UK

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Croatian parliament dissolves to pave way for parliamentary election later this year

      by

      Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email Croatia’s parliament was dissolved on Thursday to pave the way for a parliamentary election later this year.All 143 of a total of 151 lawmakers who were present at the session voted in favor of the move. The date of the election is yet to be set. Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic has suggested it should be held before the vote for the European Parliament, which will be held on June 6-9. The upcoming vote in Croatia will pit ruling conservative Croatian Democratic Union against a group of center and left-leaning parties who have announced they will run in a coalition. Plenkovic and his HDZ party have faced mounting accusations of high-level corruption from the opposition ahead of the ballot. He has denied the claims.Croatia is slated to hold a presidential election as well by the end of the year. Plenkovic’s HDZ largely has held power since Croatia gained independence from the former Yugoslavia in 1991. The Adriatic Sea nation became the newest member of the European Union in 2013 and joined Europe’s free-travel and euro zones last year. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Whitehall lacks the skills to implement AI, says National Audit Office

      by

      Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailArtificial intelligence could save the taxpayer billions and transform public services, but the Government lacks a coherent plan to adopt it in the public sector, the National Audit Office has said.In a report on the Government’s use of AI, the NAO found that while 70% of Whitehall departments were exploring opportunities to use the new technology, a lack of skills remained a significant barrier.The watchdog said pay levels were too low to attract the workers required for the scale of transformation the UK needs, pointing to the fact there were 4,000 digital, data and technology vacancies in Government by October 2022.Contractors and agency workers can make up for this shortfall, but come at a greater cost and reduce the Government’s ability to develop its own capabilities.It also found the lack of a single body with clear responsibility for implementing AI in the public sector presented a risk to value for money.Both the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology share responsibility for adopting AI, while a cross-government AI Strategy Delivery Group was disbanded in March 2022 and only replaced in October 2023 by a new body.While the report found that there were productivity gains to be made through greater use of AI, it added that the Government was yet to examine how much it would cost to make those gains or whether they were even feasible.Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said: “AI offers Government opportunities to transform public services and deliver better outcomes for the taxpayer.“To deliver these improved outcomes Government needs to make sure its overall programme for AI adoption tackles longstanding issues, including data quality and ageing IT, as well as builds in effective governance of the risks.“Without prompt action to address barriers to making effective use of AI within public services, Government will not secure the benefits it has identified.”Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: “Government has encouraged the use of AI for several years and there is existing AI activity and exploration across Government, so the Cabinet Office needs to bring together this insight and learning and share it across departments.“To realise the benefits of AI in the public sector it must address AI risks and be clear who is responsible for the strategy for AI adoption and how it will be delivered and funded.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in UK Politics

      Plan to step up badger cull prompts fresh row between ministers and wildlife defenders

      by

      Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailA new government plan to wipe out all badgers in certain areas has prompted a fresh row between officials and wildlife activists.Badgers are blamed for carrying bovine tuberculosis (bTB), which forces dairy farmers to have infected herds culled.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has back-tracked on earlier promises to end the badger cull, which began in 2013.Instead, as revealed by The Independent last month, officials are proposing to allow 100 per cent of populations to be killed in “cluster” hot spots for the disease. Until now, the target was 70 per cent or above.But animal-welfare supporters are considering renewed legal action over the policy.They claim:The cull is politically motivated to suit certain factions, especially farmersThere are no restrictions on the number of cull areas and the public will not know where they areSlack controls will confuse enforcement bodies and the publicThe numbers killed could double in just over a decade to half a millionDefra is ignoring the science that has disproven evidence officials are relying onUnder targeted culling – or “epidemiological culling” – badgers may be wiped out in areas, mostly southwest England, where bovine TB (bTB) is considered a particular threat.The deadlier policy could begin next year. The government had previously indicated culling could be ended by 2026 before Thursday’s u-turn. Labour has promised to end the cull if it wins power at the general election.Tom Langton, an ecologist who has challenged culling in the courts, said 100 per cent culling was tried in 2018 in Cumbria. “They shot 1,115 badgers – all of them – but could not then attribute change in TB rates to culling as seven farms were quite clearly reinfecting themselves because of the failed testing regime,” he said.He cited a report that found no demonstrable benefit in lower TB rates in cattle.“The new prolonged killing spree, under what looks like a highly simplified licence system, could see the badger tally rise from around 250,000 shot to-date, towards 300,000 by 2030 and half a million by 2038,” he said.“This would be a cull of largely healthy adult badgers and their cubs, cruelly slaughtered using crude methods opposed by the British Veterinary Association, and for no good reason.”The High Court rejected a legal challenge by Mr Langton to culling in 2018, but he said The Badger Crowd organisation, of which he is a member, could consider joining separate legal action already underway.Peter Hambly, executive director of the Badger Trust, said the consultation announced by Defra revealed “yet another appalling attack on a protected native species”.He said tackling bTB could only be done by accurate herd management, more rigorous reliable testing and cattle vaccination. But “the government appears only to listen to stakeholders with vested interests and is fixated instead on a badger-focused policy that affects all of us and our right to nature.“Government bTB policy in England continues to allow poor hygiene and biosecurity on farms yet still provides millions of pounds in compensation to farmers, and the movement of cattle across the country under knowingly unreliable testing and biosecurity regimes.”Government sources hit back, saying the aim of the policy was not to kill all badgers.Environment secretary Steve Barclay said: “Bovine TB has taken a terrible toll on farmers, leading to the loss of highly prized animals and, in the worst cases, valued herds.“There are no easy answers in the battle against TB, but badger culling has proved highly effective and needs to remain a key part of our approach.“Our strategy has led to a significant reduction in this insidious disease, which we will continue to cull in areas where the evidence confirms it is required, as well as making use of vaccinations.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in UK Politics

