire record of the Tories in government. 'The Tories created the mess we are in, whether that be Badenoch, Jenrick or Cleverly – we are not afraid to call it out. They can never be trusted ever again.' A Reform spokesman said: 'Zia is right to attack the Tories and those involved with this scandal.'
