Sunday, July 28, 2024

UK

Anatomy of a rebellion: why Keir Starmer’s first brush with parliamentary revolt over two-child benefit cap is a symbolic moment


Thomas Caygill, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Nottingham Trent University
Wed, July 24, 2024
THE CONVERSATION

Flickr/UK Parliament, CC BY-NC-ND

Following the state opening of parliament, the House of Commons has been debating the contents of the king’s speech (referred to as the debate on the address). This unfolds over the course of several days and is effectively a debate on the new Labour government’s legislative agenda for the next 12 months.

During the final votes in this debate, prime minister Keir Starmer suffered his first rebellion as several of his MPs voted against the government (and several more abstained) on a vote to lift the cap on benefits that restricts support to a family’s first two children and no subsequent siblings. The vote was on an amendment put forward by the Scottish National Party, which has called for the cap to be removed.

Since before the election, Starmer and his chancellor Rachel Reeves have insisted that they would like to remove the cap but do not currently have the money to do so.


Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

The rebellion was limited to seven Labour MPs and in truth there was very little chance of the amendment passing as the government had a working majority of 180 – and won the vote 363 votes to 103. Nor would the two-child limit have been immediately ended had the vote passed.

However, while small, this rebellion was symbolic. Votes on king’s speech debates are considered to be an issue of confidence because they drill into the heart of the government’s political agenda. The speech is not binding but it sets the tone for what the new government most wants to achieve.

Given the symbolic importance of the vote, Labour MPs were on a three-line whip, which is a strict instruction to attend and vote according to the government’s position. This may go some way to explaining why Starmer suspended the whip from those seven MPs who rebelled. This was a strong reaction to the rebellion, even if suspension is temporary and will be reviewed in six months by the government chief whip. The suspension means that the seven, who include former shadow chancellor John McDonnell and one-time Labour leadership hopeful Rebecca Long-Bailey, will now sit as independent MPs until the whip is restored.
The risks of this approach

There are risks to taking such a heavy-handed approach. The suspension or removal of the whip is considered to be a nuclear option when it comes to party discipline, mainly because the more you do it, the less effective it becomes. A precedent has been set in this case so when bigger rebellions come – and come they will – Starmer could run into problems. It would not be practical to suspend the whip from dozens of MPs.

That being said, there are those who will argue that the leadership wanted to send a message that dissent, particularly on important votes, will not be tolerated, even if Labour has a substantial governing majority.

The seven MPs who have been suspended are also from the left wing of the party and they already have an uneasy relationship with the prime minister. They are likely to be a rebellious bunch during the course of the parliament.

But the same rules apply in reverse, too. Rebelling against the whip is an action of diminishing returns as much as suspending people for rebelling. If you become a serial rebel, the government will just write you off as such and be less willing to pay attention to your concerns. Keeping rebellions to a minimum and only to the most important and consequential of issues is more likely to make the government sit up and listen to your concerns.

So there are multiple moving parts here in terms of how the rebels and whips continue to behave which will be interesting to watch over the course of this parliament.
What happens next?

In all likelihood, Labour will at some point remove the two-child benefit limit. A key part of its manifesto is to reduce child poverty and a large number of charities and thinktanks have highlighted the negative impacts of this policy in particular in that respect.

Read more: I research poverty in the UK – the two-child benefit limit is causing real and lasting harm

This of course raises the question of why, therefore, there was no pledge to end the cap in the king’s speech and why Starmer came down so hard on the rebels in this vote. The answer to this comes lies in the government’s iron-clad rules on spending commitments, which give it limited room to manoeuvre on tax and spending. The removal of the two-child limit will cost £3.4bn a year, according to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies.

We might see some movement in the forthcoming budget (expected in the autumn), given the strength of feeling in the party on the issue. A lot of MPs feel strongly about this and have raised their concerns with the whips and cabinet, even if they didn’t rebel against the whip in this vote. That’s an alternative approach in trying to influence the government privately and may yet prove influential. Both in terms of the policy itself and the future of the seven suspended MPs, we should watch this space.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thomas Caygill is currently in receipt of a British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant for research on post-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament and has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council.



Keir Starmer needs to answer these pressing questions about how he will govern

Geoff Mulgan,
 Professor of Collective Intelligence, Public Policy and Social Innovation, UCL
Fri, July 26, 2024 
THE CONVERSATION

Keir Starmer’s government has hit the ground running. But over the next few weeks and months some serious choices will have to be made about exactly how to govern. These are 13 pressing questions that will demand answers soon, partly drawing from my experience working in city government, several national governments (including the UK, where I ran the strategy unit and was head of policy in No.10 under Tony Blair) and the European Commission.

1. How can Whitehall perform more effectively?

The new prime minister and cabinet secretary will need to drive up performance in Whitehall departments. That might require reviving capability reviews and importing the role of public service commissioners from Australia to keep the civil service on its toes.

There’ll also be a need to rebuild the training system which has largely collapsed, perhaps with a new college of government, not just for officials but also for ministers.

2. Who will be the fixers?

Tony Blair built up a strong No 10 and Cabinet Office, with strategy and delivery units and more (I ran the performance and innovation unit before the strategy unit). Starmer now has huge power and patronage but needs vehicles to project that power. He will need central teams able to anticipate and fix problems, to drive strategy and handle difficult events. His predecessors lacked these capacities, and it showed.

3. Do ministries need reorganising?

Next, Starmer has to decide on reshaping ministries. Whitehall usually exaggerates how much this kind of structural change achieves and, for now, Starmer has decided to leave the departments intact. But in time he will need to fit the forms to the functions.

That said, the one restructuring which many policy experts advocate – separating the Treasury’s public spending and economic policy roles (as almost every other country does) – isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

4. What’s the strategy for talent?

The government will need a strategy for talent. It’s already brought in talented outsiders as ministers and will need to bring in many more to refresh Whitehall. Getting the right people into the right jobs is key to achieving results – and not running out of steam.

5. How do you turn missions into action?

Starmer spoke a lot about “missions” during his election campaign and we can expect an aerosol of “mission” titles in boards and committees. But some subtlety will be needed. Missions in health are very different from ones in economics, crime or the environment.

A mission delivery unit has been proposed to ensure departments are delivering, but this may also have to be re-thought. Combining short-term performance management with long-term strategy in this way tends not to work for long, since they require very different methods and mindsets.

6. How will Great British Energy actually work?

Labour has committed to a series of new public institutions (Great British Energy, a national care service, a national wealth fund and Skills England) but has so far offered little detail.

The national wealth fund has turned out to be little more than a label, but GBE will be set up fast and government will have to decide whether to use any of the methods that have transformed business or the best governments globally over the last decades. The huge impact of data, algorithms and platforms on so much of contemporary life isn’t yet reflected in the plans for new institutions.

7. What styles of government will be used?

Will Starmer’s government use the new, often quite draconian, powers governments have taken over the last decade in its operations (such as so-called Henry VIII clauses)? Should there instead be distinctive approaches, for example by cutting the cognitive load for citizens? Much recent policy has done the opposite, with ever more baroque tax and welfare rules, for example.

8. How can we modernise public finance?

A critical issue will be to modernise public finance methods – how budgets are set and implemented. The immediate concern will be to keep a grip on the public finances and boost private investment. But in the medium term the government needs to update Whitehall’s methods, which are out of date and ill suited to its priorities, whether in relation to longer-term investment in people (investment methods are used for buildings but not for education, health or R&D) or use of data to learn about the impacts spending achieves.

For a cash-strapped government, creative approaches to efficiency will also be vital. A new “office for value for money” has been promised, but nothing has been said about how it will work.

