Connect with us

Published

on

There are three ways to judge how well the political parties do on election night.

First, by the number of council seats gained, secondly by the number of councils won and lost and thirdly by looking at vote shares – the proportion of people who vote for each of the main parties.

None of them will give you the full picture, however, as they battle in the early hours to give results the most positive gloss.

The fight has already begun in earnest – with parties’ claims and counterclaims about what to expect.

This is our guide to decoding what they will say.

In this Q&A, I asked Sky’s election analyst Professor Michael Thrasher how he will interpret the results.

Q: Labour say the Conservatives did disastrously in 2019, which is the last time this set of elections took place. They argue the Tories should be judged on whether they are gaining seats, not losing them. Are they right?

Professor Thrasher: “The Conservatives are still the largest party of local government. They’re still defending the most seats this time.

“Why they might lose seats is simply because where they are currently in the national polls is lower than where they were in 2019 in terms of the national equivalent vote.

“In 2019, the Conservatives and Labour each got 31% of the national vote share. And so if the Conservatives are now below 30% and Labour is above 40%, it stands to reason that there’s a large swing from Conservative to Labour since four years ago. And therefore, for that simple reason, the Conservatives will lose seats to its principle opposition at these local elections.

“So yes, they lost 1,300 seats in 2019, but they are in a position where they should lose seats if polling is taken into account because Labour is so much further ahead of them now than it was in 2019.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The exclusive YouGov study for Sky News predicts big gains for Labour, while the Lib Dems could romp home in so-called ‘blue wall’ seats.

Q: The Tories have latched upon your 1,000-seat loss scenario. Are there more realistic alternative scenarios that we should be looking at for them?

Professor Thrasher: “Well, I think Conservative losses are inevitable.

But I think if they can keep those losses down to around 500 to 700, they will feel that Labour isn’t really hurting them a great deal, and possibly also the Liberal Democrats, who they are quite fearful of in parts of southern England like Surrey, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire.

“[It would mean] they too are not breaking through and threatening Conservatives in the next general election.

So, I think if they can keep losses down below 500, they will probably believe that they’ve had a reasonably good night at this stage of the parliament, given the way in which the current opinion polls have them below 30%. They will take that, I suspect.”

Read more:
The battleground – where are votes taking place and which matter most?
Explained: everything you need to know about the local elections
Fears over new voter ID rules

Q: Labour is saying a good night for them would be then gaining 400 seats. How does that fit in the benchmarks that you’ve done?

Professor Thrasher: “Well, I think that’s a very modest claim and given two things. Number one is where Labour currently is in the polls – it’s at 43%.

So again, if you recall, in 2019, we were saying that Labour was on 31%. That’s an increase of 12 percentage points on the position four years ago, so they should be doing well, and we think far better than 400 gains.

“Really, that’s a very modest swing from the Conservatives to Labour since 2019. They should really be aiming much higher than that, given what they need to do to win the next general election.”

Q: Often, you hear Labour politicians making the argument that these are not elections happening in their heartlands. These local councils, often shire councils, are not traditional places where Labour has a strong vote – how much validity is there in that?

Professor Thrasher: “That really, if you like, misses the point about the whole exercise of using local elections to calculate a national vote share. Because we take all of this into account.

“The way in which we calculate the national equivalent estimate is simply to look at the change in vote share in wards that voted in 2019 and in 2023.

So, it takes into account where these places are because if a council didn’t have an election, in 2019, we won’t be comparing with that result. So, we’re only comparing wards that are like for like, across those four years.

And for that reason, it doesn’t really matter where the elections are, because we’re looking at changing vote share.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Amanda Akass explained everything you need to know about local elections.

Q: Labour is keen to avoid comparisons with the local elections in 1995. They say you can’t compare those two, is that fair?

Professor Thrasher: “I don’t think it is fair, quite frankly. The reason being is that if we think about the context of the next general election, Labour requires a swing greater than Tony Blair received in 1997, which in itself remains the postwar record.

“So, I think it’s reasonable to compare with 1995 simply because Labour in 2024 has to do better than Blair did in 1997.

“And then for that reason, if Labour in 2023 is doing much, much worse than Labour did in 1995, then it stands to reason that quite frankly, they’re not in a good position to win the next general election.”

Q: Is it fair to say that Labour traditionally underperform in local elections as compared to general elections?

