Rebellion in the air
From the moment Israel launched its surprise attack on Iran on 13 June, much of the world watched with a sense of mounting horror as the bloody logic of war took hold. Violence begot violence, until the ego of Donald Trump was eventually drawn in, sending the Middle East into even more volatile territory.
Yet, the state of emergency that exists in Britain today is far more ambiguous than simply one of war and peace, bombs and braggadocio. For Britain – and the government of Keir Starmer – an altogether more subtle crisis is unfolding: a creeping emergency of state far deeper than a passing moment of danger. Years in the making, the sense of national crisis is beginning to tighten its grip on this government, challenging the very authority of the Prime Minister to govern.
As Andrew Marr writes, there is now 'more than a whiff of rebellion in the air' in Westminster. Buffeted by events and ignored by his allies in Washington and Tel Aviv, the Prime Minister faces a mutiny at home over the government's proposed cuts to disability benefits. Such a crisis is self-inflicted, the result of choices made by this administration. But it is also the product of an ever more fragile country, which remains startlingly exposed to the whims of autocrats and strongmen abroad, as our business editor, Will Dunn, sets out. Whatever happens in the Middle East over the coming days, the sirens are beginning to sound about the state of Britain and its government.
The state of emergency, then, is global, domestic, political and institutional. For much of the past 20 years, Britain has stumbled from one crisis to another, convulsing successive governments along the way, and undermining voters' willingness to tolerate more upheaval. In more ways than one, Britain simply cannot afford yet another emergency so soon after the last.
Throughout this week we have been covering these events on the New Statesman podcast (available wherever you get your podcasts, I am professionally bound to add). From here on in, we will be producing a daily weekday podcast to keep you up to speed with politics, culture and world affairs. Please do tune in.
As ever, though, this week's magazine brings light as well as shade. Our US correspondent Freddie Hayward joins one of the great hopes of the American left, Ro Khanna, at a baseball game in Philadelphia, where the Democrat set out his vision for a new progressive populism to take on Donald Trump. George Eaton looks at the prospect of a similar left-wing revival in Britain, while the new RMT general secretary, Eddie Dempsey, makes a full-throated case for the revival of trade unionism to give workers more of a stake in their lives. Something certainly seems to be stirring on the left. Let's hope it is not too late.
Beyond British and American politics, the excellent Oliver Eagleton digs into the empty foreign policy strategies tearing apart the Middle East. Israel: committed to regime change in Iran, its last remaining regional rival. America: attempting to extricate itself from a region that has cost it so much in blood and dollars over the past two decades. And then there's Britain, which, much like the rest of Europe, is left to commentate and second-guess, while other countries act. It is a sobering but important read.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Elsewhere, Alison Phillips anchors our new 'Media Confidential' diary, bringing you gossip – and an exclusive – from the world of Fleet Street and beyond; Lamorna Ash joins an anti-war encampment at Soas; David Sexton reviews 28 Years Later, and David Broder explores the life of Giorgia Meloni.
Finally, and with great sadness, we must say goodbye – or, at least, au revoir – to the great Tracey Thorn, who has now put down her quill. After more than a decade of writing for the magazine, Tracey is retiring in order to focus on her music. The New Statesman is a family and she will always be welcome back. Perhaps we can even join her on the road…
As ever, please do get in touch with any questions, suggestions, compliments – or complaints! Onwards to the next edition, though hopefully not the next crisis.
[See also: What Keir Starmer can't say]
Related
This article appears in the 25 Jun 2025 issue of the New Statesman, State of Emergency
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘They didn't think we'd have the guts': How Labour rebels forced the government's welfare U-turn
The Conservative shadow cabinet minister looked more cheerful than at any point in the 12 months since the general election. 'How did they get into such a mess?', they asked. 'What are they going to do?' The answer was revealed a couple of days laterwhen Keir Starmer and his ministers made a series of emergency concessions on their flagship welfare reform programme, to prevent the otherwise far-greater ignominy of the programme being voted down in the House of Commons. U-turns of various sorts are an inevitability in government; the skill lies in how elegantly you can perform them. And this week's eventual cave-in to backbench Labour pressure – formally announced by a Downing Street statement after midnight on Thursday – was very, very messy indeed. To return to the shadow minister's gleeful query, how did it end up like this? The narrative will depend on who you ask. But a common thread, even among some in No 10, is the idea of a government worryingly disconnected from its own MPs. From the moment in March that Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, first set out consultative proposals to overhaul welfare payments, it was evident that a large number of backbenchers had worries about elements of the plan. Notably, the green paper set out a significant tightening of the eligibility for personal independence payments (Pips), which help those with long-term illness or disability, causing concern not only among MPs but also numerous charities. But armed with a 150-plus Commons majority – and what felt to some MPs like an almost messianic insistence on turning around an increasingly unaffordable social security system – Downing Street ploughed on. 'This has happened because of an arrogance from the top,' one veteran Labour MP said. 'On the day of the green paper, the whips were saying they thought a maximum of 10 people would actually rebel. They were laughing at us. 'They didn't think anyone would have the guts from the new intake. But they [new Labour MPs] have been doing their own organising.' As it turned out, there was a lot of organising, from all sides of the parliamentary party. With Starmer largely preoccupied with other subjects – including the G7 summit in Canada and a change of course over a national inquiry into grooming gangs – MPs were taking action. The crunch point arrived on Monday with the publication of an amendment intended to kill off the welfare bill at its second reading in the Commons on 1 July. Initially signed by 108 Labour MPs, it soon had the backing of more than 120. These were not the perennial malcontents primarily from the Labour left – the 'maximum of 10' so dismissively summed up by the party whip. Signatories included a string of senior backbenchers who chair select committees, and numerous 2024-intake MPs. How did dozens of hand-picked, newly arrived backbenchers, once thought so loyal they were dubbed 'Starmtroopers', find themselves within a year on the brink of a rebellion that could have defeated the government? For many, the problem dates back to the very early days of the parliament and a kind of vicious discipline that resulted in seven MPs being suspended from the Labour party over a vote on the two-child benefit cap. Three of those MPs remain exiled today. Even loyal MPs were under orders never to submit amendments – or to make their views known publicly on any subject. 'It was like student politics,' said one. 'Keep your mouth shut and maybe we'll let you on the entertainment committee.' 'Arrogant' is the word MPs are using most of all. It was the blithe assumption by whips and No 10 that any rebellion would fold that sent many over the edge. 'They tried to treat the PLP [parliamentary Labour party] like naughty children,' one MP said. 'They all did what they were meant to do and raised the issue privately, and then got totally ignored.' Another repeated charge within the party is that even when its hierarchy did recognise the disquiet, the response tended to be either complacency or high-handed, bungling menaces. MPs described outreach to them as having been limited to presentations and charts showing the growing size of the welfare budget and increases in numbers going on Pip. 'We asked to see the prime minister or the chancellor and we got a presentation from officials,' one said. 'They were very, very dismissive.' MPs say they received a litany of threats, including the possibility of a general election. Those on the right of the party were warned their actions could bring about a leadership challenge that would be won by Angela Rayner. The same threat was made to those on the left, but with Wes Streeting as the looming spectre. Others say they have received veiled threats of deselection, or that their funding for the next general election would be decided on the basis of whether or not they toed the line. One party official allegedly rang a rebellious MP's husband in order to get her to back down. 'I don't even think some of this is sanctioned by No 10,' one MP said. 'Until Wednesday they had their fingers in their ears. But those who are responsible for party management have been absolutely losing it.' After the implications of Monday's amendment became clear, outreach efforts finally began. Even Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, made a rare appearance on the Commons terrace on Wednesday evening to try to persuade MPs over a glass of rosé. 