UK Politics

Boris Johnson is set to ditch a manifesto promise to increase the annual defence budget above inflation, putting the PM on a collision course with his defence secretary Ben Wallace.A senior government source admitted that the Conservative commitment to hike annual military spending by 0.5 per cent above inflation could no longer be met because of the Covid pandemic.In their 2019 Tory manifesto, the party pledged to exceed the Nato target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence, and increase the budget by at least 0.5 per cent above inflation every year.However, a senior government official said the country’s post-Covid finances meant there had to be “a reality check on things that were offered in a different age”.The source said: “The manifesto was written before £400bn had to be spent locking people up for their own safety because of the global pandemic.”“The intention is always to honour manifesto commitments, but they were made before £400bn was spent coping with a global pandemic that none could have possibly foreseen,” they added.Mr Johnson is at odds with his defence secretary on military spending as the PM prepares to join other Nato leaders in Madrid on Tuesday.Mr Wallace has asked the PM to increase the country’s military spending from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of GDP – an additional 20 per cent a year – by 2028 in the face of the growing threat from Russia.In a letter to the PM, the cabinet minister also urged him to call on fellow Nato leaders to raise their own spending from the current minimum target of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of national income, according to Talk TV.The defence secretary issued his call for a boost in spending following Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine at the Royal United Services Institute think tank on Tuesday.The former Commander Joint Forces Command General Sir Richard Barrons said that he supported Mr Wallace’s latest demands. “I back him 100%, as will all the service chiefs and every serving officer … we have to raise our game,” he said.New figures shared by Nato this week showed that the proportion spent by Britain on its military has declined to 2.12 per cent – falling for the second year in a row.Nato leaders are heading to a crucial Madrid summit at which they are expected to agree the biggest overhaul of the Western alliance since the end of the Cold War.The alliance will hugely increase the number of troops placed on “high readiness” in its rapid response force from 40,000 to over 300,000, secretary general Jens Stoltenberg announced on Monday.The UK will boost the number of troops committed to Nato’s response force as part of a “high alert” standby force, and reportedly ready to send thousands more troops to the Nato battlegroup it leads in Estonia, where 1,700 British soldiers are already deployed. More

Boris Johnson has poured cold water on the prospect of a significant hike in military spending, as he insisted he does not believe that the UK is heading towards war with Russia.Defence secretary Ben Wallace is understood to have asked the prime minister for an increase in the defence budget from around 2 to 2.5 per cent of GDP – the equivalent of an additional 20 per cent per year.The call came as the head of the British Army warned that Britain and its Nato allies are facing a “1937 moment” and must be “unequivocally prepared to fight” if Russia attacks any of their territory.In a speech in London, chief of general staff General Sir Patrick Sanders said that Russia was likely to emerge from the Ukraine war as an even greater threat to European security and the West must be ready to “meet strength with strength”.But asked whether the UK was preparing for war with Russia, Mr Johnson replied: “I don’t think it will come to that. We’re working very hard to make sure that we confine this to Ukraine.”On defence spending, Mr Johnson said that the UK must “respond to the way that threats continue to change”.But he declined to voice backing for additional spending, pointing instead to the significant extra sums already committed to the military for the coming years.“We’ve now got a defence budget that’s £24bn bigger under the spending review – the biggest increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War,” said the prime minister. “Last year, the UK was a third biggest defence spender in the world. We’re making massive commitments.”Mr Johnson said the UK had “more than met our pledge” to exceed the Nato target of 2 per cent of GDP for defence, and had been instrumental in encouraging other member states to increase spending.Speaking in Germany on the final day of a G7 summit which has been overshadowed by the war in Ukraine, Mr Johnson said that Russia’s missile attack on a shopping centre in the city Kremenchuk was an act of “utter barbarism”, which had helped persuade wavering Western states to unite in their robust support for the Ukrainians.“I think people are just shocked by what Putin is capable of doing,” he said. “If anything, it helped those of us who are making the case for helping to protect the Ukrainians to get that message across to some of those people who are more ‘swing voters’ in the argument.“They can see that this is utter barbarism. And I think one of the things we’ve seen in this G7 today is a really, really powerful sense of unity, of resolve and purpose and absolute determination to keep giving the Ukrainians the help, the support, the wherewithal to keep going.”Mr Johnson, who was today flying to Madrid to join a summit of Nato leaders, denied that the war in Ukraine was in reality a conflict between Russia and the Western military alliance.“Putin and the Kremlin are going to try to widen the conflict and say that this is something to do between Nato and Russia – that is not it at all,” he said.“This is about an invasion of an independent sovereign country. It is about the West and the friends of Ukraine giving them the support they need to protect themselves.” More

