Connect with us
...

Politics

Sunak wrong to say I refused to apologise

Published

on

Lord Zac Goldsmith has hit back at Rishi Sunak’s claim he refused to apologise for criticising a Commons investigation into Boris Johnson.

The Tory peer earlier resigned as a minister with a scathing attack on Mr Sunak’s “apathy” over climate change.

Mr Sunak said Lord Goldsmith had quit after being asked to apologise for comments he made about the Privileges Committee inquiry.

But Lord Goldsmith has told the BBC the prime minister was “wrong”.

“I am happy to apologise for publicly sharing my views on the Privileges Committee,” said Lord Goldsmith.

“I firmly believe our parliamentary democracy can only be strengthened by robust scrutiny, and parliamentarians should of course be free to be critical of its reports and proceedings.

“But as a minister I shouldn’t have commented publicly. No 10 asked me to acknowledge that, and made clear that there was no question of my being ‘sacked’ if I did so. I was – and am – happy to do so. “My decision to step down has been a long time coming.”

‘Utterly betrayed’

In a scathing resignation letter, which did not mention the Privileges Committee report, Lord Goldsmith said he had been “horrified” at the government abandoning its environmental commitments and withdrawing its leadership on the world stage.

He cited a flagship animal welfare bill being ditched, as well as an abandoned pledge to spend £11.6bn of UK aid on climate and environment.

Lord Goldsmith told BBC climate editor Justin Rowlatt the pledge would not be met because of “low levels of expenditure so far”, combined with a decision to classify spending on Afghan and Ukrainian refugees in the UK as overseas aid.

Small island nations would be left “feeling utterly betrayed,” whilst “our reputation as a reliable partner will simply be shredded,” he added.

However, in a letter to Lord Goldsmith, Mr Sunak said: “You were asked to apologise for your comments about the Privileges Committee as we felt they were incompatible with your position as a Minister of the Crown. You have decided to take a different course.”

He said Lord Goldsmith had been “a vocal advocate of some of the most important issues that the UK and the world face today”.

Mr Sunak added: “The UK continues to play an important role globally in tackling climate change and preserving the environment.”

It comes two days after a government climate watchdog warned the UK had lost its leadership on climate issues.

As a minister in the Foreign Office, Lord Goldsmith had responsibility for Asia, energy, climate and the environment.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt said he did not agree with Lord Goldsmith’s comments about Mr Sunak’s attitude towards the environment.

He told BBC Radio 4’s World at One: “I know the prime minister is as proud as I am that the UK has reduced our emissions by more than any other advanced economy. We have led the way when it comes to climate issues internationally.”

But, he added, the government needed to get the economy “back on track” to be able to “continue to invest at the rate we want to in the transition to net zero”.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats had called for Lord Goldsmith to resign after the Privilege Committee report’s publication on Thursday.

However, Mr Sunak’s official spokesman had said the prime minister continued to have full confidence in him.

Lib Dem spokeswoman Sarah Olney, who won her Richmond Park seat from Lord Goldsmith in 2019, said Mr Sunak “should have had the guts” to sack him.

Ms Olney claimed his resignation confirmed the government “doesn’t give a damn about the environment and animal rights”.

Labour’s shadow environment secretary Jim McMahon said: “Rishi Sunak’s weakness is laid bare as 24 hours after he refused to condemn Zac Goldsmith, Goldsmith scathingly condemns him.”

Former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, another close ally of Mr Johnson who was named in the Privileges Committee report, said Lord Goldsmith’s “passion” for the environment was “second to none” and that the government had been “lucky” to have him.

The committee’s report said “unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure” was placed on its members, who were investigating whether former Prime Minister Mr Johnson had misled Parliament over lockdown parties at Downing Street.

A tweet by Lord Goldsmith, in which he expressed support for the view that the inquiry was a “witch hunt” and a “kangaroo court”, was cited in the report’s evidence.

However, other Tories named in the report accused the committee of trying to shut down freedom of speech.

Zac Goldsmith and Boris Johnson during the 2016 mayoral campaign
Lord Goldsmith is a close ally of Boris Johnson, who supported his 2016 London mayoral bid

Mr Johnson announced he was resigning as an MP days before the committee published its initial findings, branding the investigation a “kangaroo court”.

The year-long inquiry found Mr Johnson made multiple deliberately misleading statements to Parliament about lockdown parties at Downing Street.

It ruled he should have been suspended for 90 days had he remained in the Commons.

The sanction, which was lengthy by recent standards, would have been likely to trigger a by-election in Mr Johnson’s constituency.

Lord Goldsmith, a close ally of Mr Johnson, previously served as a junior environment minister in his government.

He was made a peer by Mr Johnson after losing his seat as Conservative MP for Richmond Park to the Liberal Democrats in the 2019 general election.

He was first elected as an MP in 2010, and in 2016 ran unsuccessfully to be the mayor of London.

