HE WAS A BANKER

Carol Vorderman Lays Into Rishi Sunak Following His Proposed 'Maths To 18' Plans

The former Countdown star was left questioning whether the PM lives in a "parallel universe" following his speech earlier this week.


Daniel Welsh
05/01/2023 


Carol Vorderman
KEN MCKAY/ITV/SHUTTERSTOCK

Carol Vorderman has hit out at prime minister Rishi Sunak following his proposed plans to make studying Maths until the age of 18 mandatory in Britain.

Earlier this week, during his first speech of 2023, Sunak stated that he wanted to “reimagine” the UK’s “approach to numeracy”, claiming that “data is everywhere and statistics underpin every job”.

However, in an interview on LBC on Thursday, Maths whizz Carol seemed unconvinced.

The former Countdown star – who describes herself as “politically independent” – questioned whether the PM is living in a “parallel universe”.

“People are suffering,” she told presenter Nick Ferrari. “I came from a very poor family – single parent, three kids – I was born in 1960 so I’m aged 62 now, and I was a free school meals kid all my life; I know how hard it is.

“He’s saying ‘Oh, my education was important’. Yes, it was important, you went to Winchester which is like Eton B, it’s a private school.”

Carol continued: “Does he have any conception of what real people are having to go through and the lack of opportunities for children?

“And the only way we can change this country is when children particularly are given equal opportunity. I am deeply passionate about it.”

Reflecting on the Prime Minister’s proposed scheme, Vorders stated her belief that “the system is not working for that”.

LONDON, ENGLAND, JANUARY 04: Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks during his first major domestic speech of the year at Plexal, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park on January 4, 2023 in London, England. (Photo by Stefan Rousseau - WPA Pool/Getty Images)
WPA POOL VIA GETTY IMAGES

Instead, she offered up the idea that the syllabus switch more complicated Maths to focus more on “practical” skills.

“Let’s just take a practical view and come up with something you don’t teach to the test, you can do it online, re-do it online, where you have a little video lesson and then you have a little test after so it’s like micro-tests every day,” she suggested.

“You don’t need to teach to an exam all the time because, sadly, teachers and schools have to keep doing this.

“They spend whole terms teaching how to answer a particular question which is set by an educationist, rather than the practicality about mortgages, about your salary, about tax, about all of those practical things that will help these kids as they get older.”

Carol was previously asked by the Conservative party to lead a review into the teaching of Maths in schools back in 2009.

The former Loose Women anchor told LBC that she will not work with Sunak unless he provides more information on his tax returns and the so-called VIP lane over personal protective equipment (PPE)

Sunak’s speech on Wednesday was met with a lukewarm response at the time, with many of his critics online pointing out that he had left out many pressing issues facing the country right now – most notably the state of the health service.

Simon Pegg fumes at Rishi Sunak’s plan to extend maths study age


The Mission: Impossible actor took to Instagram to air his frustration and accused the Prime Minister of wanting a ‘drone army of data-entering robots’

By Lisa McLoughlin

Simon Pegg has shared an impassioned response to Rishi Sunak’s plan to make pupils study maths until the age of 18, branding the Prime Minister a “pr***”.

The Mission: Impossible actor took to Instagram to air his frustrations over the tentative decision to favour the subject over arts and humanities.

He fumed: “So Rishi Sunak, our unmandated, unelected prime minister twice removed, has decided it should be compulsory for children to learn maths up until the age of 18 – what a pr***.

“What about arts and humanities and fostering this country’s amazing reputation for creativity and self-expression?

“What about that? What about the kids that don’t want to do maths? I hated maths,” Mr Pegg continued.

“I dropped Maths as soon as I could and I’ve never needed it other than the skillset I acquired at the age of 12.



Pegg vented on social media / Instagram/SimonPegg

“But no. Rishi Sunak wants a f***ing drone army of data-entering robots.”

Before furiously adding: “F*** the Tories. Get rid of them. Please! F*** you, Rishi Sunak, and f*** the Tories.”

The Prime Minister outlined five promises for the year ahead during a speech in east London on Wednesday (January 4), which included halving inflation and bringing down NHS waiting lists.

Mr Sunak separately spoke about the importance of improving numeracy as he pledged to make it a central objective of the UK education system.

Speaking to an audience in Stratford, he said: “Right now, just half of all 16 to 19-year-olds study any maths at all.

“Yet in a world where data is everywhere and statistics underpin every job, our children’s jobs will require more analytical skills than ever before, and letting our children out into the world without those skills is letting our children down.”

The Prime Minister said the plan would not mean a compulsory A-level for maths for everyone and may not be achieved in this Parliament.

However, a teacher and education experts said the policy does not address major problems in the wider education system, including the already “severe shortage of maths teachers”.

UK rail workers strike over pay, job security and working conditions

Lauren Ban | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US

JANUARY 3, 2023 

UK rail workers Tuesday launched their first day of strike action over disputes between workers and companies on pay, jobs and working conditions. The strike action is expected to affect 14 train operators from Tuesday through Friday, reducing rail travel to 20 percent of regular services.

The National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers (RMT) announced the strike action Monday. According to RMT, close to 40,000 rail workers will strike this week against 14 train operating companies. The action is expected to shut down “most rail services across the country.” Another rail union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), is also expected to stage a one-day strike action on Thursday.

