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.

 

UK reverses plans to challenge ICC arrest warrant request against Netanyahu

Copyright ABIR SULTAN/ABIR SULTAN

By Euronews with AP

Published on 26/07/2024 -

The Prime Minister's office said the decision is "based on a strong belief in the separation of powers and the rule of law, both domestically and internationally."

The UK will not intervene in the International Criminal Court's request for an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the office of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Friday.

This announcement reverses the plans of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who was ousted earlier this month after Keir Starmer's Labour Party won a landslide victory over the Conservatives.

“This was a proposal by the previous government which was not submitted before the election, and which I can confirm the government will not be pursuing in line with our long-standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide,” a Starmer spokesperson said.

The ICC's prosecutor, Karim Khan, accused Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders — Yehya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh — of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip and Israel.

• World reacts to ICC prosecutor's request for arrest warrants for Hamas leaders, Netanyahu

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders condemned the move as disgraceful and antisemitic. US President Joe Biden also criticised the prosecutor and supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas — as did Sunak.

Khan sought warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant in May over Israel’s war in Gaza in a symbolic blow that deepened Israel’s isolation over the war in Gaza.

Israel is not a member of the court. Even if warrants are issued, Netanyahu and Gallant do not face any immediate risk of prosecution. However, the threat of arrest could complicate their ability to travel.

Starmer’s decision puts the UK at odds with US, though his office on Friday described the decision as based in a strong belief in the separation of powers and the rule of law domestically and internationally.

A challenging issue for Starmer and his party

Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, has faced pressure from his party to adopt a firmer stance on the Gaza crisis, especially as the death toll and number of injuries continue to rise.

London has also been the scene of huge protests decrying Israel’s actions intended to root out Hamas militants and has also reported record levels of antisemitic incidents.

Labour lost support and seats they were expected to win after Starmer initially declined to call for a ceasefire following Israel's retaliation for the October 7 attack by Hamas militants.

The party is still recovering from the fallout of a scandal involving antisemitism allegations against the leadership of Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.

UK government drops challenge to ICC over 

Israel arrest warrants


Saturday, July 27, 2024

by The Canary

The UK government will drop its challenge to arrest warrants sought by an ICC prosecutor for Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Downing Street confirmed on Friday 26 July.
UK government drops challenge to ICC over Israel

Former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s government had told the International Criminal Court (ICC) it intended to submit a challenge to prosecutor Karim Khan’s request in May for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defence minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The UK had until 26 July to submit its questions to the court in The Hague, but the recently elected Labour Party government has confirmed it will not follow through with Sunak’s plan.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said:


This was a proposal by the previous government which was not submitted before the election, and which I can confirm the government will not be pursuing in line with our long standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide on.

I think you would note that the courts have already received a number of submissions on either side, so they are well seized of the arguments to make their independent determinations.

Of course, Israel’s top ally the US is still set to challenge the court’s authority to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu.

As well as Netanyahu and Gallant, Khan is also seeking warrants against top Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Haniyeh and Mohammed Deif, on suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If granted by ICC judges, any of the 124 ICC member states would technically be obliged to arrest Netanyahu and others if they travelled there. However, the court has no mechanism to enforce its orders.


More to be done

The UK is still allowing arms to be sold to Israel. However, Middle East Eye reported on 25 July that the government was expected to place some restrictions on sales.

However, right-wing lobby group the British Board of Deputies hit back. It said:


We are concerned that the cumulative effect of these announcements, in quick succession, signal a significant shift in policy, away from Israel being a key UK ally. This would not only be a strategic error but a moral one.

Reacting to Labour’s ICC decision, director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ben Jamal said:

Ben Jamal, PSC Director said,

We welcome the Government’s decision to drop the intervention mounted by Rishi Sunak’s Government, designed to prevent any move by the ICC to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders including Benjamin Netanyahu.

This intervention was based on spurious legal arguments that amounted to suggesting that Israeli leaders could never be held to account by the ICC for any action in Gaza, no matter how monstrous.

We thank all of those who lobbied the Foreign Secretary and MPs on this issue, including thousands who signed PSC’s e-action. We welcome the Government’s statement that it intends to fully respect the independence of the international courts and the rule of law.

Going forward this needs to translate into full support for the rulings of the ICC and the ICJ including those which call upon all third-party states not to continue to act in any way which risks aiding or abetting crimes under the Genocide Convention or supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.

As immediate first steps this requires an arms embargo and ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements

UK ends challenge to ICC's jurisdiction over arrest warrant on Netanyahu

The British government has reversed its previous position and will no longer question the ICC's jurisdiction over war crimes cases involving Israeli officials.

Under the new leadership of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Britain has stopped challenging the ICC's jurisdiction in the case against Israeli PM Netanyahu

Britain's new government has said it was dropping its predecessor's query of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The ICC's chief prosecutor has requested warrants for Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, on suspicion of war crimes, infuriating Israel and irritating its closest ally, the United States. He requested similar warrants for three leaders of the Palestinian resistance group Hamas.

Britain, an ICC member state, had asked the court to be allowed to file legal observations on whether the ICC could exercise jurisdiction over Israelis "in circumstances where Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals (under) the Oslo Accords".

But since then, the centre-left Labour Party has taken power from the Conservatives in an election, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer's spokesperson told reporters on Friday the new government would drop the query "in line with our long-standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide on".

"The government believes very strongly in the rule of law, both internationally and domestically, and the separation of powers."

