Connect with us

Published

on

Senate Republicans, including members of leadership and even Trump allies, say former President Trump should stay out of the 2024 Senate primaries, hoping to avoid a repeat of last year’s disappointing midterm elections.  

They view Trump as becoming more of a political liability in next year’s Senate races as his legal problems mount.  

The Manhattan district attorney charged him Tuesday with 34 felony counts related to payments to two women, and he could face additional charges from federal prosecutors and the Fulton County district attorney.   

GOP lawmakers and strategists fear Trump will mire GOP candidates in debates over his pet issues such as election fraud and defunding the Department of Justice instead of issues that more voters care about, such as the economy, inflation and health care.  

And they worry that Trump’s endorsements again will be more driven by how he perceives candidates’ loyalty to him and his agenda than on their electability in November.  

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), who has stood in for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) while he recuperates from a concussion, said it would be better if Trump stays out of the way.

“Sure seems like that would be helpful based on our lack of success in 2022,” he said.  

Even Trump’s strongest allies would like to see next year’s Senate races play out without Trump’s thumb on the scale.  

“If I were him, I’d focus on his own election, but I doubt if he’ll take that advice,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). 

Trump announced his presidential campaign in November.  

He had a mixed record supporting gubernatorial, Senate and House candidates last year.   

He had a losing record in the six states where his super PAC spent money on behalf of Republican candidates gubernatorial and Senate races in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

He compiled a 1-6 record in those states, where only Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), whom Trump endorsed in the primary, won.  

And the candidates Trump endorsed in the five most competitive House races lost.  

Many Senate Republicans think Trump hurt Republicans’ chances in Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania by endorsing candidates whom Republicans in Washington did not view as the candidates with the best chances of winning the general election.  

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted twice to convict Trump on impeachment charges, said the consensus view in the Senate Republican conference is that Trump would do more harm than good if he tries to play kingmaker in next year’s primaries.  

“I hope he stays out because him getting involved last time led to us losing key Senate races we could have won,” he said. “I think it’s viewed [that way] by almost every single member of the caucus, if not all of them, but I think few will say it because they don’t want to get the wrath of Donald Trump.”  

Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist and former Senate leadership aide, said Trump didn’t have a good record picking winners in last year’s toughest races.  

“Trump has a very poor track record of backing top-tier candidates that can get elected to the Senate. It’s no wonder that Senate Republicans want Trump to stay away from the primaries as much as possible because he’s been radioactive in the general elections.” 

Some Senate Republicans thought Trump dragged down candidates in the general election by making it tougher for them to appeal to moderate and swing voters. 

Retired Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who twice won election statewide in Pennsylvania, blamed Trump for the loss of his seat.  

“President Trump had to insert himself and that changed the nature of the race and that created just too much of an obstacle,” Toomey told CNN in November, explaining why he thought celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, whom Trump backed in the primary, lost to now-Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).  

Toomey was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.  

Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that he lost the 2020 presidential election because of widespread fraud became a litmus test in some Senate Republican primaries and came back to haunt those candidates who embraced those claims in the general election.  

In New Hampshire, where Republicans thought at the start of the 2022 election cycle they had a good chance of knocking off vulnerable Sen. Maggie Hassan (D), Republican candidate Don Bolduc won the primary after embracing Trump’s election fraud claims. That turned out to be a liability in the general election and Bolduc tried to back away from that stance after winning the primary, telling Fox News in September that he concluded after doing research on the matter that the election was not stolen. He wound up losing to Hassan by 9points.  

Mark Weaver, a Republican strategist based in Ohio, where Republicans are hoping to defeat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) next year, said Trump’s endorsement is a liability for GOP candidates in a general election.  

“In the general election, a Trump endorsement is always going to hurt because he will always be a red cape to the Democratic bull and I don’t see independents growing any fonder of Donald Trump,” he said, referring to the energizing effect Trump has on Democratic voters.  

Some Republican strategists outside the Beltway, however, see Trump as an asset for Republican candidates in battleground states such as Ohio.  

Mehek Cooke, a Republican strategist and attorney based in Columbus, Ohio, said Trump’s endorsement is “a very net positive” in a general election.

“I think there’s a lot of support for President Trump in the state of Ohio,” she said. “If the Senate Republicans in Washington really want to win against Sherrod Brown, they’re going to come together and work with Trump or any other candidate, rather than continuing the division we see in our country.”

Trump carried Ohio in 2016 and 2020 with 51 percent and 53 percent of the vote, respectively.

Now, Trump is dividing Republicans over another controversy: his call to defund the Department of Justice and FBI in response to federal investigations of his role in the incitement of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

A Senate Republican aide told The Hill that idea won’t get any significant traction in the Senate GOP conference, while House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) says Congress should use its power of the purse to push back on federal investigations of Trump.  