RMT claims that government ministers are responsible for blocking the unions’ efforts to negotiate on pay, job security and working conditions. RMT general secretary Mick Lynch spoke to BBC Breakfast Tuesday and apologized for the effect the strike is having on UK commuters. ASLEF general secretary Mick Whelan said, “We don’t want to go on strike but the companies have pushed us into this place.” Lynch said, “All the parties involved know what needs to be done to get a settlement. But the government is blocking that settlement and doing nothing about this dispute.”

Secretary of State for Transport Mark Harper, however, claimed that he had offered a new and improved pay and reform offers. Harper said that two rail unions already accepted the offer while RMT refused. Harper called for workers to “get off the picket line and back round the table” to negotiate a “fair” deal.

The rail strike comes in the midst of several other sector strikes in the UK, a country which faced serious economic downturn months ago during a shake up in UK leadership. On December 15, UK nurses went on strike for the first time in UK history over stagnant pay. On September 5, UK criminal barristers began an indefinite strike–which was resolved in October–in an effort to increase legal aid funding from the government. On October 24, UK university and college union members voted in favor of a strike because of pay disputes and pension cuts.

RMT said the union, companies and the government attempted to resolve the issue during the Christmas period but were unable to arrange any formal negotiations to resolve the dispute. Union representatives are expected to meet with government officials and heads of rail companies early next week.

Edinburgh school strikes: Teachers 'not backing down' ahead of more planned strike action next week

School strikes will take place across Edinburgh next week

By Kevin Quinn
Updated 5th Jan 2023, 

The Edinburgh local association secretary for the EIS has said her members are not backing down in their attempts to secure a better deal on pay and conditions ahead of more strikes next week, with future walk-outs planned for later in the month.

Edinburgh school teachers are scheduled to take part in a second round of industrial action as part of their long-running pay and conditions dispute with COSLA and the Scottish Government. With primary school teachers walking out on Tuesday (January 10) and secondary school teachers walking out on Wednesday (January 11). Protests are planned at COSLA’s offices at Haymarket on Tuesday and at the First Minister’s official residence of Bute House the following day.

Teachers turned down a deal which would offer most staff in classrooms a five per cent pay rise, although the lowest-earning teachers would receive a 6.85 per cent increase. The Scottish Government, however, has insisted that a 10 per cent increase for all teachers is not affordable within its fixed budget. Teachers first went on strike in November, with a large protest taking place at the Scottish Parliament.

Striking teachers protested outside Holyrood in November.

‘Our members can’t afford to live just now’

EIS Edinburgh secretary Alison Murphy told the Evening News she hopes the strike action next week will see parents and carers put more pressure on the Scottish Government and COSLA to offer a new deal.

She said: “There is no sign of a deal yet. Unfortunately the Scottish Government and COSLA have not come back with anything at all. Just the same re-hashed offers with the numbers changed around, that would have left our members significantly worse off.

"I hope we don’t have to have the strikes, we don’t want to close schools, teachers want to be in classes teaching their pupils. We hope that parents and carers put pressure on the Scottish Government and COSLA to sort this out.”

Alison said strikes will continue if no deal is reached, with teachers struggling every day in schools across the country, and pupils suffering as a result.

She said: "Edinburgh schools will be out again on January 25, with other schools across the country also walking out in a continued wave of strike action. This is going to continue as our members can’t afford to live just now. We are really struggling with the retention of staff, who are leaving in droves. The stresses and the pressures are too much.

"Pay is only one factor, as teachers are worried about bills and everything else. It’s having a real impact on children because they are not getting the education they need as teachers can’t focus because of all the worries.”

Alison also accused the Scottish Government and COSLA of trying to pit teachers against other public sector workers. She said: "The Scottish Government and COSLA need to realise we are serious about this. Our members can’t afford to take the offer on the table at the moment. So this action will continue.

"They spent a lot of time during the pandemic talking about how essential we were. We are not saying we deserve a better pay offer than other sectors, everybody deserves a fair and decent pay rise. Trying to divide and conquer by comparing us with other sector workers is a foolish tactic. We won't fall for it.”

‘Strikes in our schools are in no one’s interest’

Education Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville, who is scheduled to meet with teaching unions on Friday (January 6), said: “We are committed to a fair, sustainable settlement for Scotland’s teachers and continue to engage constructively with teaching unions and COSLA. We would urge unions to postpone their plans for industrial action while talks are ongoing.

“The most recent pay offer – the fourth which has been put to unions - would have meant a 21.8 per cent cumulative increase in teacher pay since 2018, but was rejected. Strikes in our schools are in no one’s interest – least of all for pupils, parents and carers who have already faced significant disruption over the past three years.”

UK

Sunak Proposes Laws To 'Sack Teachers And Nurses For Going On Strike'

Report suggests prime minister's anti-strike legislation could be announced this week.

Graeme Demianyk
05/01/2023

Rishi Sunak during his first major domestic speech of 2023 on Wednesday.
STEFAN ROUSSEAU VIA PA WIRE/PA IMAGES

Rishi Sunak is set to announce new anti-strike laws that will allow employers to sack workers who take industrial action – including teachers and nurses.

In a desperate effort to curb the wave of strikes crippling the UK, the prime minister could bring forward legislation to ensure so-called minimum service levels as early as Thursday in six sectors, including the health service, rail, education, fire and border security, The Times reported.

Strikes would be deemed illegal if trade unions refused to provide the minimum level of service, the newspaper quoted a government source involved in the discussions as saying.

Employers will be able to sue unions and sack workers under the government plans, the report added.

However, a significant pay rise for public sector workers is also reportedly under consideration as a means of ending the strikes, according to the paper.