9. How do we get local government out of dire straits?

Stabilising finances for struggling local governments will be a first priority, with fundamental reform long overdue. But better answers will also be needed on how to organise collaboration with local authorities and devolved administrations, getting beyond Whitehall’s various competitive bidding systems which so badly failed on levelling up.

Periodic meetings of both national and local leaders have been offered in the first few days of the new government. But a shared bureaucracy is also needed. Coordinating efforts at a local level will be vital for many of the government’s priorities, from housing to care.

10. How can digital functions be updated?

Digital operations matter hugely to modern governments. The GOV.UK site is relatively useable, but the UK has arguably fallen well behind the world’s best. Starmer has decided to concentrate responsibility in one department, but elsewhere central teams have done best, for example in radically simplifying payments, authentication and services. Learning from front runners like Estonia and India would be helpful here.

Sorting out AI procurement could deliver big gains, but rhetoric is far more visible than results, and there’s a risk of repeating the tech “solutionism” that created past disasters like Horizon .

11. How can the public sector experiment?

Top-down policies will only go so far. Just as important will be ideas on how to organise experiments and innovation across the public sector, including mobilising local ingenuity and social entrepreneurs on issues like homelessness and mental health. This continues to be organised in arguably very fragmented, underfunded and ad-hoc ways compared to innovation in fields like pharma. But it could be vital to success in a second term.

12. How can the government make better use of its own data and evidence?

Starmer has committed to doing what works. But this will require fresh thinking on how to bring together data, statistics, analysis and evidence in more coherent ways so that government actually knows what is working. Shared intelligence could be a guiding principle for the new government.

13. How can business and charities be brought in?

The new government will soon need to work out how to partner with business. Before the election it was all about wooing and reassuring. Promises of sanity and stability are good starting points. But now more structured partnerships are needed, on issues like employee mental health, financial inclusion and decarbonisation.

There’ll be a parallel need to reframe the government’s compact with civil society, again with a two-way deal, focused on a few priorities such as acute hardship.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Starmer is right to emphasise that how things are delivered matters as much as what is decided. And he is right to warn against sticking plaster solutions – though some of the most urgent crises such as in Thames Water or local government may demand sticking plasters.

Before long he will need to start thinking about a more radical agenda for change, ahead of the next election. But for now, the priority is restoring sanity and competence. For that, he needs to recognise that the British state is not a Rolls Royce just waiting for a new driver to steer it in a new direction. Instead, it needs a thorough overhaul, and soon.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Geoff Mulgan works part-time for IPPO, the International Public Policy Observatory, which receives funding from the ESRC. He is also on the advisory board of Labour Together.

Keir Starmer’s Clash With Labour Left Sets Up Wider Fight on Tax Rises

Alex Wickham, Joe Mayes and Ellen Milligan
Sat, July 27, 2024 at 3:07 a.m. MDT·5 min read




(Bloomberg) -- UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves will run the gauntlet between the left of her Labour Party and opposition Conservatives on Monday when she outlines the state of public finances.

In a speech setting the tone for the Britain’s economy and its politics for the next five years, Reeves is expected to say she’s inherited a near £20 billion ($26 billion) shortfall for public services from the Tory government ousted by Labour in this month’s landslide election win.

That black hole provides the backdrop for her first budget in the autumn, when she’s told Bloomberg “difficult decisions” will have to be made. Whether she and Prime Minister Keir Starmer respond with tax rises or spending cuts, the Tories and the Labour left are poised to pounce.

It’s a tricky balancing act, and weeks of internal deliberation have taken place about how to get the speech right, people familiar with the matter said. Starmer has used the first three weeks of Labour rule to blast its “shocking” inheritance from the Tories in areas from crime to migration, but it’s harder for Reeves to feign surprise at the fiscal picture given the open books provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

The scale of the challenge “has been evident for some time,” according to Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson at Bloomberg Economics. They concur that some £20 billion needs to be found by 2028-29 to prevent spending cuts in unprotected departments such as justice and local government. Pressures on defense outlays, public sector pay and welfare could see that rise higher still, they wrote, meaning “more tax hikes look inevitable.”

That’s problematic for Reeves and Starmer, who spent the election campaign repeatedly promising they had “no plans” to raise taxes beyond a select few, including on private schools, non-domiciled residents and windfall profits for oil and gas companies.

The Financial Times reported that the chancellor will delay various “unfunded” projects for new road links and hospitals to make up the financial shortfall.

Indeed, the chief concern of advisers working on the speech is to maintain Reeves’s credibility. There is broad agreement on the strategy of shining a spotlight on the Conservatives’ record, blaming them for dire public finances and any unpopular decisions Labour might have to make — inspired by former Tory Chancellor George Osborne’s approach after the financial crisis.

Yet aides have also stressed the need not to go overboard and claim the public finances are far worse than thought when Reeves told voters she wouldn’t put taxes up. Indeed, she admitted in the election campaign that she wouldn’t be able to act surprised at what she found.

Some officials argue Labour can’t announce sweeping tax rises right away to fund spending demands from the wider party.

That’s what the Tories want Labour to do, a party official said, because the opposition would then spend the whole Parliament accusing them of lying in the election campaign. Party strategists think Tory warnings about Labour tax rises could be one reason for the July 4 result being closer than opinion polls suggested, and Reeves would not want to confirm those suspicions among swing voters, another aide said.

Yet holding the line is not proving easy. Starmer and Reeves find themselves buffeted by pressures from their party to spend more on public services and fund it by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Asked at a Group of 20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday whether she still had “no plans” to raise taxes on wealth, property or inheritance — as Labour repeatedly said during the election campaign — Reeves failed to reiterate that commitment.

An added risk is if the OBR downgrades its growth forecasts to bring them closer to those of the Bank of England and commercial banks. That would further deplete Reeves’s headroom, giving her less scope to raise spending.

While she could in theory borrow more in the short term, that would come at the risk of economic credibility. Moreover, she’s promised to adhere to fiscal rules meaning debt as a percentage of gross domestic product must start to fall within five years. She’s described them as “iron-clad,” so any change would suggest her promises are paper thin.

The internal party context of the chancellor’s speech is a parliamentary clash on Tuesday between Starmer and left-wingers. After seven members of Parliament voted for an amendment calling for more generous welfare payments for parents, the premier responded ruthlessly, kicking them out of his party for six months.

Scrapping the so-called two-child cap on family aid has become an early cause of the left, and many others across Labour also want Downing Street to act. That would cost at least £2.5 billion, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank.

Starmer’s allies insist they are relaxed about internal discussion and dissent, arguing this small group of MPs had gone beyond that and were acting in bad faith trying to undermine the Labour government.

An aide pointed to the example of Faiza Shaheen, a left-winger replaced as a parliamentary candidate by Labour at the election who then decided to stand as an independent against the party. That showed moves by the left against the party’s interests could not be tolerated, they said.

Still, the row led some ministers to privately suggest the premier had been heavy-handed. It risked creating a bigger fight with supporters of left-wing former leader Jeremy Corbyn down the line, one minister said, predicting some rebels could team up with the Green Party and independents who won seats from Labour at the election on issues like Gaza and arms sales to Israel.

Another aide suggested Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, already seen as sidelined by Starmer, would struggle to support her boss in many further fights with the left.

The next flashpoint on the benefits cap is the budget, ahead of which Labour MPs plan to privately lobby Reeves to signal she will scrap it this parliament. They’re hoping she’ll raise the cap to three from two children initially, or commit to end it before the next election.

Making the numbers add up while keeping her tax promises is the unenviable task that’s been top of Reeves’s mind ahead of Monday.

--With assistance from Ailbhe Rea, Tom Rees and Philip Aldrick.

