Biden order adds momentum to bipartisan marijuana bill



Karl Evers-Hillstrom
Wed, October 19, 2022 at 4:00 

President Biden’s move to reevaluate marijuana’s legal status and pardon federal weed convictions has reinvigorated momentum for congressional action to boost the ailing cannabis industry.

Lawmakers see the lame-duck session as their best chance yet to pass the SAFE Banking Act, a bipartisan measure that would enable cannabis businesses to more easily access banking services and loans.

The bill — which would be a boon for cash-only dispensaries that are plagued by robberies and exorbitant banking fees — has already passed the House six times in recent years. But it’s stalled in the Senate amid concerns from top Democrats who said it doesn’t do enough to support communities disproportionately harmed by the nation’s drug laws.

Public pressure is building on Congress to take on marijuana reform, and lawmakers are showing signs of optimism about the prospects of a bipartisan marijuana banking bill that addresses those systemic issues making its way to the president’s desk this year.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), who first introduced the bill in 2019, told The Hill on Tuesday that there’s “a lot of activity” around the legislation, which he said some senators have referred to as “SAFE Banking Plus” amid ongoing negotiations.

“I think this thing’s going to get passed this cycle, so I’ve got my fingers crossed,” he said, while also adding he thinks Biden’s recent order “has spurred further conversation” and is “a positive step forward for moving [SAFE] forward as well.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told NJ.com earlier this week that there’s a “good chance” Congress will be able to reach a bipartisan compromise on some marijuana reform and banking legislation.

Booker acknowledged that while it likely won’t be the comprehensive decriminalization bill he helped craft with leadership earlier this year, he thinks there could be a deal on “an effort to tie in restorative justice and some fair banking provisions.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), one of the banking bill’s lead co-sponsors, is also hopeful of the bill’s chances as negotiations continue.

“Senator Daines is confident that there is broad support for the SAFE Banking Act and believes the Senate can get it done by the end of the year,” Daines’s office told The Hill.

However, negotiators face a tough task ahead to win support of Democratic holdouts while also ensuring the bill has adequate backing from Republicans who have pushed back on racial equity reforms.

Proponents are also under a tight timeline to craft a bill and round up votes as lawmakers stare down a jam-packed schedule upon their return to Washington after midterm elections.

The Senate isn’t scheduled to resume votes until Nov. 14, and with work still outstanding on a must-pass defense bill, same-sex marriage legislation and a looming deadline in December to fund the government, lawmakers have little time to waste before January.

Morgan Fox, political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the national reaction to Biden’s recent order signals an appetite for further progress.

“The public response to these pardons was overwhelmingly positive across the board, even though they didn’t actually do that much,” he said.

“I think that seeing that there was not a tremendous amount of backlash on either side of the aisle or across the political spectrum to Biden’s move has the potential to positively influence these negotiations.”

Biden said earlier this month that his administration would review marijuana’s Schedule I classification, which puts it on the same level as drugs like heroin and methamphetamine and makes it risky for banks to work with cannabis businesses.

But the process could take years, and there’s no guarantee that the Biden administration will de-schedule marijuana entirely rather than give it a lower classification, which wouldn’t help the cannabis industry.

“In the meantime, we still have employees across the country fretting over whether they will lose their bank accounts because banks find out that they work for a cannabis company, or employers who are unable to afford the very steep cost to do even minimal banking, meaning just opening an account,” said Khadijah Tribble, CEO of the U.S. Cannabis Council.

The industry is warning that small dispensaries are closing their doors every day because banks charge far higher rates to cannabis businesses over fears of legal issues. It’s also wary of the upcoming midterms, which could usher in a GOP House that is less likely to push for marijuana reforms.

“If SAFE doesn’t pass and Democrats do not maintain the House, it could be another two or three years before we see any meaningful progress on this issue, which means we will see thousands of businesses go out of business over the next few years,” said Kaliko Castille, president of the Minority Cannabis Business Association.

Industry groups support adding restorative justice measures to the SAFE Banking Act — such as proposals to spur state-level weed pardons or boost lending from minority-owned banks — but only if they win enough GOP support for the bill to pass.

Marijuana justice groups, meanwhile, say that Congress should not pass SAFE if it does not include clear language aimed at achieving racial equity.

“You have to be intentional about it,” said Maritza Perez, who leads federal affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance. “The bill does nothing for equity. It includes no language for equity. It would not level the playing field in any way. If anything, it would make a white-only male industry even whiter, maler and richer.”

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) pulled the banking bill from last year’s National Defense Authorization Act over similar concerns. Supporters of SAFE are aiming to get it included in this year’s defense bill, which lawmakers aim to pass after the election.

Over the years, data has shown glaring racial disparities in which Americans get arrested for marijuana offenses.

A 2020 report from the American Civil Liberties Union found Black Americans were more than three times as likely to be arrested for marijuana offenses than their white counterparts in the U.S.