Jordan on Thursday subpoenaed Mark Pomerantz, who formerly worked in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, citing Congress’s interest “in preventing politically motivated prosecutions of current and former presidents by elected state and local prosecutors.”   Pentagon: Interagency effort underway to assess impact of leaked materials Casey to seek reelection to Senate in Pennsylvania

Bonjean, the GOP strategist and former leadership aide, said that Trump shifts the debate in Senate races away from the topics that GOP leaders want to emphasize: inflation, gas prices, crime, the border and federal spending.  

“When Trump injects himself into these primaries, then our candidates have to talk about Jan. 6, Stormy Daniels, stolen elections and those are not matters that Main Street voters really want to hear about,” he said.  

“They want to know how you’re going to solve their problems and if you’re actually relatable as a politician, as an elected official, and those issues aren’t very relatable to general election voters,” he added.

Continue Reading

UK

The winners and losers in Rachel Reeves’s spending review

Published

on

By

The winners and losers in Rachel Reeves's spending review

“It’s a big deal for this government,” says Simon Case.

“It’s the clearest indication yet of what they plan to do between now and the general election, a translation of their manifesto.

“This is where you should expect the chancellor to say, on behalf of the government: ‘This is what we’re about’.”

As the former cabinet secretary, Mr Case was the man in charge of the civil service during the last spending review, in 2021.

On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will unveil the Labour government’s priorities for the next three years. But it’s unclear whether it will provide all that much of an answer about what it’s really about.

Unlike the Autumn budget, when the chancellor announced her plans on where to tax and borrow to fund overall levels of spending, the spending review will set out exactly how that money is divided up between the different government departments.

Since the start of the process in December those departments have been bidding for their share of the cash – setting out their proposed budgets in a negotiation which looks set to continue right up to the wire.

This review is being conducted in an usual level of detail, with every single line of spending assessed, according to the chancellor, on whether it represents value for money and meets the government’s priorities. Budget proposals have been scrutinised by so called “challenge panels” of independent experts.

It’s clear that health and defence will be winners in this process given pre-existing commitments to prioritise the NHS – with a boost of up to £30bn expected – and to increase defence spending.

On Sunday morning, the government press release trumpeted an impressive-sounding “£86bn boost” to research and development (R&D), with the Science and Technology Secretary Peter Kyle sent out on the morning media round to celebrate as record levels of investment.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What will be in spending review?

We’re told this increased spending on the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and defence will lead to jobs and growth across the country, with every £1 in investment set to lead to a £7 economic return.

But the headline figure is misleading. It’s not £86bn in new funding. That £86bn has been calculated by adding together all R&D investment across government for the next three years, which will reach an annual figure of £22.5bn by 2029-30. The figure for this year was already set to be £20.4bn; so while it’s a definite uplift, much of that money was already allocated.

Read More:
Reeves turning around UK finances ‘like Steve Jobs did for Apple’

Government struggles to slash foreign aid spent on asylum hotels

Peter Kyle also highlighted plans for “the most we’ve ever spent per pupil in our school system”.

I understand the schools budget is to be boosted by £4.5bn. Again, this is clearly an uplift – but over a three-year period, that equates to just £1.5bn a year (compared with an existing budget of £63.7bn). It also has to cover the cost of extending free school meals, and the promised uplift in teachers’ pay.

In any process of prioritisation there are losers as well as winners.

We already know about planned cuts to the Department of Work and Pensions – but other unprotected departments like the Home Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government are braced for a real spending squeeze.

We’ve heard dire warnings about austerity 2.0, and the impact that would have on the government’s crime and policing priorities, its promises around housing and immigration, and on the budgets for cash-strapped local councils.

The chancellor wants to make it clear to the markets she’s sticking to her fiscal rules on balancing the books for day-to-day spending.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

But the decision to loosen the rules around borrowing to fund capital investment have given her greater room to manoeuvre in funding long-term infrastructure projects.

That’s why we’ve seen her travelling around the country this week to promote the £15.6bn she’s spending on regional transport projects.

The Treasury team clearly wants to focus on promoting the generosity of these kind of investments, and we’ll hear more in the coming days.

But there’s a real risk the story of this spending review will be about the departments which have lost out – and the promises which could slip as a result.

Continue Reading

UK

Water cremation and human composting could be offered instead of traditional funerals

Published

on

By

Water cremation and human composting could be offered instead of traditional funerals

Water cremation and human composting could soon be offered as an alternative to traditional funerals.

A Law Commission consultation is proposing legal approval of new methods beyond burial, cremation, and the rarely used burial at sea.

