Latest news with #politicians
Arab News
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Lost cause? Let the people of Lebanon have their say
There is a strange situation in Lebanon. For decades, politicians and their staff have been permanently present on the media scene — commenting, contesting, making their clan's voice heard, and, in short, occupying space. This was true whether in opposition or government. Today, there is a period of quasi-silence. This silence indicates a loss of direction and an inability to read what is coming next regionally. There is another serious and pressing element that is changing the equation: the erosion of security and the impact of the difficult situation in the Syrian Arab Republic. While the new leadership in Syria faces a lot of challenges and risks, the one that presents the biggest danger for Lebanon is not the military clashes between communities, but the lack of order and security, a threat that can easily spread. Syria's security forces are unprepared to fight crime due to corruption, fragmented control, and, as stated, much bigger issues than public safety. This situation creates great instability for Lebanon, as organized crime does not stay within borders. As the new president, Joseph Aoun, came to power, most Lebanese — some politicians included — hoped he would deliver on his promises to restore sovereignty to the country. Many imagined that a negotiated outcome with Hezbollah was possible and that soon Lebanon would be back to its short-lived 'Switzerland of the Middle East' model. Close to seven months later, the optimists — not to call them naive — agree with the cynics of the first hour that this is just quixotic. There was never going to be, and never will be, a negotiated outcome with Hezbollah. We nevertheless need to put things back into perspective. Aoun came to power after Israel defeated Hezbollah using strikes that brought the Iranian proxy to a level of vulnerability never witnessed before. This extreme weakness, and the shell-shocked status of Hezbollah with the change of regime in Syria, made people believe that this was the perfect time. Is it a lost opportunity, just like what happened in the 2000s, not taking the bold step needed and losing the window to make a real change? No one knows. Perhaps, despite years of US support and financing, the Lebanese armed forces still do not represent the stick that can challenge Hezbollah. Or perhaps the answer is simply closer than people think. There is no doubt that even if negotiated, projecting strength would be a necessity. This does not exist today. Organized crime does not stay within borders Khaled Abou Zahr There is also within Lebanon an echo of what we see in Western capitals. We cannot ignore the protest posters in New York showing an image of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with a slogan telling people to be on the right side of history. Yet, there are, even in Lebanon, people who are puzzled about what comes next. This is why it is time to leave the decision to the people in Lebanon. The electoral system for years has been carved out by politicians to accommodate their deals. They have been, in a sense, accomplices of Hezbollah. It is time to ask the people what they want. It is time to put forward two questions to the people of Lebanon. The first is: Do you back the sovereignty of the country? And the second question: Do you prefer a centralized political system or a federation? There also should be a two-level count — one for the entire nation and one for each community. It is now important to see what each community needs and wants for the future. There is no doubt that, for example, today the Sunni community — to which I belong — expects the change of regime in Syria from a pro-Iran to a Sunni one that is representative of the majority of the Syrian population to work to their advantage in the long term. In my opinion, Lebanon's specificity will clash with the uniformity of the Syrian model. This was true yesterday and will still be true tomorrow. The main objective should be to initiate a dialogue Khaled Abou Zahr Yet, it is this entrenched thinking that needs to be destroyed. This historical clan setup has partially been responsible for the ills of the country. Whether Hezbollah or the groups before it, it is the same cycle. I would like to see this setup and political system obliterated. I believe that federalism will bring stability to Lebanon. Yet, perhaps I am a tiny minority within the country or my community. This is why reverting to the people is important. It is also important to have a view of what each community needs and wants. This should be stated by the people and not the clan leaders who have perpetuated the cycles generation after generation. If we believe in the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon, we cannot be influenced by how the geopolitical shifts affect our community in the balance of power. It is contradictory. We need a system that gives each citizen within each community the capacity to lead a stable life. What would be the outcome of such referendums? How to manage fragmented results where a community or a group of communities vote differently? What happens if people vote against the state? Does this mean that all communities can arm themselves again? What if they vote for sovereignty — who will execute the will of the people? There are many unanswered questions. Yet the main objective should be to initiate a dialogue, or perhaps accept that, for now, Lebanon is still a lost cause. Either way, the people will know. And those who wish to be Don Quixote can still carry on.