At the same time, however, data shows Black Americans are underrepresented in the country’s growing cannabis industry. A 2021 report from Leafly found that Black Americans accounted for only 1.2 percent to 1.7 percent of all cannabis company owners despite making up about 12 percent of the country’s population.

Perez said her organization has been making progress on changes and is hoping to “see an amended bill move at some point.”

“I think that we’ve changed the narrative,” Perez said. “I think people used to accept the fact that the SAFE Banking bill on its own is sufficient, but I think we’ve changed the narrative on and off the Hill that, no, actually it’s not sufficient. It could create harm, and it needs to be improved and amended.”

The Hill.

HEY GUYS;

‘Ejaculate Responsibly’ author Gabrielle Blair wants to shift the focus of abortion conversations from women to men

Brittany Jones-Cooper and Jacquie Cosgrove

Wed, October 19, 2022 at 9:59 AM·

As the midterm elections approach, rallies across the country continue to address the fight to protect women’s reproductive rights. After the Supreme Court struck down Roe. vs. Wade in June, five states are leaving the decision of abortion access up to voters in November.

Gabrielle Blair, a mother of six and creator of the popular blog Design Mom, says that the best way to address unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion is actually quite simple.

“Men are causing the pregnancies. Men are doing this through irresponsible ejaculations, and they could easily change that,” Blair tells Yahoo Life. “I wanna shift it away from women's bodies, women's decision making, controlling women, and shift it toward what men could be doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Because they have a lot of control. Way more than we've ever specified or given them credit for.”

Blair suggests that men cause unwanted pregnancies in her new book, Ejaculate Responsibly: A Whole New Way to Think About Abortion, which makes 28 arguments designed to show how focusing on women’s bodies ignores the bigger problem — that if a man is fertile, he is fertile every day, and there are no restrictions on where he can ejaculate.

Ejaculate Responsibly: A Whole New Way to Think About Abortion, by Gabrielle Blair.

“You could reduce abortions. You could eliminate abortions without making an abortion law if you were legislating responsible ejaculations, if there was any accountability required of men to be careful with their sperm. We require no accountability. If we required any, it would make a huge, huge impact," says Blair.

“All he has to do is avoid putting the sperm in a woman's vagina. That's it. He can put it in a condom, he can put it anywhere else.”

Blair’s journey to Ejaculate Responsibly started in 2018 with the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings. She remembers feeling frustrated by watching a group of men discuss abortion and women's bodies. Blair took her frustrations to Twitter, and created a now viral thread detailing why men need to take more responsibility in the abortion conversation, and making the argument that a man can produce 365 babies in a year if he ejaculates every day. For a woman, pregnancy can only occur during a five to seven-day ovulation window every month. On social media, her arguments received support and criticism from men, but by focusing on prevention, she knew she had struck a chord.

“It's not a huge ask, but we haven't asked men to do it. We've never pointed out that your bodies are causing the pregnancies. You are 50 times more fertile than women. For every fertile day a woman has, a man has 50 fertile days because men are fertile 24 hours a day their entire life from puberty on,” says Blair. “Women [ovulate] 12 to 24 hours a month from puberty to menopause. That's it … Every time a man has sex, he could potentially impregnate someone. He is fertile every time he has sex.”

Data on exact number of abortions that occur in the United States every year varies. Three states, (California, Maryland and New Hampshire) did not provide data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2019 when the CDC reported 629,898 abortions nationally. The Guttmacher Institute, which includes data from all 50 states, put the number closer 930,160 abortions nationwide in 2020. Today, if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, access to a safe abortion has been eliminated in 13 states and has been restricted in a dozen others.

The abortion battle in the judicial system and at the ballot box will rage on, but in the meantime, Blair thinks that sharing the responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies could have a bigger impact on abortion than any legislation.

“When we talk about pregnancy prevention, we talk to women about it. We talk to young girls about it. They need to get on the pill. They need to be so careful,” says Blair. “The work of pregnancy prevention sits entirely on women's shoulders. They're like, well the woman just needs to ask the man to wear a condom. Insist he wears a condom. Why? How is that 50-50?"

“So she's responsible for her own body and you're asking her to be responsible for the man's body. And if she doesn't ask, does it happen? No," she adds.

Blair says that she has used birth control over the years to plan her pregnancies with her husband. She knows the risks involved in carrying a child, and the toll it can take on a woman's body. She says asking women to bear the physical, mental and sometimes life-threatening burden of childbirth is not something we should take lightly.

“It's the most dangerous thing that people willingly do to their bodies,” explains Blair. “We ask 84% of women to have babies. I don't say we ask them, we just assume they will. And we don't ask men to do anything that dangerous in those percentages. There's just nothing.”

It's safe to assume that talking about pregnancy prevention doesn’t sound sexy, but Blair promises she isn't trying to ruin the sex lives of anyone. She's just applying a common sense approach to a conversation that usually leaves people exhausted and further entrenched in their ideals.

