Connect with us

Published

on

US and UK troops should have stayed in Afghanistan “to see it through”, Tony Blair has said, as he warned the decision to withdraw personnel could lead to a “security threat” at home.

The former Labour prime minister said while he has “enormous respect” for US President Joe Biden, the number of individuals deployed in the country “had been reduced to a much smaller level” by 2019 and UK troops “were in a position to hold firm for some considerable time”.

Mr Blair, who sent UK troops into Afghanistan 20 years ago when he was prime minister, also urged the UK and its allies to develop a “strategy” to deal with the Taliban to ensure “we don’t end up with a security threat”.

Joe Biden gives an address on Afghanistan
Image:
Tony Blair said President Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops was ‘imbecilic’

His comments come a day after he published a 2,700 word article on Afghanistan in which he referred to President Biden’s decision to withdraw troops as “imbecilic” and said the move was “tragic, dangerous and unnecessary”.

In the piece released on Saturday evening, Mr Blair warned that the UK has a “moral obligation” to maintain a presence in Afghanistan until “all those who need to be are evacuated” have left the country.

Mr Blair told reporters the decision by the Trump administration to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was made “for internal American reasons” and that “we could have held firm and succeeded”.

More on Kabul

“This was not a situation we needed to be in,” the former prime minister told reporters, adding: “In the world we have today, you’ve got sometimes to commit for the long term.”

He continued: “The problem with what’s happened now is that it’s not just about the Afghan people and our obligation to them, it’s about us and our security.

Former prime minister Tony Blair
Image:
Tony Blair deployed troops to Afghanistan 20 years ago while he was prime minister

“Because you’ve now got this group back in charge of Afghanistan. They will give protection and succour to al Qaeda, you’ve got ISIS, Islamic State already in the country trying to operate at the same time.

“You look round the world and the only people really cheering this decision are the people hostile to Western interests.”

Mr Blair also called on the UK government and its G7 allies to work together to ensure peace.

He urged leaders to “hold firm” against people who are hostile to Western interests, even when the decision to do so divides opinion.

“The Taliban will find that governing is a lot harder than they thought. The population of Afghanistan is different,” he said.

British troops prepare to depart upon the end of operations for U.S. Marines and British combat troops in Helmand October 27, 2014
Image:
Tony Blair urged the UK and its allies to develop a ‘strategy’ to ensure ‘we don’t end up with a security threat’

“There’s going to be a lot that we can still do but it’s important that we mobilise now after the disarray frankly of the last few weeks, that we mobilise as the leading countries and make it clear that we still understand we have an obligation in our own interests to try and resolve this situation and to put as much pressure on the government in Afghanistan as possible to make sure that we don’t end up either with a security threat in play for us or with the Afghan people losing the gains they’ve made over the last 20 years.”

Mr Blair also defended his decision to deploy troops 20 years ago following emotive comments made by Afghanistan veterans in recent days, saying UK personnel “went in there for very good reasons” and did not make any “sacrifices in vain”.

He told reporters that what was achieved in Afghanistan over the past two decades still “matters today” and that Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan has not been a “hopeless endeavour”.

“I think it’s really important that people realise this, the story of Afghanistan, the story of the Taliban takeover, it’s not over,” Mr Blair added.

“It is tragic what’s happened, I think it’s unnecessary, I think we’ve made a serious mistake in doing this in this way, but it isn’t over yet.”

Continue Reading

Politics

PM could lift controversial benefit cap in budget – as Farage makes two big election promises

Published

on

By

PM could lift controversial benefit cap in budget - as Farage makes two big election promises

Sir Keir Starmer could decide to lift the two-child benefit cap in the autumn budget, amid further pressure from Nigel Farage to appeal to traditional Labour voters.

The Reform leader will use a speech this week to commit his party to scrapping the two-child cap, as well as reinstating winter fuel payments in full.

The prime minister – who took Westminster by surprise at PMQs by revealing his intention to row back on the winter fuel cut – has previously said he would like to lift the two-child cap if the government could afford it.

There are now mounting suggestions an easing of the controversial benefit restriction may be unveiled when the chancellor delivers the budget later this year.

According to The Observer, Sir Keir told cabinet ministers he wanted to axe the measure – and asked the Treasury to look for ways to fund the move.

It comes after the government delayed the release of its child poverty strategy, which is expected to recommend the divisive cap – introduced by former Tory chancellor George Osborne – is scrapped.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why did Labour delay their child poverty strategy?

Ministers have already said any changes to winter fuel payments, triggered by mounting political pressure, would only be made when the government’s next fiscal event rolls round.

The Financial Times reported it may be done by restoring the benefit to all pensioners, with the cash needed being clawed back from the wealthy through the tax system.

The payment was taken from more than 10 million pensioners this winter after it became means-tested, and its unpopularity was a big factor in Labour’s battering at recent elections.

Before Wednesday’s PMQs, the prime minister and chancellor had insisted there would be no U-turn.

More from Sky News:
PM’s winter fuel claim ‘not credible’
Starmer vs Reeves – the ‘rift’ in Downing Street

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will winter fuel U-turn happen?

Many Labour MPs have called for the government to do more to help the poorest in society, amid mounting concern over the impact of wider benefit reforms.

Former prime minister Gordon Brown this week told Sky News the two-child cap was “pretty discriminatory” and could be scrapped by raising money through a tax on the gambling industry.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Brown questioned over winter fuel U-turn

Mr Farage, who believes Reform UK can win the next election, will this week accuse Sir Keir of being “out of touch with working people”.