A source told the paper: “This legislation will remove the legal immunity for strikes where unions fail to implement a minimum level of service. The strikes will be illegal. Ultimately people could be fired for breach of contract.”

The move is unlikely to directly affect the current round of disputes. MPs do not return until next week, and even if the legislation jumps hurdles in the Commons and the Lords, unions are likely to mount a legal challenge.

Sunak last month indicated he wanted to introduce anti-strike laws to protect people’s lives and minimise the disruption on their livelihoods.

The prime minister was asked on Wednesday about the wave of strikes sweeping across the country, replying that his government’s door was always open for dialogue.

He said: “You’ll hear more from the government in the coming days about our approach.

“My view is people should always behave reasonably and fairly and make sure that what we’re doing is centred around what is responsible for the country, what’s affordable for the country.

“I think that’s the right dialogue to be having, and I hope we can have that dialogue.”

He said “people should have the right to strike”, adding “that has to be balanced with the right of the British public to go about their lives without suffering completely undue disruption in the way we’ve seen recently”.

Sunak added: “And that’s why I have said we will introduce new legislation that restores that balance and crucially protects people’s lives as well as their livelihoods.”

Sunak to detail anti-strike laws soon – 

Report

Britain has faced a wave of industrial action over the last few months, with strikes crippling various sectors including the rail network set to continue as surging inflation follows more than 10 years of stagnant wage growth.

• Melvin Samuel
 
• 05 January, 2023

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak arrives to deliver his first major domestic speech of the year at Plexal, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park on January 4, 2023 in London, England. (Photo by Stefan Rousseau – WPA Pool/Getty Images)

By: Melvin Samuel

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak could set out details of a planned new law to curb strikes as soon as Thursday, The Times reported, saying ministers intend to make industrial action illegal in some sectors if minimum service levels are not met.

The Times newspaper said the legislation would enforce minimum service levels in six sectors, including the health service, rail, education, fire and border security, which would require a proportion of union members to continue working.

Britain has faced a wave of industrial action over the last few months, with strikes crippling various sectors including the rail networkset to continue as surging inflation follows more than 10 years of stagnant wage growth.

The strikes would be deemed illegal if unions refused to provide the minimum level of service, the newspaper quoted a government source involved in the discussions as saying.

Employers would be able to sue unions and sack staff under government plans to curb the right to strike, the report added.

The Prime Minister’s office declinedto comment. On Wednesday Sunak said the government would set out its next steps “in the coming days”.

Opposition Labour leader Keir Starmer said if his party won the next election, expected in 2024, it would repeal the law.

“We’ll look at what they bring forward, but if it’s further restrictions, then we will repeal it,” Starmer said during a question and answer session following a speech on Thursday.

“I do not think that legislation is the way that you bring an end to industrial disputes. You have to get in the room and compromise.”

Sunak told Daily Mail in an interview last month the new law would protect people’s lives and minimise the disruption to their livelihoods.

The head of rail union ASLEF, Mick Whelan, told Reuters Britain already had among the worst trade union laws in Europe.

“Surely people have a right to strike. I don’t see any pernicious legislation coming forward to deal with bad employers,” he said.

New TUC boss calls for urgent meeting with Rishi Sunak to break strike deadlock

Wednesday 4 January 2023 

Paul Nowak took up the role of general secretary of the TUC in December.

Credit: PA Wire/PA Images

The new general secretary of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) has called for an urgent meeting with the prime minister in a bid to break the deadlocked industrial disputes sweeping across the country.

Paul Nowak, who took up his role at the TUC on December 29, called for a change in government direction, saying ministers should open pay negotiations with unions.

It comes as rail workers continue a 48 hour strike, with more stoppages planned this month in the transport industry, NHS and civil service.

In a letter to Rishi Sunak, Mr Nowak said public services were in crisis after years of “underfunding and understaffing.”

Mick Lynch (centre), RMT general secretary, joins members on the picket line outside London Euston train station.

Credit: PA

He wrote: “We can’t solve these problems without a fair deal for the people on the frontline.

“Every month experienced employees are quitting, with one in three public service staff now taking steps to leave their professions or actively considering it. This is simply unsustainable.

“But we cannot fix the staffing crisis in our schools, hospitals and elsewhere if we do not fix the underlying causes.

“That means talking in an open and constructive way about improving public sector pay. But so far your ministers have refused to negotiate directly about pay with unions.”
New TUC leader says 'ball is in government's court' to put an end to strikes

Mr Nowak said unions worked closely with Mr Sunak during the pandemic to deliver the furlough scheme and protect millions of jobs.“That’s the kind of mature approach we need now," he continued.

“Unions have already made clear their willingness to sit down with the government and talk about boosting pay. But while your ministers continue to refuse point blank to discuss improving wages, there can be no resolution.

What is Sunak’s strikes strategy?

The TUC boss said unions worked closely with Mr Sunak during the pandemic to deliver the furlough scheme and protect millions of jobs.

Credit: PA

“In the NHS, for example, appropriate structures already exist to allow the immediate start of pay negotiations involving health unions, employers and ministers. This was exactly what happened in 2018, leading to the three-year wage deal.

“We want to find a resolution to the current disputes so our public service staff can get on with doing the jobs they love. And so our public services can start to improve for everyone who relies on them.”

Around half of Britain’s railway lines are closed and only a fifth of services are running as tens of thousands of workers at Network Rail and train operators walk out on the second day of the strike, with another to begin on Friday.

On Wednesday, the DVSA driving examiners’ strike starts in London, the South East, South Wales and the South West, while traffic officer service workers at National Highways will continue their walkout.
Who is striking when? A timeline of public sector walkouts in January 2023

Meanwhile, industrial action by the UK-wide National Highways and Rural Payments Agency staff will continue.

London bus workers at Abellio will also begin a two-day strike – the first in a series of action planned by the group throughout January.

More industrial action is planned later in the month by workers in the transport sector, along with staff in the NHS and civil service.

Workers have lost £20,000, on average, in real wages since 2008 as a result of pay not keeping up with inflation, and by 2025 the loss will total £24,000, according to TUC analysis.Nurses have lost £42,000 in real earnings since 2008, midwives £56,000 and paramedics £56,000, with workers facing another year of "pay misery", said the TUC.

The government argues it has agreed to the recommendations made by independent pay review bodies and that double digit pay rises would push inflation up further.

 OPINION

Call for Restraints in US Arms Transfers to Ukraine

By Natalie Goldring

F-16A fighter aircraft. Credit: US Air Force photo

ARLINGTON, Virginia, Jan 5 2023 (IPS) - More than 10 months since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States and its allies continue to seek the most effective military, humanitarian, political, and economic means of assisting Ukraine.

In his December 2022 visit to Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly reiterated his desire for advanced US weapons; Ukraine’s wish list includes Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter aircraft. Fulfilling President Zelensky’s request for US combat aircraft and tanks would be a significant escalation of the US military commitment to Ukraine and could further increase the risks associated with that commitment.

The situation is fraught, with threats of conventional war beyond Ukraine’s borders and even possible nuclear weapons use, as well as uncertainty about weapons suppliers’ ability to ensure that the weapons transferred reach their intended users and are not retransferred.

Danger of transferring weapons and munitions that could be used to attack Russia

The US weapons that have been transferred to Ukraine so far have been largely defensive in nature; these include anti-aircraft and anti-armor systems. The US has reportedly not provided the munitions with the longest range for systems such as rocket launchers, making it more difficult for Ukrainian forces to strike far beyond the Ukrainian-Russian border.

In contrast, weapons such as battle tanks and fighter aircraft can be used in offensive roles that may increase the likelihood of Russian reprisals against the United States and our European allies. In particular, providing weapons that can reach deep into Russian territory may increase the likelihood of escalation, with Russia potentially responding by attacking countries in Europe that have assisted with Ukraine’s war effort.

Through its actions, the US government implicitly seems to assume that the Russian government will perceive these transfers the way that the US government wants them to — as defensive in nature. There’s no guarantee that this will be the case. And even if the Russian government does not deliberately choose escalation, it may still occur because of accident, mistake, or miscalculation. Focusing US aid on defensive weapons and shorter-range munitions is likely to decrease this risk.

Insufficient accountability for weapons transfers

Far too often, the US government transfers weapons and ammunition without putting sufficient systems in place to ensure accountability for their storage, deployment, and use. Without robust controls, these weapons can be stolen and sold to the highest bidder or transferred to other conflicts.

The capture of US weapons by Russia would present a particular threat — the potential disclosure of US technology through Russian reverse engineering of US weapons systems.

The hurried nature of transfers to Ukraine further increases the likelihood of diversion. Continuing to expand the number and capability of US weapons provided may also exacerbate these risks.

In addition, even if US military forces are not deployed in Ukraine, in the future they could still face US weapons that were diverted to other conflicts.

The risk of diversion can be reduced by verifying that only authorized users receive US weapons and ammunition, that they carefully track the deployment and use of the weapons, and that weapons and their ammunition are securely stored when not deployed. In addition, diversion to other conflicts can be reduced by destroying the weapons and ammunition that remain when the conflict ends.

US even more dominant in assistance to Ukraine than in global conventional weapons transfers

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States continues to be the world’s largest supplier of conventional weapons, supplying nearly 40 percent of the global value of weapons transferred from 2017-2021. This was virtually identical to the total value of weapons transferred by the next four countries during the same period (Russia, France, China, and Germany). US dominance in aid to Ukraine is even more pronounced.

In conjunction with President Zelensky’s visit to Washington, the US Department of Defense announced the 28th drawdown of US defense stocks to aid Ukraine since August 2021. The press release acknowledging the latest commitments indicated that the US has provided more than $21 billion in security assistance since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The omnibus spending bill that President Biden signed in late December 2022 contains $47 billion in additional military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.

In contrast, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) issued a press release on 30 December 2022 stating that the UK had provided £2.3bn of military aid in 2022, and that this was second only to the United States. The MOD also indicated that they planned to provide the same level of funding in 2023. This commitment is a small fraction of US assistance.

As with other US transfers of conventional weapons, transfers to Ukraine risk diversion to other countries and other conflicts. US dominance of the supply of weapons means that it also holds a disproportionate responsibility for the use and potential misuse of the weapons.

Danger of nuclear weapons use

During the Cold War, one of the most significant concerns was that a conventional war might escalate to the nuclear level. Analysts and political leaders alike recognized while this could take place because of deliberate action, it could also occur because of accident or miscalculation.

This likelihood of nuclear use persists today, and is arguably higher as a result of Russian President Putin’s threat to use all means of military force in the conflict in Ukraine.

If Russia is losing the conventional war, they may decide to turn to nuclear weapons to try to change the war’s outcome. The US providing Ukraine with weapons designed primarily for offensive use may increase this risk.

The continued use of nuclear threats is yet another illustration of the danger of nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, this danger continues. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides a roadmap for escaping this existential threat.