“We've been debating this for decades and we've never come to an agreement. It's not something we're ever gonna agree on," says Blair. "If we shift the conversation and take the emotion out of it and take the baby out of it, then we avoid all of that, and all of a sudden we can talk to each other rationally about what can we really do."

—Video produced by Jacquie Cosgrove

History 101 for Christian nationalists: Founders wanted religion kept out of government

Kenneth D. Wald
Tue, October 18, 2022 

The media has alerted us to surging public support among Republicans for declaring the United States a Christian nation.

In a national survey by a respected polling institute, that sentiment was endorsed by roughly three-fifths of all Republicans and almost 80% of Republicans who identify themselves as Evangelicals or born-again Christians. Some prominent Republicans have gone further by insisting that separation of religion and state is a myth.

The advocates of Christian nationalism might be chastened if they learned about an instructive exchange between George Washington and the Presbyterian ministers of New Hampshire and Massachusetts just six months after the president had taken the oath of office in 1789.

A painting of President George Washington by artist Gilbert Stuart from 1796, at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.

In an otherwise effusive letter praising Washington, the ministers complained about a crucial omission from the U.S. Constitution. They wanted language recognizing the United States as a Christian nation. As they told the president, “we should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some Explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent” in the Constitution.

Although President Washington praised the ministers for their devotion to spreading the Gospel, he instructed them gently that this was not the task of the government. It would be best if responsibility for moral uplift was assigned “to the guidance of the ministers of the gospel.” The government should be left out of it.

In fact, Washington he insisted, “... the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.” This perspective, not hostility nor indifference to religion, accounted for “the absence of any regulation respecting religion” in the Constitution.

As Washington saw it, religious institutions were part of civil society and did not possess political authority under the Constitution. He had endorsed this principle five years earlier when he opposed a Virginia bill authorizing public funds to pay for Protestant teachers of religion.

Washington’s explanation did not end other attempts to characterize the United States as a Christian nation. Just 40 years later, Congress was besieged with petitions to end the transport and delivery of the mail on Sundays, the Christian sabbath. The response of the House Committee on Post Offices was provided by Richard Johnson of Kentucky, a former vice president who later held a U.S. Senate seat.

The committee had searched the Constitution in vain for any indication that Congress could stop the Postal Service from doing its job for explicitly religious reasons. The very idea was repugnant to constitutional values.

Johnson argued that members of Congress are supposed to represent their constituents but they are chosen “to represent their political, and not their religious views.” The Constitution, he reminded his colleagues, “regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian.” Hence, Congress has no authority to violate the conscience of any citizen by declaring one day of the week more holy than another.

These examples, which could be multiplied, show that the founders of the Republic, including George Washington, James Madison and other signers of the Constitution, insisted that the United States had no official religious identity. Even if a majority of the population were Christian, that conferred no governmental authority upon them.

George Washington's signature is seen on a personal copy of the acts of the first Congress (1789), containing the U.S. Constitution and the proposed Bill of Rights. [AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File]

This principle was intended as much to protect religion from the state as the state from religion. When religion exercises the power of government, an 1839 report on the mails declared, “Christianity degenerates into an instrument of oppression and loses all its beauty and moral excellence.” By contrast, religion flourishes most fully “unaided by the secular arm” of the state.

It is not clear what would be accomplished by declaring Christianity as the religion of the United States apart from conferring second-class citizenship on people who were not Christians. Given the diversity of political views among Christians, it would be extremely challenging even to identify what government policies or regulations would represent that religious tradition.

Christian nationalists, who often describe themselves as constitutional conservatives, might want to conserve the Founders’ approach to religion rather than trying to undermine it.

Kenneth D. Wald is distinguished professor emeritus of political science at the University of Florida and the author of “Religion and Politics in the United States,” forthcoming in its ninth edition.
Join the conversation

This article originally appeared on The Gainesville Sun: Kenneth D. Wald: Founding Fathers differed from Christian nationalists

Webb Telescope Shows the Pillars of Creation Like You’ve Never Seen Them Before

Isaac Schultz
Wed, October 19, 2022 


The Pillars of Creation as seen by the Hubble and Webb Space Telescopes.

The Pillars of Creation as seen by Hubble telescope (left) and Webb telescope (right).

The Webb Space Telescope has just imaged what might be its most iconic target yet: the Pillars of Creation, a monumental arm of the Eagle Nebula.

The pillars are so-named for their magnitude. They are light-years-long tendrils of gas and dust that reach out like the grand fingers of a cosmic hand. The recent image, taken by Webb’s Near-Infrared Camera, or NIRCam, highlights the bright red sites of new star births.

Small red dots on the edges of the pillars are baby stars—only a few hundred thousand years old, according to the Webb team. The red, lava-like streaks in the clouds are ejections from stars being formed. These nascent gas balls send off jets of material that strike the gas in the pillars, causing energetic hydrogen molecules in the system to glow.