Reports /TrainViral/

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Gething downfall delivers Starmer 1st headache

Published

on

By

Just when you’d have been forgiven for thinking politics might quieten down a bit…

The Welsh Labour government was for so long a case study in how the party could operate in power during its long years of opposition at Westminster.

And yet here we are less than a fortnight into a UK Labour government, and the Welsh Labour government is imploding.

So much for all that talk about bringing stability back to politics.

Last week Vaughan Gething was sharing smiles here not just with the new prime minister but the King too.

Now, he’s a goner, delivering Sir Keir Starmer a headache rather than a handshake.

When I was here in March covering Mr Gething’s victory, the seeds of his political demise were germinating before our eyes.

The donations row had already sprouted and his defeated opponent, Jeremy Miles, legged it from the venue without so much as any warm words about the victor on camera.

It was another sign of the cultivating anger, the political knotweed that would soon flourish and ensnare Vaughan Gething.

Along came the row about alleged leaking, a sacking, a confidence vote — and a first minister whose tenure up until today at least amounts to 2.4 times that of Liz Truss. Ouch.

Westminster has generated its fair share of turbulence in the last decade.

But it is far from unique as a source of turbulence in UK politics.

In February, Michelle O’Neill became first minister of Northern Ireland with Emma Little-Pengelly her deputy, after a long period without devolved government at Stormont.

In March, we had a new first minister of Wales, when Mark Drakeford stood down and Vaughan Gething took the job.

In April we had the resignation of the first minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf.

He was replaced the following month by John Swinney. June was the quiet month then. Just the small matter of a general election campaign.

And here we are in July, and Mr Gething is resigning.

So will begin another leadership race, a new government in Wales, a new first minister and a new team of senior Welsh ministers.

There will also be more arguments about Welsh Labour – its direction, its priorities, its capacity to govern effectively and its relationship with the UK party.

If you’re watching this in Downing Street, it’s the last thing you need.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Shoplifting crackdown expected to be unveiled

Published

on

By

A crackdown on shoplifting is expected to be announced in the King’s Speech on Wednesday.

The government is due to unveil a new crime bill to target people who steal goods worth less than £200.

The policy would be a reversal of 2014 legislation that meant “low-value” thefts worth under £200 were subject to less serious punishment.

The government is also expected to introduce a specific offence of assaulting a shop worker to its legislative agenda.

It will not be clear until legislation passes through Parliament what the punishments for any new or strengthened offences would be.

Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that last year was the worst on record for shoplifting in England and Wales.

Police recorded over 430,000 offences in those nations in 2023 – though retailers say underreporting means these figures are likely to represent only a fraction of the true number of incidents.

Michelle Whitehead, who works at a convenience store in Wolverhampton, said her shop had been “hit every day” by thieves.

People were stealing “absolutely anything” including “tins of spam, tins of corned beef, all the fresh meat”, Ms Whitehead told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme.

“They’re just coming in, getting their whole arm and sweeping the lot off the shelves,” she said. “The shelves were always empty.”

She said she believed “organised” criminal gangs, rather than individuals struggling with the cost of living, were behind the thefts in her shop.

The crackdown on “low-value” shoplifting “will help a lot of little shops,” Ms Whitehead said.

While retailers and shop workers have welcomed the anticipated proposals, a civil liberties group has raised concerns about criminalising people struggling to make ends meet and overburdening the prison system.

The new legal measures are expected to be announced as part of the King’s Speech on Wednesday, a key piece of the State Opening of Parliament that allows the government to outline its priorities over the coming months.

Before the general election, the Labour Party pledged to reverse what it described as the “shoplifter’s charter” – a piece of 2014 legislation that reduced the criminal punishment for “low-value shoplifting”.

Tom Holder, spokesperson for the British Retail Consortium (BRC), told BBC News the impact of the 2014 legislation has been to “deprioritise it in the eyes of police”.

“I think police would be less likely to turn up to what they see as low-level theft,” he said.

Shoplifting cost retailers £1.8 billion in the last year, which could impact prices, according to the BRC.

“Shoplifting harms everyone in that sense – those costs eventually get made up somewhere, whether it’s prices going up or other prices that can’t come down,” Mr Holder said.

Co-op campaigns and public affairs director Paul Gerrard said the supermarket chain had also recorded rising theft and violence against shop workers.

“There’s always been people who will steal to make ends meet. That’s not what is behind the rise we’ve seen,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday. “What’s behind that rise is individuals and gangs targeting large volumes of stock in stores for resale in illicit venues like pubs, clubs, markets, and out the back of cars.”

But Jodie Beck, policy and campaigns officer at civil liberties organisation Liberty, had concerns about the expected proposals, saying there is “already a wide range of powers” the police can use to tackle shoplifting and anti-social behaviour levelled at retail staff.

Ms Beck said the “£200 threshold” would not just target criminal gangs but also “people who are pushed into the desperate situation of not paying for things” because they cannot afford to make ends meet.

She urged the government to avoid focusing on “criminal justice and policing solutions instead of doing the thoughtful work of looking at the root causes of crime, which we believe are related to poverty and inequality”.

