Latest news with #SirKeirStarmer
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- General
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer is criticised for making 'deeply dishonest' claims about Labour's record on small boats after PM's boast that 'almost 30,000 people' had been removed from Britain
For once Sir Keir Starmer was in tune with the mood of the country when he said he was 'angry' after more than 1,000 Channel migrants arrived over the weekend. But the Prime Minister was made to look foolish after being criticised for making 'deeply dishonest' claims about Labour's record on small boats. Sir Keir boasted in an online post that 'almost 30,000 people' had been removed from the UK. However, this figure refers to all types of foreign nationals who have no right to live in the UK rather than those who arrive by crossing the Channel. The number of small boat migrants removed in the 12 months to March fell three per cent year-on-year to 2,240. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: 'This is deeply dishonest. 'The number of removals of small boat arrivals has actually gone down under Labour.' Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Sir Keir's claims were 'rubbish'. Some 1,195 Channel migrants arrived in the UK from northern France on Saturday – the fifth-highest daily total since the crisis began in 2018. The Prime Minister scrapped the Tories' Rwanda scheme, which was designed to deter migrants from crossing, as one of his first acts in office. Since Labour came to power 38,053 migrants have reached Britain, up a third on the same period in 2023-24, when the figure was 28,452. Officials have privately admitted that internal Home Office assessments indicate Labour is on course to preside over the worst year for Channel crossings. Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK which campaigns for tougher border controls, accused Sir Keir of attempting to 'intentionally mislead the public'. He added: 'The PM's suggestion that 30,000 Channel migrants have been removed is simply not true.' Tory Justice spokesman Robert Jenrick said: 'His fantasy statistics take the public for fools. 'They can see through his smoke and mirrors. Starmer has lost control of our borders.' It comes as Home Office insiders have urged France to 'step up' and fulfil a promise to intercept dinghies at sea. There is frustration within Labour at slow French progress in amending its rules so boats can be stopped once they are in the water, the Mail understands. France first pledged the change earlier this year but has still not completed a legal review, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs on Monday. A Home Office source said: 'The French committed to intervene in the water in February, it's about time they stepped up and did what they've told us they're going to do.' Ms Cooper said in the Commons: 'A French maritime review is looking at what new operational tactics they will use, and we are urging France to complete this review and implement the changes as swiftly as possible.' Ministers have blamed fine weather for the increase in arrivals, with officials saying there have been twice as many days when the Channel is able to be crossed by dinghies compared with last year.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- General
- The Independent
Fourth man arrested over fires at properties linked to Sir Keir Starmer
A fourth man has been arrested by police investigating fires at two properties and a car linked to Sir Keir Starmer. The 48-year-old was arrested at Stansted Airport in Essex on Monday on suspicion of conspiracy to commit arson with intent to endanger life. Three men have already been charged in connection with the fires, Ukrainians Petro Pochynok, 34, and Roman Lavrynovych, 21, and Ukrainian-born Romanian national Stanislav Carpiuc, 26, who are all due to appear at the Old Bailey on Friday. Lavrynovych, of Sydenham, south-east London, is charged with three counts of arson with intent to endanger life. Pochynok, of Holloway Road in Islington, north London, and Carpiuc, of Chadwell Heath, east London, are accused of conspiring to commit arson with intent to endanger life. Two of the fires took place in Kentish Town, north London – one in the early hours of May 12 at the home where Sir Keir lived before he became Prime Minister and moved into Downing Street. A car was set alight in the same street four days earlier on May 8. The other fire took place on May 11 at the front door of a house converted into flats in Islington.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: The Lib Dems are no longer against nukes - as long as they're fuelled by lentil gas, perhaps!
