Biden partially lifts ban on strikes within Russia

David Cameron publicly said it was up to Ukraine to decide whether to use British weapons to strike targets on Russian territory earlier this month. But nothing has happened since then: no Storm Shadow missiles have flown over the Ukraine-Russia border. Last night, Volodymyr Zelensky explained why: the UK had not given ‘100 per cent permission’ to do so. ‘We raised this issue twice. We did not get confirmation from him [Cameron].’ In reality, Downing Street is waiting on the Americans, he said.

The calls for the US and other allies to allow Ukraine to strike Russian territory with western arms have grown louder after Russia launched a second offensive in the Kharkiv region. They came from senior diplomats and the masses on Twitter, where Ukrainians launched the #LetUkraineStrikeBack campaign. At least 12 western countries have given Ukraine permission to strike. But the biggest boon for Ukraine came last night, when Joe Biden gave Ukraine the go ahead to strike Russia with some American weapons – albeit with restrictions. 

The Biden administration has said that Ukraine may only strike Russian targets near the Kharkiv region. This means that Kyiv will be able to use US-provided short-range weapons to shoot down launched Russian missiles heading toward Kharkiv, at troops massing just over the Russian border near the city, or at aircraft launching bombs toward the region. This marks a groundbreaking shift in US international politics, and is already prompting other allies to lift their bans as well.

Those in Zelensky’s inner circle describe his relationship with Biden as ‘very, very tense’, especially after the Ukrainian President criticised his US counterpart for his decision to attend a Democratic fundraiser instead of Ukraine’s peace summit in mid-June. ‘The peace summit needs Biden, as well as other leaders who look at the US response. His absence… [Vladimir] Putin will applaud this, standing,’ said Zelensky this week. Zelensky, who is often blunt and was once labelled ungrateful by former defence secretary Ben Wallace, has a point: Ukraine is fighting Russia under countless restrictions while Moscow is unhindered.

For Kyiv, permission to strike Russian military and air force bases, artillery guns, and multiple rocket launchers stationed along the border could significantly alter the course of the war. Ukrainian troops won’t have to wait for Russian missiles to cross the border – they’ll be able to shoot down the aircraft carrying them. The arrival of F-16 fighter jets will make this job easier. Denmark and the Netherlands have already allowed Ukraine to use their F-16s to strike military targets in Russia (but Belgium has banned the use of its F-16s for such strikes when they arrive in the autumn). Even Germany is shifting its stance from a strict ‘no German weapons on Russian soil’ stance to a position where, according to Olaf Scholz’s spokesman, ‘defensive action is not limited to one’s own territory, but can also be expanded to the territory of the aggressor’. 

The best-case scenario for Ukraine would be receiving permission to use long-range western weapons to strike Russian military bases deep into the country. But even now Ukrainians are feeling a huge sense of relief, seeing that the West has stopped constantly worrying about the Kremlin’s reaction. The only serious threat so far has been Russia’s move to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus – a psychological ploy, since Putin could launch a nuclear strike from Russian territory if he wanted to.

Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, is the only one in the Kremlin who delights in posting nuclear threats on his Telegram channel every week. This time, he warned that Putin will respond by carving out a buffer zone to protect Russia from attacks – something Russian forces are already attempting in the Kharkiv region. Medvedev claims that if British Storm Shadow or French SCALP-EG missiles, with a range of 350 miles, can reach Belgorod from Kyiv, the ‘sanitary zone’ must encompass the whole of Ukraine. ‘In other words, there must be Russia everywhere,’ Medvedev said, adding, ‘And in Poland itself.’

More than two years of full-scale war in Ukraine have proved that appeasement does not stop Putin: it encourages him. Allies should strike a compromise with Kyiv, allowing Ukraine to target military sites in Russia’s border regions such as Belgorod, Kursk, and Rostov, at the very least. These regions are staging grounds for Russian offensive actions and missile attacks on Ukraine. Kyiv won’t target Russian schools, hospitals and kindergartens – only Moscow does that. 

I’ll still work with Trump, says Starmer

Keir Starmer really is a lucky general. The news that Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies helped ensure that the Labour leader faced questions this morning about the former president, rather than the Diane Abbott selection storm. On his visit to Scotland, Starmer told the BBC that a Labour government would be willing to work with ‘whoever’ was elected in November’s presidential contest.  

‘Obviously we respect the decision of the court, the independent court – there’s a bit of process to go with sentencing and appeal,’ he said. ‘But we are in an unprecedented situation. There’s no doubt about that.’ Starmer added: ‘Ultimately, whether he’s elected president will be a matter for the American people and, obviously, if we’re privileged to come in to serve, we would work with whoever they choose as their president. But there’s no getting away from the fact this is a wholly unprecedented situation.’

It’s a very different tone to that struck by Jeremy Corbyn, who as Labour leader declined an invitation to the state banquet when Trump visited the UK back in 2019. David Lammy – Labour’s presumptive foreign secretary – has himself been on something of a journey. Having previously denounced the former president as a ‘neo-Nazi sympathising sociopath’, Lammy now argues that we should not ‘personalise’ foreign policy debates while his aides proudly tout their meetings with team Trump. There was delight earlier this month at the comments of Elbridge Colby, the potential next American national security adviser, who told Politico that Lammy has a ‘more compatible vision’ with the Trump team than Sunak and David Cameron – including a bigger focus on defence and on Europe.

What’s changed is the recognition that a Labour government is now potentially just five weeks away. If elected, Prime Minister Starmer will be in Washington DC for the Nato summit on the day that Trump is sentenced. That summit will be one of the most important in the history of the alliance, given Trump’s past comments on Europeans not hitting their 2 per cent GDP defence spending target. The strategic interests of the UK and the US are such that any incumbent administration in London will have to work with whoever occupies the White House, especially given the numerous international challenges such as Gaza and Ukraine. The party leadership’s tone on Trump is therefore a sober and realistic response to a president who many in Labour privately despise.

Have you ever heard of the St. Brice’s Day Massacre?

The St. Brice’s Day Massacre? I must admit I hadn’t heard of this “most just extermination” of Danes in Oxford at the instigation of King Aethelred the Unready in 1002, perhaps because the teaching of history in Britain tends to kick off in 1066. You certainly don’t think of Oxford as a place that pioneered techniques of ethnic cleansing.

Crypt is a collection of seven essays that unearth details about how certain people lived and died in the past. If you didn’t already know Alice Roberts’s background as an anatomist and biological anthropologist, you’d have a good chance of deducing it from this book. The old jibe that archaeology is about “stones and bones” holds true; but bones have pulled ahead in recent decades, as new scientific techniques can now extract a wealth of information from previously uncooperative skeletons.

The old jibe that archaeology is about stones and bones holds true; but bones have pulled ahead recently

Roberts focuses on the discovery in 2008 of at least thirty-five skeletons “slung into a mass grave” beneath St. John’s College, Oxford. They are mostly those of young men who met a brutal death. The scientific examination is fascinating, but ultimately resolves nothing — as is often the case with Roberts’s other investigations. The dead may well have been Danes butchered on St. Brice’s Day, but we cannot be sure.

Sainthood, leprosy, Paget’s Disease, the Black Death, the drowned archers of the Mary Rose and anchoresses are all given thoughtful scrutiny, and Roberts’s reflections on Thomas Becket and Canterbury cathedral are especially entertaining. It was a pity that Henry II, who probably had the services of a top-drawer jester like Roland the Farter, couldn’t have relaxed to the extent of fashioning a modus vivendi with Becket. The conflict between the king and the archbishop backed by Rome has a hint of Brexit and the EU. Nevertheless, I hadn’t realized how much Becket was cruising for a bruising.

I was also unaware of just how monstrous the cult of St. Thomas soon became. Although Chaucer reminds us of the cultural and religious power that Canterbury wielded, it’s a section from one of Erasmus’s Colloquies, quoted by Roberts, that truly illustrates how shamelessly the place would succumb to bling and pilgrim-fleecing. The piece was intended as a lampoon, but it was backed up by other less facetious accounts. Erasmus proposed that the vast wealth on display at the cathedral could be better used to alleviate the lives of the poor. There was also an obvious drawback to putting jewels on display. It’s a little surprising that we had to get through five more Henrys before Henry VIII (who was having his own frustrations with Rome wanting to “dip its beak” into the cathedral revenues) helped himself to the goodies and “disappeared” St. Thomas and his bones.

Religion played a central role in everyday life in the Middle Ages, partly because prayer was your only hope if you got ill. Roberts’s last case involves an anchoress, probably Lady Isabella Germann, from York, who took reclusiveness to an extreme in the mid-fifteenth century. Anchoresses were typically walled up in a part of a church and acted as holy consultants who could dispense wisdom and prophecy to the locals. Their way of living was essentially a slow-motion form of martyrdom.

The intriguing finding from the presumed bones of Lady Isabella is that she had suffered from advanced syphilis. This ushers in a learned discourse about the origins of the “French disease” and the old debate as to whether Christopher Columbus and his boys brought it back from their travels in the New World. Being a “great imitator,” syphilis is hard to track in medical records since its symptoms are so similar to other ailments. The result of all the recent lab work? We have more information but no cigar. “The Columbian hypothesis is a massive oversimplification.”

Roberts is professor of public engagement in science at Birmingham University. Some readers may find engaging with the huge dollops of science here, however lucidly explained, a little onerous; but overall the book is fascinating and you certainly get your money’s worth.

This article was originally published in The Spectator’s UK magazine. Subscribe to the World edition here.

Full list: the MPs quitting their seat at the next election

Labour have selected the bulk of their candidates for the next election but the Tories are still a while way away from that yet. Below is a list of all the MPs from the two main parties who have said they will quit their current seat at the next election.

