Markus Andrews

A network of food banks have warned they are bracing for “what looks set to be the busiest and most difficult winter on record”, with a “perfect storm” of impending policy changes expected to push even more people into poverty.While the coronavirus crisis was estimated to have forced tens of thousands of people to turn to food banks for the first time last year, the forecast from the Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN) – which represents more than 500 food banks in the UK – for the second winter of the pandemic appears bleaker still.The group’s co-ordinator, Sarah Goodwin, pointed to three “devastating” changes, all planned for October: the overnight loss of the £20 Universal Credit uplift; the end of the furlough scheme; and a “dramatic” increase in energy prices as the regulator Ofgem raises a cap on the most widely-used tariffs.“The scale of the disaster about to unfold cannot be overestimated,” Ms Goodwin wrote in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on Thursday.“Independent food banks have come to expect a busy August as the UK’s social security safety net continues to be eroded,” she added. “As parents try to find ways of scraping together the cost of new school uniforms and taking care of their children through the school summer holidays, money for food runs dry. “But this summer is different – there is a sense of foreboding among members of the Independent Food Aid Network.”Despite the work of campaigners, Ms Goodwin warned “matters are about to get much worse”. She added: “Food banks are trying to prepare as best they can for what looks set to be the busiest and most difficult winter on record.”Some 15 million households are expected to see their bills increase by at least £139 in October, in what has been reported as the largest hike in energy prices in a decade. Ofgem has blamed the increase of the cap – first introduced in January 2019 to tackle “rip-off” prices – on a 50 per cent spike in wholesale energy costs over the past six months. This rise occurred as inflation jumped amid the easing of pandemic restrictions.Speaking earlier this month, the regulator’s chief executive, Jonathan Brearley, admitted it was “extremely difficult news for many people”, but said: “Across the sector the profit margin is actually zero, so right now companies are making what it costs them to sell the energy they sell. What we can’t do as a regulator is ask them to sell the energy for less than it costs them to buy.”And with the furlough scheme set to end on 30 September, having helped fund 11 million people’s wages since the pandemic began, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research predicts the official unemployment rate will rise around half a percentage point after furlough ends – totalling 160,000 more people out of work.Meanwhile, campaigners and MPs have furiously opposed the government’s planned removal of the Universal Credit uplift, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) warned on Thursday would hit more than one in three working-age families with children in nearly every constituency across the country.The charity described the move – confirmed by Boris Johnson last month – as the “biggest overnight cut in benefits since the Second World War”, which it said will have “deep and far-reaching consequences on families with children across Britain”.The chair of Kirkcaldy food bank, Joyce Leggate, was quoted in the BMJ as saying: “Very few of our clients are able to withstand any reduction in their benefit level, never mind this savage cut as winter is approaching and household bills will rise again. “As a food bank, we do not know if and how we will be able to provide the support that will inevitably be needed.”Citing Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) data which suggested that, between April 2019 and March 2020, some 43 per cent of households relying on the pre-pandemic rate of Universal Credit were food insecure, Ms Goodwin said the government’s own statistics “reveal that the £20 increase to Universal Credit payments was essential”.And demand for food banks has already been rising. According to the Trussell Trust, the UK’s largest food bank provider, it distributed 2.5 million emergency food parcels to people in crisis between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021. This represented a 33 per cent increase on the previous year, and some 980,000 of these parcels went to children.Both the IFAN and JRF urged the government to abandon its plans to axe the uplift – a call supported by six former work and pensions secretaries and reportedly scores of Tory MPs. “It’s poverty that is at the heart of the ever-worsening food insecurity crisis and only bold actions that increase people’s incomes will make the difference that counts,” Ms Goodwin added.Katie Schmuecker, deputy director of policy and partnerships at the JRF, said: “Plunging low-income families into deeper poverty and debt, as well as sucking billions of pounds out of local economies, is no way to level up.“It’s not too late for the prime minister and chancellor to listen to the huge opposition to this damaging cut and change course.”But speaking on Thursday morning, Mr Johnson indicated the cut was still set to go ahead, saying: “My strong preference is for people to see their wages rise through their efforts rather than through taxation of other people put into their pay packets.”Citing a December 2020 report linking austerity to a post-pandemic health crisis, Ms Goodwin said: “The impact of the pandemic on pre-existing health inequalities is already widely recognised. The cut to Universal Credit will inevitably deepen health inequalities, yet further.” A DWP spokeperson said: “The temporary uplift to Universal Credit and furlough scheme are part of a £400bn support package which has helped families through the financial disruption of the toughest stages of the pandemic, and our £429.1m Covid Local Support Grant was introduced to support families with food costs.