Latest news with #DowningStreet
Telegraph
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The Epstein scandal won't break Trump. It might bring down the Democrats
These facts mean this issue fails to pass the test I use to judge whether a political issue is truly damaging. For something to really cut through, it must meet four conditions. It has to tell voters something new that confirms their worst instincts about a politician. It has to have high salience: so top of mind that it is impossible to ignore. It has to have a personal, emotional resonance. And it has to break away the most loyal of a politician's voters. Let us apply the tests to another scandal on the other side of the pond: Partygate in the UK. Boris Johnson was widely seen as chaotic and unserious, but not cruel. Then Partygate happened. Revelations of Downing Street parties while the country was locked down during the Covid pandemic confirmed voters' worst suspicions: that the Tories simply did not care. Test one achieved. Test two: it was completely inescapable, with blanket coverage for months. Members of Parliament broke ranks and turned on the prime minister. With people enjoying freedom from lockdown, and with the worst of inflation yet to bite, it dominated the agenda. Test three: it was personal. People couldn't visit dying loved ones; in No 10 they were cracking open the wine. Test four: it turned lifelong conservatives, those who had stuck with the Tories through thick and thin, against the party. Compare that to the Epstein situation. Does it tell us something new about Trump? No: we have known for decades that he was once associated with Epstein. If 'grab 'em by the p----' did not kill Trump in 2016, this is not going to. It is not high salience. It does not touch everyday voters' lives. And the key voters that underpin Trump's support are still firmly in his camp. The issue fails all four tests. There is a deeper danger for Democrats. Focusing on Epstein doesn't only fail to wound Trump, it also risks self-harm. With Bill Clinton's links to Epstein well-documented, it invites scrutiny of Democrats' own skeletons. Any serious campaign on the issue would provoke a 'whataboutism' war the Left will not win. More importantly, though, it is a distraction from the issues that do cut through. Democrats won the 2018 midterms by pounding healthcare and exposing Republican threats to protections for pre-existing conditions. They made a dry policy issue salient, emotional, and personal. In 2026, the Democrats face a similar opportunity. The Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill includes Medicaid cuts. If Democrats want to win, they need to make that the battleground. Time, money, and attention are finite. Every minute Democrats spend talking about Epstein is a minute they're not talking about Medicaid, inflation, or abortion. Every minute of ad time on Epstein is a minute not talking about healthcare. And it is a minute they lose with voters who just want someone to talk about their lives, not re-litigate a sex trafficking scandal whose political potency peaked in 2020. The Epstein scandal won't take down Trump. If Democrats aren't careful, it might just take down their own midterms campaign instead.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's smears against Farage are unwarranted
Since its child protection provisions came into force last week, the Online Safety Act 2023 has come under renewed scrutiny. Opinion is sharply divided over whether legal but harmful online content should be banned and what unintended effects the law may have on free speech. Nigel Farage has promised to repeal the Act. The Telegraph makes no apology for having campaigned in favour of the protection of children from sites that encourage young people to commit self-harm and even suicide. Any civilised society must put child safety first. Technology exists to impose strict age limits on potentially dangerous online material and these should be enforced. But Mr Farage is entitled to complain about regulatory overreach and it was disgraceful of Downing Street to coordinate a smear campaign against the Reform leader. Peter Kyle, the Science and Technology Secretary, accused him of being 'on the side' of Jimmy Savile, the notorious child abuser. This baseless charge was repeated by Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary. It was left to a Conservative, Sir James Cleverly, to point out the hypocrisy of Labour MPs – almost all of whom voted against a national inquiry into rape gangs, until the Government's U-turn on the subject – now accusing anyone with concerns about the Act of siding with paedophiles. After ignoring scandals that were hidden in plain sight for decades, politicians should be careful about denigrating the motives of those who champion free expression. Regulating online content is like painting the Forth Bridge: a work in progress that requires constant updating. If the Online Safety Act turns out to be a blunt instrument, let Parliament set about improving it.
Arab News
a day ago
- Politics
- Arab News
UK's Starmer, Oman's sultan agree to deepen ties in energy, defense and tech
LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Oman's Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al-Said agreed on Wednesday to deepen collaboration across energy, technology, defense and security, a Downing Street spokesperson said. During talks in London, the leaders also called for urgent humanitarian aid to reach Gaza, saying the current situation 'cannot continue.'