      Russia ‘jams signals’ on RAF plane carrying Grant Shapps

      by

      Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRussia is believed to have jammed the GPS signal on an RAF aircraft carrying Grant Shapps during a trip to Poland.In what has been called a “wildly irresponsible” act of electronic warfare, the GPS signal of the plane was said to have been interfered with for half an hour while passing the Russian territory of Kaliningrad, which sits between Poland and Lithuania.The attack left phones unable to connect to the plane’s WiFi and the plan forced to use other means of navigation available to the pilots, The Times reported.The defence secretary was aboard an RAF Dassault 900LX Falcon jet, named Envoy. It is unclear if Mr Shapps himself would have been deliberately targeted, though his flight path was visible to trackers.Mr Shapps was assured the attack did not threaten the safety of the plane.A defence source said: “While the RAF are well prepared to deal with this, it still puts an unnecessary risk on civilian aircraft and could potentially endanger people’s lives. There is no excuse for this and it’s wildly irresponsible on Russia’s part.”It is not the first time that British planes have faced likely jamming by Russia. In 2021, planes flying in and out of RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus wre also thought to have had their GPS signals jammed by Moscow. The aircraft affected were believed to have been F-35 and Typhoon fighter jets, A400M transport aircraft and Voyager troop planes. No serious incidents were reported at the time, but the singal was thought to have been coming from Syrian territory, where Russia has had a presence. Mr Shapps was returning from a visit to a military training site in Orzysz, northeast Poland, about 100 miles from Kalinigrad. He watched troops taking part in the Steadfast Defender, Nato’s largest military exercises since the Cold War. The exercises, taking place until May includes around 90,000 troops from across the alliance.During the trip to Poland, Mr Shapps hit out at Vladimir Putin’s “sabre-rattling” after the Russian leader used an interview with state media to claim that his nation was “ready” for nuclear war if the need arose. It is a threat that he has used repeatedly since invading Ukraine, with Western allies – including the UK – having rallied around Kyiv as it has defended itself. Mr Shapps called such rhetoric “irresponsible” and that Putin should “drive back east and get out of the democratic country he decided to invade two years ago”.More follows on this breaking story… More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Watch live as Michael Gove gives statement on new extremism definition

      by

      Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailWatch live as Michael Gove shares a statement on the government’s new extremism definition on Thursday 14 March. The government has unveiled its new definition amid rising concern about threats to social cohesion and British democracy.Groups covered by the extremism definition, which is designed to include conduct that falls short of criminality but is still deemed “unacceptable”, will be denied access to government funding and prevented from meeting ministers and officials or gaining a platform that could “legitimise” them through association with the government.The definition describes extremism as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”.It also includes those who “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve” either of those aims.Mr Gove, the communities secretary, who has overseen the formulation of the new definition, said it would “ensure that government does not inadvertently provide a platform to those setting out to subvert democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights”. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in UK Politics

