More stories

  • in

    Voices: Poll of the day: Is hosting Trump good diplomacy – or a diplomatic disaster waiting to happen?

    Donald Trump is making two visits to the UK this year – a private trip focused on his Scottish golf courses, and a full-blown state visit in September, complete with a welcome from King Charles III.The US president is spending time at his resorts in South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire and is expected to meet Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney. He also plans to open a new course dedicated to his Scottish-born mother.While Downing Street has hailed the trip as a “historic” opportunity to strengthen UK-US ties, the invitation has sparked backlash. Protesters have accused Trump of spreading hate, accelerating climate breakdown and undermining democratic norms. A wave of demonstrations has been planned around both visits – with activists saying the UK should not be “rolling out the red carpet” for a leader with such a controversial record.In Westminster, several MPs have spoken out against the state visit, with some calling it “inappropriate” and even urging parliament to deny Trump a platform altogether. But White House sources say no parliamentary address is expected, and insist the trip is purely diplomatic.So, is Trump’s upcoming state visit a smart move to preserve international relations – or a mistake that sends the wrong message?Vote in our poll and tell us what you think in the comments below. More

  • in

    Voices: ‘A system set up to fail?’ Readers say Ofwat should go – but can’t agree on whether water should be nationalised

    The call to scrap Ofwat has struck a chord with Independent readers, who overwhelmingly agree the water regulator has failed to hold companies accountable after decades of pollution, crumbling infrastructure, and rising bills.A landmark review led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe concluded that Ofwat should be dismantled and replaced with a powerful single regulator covering the entire water system. The current setup, the Independent Water Commission said, is “fragmented and overlapping” and has allowed private companies to extract billions in shareholder payouts while sewage spills surged and investment lagged behind.When we asked for your views, 86 per cent of readers said Ofwat should be scrapped entirely, with only 14 per cent favouring reform over replacement.Many also backed wider changes, including new regional authorities, stronger environmental oversight and tougher rules on company ownership and debt. But the strongest opinions focused on ownership itself: whether water, a vital natural resource, should ever have been privatised in the first place.Some readers argued that the damage is now too deep to reverse, with nationalisation legally fraught and prohibitively expensive. Others insisted that public control is the only way to fix a system that has lost public trust.Here’s what you had to say:Only reward acceptable performanceI don’t care how it is structured, as long as they are only rewarded for delivering acceptable levels of purity, availability, leakage, and pollution. Jim KitThe horse has boltedMany individuals here mistakenly think nationalisation is the answer. It isn’t. Nationalising privatised water companies would force the government (and so taxpayers) to buy them back at market value or face legal battles with domestic and foreign investors under international trade agreements.These companies carry massive debts, which would transfer to the public, burdening taxpayers with billions in liabilities. Further, compensation claims and lawsuits from investors would escalate costs, making nationalisation an expensive and legally risky process with no guarantee of improved service.Privatisation was craftily set up so as to be more or less irreversible. The horse has bolted, I’m afraid. MusilForeign ownership makes it worse”National strategic assets should never ever be in the hands of private companies” – I agree, and it’s worse if those companies are based outside the UK. They will be even more disinterested in any sort of service. Vital infrastructure should be publicly owned: rail, buses, trams, electricity, gas, water. I don’t think we’re quite there yet with broadband.But nationalising needs to be done very carefully. I don’t think anyone can claim that old BR and BT were paragons of efficiency. And local councils have their part to play by carefully scheduling road dig-ups across utilities – there’s a lot of pipework that’s been left to rot whilst dividends are paid. PremiumMismanagement should mean re-nationalisationPass a law to legislate that if privatised public utilities or services are mismanaged, they pass back into public ownership. Simple. BigDogSmallBrainNobody should own waterNobody should be the owner of water. Water should just be managed in the name of the people, and any profit should be entirely coincidental. There is zero need to have financially motivated ownership of water, along the same lines as why nobody owns air, oxygen, or sunshine. ItReallyIsNotCrumbling infrastructure is the real crisisThe elephant in the room is the increasing population/increasing housing requirements, along with combined sewers carrying sewage and rainwater. More people/homes means more sewage/rainwater run-off, and when it rains hard, any treatment works are unable to cope with the volume of water piped to them.For example, the Trafford Centre’s rainwater is kept separate from sewage and can go straight into the nearby canal, being clean water. That water is as much as 10 cubic metres per second! Now consider the tens of thousands of homes, businesses, roads, car parks, etc. that add up to a lot more area, all funnelling their rainwater into the local sewage works, and you can see what the problem is.To properly solve it would require every household and business to have expensive work done to install separate rainwater drains, and for every single road in the area to be dug up to install a parallel piping system to keep rainwater separated from sewage.Much of the main piping has been in place since before WW2, when there were far fewer people, homes, and large businesses. SteveWDriven by profitNational strategic assets should never, ever be in the hands of private companiesThey are driven by profit above all else… and when they fail… we end up footing the bill anyway. All privatisation does is make a few people very rich. captaintrippsProductivityI agree in principle, but the trouble with nationalised industries is that down the line, they will all cause problems. The issue is productivity: “Why should I work hard when I’ve got a guaranteed job for life?” Maybe not so much on the water supply side, but all other nationalised industries suffered from this communist idea. It sounds good on paper, but in practice, it doesn’t work. Now, nationalising industries without union interference or job protection, and you’ll have something. StevetheBarbarianNationalise now!There is absolutely no benefit in privatising a public utility that is also a monopoly. Privatised water companies are in competition with no one, so there is no pressure to decrease prices or improve services. They serve two masters: increased pay at the top and profit for shareholders. Nationalise it now! bloodwortBreak up regional monopoliesLike most basic utilities, privatisation provides none of the potential benefits and all of the worst drawbacks. It is difficult to innovate with a product as simple as water, while the most important features – safety, the environment, and keeping down the price – are anathema to profit-driven organisations.At the very least, the regional monopolies need to be broken up. AimeryanThey are just laughing at us allIt will never get fixed until those responsible for running the industry are properly held accountable. Until then, they are just laughing at us all – literally laughing all the way to the bank. captaintrippsIt can’t be fixedIt can’t be fixed. And there’s no way to nationalise it without spending about a trillion pounds to buy the companies and pay off the bondholders. There is no solution; it’s only going to get worse. BlueWhale Some 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

