Michael Gove names far-right and Islamist groups which could fall under fresh extremism definition

Published

1 year ago

March 14, 2024

admin

Michael Gove has named five groups that will be re-assessed as a result of the government’s new definition of extremism.

Speaking in the Commons, the communities secretary said two far-right organisations – the British National Socialist Movement and the Patriotic Alternative – and three Islamist organisations – the Muslim Association of Britain, Cage and Mend – were groups “we should be concerned” about.

Follow live: Reaction as Gove gives extremism statement to MPs

Speaking after the government announced the new definition of extremism this morning, the minister said it was “critically important we do not unwittingly or through ignorance fund or support organisations who are themselves extremist” as it had been the case in the past that “extremist groups and actors have sought to present themselves as moderate voices representative of majority or mainstream opinion”.

Mr Gove also sought to reassure critics the plan was “in no way intending to restrict freedom of expression, religion or belief”, saying gender critical campaigners, trans activists, those with conservative religious views and environmental protest groups would not be included.

But, he added: “The government cannot be in a position where, unwittingly or not, we sponsor, subsidise or support in any way organisations or individuals opposed to the freedoms we hold dear.”

Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, agreed that “hateful extremism threatens the safety of our communities and the unity of our country,” and was “a serious problem which demands a serious response”.

But she criticised how long it had taken the government to act since their last definition was introduced in 2011, and said it was “deeply concerning” that extremists had already “benefited from government engagement, endorsement and support”.

Ms Rayner also raised concerns about how the announcement had been trailed, with leaks detailing organisations that could face reassessment after the definition came into force.

Mr Gove revealed an investigation into the leaks had been launched, saying it was “fundamentally a challenge to the effective operation of government”.

The new definition described extremism as “the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance” that aims to “negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” or “undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights”.

It also includes those who “intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve” either of those aims.

The update came as part of a ministerial drive to clamp down on the Islamist and far-right extremism that has intensified in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war.

But some critics have raised concerns that it could have a “chilling effect” on free speech, while others say it doesn’t go far enough and there needs to be a change in the law to tackle extremism.

Mr Gove pointed to five specific groups that would come in for further scrutiny now the new definition is in place.

After warning the “activities of the extreme right-wing are a growing worry”, the minister said: “Across this House, I am sure that we would agree that organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, who promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno state and the targeting of minority groups by intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition.”

And after saying the religion of Islam should not be confused with the “totalitarian ideology” of Islamists, he added: “Organisations such as the Muslim Association of Britain, which is the British affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups such as Cage and Mend, give rise to concern for the Islamist orientation and views.

“We will be holding these and other organisations to account, to assess if they meet our definition of extremism and will take action as appropriate.”

Mr Gove confirmed there would be a new “centre of excellence” on counterterrorism created within the Home Office, promising it would become a “world-leading authority” on the issue.

Can new extremism definition strike the right balance?

The criticisms Michael Gove had going into the House of Commons were from civil liberty groups on one side worrying that democratic protest could be infringed, and on the other side MPs like Miriam Cates, who say free speech is at risk.

How this new definition strikes that balance is still unclear.

As expected, Mr Gove named some of the groups that now fall under the new definition – but there is no accompanying list of organisations published that the government have deemed extreme.

And that might be because it’s an extremely controversial and complex task.

The government knows that this week more than ever, with alleged comments from one of the biggest Conservative donors about former Labour MP Diane Abbott hanging over them.

The prime minister has been trying to work out whether those comments went too far and what to do with the donations.

Rishi Sunak had to make a judgement too last month on whether former Tory MP Lee Anderson’s comments about London mayor Sadiq Khan were Islamophobic or not.

Now the government is having to draw a line as to what is acceptable and not acceptable for potentially hundreds of organisations without any legal teeth.

It’s not clear he has the full support of his party either.

The minister added: “The liberties that we hold dear and indeed the democratic principles we are all sent here to uphold, requires us to counter and challenge the extremists who seek to intimidate, coerce and to divide.

“We have to be clear-eyed about the threat we face, precise about where that threat comes from and rigorous in defending our democracy.

“That means upholding freedom of expression, religion and belief when we are threatened, facing down harassment and hate, supporting the communities facing the greatest challenge from extremist activity and ensuring this House and this country are safe, free and united.”

The prime minister’s official spokesperson confirmed a full list of organisations covered by the government’s new extremism would be published “in the coming weeks”.

But Labour wants ministers to also update its full counter-extremism strategy and its action plan on hate crime.

Ms Rayner told MPs: “We need much stronger action to tackle the corrosive forms of hatred that devastate lives and corrode communities.

“But today’s statement does not go far enough. And regardless of how workable and effective this new definition and centre of excellence is, this announcement will not be enough.”

Tory MPs also voiced their concerns, with former immigration minister Robert Jenrick saying: “I fear that the definition, though well-intentioned, lands in no man’s land – not going far enough to tackle the real extremists, not doing enough to protect the non-extremists, those people who are simply expressing contrarian views who might find this definition used against them, not perhaps now, but possibly in the future.”

Fellow Conservative Sir Edward Leigh also said he was worried the definition was “going to add to the increasing culture, in what should be a free country, of the intolerance of the right to offend”.