Keir Starmer has said he will scrap Labour’s last election manifesto and is “starting from scratch” on policies. Speaking on Tuesday the Labour leader said he was putting the existing set of policies “to one side” and that “the slate is wiped clean”.His comments represent a reversal of a previous pledge. During the 2019 leadership election Sir Keir described the 2017 election manifesto as Labour’s “foundational document”, praised its “radicalism” and said: “We have to hang on to that as we go forward”.But speaking at an event organised by the New Statesman magazine today Sir Keir said: “What we’ve done with the last manifesto is put it to one side. We’re starting from scratch. The slate is wiped clean.”The U-turn is likely to anger some Labour members, who voted for him to be leader on a different prospectus. Left-wingers leapt on the comments and said he was taking “a tepid, unprincipled approach”.Sir Keir, who promised during the 2019 leadership election to abolish tuition fees if he became prime minister, suggested that the pandemic meant he could break the pledge.Asked whether he stood by the free education policy, he said: “What we do have to recognise is that having come through the pandemic, we need to look at everything in the round, and make choices about where we want to put our money.”But suggesting he was open to reform he said the current system did not “really work for students” or universities. “So of course, we’re going to have to look at that,” he said, without committing to a specific approach.The opposition leader also declined to stand by his promise to raise taxes on teh top five per cent of earners.After cementing his position at the top of Labour and taking control of the party’s executive, Sir Keir has jettisoned many of his leadership election pledges.The party leader has not in practice campaigned on pledges he made about tax, free movement, and public ownership of utilities, among other accusations of broken promises.Responding to Sir Keir’s comments, spokesperson for left-wing campaign group Momentum said: “Our country faces huge challenges, from the cost-of-living crisis to the existential threat of climate breakdown. The status quo is failing millions of people – and socialist solutions like public ownership and raising the minimum wage enjoy widespread support amongst the British public.“But the truth is that the Starmer leadership is avoiding facing these challenges in favour of a reheated and deeply unpopular Blairism. Whether it’s abandoning transport workers fighting for their livelihoods, or offering a windfall tax less ambitious than that of the Tories, Starmer’s tepid, unprincipled approach will neither tackle today’s challenges, nor invigorate a winning electoral coalition.”Labour has enjoyed a variable but persistent lead over the Conservatives since last year, with Boris Johnson’s personal popularity and the cost of living crisis appearing to drag down the Tory vote share. More

Liz Truss has failed to name a single occasion when she has challenged a Gulf state on human rights abuses – despite promising to hold its leaders “to account”.Challenged by MPs – as the UK seeks a controversial trade deal with a six-nation bloc including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain – the foreign secretary was unable to back up a claim that she raises concerns.Ms Truss told the foreign affairs committee she would have to provide details later of the “precise timing” of when Gulf leaders have been challenged about human rights violations.“You can’t remember a single human rights issue you have raised with a Gulf States leader?” asked Chris Bryant, a Labour member of the committee, suggesting the government believes it is “fine to do business” provided a country has not invaded another.But Ms Truss defended opening talks with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), arguing the need for “alternative energy sources” to counter Russia must be the priority.“We are not dealing in a perfect world. We are dealing in a world where we need to make difficult decisions,” she told the committee.Mr Bryant pointed out that Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi Crown Prince, was held responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and that the country recently executed 81 people in a single day.But Ms Truss described Saudi Arabia as “an important partner of the UK”, adding: “I think it is right that we build that closer trading relationship with Gulf states.”She added: “Is every country that we work with exactly in line with United Kingdom policy on everything? No, they are not. But they are important allies of the United Kingdom.”Ms Truss also confirmed the primary aim of UK overseas aid spending has shifted from alleviating poverty to “geo-politics” and challenging the rising threat of China.Her new strategy is focused on “promoting freedom and democracy around the world” to “challenge the Chinese Belt and Road initiative”, the foreign secretary said.Ms Truss also rubbished French claims that the UK is interested in joining a loose new “European political community” grouping, being pursued by Emmanuel Macron.The French president claimed Boris Johnson was enthusiastic in their weekend meeting, but she told the committee “That’s not true. We have not agreed to that.”The UK is instead striking bilateral agreements with EU countries and views the G7 as the key economic alliance for Britain after Brexit, she said.Ms Truss said the government is still considering seizing the assets of sanctioned Russian oligarchs – an idea first put forward in February – with the proceeds going towards victims of the Ukraine invasion.She said she agreed with “the concept” but was still working on how to “get the specifics of it right”. More

