Latest news with #StarmerGovernment
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
UK Capital Under Siege; Nearly 200 Detained As London Erupts Against Starmer, Netanyahu
Thousands of people march through streets of central London Saturday to protest against the ongoing war in Gaza. The protest, organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, called for an end to Israel's offensive in Gaza. Protesters held anti-Israel banners and Palestinian flags. Around 200 protesters were held for rallying in support of banned Palestine Action group that was branded as a terrorist group by Keir Starmer Government for vandalising RAF aircraft over Israel support. Watch. Read More
Arab News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
UK shift on Palestine reinforces a historical fact
The UK recently departed from decades of foreign policy, announcing plans to recognize Palestinian statehood unless Israel takes immediate action to address the crisis in Gaza. This announcement, coming alongside France and Canada's similar moves, marks a growing shift in international support for Palestine as the UN General Assembly approaches in September. The UK's announcement, while following France and Canada's lead, is notably different in its conditional nature. The Starmer government made it clear that it would proceed with recognizing Palestine as a state only if Israel agrees to a series of significant actions. These include a ceasefire in Gaza, a commitment not to annex the West Bank, and a pledge to work toward a credible, long-term peace process aimed at achieving a two-state solution. This move has been welcomed by many in the international community, yet it has also faced significant criticism, particularly given the UK's historical role in shaping the very conditions that have led to the conflict. Before British rule, the region now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, specifically the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, reorganized in 1872. This area was part of the larger Ottoman province of Syria, but was granted a special administrative status. It was only with the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1920 that the term 'Palestine' began to take on its modern political meaning. Under British administration, the land was known as Mandate Palestine, with Britain trying to balance its dual commitment to both the Zionist movement and the local Arab population. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by the British foreign secretary at the time, expressed 'support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine,' leaving a historical record of British diplomatic recognition of a territory named Palestine. Despite its longstanding presence in the region, Britain has never officially recognized Palestine as a state — until now. This shift is significant, but it comes with a complex legacy. During the First World War, Britain entered into negotiations with Sharif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. In exchange for Arab support, Britain promised Arab independence, a commitment later known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Though the specific interpretation of Palestine's status in this agreement has been a point of contention, this is another colonial-era record of official British utilization of the term, Palestine. While Arabs saw it as a promise for the independence of Palestine, Britain later argued that Palestine was excluded from this promise due to its strategic importance and other conflicting commitments, such as the Balfour Declaration. These historical British footnotes regarding Palestine statehood have shaped the Palestinian cause just as they have defined the very recognition of the territory itself. During the British Mandate for Palestine, Britain assumed administrative control with the aim of helping the region transition toward self-governance. One of the notable steps taken by the British was the establishment of the Palestinian passport system, which formally recognized Palestinians as residents of the Mandate, though not as a sovereign nation. These passports, issued under the Passports and Immigration Regulations, granted Palestinians some travel and residency rights, but they did not recognize Palestine as a distinct nation-state. In the first decade of the Mandate alone, about 70,000 of these documents were issued. In the context of Palestine's century-long struggle, the issuance of these documents supports one more time British utilization of the term Palestine. While the UK's announcement to recognize Palestine is a significant diplomatic step, it must be understood within the context of Britain's historical involvement in shaping the region's political landscape. Besides, this recognition carries significant geopolitical and diplomatic implications. Both the UK and Canada have tied their recognition of Palestine to specific actions from Israel or the Palestinian Authority, such as halting the expansion of Israeli settlements and agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza. In doing so, they are responding to the urgent need for change in the region, while at the same time pushing for conditions that reflect their vision of a lasting, sustainable two-state solution. The UK's recognition, in particular, carries considerable diplomatic weight as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. If the UK follows through, it will join France, Canada, and several other nations in formally recognizing Palestinian statehood as the world gathers in New York this September. For the Palestinian Authority, this recognition is particularly pertinent as it legitimizes the organization's aspirations for a sovereign state and enhances its standing on the international stage. UK recognition carries considerable diplomatic weight. Zaid M. Belbagi In addition to this diplomatic shift, the UK has committed significant resources to alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The UK government pledged £60 million ($80 million) in humanitarian aid in July 2025 alone, focusing on healthcare, food, water, shelter, and emergency services. This includes funding for UK-Med field hospitals, which have treated over 500,000 people during the conflict. The UK has coupled its recent diplomatic overture with a continued program of humanitarian assistance. However, this diplomatic announcement raises questions about the future of UK-Israel relations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted strongly to the announcement, accusing the UK of rewarding 'Hamas' monstrous terrorism,' which signals potential strain in the longstanding bilateral relationship between the two nations, historically tied by economic, political, and diplomatic agreements. By the end of Q1 2025, total trade between the UK and Israel reached £5.8 billion, with Israeli investment in the UK contributing an additional £1 billion in gross value and creating about 16,000 British jobs. With an updated free trade agreement expected following the launch of talks in 2022, the UK's shift in policy could challenge the foundation of this economic partnership. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made the UK's recognition of Palestine conditional, requiring Israel to take substantive steps to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, allow UN aid, halt annexations in the West Bank, and commit to a sustainable peace process aimed at reviving the two-state solution. The British government has made it clear that recognition will be upheld if these conditions are not met. However, given the current stance of Netanyahu's government, it seems unlikely that these conditions will be accepted, making the recognition of Palestine increasingly probable in the coming months. As such, the UK's recognition of Palestine before September seems all but certain, confirming what has been a historical fact.