“We extended them beyond the easing of restrictions. Now, with record vacancies available alongside the successful vaccination rollout, it’s right that we focus on our Plan for Jobs, helping claimants to increase their earnings by boosting their skills and getting into work, progressing in work or increasing their hours, with Universal Credit providing a vital welfare safety net.” More

Boris Johnson’s food tsar says he believes the government will still implement some of the measures put forward in his policy blueprint – despite Boris Johnson’s rejection of one of its key pillars within hours of publication.Henry Dimbleby, who is co-founder of the Leon chain of restaurants, published the National Food Strategy last month, warning that people must cut their meat intake by up to a third and calling for salt and sugar taxes to change the way the nation eats.But on the day the report – which took two years to put together and had input from hundreds of experts – was released, the prime minister said he was “not attracted” to the idea of levies on salt and sugar to tackle junk food and obesity.Mr Dimbleby said: “I don’t see Boris’s reported dismissal of it as the kind of death knell it was portrayed as in some quarters. I see it as the PM being bounced into something after a speech about levelling up and saying he ‘would study the report with interest’ but was ‘not attracted to extra taxes on hardworking people’. Who could disagree with that? “My guess is that the PM hadn’t read the report which is almost 200 pages long when he spoke. And actually the purpose of the sugar and salt tax is to force big food companies to reformulate their sugar and salt content, so it won’t necessarily lead to more tax.” Mr Dimbleby said the sugar levy on soft drinks in 2018 had led to a number of drinks being reformulated to reduce sugar levels by almost a third so that prices for consumers did not rise. It came after a 2015 study revealed the scale of the sugar problem – finding that 22 per cent of adults in the UK consume sweets and/or chocolate every day with 44 per cent eating them several times a week.He said that it was now widely recognised that government action was crucial in order to make progress and break the hugely damaging junk food cycle. “The food companies are privately telling government that it requires their intervention as there is no way food companies will do it unilaterally because the economics don’t work,” he said. “Speaking to people in the Treasury, I feel reassured and I can say the government recognise this and also that the NHS will be overrun if they don’t address this.”Carbon labelling, he added, was another area where a Government call to action would be crucial to get companies acting together to bring change. His views come as the world’s leading authority on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, produced a “code red” report this month warning that without urgent new policy measures to shift the global economy to a low-carbon footing, we face “unprecedented and irreversible” changes that will bring widespread devastation. Carbon footprint labels serve as a quick read for consumers to evaluate the climate impact of a product and motivate producers to cut emissions. Last month The Independent revealed that Unilever would begin carbon labelling for the first time -marking a key moment in the shift to badge products with their cost to the planet – and how their move had split the industry. Early adopters such as Quorn Foods supported their initiative but the British Retail Consortium, the trade body representing UK retailers, said unilateralism was “not helpful” because a single universal approach has not yet been agreed, and Nestlé, which has over 2,000 brands, argued that “nobody should strike out with their own method” because “collaboration is essential”.But Mr Dimbleby backed Unilever’s move. “My view regarding Unilever’s initiative is that companies pushing ahead on their own and introducing carbon labels is a good thing,” he said. “They will doubtless discover problems along the way, as well as what works. To tell them they must wait for everyone else to agree the way forward before they proceed is to stifle innovation and we don’t want to destroy innovation. But we also need the government to step in and play a role here so that we can have consistency as in nutritional labelling.”He added: “I am convinced that the primary power of sustainability labelling on packaging is less about the impact on the consumer and more that it fires up companies and changes the behaviour of food producers. Companies hate having ‘red lights’ on their packs and they will compete to improve their brands and have the lowest footprint.Carbon footprints – measured as a carbon dioxide equivalent value – show environmental cost from farm to fork, but can also be displayed using a green-yellow-red traffic light system.Mr Dimbleby added that he was in favour of companies agreeing on a broader impact measure. “Carbon footprint labelling is too narrow a sustainability measure. We will need a broader, composite label that also incorporates a product’s impact on biodiversity loss, deforestation, water usage and methane and nitrogen emissions.”But Mr Dimbleby said the only way to break the deadlock and get companies to work together is government intervention. “One of the recommendations of our strategy was that Government has a critical role to play to bring industry together to ensure consistency on sustainability measurements and labels, like we have with nutritional labels. The state needs to move quickly, but I am heartened that a lot of people in government see this as important. I am confident that environmental footprint labelling will happen.” More

