
Starmer and Macron to host coalition of the willing meeting next week
The Prime Minister and France's leader will dial into a meeting with allies on Thursday, as Mr Macron makes his first state visit to the UK, it is understood.
Britain and France have led efforts to establish the coalition, a peacekeeping force aimed at policing any future ceasefire deal in Ukraine, and deterring further threats by Russia.
The effectiveness of the coalition has been called into question, as only London and Paris have so far indicated they would provide frontline soldiers towards it.
The peacekeeping mission would also be predicated on American air support, something which US President Donald Trump has been unwilling to openly say he would provide.
Russia launched a massive barrage of drone strikes on Kyiv overnight, reportedly the largest since the war began.
Some 550 drones and missiles were fired at Ukraine in the strikes, with the capital Kyiv the primary target.
At least 23 people were injured, with 14 taken to hospital, according to the city's mayor Vitali Klitschko.
The strikes came hours after Mr Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, pushing him to accept a truce.
No 10 said the continued Russia strikes were 'clear evidence that Putin was not serious about peace', as it condemned them.
A Downing Street spokesman added: 'Since Ukraine agreed to an unconditional ceasefire over four months ago, 700 civilians have been killed, more than 3,000 injured,
'We are, alongside our allies, absolutely united in support of a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. We are clear that must start with a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire.'
The UK's immediate focus is 'stepping up our support Ukraine, ratcheting up the pressure on Russia', he said.
Mr Trump has halted some shipments of critical weapons to Kyiv in recent days, including those used for air defences.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
If the US president threatens to take away freedoms, are we no longer free?
Threats of retribution from Donald Trump are hardly a novelty, but even by his standards, the US president's warnings of wrathful vengeance in recent days have represented a dramatic escalation. In the past week, Trump has threatened deportation, loss of US citizenship or arrest against, respectively, the world's richest person, the prospective future mayor of New York and Joe Biden's former homeland security secretary. The head-spinning catalogue of warnings may have been aimed at distracting from the increasing unpopularity, according to opinion surveys, of Trump's agenda, some analysts say. But they also served as further alarm bells for the state of US democracy five-and-a-half months into a presidency that has seen a relentless assault on constitutional norms, institutions and freedom of speech. On Tuesday, Trump turned his sights on none other than Elon Musk, the tech billionaire who, before a recent spectacular fallout, had been his closest ally in ramming through a radical agenda of upending and remaking the US government. But when the Tesla and SpaceX founder vowed to form a new party if Congress passed Trump's signature 'one big beautiful bill' into law, Trump swung into the retribution mode that is now familiar to his Democratic opponents. 'Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa,' Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, menacing both the billions of dollars in federal subsidies received by Musk's companies, and – it seemed – his US citizenship, which the entrepreneur received in 2002 but which supporters like Steve Bannon have questioned. 'No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE.' Trump twisted the knife further the following morning talking to reporters before boarding a flight to Florida. 'We might have to put Doge on Elon,' he said, referring to the unofficial 'department of government efficiency' that has gutted several government agencies and which Musk spearheaded before stepping back from his ad hoc role in late May. 'Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible.' Musk's many critics may have found sympathy hard to come by given his earlier job-slashing endeavors on Trump's behalf and the $275m he spent last year in helping to elect him. But the wider political implications are worrying, say US democracy campaigners. 'Trump is making clear that if he can do that to the world's richest man, he could certainly do it to you,' said Ian Bassin, co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy. 'It's important, if we believe in the rule of law, that we believe in it whether it is being weaponized against someone that we have sympathy for or someone that we have lost sympathy for.' Musk was not the only target of Trump's capricious vengeance. He also threatened to investigate the US citizenship of Zohran Mamdani, the Democrats' prospective candidate for mayor of New York who triumphed in a multicandidate primary election, and publicly called on officials to explore the possibility of arresting Alejandro Mayorkas, the former head of homeland security in the Biden administration. Both scenarios were raised during a highly stage-managed visit to 'Alligator Alcatraz', a forbidding new facility built to house undocumented people rounded up as part of Trump's flagship mass-deportation policy. After gleefully conjuring images of imprisoned immigrants being forced to flee from alligators and snakes presumed to reside in the neighbouring marshlands, Trump seized on obliging questions from friendly journalists working for rightwing fringe outlets that have been accredited by the administration for White House news events, often at the expense of established media. 'Why hasn't he been arrested yet?' asked Julio Rosas from Blaze Media, referring to Mayorkas, who was widely vilified – and subsequently impeached – by Republicans who blamed him for a record number of immigrant crossings at the southern US border. 'Was he given a pardon, Mayorkas?' Trump replied. On being told no, he continued: 'I'll take a look at that one because what he did is beyond incompetence … Somebody told Mayorkas to do that and he followed orders, but that doesn't necessarily hold him harmless.' Asked by Benny Johnson, a rightwing social media influencer, for his message to 'communist' Mamdani – a self-proclaimed democratic socialist – over his pledge not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) roundups of undocumented people if he is elected mayor, Trump said: 'Then we will have to arrest him. We don't need a communist in this country. I'm going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation.' He also falsely suggested that Mamdani, 33 – who became a naturalized US citizen in 2018 after emigrating from Uganda with his ethnic Indian parents when he was a child – was in the country 'illegally', an assertion stemming from a demand by a Republican representative for a justice department investigation into his citizenship application. The representative, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, alleged that Mamdani, who has vocally campaigned for Palestinian rights, gained it through 'willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism'. The threat to Mamdani echoed a threat Trump's border 'czar' Tom Homan made to arrest Gavin Newsom, the California governor, last month amid a row over Trump's deployment of national guard forces in Los Angeles to confront demonstrators protesting against Ice's arrests of immigrants. Omar Noureldin, senior vice-president with Common Cause, a pro-democracy watchdog, said the animus against Mamdani, who is Muslim, was partly fueled by Islamophobia and racism. 'Part of the rhetoric we've heard around Mamdani, whether from the president or other political leaders, goes toward his religion, his national origin, race, ethnicity,' he said. 'Mamdani has called himself a democratic socialist. There are others, including Bernie Sanders, who call themselves that, but folks aren't questioning whether or not Bernie Sanders should be a citizen.' Retribution promised to be a theme of Trump's second presidency even before he returned to the Oval Office in January. On the campaign trail last year, he branded some political opponents – including Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House of Representatives – as 'the enemy within'. Since his inauguration in January, he has made petty acts of revenge against both Democrats and Republicans who have crossed him. Biden; Kamala Harris, the former vice-president and last year's defeated Democratic presidential nominee; and Hillary Clinton, Trump's 2016 opponent, have all had their security clearances revoked. Secret Service protection details have been removed from Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, who served in Trump's first administration, despite both being the subject of death threats from Iran because of the 2020 assassination of Qassem Suleimani, a senior Revolutionary Guards commander. Similar fates have befallen Anthony Fauci, the infectious diseases specialist who angered Trump over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as Biden's adult children, Hunter and Ashley. Trump has also targeted law firms whose lawyers previously acted against him, prompting some to strike deals that will see them perform pro bono services for the administration. For now, widely anticipated acts of retribution against figures like Gen Mark Milley, the former chair of the joint chiefs of staff of the armed forces – whom Trump previously suggested deserved to be executed for 'treason' and who expressed fears of being recalled to active duty and then court-martialed – have not materialised. 'I [and] people in my world expected that Trump would come up with investigations of any number of people, whether they were involved in the Russia investigation way back when, or the election investigation, or the January 6 insurrection, but by and large he hasn't done that,' said one veteran Washington insider, who requested anonymity, citing his proximity to people previously identified as potential Trump targets. 'There are all kinds of lists floating around … with names of people that might be under investigation, but you'll never know you're under investigation until police turn up on your doorstep – and these people are just getting on with their lives.' Yet pro-democracy campaigners say Trump's latest threats should be taken seriously – especially after several recent detentions of several elected Democratic officials at protests near immigration jails or courts. In the most notorious episode, Alex Padilla, a senator from California, was forced to the floor and handcuffed after trying to question Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, at a press conference. 'When the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, threatens to arrest you, that's as serious as it gets,' said Bassin, a former White House counsel in Barack Obama's administration. 'Whether the DoJ [Department of Justice] opens an investigation or seeks an indictment, either tomorrow, next year or never is beside the point. The threat itself is the attack on our freedoms, because it's designed to make us all fear that if any one of us opposes or even just criticises the president, we risk being prosecuted.' While some doubt the legal basis of Trump's threats to Musk, Mayorkas and Mamdani, Noureldin cautioned that they should be taken literally. 'Trump is verbose and grandiose, but I think he also backs up his promises with action,' he said. 'When the president of the United States says something, we have to take it as serious and literal. I wouldn't be surprised if at the justice department, there is a group of folks who are trying to figure out a way to [open prosecutions].' But the bigger danger was to the time-honored American notion of freedom, Bassin warned. 'One definition of freedom is that you are able to speak your mind, associate with who you want, lead the life that you choose to lead, and that so long as you conduct yourself in accordance with the law, the government will not retaliate against you or punish you for doing those things,' he said. 'When the president of the United States makes clear that actually that is not the case, that if you say things he doesn't like, you will be singled out, and the full force of the state could be brought down on your head, then you're no longer free. 'And if he's making clear that that's true for people who have the resources of Elon Musk or the political capital of a Mayorkas or a Mamdani, imagine what it means for people who lack those positions or resources.'


