Labour in fresh ‘cash for croissants’ storm

It’s a day ending a ‘y’ – so there’s another Labour scandal brewing. After the ‘passes for glasses’ row about Lord Alli’s role in Downing Street, the party has been plunged into another row about claims of ‘cash for access.’ The Sun today reports that companies have been offered breakfast with the Business Secretary in return for £30,000. Party apparatchiks invited bosses to a top Manchester restaurant for the ‘rare chance’ to ‘gain insight’ from Jonathan Reynolds in return for sponsorship of the meal. Talk about ‘cash for croissants’…

Attendance at the exclusive event was limited to just ten tickets. ‘Distinct benefits’ include a photo with the minister (yours for just £15,000), while for the full £30,000 bigwigs got to choose who can come to the ‘dynamic meeting of business minds.’ What a thrilling prospect. The pitch was prepared by the Labour party’s commercial team and emailed yesterday, with invitees to The Ivy restaurant in Manchester promised ‘a rare chance to gain insights, network and exchange ideas amongst peers and a government minister’.

It adds: ‘We have carefully curated a package that offer [sic] distinct benefits, ensuring your brand receives optimal exposure and engagement during the event.’ Allies of Jonathan Reynolds told the Sun that he would no longer be taking part. A party spokesman said: ‘He was completely unaware, and isn’t attending.’

After the disappointment of Labour conference some might pay five figures to avoid such an ordeal….

Boris and Liz in Chagos Islands’ blame game

Mauritius is getting the Chagos Islands – and a lot of Tories ain’t happy. Tom Tugendhat calls it a ‘shameful retreat’; Robert Jenrick bemoans the ‘dangerous capitulation.’ The Telegraph calls it a ‘national scandal’ while the Mail splash screams it is ‘Starmer’s surrender.’ So with the Tory tribes raising a hue and cry, who better to articulate patriotic harrumphing than Boris Johnson? As part of his book tour, the former premier was grilled last night by Camilla Tominey on GB News. Asked for his reaction to the decision, Johnson called it:

Crazy. I mean do, I urge viewers of GB News to get out your maps, get out your atlases, check out the Chagos Islands and see where Mauritius is. It’s a long way away. What is this claim? It’s nonsense. It’s total nonsense. Why are we doing this? It’s sheer political correctness. A desire to look like the good guys. A desire to look as though we are unbundling the last relics of our empire. It’s nonsense. It’s a bad idea in hard geopolitical terms because the base in Diego Garcia, as I’m sure you’ll know, as all our viewers know, is of huge strategic importance for the US, for the West and it’s a key component of the Anglo-American alliance. It’s one of the things we bring to the table. It has been for decades, that base. Why are we trading away our sovereignty over it? Completely the wrong thing to do.

Good strong stuff. So then, who is to blame for starting these talks, which formally began in November 2022? Step forward, er, Boris Johnson, according to the woman who replaced him. Shortly before the excerpt of Johnson’s interview aired, a spokesman for Liz Truss told Mr S that:

It was Boris Johnson who asked Liz to talk to Prime Minister Jugnauth about this at COP26, which she did. But she was absolutely clear that we would and should never cede the territory.

Who could have foreseen that talks would actually lead to something eh? There’s that famous Tory foresight once again…

Handing over the Chagos Islands is a grave mistake

The British government’s decision to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius is a profound strategic error, rooted in a misunderstanding of international law and a failure to protect the UK’s vital national interests. Surrendering sovereignty over the Islands will have a deleterious effect on British and allied interests just as international strategic competition intensifies. It will undermine the overwhelmingly strong legal case for the UK’s continuing sovereignty in relation to a number of other crucial British territories. The government’s decision erodes sound legal principle for the sake of short-term point-scoring in an irrelevant diplomatic game. The government has blundered – Parliament and the public must hold it to account.

The Chagos Islands, including strategically crucial Diego Garcia, have been under British control since 1814. For over two centuries, the UK has exercised sovereignty over this territory, which hosts a vital US-UK military base on Diego Garcia, leased by the UK to the United States after London withdrew its forces from east of the Suez Canal. Diego Garcia has served as an indispensable logistical hub for the US for over half a century. It facilitated crucial American operations, in which the UK participated as a key coalition member, to counter Iraqi aggression against Kuwait in 1990-1991, and the US-UK missions against the Taliban in 2001, while also supporting the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban afterwards. Diego Garcia’s facilities have been used to pre-position equipment, including enough materiel and ammunition for large Marine units to fight for a month on short notice.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

The timing could hardly have been worse. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine grinds into its third year. Just days ago, Iran rained ballistic missiles down on Israel. All the while, China menaces Taiwan, pressures the Philippines and Japan, threatens Indo-Pacific security and stability with its unprecedented military buildup, and aids Russia’s war effort in Europe. Handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in the midst of an accelerating world crisis is a grossly imprudent strategic move. Of course, the government insists that the US-UK Diego Garcia base will remain under the deal’s terms. But loss of sovereignty is loss of control – and ceding the Islands puts the future of the base in the medium and long term in doubt, especially if or when Mauritius comes under significant Chinese pressure.

The government’s decision appears to be predicated on a misinterpretation of recent legal proceedings, namely the 2019 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and a 2021 decision by a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). But the ICJ’s opinion was not binding in international law, and the ITLOS decision was between Mauritius and the Maldives. Neither imposes any legal obligation on the UK, much less an obligation to hand over the Chagos.

State consent is foundational to modern international law. The ICJ badly abused its advisory jurisdiction by even hearing the request for an opinion in relation to the Chagos Islands. The request, which the UN General Assembly transmitted to the ICJ at Mauritius’s behest, sought, in reality, to get a judgment against the UK that Mauritius could not have gotten through a normal consent-based day in court. The government’s evident capitulation to international pressure arising out of abuse of the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction sets a dangerous precedent, undermining a key pillar of international legal order. The best way to respond to the ICJ’s overreach is to treat the Chagos opinion as the advisory opinion that it is. The government, instead, ignoring the geopolitical gravity of the matter as well as legal principle, has treated it effectively as the final word.

The decision to hand over the Islands is not justified by the complex historical context. The link between Mauritius and the Chagos Islands is tenuous at best, amounting to little more than an accident of colonial history. Mauritius agreed to sell the islands and renounce its rights over them in 1965, a decision reaffirmed upon its independence in 1968 by those independence leaders who negotiated the agreement. Mauritius only changed tack a decade and a half later, launching a legal offensive in 1982.

Perhaps the government has acted now in a misguided attempt to address the plight of the Chagossian people. But handing over the islands to Mauritius is no solution. The Chagossians have not been properly consulted in these negotiations. Mauritius pays no heed to their position. Indeed, the UK has been far more direct in addressing Chagossian concerns, extending British citizenship to them in 2022.

As Policy Exchange warned in our report ‘Sovereignty and Security in the Indian Ocean’ the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific region is only growing; and with an increasingly assertive China, the significance of the Chagos Islands is unmistakable. Any assurances from Mauritius regarding Diego Garcia’s future are not bankable, especially since China has targeted Mauritius for economic expansion, providing Mauritius with nine-figure loans and, more recently, signing a currency swap agreement with Mauritius. A future Mauritian government may well allow Chinese military and intelligence presence on the islands, along with contesting continued US-UK base access.

This handover sets a dangerous precedent for other British overseas territories. It may encourage territorial irredentism worldwide and potentially jeopardise the statehood of post-colonial sovereign states. We are already witnessing Argentina using this situation to push for negotiations over the Falklands. The sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus could be next. The latter is crucial to the UK’s Middle Eastern posture, especially in light of escalating tensions between Israel, Iran, and Iranian-aligned terrorists.

The government must urgently reconsider its position and reaffirm the UK’s sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. It should not sign a treaty of cession and should instead join in defending UK sovereignty over the Islands, as past governments across the political spectrum have done. If it does not, Parliament must hold the government to account, refusing to support any treaty of cession and demanding a thorough review of the Foreign Ministry’s legal and strategic practices.

This is in no way a matter of territorial pride or historical legacy. It is about safeguarding our national security, upholding the principles of international law, and maintaining strategic stability in a critical region of the world.