When North Korea tried to launch a warship the other day, things did not go entirely to plan and the vessel capsized. Labour 's announcement of its defence plans nearly went the same way. What a foul-up they made of it. MPs were cross that they were not allowed to read the defence review until the Secretary of State, John Healey, was at the despatch box. The Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, went on the war path, voicing backbenchers' fury and ensuring that Mr Healey's announcement was delayed by other squabbles. Commons leader Lucy Powell took several direct hits from Sir Lindsay. She curled a lip at him but that only encouraged him to unleash more verbal torpedoes. Ms Powell was soon listing, holed below decks and with much of her superstructure gone. After further sorties from her Tory counterpart, Jesse Norman, she may be beyond salvage. While a 'glug glug glug' came from HMS Powell, Mr Healey glided to the despatch box to agree that MPs should, yes, be allowed to read the document before asking him about it. By this stage, many of its contents had already been reported by newspapers – a proud day for journalists, egad – and Sir Keir Starmer had held a wonderfully wooden event in front of two half-built frigates at Govan. The nasal knight was surrounded by shipyard workers. He gulped, blinked, said 'er' and 'um', and managed to create further confusion as to when, if ever, defence spending would reach 3 per cent of gross domestic product. Back at Westminster a junior defence minister, Luke Pollard, had a sticky time explaining what the Government's policy on nuclear weapons would now be. Mr Pollard, hesitating, explained: 'I don't want to eat the Secretary of State's sandwiches.' Speaker Hoyle, roaring in broad Lancastrian: 'Don't you wurry, the Sunday papers did it already!' Mr Healey was by now in the chamber, going through the text of his speech but perhaps silently thinking 'cripes, what a shambles'. Beside him sat another defence minister, Maria Eagle, dabbing at her runny nose with a sopping Kleenex. The chemical warfare laboratory at Aldermaston would not have handled that hankie without a hazmat suit. Just when things could hardly deteriorate further, Tory frontbencher Mark Francois came scampering into the chamber like a plump old spaniel with a string of butcher's sausages. He whispered something urgent to the shadow secretary of state, James Cartlidge, who promptly stood up to announce that the review document had been given to leading defence firms at 8am. Two and a half hours before even the journalists? Disgrace! Speaker Hoyle whooshed back to his feet and said he hoped there had been no insider-dealing on the stock market as a result. Up in the gallery beside us blunt nibs, meanwhile, sat Lord Robertson, the Labour grandee and former Nato boss who led the defence review. Tories suggested he must be appalled by the goings-on. Lord Robertson looked to me as if he was enjoying the chaos enormously. Finally we reached real points of debate. Jeremy Corbyn and a few Lefties complained about a breaking of nuclear non-proliferation treaty agreements. The Greens – Ellie Chowns from the SAS lands of Herefordshire, indeed – wailed that 'warheads don't buy a safer world'. Tory heckler: 'I think you'll find they do.' Debbie Abrahams (Lab, Oldham E) fretted about mental health. The Labour MP for Aldershot wanted a new bank. And the Lib Dems are no longer opposed to nukes. Provided they are fuelled by lentil gas, perhaps. Mr Healey ground his jaw. He spoke of 'our island home' and said 'we must now move to war-fighting readiness'. His macho routine did not work as well as it usually does. When he claimed that Rachel Reeves had 'fixed the economic foundations', I regret to say that the House just laughed. Not that Mr Healey will mind that the Treasury, which may be his more immediate foe than even the Kremlin, has now become a national joke.
Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Keir Starmer has just revealed his defence shopping list. Here's what should have been on it
For decades, British defence policy has willed the end but not the means. Prime ministers have made soaring speeches, filled with promises to strengthen the Armed Forces, but without demonstrating how all the glittering equipment programmes will be paid for. Incredibly, not even Europe's biggest war since 1945 has been enough to end this dismal pattern. Sir Keir Starmer duly announced a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) replete with grandiose phrases (a 'battle-ready, armour-clad nation') but no new money. The Prime Minister could only restate his existing pledge to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2027, with an 'ambition' to hit 3 per cent 'in the next Parliament', which means by 2034. So what should have been done? The answer can be summed up in three words: money, mass and drones. Money First and foremost, the Prime Minister should have committed to spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence by 2029 at the latest – aligning Britain with what is fast becoming the European consensus. Every Nato country bordering Russia now treats 3 per cent as the bare minimum. Poland already spends more than 4 per cent and intends to exceed 5 next year. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all above 3 per cent and climbing toward 5, while Finland aims to reach 3 per cent by 2029. Yet Britain has only expressed an 'ambition' to reach that target five years later. What assumptions is the Government making about Russia's military trajectory? Is Sir Keir confident that Moscow will be unable to invade a Nato ally or launch a broader war in Europe before 2034? If so, why does his assessment differ so starkly from that of Germany's defence chief, General Carsten Breuer, who warned this week that Russia could be ready to strike a Nato country by 2029? 'This is what the analysts are assessing,' Breuer said. 'So we have to be ready by 2029.' Being ready by 2034 will be of little use if – heaven forbid – the German assessment proves correct. To show true seriousness of purpose, Sir Keir should have set out a clear path to reaching 3 per cent by 2029, with a year-by-year breakdown of spending commitments. Mass One of the clearest lessons from the war in Ukraine is that numbers matter. No amount of advanced technology or cyber capability can offset the brutal reality that high-intensity warfare exacts a devastating human toll. Armies must be large enough to absorb heavy losses and still regenerate their fighting strength. It is astonishing that a nation of nearly 70 million has struggled to maintain an army of just 82,000 – the modest target set in the 2015 Defence Review. Today, the Army's trained strength has slipped below 73,000 and continues to fall. The Russian army, by contrast, is recruiting about 30,000 new soldiers every month, which means that Vladimir Putin is replicating the entire British Army every 10 weeks. If the Government were serious, it would be doing everything in its power to grow the Army – starting with schools and universities, which should be championing military careers as proudly as any other. Instead, despite talk of a 'whole-of-society approach', Defence Secretary John Healey confirmed on Monday that Army numbers won't rise for another four years. By failing to do whatever it takes to expand the regular Army, the Government risks giving the impression that it has ignored a prime lesson of Ukraine's struggle and still underestimates the significance of mass. Mass does not apply simply to the Army. The SDR promises that Britain will build 'up to' 12 new nuclear-powered attack submarines to replace the current Astute class by the end of the 2030s. That is good news – but the qualifying phrase is revealing. Governments use the phrase 'up to' when they know they will not build the maximum number, but want to give the impression that they might. Far better if Mr Healey had secured the budget increase that would have allowed the deletion of 'up to'. Recommendation 34 of the Defence Review says the Government must 'confirm the intended numbers' of new submarines 'as soon as possible'. Indeed. But time will not make this decision any easier. The failure to agree a final number is yet another sign that this Defence Review follows the worst traditions of its predecessors. Drones Ukraine has just crippled the air-launched component of Russia's nuclear arsenal by sending swarms of armed drones to destroy enemy bombers on their bases. Earlier, Ukraine crippled the Russian Black Sea fleet and forced it from its home port of Sevastopol by unleashing fleets of autonomous marine drones. Meanwhile, on the front line, drones have become the single biggest killer – hunting down individual soldiers and making it impossible for either side to deploy main battle tanks or armoured personnel carriers in combat. Drones, sensors and artillery have combined to create a battlefield where Ukraine routinely breaks up Russian attacks with heavy casualties. The lesson is unmistakable: to be able to fight Russia, Britain needs more drones. Here, the picture in the Defence Review is far better. Mr Healey said that Britain would 'double investment in autonomous systems' and 'learn the lessons of Ukraine', focusing even more on high technology. British aircraft carriers will be the first in Europe to go to sea with 'hybrid air wings' – combining manned and unmanned aircraft. The Royal Navy will become a 'hybrid force,' deploying both conventional warships and 'autonomous vessels.' The RAF will increasingly operate 'autonomous fighters' alongside its Typhoon and F-35 jets, capable of 'defending Britain's skies and striking anywhere in the world.' The Defence Review says the Army will become 10 times more lethal by integrating its existing formations with 'land drone swarms.' So there is some good news, even if the pattern of grand announcements without new funding is sadly familiar. But drones alone do not convey seriousness of purpose as clearly as increased spending and manpower. By failing to do what is necessary – and what many of our European allies are already doing – Sir Keir has squandered the chance to demonstrate that he truly grasps the gravity of the moment.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Sir Keir is not yet willing to commit fully to the nation's defence