Politics

Building societies step up protest against Reeves’s cash ISA reforms

Published

6 hours ago

July 7, 2025

admin

Building societies step up protest against Reeves's cash ISA reforms

Building society chiefs will this week intensify their protests against the chancellor’s plans to cut cash ISA limits by warning that it will push up borrowing costs for homeowners and businesses.

Sky News has obtained the draft of a letter being circulated by the Building Societies Association (BSA) among its members which will demand that Rachel Reeves abandons a proposed move to slash savers’ annual cash ISA allowance from the existing £20,000 threshold.

Money blog: ‘I get paid to taste biscuits’

The draft letter, which is expected to be published this week, warns the chancellor that her decision would deter savers, disrupt Labour’s housebuilding ambitions and potentially present an obstacle to economic growth by triggering higher funding costs.

“Cash ISAs are a cornerstone of personal savings for millions across the UK, helping people from all walks of life to build financial resilience and achieve their savings goals,” the draft letter said.

“Beyond their personal benefits, Cash ISAs play a vital role in the broader economy.

“The funds deposited in these accounts support lending, helping to keep mortgages and loans affordable and accessible.

“Cutting Cash ISA limits would make this funding more scarce which would have the knock-on effect of making loans to households and businesses more expensive and harder to come by.

“This would undermine efforts to stimulate economic growth, including the government’s commitment to delivering 1.5 million new homes.

“Cutting the Cash ISA limit would send a discouraging message to savers, who are sensibly trying to plan for the future and undermine a product that has stood the test of time.”

The chancellor is reportedly preparing to announce a review of cash ISA limits as part of her Mansion House speech next week.

While individual building society bosses have come out publicly to express their opposition to the move, the BSA letter is likely to be viewed with concern by Treasury officials.

The Nationwide is by far Britain’s biggest building society, with the likes of the Coventry, Yorkshire and Skipton also ranking among the sector’s largest players.

In the draft letter, which is likely to be signed by dozens of building society bosses, the BSA said the chancellor’s proposals “would make the whole ISA regime more complex and make it harder for people to transfer money between cash and investments”.

“Restricting Cash ISAs won’t encourage people to invest, as it won’t suddenly change their appetite to take on risk,” it said.

“We know that barriers to investing are primarily behavioural, therefore building confidence and awareness are far more important.”

The BSA called on Ms Reeves to back “a long-term consumer awareness and information campaign to educate people about the benefits of investing, alongside maintaining strong support for saving”.

“We therefore urge you to affirm your support for Cash ISAs by maintaining the current £20,000 limit.

“Preserving this threshold will enable households to continue building financial security while supporting broader economic stability and growth.”

The BSA declined to comment on Monday on the leaked letter, although one source said the final version was subject to revision.

The Treasury has so far refused to comment on its plans.

Politics

Govt declines to rule out wealth tax after ex-Labour leader Lord Kinnock calls for wealth tax

Published

9 hours ago

July 7, 2025

admin

Govt declines to rule out wealth tax after ex-Labour leader Lord Kinnock calls for wealth tax

The government has declined to rule out a “wealth tax” after former Labour leader Neil Kinnock called for one to help the UK’s dwindling finances.

Lord Kinnock, who was leader from 1983 to 1992, told Sky News’ Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that imposing a 2% tax on assets valued above £10 million would bring in up to £11 billion a year.

Politics latest: Reeves’s tax turmoil deepens

On Monday, Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesperson would not say if the government will or will not bring in a specific tax for the wealthiest.

Asked multiple times if the government will do so, he said: “The government is committed to the wealthiest in society paying their share in tax.

“The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”

He added the government has closed loopholes for non-doms, placed taxes on private jets and said the 1% wealthiest people in the UK pay one third of taxes.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves earlier this year insisted she would not impose a wealth tax in her autumn budget, something she also said in 2023 ahead of Labour winning the election last year.

Asked if her position has changed, Sir Keir’s spokesman referred back to her previous comments and said: “The government position is what I have said it is.”

The previous day, Lord Kinnock told Sky News: “It’s not going to pay the bills, but that kind of levy does two things.

“One is to secure resources, which is very important in revenues.

“But the second thing it does is to say to the country, ‘we are the government of equity’.

“This is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top unscathed all the time while everybody else is paying more for getting services.

“Now, I think that a gesture or a substantial gesture in the direction of equity fairness would make a big difference.”

The son of a coal miner, who became a member of the House of Lords in 2005, the Labour peer said asset values have “gone through the roof” in the past 20 years while economies and incomes have stagnated in real terms.

In reference to Chancellor Rachel Reeves refusing to change her fiscal rules, he said the government is giving the appearance it is “bogged down by their own imposed limitations”, which he said is “not actually the accurate picture”.

A wealth tax would help the government get out of that situation and would be backed by the “great majority of the general public”, he added.

His comments came after a bruising week for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who had to heavily water down a welfare bill meant to save £5.5bn after dozens of Labour MPs threatened to vote against it.

With those savings lost – and a previous U-turn on cutting winter fuel payments also reducing savings – the chancellor’s £9.9bn fiscal headroom has quickly dwindled.

In a hint of what could come, government minister Stephen Morgan told Wilfred Frost on Sky News Breakfast: “I hold dear the Labour values of making sure those that have the broadest shoulders pay, pay more tax.

“I think that’s absolutely right.”

He added that the government has already put a tax on private jets and on the profits of energy companies.