Danger of ignoring long-term risks in favor of potential short-term gains

Taken together, these risks highlight the danger of giving priority to potential short-term political and military gains over longer-term negative consequences.

Further weapons transfers to Ukraine need to be subjected to rigorous analysis of potential long-term consequences before the transfers occur. Saying yes to Ukraine may be the easier response from a short-term perspective.

For example, saying yes is likely to enhance the political connection between the US and Ukraine, and military contractor’s profit from weapons sales. However, that response may well endanger US security interests in the longer term.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, a Visiting Professor of the Practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, also represents the Acronym Institute at the United Nations on conventional and nuclear disarmament issues.

IPS UN Bureau

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Two Years After the January 6 Attack, Voters Blame Trump and Support Criminal Charges

By Kirby Phares and Lew Blank

Two years ago on January 6, hundreds of rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol building in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The attack was spurred by President Donald Trump, who falsely denied the legitimacy of the election and encouraged followers to challenge the results in court and state legislatures. Over the past year and a half, the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the attack interviewed thousands of people and held multiple hearings to present its findings on Trump’s involvement in the insurrection. The committee recently released its final report, which concluded that Trump was singularly responsible for the attack on the Capitol.

From December 22-29, 2022, Data for Progress conducted a poll of 1,189 likely voters to analyze the sentiment around the January 6 attack two years later. We find that majorities of voters believe that Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election, disapprove of Trump supporters’ actions on January 6, and find Trump responsible for the insurrection. We also find that voters support criminal charges against Trump.

We first asked voters whether the 2020 presidential election was fairly won by Biden or stolen from Trump. A majority of voters (57 percent) believe that Biden legitimately won the election, including 92 percent of Democratic voters, 55 percent of Independents, and 26 percent of Republicans.




Furthermore, a majority of voters disapprove of supporters of Trump who stormed the U.S. Capitol in hopes of overturning the election. Specifically, a +77-point margin of Democrats, a +63-point margin of Independents, and a +34-point margin of Republicans believe that supporters were wrong to incite violence and threaten American democracy. Less than a third of Republican voters agree that January 6 rioters were justified in their actions by standing up for Trump.


The House Select Committee found that Trump was the “central cause” of January 6. With regard to this, we then asked how voters’ viewed Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol. Fifty-nine percent of likely voters agree that Trump had either “a lot of responsibility” or “some responsibility” for the insurrection. This result is driven by Democratic and Independent voters. However, 48 percent of Republicans believe that Trump had some degree of responsibility for the January 6 attack.





We also tested support for the U.S. House of Representatives’ investigation into the insurrection and the events leading up to it. We find that a clear majority of voters — 59 percent — support the House’s investigation, while just 35 percent are opposed.




As a result of this investigation, on December 19, 2022, the House Select Committee on the January 6 attack recommended four criminal charges against Trump for sparking the insurrection. The recommended charges include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by blocking the certification of Biden’s victory, conspiracy to make a false statement, and inciting the insurrection. We find that 50 percent of voters support charging Trump for these actions, while 44 percent think he should not be charged.





While majorities of voters oppose the insurrection and believe Trump is responsible, it’s a different question whether this would actually harm Trump in a hypothetical 2024 general election matchup with Biden. In our survey, we conducted a polling experiment to test that.

We split voters into two groups. The first group was asked whether they would vote for Trump or Biden in the 2024 presidential election. The second group was asked the same question, but provided additional information: that Biden opposes the insurrection but Trump supports it.

We find that this framing makes a noticeable difference in vote choice. Without the messaging, Biden holds a +2-point advantage over Trump among likely voters, but he holds a +7-point edge when we include messaging. Broken down by partisanship, the added messaging provides a +5-point increase for Biden among Independent voters and a +8-point increase among Republican voters.




These findings clearly show that voters nationwide oppose the insurrection — and that the issue is hurting Trump and the Republican Party. Clear majorities think Biden fairly won the 2020 election, think Trump did the wrong thing on January 6, and believe Trump is responsible for the attack. Voters also support the House’s investigation into the attack and want Trump to be criminally charged. Furthermore, messaging around Trump’s support for the January 6 attack harms his prospects against Biden in a potential 2024 general election matchup, showing the clear negative impact of Republicans’ support of the insurrection on their electoral success.

Kirby Phares is a senior analyst at Data for Progress.

Lew Blank (@LewBlank) is a polling analyst at Data for Progress.
Survey Methodology

Peru police use tear gas to clear protests after Machu Picchu evacuated
Reuters
January 04, 2023


LIMA (Reuters) -Police used tear gas to disperse protesters trying to approach Peru's Congress headquarters on Wednesday, as thousands took to the streets two weeks after a wave of deadly protests over the ousting of former President Pedro Castillo.

By early evening, there were no reports of clashes with police, who closed off access to Congress, though transport authorities reported 35 blockade points across the country.

Almost two dozen died in protests across the country last month.

On Wednesday, protesters marched in Lima and Arequipa, many carrying the country's red-and-white flag, and demanded the resignation of current President Dina Boluarte, closure of Congress, changes to the constitution and Castillo's release.

Meanwhile, authorities said trains to the Inca citadel of Machu Picchu had been suspended, a day after some 2,062 tourists were evacuated.

Prime Minister Alberto Otarola had earlier called for demonstrations to be peaceful.

Authorities had "scrupulously complied" with Boluarte's instructions to use force prudently, Defense Minister Jorge Chavez told local news outlet RPP.

Castillo is serving 18-month pretrial detention while he is investigated for "rebellion," a charge the former president denies. He was ousted after he tried to illegally dissolve Congress and reorganize the judiciary.