Sadiq Khan has told the organisers of an arms fair due to take place in London next month to cancel their event and not come back to the city.In letters seen by The Independent, the mayor said the fair’s presence in London was insulting to people who had escaped violence and made London their home, and that it threatened investment in the city’s Docklands, as well as costing too much to police. He argued that the capital was “home to many people who have fled conflict and suffered as a consequence” of weapons “like those exhibited at DSEI”.“For it to be used as a marketplace for those who wish to trade in weapons to some countries that contribute to human rights abuses goes completely against our values.”DSEI, which stands for Defence and Security Equipment International, sees 1,600 exhibitors, selling weapons from sniper rifles and tanks to combat aircraft and warships, presenting to more than 30,000 attendees.The arms fair extends invitations to governments and militaries around the world, including many that are involved in conflict or that openly abuse human rights.Around two-thirds of countries classified as “not free” because of their human rights records received weapons licensed by the UK government over the past decade, according to research by Campaign Against the Arms Trade – with DSEI representing a major marketing opportunity.In his letters to the organisers the mayor cited the cost of policing the event, which in 2019 – in light of “significant opposition” to its presence – cost over £2.5m and involved 5,609 police officers.“I strongly urge you to reconsider this year’s event and any plans you have to host future events in the city,” he said in a letter to Grant Burgham, the event’s director.Mr Khan announced last year that he was relocating City Hall to the part of Docklands where, coincidentally, the event takes place, in order to save cash.But in his letter he said that he was “becoming increasingly concerned” about the impact the arms fair might have on securing investment and change in the area. In a letter responding to Mr Khan, event director Mr Burgham said: “The event serves only the interests of the legitimate defence and security industry, which is the most highly and tightly regulated in the world. “Teams from HMRC, BEIS, DIT-ECJU and the other Government agencies responsible for enforcing the law at DSEI are on site during setup and throughout the exhibition.”We will be welcoming ministers from the UK Government, as well as MPs from across Parliament, who will meet British companies and underscore the important role that the defence and security sector plays. International Official Defence Delegations are also invited to attend by the Department for International Trade, providing delegates with the opportunity to see equipment, much of it British-made, up close.”He said the organisers “respect the right to lawful protest”.Kirsten Bayes, a spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade, which campaigns against DSEI said: “The Mayor is absolutely right that this arms fair should not be taking place in September. He is also right to point out that so many people fleeing conflicts globally have made their home in East London where the fair is due to take place: it will have a huge impact practically and emotionally on local people.”Our view is that holding arms fairs anywhere is wrong: the industry makes its profits through creating death and disaster around the world. Local communities have stood up against these fairs wherever they have been held across the country, whether that is Liverpool or Glasgow, Bristol or Birmingham. Our country needs to say no to the trade in dreadful weapons, stand up for peace and human rights and put an end to these arms fairs.”The mayor’s written intervention goes beyond his previous criticism in which he urged organisers to “reconsider hosting the fair in London in future”. As mayor he has little power to prevent the event from taking place. More

The last dedicated flight purely to evacuate civilians from Afghanistan has left Kabul, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.Further flights leaving from the city’s airport would be able to carry evacuees but would also be transporting UK diplomatic staff and military personnel as the operation winds down.It comes after UK ambassador to Afghanistan Laurie Bristow said it was “time to close this phase” of the evacuation effort, which has seen nearly 15,000 people brought to safety.Boris Johnson on Friday night spoke of his “great sense of regret” at those left behind – while Foreign Affairs Committee chair Tom Tugendhat warned of the risk of the “biggest hostage crisis the UK has ever seen” if interpreters and other staff, as well as remaining British citizens, are held by the Taliban.Speaking on Saturday Mr Tugendhat has described the UK’s efforts to withdraw people from Afghanistan as a “sprint finish after a not exactly sprint start”.Asked whether he could have done better, he told BBC Breakfast: “In the last week, probably not, but this has been a sprint finish after a not exactly sprint start.