A Turkish technology company said it will give free drones to Ukraine after learning of a grassroots campaign which raised 20 million US dollars (£16.3 million) to buy them.The Serhiy Prytula Foundation was set to buy Kyiv’s forces four Bayraktar TB2 drones after citizens and international supporters donated in huge numbers.But in a statement tweeted on Monday, technology firm Baykar said: “Baykar will not accept payment for the TB2s, and will send 3 UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) free of charge to the Ukrainian war front.“We ask that raised funds be remitted instead to the struggling people of Ukraine.“We are touched by their solidarity and resolve in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges.“Baykar prays for a just resolution and lasting peace.”Led by Ukrainian actor and politician Serhiy Prytula, The People’s Bayraktar Project surpassed its original target of raising 15 million dollars (£12.2 million) to buy three Baykar Bayraktar TB2 drones.“Thank you for appreciating the ability of Ukrainians to unite! We are impressed with your decision!” Mr Prytula tweeted in response.“The saved funds will be spent to ensure our victory in close cooperation with the Armed Forces of Ukraine!”According to Mr Prytula, the majority of donations in Ukraine have been between two and 200 hryvnias (between 55p and £5.50), with large numbers of people donating small amounts they can afford.“Literally everybody is involved,” Ukrainian MP Inna Sovsun told the PA news agency. “It is so much part of the culture, everybody is doing it.”Grassroots foundations in Ukraine have seen the country’s citizens band together to provide their military with protection, supplies, and commercially available equipment that can be adapted for military use.The largest groups are now setting their sights on the kind of weapons usually only purchased by governments.Many were set up in the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and occupation of regions in the Donbas.That includes the Serhiy Prytula Foundation and the established Povernys Zhyvym, whose name means “Come Back Alive”, which has raised more than 130 million dollars (£106 million) in donations since February 24.As well as the larger foundations, there are many small-scale local drives to provide soldiers with equipment.“There are many minor initiatives,” Ms Sovsun said.“For instance, a unit from a small town is being sent to the battle line and the whole town starts gathering money to buy what they can.”

Projects such as this (mean) we can support Ukraine’s fight in a tangible mannerNadine Alexander, 43, from DusseldorfThe foundations can move faster than the government when it comes to providing critical help to Ukrainian fighters.“They also know who they are doing it for; you’re buying stuff for your husband or wife (who is) serving,” Ms Sovsun added.According to Ms Sovsun, the crowd-funded groups have been strategically significant, with half the commercial drones used by the Ukrainian army provided by Come Back Alive.“It has a big influence on the army,” she said.“They were buying better-protected computers for the air defence systems, which helped to co-ordinate it better in February 2022.”Ukraine’s crowd-funding initiatives have gained traction abroad too, with The People’s Bayraktar Project receiving donations from as far as the US and Indonesia.Nadine Alexander, 43, from Dusseldorf, said donating allowed her to provide Ukraine with weapons directly.“The German government’s reaction has been much too slow,” she told PA.“Projects such as this (mean) we can support Ukraine’s fight in a tangible manner.“It is in our common interest that Ukraine prevails in this war.”Bayraktar TB2 drones have taken on a cult status in Ukraine; they have been the subject of folk songs, appeared on postage stamps and had animals named after them.“Bayraktars have become famous,” said Ms Sovsun, “I don’t even know the number of songs that have been dedicated to (them).“There were many jokes… Ukrainian soldiers naming their dogs Bayraktar.“You have to understand the general spirit of the people; (the drone) has been saving lives.”For more information about the Serhiy Prytula Foundation, visit: prytulafoundation.org/en More

