As Congress and the national security state continue their quest to ban the TikTok social media platform in the United States, President Joe Biden has been courting TikTok influencers to help him shore up youth support for his reelection. While the administration has been publicly casting TikTok as a grave threat to American security, the White House has quietly hosted a number of influencers to pitch them on pro-Biden content.

“Don’t jump, I need you!” Biden joked to a group of TikTok influencers as he walked by the group standing on the White House balcony on his way to deliver his State of the Union speech earlier this year.

In recent months, some of the biggest TikTok users with accounts boasting millions of followers have visited the White House, visitor logs reveal. Since September alone, some of the most prominent examples include:

• Jason Linton, a dad who posts wholesome content about his family and whose TikTok account @dadlifejason has 13.8 million followers.
• Michael Junchaya, (who goes by “Mikey Angelo” on the handle @mrgrandeofficial , 3.5 million followers), a young entertainer who specializes in rap recap videos.
• Mona Swain ( @monaswain , 1.9 million followers), theater enthusiast.
• Alexandra Doten, space communicator, who previously worked for NASA (going by “Astro Alexandra” @astro_alexandra , 2.3 million followers).
• Andrew Townsend (going by “Papi Dre” @andrewtowns , 3.1 million followers).
• Alex Pearlman ( @pearlmania , 2.6 million followers), comedian.
• Josh Helfgott ( @joshhelfgott , 5.5 million followers), LGBTQ+ advocate.

Perhaps the biggest TikToker hobnobbing at the White House was Oneya Johnson, a viral sensation famous for his angry reaction videos (@angryreactions) boasting 27 million followers. He visited the White House on September 27. (Johnson has since deleted his account after being arrested for domestic violence.)

Each of these TikTokkers’ meetings was coordinated by White House deputy director of partnerships, Morgan MacNaughton, who herself has a background with the company. She was hired away last year from Palette, a social media talent management company that specializes in TikTok personalities. While there, MacNaughton helped found the political group “TikTok for Biden” (since renamed “Gen-Z for Change”). Many of the TikTok users who visited the White House are themselves represented by Palette.

In 2022, Palette received a $200,000 payment from the Democratic National Committee for paid media, Federal Election Commission data shows. According to the Washington Post’s Taylor Lorenz, Palette was paid a retainer from the DNC to cover expenses for eight TikTok creators to travel to Washington in hopes of wooing them in the run-up to the midterm elections, resulting in an Oval Office meeting with Biden.

Anita Dunn , senior adviser to the president, told The Intercept that MacNaughton “helped to get POTUS’s message out to more audiences.”

“The reason Morgan’s position exists is because we knew the work she was capable of: discovering, ideating and leading creator talent,” Christian Tom, director of the White House’s Office of Digital Strategy, told The Intercept. “In just under a year at the White House, she has driven on many digital creator projects that have been vital to our digital strategy.”

With Biden’s reelection campaign in full swing, it would hardly be surprising that they’re meeting with influencers whose videos reach millions of Americans — were it not for the administration’s national security rhetoric about the app’s purported threat. Earlier this month, Biden raised his concerns about TikTok during a call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, their first contact since November. Biden administration officials have raised hypothetical concerns about the Chinese ownership of TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance.

Public opinion on banning TikTok is sharply divided, with support tending to come from older Americans but marked opposition coming from youth. Biden’s support for the legislation has irked even some of his most ardent supporters.

“There are clearly some First Amendment concerns here and to do this in an election year seems wrong to me,” Harry Sisson told The Intercept. Sisson describes himself as a “pro-Biden content creator” and frequently uses his TikTok account ( @harryjsisson , 800k followers) to advocate for the president and blast his opponents. (Sisson has himself visited the White House and is represented by Palette.)

“There are over 170 million Americans on TikTok, many of which get their news from the app, and to take that away and give Trump a talking point only hurts the Democratic Party,” Sisson said.

While White House visitor logs are only available through this past September, it is clear that TikTok influencers have continued to frequent the White House. When Biden gave his State of the Union speech in March, Sisson was one of dozens of social media influencers, including TikTok stars, invited to the White House where he spoke to his 800,000 followers during Biden’s address. The influencers sat on the White House balcony and watched as Biden headed over to the Capitol to deliver his speech.

