Latest news with #Keir Starmer
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Starmer takes on Khan in battle over Heathrow's third runway
Sir Keir Starmer is preparing to face down Sir Sadiq Khan and Labour backbenchers to force through a third runway at Heathrow. The west London airport has unveiled the details of its long-awaited £50bn expansion plan, which it said could lift capacity by 80pc to 150m passengers a year. The proposals have the support of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, who believe airport expansion is essential to boosting Britain's growth. However, the plans have provoked a backlash from Sir Sadiq, who has long opposed a third runway, and some Labour backbenchers. The Mayor of London said on Thursday that airport expansion was not compatible with net zero. Ministers fear Sir Sadiq could launch a legal challenge that would delay expansion by years and add to costs even if it proved unsuccessful. The Prime Minister is prepared to use new laws to block Sir Sadiq from turning to the courts in a bid to get spades in the ground at Heathrow before the end of this parliament. Whitehall sources signalled they were looking at legislation that would stop the Mayor from dragging the decision through the courts. This includes planning reforms announced earlier this year to end the 'challenge culture' that Sir Keir said had delayed many vital infrastructure projects. 'We are looking at introducing legislation to curb the ability of campaigners to use judicial reviews to block infrastructure projects,' said one government source. It follows decades of opposition from environmental campaigners to a third runway at Europe's busiest airport. A source said ministers were preparing for criticism from within Labour. Sir Sadiq said: 'I remain unconvinced that you can have a new runway at Heathrow, delivering hundreds of thousands of additional flights every year, without a hugely detrimental impact on our environment.' The Labour Mayor did not say whether he would seek a judicial review once the plans were formally lodged but warned that he would 'be keeping all options on the table in how we respond.' John McDonnell, Labour's former shadow chancellor, whose Hayes and Harlington constituency would be affected by the proposals, vowed to fight Heathrow expansion 'all the way'. Mr McDonnell said he was already in talks with leaders from other London boroughs about mounting a legal challenge and had 'put money aside' for a long court battle. 'I think it's inevitable there'll be legal action,' he said. 'We've consistently opposed it, and every time we've been to court on this issue, we've won.' Rachel Reeves was largely responsible for reviving the third runway project as part of her push for growth, and allies of the Chancellor said the expansion plan had her 'full-throated' support. In a rebuke to the Mayor, a source said Ms Reeves would do 'what it takes to deliver a third runway'. 'The Chancellor is determined Britain remains the best connected place to do business,' the source said. Ms Reeves has previously stated she wanted 'spades in the ground' by the next election and planes using the runway by 2035. The Chancellor said the new proposals submitted by Heathrow showed Britain was 'one step closer to expanding our biggest airport' in a move she said would 'boost investment in Britain, increase trade for businesses, and create up to 100,000 jobs.' Heathrow's £49bn plan will see a new runway constructed to the north-west of the airport, which will extend over the M25. Two new terminal buildings will be built and existing facilities expanded. The number of annual flights would jump from 480,000 today to as many as 756,000. Heathrow bosses said the new 2.2-mile landing strip would lift capacity to 150 million passengers a year, almost 80pc more than the number who used the airport in 2024. Construction will start as early as 2029, with the runway operational by 2035, though the full expansion of the terminals could take until 2060. The runway itself is projected to cost £21bn. The new terminals would cost £12bn and the modernisation of the existing ones some £15bn. The project will involve the destruction of about 750 homes in the area and the construction of a new section of motorway between junctions 14 and 15 of the M25. Heathrow has said expansion would boost UK GDP by almost 0.5pc by 2050. The plans revive those approved by Parliament in 2018, which means they may not face a further Commons vote unless the Government decides to deviate significantly from that blueprint. It also makes it less likely that the runway will face opposition from within the Cabinet. Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, said: 'I am pleased to have received the initial Heathrow expansion proposals – a significant step towards unlocking growth, creating jobs, and delivering this vital national infrastructure to drive forward our Plan for Change. 'We'll review proposals over the summer and move quickly to progress this transformational project.' Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, previously opposed Heathrow expansion but more recently insisted it would be 'ridiculous' to resign over the issue. He said the Government's position was that airport expansion could go ahead so long as it was compatible with the UK's legal-binding carbon budgets. It is understood that this position remains unchanged. The latest budget, published by the independent Climate Change Committee earlier this year, did not explicitly rule out airport expansion. However, it did say that the aviation industry's emissions – which primarily come from aircraft exhausts – needed to fall by 17pc between 2023 and 2040. It means Heathrow must set out ways to reduce the emissions of aircraft that use the hub in order to argue that a third runway is compatible with net zero. In its report, the Climate Change Committee said the aviation sector could lower emissions through greater investment in green technologies such as sustainable aviation fuels, hydrogen fuel cells or electric aircraft, or by reducing demand for flying. Another potentially contentious element of the plans is its impact on the M25, the country's busiest motorway. Heathrow's plans call for the M25 to be diverted into a tunnel at a cost of £1.5bn so that a full-length runway can be built above it. Airport bosses insisted this would not cause disruption to motorists. A new section of road 130 meters west of the existing M25 would be built in its entirety. Vehicles would then be diverted onto the new section at an agreed time so that the current M25 could be closed and the runway extended towards the east. Thomas Woldbye's Heathrow's chief executive, said: 'It has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow. We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity. 'With a green light from [the] Government and the correct policy support underpinned by a fit for purpose regulatory model, we are ready to mobilise and start investing this year in our supply chain across the country.' Eighty-four million passengers flew from Heathrow in 2024, averaging 230,000 per day. This put it ahead of rivals including Amsterdam Schiphol, Frankfurt and Paris Charles de Gaulle. However, these airports, which have up to six runways, continue to threaten Heathrow's status as Europe's main airport hub. Supporters of a third runway say expansion is needed to support Britain's global trade ambitions. The plan submitted to the Government on Thursday is not the only proposal for how to build a third runway. Hotel tycoon Surinder Arora, who is one of the biggest landowners at Heathrow, earlier this week unveiled an alternative proposal that he claimed would be cheaper and avoid the need to rebuild the M25. Heathrow argues that the motorway would need to be redeveloped regardless to handle the extra traffic expected from expansion of the airport. It currently has no rail connections to the west, with the Elizabeth Line and Heathrow Express services terminating there, and will not be served by HS2.
BBC News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- BBC News
States of Alderney backs Guernsey Gaza statement
The States of Alderney has said it endorses a compassionate message from the government of Guernsey in highlighting the humanitarian situation in the letter, Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez said members were "profoundly concerned by the deaths and suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza".Alderney's States said it endorsed "the compassionate message from the government of Guernsey in highlighting the humanitarian situation in Gaza alongside the numerous other humanitarian crises in the world, and the commitment to upholding the principles of international law".Israel, which controls the entry of all supplies into Gaza, has blamed Hamas for any cases of malnutrition. The Guernsey letter was signed by 17 deputies pressuring de Sausmarez to write to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. De Sausmarez said: "Members are deeply moved by the plight of people of all ages who are caught up in any conflict."The members hope that the global community soon finds and implements effective ways to protect civilians, alleviate human suffering and secure lasting peace."
Telegraph
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Nigel Farage shouts down ‘pig-headed' Democrat
While Republicans have strongly come out against Sir Keir Starmer's online safety law, Mr Raskin struck a more even tone, telling Politico the legislation had 'some very good things' and potentially 'some problematic things'. 'I think the intervention of Democrats who don't have a dog in that fight was maybe too much for [Mr Farage] to handle, but we did want to make some general points about the freedom of speech,' he said. Mr Farage has pledged to repeal the Act if Reform wins the next election, prompting Peter Kyle, the British science and technology secretary, to accuse him of endangering children and siding with the notorious child abuser Jimmy Savile. The Reform leader has called the claim a 'disgusting' smear and claims the 'Orwellian law' will clamp down on free speech while failing to protect children. US warns UK to stop threatening tech companies The White House has warned Sir Keir to stop threatening American tech companies as a backlash mounts to the online safety law. The legislation allows the Government to impose fines worth millions of pounds on companies such as X if they fail to remove harmful content from their platforms. A senior US State Department official told The Telegraph on Thursday that they would 'monitor developments in the UK with great interest and concern'. Separately, Mr Farage added to the pressure on Mr Trump to release the Epstein files as he became the president's latest ally to call for complete transparency over the paedophile financier. Mr Trump's administration has so far refused to release all the documents it holds on Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison after being charged with sex trafficking in 2019, prompting a backlash from supporters in the process. 'I think this is one area where Donald has sort of put himself into conflict with much of his own base,' Mr Farage told radio station LBC.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
When will the UK recognise Palestine and what does that mean?
