PMQs is a huge test for a prime minister trying to survive from one day to the next

Published

3 years ago

October 19, 2022

admin

It’s a sign of how bad things are for the new prime minister that only her third Prime Minister’s Questions is being billed as a potentially defining moment in her short premiership.

MPs tell me that how Liz Truss performs at the dispatch box against Sir Keir Starmer at their weekly joust will be an acid test for the prime minister put on notice by her party.

Having dodged questions on Friday when she reversed key planks of her economic plan, and then left it to her new chancellor complete the mini-Budget and two-year energy support plan reversal, this PMQs will be a moment of reckoning.

Truss under pressure: Latest live updates

Many of her party doubt she can meet the moment and think a poor performance will again reignite calls for her go.

“I can’t see what she says at PMQs,” one former minister told me. “Her reputation’s in shreds.”

For the opposition this a “moment of jeopardy” to exploit. “On the Labour side looking across you can see a PM’s authority draining away – as we saw with Johnson.

“I’m sure sets of electrodes are being handed to MPs to bounce up and down in support of the prime minister.

“But it will a big moment, and isn’t just about exchanges with Keir Starmer, the most damaging stuff can come from their own side.”

We saw that back in January when David Davis, the former cabinet minister, used PMQs to publicly call on Mr Johnson to resign. And just moments before that happened Bury South MP Christian Wakeford crossed the floor of the House, defecting from the Conservatives to Labour in another body blow for an embattled prime minister.

Mr Johnson clung on for another six months in a rolling political and leadership crisis, finally being pushed out from Downing Street after dozens of ministers quit his government. As he put it in his resignation speech: “When the herd moves it moves.”

This PMQs will be the latest test of that herd mentality with MPs muttering that she needs to put in a strong showing. She is undoubtedly in deep trouble, with five MPs calling for her publicly to go – although many are privately saying the same.

But if a bad performance is further destabilising, a good performance will now do little to change the fortunes for Ms Truss beyond the immediate moment.

All the talk in Westminster – apart from those cabinet ministers taking to the airwaves to try to shore her up, is about the timing and mechanism for removing and replacing her. The polling around her is disastrous with only one in 10 Britons satisfied with her.

It is the worst polling ever for any leader, from which there is likely no way back. One former cabinet minister told me this week that they thought 90 per cent of the party thought Ms Truss had to go and said Sir Graham Brady will, at some point, have to go to the PM and tell her she no longer has the support of her party and can either stand aside or see a rule change that would force a confidence vote in the PM.

Changing the rules?

What I hear Sir Graham is now working on is a change in the nominations to basically try to force a unity candidate onto the party and avoid a drawn-out run-off in which party members get the final say.

There is talk of setting the nominations bar as perhaps around a third of the parliamentary party – something like 100 or 120 votes. At that level the likely trio with a chance at the top job would be Rishi Sunak, Jeremy Hunt or Penny Mordaunt.

But the aim might be to set the threshold at the level that only one could reach in order to settle the matter quickly, and amongst MPs rather than members, who polling now shows they regret their choice of Ms Truss.

If it all sounds ferociously complicated, that’s because it is. And it comes back to the point that there is not an obvious unity candidate, while MPs are desperate to avoid a protracted run-off – two reasons helping Mr Truss stay in post.

But even if the herd isn’t quite ready to stampede, the outlook is treacherous for the prime minister.

Her new chancellor told me this week after he had ripped up the mini-Budget and reversed £32bn of tax cuts that there would be “eye-wateringly difficult decisions” to take around spending. That’s because he has to fill a fiscal black hole running to perhaps £40bn-£50bn through spending cuts and further tax rises.

One former cabinet minister told me that the cuts Mr Hunt is eyeing will be much bigger than those dealt by former chancellor George Osborne. “They might end up having to do double the amount of cuts than in the austerity years. Jeremy is really worried about it.”

Unease over spending cuts

And so he should be. MPs and ministers are already agitating against potential spending cuts, after Mr Hunt on Monday put everything back on the table. He refused in an interview with me on Monday to commit to uprating pension or benefits by inflation or honouring Liz Truss’s promise to lift defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade.

The Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and his deputy James Heappey have suggested they could quit if this pledge is reversed, while two MPs have already publicly said they will not support the government if it attempts to end the pensions triple lock.

“Pensioners should not be paying the price for the cost of living crisis whether caused by the war in Ukraine or mini budgets,” wrote Tory MP Maria Caulfield on Twitter last night.

Mr Hunt is also eyeing up additional taxes to raise funds for government coffers. Options include possible windfall taxes on banks and energy companies – again Ms Truss vowed not to introduce an energy windfall tax when she became PM – as a way to help plug the gap.

It goes without saying that all of this is fraught with political difficulty and if the markets decide Mr Hunt can’t get his spending cuts through parliament and begin selling off government debt, there could be another bout of market turbulence, with all the potentially fatal fall-out that has for Ms Truss. That fiscal statement, billed for 31 October, really could prove a frightful event.

PMQs is undoubtedly a huge test for the prime minister today whose reputation has been shredded this week. But this is just the first test of many she’s going to face. For now, this is a PM and a No 10 just trying to survive from one day to the next.