Daily Mail
03-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Folly of funny money deals: A market solution would be best for Thames Water, says ALEX BRUMMER
As a long-standing critic of private equity pillage, I should be cheering from the rooftops at the decision by KKR to pull out of its proposed rescue of Thames Water. Yet given the ghastly legacy of financial ownership and the hopelessness of the Starmer Government on commercial decisions, KKR almost looked like a white knight. The pledge by the global investment firm to inject £4billion of equity to stabilise the balance sheet of Britain's biggest water utility, and to return the company to the stock exchange in ten years, was as good an option as this ill-fated company was likely to receive. For KKR to get the deal done it required various forces to be aligned. The management of Thames, the existing creditors, the regulator Ofwat, the Government and the political background. Each time a pact with one party looked attainable, another problem arose. Down the decades, KKR deservedly has taken political punishment for its alleged profiteering at the expense of shareholders, customers, and other stakeholders. The original 'Barbarians at the Gate', dating from its deal for RJR Nabisco back in 1988, it has a history of plunder. Its ownership of Toys R Us ended in the bankruptcy courts. In more recent times, the Wall Street group has focused on long-term investment through infrastructure. This was the mechanism proposed by Thames Water. When the proposition was put to KKR's global investment committee by its British and European principals, it received the thumbs down. Fear of the opprobrium, which came recently from the Commons when MPs tore into potential bonus arrangements and sewage discharges, played a role in the decision to pull out. It was serendipity that KKR's decision emerged on the day that former Bank of England deputy-governor Sir Jon Cunliffe produced his report on the water industry. He found 'deep-rooted systemic' problems and argued for a 'fundamental reset'. Of all the regulators designed to patrol key utilities post privatisation, Ofwat has been the most useless. None of the water utilities deserve credit for their record on keeping the nation's beaches and waterways free of sewage and industrial waste. There are clear differences between the performance of providers such as United Utilities and Severn Trent, which have remained listed companies, and those which were sold to rapacious financiers. Thames and Southern Water are the most notorious examples. In both cases, equity finance was largely replaced by leverage, borrowing and debts, and the lifeblood was sucked out of the enterprises by interest payments and dividends. These often were paid to entities in offshore tax havens. Putting water to one side for a moment, that is what is so frustrating about the recent sale of the Royal Mail-owner International Distribution Services to a financial buyer, Daniel Kretinsky. The only hope for that deal is Ofcom, which has a far better reputation as a regulator. Nevertheless, one suspects the Universal Service Obligation, and a reasonably priced first-class post, are not the priorities of the buyer. The Labour Government was played by Kretinsky in much the same way as it was forced into an expensive rescue of Chinese-owned British Steel. Any notion that Thames Water would be better run as a nationalised industry needs to be disabused. It took 17 years for the Treasury to free itself from ownership of NatWest. A market solution must be the best approach. Otherwise, a bloated government balance sheet will be burdened with this spoilt asset for decades. Red card The love affair of US entrepreneurs, private equity and showbiz for Premier League football is not simply admiration for the beautiful game. The American tax code allows owners of professional teams to write off the entire value of players as 'intangible assets' against tax. If the House of Representatives' tax plan eventually receives assent, future owners (who are taxed on worldwide income) will lose this advantage. The impact on the value of sports franchises, on both sides of the Atlantic, could potentially be catastrophic.