Professor Thrasher: “It is the case, and our projection allowed for the fact that Labour does perform rather worse in actual local elections than its current national opinion poll rating suggests. So we’ve factored that into our equation.

“It allows for the fact that the Labour lead over the Conservatives in terms of the overall estimate of the national vote at these locations is not going to be as great as the gap that it has in terms of the national opinion polls.”

Q: The Conservatives say a six or seven-point gap behind the Labour party would be a good night – being less than the polls suggest. Is that a fair benchmark to use?

Professor Thrasher: “Well, if we think about the national equivalent vote share from last year, it was 35% for Labour and 33% for the Conservatives.

“So, if they are five points adrift, then they’ve done worse than they did last year.

“This doesn’t suggest the party is catching Labour up necessarily, but they will certainly avoid the situation as in 1995, where Labour was on 47%, and the Conservatives were at 25% – a huge gap between the two parties and where Labour went on to win a landslide.

“I think the Conservatives really need to be within touching distance of Labour, bearing in mind where we are in terms of the parliament and bearing in mind that a general election is probably sometime next year.

“There is a limited amount of time for the Conservatives to catch Labour up, and therefore, they really should be within touching distance of them, not a long way behind.”


Professor Thrasher and his colleague Professor Colin Rallings have drawn up this guide for how to judge the results of the main political parties:

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How to cut through election night spin

Conservatives

  • 1000+ losses: A bad night with a third of all seats defended lost. Tory MPs in marginal ‘red wall’ and southern seats will be worried
  • 750 losses: A clear swing to Labour but rather less than opinion polls imply
  • 500 losses: The party will try to write this off as “mid-term blues” and argue the gap with Labour can be caught before the general election
  • Fewer than 300 losses: Council seats regained from Independents as Labour and Lib Dems fail to prosper

Labour

  • 700 gains+: This would be the best local election performance for at least a decade, putting the party on the path to becoming the largest party at Westminster in a general election, even if short of an outright majority
  • 450 gains: Results little better than a year ago
  • 250 gains: Disappointing in the context of the polls, suggesting limited success in winning back the ‘red wall’
  • Fewer than 150 gains: Effectively a step backwards for Sir Keir Starmer and his party

Liberal Democrats

  • 150+ gains: Eating into Conservative territory and could put some marginal constituencies in play at the next election
  • 50-100 gains: Comfortable enough in their own heartlands but only modest further progress
  • Fewer than 50 gains: Still struggling to pose a real threat to the Conservatives in the south

Continue Reading

World

Trump’s 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full

Published

on

By

Trump's 28-point Ukraine peace plan in full

Donald Trump’s plan for ending the war in Ukraine would hand swathes of land to Russia and limit the size of Kyiv’s military, a draft has revealed.

The copy of the proposal that originates from negotiations between Washington and Moscow was obtained by the Associated Press and appears emphatically favourable to Russia.

It closely resembles the list of demands repeatedly stated by the Kremlin since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago.

Points included in the plan are widely seen as untenable for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has rejected Mr Trump‘s previous calls for territorial concessions.

Ukraine war latest – Zelenskyy responds to Trump peace plan

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Pic: Reuters

The draft was reportedly devised by Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev.

It says there would be a “decisive coordinated military response” in the event of further Russian incursions onto Ukrainian territory, but does not say what role the United States would play in that response.

More on Donald Trump

A side agreement aims to satisfy Ukrainian security concerns by saying a future “significant, deliberate and sustained armed attack” by Russia would be viewed as “threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community”.

The agreement – detailed to the AP by an unnamed senior US official – does not obligate the US or European allies to intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, although it says they would “determine the measures necessary to restore security”.

The 28-point plan states Ukraine must cede the entirety of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk to Russia – despite Ukraine still controlling a third of the latter. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be frozen along the existing lines of conflict.

Ukraine’s army, currently at roughly 880,000 troops, would be reduced to 600,000.

A serviceman of the 93rd Kholodnyi Yar Separate Mechanised Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Pic: Reuters
Image:
A serviceman of the 93rd Kholodnyi Yar Separate Mechanised Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Pic: Reuters

Some frozen Russian assets would go toward rebuilding Ukraine, while sanctions on Russia would be lifted and Moscow and Washington would enter in a series of “long-term” economic arrangements.

