Latest news with #HannahMcKay
New Statesman
a day ago
- Business
- New Statesman
Rachel Reeves wants to teach her critics a lesson
Photo by Hannah McKay -. The toughest job in politics is usually said to be the leader of the opposition – an impression that Kemi Badenoch's tenure has done nothing to dispel. But it is arguably rivalled by that of chancellor. Every incumbent since the 2008 financial crisis has faced a version of the same dilemma: the UK is a poorer country than it once expected to be. At last year's Budget, Rachel Reeves escaped her fiscal straitjacket through two manoeuvres: she raised taxes by £41.5bn and loosened her debt rules to increase investment. The Spending Review is the moment at which the Chancellor gets to distribute the bounty that resulted. Reeves has already launched a pre-emptive strike against critics who liken her to the flinty George Osborne. A graph shows how Labour's spending far exceeds that planned by the Conservatives before the election (one aide calls it 'the honesty chart'). This isn't just spin: Reeves intends to increase day-to-day spending by £190bn – the biggest real-terms rise since Gordon Brown occupied the Treasury in 2000 – and capital investment by £113bn. Austerity this is not. But two things can be true. Yes, overall spending is rising by £303bn but some must lose in order that others may win. The latter includes the NHS – which has secured a 2.8 per cent real-terms rise – and defence (even if plenty regard 2.5 per cent of GDP as inadequate). Ed Miliband's energy security department will enjoy a large increase in capital investment including on nuclear power (allies point to the Energy Secretary's long-standing support for the sector as part of 'the sprint for clean energy abundance'). Other departments, however, face average real-terms cuts of 0.3 per cent to day-to-day spending. Hence the fraught negotiations of the last week. Angela Rayner – that former trade union negotiator – reached a settlement with Reeves last night having warned that cuts to affordable housing would render Labour's target of building 1.5 million new homes impossible. Yvette Cooper – who knows her way around the Treasury as a former chief secretary – is still holding out. After public dissent, the police will receive a real-terms increase but this will entail cuts to other Home Office areas. Last week I detailed Andy Burnham's rhetorical fusillades against the government. This week it's Sadiq Khan who is unhappy, with concern inside City Hall that Reeves will announce no new projects or funding for London at the Spending Review (key demands include Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line extensions, a tourist/visitors levy and a significant rise in funding for the Met Police). 'We must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government, which would not only harm London's vital public services, but jobs and growth across the country,' one person close to the Mayor tells me. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Here is further evidence of why some inside government believe that Reeves needs an 'economic reset' – abandoning her tax lock or further loosening her fiscal rules. But the Chancellor will have a message for such critics in her speech, which aides describe as a chance to 're-educate' these errant foes. Rewriting the UK's fiscal rules, Reeves will warn, would not be a cost-free choice, but one that would entail higher borrowing and higher mortgage rates. An ally speaks of a 'terrifying' gap between a commentariat that pleads for more taxes and more borrowing, and a much more sceptical electorate. 'They think we tax too much, they think we borrow too much, and a lot of people probably think we spend too much.' The Chancellor is seeking to pull off a tricky double act – assailing those who accuse her of austerity while reassuring those who fear Labour profligacy. This week will test whether she can keep her balance. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Rachel Reeves wants to level up your commute. Does she have the money?] Related
The Star
7 days ago
- Business
- The Star
Victoria's Secret says cyber incident led to temporary website shut down
FILE PHOTO: Shoppers stand in line as they wait for a Victoria's Secret store to open on Black Friday, at the Tysons Corner Center, in Tysons, Virginia, U.S., November 27, 2020. REUTERS/Hannah McKay/File Photo (Reuters) -Victoria's Secret on Tuesday disclosed that it detected a security incident relating to information technology systems, which led to the lingerie maker temporarily shutting down its website for roughly three days in late May. While the incident did not impact its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025, Victoria's Secret said it will be postponing the release of quarterly results. Peer Marks & Spencer as well as jewelry maker Cartier have also recently faced cyber security issues that impacted the functioning of their shopping websites. Victoria's Secret said it temporarily shut down its corporate systems and e-commerce website on May 26 and immediately enacted response protocols to contain and eradicate unauthorized network access. Its website was restored on May 29. The incident also affected some functions in Victoria's Secret and PINK stores, the company said, adding that these have now been restored. Shares of the company were up about 3% in premarket trading. (Reporting by Anuja Bharat Mistry in Bengaluru; Editing by Mrigank Dhaniwala)
Straits Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
King Charles expresses love for Canada, says it will remain 'strong and free'