Handing over the Chagos Islands, especially on such flawed legal premises, is an irresponsible act that puts those strategic interests – and those of our closest allies – in grave danger.

Watch more on SpectatorTV:

Israel’s enemies always underestimate its sheer bloody-mindedness

From sunset on Wednesday until sunset today, Jews around the world celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. It comes after a hellish 12 months for Israel and the Jewish diaspora at large. It started with Hamas’s brutal terror attack of 7 October and ended with an Iranian missile barrage on Tuesday night. There is undoubtedly more to come as Israel tries to push back Hezbollah, bring about an end to the near daily rocket attacks and allow displaced citizens from the north to return home.

I was in Israel just a few weeks ago. In the run up to arriving at Ben Gurion airport, I was worried about what I would find. What toll would the war have taken? While many of the conversations I had whilst in Israel ultimately came back to the war, and reminders about the hostages were everywhere, I was struck by the resilience of the people.

In the aftermath of the attack, the usually joyous festival of Purim had been difficult. Tel Aviv Pride was cancelled. But now, nearly a year on, I had landed in a country daring, albeit cautiously, to smile again.

People were dancing in restaurants in Jerusalem. Bars were packed with revellers. When I was driven through the Negev desert, my guide told me that his military reserve service would have been for nothing if life in his country didn’t resume. Everyone liked to tell me that it was they who lived in the safest part of the country!

Iran’s failed attack, in which it sent around 180 ballistic missiles towards Israel, will inevitably have brought a temporary halt to all of this. There is no doubt that Israelis are exhausted and traumatised after a year of war. Many Israelis, under the threat of Hezbollah rockets, have been forced to flee their homes and seek shelter elsewhere.

The terrible effects on Israeli society because of what has occurred over the last 12 months will be hard to fix. But the country’s enemies underestimate its sheer bloody-mindedness at their peril. That’s not just about technical innovation and military might, it’s about a people determined not to succumb to terror.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

Of course, the plight of the remaining hostages looms large. You are greeted by their faces as your walk through the airport. There are signs calling for their release all over the sides of the roads. In Tel Aviv, Hostages Square – where families have created exhibits to highlight the plight of their loved ones – remains a key meeting point. There is a long Friday night dinner table laid out there, with a place setting for each hostage, including highchairs for the babies and small children. I cried as I saw the picture of Almog Sarusi, whose sister I spoke to back in March and who was one of the six hostages killed as the Israeli Defense Forces got close to rescuing them.

In that square is a tunnel like the ones the hostages have been held in, complete with the sounds of gunfire and people walking above. Walking through it is a deeply disturbing experience. Living in such conditions is unimaginable.  

I also visited Haifa, the port city in the north of the country that, amongst other things, is home to the beautiful Bahá’í Gardens and is on Hezbollah’s hit list. It’s nearly impossible for an outsider to find their way around because the GPS signals have been scrambled for security reasons.

Elsewhere, I spoke to members of the Druze and Circassian communities proud to have Israel as their home and to serve in its armed forces. No part of Israeli society has gone unscathed since 7 October. Indeed, the Druze saw a dozen of their children killed by a Hezbollah rocket that landed where they were playing football.

While diaspora Jews may not have to be rushing to bomb shelters, the last year has brought with it its own horrors. Whether it is seeing thousands flood the streets of central London and elsewhere to attend hate marches week after week, the general rise in antisemitism or having to frantically text friends and family in Israel after every missile attack, it has been an exhausting experience.

Somewhat bizarrely, I have had more than one conversation with Israelis seemingly more concerned about me as a Jew in London than about their own safety. Indeed, this week, a huge security operation is in place to protect British Jews as we attend synagogue to see in the new year and mark Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. Of course, high levels of security in the Jewish community are nothing new, but things feel more tense now. The cold hard reality is that whatever happens in the Middle East affects us in the diaspora and we are all on edge.

The traditional Jewish greeting for Rosh Hashanah is shana tova umetuka – a good and sweet new year. After the bitterness of the last twelve months, that is what Jews in Israel and around the world need.

Doctors and the trouble with the BBC

The BBC’s daytime soap Doctors will soon vanish from our screens after 24 years. But while the final episodes make for excruciatingly bad television, they are worth watching for a simple reason: they encapsulate everything that is wrong with modern television.

The BBC’s obsession with ramming progressive storylines down viewers’ throats is plain to see in each episode of Doctors. Take the character of Dr Graham Elton (Alex Avery); he’s a rotten bigot and, in case you didn’t realise it, viewers are reminded of just how awful and unsound his views are in almost every scene.

From BBC medical soap opera Doctors. A new doctor, Graham, has joined the surgery. He's ableist and clumsy about homosexuality. And if the viewer hasn't realised he's a bigot, he then reveals he doesn't care about a patient's 'they / them' pronouns, only on treating 'him' pic.twitter.com/TJrdE5v02u

— ripx4nutmeg (@ripx4nutmeg) September 24, 2024

Graham is an equal opportunities ‘bigot’, guilty of every ‘ism’ going. He is, inevitably, a white, middle-class heterosexual man. He treats the very short female administrator Kirsty with puns and amused contempt. He fumbles over the terminology of gay and ‘queer’ with his colleague Dr Al Haskey. In one indescribably bad scene, he gets into a big tizzy over pronouns with the gay male nurse Luca, calling it ‘woke nonsense’.‘We’ve got to move with the times, language evolves, it’s nothing to be upset about,’ says voice-of-reason Dr Haskey a little later. So that’s all right then.

Luca decides to revenge himself by changing the sex on evil Dr Elton’s staff records. ‘How did it make you feel – undermined? Undervalued? Like your identity was irrelevant? Now you know how offensive it is to be misgendered – maybe you won’t do it again’. Dr Evil is furious. The more likely response, a pitiful shrug, is eschewed. So he is sent on an LBTQIA+ refresher course. It’s all marvellously 2018, pre-Cass, pre-‘Isla Bryson’, pre-Labour admitting their Women’s Declaration back into conference.

A lot of TV is bad; but that won’t prepare most first-time viewers for just how dreadful Doctors is. Almost all of the scenes are excruciating; they are reminiscent of the ‘Bureau de Change’ segment in The Day Today, or the one-off 90s revival of Acorn Antiques, in which Victoria Wood marvellously skewered soaps tackling ‘issues’ (Mrs Overall even came out). Doctors is schematic, obvious and clunking; hilarious, but for all the wrong reasons. This is television at its nadir; it serves to lecture and teach viewers, not entertain them.

Things haven’t always been this way. I grew up watching soaps and later worked on them for many years. In the 1990s and 2000s, millions tuned in to watch these shows. They did so because soaps had the power to enthral those watching. Soaps might make you feel happy, or sad; but, at the very least, you could relate to characters in the show. Doctors shows that not everyone who works in television sees it as their mission to entertain; instead they think their mission is to educate.

In my day of screenwriting in the pre-internet era, when you were commissioned you’d often get a big wedge of research, background details – legal, medical, etc – on whatever stories the show was running. This typically came from charities and professional bodies. Such information could be useful but also dangerous; it could sometimes lead to ‘soap professional disease’, where characters become walking, talking pamphlets. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the scriptwriters in Doctors have swallowed such information whole.

As a result, Doctors offers up stilted, compliant, didactic stuff, like a HR training video. It treats viewers as idiots; it’s as if the BBC think people watching TV during the daytime don’t deserve any better. These scenes would be struck out of the script of a decent children’s programme with an audience older than the tiniest of tots. Doctors has all the dramatic elan of those times in Rainbow when Zippy would get out of hand – eat all of Bungles’s sweeties, for example – and learn a valuable lesson. Taking a highly contentious political issue like the gender wars and conflating objection to pronouns with hostility to a disabled person, as if the two things were remotely comparable or adjacent, is despicable.

The Writers’ Guild made an enormous fuss about Doctors folding, saying the show was a vital training ground for fresh TV talent. They were right, kind of. Doctors has featured household names such as Eddie Redmayne, Sheridan Smith, Nicholas Hoult, Rustie Lee and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. But that roster of talent doesn’t mean Doctors deserved to avoid the chop. With its antiquated production, tiny budget and quaint air of ‘that’ll do’, it reminds me of how the shoddy end of television used to be made, 40 years ago, before the industry was professionalised. To make matters worse, a dollop of politically correct nonsense is served up on top.

