More stories

  • in

    Number of overcrowded small boats carrying more than 80 migrants across Channel quadruples

    The number of overcrowded small boats arriving in the UK carrying more than 80 people has quadrupled in three years, casting doubt over Labour’s pledge to stop migrants from making the dangerous journey. Fresh analysis from the Home Office showed that 33 boats made the perilous journey while carrying more than 80 people in the year to April 2025 – up from eight in the year to April 2022.While the overall number of dinghies, typically made to carry up to 20 people safely, arriving declined from 1,116 in 2022 to 738 in 2025, more people have been crammed onto each vessel for the crossing.People thought to be migrants wade through the sea to board a small boat leaving the beach at Gravelines, France, in an attempt to reach the UK by crossing the English Channel More

  • in

    Thames Water nationalisation ‘not the answer’ says minister after private equity rescue fails

    Nationalisation of struggling Thames Water is “not the answer”, environment secretary Steve Reed has warned after a private equity giant pulled out of a £4bn rescue deal, throwing the company’s future into doubt.A bailout of the debt-laden utility would take money away from the NHS and other public services, he said. Thames Water is about £19bn in debt, and MPs were told last month that at one point this year it had about five weeks’ worth of cash left before going bust.Britain’s biggest water supplier, which has 16 million customers, chose KKR at the end of March to be its preferred bidder under plans to invest around £4bn of new equity. But the firm said on Tuesday that KKR was no longer “in a position to proceed” and that its status as preferred bidder had lapsed.At the despatch box, Conservative shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins accused ministers of having “talked themselves out of” a rescue plan.Mr Reed told MPs: “The government stands ready for any eventuality and will take action as required. We are not looking at nationalisation because it would cost over £100bn of public money that would have had to be taken away from other public services like the National Health Service to be given to the owners of the water companies.“It will take years to unpick the current model of ownership, during which time pollution would get worse and we know that nationalisation is not the answer – you only have to look at the situation in Scotland to see that.”Mr Reed said he would “make no apology” for tackling the behaviour of water companies under the previous government. “I mean, we even had stories that have been confirmed by water companies of previous Conservative secretaries of state shouting and screaming at water company bosses, but not actually changing the law to do anything about the bonuses that they were able to pay themselves.”Liberal Democrat environment spokesperson Tim Farron said Thames Water should go into special administration and emerge “as a public interest company”.Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice proposed a plan to “buy it for a pound – it’s a good deal for the taxpayer – then it won’t have to pay huge, egregious rates of interest, and the taxpayer and the customers will be the beneficiaries”.The move by KKR comes as an interim report by the Independent Water Commission found the water sector in England and Wales needs a “fundamental reset” and called for a “strengthening and rebalancing” of Ofwat’s regulatory role.It is understood that Thames Water is now working on alternative plans with senior creditors. These creditors are the bondholders who effectively own Thames Water after the High Court earlier this year approved a financial restructuring through a loan of up to £3bn to ensure it can keep running until the summer of 2026.Sir Adrian Montague, chair of Thames Water, said: “We continue to believe that a sustainable recapitalisation of the company is in the best interests of all stakeholders and continue to work with our creditors and stakeholders to achieve that goal.”Britain’s biggest water supplier has 16 million customers More

  • in

    No 10 in the dark over whether UK steel will be hit with 50% Trump tariffs with hours to go

    The government still doesn’t know if the British steel and aluminium industry will be hit with 50 per cent tariffs tomorrow, just hours before Donald Trump ramps up his global trade war.The US president sent shockwaves through the global economy when he announced on Friday that he would raise the tariffs from 25 per cent to “further secure” the industry in his country.A much-lauded UK-US trade deal unveiled last month should have exempted Britain from steel tariffs completely when they were slashed to zero as part of the agreement. But the deal is yet to be implemented, meaning the industry could be slapped with double the tariffs it had before.President Donald Trump silences his mobile phone which rang two times as he was speaking to reporters after signing executive orders regarding nuclear energy in the Oval Office of the White House, Friday, May 23, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) More

  • in

    Nato ‘will force Starmer to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence’ to keep Trump happy