Britain's King Charles arrives at the Senate of Canada Building in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada May 27, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Britain's King Charles arrives at the Senate of Canada Building in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada May 27, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Britain's King Charles arrives at the Senate of Canada Building in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada May 27, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Britain's King Charles arrives at the Senate of Canada Building in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada May 27, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Britain's King Charles arrives at the Senate of Canada Building in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada May 27, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay King Charles expresses love for Canada, says it will remain 'strong and free' OTTAWA - King Charles, speaking during a symbolic visit to show support for Canada at a time it has faced U.S. annexation threats, on Tuesday expressed his love for Canada and said the country would remain "strong and free". Charles, Canada's head of state, is the first British monarch in almost 70 years to preside over the opening of the Canadian parliament. In a speech, Charles referred to the "the country that Canadians and I love so much" but made no direct reference to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has imposed tariffs on Canadian exports and muses about turning Canada into the 51st U.S. state. "The True North is indeed strong and free," Charles said, referring to the Canadian national anthem. The speech outlining the government's plans for the next session was largely written by officials working for Prime Minister Mark Carney. But Charles was responsible for the comments about his love for Canada. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
19-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Straits Times
England's Lineker leaves BBC after apologising for post that drew antisemitism complaints
Football presenter Gary Lineker walks outside his home, after resigning from the BBC after 25 years of presenting Match of the Day, in London, Britain, May 19, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Football presenter Gary Lineker walks outside his home, after resigning from the BBC after 25 years of presenting Match of the Day, in London, Britain, May 19, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Football presenter Gary Lineker walks outside his home, after resigning from the BBC after 25 years of presenting Match of the Day, in London, Britain, May 19, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay Football presenter Gary Lineker walks outside his home, after resigning from the BBC after 25 years of presenting Match of the Day, in London, Britain, May 19, 2025. REUTERS/Hannah McKay LONDON - Gary Lineker, a former England soccer captain who became the face of the sport on British TV, will leave the broadcaster after apologising for sharing a social media post about Zionism that drew complaints over antisemitism. Lineker, 64, the golden boy of English soccer in the 1980s and early 1990s who scored 48 times for his country, moved into broadcasting after hanging up his boots, presenting the BBC's flagship 'Match of the Day' (MOTD) highlights show for 25 years. The former striker, known for never receiving a yellow card during his 16-year playing career, was the broadcaster's highest paid star, but had repeatedly been cautioned by the officially neutral BBC for opining on politics. Lineker said on Monday he would depart after Sunday's final matches of the season. He apologised "unreservedly" last week after sharing online material that criticised Zionism and featured a picture of a rat, historically used as an insult against Jews, which drew complaints from campaigners against antisemitism. "Gary has acknowledged the mistake he made. Accordingly, we have agreed he will step back from further presenting after this season," BBC Director General Tim Davie said in a statement. Lineker, who was paid 1.35 million pounds ($1.80 million), was already set to step down from MOTD this year but had been due to carry on fronting the BBC's 2026 World Cup coverage and next season's FA Cup matches. He repeated his apology for reposting the Instagram post "that contained an emoji that has awful connotations", saying he would never consciously share anything antisemitic. "It was a genuine mistake and oversight, but I should have been more diligent," he said in a video statement announcing his decision to step down. "I've stood up for minorities and humanitarian issues and against all forms of racism all of my life, including, of course, antisemitism, which I absolutely abhor." STRONG VIEWS After a playing career in which he scored 331 goals in 654 competitive games including stints at Everton, Tottenham Hotspur and Barcelona, Lineker became one of Britain's most high-profile media figures. The BBC long defended his high pay as deserved for a popular host of a flagship programme. He once appeared on MOTD in 2016 in his underpants to fulfil a vow after his boyhood club Leicester City won the Premier League. But in recent years, his strong views on issues such as opposing Britain's exit from the EU made him a lightning rod for criticism from rightwing politicians as well as newspapers and other commercial rivals of the publicly funded BBC. He was temporarily taken off air in 2023 after he criticised the then-Conservative government's immigration policy, but was reinstated after a public backlash and near mutiny at the broadcaster. Lineker will still be busy once he has stepped down. He is the co-founder of a podcasting production business, Goalhanger, which makes the hugely popular "The Rest Is..." podcasts on topics including soccer, history and politics. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