Conservative MPs (78):

1. Mike Penning, elected 2005, Hemel Hempstead, aged 65: ‘After careful discussions with my wife Angie and daughters Adele and Abby, I have decided to retire from frontline politics at the next election.’
2. Sajid Javid, elected 2010, Bromsgrove, aged 52: It was ‘a decision I have wrestled with for some time’.
3. Charles Walker, elected 2005, Broxbourne, aged 55: ‘I haven’t the stomach for it.’
4. Dehenna Davison, elected 2019, Bishop Auckland, aged 29: ‘I haven’t had anything like a normal life for a twentysomething.’
5. Gary Streeter, elected 1992, South West Devon, aged 62: ‘The time has come for me to step back and let a younger person take over.’
6. Adam Afriyie, elected 2005, Windsor, aged 57: ‘With Brexit concluded… now it the right time for a new MP to represent our constituency.’
7. Chloe Smith, elected 2009, Norwich North, aged 40: ‘In 2024, after 15 years of service, it will be the right time to step back, for me and my young family.’
8. Andrew Percy, elected 2010, Brigg and Goole, aged 45: ‘I’ve done this for about two years longer than I ever planned for.’
9. Douglas Ross, elected 2017, Moray, aged 39, has said he will not stand again at Westminster in order to focus on Holyrood as an MSP.
10. Mark Pawsey, elected 2010, Rugby, aged 65: ‘After much consideration, I have decided that I will not seek re-election.’
11. George Eustice, elected 2010, Camborne and Redruth, aged 51: ‘A difficult decision.’
12. Edward Timpson, elected 2008, Eddisbury, aged 49: ‘ I turn 50 this year, and want to use this opportunity… to return in part to legal practice, but also advocacy roles for vulnerable children and families.’
13. Jo Gideon, elected 2019, Stoke-on-Trent Central, aged 70: ‘I have not come to this decision lightly.’
14. Paul Beresford, elected 1992, Mole Valley, aged 76: ‘I did give serious thought to contesting the 2024 election and serving in one more Parliament and the decision to step back has not been easy.’
15. Stephen McPartland, elected 2010, Stevenage, aged 46: ‘I have decided not to seek reselection in order to take up new opportunities outside of politics.’
16. Robin Walker, elected 2010, Worcester, aged 44: ‘My young family needs me to be more present.’
17. Sir Graham Brady, elected 1997, Altrincham and Sale West, aged 55: ‘I am young enough to pursue other opportunities and interests.’
18. Pauline Latham, elected 2010, Mid Derbyshire, aged 75: ‘Life can be tough when families are separated each week and I think it’s time to put them first.’
19. Nicola Richards, elected 2019, West Bromwich East, aged 28: ‘Due to changes in my domestic circumstances, I will not be seeking election.’
20. Stuart Anderson, elected 2019, Wolverhampton South West, aged 46: ‘I have made the decision not to seek renomination as the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Conservative party in Wolverhampton South West… due to personal family reasons.’
21. Gordon Henderson, elected 2010, Sittingbourne and Sheppey, aged 75: ‘By 2024 I will be 76 years old and will have been working full time for 60 years.’
22. Craig Whittaker, elected 2010, Calder Valley, aged 60: ‘After much discussion with my wife, Elaine and I have decided to spend more quality time with our family.’
23. Henry Smith, elected 2010, Crawley, aged 53: ‘It is time for a new generation.’
24. John Howell, elected 2008, Henley, aged 67: ‘By the end of the next parliament, I will be approaching my mid-70s.’
25. Jonathan Djanogly, elected 2001, Huntingdon, aged 57: ‘Until the next election, I will continue to represent Huntingdon proudly as I have done to the best of my ability for the past two decades.’
26. Matthew Offord, elected 2010, Hendon, aged 53: Stepping down to ‘pursue other interests.’
27. Alister Jack, elected 2017, Dumfries and Galloway, aged 59: ‘At each reshuffle I’ve said “I want to be honest with you, I’m not standing at the next general election”.’
28. Robert Goodwill, elected 2005, Scarborough and Whitby, aged 66: ‘Too many MPs go on too long in my experience. Now is the time to let someone else younger take over.’
29. Richard Bacon, elected 2001, South Norfolk aged 60: ‘I have loved every minute of it.’
30. Dominic Raab, elected 2010, Esher and Walton, aged 49: ‘Increasingly concerned’ about the pressure on his young family.
31. Philip Dunne, elected 2005, Ludlow, aged 64: ‘I will be 70 during the next parliament and that’s really what’s borne heavily on my decision. It is a younger person’s business. You need the energy and drive and momentum to do this job properly.’
32. Will Quince, elected 2015, Colchester, aged 40: ‘I am neglecting the most important job I have, being a good dad to two young girls.’
33. Royston Smith, elected 2015, Southampton Itchen, aged 59: ‘Nothing stays the same for very long and I feel it is time to pass the baton to a new generation.’
34. Bill Cash, elected 1984, Stone, aged 83:  ‘I have loved every minute, but it is nonetheless, a big wrench.’
35. Steve Brine, elected 2010, Winchester, aged 49: ‘It feels like the right time now, for both myself and the family.’
36. Trudy Harrison, elected 2017, Copeland, aged 47: ‘Essentially I am a community activist at home and I want to come home and make sure that the policies that I have been involved with shaping and making actually reap benefits for people in West Cumbria.’
37. Nickie Aiken, elected 2019, Cities of London and Westminster, aged 55: ‘This is not a decision I have taken lightly. My husband, Alex, who has supported me steadfastly throughout my political career, has accepted a job offer overseas and he deserves my full support as he pursues a new career.’
38. Stuart Andrew, elected 2010, Pudsey, aged 52: ‘I have written to my members to say that I won’t be standing in either of the two seats that are being created. The reason for that is that when I was first selected for this constituency, I took the view that this was not just about trying to win the next election. It was about having a 20-year plan for the constituency.’
39. John Baron, elected 2001, Basildon and Billericay, aged 64: ‘After what will be 23 years’ service I have decided the time has come for me to move on.’
40. Lisa Cameron, elected 2015, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, aged 52
41. Andy Carter, elected 2019, Warrington South, aged 50: ‘Having discussed with my family, I plan to pursue new opportunities, so now is the right time to be open with constituents and my local party.’
42. Chris Clarkson, elected 2019, Heywood and Middleton, aged 41: ‘Following the Boundary Review’s recommendation that the current Heywood and Middleton seat be replaced by a new Heywood seat and a new Manchester Blackley seat I have decided not to seek selection for either.’
43. Dame Tracey Crouch, elected 2010, Chatham and Aylesford, aged 48: ‘While everyone’s cancer journey is different, for me going through a diagnosis and coming out the other side of treatment has been a life affirming experience. It has been an opportunity to pause and reflect on my own personal priorities and based on that I truly believe it is time to seek a new professional challenge.’
44. Sir James Duddridge, elected 2005, Rochford and Southend East, aged 52: ‘I think I have done my time. Forgive me for moving on to do other things.’
45. Mike Freer, elected 2010, Finchley and Golders Green, aged 63: ‘Since my election as MP in 2010 I have sadly had several serious threats to my personal safety. The attacks by Muslims Against Crusades, Ali Harbi Ali and the recent arson attack have weighed heavily on me and my husband, Angelo… It will be an enormous wrench to step down, it has been the privilege of my life.’
46. Nick Gibb, elected 1997, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, aged 63: ‘A new opportunity to serve the country in a diplomatic role has arisen. It would be something that would offer me a new intellectual challenge and I am honoured to be considered for the role by the prime minister, whose leadership I support with great enthusiasm.’
47. Chris Grayling, elected 2001, Epsom and Ewell, aged 62: ‘Earlier this year I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and although the treatment has been successful, it has prompted me to think that after 22 years it is time for a change.’
48. Robert Halfon, elected 2010, Harlow, aged 55: ‘After well over two decades as the Harlow Parliamentary Candidate and as MP, I feel that it is time for me to step down at the forthcoming general election.’
49. Stephen Hammond, elected 2005, Wimbledon, aged 62: ‘Despite the national picture, I do believe we can win locally… However, this is the right decision for Sally and me. In recent years we have both been stretched by increased caring responsibilities for our elderly parents and this is unlikely to change in the coming years.’
50. Oliver Heald, elected 1992, North East Hertfordshire, aged 69: ‘It has been a great privilege to serve the people of this wonderful constituency since 1992 and to have won the confidence of the majority of electors in eight general elections.’
51. James Heappey, elected 2015, Wells, aged 43: ‘After much reflection, I have taken the painful decision not to stand as a candidate in the next General Election. The opportunity to serve the communities within the Wells Constituency for the last nine years has been the greatest honour of my life. However, I have concluded now is the time to step away from politics.’
52. David Jones, elected 2005, Clwyd West, aged 72
53. Greg Knight, elected 2001, East Yorkshire, aged 75: ‘I have decided that the next election is the time for someone else to take over the role of representing this beautiful part of the country at Westminster.’
54. Kwasi Kwarteng, elected 2010, Spelthorne, aged 48: ‘It has been an honour to serve the residents of Spelthorne since 2010, and I shall continue to do so for the remainder of my time in Parliament.’
55. Brandon Lewis, elected 2010, Great Yarmouth, aged 52: ‘It is not a decision taken easily as it has been the greatest honour of my life to represent the people of Great Yarmouth in Parliament and to work with so many loyal and dedicated local campaigners.’
56. Tim Loughton, elected 1997, East Worthing and Shoreham, aged 61: ‘As former Cabinet Minister John Biffen appropriately put it “in politics I think it is wiser to leave five minutes too soon than to continue for five years too long”.’
57. Theresa May, elected 1997, Maidenhead, aged 67: ‘Since stepping down as prime minister I have enjoyed being a backbencher again and having more time to work for my constituents and champion causes close to my heart… After much careful thought and consideration, I have realised that, looking ahead, I would no longer be able to do my job as an MP in the way I believe is right and my constituents deserve.’
58. Dr Kieran Mullan, elected 2018, Crewe and Nantwich, aged 39: ‘Changes in my personal life make the associated uncertainty that comes with [standing] even more difficult. It isn’t just me I have to think about.’
59. Sir Robert Neill, elected 2006, Bromley and Chislehurst, aged 71: ‘Ann-Louise has been fighting bravely to recover from the stroke that she suffered a while ago. I have concluded that it is now right for me to spend more time supporting her.’
60. Paul Scully, elected 2015, Sutton and Cheam, aged 56: ‘Over the last nine years it’s been a privilege to represent in parliament, the area which I called home for 35 years.’
61. Alok Sharma, elected 2010, Reading West, aged 56: ‘It has been the honour of my life to serve as the MP for a constituency in the town where I grew up and a privilege to serve in Government and represent the UK on the international stage.’
62. Ben Wallace, elected 2005, Wyre and Preston North, aged 54: ‘I’m not standing next time… I went into politics in the Scottish parliament in 1999. That’s 24 years. I’ve spent well over seven years with three phones by my bed.’
63.  Dr Jamie Wallis, elected 2019, Bridgend, aged 39: ‘I wish the candidate in my successor seat all the very best but the seat has significantly changed.’
64.  Nadhim Zahawi, elected 2010, Stratford-on-Avon, aged 56: ‘As my most famous constituent once wrote: “Go to your bosom; knock there and ask your heart what it doth know.” I have come to feel that the time is right for a new, energetic Conservative to fight for the honour of representing Stratford-on-Avon and assuming the mantle of MP for Shakespeare.’
65. Chris Heaton-Harris, elected 2010, Daventry, aged 56: ‘I feel the time is right for me to look for some new challenges.’
66. Jo Churchill, elected 2015, Bury St Edmunds, aged 60
67. James Grundy, elected 2019, Leigh, aged 45
68. Dame Eleanor Laing, elected 1997, Epping Forest, aged 66
69. Huw Merriman, elected 2015, Bexhill and Battle, aged 50
70. Sir John Redwood, elected 1987, Wokingham, aged 72
71. Sir Michael Ellis, elected 2010, Northampton North, aged 56
72. Craig Mackinlay, elected 2015, South Thanet, aged 57
73. Greg Clark, elected 2005, Tunbridge Wells, aged 56
74. Sir David Evennett, elected 2005, Bexleyheath and Crayford, aged 74
75. Matt Hancock, elected 2010, West Suffolk, aged 45: ‘I’m proud to leave parliament as a Conservative MP after two decades serving my country in opposition and in government. I wish Rishi and all my colleagues all the best in the campaign to come.’
76. Michael Gove, elected 2005, Surrey Heath, aged 56: ‘The chance to serve is wonderful. But there comes a moment when you know that it is time to leave.’
77. Andrea Leadsom, elected 2010, South Northamptonshire, aged 61: ‘After careful reflection, I have decided not to stand as a candidate at the forthcoming election.’
78. Aaron Bell, elected 2019, Newcastle-under-Lyme, aged 44: ‘I am proud of the work we have done for individual constituents, even changing the law on behalf of one.’

