Latest news with #ZarahSultana
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Corbynista MP Zarah Sultana under fire because she 'didn't declare marriage to senior official at trade union she lobbied for in Parliament'
A Labour politician who lobbied for the Fire Brigades Union in Parliament was last night under fire for failing to declare her marriage to one of its senior policy officers. Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana married the FBU's Craig Lloyd last August - and then went on to speak up for key FBU demands in the Commons, including calling for more funding for fire services. In the months leading up to the wedding, when the pair were living together in London, Corbynista Ms Sultana accepted a £10,000 donation from the union for her re-election campaign. Both before and after the wedding she has also been the chair of the FBU's Parliamentary Group, the union's political campaign team. Under the parliamentary code of conduct, MPs are meant to declare anything that could be seen to influence them as well as declaring any family members involved in lobbying the Government. Last night, Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, said he had 'no doubt' that Ms Sultana should 'declare that relationship as part of her interests as an MP'. He added: 'In the role that she admits that he has, clearly he is bound to have a dialogue with the MP about the issues and about his relationship with Ministers. So I think it would be absolutely appropriate for her to declare that relationship.' Tory MP Ben Obese-Jecty said: 'Ms Sultana should declare this relationship in the interests of openness and transparency. As MPs, we all have a duty to let voters know if our family life has any bearing on our work at Westminster.' Approached for comment by the MoS, Ms Sultana launched an astonishing attack on the Labour Party, making unsubstantiated and false claims that it was 'a smear from the Labour right' and that it was revenge for her remarks linking Peter Mandelson to Jeffrey Epstein. She did not respond to repeated questions of whether she should have declared the relationship. These latest revelations come just a week after the MoS revealed that Labour MP Mary Foy is in an undeclared relationship with militant former fireman Matt Wrack, who led the FBU for two decades until January. Ms Foy introduced Early Day Motions on behalf of the union, had a union staff member seconded to her office and accepted its £2,000 donation - all while in a relationship with its boss. She has since referred herself to Parliament's standards watchdog. MPs are required to declare any relevant interests which 'might reasonably be thought by others to influence' their actions, according to the code of conduct. They are also required to declare any family members involved in lobbying, including their spouses and 'cohabiting partners'. Lobbying is defined as those working in a professional capacity to attempt to influence, or advise those who want to influence, the Government or public sector at any level. It is not limited to only those who are employed as lobbyists. Mr Lloyd was behind an FBU guide called 'how to lobby your MP' published in 2022. In the guide, which told union members how to ask for their MPs' support for union demands, his email was listed as being available to help 'follow up on all contacts' with politicians. Mr Lloyd (above) was behind an FBU guide called 'how to lobby your MP' published in 2022. In the guide, which told union members how to ask for their MPs' support for union demands, his email was listed as being available to help 'follow up on all contacts' with politicians As a senior researcher and policy officer, Mr Lloyd was involved in various FBU policy campaigns. Last year he was publicly thanked by a senior official for working on 'the contribution that this union made to the Scottish Government's budget considerations'. He was also seconded by the FBU in 2021 to work with Momentum - a leftwing pressure group which campaigns to change the Labour Party - according to a report published by the Campaign for a Democratic FBU. His wife Ms Sultana has called for 'proper funding and resources' for the fire service and has pledged her support for two Early Day Motions introduced on the FBU's behalf in Parliament. During the relationship, she also voted against a Bill requiring unions to provide minimum service levels during strikes - in line with FBU demands. Approached by the MoS, Ms Sultana refused to say whether she thought she should have declared the relationship. Ms Sultana was suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party last summer alongside six other Labour MPs after voting against the Government on the two-child benefit cap. She said: 'As the right wing of the Labour Party are devoid of principles, they can't understand that I support the FBU and other trade unions not because of personal relationships or personal gain, but because I am a trade unionist. I've always stood with workers across the country long before I met my partner, who has never had a role lobbying MPs. His role in the FBU is Senior Researcher, which involves engaging with internal Labour Party processes and liaison with Ministers, neither of which involve me as a backbench MP. 'Trade unions are not lobbyists. They represent working people, the majority of the public, unlike the lobbyists for private business and powerful Governments who have the ear of many other politicians, including Sir Keir Starmer. Unlike them, I don't work for the wealthy or the well-connected. 'This is nothing more than a desperate smear from the Labour right because I called out Peter Mandelson's links to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Morgan McSweeney for copying Enoch Powell's fascist language. For reference: I wouldn't use [the MoS] even if I ran out of toilet paper.' Last night an FBU spokesman said: 'The FBU is proud to campaign for and work closely with Labour MPs who champion the cause of workers' rights at Westminster. 'Our staff and officials played a pivotal role in campaigning to ensure that Labour's General Election manifesto included a plan to extend employment rights such as banning zero-hour contracts and outlawing fire and rehire. 'That was a highly positive intervention by the FBU and a huge step forward for working people. 'The FBU's funding of the Labour Party and election campaigns is completely transparent. It is the cleanest money in politics and is in stark contrast to that of the Tories and Reform UK who are bankrolled by the super rich. 'Every political donation made by the union goes through a democratic process and is agreed by the FBU's elected executive council.'
Telegraph
21-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Starmer's winter fuel U-turn is the surest sign yet of more tax rises
It was the only way to plug the 'black hole' left behind by the last government. It was vital to stop a run on the pound, and it would finally start addressing generational inequalities. We have heard lots of explanations from ministers over the last nine months about why the winter fuel allowance for pensioners had to be abolished. And yet, now it seems that none of it matters. Whether or not the Prime Minister was right to reverse the deeply unpopular policy is almost irrelevant. What matters now is how backbenchers – already smelling weakness under Starmer's miserable leadership – will react. If Left-wing doyenne Zarah Sultana's response is any indication, Labour's plans for welfare reform are now in tatters. Each faction within the party will now feel empowered to demand their own concessions from No. 10, each more expensive to the taxpayer than the last. With a voice that sounds like a Dalek with a bad cold, it is hard to feel much sympathy with the Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Even so, she has a task that few of us will envy. At the next fiscal event she will have to reveal concessions on the winter fuel allowance, a flagship policy that she announced within weeks of taking office. It will be a humiliating experience, and one that will leave her with little remaining credibility either with the markets or the voters. But it is not Reeves's personal discomfort that matters. It will make it impossible for the government to make any further reforms of the welfare system. After all, scrapping the winter fuel allowance was the easiest possible cut to make. Many pensioners are very well off, with more than three million with a net worth of more than £1 million. They can afford to pay for heating without extra help. Even so, Labour's backbenches found it impossible to accept. How will the government force through cuts to Personal Independence Payments given that it may cause some people real problems? How will it scale back escalating disability benefits? Or limit social housing for asylum seekers? And as for the triple lock on pensions, it will be sacrosanct for many more years. We can forget about savings. They won't happen now. And yet, welfare spending is running out of control. The bill is expected to hit £300 billion next year, and even with taxes at record highs it can't be afforded. Britain needs to bring its welfare system under control. The winter fuel allowance was at least a start. After today's U-turn, further reforms will prove impossible – at least until after the country has been bankrupted.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Starmer's winter fuel U-turn is the surest sign yet of more tax rises
It was the only way to plug the 'black hole' left behind by the last government. It was vital to stop a run on the pound, and it would finally start addressing generational inequalities. We have heard lots of explanations from ministers over the last nine months about why the winter fuel allowance for pensioners had to be abolished. And yet, now it seems that none of it matters. Whether or not the Prime Minister was right to reverse the deeply unpopular policy is almost irrelevant. What matters now is how backbenchers – already smelling weakness under Starmer's miserable leadership – will react. If Left-wing doyenne Zarah Sultana's response is any indication, Labour's plans for welfare reform are now in tatters. Each faction within the party will now feel empowered to demand their own concessions from No. 10, each more expensive to the taxpayer than the last. With a voice that sounds like a Dalek with a bad cold, it is hard to feel much sympathy with the Chancellor Rachel Reeves. Even so, she has a task that few of us will envy. At the next fiscal event she will have to reveal concessions on the winter fuel allowance, a flagship policy that she announced within weeks of taking office. It will be a humiliating experience, and one that will leave her with little remaining credibility either with the markets or the voters. But it is not Reeves's personal discomfort that matters. It will make it impossible for the government to make any further reforms of the welfare system. After all, scrapping the winter fuel allowance was the easiest possible cut to make. Many pensioners are very well off, with more than three million with a net worth of more than £1 million. They can afford to pay for heating without extra help. Even so, Labour's backbenches found it impossible to accept. How will the government force through cuts to Personal Independence Payments given that it may cause some people real problems? How will it scale back escalating disability benefits? Or limit social housing for asylum seekers? And as for the triple lock on pensions, it will be sacrosanct for many more years. We can forget about savings. They won't happen now. And yet, welfare spending is running out of control. The bill is expected to hit £300 billion next year, and even with taxes at record highs it can't be afforded. Britain needs to bring its welfare system under control. The winter fuel allowance was at least a start. After today's U-turn, further reforms will prove impossible – at least until after the country has been bankrupted. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
BBC News
17-05-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Police warn of disruption due to Britain First protests in Birmingham
West Midlands Police have warned of potential traffic disruption in Birmingham, as rival protesters rally in the city 200 people supporting Britain First gathered from about midday, kept apart by police from a further 100 counter Midlands Police said there was a planned operation to cover the demonstrations."We have a long history of upholding the right to protest, while balancing it with the rights of others, to keep the public safe and prevent crime and disorder," the force said in a statement. A live stream by the far-right group on X showed a crowd standing outside Birmingham New Street Station holding British and English a claxon sounded, the crowd was seen to walk through the city, letting off red and white smoke flares and chanting the party's name, as well as that of Tommy Robinson, who founded the English Defence himself is not at the protest, but reposted a video of the group marched to the council house steps, kept apart from the nearby rival counter-protest was organised by Stand Up to Racism Birmingham.A statement by the organisation said: "Birmingham belongs to all of us. We will not allow hate to march unchecked through our streets."It was signed by dozens of people and organisations, including Labour MP Zarah Sultana. Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Telegraph
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
What Starmer can learn from the Left-wing country that wants ‘zero refugees'
Sir Keir Starmer's claim that the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers' unless it introduced stricter immigration controls provoked outrage on the Left, amid claims that the Prime Minister was echoing the words of Enoch Powell. Olivia Blake, the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, suggested the phrase could 'risk legitimising the same far-Right violence we saw in last year's summer riots'. Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP who sits as an independent, said it was 'sickening' that Starmer was ' imitating Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech ', adding: 'It adds to anti-migrant rhetoric that puts lives at risk. Shame on you, Keir Starmer.' Yet rather than empowering the far-Right, Starmer may be neutering it. 'There is no doubt in my mind that traditional political parties taking immigration seriously is the reason why we don't have large far-Right parties in Denmark,' says Kaare Dybvad Bek, the Danish immigration minister. 'I think that is true for most European countries – if you take immigration back under democratic control, then you restrict how much the far-Right can grow.' Dybvad Bek is a member of the Social Democrat government in Denmark, a Left-leaning administration that has expanded access to abortion, promotes green energy and is a firm supporter of the country's generous welfare state. Yet there is one area in which they stand apart from other European parties on the Left: immigration. The Social Democrats have a 'zero refugee' policy under which ministers actively look for ways to discourage people from coming to Denmark. For a long time, Denmark's immigration policies were regarded by neighbours with unease or even outright disgust. Now, many other countries are looking to them for inspiration. The Nordic country known for 'hygge' is also pushing for a tougher stance across the EU to make the bloc as a whole less attractive for those seeking refuge. Ministers want an EU-wide approach to outsourcing asylum processing. One of the most outlandish initiatives pursued to make Denmark unappealing was to make it legal to confiscate valuables from refugees to make them pay their way. Under what has become known as the 'jewellery law', the Danish state can strip asylum seekers – be it Syrians, Ukrainians or Afghans – of valuables worth more than 10,000 kr (£1,129), including wedding rings. The Government had used these powers 17 times by mid-2022, although exactly which items were seized is not known. 