Plan for UK’s biggest solar farm will be biggest test of Government’s anti-nimby drive

BIG READ

Ed Miliband will shortly rule on whether an eight-square-mile solar farm capable of powering 180,000 homes should get the go-ahead

The Labour Government launched its GB Energy plan this week (Photo: i)

By Tom Bawden

Science & Environment Correspondent

July 27, 2024

The Government faces the biggest test so far of its anti-Nimby drive as it decides whether to give the green light to what would be the UK’s biggest solar farm.

The Cottam Solar project would occupy 12.5 square kilometres – almost eight square miles – of farmland on the border of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, generating enough electricity to power 180,000 homes.

It would be considerably bigger than any solar farm currently in operation, generating eight times the energy of the largest site at the moment, Llanwern in Wales.

And it would be almost 25 per cent bigger than Sunnica, the giant solar development on the border of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, which Energy Secretary Ed Miliband waved through this month just three days into his new job – despite being opposed by the Government’s own Planning Inspectorate.

He now has until 5 September to make a decision on Cottam Solar, near the market town of Gainsborough.

Mr Miliband will consider the need to quickly and dramatically scale up solar and onshore wind generation if the UK is to have any chance of meeting highly ambitious and legally binding targets to make power virtually net zero in just six years.

And he will set that against very strong local opposition and the unprecedented size of solar farm, by UK standards, experts said.

Simon Skelton, a retired coal and gas power station worker who moved to the area in search of a country lifestyle, is one of the locals strongly opposed to the project.

“I live in the middle of the Cottam Solar project site and I just can’t image what it will do to the landscape – it will be horrendous. The panels are 4.5 metres high, which is the height of a double decker bus, covering three thousand acres,” he told i.

“Apart from the visual impact it’s a very inefficient use of agricultural land. If we’re going to go down this route of putting solar panels everywhere then we should start on rooftops first to see whether we can do it that way – before we start taking up huge amounts of farmland, which we feel is foolhardy.”

Simon Skerry stands on the proposed site for Cottam Solar with a 4.5 metre high pole – the same height as the solar panels will be (Photo: Simon Skerry)

Jerry Parker, a retired IT business owner who lives in the nearby village of Cammeringham, told i: “We would say we’re not Nimbys. A Nimby, to me, is somebody who wants nothing near them, no matter what they are and why they might be placed there. We don’t fall into that category.

“It’s not because we’re Nimbys, it’s because solar technology is inefficient. It takes vast amounts of land to produce the power it does.

“We just seem to be inundated in Lincolnshire with these projects. We’re going to live in an industrial zone and none of us live where we do because we want that type of environment. I think it’s a David and Goliath situation we have here.”

Sir Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough, said the project “is utterly inappropriate. By building on quality agricultural land, we will destroy a natural resource in the heart of England’s green and pleasant land.”

On Monday, a major report led by the Royal Academy of Engineering called for decarbonising the electricity grid by the end of the decade to be treated as a national mission similar to the work of the Covid vaccines taskforce.

The panel of behind the report, including science minister Sir Patrick Vallance, suggested the Government’s target of ”clean power by 2030” could see net-zero energy generation on three quarters of days.

On remaining days, when wind or sunshine levels are lower, small amounts of electricity from gas power stations would top up supplies.

Dr Simon Harrison of engineering consultancy Mott MacDonald, who worked on the report, said: “The scale of work required to decarbonise the electricity system in such a short period of time cannot be underestimated. A radical shift in our approach will be needed.”

What the Royal Academy of Engineering report is calling for:

• Strong central leadership, backed by the Prime Minister, and a clear strategic plan for the country to deliver the infrastructure needed.
• Ministers must get the public and industry on board with the “mission” to deliver clean power by 2030, and spell out the benefits which include…
• Personal benefits – for example lower bills from electricity tariffs that let the supplier have flexibility on when to charge an electric vehicle;
• Local benefits – for example the jobs clean power can bring to an area;
• Benefits for society as whole – avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, combating respiratory illnesses by switching from polluting boilers and vehicles; reducing costs to the NHS because of this;
• The Government must tackle difficult decisions on planning, consents and delays to connecting new schemes to the grid – such as local opposition to overhead power lines, or the higher costs on bills of putting them underground.

However, he added: “We not advocating for running roughshod over the planning system”.

Ed Griffiths of Barbour ABI, which provides construction data to the Government, was not involved in that report, but said: “The Cottam Solar decision looks set to be the biggest test case yet for the Government’s determination to push ahead with new solar farms.

“We have consistently seen a lot of planning activity for green energy projects in Lincolnshire and, at approximately 3,000 acres and 600 megawatts, our research shows Cottam would be the biggest solar development anywhere in the UK.”

A spokesperson for Island Green Power, the London-based renewable energy developer behind Cottam Solar, said: “Since 2021, we have been working with the local councils, communities and stakeholders to develop proposals for Cottam Solar Project, which have also gone through rigorous examination by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate.

“The end result is a proposal that, if approved, will make a significant contribution to the Government’s commitment to make Britain a clean energy superpower, creating a renewable source of electricity that is enough to power 180,000 UK households annually.

Read Next

ENVIRONMENTBIG READ

Newly approved solar farms will be UK's biggest, crushing Nimby opposition

Read More

“Beyond delivering affordable, renewable electricity, we’re pleased that our final proposals will improve biodiversity across the area. Environmental studies suggest there will be improvements of up to 96 per cent measured in habitat units.

“At the same time, we’re committed to providing direct funding to local communities near to the project. This will be scoped in consultation over the coming months.”

Mr Miliband has been sent the Planning Inspectorate’s report and recommendation – although he has not said whether it is for or against the project.

However, he disregarded a recommendation against development earlier this month when he gave permission to Sunnica – so he will not automatically go with the inspectorate’s advice.

The Department for Energy and Net Zero said it was unable to comment on Cottam Solar because it is a live planning application. A spokesperson added: “Solar power is crucial to achieving net zero, providing an abundant source of cleaner, cheaper energy.

“The Energy Secretary has taken immediate action to boost the role of solar – approving three major solar projects and launching a rooftop revolution for solar panels on new homes.

“We will make tough decisions with ambition and urgency – all part of our plan to make the UK a clean energy superpower.”

Earlier this month, Mr Miliband said “solar power is crucial to achieving net zero” and he has declared his intention to drive through onshore wind and solar farms where the case for them is merited.

On Friday he wrote to the developers of Cottam Solar looking for further clarification on any potential harm caused to fish by the electromagnetic fields that would be generated by the solar farm; and on targets to boost biodiversity on the site.

 

New research on legal aid cuts shows wasted money and 'embarrassing' data gaps in UK

by Kerra Maddern, University of Exeter

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

There needs to be "significant improvements" to the way data is collected across UK Government to prove if major changes to legal aid have delivered value for money to the taxpayer, a new report says.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act of 2012 was intended to make significant savings to the cost of the civil legal aid budget. The previous government was unable to provide evidence for this.

The report argues there needs to be more systematic collection and analysis of quantitative data across government and local government. This would then show if legal aid cuts have led to savings to the public purse, of if the costs have been passed on to local authorities and other organizations via legal or housing costs associated with the slowing down of court cases, or by people waiting for judgements not being able to work and pay tax.

The report, authored by Emma Marshall, Samuel Engle and Siân Pearce from the University of Exeter in partnership with Public Law Project and Migrants Organise, spells out what data Government needs to collect to work out the actual costs of the 2012 LASPO Act legal aid cuts and if, as current evidence suggests, the cuts were a false economy all along.

It says without information about the full costs of LASPO, it is impossible to know whether better value for money has in fact been delivered. Better data would enable a better understanding of the impact of changes to immigration legal aid under LASPO, and would also improve understanding of the wider impact of changes to the scope of civil legal aid.

The report says Government has wasted nearly £400,000 a year assessing immigration legal aid applications that fall under Exceptional Case Funding, even though almost 90% are approved.

Dr. Marshall said, "Improving the sustainability of legal aid must now be a priority for the Government. We currently have a legal aid system that is neither fair nor fit for purpose and it is putting a considerable strain on many areas of governance.

"Reinstating immigration legal aid would help the whole immigration system to function more fairly and efficiently, as well as reducing costs across other parts of government."

Public Law Project's Dr. Jo Hynes, said, "Immigration legal aid is now available to only a fraction of the people who need it. The appalling injustice and harm this causes is well known to anyone working in immigration.

"But putting the price of injustice to one side: are cuts costing more money than they saved, and could we in fact have a fairer and more efficient system by spending money in different ways?

"This report clearly spells out which data the incoming Government needs to keep track of in order to find that out.

"There are clearly false economies in play. The tax-payer has just sunk £320 million on the Rwanda plan. That is 21 years' worth of the total reduction in spending for immigration legal aid caused by LASPO.

