Connect with us

Published

on

Child poverty is set to increase under a Labour government for the first time in history and an “alternative path” is needed to stop the rise of Reform UK, Sir Keir Starmer has been warned.

A joint statement signed by former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and other cross-party MPs calls for a wealth tax on those with assets over £10m “so we can rebuild our schools and hospitals”.

Politics Live: Protesters interrupt minister’s speech

The letter, in response to Rachel Reeves’s spring statement, says the chancellor has made a “choice” to push more disabled people and children into poverty by announcing departmental spending cuts while increasing money invested into defence.

“This isn’t about scarcity, it’s about priorities”, it said, adding: “This is set to be the first Labour government in history under which child poverty increases.

“Labour’s failure has paved the way for Reform. We need an alternative path.

“Parroting the rhetoric of Reform UK on migrants, minorities and Muslims just endorses their scapegoating and makes society worse for us all.”

More on Rachel Reeves

As well as Mr Corbyn, who is now an independent MP, the statement was signed by suspended Labour MPs Sarah Zultana and Apsana Begum, Green MPs, independents and other figures calling for “progressive politics”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Corbyn blasts Labour over ‘austerity’

It comes ahead of the launch of Reform UK’s local election campaign on Friday, with the party hoping to make gains in May after overtaking Labour in multiple polls.

The letter describes the “alternative path” as one where the richest in society and multinational companies face higher taxes, rent controls are brought in, water and energy are nationalised and money is invested “in welfare, not warfare”.

These measures have previously been ruled out by Ms Reeves, but she is coming under pressure following her spring statement on Wednesday.

Spring statement takeaways

The economic update included a £2.2bn increase in defence spending over the next year to help the government reach its goal of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027.

The chancellor also deepened previously announced welfare cuts alongside further departmental spending reductions to make up for £10bn in lost fiscal headroom since her October budget, caused by poor growth and global instability.

The government’s own impact assessment estimates another 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – could be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 because of the measures.

However Ms Reeves said that assessment did not take into account steps the government was taking to get people back into work. She has also rejected a separate analysis that suggests the average family could be £1,400 a year worse off by the end of the decade.

Labour MPs unhappy

Several Labour MPs have spoken out against the cuts and some have said they will vote against them. However Ms Reeves is believed to have staved off a full-scale rebellion for now, as most trust she is serious about getting the nation’s finances back on track.

Read More:
Backlash over welfare cuts
Corbyn brands benefit cuts a ‘disgrace’

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Chancellor defends welfare cuts

The chancellor is determined to stick to her self-imposed fiscal rules, including using tax receipts rather than borrowing to account for day-to-day spending.

However she may come under pressure to change course if global factors like Donald Trump’s trade war eat into her fiscal headroom again by the time of the next budget in October – meaning she would have to raise taxes or announce further spending cuts in order to balance the books.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned tax rises are likely in the autumn as Ms Reeves has left herself vulnerable to forecast changes, speculating that pensioners and the wealthiest could be targeted in the raid.

Earlier this week, a YouGov poll found three quarters of the British public would support tax rises on the very richest over expected cuts to public spending, including a 2% wealth tax on net assets worth more than £10m.

Continue Reading

Politics

Japan wrote the first stablecoin rulebook — so why is the US pulling ahead?

Published

on

By

Japan wrote the first stablecoin rulebook — so why is the US pulling ahead?

Japan wrote the first stablecoin rulebook — so why is the US pulling ahead?

“Japan prizes systemic stability above innovation speed, while the US is signaling a bigger market-opening play,” said Startale Group’s Takashi Tezuka.

Continue Reading

Politics

Binance and Tether are watching Korea closely: Here’s why

Published

on

By

Binance and Tether are watching Korea closely: Here’s why

Binance and Tether are watching Korea closely: Here’s why

Binance and Tether are eyeing Korea’s stablecoin rules that may boost coins pegged to the South Korean won or strengthen USD dominance.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nigel Farage’s deportation plan relies on these conditions – legal expert explains if it could work

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage's deportation plan relies on these conditions - legal expert explains if it could work

Explaining how they plan to tackle what they described as illegal migration, Nigel Farage and his Reform UK colleague Zia Yusuf were happy to disclose some of the finer details – how much money migrants would be offered to leave and what punishments they would receive if they returned.

But the bigger picture was less clear.

How would Reform win a Commons majority, at least another 320 seats, in four years’ time – or sooner if, as Mr Farage implied, Labour was forced to call an early election?

How would his party win an election at all if, as its leader suggested, other parties began to adopt his policies?

Politics latest: Starmer ‘angry’ about Farage’s language on migrant hotels

Highly detailed legislation would be needed – what Mr Farage calls his Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill.

But Reform would not have a majority in the House of Lords and, given the responsibilities of the upper house to scrutinise legislation in detail, it could take a year or more from the date of an election for his bill to become law.

Reform’s four-page policy document says the legislation would have to disapply:

The United Nations refugee convention of 1951, extended in 1967, which says people who have a well-founded fear of persecution must not be sent back to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom

The United Nations convention against torture, whose signatories agree not expel, return or extradite anyone to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe the returned person would be in danger of being tortured

The Council of Europe anti-trafficking convention, which requires states to provide assistance for victims

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farage sets out migration plan

According to the policy document, derogation from these treaties is “justified under the Vienna Convention doctrine of state necessity”.

That’s odd, because there’s no mention of necessity in the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties – and because member states can already “denounce” (leave) the three treaties by giving notice.

It would take up to a year – but so would the legislation. Only six months’ notice would be needed to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, another of Reform’s objectives.

Read more:
Women and children will be detained under Farage plans
Far right ’emboldened’ says MP as Starmer faces mounting pressure over immigration

Mr Farage acknowledged that other European states were having to cope with an influx of migrants. Why weren’t those countries trying to give up their international obligations?

His answer was to blame UK judges for applying the law. Once his legislation had been passed, Mr Farage promised, there would be nothing the courts could do to stop people being deported to countries that would take them. His British Bill of Rights would make that clear.

Courts will certainly give effect to the will of parliament as expressed in legislation. But the meaning of that legislation is for the judiciary to decide. Did parliament really intend to send migrants back to countries where they are likely to face torture or death, the judges may be asking themselves in the years to come.

They will answer questions such as that by examining the common law that Mr Farage so much admires – the wisdom expressed in past decisions that have not been superseded by legislation. He cannot be confident that the courts will see the problem in quite the same way that he does.

Continue Reading

Trending