Telegraph
27-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Nigel Farage promises a lot – but do Reform's sums add up?
Nigel Farage was in giveaway mode on Tuesday as he promised a Reform UK government would nearly double the personal income tax allowance, restore winter fuel support for pensioners and scrap the two-child benefit cap. The policies are appealing to voters, but are they affordable? Farage admitted people would be ' lined up in droves ' to ask how, or even if, his party could bankroll such policies. If Farage were prime minister, the promise to increase the personal income tax allowance from £12,570 to £20,000 a year would alone force him to find anything from £50bn to £80bn, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates. Benefits giveaways would add billions on top of that. Scrapping the two-child benefit cap would cost £3.4bn a year, the IFS has estimated, while restoring the winter fuel allowance would cost around £1.5bn per year. A promise of a transferable tax allowance for married couples hasn't been costed. Farage has repeatedly attacked the Starmer Government for being 'hopelessly adrift' on public debt, which is hovering at about 95pc of GDP. He therefore wouldn't be borrowing his way towards honouring his pledges if he moved into Downing Street. Instead, the Reform UK leader has promised 'big savings'. 'Big' is no exaggeration. At the lower end of the IFS estimated cost of the income tax change alone, he's looking for savings equivalent to the Government's annual spending on defence, or on the entire disability and child benefit system. At the £80bn top end, it's more than the Government spends on schools each year, or, to take another measure, almost half the central government payroll. He probably isn't going to sack every second civil servant on day one. So how will he pull off the feat of balancing the books, when it has eluded governments of the Left and Right for decades? Farage has promised full details next year. In the meantime, his downpayment is a claim that ' scrapping net zero ' would save £45bn a year – a 50pc increase on the £30bn estimate that Reform MP Richard Tice floated as recently as two weeks ago. Ripping up public-sector diversity initiatives would yield another £7bn a year, which sounds as vague as it is optimistic. The traditional bonfire of the quangos will reap £13bn a year. Asylum seeker hotels would also go, which Reform says will yield £4bn a year despite the fact National Audit Office figures suggest the party might claw back less than half of that. In an interview with The Telegraph last week, Tice acknowledged that a Reform UK government taking office in 2029 would need a much clearer set of plans than this. 'These are the tax cuts I want to get to,' he said. 'But we can't implement them until I've proven that I can produce the savings.' Those comments came after stockbroking firm Panmure Liberum said the £80bn funding gap – which it had identified even before this week's fresh promises – could trigger an 'immediate and violent' sterling crisis, reminiscent of the market meltdown after Liz Truss's mini-Budget. Labour also invoked the spirit of Truss on Tuesday, with party chairman Ellie Reeves saying Farage's 'tens of billions of pounds of fantasy promises … are exactly how Liz Truss crashed the economy'. Unlike the impatient Truss, though, Farage seems ready to play a longer game. And he'll need to. As IFS deputy director Helen Miller said on Tuesday, cuts of the magnitude he envisions can't be achieved by scrapping the odd superfluous quango or diversity programme, as Farage seems to suggest. Instead, it requires a 'debate ... about the vision of the state and what role the government should play in coming years,' she said. In other words, Farage may theoretically be able to make the sums add up on his slate of policy promises but only if the state cuts back on, or even drops, huge amounts of what it does. This is a debate that Tice, at least, seems up for. In an article for The Telegraph last week, he was even prepared to take on the Westminster shibboleth that the NHS must remain untainted by the private sector. A tax break would encourage wealthier people to go private, he said, and the NHS should buy 'millions more' appointments from private healthcare providers. These appointments would still be provided free to NHS patients, so they would come at a cost to taxpayers. Tice's bet must be that the private sector would get bigger and more efficient as a result, making the service cheaper overall. Clearly, much more detail is needed. It may be hard, in many quarters, for Farage and Tice to get a hearing for any plan to fundamentally rewire the British state – if they come up with one. But it's a debate Labour should welcome, rather than seek to smother. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is boxed in, and constantly at risk of running out of fiscal headroom. If there is a politically palatable path to disrupting the fiscal status quo, she hasn't found it yet either. Farage says that what he offers is a chance to think differently. 'We're not ideologically tied to the same ideas upon which we believe the Conservative and Labour governments have gone so wrong over the course of the last few years,' as he put it. Reform UK wants to embrace a low-tax and high-benefit society, combining two positions that have traditionally been diametrically opposed in Britain.
