Connect with us

News

Keir Starmer attacks Tory plan to revive national service

Published

on

Keir Starmer attacks Tory plan to revive national service

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has ridiculed Rishi Sunak’s “teenage ‘Dad’s Army’” plan to revive national service, as a Tory minister distanced himself from the policy and a Conservative peer hit out at the UK prime minister.

In Starmer’s first major speech of the campaign on Monday, he sought to reassure voters that his party could be trusted with Britain’s security while claiming Sunak was engaged in political stunts.

Starmer attacked the “desperation” of Sunak’s £2.5bn-a-year plan to revive compulsory national service — which was abolished in 1960 — with 18-year-olds having to do work in the community or with the military.

Advertisement

He said it amounted to “a teenage ‘Dad’s Army’ paid for by cancelling levelling-up funding and money from tax avoidance that we would use to invest in our NHS”.

Steve Baker, Northern Ireland minister in Sunak’s government, also signalled doubts about the national service plan, which has been criticised in a region of the UK where serving with the British army is a highly political issue.

Baker posted on X that it was a Tory policy, not a government one.

“A government policy would have been developed by ministers on the advice of officials and collectively agreed. I would have had a say on behalf of NI [Northern Ireland],” he wrote.

“But this proposal was developed by a political adviser or advisers and sprung on candidates, some of whom are relevant ministers.”

Advertisement

In a further indication of Conservative disarray, Lord Zac Goldsmith said on X that the prime minister had “damaged the Party almost beyond repair and all but guaranteed the majority of his MPs will lose their job next month”.

The Conservative peer added that “the hope is that when Sunak disappears off to California in a few weeks there are at least some decent MPs left around which to rebuild”.

Tory headquarters also acknowledged it had “in error” sent Conservative MPs an email that blamed them for failing to “get behind” the campaign and disclosed personal information, according to a report in the Times.

Sunak’s manifesto pledge to make all 18-year-olds take part in a year-long military placement or to carry out 25 days of compulsory “volunteering” in the community is his biggest policy statement to date.

But Starmer attempted to draw a distinction between his offer of “stability” and Sunak’s approach to government, which he said amounted to “a new plan every week, a new strategy every month”.

Advertisement

Speaking in West Sussex, he vowed to put “country first, party second”, in an attempt to reassure floating voters that he had buried the legacy of left-wing former leader Jeremy Corbyn.

He acknowledged that voters still had questions about Labour and whether his party had changed enough for voters to trust him with their money and with the country’s borders and security.

“My answer is yes, you can, because I have changed my party permanently,” he said.

The Labour leader’s speech was an attempt to establish himself in the minds of voters, many of whom have reservations about him: Starmer is less popular than his party.

YouGov polling last week found that 34 per cent of people had a favourable view of the Labour leader compared with 53 per cent holding a negative view.

Advertisement

Starmer told his audience he grew up in Oxted, a village on the Surrey/Kent border that was “about as English as it gets” but that his family experienced real hardship growing up.

He said that in the 1970s, when inflation was out of control, his family had the phone disconnected because they could not pay all their bills, adding that this informed his belief in the need for economic stability.

Conservatives have focused on Starmer’s record of ditching policies, including many of the left-wing ones he espoused in 2020 when running to succeed Corbyn as Labour leader.

Richard Holden, Conservative party chair, said: “Once again Keir Starmer stood up to tell the country absolutely nothing. In this wearisome and rambling speech there was no policy, no substance, and no plan.”

Starmer, asked whether he stood by the promise he made to axe student tuition fees, said that was still “an option” and there was “a powerful case for change” to the ways students and universities were funded.

Advertisement

But he said a Labour government would face difficult choices and his priority would be the NHS.

Starmer also defended Labour’s plan to end the VAT tax break for private schools, but said the money raised would be used to appoint 6,500 more teachers to state secondary schools.

“I understand the aspirations of those who work and save to send their children to private schools,” he said, before adding that he also understood the aspirations of those, like himself, who sent their children to state schools.

News

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Published

on

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., takes questions at a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Speaker Mike Johnson, R.-La., is forging ahead with his latest proposal to renew a key American spy power. His bill, revealed Thursday, is largely unchanged from a previous plan which failed in a series of overnight votes earlier this month.

The program at center of the debate, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is set to expire on April 30.

FISA 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept the electronic communications of foreign nationals located outside of the United States. Some of the nearly 350,000 foreign targets whose communications are collected under the provision are in touch with Americans, whose calls, texts and emails could end up in the trove of information available to the federal government for review.