    Britain will be forced to sign up to a target to hike defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 at a Nato summit later this month in a bid to appease Donald Trump, defence sources believe. On Monday Keir Starmer’s bold plans to transform the UK’s defences were overshadowed by a row over money after the prime minister failed to commit to a firm date to raise spending to 3% of GDP. The Labour leader was warned Britain may not be moving quickly enough to counter the rapidly growing threats from countries such as Russia.Sir Keir and other Nato leaders are also under pressure from US president Donald Trump to rapidly increase spending, to wean Europe off a dependence on Washington for military support. Now amid attempts by Nato’s secretary general Mark Rutte to woo President Trump, senior defence sources said Britain will “without a doubt” sign up to a proposal for member countries to boost defence spending. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump (Carl Court/PA) More

  • in

    Budapest police deny LGBTQ+ march request, citing Hungary’s legislative Pride ban

    Police issued an order on Tuesday denying a request to hold an LGBTQ+ event later in central Budapest, a consequence of recent steps by the right-wing populist government aimed at banning the popular Budapest Pride march. The police’s decision to prohibit the planned event later this month came after Hungary’s parliament passed legislation in March, and a constitutional amendment the following month, that allowed the government to ban public events by LGBTQ+ communities — moves that legal scholars and critics have called another step toward authoritarianism by the autocratic government.In its justification for prohibiting the Budapest event, which organizers requested to take place on June 28, the city’s police argued that “it cannot be ruled out, or is even inevitable, that a person under the age of 18 will be able to engage in legally prohibited conduct” if attending the proposed march.The police also contended that the march could result in “passive victims,” who, “because of the assembly’s march-like nature, did not wish to attend the assembly but, because of its public nature, nevertheless become a bystander.”In a statement, the organizers called the police decision “a textbook example of tyranny.”The ban on LGBTQ+ events — which the government says ensures children’s rights to moral, physical and spiritual development — allows for fines on people organizing or taking part in Pride events, and the use of facial recognition software to identify them.Hungary’s contentious “child protection” legislation prohibits the “depiction or promotion” of homosexuality to minors aged under 18.Hungarian officials have given contradictory statements as to whether or not the new policies amount to a full ban on Budapest Pride. In a speech to supporters in February, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán advised organizers “not to bother organizing this year’s parade,” calling it “wasted money and time.”The Budapest Police attached photographs and videos to its statement depicting scenes from previous Budapest Pride events — ostensibly evidence to corroborate its view that the march was likely to violate the new laws banning public displays of homosexuality. France, Germany and Spain were among at least 20 European Union nations who last month called on Hungary to revise its legislation banning LGBTQ+ events, expressing concern that it runs contrary to the fundamental values of human dignity, freedom, equality and respect for human rights enshrined in EU treaties.Organizers of Budapest Pride, which draws tens of thousands annually and is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, have vowed that the event will go on as planned despite the threat of legal sanctions. More

  • in

    Reeves urged to raise taxes and cut public spending as UK growth to stall after Trump tariffs

    Rachel Reeves has been urged to increase taxes and cut public spending after the UK’s growth forecast was downgraded amid rising prices and the impact of Donald Trump’s trade war. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has warned the chancellor to “step up” efforts to bolster the ‘headroom’ in the nation’s finances.And it calls on her to start to act within days – including in next week’s Spending Review, which will outline government spending for the coming years. Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces pressure after a higher-than-expected rise in state borrowing (Yui Mok/PA) More

  • in

    Voices: ‘The money tree appears to have grown again’: Readers react to Starmer’s defence review

