Markus Andrews

Nato chief Mark Rutte has called for a 400 per cent boost to air and missile capabilities – and his demand to raise defence spending across the alliance to 5 per cent has raised the voices of doom to a scream.A return to Cold War levels of defence spending is not, however, a hysterical plea from a lackey of the military-industrial complex.It is a sad acknowledgement that the peace dividend that came with the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered by the West in a pointless war in Afghanistan and a criminal conflict in Iraq which expanded the list of peoples with a good reason to hate democracy.But there were plenty around already. Vladimir Putin is one of them, Xi Jinping is another – Donald Trump is rushing to their ranks. Autocracy is on the rise around the world while democracies have been consumed by complacency.“Wishful thinking will not keep us safe,” said Rutte, who called for Nato to become a “stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance”.Russian soldiers ride an Akatsiya self-propelled gun in an undisclosed location in Ukraine More

British people “better learn to speak Russian” if Sir Keir Starmer does not massively ramp up defence spending, the Nato secretary general has warned. Mark Rutte said he was “really impressed” by the prime minister’s strategic defence review unveiled last week. And he called for Nato countries to set a “credible path” towards spending 5 per cent of their national incomes on defence amid the growing threat from Russia. Speaking at London’s Chatham House, Mr Rutte said it is “not up to me” whether that means Rachel Reeves should consider tax hikes to pay for the commitment. He added: “I mean, what I know is that if we want to keep our societies safe… look, if you do not do this, if you would not go to the 5%, including the 3.5% core defence spending, you could still have the National Health Service, or in other countries their health systems, the pension system, etcetera, but you had better learn to speak Russian.” Sir Keir Starmer welcomed Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte to Downing Street (PA) More

As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism.Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation’s concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line.Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: “We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.”The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a “headless chicken” reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction.Here’s what you had to say:Both parties wanted means testing beforeI expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone’s forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only.It was, in fact, in the Conservatives’ 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think.RickCWhat are your views on the winter fuel payment? Have your say in the commentsNot a U-turn, just a high thresholdIt’s not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they’ve raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they’ve set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill.KrakenUKMeans test still not rightMeans test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income.We’re both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we’ve got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do.WokeUp4,000 lives at riskThe enduring problem is that the government’s own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don’t understand economics?MrBishiWe manage, give it to those who need itI’ve always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I’m on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab.IanWhy should wealthy pensioners get it?I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won’t get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they’ve more than likely paid their mortgage and don’t have to spend money on children, etc., any more?OnlyFishLeftSocial care funding was the original pointI expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone’s forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only.It was, in fact, in the Conservatives’ 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think.RickCHelp paying the gas bill on £35k?Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill?Truly outrageous.This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below.BigDogSmallBrainA compromise, but poorly communicatedThis sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn’t have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage.ruthmayjellingsWhat if one earns over the limit?I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That’s not very clear.SteveHillWhy not last year?Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high.No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year?And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it?Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer.ListenVeryCarefullySome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

Last week’s exclusive weekly polling for The Independent is perhaps the biggest indication of why Rachel Reeves has performed a huge U-turn on winter fuel.The breakdown of theTechne UK weekly tracker poll revealed that 36 per cent of pensioners now plan to vote for Nigel Farage’s Reform UK — a full 20 points ahead of Labour’s 16 per cent.As any political analyst or experienced campaigner will know, the group of voters most likely to vote are pensioners. Which may explain why pensioners with a joint income of £75,000 will now get the winter fuel payment — but hard up younger voters who cannot even get a mortgage are left to struggle.The same logic has applied to the increasingly unaffordable triple lock on the state pension rise each year while the government looks to slash benefits for the disabled and says it cannot afford to expand child benefit to more than two children per family.Farage reads out a front page article on his words on winter fuel More

Sir Sadiq Khan has urged Rachel Reeves to give London more funding in this week’s spending review, suggesting she is not willing to give the capital any money for transport projects. The London mayor has fought for support for several transport requests, as well as the power to introduce a tourist levy. He has also called for a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. But sources close to Sir Sadiq now say it would be “unacceptable” if London is not given the required money to carry out the projects.In a rare attack on the Labour government, they warned the chancellor now to return to the “anti-London agenda” pursued by Conservative governments. Sir Sadiq Khan’s office is concerned that the spending review could contain no new projects or funding for London More