The pillars sit in the Eagle Nebula, a cloud of dust and gas about 6,500 light-years from Earth. The entire nebula measures about 70 light-years by 55 light-years; the Pillars of Creation are a roughly 5 light-year-long arm of the larger structure.

The Pillars of Creation are long tendrils of gas and dust, in which stars are born.

The Pillars of Creation in remarkable detail, seen by Webb telescope.

Though the nebula was discovered in 1745, the pillars only became globally famous when they were imaged in glorious detail by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995. Hubble then re-imaged the site in visible light in 2014. When seen side-by-side with Webb’s infrared view, it’s clear how dazzling the new image is. (You also can check out full-resolution, uncompressed versions of these images directly from the Space Telescope Science Institute.)

The pillars—brown and turbid in Hubble’s view—appear luminous and orange to Webb. The backdrop of gas and deep space turns from an opaque turquoise to a bedazzlement of stars, shining through a sea of lapis lazuli gas. That’s because Webb’s image highlights the hydrogen atoms in the gas, which shine in blue light. The Webb telescope’s infrared eye also penetrates through dense clouds of dust and gas, allowing it to see previously unknown regions of star formation.

At the angle captured by Webb, it’s no stretch of the imagination to see Michelangelo’s famous Creation of Adam evoked by the reach of the massive pillars. The image also is a reminder of how dynamic space is, even on massive scales: what appears resolute in Hubble’s view seems much more animated from Webb’s perspective.

In the months to come, Webb will take more images that will key researchers in to how stars are born, how galaxies evolve, the most ancient light we can see, and even the structure of the planets nearest to us.

You can keep track of what Webb is viewing at any given moment thanks to this handy Twitter bot. Of course, keywords like “white dwarf” and “spiral galaxies” don’t do a shred of justice to the objects they describe. The majesty of space defies description, especially as seen through the palantir that is Webb.

More: Are the Colors in Webb Telescope Images ‘Fake’?

World's female foreign ministers to meet on Iran, Canada says


U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken holds a joint news conference with Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly in Washington


Wed, October 19, 2022 

(Reuters) - The world's female foreign ministers will discuss ongoing protests in Iran during a virtual meeting this week hosted by Canada, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly said in a statement on Wednesday.

Joly and her counterparts will meet on Thursday amid unrest ignited by Iranian Mahsa Amini's death last month while being held by Tehran's morality police, triggering one of the boldest challenges to the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution.

"My counterparts and I will gather to send a clear message: the Iranian regime must end all forms of violence and persecution against the Iranian people, including their brutal aggressions against women in particular," Joly said.

"Canada will continue to stand by the courageous Iranians who are fighting for their human rights and standing up for their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. Women's rights are human rights," she said.

During the virtual meeting, the officials would hear from women of Iranian heritage and discuss the state of women's and human rights in Iran, Joly's office said, adding that it would give them an opportunity to coordinate efforts and discuss on "ways to increase their collective support for the Iranian people."

Canada had joined other nations, including the United States, in imposing sanctions on Iran.

While the current unrest does not appear close to toppling the Iranian government, the situation has raised international concerns as talks on Iran's nuclear capabilities appear at a stalemate and Tehran has moved to support Russia's invasion in Ukraine in defiance of the West.

Iran has accused countries who have expressed support for the protests of meddling in its internal affairs.

The focus on Iranian women continued on Wednesday, as climber Elnaz Rekabi, who caused controversy by competing in an international contest without a veil, returned to Iran.

Amini, who hailed from Iran's Kurdistan region, died Sept. 16 after being detained three days earlier by morality police in Tehran for her "inappropriate attire".

Iran's religious leaders have tried to portray the unrest as part of a breakaway uprising by the Kurdish minority threatening the nation's unity, rather than a protest against clerical rule.)

Iranian-American women say they want to give a voice to the voiceless amid protests in Iran

Anna Kaplan
Wed, October 19, 2022

As women and girls continue to protest and challenge the government in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini, women across the world are joining in demonstrations and speaking out.

TODAY co-anchor Hoda Kotb spoke with three women of Iranian descent who said they feel compelled to give a voice to the voiceless in an interview aired on Oct. 19.

"What’s going on in Iran now is unprecedented. And it’s been brewing ... for a long time," said Nina Ansary, an Iranian–American historian and author. "But what’s happened now with the younger generation is joining in the protests. This is something that had not happened before."

Protests broke out in Iran in September following the death of 22-year-old Amini. Amini died while in custody of Iran's morality police, who arrested her in the capital of Tehran on Sept. 13 for allegedly violating the country’s strictly enforced dress code, NBC News reported.

Three days after her arrest, she was dead. Police have said Amini became ill and fell into a coma, but her family has said witnesses told them she was beaten by officers, NBC News reported.

The Iranian Legal Medical Organization, which describes itself as independent but is part of the country’s judiciary, said in a report released on Oct. 7 that Amini died of multiple organ failure.