In a speech first reported by The Sunday Telegraph, he is expected to say: “It’s going to be these very same working people that will vote Reform at the next election and kick Labour out of government.”

Continue Reading

Politics

First renationalised train service starts today – but not how you’d have hoped…

Published

on

By

First renationalised train service starts today - but not how you'd have hoped…

South Western Railway (SWR) has been renationalised this weekend as part of the government’s transition towards Great British Railways.

The train operator officially came under public ownership at around 2am on Sunday – and the first journey, the 5.36am from Woking, was partly a rail replacement bus service due to engineering works.

So what difference will renationalisation make to passengers and will journeys be cheaper?

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

What is nationalisation?

Nationalisation means the government taking control of industries or companies, taking them from private to public ownership.

Britain’s railway lines are currently run by train operating companies as franchises under fixed-term contracts, but Labour have said they want to take control of the lines when those fixed terms end.

In its manifesto, the party vowed to return rail journeys to public ownership within five years by establishing Great British Railways (GBR) to run both the network tracks and trains.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said renationalising SWR was “a watershed moment in our work to return the railways to the service of passengers”.

“But I know that most users of the railway don’t spend much time thinking about who runs the trains – they just want them to work,” she added. “That’s why operators will have to meet rigorous performance standards and earn the right to be called Great British Railways.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How reliable are UK trains?

How will ticket prices be affected?

Labour have argued cutting off payments flowing into the private sector could save the taxpayer £150m a year.

But the government has not explicitly promised the savings made from nationalisation will be used to subsidise fees.

It is unlikely rail fares will fall as a result of nationalisation, rail analyst William Barter told Sky News.

“The government could mandate fare cuts if it wanted to, but there’s no sign it wants to,” he said.

“At the moment, I’m sure they would want to keep the money rather than give it back to passengers. The current operator aims to maximise revenue, and there’s no reason the government would want them to do anything differently under government control.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK has most expensive train tickets in Europe

What difference will it make for passengers?

Britain’s railways are frequently plagued by delays, cuts to services and timetable issues, but Mr Barter said nationalisation will make very little day-to-day difference to passengers.

There was “no reason to think” the move would improve issues around delays and cancellation of services, he said.

“It’s going to be the same people, the same management,” he explained.

“The facts of what the operator has to deal with in terms of revenue, infrastructure, reliability, all the rest of it – they haven’t changed.”

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

Which services are being next to be nationalised?

In the longer term, the move is likely to bring “a degree of certainty compared with relatively short-term franchises”, Mr Barter said, noting the government would only want to renationalise a franchise “because in one way or another something very bad is going on in that franchise, so in a way it can only get better”.

It also means the government will have greater accountability for fixing problems with punctuality and cancellations.

Mr Barter said: “If this is the government’s baby, then they’re going to do their best to make sure it doesn’t fail. So rather than having a franchise holder they can use as a political scapegoat, it’s theirs now.”

He added: “In the short term, I don’t think you’d expect to see any sort of change. Long term, you’ll see stability and integration bringing about gradual benefits. There’s not a silver bullet of that sort here.”

Next to be renationalised later this year will be c2c and Greater Anglia, while seven more companies will transfer over when their franchises end in the future.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sir Alan Bates attacks ‘kangaroo court’ Post Office scheme after ‘take it or leave it’ offer

Published

on

By

Sir Alan Bates attacks 'kangaroo court' Post Office scheme after 'take it or leave it' offer

Sir Alan Bates has accused the government of presiding over a “quasi kangaroo court” for Post Office compensation.

Writing in The Sunday Times, the campaigner, who led a years-long effort for justice for sub-postmasters, revealed he had been given a “take it or leave it” offer that was less than half of his original claim.

“The sub-postmaster compensation schemes have been turned into quasi-kangaroo courts in which the Department for Business and Trade sits in judgement of the claims and alters the goal posts as and when it chooses,” he said.

“Claims are, and have been, knocked back on the basis that legally you would not be able to make them, or that the parameters of the scheme do not extend to certain items.”

More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty Horizon accounting software made it look as if money was missing from their accounts.

Many are still waiting for compensation despite the previous government saying those who had their convictions quashed were eligible for £600,000 payouts.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘It still gives me nightmares’

After the Post Office terminated his contract over a false shortfall in 2003, Sir Alan began seeking out other sub-postmasters and eventually took the Post Office to court.

More on Post Office Scandal

A group litigation order (GLO) scheme was set up to achieve redress for 555 claimants who took the Post Office to the High Court between 2017 and 2019.

Sir Alan, who was portrayed by actor Toby Jones in ITV drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, has called for an independent body to be created to deliver compensation.

He added that promises the compensation schemes would be “non-legalistic” had turned out to be “worthless”.

It is understood around 80% of postmasters in Sir Alan’s group have accepted a full and final redress, or been paid most of their offer.

Read more:
Post Office scandal explained

Who are the key figures in the scandal?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Lives were destroyed’

A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson told Sky News: “We pay tribute to all the postmasters who’ve suffered from this scandal, including Sir Alan for his tireless campaign for justice, and we have quadrupled the total amount paid to postmasters since entering government.

“We recognise there will be an absence of evidence given the length of time which has passed, and we therefore aim to give the benefit of the doubt to postmasters as far as possible.

“Anyone unhappy with their offer can have their case reviewed by a panel of experts, which is independent of the government.”

Continue Reading

Trending