Labour MPs (30)

1. Alex Cunningham, elected 2010, Stockton North, aged 67: ‘The next general election would be the right time for me to retire and hopefully do many of the other things I’ve never been able to fit in.’
2. Margaret Hodge, elected 1994, Barking, aged 78: ‘Serving as an MP has been the honour of my life and an absolute joy.’
3. Barry Sheerman, elected 1979, Huddersfield, aged 82: ‘Serving Huddersfield has been the honour of my life.’
4. Harriet Harman, elected 1982, Camberwell and Peckham, aged 72: ‘I will leave the House of Commons with my feminism, my belief in Labour and my enthusiasm for politics unchanged.’
5. Alan Whitehead, elected 1997, Southampton Test, aged 72: By 2024 he ‘could not give a further five-year commitment to the role of MP at that point, much though I might want to continue in principle.’
6. Ben Bradshaw, elected 1997, Exeter, aged 62: ‘If I fought the next election and won, I could be pushing 70 by the end of the next parliament.’
7. Wayne David, elected 2001, Caerphilly, aged 65: ‘It is time to make way for a younger person’.
8. Paul Blomfield, elected 2010, Sheffield Central, aged 69: ‘ I’ll be 70 next year and for me the next election feels the right time to step down.’
9. Rosie Winterton, elected 1997, Doncaster Central, aged 64: ‘I have decided that when the next election comes, it will be the time to step down.’
10. Margaret Beckett, elected 1983, Derby South, aged 79: ‘I will continue to serve local people until the next general election.’
11. Jon Cruddas, elected 2001, Dagenham and Rainham, aged 60: ‘With the Tories in crisis both locally and nationally, I feel it is time to let someone new take on the challenge.’
12. Colleen Fletcher, elected 2015, Coventry North East, aged 68: ‘I feel now is the time for me to make the decision to move on and pursue some new challenges.’
13. Margaret Greenwood, elected 2015, Wirall West, aged 64: ‘It has been a great honour.’
14. George Howarth, elected 1986, Knowsley North, aged 73: ‘Being the MP for the area I grew up in has been a great privilege.’
15. Karen Buck, elected 1997, Westminster North, aged 65
16. Natalie Elphicke, elected 2019, Dover and Deal, aged 53
17. Ian Mearns, elected 2010, Gateshead, aged 67: ‘I have always been, from the perspective of a trade unionist, speaking up for people’s right to retire. I think it would be hypocritical of me to carry on.’
18. Dr Dan Poulter, elected 2010, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, aged 45: ‘I thought on balance, because there’s going to be an election very soon, it’s better to work for my constituents through to the end of this Parliament.’
19. Christina Rees, elected 2015, Neath, aged 70
20. Yvonne Fovargue, elected 2010, Makerfield, aged 67
21. Kevan Jones, elected 2001, North Durham, aged 60
22. Holly Lynchm elected 2015, Halifax, aged 37
23. Barbara Keeley, elected 2005, Worsley and Eccles South, aged 72: ‘Recently, I have had treatment in hospital in London after which I was meant to have a six-week recovery period. I was back at work in parliament within two weeks but then the general election was called unexpectedly early. Thinking about the demands of the campaign…has made me realise that now is the time to step aside for a new Labour candidate for the constituency.’
24. John Spellar, elected 1992, Warley, aged 76: ‘It has been an honour and pleasure to have worked for the great people of Smethwick & Oldbury for over 30 years, and also as a government minister. I look forward to continuing to play an active role in the Labour movement.’
25. Virendra Sharma, elected 2007, Ealing Southall, aged 77: ‘It has been the pleasure of a lifetime to represent Ealing Southall, but the time has come to step back from the Commons.’
26. Kevin Brennan, elected 2001, Cardiff West, aged 64: ‘I’m announcing my decision to stand down as Cardiff West MP after 23 years – thank you to local Labour members and constituents for your friendship and support.’
27. John Cryer, elected 2010, Labour and Wanstead, aged 60.
28. Lyn Brown, elected 2005, West Ham, aged 64: ‘I have loved being the MP for West Ham and I love it still. Standing down will be such a huge wrench. But, given the challenges we have in Newham and the health challenges I’ve faced this year, I think we need new Labour MPs to take us forward with a Labour government.’
29. Julie Elliott, elected 2010, Sunderland Central, aged 60: ‘Having spent the weekend with my family and after much deliberation I have decided I will not be standing as a candidate at the general election.’
30. Steve McCabe, elected 1997, Birmingham Selly Oak, aged 68.

SNP MPs (9):

1. Mhairi Black, elected 2015, Paisley and Renfrewshire South, aged 29
2. Ian Blackford, elected 2015, Ross, Sky and Lochaber, aged 63
3. Douglas Chapman, elected 2015, Dunfermline and West Fife, aged 69
4. Angela Crawley, elected 2015, Lanark and Hamilton East, aged 36
5. Patrick Grady, elected 2015, Glasgow North, aged 44
6. Peter Grant, elected 2015, Glenrothes, aged 63
7. Stewart Hosie, elected 2005, Dundee East, aged 61
8. John McNally, elected 2015, Falkirk, aged 73
9. Dr Philippa Whitford, elected 2015, Central Ayrshire, aged 65

Independent MPs (8):

1. Crispin Blunt, elected 1997, Reigate, aged 62: ‘After seven increasingly tumultuous parliaments, this will be my last.’
2. Will Wragg, elected 2015, Hazel Grove, aged 34: ‘I have made the decision not to stand at the next election.’
3. Julian Knight, elected 2015, Solihull, aged 51: ‘The false and malicious accusation brought against me last December did untold damage to my physical and mental well being as well as causing pain and distress to my loved ones.’
4. Nicholas Brown, elected 1983, Newcastle upon Tyne East, aged 73
5. Jeffrey Donaldson, elected 1997, Lagon Valley, aged 61
6. Conor McGinn, elected 2015, St Helens North, aged 39
7. Mark Menzies, elected 2010, Fylde, aged 53
8. Lucy Allan, elected 2015, Telford, aged 58: ‘Today’s Conservative party is just not interested in seats like Telford anymore.’

Sinn Féin MPs (3):

1. Mickey Brady, elected 2015, Newly and Armagh, aged 73
2. Michelle Gildernew, elected 2017, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, aged 54
3. Francie Molloy, elected 2013, Mid Ulster, aged 73

Green MPs (1):

1. Caroline Lucas, elected 2010, Brighton, Pavilion, aged 63

Plaid Cymru MPs (1):

1. Hywel Williams, elected 2001, Arfon, aged 70

The fallout from the astonishing Trump verdict

The morning after the night before

The week in Washington was overshadowed somewhat by the antics up the Acela corridor in New York, where a Manhattan jury found Donald Trump guilty of thirty-four counts of falsifying business records. For Trump haters, Thursday’s decision adds to a long list of “firsts”: he’s the first president to be impeached twice, the first president to be found liable for sexual abuse… and now, the first president to be convicted of a felony. 

But as with his previous court fights — over E. Jean Carroll’s accusations of sexual impropriety against him and Letitia James’s real-estate fraud case — it’s not yet clear how the guilty verdict will harm him in the polls as he attempts to be reelected as president. Trump has long claimed the mantle of a victim of the legal system, targeted by prosecutors elected upon promises to “get Trump.” “They’re not after me, they’re after you and I just happen to be standing in the way,” goes one common Trump stump speech line. The strangeness of the New York case, based as it was on a “novel legal theory” — jurors could decide that Trump had falsified business records to cover any one of three felonies, without all having to agree which one — may not turn the Trump brand toxic in the minds of the swing voters who will decide November’s election. 

What the verdict will do, though, is strengthen the resolve of those who already back Trump. The New York Times’s Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan report that Trump has “insisted privately that the verdict can play to his political advantage, just as the indictments energized and consolidated his support in the Republican primaries.” And a GOP source told Punchbowl’s Jake Sherman that WinRed, the Republican donation platform, was overwhelmed in the moments after the decision. At his Trump Tower press conference this morning, Trump claimed his campaign brought in “a record $39 million in about a ten-hour period” on Thursday.

In a trial which featured Trump’s defense team trading barbs with porn star Stormy Daniels about who was using the proceedings for profit by selling merchandise — answer: both Daniels and Trump — Cockburn finds it fitting that Hillary Clinton’s first post after the verdict was an attempt to hawk mugs that read “TURNS OUT SHE WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING.”