Rachel Reeves has confirmed a major U-turn with almost all the pensioners she took winter fuel payments from last year set to have them returned. In a decision which could cost the Treasury £1.25bn, the chancellor announced that all those who qualify for the state pension on incomes of £35,000 or less will now qualify for the winter fuel payment.This means that 9 million of the nearly 11 million who lost the annual support last year will get it back. The other 2 million will either have to opt out or pay the benefit back.The U-turn comes just two days before the chancellor is set to publish her spending review after difficult negotiations on cuts with government departments.Rachel Reeves has U-turned on winter fuel More

The British government on Monday reversed its unpopular plan to end winter home heating subsidies for millions of retirees.British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had signaled the u-turn last month after a loud outcry from the public and some members of his Labour Party who thought the relatively modest 1.5 billion-pound ($2 billion) savings were too politically costly.Treasury chief Rachel Reeves, who canceled the payment for home heating on all but the poorest retirees after Labour came to power last summer, said the benefit would be restored to 9 million people, or three-quarters of pensioners, in England and Wales whose incomes are below 35,000 pounds ($47,500). Reeves said the move was necessary last year because the previous Conservative government had left public finances in a dire state.“Targeting winter fuel payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government,” Reeves said. “It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest.”The payments are worth between 200 and 300 pounds ($271 and $406) a year. The reversal will cost the government 1.25 billion, Reeve said.Canceling the payments for most people last winter was blamed for contributing to Starmer’s swift decline in popularity after his party came to power in a landslide. He was blamed for punishing elderly people on limited incomes who struggled to make ends meet during a cost-of-living crisis. Labour fared poorly in local elections in England last month, with many party representatives blaming the removal of the winter fuel payment. Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, quickly pounced on Starmer’s about-face.“Keir Starmer has scrambled to clear up a mess of his own making,” she said. “This humiliating u-turn will come as scant comfort to the pensioners forced to choose between heating and eating last winter. The prime minister should now apologize for his terrible judgment.” More

More than £1 billion has been paid in financial redress to subpostmasters wronged by the Horizon IT scandal, the Government has said.The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) said money has now been paid out to more than 7,300 subpostmasters across all Horizon-related redress schemes.The announcement comes just weeks after lead campaigner and former subpostmaster Sir Alan Bates said the schemes had “turned into quasi-kangaroo courts”.Sir Alan told the Sunday Times last month that DBT “sits in judgement of the claims and alters the goal posts as and when it chooses”.Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 subpostmasters were prosecuted after faulty Horizon accounting software made it look as though money was missing from their accounts.Many are still awaiting compensation.In figures published on Monday, DBT said £559 million has been paid out to 6,337 claimants from the Horizon shortfall scheme.The data also says that of the 492 subpostmasters who joined Sir Alan Bates in taking the Post Office to court between 2017 and 2019 that have not been convicted, also known as the Group Litigation Order Scheme (GLO), 488 have received £167 million between them.Elsewhere, £245 million has been paid out to 463 subpostmasters who had their convictions quashed by legislation put in place last summer, and £68 million has been paid to those who have had their convictions quashed in the courts, DBT said.Post Office minister Gareth Thomas said: “Since entering Government, it has been our priority to speed up the delivery of compensation to victims of the Horizon scandal and today’s milestone shows how much progress has been made.“We are settling cases every day and getting compensation out more quickly for the most complex cases, but the job isn’t done until every postmaster has received fair and just redress.”Post Office chief executive Neil Brocklehurst said: “I welcome the news that over £1 billion has been paid to victims of the Horizon IT Scandal.“Each week we are seeing more people receive their final settlements so they can begin to look beyond this painful chapter of their lives.“However, I am also aware that more work remains to be done so that all victims receive full redress as quickly as possible and this is an absolute priority for the Post Office.“And finally, to anyone else who thinks they may have been affected, I encourage you to come forward and apply for redress.” More