Though the Biden administration has directly consulted on the creation of the legislation that could ban TikTok, the Biden campaign has embraced the app, creating an official account in February. The decision has drawn criticism from even some of Biden’s most stalwart allies.

“I’m a little worried about a mixed message,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said of the decision.

The White House, for its part, has brushed off accusations of hypocrisy, pointing to the fact that the federal ban on the use of TikTok on government devices is still in place and applies to White House officials, referring questions to the Biden campaign.

The campaign has said that it will “continue meeting voters where they are.”

Unless, of course, the app is banned.

The post As Biden Cheers TikTok Ban, White House Embraces TikTok Influencers appeared first on The Intercept .

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned in a conversation with Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington that the safety of imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan was a high priority of the United States, multiple sources familiar with the exchange told The Intercept.

The warning issued late last month by Schumer, the most powerful Democrat in Congress, to Pakistan came after intense activism by members of the Pakistani diaspora amid concerns that the Pakistani military may harm Khan, the former prime minister who was ousted from office in 2022.

“The Pakistani American diaspora has felt let down by Washington’s failure to engage power brokers in Pakistan and hold them accountable for blatant violations of human rights.”

“Chuck Schumer speaking to the ambassador regarding the safety of Imran Khan is very constructive,” Mohammad Munir Khan, a Pakistani American political activist in the U.S., told The Intercept. “The Pakistani American diaspora has felt let down by Washington’s failure to engage power brokers in Pakistan and hold them accountable for blatant violations of human rights, and destruction of basic fundamentals of democracy.”

Imran Khan is currently incarcerated on corruption charges that are widely seen as politically motivated. Khan, who is regarded as the most popular politician in Pakistan, was removed from power in an April 2022 no-confidence vote orchestrated by the country’s powerful military establishment and encouraged by the U.S. Since then, Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI, has faced a brutal repression that has raised international alarms and been denounced by human rights groups .

The concerns about Khan’s life that prompted Schumer’s call to the Pakistani Ambassador Masood Khan reflect a growing fear that the military may deal with Khan’s stubborn popularity by simply putting an end to his life behind bars. (Schumer’s office declined to comment for this story. The Pakistani Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

The outreach from Schumer, who represents a large, vocal Pakistani American community in New York, came as a new governing coalition in the South Asian country seeks to consolidate power despite public disaffection over a February election rife with fraud.

In addition to banning PTI, Pakistan engaged in heavy repression ahead of the February vote. A record turnout suggested PTI-aligned candidates had the upper hand. Ignoring widespread fraud, however, a coalition of parties supported by the Pakistani military successfully formed a government led by Shehbaz Sharif in the vote’s aftermath.

The international community, including the U.S., noted voting irregularities, and credible allegations arose of vote rigging and flagrant fraud in the election.

“There is undeniable evidence, which the State Department agrees with, that there were problems with this election,” Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, told The Intercept in March. At the time, Casar and other members of Congress had just called on President Joe Biden to withhold recognition of the government, but Washington’s ambassador to Pakistan congratulated Sharif in early March.

“There is undeniable evidence, which the State Department agrees with, that there were problems with this election.”

Foreign policy experts in Washington said the Biden administration’s approach risked transgressing democratic principles in the name of security. Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, said, “This appears to be an example where the administration is allowing its security relationship with a foreign government to crowd out other critical concerns like democratic backsliding and human rights.”

Imran Khan himself has reportedly been held in dire conditions at a prison in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi. Last month, his visitor privileges were abruptly suspended for two weeks, prompting fears from his supporters about his physical conditions in custody. Earlier this month, one of his lawyers claimed that his personal physician was not being allowed to see him in jail. Khan’s wife, who is imprisoned on politically motivated charges of an un-Islamic marriage and graft, has also reportedly suffered health problems due to conditions of her confinement, according to remarks from her lawyer this week.

In a statement given to reporters from prison and later shared on social media, Khan, who was wounded in an attempted assassination in November 2022 at a political rally, alleged that there had been a plot to kill him while behind bars. Khan suggested his fate was in the hands of Gen. Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful army chief.

“Let it be known that if anything happens to me or my wife, it’ll be him who will be responsible,” Khan said.