Other welcome reactions came from the DC Council, who tweeted, “No one is above the law.” The DC Council, in case you forgot, presides over a city where virtually everyone, especially boosters, juvenile car thieves and random attackers, is above the law. And Cockburn’s winner comes courtesy of an abolitionist PhD student at Columbia, who, in response to Stephen King’s tweet that “The Republican candidate for president is a convicted felon,” wrote, “yeah this is fucking gross, felony stigma is gross.” As the president who signed the First Step Act, you’d have to surmise that Trump would agree…

Meanwhile across the Pond…

You might hope that back in the Old Country, the stiff upper lips of British politics are keeping their election a little less mucky than involving porn star hush money trials. You would, unfortunately, be wrong: scurrilous conservative political blog Guido Fawkes has revealed that the eldest son and daughter-in-law of Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner — likely to become the next deputy prime minister — have been rather entrepreneurial on the “influencer” site OnlyFans. 

Shannen Batty, aka ShannHeartilly, is a pansexual she/her/they/them “GothMommy” switch creator — whose subscription cost $7 a month before being pulled after the Guido scoop. Her husband Ryan, Rayner’s son, has, per the blog, been serving as his wife’s “stunt cock” (sorry).  The pair were wed in a goth ceremony last year. 

The Labour Party supported the decriminalization of sex work under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership in the 2019 election — though it is unclear if they will retain that policy under the more moderate leadership of Sir Keir Starmer. Cockburn, who is generally pro-goth, will be watching this space — and hopes Mrs. Batty sees fit to continue in her line of work: it’s substantially less debasing than being an elected official…

Do Hispanic congressmen get an N-word pass?

In a week punctuated by controversy over who may or may not have said the N-word, let’s not lose sight of a politician who definitely did say it. According to the Washington Free Beacon, now-Congressman Gabe Vasquez called a former coworker at the call center he was fired from the N-word. 

Per the Free Beacon, “In the summer of 2004, a human resources employee at a call center in Las Cruces, New Mexico received a call from a man who asked for ‘Chris.’ The employee asked the caller to elaborate, given that more than one Chris worked at the center. ‘Chris, the n—er,’ the caller responded, using a racial slur.” 

That caller was ID’d by voice and phone number as a disgruntled Vasquez, who had been “terminated for cause for falsifying data,” per a police report also obtained by the Beacon.

This leads to an interesting conundrum — does Vasquez, a Hispanic Democrat, get an N-word pass?

Cockburn reached out to the NAACP and a wide range of members from the Democrat-only Congressional Black Caucus to get their thoughts only to be met with near-total silence, despite these organizations’ commitments to fighting racial injustice. He did almost get a response from Congressman Jim Clyburn, a House Democratic leader-turned rank-and-file member, whose team told us they would circle back only to leave us on read. Are you a member of Congress? Let Cockburn know your thoughts!

Bob Menendez, Independent?

A defiant Senator Bob Menendez isn’t going anywhere — at least not without a scrap. A full-blown rebellion by the New Jersey Democratic Party — which is now jeopardizing the seat in Congress occupied by his son as well — isn’t stopping the indicted senator from (allegedly) blowing past the threshold of signatures needed to qualify to run for reelection, as an independent this go around.

According to NBC News, Menendez only needs to collect 800 valid signatures by Tuesday in order to appear on November’s ballot — but the wily senator is aiming for 10,000. It is unclear if he is relying on paid signature gatherers — or if he is offering payment to them with some of his legendary gold bars.

The news is a shot in the arm for an otherwise moribund New Jersey Republican Party that hasn’t seen success since the days of Chris Christie. A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll released last month shows that in a three-way race, likely Democratic nominee Andy Kim’s lead against the two leading Republicans, Curtis Bashaw and Christine Serrano Glassner, narrows with Menendez garnering low single-digit support, mostly from Hispanic and black Democrats.

Ed Davey’s election stunts are going to backfire

The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Ed Davey, has come up with a novel way of ensuring his party gets greater coverage during the long weeks of the election campaign. His wheeze is to ensure that, each and every day, he is pictured doing something silly. 

On Tuesday, he was pictured repeatedly falling from a paddleboard on Windermere in Cumbria – a stunt to highlight the issue of sewage dumping, apparently. On Wednesday, he was on a bike, peddling down a steep hill, ostensibly en route to the party’s Welsh campaign launch. ‘Having a wheelie great time,’ he tweeted. 

Yesterday, he was in Frome, Somerset, where he was duly photographed riding down a children’s water slide in a large rubber ring. Afterwards, he described the experience as ‘really good fun.’ What voters make of it is anyone’s guess. Why would anyone else take him seriously if he is so obviously incapable of doing so himself? Pretty much everyone knows the Lib Dems have little chance of forming the next government, but it doesn’t help that the party’s own leader appears to think that the election campaign is best treated as one big joke. 

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey is visiting Somerset today as part of his election campaign.

The rain didn't seem to get in the way as he tried out the 'Ultimate Slip N Slide' in Shepton Mallet.

He's just been told he is not allowed any more goes. pic.twitter.com/lWWbeLAZqu

— ITV News West Country (@itvwestcountry) May 30, 2024

Davey, no surprise, doesn’t see his antics in this way: ‘I think my belief is that politicians need to take the concerns and interests of voters seriously but I’m not sure they need to take themselves seriously all the time, and I’m quite happy to have some fun.’ 

It is not immediately obvious how going down a water slide dressed in swimming trunks and a T-shirt helps to highlight the actual policy announcement the Lib Dems are supposedly pushing. That is a plan to triple the Digital Services Tax (which was introduced in 2020 and levies a 2 per cent charge on the revenues of search engines, social media services and online marketplace companies’ revenues). The party says it will use the money raised to fund mental health professionals for all England’s state schools. 

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

When he wasn’t distracted by all the fun and frolics of campaigning, Davey also made plain that, like Labour and the Conservatives have also promised, the Lib Dems have ruled out raising income tax, national insurance or VAT to pay for their plans. So, just an ordinary run of the mill politician, promising the earth without quite explaining how it might be paid for – but one who likes to do silly stunts for the cameras. 

I suspect the jolly japes may not last too long for the Liberal Democrat leader. He is due to appear before the Post Office Inquiry on 18 July, a mere two weeks after the election. He faces a number of troubling questions about his time as the postal affairs minister from 2010 to 2012. He has been accused of having ‘fobbed off’ victims of the scandal, which has been described as the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British history. More than 700 branch managers were given criminal convictions after faulty software made it appear as though money was missing. Some went to prison. Many were financially ruined. Some have since died. 

Davey has insisted in his defence that he was ‘misled’ by Post Office executives. What Alan Bates (someone Davey initially refused to meet, saying he did not believe it ‘would serve any purpose’) and other campaigners for justice make of his election japes for the cameras is a moot point. The party’s former ministers, Jo Swinson and Vince Cable, are also due to appear before the inquiry in July – which only serves to reinforce the point that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition government of the time were anything but a joke. One thing can be said for certain: Davey will get all the attention he craves when he appears before the inquiry. One suspects that his claims about not taking himself too seriously might not go down too well there. 

Sir Keir’s private jet hypocrisy

Oh dear. In yet another campaign blunder for Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader has been forced to fess up to using a private jet — just hours after taunting Rishi Sunak’s helicopter use. Rules for thee but not for me…

The lefty Labour leader flew to Scotland on a private plane to make an announcement about his ambitions to set up a publicly-owned ‘GB Energy’ company — but was curiously reluctant about revealing his mode of transport, with a Labour spokesperson eventually admitting:

Yes, we did use a private jet because we needed to get very quickly to Scotland from Wales yesterday. We have to use the most efficient form of transport in the middle of a very busy general election campaign.

Talk about hypocrisy. Sir Keir’s luxury trip comes after his party slammed Sunak for his ‘elitist’ travel choice of private jets at the start of the year. More than that, last October shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves declared that a Labour government would curb the use of ‘private jets’ by ministers after it was revealed that Sunak had used RAF aircraft for domestic flights more regularly than the UK’s past three prime ministers.

And it’s not the first time that Starmer has fallen foul of his party’s private travel ambitions before, after he flew to meet Qatar’s leader in a Qatari-financed jet in January. Hardly leading by example, Sir Keir’s approach seems more ‘do as I say, not as I do’…

The ungaggable Donald Trump flames his ‘enemies’ at Trump Tower

In the same building where he once descended down a golden elevator and embarked on a campaign that would forever change American politics, this morning Donald Trump lumbered up to the mic in New York City to launch napalm at all his enemies, particularly Judge Juan Merchan, Alvin Bragg and Michael Cohen — who he didn’t mention by name, other than calling him a “sleazebag” and saying that he didn’t qualify as a “fixer.”

The idea of a gag order for this man is so ridiculous, I love that they even tried to do it. It was classic Trump: meandering, angry, darkly comic, rhetorical guns blasting away at everyone around him, golden hair blown out and wearing a bright crimson tie as wide as his head. The unprecedented nature of this moment is not lost on him, and the former president seemed stretched thin, exhausted after the long days in the courtroom. But the general mood was stubborn resolve in the face of his conviction, which he decried as a “scam” run by a judge who was a “tyrant.” He promised to fight on — “I’m wired in such a way,” Trump said. And he very obviously is.

So the thing that we all expected to happen, happened. There are all manner of predictions about the reactions to the verdict in Trump’s trial, but these predictions are really baseless, given the unprecedented nature of both the case and the political moment. But one thing seems absolutely clear: the Republican Party doesn’t need to spend anything on getting out the vote in 2024. They’ve got a built-in advantage that rivals and could exceed the post-Dobbs motivation for the Democratic side in 2022. Even Nikki Haley voters and former anti-Trump Republicans are going to be itching to go to the ballot box to fire back the only way they can. The momentum boost that Judge Merchan just gave the GOP is more than a billion-dollar ad campaign.

You’re waiting for the “but” and here it is: this is not an election that will be decided by Republican voters. It will be decided by Independents, and that is where we will have to wait for the political verdict that matters. For that, the Republicans are going to have to work to win an argument, one where the overwhelming force of the media will be on one side. They’ll have the resources to do it: Republican megadonors are utterly unfazed by this result, the NRSC had its biggest online donation day in history, and Trump had his own gigantic small-dollar donation boom.