"We are at a point where the need for evidence to demonstrate the full costs of LASPO is embarrassingly urgent. By collecting the data points we identify, the Government will be able to start building immigration legal aid policy on a sound evidence base."

"Immigration Legal Aid and value for money" points to existing evidence which shows that:

• Legal aid cuts have led to increased spending in other parts of government and public services, placing pressure on courts, health services, local authorities, prisons and social services.
• Reducing immigration legal aid has impacted local authorities who have legal duties to support those who cannot access other public funds.
• Where immigration legal aid is inaccessible, costs are shifted to other government departments, including the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department of Health and Social Care.
• New calculations contained in the report show that the Legal Aid Agency spends nearly £500,000 a year on assessing applications for immigration legal aid through the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme, even though 87% of applications are approved.

More information: Immigration legal aid and value for money: Identifying the missing data (2024). publiclawproject.org.uk/conten … riefing-paper-AW.pdf

Provided by University of Exeter Medical-legal partnerships are valued by immigrant, migrant populations: Study

Chancellor Rachel Reeves pledges to 'fix' economy - as expert says 'black hole' matches Tory tax cuts

Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says the £20bn "black hole" reported to exist in the public finances roughly equates to the cuts to National Insurance made by the Conservatives in the run-up to the election.

Tim Baker
Political reporter
Friday 26 July 2024 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves says she wants to 'fix' the black hole. Pic: PA


Chancellor Rachel Reeves has promised to "fix" the "mess" the Conservative government left in the economy, amid reports of a £20bn "black hole" in the public finances.

Ms Reeves, who is currently on a visit to the G20 in Brazil, told broadcasters she aimed to tell the world that the UK "is open for business" and the new government "want private investment into the UK economy".

The chancellor, who is set to deliver a speech on Monday about the state of the UK's finances, was also asked about reports of a £20bn "black hole" in the UK's economy.

"I have been honest during the election campaign and in the last three weeks about the scale of the inheritance that this government would have to pick up," she said.

"The Conservatives have created this mess. But let me be very clear. I will fix it."

Meanwhile, Paul Johnson, the head of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), told Sky News that the £20bn gap was "almost exactly the cost of the National Insurance cuts that Jeremy Hunt introduced this year".

There has been speculation Ms Reeves could scale back spending or implement tax rises in this autumn's budget.

Mr Johnson said: "Reversing [the previous cuts] and getting back to where we were last autumn in National Insurance would actually deal with a large part of the problem.

"It looks like Labour have ruled that out.

"That leaves them with much more difficult, sorts of tax changes, quite technical changes to capital gains tax - that perhaps needs to happen to be fair - and to inheritance tax."

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky NewsTap here

However, Mr Johnson threw some cold water on the new government's pronouncements that it did not know how bad the books were prior to being elected.

He said: "I think that at a high level, the new government was well aware they were coming in facing a really difficult position in terms of the scale of problems facing the public services."

"But there may have been some specifics they did not know about.

"There is no doubt that having taken over at the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office and the Department of Education and so on, they will have seen some things that they didn't know, and it may well be that things are even worse than they imagined.

"But there's no question that they knew that things were going to be difficult."

Shadow Chancellor Jeremy Hunt branded Ms Reeves claims about finding the economy in a worse state than expected "nothing but a fabrication".

£The reality is she does not want to take the difficult decisions on pay, productivity or welfare reform that would have meant we could live within our means and is laying the ground for tax rises,£ he added.

Millions of UK public sector workers set for above-inflation pay rise

Rowena Mason Whitehall editor

THE GUARDIAN
Fri, 26 July 2024 

The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has said there is ‘a cost to not settling’ negotiations.

Photograph: Jonathan Brady/Reuters


Millions of public sector workers are set for an above-inflation pay rise due to be announced by Rachel Reeves next week after more than a decade of austerity.

The chancellor is expected to accept the recommendations of public sector pay bodies for pay increases on Monday – a move economists believe could cost up to £10bn.

The NHS and teaching pay bodies are reported to have recommended a 5.5% rise, and similar advice is likely to have been given by other pay review bodies, covering workforces such as doctors and dentists, armed forces, prisons and police officers.

The pay rises would help reverse years of declining wages, deal with staff shortages and see off the threat of industrial action.

Reeves is expected to confirm the increases as she sets out her case on Monday that the Conservatives left the government with a dire economic inheritance, including a black hole of £20bn.

Despite the difficult economic circumstances, she is expected to make the argument that the pay rises are necessary to avoid the costs to the economy seen in the waves of strike action under the Conservatives.

As part of the process, Reeves asked for an analysis from Treasury officials on the cost to the economy of industrial action, with the strikes of 2022 and 2023 having a knock-on impact on productivity.

This is understood to have found that every day of the teachers’ strikes cost the economy £300m because of lost working hours, while industrial action in the NHS cost £1.7bn in total to the taxpayer.

The cost of giving pay rises to public sector workers has not been fully budgeted for in current spending plans, but the money will have to be found through existing headroom, changes to fiscal rules or tax rises in the budget.

Before the election, Reeves had refused to say whether public sector workers would get a pay rise, saying she would need to look at the books before deciding.

But more recently, she hinted the government could be prepared to accept the advice of the pay bodies, saying there is “a cost to not settling” negotiations.

After a year of industrial action from 2022-23, most of the unions accepted pay deals with the Conservative government. However, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is negotiating with junior doctors in an attempt to bring an end to their long-running industrial dispute.

Unions had warned of the likelihood of industrial action if the government were to ignore the advice of the independent pay review bodies.

Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union said last week: “It would be highly problematic for the Treasury to then intervene and then not implement a 5.5% pay award [if that is the recommendation].

“We absolutely would want to avoid strike action, but that would almost seem inevitable if the Treasury were to make such an intervention.”

In her statement to the House of Commons on Monday, Reeves will confirm the date of the budget, which is expected to be in the second half of October or November, and plans for a spending review.

She will also highlight some of the immediate pressures in areas such as the asylum system, prison places, welfare, defence and local council – and how the government intends to tackle them in the short term.

Economists have predicted Reeves will “kitchen sink” the bad news about the economy. The review is likely to conclude that existing spending plans are unsustainable and would require substantial cuts to public services, a position that economists had highlighted repeatedly before the election.

Presenting her Treasury audit to the Commons on Monday, the chancellor is expected to say her review has revealed state and privatised services are at risk of collapse under current plans.

Further billions are also committed in schemes like compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal and of the Horizon failures at the Post Office. The Cabinet Office minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, told the House of Commons on Thursday that final compensation payments to patients infected with contaminated blood products and bereaved partners will begin to be made by the end of this year.

A higher than expected rise in public sector pay will put additional pressure on the public finances under Reeves’ self-imposed fiscal rules. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that if there were a 5.5% increase across all public sector professions, it would cost about £10bn.

Reeves has said the government will borrow only to invest within its fiscal rules, and that overall public debt should fall year-on-year as a share of gross domestic product by the fifth year of official forecasts.

Details of any taxation changes to meet the costs of extra public spending will not be outlined until the budget, but Reeves has little wriggle room having ruled out raising VAT, income tax or national insurance during the election.

The Guardian previously revealed in June that Labour has been drawing up options for raising wealth taxes. This includes a hike in capital gains tax (CGT) that could raise as much as £8bn.

Other changes being weighed include a rethink of inheritance tax that would require more stringent tests for “gifting” of assets such as farmland, which can currently be passed on tax free.

Added to the CGT changes, the measures together could raise more than £10bn. Draft analysis on the likely revenue raised and the consultation processes required were circulated among Labour insiders before election day and shared with senior government officials.

The head of Unite, Sharon Graham, has already been applying pressure on the government to change its fiscal rules so it can borrow more to invest in infrastructure and public services.

The union leader told Reeves that people “haven’t got time to wait for growth” after Labour put boosting economic output at the heart of its plans to repair the country’s finances.


Ministers expected to approve pay rises for all public sector workers, Sky News understands

Sky News
Updated Fri, 26 July 2024 



The government is expected to agree to above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers in the coming days, amid concerns over the costs of not settling, Sky News understands.

Independent pay review bodies have already recommended the above-inflation figure to ministers for teachers and nurses of about 5.5% to keep them in line with increases in the private sector, reports have suggested.

Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby understands Chancellor Rachel Reeves will likely sign off on the independent recommendations as early as next week for all public sector staff, despite the Institute for Fiscal Studies warning such a rise could cost an extra £10bn on top of the 3% rise ministers have reportedly already budgeted for.

Speaking on her Electoral Dysfunction podcast, Rigby said government sources were worried about the other costs of not agreeing to the pay review bodies' recommendations - namely industrial action from the unions.