Schumer’s call to the Pakistani ambassador, however, may play into the military’s calculations about killing Khan. “A senior Democrat influential in the Biden administration is sending a warning, which is somewhat significant,” said Adam Weinstein, the deputy director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, adding that he did not believe the military would will Khan in prison.

As extreme as a step it would be, the military harming or even killing a leader it ousted, even one as popular as Khan, would fit a pattern in Pakistani history. Several Pakistani leaders have died violently in the past few decades after falling out with the military, some under murky circumstances, while others, like former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, were executed by military rulers after being deposed from power.

Although nominally led by a civilian government today, Pakistan’s military is widely known to call the shots in the country politically and is currently led by Munir, whose clashes with Khan and his party have been the main political storyline in the country for over a year.

For Pakistani activists in the U.S., the American relationship with Pakistan creates leverage that can be used to ensure that Khan is not murdered behind bars. Mohammad Munir Khan, the Pakistani American activist, said, “The least Washington can do is to ensure Imran Khan is not harmed physically.”

Supporters of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI, party hold a March 10, 2024, protest in Peshawar against election fraud. Photo: Abdul Majeed/AFP via Getty Images

Capitol Hill Hearing

The U.S. has played an outsized role in Pakistan’s internal politics, especially over the past several years, including a pivotal role in Khan’s ouster from power.

In August 2023, The Intercept reported on and published a classified Pakistani diplomatic cable — a contentious document that had become a centerpiece of political drama, though its contents had remained unknown — showing that Khan’s removal from power had taken place following intense pressure placed on the Pakistani government by U.S. State Department officials.

In the cable, Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu, whose office covers South Asia at the State Department, is quoted as telling the Pakistani ambassador to Washington that the countries’ relations would be seriously damaged if Khan were to remain in power.

“I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington,” Lu said, according to the Pakistani cable.

Since Khan’s removal from power, the U.S. has worked closely with the new military-backed Pakistani regime. Pakistan provided weapons to Ukraine in exchange for the U.S. brokering a favorable International Monetary Fund loan package, according to previous reporting from The Intercept .

Before being imprisoned, Khan made frequent reference to the classified cypher and even claimed to be brandishing a physical copy during a political rally. He is now facing a lengthy prison sentence on charges related to his handling of classified information, in addition to the raft of corruption charges that initially landed him in custody.

Coming in the context of a broader crackdown on his party — which has including killings, extrajudicial disappearances, and torture targeting supporters of PTI and members of the press — most observers believe Khan’s continued imprisonment is a politically motivated gambit to keep him and his movement out of power.

Following this year’s election, with Casar and others in Congress raising questions about Khan’s removal and the vote, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing featuring Lu, the assistant secretary of state.

The sole person testifying, Lu denied that he had been involved in a “regime change” in Pakistan — a reference to Khan’s comments about his role and the content of the cable reported by The Intercept.

On the election, Lu paid lip service to concerns about how the ballot was carried off, while failing to outline what consequences there would be for the vote rigging.

“You have seen actions by our ambassador and our embassy,” Lu said, alluding the congratulations extended by the U.S. to Pakistan’s new prime minister. He then quickly added: “We are in every interaction with this government stressing the importance of accountability for election irregularities.”

“In the long term it has never worked out in the United States’ benefit to be seen as propping up illegitimate, military-led governments.”

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., raised the issue of Khan’s safety in detention at the hearing. Sherman urged Lu to meet directly with Khan in prison, earning applause from the mostly Pakistani audience in hand.

“Ensuring the safety of leaders, regardless of political differences, is paramount,” said Atif Khan, another Pakistan American diaspora activist. “Congressman Brad Sherman rightly advocated for accountability and protection, urging the US Ambassador to visit former Prime Minister Imran Khan and prioritize his well-being.”

While Khan’s fate hangs in the balance, members of Congress have warned that continued U.S. support for a government seen as illegitimate by most Pakistanis risks harming not just Pakistan, but also the U.S. position in a critical region.

“Promoting democracy is important in itself, but it’s in our interests as well,” Casar, the Texas Democrat, told The Intercept. “Regardless of the short-term military benefits, in the long term it has never worked out in the United States’ benefit to be seen as propping up illegitimate, military-led governments.”