      Michael Gove to create list of ‘extremist’ groups blacklisted from funding and meeting ministers

      by

      Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailThe government is set to create a list of “extremist” groups that will be blacklisted from funding and prevented from meeting ministers and civil servants under new plans drawn up by Michael Gove.Mr Gove, the levelling up secretary, said he will use a new definition of extremism to try and crack down on the “pervasiveness of extremist ideologies” that have “become increasingly clear” in the aftermath of the 7 October attack by Hamas on Israel.The definition says extremism is the advancement of a violent, hateful or intolerant ideology that aims to “negate or destroy” the rights of others, or which aims to “undermine, overturn or replace” the UK’s democracy and democratic rights.Extremism is also defined as the promotion of an ideology that aims to “intentionally create a permissive environment” for others to achieve the same aims.The definition does not create new powers, is not statutory and has no effect on existing criminal law. Michael Gove has been criticised for his plans which some say are a threat to freedom of expressionThe new definition has already faced criticism from three former home secretaries and Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all of whom cautioned the government over the risk of politicising anti-extremism.The archbishop said that the plans risk “disproportionately targeting Muslim communities”. He added: “The new definition being proposed not only inadvertently threatens freedom of speech, but also the right to worship and peaceful protest – things that have been hard won and form the fabric of a civilised society.”Government officials insist that the definition sets a “high bar” that will only capture the most concerning activities. Those who provide a “permissive environment” for extremist groups will be classed as those who repeatedly offer a platform for individuals despite knowing that they have been blacklisted, for example.As well as not receiving funding or meeting with ministers, extremist groups or individuals will be barred from public appointments and from receiving honours.The government published the extremism definition on Thursday and civil servants will now spend the next few weeks deciding which groups fit the criteria. Inclusion on the list will then be signed off by Mr Gove. The Department for Levelling Up has committed to publishing the list when it is complete and has not ruled out putting individuals on the list in the future.Those who are designated as extremists will be contacted by officials and given the opportunity to provide mitigating evidence, detailing why they shouldn’t be included. But once they are included on the list of extremist organisations their only recourse will be in the courts.It is likely that one or more of the groups listed will try to bring a judicial review against the policy.Mr Gove announced the new definition by praising the diversity of Britain, but he warned that British values and democracy are “under challenge from extremists”. He added: “The pervasiveness of extremist ideologies has become increasingly clear in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks and poses a real risk to the security of our citizens and our democracy.Read: A defining moment as ministers update what counts as extremism“This is the work of the extreme right-wing and Islamist extremists who are seeking to separate Muslims from the rest of society and create division within Muslim communities. They seek to radicalise individuals, deny people their full rights, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred, and undermine our democratic institutions.”Mr Gove said that the measures would “ensure that government does not inadvertently provide a platform to those setting out to subvert democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights”. Speaking to media on Thursday morning, Mr Gove suggested that a Tory donor’s alleged call for a Black MP to be “shot” would not meet the new definition of extremist. Businessman Frank Hester is alleged to have said that Diane Abbott, Britain’s first black female MP, made him “want to hate all black women”, in comments described as “racist” by the prime minister. Mr Gove told Times Radio: “I wouldn’t want to conflate those motivated by extremist ideology with an individual comment, however horrific, which has quite rightly been called out and which has quite rightly led to an apology.”Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader reacted to the announcement by saying that “tinkering with a new definition” was not enough to tackle extremism. She added: “The government’s counterextremism strategy is now nine years out of date, and they’ve repeatedly failed to define Islamophobia. Any suggestion that the government has been engaging with groups that they’ve now decided are extremists raises serious questions over why it has taken so long to act.”The announcement comes as polling from More in Common finds that 25 per cent of the public thinks the UK is unsafe for Muslims and 39 per cent think it is unsafe for Jews. This is compared to 15 per cent of those surveyed saying Britain was unsafe for them personally. The polling company surveyed 2,027 adults. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in UK Politics

      Michael Gove says he is exercising ‘Christian forgiveness’ toward Tory donor Frank Hester