The document says Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, but would be eligible to join the European Union.

It also says elections must be held in Ukraine in 100 days.

Here is the 28-point draft agreement in full:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

(l-r)Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev and US special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP
Image:
(l-r)Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev and US special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

10. The US guarantee:

– The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;

– If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;

– If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;

Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump’s plan – they will play for time


Dominic Waghorn

Dominic Waghorn

International affairs editor

@DominicWaghorn

“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.

The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.

It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.

Its proposals are non-starters for Ukrainians.

It would hand over the rest of Donbas, territory they have spent almost four years and lost tens of thousands of men defending.

Analysts estimate at the current rate of advance, it would take Russia four more years to take the land it is proposing simply to give them instead.

It proposes more than halving the size of the Ukrainian military and depriving them of some of their most effective long-range weapons.

And it would bar any foreign forces acting as peacekeepers in Ukraine after any peace deal is done.

The plan comes at an excruciating time for the Ukrainians.

They are being pounded with devastating drone attacks, killing dozens in the last few nights alone.

They are on the verge of losing a key stronghold city, Pokrovsk.

And Volodymyr Zelenskyy is embroiled in the gravest political crisis since the war began, with key officials facing damaging corruption allegations.

The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.

Perversely, though, it may help him.

There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.

The genesis of this plan is unclear.

Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.

The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.

Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.

If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.

Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.

They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.

– If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

– The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centres, and artificial intelligence.

– The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernise, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.

– Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernisation of cities and residential areas.

– Infrastructure development.

– Extraction of minerals and natural resources.

– The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

– The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.

– The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.

– Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ukraine: US ‘has the power’ to make Russia ‘serious’

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

– $100bn (£76bn) in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;

– The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn (£76bn) to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Pic: Reuters

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine – 50:50.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

– Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.

– Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.

– All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

The Donbas
Image:
The Donbas

Zaporizhia
Image:
Zaporizhia

21. Territories:

– Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States.

– Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.

– Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.

Read more
Analysis: Why Zelenskyy has to tread carefully over peace plan, or face a Trump ultimatum
Analysis: What deleted post reveals about ‘secret’ plan to end Ukraine war

– Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.

The east of Ukraine
Image:
The east of Ukraine

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper [Dnipro] River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

– All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis.

– All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.

– A family reunification program will be implemented.

– Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.

Continue Reading

World

Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump’s plan – they will play for time and hope he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin

Published

on

By

Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump's plan - they will play for time and hope he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin

“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.

The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.

It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.

Ukraine war latest: Kyiv receives US peace plan

(l-r) Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP
Image:
(l-r) Kirill Dmitriev and special envoy Steve Witkoff in St Petersburg in April 2025. Pic: Kremlin Pool Photo/AP

Its proposals are non-starters for Ukrainians.

It would hand over the rest of Donbas, territory they have spent almost four years and lost tens of thousands of men defending.

Analysts estimate at the current rate of advance, it would take Russia four more years to take the land it is proposing simply to give them instead.

It proposes more than halving the size of the Ukrainian military and depriving them of some of their most effective long-range weapons.

And it would bar any foreign forces acting as peacekeepers in Ukraine after any peace deal is done.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Moscow back in Washington’s good books?

The plan comes at an excruciating time for the Ukrainians.

They are being pounded with devastating drone attacks, killing dozens in the last few nights alone.

They are on the verge of losing a key stronghold city, Pokrovsk.

And Volodymyr Zelenskyy is embroiled in the gravest political crisis since the war began, with key officials facing damaging corruption allegations.

Read more from Sky News:
Witkoff’s ‘secret’ plan to end war
Navy could react to laser incident

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ukrainian support for peace plan ‘very much in doubt’

The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.

Perversely, though, it may help him.

There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.

The genesis of this plan is unclear.

Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.

The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.

Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.

If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.

Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.

They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.

Continue Reading

World

South Africa is making history with its first G20 summit, but the continued exclusion of its oldest communities is a symbolic threat

Published

on

By

South Africa is making history with its first G20 summit, but the continued exclusion of its oldest communities is a symbolic threat

This is the first time the G20 summit is being hosted on African soil.

Heads of state from 15 countries across Europe, Asia and South America are expected to convene in South Africa’s economic capital, Johannesburg, under the banner of “solidarity, equality and sustainability.”