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
British hostage Emily Damari: Shame on Starmer for rewarding terror
A British-Israeli woman held hostage by Hamas for more than a year has condemned Sir Keir Starmer's plan to formally recognise the state of Palestine. Emily Damari said the Prime Minister's approach risked 'rewarding terror' and warned the move would send a dangerous message that violence earns legitimacy. Ms Damari, 29, who was released from captivity in January, said: 'By legitimising a state entity while Hamas still controls Gaza and continues its campaign of terror, you are not promoting a solution; you are prolonging the conflict. 'Recognition under these conditions emboldens extremists and undermines any hope for genuine peace. Shame on you.' On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said he would recognise Palestine as a state in September unless Israel met four specific demands, including accepting a ceasefire. Sir Keir also reiterated his calls for Hamas to release the remaining hostages captured in the attacks of Oct 7 2023 but did not explicitly say that is required before recognition of Palestinian statehood. Downing Street is now under growing pressure to explain its approach, with some warning it incentivises Hamas to avoid a ceasefire by keeping hostages in order to secure recognition. Meanwhile, the families of hostages held by Hamas have criticised Sir Keir for failing to make their release a precondition to recognising Palestine. Two representatives of families who still have relatives held by Hamas issued criticism of the Prime Minister's approach on Wednesday morning. Bring Them Home Now, a campaign group aimed at securing the release of hostages, published a statement posted on the social media site X. The statement read: 'Recognising a Palestinian state while 50 hostages remain trapped in Hamas tunnels amounts to rewarding terrorism. Such recognition is not a step toward peace, but rather a clear violation of international law and a dangerous moral and political failure that legitimises horrific war crimes. 'The abduction of men, women, and children, who are being held against their will in tunnels while subjected to starvation and physical and psychological abuse, cannot and should not serve as the foundation for establishing a state.' Another part read: 'Recognition of a Palestinian state before the hostages are returned will be remembered throughout history as validating terrorism as a legitimate pathway to political goals.' Adam Wagner KC, a barrister who has represented families of hostages taken by Hamas, wrote on X: 'We are concerned that the UK's proposal risks delaying the release of the hostages. 'This is because the UK has said that it will recognise a Palestinian state unless Israel agrees a ceasefire. But the risk is that Hamas will continue to refuse to a ceasefire because if it agrees to one this would make UK recognition less likely.' 'Concern is to bring loved ones home' Mr Wagner went on: 'The families are therefore deeply concerned that the UK's approach risks disincentivising Hamas from releasing the hostages. This risks doing exactly what the Prime Minister's statement says the UK will not do: reward Hamas for its heinous and illegal acts. 'The British hostage families take no position on the wider politics. Their concern is to bring their loved ones home, and time is fast running out.' Sir Keir's change in position was revealed in a statement issued by Downing Street on Tuesday afternoon following an emergency Cabinet meeting earlier in the day. The statement said that the Prime Minister had told Cabinet 'that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September, before UNGA (UN General Assembly), unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution'. The wording of the position made clear that Israel would have to meet all four conditions if it wanted to stop the recognition of Palestine in September. The Downing Street statement also said Sir Keir had 'reiterated that there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas and that our demands on Hamas remain, that they must release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, accept that they will play no role in the government of Gaza, and disarm'. However these demands were not explicitly linked to the declaration of Palestinian statehood, meaning they do not need to happen for recognition to take place. Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, was repeatedly pressed on the point on Sky News on Wednesday morning but would not say release of the hostages by Hamas was a necessary step that had to be taken before recognition of Palestine. Ms Alexander said: 'We have always said right from day one that the hostages needed to be released. 'We're absolutely clear that Hamas is a vile terrorist organisation, it has committed heinous crimes and the wounds of Oct 7 will live forever in Israel and in the consciousness of the Israeli people. 'This isn't about Hamas. This is actually about delivering for the Palestinian people and making sure that we can get aid in.' UK humiliated, says Tice Richard Tice, the Reform deputy leader, told The Telegraph: 'Starmer's recognition of Palestine as a state sends a dangerous message, that acts of terrorism are somehow acceptable. 'The fact that he has made this decision before the hostages are returned validates the violence that occurred on Oct 7 and humiliates us on the international stage against our main strategic ally, the United States. 'This decision amounts to nothing more than appeasement of the far Left and a desperate attempt to claw back votes from Jeremy Corbyn.'
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
No 10 orchestrated Savile attack against Farage
No10 orchestrated the Jimmy Savile attack on Nigel Farage, The Telegraph understands. Multiple government sources said Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, had spoken to Downing Street before appearing on Sky News on Tuesday, when he made controversial remarks about Mr Farage and the notorious paedophile. In the interview, Mr Kyle said the Reform leader was 'on the side' of child predators and extreme pornographers, after Mr Farage pledged to scrap the Online Safety Act if he becomes prime minister. 'Make no mistake about it, if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today, he would be perpetrating his crimes online, and Nigel Farage is saying that he is on their side, not the side of children,' he said. Despite concern from some Labour figures that the attack could backfire on Sir Keir – who was Director of Public Prosecutions when the Crown Prosecution Service declined to bring charges against Savile – other Labour ministers rowed in behind Mr Kyle. Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, repeated the allegation on Wednesday morning, telling Sky News: 'Nigel Farage is, in effect, saying that he is [on paedophiles'] side because he's saying he's wanting to repeal the Online Safety Act. 'In effect, what Nigel Farage is saying is that he's totally happy for there to be a free-for-all on the internet. 'That's not the position of the Labour Government. It's not the position of me. It's not the position of Keir Starmer or Peter Kyle, and that is the point that the Technology Secretary was rightly making yesterday.' Mr Farage has demanded an apology for what he called a 'disgusting' smear against him, arguing that Mr Kyle had become the 'minister for political slander'. However, the fact that No 10 was aware of Mr Kyle's comments before they were issued suggests that Sir Keir's team is willing to launch a major war with Reform on child safety. Reform is currently eight points ahead of Labour in the polls, and has launched a summer campaign on crime that is targeted at Sir Keir's performance on keeping streets safe. Labour has begun targeting Mr Farage personally on the doorstep, releasing leaflets designed to look like scratch cards with the slogan 'don't gamble on Farage'. A Labour source said the Savile debate was 'a fight we're willing to have,' adding: 'Shielding kids from gruesome stuff online should be a no-brainer'. 'It is quite amusing seeing Farage talking about 'disgusting remarks',' the source said. 'He has a distinguished record of making punchy and disgusting remarks in his own right.' Savile last became a feature of Westminster debate when Boris Johnson accused Sir Keir of failing to prosecute him in 2022. The former Tory prime minister later said he had only intended to criticise the CPS, not Sir Keir's actions. There is no evidence that Sir Keir knew about the advice provided to police by the CPS that Savile should not be charged. Richard Scorer, a lawyer who has represented Savile victims, said at the time that Mr Johnson's attack was a 'troubling smear' and he was 'weaponising' their suffering.