The government’s flagship Universal Credit benefits system has driven an increase in the crime rate across Britain, a new study has found.Researchers at University College London studying the roll-out of the new system found there was “salient and plausible evidence linking UC to an increase in recorded crime”.The peer-reviewed findings, published in the British Journal of Criminology, are the latest piece of evidence adding to a growing body of work suggesting less generous social security systems drive increases in lawbreaking.The study’s base model suggested UC – which puts more restrictive conditions on claimants – “led to a 6.5 per cent increase in crime during the five-year period we look at, 2013-2018”.Crime has soared up the political agenda in recent years, and in 2019 overtook health as the second most important issue for voters after Brexit, according to pollsters YouGov. While the situation has varied, especially during the pandemic, the issue has remained close to the top of priorities since.The researchers were able to track UC’s relationship with increased reported crime because it was rolled out in different areas of the country at different times, effectively at random.Their study controlled for other factors linked with increases in the crime rate, such as cuts in the number of police officers, cuts to local services, and improvements or deteriorations in the economic situation.It concluded: “While it is impossible to comprehensively prove causation from a single, observational study, our results provide salient and plausible evidence linking UC to an increase in recorded crime. “Not only does the crime rate increase as the number of claimants rises, but the introduction of UC to each area also coincides with a shift in the long run trend in crime.”Dr Matteo Tiratelli, the lead author of the UCL study, told The Independent: “You can see it: when particular places institute Universal Credit, the change happens afterwards, and the length of time that different places have been under the Universal Credit system, those places have seen higher crime rates than others.”He added that there was “a growing evidence base that says restrictive social security systems, in general, do lead to higher crime rates”.The link between UC and crime was so pronounced, Dr Tiratelli said, that there were “clear” policy implications for how to address the crime rate.”One of the things that I find interesting about it is if you look at the scale of the effects not just Universal Credit, but also other changes around the world to social security, the effects on crime are much bigger than the effects of policing initiatives that we tend to turn to when we want to reduce crime,” he said.”So if we look at the impact of rolling out new ways of doing policing, or increasing stop and search or increasing funding to the police etc, the kinds of effects we’re seeing from social policy more generally are at least as big as those from crime-focused police initiatives. I think the policy implications of that are quite clear.”He said that while types of crime driven were often property-related – suggesting people might be trying to supplement their incomes – that this was not always the case.”The effects seem to be quite broad: it’s not just about survival crime where people are pushed to breaking point because of poverty and they resort to property crime to supplement their income, it doesn’t seem to be just that that’s happening: it also seems to be the strain, stress in general this big restriction on how generous the social security system is has led to people becoming stressed in all different areas of their life,” he said, adding that much increase was “to do with a much broader stress and strain, disruption in relationships and family units that are caused by a reduction in generosity of our social security system”. Previous research has suggested a link between UC and an increase in domestic violence.The findings tally with other evidence from around the world, including in the US and Europe, that less generous social social security systems tend to push up the crime mate.Another paper published by researchers at the University of Sussex in July 2020 also found a similar link. Economist Rocco d’Este found UC “had caused around 45,000 burglaries” and said evidence suggested that “crimogenic effects” were “expected to grow considerably by the time UC is fully rolled out” to 6.5 million further people.That paper’s analysis also suggested that “the worsening of benefit recipients’ financial conditions” was “the key mechanism”.Dr Tiratelli, who worked on the paper with researchers Ben Bradford and Julia Yesberg, said: “No one piece of evidence is going to completely clinch the argument, but using the data, looking at it in different ways, different researchers looking at it in slightly different ways, we’re all coming around to the same conclusion that there does seem to have been an effect of Universal Credit on crime.”He added that the findings “fits with the international picture more generally”.In the US, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research published earlier this month found that benefit cuts across the Atlantic had greatly increased the chance that affected people would end up in the criminal justice system. The Office for Budget Responsibility in 2016 recognised that that Universal Credit was “now less generous on average than the tax credits and benefits systems that it replaces” due to cuts in the programme implemented in 2015 by George Osborne, especially in the work allowance.But other parts of the system are more punitive by design, including a mandatory five-week waiting period for benefits which drives claimants into rent arrears and debt, harsh deductions from payments, and strict conditionality requirements and sanctions.In July 2020 the House of Lords Economic Affairs committee said in a report that UC “has features that are harming many, particularly the most vulnerable”.The five-week waiting period for the first payment “increases extreme poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately”, they said, while “deductions from Universal Credit awards have left some claimants with an income that is substantially lower than their essential needs”.On conditionality and sanctions, the report said: “The extent of conditionality has been increased significantly over recent years and too often to the detriment of claimants.”The UK has some of the most punitive sanctions in the world, but there is limited evidence that they have a positive effect. “Removing people’s main source of support for extended periods risks pushing them into extreme poverty, indebtedness and reliance on foodbanks. Furthermore, there is a great deal of evidence that sanctions, and the threat of sanctions, are harmful to claimants’ mental health.”The cross-party committee of peers added: “Universal Credit can disadvantage women, disabled people and BAME people.” “It is also linked to soaring food bank usage. Housing providers have reported dramatic increases in rent arrears. Many claimants report finding the system incomprehensible. Universal Credit’s reputation has nosedived.”Responding to the new study on the link between UC and crime, the Department for Work and Pensions denied that the evidence existed.A government spokesperson said: “There is no evidence Universal Credit causes crime and the report’s authors themselves acknowledge it is impossible to prove the cause of criminal behaviour from a single, observational study.“Universal Credit provides a strong financial safety net: it is more generous overall than the old system and makes it easier for people to claim support they are entitled to.” More

