250 days on hunger strike: Can Laila Soueif secure her son's freedom?
Laila Soueif, 69, has been on hunger strike in London for more than 250 days in an effort to secure the release of her son, the activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah, from jail in Egypt. As diplomatic pressure mounts, she is now in a critical condition.
Alaa's sister Mona Seif describes to Michael Safi the toll that imprisonment has taken on her brother, her mother's determination to do whatever she can to secure his release, and the difficulty of coming to terms with her mother's decision to risk her life.
The Guardian's diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour, describes meeting Soueif and says she and her British-Egyptian family have a long history of activism. This includes a reported past incident between her husband, Ahmed Seif, and the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, that many believe may be influencing Alaa's potentially indefinite detention.
The two discuss the attempts made by different British governments to secure her son's release, the Foreign Office's strategic considerations, and possible diplomatic options.
Support the Guardian today: theguardian.com/todayinfocuspod
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Tory MP refers himself to watchdog over ‘cash for questions' row
A Conservative MP has referred himself to Parliament's watchdog after allegations he was paid by a company that helped him write questions to the government. Former minister George Freeman submitted queries to Labour ministers about the sector in which the firm operates, The Times reported. He even asked what to ask about as he prepared written questions related to space data and emissions tracking, according to leaked emails reported by the paper. Labour and the Lib Dems have called on Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to suspend him. Mr Freeman became a paid adviser with GHGSat, which monitors greenhouse gases, last April. At the time the appointments watchdog Acoba advised there were 'risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office' and noted he had made it clear 'to the company that you will not lobby government on its behalf, and this will not form part of your role'. The questions were directed at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Mr Freeman told The Times: 'As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs (All-Party Parliamentary Groups) and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. 'Throughout my 15 years in parliament (and government), I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. 'I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course.' A Conservative Party spokesperson said it would be 'inappropriate' to comment while the Commissioner's inquiries are ongoing. A Labour spokesperson said: 'Cash for questions was a hallmark of Tory sleaze in the 1990s, and three decades on the same issue has raised its head again. ' George Freeman has referred himself for investigation so now Kemi Badenoch must suspend him from the Tory whip.' Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Daisy Cooper MP said: 'This looks like the same old sleaze and scandal people have come to expect from the Conservative Party. 'Kemi Badenoch should immediately suspend the whip from George Freeman while this is investigated. ' Failure to act would confirm that even after being booted out of government, the Conservatives are still hopelessly out of touch.' Mr Freeman has been contacted for comment. The MP for Mid Norfolk is currently a member of the House of Commons science, innovation and technology committee and a trade envoy. He was responsible for the UK space agency in his previous role as a minister under Rishi Sunak.
BBC News
44 minutes ago
- BBC News
Welfare reforms U-turn means we're in 'better position'
Major concessions have put the government in a "better position" to pass welfare reforms, the health secretary said, as he admitted Labour's leadership mishandled the rollout of its flagship Streeting said Labour MPs had raised "substantial" concerns about planned welfare cuts, and the government strengthen its plans as a week, the prime minister was forced into a dramatic U-turn to avoid a House of Commons defeat after more than 120 Labour backbenchers threatened to vote down his plans."We are in a much better position this week than last week," Streeting told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, and promised that the government would "learn" from the narrowly avoided rebellion. Streeting said the government had shifted "not just the package but also the approach" following criticism that the original proposals risked undermining support for disabled week, the government faced a growing rebellion from Labour MPs who warned the planned welfare cuts, aimed at saving £5bn annually, were rushed and would hurt vulnerable government's initial plans, aimed at bringing down the welfare bill, would have made it harder for people to claim personal independence payment (Pip), a benefit paid to 3.7 million people with long-term physical or mental health backlash culminated in a late-night announcement of major concessions to the rebel MPs - including limiting Pip cuts to only new reversed its plans to freeze the health-related component of universal credit, and the payment will now rise in line with inflation for existing government also announced plans for a review of the Pip assessment to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and "co-produced" with disabled Haigh, one of the leading rebel MPs, told the BBC she now planned to support the bill following the government's changes. Speaking on the same programme, Haigh, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, said her fellow rebel MPs are "really pleased that the government has now listened to those concerns and they've made a significant number of concessions".Subject to seeing the final detail of the changes, she said: "I will be supporting the government on Tuesday in recognition that they have made significant progress and that they have protected the incomes of nearly 400,000 disabled people across the country."Rebels have told the BBC their colleagues are happy with the concessions - meaning the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill will not be blocked in a vote on Tuesday, although some Labour MPs have said they will still vote against the episode has raised questions about the prime minister's political strategy and ability to manage internal the weekend, Sir Keir Starmer gave an interview with the Sunday Times to defend his handling of the row, pointing out he was abroad attending a Nato conference during the height of the Sunday, Streeting defended the government's intentions, saying the reforms were necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the welfare system. "No one will thank us if we carry on with the status quo," he said. "Unless you reform this system, I genuinely fear it will not be there for anyone in the future."Streeting did not rule out future changes to welfare following the Timms review. Asked if there could be further concessions on personal independence payments, he said "we have got to listen".His comments came after Sir Keir claimed "fixing" the welfare system is a "moral imperative".The prime minister told the Welsh Labour Party conference in Llandudno on Saturday that the government would not take away the welfare "safety net that vulnerable people rely on".But he said he could not let benefits "become a snare for those who can and want to work". Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves must rethink how tax and spend decisions are made after welfare U-turn