Advertisement

For almost two decades, privacy-minded lawmakers from both parties have sought to require specific court approval before federal law enforcement can conduct a targeted review of an American’s information gathered through the program. The lack of any such warrant requirement helped sink an effort last week to extend the program for 18 months, as well as a separate vote on a five-year renewal. 

Trump officials, like those in past administrations, have argued that such a warrant requirement would overburden law enforcement and endanger national security. Johnson’s latest proposal would reauthorize the program for three years, but does not include a warrant requirement. Instead, the bill calls for the FBI to submit monthly explanations for reviews of Americans’ information to an oversight official as well as criminal penalties for willful abuse, among other tweaks.

“I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country,” the president wrote on Truth Social last week, advocating for the program to be extended without changes. “I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks. It has already prevented MANY such Attacks, and it is very important that it remain in full force and effect.”

Glenn Gerstell, who served as general counsel at the National Security Agency during the Obama and first Trump administration, says Johnson’s reforms look like an attempt to find a middle ground.

“There’s not a lot of really substantive changes to the statute, but some gestures are made to people who are worried about privacy and civil liberties,” Gerstell said. “It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise that is going to be satisfactory to the national security agencies and yet at the same time represents some gesture to the privacy advocates.”

Advertisement

“This is not a reform bill and it’s not a compromise,” Elizabeth Goitein, a privacy advocate and senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, wrote on X. “It’s a straight reauthorization with eight pages of words that serve no serious purpose other than to try to convince members that it’s NOT a straight reauthorization.”

A bipartisan reform deal is still out of reach

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, told NPR on Wednesday, before the release of Johnson’s new proposal, that lawmakers were working on a bipartisan solution. He said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., was in touch with Johnson on the issue.

“There’s a lot of work being done here,” Himes said. “We’re sort of working out a process that will be inclusive rather than exclusive.” Himes said he was negotiating with Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional law scholar, on a reform proposal they hoped could preserve and reform the program — reauthorizing it with bipartisan support.

But Johnson’s new bill appears to fall short of the inclusive approach Himes hoped for.

NPR obtained a memo written by Raskin to his colleagues urging them to oppose the bill, which he said “continues the disastrous policy of trusting the FBI to self-police and self-report its abuses of Section 702 and backdoor searches of Americans’ data.”

Advertisement

“FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin wrote.

FBI agents must receive annual training on FISA and are generally barred from searching for information about people in the U.S. if the goal of the search is to investigate general criminal activity, rather than find foreign intelligence information, and those searches need approval from a supervisor or an attorney. 

Republican hardliners — who sunk Johnson’s last reauthorization attempt — also don’t all appear to be on board for Johnson’s latest revision. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a past chair of the Freedom Caucus, said “we’re not there yet” in a video he shared to X on Thursday.

“I didn’t take an oath to defend FISA, I didn’t take an oath to defend the intelligence community,” Perry said. “We can’t have them spying on American citizens and, when they do, there has to be accountability and I haven’t seen any that I’m satisfied with yet.”

The House Rules committee meets Monday morning, the first step toward advancing the renewal bill toward a vote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading

News

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Published

on

U.S. soldier charged with suspected Polymarket insider trading over Maduro raid

Smoke rises from Port of La Guaira in Venezuela on Jan. 3, 2026 after U.S. forces seized the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro and his wife.

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jesus Vargas/Getty Images

Federal prosecutors on Thursday unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army soldier, accusing him of using his insider knowledge of the clandestine military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January to reap more than $400,000 in profits on the popular prediction market site Polymarket.

The Justice Department says Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, was part of the team that planned and carried out the predawn raid in Caracas earlier this year that resulted in the apprehension of Maduro.

The Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed the actions against Van Dyke, the first time U.S. officials have leveled criminal charges against someone over prediction market wagers.

Advertisement

According to the indictment, Van Dyke now faces counts of wire fraud, commodities fraud, misusing non-public government information and other charges.

Trading under numerous usernames including “Burdensome-Mix,” Van Dyke allegedly traded about $32,000 on the arrest of Maduro, resulting in profits exceeding $400,000.

“Prediction markets are not a haven for using misappropriated confidential or classified information for personal gain,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Those entrusted to safeguard our nation’s secrets have a duty to protect them and our armed service members, and not to use that information for personal financial gain.”

Van Dyke’s defense lawyer is not yet publicly known. Polymarket did not return a request for comment.

The charges against Van Dyke come at a sensitive time for the prediction market industry, which has been growing exponentially, despite calls in Washington and among state leaders for the sites to be reined in.

Advertisement

Van Dyke is the first to be charged in the U.S. for suspected Polymarket insider trading, but Israeli authorities in February arrested several people and charged two on suspicion of using classified information to place bets about military operations in Iran on Polymarket.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending