Liz Truss’ lawyers have sent a cease and desist letter to Sir Keir Starmer over his claims she “crashed the economy”.
The letter says Sir Keir’s continued claim the former Conservative prime minister crashed the economy with the September 2022 mini budget is defamatory and will “likely continue to cause serious harm to her reputation”.
It focuses on the Labour leader’s claims made in June last year during the general election campaign, and says accusations she crashed the economy were made with the purpose of damaging public opinion of Ms Truss as she stood as a parliamentary candidate.
Ms Truss, who stepped down as prime minister in under two months in charge, lost the South West Norfolk seat she had held since 2010 to Labour’s Terry Jermy in last year’s election.
Sir Keir’s spokesman said the prime minister has no plans to “moderate his language” based on the letter.
He also questioned whether Ms Truss will be writing to the “millions of people up and down the country” who shared Sir Keir’s view.
More on Liz Truss
Related Topics:
The letter also says it is “false” to claim the mini budget crashed the economy and provides details of a definition of “crash of the economy” by Dr Andrew Lilico, an expert from right-wing thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs and managing director of economic consultancy Europe Economics.
Market movement following the mini budget did not constitute a “crash”, the letter says, and accuses Sir Keir of displaying an “ignorance of basic economics” by doing so.
Image: The letter calls for Sir Keir Starmer to stop saying Liz Truss crashed the economy
Following the mini budget, which included £45bn of unfunded tax cuts, the UK government’s long-term borrowing costs rose sharply by 0.3 percentage points over a day.
The pound then fell to record lows against the dollar, and there was another sharp rise in the cost of long-term government borrowing by 0.5 percentage points after then chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng hinted there would be further tax cuts.
This led to rising mortgage rates, with hundreds of products withdrawn, and an impact on UK pension funds.
Ms Truss’ lawyers blamed the interest rate changes on the Bank of England, “in particular by its poor handling of the liability-driven investment bonds (LDI) crisis, and its regulatory failures”.
It points out the Bank of England is independent of government and says: “Thus the relevant rate changes were not ’caused’ by our client.
“These facts were clear as early as May 2024, if not before.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:36
‘Do you take any blame for your premiership?’
The letter argues there was “no rise in unemployment…no sustained loss of wealth”, and no “enduring economic impacts”.
It says Ms Truss and the mini budget did not play “a significant causal role in the financial market volatility of September/October 2022” and said almost everything, in fiscal terms, had been announced before the mini budget.
The letter requests Sir Keir “immediately cease and desist” from repeating she crashed the economy on an “amicable basis”.
“This request is made in the context of the basic levels of civility which is due between senior politicians, and we trust that you will respond accordingly,” the letter says.
The last blast furnaces left operating in Britain could see their fate sealed within days, after their Chinese owners took the decision to cut off the crucial supply of ingredients keeping them running.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel in Scunthorpe, has, according to union representatives, cancelled future orders for the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the furnaces running.
The upshot is that they may have to close next month – even sooner than the earliest date suggested for its closure.
The fate of the blast furnaces – the last two domestic sources of virgin steel, made from iron ore rather than recycled – is likely to be determined in a matter of days, with the Department for Business and Trade now actively pondering nationalisation.
The upshot is that even as Britain contends with a trade war across the Atlantic, it is now working against the clock to secure the future of steelmaking at Scunthorpe.
The talks between the government and Jingye broke down last week after the Chinese company, which bought British Steel out of receivership in 2020, rejected a £500m offer of public money to replace the existing furnaces with electric arc furnaces.
More on China
Related Topics:
The sum is the same one it offered to Tata Steel, which has shut down the other remaining UK blast furnaces in Port Talbot and is planning to build electric furnaces – which have far lower carbon emissions.
Image: These steel workers could soon be out of work
However, the owners argue that the amount is too little to justify extra investment at Scunthorpe, and said last week they were now consulting on the date of shutting both the blast furnaces and the attached steelworks.
Since British Steel is the main provider of steel rails to Network Rail – as well as other construction steels available from only a few sites in the world – the closure would leave the UK more reliant on imports for critical infrastructure sites.
However, since the site belongs to its Chinese owners, a decision to nationalise the site would involve radical steps government officials are wary of taking.
They also fear leaving taxpayers exposed to a potentially loss-making business for the long run.
The dilemma has been heightened by the sharp turn in geopolitical sentiment following Donald Trump’s return to the White House.
The incipient trade war and threatened cut in American support to Europe have sparked fresh calls for countries to act urgently to secure their own supplies of critical materials, especially those used for defence and infrastructure.
Gareth Stace, head of UK Steel, the industry lobby group, said: “Talks seem to have broken down between government and British Steel.
“My advice to government is: please, Jonathan Reynolds, Business Secretary, get back round that negotiating table, thrash out a deal, and if a deal can’t be found in the next few days, then I fear for the very future of the sector, but also here for Scunthorpe steelworks.”
Prince Andrew’s efforts to make money from his Pitch@Palace project have been branded as a “crude attempt to enrich himself” at the expense of “unsuspecting tech founders”, as new documents may shed more light on what he and his team have been attempting to sell.
Today is the deadline for documents to be released relating to Prince Andrew‘s former senior adviser Dominic Hampshire and his interactions with the alleged Chinese spy Yang Tengbo.