Young women have been leading the protests in Iran. Videos shared on social media have shown hundreds of young women marching in the streets, taking off their hijabs and cutting their hair over the past few weeks. Ansary called the young women "the faces of courage."

Hoda Kotb with Nina Ansary, an Iranian–American historian and author, Ava Majlesi, an associate professor of political science at Rutgers University, and Nasrin Sheykhi, a political cartoonist. (TODAY)

"I wish I had their courage at that age. But it just goes to show you, they’re messing with the wrong generation," Ansary said. "This generation is not going to back down."

"There are tremendous risks to them — arrest, torture, killing," Ava Majlesi, associate professor of political science at Rutgers University, added. "But they’re still out there."

Nasrin Sheykhi, a political cartoonist, told Hoda that women all over the world have joined in solidarity with protesters in Iran. "Other women, all over the world, they’re joining to this kind of movement to cut their hair," Sheykhi said. "And they say, 'We are with you.'"

Ansary, 56, said it takes a "tremendous amount" of courage and resilience for these women to take to the streets under Iran's regime. Since 1979, women in Iran have been required to wear a headscarf and loose clothing while in public.

"It just shows the depth of desperation on the part of the Iranian population," Ansary said. "This is the culmination of 43 years of a regime whose legacy to date has been one of egregious human rights violations."

Ansary recalled living in Iran before the cusp of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when she remembered seeing women wearing both hijabs or headscarves and modern clothing.

"When you were walking through the streets of Tehran, the capital city, you honestly felt like you were walking in Paris," she said. "It’s really unfortunate, where we were and where we’ve ended up."

Majlesi, 40, shared that the last time she was in Iran, around the age of 13 or 14, about two inches of her leg was showing — unbeknownst to her.

"Someone approached me and said, 'You’d better cover up,'" she said. "It was crazy to me. But I did what I was told and, you know, pulled down my coat and pulled up my sock."

Hoda asked when the women felt their lowest while watching what is happening in Iran. Ansary said seeing images of the morality police "beating up young children."

"As a mother, I literally want to fly there and hug these children," she said, getting emotional. "It’s just very difficult to watch. And it’s even more difficult to watch that this regime is getting away with this. And no one is stopping them."

Sheykhi, 33, said she also felt the lowest while seeing those images, and that she wished she could be on the streets with the protesters in Iran.

"At least I could die, but I knew what I’m dying for," Sheykhi said.

Ansary added she felt "so helpless here," but that she believed tensions had reached a boiling point.

"Iranian civil society has reached the end of their road," she said. "There’s no going back. And you can feel it this time."

This article was originally published on TODAY.com

UK
MPs allege bullying during chaotic fracking vote



Wed, October 19, 2022 

Conservative MPs were bullied and manhandled into backing Liz Truss in a vote on fracking, according to MPs who witnessed the scenes.

Cabinet ministers deny claims they used physical force to persuade colleagues to vote with the government.

But Labour's Chris Bryant called for an investigation into what "looked like bullying".

Meanwhile, Tory MPs told the BBC that chief whip Wendy Morton, and the deputy chief whip, are no longer in post.

One furious Tory MP described the chaotic events as a "shambles and a disgrace".

Visibly shaken, senior Conservative MP Charles Walker said what he saw as "inexcusable" and there was "no coming back" for the government.


Live updates: Braverman quits amid chaotic scenes in Parliament


Shapps replaces Braverman as home secretary


Why are you still here, Starmer asks Truss

To Tory MPs who backed Liz Truss to be prime minister, Mr Walker said "I hope it was worth it".

When asked about allegations made by MPs, Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg told Sky News to "characterise it as bullying was mistaken".

Mr Bryant spoke in the House of Commons after a Labour lost a vote on banning fracking despite a Tory rebellion.

He said MPs should be able to vote "without fear or favour", saying "we want to stand up against bullying".

Labour had tried to use the vote to force the introduction of a law to ban fracking.

Tory whips ordered their MPs to vote against the motion or face being suspended, telling them it was test of confidence in Ms Truss.

But the process was thrown into confusion at the last minute when climate minister Graham Stuart suggest it was not a confidence vote.

Chaotic scenes in the voting lobby followed, as whips tried to get Tory MPs to oppose the Labour motion.

The government won the vote by 326 votes to 230 - a government majority of 96.

The division list on the Parliament's website showed 40 Conservative MPs did not take part, including Ms Truss and Chief Whip Wendy Morton.

Labour shadow minister Anna McMorrin wrote on Twitter that she witnessed one Conservative MP "in tears" in the lobby after the vote.

Ms McMorrin tweeted: "Extraordinary stuff happening here during the vote on fracking which is apparently 'not a confidence vote'.

"I've just witnessed one Tory member in tears being manhandled into the lobby to vote against our motion to continue the ban on fracking."

Labour MP Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, said he witnessed "whips screaming at Tories" and described it as "open warfare".

The vote was the first parliamentary test of the government's fracking plans, but was never likely to be successful given the size of the Conservatives' majority.