Bloomberg Businessweek
Is Bitcoin a Republican issue?

 Why Nashville's crypto conference has a partisan edge


Hadley Hitson, USA TODAY
Fri, July 26, 2024 

NASHVILLE - As the Bitcoin2024 conference kicked off in Nashville’s Music City Center Thursday, attendees agreed: Cryptocurrency is political.

With current Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump headlining the event Saturday, the rest of the schedule is decked out with GOP politicians, independents like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a few Democratic congressmen.

From Tennessee, U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Sen. Bill Hagerty are scheduled to speak. Also leading the agenda are famous government-surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden, former Republican U.S. presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and celebrity Russell Brand, along with hundreds of tech-industry speakers.

What's drawn legislators and crypto-industry insiders together in Nashville?

“Politicians follow votes,” BitcoinIRA cofounder Chris Kline said. “These are the same reasons they make stops in battleground states like Wisconsin, Ohio and even Nevada and Arizona. Bitcoin is no longer a niche interest group.”

There are also going to be several high-profile fundraising events.

David Bailey, CEO of conference organizer Nashville-based BTC Media — the parent company of Bitcoin Magazine — announced Tuesday that the conference was “in talks” with Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign to schedule her as a speaker. The next day, he said she declined the invitation and that “it would have been a disaster for her” anyway.

He then criticized Harris's political record and wrote on X: "Major democrat donor told me Kamala says privately 'Bitcoin is money for criminals.'"

Some crypto professionals said they view Bitcoin as inherently apolitical, but that’s changing as calls for consistency in crypto regulation grow louder with more support coming from Republicans.

Earlier this year, Trump pivoted on his critical Bitcoin views to embrace digital currencies. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden vetoed legislation that crypto leaders said would have improved their abilities to work with traditional banks.

Nationwide, eyes are turning to Nashville’s Bitcoin conference to see what progress will be made, if any politicians commit to a federal Bitcoin strategic reserve and if any surprise tech billionaires pop into town.

Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, Tesla, and Memphis-based xAI is rumored to take the stage at the conference.

Legislation is also expected to be discussed to bolster the profile of cryptocurrency.
A possible federal Bitcoin strategic reserve

Reports swirled throughout the crypto community over the last week that a federal Bitcoin strategic reserve could soon become a possibility in the U.S.

This would result in the federal government buying up an unspecified number of Bitcoin units and holding onto them — in the same way that the country maintains the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“A Bitcoin strategic reserve would mean that the U.S. is signaling to the rest of the world that we’re going to make a diligent effort to hold Bitcoin as part of the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but also possibly even look into putting more mining efforts here in the U.S.,” Kline said.

Mining is the process that creates new Bitcoins and verifies transactions.

Educational Bitcoin nonprofit CEO Dennis Porter said the reserve proposal could come from Trump, and Fox Business reported Wednesday that Wyoming’s Sen. Cynthia Lummis plans to announce legislation to create a Bitcoin reserve this week.

Lummis plans to speak in Nashville on Friday. Her office did not respond to The Tennessean’s request for comment on Thursday.
Support from Elon Musk

Bailey, head of the company hosting the Bitcoin conference, has alluded to a surprise guest who may speak in Nashville this weekend.

Bailey’s posts on X about making “more programming space” and “apologizing in advance for breaking the internet” sparked conjecture that tech billionaire Elon Musk could be in attendance. NFT news platform SolanaFloor also reported that Musk’s private plane landed in Memphis earlier this week.

Musk has been a strong supporter of cryptocurrencies, and following the attempted assassination of Trump earlier this month, he officially endorsed Trump for the 2024 election.
How Bitcoin aligns with the GOP

The Bitcoin2024 lineup — a who's who of Republican and libertarian celebrities, influencers and politicians — has a distinct partisan edge.

Several conference attendees said Republicans offer more favorable regulatory terms.

“Bitcoin itself is a way of decoupling money in the state, and so that might align more with the Republican or conservative side in terms of fundamental values of taking that power away from the government and the ability to choose a new form of money,” Quai Network cofounder Alan Orwick said. “That's kind of where the lines are being drawn.”

Others pointed to an “unfriendly” environment with the Securities Exchange Commission that they’ve noticed in the last four years.

“We haven't seen what VP Harris's stance is yet, but we're assuming it's the same as the Biden administration, which has been very hostile, especially in regards to the SEC Chairman Gary Gensler,” CastleFunds President Peter Eberle said. “Unfortunately, some of the innovative companies have decided to set up shop overseas, where the regulatory framework is more friendly.”

Eberle said he believes a Republican administration would foster more affable guidelines for crypto.

Hadley Hitson covers trending business, dining and health care for The Tennessean. She can be reached at hhitson@gannett.com. To support her work, subscribe to The Tennessean.

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Nashville Bitcoin conference: GOP, libertarian politics at play


Trump Gets Upstaged by RFK Jr.’s Claims of ‘Bitcoin Fort Knox’

Teresa Xie and Stephanie Lai
Sat, July 27, 2024



(Bloomberg) -- The cryptocurrency community has anxiously been awaiting a speech by Donald Trump on Saturday, but his opponent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may have stolen Trump’s thunder by announcing that the former president is considering the creation of a massive government reserve of Bitcoin should he return to the White House.

“I understand that tomorrow President Trump may announce his plan to build a Bitcoin Fort Knox and authorize the US government to buy a million Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset,” Kennedy told the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville on Friday, a day before Trump was scheduled to speak at the same event. “And I applaud that announcement.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the remarks.

Kennedy told the conference that he would go even further than Trump if he’s elected: He would sign an executive order on his first day in office directing the Treasury to buy Bitcoin every day and add it to the tokens currently held by the Department of Justice until the US builds a reserve of at least 4 million Bitcoin.

One million Bitcoin currently have a market value of more than $68 billion, while 4 million are worth about $274 billion. Bitcoin currently has a market capitalization of about $1.3 trillion.

Kennedy said his plan would ensure US dominance in the sector and allow the nation to have the same proportion of Bitcoin as it has gold in its reserves, which would drive up Bitcoin’s valuation.

Kennedy, who is running a distant third behind Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in polls ahead of the November presidential election, also said he would order the Internal Revenue Service to treat all transactions between Bitcoin and the US dollar as nontaxable.

Trump’s speech to the Bitcoin conference is scheduled for 3 p.m. New York time on Saturday, and will follow a fund-raiser targeting donors in the crypto industry who are in Nashville for the event. He invited supporters to an event with an asking price of $844,600 for a seat at a crypto-themed round table. Other prominent political figures at the conference include Trump’s vice presidential pick JD Vance, as well as his Republican primary opponent Vivek Ramaswamy.

The conference’s exhibition space was filled with promotions mixing Bitcoin and Trump themes, including vendors selling red baseball hats that said “Make Bitcoin Great Again” and “Bitcoin Made in America.”

“If Trump is elected, the U.S. will have to add Bitcoin as a reserve, because it is digital gold,” said Arseniy Grusha, chief executive officer of data-center firm Dataprana, who attended the conference. “The earlier they do that, the better it will be for the United States.”

Trump’s support for cryptocurrencies this election cycle is still relatively new and marks a departure from his stance on digital assets during his presidency, when he proclaimed that he was “not a fan” of Bitcoin and warned that unregulated crypto assets could facilitate unlawful behavior.

It’s no accident that crypto industry executives have crossed paths with the Republican nominee’s campaign trail: A potential second Trump term is likely their best chance for a softer approach from regulators, who heavily pursued crypto companies under President Joe Biden following the 2022 collapse of the FTX exchange and a string of industry bankruptcies that followed. Wealthy crypto executives have donated millions to Trump and pro-crypto political groups.