In February, an immigration tribunal heard how the intelligence services had contacted Mr Hampshire about Mr Yang back in 2022. Mr Yang helped set up Pitch@Palace China, a branch of the duke’s scheme to help young entrepreneurs.
Image: The alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo, has links with Prince Andrew
Image: Yang Tengbo. Pic: Pitch@Palace
Judges banned Mr Yang from the UK, saying his association with a senior royal had made Prince Andrew “vulnerable” and posed a threat to national security. Mr Yang challenged that decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Since that hearing, media organisations have applied for certain documents relating to the case and Mr Hampshire’s support for Mr Yang to be made public. SIAC agreed to release some information of public interest. It is hoped they may include more details on deals that he was trying to do on behalf of Prince Andrew.
So what do we know about potential deals for Pitch@Palace so far?
In February, Sky News confirmed that palace officials had a meeting last summer with tech funding company StartupBootcamp to discuss a potential tie-up between them and Prince Andrew relating to his Pitch@Palace project.
More on Prince Andrew
Related Topics:
The palace wasn’t involved in the fine details of a deal but wanted guarantees to make sure it wouldn’t impact the Royal Family in the future. Sky News understands from one source that the price being discussed for Pitch was around £750,000 – there are, however, reports that a deal may have stalled.
Photos we found on the Chinese Chamber of Commerce website show an event held in Asia between StartupBootcamp and Innovate Global, believed to be an offshoot of Pitch.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:08
Who is alleged Chinese spy, Yang Tengbo?
Documents, released in relation to the investigations into Mr Tengbo, have also shown how much the duke has always seen Pitch as a way of potentially making money. One document from 21 August 2021 clearly states “the duke needed money at the time, and saw the relationships with China through Pitch as one possible source of funding”.
But Prince Andrew’s apparent intention to use Pitch to make money has led to concerns about whether he is unfairly using the contacts and information he gained when he was a working royal.
Norman Baker, former MP and author of books on royal finances, believes it is “a crude attempt to enrich himself” and goes against what the tech entrepreneurs thought they were signing up for.
He told Sky News: “The data given by these business people was given on the basis it was an official operation and not something for Prince Andrew, and so in my view, Prince Andrew had no right legally or morally to take the data which has been collected, a huge amount of data, and sell it…
“And quite clearly if you’re going to sell it off to StartupBootcamp, that is not what people had in mind. The entrepreneurs who joined Pitch@Palace did not do so to enrich Prince Andrew,” he said.
Rich Wilson was one tech entrepreneur who was approached at the start of Pitch@Palace to sign up, but he stepped away when he spotted a clause in the contract saying they’d be entitled to 2% equity in any funding he secured.
He feels Prince Andrew is continuing to use those he made a show of supporting.
He said: “It makes me feel sick. I think it’s terrible – that he is continuing to exploit unsuspecting tech founders in this way. A lot of them, I’m quite grey and old in the tooth now, I saw it coming, but clearly most didn’t. And a lot of them were quite young.
“It’ll be their first venture and you’re learning on the trot, so to speak. So to take advantage of people in such a major way – that’s an awful, sickening thing to do.”
We approached StartupBootcamp who said they had no comment to make, and the Duke of York’s office did not respond.
With reports that a deal may have stalled, it could be a big setback for the duke – especially with questions still about how he’ll continue to pay for his home on the Windsor estate now that the King no longer gives him financial support.
The UK is in talks with Brazil over the “potential sale” of the Royal Navy’s two amphibious assault ships that are being ditched to cut costs, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
Defence experts said the fact HMS Bulwark – which has only just received an expensive refit – and HMS Albion are being flogged off underlines the pressure on the defence budget even though Sir Keir Starmer keeps talking up his promises to boost expenditure.
The two warships can be used to deploy Royal Marines to shore – a vital capability at a time of growing global threats.
News of the possible sale was first revealed in Latin American media.
One report said the Royal Navy and Brazilian Navy had signed an agreement that would see the UK giving information to the Brazilians on the state of the two ships prior to any purchase.
Asked about the claim that the UK would sell the assault ships to Brazil, a Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “We can confirm we have entered discussions with the Brazilian Navy over the potential sale of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion.
“As announced in November, both ships are being decommissioned from the Royal Navy. Neither were planned to go back to sea before their out of service dates in the 2030s.”
More on Brazil
Related Topics:
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, appeared to question the wisdom of the move.
“At Defence orals [House of Commons questions] on January 6th Defence Secretary John Healey said: ‘HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion were not genuine capabilities’,” Mr Cartlidge wrote in a post on social media.
“They’ve just been sold to Brazil.”
Matthew Savill, the director of military science at the Royal United Services Institute, said the plan to sell the vessels demonstrates there “is still life in both these ships”.
He said: “The fact that the UK is prepared to sell off useful amphibious capability – which could be used in evacuation operations or other cases where air transport is difficult – shows just how tight finances are even with the promised budget increase.
“The replacements for these ships are still several years away and won’t be available until the 2030s.”
Mr Savill added: “As an aside, Brazil will probably have greater amphibious capacity than the UK, having previously bought HMS Ocean, the UK’s helicopter assault ship.”
HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark entered service two decades ago.
Both are currently held at lower readiness having not been to sea since 2023 and 2017 respectively.
HMS Ocean, a helicopter-landing vessel and once the largest warship in the Royal Navy, was sold to the Brazilian Navy in 2018 after 20 years in service.