Politics latest: Mel Stride joins Tory leadership race

"[It would be] noise around a new government that they don't want, [especially] when they criticised the Conservatives so much for not settling on pay deals," she said.

A Whitehall source told Rigby they would be "very surprised" if the Treasury doesn't accept the pay recommendations given the risk of industrial action if the government refuses.

It comes as Ms Reeves is expected to reveal a black hole in the public finances of around £20bn next week.

The last government was plagued by strike action over public sector pay after the soaring inflation following Liz Truss' mini-budget, with nurses, doctors, teachers and rail workers among the many sectors who downed tools.

While ministers eventually agreed deals with most of the unions, junior doctors and some rail workers are continuing to fight for better pay and conditions.

Speaking on Friday to broadcasters, Ms Reeves said not settling a pay dispute "also has costs" - highlighting the "huge costs" of past industrial action.

"We want to settle that industrial action and to draw a line under it," the chancellor added.

During the election campaign, Labour promised to get to the negotiating table straight away if they won, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting has already held meetings with the British Medical Association, while Transport Secretary Louise Haigh is in discussions with the Aslef rail union.

But both Ms Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have warned of their "inheritance" from the Conservatives, claiming the public purse is in an even worse state than they first thought.

Ms Reeves is due to give a speech to parliament next week outlining the state of the economy, and her plans to tackle it.

This is also when she could announce her decision on public sector pay.

As of March this year, there were 5.95 million public sector workers in the UK, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

Read more:
Labour rebels 'totally out of order', says Harman

The powder keg of prisons is now Labour's responsibility

Speaking to Sky News' Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury James Murray said he would set out the position of the government "in the context of the public finances and the public spending inheritance that we have".

But hinting at accepting the 5.5% figure, Mr Murray said: "Let's be clear, there is a cost obviously to the response to the pay review bodies' recommendations."

"But... there is also a cost to not striking a deal because you then run the risk of industrial action, there are longer-term problems in terms of recruitment and retention of teachers, of people who work in the NHS, police officers and so on. So we need to set out our way forward."

Mr Murray added: "The proper process is to consider the pay review bodies' recommendations and then set out our response in light of the public finances and the public spending inheritance."

Reeves expected to approve inflation-busting pay hikes for public sector workers

Sophie Wingate, PA Deputy Political Editor
Fri, 26 July 2024 at 3:51 pm GMT-6·4-min read



Rachel Reeves is expected to approve above-inflation pay rises for millions of public sector workers next week, amid concerns over the cost of further industrial action if the Government refuses.

The Chancellor is set to respond to the recommendations of independent pay review bodies on Monday, when she will also argue in Parliament that the Tories left Labour with a dire spending inheritance, including a £20 billion black hole.

She could reportedly also announce delays to a string of major capital projects to plug the shortfall.

Teachers and some 1.3 million NHS staff could be in line for a 5.5% pay boost, which could cost about £3.5 billion more than had been budgeted for.

Economists believe this could rise to about £10 billion if other pay review bodies give similar advice on workforces such as police and prisons officers and doctors and dentists.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has highlighted the dire state of the public finances (Lucy North/PA)

Sir Keir Starmer has previously acknowledged there would be a cost if failing to follow the recommendations of the pay review bodies led to a fresh wave of industrial disputes in the public services.

Labour did not deny reports that Ms Reeves could on Monday make the same argument as she signs off on the pay increases despite the shortfall in Government funding plans.

The findings of a Treasury spending audit she will detail will reveal “the true scale of the damage the Conservatives have done to the public finances”, a Labour source said.

An early assessment has reportedly found a nearly £20 billion annual gap between revenues and funding commitments.

Public sector pay rises well above the 3% expected by the Treasury will put extra pressure on spending under Ms Reeves’ self-imposed fiscal rules, which include having debt falling as a share of gross domestic product in five years’ time.

Extending the 5.5% pay boost – which is above inflation at 2% – to the entire public sector could cost some £10 billion a year, according to the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

As this cost has not been fully budgeted for in current plans, the cash would have to be raised through existing fiscal headroom, tweaking fiscal rules or tax increases.

Any tax hikes to meet those costs would not be expected before the autumn budget, the date of which Ms Reeves is also set to announce on Monday.

Labour has ruled out lifting income tax, VAT, national insurance and corporation tax, potentially leaving changes to pensions relief and capital gains and inheritance levies on the table.

Ms Reeves could also delay a string of key hospital and road schemes she will argue are “unfunded with unfeasible timelines”, according to the Financial Times.

Road projects whose cost estimates have been driven up by inflation and the Tories’ pledge to build or expand 40 hospitals could be postponed, the newspaper reported.

The Labour Government will not “duck difficult decisions” in its budget, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said on Friday.

He told Times Radio: “What I think we have found shocking is the state of the public finances in the year that we’ve inherited and that means tough choices … as the Chancellor, (Ms Reeves) will continue to show iron discipline and she will have the full support of the entire Cabinet.

“Because these aren’t just tough choices for the Chancellor, these are tough choices for all of us and we’re determined to meet that challenge, to be honest with people, to not duck the difficult decisions and to make sure that we make the right choices now that set Britain up for the longer-term success that we need.”

Rishi Sunak’s Tory government was plagued by strike action protesting years of declining wages for public sector workers.

Most of the unions eventually struck pay deals with ministers, but Mr Streeting is currently negotiating with junior doctors in a bid to resolve their long-running pay dispute.

The Labour source said: “On Monday, the British public are finally going to see the true scale of the damage the Conservatives have done to the public finances.

“They spent taxpayers’ money like no tomorrow because they knew someone else would have to pick up the bill.

“It now falls to Labour to fix the foundations of our economy and that work has already begun.”

Ms Reeves could point to the soaring spending forecasted to accommodate asylum seekers in hotels, which – at around £10 billion a year – is more than three times previously thought, The Telegraph reported.

IFS director Paul Johnson said Labour “knew to a large degree how bad things are in terms of the public finances” before going into government.

“We and many others have made it very clear that it was going to be very hard to avoid cuts over the next few years given the proposals made by the previous government…

“I’ve no doubt they have discovered some specific issues, and particularly about how tough things are this year or immediately, which wouldn’t have been quite so evident from the public pronouncements. So my guess is that that’s what they’re going to focus on on Monday.”

‘I Approve This Message’: Kamala Harris Instantly Uses Trump’s Own Words Against Him

That didn’t take long.


By Ed Mazza

HUFFPOST

Jul 25, 2024



Donald Trump’s own words on Wednesday were quickly turned back at him in a new video from Vice President Kamala Harris’s rapid response team.

Speaking at a rally in North Carolina, Trump claimed that President Joe Biden is trying to put him in jail and “she’s the one behind it” along with “radical left judges.”

Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony charges in his New York hush money case. Neither Biden nor Harris has anything to do with the prosecution, but Trump has falsely claimed otherwise for that and the other legal cases he’s facing.

“So think of it: They get me to that position, and then their campaign says, ‘I’m the prosecutor, and he is the convicted felon.’ That’s their campaign,” Trump said. “I don’t think people are going to buy it.”

Just hours later, Harris’ team turned that prediction into reality in the simplest way possible.

They took Trump’s own words, then added the standard “I approve” message from Harris

Critics Flag 1 Huge Flaw In Trump’s Claim About Kamala Harris And Jewish People

Josephine Harvey

HUFFPOST

Thu, 25 July 2024

Donald Trump claimed during a campaign rally on Wednesday that Kamala Harris is “totally against the Jewish people.”

The vice president’s husband, Doug Emhoff, is Jewish.

Trump was railing against Harris for not attending Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress on Wednesday afternoon. (The presumptive Democratic nominee instead stuck with a pre-planned campaign event in Indianapolis, but she’s been scheduled to meet with Netanyahu on Thursday).

“Even if you’re against Israel or you’re against the Jewish people, show up and listen to the concept, but she’s totally against the Jewish people,” Trump said at the event in Charlotte, North Carolina.

“And it amazes me how Jewish people will vote for the Democrats when they’re being treated so disrespectfully and badly,” the former president added.

Emhoff, the first Jewish spouse of an American president or vice president, has been an outspoken advocate against the rise in antisemitism during his time as second gentleman.

That’s included a few jabs at Trump, who has a history of making antisemitic remarks and, in 2022, hosted the Holocaust-denying white supremacist Nick Fuentes for dinner at his home in Florida.

Social media users offered Trump a newsflash:

Hey @SecondGentleman, guessing this comes as a surprise to you. As a Jewish person, I would just like to say F-CK OFF Trump. https://t.co/4E5Ojp275Q

— Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) July 24, 2024

 

Major Shifts Beneath the Surface in

a New Trump-Harris Poll

Nate Cohn
Fri, 26 July 2024 


Vice President Kamala Harris, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, during her first campaign rally in Milwaukee, on Tuesday, July 23, 2024. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)

After all the political tumult of the last month, Thursday’s latest New York Times/Siena College poll is full of findings unlike any we’ve seen this cycle, with one exception: who leads the presidential race.

The poll found Donald Trump ahead of Kamala Harris by 1 percentage point, 48% to 47%, among likely voters. Other than the name of the Democratic candidate, “Trump +1” is a result that could have been from any other Times/Siena poll before President Joe Biden’s disastrous debate.

But on question after question, there are major shifts from previous Times-Siena polls, which were all taken before Harris essentially locked up her party’s nomination for president, before the Republican convention, and before the attempted assassination of Trump. Even the 1-point Harris deficit represents a significant improvement for Democrats from Biden’s 6-point deficit in our last Times/Siena poll.

These events make it hard to know what to make of the results of recent polls, including this one. The survey is a useful marker of where the race stands now, but there’s no reason to be confident that this is where the race will stand once the dust settles.

While the overall result between Harris and Trump may look familiar, the poll is full of signs that there’s a lot of dust still in the political air.

— Trump hits a high in popularity. Overall, 48% of registered voters say they have a favorable view of him, up from 42% in our last poll (taken after the debate but before the convention and assassination attempt). It’s his highest favorable number in a Times/Siena poll, which previously always found his favorable ratings between 39% and 45%.

— Harris is surging. In fact, her ratings have increased even more than Trump’s. Overall, 46% of registered voters have a favorable view of her, up from 36% when we last asked about her in February. Only 49% have an unfavorable view, down from 54% in our last measure. As important, her favorable rating is higher than Biden’s. In fact, it’s higher than his standing in any Times/Siena poll since September 2022, which so happens to be the last time Biden led a Times/Siena national poll of registered voters.

— The national political environment is a little brighter. The share of voters who say the country is on the “right track” is up to 27% — hardly a bright and smiley public, but still the highest since the midterm elections in 2022. Biden’s approval and favorable ratings are up as well. The ranks of the double haters have dwindled: With both Harris and Trump riding high, the number of voters who dislike both candidates has plunged to 8%, down from 20% in Times/Siena polls so far this year.

With all of these underlying changes in the attitudes about the candidates, there’s no reason to assume that this familiar Trump +1 result means that the race has simply returned to where it stood before the debate. For now, these developments have mostly canceled out, but whether that will still be true in a few weeks is much harder to say.

By the book, Trump’s gains over the last month resemble a classic “convention bounce,” perhaps with added goodwill from his survival of the assassination attempt. Historically, bounces usually fade, but not necessarily in their entirety.

What has happened to Harris over the last week doesn’t follow any book at all. She’ll presumably keep riding the momentum of her new candidacy for a while, but after that, anything is possible. Only time will tell how the public will react to her as they hear her — and the attacks against her — in the days and weeks ahead.

Below, a few outtakes from our poll.

Yes, Voters Seem Fine With the Democratic Makeover

I don’t think the Times/Siena poll has ever found 87% of voters who agreed on anything, but that’s the share who say they approve of Biden’s decision to stand aside in the presidential race. Only 9% disapprove.

Democrats, meanwhile, are ready for Kamala. Nearly four-fifths say the party should nominate her for president, compared with 14% who say they should nominate someone else. A slightly larger 27% say the party should encourage a competitive nominating process, but 70% say the party should unite behind Harris and quickly make her the nominee.

A More Typical Demographic Divide

If you’re a longtime reader of The New York Times, you know we’ve been tracking Biden’s weakness among young, Black, Hispanic and low-turnout voters for nearly a year now.

It will take some time — maybe more than a month, given the potential volatility ahead — before we have a good sense of the demographic contours of this new race. But in this poll at least, the Harris-Trump matchup brings a different and more typical demographic divide.

In the poll, Harris fares better among young (18 to 29) and Hispanic voters than Biden did in any survey this year. She fares better among nonvoters than Biden did in all but one Times/Siena poll over the same period. Conversely, she fares worse among white working-class voters and voters older than 65 than Biden did in all but one prior Times/Siena poll.

Of course, this is just one survey; the results of individual subgroups from one poll are noisy and subject to a hefty margin of error. But there’s good reason to think that these demographic shifts are part of something real. The findings are consistent with those of previous Times/Siena polls. And more generally, they’re in keeping with the expected relative strengths of a Black woman (who also has Indian ancestry) from California in her 50s compared with a white man from Scranton, Pennsylvania, in his 80s.