Respect for international law

While the Conservatives frequently chafed against supranational jurisdictions during their 14 years in power, not least the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, Starmer, a former lawyer, has struck a different tone.

Last week he told European leaders that his government would have a "profound respect for international law".

The ICC, which handles war crimes and crimes against humanity, has been investigating both sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians since 2021.

In that year, the ICC ruled that it did have jurisdiction after Palestinian authorities signed up to the court in 2015, having been made a United Nations observer state.

Some scholars and member states said that the decision left a ruling on the interpretation of the 1993 Oslo Accords regarding Palestinian jurisdiction over Israeli nationals for a later stage in the proceedings.

The UK's decision to drop the legal challenge is unlikely to speed up the ICC case as over 60 other states and interested parties have also been allowed to give their legal arguments to judges mulling the request for arrest warrants for senior Israeli and Hamas officials.

Israel hits out at Starmer for dropping Britain's challenge to international arrest warrant for Netanyahu

26 July 2024,

Israel has hit out at Britain's decision. Picture: Alamy

By Kit Heren

@yung_chuvak

Israel has criticised Britain for dropping its challenge to an international arrest warrant issued for Benjamin Netanyahu

A spokesperson for the Israeli government said that Labour had made a "fundamentally wrong decision" in deciding not to pursue the challenge at the International Criminal Court.

ICC prosecutor Karim Khan in May requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Mr Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant over the war in Gaza.

Rishi Sunak's government had told the ICC it intended to submit arguments questioning whether the ICC had the right to order the arrest of Israeli nationals.

The Hague-based war crimes court gave the UK until Friday to decide whether it would do so.

Read more: Israel alleges Iran-backed plot to target athletes at Paris Olympics and equips delegation with armed security detail

Read more: Benjamin Netanyahu declares US and Israel 'must stand together' as he delivers speech to Congress

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (C) attends Opening Ceremony of the Paris 2024 Olympics at Place du Trocadero on July 26, 2024. Picture: Alamy

A spokesperson for the new Labour government said on Friday that it would not submit an objection.

"This was a proposal by the previous government which was not submitted before the election, and which I can confirm the government will not be pursuing in line with our long standing position that this is a matter for the court to decide on," the spokesperson said.

They added that the government believes in the separation of powers and the rule of law - both in the UK and internationally.

"I think you would note that the courts have already received a number of submissions on either side, so they are well seized of the arguments to make their independent determinations," they said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Picture: Alamy

The war in Gaza has been a major issue for Labour, and its attitude in the early months of the conflict saw it lose support among some Muslim communities.

The party appears to have sought to remedy this in recent months, and also since winning the election.

Since entering government, Labour has restored funding to the United Nations' Palestine relief agency UNRWA, in a major shift from the stance of the previous government which had suspended funding in January.

Sir Keir has also stressed that a Palestinian state has an "undeniable right" to be recognised as part of a Middle East peace process.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK's chief executive, said: "This was a totally misguided intervention by the last government and we strongly welcome the decision to drop it.

"Instead of trying to thwart the ICC's much-needed Palestine investigation, the UK should be backing efforts to bring all perpetrators of war crimes and possible genocide to justice."

Hannah Bond, co-chief executive of ActionAid UK, said: "We're pleased to see the new government abandon the legal challenge to the International Criminal Court's case.

"The court must be free to pursue the course of justice unhindered and the UK government must support it in doing so, as well as respect and comply with whatever the ultimate outcome of the case may be."

But Labour Friends of Israel described the Government's move as "deeply disappointing".

In a statement on X, the group said "there is no reason to believe" that Israel's courts would not investigate this case and the ICC chief prosecutor "has chosen quite deliberately not to provide it (Israel) with that opportunity".

"The British Government's desire to defend international law is laudable but its decision today is deeply disappointing and will not advance that goal," the group added.

Palestine hails decision by UK to drop objection to ICC war-crime warrant for Netanyahu

Palestinian Foreign Ministry says decision by British government 'realization of justice'

Ahmed Asmar |26.07.2024 
RT / AA
ANKARA

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry on Friday welcomed the decision by the British government to withdraw its objection to the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

In a statement cited by the official Palestinian news agency Wafa, the ministry described the British government decision as a "realization of justice."

It also hailed the UK decision to uphold human rights and international law and a human rights-first foreign policy, affirming that such position will enhance cooperation between Palestine and the UK in the coming days.

The UK on Friday said that it would not proceed with efforts to question whether the ICC has jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, according to local media.

This decision came after the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan announced in May that he had requested arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant over war crimes.

Court documents made public in June revealed that Britain, an ICC member state, had initially filed a request to provide written observations on whether the court could exercise jurisdiction over Israeli nationals, given that Palestine cannot exercise criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals under the Oslo Accords.

According to The Guardian newspaper, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson confirmed that the previous government had not submitted its proposal before the July 4 election.

"On the ICC submission… I can confirm the government will not be pursuing (the proposal) in line with our longstanding position that this is a matter for the court to decide on,” UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson told reporters.

Israel, flouting a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire, has faced international condemnation amid its continued brutal offensive on Gaza since an Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.

Nearly 39,200 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children, and over 90,400 injured, according to local health authorities.

Over nine months into the Israeli onslaught, vast tracts of Gaza lie in ruins amid a crippling blockade of food, clean water, and medicine.

Israel is accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice, which ordered it to immediately halt its military operation in the southern city of Rafah, where more than 1 million Palestinians had sought refuge from the war before it was invaded on May 6.

*Writing by Ahmed Asmar​​​​​​​​​​​​​​