Tory MPs to rebel against government over fracking despite threat of losing whip


Tory MPs to rebel against government over fracking despite threat of losing whip

Jane Dalton
Wed, October 19, 2022 at 11:08 AM·2 min read

Tory MPs are openly saying they will vote against the government over fracking – even if they lose the party whip as a punishment.

The vote, on Wednesday evening, is considered a ploy by Labour to try to bring down the government, and the rebellion adds to the pressure Liz Truss’s government is facing.

In an extraordinary instruction, the Tory deputy chief whip declared the clash “a confidence motion” – a status normally given to a vote on the future of a government itself.

It “is a 100 per cent hard 3 line whip”, an email to Conservative MP read, adding: “This is not a motion on fracking. This is a confidence motion in the government.”


But former energy minister Chris Skidmore, who signed net-zero pledges into law, tweeted: “For the sake of our environment and climate, I cannot personally vote tonight to support fracking and undermine the pledges I made at the 2019 General Election.

“I am prepared to face the consequences of my decision.”

Former sports minister Tracey Crouch and MP Angela Richardson both said they would follow suit and were prepared to lose the whip.

Ms Richardson has already called for Liz Truss to resign.

Treasury minister Andrew Griffith, MP for Arundel and South Downs, wrote: “Personally, I do not and have never supported fracking in West Sussex as our dangerous local roads would never support the additional vehicle movements, even if residents consented.”

Labour is attempting to ban the return of fracking with an opposition day vote which, if it passes, will set aside Commons time to force a further binding vote on fracking itself.

Business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg sought to limit a Tory rebellion over shale gas extraction by insisting communities will have a veto on fracking in their area.

He said national government would be unable to overrule the objections from communities, with one option under consideration involving local referendums for areas where fracking is proposed.

Mr Rees-Mogg, in a message directed at Conservative MPs, told the Commons: “There’s an absolute local consent lock.

“Any process to determine local consent must be run independently and this House will vote on any scheme that we bring forward.”

Conservative MP Mark Menzies said he opposed fracking but that he would not support Labour’s motion as they had “gone too far” by taking control of the order paper.

The prime minister’s lifting of a fracking ban imposed in 2019 over earthquake concerns breaks a Tory manifesto pledge not to end the moratorium without science “categorically” showing it is safe.

Suella Braverman launches rant about 'Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati'

Andy Wells
·Freelance Writer
Wed, October 19, 2022 

Suella Braverman has launched an extraordinary rant about 'Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati’.

With prime minister Liz Truss clinging on to her political life, the home secretary unleashed a diatribe against opposition parties on Tuesday.

Speaking on a day that saw major delays on the M25 as Just Stop Oil members protested at the Dartford Crossing, Braverman told MPs: “I’m afraid it’s the Labour Party, it’s the Lib Dems, it’s the coalition of chaos, it’s the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition that we have to thank for the disruption that we are seeing on our roads today.”

Home secretary Suella Braverman has lashed out against 'Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati'. (PA/Getty)

Labour MPs reacted with laughter to the comment.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper branded Braverman’s words “astonishing” adding: “The home secretary actually talked about a coalition of chaos, we can see it in front of us as we speak.”

Just Stop Oil protesters at the Dartford Crossing caused major delays after they scaled the bridge. (PA)

She added: “The government does have concerns when they face issues where you’ve got a selfish minority wreaking havoc, you’ve got someone who’s resisting all attempts by the powers that be to remove them, causing serious disruption, disorder, chaos, with serious consequences for the public, for businesses, for politics and for financial markets, but they’ve glued themselves under the desk.

“With honourable members opposite we wish them luck with their attempts to extricate another failing Tory prime minister from Number 10.”

Suella Braverman blames ‘Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati’ for protest disruption

 

Voices: Liz Truss is still Labour’s

 greatest asset. She must be 

protected at all costs

Sean O'Grady

Wed, October 19, 2022 

The pressure was on for Liz Truss today. She knew it, which is why she used that carefully curated line of Peter Mandelson’s – “I’m a fighter, not a quitter”. Once she cosplayed Maggie: now she’s mimicking Mandy. Dear, oh dear.

As we’ve noted before, every time Truss survives some set piece event like PMQs, it just postpones her inevitable demise. But for how long?

Starmer’s job is to ensure she stays on as leader until it’s too late for them to replace her, and allow her to attempt to lead her party into the next general election and – prospectively – ask for another five years in power. She’s still a terrible liability for the Tory party, and therefore an asset for the opposition.

Keir Starmer, therefore, can’t lose so long as she is there. She will continue to be in office but not in power, her party will stay divided, there’ll be endless plotting and speculation about her future, and she will continue to drag her party down with her.

Starmer used mockery to good effect, and was shrewd enough not to call for her resignation - it’s not going to happen soon anyway. She did OK, and that should suit Starmer fine. The public aren’t all that concerned about PMQs, and they still find her untrustworthy and incompetent. After all, when he was Tory leader William Hague beat Tony Blair week in, week out, and still ended up crushed by New Labour at the following election.