'She doesn't want to be £5bn out of pocket,' one MP said. Yet the number of rebels continued to grow, and No 10 finally bowed to the inevitable. On Thursday morning, the prime minister used a Commons statement ostensibly about international affairs to promise a welfare rethink. Until that point, Starmer had seemed oddly detached from the issue, surfacing intermittently at summits to bat away questions about the revolt – or 'noises off' as he termed it – as a distraction from the vital task of transforming welfare. Some MPs view this as indicative of a prime minister more than usually disconnected from the everyday grid of parliamentary business, as illustrated by the statistic that since winning the election he has voted in the Commons just seven times. A few have begun to openly speculate about what the situation means for Starmer's leadership. 'It is very bad for Keir. It is one in four of his MPs [that intended to rebel]. He is toast,' one MP said. A lot of the ire, however, has been directed at Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, and what one rebel called the 'overexcitable boys' in the PM's team. Inside No 10, there had been a determination to force through the reforms in part because of internal polling and focus groups that suggest the public backs the reforms when the context is explained – even wanting them to go further. One adviser, a close ally of the prime minister, said they had been so determined the vote had to go ahead – concessions or not – because the symbolism of being able to get the government's agenda through the Commons was so important. 'This is a fairly moderate reform,' the adviser said. 'If the government cannot make this modest saving – in a change that will not affect nine out of 10 people already on the benefit – then how can we pursue the political programme we need, to make the tough decisions the country needs us to take? It's impossible.' Other advisers are furious about the situation they have found themselves in. 'It's absolutely outrageous these people are prepared to throw away a historic majority because people were a bit mean to them on Twitter,' said one. Another said: 'Just wait and see what happens if they depose Morgan. It is over, then. Finito. Then we might as well hand the keys to Farage.' But other advisers in government say they can see how No 10 has played it wrong. One called it 'a staggering failure of political management from the people who supposedly had an iron grip on the PLP'. For many Labour MPs, however, it is about nothing more complicated than a government machine that forgot how to listen. 'Everything the government is now realising is something MPs have been saying for months,' one MP said. 'The fact that you cannot defend these cuts on the basis they will get people into work. The fact that you cannot guarantee the most disabled people won't be worse off. 'MPs are not idiots. We deserve to be listened to. We anticipated this failure. They are in this mess now because they were too arrogant to listen.'
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
'Royal plan' to win over Donald Trump from 'secret weapon' to 'icing on cake
The Royal Family look set to welcome Donald Trump to the UK on a historic second state visit after the summer - and it seems the US president could be keen for two major royals to took part After the Royal Family's summer holidays, they will return to duties with a bang due to Donald Trump's state visit to the UK. It is understood the US president will make an unprecedented second state visit to the UK in September with formal planning for the huge event now underway. The state visit comes after UK prime minister Keir Starmer delivered a letter from the King to Trump to invite him for the state visit - dramatically handing it to him in the Oval Office during a visit to the White House. Of course, the King and Queen Camilla will be on hand to host Trump and his wife Melania - but it seems the US leader has been enamoured by another member of the Royal Family, Prince William. The pair met in Paris last year after the re-opening of Notre Dame Cathedral, with Trump reportedly 'obsessed' with the heir to the throne, calling him "very handsome". And former BBC royal correspondent Jennie Bond believes William possibly teaming up with wife Kate to play a huge royal in the event would do wonders for UK diplomacy. She explained to the Mirror: "President Trump appears to have taken a shine to William, after their meeting at Notre Dame. So I'm sure we shall see Prince William taking a prominent role in the state visit. "The icing on the cake for Donald Trump would, of course, be the presence of the Princess of Wales at some of the events and at the state dinner. That will depend on her health. "But I'm sure both William and Catherine recognise the importance of massaging the President's ego, and they will play as prominent a part as possible. It's what the monarch and his senior working royals must do; it's their job and their duty and they will do it well." When Trump was first told he would be given a second state visit to the UK, the letter from the King invited him to an informal meeting in Scotland as a precursor to a full state visit. But this has now been brought forward by many months. Buckingham Palace was understood to have been hoping for a more leisurely approach amid concern over Trump's threat to make Canada the US's 51st state. However, sources confirmed after conversations between both parties the King and the US president's busy diaries mean they are unable to meet informally first over the summer. And Jennie added: "These are very tricky times for the Government - and the world - so you really can't blame the PM for using every diplomatic weapon in his arsenal. And the King is probably the most powerful weapon he has. "I imagine the King thinks