Connect with us

Published

on

A controversial anti-strike bill has moved a step closer to becoming law – hours after teachers and nurses announced fresh walkouts.

Under the government’s draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, the right to strike would be restricted by imposing minimum service levels and bosses would be legally able to fire employees who ignore a “work notice” ordering them to work on days of industrial action.

The statute passed its second reading in parliament after MPs backed the legislation by 309 votes to 249 – a majority of 60.

As the bill was debated in the Commons, it was announced that the first strikes by teachers since 2016 will take place in February and March, while nurses also announced two further days of industrial action next month.

Meanwhile, ambulance workers are expected to announce up to six more strike dates on Wednesday.

Anti-strike law ‘indefensible and foolish’

During the Commons debate on the strikes bill, Business Secretary Grant Shapps said the legislation “does not seek to ban the right to strike”, adding: “The government will always defend the principle that workers should be able to withdraw their labour.”

More on Conservatives

Also, former home secretary Priti Patel suggested ministers should “look at widening the list of sectors where minimum service standards are needed” as the wave of industrial action continues across the UK.

Under the proposed legislation, the government will get the power to set minimum safety levels for fire, ambulance and rail services in England, Wales and Scotland.

They would also have the power to set minimum levels of service for health, education, nuclear decommissioning and border security – but the business department said ministers “expect to continue to reach voluntary agreements” with these sectors.

However, Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner described the bill as “one of the most indefensible and foolish pieces of legislation to come before this House in modern times”.

Read more: No 10 sticking to its guns on strikes but is this sustainable? – Beth Rigby analysis

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Teachers vote to strike next month

Teachers to strike on seven days in February and March

Thousands of teachers are set to walk out of classrooms over pay after the National Education Union (NEU) reached the threshold required to take strike action.

The largest education union had organised a ballot of 300,000 members in England and Wales, calling for a “fully funded, above-inflation pay rise”.

Nine out of 10 teacher members of the union voted for strike action and the union passed the 50% ballot turnout required by law to take industrial action.

The NEU said the vote shows teachers are not prepared to “stand by” and see the education service “sacrificed” due to “a toxic mix of low pay and excessive workload”.

The union declared seven days of walkouts in February and March – on 1, 14 and 28 February and 1, 2, 15 and 16 March – with the first day of strikes on 1 February expected to affect 23,000 schools in England and Wales.

Read more: Strikes this month – who is taking action and when

In a statement, Dr Mary Bousted and Kevin Courtney, joint general secretaries of the NEU, said: “We regret having to take strike action, and are willing to enter into negotiations at any time, any place, but this situation cannot go on.”

Agency staff and volunteers could be used to cover classes, with schools expected to remain open where possible and the most vulnerable pupils given priority – according to updated guidance issued by the Department for Education.

Click to subscribe to the Sophy Ridge on Sunday podcast

Education Secretary Gillian Keegan described the strike action as “deeply disappointing for children and parents”.

But headteachers in England will not stage walkouts after the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) union ballot turnout failed to meet the 50% legal threshold.

The union said it will consider re-running the ballot due to postal disruption.

Nurses announce two more strike days

Members of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in England are due to strike on Wednesday and Thursday this week.

The union has said its members will also walk out on 6 and 7 February.

In an escalation of industrial action, more NHS trusts in England will take part than during the two previous days of strikes in December – with the number increasing from 55 to 73.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Nurses announce more strike action

Some 12 health boards and organisations in Wales will also take part in the two consecutive days of strikes.

The two days of industrial action by nurses in trusts across England and Wales in December led to the cancellation of thousands of hospital appointments and operations.

It is expected that the health service will run a bank holiday-style service in many areas during the strike action.

Read more: Nursing union threatens biggest walkout to date

Downing Street called the announcement of further strike dates by nurses “deeply regrettable”.

But RCN chief executive Pat Cullen said nurses are taking the measures “with a heavy heart”.

“My olive branch to government – asking them to meet me halfway and begin negotiations – is still there. They should grab it,” she said in a statement.

The RCN had initially demanded a pay increase of up to 19% to cover soaring inflation and falls in real term wages over the past decade.

But earlier this month, Ms Cullen said she could accept a pay rise of about 10% to end its ongoing dispute with the government.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Winter strikes threaten to escalate

Elsewhere, the GMB union is expected to announce further ambulance worker strike dates this Wednesday, Sky News understands.