The former president ramped up his backing of cryptocurrencies in early June, when he met with several Bitcoin miners at his Mar-a-Lago Club and promised that he would advocate for US miners if elected.

Since that meeting, Trump has continued to publicly tout his support for cryptocurrencies, including posting on his Truth Social account that Bitcoin mining could be “our last line of defense against a CBDC,” referring to a central bank digital currency. Trump’s disdain for CBDCs echos sentiments held by crypto executives, who see a potential digital dollar as a way for the government to enhance financial surveillance on its citizens.

The former president also amended his party’s platform for the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee to read: “Republicans will end Democrats’ unlawful and unAmerican Crypto crackdown and oppose the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency.”

‘Doesn’t Really Matter’

Despite Trump’s support for the industry, not everyone at the Nashville conference is a fan.

“I never voted and I won’t vote in this election and I probably never will,” said Colin Aulds, founder of crypto miner 10NetZero. “I don’t trust Trump to not backstab us. Politicians lie, and he’s still a politician.”

For others in Nashville, the enthusiasm for Bitcoin far outweighed their enthusiasm for any candidate.

“It doesn’t really matter who the president is,” said Chris Kramer, who traveled from Arizona for the event. “I don’t really care much about it, because Bitcoin will do its thing regardless.”

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
TWO TIERED JU$TICE


The best justice money can buy: Donald Trump pursues legal challenges others can't afford

Bart Jansen, USA TODAY
Updated Sat, July 27, 2024

LONG READ


The promise of the U.S. judicial system may be equal justice for all, but former President Donald Trump's flurry of motions and appeals in his criminal and civil cases has shown how much deep pockets can tip the scales.

Nearly all criminal defendants plead guilty rather than fight charges at trial. But Trump's fundraising of tens of millions of dollars has paid lawyers to argue all the way to the Supreme Court that charges in his federal election interference case should be dismissed.

“Everyone is intended to be afforded equal justice, however, the reality is you receive as much justice as you can afford," said Tim Parlatore, a lawyer who represented Trump during the early phases of the classified documents and election interference investigations.

Trump has been indicted on 88 felony counts in four separate cases. He was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York.

A federal judge in Florida dismissed 40 charges related to hoarding classified documents after leaving the White House, thanks to Trump's deep pockets funding motions making novel arguments. Those could be reinstated by a higher court, but the process will be lengthy and the outcome uncertain.

Trials are pending on accusations of election interference with four federal counts in Washington and 10 state counts in Georgia, but the Supreme Court ordered a review that could throw out charges in those cases and possibly vacate his convictions.

The bottom line: Despite many of his efforts failing, Trump's legal battles have delayed his remaining trials likely until after the November election.

“Trump‘s apparent limitless resources demonstrate the financial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney who is now a law professor at the University of Michigan. “A well-funded defendant has the luxury of pursuing every defense possible, even taking a flyer on obviously frivolous motions, whereas a defendant represented by a public defender or a low-cost lawyer lack that opportunity because the lawyers are overworked and underpaid.”

Former President Donald Trump walks outside Trump Tower after the verdict in his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, in New York City, on May 30, 2024.

In theory, any defendant could try all of these tactics. But in reality, the costs of paying top-tier criminal defense lawyers like Trump's millions of dollars for aggressive representation would bankrupt almost any other client.

“Sometimes the defendant has to make that horrible choice like: ‘I can only afford to file one motion.' Which one are we going to file?” Parlatore said.

As in politics, money doesn’t guarantee victory. Trump was convicted in New York of falsifying business records to reimburse his lawyer for paying hush money to a porn actress and he lost two civil trials for combined damages of more than $500 million.

But even the cases he lost aren't over, as his appeals continue.
Most criminal defendants plead guilty rather than force a trial

Trump's ability to pay lawyers to mount every possible legal challenge stands in stark contrast to routine criminal defendants.

Nearly 90% of federal criminal defendants − 64,139 out of 71,887 − pleaded guilty last year, according to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, which tracks federal cases. About 2% of defendants − 1,564 − were convicted at trial. Most of the rest of the cases were dismissed with a relative handful acquitted at trial.

Many defendants, even some who are innocent, accept a plea deal to avoid the cost of mounting a criminal defense.

But Trump, in addition to being a self-proclaimed billionaire, has tapped his supporters to pay his legal fees through his Save America political action committee and presidential campaign committee.

“I think the reality is simply that defendants who are well-resourced are going to have an easier time fighting against the government in court and are much more willing to risk going to trial than those who are much more limited financially," said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant law professor at Georgia State University.
How much is Trump paying his lawyers?

Trump's Save America political action committee spent more than $70 million on “legal consulting” from Trump’s leaving office in January 2021 through June 30, according to Federal Election Committee records. The spending included:

$13 million to two firms of Christopher Kise, who represents Trump in his New York civil fraud lawsuit and the federal classified documents case.


$8.6 million to Clifford Robert’s firm, which represents Trump in the civil fraud lawsuit.


$6.7 million to Alina Habba's firm, which represented him in the fraud lawsuit and the civil defamation lawsuit brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll.


$6.7 million to Todd Blanche, who represents Trump with Emil Bove in the New York hush-money trial and the federal cases for classified documents and election interference.


$5.4 million to John Lauro, who represents Trump in his federal election interference case.


$1.5 million to Steven Sadow, who represents Trump in his election racketeering case in Georgia.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group for transparency in campaign funding, said if Trump is as rich as he claims, he should be paying for his own legal defense because contributing to his legal defense would be “a hell of a way to buy influence with a person.”

“While this may be all legal, it’s wrong and it basically stinks,” said Wertheimer, who filed an argument in the appeals court against Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

Trump's campaign and several of the lawyers didn't respond to requests for comment.

Legal experts said Trump's deep pockets allow him to have lawyers make arguments even with little chance of success. Mark Zauderer, a partner at Dorf, Nelson and Zauderer who has practiced in New York for 50 years, said Trump can pitch arguments that help him politically even if they don't succeed legally.

Trump's repeated efforts to have Judge Juan Merchan kicked off his New York case had no chance because his argument that Merchan had a conflict of interest because of his daughter's occupation had been examined and rejected by New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics. But it was designed to bolster his public claims of political persecution.

Trump sought repeatedly to delay the trial, to prevent witnesses from testifying such as Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels or to demand a mistrial, and to appeal his gag order. But he was rejected at nearly every turn.

“Trump is able to use those resources not only to launch aggressive litigation tactics but he has demonstrated a willingness to assert things in court through his lawyers that most litigants would not, for fear of offending the court," Zauderer said. “Whether or not that gets any traction in the court, it’s one more opportunity to delay things and kind of throw dust."

A person holds a placard outside the Supreme Court, following the justices ruling on former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's bid for immunity from federal prosecution for 2020 election subversion in Washington, on July 1, 2024.
Biggest victory at Supreme Court despite claims about SEAL Team 6 assassination

Trump's biggest victory in all of his litigation was the Supreme Court ruling July 1 that former presidents can't be charged for official conduct while in office.

In each of his four criminal cases, Trump has argued his actions were official business. But prosecutors have argued his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to retain national defense records after he left the White House and to pay off a porn star to silence her about an alleged affair and conceal the payments were were private actions.

Trump’s two federal trials – on election interference and retaining classified documents – are on hold and his sentencing in the New York hush-money case was postponed as judges in each case review whether charges should be dismissed based on the ruling.

Aileen Cannon, the Florida judge initially assigned to oversee Donald Trump's classified documents case, answers questions during her nomination hearing by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, U.S. July 29, 2020 in a still image from video.
Judge throws out charges Trump mishandled classified documents

Another major victory for Trump was getting his classified documents case dismissed because of how his prosecutor was appointed.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional.

Legal experts considered Cannon's ruling an outlier because special prosecutors had been upheld for decades in other cases. For example, courts have upheld special counsel appointments repeatedly, including in the cases of Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, and David Weiss, who prosecuted Hunter Biden. Smith has appealed her decision.

Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called the ruling "wrong six ways from Sunday" and predicted it would be immediately appealed.

But Trump's deep pockets allowed him to pursue long-shot motions that occasionally pay off.

“The reality is to properly defend the case, you want to attack every single angle," said Parlatore, who noted that special counsels have been upheld in other federal districts, but not southern Florida.

Unorthodox disputes arose in the classified documents case before charges were filed. After the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s lawyers Cannon to appoint a former federal judge to serve as special master to review thousands of documents.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially overturned the hold on prosecutors investigating the documents and then overturned the special master entirely by ruling the time for Trump to challenge the results of the search would be after charges were filed.

Another advantage Trump brought to the table was his political power. He wasn't just a defendant pleading before Cannon − he appointed her.

McQuade, the former federal prosecutor, said one advantage to the ruling was that Smith could not just appeal but also ask the 11th Circuit to replace Cannon in the case.
Georgia case on hold as Trump tries to oust prosecutor

Georgia’s highest court will hear arguments in October about whether to remove the prosecutor in Trump's election racketeering case.

Trump joined the fight to remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the case because of her romantic relationship with another prosecutor.

Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee ruled in March that Willis could stay on the case if the other prosecutor, Nathan Wade, resigned, which Wade immediately did.

But McAfee rejected Trump’s argument the charges should be dismissed because his claims of election fraud were protected by the First Amendment.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump listens as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton answers a question from the audience during their presidential town hall debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, on Oct. 9, 2016.
Trump, lawyers fighting nearly $1 million in sanctions over Hillary Clinton lawsuit

Trump is fighting nearly $1 million in sanctions after losing a lawsuit against his former Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton.

Trump sued Clinton and dozens of other defendants in March 2022 citing $24 million in damages over a dossier of unconfirmed allegations against Trump gathered by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Steele had been hired by Fusion GPS, a private investigations company, which was paid by Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Trump's lawsuit alleged that Clinton and dozens of others “orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information” about him.

But U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks threw out the lawsuit, ruling “this case should never have been brought.” Middlebrooks called the lawsuit "a series of disconnected political disputes" that Trump "alchemized into a sweeping conspiracy." Middlebrooks agreed with Clinton that the lawsuit sounded like "a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances" that had no merit.

Clinton and 17 other defendants sought sanctions for the frivolous lawsuit and Middlebrooks awarded them a combined $937,939 for legal fees and costs.

Trump and lawyers including Habba are appealing the dismissal of the case and the sanctions at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Arthur Engoron listens as lawyer Chris Kise gives closing arguments with former president Donald Trump watching in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on Jan. 11, 2024 in this courtroom sketch.
NY judges fine Trump for contempt for violating gag orders

Another way Trump's money changes the rules he plays by is that he can easily afford the standard fines for violating gag orders, which are intended to protect court staff and witnesses from intimidation.

Trump posted a picture of Engoron's law clerk, Allison Greenfield, that falsely accused her of being Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's "girlfriend."

Engoron, who had a bomb threat called into his home during the civil fraud case, fined Trump a combined $15,000 for violating his gag order against commenting on his clerk.

Trump also posted criticism repeatedly about his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, and porn actress Stormy Daniels, who were key witnesses in his hush-money trial. Merchan fined Trump $10,000.

"Weigh that against the political benefit he gets publicly, politically promoting himself as the victim," said Zauderer, the longtime New York lawyer. "How many people can just pay $10,000 or $20,000 out of their pocket just to thumb your nose at the court?"

Judge Arthur Engoron attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on Jan. 11, 2024.
Trump's lawyers are sometimes scolded for their advocacy

When Trump lawyer Cliff Robert asked Engoron to pause the enforcement of the $454 million judgment in Trump's civil fraud trial, the judge refused.

“You have failed to explain, much less justify, any basis for a stay,” Engoron wrote.

In the hush-money case, Trump's lawyers argued repeatedly that former lawyer Michael Cohen shouldn't be allowed to testify because of his previous convictions for perjury. But Merchan ruled Cohen hadn't been shown to be lying in the latest case.

“Rearguing this Court’s prior rulings in this manner is procedurally and professionally inappropriate and a waste of this Court’s valuable resources,” Merchan wrote in denying the request for a second time.

Another dustup occurred when Blanche told Merchan that Trump was trying to obey the gag order restricting his comments about potential witnesses and jurors.

"Mr. Blanche, you’re losing all credibility," Merchan said.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: How Donald Trump uses supporters' money to delay his trials
J.D. Vance Told Transgender Friend ‘I Love You’ and ‘I Hate Cops’
THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Hugh Dougherty
Sat, July 27, 2024 

Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/Getty Images and Ann Arbor News via AP


J.D. Vance’s long correspondence with a transgender friend who attended his wedding has been revealed—including how he spoke about hating cops and disparaged Donald Trump and conservative icon Antonin Scalia.

Sofia Nelson, a Yale Law School contemporary of Trump’s running mate, revealed how they corresponded by text and email for years until falling out over his support for a ban on gender-affirming medical treatment for minors.

The dossier of his emails and texts was revealed by the New York Times Saturday, with Nelson telling the paper the release was to highlight Vance’s shapeshifting from anti-Trump moderate Republican to MAGA culture warrior, accusing him of using his old position to amass money and his new one to amass power.


It is the latest example of a former friend of Vance releasing their correspondence and comes after his Yale roommate revealed the now-running mate once compared Trump to “Hitler.”

Sofia Nelson, now a public defender based in Detroit, has released the emails after a decade-long friendship with Vance fractured over his support of a ban on gender care for minors.
Jacob Hamilton/Ann Arbor News via AP

Nelson, now a public defender in Detroit, also shed new light on Vance’s wife Usha’s political views with the release, revealing a message from Vance in which he said she had no “ideological chops” and had been offered a Supreme Court clerkship by Democratic appointee Elena Kagan.

Vance’s rapid conversion from anti-Trump to all in-on the former president has been widely reported and the dossier shows him calling then-Republican primary contender Trump “a demagogue” in 2015. But the emails and texts show that he was not just anti-Trump in private: he also voiced views which are almost impossible to reconcile with any Republican orthodoxy.

In October 2014, after the police killing that summer of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old Black man in Ferguson, Missouri, caused widespread protests and violence, Vance wrote to Nelson: “I hate the police. Given the number of negative experiences I’ve had in the past few years, I can’t imagine what a Black guy goes through.”

Nelson’s release of parts of an almost decade-long correspondence between friends is the latest move by people from his past to hit Vance.
Megan Jelinger/Reuters

He backed compensation for Black victims of “redlining,” the practice of withholding financial services from minority areas although he said he stopped short of reparations for African Americans for slavery.

He also attacked the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia before his death, in an exchange when he told Nelson that Scalia had interviewed Usha Vance about clerkship. Nelson wrote to Vance that Scalia was “homophobic” and Vance replied: “He’s become a very shrill old man. I used to really like him, and I used to believe all of his stuff about judicial minimalism was sincere. Now I see it as a political charade.”

The dossier reveals how Usha Vance turned down a clerkship with Antonin Scalia, the conservative icon—and that J.D. Vance disparaged the justice and his judicial philosophy as conducting a “charade.”
Brendan McDermid/Reuters

The depth of friendship between the law school contemporaries, who had bonded over being from the midwest and not from privileged backgrounds, was clear. According to Nelson, Vance brought round baked goods after transition-related surgery. That day he said words to the effect of, “I don’t understand what you’re doing, but I support you,” Nelson told The Times. “And that meant a lot to me at the time, because I think that was the foundation of our friendship.” Nelson also attended the Vances’ joint Hindu and Christian wedding in Kentucky, where his grandparents were from, along with members of their law school circle.

And in 2016, when Vance published his Hillbilly Elegy, he sent Nelson an extract on email and said: “Hey Sofes, here’s an excerpt from my book. I send this to you not just to brag, but because I’m sure if you read it you’ll notice reference to ‘an extremely progressive lesbian.’ I recognize now that this may not accurately reflect how you think of yourself, and for that I am really sorry,” he wrote. “I hope you’re not offended, but if you are, I’m sorry! Love you, JD.”

Other emails show Vance attending Pride in San Francisco in 2015 and telling Nelson: “It felt more like a frat party than I expected. But still nice to see a lot of happy people.”

The two stayed in touch by Zoom during the early stages of the pandemic but their relationship ruptured when he publicly backed a ban on gender care for minors in Arkansas in 2021.

His campaign told The Times in a statement that it was “unfortunate” that 10-year-old messages “between friends” had been leaked. The statement said, “Senator Vance…has been open about the fact that some of his views from a decade ago began to change after becoming a dad and starting a family, and he has thoroughly explained why he changed his mind on President Trump. Despite their disagreements, Senator Vance cares for Sofia and wishes Sofia the very best.”

Read more at The Daily Beast.



Kamala Harris Loves Late-Night; Will The Democratic Nominee Return Before The Election?

Peter White
Fri, July 26, 2024 


Kamala Harris has appeared on the major late-night shows more than 20 times in the last five years and the hope from the talk community is that she’ll be back for more as she seeks the Presidency.


Harris’ battle to beat Donald Trump to become President of the United States of America has already given late-night more momentum as the country enters the last 100 days of the campaign.

Harris, whose most recent appearance was on Jimmy Kimmel Live! in June (her third), has also appeared on shows including The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (eight times including sketches), Late Night with Seth Meyers (five times), and twice on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and The Daily Show as well as one on the now-canceled Hell of a Week with Charlamagne Tha God.

It’s not a late-night show, but Harris is fresh from an appearance on RuPaul’s Drag Race, where she encouraged people to get out and vote.

She clearly believes it’s a good medium to get her message across, from Slow Jamming the News with Fallon or doing a Mood Mix with Colbert.

Deadline understands that a number of these late-night shows, many of which are currently on a summer hiatus, are now putting together their case for Harris to return to the evening chat scene over the next three months.

One late-night showrunner told Deadline that they didn’t believe Harris would do any late-night appearances before the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which runs August 19-22 in Chicago, but may be more open to the invitation after that.

“I would not be surprised if she did the late-night tour,” added another.

Harris has clearly enjoyed many of her late-night appearances if her laugh is anything to go by (even if Trump seems to think her having a sense of humor is a bad thing).

Her appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! in June – her first during this election cycle – was a mixture of serious policy chat, reacting to Donald Trump’s 34 felony convictions and some jokes, particularly when she discovered there was a strain of cannabis – Kamala Kush – named after her.

“The reality is, cheaters don’t like getting caught and being held accountable,” she said, a point that she continues to make.

Harris’ previous late-night appearances have been a mixture of serious conversations, particularly around when she was running to become the Democratic nominee for President in the 2020 race, and frivolity.

For instance, in 2019, she appeared on The Tonight Show with Fallon to Slow Jam The News, saying she’d “wipe the floor” with Trump during a debate.

She was also evidently having fun on The Late Show with her own Mood Mix, where she namechecked some of her favorite musical artists including Tribe Called Quest, Prince, Beyonce, Aretha Franklin, Kendrick Lamar, Funkadelic, Bob Marley and the Wailers and Salt-n-Pepa

Harris has appeared on Late Night with Seth Meyers multiple times, including most recently as Vice President in October 2022, where she talked about marijuana legislation and abortion rights ahead of the 2022 midterms. During her first appearance on The Daily Show, then hosted by Trevor Noah, she talked about small business policies, trafficking and immigration reform as well having to deal with the press’ take on her barbecue order and clothing choices, while her second, in October 2020, was largely focused on the pandemic.  

However, she has also faced some challenges in late-night. Her appearance on Hell of a Week with Charlamagne Tha God was more fraught than other spots. Charlamagne accused her of becoming less visible as VP, saying that it felt like she had “disappeared” and possibly even “silenced”. Harris hit back at this suggestion, but the appearance created a controversial press cycle thanks to questions about Senator Joe Manchin.

But it was an appearance on The Tonight Show back in September 2019 that might have been most integral to her current campaign. Pop star Charli XCX, whose new album is one of the most buzzed about of the summer, said “kamala IS brat”, an endorsement that will undoubtedly help her standing with younger voters. Harris was, in fact, on the NBC late-night show alongside Charli XCX, a night that might have helped cement that feeling.



Number of Americans who say US ready for female president dipping: Survey

Eden Teshome
THE HILL
Fri, July 26, 2024

Since 2015, the number of Americans who say they are ready for a female president has dropped by nine points, according to a new Times/SAY24 poll from YouGov poll.

The survey, conducted after President Biden dropped out of the race, was designed to assess the electorate’s beliefs surrounding “gender bias,” and Vice President Harris’s chances come November.

While the respondents said that both Trump and Harris are equally qualified for the job, with 49 percent saying they are, voters are hesitant about the idea of a female president — 54 percent of the country says they are ready for a woman president and 30 percent said they aren’t.

That number is down from 2015, when an Economist/YouGov poll found 63 percent of voters were ready for a woman president. That survey was taken in May of that year, just a month after Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for president, and a month before she became the first woman to secure a major party’s presidential nomination.

As Harris contends to be the second to do so, gender may serve as a significant roadblock. Forty-one percent of Americans assume that more than half of their fellow countrymen would not be willing to vote for a woman over a man if the two candidates are equally qualified.

The assessment extends to members of the Democratic party. While 77 percent say the country is ready for a woman president, 37 percent think their fellow Americans wouldn’t vote for an equally qualified woman. These anxieties may have led 35 percent of Democrats to say Harris should choose a man as her running mate, and only 6 percent to say that she should choose a woman.

Still among Democrats that could be selected as a running mate, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had the highest favorability at 27 percent. She has taken herself out of consideration for the vice presidency, instead choosing to join the Harris campaign as a co-chair.

Two top contenders for the VP nomination poll favorably as well — former astronaut Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) both rate at 22 percent.

The YouGov Poll was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday among 1,170 registered U.S. voters. The margin of error was 3 percent.
Canada owes First Nations billions after making ‘mockery’ of treaty deal, top court rules

Leyland Cecco in Toronto
THE GUARDIAN
Fri, July 26, 2024

A man waves a Six Nations flag during National Indigenous Peoples Day on 21 June 2022 in Mississauga, Ontario.
Photograph: The Canadian Press/Alamy

An “egregious” refusal by successive Canadian governments to honor a key treaty signed with Indigenous nations made a “mockery” of the deal and deprived generations of fair compensation for their resources, Canada’s top court has ruled.

But while the closely watched decision will likely yield billions in payouts, First Nation chiefs say the ruling adds yet another hurdle in the multi-decade battle for justice.

In a scathing and unanimous decision released on Friday, Canada’s supreme court sharply criticized both the federal and Ontario governments for their “dishonourable” conduct around a 174-year-old agreement, which left First Nations people to struggle in poverty while surrounding communities, industry and government exploited the abundant natural resources in order to enrich themselves.

