The Daily T: What the Left gets wrong about Margaret Thatcher
Watch episodes of The Daily T here. You can also listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
2 hours ago
- American Military News
INTERVIEW: Secret deal means Laos has some of the world's cheapest cigarettes
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. A pack of cigarettes in Laos costs as little as 32 U.S. cents, thanks to a secret deal between the Lao government and British tobacco giant, Imperial Brands. In a new report, The Examination, a news site that focuses on global health threats, looks into who benefited from the 2001 deal and how an agreement capping excise taxes has hit government revenues in the Southeast Asian nation and kept the price of cigarettes among the lowest in the world. That's had serious public health consequences for Laos, which has very high rates of smoking. Radio Free Asia's Mat Pennington spoke with Jason McLure, an investigative journalist with The Examination who reported the story. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. RFA: Can you tell us about the deal? Jason McLure: This story is about a deal that dates to 2001 when the communist government of Laos was privatizing the country's state tobacco monopoly. Now, what they did instead of having an open tender … they basically invited Imperial Brands and a local company called ST Group, run by a local businessman named Sithat Xaysoulivong, to bid on this. And ultimately what the Lao government decided to do was to form a joint venture with Imperial Brands and Mr. Sithat Xaysoulivong and his ST Group. Now, the way this was done was very unusual and it also highlighted some very close political connections between Mr. Xaysoulivong and the Lao government at the time. RFA: So who really benefited from this? And what was the fiscal impact for the Lao government? Did they lose revenue? McLure: The way the deal was structured was the Lao government retained 47% of the tobacco monopoly and Imperial Brands, this British tobacco giant, got 34%. The remaining 19% of the company was owned by this offshore company called S3T which, we know and learned was owned partly by Imperial Brands and partly by Mr. Sithat Xaysoulivong who, as it happened, was an in-law of the Lao prime minister at the time, Bounnhang Vorachit. So there was clearly some familial relationship involved. And ultimately this deal paid $28 million over basically two decades to the former prime minister's in-law. And this had big consequences for the Lao government. One tobacco control group did a study of the consequences of this deal on public health, and what they found was that the Lao government missed out on $143 million in tobacco tax revenue and that is because one provision of this tobacco contract capped cigarette excise taxes and essentially left Laos with some of the cheapest cigarettes in the world. RFA: How much is a packet of cigarettes in Laos? McLure: The cheapest brands of cigarettes in Laos cost about 7,000 kip. That's about 32 U.S. cents. So, we were able to look at WHO (World Health Organization) data from all around the world and find that basically these are some of the very cheapest cigarettes in the world. RFA: So what have been the health impacts of this? McLure: So the health impacts, they really have been significant in Laos. As in many other Asian countries, relatively few women smoke, but somewhere around 37 to 40% of men smoke. So there's a very high smoking rate there. It's one of the highest in the world, at least among men. And this is in part a direct consequence of these very cheap cigarettes that are a consequence of this 25-year contract that was signed back in 2001. Now, there's a lot of data, a lot of research from tobacco control researchers and public health researchers that show the best way to cut smoking rates to get people to quit smoking, or especially to prevent them from starting to smoke, is to increase the price of cigarettes. And the way that governments can do this is by increasing tobacco excise taxes. Now, this 25-year contract in Laos absolutely prevented the Lao government from doing that. RFA: And as we know, Laos is one of the poorest countries in Asia, and it doesn't have a very well-developed health system. So you can see what the sort of impacts would be. McLure: That's right. One of my colleagues visited one of the government hospitals in Laos, and she interviewed people who were there with smoking-related diseases. And the treatment was extremely expensive. And even for many people who have common smoking-related diseases like emphysema or lung cancer … particularly people in the countryside, people in villages, any form of radiation or chemotherapy or treatments like that are going to be out of reach. RFA: So what does Imperial Brands say about this? McLure: During our reporting, we reached out to Imperial Brands to ask them about this contract and specifically to ask why they decided to include an in-law of the prime minister at the time as part of this contract. And what they told us was that, for one thing, they said they comply with all regulations and generally behave in an ethical manner. But they didn't respond to the substance of our questions. We asked them as well about why this contract was kept secret for so long. The contract, in fact, itself, contained