BBC News
20 hours ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Anonymise politicians' relatives working in Senedd, report says
The names of people related to politicians working in the Senedd should be kept secret from the public, the institution's internal standards body has Members of the Senedd (MSs) are banned from employing their own family, they can be employed by colleagues, as long as it is declared publicly in the register of the nature of the relationship would still be reported, the Senedd's standards said people's names should not be disclosed publicly for safety Wales was told the committee was aware of "several incidences of family members receiving unwanted emails and social media messages because they were related to politicians". Two of the four people on the standards committee, its Labour chair Hannah Blythyn and Plaid Cymru's Peredur Owen Griffiths, have partners who work for other pair declared an interest during the proceedings, but did not stay out of the discussions.A spokesperson for the committee, in a statement, said: "In making this recommendation, the committee sought to balance openness with the need to protect the safety of loved ones. "This is one recommendation amongst several intended to improve transparency around the declaration of interests by members."The measure would need to be agreed by Senedd politicians, who are currently on recess. The recommendation followed an inquiry into how MSs register and declare include requiring MSs to put a price on any gifts received and on overseas visits, and registering how much money they receive for work outside of the a forward to a report on the inquiry, Hannah Blythyn said the changes it was proposing "will encourage transparency and consistency".Among the 14 requests is that an "exception" is made for publishing the name of family members, where they are employed by other MSs."As well as increasing transparency, the committee was mindful of the need to minimise the release of information about family members, simply for being related to an elected member," Blythyn wrote."To that end, we agreed that publishing the names of family members employed by other members on the register was an unnecessary risk to their safety, and will be removing this requirement from the seventh Senedd onwards."Blythyn's report showed that both the standards commissioner Douglas Bain and the Labour Senedd group supported the told the committee there was "no significant advantage in publishing the name".The Labour group in a letter to the committee: "Family members who are employed by Members of the Senedd are not public figures and the group strongly believes that additional measures are now required to protect their identity as part of the Senedd's wider commitment to protecting staff and members from abuse and threats to their personal security." Blythyn, and committee colleague Peredur Owen Griffiths, both declared an interest at a meeting in April 2025 as both of their partners work for their party wife works for First Minister Eluned Morgan, while Owen Griffiths' wife works for Plaid Cymru MS Sioned earlier version of the inquiry report, published on the Senedd website, omitted the declaration. The Senedd said this was an "admin error".Blythyn and Owen Griffiths were both approached for comment.
CTV News
a day ago
- Politics
- CTV News
Will B.C. lower the voting age?
Vancouver Watch The move to lower the voting age in the U.K. to 16 has caught the eye of some politicians here in B.C.
Bloomberg
2 days ago
- Bloomberg
Why Deepfakes Are Flooding Social Media, and What Can Be Done
The internet is awash in deepfakes — audio, pictures or video made using artificial intelligence tools in which people appear to do or say things they didn't, be somewhere they weren't, or that change their appearance. Some involve nudification, where photos are altered to depict someone unclothed. Other deepfakes are deployed to scam consumers, or to damage the reputations of politicians and other people in the public eye. Advances in AI mean it takes just a few taps on a keyboard to conjure up a realistic deepfake. Alarmed governments are trying to fight back, but it's been a losing battle. Fraud attempts using deepfakes have grown more than 20-fold in the past three years, according to data from identity verification company Signicat.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Labour will learn it can't balance the books on the backs of pensioners
Here we go again. Another review of state pension age (SPA), heralding further increases in the starting age for the National Insurance (NI) pension safety net. Our state pension – one of the lowest in the developed world – is the social insurance retirement 'safety net', designed as a minimum amount that people too old to work will live on in retirement for the rest of their lives. The deal has always been that those paying into the insurance system all their lives will be supported when they need to stop working in the future. Over the years, however, successive reforms have meant the system no longer seems to reflect those original social aims. Regardless of how long you have paid in, and whether or not you can genuinely keep working because of ill-health or caring duties, the Government expects you to just keep working longer before starting your state pension. Currently 66, by 2028, SPA will be 67. Further increases to 68 are already planned. There are widespread worries that the demographic pressures of many more over-60s and fewer younger people will place unsupportable pressures on the public purse. This leads policymakers to conclude that rising the average life expectancy justifies expecting everyone to longer. But this ignores important elements of modern Britain. Not everyone can manage to keep waiting longer for basic retirement support. Of course, people with other pensions, (including officials and politicians who make the policy decisions) will have money to tide them over for years until their state pension starts. But what about those who are not so fortunate? Many will be plunged into penury, trying to manage on meagre out-of-work benefits, despite having decades-long NI contribution records. I believe average life expectancy is not an appropriate indicator of whether or not everyone can keep working longer. By definition, half the population will be below the average. Their circumstances shouldn't be ignored. This new review's remit covers fairness between generations and state pension sustainability. So it must consider more factors than just starting age. It should include proper recognition of the enormous twenty-year differential in healthy life expectancy across the country. The worst-off groups are already in poor health before their sixties, but the best-off stay fit and healthy into their early-seventies. Since the pandemic and subsequent NHS dislocations, many older workers' health has worsened, making it vital to consider fairness within generations, not just worrying about younger versus older people. Studies have shown that increasing SPA to 66 resulted in a significant rise in poverty among 65-year-olds. The least healthy are also less likely to have other income. Future pensioners are also facing lower pensions as traditional employer-guaranteed income is replaced, for private sector workers, by pension funds that are dependent on investment success and potentially vulnerable to tax raids. Of course, continually jacking up SPA is a marvellous money-saving mechanism for any government. It's the easiest policy lever to pull to save money on pensioner support. However, there are other ways to cut state pension costs. Currently, just 35 years of NI qualifies for a full state pension. This is nowhere near a full working life. People with health or caring issues, and a 50-year NI record, still cannot receive a penny of state pension before age 66. Just forcing people to keep working longer, for less pension, is not sustainable. Ill-health early payments should be considered for people in poorer health, including heavy manual labour workers, with no private pension and decades-long NI records. Providing early access to pension credit, or early retirement payments for carers and those in poorest health, would still save money, while also recognising those at the bottom of the health and wealth distribution in their sixties, who have so far been abandoned.