'The jewellery law is an apt example of something that has very limited practical value in terms of revenue streams into the Danish state and public finances, but it had a lot of symbolic value when it was proposed and also adopted,' says Ditte Brasso Sørensen from the Danish think tank Europa. Another policy that many see as emblematic of the Danes' controversial approach to immigration and integration is the 'ghetto law', since re-christened to the 'parallel societies' policy by the government. It gives the government powers to forcibly move people in areas where at least 50pc of the residents are of non-Western origin if, for example, crime and unemployment rates are high. To do so, the government can tear down or sell off social housing and replace it with private properties, student flats or businesses. Entire apartment blocks in Copenhagen and the second-largest city, Aarhus, have been marked for demolition. The EU's top court ruled the law was discriminatory in February. While judges disapprove, voters back the policies. The Social Democrats have won the last two elections in Denmark, in 2022 and 2019. The latest polling shows they are still by far the most popular party, commanding 22.9pc of the vote – nearly 10 percentage points ahead of the second biggest rival. Meanwhile, the Danish People's Party – typically described as far-Right – accounts for only 4.4pc, down from 21.1pc a decade ago. 'The Danish Social Democrats are quite pro-industry, and they're quite harsh on migration. I think that combination has put them in a very different place than other social democratic parties in Europe,' says Sørensen. They are certainly in an enviable position in comparison to Labour, which has sunk to 22pc in the polls, far behind Nigel Farage's Reform UK on 29pc. The Conservatives, who were criticised for failing to get a grip on immigration, have meanwhile been relegated to third place in the same polls. It is Denmark's approach to people who seek asylum, rather than those pursuing legal immigration, that sets it apart from other countries, says migration expert Jean-Christophe Dumont at the OECD. And its tough laws appear to work. 'Denmark receives fewer asylum seekers than comparable countries. In 2023, they received only 400 asylum seekers per million inhabitants compared to about 10 times that number for Germany,' Dumont says. Dybvad Bek, the Danish immigration minister, says: 'What we can see now is that we have one of the lowest numbers of asylum seekers in Europe. What we have done differently to many other countries, I think, is that we are very effective at returning people. 'We have very few people without the right to stay who have not been returned. We monitor people from their first rejection to the airport.' Denmark has been able to take a different approach to immigration than its EU peers because it has an opt-out clause giving it the power to set its own policies. This dates back to its decision to opt out from the adoption of the euro and certain parts of EU police and justice policy. It uses these powers with gusto. As early as 2021, the government said it would deport some Syrian refugees to areas it deemed safe in the country, which was then still in the throes of a deadly civil war. Rejected asylum seekers receive no financial support and are only entitled to food and shelter until they leave. They are also offered 20,000 DKK (£2,258) if they withdraw their application within two weeks after the initial refusal. A further 20,000 DKK in 'repatriation support' to restart their lives at home is offered, no questions asked. Denmark literally pays migrants to leave. The way Dybvad Bek and the Social Democrats see it, having a strict immigration policy is essential to maintaining the welfare state. The system relies on everyone pulling their weight. It falls apart if you accept lots of newcomers who need financial support. He has little time for critics who accuse their approach of being thinly veiled racism. 'We're not in any way racist. We acknowledge that people must be treated the same regardless of race. We treat people exactly the same regardless of where they are from. But it is completely reasonable to say you don't want mass immigration of people with a completely different culture.' In fact, it is Left-wing to be opposed to mass immigration, he suggests. 'If you're upper class, immigration is a positive for you. Then you have access to lots of cheap labour to clean, drive you around or whatever you want. Therefore, I think it is important to realise as a social democrat that immigration affects those already struggling in our society. This has been our starting point and that is why we have a strict immigration approach.' His advice to Starmer and other leaders struggling to fend off rivals like Farage? 'You must first make your own assessment of the challenges with migration and then adopt a policy that is your own and where you set out what kind of society you wish to see … rather than constantly chasing the Left or the Right. I don't think it is possible to change things in the long-term otherwise.' Whether Starmer has a long-term vision for British society remains to be seen. In opposition, he said Labour must make a 'stronger and wider case on immigration'. Now multicultural Britain risks becoming 'an island of strangers'.