a secrecy provision. They told us that this type of confidentiality is normal in such commercial arrangements. RFA: And did the Lao government respond at all to any of your inquiries or Mr. Sithat Xaysoulivong or Mr. Bounnhang Vorachit? McLure: Unfortunately, the Lao government, Mr. Vorachit, Mr. Sithat, even the current Lao Prime Minister Sonexay Siphandone, they did not respond to our inquiries for this story. RFA: I understand that this isn't a problem that's totally isolated to Laos, that major tobacco companies have reached deals with authoritarian countries and other nations. McLure: That's right. You know, what's really a little bit unusual about this deal is that we were able to get the documents that showed exactly how the payments flowed from the Lao tobacco company and Imperial to the in-law of Laos' then prime minister. But we've seen that British American Tobacco, another one of the tobacco giants, has been involved in dealings with the North Korean regime in violation of U.S. sanctions. In fact, they agreed to pay more than $620 million as part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department as a result of that. RFA: So what's the future of this agreement in Laos? I understand that it's coming up to its term now. McLure: Well, that is an interesting question because this is a 25-year agreement that was signed in 2001. It will expire next year. Now, the government of Prime Minister Sonexay Siphandone has already informed Imperial that they won't be renewing this agreement again. However, they did leave the door open to negotiating a new agreement with the same tobacco company. We'll see if that comes to pass and whether or not any insiders like Mr. Sithat, the in-law of former Prime Minister Vorachit, are involved. One thing that we do know is that Mr. Sithat is also close to the family of the current Prime Minister Sonexay. So it remains to be seen. Ultimately, what we've been told is that the current prime minister will be the one making the decision. And as we've seen, this could have huge impacts on the future of smoking in Laos and on Laos' public health. The Examination is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates global health threats. Their investigative report was supported in part by a grant from the Pulitzer Center.
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
US allies plan to flex aircraft carrier muscles near China
The United Kingdom and Japan-both major allies of the United States-are reportedly set to conduct joint naval operations with aircraft carriers in a show of force to China. The British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales and its strike group are scheduled to visit Japan from August to September, Tokyo's defense ministry confirmed to Newsweek, adding that both sides are currently coordinating joint training exercises. Newsweek has reached out to the Chinese Defense Ministry for comment via email. The Prince of Wales began an eight-month mission, Operation Highmast, in April, leading a fleet of warships and carrying up to two dozen F-35B stealth fighter jets for exercises and operations across the Mediterranean, Middle East, Southeast Asia, Japan and Australia. In response to China's growing naval threat, Japan is converting two Izumo-class helicopter carriers-JS Izumo and JS Kaga-into aircraft carriers. It has also ordered up to 42 F-35B jets-capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings-to operate from the two warships. The reported joint aircraft carrier operations between the U.K. and Japan follow China's unprecedented dual aircraft carrier deployment in the broader western Pacific in June. Newspaper The Japan Times reported on Wednesday that British F-35B jets deployed aboard the Prince of Wales could conduct flight operations from the Kaga as part of joint operations between the Royal Navy and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. If confirmed, this would mark the second time the Kaga has conducted flight operations with F-35B jets since last November, when it carried out flight tests off the coast of California. According to the report, the British aircraft carrier is expected to dock at Yokosuka naval base and in Tokyo during its time in Japan. Yokosuka is also home to the U.S. aircraft carrier USS George Washington, which is currently operating in the South China Sea. Following its visit to Singapore in late June, the Prince of Wales was underway in the Java Sea the Royal Navy disclosed in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Thursday. The aircraft carrier is en route to northern Australia for Exercise Talisman Sabre. It remains unclear whether the Prince of Wales will conduct any flight operations with the U.S. amphibious assault ship USS America, which is also capable of operating F-35B jets. As of Friday, the America was underway in the Coral Sea, off Australia's northeast coast. The Royal Navy said in a press release on June 23: 'In each port, the ships [of the U.K. Carrier Strike Group] will promote the Strike Groups overarching mission-demonstrating the U.K.'s commitment to the security and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region alongside allies and partners, including celebrating 60 years of Anglo-Singaporean relations, making us secure at home and strong abroad.' Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force Vice Admiral Yoshihiro Goka, commander of the Fleet Escort Force, said in a press release in November 2024: 'We believe that the acquisition of F-35B operational capability for the JS Izumo class destroyers will [enhance] Japanese defense capability and interoperability between Japan and the U.S. and will strengthen the deterrence and response capabilities of the countries as well as ultimately contribute to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.' The deployment of the Prince of Wales to the western Pacific comes as the U.S. has only one aircraft carrier stationed in the region amid efforts to counter China's military presence. Related Articles Photos Show US Navy's Double Aircraft Carrier Operations in AtlanticUS and China's Aircraft Carriers Show Force in Contested WatersMap Shows Major US Naval Presence in West Pacific Amid China RivalryChina Reveals Details of Dual Aircraft Carrier Operations in West Pacific 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Los Angeles Times
5 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
How martial law made the American Revolution
On this Fourth of July, with federal troops still on the ground in Los Angeles, our own American Revolution provides a surprising lesson on the perils of military overreach in domestic affairs. Notably, the nation's political and military leaders should consider the British blunders of the 1770s as they weigh the prospect of militarizing American streets, now and in the future. Parliament's Stamp Act tax of the mid-1760s ignited the Anglo-American conflict. Yet, as historians broadly agree, it was escalating martial law in Boston under different legislation, the Coercive Acts of 1774, that transformed American resistance into full-scale revolution. Let's start by recalling what had happened four years earlier during protests over the Townshend duties, a series of taxes Parliament added to everyday goods, including tea, exported to the colonies. The British ministry responded to the unrest by stationing approximately 2,000 redcoats in Boston. On the night of March 5, 1770, in an accidental bloodbath set off by the pelting of soldiers with snowballs, the British opened fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians outside the Custom House, killing five and wounding others. 'Let me observe,' Sam Adams soon wrote about the Boston Massacre, 'how fatal are the effects, the danger of which I long ago mentioned, of posting a standing army among a free people.' The problem worsened after the Boston Tea Party. The hacking to pieces of 342 crates of tea owned by the East India Co. in late 1773 was, of course, criminal activity. As such, it warranted the full application of colonial and municipal law against the offenders. Instead of leaving justice to the locals, however, Parliament passed the four draconian bills known as the Coercive Acts. To enforce them, in a fatal progression, King George III's ministers dispatched a military governor and occupying army to Boston, in effect imposing martial law on the entire colony for the unlawful actions of a few. Each of the Coercive Acts struck at the heart of Massachusetts self-rule. The Boston Port Act shut down all trade through Boston Harbor and its surrounding waterways, while the Massachusetts Government Act dissolved the colony's assembly, courts and town meetings. The remaining two acts allowed trials to be relocated overseas and forced residents to house British troops at the governor's discretion. Taken together, the Coercive Acts constituted an unprecedented assault on the rights and freedoms of the American people. Colonists decried them as 'barbarous,' 'diabolical' and 'Tyrannic' — the work of a 'Despotic power.' What followed is familiar to many Americans. Massachusetts, under martial law, summoned the other colonies to a continental congress in Philadelphia. In reaction, the king and Parliament declared the colonies to be in a state of rebellion, ordering thousands of additional redcoats across the Atlantic to crush dissent and make arrests. A conflict the British thought they could resolve with boots on the ground only escalated. On April 19, 1775, in another tragedy of unintended carnage — this time triggered by a stray bullet — the king's troops gunned down eight colonials on Lexington Green, turning protest into civil war. Fifteen months later, as a remedy of last resort, the colonies declared independence, highlighting Britain's regime of martial law as the first cause of the breach. The declaration pointedly charges King George with 'abolishing our most valuable laws,' 'suspending our own Legislatures' and '[keeping] among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.' History doesn't deliver road maps, but it does abound in examples of military overreach sparking unpredictable violence. In the case of the American Revolution, we are reminded that deploying an army on the streets where one's own citizens live and work provokes tension, fear and anger — and sometimes, by the twin forces of accident and escalation, bloodshed and lasting civil discord. Eli Merritt is a political historian at Vanderbilt University. He writes the Substack newsletter American Commonwealth and is the author of 'Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution.'