The problem for Democrats in arguing the case to Independents is that it’s a total mess of a case. It’s been branded a hush-money trial, but it isn’t — it’s a business expense categorization trial, claimed as a campaign finance matter. This just doesn’t fly. It sounds like a rinky-dink case to the average voter. The Jack Smith documents case makes the most sense to people, on a practical level. But this one seems like the weakest attempt to take out Trump because it is. The Hillary Clinton campaign had to pay $113,000 in fines to the Federal Election Commission because they miscategorized their spending on the Steele Dossier — and that was a publicly filed claim with the government, not a behind the scenes accounting spreadsheet.

This moment is a hinge point for the United States. There is no question about it. The success or failure of the Trump 2024 campaign could redefine American politics or allow this type of lawfare utter vindication, proving that if you shop for the right jurisdiction with the right partisan judge, you can get anyone convicted, even a former president. It is an astounding moment, depressing in a way, but also good, in the same way the diagnosis of cancer or a brain tumor can be good. You know how bad it is. You know how awful it can be. But you also know what it will take to get through the bad to the good. That’s what 2024 may turn out to be: chemotherapy for a nation that needs it.

Why we need the word ‘woke’

Has the word ‘woke’ become a lazy, all-too-common cliché? The novelist and Spectator columnist Lionel Shriver thinks so. During an appearance at the Hay Festival, she has lamented how the word has become ‘horribly overused’. The author says: ‘I’m as tired of it as you are. There have been other people trying to coin something else, which we’d also get tired of, but they usually have more than one syllable so they don’t catch on.’

Readers of Shriver’s journalism and fiction will know she has become one of the most unforgiving critics of woke. Her latest book, Mania, imagines a society in which those beholden to this ideology fight against ‘cognitive discrimination’, insisting that everyone has the same intelligence level and that all qualifications and grades be abolished.

But she is right, in a way. Woke has indeed become a debased cliché. It’s often employed these days to apply to news stories that sound a bit barmy and ultra-leftwing. The word is now spread too thin. Yet woke, and its associated abstract nouns ‘wokeness’ and ‘wokery’ (I find the latter more aesthetically pleasing), does refer to a specific social phenomenon. It has a unique signification. In this respect, we remain grudgingly obliged to use it.

It is not like the word ‘woke’ is meaningless. It is a form of hyper-political correctness, with a specific obsession with race, gender and the correct use of language. It is a belief that power-relations are ubiquitous and invisible, and demands that everyone conform to its world view. It believes that western societies are inherently racist, and believes minorities that have been traditionally oppressed are both morally superior and in need of redress.

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

Wokery certainly is not ‘simply good manners’ as its apologists often insist. Insisting strangers address you by your chosen pronoun, demanding to enter women’s toilets even when you are not welcome there, demonising all white people merely on account of their skin: these are not the marks of a good-mannered citizen.

The ‘good manners’ myth is taken apart by Andrew Doyle’s 2022 book on the phenomenon, The New Puritans, in which he describes it as such: ‘The hectoring and dogmatic tone, the obscene generalisations, the unfalsifiable claims in lieu of evidence, the lack of self-awareness, the narcissistic conviction that they can read other people’s minds, the impulse to interpret critics in the most uncharitable possible way, the outright bigotry and intolerance of dissent.’

The title of Doyle’s book hints that even three years ago many sought to avoid the already overused ‘w’ word (although Joanna Williams didn’t shy away from it in her book, Woke, also published in 2022). But as Shriver has observed, we have yet to find an acceptable and popular synonym. In this respect, ‘woke’ looks set to go down the same path as that 1990s phenomenon, ‘political correctness’, which, especially in that hackneyed expression ‘political correctness gone mad’, became a cliché thrown back at conservatives. The more recent expression, ‘virtue signalling’, is already on a similar path, and now sounds a bit trite and worn.

Yet ‘political correctness’ was useful in its day, and ‘virtue signalling’ remains useful in ours, because both applied and apply to very real social developments and phenomena. They described things that were indeed going on and these expressions rightfully had their use and place. The same goes for woke.

Alas, there’s no point campaigning for an alternative, because trying to artificially manipulate language by decree rarely works (see the futile attempts over the years by the French to insulate their language from imported English words). If it were up to me, the best expression would be ‘hyper-liberal’. But these matters aren’t up to me. Or you.

Woke is here to stay. In the meantime, we can only remain vigilant to those who employ it merely to signify ‘something that sounds a bit mad and lefty’. Woke means something far more substantial and sinister than that.

Pedro Sanchez may come to regret passing Spain’s amnesty law

When has any nation’s government amnestied hundreds of people facing criminal charges in return for the votes that allow it to stay in office? That’s what Spain’s government has just done. After last July’s general election, Pedro Sánchez, the incumbent left-wing prime minister, discovered that he needed the 14 votes of two Catalan separatist parties in order to cling onto power. The price of those 14 votes? A general amnesty for several hundred people accused of criminal activities during Catalonia’s secession push, including 2017’s illegal declaration of independence.

The amnesty bill, fast-tracked through parliament, was passed yesterday after a spectacularly acrimonious debate: 177 votes in favour and 172 against. The socialist government claims that the amnesty will draw a line under a decade of conflict in Catalonia, bringing reconciliation and helping to restore normality. The alternative – a steady flow of convictions – would have prolonged division and bitterness in the troubled region. The government attributes the recent decline in support for Catalan separatism to its conciliatory approach: it has suggested that the pardon it granted back in 2021 to nine separatists leaders sentenced to terms of between nine and 13 years, for example, did much to defuse tensions. 

Spanish parliamentary parties are highly disciplined organisations with no tolerance of dissent so it was no surprise when every single socialist MP voted in favour of this amnesty. Significantly, however, members of Sánchez’s party who are not MPs and therefore free to speak their minds have been extremely critical of the amnesty. Former prime minister Felipe González warned that granting the separatists an amnesty nullifies the criminality of their acts, implying that they were the blameless victims of a supposedly oppressive state.

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

Another senior socialist politician, González’s long-time deputy, Alfonso Guerra, made a similar point: ‘Do those who carried out a coup d’état, those who continually say they are going to do it again, do they deserve an amnesty?’ And referring to the active role that the separatists have taken in the drafting of the amnesty law (they wanted to be absolutely certain that it contained no loopholes), Guerra went on to ask the question that has been troubling many Spaniards: ‘Since when are the laws written by the criminals?’

In a similar vein, the main opposition party, the right-wing Partido Popular, has described the amnesty as ‘an act of political corruption never seen in this or any other country’ and suggested that it entails the ‘dismantling of [Spanish] democracy’ since it violates the principle of equality before the law. Indeed, for Santiago Abascal, the leader of Vox, further to the right, the message that the amnesty sends Spaniards is that ‘they are not equal to politicians… that they are of an inferior class… that the politicians, as long as they are left-wing or separatists, are privileged’. Meanwhile Spain’s general council of the judiciary warned that the proposed amnesty ‘implies the degradation, if not the abolition, of the rule of law in Spain’.

The Venice commission, a legal advisory body to the Council of Europe, points out that ultimately the Spanish constitutional court will decide if the new law is constitutional and the European court of justice will rule if it is compatible with EU law. Noting that ‘social and political reconciliation’ are legitimate aims, the commission suggests nevertheless that the law should have been more restricted in its scope, should have covered a shorter time period, and should not have been fast-tracked as an urgent measure. It also notes that the bill ‘has deepened a profound and virulent division … in Spanish society’ and suggests that it should only have been passed with ‘an appropriately large qualified majority’ which builds bridges across the national separation.

Those bridges are conspicuous by their absence: polling has suggested that approximately 70 per cent of Spaniards disapprove of the amnesty, with only about 26 per cent in favour. This amnesty then has nothing like the nationwide support enjoyed by that in 1977 which covered political crimes committed during the civil war and Franco’s dictatorship and which greatly facilitated Spain’s transition to democracy. Then, the overwhelming popular support for the amnesty was reflected in the parliamentary vote: 296 in favour, two against with 18 abstentions.

What sticks in the craw of many Spaniards is that this new amnesty allows Carles Puigdemont, the head of the Catalan regional government responsible for the illegal declaration of independence, who in 2017 escaped from Spain hidden in the boot of a Skoda, to return in triumph from his self-imposed exile. While the jurists continue to argue about the constitutionality of the new law, what seems profoundly wrong to ordinary people is that Catalan separatists are to be forgiven even though they refuse to renounce their unilateral push for independence.  

But perhaps the fact that stands out clearest in the whole affair, as it presents itself to the minds of millions of Spaniards, is that having sworn before last year’s general election that he wouldn’t – indeed, that for legal reasons, he couldn’t – ever grant any such amnesty, Sánchez has now gone ahead and granted it. And those millions of Spaniards can hardly be blamed for concluding that he has broken that promise not, as he now claims, out of principle but simply because it allows him to remain in office.

On 9 June Spaniards will vote in the election for the parliament of the European Union. Since that vote is widely regarded in Spain as a plebiscite on the national government, it seems we aren’t going to have to wait long to find out what the Spanish people think of Sánchez and his amnesty law.  

Listen: Peter Kyle’s GB Energy blunder

Uh oh. It’s the first day of Labour’s official GB Energy launch and things haven’t quite got off to a flying start. Sir Keir Starmer is in Scotland this morning to announce plans (including an all-new the website and logo) for his brand new publicly-owned Great British energy company. It’s the third of Labour’s ‘first steps’ to turning the country around — but it seems as though the proposal isn’t quite catchy enough for some of his own party members to memorise…

Speaking on LBC this morning, now former Labour MP for Hove Peter Kyle floundered over the website name when quizzed by Nick Ferrari. Kyle claimed that the £8 billion proposal was ‘all costed and all paid for’ and would ‘use money wisely to unlock private investment’. He could not quite, however, remember how to direct listeners to the new venture. First giving the website ‘greatbritishenergy.org.uk’, the Shadow Science Secretary was pulled up at the end of his interview by Ferrari and a rather excruciating exchange ensued…

NF: I’m being contacted by a considerable number of listeners. They’ve tried to type in greatbritishenergy.org.uk. The website doesn’t exist.

PK: Ah.

NF: I’ve asked one of my team. She’s typed it in. It doesn’t exist. Are you pushing something that doesn’t exist, Mr Kyle?

PK: Yeah, I’m so sorry. That is the website that I have… Let me just double check right in front of your eyes… Ah, okay: it’s great-british-energy.org.uk.