Boluarte, a former vice president who assumed power shortly after Castillo's removal, has proposed bringing forward the next general elections.

Television footage earlier on Wednesday showed police and the army guarding headquarters of public institutions in some areas where protests were planned, including Ayacucho, a region with the highest number of victims in the December demonstrations.

On Tuesday, thousands of people had marched in Lima and elsewhere demanding "peace and tranquility."

Boluarte installed on Wednesday morning a "Monitoring and Crisis Control" center, together with the defense and interior ministers.

"I call for peace, calm, and unity to boost the development of the homeland," she said in a speech.

Sergio Belloso, the vice-president of Peru's hotels and restaurants association, said the lack of tourists in 2022 caused by the political and social crisis had cost the country some $2.5 billion.

(Reporting by Marco Aquino; Writing by Sarah Morland; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)

Global Instability Reflected In Large Number Of Desperate Migrants – OpEd

 January 5, 2023 

By Arab News

By Mohamed Chebaro*

Like many at the beginning of the new year, I have been wondering if 2023 will be better for the world based on what we saw unfold in 2022. The short answer is no. The long answer is that, given human nature’s inclination to always be hopeful, I am going to hold on to positivity and wish for the best.

But my positivity was quickly dampened by the news that 13 Moroccans had drowned trying to reach the Canary Islands in Spain last week. Meanwhile, the Italian coastguard rushed to the rescue of 50 migrants who were in distress in the sea between Italy and Libya this week, despite the desire of Rome’s anti-immigration government to reduce the number of arrivals. In Lebanon on Saturday, two people drowned and 200 were rescued after their boat, which was destined for Europe, sank. In Gaza, a mother has received the corpse of her son, who perished at sea along with seven others after making the land journey through Egypt to Libya with the aim of making it to Europe with the help of human traffickers.

Last year, nearly 2,000 people were recorded as dead or missing in the Mediterranean by the UN Refugee Agency. The number reaching Europe by crossing the Mediterranean has been on the increase for the past three years, reaching 146,000 in 2022. The UK announced this week that more than 45,000 migrants reached its shores in small boats last year, which is 17,000 more than the previous year.

The majority of those arriving in Europe have claimed they are fleeing persecution, conflict, violence, instability and poverty in North and sub-Saharan Africa, Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran and even farther afield, such as Afghanistan and other parts of Asia.

As the UK and many other countries have found out, there is no easy way to stop people from trying to seek an alternative life

Mohamed Chebaro

The moral case for giving shelter to those in need still mobilizes many in the Western world, despite the pressure on resources and ever-shrinking state purses for providing adequate housing, social care and education for their needy citizens, let alone the newcomers who require funding for their initial integration, which might last for years.

But there are also some adversities, as many countries known for their hospitable policies toward refugees have been grappling to separate illegal or economic migrants from genuine asylum seekers and a smaller number of those who could be victims of criminal human trafficking gangs.

The UK has been promising to make it extremely difficult for those arriving illegally to remain in the country, since the belief is that many of them have been paying people smugglers huge sums of money for the journey. They are then classified as economic migrants risking their lives for what they hope will be better living conditions and opportunities in a developed country.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, under pressure to curb migration, has pledged to reduce the backlog of asylum seeker applications waiting to be processed in a bid to curb the overall number of migrants reaching the UK in general. Specifically, he wants to try and create precedents of failed applications to deter those arriving by small boats from French shores from paying large sums of money for nothing.

As the UK and many other countries have found out, there is no easy way to stop people from trying to seek an alternative life, under whatever pretext and at any cost, material or physical. Since the dawn of history, people have been on the move and it is no different today for those determined to try to seek a better life somewhere else. The problem faced by host countries — which are often Western, democratic, stable nations — is that people are ready to go to any lengths to reach their soil.

The UK Conservative government has drawn heavy criticism for its Rwanda removal policy and its efforts to process and remove the Albanians who made up at least 25 percent of all small boat arrivals last year, despite their home country being deemed safe. The UN Refugee Agency said that British plans are likely to undermine global refugee protection rules and violate international law. It said London was going against the basic principles of international solidarity and responsibility sharing, upon which the 1951 Refugee Convention was founded. Britain’s new focus on Albanian migrants also seems to have angered that country’s Prime Minister Edi Rama, who said that the UK should “stop discriminating” against people from Albania to excuse its own migration policy failures.

For years, Britain has suffered from a broken immigration system, which is viewed by many as having too many loopholes that, while helping deserving political refugees and genuine asylum seekers, can also be capitalized on and used and abused by economic migrants and criminal human traffickers.

The year 2023 has started with the world looking more and more volatile, with no indication of a rapid end to the war in Ukraine, while there is also instability in Afghanistan under the Taliban and the heavy-handed clampdown on demonstrators in Iran, to mention just a few. In addition to violent conflicts and civil strife, economic woes are multiplying and exerting more pressure on precarious nations that are struggling in the face of costly food and crop failures due to climate change, along with other adversities, putting further pressure on people to seek alternatives and maybe flee.

• Mohamed Chebaro is a British-Lebanese journalist, media consultant and trainer with more than 25 years of experience covering war, terrorism, defense, current affairs and diplomacy.

Arab News

Arab News is Saudi Arabia's first English-language newspaper. It was founded in 1975 by Hisham and Mohammed Ali Hafiz. Today, it is one of 29 publications produced by Saudi Research & Publishing Company (SRPC), a subsidiary of Saudi Research & Marketing Group (SRMG).