Anything to assist the prime minister in her struggle for survival and the destruction of the Tories under her nominal command is in the longer term national interest. The public despise her, and it needs to be kept that way. Keeping Truss in place is much better than having the Tories select someone more plausible to replace her – Mordaunt, Jeremy Hunt, Rishi Sunak, Kemi Badenoch, maybe.

True, Labour would miss out on the possibility that the Conservatives could end up with an even weaker, more risible figure at the top - Suella Braverman, who is a sort of pound shop version of Boris Johnson. She makes Truss look like Churchill. But surely the Tories can’t be that nuts?

So Liz does need to be protected, subtly, by the leader of the Opposition. Like a boxer or footballer involved in a gambling scam, Starmer has to find a way to throw the match. #Starmerout will trend for a few hours, but that’s fine. If Tory MPs feel good and give her more time just because she’s had a good day in the chamber for a change, it just means they will remain out of touch with the public who can’t stand the sight of her.

With a selfless generosity rarely associated with the Tories, they have now gifted the opposition with three deeply unpopular, hapless leaders in succession. Like Truss, Johnson and Theresa May started out alright, nd seemed formidable enough, but eventually became figures of scorn and popular amusement (in a bad way as far as they’re concerned).

That may suggest that the Tory project, such as it is, has been flawed for some time. Truss’ journey from emerging Iron Lady to Ms Bean has been a remarkably quick one, and it is doing her party no good. If she carries on, she will lead them to oblivion at the next election, and dump them out of office for decades.

Good. It might even, eventually, reverse Brexit. That is why Labour has got Truss just where they want her, and why they need to do whatever it takes to make sure she’s not replaced by someone who knows that they’re doing.

With Braverman out, the Tory Left takeover of Truss's government is complete

ONLY THE TELEGRAPH COULD IDENTIFY A LEFT 

IN THE TORY PARTY

Camilla Tominey

THE TELEGRAPH

Wed, October 19, 2022

Suella Braverman - Carl de Souza/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

To lose one senior member of the Cabinet in a week looks unfortunate. To lose two appears positively careless.

But the departure of Suella Braverman as home secretary speaks to a bigger problem for Liz Truss than sheer optics.

In sacking two key allies on the Right, only for them to be replaced by opponents more to the Left of the party, the Prime Minister is increasingly looking like the victim of a Conservative coup.

It is certainly ironic that the former home secretary, in post for just 43 days, first used that word to describe those who plotted against Ms Truss’s original plan to link benefit to wages rather than inflation.

With that, and most of her mini-Budget up in flames thanks to a rebellion by the moderates, Jeremy Hunt now appears to be the de facto Prime Minister.

He will now be joined by his fellow Sunakite Grant Shapps, who despite being rejected from Ms Truss’s original cabinet, has now been appointed to replace Mrs Braverman at the Home Office.

Regardless of claims that Mrs Braverman sent an official document from her personal email – for which she apologised in her resignation letter – her swift exit from one of the highest posts in public office will anger her European Research Group supporters.

It was only on Tuesday evening that Ms Truss was said to have charmed the backbench group of Eurosceptics with her honest, straight-talking approach.

They are unlikely to take kindly to their former chairman, a darling of the grassroots, being ejected in such unseemly fashion.

Mrs Braverman, a Conservative leadership candidate herself over the summer, received the longest standing ovation at the Tory Party conference two weeks ago.

Penny Mordaunt Liz Truss Therese Coffey - UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor

When taking aim at oil protesters, she told the Commons on Tuesday: “I’m afraid it’s the Labour Party, it’s the Lib Dems, it’s the coalition of chaos, it’s the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating, wokerati – dare I say, the anti-growth coalition – that we have to thank for the disruption we are seeing on our roads today.”

While it might have angered the One Nationers, the comments will have been catnip to the average Tory member and, indeed, whatever voters the Conservatives have left.

If rumours are to be believed that she fell out with Ms Truss over a number of policy issues, after being cut out of migration policy altogether, backbenchers will rightly worry that the Prime Minister may now have gone soft on border control as well as Treasury orthodoxy.
‘The Conservative Party is dead’

Tory grey hairs have already been warning of a party split and a “wet” cabinet takeover only serves to pour oil on troubled waters.

Naturally, Nigel Farage was one of the first to take to Twitter to declare the Conservative Party “dead”:

It seems anti-Tory activists will be relishing their tofu more than ever this evening.

How new UK Prime Minister Liz Truss lost her authority to govern

GUY DAVIES

Wed, October 19, 2022 

It was only six weeks ago that Liz Truss met Queen Elizabeth II and was appointed the new prime minister of the U.K. But six weeks is a long time in British politics and, after a major policy U-turn along with unconvincing attempts to reassure her Conservative party and the public, she is already under major pressure to resign.