Will Kennedy help Harris?

Harris actually pulled even with Trump when all the minor-party candidates were included along with the independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Harris was at 44% and Trump at 43% (Harris’ lead rounds to zero using the exact figures, 43.5% to 43.2%), with Kennedy at 5%. That’s Kennedy’s lowest tally since we began naming him in our polls.

Trump led in the two-way race — but not the multicandidate race — because he won Kennedy’s sliver of support by more than a 2-to-1 ratio. It’s a small sample, but it is Trump’s largest advantage among Kennedy supporters in our polling to this point.

It’s just one poll, but there’s something to the idea that Kennedy’s presence in the race might more clearly help Harris. Throughout the race, Kennedy’s candidacy has tended to appeal more to the right than the left. In this poll, for instance, Kennedy’s favorable rating is positive among Republicans but negative among Democrats. Even so, he had been drawing relatively evenly from Biden and Trump, as Kennedy managed to win a considerable number of the disproportionately young voters disaffected with Biden.

Harris, however, does not necessarily have the same vulnerability. If she’s sufficiently appealing to young, disaffected voters who ordinarily lean Democratic, Kennedy might not siphon away as much of her support — and start to draw disproportionately from Trump.

c.2024 The New York Times Company

Trump tells Netanyahu there will be ‘third world war’ if he loses in November

Brett Samuels

THE HILL
Fri, 26 July 2024 

Trump tells Netanyahu there will be ‘third world war’ if he loses in November

Former President Trump on Friday claimed there will be a major war in the Middle East and potentially a “third world war” if he does not win November’s election.

Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, one day after Netanyahu met at the White House with President Biden and Vice President Harris.

“If we win, it’ll be very simple. It’s all going to work out and very quickly,” Trump told reporters at the start of the meeting. “If we don’t, you’re going to end up with major wars in the Middle East and maybe a third world war. You are closer to a third world war right now than at any time since the second world war. You’ve never been so close, because we have incompetent people running our country.”

The former president has previously said the world is on the brink of another world war with the fighting in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Trump has also made dire predictions about what might happen if he does not win back the White House, including a claim that the stock market would crash.

His meeting with Netanyahu on Friday came amid upheaval in the presidential campaign. Biden announced Sunday he would not seek reelection in November and endorsed Harris as the nominee. Harris has quickly consolidated support among Democrats and is the likely presidential nominee for the party in November.

Harris met with Netanyahu separate from Biden on Thursday, which she described as “frank and constructive.” She told reporters after the discussion that Israel has a right to defend itself, but she has “serious concern” about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.

Trump has been critical at times of Netanyahu since the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel that killed more than 1,100 people and the subsequent fighting in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians.

But on Friday, he sought to underscore his support for Israel, citing his administration’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and impose sanctions.

“We’ve had a good relationship. I was very good to Israel, better than any president’s ever been,” Trump said.

The Biden administration has expressed optimism that a cease-fire deal and the release of hostages being held by Hamas is within reach.

Trump said Friday it was “not an acceptable situation” and questioned the condition of those still being held.

“They have to be given back immediately because there can be no way they’re in good shape,” he said.

Scotland national Gaza demonstration – everything you need to know

Lucy Jackson
Fri, 26 July 2024 


The demonstration will be held in Glasgow on Saturday

A NATIONAL demonstration calling for a ceasefire in Gaza will take place this weekend.

The Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee (GGEC) has organised a rally in Glasgow’s George Square on Saturday.

The demonstration will start at 1pm, where there will be a march followed by a rally.

 

A number of speakers are set to address the crowd following the march, including:

• Professor Khaled Beydoun

• Dr Khamis Elessi

• Declan Welsh

• Elsie Kanaan

• Humza (FOA)

• Samia Abdel-Haday

• Mila & Mourad Saad

For anyone coming to the demonstration from Edinburgh who wishes to travel with others, a group will meet outside the Boots inside Waverley Station, to take the 11.45am train to Glasgow Queen Street.

The national demonstration comes as more than 39,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel’s military offensive in Gaza since October 7.

On Friday, the UK Government confirmed it would drop the previous Conservative government’s plans to lodge a challenge against the International Criminal Court’s application for an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The decision comes after a group of independent MPs wrote to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, calling for the legal challenge to be dropped.