Oh dear. And on Good Morning Britain, Kyle made a similar blunder, telling viewers the website link was ‘gbenergy.org.uk’. How does Starmer expect his plan to catch on when his own politicians can’t even get it right?

Listen to the clip:

Iain Dale pulls out as a Tory candidate

Oh dear. Less than 48 hours after he quit LBC to stand for Tunbridge Wells, Iain Dale has now ruled himself out. In an interview with his former employer this morning, Dale revealed that he had asked for his name to not be included on the candidates’ shortlist after a clip of him disparaging his home town went viral on Twitter. The comments, recorded in 2022, were made on the For the Many podcast which he co-hosts with former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. In the clip Dale said that he ‘did not like living in Tunbridge Wells and would quite happily live somewhere else.’ Naturally this was seized upon by gleeful opponents in Kent…

Speaking to Nick Ferrari today, Dale said that the disclosure made it impossible for him to try to realise his ambition of becoming an MP as it would be thrown back at him in every LibDem leaflet during any election campaign. ‘I instantly recognised the problem with that’ he said. ‘There is a context to it but nobody is very interested in context or nuance in that clip and it would be on every LibDem leaflet that was put out in the election campaign’. Dale added ‘I thought I had gone all through of the pros and the cons but I didn’t take into account that kind of comment.’ The shortlist to replace Greg Clark is expected to be announced later today, with the Lib Dems hopeful about overturning his 14,645 majority.

As for Dale, a quick return to LBC could now be on the cards. The station’s senior managing editor, Tom Cheal, said in a statement earlier this week that ‘I’m sure this isn’t the last we’ve heard of Iain on LBC. We understand his decision and thank him for his massive contribution to the station.’ Perhaps we will be hearing more of him sooner than we might have thought…

Trump’s conviction is a disaster for American democracy

Donald Trump’s trial and his conviction on 34 felony counts is disgraceful. As the legal expert and former Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz, has argued, ‘the judge essentially instructed the jury to convict Trump.’

Biden’s America has shamefully crossed the Rubicon. The rule of law has been supplanted by the whims of elites and the machinery of power. The verdict of the jury in New York City, finding Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a hush-money trial, calls into urgent question the integrity of the American legal system and the sanctity of democratic norms.

This courtroom drama has significance far beyond this one legal proceeding. It has become a battleground where the very ideals and institutions of American democracy have been violently shaken. Partisanship and selective justice have been marshalled by Democrats who fear more than anything else Trump’s return to the White House. For many Americans, what appears to be a manipulation of our democratic institutions, most notably the justice system, is leading to an existential collapse in trust. 

It is deeply unhealthy for a democracy to treat its political candidates in this way. If Democrats want to get rid of Trump, they should focus on beating him at the ballot box in November. Instead, they are attempting to use the legal system to decide the election on their behalf. Does anyone believe that Trump would have faced these charges if he was not running for president? 

The answer to that question is deeply corrosive to American democracy. Those who held a steadfast belief in the greatness of our system of government and the sanctity of our democratic processes are seeing their faith in the country eroded. For many Americans, this trial represents a watershed moment where trust in the republic has been shattered. The perception of selective justice, with Trump being held to a different standard than his political counterparts, is only going to undermine the legitimacy of the legal system and fuel cynicism and anxiety. Many voters will see through what is going on. 

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

The manipulation of the legal process has laid bare a system rigged in favor of powerful interests. The trial is less about truth and justice, and more about power and vindication.

Internationally, the trial sends a chilling message about the state of democracy and justice in America. To international observers, it will seem like America has become the kind of tinpot democracy where former political leaders are persecuted via the legal system once they leave office. Many around the world will see America as a broken system, rife with corruption and partisanship, and this will only tarnish the country’s image on the world stage.

The trial of former President Donald Trump is more than just a legal catastrophe – it is a symbol  of the shambolic state of American democracy. The issues at stake – partisanship, manipulation of the legal process, and the collapse of trust in national institutions – are caused by systemic problems that require urgent attention.  

As for Trump himself, he could be sentenced to as many as four years behind bars. But even that will not stop him from running and serving as president if he wins later this year. Indeed, the US Constitution does not prohibit a convicted felon, including a former president, from running for office or serving as president. It could well be that this trial backfires for those seeking to defeat Trump. Many Americans will be stirred by his current plight, and this attempt by his ruthless opponents to vanquish him. 

Watch Freddy Gray and Lionel Shriver discuss more on Spectator TV:

Derby day wagers and one for the Oaks

Who would have thought it? After four Classic races this season on both sides of the Irish Sea, the score between the trainers from the two nations is… Britain 4, Ireland 0. After the Irish routed their British rivals at the Cheltenham festival and with the formidable strength of Aidan O’Brien Co Tipperary yard, that scoreline would not have been predicted by many.

This weekend we see the next two English classics contested on the Epsom Downs: the Betfred Oaks today and the Betfred Derby tomorrow. Although horses from the O’Brien yard head the market for both races, it is not impossible British trainers could come out on top again. From a betting point of view, I hope that is the case.

Since it is only hours away, I will start by scrutinising the Oaks (today, 4.30 p.m.), a Group One contest for 12 of the best three-year-old fillies from both countries. Ylang Ylang is officially the highest rated horse in the race and deserves to be favourite. 

She was only fifth in the Qipco 1,000 Guineas but she looks sure to be better suited by the further half mile of today’s contest. Her stablemate Rubies Are Red also has a decent chance of landing the spoils.

Hampshire handler Ralph Beckett goes into the race with no less than four runners of which the unbeaten Forest Fairy is likely to prove the pick of the quartet.

At the odds, however, I would prefer to back SECRET SATIRE for the Andrew Balding/Oisin Murphy trainer/jockey combination. Secret Satire was a 22-1 outsider when she landed the Tattersalls Musidora Stakes earlier this month. That Group Three York contest is often the best trial for Epsom and the stand-out statistic for me is that the last three winners of the race went on to be first, second and first again in the Oaks.

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

Secret Satire’s breeding suggests she is a doubtful stayer but she hit the winning line hard at York and, at double figure odds, I am happy to take a chance on her stamina. Furthermore, the second at York, Francophone, boosted the form by winning a listed race at Goodwood last Saturday. 

Back Secret Satire each way at 12-1 with bet365, Paddy Power or Betfred, all paying four places. There are odds of 14-1 out there but with fewer places.

Moving on to tomorrow, City of Troy is by far the most interesting runner in the Derby (Epsom, 4.30 p.m.). There are not many horses which, after bombing at odds on for the Qipco 2000 Guineas with no obvious excuse, would be vying for favouritism next time out in Britain’s biggest flat race of the year.

However, Aidan O’Brien is training genius so when he says his charge is the most exciting horse he has ever handled, it is worth sitting up and taking note. City of Troy’s ninth of 11 runners, beaten nearly 17 lengths in the Newmarket Classic, was clearly too bad to be true and he will almost certainly step up considerably on that run.

Yet odds of around 7-2, when his stamina has to be taken on trust too and he has a difficult draw in stall one, can hardly be described as ‘great value’ and it is not surprising that his unbeaten stablemate, Los Angeles, could go off favourite tomorrow even though stable jockey Ryan Moore has stayed loyal to City of Troy. I won’t be backing either horse, however.

In reality tomorrow’s race, worth the best part of £900,000 to the winner, is wide open and liable to an upset. Charlie Appleby’s Ancient Wisdom has to have a big shout on the strength of his form last season even though he was firmly put in his place by Economics in the Al Basti Equiworld Dubai Dante Stakes at York earlier this month. But, once again, odds of around 6-1 hardly scream value, especially as he will not have his favoured very soft ground, and I am happy to look elsewhere.

The once-raced Voyage, trained by the in-form Richard Hannon, is an interesting contender at 20-1 after his surprise win at Newbury in April, as is Dancing Gemini from Roger Teal’s Lambourn yard. Unfortunately, neither horse is guaranteed to stay the mile and a half of the Derby on ground currently described as ‘good to soft’ but which may dry further before the off.

The William Hill Lingfield Derby Trial, over a similar trip and course to the Derby, often gives pointers to Epsom so I am, on balance, going to side with AMBIENTE FRIENDLY from the yard of veteran trainer James Fanshawe.

It is hard not to feel sympathy for jockey Callum Shepherd after being ‘jocked off’ despite winning the Lingfield race by four and a half lengths at odds of 8-1 but the owners – in this case the Gredley family – call the shots and so Rab Havlin will be in the saddle tomorrow.

Fanshawe says tomorrow’s contest is ‘the most important race we’ve ever had a runner in’ but the Newmarket trainer is a cool customer and he knows how to get the best out of a good horse.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the Lingfield form and the third in the race, Meydaan, franked it in spades at Goodwood last week, when he landed a listed race for his father-and son-trainers, Simon and Ed Crisford. The time of the Lingfield Derby Trial was very respectable too so there is a lot to like about Ambient Friendly’s chances.

Back him each way for the Derby at 13-2 with William Hill or Betfred, both paying four places. I have been sweet all week on the chances of two horses in tomorrow’s Princess Elizabeth Stakes (Epsom 2 p.m.): Sparks Fly from the Shropshire yard of David Loughnane, and BREEGE, who is a stable favourite of the North Yorkshire the father-and-son training team of John and Sean Quinn.

I had expected to suggest backing both horses each way but Sparks Fly has all but halved in odds over the past three days and the going is unlikely to be quite as soft as she would like, so I am only going to put up Breege against the favourite, Running Lion.

Sean Quinn reported last month that Breege, a four-year-old filly, had come back bigger and stronger than she was last year when she was runner up three times in decent races, including at Royal Ascot and Glorious Goodwood. I am hopeful she can reverse the form with Royal Dress on their run at Goodwood earlier this month. Back Breege in tomorrow’s Group 3 contest at 15/2 with William Hill, paying three places.

The Aston Martin ‘Dash’ Handicap (tomorrow, 3.45 p.m.), over the downhill five-furlong track, is a race that I love to watch each year. In-form trainer Karl Burke has two big chances of landing the spoils in this contest.

Stable jockey Clifford Lee has remained loyal to Silky Wilkie, who was second in this race last year, beaten in a photo finish. Burke’s other runner, Looking for Lynda, also has strong course and distance form and will be in the capable hands of Hollie Doyle tomorrow.