 

U.S. would accept up to 30,000 migrants a month in expanded program -sources

Reuters
January 05, 2023


By Steve Holland, Ted Hesson and Dave Graham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States plans to accept up to 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela under a program paired with expulsions of people from those countries caught at the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. and Mexican officials said.

The expanded humanitarian program would build on a policy launched in October that allowed thousands of Venezuelans to enter by air if they applied from abroad and could demonstrate they had a U.S. sponsor, two U.S. and one Mexican official said on Wednesday.

The details on the planned program come as U.S. President Joe Biden plans to give a border security-themed speech on Thursday and intends to visit the U.S.-Mexico border next week, addressing an issue that has challenged the Democratic president during his first two years in office.

The two U.S. officials expected the new policies to be rolled out on Thursday but the White House did not respond to a request for comment seeking official confirmation.

Biden told reporters at the White House on Wednesday after a visit to Kentucky that he wants to see "peace and security" at the border. He said earlier in the day that he intended to visit the southwest border but that details were still being finalized.

"I'm going to see what's going on," Biden said of the border trip. "I'm going to be making a speech tomorrow on border security, and you'll hear more about it tomorrow."

Biden did not reply when asked which city he planned to visit although the news website Axios later reported he would visit El Paso, Texas, a border city that declared a state of emergency in December amid high levels of migrant arrivals.

Biden is scheduled to travel to Mexico City on Jan. 9 and 10 for the North American Leaders' Summit, where he will meet with Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Biden, who took office in January 2021, has struggled operationally and politically with record numbers of migrants caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, and migration is expected to be on the agenda at the meeting.

Republicans have criticized what they say are lenient border security policies, while Biden officials say they are trying to create a more orderly and humane system.

Reuters reported last week that the Biden administration is planning to use pandemic-era restrictions to expel many Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught at the southwest border back to Mexico, while simultaneously allowing some to enter the United States by air on humanitarian grounds.

Migrant advocates and some Democrats have pushed back on expanding the expulsions, saying the restrictions block migrants from exercising their right to apply for asylum and expose them to risky situations in Mexico.

(Reporting by Steve Holland in Hebron, Kentucky, Trevor Hunnicutt, Andrea Shalal and Ted Hesson in Washington, and Dave Graham in Mexico City; Editing by Mary Milliken, Josie Kao, Aurora Ellis and Christian Schmollinger)

US unveils new border curbs for Haitians, Cubans, Nicaraguans

Joe Biden says new rules allowing asylum seekers to be returned to Mexico aim to reduce arrivals at US southern border.

Published On 5 Jan 2023

The United States will begin turning back migrants and refugees from Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba who try to enter the country without permits at the border with Mexico, the White House has announced, as part of continued efforts to stem arrivals.

The White House said on Thursday that it would accept as many as 30,000 people per month from the three countries – along with Venezuela – and give them two-year work authorisation, provided they have sponsors in the US and pass background checks.

However, anyone who seeks to irregularly cross the border will be ineligible for the programme and will be sent back to Mexico, which the US said had agreed to take back 30,000 people monthly from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Haiti.

“These four countries account for most of the people now travelling into Mexico to try to start a new life by crossing the border into the United States of America,” US President Joe Biden said during a news conference on Thursday that announced the new restrictions.

“We anticipate this action is going to substantially reduce the number of people attempting to cross our southwest border without going through a legal process,” Biden told reporters.

“My message is this: If you’re trying to leave Cuba, Nicaragua or Haiti … do not, do not just show up at the border. Stay where you are and apply legally from there.”

Migrants and refugees from Venezuela huddle around a fire near the US-Mexico border [File: John Moore/Getty Images/AFP]

The move marks a massive change in US immigration rules, and it will stand even as the US Supreme Court considers ending a border expulsion policy known as Title 42 that has allowed authorities to rapidly expel asylum seekers without offering them a chance to seek protection.

Heidi Altman, policy director at the National Immigrant Justice Center, on Thursday accused the Biden administration of “openly rejecting” US law, which “clearly says it is legal to arrive at the border & seek asylum”.

“For many people that is the *only* option because they are fleeing for their lives & there’s no other safe haven,” Altman wrote on Twitter.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, also said Thursday’s announcement “had a lot of bad things in it”, but one major positive: the new programme that could allow 360,000 nationals from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti into the US annually.

That, Reichlin-Melnick tweeted, offers “a real ‘alternate pathway’ like we’ve asked for”.
Increased arrivals

The US has seen a surge in asylum seeker arrivals at its southern border with Mexico, fuelling a pressure campaign by Republican politicians who argue that the Biden administration is not doing enough to secure the frontier.

Biden had campaigned for the presidency on a promise to reverse some of his predecessor Donald Trump’s most hardline, anti-immigration policies, and he has promoted efforts to develop what the White House calls “a fair, orderly and humane immigration system”.

But the Biden administration has sought to deter migrants and refugees from arriving at the border while also defending Title 42 in court despite criticism from rights groups who said the measure puts asylum seekers’ lives in danger.

Thousands have fled their home countries due to gang violence, political turmoil, environmental disasters and socioeconomic crises, among other factors – and rights advocates say US deterrence policies have done little to stem the flow of arrivals.

According to data from US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), border authorities have used Title 42 to turn migrants and refugees away more than 2.5 million times since Trump first invoked it in March 2020, arguing it was needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

However, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last April said Title 42 was no longer necessary on public health grounds, and the government announced plans to rescind it – prompting concern over a potential spike in border arrivals.