Daily Mail
22 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Tories demand foreigners are banned from getting disability benefits as Kemi Badenoch seeks to tighten access to handouts after Labour's U-turn
The Tories are demanding foreigners are banned from claiming key disability benefits in the wake of Labour 's humiliating U-turn on welfare reforms. Kemi Badenoch 's party will attempt to change the Government's welfare Bill to tighten access to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit. The Conservatives will table an amendment proposing a requirement for eligibility for PIP to be determined by a face-to-face meeting, rather than virtually. They also want to prevent somebody from being classed as having a severe condition for the purpose of Universal Credit only by having anxiety, mild depression, or ADHD. And a third amendment would block a planned increase in Universal Credit and restrict PIP for some people who are not British citizens. It comes after Sir Keir Starmer was forced to shelve Labour's own plans to restrict eligibility to PIP, the main disability payment in England, in the face of a huge Labour rebellion. As he endured his worst week in office so far, the Prime Minister also witnessed Chancellor Rachel Reeves openly weeping in the House of Commons. She said her upset was due to a 'personal' issue, but it came as the welfare U-turn piled further pressure on Ms Reeves to fill a black hole in the public finances. Mrs Badenoch branded the Government's watering down of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill - now set to be renamed the Universal Credit Bill – as 'farcical'. The Tories will now look to lay amendments to the legislation with Mrs Badenoch due to deliver a major speech on welfare on Thursday. She is expected to say the Conservatives are 'the only party that is prepared to take the tough decisions to get spending under control'. 'I have no doubt that, emboldened by their success in forcing Starmer to U-turn last week, Labour's backbench MPs will now be eyeing up more concessions,' she will add. Under the Tory plans, PIP and both categories of Universal Credit health top-up would be limited 'to British citizens, excluding all foreign nationals', according to The Telegraph. There would be an exception for citizens from EU countries who have settled status, who are entitled to equal treatment under the Brexit deal. Under current rules, foreign nationals must prove that they have lived in Britain for two of the last three years to claim PIP. Helen Whately, the Tory shadow work and pensions secretary, said: 'The Government's welfare plans are in chaos. Instead of saving money, the welfare Bill we're voting on next week costs money. 'We've told them how to fix it: stop signing people off sick for mental health problems like anxiety, bring back face-to-face assessments, and only give sickness benefits to British citizens. 'If ministers had the guts to take up even one of these proposals, they could save billions – and spare the country from more tax rises this autumn.' Labour's original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected would save up to £5billion a year. Economists are now warning that tax rises are likely to plug the gap left by the concessions to Labour rebels, as well as Sir Keir's previous U-turn on axing winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners. Ms Reeves has said it is impossible for her to rule out tax rises in the autumn, as she warned 'there are costs' to the watering down of the welfare bill. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, has demanded the Office for Budget Responsibilty (OBR) watchdog carry out an emergency forecast to update the fiscal outlook in the wake of Sir Keir's climbdowns. In a letter to OBR chair Richard Hughes, he wrote: 'The public, Parliament and markets deserve clarity and transparency about the impact of recent events on the nation's finances and the Government's fiscal strategy.'


The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Keir Starmer should be bold and consider a wealth tax, Neil Kinnock says
Keir Starmer's government is suffering from a 'lack of narrative' about what it is trying to achieve and should be more fiscally bold and consider a tax on wealth, Neil Kinnock has said. The former Labour leader said too many of the government's achievements were being overshadowed. A year after a landslide election win, the party is struggling in the polls and has U-turned on policies including cuts to winter fuel payments and welfare. 'It's not a mess, but what has gone wrong is really the lack of a narrative, a story of the objectives of the government and where they're working towards it and how they're working towards it,' Kinnock said. The government had implemented 'a series of really commendable and absolutely essential policies', added Kinnock, who led Labour into two elections. But these policies, he said, had been obscured by controversies over things such winter fuel and welfare, 'all those negative things that really are heartily disliked across the Labour movement and more widely'. 'And that means that, apart from the distaste for undertaking those policies, the cloud hangs over the accomplishments of the government, which are substantial and will become greater.' Kinnock was scathing about the move by Jeremy Corbyn and other former Labour MPs to set up their own leftwing party. 'I understand the difficulty of thinking up a name, and in a comradely way, I'd suggest one: It would be the Farage Assistance Group.' Amid increasing speculation that Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will have to raise taxes at the autumn budget, Kinnock said that while Labour's election focus on fiscal discipline was vital for restoring credibility, 'it did mean that they depressed expectations and limited themselves by saying they were going to rigidly stick to fiscal rules'. Kinnock said there was a risk of the government being 'bogged down by their own imposed limitations' and he believed a number of cabinet ministers would want more fiscal boldness. One option, he said, would be a form of wealth tax, which would be useful not just to raise revenue but as 'a gesture, or a substantial gesture in the direction of equity fairness would make a big difference' in a time when 'earned incomes have stagnated in real terms, while asset values have zoomed'. He said such a policy should target wealth above £6m or £7m, where a 2% tax would raise £10bn or £11bn a year. 'That's not going to pay all the bills, but it does two things. One is to secure resources, which is very important. But the second thing it does is to say to the country: we are the government of equity, and this is a country which is very substantially fed up with the fact that whatever happens in the world, whatever happens in the UK, the same interests come out on top, unscathed all the time, while everybody else is paying more for gutted services.'