Connect with us

Published

on

The first 100 days of Rishi Sunak’s premiership are done – a yardstick that his predecessor Liz Truss never even reached, while Boris Johnson found himself utterly consumed with firefighting a pandemic.

Mr Sunak can take some comfort in the fact he’s made it this far without a full-blown leadership crisis or an external global event that has blown his plan for government wildly off course.

But it would be hard too for the prime minister, in good faith, to say his first 100 days have been a success.

Politics live: What the polls tell us about Sunak’s performance

These early months in office take on a symbolic significance for political leaders because they act as a benchmark for early successes (or failures).

It is also often a honeymoon period in which a leader enjoys high approval ratings, typically having won an election.

But for Mr Sunak it has been neither of those. There is little warm glow around his leadership, while his approval ratings have gone the wrong way in his first 100 days.

You can see why, writing in The Sun newspaper to mark his 100-day anniversary, the prime minister asked voters not to judge him on his first days in office, but on how he does in the remaining days until a general election (I reckon that puts him on another 500 or 600 days in office, given current Westminster thinking that he’ll call an election in the autumn of 2024).

Because – and even his allies would concede – it has been a bumpy start for the PM and is likely, says one senior minister, to be bumpy for some months yet.

‘Narrow path’ to victory

On the positives, Mr Sunak’s allies argue that he has managed to stabilise the economy and slow the rise in interest rates, helping slow the increase in mortgages and government debt repayments.

“What we have managed to do is stabilise the economy and get that back on track,” said one ministerial ally. “Now we have to have laser focus on delivering on those five priorities.”

Halving inflation, reducing government debt, growing the economy, cutting waiting lists and stopping small boats – this is the Sunak pledge card going into 2024.

And if he can land it all, his supporters see a “very narrow path” to victory in the next general election.

But look at the first 100 days and the scales are very much weighted to things going wrong, rather than things going right.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak departs 10 Downing Street, London, to attend Prime Minister's Questions at the Houses of Parliament. Picture date: Wednesday February 1, 2023.

This is a prime minister who hasn’t been able to resolve the worst strikes in Britain since the 1980s. Kids off schools, nurses and ambulance crews on picket lines, trains that aren’t running, the military deployed to police our borders.

Then there is the very real crisis in the NHS, with record ambulance delays and A&E wait times testing the patience of an increasingly weary public.

All of it is ammunition for the opposition to scream that Britain is broken and it’s time for a change of government.

There are then the scandals around his cabinet that have seen Mr Sunak forced to defend no fewer than four of his ministers in the 11 prime minister’s questions he’s fronted so far.

There’s Suella Braverman, who broke the ministerial code and resigned from the Truss administration only to be reinstated a few days later by the new PM (amid rumours he did a deal with the right of the party to reinstall her in return for leadership votes); Gavin Williamson, who resigned from cabinet over bullying allegations; Nadhim Zahawi, sacked for his conduct related to a tax dispute while he was a cabinet minister; and he is now taking heat for his deputy Dominic Raab, who is the subject of eight separate bullying complaints.

It is not just deeply uncomfortable for the prime minister but threatening too, with Mr Sunak contaminated by the stain of Tory sleaze.

‘Not looking good’

“It’s very dangerous,” one senior minister and ally remarked to me the other day of the Zahawi and Raab affairs.

“It could be it’s gone too far,” they added into musings that the reputational damage was too deep to be undone.

The view settling in Westminster is that Mr Raab’s position is precarious.

“If you’ve got three permanent secretaries [top civil servants] all giving evidence, you have to say it is not looking good for Mr Raab.”

And it is not good for Mr Sunak either.

First, Mr Raab is in his inner circle and is a key political ally on which he relies, so cutting the tie will be difficult and painful for the prime minister’s inner operation.

Second, as I reported this week, the scandal over Mr Raab is getting ever closer to the PM, with claims that Mr Sunak was told about concerns over “unacceptable behaviour” before he put him into cabinet.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Oliver Dowden has told Sky’s Sophy Ridge that the prime minister ‘wasn’t aware of any formal complaints’ against Dominic Raab before appointing him to cabinet

There are some who would prefer Mr Raab to fall on his sword rather than prolong the pain for his boss.

But all the signs are that it will be Mr Sunak who will have to make this call once the independent investigation by Adam Tolley KC concludes.

And the frustrations are feeding through to the polls.

At the end of November 2022, 41% of the public thought Mr Sunak was doing badly, versus 31% who thought he was performing well.

Two months later, towards the end of January, 56% thought the prime minister was doing a bad job, against 26% who thought he was doing a good job – according to YouGov.