  • in

    UK admits foreign aid cuts could see deaths rise – with Africa hit hardest

    The government has admitted that slashing foreign aid spending will likely see global deaths rise – as it confirmed the cuts will fall disproportionately on women and girls’ education and on projects across Africa. Its own assessment of the cuts’ impact said: “Any reductions to health spending risk an increase in disease burden and ultimately in deaths, impacting in particular those living in poverty, women, children and people with disabilities.”The Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has set out cuts of £575 million in 2025 to 2026, The government is cutting aid spending by 40 per cent in total, from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income by 2027. That is around £6 billion, meaning the deepest cuts are still to come.Spending on health overall is set to drop by 46 per cent from £975 million to £527m in 2025/26. This includes health security – the type of work designed to prevent future pandemics. The pot also includes sexual and reproductive health and the Ending Preventable Deaths Support Programme, designed to stop avoidable deaths of women, newborns and children. Both face cuts as yet undefined. Spending on education, gender and equality will fall by 42 per cent, or £200 million, with girls’ education funding specifically almost halving to £186m. That includes the closure of a girls’ education programme in Democratic Republic of Congo which the government said would have “negative impacts on 170,000 children” in post-conflict rural areas. Spending in Africa overall will fall from £1.6bn to £1.4bn, while spending in Europe will rise slightly. “The world’s most marginalised communities, particularly those experiencing conflict and women and girls, will pay the highest price for these political choices,” said Gideon Rabinowitz, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Bond, the UK network for international development organisations. “At a time when the US has gutted all gender programming, the UK should be stepping up, not stepping back.”Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons International Development Committee, said the changes “will hurt education, health, social protection and support for women and girls” which she described as “the pillars of healthy and secure societies”. And Andrew Mitchell, the former deputy foreign secretary, said: “The fact that a Labour government has made these cuts which will undoubtedly lead to numerous deaths amongst very vulnerable people is an affront to the internationalist reputation of the Labour Party and will do huge damage to the UK’s reputation as a reliable development leader in the poorest parts of the world.” The FCDO report confirmed the UK will send £1.8bn to the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) – providing grants and low-interest loans to low-income countries – in part of a shift in funding towards big multi-country spending programmes including the global vaccine alliance Gavi. This means less money going from the UK directly to projects in specific countries. “Despite making cuts of roughly half a billion pounds, it’s encouraging to see that the government is prioritising multilateral spend and honouring its pledge to the World Bank. Yet, it is unfortunate that Africa – home to over two-thirds of those in extreme poverty – will receive under half of FCDO’s country and regional budget,” said Ian Mitchell, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. Prime Minister Keir Starmer More