The paper published earlier this week highlights two methods used in other countries – alkaline hydrolysis and human composting.

Alkaline hydrolysis – also known as water cremation or resomation – involves placing a person’s body into woollen shroud or other organic pouch, using water, alkaline chemicals, heat and pressure to break down the tissue.

Bones leftover from water cremations can be powered to be scattered like ashes. Pic: Kindly Earth
Image:
Bones left from water cremations can be ground to be scattered like ashes. Pic: Kindly Earth

The resulting liquid is checked and treated if necessary to enter the wastewater system, while remaining pieces of bone and teeth are dried and can be ground to a powder and scattered like ashes.

Water cremation, which mimics the process of natural decomposition when someone is buried, takes between four and 14 hours.

The method, which has been suggested as a greener alternative to traditional cremation, was used for the bodies of five dead people in 2019, as part of a study facilitated by Middlesex and Sheffield universities.

Anti-apartheid campaigner Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who died in 2021, chose resomation for his own funeral in South Africa.

Read more: What is water cremation?

Co-op Funeralcare said it hoped to offer the service in the UK in 2023 but backed out because of the current regulations.

The firm welcomed the Law Commission review, which will run until spring next year, ending in a final report and draft Bill.

New funerary methods are not currently regulated, other than by more general legislation such as environmental and planning laws.

Provisional proposals suggest a legal framework to enable new methods to be regulated in the future.

A Co-op Funeralcare spokesperson said: “At Co-op Funeralcare, we are committed to serving the needs of our member-owners and clients and offering the most sustainable and affordable services.

“In 2023, we announced our ambition to pilot resomation in the UK, and we subsequently worked closely with government to explore the regulatory requirements to introduce this service across the nation.

“However, we did not proceed with this as, at the time, we were unable to find a path through the current regulatory framework.

“We welcome the Law Commission’s review and encourage exploration into alternative methods that provide consumers with greater choice and deliver environmental benefits.”

The consultation paper also highlights human composting, where a body is placed into a sealed chamber, or vessel, with carbon-rich organic matter, such as straw and wood chips, to enable quicker decomposition.

The process takes around two to three months and resulting soil can be returned to bereaved loved ones.

Other methods involving the freezing of human remains have also been suggested, although none have them are yet viable, according to the paper.

Continue Reading

UK

Two men charged with murder after teenager hit by car in Sheffield

Published

on

By

Two men charged with murder after teenager hit by car in Sheffield

Two men have been charged with murder after the death of a teenager in Sheffield.

Abdullah Yaser Abdullah al Yazidi, 16, died after being hit by a car.

He had only recently come to the UK from Yemen, looking “for a better future”, his loved ones previously said.

Zulkernain Ahmed, 20, and Amaan Ahmed, 26, both of Locke Drive, Sheffield, have been charged with murder and three counts of attempted murder.

They are due to appear before Sheffield Magistrates’ Court on Monday.

Flowers at the scene of the crash in Darnall.
Pic: PA
Image:
Flowers at the scene of the crash in Darnall.
Pic: PA

‘Innocently walking down the street’

South Yorkshire Police said Abdullah was “innocently walking” down a street in the Darnall area of the city, just after 4.50pm on 4 June, when a car collided with him.

The force said they understood a grey Audi had driven towards three electric bikes, hitting one.

As the car continued following the collision with the electric bike, it then hit Abdullah, police said.

According to the force, the driver failed to stop at the scene.

Abdullah was taken to hospital where he later died.

The rider of the electric bike, 18, suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries and remains in hospital.

Two people, a man, 46, and a woman, 45, who were previously arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender, remain on bail.

Police at the scene of the collision in the Darnall area of Sheffield.
Pic: PA
Image:
Police at the scene of the collision in the Darnall area of Sheffield.
Pic: PA

A ‘kind boy’

Abdullah’s relative, Saleh Alsirkal, runs a corner shop that the teenager popped into just before he was hit by the car on Wednesday.

“His dad brought him over to change his life, to get a better future for his son, but this has happened and destroyed everything,” said Mr Alsirkal.

Read more from Sky News:
British soldier arrested on suspicion of rape in Kenya
Water cremation could be offered instead of traditional funerals
Body found in search for missing woman

He said Abdullah was a “kind boy” who just wanted to look after his family, including his three sisters and was really enjoying learning English.

“Every time he had a new word to learn, he was so excited about it,” he said.

“It meant a lot to him and he learned quick. Sometimes he would stay in the shop just so he could talk to people. He tried to be friends with everyone.”

“He wanted to be the main guy for the family. He was 16 years old, but he was a clever man,” said Mr Alsirkal.

Continue Reading

Trending