All is not lost. There are signs of life elsewhere on TV – and in soaps. ‘I haven’t time for gender identity, I’m up at five for t’papers,’ Rita in Coronation Street said recently. What a relief to hear such common sense. Doctors’ scriptwriters could learn a thing or two.

Soaps are, of course, all fantasies. But lose any link at all to reality and you lose everything. It’s a mercy that the BBC have arranged an assisted dying for Doctors. Now they just need to find a cure for the rest of their twaddle-riddled output.

My electric car will be the death of me

Ask my friends and family and they’ll tell you: I am an electric car bore. I’m not a gushing enthusiast. I’m more the negative kind of EV dullard. I can’t stop telling people about the horror of driving these wretched things.

I’m really not like this about other subjects, or indeed about life. I’m generally pretty positive and optimistic. But I have an EV. I rely on it to get me from A to B, at all hours, in all weather conditions, and perhaps, heaven forbid, even at short notice. You might not be surprised to hear that my electric car is sorely deficient in doing all these things.

Let’s start at the dreaded beginning. I came upon my EV through the company car scheme at work. This was a few years ago and I had learned about the Benefit in Kind EV wheeze, which meant I could pay several thousand pounds less in tax each year for the pleasure of driving for work. On top of that, I fancied a Tesla as they seemed really cool.

But there were no electric cars on my employer’s company car list. For those who don’t drive a company car, this is the list of cars that are made available to you through your work. For car lovers it’s a borderline magical experience. Imagine, you just tick a box and get a car!

So I used all my powers of persuasion (I work in sales) to convince HR that we really should have an environmentally friendly option to help us in our march towards net zero and battle climate change. They duly agreed. Alas the allocated budget did not stretch to a Tesla, so I ended up with a Kia e-Niro, surely the least cool of all EVs. I should have seen this first disappointment as a portent of things to come.

Then followed a couple of years of doing perhaps the longest electric car commute in Britain – from my home in the Scottish Borders to Wolverhampton. This proved particularly arduous in winter. In my experience, cold weather by itself can shave 30 per cent off an EV’s range, and switching on the heater seems to get rid of about another 30 per cent. Of course, in a sane situation, the colder the weather, the more you would use your heater. But no. Off I would go in the mornings, all dressed up in my car coat and snow boots, looking like an Artic adventurer but in reality just setting out for an office in the Midlands.

Fast forward to the present and I no longer commute to Wolverhampton. Now, mirabile dictu, I travel around Europe fairly often. This also means regular trips in the electric, but mostly just to and from the airport, which is about an hour and a half’s drive.

The return leg is what I did last night. I landed late, got into my car with that familiar mix of trepidation and frozen breath, and paused for a moment before daring to look at the range displayed on the screen. Did I leave enough in the tank to get home in one go? Or would I have to stop to charge in some dark and lonely corner of a trading estate? The car told me that I had about 30 miles more than needed. I could relax, put on a podcast and cruise on home.

Or at least that would have been the case had it not been cold, which it was. And if there wasn’t a diversion, which there was.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

There were no more chargers for the 50 miles of the remaining journey. And it was too late to wake my wife, and the kids, to pick me up if the worst happened. So the die was cast. I absolutely had to make it home on the remaining charge in the battery. There was no other option. What would I do if I ran out and the car ground to a halt? Would I have to sleep in my car until morning? Would I freeze to death?

I knew I had to deploy all my wits. Electric cars have regenerative braking, which is when the kinetic energy from the braking system is converted into electricity to top up the battery. You can increase the level of this energy harvesting, essentially by clamping on the brakes, normally on a hill, but it slows you down a lot. Only a small amount of energy is produced in this way, but in such emergencies every little bit really does help.

I have by now become hyper-aware of any small gradient in the road, and was using the energy recovery system on every descent, almost grinding to a halt at the bottom of each hill having turned my kinetic energy into watts in the battery. That was my strategy: gravity would save me. Isn’t modern technology wonderful?

But as I continued, the car’s range, as is its habit, decreased at a greater rate than the actual miles covered, and soon the little tortoise came on the screen to notify me that I had 2 per cent charge remaining. I was now in limp home mode. This happened too soon for my liking, but all I could do was carry on, squinting hopefully through the windscreen, which had by now almost entirely misted up as obviously I couldn’t turn on the heater.

I did make it home, just – much later and more tired than planned, but relieved. I’m now recharging my batteries, preparing myself for another voyage into the unknown when I go to the airport next week. One day, I fear, I’ll find myself freezing to my last gasp in a lay-by, with no phone signal for help. I take comfort from the thought that my loved ones might at least acknowledge that I had a point about EVs.

Britain should just join the United States

Ruth Cadbury is hard at work campaigning for Kamala Harris ahead of November’s presidential election. It’s what you might expect from a Democrat politician, except that Cadbury is British, a Labour MP, and New Hampshire falls a little outside the boundaries of her Brentford and Isleworth constituency. She’s not the only British politico heading Stateside to drum up support for the Democrats. Former Tory cabinet minister Robert Buckland has been knocking doors for Harris in Massachusetts and Connecticut, while Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton is off to pound lawn signs for Harris in Pennsylvania.

Critics point out that Cadbury and Cole-Hamilton are parliamentarians and say they ought properly to be at work on their constituents’ behalf. Much the same was said about Nigel Farage when he travelled to the United States following the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Of course, vanishingly few of those scolding Cadbury and Cole-Hamilton also scolded Farage and vice versa. It all comes down to how you conjugate the verb ‘to electioneer abroad’: I fight to save democracy, you interfere in other countries’ affairs, Farage is a Russian agent. One of the joys of observing hyper-partisan behaviour from the sidelines is listening as one gimlet-eyed tribalist after another breathlessly explains why it’s okay when their side does it, but An Affront To Democracy when the other lot do. They say politics is showbiz for ugly people but it’s really team sports for nerds.

All this transatlantic electoral travel grinds the wonky gnashers of British traditionalists. They long ago lost the war against philo-Americanism, which reigns in most aspects of our lives, institutions and attitudes, even if events (most recently, the Iraq war) occasionally give rise to spurts of anti-Americanism. But they object to seeing British politicians of left and right so thoroughly under the sway of West Wingism. I don’t just mean the dread suspicion that many of our MPs have had the ‘I’m such a CJ’, ‘I’m more of a Toby’ conversation at some point, though that is pretty horrifying. Rather it is the open embrace by British politicians of that sentimental, Sorkinised idealism in which America is the flawed-but-good indispensable nation, ever-perfecting its Union at home while spreading freedom, democracy and cheeseburgers abroad. To believe in isms is bad enough; to believe in the Hollywood remake of isms is as un-British as it gets.

There is a way to end this tension that pulls us towards America in our politics, culture, habits and consumer choices while making us resent the loss of the distinctive politics, culture, habits and consumer choices that were once our own. The answer, to borrow a fashionable Americanism, is to lean into it. Stop being wannabe Americans and become actual Americans by applying to become a US state, while reasserting our identity and idiosyncrasies in much the same way that states like Texas and New York do.

I know it sounds mad, but hear me out. What country would make a better fit as a US state than the UK? Half their towns are named after our towns. We have a common history, share a legal tradition, and have already imported their pop culture, identity politics and mangled English. We fight in the same wars, are owned by the same corporations, and sit beside each other at the same international bodies. We have broadly similar attitudes to democracy. We share the same aversion to enforcing our borders. We both hate the French. Best of all, they retain so much of their Anglo heritage that they still sing our national anthem, albeit with the lyrics changed.

Becoming part of the United States would be the making of modern Britain. We’d be the largest state by population, outnumbering Californians by 30 million, which would give us far and away the most electoral college votes in presidential elections and more members of congress than any other state. Given the centre ground of British politics in economic and social matters, we’d likely be a reliably blue state, but our size would make us the most important state in every presidential and midterm election. The two main parties would be falling over themselves to line our pockets with federal dollars; almost anything we asked for would be guaranteed because to refuse us would be to hand the next election to the other party.