Prime minister Keir Starmer said the UK would recognise Palestine by the time of the UN General Assembly meeting in September. The UK government has said it believes its plans to recognise Palestine as a state is compliant with international law, despite warnings from lawyers to the contrary. On Tuesday, 29 July, prime minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK could take the step of recognising a Palestinian state ahead of a gathering at the UN later this year. He said that the UK will only refrain from doing so if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months. However, former hostages and their families criticised Starmer's announcement on Wednesday, 30 July, while some 38 members of the House of Lords, including some of the UK's most eminent lawyers, have written to attorney general Lord Hermer, warning him that it could be in contravention of international law. As first reported by The Times, the peers warned Starmer's pledge to recognise Palestine may breach international law as the territory may not meet the criteria for statehood under the Montevideo Convention, a treaty signed in 1933. But, asked whether recognising Palestine is compliant with international law, business minister Gareth Thomas told Times Radio on Thursday, 31 July: 'Yes, we believe it is. 'In the end, recognition of another state is a political judgement and over 140 countries have already recognised Palestine.' When will the UK recognise a Palestinian state? Starmer announced the UK will recognise a Palestinian state by September at the UN General Assembly, unless Israel meets specific conditions. These conditions include agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and committing to a long-term peace process for a two-state solution. The decision follows intense domestic pressure, with many from Starmer's Labour Party urging immediate recognition. Starmer cited the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a key reason for the timing. The UK's move aligns with France, which also plans to recognise Palestine in September. What does it mean? Recognising a Palestinian state means the UK would formally acknowledge Palestinian self-determination, without addressing practical issues like borders or governance. This symbolic act could lead to diplomatic changes, such as establishing a Palestinian embassy in London. However, it does not imply recognition of Hamas – which governs Gaza and is a proscribed a terrorist group in the UK – but rather the Palestinian Authority (which maintains administrative control of the West Bank) as the state's representative. The move aims to strengthen Palestine's global standing and pressure Israel to negotiate. Practically, little would change on the ground due to Israel's rejection of a Palestinian state. However, it could prompt the UK to review trade and agreements with Israel to align with Palestinian rights. Recognising Palestine could also be a diplomatic tool to push for a two-state solution, despite Israel's opposition. The UK's decision could inspire other nations to follow, with Canada being the latest country to say it will follow suit, increasing diplomatic pressure on Israel. However, without US support, full UN membership for Palestine remains unlikely due to a potential US veto. How many countries have recognised Palestine? As of March this year, 147 of the 193 UN member states, about 75%, recognise a Palestinian state. This includes most countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, along with some in Europe. Last year, nine countries – Armenia, Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, Spain, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Barbados – formally recognised Palestine. Among the G20, 10 countries, including Argentina, Brazil, China, and Spain, recognise Palestine, while nine, including the US and Germany, do not. The EU as a whole does not recognise Palestine, with varied stances among members. Recognition began in 1988 as a result of efforts by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to have the State of Palestine recognised, with 78 countries acknowledging it by the end of the year. How has Israel responded? Israel's government, led by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, condemned Starmer's announcement as a 'reward for Hamas's monstrous terrorism'. Israel argues that such a move encourage Hamas and harms ceasefire efforts. The Israeli Foreign Ministry stated that the UK's decision undermines negotiations and legitimises terrorism. Netanyahu has long rejected a two-state solution, while Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Damon, called the recognition 'hypocrisy' and a distraction from securing the release of hostages held by Hamas. In response to earlier recognitions by Spain, Ireland and Norway in 2024, Israel recalled its ambassadors and vowed to expand West Bank settlements. Israel maintains that unilateral recognition violates the Oslo Accords, which require mutual negotiations for statehood. It insists that a Palestinian state would threaten its security, especially after the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023.
The Independent
17 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
The statement Keir Starmer made on Tuesday announcing the government's intention to recognise the state of Palestine sounded as if it had been drafted and re-drafted so many times that no one thought to check if it still made grammatical or logical sense. Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree. So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs. Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages? When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'. So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel. I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night. What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him. That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned. By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months. Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years. Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.' Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs. There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her. But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this. Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want. They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally. Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.