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s bid to rip up parts of the post-Brexit trade deal he signed with the European Union has cleared its first hurdle in Parliament, despite warnings from opponents that the move is illegal. Lawmakers voted 295 to 221 late Monday to give initial approval to a bill allowing U.K. officials to rewrite trade rules for Northern Ireland. The vote clears the way for the bill to undergo detailed scrutiny in coming weeks.If approved, the legislation would remove checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K., thereby scrapping parts of a trade treaty that Johnson signed before Britain left the EU in 2020.The British government says the rules, known as the Northern Ireland Protocol, are burdening businesses and undermining peace in Northern Ireland. It argues the unilateral move is justified under international law because of the “genuinely exceptional situation.” Johnson’s opponents say the move is illegal and that going ahead will seriously damage Britain’s international reputation.The EU has threatened to retaliate against the U.K. if it goes ahead with its plan to rewrite the rules of the post-Brexit deal, raising the specter of a trade war between the two major economic partners.Johnson said he believed the plan could become law by the end of the year if Parliament cooperates. The government wants to fast-track the bill through Parliament before lawmakers take their summer break.Northern Ireland is the only part of the U.K. that shares a border with an EU country, Ireland. When Britain left the European Union and its borderless free-trade zone, the two sides agreed to keep the Irish land border free of customs posts and other checks because an open border is a key pillar of the peace process that ended decades of violence in Northern Ireland.Instead, to protect the EU’s single market, there are checks on some goods, such as meat and eggs, entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K.Johnson’s Conservative government claims overzealous EU implementation means the rules are not working as expected and are causing a political crisis in Northern Ireland. ___Follow all AP stories on Brexit at https://apnews.com/hub/Brexit More

One of the UK’s most respected diplomats has accused Boris Johnson of planning three separate breaches of international law, warning that trust in the UK abroad is being shredded.Kim Darroch, a former national security adviser and US ambassador, has attacked plans to neuter commitments to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing they will violate the Good Friday Agreement.In an interview with The Independent, he said the threat sits alongside moves to tear up the Brexit deal for Northern Ireland and to deport refugees to Rwanda, breaking the Geneva Convention.“I think you can argue that this government is breaching international law in three areas,” Lord Darroch argued.Seizing on Dominic Raab’s plans to allow the UK to ignore ECHR rulings, the crossbench peer warned: “The ECHR is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement as a guarantee of the rights of all individuals in Northern Ireland.“Now they want to effectively disapply, by domestic law, some parts of the ECHR, and that looks to me to be in danger of breaching our commitments in the Good Friday Agreement”.Pointing to the damage to the UK’s reputation abroad, Lord Darroch added: “Everything I pick up from people in the Brussels institutions is that trust in the British government has broken down.”In the interview, the chair of the internationalist campaign group Best for Britain also argued that voters would welcome Mr Johnson sitting down with the EU to strike a better Brexit deal to ease severe economic damage to the UK.He ruled out an early return to the single market or customs union – despite the benefits that would bring – “certainly not in this parliament and perhaps not in the next one either”.However, calling for side deals to soften the pain for exporters, scientists shut out of the Horizon project and the City of London, Lord Darroch said: “I think people would see agreements of this kind as common sense.”The peer, who is also a former UK ambassador to the EU, argued that most voters never backed “the hardest of Brexits that satisfies a section of the Conservative Party”. More