It would bring prosperity to the UK, taking our $51,000 per capita GDP closer to America’s $85,000. Opponents of statehood would point to the loss of the NHS or the sudden availability of firearms across the UK, but there is nothing to stop a US state enacting single-payer healthcare – it has been proposed in a number of blue states – and while the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, ask any gun owner in New York or California and they’ll tell you how thoroughly a state can belabour that right without legal consequence. We’d have to get used to misspelling the word ‘colour’ but we’d fall under the protection of the mightiest military the world has ever known, which isn’t a bad trade off. We could finally stop pretending to like cricket and instead pretend that college basketball is a real sport.

The more difficult sell would be to the Americans. Why should they want us? We’re an economic basket case and, though strategically well-placed as a bridge between North America and Europe, we’re already a reliable military and diplomatic ally. However, we do have the City of London, the world’s number two location on the Global Financial Centres Index, and a tidy stockpile of nuclear weapons, plus Washington would gain some potentially useful little dots on the map like the Falklands, the Caymans, Gibraltar and a couple of military bases in Cyprus. (The Chagos Islands, not so much.)

We have some oil, which a future Republican administration would probably be up for drilling, and heaps of wind power, which the Democrats would be more enthusiastic about. We also have Northern Ireland and what better way for the United States to pursue its keen interest in Irish affairs than by sharing an island and a border. America would gain Scotland, where roughly 96 per cent of them claim to come from, and while as a US state Britain would be a republic, the royal family could be retained for tourism, kitsch marketing and Netflix licensing purposes. Wales would come as part of the package but they manage fine with one Alabama so a second shouldn’t be all that much trouble.

In many ways, the UK would be the ultimate prize for the United States. How many former empires apply to become part of their former colonies? It would be like winning the revolutionary war all over again, and this time we won’t come back thirty years later and burn down the White House. And they’d never have to worry about foreigners coming over to stick their limey noses in presidential elections again. We could stick them in right here at home in Britain, the 51st state of the Union.

AI drones are coming for dog owners

The most significant application to date of artificial intelligence and unmanned aerial aircraft has been unveiled: the Poopcopter. It does what it says on the tin. It scoops poop. No more plastic bags. No more furtive glances while out walking to see if Fido’s emissions have been observed by truculent neighbours.

According to its inventor, the Poopcopter is the ‘world’s first self-guided dog poop removal system, using a drone, and 3D-printed pickup mechanism.’ The drone has real-time computer vision and machine learning algorithms. A cloud-based system receives footage from the drone’s built-in camera, examines it, and looks for any excrement in the surrounding area.

After identifying its target, the drone attempts a precise landing close to the offending deposit and scoops, assisted by algorithms that position it precisely. Sadly, the Poopcopter is not quite ready to be commercialised, but I have already been in touch with the mayor of my village in France to urge him to order a squadron of them as soon as it is. His one-word reply: ‘Oui!’

One small step for a dog, one giant leap for mankind, is my own take on this. I calculate that I have personally picked up roughly 12,000 bags of poop for my dogs Ringo and Bella. It is a task that I perform without relish but from duty, as I have a certain reputation to uphold here. Also the reputation of Britain itself.

My old mucker Andrew Neil, lately of this parish, who lives a few hundred kilometres away on the posh side of the Rhône, disclosed on Twitter the other day that when he wishes to signal virtue, he picks up after his dogs, using Canisacs ordered from Amazon. His point was that it’s an activity preferably observed by others, not just for its virtue, but for its signalling.

Andrew absolutely gets it, other than the Canisacs. I have switched to Pogis, which are far superior, also from Amazon, more expensive but with a deeper pocket, biodegradable and with handles to wrap it up tightly.

Here in my village in southern France of 2,600 humans, there are around 300 dogs, producing between them, I calculate, with aid from ChatGPT, roughly 100kg of poop daily, or 36 tonnes annually. The late Tip O’Neill Jr., former speaker of the US House of Representatives, observed that all politics is local and while he didn’t have it in mind when he said it, dog poop is quintessentially local politics.

From my years as a member of the municipal council, I can verify that voters notice when they walk to the boulangerie for their baguette and the route is an obstacle course. Our mayor is sound on the issue. He has launched a jihad against dog poop and is constantly on patrol on his bicycle, keeping an eye out for those who are not as dutiful as me. I was lucky enough to be observed by him just yesterday, scooping poop outside his house. I waved the bag at him as he passed, to be sure he noticed.

In a country as disrespectful of authority as France, the disposal of dog poop depends on the conscience of dog owners, who often have none. In the nearby city of Béziers, the mayor has ordered dog owners to register a sample of their pet’s DNA with the Hôtel de Ville. Municipal agents now scour the streets for uncollected deposits, identify the culprit using PCR tests, and the amende forfaitaire duly arrives in the post.

Pending arrival of our first Poopcopter, we’re stepping up to the challenge by installing impressive dog-waste stations – bornes de propreté – costing around €300 each, touted by the supplier as ‘an essential in urban planning to ensure canine hygiene.’ They contain a receptacle and a Canisac dispenser, fixed on a mast adorned with a picture of a winsome toutou.

Sadly, numerous dog owners have ignored these. Although eventually the mayor or our diligent municipal police will catch them. What all dogs have in common, from the lowliest rescue hounds to the most adept hunting dogs, is that they all produce stinky waste. At the top of the food chain, but absent here, are the well-coiffed handbag dogs of Paris. So-called because they are transported to their engagement in those oversized handbags that French women refer to as their cinq à sept, containing tout ce qu’il faut for the after-work romantic interlude.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

These bags are also the perfect size for transporting an immaculately-groomed Pomeranian. For many years, one of these creatures would take his lunch daily at the Maison du Caviar in the 8th Arrondissement. He ate at the table, not from the floor. An American woman who complained was invited to leave by the maitre d’. ‘He is a very good customer, Madam.’ I cannot say where this gourmand canine performed his ablutions but I can hardly imagine his elegant owner stooping with a Canisac, although perhaps a more elegant sac can be obtained at Hermès.

The streets of Paris were particularly noxious at the time of observing this incident and although subsequently the city introduced a sort of dog-poop robot pushed around by a dedicated functionary, that aspirates and then disinfects, when I was recently in the capital, not much had changed. Paris definitely needs Poopcopters.

Here in the provinces, I like to think our manners are superior to the Parisians, although even I will admit to cheating, if nobody is looking. My own rule is that any poop on or immediately adjacent to a footpath must be picked up. But at the edge of the urban milieu, where pavements peter out, and the paths are bordered by long grass where nobody will ever walk, it’s less obligatory. I have discussed this with the mayor and he has agreed this is reasonable.

My mongrel Bella is five and full of life. Many years remain of cleaning up after her. Ringo, a lab, is 14 now and not as steady as he was. He sometimes stumbles as we walk through the vines. His throughput remains voluminous although I suspect that the end of my days of picking up after him is numbered. I’ll miss him, and the daily reminder that a visitor from Mars, observing this, might be excused for confusing the nature of the relationship. Dogs might be man’s best friend, but when it comes to their waste, we’re the grooms of the stool, and the dogs the bemused spectators.

An ode to Boden

Way back in the noughties, Charles Moore observed that the Conservatives could learn a lot from the Boden story. ‘An individualistic, non-hierarchical, girly, aspirational, southern, 40 per cent internet-based, middle-class business, laid back but hard-headed. Yet, at the same time, it is quite traditional […] the way of life he is promoting is instinctively conservative’, Moore concluded. Of course, this was back in Boden’s heyday, when the mail-order catalogue company routinely posted an increase in sales year upon year, back when David Cameron was spotted wearing its floral boardshorts on holiday in 2008, and when the company was synonymous with the middle-class good times: drinks at the yacht club on the Isle of Wight, Sunday lunch in Oxfordshire, Christmas parties in the side-return empires of Wandsworth. Founded in 1991 with an inheritance from a childless uncle, Boden soon became a middle-class juggernaut, expanding into the US, France and Germany, all without a single physical shop to its name.

Looking at Johnnie Boden – or Bodger as he is known to his chums – standing in his hot pink linen suit and extraordinary square glasses to collect his CBE at Buckingham Palace last year, it is hard to imagine anybody asking to emulate him. After a series of disastrous wrong moves where the company lost its way (to the tune of £4.4 million) and forgot its base, Johnnie Boden is more likely to appear in a broadsheet features supplement saying sorry in middle-class code – ‘I “effed up”’ or ‘I’m a nitwit’ – for his crimes against Boden Man and Woman. These crimes were severe indeed. By his own admission, Boden became ‘too trendy’ and forgot that Boden Woman only wants to wear something that flatters her waist after three C-sections and makes her feel slightly jazzy on the school run; something in a bright colour with a white frilly collar bolted on top. Boden Man, now being phased out of the offer altogether, certainly didn’t want to wear skinny jeans or trainers, or, heaven forfend, a leather jacket. All he wanted was a blue linen shirt and some swimming trunks that could pass muster in Bembridge or Brancaster without having to pay through the nose for Vilebrequins.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

But although Johnnie Boden may have lost market share, the look he has created is, in my opinion, untouchable, proving that the old-Etonian rag man will always speak to us. Sales figures may rise and fall, but my daughter has received Boden clothes for her birthday every year since she was born, the green and white parcel arriving reassuringly on time with a polite note inside. I can’t speak for Boden Man, but my own wardrobe contains an embarrassing amount of Boden: Breton t-shirts I seem to pair with almost everything, print dresses that I dig out for various christenings and drinks parties with the neighbours, trousers that I can wear on the dog walk and then ‘transition’ into evening. At one point, I even owned a pair of Boden leopard-print stilettos that prompted one male acquaintance to remark that I had all the look of Tory high office, à la Theresa May. Fashion, this is not. Rather, it is sartorial shorthand for a certain way of life, under threat but still jaunty, a bit like Akshata Murty during her Downing Street tenure.

Asked why he didn’t wear tails to Buckingham Palace to collect his CBE, Boden declared that having worn the gear for five years at Eton, ‘he felt it was a backward step’. The pink suit was donned, apparently, in response to a bet from a friend. Some friend. But in reminding us that he could have dug out his school tails in the first place, Boden proves that he’s back talking to the people who want to hear from him, his base proper. Like all good old-Etonians in the public eye – David Cameron, Boris Johnson et al – Boden bides his time, safe in the knowledge that a comeback is never far off. What could the all-but decimated Conservative party learn from Bodger these days? Apologise profusely, get back to basics and make sure you know who it is you’re speaking to. Pink linen suit and square clown glasses optional.

MPs to be given historic vote on assisted dying

Keir Starmer is pressing ahead with his promise to give MPs a free vote on assisted dying laws. This evening, the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has said she will use her private member’s bill this month to give terminally ill adults a choice at the end of life to shorten their pain and suffering. The bill will be considered later this month, on 16 October, by MPs. The development comes after Downing Street refused to get drawn into reports last month that a vote could be fast-tracked through the Commons and take place before Christmas.

It follows that there was always likely to be a vote on this issue in the next five years. However, the speed at which Starmer is progressing has taken some MPs – including some senior Labour politicians – by surprise. Where Starmer stands on the issue is well documented. He has spoken in the past about the end-of-life struggles his disabled mother endured. In 2015, Starmer, then a Labour backbencher, backed a bill to legalise terminally ill people ending their own life. It failed to win sufficient support, with 118 votes for to 330 against.

This time around, the political landscape looks rather different. The House of Commons is stacked with Labour MPs and new blood. Given this is a conscience issue, it will be a free vote. Starmer has agreed to set aside collective responsibility, allowing ministers and MPs to vote as they wish rather than along party lines. However, some in the Labour party still expect many MPs will know the way the leadership plans to vote and this could influence their own choice.

Ahead of the election, senior Labour politicians discussed the idea of starting a national conversation on the issue. However, this was eventually decided against. Now, that national moral debate will begin – with strong feelings on both sides over the sanctity of human life and whether legalisation could lead to a slippery slope whereby the ill and elderly feel pressurised to end their lives prematurely. Examples abound, such as in Canada where expansion of the policy has had to be paused due to the complexity.

Starmer also has critics close to home. His Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood previously told me she would vote against any proposal: ‘I know some of the MPs who vocally support this issue think, “For God’s sake, we’re not a nation of granny killers, what’s wrong with you”… I feel that once you cross that line, you’ve crossed it forever. If it just becomes the norm that at a certain age or with certain diseases, you are now a bit of a burden… that’s a really dangerous position to be in.’ However, don’t expect Mahmood to repeat those comments any time soon. While it’s a free vote, Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, has written to ministers to say they cannot take part in the public debate, as the government’s position is neutral. The debate will have to take place elsewhere.

Listen to Katy’s interview with Shabana Mahmood:

Starmer’s friend revealed as Mauritius’ chief legal adviser

There was national outrage this morning at the news that Sir Keir’s Labour has decided to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius – but perhaps Brits shouldn’t be so shocked by Starmer’s move. It transpires that the Prime Minister is friends with Philippe Sands KC, who also happens to be Mauritius’ chief legal adviser – and a longtime campaigner for the country to control the land. How very curious…

As revealed by Guido Fawkes, Sands has slaved away in international courts to successfully convince the lefty lot to give away the strategically important cluster of islands in the Indian Ocean. In January, the legal adviser informed parliament that:

As a member of the Bar of England and Wales I have acted as counsel to Mauritius since 2010 in relation to the Chagos Archipelago. As such, I have been involved in the proceedings before the Annex VII arbitral tribunal (2010-2015), the International Court of Justice (ICJ, 2017-2019) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS, 2019-2023). I continue to advise the Government of Mauritius.

In March, Sands addressed the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on the Overseas Territories on the very issue of the Chagos Islands, insisting:

As a matter of international law, the situation today is crystal clear: Mauritius is recognised to have sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, and the UK is considered to have no rights over that territory, or even a claim. Accordingly, this is not a situation in which it would be appropriate or correct for the Sub-Committee to make reference to any future transfer of sovereignty by the United Kingdom: the United Kingdom has no sovereignty to transfer.

Crikey. The reasons behind the controversial move are starting to become a little clearer now, eh? It’s handy having friends in high places…

Police Scotland slammed over leaked Isla Bryson memo

The end of Nicola Sturgeon’s premiership was mired in controversy over her plans for trans rights, her botched gender reform bill and the rather disturbing revelation that trans rapist Isla Bryson had been housed in a women’s prison. And now it has emerged that Police Scotland even considered logging Bryson as female on the sex offenders’ register. Good heavens…

Bryson, who was jailed for raping two women while known as a man, changed gender while waiting to stand trial. In a rather shocking move, the rapist was subsequently sent to Scotland’s female-only Cornton Vale prison by the Scottish Prison Service while awaiting sentencing. The blunder came to light at the same time as Sturgeon was attempting to pass legislation to make it easier to allow people to legally change gender – and, after immense backlash, Bryson was moved to a male facility.

While Police Scotland insisted last week that rapists won’t be allowed to self-ID as women – with Chief Constable Jo Farrell remarking ‘you can only commit that crime as a man’ – a leaked document seen by Sky News suggests that hasn’t always been the force’s attitude. An internal 2023 memo, ‘Sex and Gender’, considered how Bryson could be dealt with after leaving prison. The file described how Bryson could be registered as ‘female’ in the sex offenders’ list and the crime database, noting:

When this individual comes back into contact with Police Scotland it would likely be a public protection matter in the management of sex offenders. In this instance they may be recorded as a female with the name Isla Bryson however the trans history would be appropriate to be retained on relevant policing systems.

Crikey. Farrell has been adamant the force has always believed that only men can commit the crime – insisting this ‘isn’t a different position’ from any expressed previously – but the new leak raises rather serious questions about it all. For its part, Police Scotland stated: ‘The chief constable addressed the matter of gender self-identification at the Scottish Police Authority board in September 2024, during which Police Scotland committed to a broader review.’ But that hasn’t exactly placated everyone. Deputy leader of the Scottish Tories, Rachael Hamilton, slammed the force over the ‘jaw-dropping revelation’, fuming: ‘Police bosses and SNP ministers must urgently come clean as to why this insulting, out-of-touch policy was ever adopted, and reassure the public that it has been ditched for good.’ Quite.

Tugendhat clashes with Cleverly over Chagos Islands

With less than a week to go until MPs vote in the Tory leadership race, a row has blown up over an unlikely cause. A quarrel in a far away country is causing a rupture between the two men whom most colleagues think could be next to go out: Tom Tugendhat and James Cleverly. Both are fishing in the same waters for votes on the centre and left of the party. Of the two, Cleverly was perceived as having given the better speech yesterday at Tory conference. But the government’s decision to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius could revive old fears about Cleverly’s judgement.

Following the announcement this morning, the Shadow Home Secretary rushed to condemn the news. He declared that it showed ‘weak, weak, weak’ government, adding ‘Labour lied to get into office. Said they’d be whiter than white, said they wouldn’t put up taxes, said they’d stand up to the EU, said that they be patriotic. All lies!’ Yet, as others were quick to point out, it was in November 2022 that negotiations over the future of the islands first began between the Foreign Office and their Mauritian counterparts. The Foreign Secretary at the time? James Cleverly.

He told MPs on 3 November 2022 that:

Following the meeting between the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and Prime Minister Jugnauth at the UN General Assembly, the UK and Mauritius have decided to begin negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)/Chagos archipelago… The UK and Mauritius have agreed to engage in constructive negotiations, with a view to arriving at an agreement by early next year.

Admittedly, Cleverly did not sign off the talks in his fifteen months at the Foreign Office – unlike David Lammy who has done so after three. But Tom Tugendhat has not been slow to point out that Cleverly did nothing to stop talks progressing. Shortly after the government’s announcement today, he called it a ‘shameful retreat’ but added that ‘it was disgraceful that these negotiations started under our watch.’ He went further on the World At One, telling the BBC:

I objected to these negotiations happening when they began in November ’22. I objected on many occasions. This is another area where I’m afraid we see legalism replacing leadership and we saw this legalism in the Foreign Office in November ’22 when the Foreign Office was pushing for this and nobody stopped it until finally, we got leadership under Lord Cameron.

The conclusion is obvious: Tugendhat thinks Cleverly was either unwilling or unable to stand up to civil servants over the future of the islands. It is a charge which resonates with the private concerns of some Tory MPs who fear that Cleverly did not challenge advice from officials in successive government briefs. Supporters of the Braintree MP argue that this is unfair. They point to his success in cutting migration at the Home Office and suggest that his willingness to champion, rather than denigrate, civil servants helped mend relations after the unhappy tenure of Suella Braverman.

But it was perhaps notable that on Sunday, when asked by Trevor Phillips whether Israel had ‘crossed any red lines this week’, Cleverly refused to be drawn, arguing he could not answer without being in possession of the full facts. ‘Because we are in opposition,’ he said, ‘I am no longer able to access the detailed reporting that I did when I was Foreign Secretary and when I was Home Secretary’. For some, such an answer will speak to Cleverly’s honesty and self-awareness; for others, it will suggest an overreliance on the civil service machine.

It will be up to Tory MPs to draw their own conclusions about the merits of the four candidates. But given that Cleverly is keen to present himself as a safe pair of hands, supporters of Tom Tugendhat will note how eagerly he rushed to attack Labour on the Chagos Islands – despite his own record here. Rival MPs have already started sharing screenshots from Hansard of Cleverly’s statement from November 2022.

With both men polling 21 votes each last month, every misstep will be scrutinised by the handful of MPs deciding which of Cleverly or Tugendhat would be best placed to face the members.

Watch more on SpectatorTV:

Why is the police probe into Nicola Sturgeon taking so long?

As Scots look ahead to the 2026 Holyrood election, support for the Scottish National Party continues to plummet. One scandal that the Nats won’t want looming over them when Scotland heads to the polls is Operation Branchform: the long-running police probe into the SNP’s funds and finances. Mr S can confirm that the investigation into the party – and its former first minister Nicola Sturgeon – is still ongoing, despite Scotland’s Crown Office receiving the latest Police Scotland report a two months ago. Talk about dragging it out.

Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, was charged with embezzlement of party funds this year, after an investigation was launched in 2021 into a ‘missing’ sum of £600,000 fundraised by for a second independence referendum campaign. Murrell was arrested alongside the party treasurer and the SNP’s former Dear Leader last year, after a police raid of both SNP HQ and the Glasgow home Sturgeon shared with Murrell – with officers lifting pots and pans, women’s razors and, er, a wheelbarrow from the former first minister’s house.

Developments became stranger when a luxury motorhome worth £110,000 was picked up by police – with the party leadership claiming it was bought for campaign purposes. Yet when Mr S quizzed the party’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn about it all, he revealed he had no idea about the campervan until ‘it was on the front of a newspaper.’ And the party’s treasurer Colin Beattie – also arrested last year in connection with the probe – denied knowledge of the purchase too. How very curious…

Police Scotland told Steerpike that it is still waiting to receive advice from the Crown Office on the matter: ‘On 9 August 2024, we presented the findings of the investigation so far to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and we await their direction on what further action should be taken.’ They’re taking their time.

When Mr S spoke to the Crown Office today, a spokesperson noted that Sturgeon remains under police investigation, stating:

A standard prosecution report has been received by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service from Police Scotland in relation to a 59-year-old man and incidents said to have occurred between 2016 and 2023. Connected investigations of two other individuals, a man aged 72 and a 53-year-old woman, remain ongoing.

Professional prosecutors from COPFS and independent counsel will review this report. They will make decisions on the next steps without involving the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General. All Scotland’s prosecutors operate independently of political influence… Decisions on how to proceed are taken by prosecutors acting independently, and are based upon available evidence, legal principles, and the merits of each case. They are not influenced by political events.

But the very matter of the case rumbling on in the background is rather damaging the party’s prospects. As polling guru Sir John Curtice noted, Operation Branchform and the arrest of Sturgeon contributed to a rather large drop in SNP support. Sean Clerkin, the man who reported the party over the ‘missing’ money, has demanded that the probe ends soon – and before the 2026 election – to ensure any potential criminal trials don’t influence the Scottish parliament poll. In a nod to similar calls, the Crown Office added:

Before deciding what action to take, if any, in the public interest, prosecutors will consider if there is enough evidence. There must be evidence from at least two separate sources to establish that a crime was committed and that the person under investigation was the perpetrator. 

Some party figures are thinking along rather similar lines to Clerkin, with them keen to see a swift end to the police probe and the removal of the dark and distracting cloud hovering over the party before 2026. The Nats are currently predicted to lose around 20 seats in the next Holyrood poll – and the election countdown is on. Tick tock.

You can’t deal rationally with the rail unions

The idea that the government had somehow managed to draw a line under the rail strikes by offering drivers and other staff a fat pay rise with no conditions attached even managed to fool the former Tory rail minister Huw Merriman, who declared in August: ‘I can understand why the new government have decided to cut a deal to end the uncertainty and move on with goodwill.’

Goodwill? That didn’t even last a day as Aslef celebrated the award of a pay rise for drivers by announcing a further round of strikes on LNER, this time over rostering. Those were cancelled after the government expressed outrage, but that hasn’t stopped Mick Lynch’s Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union coming back for more. Any minister who thought that train drivers might just be happy with salaries of almost £60,000 a year has been cruelly deceived: the RMT’s Tube drivers voted on Tuesday to reject the offer. Londoners now face Tube strikes throughout the autumn – so much for a fresh start under a new government.

At the same time, Unison is balloting local government workers and staff at the Office for National Statistics (ONS), represented by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), who have voted to strike over demands that they return to the office for just two days a week – a threat which they first made under the previous government. The idea that we now have a ‘grown-up’ government with a mature and less combative relationship with trade unions has been blown out of the water. The more militant unions will keep on pushing for higher wages until they are earning in excess of the craven MPs who are bowing before them. In fact, with overtime, some Tube drivers are already achieving this.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

You can deal rationally with some unions, but not with the likes of the RMT and Aslef. They have just proven that by treating the government with contempt. They were awarded everything they said they wanted – pay rises with no agreement to accept more productive working arrangements in return – and yet all it has done is to embolden them to come back for more. Worse, they have more power now than they did in the last months of Rishi Sunak’s government, as they are no longer bound by legislation to provide minimum service levels on strike days.

There will be a big opportunity here for the Conservatives, if they are prepared to seize it. All Tory leadership candidates in recent weeks have dropped in a word about Margaret Thatcher – Robert Jenrick, we learn, has even given his daughter the middle name ‘Thatcher’.

But if they really want to emulate her, they should reflect on what she would now be doing, were she Prime Minister. She would be stockpiling old buses in preparation for a final showdown with the Tube drivers. When they refused a pay offer, she wouldn’t just sit on her hands like the last Tory government did. She would already be making secret plans to automate the Tube and do away with Tube drivers altogether. There are more than 60 metro systems around the world that run without them. When the plan to automate jobs was announced, the unions would almost inevitably call an indefinite strike – at which point the mothballed buses would be brought out to maintain a Tube replacement service until the work to automate the Tube was complete. Then, when the work was done, we would have a more reliable, cheaper and strike-proof Underground.

Boris Johnson did once or twice threaten to automate the Tube, but in office he failed to do so. By the time the current government is finished, we will be back in 1979, with a public that is absolutely sick of the antics of the unions and is eager to vote for a party which promises to take them on. Whoever wins the Conservative party leadership needs to be ready to seize the opportunity.

Britain’s half-hearted support for Israel helps no one

When Iran launched almost 200 ballistic missiles at targets across Israel on Tuesday, there were fears that it would ignite a wider regional conflict. That a wider war has not (yet) erupted is partly due to the fact that most of the missiles were intercepted by Israel and what the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) spokesman called ‘a defensive coalition led by the United States’. The United Kingdom was part of that coalition. But what role did the UK really play on Tuesday night? And how does that support square with the Labour government’s hostility towards Israel?

Defence Secretary, John Healey, reiterated that ‘the UK stands fully behind Israel’s right to defend its country and its people against threats’ when he confirmed that British forces ‘played their part’ in defending Israel this week. This isn’t the first time Britain has backed Israel in this way. When Iran last attacked Israel in April, the Royal Air Force deployed Typhoon FGR4 fighters from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, alongside tanker aircraft, to help intercept their drones and missiles. A great deal has changed since April, however.

The general election saw the arrival of a new triumvirate to determine British foreign and security policy: the cautious and legalistic Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister, a new foreign secretary in the headstrong, moralising David Lammy, and John Healey, a meticulous, pragmatic Yorkshireman at the head of the Ministry of Defence. While the UK may pledge its support for Israel’s right to self-defence, two significant decisions have been taken which have changed the bilateral relationship.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

The first step was to overturn the previous government’s objection to the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing an arrest warrant for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. A Downing Street spokesman stepped smartly away from the controversy by saying that ‘our position on this process matter is that it is for the courts and prosecutor to decide’.

Then, in September, the Foreign Secretary told parliament that the government was suspending around 30 licences for the export of military equipment to Israel because ‘there exists a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law’. These licences included components for F-16 fighter aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, naval systems and targeting equipment.

These decisions have damaged the UK’s relationship with Israel, with Netanyahu describing the suspension of arms export licences as ‘shameful’. It is against this backdrop that we have to view the government’s pledges of support this week. Suspending exports and stepping back from the ICC warrant procedure sit uneasily with committing British armed forces to the physical defence of Israel: the UK’s policy on Israel suddenly looks contradictory and confused.

Britain’s military contribution will have reassured many decision-makers in Jerusalem. Healey revealed after the event that, while UK assets had been ready to take action, they ‘didn’t need to do so’.

But the Defence Secretary is putting a positive gloss even on that: unlike in April, when Iran launched a combination of drones, rockets and missiles, Tuesday’s attack relied predominantly on ballistic missiles and may have included the hypersonic, highly manoeuvrable Fattah system. The Typhoon FGR4 jets used by the RAF are air superiority fighters which can also be used for air-to-ground precision strikes. They can intercept slower unmanned aerial vehicles, as happened in April’s operation, but they are not equipped to track or engage ballistic missiles.

The Royal Navy also contributed to this week’s deployment in the shape of HMS Duncan, a Type 45 air defence destroyer which has been in the region since May. She is equipped with the Sea Viper anti-air missile system which can engage and intercept a large number of airborne threats and has been used to shoot down Houthi drones and missiles in the Red Sea. However, it is reported that HMS Duncan did not fire any Sea Viper missiles on Tuesday.

There is debate over the full capability of HMS Duncan. The Ministry of Defence has asserted that she can intercept ballistic missiles, but the former defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace suggested this would be difficult pending a £300 million upgrade to the Sea Viper system which he authorised in 2022. He said yesterday that the UK ‘should with immediate effect seek to accelerate the already planned upgrade of their missile systems in light of what we are seeing in the Middle East’.

Britain’s support for Israel this week was largely cosmetic. Sending military assets which cannot directly engage the immediate threat from Iran is symbolic of the government’s muddled attitude towards Israel. It is supportive of our ally, but not unconditionally, and will wring its hands when the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon become controversial. This agonised semi-solidarity may be an attempt to split the difference between bitterly polarised arguments, but it is not what serious grown-up statecraft looks like.

Britain could regret handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius

The United Kingdom will shortly be ceding sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Under the terms of a new treaty, there will be a 99-year-lease for Diego Garcia, the tropical atoll used by the US government as a military base. It follows two years of negotiation over the strategically important cluster of islands in the Indian Ocean. Both sides have vowed to finalise the treaty as quickly as possible.

The announcement today follows Keir Starmer’s call with his Mauritian counterpart Pravind Jugnauth. A Downing Street spokesman said that: ‘The Prime Minister reiterated the importance of reaching this deal to protect the continued operation of the UK/US military base on Diego Garcia. He underscored his steadfast duty to national and global security which underpinned the political agreement reached today.’ 

The most striking thing about today’s decision is its speed. It was less than a month ago that Jonathan Powell was appointed as the special envoy on talks: a move which suggested a lengthy period of negotiation. The Ministry of Defence and the Americans have traditionally been seen as the stumbling blocks to a deal. The question is therefore whether their objections were addressed or overridden.

News of a treaty follows a shift in the UK’s long-standing position on the islands. In recent years, there has been increasing international pressure to surrender what some have called Britain’s ‘last colony in Africa.’  Mauritius has long complained that it was illegally forced to give up the territory as an exchange for its own independence in 1968, with the British government having already secretly negotiating a deal with the US for the base on Diego Garcia. The UK later apologised for removing islanders from the archipelago and pledged to give up the territory when it was no longer needed for strategic purposes.

International pressure has now forced the UK’s hand. Britain’s focus on maintaining support for Ukraine means it cannot afford to alienate allies around the world. In Whitehall, the hope is that the 99-year-lease will alleviate fears that the new government has sacrificed British interests in one sphere to aid efforts in another. The fact that New Delhi is on board is a positive too. But given the Chagos Islands’ strategic access to the Indian and Pacific Oceans, a backlash at home is inevitable. The Tory leadership contenders have already waded in: Tom Tugendhat calls it a ‘shameful retreat’; James Cleverly says ministers are ‘weak, weak, weak’ – despite the negotiations beginning on his watch.

The governments of Mauritius and China have been increasing their ties in recent years, with their respective national banks signing a bilateral currency agreement less than a month ago. Given Beijing’s expansionist posturing in recent years, promises of a 99-year-lease seem optimistic, to say the least.

Watch more on SpectatorTV:

The baffling decision to defund a national academy for mathematics

The government has shocked the mathematics community by announcing that it is withdrawing £6 million in grant funding from a new Academy for Mathematical Sciences. 

The impetus for creating this Academy came from a 2018 review chaired by professor Philip Bond. His review recommended how to maximize the benefits of mathematical sciences to the UK economy and to wider society. It drew on responses from a host of universities and all the learned societies in mathematics and was advised by a board of mathematical luminaries. Its number one recommendation was the creation of this new academy – which would improve links between academia, government and industry. 

According to estimates by Deloitte, in 2010 mathematics contributed over £208 billion to the UK economy. Annual spending on mathematics research in the period 2008-2013 was £354 million. Using this data, the Bond review suggested the cost-benefit ratio of mathematics research is one to 588. In fact, the report made a miscalculation, underestimating the value for money of mathematics by a factor of five.

Presumably the error crept in because it is hard to believe that the UK would have only spent £75 million on mathematics research in 2010. With the slip corrected, the cost-benefit ratio of mathematics is an astounding one to 2,773. In other words, for every pound spent on mathematics research, £2,700 is gained in investment. 

It is reassuring to know that even the great and good of mathematics slip up in their calculations from time to time, but this in no way detracts from the central message of the report: investing in UK mathematics is one of the most cost-effective measures the government can take to boost our economy.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

Nevertheless, making the most of this potential is not easy. To see the challenges, consider the experience of computing. The benefits of making computer programming a standard part of school education have been crushingly obvious since the 1980s. Yet it still possible for maths and science students to come to university without any meaningful programming experience. 

With the current revolution in data science, it is similarly obvious today that all students should continue to develop mathematical skills after the age of 16. Nobody should be able to graduate with a social science degree, for example, unless they have some understanding of statistics. And no mathematician should be able to graduate without being able to explain the implications and limitations of a model in words. We also need to address the long-standing issue of women choosing not to pursue a career in mathematics, and to reverse the drop in enrolments in mathematics programmes that we have seen in recent years.

Although there are several longstanding mathematical societies in the UK, such as the Royal Statistical Society and the London Mathematical Society, they each represent specific niches. There is currently no mathematical equivalent of the Royal Society of Chemistry or the Institute of Physics to create a single coherent UK strategy across mathematical disciplines. This has resulted in mathematics being something of a second-class citizen in policymaking and in funding. In 2008-2013, physics received seven times the funding of mathematics, while delivering about a third of the economic benefit.

In the distant past engineering experienced similar problems in reaching the ear of government. This was addressed in 1976 with the founding of the Fellowship of Engineering. Its accomplishments in shaping research and education policy was recognised in 1992 when it was granted the new title of the Royal Academy of Engineering. The ambition of the Academy for Mathematical Sciences was to replicate this. 

Since the Bond report in 2018 considerable work has gone into the development of the new fledgling academy. A particular focus has been to ensure that different constituencies are reached, including schools and industry. Care has been taken to develop the processes and structures needed to build consensus across the mathematical sciences. This is no mean feat. Mathematicians are by nature a contrary bunch and require a great deal of convincing before they will agree on anything. It is a considerable achievement that the current proto-academy enjoys the support of all the existing mathematical learned societies. 

Given the broad support for the academy from across the mathematical community, it is extremely hard to understand Labour’s decision to withdraw funding. The academy seems to tick all their boxes. It has a strong focus on expanding access to mathematics to underrepresented groups. It is non-elitist, giving equal weight to the needs of teachers and industry as well as academia.

The government’s explanation is that, ‘substantive action rather than an additional academy represents the most effective way forward to ensure maths supports our missions.’ But these actions remain unspecified. This makes it impossible to perform a cost-benefit analysis. Besides, the costs of the academy are nugatory. With mathematical sciences employing 2.2 million people across the UK, the cost of the academy is less than £1 per job per year.

If the government has new substantive ideas for mathematics, that is great, but it needs to say what they are. The real policies we need will take years to implement. Any proposals will require careful debate to develop consensus and cross-party support. This is of course precisely the job of the new academy, and it has been working hard to achieve this. The government must understand that science strategy is a long game and that it will need expert help to build the right strategy. Otherwise, it is hard not to worry that the only reason the government is not supporting a powerful new voice for mathematics is that they don’t want to listen to it.

Andrew Bailey should be wary of helping Labour

Business confidence has plummeted back to the levels last seen in the wake of Liz Truss’s unfortunate mini-budget. Hiring has slowed down as employers worry about all the new rights Labour is about to award their staff. Consumer confidence has fallen, as people worry about the tax rises that will be imposed in the ‘Horror Budget’ set for the end of the month. And the economy, which was growing at a decent clip when the Conservatives left office, has now stalled, with zero growth in the latest quarter. The new Chancellor Rachel Reeves was facing a spluttering economy. But, hey, never mind. It turns out that the Bank of England is here to help – the only problem is its Governor Andrew Bailey may come to regret that decision. 

In an interview published today, Bailey offered the Chancellor a rare piece of good news. After keeping rates on hold following a single, modest quarter-point cut earlier this year, Bailey argued there was a chance the BoE could become ‘a bit more activist’ in its approach. He was encouraged to see inflation coming down, and although there was a risk that conflict in the Middle East might drive it up, that should allow the Bank to start reducing the cost of money again. As the remarks were published, the pound started to fall as the markets assumed rate cuts were on the way. 

Sure, that will help Reeves. It was starting to look as if she had talked her way into a recession, but lower interest rates will help consumers as mortgage rates will come down. It will also reduce the vast costs of servicing the government’s huge debts, while a lower pound will help exporters. It might be just enough to allow the British economy to eke out the 1 per cent growth that now seems to be the most it can aspire to.

Most popular

David Shipley

England now has a blasphemy law

Gareth Roberts

Doctor Who needs a break

Lucy Dunn

No one won the Hamilton by-election debate

The trouble is, there are two big problems with Bailey’s intervention. To start with, it is far from clear that inflation is still falling. In September, the rate stuck at 2.2 per cent, even though it is still coming down in the US and the euro-zone, suggesting that, as so often in the past, price rises are stickier in the UK than elsewhere. Even worse, many of the government’s policies, from massive pay rises for the public sector, to soaring energy bills to pay for net zero, are likely to drive it even higher. If Bailey can actually detect signs of easing price pressures in the UK he must have a very powerful microscope. Next, it will look dangerously close to helping out a government that has, despite taking office with a huge majority, been flailing around for an economic strategy. The Bank is meant to be strictly impartial, but having declined to cut rates in the run-up to the general election it will look odd, to put it mildly, to cut them soon afterwards unless there is overwhelming evidence for doing so. In reality, there is very little case for accelerating rate cuts – and Bailey will regret hinting that there is.

Sir Keir pays back £6,000 worth of gifts

To the latest development in Labour’s freebie fiasco, as it transpires that Sir Keir Starmer has paid back over £6,000 of gifts he received from wealthy donors. No. 10 revealed the Prime Minister chose to cough up the funds for six Taylor Swift tickets, four Doncaster racing tickets and the clothing gifted to his wife. The news that Sir Keir would be paying back the cost of the freebies himself came last night as the donations were about to be uncovered in the latest list of MPs’ financial declarations.

Starmer’s about turn poses some rather awkward questions for the rest of Starmer’s cabinet however – who haven’t quite found it in themselves to do the same. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner declared £836 for an Ibiza DJ booth visit, while Foreign Secretary David Lammy was given tickets to for an Arsenal game, the latest register shows. The revelations follow the frockgate scandal, where it emerged that Lady Starmer had accepted clothing donations from Lord Alli which were not initially declared in line with parliamentary rules. It then transpired that Starmer had received £107,000 worth of gifts since 2019, including £40,000 of football treats. The developments sparked outrage among Sir Keir’s parliamentary party, with one MP remarking: ‘This is what hypocrisy looks like. Most of us have been fighting the “they’re all the same” rhetoric for our whole careers and Keir’s double standards just prove it’s entirely accurate.’ Ouch.

The update follows the news that Lord Alli – who funded workwear and luxury accommodation for the Labour leader – is now under investigation by the Lords Commissioner, with the millionaire businessman being looked into over ‘alleged non-registration of interests leading to potential breaches of paragraphs 14(a) and 17 of the thirteenth edition of the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords’. Goodness. Downing Street is expected to publish a new code of conduct for ministers in the near future, in a bid to tighten the rules on gifting. Yet despite Sir Keir’s best efforts, the freebie fiasco continues to rumble on…