  • in

    Local authorities should be given greater powers over ‘unfair’ council tax, MPs warn

    Councils should be granted greater control over council tax, MPs have warned, arguing that the current disconnect between local charges and service quality risks undermining the very foundations of local democracy. An inquiry into the financial sustainability of local government concluded that interim powers should be devolved to councils, ahead of a more comprehensive overhaul of what it described as “the most unfair and regressive tax in use in England today”.The Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report recommended that individual authorities be empowered to revalue properties in their areas, define property bands, set the rates for those bands, and apply discounts. Beyond council tax, the report suggested that a broader devolution of fiscal powers, such as the ability to apply a tourist tax, should also be considered to address the growing financial strain on local government, exacerbated by austerity measures introduced in the 2010s.Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner recently voiced her support for “more push” towards fiscal devolution, aligning with the government’s commitment to transfer central decision-making to local areas. Furthermore, the committee advocated for replacing central government ringfencing of funding with “a rigorous outcomes-based system of accountability”. This would ensure local authorities are held responsible for achieving agreed outcomes within their overall budgets, rather than simply meeting spending targets.Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner recently said she wanted ‘more push’ towards fiscal devolution as part of the Government’s pledge to transfer central decision-making to local areas More

  • in

    Voices: ‘Work until we die?’ Independent readers outraged over retirement age review