Forbes
25-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The New Industrial Strategy: Who Will Win The Jobs Of Tomorrow
Governments around the world are scrambling to adopt the right industrial strategy to stay competitive in the global race for the jobs of tomorrow. In the United States, the Trump administration's tariff strategy is primarily aimed at bringing manufacturing back to the country. In Australia, the newly re-elected Albanese Labor government is placing a AUD $ 20 billion+ bet on green manufacturing to reindustrialize the nation. Meanwhile, in the UK, the Starmer government has launched a 10-year AI Opportunities Action Plan, focused on scaling compute infrastructure and making Britain a global hub for AI-driven jobs. With the World Economic Forum forecasting that nearly as many jobs will disappear as will be created in the coming decade, the stakes could not be higher. In a world shaped by technological disruption, geopolitical realignment, and climate volatility, no single lever is enough. What matters is the alignment of skills, sector focus, and smart incentives, which ought to be the building blocks of any serious strategy for job creation and industrial renewal. These are the three questions every government must answer to compete for the next wave of jobs. This question comes first for a reason. No matter which industries a country prioritizes—or how much capital it attracts—none of it sticks without the right talent. Education systems are the foundation that determines whether a country can attract, retain, and grow the industries of tomorrow. Ireland's rise from a struggling, high-emigration economy in the 1980s to a high-income innovation hub is one of the most striking industrial policy success stories of the modern era. While often credited to low corporate tax rates, what also kept companies like Apple, Google, and Pfizer there and growing was talent. Firms like Intel, Meta, and Alphabet have consistently cited Ireland's skilled workforce as a key reason for their success. By contrast, one of the most high-profile failures of the past decade—the $10 billion Foxconn deal in Wisconsin—collapsed in part because the local workforce reportedly lacked the specialized skills needed to support advanced manufacturing. There are many ways to upskill a population, both in the short and long term. In markets with clear potential, the private sector is already stepping in. In South Africa, Microsoft and Google have launched large-scale training programs in AI and digital skills, viewing widespread youth unemployment as an opportunity to build a future-ready workforce. Such initiatives are tailored to meet real and immediate job demand. As Evan Jones, CEO of Collective X, puts it: 'We're not just skilling for the sake of it—we're skilling for absorption.' Collective X is a public-private partnership tackling South Africa's digital skills gap at scale. It manages a R500 million ($28 million) outcomes-based fund that only pays training providers when learners are placed in real jobs. To date, over 500 organizations have signed on. But while short-term technical bootcamps may fill immediate gaps, they're no substitute for long-term talent strategy. That starts with reforming higher education. According to the World Economic Forum's 2025 Future of Jobs Report, the fastest-growing roles—from AI engineers to renewable energy technicians—require not only technical skills but also adaptive capabilities such as analytical thinking, creativity, and complex problem-solving. These are precisely what traditional lecture-based university models struggle to deliver on a large scale. To stay competitive, universities must evolve from passive knowledge providers and rethink not only what students learn, but also how they learn. One promising approach is peer-to-peer learning, a student-driven, project-based approach that fosters collaboration, initiative, and effective communication. Paired with co-designed curricula and digital platforms, it helps bridge the gap between academic theory and real-world readiness. Countries that embed these models into their higher education systems have a better chance of attracting investment and retaining talent at home. Some countries, such as the U.S., can afford to bet on multiple high-growth sectors. However, even the U.S. faces trade-offs, including talent, infrastructure, and political bandwidth. No country can do everything well. In a world of limited resources and global competition, focus matters. That means setting priorities, making trade-offs, and resisting the urge to chase everything because trying to do it all often means doing none of it well. India's Special Economic Zones (SEZs) offer a cautionary tale. Meant to boost exports across dozens of sectors, many fell short of their targets. A World Bank report blamed 'policy fragmentation, lack of sector focus, and poor coordination.' Some zones became real estate plays; a few built lasting industrial strength. By contrast, one often-overlooked sector with real potential is the creative economy. When Bill Gates recently named the three job categories most resilient to AI—pharma, energy, and coders—music, film, and live events didn't make the cut. Yet countries like Nigeria and Kenya are leaning into the creative economy as