Prime Minister Truss, who remained loyal to her predecessor Boris Johnson before his resignation this summer, won the Conservative leadership contest with the promise of a low tax, high growth economy. Her spending plans were criticized by her leadership rival, former finance minister Rishi Sunak, who said “borrowing your way out of inflation is a fairytale” at the time in July.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the government's first major policy plan to advance Truss's economic vision in the House of Commons on Sept. 23. Their package included measures to cut the rate of tax for the highest earners, cancel a planned corporation tax increase, remove a cap on bankers’ bonuses, and all this while also promising billions to tackle the looming threat of rising energy bills ahead of the winter, attributed by the government to the war in Ukraine.

PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Liz Truss attends a press conference in the Downing Street Briefing Room in central London, on Oct. 14, 2022. (Daniel Leal/AP)

The plan was criticized by opposition politicians and economists, and the International Monetary Fund issued a sharp rebuke to their plans, saying in a statement widely interpreted to be scathing that “we do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture” and the budget would “likely increase inequality.”

Economic chaos followed, as the budget triggered an immediate adverse reaction from the markets. The Bank of England, the U.K.’s central bank, was forced to buy government bonds to ease fears that the state pension fund could collapse. Interest rates were forecast to rise, meaning mortgages rates, as well as household bills, were set to increase against a backdrop of rising inflation.

The budget prompted rare criticism from President Biden, who said “I wasn’t the only one that thought it was a mistake,” and that the outcome was “predictable.”

PHOTO: People walk past a mural by artist Ciaran Gallagher, left, which has been updated to reflect Britain's Prime Minister Liz Truss' current political troubles, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Oct. 18, 2022. (Liam Mcburney/AP)

Amid mounting criticism the government attempted to calm the storm, but last week Kwarteng, a long-time supporter and personal friend of Truss, became the first ministerial casualty of the policy, as he was asked to resign as chancellor.

The new chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, then announced an effective reversal of all the key measures introduced in the September budget -- leading many to speculate that he, and not Truss, had become the de facto leader of government policy. Tuesday’s headline in the Daily Mail, which backed her leadership campaign and supported her budget at the time, read: “In Office, But Not In Power.”

PHOTO: British Prime Minister Liz Truss attends a news conference in London, Britain, on Oct. 14, 2022. (Daniel Leal/Pool via REUTERS)

While Truss insisted her plans were right for the country in public, the speed of the collapse in her authority with her Conservative colleagues has generated a great deal of parody. After The Economist magazine quipped that Truss “blew up her own government” so quickly that she had “roughly the shelf-life of a lettuce,” the Daily Star, a tabloid, set up a live stream to monitor if she could outlast a lettuce of their own.

The Conservative Party still command a strong majority in the House of Commons after Boris Johnson’s election win in 2019, and the next public vote is not due until 2024. Truss insisted to the BBC on Monday she will lead her party into the next election, but now the new prime minister faces a daily challenge to stay in office.

How new UK Prime Minister Liz Truss lost her authority to govern originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

UK's Truss: 'Sorry' for the mistakes, but 'I'm sticking around'


Economic Update from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in London

Mon, October 17, 2022 at 3:03 PM·2 min read

LONDON (Reuters) -Britain's Prime Minister Liz Truss apologised for "mistakes" in her programme that caused investor confidence to evaporate and her poll ratings to plunge before nearly all of it was finally shredded on Monday, but said she would not step down.

"I do want to accept responsibility and say sorry for the mistakes that have been made," Truss told the BBC.

"I wanted to act but to help people with their energy bills to deal with the issue of high taxes, but we went too far and too fast."

Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt, who was appointed on Friday after Truss sacked her close ally Kwasi Kwarteng, jettisoned the remaining major planks of her tax-cutting agenda on Monday, including scaling back her vast energy support scheme.


Asked if she was now prime minister in name only, Truss said she had appointed Hunt because she knew she had to change direction.

"It would have been completely irresponsible for me not to act in the national interest in the way where I have," she said.

"It was right that we changed policy."

Truss and Kwarteng attempted to upend British fiscal policy by unveiling 45 billion pounds of unfunded tax cuts last month to snap the economy out of stagnation.

But the response from bond investors was brutal and borrowing costs surged. Lenders pulled mortgage offers and the Bank of England eventually had to step in to stop pension funds going under.

Asked about the impact of her policies, Truss said she understood it was "very difficult" for families across the country and that she would do what she could to help them.

Her two-year energy package, however, was drastically scaled back by Hunt and will now last only until April.

"The most vulnerable will be protected into next winter," she said. "We're looking at exactly how we can do that."

Truss, who became leader less than six weeks ago, is facing a possible revolt from her lawmakers as soon as this week, according to reports.

But she remained defiant on Monday, saying she would lead her Conservatives into the next election.

"I'm sticking around because I was elected to deliver for this country," she said. "And that is what I am determined to do."

(Reporting by Paul SandleEditing by Chris Reese and Deepa Babington)