Sir Keir Starmer did his best to strike a statesmanlike pose yesterday as he announced the conclusions of Labour's long-awaited Defence Review, claiming that it would move the UK's Armed Forces to a position of 'war-fighting readiness', while making Britain a 'battle-ready, armour-clad nation'. And, at a time when the global threat environment becomes more challenging by the day, it is clear that the Government is fully aware that more needs to be done to ensure that the nation can defend itself against hostile states such as Russia. Furthermore, to judge by the announcements made by Sir Keir and Defence Secretary John Healey yesterday, there is recognition that the slow and steady decline in the war-fighting capabilities of our Armed Forces that has taken place during the era of the 'peace dividend' is no longer tolerable. For the UK to defend itself, there has to be a serious upgrade both in the military firepower available, as well as the indigenous industrial base that is so essential to maintaining supplies of vital weaponry. In this respect, the recommendations made by the Government's Strategic Defence Review represent a step in the right direction, even if they only address some of the shortcomings facing the military. At the heart of the Government's programme is an ambition to upgrade the nation's nuclear capabilities, with £15 billion of investment earmarked for the nuclear warhead programme. In addition, the Government is aiming to expand the conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet, with up to 12 new boats to be built. The focus on these key areas of our national defence structure is related to the new Aukus pact signed by the UK, Australia and the US in 2021 to enhance security in the Indo-Pacific region. In addition, the Government is aiming to acquire a number of US-made jet fighters that are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, a move that will significantly expand the military's ability to deliver tactical nuclear options across a wide range of scenarios, rather than relying solely on the strategic Trident missile systems. Other welcome changes outlined in the review include a move to increase stockpiles of munitions and other military equipment, with the Forces working closely with industry to ensure that production can be increased rapidly in the event of conflict. The military has often before found itself in the embarrassing position of having to ask key allies such as the US to provide urgent supplies after British stockpiles have been exhausted after just a few days of fighting. The procurement of up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons, whose utility has been amply demonstrated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, will mean that, in future, Britain will be able to protect its own interests rather than constantly relying on allies to bail us out. The creation of a new Cyber Command, meanwhile, reflects the fact that, in the ever-changing complexion of the modern-battlefield, cyber operations have become as crucial to modern war-fighting operations as conventional weapons. While the focus on these areas reflect the changing nature of the threats we face, there will undoubtedly be those who believe that not enough attention is being paid to the glaring deficiencies in other areas of military strength, such as the diminished size of the Army, the overall lack of fast fighter jets and the scarcity of surface warships. The fact that the shortcomings in these crucial areas of our national defence are not fully addressed reflects a woeful lack of ambition on the part of Sir Keir's administration. And, even though the Defence Review sets out a number of new priorities, the primary question remains: how the Government intends to pay for it. When Sir Keir unveiled his plans in a speech in Glasgow yesterday, he insisted he was committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, but that his aim to raise spending to 3 per cent by 2034 was only an 'ambition'. Three per cent is now seen as the bare minimum by Nato leaders. Indeed, a consensus is building around a figure of 3.5 per cent. Setting aside the likelihood that Sir Keir will still be resident in Downing Street in nine years' time, his inability to commit to such an increase will inevitably raise doubts about his Government's commitment to improving our defences. Sir Keir's inability to provide a clear-cut commitment to raise spending to the level necessary to provide a tangible boost in capability is also unlikely to placate some of the more hawkish voices in the Trump administration. They argue that European nations like the UK are not making sufficient investment in our own defences. At a time when the White House is seriously questioning its future relationship with Nato, any suggestion that a key ally like the UK is not taking its defence obligations seriously could ultimately spell the end for the transatlantic alliance and the Special Relationship.