“There’s been many of us giving pressure to improve the processing of people who we think we have a duty of care to over the months and years.“There are going to be questions to be asked to the Foreign Secretary about the processing in the UK in recent weeks that we’re going to have to see what the answers are.“I’m sure that the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary are all looking at this very carefully. I know, because I spoke to all three in the last 12 hours, that they are really doing their best to get this last level of processing done.”Ambassador Sir Laurie – who has remained in Afghanistan processing those who needed to leave the country – said: “The team here have been working until the very last moment to evacuate British nationals, Afghans and others at risk.”Since 13 August, we’ve brought nearly 15,000 people to safety, and about 1,000 military, diplomatic, civilian personnel have worked on Operation Pitting in Kabul, many, many more elsewhere.”Thursday’s terrorist attack was a reminder of the difficult and dangerous conditions in which Operation Pitting has been done. And sadly I attended here yesterday the ceremony to pay our respects to the 13 US soldiers who died.”Shadow defence secretary John Healey said he expected all remaining British troops, who are facilitating the evacuation, to be withdrawn from the country within 24 hours.The Labour MP said the operation had been “very dangerous and desperate” as he praised the troops involved.But he told Sky News: “This is the brutal truth, despite getting more than 14,000 people out, there are probably 1,000 Afghans who have worked with us over two decades in Afghanistan, helped our troops, our aid workers, our diplomats, that we promised to protect, but we’re leaving behind.“And I know those troops in particular will feel our failure on this as a country is a betrayal of many of those who risked their own lives to work alongside us.“And I think what’s important now is that we may be giving up the airport, but we cannot give up on the Afghan people or fighting to try and protect the gains that they and our troops and our diplomats and aid workers have worked so hard over two decades to gain in Afghanistan.” More

The government’s international trade department is to recruit 100 people at a new site in Darlington, in the latest cash injection for a Tory marginal seat.The vacancies at the so-called “UK Trade and Investment North” campus are to be advertised in the coming weeks. And one of the department’s five directors-general will be based permanently in the city, with the final headcount expected to rise to 500 by 2030.Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, who is feted in the Conservative Party for his role in turning large areas of Labour territory blue, described the investment as “a huge coup for our region”. But the decision to move the jobs comes as the government faces a legal battle over startling claims it is directing state investments to favour marginal constituencies. Boris Johnson is facing a legal battle over whether his party has been funnelling taxpayer cash into Tory areas in an effort to accrue political advantage.The High Court will decide whether the prime minister’s separate £4.8bn “Levelling Up Fund” unlawfully and systematically sent cash to areas considered to be “of political benefit to the Conservative Party”.Judges agreed to hear a legal challenge brought by the Good Law Project, stating: “The grounds are arguable.”The House of Commons’ cross-party Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have each cast doubt on the selection process for that fund. Forty out of the first 45 schemes to be approved for it had at least one Conservative MP. One study by Royal Holloway University found that there “is robust evidence that ministers chose towns so as to benefit the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats”.In that context, the decision to move jobs to Mr Houchen’s back yard may be viewed with suspicion – with the Conservatives keen to shore up support in their new heartland.International trade secretary Liz Truss said the latest recruitment drive was part of the government’s aim to create an “export-led economy [by which] we can address geographic inequality and boost growth across the nations and regions”.But far from being export-led or private-sector led, the announcement shows that so far the government is relying on state investment to bring benefits to areas like Darlington.In fact, UK exports to Europe saw a post-Brexit slump from which they are only in recent months starting to recover. Despite government rhetoric, exports to other parts of the world have failed to show significant growth. The government ultimately intends that 50 per cent of senior civil service jobs will be based outside London, and has already announced relocations to Belfast, Stoke and Edinburgh.The latest UK Trade and Investment North jobs will be based at a new economic campus alongside civil servants working for the Treasury, business department, communities ministry, and the Office for National Statistics. More