potential job creators. Nigerian artists now top global charts, Nollywood is among the world's largest film industries, and Kenyan animators and storytellers are gaining traction across the continent. A range of ancillary industries and services will be needed to support this momentum. UNCTAD estimates that Africa's creative economy could generate up to 20 million jobs by 2030, particularly for young people and women. One example: Move Afrika, a touring platform backed by Global Citizen, created over 1,000 jobs during its stop in Kigali and increased local sourcing from 75% to 90% in just 18 months (Disclaimer: I work for Global Citizen). However, transforming the creative economy into a genuine engine of job creation will require a proper policy framework—modern copyright laws, fair digital revenue-sharing, and robust intellectual property protections. This is especially urgent as broad exemptions to copyright are being proposed in several jurisdictions, threatening the ability of artists and creators to earn a living, and, by extension, generate jobs. This is precisely why the Music and Entertainment Development Initiative (MEDI) was launched: to provide governments with the data needed to justify innovative policy frameworks and unlock the full economic potential of their creative economies. MEDI is mapping music ecosystems across 22 African countries and will provide targeted policy recommendations to support growth, from intellectual property (IP) reform to infrastructure and investment. Not every country needs to chase AI labs or hyperscale data centers. The point isn't to mimic Silicon Valley. Instead, the countries that win and retain jobs won't be the ones that try to do everything—they'll be the ones that do something well. Even with the right sectors and skills in place, nothing moves without investment. That's where smart incentives come in. Today's investors are seeking predictable, de-risked environments in a world that is increasingly messy and ever-changing. That means: Stable procurement pipelines. India's solar auction system is a standout example of a bright and stable policy. Launched in 2010 under the National Solar Mission, it invited developers to bid competitively for utility-scale projects backed by 25-year power purchase agreements. As a result, costs dropped, investor confidence surged, and solar jobs nearly tripled. According to IRENA, the sector grew from just over 110,000 jobs in 2010 to more than 318,000 by 2023, spanning manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. Targeted subsidies and industrial strategy incentives. In Collie, Western Australia, the state government took a proactive approach to transitioning from coal to clean energy and green manufacturing. A flagship project is the Collie Green Steel Mill—a $400 million facility that will produce low-carbon rebar using renewable-powered electric arc furnaces. It's expected to create 500 construction jobs and 200 long-term roles. To support the project, the government committed: Long-term industrial strategy policy certainty and investor confidence. Even the best incentives fall flat if investors don't believe they'll last. As strategist and investor Taufiq Rahim explores in his new book, Trump 2.5, today's industrial strategies—particularly in the U.S.—are increasingly shaped by short-term political cycles and populist pressures. Investors—and foreign governments eyeing an opening—need to pay close attention to where policy continuity might hold, where it might fracture, and what that means for capital flows. As a case in point, just a few years ago, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act was poised to help catalyze a boom in clean energy investment, with 142,000 renewable energy jobs added in 2023 alone. But that momentum now risks being reversed following the House's passage of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' One climate tech founder recently warned that his entire business—built around a $85-per-ton carbon capture credit—could be 'vaporized overnight' if the credit disappears or is diluted, as now seems increasingly possible. As a counterpoint, after years of stagnation, nuclear energy appeared to be making a comeback in the U.S., driven by rising demand, concerns over grid reliability, bipartisan support, and net-zero goals. But with the passage of the House version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' prospects have once again become mixed. That's a challenge—because, like all major energy infrastructure, nuclear projects require coordinated, credible policy that investors can count on for years. The timelines are long, the risks are high, and without lasting policy commitment, capital stays on the sidelines. As nuclear-focused investor Arthur Hyde put it to me recently: 'All energy infrastructure is long-lived. Timelines are a red herring. The real question is who offers credible, coordinated policy over time.' Ultimately, the countries that win the new industrial era won't be the ones with the loudest rhetoric. They'll be the ones with the right industrial strategy that invests in people, places smart bets, and aligns policy incentives with long-term intent. The industrial strategy playbook is there. To those with the discipline to follow it, will go the spoils.