Trump is impudent in the extreme by suggesting Canada should become the 51st US State. I can almost hear the huffing and puffing that it must have provoked behind Palace walls. But Charles also knows that Anglo/American relations are vitally important, and his duty is to help his Government protect that relationship. "So, although the King could conceivably have made himself unavailable at the proposed time, he knows his duty is to stage a spectacular event that will pander to this President's very sizeable ego. And that's what he'll do. "As Prince of Wales, he could allow himself the luxury of boycotting a state dinner for the Chinese president and his entourage – even though it attracted criticism. As King, he no longer has that luxury and he must play a starring role in the state visit at the appointed time. Charles and Camilla will be impeccably behaved, and Trump will be duly bewitched by the magic of monarchy." However, Jennie added that there would also be a diplomatic tightrope to walk for the King given his role as head of state of Canada - which he could even use to his advantage. She explained: "The President views himself as an arch negotiator, but it has to be said that the King is no mean hand himself at convening meetings and encouraging people to hammer out a solution to a variety of issues and problems. "So perhaps he can use a little not-so-soft power to impress upon Trump that Canada is not up for grabs. It is, after all, something exceptionally close to the King of Canada's heart."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trump FINALLY gets a question he respects as president grins from ear-to-ear after big week on Wall Street
Donald Trump gushed over a reporter's question about whether he 'outsmarted' the financial markets with his industry-shaking tariffs. The president grinned from ear-to-ear as a reporter asked him for his reaction to Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Sløk saying Trump may have 'outsmarted everyone' with his tariffs. 'Mr. President, a leading global economist just did a one-eighty and says your tariff plan, you may have outsmarted everybody with it. What is your message?' the reporter asked. Trump smiled as he responded: 'I love this. I love this question. This is the favorite. This is the best question I've ever been asked because I've been going through abuse for years on this. 'Because, as you know, we're taking in hundreds of billions of dollars, no inflation whatsoever.' The reporter added in a follow-up question for Trump's 'message to critics who think your tariff plan caused a recession?' 'I think they should go back to business school,' Trump responded. 'It's so obvious. It's so obvious. I mean, we're taking in billions and billions of dollars from China and a lot of other countries.' It came as Wall Street continued its recent rally this week, with the S&P500 and Nasdaq hitting all-time closing highs on Friday. In Sløk's report that Trump appeared to enjoy, the economist speculated that Trump would keep tariffs below his most aggressive rates to ease market uncertainty while using them as leverage to get better trade deals. 'Maybe the strategy is to maintain 30% tariffs on China and 10% tariffs on all other countries and then give all countries 12 months to lower nontariff barriers and open up their economies to trade,' he wrote. The report came as Trump's 90-day pause on 'reciprocal tariffs' is set to come to an end early next month. Sløk said that Trump should consider extending the deadline to a whole year, which he said would give the global markets time to adjust to a 'new world with permanently higher tariffs.' 'This would seem like a victory for the world and yet would produce $400 billion of annual revenue for US taxpayers,' he said. 'Trade partners will be happy with only 10% tariffs and U.S. tax revenue will go up. 'Maybe the administration has outsmarted all of us.' Trump shocked the global markets in April as he introduced a raft of 'Liberation Day' tariffs, but the gamble may have paid off as markets soared in recent weeks and the US signed a number of trade deals with foreign nations The soaring stock market numbers came as trade deal hopes fueled investor risk appetite and economic data helped solidify expectations for rate cuts from the U.S. Federal Reserve. The rise came even after Trump terminated trade negotiations with Canada in response to its digital tax on technology companies. 'This market's been pretty resilient,' said Chuck Carlson, chief executive officer at Horizon Investment Services in Hammond, Indiana. 'Investors are riding momentum and looking for breakouts.' 'They don't want to get caught on the wrong side of this thing,' Carlson added. 'Many investors already have missed out. And now you have the S&P flirting with an all-time high.' While tariffs have yet to affect price growth, inflation continues to hover above the Fed's 2% annual inflation target. A separate report from the University of Michigan confirmed consumer sentiment has improved this month, but remains well below December's post-election bounce. Financial markets have priced in a 72% likelihood that the Fed will implement its first rate cut of the year in September, with a smaller, 21% probability of a rate cut coming as soon as July, according to CME's FedWatch tool. Washington and Beijing reached an agreement to expedite rare-earth shipments to the U.S., a White House official said, well ahead of the July 9 expiration of the 90-day postponement of U.S. President Donald Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs. Additionally, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration's trade deals with 18 of the main U.S. trading partners could be done by the September 1 Labor Day holiday.