Up to six more dates are being discussed after talks with Health Secretary Steve Barclay last week broke down.

The government continues to insist that pay claims are unaffordable and is sticking to its belief that wage rises should be decided by pay review bodies.

Continue Reading

World

Ukrainian diplomat involved in 90s nuclear deal with Russia warns Trump about ‘very big mistake’ with Putin

Published

on

By

Ukrainian diplomat involved in 90s nuclear deal with Russia warns Trump about 'very big mistake' with Putin

Ukrainians have given a lukewarm reaction to this week’s White House summit.

There is bafflement and unease here after US President Donald Trump switched sides to support his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, dropping calls for a ceasefire and proposing that Ukraine surrender territory.

While allies are talking up the prospects of progress, people here remain unconvinced.

Ukraine war latest – Trump rules out using US troops

Boris Yeltsin (2L) and Bill Clinton (C) sign the 1994 Budapest Memorandum
Image:
Boris Yeltsin (2L) and Bill Clinton (C) sign the 1994 Budapest Memorandum

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What security guarantees could work?

The Trump administration’s contradictory statements on possible security guarantees are causing concern here.

MP Lesia Vasylenko told Sky News it is not at all clear what the allies have in mind.

“Who is going to be there backing Ukraine in case Russia decides to revisit their imperialistic plans and strategies and in case they want to restart this war of aggression?”

For many Ukrainians, there is a troubling sense of deja vu.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ukrainian drone strikes Russian fuel train

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up not land but its nuclear arsenal, inherited from the Soviet Union, in return for security assurances from Russia and other powers.

They know how that ended up to their enormous cost. Putin reneged on Russia’s side of the bargain, with his invasion of Crimea in 2014 and once again with his full-scale attack three and a half years ago.

We met veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko, who helped lead those negotiations in the 90s.

Veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko helped lead the Budapest Memorandum negotiations
Image:
Veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko helped lead the Budapest Memorandum negotiations

He said there is a danger the world makes the same mistake and trusts Vladimir Putin when he says he wants to stop the killing, something Mr Trump said he now believes.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈        

“It’s not true, it’s not true, Russia never, never, it’s my practices in more than 30 years, Russia never stop their aggression plans to occupy all Ukraine and I think that Mr Trump, if he really believes Mr Putin, it will be a very big mistake, Mr Trump, a very big mistake.”

Before the Alaska summit, allies agreed the best path to peace was forcing Mr Putin to stop his invasion, hitting him where it hurts with severe sanctions on his oil trade.

But Mr Trump has given up calls for a ceasefire and withdrawn threats to impose those tougher sanctions.

Instead, he has led allies down a different and more uncertain path.

Read more on Sky News:
Putin wasn’t there, but influenced summit
Peace further away, not closer
Five takeaways from White House talks

Ukrainians we met on the streets of Kyiv said they would love to believe in progress more than anything, but are not encouraged by what they are hearing.

While the diplomacy moves on in an unclear direction, events on the ground and in the skies above Ukraine are depressingly predictable.

Russia is continuing hundreds of drone attacks every night, and its forces are advancing on the front.

If Vladimir Putin really wants this war to end, he’s showing no sign of it, while Ukrainians fear Donald Trump is taking allies down a blind alley of fruitless diplomacy.

Continue Reading

World

Putin wasn’t at the White House, but his influence was – the moments which reveal his hold over Trump

Published

on

By

Putin wasn't at the White House, but his influence was - the moments which reveal his hold over Trump

Vladimir Putin wasn’t at the White House but his influence clearly was. At times, it dominated the room.

There were three key moments that revealed the Russian president‘s current hold over Donald Trump.

The first was in the Oval Office. Sitting alongside Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the US president told reporters: “I don’t think you need a ceasefire.”

Ukraine talks latest: Zelenskyy ‘ready to meet’ Putin after Trump summit

Vladimir Putin shaking hands with Donald Trump when they met last week. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Vladimir Putin shaking hands with Donald Trump when they met last week. Pic: Reuters

It was a stunning illustration of Mr Trump’s about-face in his approach to peace. For the past six months, a ceasefire has been his priority, but after meeting Mr Putin in Alaska, suddenly it’s not.

Confirmation that he now views the war through Moscow’s eyes.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump applauds Putin and shares ride in ‘The Beast’ last week

The second was the format itself, with Mr Trump reverting to his favoured ask-what-you-like open-ended Q&A.