The post Chuck Schumer Privately Warns Pakistan: Don’t Kill Imran Khan in Prison appeared first on The Intercept .

On Sunday, 54 Columbia Law School professors sent a letter to university leadership condemning the school’s decision to summarily suspend student protesters and to authorize a police raid on campus. The procedural irregularity of the mass suspensions, the lack of transparency about how decisions were made, and the involvement of the New York Police Department threaten the university’s legitimacy internally and in the eyes of the public, the faculty charge.

“While we as a faculty disagree about the relevant political issues and express no opinion on the merits of the protest, we are writing to urge respect for basic rule-of-law values that ought to govern our University,” reads the letter, whose signatories are permament members of the law school faculty.

A spokesperson for the university declined to comment on the letter, which was sent to Columbia President Nemat Minouche Shafik, the board of trustees, deans, and other administrators.

Last week, the GOP-led House Committee on Education and Workforce brought Shafik, former Law School dean and Task Force on Antisemitism co-chair David Schizer, and board of trustees co-chairs Claire Shipman and David Greenwald to testify on campus antisemitism. During the hearing, members of Congress pressed for assurances from the Columbia administrators that they would crack down even harder on pro-Palestinian student protesters.

The following day, Shafik authorized the NYPD to sweep a protest encampment that had been set up ahead of the congressional hearing, where the police arrested more than 100 students. The school also said it suspended all the students involved in the campus protest , which was meant to “protest Columbia University’s continued financial investment in corporations that profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide, and occupation in Palestine,” according to organizers, as well as to call for transparency for all of Columbia’s financial investments. The arrests and suspensions impacted students at both Columbia and its women’s school, Barnard College.

In their letter, the law school faculty said that “the University has offered very little public information about the rules invoked, processes used, and facts found to support the blanket suspension of over one hundred students.” In addition to their concerns about the lack of transparency, the faculty noted that the protest encampment was peaceful, according to observers. (“I was there yesterday and these students were literally just singing and chanting and handing out flyers,” a professor who requested anonymity out of concern for workplace reprisal told The Intercept on Thursday.)

The legal scholars also noted that it was not clear that Columbia had followed its established procedures for rule enforcement, including content-neutral regulations of speech, and harassment and discrimination protections.

For instance, while the school can issue interim suspensions “‘if it is determined that the student’s behavior may make their presence on campus a danger to the normal operations of the institution, the safety of themselves, others, or to the property of the University or others,’” the faculty note, the use of it to issue mass suspensions “would cast serious doubt on the University’s respect for the rule-of-law values that we teach and cherish.”

That’s especially true, the faculty argue, because Shafik’s stated justification for involving the NYPD was that the students, based on “unknown standards and procedures … were creating a ‘harassing and intimidating environment.’”

The law school faculty letter follows mass dissent in other channels. After an emergency faculty meeting last week, for instance, the Barnard and Columbia chapters of the American Association of University Professors circulated a statement condemning the mass arrests. Organizers say they have more than 1,000 signatories on the petition.

The intensity of the response, one organizer told The Intercept, “reflects the deep anger many faculty feel at what has happened here over the last week (and months also, but especially week).”

The post Columbia Law School Faculty Condemn Administration for Mass Arrests and Suspensions appeared first on The Intercept .

Zoe Williams explores the greatest mystery of modern politics: Liz Truss’ self belief (1m15s), and Charlotte Edwardes delves into the extraordinary inside story of the biggest art fraud in American history (5m53s)

Continue reading...

Delays mean just £404m of the money donated by nine countries has been committed or spent

More than half of a £900m military fund for Ukraine run by the British Ministry of Defence has not been used because of bureaucratic delays in handing out contracts.

The UK-led International Fund for Ukraine counts nine countries among its donors. Critics claim its provision of weapons to the frontline has been slow.

Continue reading...

While Democrats and independents make up the bulk of support for Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., his campaign is attracting new Republican donors as he has hardened his stance in support of Israel since the Hamas attacks on October 7.

At least 14 registered Republicans have contributed to Fetterman’s campaign since October, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. A 15th Fetterman donor listed as a registered Republican told The Intercept he recently switched his party registration to Democrat to vote for George Latimer in the Democratic primary against Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y. Three of the donors gave to Fetterman’s last campaign for Senate.

While the donations haven’t been big enough to change Fetterman’s overall numbers, they point to both a shift in the public perception of Fetterman, who once identified as a progressive, and the shifting politics on Israel in the U.S.

“It’s shameful that Sen. Fetterman is choosing to align himself with the GOP and its enthusiasm for the mass death of Palestinians in Gaza.”

Where support for Israel was once subject to bipartisan consensus , Israel’s rightward lurch in recent decades has been mirrored in U.S. politics, where its staunchest supporters are increasingly aligned with the Republican Party. Among Democrats, progressives have been generally more critical of human rights abuses in Israel while centrists and mainstream liberals, especially in party leadership, show more robust unconditional support for Israel.

“It’s shameful that Sen. Fetterman is choosing to align himself with the GOP and its enthusiasm for the mass death of Palestinians in Gaza over the majority of Americans who want to see a ceasefire and equality and Justice for Palestinians and Israelis,” said Eva Borgwardt, national spokesperson for IfNotNow, a Jewish American group that opposes support for Israeli apartheid. (Fetterman’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

As his roster of GOP supporters slowly grew, Fetterman has, in recent weeks, stridently criticized President Joe Biden from the right on Israel policy. He bashed Biden for not vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and spoke out against the administration for discouraging an Israeli offensive in Rafah, a beleaguered corner of the Gaza Strip clogged with refugees in dire conditions .

While the Pennsylvania senator was explicit about his unconditional support for Israel during his 2022 Senate campaign , some of his supporters have expressed frustration as his rhetoric has veered to the right of other pro-Israel Democrats, all as the death toll among Palestinians in Gaza climbed to more than 30,000.

Fetterman has also faced progressive disapproval for taunting pro-Palestine veterans demonstrating at the U.S. Capitol and doubling down on his position that there should be no conditions on aid to Israel. Three of Fetterman’s top communications staffers have left the office since October, when more than a dozen of his former campaign staffers wrote an open letter calling on him to support a ceasefire.

In addition to the 14 Republicans and one recent conversion, some of Fetterman’s non-GOP campaign contributors have themselves increased donations to Republicans since October. More than a dozen other Democratic and independent Fetterman donors who’ve given to Fetterman’s campaign in the last six months have also given to Republican candidates and causes.

Several Fetterman donors have also contributed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is targeting Democratic members of Congress who’ve called for a ceasefire in Gaza and to end U.S. military support for Israel. Other Fetterman donors have given to candidates backed by AIPAC to challenge members of the progressive Squad in Democratic primaries, including Latimer in New York, Bhavini Patel in Pennsylvania , and Don Samuels in Minnesota.

Fetterman has raised $4.7 million this cycle, including at least $1.6 million since October, and 83 percent of those recent contributions came from outside Pennsylvania, a figure similar to the proportion of out-of-state contributions that fueled his 2022 campaign.

Far-Right and Centrist Donors

While Fetterman has raised the bulk of his contributions from Democrats, registered Republicans have given at least $18,900 to Fetterman’s campaign since October. Several were first-time donors to a federal campaign.

New York Republican Joshua Landes said he supported Fetterman because of his stance on Israel. “Yes I’m a Republican and I exclusively supported John through the Jewish community for his principled actions supporting Israel now during this Israel Gaza war,” Landes said in an email to The Intercept.

Edward Neiger, a Fetterman donor and attorney in New York, said he recently switched parties from Republican to Democrat to vote in the Democratic primary against Bowman . Neiger said he’s a libertarian at heart and that Fetterman’s “moral clarity” on Israel has been a breath of fresh air. He’s given $3,000 to Fetterman’s campaign since November.

Former Meridian Capital CEO Ralph Herzka, a registered Republican in New York, gave $2,500 to Fetterman’s campaign in November. Herzka, like several other Republican Fetterman donors, declined to comment.

Several of the donors who are registered Democrats or haven’t declared a party affiliation have also given heavily to Republicans. The recipients included former President Donald Trump; former Republican presidential primary candidates Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis; Republican House Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.; Republican Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick; and the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans.

Eliezer Scheiner, whose voter registration does not list a party affiliation, has given a total of $5,000 to Fetterman. A nursing home operator who gave more than $750,000 to Trump’s failed 2020 reelection campaign , Scheiner also contributed this cycle to campaigns for Democrats including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries; Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y.; and New Jersey Senate candidate Tammy Murphy.(Scheiner did not respond to a request for comment.)

Scott Barshay, partner at the law firm Paul Weiss, gave $3,300 to Fetterman’s campaign in January. Barshay has given to both Democrats and Republicans, and has contributed this cycle to Haley; Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C.; as well as Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y. Barshay also gave $5,000 in March to No Labels, the centrist group that recently suspended its bid to field a primary candidate to run against Biden after raising tens of millions of dollars.

At least three Republican donors also gave to Fetterman’s 2022 campaign. Retiree Clyde Robbins has given mostly to Democrats as well as to the leadership PAC for former Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney. Robbins gave Fetterman’s campaign $1,000 in March, and $1,200 to his 2022 campaign.

Another Republican donor. Kathleen Forest, an 82-year-old vineyard owner in Pennsylvania, gave $500 to Fetterman’s campaign in March. Her contribution to his 2022 campaign was her first listed federal contribution since 1994. (Barshay, Robbins, and Forest did not respond to requests for comment.)

While Republican donors gave Fetterman contributions between $500 and $3,300, Fetterman has continued to pull in donations from small-dollar donors. More than 40 percent of Fetterman’s contributions last quarter came from donations under $200.

The Pennsylvania senator has also received support from Palantir CEO Alexander Karp , who gave the maximum contribution of $3,300 to Fetterman’s campaign in January. Karp has given to several Republicans this cycle. (Karp did not respond to a request for comment.)

No Labels co-founder John Avlon , who is currently running in the Democratic primary in New York’s 1st Congressional District, gave Fetterman $1,000 in February. (Avlon did not respond to a request for comment.) Avlon denounced No Labels’s effort to recruit a candidate to challenge Biden and said he hasn’t been involved with the group since 2013.

The post Since October, Sen. John Fetterman Has Been Building a Roster of Republican Donors appeared first on The Intercept .

Charities say high rates of people signed off work are caused by crumbling public services after years of underinvestment

Rishi Sunak has been accused of making mental ill health “another front in the culture wars”, as critics warned his plan to curb benefits for some with anxiety and depression was an assault on disabled people.

In a speech on welfare , the prime minister said he wanted to explore withdrawing a major cash benefit claimed by people living with mental health problems and replacing it with treatment.

Shifting responsibility for issuing fit notes, formerly known as sicknotes, away from GPs to other “work and health professionals” in order to encourage more people to return to work.

Confirming plans to legislate “in the next parliament” to close benefit claims for anyone who has been claiming for 12 months but is not complying with conditions on accepting available work.

Asking more people on universal credit working part-time to look for more work by increasing the earnings threshold from £743 a month to £892 a month, so people paid below this amount have to seek extra hours.

Confirming plans to tighten the work capability assessment to require more people with “less severe conditions” to seek some form of employment.

Continue reading...

Former Tory chair turned political biographer and publisher is behind books that have put former PM and Labour’s deputy in the spotlights

If this week’s tetchy exchanges between Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak at prime minister’s questions proved one thing, it was the ability of the veteran businessman, donor and publisher Michael Ashcroft to set the political agenda.

While Starmer revelled in the publication of 10 Years to Save the West, which was written by the former prime minister Liz Truss and published this week by Ashcroft’s Biteback Publishing, Sunak wanted to focus on another Biteback book – Ashcroft’s own Red Queen?, a biography of Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner.

Continue reading...

Labour has also rejected European Commission’s proposal which would have allowed young people to live, work or study in the bloc

Rishi Sunak has rejected an EU offer to strike a post-Brexit deal to allow young Britons to live, study or work in the bloc for up to four years.

The prime minister declined the European Commission’s surprise proposal of a youth mobility scheme for those aged between 18 and 30 on Friday, after Labour had already knocked back the suggestion back on Thursday night – while noting it would “seek to improve the UK’s working relationship with the EU within our red lines”.

Continue reading...