There are many lessons for Labour's bruised leadership from last week's embarrassing U-turn on welfare cuts, but one is surely that how – and when – fiscal policy is set is not working. Binary fiscal rules, a slim margin for error (less than £10bn), and the Office for Budget Responsibility's twice-yearly forecasts, have combined to turn tax and spending decisions into a grim spectator sport. City analysts are constantly second-guessing exactly how Rachel Reeves's hand will be forced next. As the Bank of England governor, Andrew Bailey, put it last week, before the benefits climbdown, 'having the financial markets marking fiscal policy to market on a daily basis is not a good state of affairs'. The chancellor promised to hold only one budget a year, at which tax changes would be announced: a decision aimed at demonstrating stability and strength. However, the Treasury began signalling during the bond market panic in January that she was prepared to use her spring statement to make spending cuts, if higher interest costs set her on course to break her fiscal rules. Some wise heads argued at the time against the idea of hastily drawing up cuts, tailored to close whatever gap the OBR identified in five years' time – the period over which the rules are assessed. As the former Bank deputy governor Charlie Bean put it: 'I think we want to get away from this idea that we continually have to be neurotically changing taxes and spending to try to control this OBR forecast so that it's hitting our target.' In his understated way, Bailey effectively agreed with that this week, arguing: 'There is a danger in overinterpreting a five-year-ahead forecast.' They are right: one result is hasty policy changes driven by cost-cutting targets (although the Treasury lays part of the blame on the Department for Work and Pensions for, it claims, dragging its heels over the reform package). Another consequence is that the debate over economic policy ends up being reduced to a desiccated row over tax and spend. That is especially depressing, given that the contours of an economic strategy are starting to emerge more clearly, a year into Labour's term. The focus last week was meant to be the 'modern industrial strategy' – a hefty document that set out a new approach to nurturing eight strategic sectors, including clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries. There was much to praise – a senior figure at one business lobby group joked that they would struggle to know what to campaign on next, as so many of their long-running asks had been met. Unions were gratified at the focus on creating jobs and funding additional training – and the promise of workforce strategies for sectors experiencing skills shortages. The government's pragmatic trade strategy, also published last week, was another victim of the overwhelming focus on the welfare row. All this was lost in the Westminster drama of defending the cobbled-together cuts and then negotiating the concessions that already looked inevitable when Reeves insisted on Monday that there would be 'no U-turn'. Her team now have two unenviable tasks ahead of them. First, they will have to start work on a possible package of tax increases to announce in the autumn. As her aides are keen to point out, she could yet strike lucky: growth could bounce back; inflation could ease more rapidly than expected, freeing the Bank of England to crack on with rate cuts; and gilt yields could slide. Treasury officials will be pushing hard over the summer to try to convince the OBR to take into account the growth-friendly nature of some of the government's policies, perhaps nudging forecasts in the right direction. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion However, the majority of independent experts currently believe it is more likely than not that the OBR will downgrade its expectations of productivity – and therefore growth – setting Reeves on course to breach her fiscal rules, even without the £4bn-plus cost of the policy swerves on winter fuel and disability benefits. Reeves could ditch those fiscal rules, of course – but that would be sticking two fingers up at flighty financial markets. Tweaking the rules to allow herself more leeway seems less unthinkable, given how many times previous chancellors rewrote their own rules – but she would have to proceed with caution. While they deny that they are poring over a menu of potential tax rises (although they surely must be), Reeves's allies privately concede that they are thinking about how to avoid another debilitating annual cycle of fevered speculation about fiscal policy. Here they have a number of options, some of which were set out by the International Monetary Fund in its recent report on the UK economy. One is just to build up a bigger buffer against the fiscal forecasts, of course, to reduce the constant sense of jeopardy – but that would probably require an even bigger tax grab. Another would be to commission only one OBR forecast a year instead of two – dodging the spring iteration that prompted the scramble for welfare cuts. This possibility alarms the Treasury, with its echoes of Liz Truss, who saw the OBR as part of the 'anti-growth coalition' and paid the price in the bond markets. A sensible halfway house might be to continue to commission two forecasts but treat the spring one – given there is no budget alongside it – simply as a useful waymarker, for what the chancellor might have to consider in the autumn. Whatever emerges from this rethink, it must allow Reeves to be more flexible in the face of changing economic circumstances because the framework she so carefully constructed to project strength has instead trapped Labour into decisions that ultimately proved untenable.