    As Sir Keir Starmer warned that the world is facing its most dangerous moment in decades, his call to make Britain “war-fighting ready” sparked strong – and divided – reactions from Independent readers.In a speech from Glasgow, Starmer announced a major defence push: more attack submarines, billions for nuclear warheads, and long-range weapons to prepare for possible conflict in Europe or the Atlantic.His appeal for “every part of society” to play a role marked a big shift. But with defence spending only set to rise to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027 – and no firm promise to hit 3 per cent – many questioned if the plans are affordable or realistic.Some readers felt the UK was clinging to outdated priorities, investing in military power while health and social care systems remain under strain. One commented: “Where is all this money coming from? I hate to say it, but it looks like the money tree has magically grown back.”While some criticised Trident’s cost and relevance, others doubted the focus on submarines and high-tech gear, arguing modern threats like drones and cyberattacks need different answers.But not all responses were negative. Several readers welcomed the move as a long-overdue step to strengthen Nato, protect UK interests, and face up to global threats.There were also calls for the UK to shift its defence priorities, with less focus on foreign missions and more on defending infrastructure, energy and borders at home.Here’s what you had to say:Defence must be taken seriouslyI don’t want to criticise the defence review for the sake of it, because I agree with most of it, but 12 attack submarines at around £4 billion a pop and then around £1 billion a year, each, to run? And where will the sailors to run them come from?It seems ludicrous that we ordered two – yes, two – aircraft carriers with no aircraft, and people still talk fondly of Gordon Brown? Let’s hope the opposition MPs turn up for the debate properly briefed, for a change.It really is time to treat defence seriously and not just another political topic to be exploited for personal gain.MrBishiWhat are your views on Starmer’s defence review? Add your thoughts in the comments hereStop trying to be a mini-AmericaWhen it comes to defence it’s important that we don’t just try to be a mini-America but instead develop totally unique capabilities that give us an advantage over much more powerful adversaries with much bigger defence budgets.First on the agenda should be the ability to shoot down anything heading towards the UK. Second should be the ability to stop any attacks on shipping / undersea cables etc around the UK. Last on the list should be our offensive capabilities that we can deploy around the world.This should be focused on relatively cheap (easily replicable) equipment that can take out much more advanced and expensive equipment – i.e., drones that can destroy warships etc. Subs are nice, but I do wonder if the money would be better spent on other projects.thecultureCreating jobsThis is really good news. It absolutely needs doing. And if it is handled skilfully, it can boost the UK economy. We have the capability to make military weapons ourselves, and that will create high-skilled jobs. We would be likely to sell arms to other countries, giving our economy another boost. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is so regrettable that we are not in the EU so that we could work more closely with our European colleagues, and be richer, of course.anotherviewWhere is the money coming from?That’s an awful lot of UK kids that are going to starve. Less money for elderly and disabled care. Less money for education, councils… and literally where is all this money coming from? I’m sorry to have to say this, but the money tree appears to have grown again.JolDefence spending must increase immediatelyPolitics aside, declaring a 3 per cent cap on military spending at a time when the situation facing us is more dire than prior to WW2 is churlishness. We must adopt a policy of immediately increasing our defence spending to the level that is required.We must invest in security – food, energy, manufacturing and research. The enemy has played a patient and cautious game – using the halcyon days where the “West” believed that nobody would be foolish enough to attack us to make us reliant on their resources and products.The Eastern alliance and its various despot allies have made us all into a chocolate teapot from a threat perspective.It is imperative that we immediately switch to a war footing, not have a vague goal of 3% by the end of next Parliament.We need a program of investment, training and recruitment in our armed forces, engineering, pharmaceutical, energy and manufacturing industries the likes of which we have never seen previously. If we do not, I fear we may, if we are lucky, live to regret it.MrRAFNavyWe couldn’t defend the Falklands todayAs we’ve seen from Putin’s illegal annexation of parts of Ukraine, it’s not nuclear subs we need, but boots on the ground – soldiers, tanks, planes, etc.We need to deploy troops as and when we need them. Even Putin isn’t stupid enough to start dropping nukes on Europe, Britain or America – he knows he’d lose.As one retired army general said: our army, navy and air force have been slowly cut back for decades by various governments. He said there was no way we could defend something like the Falklands ever again.Enemies will always take advantage when you’re at your weakest.SharpfocusMilitary power means geopolitical leverageEurope and the majority of the world couldn’t be more opposed to what Israel is doing. But the fact is they’re able to do so because America has complete military dominance.Even if the UN imposed sanctions/embargo on Israel, how can it be enforced? We can’t physically stop the goods. Nor can we physically intervene to protect the Palestinian people. Or even create a realistic threat.The sad fact is, no matter how much we object, our opinion counts for nothing without a strong military to back it up. We can’t protect people without a strong military.AjamesNo-brainerIt’s a no-brainer. Defence comes first, before welfare. We currently spend a little over 2 per cent of GDP on defence, but 11 per cent on welfare. Increasing defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP is easily affordable.MarkOverstretched and under-resourcedAll this seems nice, though: the UK has barely 30+ combat-ready Challenger 2 main battle tanks, a weakened military because of defence budget cuts, inflation, a certain political instability, issues with migration, a problematic NHS, just a single nuclear strategic submarine, American F-35s, Typhoon/Eurofighter is not a super-duper fighter plane, and in general, for all that he promises, he needs time, money and popular consent.I doubt he has any of the above.Who will pay for all that he plans?GiorgioDA good speech, grounded in realismFeel like this is a really good speech and outcome. It’s about the defence of the realm and strengthening Nato. It’s about dealing with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. And by using British industry, it helps the economy.BeardMonkCynical but realisticThis country still has the wartime ‘make do and mend’ approach to virtually everything, especially defence. Nothing will happen until Russia is actively attacking our country, and then it will be a mad rush to cobble some sort of defences together until we can beg the US to come to our help.To follow Tony Radakin’s aspiration for a kamikaze drone unit ‘as soon as possible’, I suspect HMG sees ‘ASAP’ as sometime in the future when the next government is in power.If my comment comes across as deeply cynical, it’s not meant to be – just realistic of how our governments’ descending priorities appear to be: politics, good optics, PR, spin, and then actual delivery.TerryHBritain: a declining fifty-first American stateBritain continues to think of itself as a prominent world power, when, in reality, we are the depressed and declining fifty-first American state.We need to learn from far more realistic and mature nations, such as Switzerland, Denmark and Portugal.Until then, our standard of living will continue to decline.Cyclone8The UK’s nuclear deterrent: the biggest folly of all timeThe fact is that the cost to renew Trident is £100 billion. The UK has four nuclear subs that are basically controlled by the U.S. and apparently can’t see the Isle of Skye when they’re underwater. The UK’s nuclear deterrent is the biggest folly of all time and makes Scotland a target when most Scots are against nuclear weapons being deployed in their country.Scotland now has the double whammy of nuclear weapons and Nigel Farage as a possible PM (both being equally dangerous), and now, if asked, Scotland would vote by 60 per cent to be independent. That might be no great shakes to your South East of England Farage supporter, but bang goes your oil revenue and your sub bases.PlasticpaddyWhy does the UK meddle everywhere?I can’t understand why the UK feels a need to stick its oar in everywhere… China, Taiwan, Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine, Yemen, Syria… it’s endless. I live in Spain and was pleased to hear a local politician make the common-sense remark that we struggle to find the money for education, health care, etc… and certainly don’t have the cash to waste stoking tension.gofelSubs are dead in the waterAs modern ‘land’ warfare has changed dramatically with the introduction of aerial drones, so has ‘nautical’ warfare – especially in this case. Acoustic sensitivity is now so advanced that submarines cannot hide from detection – to coin a phrase: they are dead in the water!It is ironic that as we move to a more nationalistic and therefore more aggressive foreign policy, we are all in more danger from our own leaderships than from any others, as that ‘aggression’ calls for more ‘hard’ men.The sucking out of ordinary people’s personal wealth to pay for these defunct weapons of mass death by individuals using ‘fear’ to leverage their own ambitions belies the claim that ‘democracy’ does exist – it only points to the power of propaganda.We do live in a Serengeti world where constant vigilance is necessary just to stay alive – and to prosper needs a better selection of leadership!MickHuckerbyNuclear deterrents are still effectiveI think the reticence of Nato to confront Russia directly in Ukraine shows the effectiveness of a nuclear deterrent.The value of more attack subs is not so clear, but this will have been decided in conjunction with military partners, and between them all, they probably know a bit more than any of us.hughrobinsonhughrobinsonStop pretending we’re a major powerIt is time we stopped ‘pretending’ that we are a major player on the world stage. Even part of the money needed for nuclear weapons could transform our health services, provide decent social care, etc.I am not suggesting we abandon Nato or our European allies, just that we are realistic about our capabilities.SuneySome 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

    Defence secretary fails to rule out tax rises to fund defence spending uplift

    The defence secretary has failed to rule out tax rises to pay for Britain’s “war readiness” amid concerns that the government does not have enough money to fund the plans outlined in a major defence review.John Healey said the government would “set out how we’ll pay for future increases in the future” when quizzed over how Britain can afford to boost its military funding to 3 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product. Speaking a day after Sir Keir Starmer unveiled the long-awaited defence strategic defence review, Mr Healey said he is “100 per cent confident” the target would be met — but he struggled to say how it would be paid for after economists warned that significant tax rises would be needed. Questions have been raised over the government’s big ambitions to make Britain “safer and stronger” after Sir Keir refused to commit to hitting the 3 per cent target by 2034 — which the review warned was essential to ensure the plans were affordable.Defence Secretary John Healey announced new defence investment More