Ms Beck also argued the additional legislation could serve to worsen the UK’s “enormous court backlog” and its “bursting prison system”.

Last week, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans to release thousands of prisoners early to ease overcrowding in the country’s prisons.

A spokesperson for Downing Street said the government would not comment on the King’s Speech until it has been delivered by the monarch.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has been approached for comment.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Government launches ‘root and branch’ review

Published

on

By

Defence Secretary John Healey hailed the government’s defence review as the “first of its kind” and said it will “take a fresh look at the challenges we face”.

Mr Healey noted the “increasing instability and uncertainty” around the world, including the conflict in the Middle East and war in Ukraine, and said “threats are growing”.

The strategic defence review will consider the current state of the armed forces, the threats the UK faces and the capabilities needed to address them.

Sir Keir Starmer has previously said the review will set out a “roadmap” to the goal of spending 2.5% of national income on defence – a target he has made a “cast iron” commitment to but is yet to put a timeline on.

On Monday, the prime minister said the “root and branch review” of the armed forces would help prepare the UK for “a more dangerous and volatile world”.

The review will invite submissions from the military, veterans, MPs, the defence industry, the public, academics and the UK’s allies until the end of September and aims to deliver its findings in the first half of 2025.

“I promised the British people I would deliver the change needed to take our country forward, and I promised action not words,” Sir Keir said.

“That’s why one of my first acts since taking office is to launch our strategic defence review.

“We will make sure our hollowed out armed forces are bolstered and respected, that defence spending is responsibly increased, and that our country has the capabilities needed to ensure the UK’s resilience for the long term.”

The review will be overseen by Defence Secretary John Healey and headed by former Nato Secretary General Lord Robertson along with former US presidential advisor Fiona Hill and former Joint Force Commander Gen Sir Richard Barrons.

The group will have their work cut out.

The global security threats facing the UK and its Western allies are more serious and more complex than at any time since the end of the Cold War in 1990.

They also coincide with what many commentators have said is a catastrophic running down of the UK’s armed forces to the point where the country is arguably no longer considered to be a Tier One military force.

In terms of the number of troops in its regular forces, the British Army is now at its smallest size since the time of the Napoleonic Wars two centuries ago.

Recruitment is failing to match retention, with many soldiers and officers complaining about neglected and substandard accommodation.

The Royal Navy, which has spent vast sums on its two centrepiece aircraft carriers, is in need of many more surface ships to fulfil its tasks around the globe.

Its ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Vanguard submarines, the cornerstone of the UK’s strategic defence and known as the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD), is overdue for replacement by four Dreadnought class submarines and costs are mounting.

Commenting on the review, Mr Healey said: “Hollowed-out armed forces, procurement waste and neglected morale cannot continue.”

Too many UK commitments?

The defence and security threats facing the UK, Nato and its allies further afield are multiple.

They include a war raging on Europe’s eastern flank in Ukraine against Russia’s full-scale invasion. The UK, along with the EU and Nato, has opted to help defend Ukraine with multi-billion pound packages of weapons and aid, stopping short of committing combat troops.

The policy behind this is not entirely altruistic. European governments, especially those closest to Russia like Poland and the Baltic states, fear that if President Putin wins the war in Ukraine it will not be long before he rebuilds his army and invades them next.

Some of those countries are already busy beefing up their own defence spending closer to 3% or even 4% of GDP.

The challenge for Nato has been how to provide Ukraine with as much weaponry as it can, without provoking Russia into retaliating against a Nato state and risk triggering a third world war.

The Royal Navy has been in action recently in the Red Sea, where it has been operating alongside the US Navy in fending off attacks on shipping by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

But the UK has also made naval commitments further afield in the South China Sea with the Aukus pact, comprising of Australia, UK and the US, aimed at containing Chinese expansion in the region.

Critics have questioned whether a financially-constrained UK can afford to make commitments like this on the other side of the world.

Closer to home in Europe, there is a growing threat from so-called “hybrid warfare” attacks, suspected of coming from Russia.

These are anonymous, unattributable attacks on undersea pipelines and telecoms cables on which Western nations depend.

As tensions increase with Moscow there are fears such actions will only increase and the UK cannot possibly hope to guard all of its coastline all of the time.

But while those nervous Nato partners living close to Russia’s borders are busy beefing up their defence spending closer to 3 or even 4% of GDP, the UK has so far declined to put a timetable on when it will raise its own defence spending to just 2.5%.

Opposition figures have criticised the government for refusing to say when defence spending will be increased.

Before his election defeat, former prime minister Rishi Sunak committed to reaching 2.5% by 2030.

Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge previously said: “In a world that is more volatile and dangerous than at any time since the Cold War, Keir Starmer’s Labour government had a clear choice to match the Conservatives’ fully funded pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030.

“By failing to do so, they’ve created huge uncertainty for our armed forces, at the worst possible time.”

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 TechDaja News.