The summit is facing challenges from the Oval Office as US President Donald Trump boycotts the event, where the G20 leadership is meant to be handed over to him by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The US has also warned South Africa against issuing a joint declaration at the end of the summit. The challenges to South Africa’s G20 debut are also domestic.

Trump had a contentious meeting with Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office earlier this year. File pic: AP
Image:
Trump had a contentious meeting with Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office earlier this year. File pic: AP

Nationwide civic disobedience has been planned by women’s rights charities, nationalist groups and trade unions – all using this moment to draw the government’s attention to critical issues it has failed to address around femicide, immigration and high unemployment.

But a key symbolic threat to the credibility of an African G20 summit themed around inclusivity is the continued exclusion and marginalisation of its oldest communities.

“There is a disingenuous thread that runs right through many of these gatherings, and the G20 is no different”, Khoisan Chief Zenzile tells us in front of the First Nations Heritage Centre in Cape Town, “from any of them”.

More on G20

“I am very concerned that the many marginalised sections of society – youth, indigenous people, are not inside the front and centre of this agenda,” he added.

Khoisan Chief Zenzile says land developments on indigenous land are the 'most ridiculous notion'
Image:
Khoisan Chief Zenzile says land developments on indigenous land are the ‘most ridiculous notion’

As we speak, the sounds of construction echo around us. We are standing in a curated indigenous garden as South Africa’s Amazon headquarters is being built nearby.

After years of being sidelined by the government in a deal that centres around construction on sacred Khoisan land, Chief Zenzile said he negotiated directly with the developers to build the heritage centre and sanctuary as a trade-off while retaining permanent ownership of the land.

“There are many people who like to fetishise indigenous people who want to relegate us to an anthropoid state, as if that is the only place we can, as if we don’t have the tools to navigate the modern world,” he says when I ask about modern buildings towering over the sacred land.

“That is the most ridiculous notion – that the entire world must progress and we must be relegated to a state over which we have no agency.”

An hour and a half from Cape Town’s centre, Khoi-San communities have seized 2,000 hectares of land that they say historically belongs to them.

Knoflokskraal is a state where they exercise full agency – filling in the infrastructural gaps around water and electricity supply that the provincial government will not offer to residents it categorises as “squatters”.

“We are – exactly today – here for five years now,” Dawid De Wee, president of the Khoi Aboriginal Party, tells us as he gives us a tour of the settlement. “There are more or less around 4,000 of us.

“The calling from our ancestral graves sent us down here, so we had an urge to get our own identity and get back to our roots, and that was the driving motive behind everything we are here now to take back our ancestral grounds.”

'We are here now to take back our ancestral grounds,' Dawid De Wee says
Image:
‘We are here now to take back our ancestral grounds,’ Dawid De Wee says

Dawid says they have plans to expand to reclaim more swathes of land stolen from them by European settlers in the 1600s across the Cape Colony.

Land reform is a contentious issue in post-Apartheid South Africa, with a white minority still owning a majority of the land.

Read more from Yousra Elbagir:
The ‘killing fields’ where thousands ‘made to bury their relatives’
Madagascar’s new president denies coup after Gen Z uprising
Niece of woman ‘murdered by British soldier’ seeking justice in UK

Indigenous land is even further down the agenda of reparations, and South Africa’s oldest communities continue to suffer from historic dispossession and marginalisation.

For many Khoi-San leaders, G20 represents the ongoing exclusion from a modern South African state.

They have not been invited to officially participate in events where “solidarity, equality and sustainability,” are being discussed without reference to their age-old knowledge.

Instead, we meet Khoi-San Queen Eloise at a gathering of tribal leaders from around the world on the most southwestern tip of Africa in Cape Point called the World Tribal Alliance.

Khoi-San Queen Eloise tells Sky that the G20 'is a politically-based gathering'
Image:
Khoi-San Queen Eloise tells Sky that the G20 ‘is a politically-based gathering’

“In order for us to heal, Mother Nature and Mother Earth is calling us, calling our kinship, to come together – especially as indigenous people because with indigenous people we are still connected to our lands, to our intellectual property we are connected to who we are,” Queen Eloise tells us.

“G20 is a politically-based gathering – they are coming together to determine the future of people politically.

“The difference is that we will seek what Mother Earth wants from us and not what we want to do with technology or all those things politically, but the depth of where we are supposed to go.”

Continue Reading

Trending