Election looms

So, this a prime minister still in the job, but the polls are going the wrong way, which means the pressure is only going to build.

Any government will hope that that gap narrows as the election draws closer, and the PM’s team is relying on falling inflation and economic recovery to help shift sentiment.

What Tory MPs need, says one Treasury figure, is something positive to sell on the doorsteps and, at the moment, Mr Sunak isn’t giving them any of that.

What many MPs want are tax cuts sooner rather than later, but that’s not what they’re likely to get in the March budget.

For this PM, picking up the pieces of the Truss government’s economic debacle meant the first 100 days of his premiership was always going to be tough.

And Mr Sunak is certainly playing this as long as he can – one Treasury source told me an autumn 2024 election is most likely because “people will not feel any better off” by the spring of that year.

At least he can take comfort that he’s survived, but the big unknown – and for many, the real doubt – is whether he can thrive.

Continue Reading

World

What’s it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

Published

on

By

What's it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

What’s it like on the streets of DC right now, as thousands of federal police patrol the streets?

Who is Steve Witkoff, the US envoy regularly meeting Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu to broker peace in Ukraine and Gaza?

And why is Californian Governor Gavin Newsom now tweeting like Donald Trump?

Martha Kelner and Mark Stone answer your questions.

If you’ve also got a question you’d like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@sky.uk.

You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.

Continue Reading

World

It’s been a confusing week – and Trump’s been made to look weak

Published

on

By

It's been a confusing week - and Trump's been made to look weak

It’s been a confusing week.

The Monday gathering of European leaders and Ukraine’s president with Donald Trump at the White House was highly significant.

Ukraine latest: Trump changes tack

The leaders went home buoyed by the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe. He had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

European leaders sit down with Trump for talks

The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week (we got some noise about American air cover), but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.

Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russia would have a problem with it.

Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putin had agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump: No US troops on ground in Ukraine

Russia gives two fingers to the president

And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.

“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.

Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.

It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.

Read more on Ukraine:
Trump risks ‘very big mistake’
NATO-like promise for Ukraine may be too good to be true
Europe tried to starve Putin’s war machine – it didn’t go as planned

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Europe ‘undermining’ Ukraine talks

The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenskyy) hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.

Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.

It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.

NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.

European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”

The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sky’s Mark Stone takes you inside Zelenskyy-Trump 2.0

Would Trump threaten force?

The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.

The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iran isn’t a nuclear power.

Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.

Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.

A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.

Read more from Sky News:
Inside the ISIS resurgence
10 years since one of UK’s worst air disasters
How Republicans are redrawing maps to stay in power

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Image and reality don’t seem to match

Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.

He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.

Pic: Truth Social
Image:
Pic: Truth Social

That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.

The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.

Continue Reading

World

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

Published

on

By

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

At least 17 people were killed after a car bombing and an attack on a police helicopter in Colombia, officials have said.

Authorities in the southwest city of Cali said a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated near a military aviation school, killing five people and injuring more than 30.

Pics: AP
Image:
Pics: AP

Authorities said at least 12 died in the attack on a helicopter transporting personnel to an area in Antioquia in northern Colombia, where they were to destroy coca leaf crops – the raw material used in the production of cocaine.

Antioquia governor Andres Julian said a drone attacked the helicopter as it flew over coca leaf crops.

Read more from Sky News:
Man charged after fatal stabbing of ice cream seller
Trump changes tack with renewed attack over Ukraine

Pic: AP
Image:
Pic: AP

Colombian President Gustavo Petro attributed both incidents to dissidents of the defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

He said the aircraft was targeted in retaliation for a cocaine seizure that allegedly belonged to the Gulf Clan.

Who are FARC, and are they still active?

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist guerrilla organisation, was the largest of the country’s rebel groups, and grew out of peasant self-defence forces.

It was formed in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, carrying out a series of attacks against political and economic targets.

In 2016, after more than 50 years of civil war, FARC rebels and the Colombian government signed a peace deal.

It officially ceased to be an armed group the following year – but some small dissident groups rejected the agreement and refused to disarm.

According to a report by Colombia’s Truth Commission in 2022, fighting between government forces, FARC, and the militant group National Liberation Army had killed around 450,000 people between 1985 and 2018.

Both FARC dissidents and members of the Gulf Clan operate in Antioquia.

It comes as a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that coca leaf cultivation is on the rise in Colombia.

The area under cultivation reached a record 253,000 hectares in 2023, according to the UN’s latest available report.

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Continue Reading

Trending