“For almost a century and a half, the Anishinaabe have been left with an empty shell of a treaty promise,” the court wrote in the landmark ruling.

Related: The Crown promised riches to First Nations in Canada – over 150 years on, they could finally get billions

The stark language reflects the enduring legacy of the colonial project first envisioned by the British government and continued after Canada gained independence and offers yet another example of major cases tilting towards Indigenous peoples. The court decision to highlight “egregious” ways in which governments have treated their agreements with nations could have far-reaching consequences, both for the affected communities and the country.

The case centered on a treaty signed in 1850 between the British Crown and a group of Anishinaabe nations on the shores of Lakes Huron and Superior. Known as the Robinson Treaties, the agreements, covering 35,700 sq miles (92,400 sq km) of land, included a rare “augmentation clause” that promised to increase annual payments “from time to time” as the land generated more wealth – “if and when” that payment could be made without the Crown incurring a loss.Interactive

Over the next 174 years, the lands and waters covered by the deal generated immense profits for companies – and substantial revenues for the province of Ontario. But in 1874, the annuities were capped in at $4 a person and never increased.

“Today, in what can only be described as a mockery of the Crown’s treaty promise to the Anishinaabe of the upper Great Lakes, the annuities are distributed to individual treaty beneficiaries by giving them $4 each,” the court wrote, singling out the “shocking” figure paid to beneficiaries. “The Crown has severely undermined both the spirit and substance of the Robinson Treaties.”

Among the key issues the court tackled was the novel “augmentation clause” in the treaty. The justices said that even though the treaty does not promise to pay a certain sum of money, “no party doubts that the Crown was able to increase the annuities beyond $4 per person without incurring loss, and that it should have exercised its discretion to do so.”

Finding the nation-to-nation agreement was an alliance of equals, the court called on the Crown to return “to the foundations of the treaty” and to “engage the honour of the Crown”, by increasing the annual payments. Failing to do so would be “patently dishonourable”, wrote justice Mahmud Jamal.

Lawrence Wanakamik, chief of Whitesand First Nation, told reporters the decision had been a “long time coming”.Interactive

“We have suffered all those years [with] no economic benefits to our community. It’s been hard over the years trying to make a whole community for Whitesand,” he said, holding back tears. “We do have other struggles to contend with, but you know, with this settlement … we’ll have a better community from this point on.”

Crucially, the ruling does not award a settlement to Superior Anishinaabe First Nations, who had previously argued they are owed C$126bn in back payments. An Ontario court ruled on this claim last year, but the supreme court ordered the ruling be held in reserve pending Friday’s decsion. The court also said the settlement ruling must remain unreleased for another six months so that both parties could come to an agreement.

But Wilfred King, chief of Gull Bay First Nation, said he was “a bit disappointed” by key parts of the ruling, namely the way in which the Crown proposes the figure it feels is fair.

“How do you negotiate when one side says, ‘Well, we think this is a fair amount?’”

Related: ‘It was like the wild west’: meet the First Nations guardians protecting Canada’s pristine shores

Ontario has previously argued in court that far from growing rich, it has spent nearly C$4.2bn in its efforts to settle the north and open it up to industry.

For nations that have waited decades for compensation, the prospect of more legal wrangling is “unfortunate”, said King.

“Both Crowns – Canada and Ontario – were admonished by the court for making a mockery of the treaty. And it’s important that both Crowns understand why they were being criticized,” he continued.

The supreme court has given Ontario a six-month timeline to propose a new settlement with the First Nations groups on Lake Superior. The justices warned that if governments couldn’t settle fair compensation, the court would step in.

“I’m hopeful that the Crown comes to the table with clean hands this time and try to come to an amicable agreement,” said King. “We knew we were never going to come close to the C$126bn we believe we’re owed. But it just showed you the vast amount of resources that have been extracted from our territory without fair compensation.”
UK
Government will not ‘pass the buck’ on energy to future generations – minister

Claudia Savage, Will Durrant and Rhiannon James, 
PA Political Staff
Fri, July 26, 2024 

The Government will not be “passing the buck” on building renewable energy infrastructure to future generations, a minister has said.

Energy minister Michael Shanks also told MPs that some areas will have to host “nationally significant” power infrastructure such as solar farms in response to concerns expressed about the “detrimental impacts” on communities.

MPs had a general debate on Friday on making Britain a “clean energy superpower”, with the Great British Energy Bill due to receive its second reading after the summer recess.


Conservative MP for Huntingdon Ben Obese-Jecty raised the East Park Energy solar farm, a proposed project in his constituency, which he said would be “larger than Gatwick Airport”.

Energy minister Michael Shanks said ‘we need to tackle this crisis’ (PA)

He said local residents have “grave concerns” over the scale of the development and asked the minister if he would commit to rural communities having a say on the Government allowing large solar farms to be built in their local areas “given the detrimental impacts”.

Mr Shanks replied: “We’re not in any way going to remove the ability of communities to be part of, of course, a consultation process in the planning system.”

He added: “But at some point, we have to have this national recognition that there is infrastructure that we need that is nationally significant.

“Some communities will have to host that infrastructure and there should be benefits for those communities in doing it.

“But that doesn’t mean that we should stop doing it and I’m afraid the days of Government passing the buck to a future generation to fix these issues are gone.

“We need to tackle this crisis and that means we will be building and there will be projects in communities, with consultation of course, but nationally significant projects will have to go ahead if we want to reach the targets by 2030.”

Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has sold his MPs down the river and that energy bills will not reduce under Labour.

Ms Coutinho said: “The people now sitting on the benches behind the minister will have been telling their new constituents that their plans would save them £300 on their energy bills – they said it in hustings, they said it on local media, they said it on their leaflets. But they will have noticed by now that their ministers are no longer saying that at all.

Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said Labour’s approach to energy ‘will add huge costs to people’s bills’ (PA)

“And this is the problem, when you get into government, and you speak in the House, you cannot use numbers for which you have no basis.”

This was met with laughter from the Labour benches.

Ms Coutinho continued: “They will learn this, they laugh, but their voters won’t forget that they made them that promise.”

She added: “They all know that their leadership has sold them down the river on this one, because the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State know those savings cannot be delivered. In fact, their approach to energy will add huge costs to people’s bills.

“That’s not us being evil Tories on this side of the House, that’s also the view of the European lead for Mitsubishi Power who said that Labour Party plans would require a huge sacrifice from Brits.”

Former Conservative Party chairman Richard Holden also criticised the Government over its claim that clean energy plans would knock £300 off bills.

He said: “It’s been causing quite a lot of confusion in the national media over the last couple of days when Downing Street have been saying one thing, (Mr Shanks’) department have been saying another.”

Mr Shanks replied: “I think it does take a bit of a brass neck to come here and talk about bringing down bills when the government that he supported for a long time saw those skyrocket.

“We’ve been very clear, bills will come down, we said that throughout the campaign, we said that yesterday and we stand by that because bills must come down, but this isn’t going to happen overnight.”

Elsewhere in the debate, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for climate change Wera Hobhouse said the race to net zero is the “major economic opportunity of the century”.

She said: “The green economy must sit at the heart of economic growth, and the Government has work to do to reverse the damaging narrative of the previous government, that this is about green versus growth.

“And also to reverse the unforgivable failures of the last Conservative government, which delayed, blocked or even reversed urgent action on climate change. Now is the time to move forward.”

Winding up, Tory shadow energy minister Joy Morrissey pointed to plans for a Government-backed company called GB Energy to “accelerate Britain’s pathway to energy independence”.

Ms Morrissey said the plan “is simply the Government subsidising high-risk projects for the private sector on the one hand, whilst decimating our oil and gas industry on the other”.

Ms Hobhouse intervened and said: “Is the shadow minister not aware that exactly this negative narrative from her party has held us back in the way to net zero?”

In his winding up speech, Mr Shanks said: “The rhetoric that we’re now hearing from this Conservative Party is a million miles from that David Cameron conservatism that said we should take the environment seriously.”

He added: “The reason that we’re on this journey is not because of some sort of ideological commitment to net zero, but because we know it is the only way to deliver the energy security that we need to reduce our dependence on volatile gas prices and to deliver the cheaper energy that we know will bring down bills.”


 Crown Estate Partners With GB Energy to Expand Wind Power


Eamon Akil Farhat and William Mathis
Thu, July 25, 2024 



(Bloomberg) -- The Crown Estate of King Charles III will partner with a new state-backed company to accelerate the building of offshore wind farms that are vital to the UK’s energy and climate goals.

Thursday’s announcement marks the first concrete step by the government to use Great British Energy in its quest for a zero-carbon electric grid by 2030. The collaboration with the Crown Estate, owners of the UK’s seabed, means the public sector will get involved in projects earlier and may attract more private funding.

“I don’t just want to be in the race for clean energy; I want us to win the race for clean energy,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Thursday in a speech in Runcorn, northwest England. “We’ve got the potential, we’ve got the ports, we’ve got the people, the skills.”

Juergen Maier, a British-Austrian national who led Siemens UK from 2014 to 2019 and is Vice-Chair of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, has been appointed to chair Great British Energy.

The agreement could leverage as much as £60 billion ($77 billion) of investment into the UK’s renewables business, the government said. Energy security and the need for the state to play a bigger role in guaranteeing that was a major campaign issue for recently-elected Starmer.

Though the company will be free to make its own decisions, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, will prepare and lay before Parliament a statement of strategic priorities for the company. He could also give directions to the firm following a similar parliamentary procedure.

“The first test of GB Energy and its partnership with the Crown Estate will be in this year’s CfD auction,” said Sam Hollister, head of energy economics, policy and investment at consultants LCP Delta. “With zero offshore wind procured last year, the industry and the UK’s decarbonization ambitions are playing catch-up.”

LCP Delta estimates that the UK must procure 15 gigawatts of capacity in the next two auctions to reach a 55 gigawatt target. Earlier this year, LCP Delta estimated that the current budget would only lead to 4-6 gigawatts of capacity at the next auction.

Great British Energy is receiving £8.3 billion of taxpayer money to own and operate assets in collaboration with the private sector. By allowing borrowing, the government believes 20-30 gigawatts of new offshore wind seabed leases can be secured by 2030.

--With assistance from Alex Morales.


ScottishPower boss hopes to double UK energy investment by 2030

Alex Daniel, PA Business Reporter
Sat, July 27, 2024


ScottishPower’s boss has said he hopes to double the firm’s investments in UK energy projects to as much as £24 billion if Labour’s policy changes pay off.

Chief executive Keith Anderson said ScottishPower has a spending programme of £12 billion in the years to 2028, but that he would “love to double that by the time we get to 2030”.

Though he stopped short of committing the funding, he told the PA news agency: “If the Government can halve the time it takes to get projects through planning, I’ll double the amount I invest in this country.


“The Government wants to get clean power by 2030, it wants to quadruple offshore wind by 2030.

“To get there, companies need to double the amount that they invest in (the UK), and that’s what we want to do.”

ScottishPower supplies energy to 4.4 million homes and businesses, builds onshore and offshore wind farms and runs vast tracts of the power grid across Scotland, and parts of England and Wales.

The money would go towards green energy projects such as putting up more wind turbines, he said, as well as improving the size and scope of the grid, which is expected to come under strain because of the shift to renewables.

As well as being an energy supplier, ScottishPower builds wind farms and runs parts of the power grid (Gareth Fuller/PA)

However, the plans hinge on whether Labour’s reforms to planning and energy policy bear fruit.

Earlier this month, energy secretary Ed Miliband scrapped a de facto ban on onshore wind farms, reversing planning measures brought in for England by the Conservatives in 2015 under David Cameron.

Onshore wind was treated differently from other developments under the rules, which stopped schemes going ahead if there were any objections.

Mr Anderson said: “If we can build a project in two years then it shouldn’t be sitting in the planning system for any more than two years. Right now these projects can sit there for over seven years.

“The Government is saying they are focused on accelerating projects through that system, and that’s exactly what we want to see.”

Labour said on Thursday that it will also partner with the monarchy’s property firm, the Crown Estate, which owns the UK’s seabeds, to help speed up investment and building of offshore wind farms, through its new state-owned energy company GB Energy.

Business groups urged the Government to give more detail on how the partnership would work in practice, to assuage concerns that GB Energy could act as a competitor and impede firms’ plans to invest.

Dan McGrail, chief executive of energy business group RenewableUK, said it is “vital that (GB Energy) doesn’t disrupt the billions of pounds of private investment the Government will need to deliver their clean power ambitions, so the next steps of its development will have to be formed in close partnership with the sector”.

Speaking before the GB Energy announcement, Mr Anderson said he is “optimistic” after seeing Sir Keir Starmer speak at a gathering of business leaders in the garden of 10 Downing Street on Wednesday.

“Whether that’s at the reception (on Wednesday), or at some of the other meetings we’ve been at over the last 10 days with the Government, there is a very positive atmosphere that things are going to change, that we’re going to work together and that we’re going to get this economic growth.”



A complicating factor is that it is ultimately a decision for his bosses at Spanish energy giant Iberdrola, which owns ScottishPower and also has subsidiaries across the Americas.

Mr Anderson said: “We compete for capital as a country, alongside Spain, America, Brazil and Mexico because we’re investing in lots of different countries.

“The faster I can get projects through the (planning) process, the more I can compete and accelerate the amount of capital I can get hold of.”

Saturday, July 27, 2024

Kenyan protesters vow to seize country’s main airport as deadly unrest continues into sixth week

Larry Madowo, CNN
Tue, July 23, 2024 

Protesters in Kenya have vowed “a total shutdown” as they seize control of Nairobi’s main international airport on Tuesday as deadly anti-government demonstrations intensify, now entering their sixth week.

At least 50 people have been killed during the protests and more than 400 injured, according to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights.

Widely shared social media posters encourage protesters to close all roads leading to the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport and cause a “total shutdown.”

Authorities said in a statement on Monday night that they increased security at the airport and warned against trespassing on protected areas, saying it was an offense punishable by law.

“We urge all individuals participating in demonstrations to respect these legal provisions from attempting to enter or interfere with protected areas,” acting Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja said.

The youth-led protests began last month after national outrage about a controversial finance bill that would have dramatically raised taxes on basic commodities.

After President William Ruto was forced to pull the bill, demonstrators shifted their attention to protesting against his legitimacy, corruption in his government and police brutality.
Renewed anger

Ruto on Friday renominated six ministers after he fired the entire cabinet last month due to public pressure, reigniting public anger over their renomination.

The cabinet nominees still need parliamentary approval, but they’re likely to be confirmed since Ruto’s party holds the required majority.

On Sunday, the president expressed frustration with the protests, declaring that “enough is enough” after failed attempts at dialogue.

“Going forward, we will protect the nation. We will protect life, property, we will stop the looters, killers, mayhem and anarchy because Kenya is a democracy, and we want a peaceful, stable nation,” Ruto said.

The protesters have largely organized on TikTok, X and other social media platforms by mostly Gen-Z citizens who have refused to identify a leader, drawing anger from Ruto.

“They keep saying they’re faceless, formless. I’ve told them I’ve given a chance to everybody to say whatever they want. It cannot continue like this,” Ruto added.