Boris Johnson is facing criticism after footage emerged of him talking to employees at the government’s Afghanistan crisis centre.The prime minister’s approach was branded “flippant” and “uncaring” by critics, some of whom likened the footage to to an awkward scene from a fly-on-the-wall comedy.In the video, aired on the BBC’s Newsnight programme, the prime minister approaches an employee and says: “Are you the guys inundated with all the emails from everywhere in the world saying, please help my son, mother to get out of Afghanistan? I’ve had a few of those.”The footage, which has been widely shared on social media, triggered condemnation from opposition politicians.Labour shadow cabinet minister Luke Pollard noted that there were still people including children waiting to be evacuated, commenting: “This is the person in charge right now”.Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said: “These flippant remarks show Boris Johnson in his true light, uncaring and unable to master the detail during this awful crisis.“The emails he refers to are from desperate family and friends worried that the Taliban will kill their loved ones.“Perhaps if Boris Johnson had understood and planned for the dangers of the Kabul evacuation, thousands of people would not be at crisis point.”The head of the armed forces announced on Saturday morning that the UK’s civilian evacuation from Kabul would be winding up today, with the final British military personnel to be evacuated soon after.The prime minister on Friday night spoke of his “great sense of regret” that some people could not be evacuated from Afghanistan. He said: “Of course, as we come down to the final hours of the operation there will sadly be people who haven’t got through, people who might qualify.” More

Britain’s civilian evacuation mission in Afghanistan will end later on Saturday, the head of the armed forces has said.Speaking in the morning ahead of the final day of airlifts General Sir Nick Carter said “very few” civilian evacuation flights were still taking place.”We’re reaching the end of the evacuation, which will take place during the course of today. And then it will be necessary to bring our troops out on the remaining aircraft,” he told the BBC.Follow Afghanistan news – live: US drone strike ‘kills Isis planner’ after Kabul attack “We haven’t been able to bring everyone out, and that has been heart-breaking. And there have been some very challenging judgements that have had to be made on the ground.” But the armed forces head insisted that the final stages were “going according to plan”, as opposition parties warned Britain’s “failure” in Afghanistan would be seen as a “betrayal”. Shadow defence secretary John Healey said he expected all remaining British troops, who are facilitating the evacuation, to be withdrawn from the country within 24 hours.The Labour MP said the operation had been “very dangerous and desperate” as he praised the troops involved. But he told Sky News: “This is the brutal truth, despite getting more than 14,000 people out, there are probably 1,000 Afghans who have worked with us over two decades in Afghanistan, helped our troops, our aid workers, our diplomats, that we promised to protect, but we’re leaving behind.”And I know those troops in particular will feel our failure on this as a country is a betrayal of many of those who risked their own lives to work alongside us.”And I think what’s important now is that we may be giving up the airport, but we cannot give up on the Afghan people or fighting to try and protect the gains that they and our troops and our diplomats and aid workers have worked so hard over two decades to gain in Afghanistan.”Boris Johnson on Friday night spoke of his “great sense of regret” at those left behind. He said: “Of course, as we come down to the final hours of the operation there will sadly be people who haven’t got through, people who might qualify.”The prime minister added he would “shift heaven and earth” and “use all the leverage we have with the Taliban” to secure safe passage for Afghans whose service makes them the target for reprisals. But there was no indication of any further UK efforts to remove people from the country itself after the last British troops leave this weekend.It came as Conservative chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, former soldier Tom Tugendhat, warned of the risk of the “biggest hostage crisis the UK has ever seen” if interpreters and other staff, as well as remaining British citizens, are held by the Taliban, telling Sky News: “This is what defeat looks like.”Speaking on Saturday Mr Tugendhat has described the UK’s efforts to withdraw people from Afghanistan as a “sprint finish after a not exactly sprint start”.Asked whether he could have done better, he told BBC Breakfast: “In the last week, probably not, but this has been a sprint finish after a not exactly sprint start.”There’s been many of us giving pressure to improve the processing of people who we think we have a duty of care to over the months and years.”There are going to be questions to be asked to the Foreign Secretary about the processing in the UK in recent weeks that we’re going to have to see what the answers are.”I’m sure that the Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary are all looking at this very carefully. I know, because I spoke to all three in the last 12 hours, that they are really doing their best to get this last level of processing done.”He added: “For those of us who have been working 24/7 for the best part of the last several weeks trying to get as many people who stood by us out, this has been a very difficult time.”We’ll certainly be looking backwards, as well as forwards, because if this were ever to happen again we need to make sure that we do not find ourselves leaving hundreds, possibly even thousands, of people behind.”Three British nationals were reportedly among more than 180 victims killed in Thursday’s terror attack on Kabul airport.The deaths of two adults and the child of a third Briton were announced by foreign secretary Dominic Raab on Friday evening as the RAF completed its evacuation of 13,708 people from Afghanistan ahead of the 31 August deadline for foreign forces to leave the country.The three UK fatalities are believed to have been among crowds of thousands queuing outside the Hamid Karzai International Airport in the desperate hope of securing a place on one of the last evacuation flights. A further two British nationals, including a child of under 10, were being evacuated after being injured in the blast, claimed by Islamic State. More