After a lengthy court battle, a US federal judge in November ordered Title 42 be lifted, but the US Supreme Court late last month agreed to consider whether Republican-led states can challenge the end of the policy, leaving it in place for the time being.

Meanwhile, Biden will travel to El Paso, Texas on Sunday – his first trip to the southern border as president – to meet with local officials to discuss their needs. He then will take a planned trip to Mexico City to meet with North American leaders on Monday.

Migrants and refugees board a bus that will take them to a processing facility, in Eagle Pass, Texas on December 19, 2022 [File: Veronica G Cardenas/AFP]

“I know that migration is putting a real strain on the border and border communities … We’re going to get these communities more support,” Biden said during Thursday’s news conference.

His visit comes amid a campaign by a group of Republican governors, led by Greg Abbott in Texas, who have been sending busloads of migrants and refugees to Democratic-run cities in an effort to “share the burden” of arrivals in US border communities.

In late December, more than 100 people – including children – were transported from Texas and dropped off in subzero temperatures outside the Washington, DC, residence of Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden appointed as his point person on migration.

Critics have denounced the busing as an inhumane political stunt, saying it puts people in danger.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

Biden Stiffens Border Rules Amid GOP Paralysis

With the GOP stalled as it struggles to agree on a House speaker, Biden stepped into the vacuum on one of their signature issues and took control of the debate.

By Susan Milligan
Jan. 5, 2023


Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, second from left, speaks during a news conference, Jan. 5, 2023, in Washington.(SUSAN WALSH/AP)


As House Republicans scrambled to choose the person who will become second in line to the presidency, President Joe Biden on Thursday seized one of his most vulnerable political issues – immigration – with an announcement of new policies meant to ease entry for those who follow the rules while expediting expulsion for those who break them.

READ: GOP Senators Blast Biden Over Border ]

Under the new rules, which senior White House officials said would take effect immediately, would-be immigrants who enter the country illegally and do not have a legal basis to stay will be "increasingly subject to expedited removal to their country of origin" and will be banned from reentering the United States for five years

Meanwhile, the administration will expand a parole process currently in effect for people fleeing political turmoil in Venezuela to include individuals from Nicaragua, Haiti and Cuba. Under those rules, up to 30,000 people per month can come to the United States for up to two years and receive work authorization, as long as they have a U.S. sponsor and have passed vetting and background checks, the White House said.

Since those migrants would need a U.S. sponsor and substantial resources to come to the United States, the new rules could squeeze out some of the most vulnerable hopeful immigrants.

But Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the idea was a "humane and orderly way" to help eligible immigrants under a program already used to help Venezuelans and Ukrainians escaping their war-ravaged country to seek refugee here.



"What they do is cut out the ruthless smuggling operations" that have taken migrants' life savings, Mayorkas told reporters Thursday, without the benefit of legal residence.


The Thursday announcement did not include any kind of the sweeping immigration overhaul the administration has sought. And Biden made it clear that he was moved to act because congressional Republicans – who have used the immigration and border issues as campaign darts at the president and other Democrats – would not come to the table and work out a deal on what Biden said had long been a bipartisan matter.

"It's clear that immigration is a political issue that extreme Republicans are always going to run on," Biden said at the White House, flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Biden made his point person on immigration in 2021.

"But now they have a choice. They can keep using immigration to try to score political points or they can help solve the problem. They can help solve the problem and come together to fix a broken issue," Biden said.

READ: The Refugee Program Gets a Makeover ]

Those individuals in the four countries eligible for the "parole" programs could apply through an app while still in their home countries and, if approved, use the approval on the app at a port of U.S. entry. They would not be allowed to seek entry into the United States by migrating through the region and showing up at the Mexican border.

Those who try to enter without using the parole program will not be eligible for the program in the future, Biden said.

Do not – do not just show up at the border,” Biden said, addressing immigrants. "Stay where you are and apply legally.”

The policies are meant to reduce the crush of people at the southern border. Biden said Mexico has agreed to accept up to 30,000 expelled migrants a month.

Biden will also visit El Paso, Texas, on Sunday, meeting a demand Republicans have made for years that the president witness the chaotic scene of migrants sleeping in the streets and burdening border communities and nonprofit resources.

The new policies will continue even if Title 42 – a health order from the Donald Trump era – expires, administration officials said. That order allows for the speedy expulsion of migrants at the border to stop the spread of COVID-19.The Supreme Court recently allowed the rule to stay in place pending a full hearing before the high court, and the Biden administration is arguing on behalf of lifting the rule.

Biden's announcement is unlikely to mollify Republicans, who have been highly critical of the president's border policies. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has gone so far as to bus migrants north – including to the entrance of Harris' vice presidential residence. Nonprofit groups have sought to meet the bewildered migrants to provide food and shelter.

Immigration has been a constant and potent attack issue for Republicans, who have vowed to use their new majority in the House to investigate Biden's performance on border control and to impeach Mayorkas.

The GOP's momentum on those goals has been stalled as it struggled this week to agree on a speaker to lead their party in the chamber. The vacuum allowed Biden, who has said he intends to run for reelection but has not made a formal announcement, to take some control of the debate.

"It's time to stop listening to their inflammatory talk. It's time to look at their record," Biden said of Republicans, adding that he was willing to sit down and talk to any GOPers willing to negotiate "in good faith."

But as long as the House – which when Biden was speaking still did not have a speaker, committees or sworn-in members – declined to act, Biden said, "I'm left with only one choice: to act on my own, to do as much as I can on my own."