New Statesman
07-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
The government is stuck in campaign mode
Photo by Hannah McKay/Reuters When the Labour Party returned to office in 1997, a shocking 27 per cent of British children were living in relative poverty. Three terms of carefully targeting benefits and tax credits later, that proportion had almost halved. By 2010, even though the number of children in Britain had increased, the number growing up in poverty had fallen by nearly a million. It was one of the Blair and Brown governments' signature achievements. It's been largely undone: by 2023, the figure stood at 22 per cent before housing costs, and 30 per cent after. Much of this reversal can be attributed to a single, ruinous policy: the two-child benefit cap, introduced in 2017, which stops families from claiming certain benefits for more than two children regardless of need. The Tories ostensibly introduced the policy to send a message to parents about responsibility, as if no family's finances ever took an unexpected turn for the worse, or as if punishing children for the actions of their parents is OK. But everyone knew it was also there to save money. No British politician ever lost votes by punishing welfare claimants. Which is why, even though it's widely agreed to be the single biggest step it could do to address child poverty and the generational problems that result, the government has absolutely no intention of scrapping it. 'If they still think we're going to scrap the cap then they're listening to the wrong people,' says the inevitable anonymous source. 'The cap is popular with key voters, who see it as a matter of fairness.' Note the way that decision is justified there. There is no attempt to push back on the argument – made by such hotbeds of social radicalism as Barnardo's, Save the Children and Citizens Advice – that this will push a record number of kids into poverty right around the time the next election rolls around; no attempt to justify it as a policy at all. The cap is popular with 'key voters'; that is enough. This isn't governing. It's campaigning. It is also not unusual. Other lines coming from the government in the last few weeks have included that it should be harder for struggling people to claim disability support payments, but easier for US tech giants to get tax breaks. (Good thing, too, otherwise they might rip off the output of some other country's valuable and successful creative industries to train their AIs.) This is deemed necessary, apparently, in the hope of a trade deal from the mad king across the Atlantic. The alternative path, of making the case for Europe, remains off limits: key voters won't wear it, you see. The Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is thus refusing to countenance free movement for students, even though it's about the smallest concession imaginable, and has widespread public support. League tables of which nationalities are committing the most crimes will be just as good, I'm sure. The government's response to the Supreme Court's recent gender ruling, meanwhile, has been blithely to suggest trans people should choose a toilet based on their biological sex. This will inevitably put members of vulnerable and frightened communities at increased risk, so one might suggest it requires a thoughtful and detailed policy response. Ministers, though, disagree: enough, apparently, to assert that trans women are not women, all the while smiling back at key voters in the hope of approval. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The reason so many of New Labour's achievements did not endure was that the Conservative Party which returned to office in 2010 systematically undid them. The Conservatives' own achievements, such as they are, seem not to be at similar risk. Jeremy Hunt's irresponsible tax cuts remain untouchable. So does the new electoral system used in mayoral elections (which has made it more likely that Labour will lose them). In too many areas, the government is making little effort to run the country, let alone to change it, instead contenting itself with appealing to a tiny group of swing voters they're convinced will be key to re-election. That seems unlikely to be true. Going all out to appeal to older voters on the right means insulting those on the liberal left as if they have nowhere else to go, when they obviously do. More than that, as an enjoyable recent Economist piece argued, it's entirely possible that a significant number of the key voters in question are quite literally dead. Even if it does work as a strategy for winning the next election, there's a question: why bother? The Blair government did more than its share of things of which liberals or the left disapproved, but it also had a clear vision of the country it wanted to build and how it would differ from one run by the Tories. Nearly ten months in, it feels like Keir Starmer does not. He seems to have little interest in convincing the voters of his point of view, or even a point of view to convince them of. Governing with one eye always on the next election surely makes you less likely to win it. But even if it didn't – what's the point? [See more: The nastiness and cowardice of Kneecap] Related