In Alaska, Mr Putin wasn’t made to take any questions – most likely, because he didn’t want to. But here, Mr Zelenskyy didn’t have a choice. He was subjected to a barrage of them to see if he’d learnt his lesson from last time.

It was a further demonstration of the special status Mr Trump seems to afford to Mr Putin.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

The third was their phone call. Initially, President Trump said he’d speak to the Kremlin leader after his meeting with European leaders. But it turned out to be during it.

A face-to-face meeting with seven leaders was interrupted for a phone call with one – as if Mr Trump had to check first with Mr Putin, before continuing his discussions.

We still don’t know the full details of the peace proposal that’s being drawn up, but all this strongly suggests that it’s one sketched out by Russia. The White House is providing the paper, but the Kremlin is holding the pen.

Read more:
Four key takeaways from the White House Ukraine summit
Trump has taken peace talks a distance not seen since the war began

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump, Zelenskyy and the suit: What happened?

For Moscow, the aim now is to keep Mr Trump on their path to peace, which is settlement first, ceasefire later.

It believes that’s the best way of securing its goals, because it has more leverage so long as the fighting continues.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈      

But Mr Putin will be wary that Mr Trump is pliable and can easily change his mind, depending on the last person he spoke to.

So to ensure that his sympathies aren’t swayed, and its red lines remain intact, Russia will be straining to keep its voice heard.

On Monday, for example, the Russian foreign ministry was quick to condemn recent comments from the UK government that it would be ready to send troops to help enforce any ceasefire.

It described the idea as “provocative” and “predatory”.

Moscow is trying to drown out European concerns by portraying itself as the party that wants peace the most, and Kyiv (and Europe) as the obstacle.

But while Mr Zelenskyy has agreed to a trilateral meeting, the Kremlin has not. After the phone call between Mr Putin and Mr Trump, it said the leaders discussed “raising the level of representatives” in the talks between Russia and Ukraine. No confirmation to what level.

Continue Reading

World

Trump is playing both sides – but has taken peace talks a distance not seen since the war began

Published

on

By

Trump is playing both sides - but has taken peace talks a distance not seen since the war began

Talks between Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders have taken place at the White House, aimed at finding an end to the war in Ukraine.

On the agenda were US security guarantees, whether a ceasefire is required, and a potential summit between the Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin.

Zelenskyy ready to meet Putin – follow latest

Here’s what three of our correspondents made of it all.

For Trump

For Mr Trump, the challenge to remain seen as the deal-broker is to maintain “forward momentum, through devilish detail,” Sky News’ US correspondent James Matthews says.

The US president called the Washington summit a “very good early step”, but that’s all it was, Matthews says.

Despite cordiality with Mr Zelenskyy and promising talk of a US role in security guarantees for Ukraine and discussions for meetings to come. Matthews says the obstacles remain.

“Trump has taken peace discussions to a distance not travelled since the start of the war, but it is a road navigated by a president playing both sides who have changed his mind on key priorities.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Zelenskyy, Trump and the suit

For Putin

As for Russia, Sky News’ Moscow correspondent Ivor Bennett says the aim is to keep Trump on its preferred path towards peace – a deal first, a ceasefire later.

“Moscow believes that’s the best way of securing all of its goals,” Bennett says.

But Ukraine and Europe want things the other way round, and Moscow “will be wary that Trump can be easily persuaded by the last person he spoke to”.

And so, Russia will be “trying to keep themselves heard” and “cast Kyiv as the problem, as they won’t agree to a peace deal on the Kremlin’s terms”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What’s Putin’s next move? Sky’s Ivor Bennett explains

For the UK and Europe

Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates says, for Sir Keir Starmer and Europe, the biggest success of the Washington summit was the US promise of security guarantees for Ukraine.

He adds that the “hard work starts now to actually try to figure out what these guarantees amount to”.

Sir Keir said if Vladimir Putin breaches a future peace deal, there would have to be consequences, but Coates said potentially “insoluble” issues stand in the way.

“At what point do those breaches invoke a military response, whether US guarantees would be enough to encourage European involvement in Ukraine, and whether or not you could see the UK and Europe going to war with Russia to protect Ukraine?”

Coates says “there may never be an answer that satisfies everyone involved”.

Continue Reading

Trending