      by

      Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailCommunities secretary Michael Gove has declined to say whether the business tycoon who allegedly said that Diane Abbott made him “want to hate all black women” would be considered “extremist” under a new definition, and that he is exercising “Christian forgiveness” toward the Tory donor. Extremism is now defined as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”. It also says the new version of extremism will “clearly articulate” how extremism is “evidenced” through the public behaviour of extremists.But speaking ahead of a speech to the Commons on Thursday, Mr Gove has declined to say whether alleged remarks from the Tory donor who called for Ms Abbott to be “shot” would be considered “extremist”. He told Times Radio he was exercising “Christian forgiveness” towards Mr Hester who he understands is “deeply sorry” for his remarks.Michael Gove has announced a new definition of extremism The communities secretary said: “Different people will have different views… It is important that any decision of about individuals and organisations is taken after a rigorous assessment of evidence and a consistent pattern of behaviour.”The cabinet minister seemed to go further when talking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, suggesting that the Tory donor would not be referred to the Government’s new extremism task force.Mr Gove said: “We have to be clear, we’re looking at organisations with a particular ideology.“The individual concerned said something that was horrific. And as someone who was themselves targeted by an extremist who wanted to kill me and then went on to kill a friend of mine, I take these issues incredibly seriously.He added: “I wouldn’t want to conflate those motivated by extremist ideology with an individual comment, however horrific, which has quite rightly been called out and which has quite rightly led to an apology.”The government have come under fire over the last few days after the Guardian revealed that Frank Hester – who donated £10m to the Conservative party in 2023 – allegedly made “racist” comments about the former Labour MP and further incendiary comments about Indian and Malaysian people.The cabinet minister told Sky News: “I haven’t spoken to Mr Hester, but I think that when someone says that they are sorry, and I understand he’s deeply sorry for these remarks, then my natural inclination is to exercise Christian forgiveness.”Mr Gove also said he believes Mr Hester’s apology was “sincere”. Frank Hester is alleged to have said MP Diane Abbott made him ‘want to hate all black women’The government have condemned the reported comments made by Mr Hester as “racist” but have refused to return the donation despite calls from both the opposition and from within their own party.After the publication of the remarks, a statement from the healthcare technology firm the Phoenix Partnership (TPP), which Hester runs, said he “accepts that he was rude about Diane Abbott in a private meeting several years ago but his criticism had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”. The statement added: “He rang Diane Abbott twice today to try to apologise directly for the hurt he has caused her, and is deeply sorry for his remarks. He wishes to make it clear that he regards racism as a poison, which has no place in public life.”In a later post on Mr Hester’s personal social media site, the buisnessman said that people “should have the confidence to discuss our differences openly and even playfully without seeking to cause offence”.Ms Abbott said the views were “frightening”.Asked whether the Conservative party has a racism problem, Mr Gove said: “I think there are individuals who’ve certainly said things that are unacceptable and racist and that needs to be called out. “But again, I also think that if individuals repent, apologise, show contrition, then the right thing to do is to accept that.” More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in UK Politics

      UK government says it will back legislation to ban foreign state ownership of British newspapers

      by

      Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email The U.K. government said Wednesday it will back legislation banning foreign state ownership of British newspapers and magazines, a move that could upend a planned takeover by a United Arab Emirates-led consortium of the Telegraph Media Group.The development comes after numerous lawmakers from across the political divide urged an explicit ban, rather than using a regulatory approach to ensure that publications don’t parrot views of state actors.The minister in charge of media, Stephen Parkinson, said the government will introduce an amendment to the “Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill” currently making its way through Parliament. The bill, which is expected to pass easily, will prevent the takeover of British publications by foreign governments. However, foreign individuals and firms will continue to be able to own papers and magazines.“Freedom of the press is fundamental to a functioning democracy,” said Parkinson. “What freedom of the press means is freedom from government.”The legislation stems from concern about the proposed takeover of the right-leaning and publications by RedBird IMI, which is backed by U.S. financial firm RedBird Capital Partners and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family, who is also the UAE’s vice president. Sheikh Mansour has been a prominent figure in Britain since his 2008 takeover of soccer club Manchester City. His wealth has transformed the fortunes of City, taking the club from an also-ran in the English Premier League to a dominant force.The proposed takeover of the Telegraph Media Group — The Daily Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph as well as The Spectator magazine — has also been subject to a separate investigation, ordered by the Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer, due to its possible impact on press freedom. The Telegraph papers are closely allied to the governing Conservative Party.The takeover has been opposed by Spectator’s editor Fraser Nelson, who welcomed the government’s decision to introduce the ban. “If governments start to own newspapers, whether they’re British governments, European governments or an Arab government, you end up with press freedom compromised fatally,” he told Sky News.“In journalism, one of the maxims is follow the money and if that money leads to the Abu Dhabi government, then you’ve got a pretty big problem when it comes to press freedom,” Nelson added.In a statement, RedBird IMI, which has made six investments in the U.S. and the U.K., said the company was “extremely disappointed” by the government’s decision as it believed the U.K.’s media industry was worthy of more investment.“As with each of our deals, we have been clear that the acquisition of The Telegraph and The Spectator has been a fully commercial undertaking,” it said. “We will now evaluate our next steps, with commercial interests continuing to be the sole priority.” More