    Liz Kendall’s announcement of a new review into the state pension age has drawn a strong response from readers, especially older workers and pensioners who feel increasingly squeezed by reforms they see as both unfair and unrealistic.Many took issue with the idea of raising the retirement age again, warning that it fails to account for physical decline, especially among manual workers. “My knees have packed in,” said one 73-year-old, who retired at 65 after a lifetime of physical labour. “There’s no way I could keep doing the work I used to.”Several readers questioned Ms Kendall’s assertion that future pensioners should take heed and save more, with many pointing out that saving is only an option for the wealthy or those with disposable incomes.A recurring theme was frustration at a system seen to punish those who had “done everything right” – saving into private pensions and paying contributions, only to be left with little support. “He told me to retire penniless,” another reader said of her father’s bitter advice, “because then you get everything.”A few commenters looked to the future, suggesting that instead of clinging to outdated models, the government should explore policies like basic income to address the long-term impacts of AI and inequality.Here’s what you had to say:Pensioners don’t drain the systemPensioners are nearly always referred to as if they’re draining the system of something they’re not entitled to. Forgotten is the fact that most of them worked until 65 and paid what was due until they did. As we now know, it doesn’t protect them from poverty in old age. Only those with private pensions, which are also subject to taxation that wasn’t foreseen when many set these plans up, have enough to cover basic costs.Saving? How does the average worker do that? They can hardly afford to put food on the table and get by. Take more money out of people’s pockets, which cuts spending, and even more high streets will become derelict and industries will fail.Increasing retirement age? A friend died at 69 recently, and another at 72 (neither were manual workers). Increasing retirement age for manual workers would be cruel as well as disastrous, or are people supposed to work until they drop? Too many pensioners are having to desperately look for jobs to boost pensions that don’t enable them to eat and heat. Maybe it’s time the government took a look at some of the systems that work in other countries!Quick-fix ideas aren’t the solution. A system fit for purpose, where everyone pays their fair share and people can retain their dignity and are able to live without having to calculate how and if they’re entitled to benefits or charity to get by, is the only sensible way forward. Will it happen? I would lie if I said I was optimistic!AmbigirlsDo you think the state pension age should rise — or is it already too high? Share your thoughts in the comments below.Reform, not tinkeringThere are issues with the triple lock, but the savings narrative is a fiction. As people (particularly working-class people) approach 70, they are more likely to find themselves unable to find suitable employment or be underemployed. So they will require working-age benefits. It is not difficult to imagine that there would also be increased costs on the health system as ageing bodies are required to work more and more.Further, it is likely that around one-third of millennials will end their working lives in the private rental sector, so housing support will be required at greater levels.We cannot keep tinkering with these systems just to balance the books on paper. We must reform the tax code and the social security net to make both fit for the modern age.lostboy88Punished for savingMy dad saved, paid into private pensions and paid his contributions. He was never unemployed and did everything the government asked him to do. When he retired, he found to his disgust that he was entitled to very little from the state – effectively punished for having saved, etc, whilst others who contributed nothing were given everything by the state. That’s socialism. He told me to never make his mistake and ensure I retired penniless to get the maximum back from all I had paid in.saghiaWork until we die?OK, so here we have the result of all those people who wanted to avoid benefits cuts. The alternative is for working people to work longer.Some benefit cuts were needed, in my opinion.And before anyone suggests a 0.2 per cent tax on billionaires – whether we like it or not – they can leave the UK, fly in from time to time if they really want to, and then we’d lose the huge amount they do pay in tax. What then? Work until we die? Ordinary people are paying for a few too many freeloaders, in my opinion. Where is the sympathy for non-unionised people who work and pay tax?Hi5Saving is not the answerSaving? Saving is NOT the answer. If we try to save more, we spend less. If we spend less, businesses sell and make less, so they invest less… just the opposite of what we need to increase the output needed to pay pensions.It is a good example of the confused thinking that affects so many people. An individual who saves more will have more to spend in retirement than they would otherwise have. If we all try to do that, we are all worse off. What is right for an individual is often not right collectively (wet wipes, panic buying, burning smoky fuel, saving for retirement, etc). The Fallacy of Composition.much0adoPeople aren’t saving because they can’tPeople aren’t saving because they can’t – it’s that simple. There is no money left at the end of the month to save anything because of the cost of living. A large majority of people are having to live pay cheque to pay cheque with no slack. Unless something is done about that, then there is a huge problem being stored up for the future, let alone Reeves saying she was going after people’s savings!!deadduckGross inequality is the root of our problemsThe government can’t simply keep increasing the state pension age for one reason: some people become physically incapable of working when they get a little bit older. Asking a manual worker to keep digging holes when he’s nearly 70 is absurd. The government needs to deal with tax evasion and avoidance, including offshore. I’d also introduce a land value tax, which forces the wealthy to pay their share. Gross inequality is the root cause of many of our societal problems, and it’s time it was addressed. You don’t deal with it by taxing working people more – you tax the ultra wealthy who pay basically nothing.flying scotIt makes sense to raise the pension agePeople are largely living longer because of better living conditions, nutrition and healthcare. For example, I’m now much older than all my grandparents were when they died. Although the most vulnerable must still be cared for, it makes sense to raise the pension age to reflect this change in society – it is the 21st century rather than the 1900s…haynemanOnsalught on working-class peopleI’m 73, retired at 65 and did manual work most of my life. My knees have packed in, and the rest of my body is slowly packing in now – there is no way I am able to do the sort of work I did when I was younger, and haven’t been able for well over 10 years now. This is the case for many manual workers.How can Kendall, Reeves, Streeting, Starmer etc. call themselves a Labour government with this continual onslaught on working-class people? The trade unions should withdraw support and funding immediately and advise their members to place their votes elsewhere, preferably not in Farage’s direction, though.manwithnonameThe future looks unpredictableWe must bear in mind that the relentless march of AI and other systems is considerably reducing the number of jobs in many sectors dependent on ‘exchanges of data’, from simple insurance to DVLA or HMRC, for instance… The list is endless.How can these workers be ‘recycled’ in the short term? How do we ensure that those mythical 16-year-old voters HAVE some employment to look forward to after finishing their studies, at whatever level?Importing ‘low-grade’ labour is eating into the job supply at the bottom end, while all those ‘surgeons and engineers’ cream off the top end…The future looks unpredictable for too many youngsters. Problems must be addressed now!Failure to do that will make the triple lock – an invaluable resource to many pensioners still – look like change from the back of the sofa…YvesFerrerThese reviews are so detached from people’s realitiesFinancial literacy is not taught in schools. I suspect a large proportion of people who are not planning for retirement don’t understand money very well. Also, a huge number of people don’t have enough disposable income to save at a level that would give a comfortable retirement. You need, in current terms, around £300,000 to £500,000 in private funds. That is for someone who owns their own home. If you retire but have to still pay for rented accommodation, you’ve got no chance.These reviews are so detached from people’s realities. After paying tax and National Insurance for 50 years, I get my State Pension next year – and I will be paying income tax on it :)LithiumironSome 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.RecommendedMake sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