The UK is on the brink of signing a trade agreement with New Zealand which is expected to mirror Britain’s controversial deal with Australia over agricultural imports, The Independent can reveal.Two people familiar with the negotiations expect an agreement in principle, which is a commitment made ahead of signing a trade pact, to land next week.There are final hurdles to clear on sensitive areas such as the phasing out of some quotas and tariffs on meat and dairy imports, according to a different trade department insider. But these are likely to be tackled in phone calls scheduled for the next couple of days, they said.Diary invites have also been sent to some key business and advisory groups for briefings on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the detail of an agreement. These invites, seen by The Independent, state that sessions will provide an update on the pact “which is expected to be achieved and announced imminently”. The language is similar to invites sent out to business groups when the announcement of the Australian agreement was made, but while that deal was agreed by prime minister Boris Johnson and his counterpart Scott Morrison in person, the choreography of an announcement will be different this time. Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, is not expected to come to the UK until the UN Climate Summit Cop26 in Glasgow this autumn, at the earliest.Yet one person familiar with the talks said they are optimistic that some final kinks will be smoothed out “within the next few days”, even if a formal announcement is made later on. A trade department spokesperson said that talks were ongoing, but “we will not sacrifice quality for speed.”“Both sides are committed to concluding a high-quality free trade agreement that will be a win-win for both countries. Negotiating teams have been accelerating talks to reach an agreement in principle and are making great progress, but we will not sign a deal unless it is right for British businesses and consumers,” the spokesperson added. New Zealand’s economy is relatively small, and a trade deal is unlikely have a significant impact in terms of UK GDP. Total trade in goods and services between the two nations was £2.3bn last year, according to the British government. However, as a wealthy, English-speaking country with close historical ties to the UK, there are a range of services industries that could benefit from the deal. Legal professionals are among those hoping to secure better market access, with a deal making it easier for them to practice in one another’s countries.Labour mobility has been a sticking point in talks because of the hard-line stance New Zealand’s government has taken on border controls in response to the pandemic. Calculations used to determine the country’s visa provisions for Brits were thrown into question because the border has effectively been closed to most travellers and it is not expected to be reopened until 2022. Still, people familiar with the talks are optimistic that a trade deal would open up business travel, reducing red tape, in non-pandemic times.Agriculture is likely to prove the most controversial aspect of the deal, in the wake of controversy surrounding the agreement reached with Australia. This New Zealand deal is expected to mirror that with Canberra, largely lifting quotas and tariffs on meat imports within the next decade.Cutting tariffs does not always result in goods becoming cheaper for consumers, but it can make a market more attractive for exporters. The UK government said last week that British products such as chocolate, gin and clothes could benefit from a 10 per cent reduction on import duties in New Zealand, under an agreement. Meanwhile New Zealand’s wine exporters could see tariffs equivalent to 20 pence a bottle removed in the UK. However, retailers and suppliers might just absorb such a reduction in the face of mounting global cost pressures in sectors such as shipping. More significant than the bilateral deal between London and Wellington is the need to maintain New Zealand’s support for the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The trade bloc of 11 nations includes Australia and New Zealand. Joining the trade group is a key part of the UK’s effort to diversify its trade activity away from the EU post-Brexit. Joining the trade group is also part of a wider British security and defense effort to “tilt” towards the Asia Pacific amid growing concern over China’s geopolitical role. Benefits from joining CPTPP are likely to be over the long, rather than short term, according to economists. So far official modelling, which relies upon historic data, has suggested a negligible immediate impact of a less than 1 per cent increase in GDP from joining the bloc. More