On balance, however, I prefer the chances of Clarendon House for Robert Cowell, the so-called ‘sprint king’, even though the trainer has never won the ‘Dash’. Clarendon House was third in this race last year too, but, at odds of 13-2 or less, I can easily pass on this race.

Those who follow my tips will also have an interest in the result of the Qatar Prix du Jockey Club, or ‘French Derby’, at Chantilly on Sunday. I put up Ghostwriter each way at 16-1 a week ago and he is now trading at around 5-1. My worry is the ground in France may be too soft for him but here’s hoping he runs a big race.

Next week I will be putting up ante-post bets for Royal Ascot and I already have a couple of really strong early fancies for this wonderful meeting.

Pending:

1 point each way Secret Satire at 12-1 in the Oaks, paying 1/5^th odds, 4 places. 

1 point each way Breege at 15-2 in the Princess Elizabeth Stakes, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places. 

1 point each way Ambiente Friendly at 13-2 in the Derby, paying 1/5^th odds, 4 places. 

1 point each way Ghostwriter at 16-1 in the Prix du Jockey Club, paying 1/5^th odds, 3 places. 

Last weekend: – 1.2 points.

2 points win Rogue Lightning at 5-1 in the Temple Stakes. Unplaced. – 2 points.

1 point each way Emiyn at 9-1 in Nifty 50 Hell Nook Handicap, paying 1/5^th odds, 4 places. 3^rd. + 0.8 points.

2024 flat season running total + 5.8 points.

2023-4 jumps season: + 42.01 points on all tips.

2023 flat season: – 48.22 points on all tips.

2022-3 jumps season: + 54.3 points on all tips.

My gambling record for the past eight years: I have made a profit in 15 of the past 17 seasons to recommended bets. To a 1 point level stake over this period, the overall profit of has been 517 points. All bets are either 1 point each way or 2 points win (a ‘point’ is your chosen regular stake).

The statistic that should terrify Tory HQ

The tightening looks on. On Tuesday, my polling firm JL Partners published its first campaign poll showing a 12-point Labour lead, down from 15 points at the start of May and 18 points in April. Our data scientist, Callum Hunter, has written for The Spectator on why we are confident our methodology is the right one. We will need to see in our next poll whether the trend continues or stalls.

But there are reasons in the data to believe the Tories have more support to pick up. Reform is still on 12 per cent, and around four in ten (37 per cent) say they would consider voting for the Conservatives. Sunak has gradually climbed vis-à-vis Starmer with over-65s to a 23-point lead and is drawing closer with men (Labour currently has a 5-point lead): both groups that are more likely to consist of Reform voters.

If the Tories win Reform voters over directly, they are likely to do better among the voters who say they do not know who to vote for. Our model predicts that 30 per cent of the current undecideds will split for Reform UK. If that comes down, it benefits the Conservatives too.

But tightening could come with a twist: it could benefit Labour. In the same poll, almost half (47 per cent) of current Liberal Democrat voters say they would consider voting for the Labour party. 

This is the statistic that should terrify Tory HQ. If the race tightens, Liberal Democrats could be squeezed by Labour just as Reform will be squeezed by the Tories. They could lend their votes to Starmer to keep the Tories out, especially if they feel the race is competitive.

That more than offsets the Reform voters ready to consider the Tories: the respective group sizes are 1.5 million to 1.4 million. If the Tories can squeeze Reform they could shore up their vote, but the Labour lead might not change. Tory champagne bottles will remain unopened.

What will Americans make of Trump’s guilty verdict?

The indictment and trial on a thin charge, the gagging of a presidential candidate in the middle of a campaign, and the judge’s consistently biased rulings amount to deliberate judicial interference in the 2024 election. 

The process was led by a Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who ran on the campaign platform of going after Donald Trump. Not going after a crime. Going after a person. That fundamentally contradicts the basic principles of Anglo-American law and justice.

No one else in New York City would have been indicted, as Donald Trump was, on what amounted to two expired misdemeanours, turned into a felony. One alleged felonious act became 34 counts. The prosecution said Trump was really guilty of election interference. The idea was that the catch-and-kill payments about the Stormy Daniels story, made to the National Enquirer and handled by Michael Cohen, changed the outcome of the 2016 election. 

There are some glaring problems with that approach. The first is that campaign election violations are the responsibility of the federal government and normally handled exclusively by them for federal elections. Yet the federal government, the real experts in this process, chose not to prosecute. Alvin Bragg knew better. At least he knew what was better politically in New York. 

He knew he would draw a jury pool that, if it was like the rest of Manhattan, loathed Donald Trump and overwhelmingly rejected his candidacy. The judge was cut from the same cloth and effectively served as a member of the prosecution team. He let prosecution witnesses offer their (uninformed) opinions about these campaign-finance issues, but slammed the door shut on the defence’s effort to rebut them. Trump’s team wanted to call one of the country’s leading experts on campaign finance to refute those claims. Judge Merchan flatly refused.

His instructions to the jury were just as fair-minded. To take just one example, he omitted a crucial point for Trump’s side: a ‘missing witness’ instruction. The prosecution had complete control of one potential witness, Allen Weisselberg, former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. Weisselberg, who is now in jail for lying under oath, worked with Michael Cohen to arrange the bookkeeping entry that is the heart of the prosecution case. 

The prosecution refused to call Weisselberg, presumably because they figured his testimony would hurt their case. The judge should have told the jury that they could reasonably make that assumption. That’s not a trivial point. For the jury to make anything out of the bookkeeping entry, they had to believe Trump willingly created the false entry and did it to conceal a crime. The only person who actually said that was Michael Cohen.

We don’t know how voters will respond to the verdict. The last elections have been decided by razor-thin margins so even small changes could make a difference.  

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

The public respects the courts, though its deference has dwindled considerably over the years. The Democrats have made undermining trust in the courts a major theme once they lost control of the Supreme Court. Even so, the public retains some residual respect for the judicial system, and that may affect independent voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That will depend on how they weigh the outcome of the New York trial against the process (and whether they see that process as unfair). 

During the trial itself, Trump’s support actually grew among independent, swing-state voters. They thought, correctly, that the trial was part of an unfair ‘lawfare’ campaign, aimed at keeping Trump off the campaign trail, soaking up his campaign chest and smearing him with criminal charges.  

But a conviction is different from an indictment and trial. We don’t know what the effect will be. We do know that it will be the second arrow in Biden’s quiver, and he and his surrogates will use it. (The other arrow is abortion.) We know the media will gloat. They will be led by the New York Times and Washington Post. We know, too, that Trump and his allies will cry foul. Repeatedly and with increasing ferocity. 

What will a middle-class, independent voter in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Detroit or Milwaukee think? The election may very well turn on that judgment. 

Watch Freddy Gray and Lionel Shriver’s analysis on Spectator TV:

This article was originally published with The Spectator’s World edition.

Labour’s energy plan doesn’t add up

So, we have a little more flesh on the bones of Labour’s energy policy, with the party giving more details of Great British Energy, the state-owned company it wants to set up to invest in wind and solar energy. But there are still gaping holes in Labour’s promise to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 – and save consumers money in the process.

First to note is that Labour seems drastically to have toned down the claims as to how much its energy policies will supposedly save consumers. Until today it was claiming that it would save us ‘up to £1,400’ a year. Given that under Ofgem’s price cap the average household is currently paying £1,690 a year on a dual gas and electricity bill, and that this is due to fall to £1,568 in July, this did seem a little unlikely – it was based on the very high energy prices of the winter 2022/23. Labour’s new claim is that it will save us £300 a year. But it also claims: ‘Labour pledges that Great British Energy will cut energy bills for good, as families face threat of £900 annual energy price spikes under the Tories.’

Annual energy price spikes of £900 under the Tories? Where did that come from? It seems to be based on a claim that ‘a dual-fuel household with typical levels of consumption on the direct debit price cap/Energy Price Guarantee would have paid £1,880 more between April 2022 and March 2024 than if prices and standing charges had remained at their April 2021 to March 2022 levels’. In other words, Labour is asserting that had it been in power, energy prices would not have risen one bean in 2022 and 2023. This seems somewhat improbable – unless David Lammy – Labour’s putative foreign secretary could have managed to charm Vladimir Putin into not invading Ukraine.

The Ukrainian invasion led to a spike in gas and oil prices all across Europe but the crisis – combined with the inflationary effects of the pandemic – also led to a sharp increase in the cost of new wind and solar. As an example, in July 2022 the Swedish company Vattenfall won one of the government’s auctions to build an offshore wind farm, Norfolk Boreas, in return for a strike price (a price guaranteed for 15 years, rising with inflation) equivalent to £45 per megawatt-hour at the time. A year later it withdrew from the project, complaining that the cost of building a wind farm had greatly increased in the interim and it would no longer be profitable. Not only had steel and cement prices increased greatly, so too had interest rates. When most of the costs in constructing power plant come upfront – as they do with wind and solar – the level of interest rates makes a huge difference to profitability. A further government auction for offshore wind last September attracted no bids.

How will Great British Energy get around the rising costs of building wind and solar? Labour provides no answer to this, but it does say that Great British Energy will have an initial capitalisation of £8.3 billion, funded by a ‘proper’ windfall tax on gas and oil companies. Given that Vattenfall had been proposing to spend £10 billion building just three offshore windfarms (before costs surged) it is hard to see how this is going to fund a complete transformation of the energy sector, as Labour is promising. Besides the cost of building wind and solar farms themselves, there is also the considerable cost of reconfiguring the grid to allow the power generated by new wind and solar farms to actually to be used – at present developers are complaining they have been told it could take up to 15 years to connect their projects to the grid.

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

On top of that is the even bigger cost of providing some sort of back-up to provide energy when wind and solar energy are very low. How is Labour planning to do this? It still can’t seem to tell us, although it is interesting to note that today’s press release on Great British Energy doesn’t mention energy storage but it does mention CCS – i.e. Carbon Capture and Storage, a technology that can be used to remove carbon dioxide from the exhaust streams of coal and gas-fired power stations, albeit at a price. If Labour is planning to use gas plants fitted with CCS as back-up, it certainly isn’t going to be saving consumers much money. Moreover, the continued use of gas would make a nonsense of Labour’s pledge to save us from ‘fossil fuel markets controlled by dictators and rogue states’.

Indeed, Labour’s energy policy would make us more dependent on fossil fuels from rogue states because it involves granting no new licences for oil and gas extraction in the North Sea. If we are going to continue to use gas, but we are not going to get it from our own territory, then clearly we are going to have to import it. Labour’s energy policy never did add up. The latest release of detail on Great British Energy does nothing to change that.

The problem with Labour’s free breakfast clubs plan

Labour has been deliberately opaque when it comes to their plans for government, but on one issue Sir Keir Starmer has been uncharacteristically lucid. The leader of the opposition will be slapping VAT on private schools on ‘day one’ in Downing Street, a promise which has already prompted some parents to cancel places for September.

Shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson has made clear that this punitive, green-eyed levy on independent school fees will fund her broad-ranging education plans, from ‘higher standards’ (though the number of schools judged by Ofsted to be ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ increased from 68 per cent in 2010 to 90 per cent in 2023) to ‘higher paid jobs’ (these details remain unknown). But it is the plan for universal free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England that may rankle parents of privately educated children the most.

Around four-fifths of schools already have some level of breakfast provision for children. In England, all reception, year one and year two pupils are entitled to free lunches. Blanket free school meals have been rolled out across Labour-run London and Wales, but Phillipson has U-turned on a nationwide policy, perhaps because the IFS has found it could cost nearly £1 billion a year. A recent government estimate of the breakfast club plan, assuming 30 per cent take up, put it at £205 million a year by 2030. Were pupils to be provided with an hour of childcare in addition to a meal, however, it could cost close to £1 billion.

In other words, Labour will price some parents out of something they want (private education), in order that others can subsidise something they don’t need (‘free’ breakfast). I would wager that, given the choice, vanishingly few parents would prefer the latter. 

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

Most would agree that the state should stop children from deprived backgrounds going hungry, and would support spending around £1.4 billion a year annually on free school meals throughout term time in England. It’s an imperfect solution, of course: IFS research has found the savings to households from meals are considerably less than the government pays for them. Universal Credit was introduced to streamline the benefits system, and ought to be deployed in such a way as to mitigate the need for free school meals. 

But why provide children of more affluent families with free breakfast? Labour says it will allow parents to get to work earlier, and there is some merit to this argument. The school timetable does not make it easy for both parents to work long hours, or have lengthy commutes. Some may welcome the additional flexibility. Yet still, this should be means-tested. 

In any case, just 38 per cent of working mothers with children aged 0-14 say that having reliable childcare helps them go to work. One recent study found that over half of schools with breakfast clubs said they were operating below capacity. Labour’s defence reinforces the idea that parents should maximise the time their children spend in the care of the state, and their own at the office. 

Indeed, Phillipson has hailed the scheme as ‘giving every child the best start to the day’. Why is another hour at school, away from their family, the ‘best start’? In what world do public sector busybodies know better than parents how their child should eat? The nanny statists would argue that school food is more nutritious, but the evidence to support this is mixed. Even if it were correct, there is no guarantee pupils would choose the healthier options on offer.  

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see the slippery slope. Once you make breakfasts universal you have opened the door to ‘free’ lunches. Phillipson has already said she is ‘looking closely’ at this policy, and the public health establishment have demanded ‘urgent action’. And, once they’re free, the government can make them mandatory. 

All signs are pointing to Labour accelerating the paternalism ratchet. The shadow health secretary Wes Streeting has defended the nanny state by proudly declaring Labour ‘sit idly by while children get fatter’. The party wants supervised toothbrushing in schools. Rishi’s gradual smoking ban may have been postponed, but it is likely to be a brief delay. Wes Streeting has already given it his backing.

The British public don’t need saving from themselves. Children don’t need shielding from their parents. What we may all need, however, is protection against a Labour government. 

The Beckham rumour that refuses to die

I first heard it in the spring of 1999 from a bloke who was sitting behind me at a West Ham game. It concerned David Beckham and Victoria Adams of the Spice Girls, who were then on their way to becoming the UK’s most prominent celebrity couple. They were set to marry that summer – and they particularly wanted to book an Essex country hotel for the event, he told me. But his friend of a friend had long since secured the booking on the day in question for his own wedding. On learning this, Beckham had been so keen on getting the coveted slot himself that he had offered to pay for the friend of a friend’s entire wedding if he moved it to a later date – and, as an extra sweetener, he would pay off his mortgage too.  

Great story, I thought, and worth a few quid to a red top newspaper. So I explained this to the bloke behind me and asked him to put me in touch with his friend of a friend. Yet, despite pressuring him every time I saw him for weeks afterwards, no name or phone number ever materialised. And when I later mentioned all this to a red top showbiz writer in the run-up to the Beckham wedding, he just laughed. It turned out that the tabloids that summer were getting this call multiple times a day – and the story never checked out. It just wasn’t true. 

The Beckhams duly married on 4 July 1999. And the wedding party wasn’t at an Essex hotel at all – but at Luttrellstown Castle in Ireland. That was the first time I encountered this story. But it still crops. Just the other day, a Twitter post went viral, racking up 100,000 views before it was finally deleted, read: ‘A friend of a friend is getting married at Gleneagles next year but David Beckham wants the date for his 50th, so to get the friend to move it so he can have the hotel, Gleneagles are paying for their wedding date, honeymoon AND paying off their mortgage… the power of Becks.’

The power of Becks indeed: a celeb of such stature that he’s capable of sustaining an urban myth for a quarter of a century. These are just a tiny fraction of the number of times this fake news has been shared over that time. During my long stint on the Sun newsdesk, in the mid-2000s, I would hear this story in various incarnations several hundred times. A former colleague tells me that they were still getting new versions of it earlier this year ahead of Victoria’s 50th birthday in April – actually at Oswald’s in London, rather than again Gleneagles in Scotland as the tip usually went.

The story seems to particularly flourish in Scotland: as well as repeatedly involving Gleneagles it has previously been based around a supposed Beckham party at the Cameron hotel in Loch Lomond. Both venues have issued denials over the years. In my primary school days, urban myths were more horror or sci-fi in theme: about vanishing hitchhikers, escaped lunatics with axes or albino alligators in sewers. Then came the era of the slebs.

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

This may have begun with the hippie music scene: there was Marianne Faithful’s Mars Bar, Led Zeppelin’s shark, Jimi Hendrix’s parakeets. By the 1980s, celebrity urban myths were proliferating. They often focused on the strange recreational practices of otherwise innocuous female celebs: there were tales about, of all people, Sue Lawley, Jan Leeming and Una Stubbs, which for both legal and taste, reasons I won’t share here. 

There was also a stream of doubtless homophobic stories about gay or supposedly gay male celebs: Marc Almond and his stomach being pumped, Richard Gere and his gerbil, Keanu Reeves and his secret marriage. Then there were the Westminster variants – in the 1990s there was one about prominent Tories Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley; more recently there has been supposedly well-sourced gossip about Michael Gove and (separately) Liz Truss. But none of these can hold a candle to the hoary story about the Beckhams and the teller’s friend of a friend – both for the sheer number of repetitions and its astonishing duration. 

It’s a story that has just kept going and going, a strange aspect of UK culture that’s everywhere but nowhere: there isn’t much mention of it online, but the rumour has been shared by tens of thousands of people through word of mouth, an oral tradition akin to medieval folklore updated for the Hello! magazine age. But is the Beckham story finally to be superseded? Last week, I’m told, the British tabloids started to get a flood of calls about a couple who have been offered £350,000 to give up their hotel booking by one Taylor Swift.

What to do if you’re being sued

In each country where I have sued or defended a client, whether in England, France or the US, an often bitterly fought dispute ends peacefully. Given the brutal nature of our species, this could be considered surprising. For most of the 30,000 years we have roamed the planet, disputes have ended with one party killing the other. Drug disputes are still settled this way. Yet we rarely notice that ending a dispute peacefully is an historic leap forward.

You may enter the legal system of your own free choice or you may be dragged into it as a defendant. In either case you come to court thinking there will be a fair decision. In your mind, that means winning the case. Yet my client’s cheerful expectations are not always met, nor are those of my client’s opponent, but one of them will come off better than the other. Why is this so? Plato had Thrasymachus say that ‘justice is nothing more than the interest of the stronger party’. Two and a half millennia later things have not changed. The party who pays for the best lawyer normally fares better.

My half century of representing clients leads me to a somber conclusion. If I were accused of a theft which I had not committed or sued for breach of a contract which I had not breached, I would not be serene in any one of the three legal systems with which I am familiar. 

Judges are fallible. Even the most competent ones make mistakes. A judge may misapply the law or read reports too quickly or be prejudiced against one of the parties. The judge may in good faith find me guilty of a crime I did not commit or proclaim me liable for a breach of contract that I did not breach. I can appeal to a higher court and hope for a better result, but as long as my conduct is judged by human beings, there will be errors, often the result of negligence, incompetence, prejudice, fatigue and, more rarely, corruption.

Most popular

Curtis Yarvin

‘You Can See Everything’ is a masterpiece of fakery

Owen Matthews

Putin can smell Washington’s desperation

Andrew Cockburn

Is a robot running the Fed?

Yet a judicial proceeding is not like going to the roulette wheel in a casino. It is more like a poker game with players of varying skill. What cards each player gets is the luck of the draw, but how a professional poker player uses those cards is not. Over many poker games, or many court cases, luck will cease to be a dominant element, but in the short run, which is where my client will be in a court proceeding, luck may prevail. The professional poker player and the skilful lawyer will in the long run have a favourable win rate, but may lose in the short run. As the client only plays the game in the short run, the client’s odds don’t look quite as good.

So if you are about to be sued, what should you do? The best thing may be to settle. A Gallic proverb runs that a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit. Even if you are certain that you are right, you should reflect on a gypsy curse, ‘May you have a lawsuit in which you know you are in the right.’ Of course, the other party may refuse to settle under any terms. What then? If you are the demanding party, your choices are to abandon your claim or to find the best lawyer you can. If you are the defending party, your choice is more limited. If you can’t settle, all you can do is defend. You must then diligently search for the best lawyer you can find, pray that you can afford the legal fees and hope for the best.

When a client asks me to take on a case to sue or to defend and assures me that victory is certain, I quote a French philosopher, ‘There is no certainty; there are only those who are certain’. It rarely works.What I do say to my client with considerable confidence is that if you sue or defend, the judicial pace will be painfully slow; fees will be exorbitant, but eventually the case will come to an end, and when it does, the probability is that the client’s life will not be in jeopardy. That is civilisation.