  • in

    Peter Mandelson enlisted help to return to Tony Blair’s government

    Newly released official files reveal the extent of Peter Mandelson’s determination to re-enter government after twice being forced to resign from Tony Blair’s cabinet. The papers, made public by the National Archives in Kew, west London, show that Mr Mandelson even sought the assistance of Lord Birt, the former BBC director general, in his bid to secure a senior position.Mr Mandelson had been compelled to step down as Northern Ireland secretary in January 2001 amid allegations he had facilitated a UK passport for controversial Indian businessman Srichand Hinduja, in connection with the Millennium Dome. This followed an earlier resignation over an undeclared home loan from fellow Labour minister Geoffrey Robinson.Despite an official inquiry clearing him of impropriety in the Hinduja affair, Mr Blair was hesitant to reinstate his long-time ally, given his prior departures. However, in April 2003, Lord Birt, then a senior policy adviser in No 10, wrote to the prime minister, urging him to reconsider. Peter Mandelson is currently the British Ambassador to the United States More

  • in

    Voices: How can the UK’s broken water industry be fixed? Join The Independent Debate

    As public outrage over sewage spills, rising bills and shareholder payouts reaches boiling point, a landmark review has called for a radical overhaul of how the water industry is regulated. The Independent Water Commission, led by former Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, has recommended scrapping Ofwat entirely and replacing it, along with other regulators such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, with a single, powerful body.The current system is “fragmented and overlapping”, the report argues, and has failed to keep companies in check as infrastructure crumbled and pollution soared. Environment Secretary Steve Reed has said Ofwat is “clearly failing” and signalled he will act on the findings.But would a single super-regulator really fix the system, or just shuffle responsibilities without addressing deeper problems? Sir Jon has warned that bills will rise by nearly a third in the next five years, even with reform. Campaigners, meanwhile, continue to call for full public ownership, pointing to the £85bn paid out to shareholders since privatisation.So what needs to change? Should regulation be overhauled – or the whole system taken back into public hands? And how do we make sure customers and the environment aren’t left paying the price?We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments and vote in the poll below – we’ll feature the most compelling responses and discuss the results in the coming days.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the debate. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen. More

  • in

    Sainsbury’s to ban unhealthy snacks for staff amid government obesity crackdown

    Sainsbury’s is set to remove free crisps and biscuits from its staff rooms in a bid to support the government’s campaign against obesity in the UK.Staff members will, instead, be offered items from a list of approved “light meal” options, including soups, porridge and bread.These options are intended to replace the “largely unhealthy snacks” that colleagues had complained about, and which, some staff claimed, were vanishing before the end of their shifts.Sainsbury’s has hailed its highest market share for nearly a decade as sales were given a boost by warm weather and a temporary boost from the cyber attack disruption at Marks & Spencer (Alamy/PA) More