World

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

Published

6 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?

Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?

As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.

It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.

Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.

Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.

All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.

They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.

John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.

“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.

“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.

The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.

We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.

One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.

Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.

Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.

He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.

I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.

Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.

But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.

And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.

A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.

It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.

He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.

“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”

“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”

He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”

Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.

He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.

“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.

“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”

World

Trump applying ‘heavy pressure’ on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

Published

15 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Trump applying 'heavy pressure' on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

US President Donald Trump is putting “heavy” pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza, two sources close to the ceasefire negotiations have told Sky News.

One US source said: “The US pressure on Israel has begun, and tonight it will be heavy.”

The source, who is not authorised to speak publicly, was referring to the White House dinner on Monday night between Trump and Netanyahu.

A second Middle Eastern diplomatic source agreed that the American pressure on Israel would be intense.

Netanyahu arrived in Washington DC in the early hours of Monday morning and held meetings on Monday with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser.

The Israeli prime minister plans to be in Washington until Thursday with meetings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Trump has made clear his desire to bring the Gaza conflict to an end.

However, he has never articulated how a lasting peace, which would satisfy both the Israelis and Palestinians, could be achieved.

His varying comments about ownership of Gaza, moving Palestinians out of the territory and permanent resettlement, have presented a confusing policy.

Situation for Palestinians worse than ever

Over the coming days, we will see the extent to which Trump demands that Netanyahu accepts the current Gaza ceasefire deal, even if it falls short of Israel’s war aims – the elimination of Hamas.

The strategic objective to permanently remove Hamas seems always to have been impossible. Hamas as an entity was the extreme consequence of the Israeli occupation.

The Palestinians’ challenge has not gone away, and the situation for Palestinians now is worse than it has ever been in Gaza and also the West Bank. It is not clear how Trump plans to square that circle.

Trump’s oft-repeated desire to “stop the killing” is sincere. Those close to him often emphasise this. He is also looking to cement his legacy as a peacemaker. He genuinely craves the Nobel Peace Prize.

In this context, the complexities of conflicts – in Ukraine or Gaza – are often of secondary importance to the president.

If Netanyahu can be persuaded to end the war, what would he need?

The hostages back – for sure. That would require agreement from Hamas. They would only agree to this if they have guarantees on Gaza’s future and their own future. More circles to square.

Was White House dinner a key moment?

The Monday night dinner could have been a key moment for the Middle East. Two powerful men in the Blue Room of the White House, deciding the direction of the region.

Will it be seen as the moment the region was remoulded? But to whose benefit?

Trump is a dealmaker with an eye on the prize. But Netanyahu is a political master; they don’t call him “the magician” for nothing.

Trump makes decisions instinctively. He can shift position quickly and often listens to the last person in the room. Right now – that person is Netanyahu.

Gaza is one part of a jigsaw of challenges, which could become opportunities.

Diplomatic normalisation between Israel and the Arab world is a prize for Trump and could genuinely secure him the Nobel Peace Prize.

But without the Gaza piece, the jigsaw is incomplete.

World

IDF presence in Gaza ‘only issue’ still to be resolved in push for Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Sky News understands

Published

15 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

IDF presence in Gaza 'only issue' still to be resolved in push for Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Sky News understands

Only one issue remains unresolved in the push to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, according to Sky sources.

Intense negotiations are taking place in Qatar in parallel with key talks in Washington between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Two sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have told Sky News that disagreement between Israel and Hamas remains on the status and presence of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza.

The two sides have bridged significant differences on several other issues, including the process of delivering humanitarian aid and Hamas’s demand that the US guarantees to ensure Israel doesn’t unilaterally resume the war when the ceasefire expires in 60 days.

On the issue of humanitarian aid, Sky News understands that a third party that neither Hamas nor Israel has control over will be used in areas from which the IDF withdraws.

This means that the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – jointly run by an American organisation and Israel – will not be able to operate anywhere where the IDF is not deployed. It will limit GHF expansion plans.

It is believed the United Nations or other recognised humanitarian organisations will adopt a greater role.

On the issue of a US guarantee to prevent Israel restarting the war, Sky News understands that a message was passed to Hamas by Dr Bishara Bahbah, a Palestinian American who has emerged as a key back channel in the negotiations.

The message appears to have been enough to convince Hamas that President Trump will prevent Israel from restarting the conflict.

However, there is no sense from any of the developments over the course of the past day about what the future of Gaza looks like longer-term.

Final challenge is huge

The last remaining disagreement is, predictably, the trickiest to bridge.

Israel’s central war aim, beyond the return of the hostages, is the total elimination of Hamas as a military and political organisation. The withdrawal of the IDF, partial or total, could allow Hamas to regroup.

One way to overcome this would be to provide wider guarantees of clear deliverable pathways to a viable future for Palestinians.

But there is no sense from the negotiations of any longer-term commitments on this issue.

Two key blocks have been resolved over the past 24 hours but the final challenge is huge.

The conflict in Gaza erupted when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Some 20 hostages are believed to remain alive in Gaza.

Israel has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians.