Latest news with #Churchillian
Business Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Times
Volodymyr Zelensky needs to rescue his own presidency
Ukraine's president, the comedian turned Churchillian war leader Volodymyr Zelensky, has backed down on his decision to seize control of the nation's anti-corruption agencies. That averts a potential disaster for his country, and he deserves some credit for making the U-turn. But what to do with him now? Zelensky's heroic armour has been shattered. His misstep should serve as a reminder that he was not a popular president before Russia's full invasion in February 2022, with an approval rating that hovered around 25 per cent. It was his response to the war, both genuinely gritty and brilliantly produced by the presidential staff he had drawn from his old TV company, Kvartal 95, that made him a geopolitical rock star. This romantic image, reflected in his khaki T-shirts and fabled response to a US offer of evacuation in the first hours of fighting – 'I need ammunition, not a ride' – was always going to fade. But it is the corruption that went on beneath the cover of martial law that has been exposed and cannot now be unseen. The key to understanding why this nation fights so hard is the sense, even among native Russian speakers with family across the border, that they are fundamentally different from Russians in how they want to live. To be Ukrainian is not just about place or language, but about a refusal to become subjects once more, ruled from the repressive, kleptocratic regime next door. This struggle has been going on for decades, if not centuries. It has, since the break-up of the Soviet Union involved two popular uprisings against corrupt elites vulnerable to purchase by Moscow. The 2004 Orange Revolution overturned an election stolen by Russian President Vladimir Putin's preferred candidate, the epically venal Viktor Yanukovych. In 2014, after finally making it to the presidency, Yanukovych was overthrown in the Maidan Revolution, provoked by his refusal to sign a trade and association agreement with the European Union, bowing to Putin. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The war is an extension of this fight. It was never about sovereignty alone, but also about forcing Ukraine's own kleptocratic elites to establish a European-style democracy and market economy governed by rule of law. The post-2014 creation of an independent investigative agency, prosecutor's office and court to pursue high-level corruption was core to reaching that goal. So when Zelensky placed these institutions under his own control with the pretext of removing Russian influence last week, he was not just turning the clock back on hard-won progress. By acting just as the Kremlin would do, he was putting in question the very reason that many of those fighting and dying at the front give for volunteering. That Zelensky's move provoked street protests across the country, and that he reacted by changing course rather than sending in riot police, is testament to the fact that Ukraine really is different from its once and would-be-future colonial master. Even assuming parliament now adopts Zelensky's new legislation – not to be taken for granted, as they would be resurrecting the only independent bodies able to prosecute them for corruption – his misjudgment will leave a lasting mark, because its motivations were so transparent. It came after the National Anti-Corruption Bureau had charged Zelensky's close friend and ally Oleksiy Chernyshov with taking a large bribe, and was closing in on the co-founder of Kvartal 95, Timur Mindich. At this point, Zelensky should not be asked to resign. That is a prospect Russia's state media are salivating over. An election held amid wartime dislocation would tear Ukraine apart and could never produce an uncontested result. Nevertheless, Zelensky must turn this mistake into an opportunity if he wants to preserve the legacy that his early leadership of the war deserves. These events have exposed the reality of wartime corruption, including in the defense industry and its penetration to the highest levels. It is time to clean house and if that means divesting his closest friends, so be it. It is time, too, to consider whether the tight group of advisers around the president who effectively have run the country since 2022, need a reshuffle more than his formal Cabinet, which got a new prime minister last week. Whether his aides encouraged his move to co-opt the anti-corruption agencies or failed to dissuade him from doing so, they have not served him well. Ukrainians need to see Zelensky and his team share their democratic aspirations if recruitment and morale on the front lines are to remain resilient in the face of an increasingly brutal Russian assault. And at a time when Kyiv is asking foreign allies to pick up the tab not just for more weapons, but also to help boost salaries of his military, they need to see it, too. Zelensky's undoubted courage and story-making skills are no longer enough. BLOOMBERG
Belfast Telegraph
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Belfast Telegraph
Reeves will not be only one crying if Labour's U-turn on welfare reform leads to a rise in income tax
Had Jacinda been on the scene yesterday, she would undoubtedly have hugged the Chancellor in the actual Commons chamber because the politics of empathy is her thing. And it's that notion – the more emotion in politics the better – which I think we should see off right now. It is forgivable for the Chancellor to cry. It's a human trait. Whether she was tearful because of a spat with the Speaker, or because of a standoff with Angela Rayner about welfare or because the PM didn't seem terribly confident about her future is anyone's guess. Certainly she told the Speaker that she had been 'under a lot of pressure', which is something of an understatement. Lots of her colleagues hate her, or rather, her perceived fiscal rectitude – a difference in approach which surfaced dramatically during the debate about welfare reform. Few business leaders feel warmly about her after her imposition of national insurance increases. Rachel Reeves was seen in tears during PMQs today Most political commentators think she's toast – the PM's assurances that she'll be Chancellor for years to come shouldn't deceive anyone. Her tough stance on budgetary discipline has been undermined; her fiscal headroom is gone after the collapse of the welfare reforms. Given all the above, it's small wonder she cried. And yes, of course, politicians cry. Men as well as women. As the historian Andrew Roberts observed, Winston Churchill was often given to tears without anyone thinking the worse of him. In the ancient world, big tough men were forever crying. In the Iliad, the entire Greek army broke down more than once. In Roman politics and in public trials, crying, or evoking sympathy or tears from your listeners – miseratio – was one of the arts of rhetoric, a way of moving your audience. If you read any medieval chronicle or poem, you're likely to encounter any number of public displays of emotion from men as well as women. But it all depends on the context: a strong man crying is moving; a woman politician crying looks like the job is getting to her. Now that may be sexist but such are the perceived notions of the day. A strong man crying is moving; a woman politician crying looks like the job is getting to her Lots of us cry when things get too much; I weep myself. But the difference between me and Rachel Reeves is that the bond markets are cruelly indifferent to my shows of emotion but react immediately to hers. I'd say then that it's fine for her to cry once but she shouldn't make a habit of it; still less should we make a virtue of it. She should think – what would Jacinda do? – and then do the opposite. Of all the offices of state, that of the Chancellor is the one you want to go to someone who looks as if she will stop at nothing to keep the national debt down. Sir Keir Starmer says Rachel Reeves will remain as Chancellor 'into the next election' and for years after No one looked at her yesterday and thought, ah, how very Churchillian of her. Her vulnerability seemed more like an expression of the government's weakness, as it does one handbrake turn after another, on welfare, on winter fuel, on immigration. So, the Chancellor might not want to make a habit of giving way to emotion. It's human and forgivable but it doesn't inspire confidence in a role where projecting confidence is part of the deal. She has got a formidable task ahead, to maintain the confidence of the markets when the underpinning for her policies is looking more and more shaky. The problem for Rachel R after the scuppering of the welfare reforms which were meant to provide substantial savings is that she has so little room for manoeuvre left. In fact, come the autumn statement, she may find that she's announcing increases in taxation, including income tax. If so, there'll be lots of us crying. Myself included.
Evening Standard
03-07-2025
- Business
- Evening Standard
Crying in the Commons? Let's not make a habit of it
Lots of us cry when things get too much; I weep myself. But the difference between me and Rachel Reeves is that the bond markets are cruelly indifferent to my shows of emotion but react immediately to hers. I'd say then that it's fine for her to cry once but she shouldn't make a habit of it; still less should we make a virtue of it. She should think – what would Jacinda do? – and then do the opposite. Of all the offices of state, that of the Chancellor is the one you want to go to someone who looks as if she will stop at nothing to keep the national debt down. No one looked at her yesterday and thought, ah, how very Churchillian of her. Her vulnerability seemed more like an expression of the government's weakness, as it does one handbrake turn after another, on welfare, on winter fuel, on immigration.
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Netanyahu stuns Israelis by describing ‘personal cost' of Iran war – postponing son's wedding
Benjamin Netanyahu has evoked the spirit of London during the blitz, and pointed to his own family's sacrifice amid the blood, toil, tears and sweat of his nation: the second postponement of his son's wedding. The Israeli prime minister's remarks, solemnly delivered to the cameras against the backdrop of a missile-struck hospital building in the southern city of Beersheba, set off a howl of derision that echoed around the Hebrew-language internet, at the height of a war that Netanyahu unleashed on Friday. The stunning comments also added grist to the arguments of his critics that the PM is increasingly cut off emotionally from the daily realities of Israel and the region, after more than 17 years in office. Related: Israel's assumption US would get drawn into Iran war is being put to the test Seeking to underline his family's shared hardship with ordinary Israelis, Netanyahu adopted a Churchillian tone when pointing out that this was not the first time his son Avner's wedding had needed to be postponed, and that Avner's fiancee was also disappointed, not to mention the thwarted mother of the groom, Netanyahu's wife, Sara. 'It really reminds me of the British people during the blitz. We are going through a blitz,' Netanyahu said, referring to the wartime Nazi bombing of Britain in which 43,000 civilians died. 'There are people who were killed, families who grieved loved ones, I really appreciate that,' he went on. The Israeli authorities say 24 Israeli civilians have so far been killed. Washington-based human rights activists have estimated the Iranian civilian death toll to be 263. 'Each of us bears a personal cost, and my family has not been exempt,' Netanyahu said at the Soroka hospital, which was struck on Thursday morning by an Iranian missile, causing light injuries. 'This is the second time that my son Avner has cancelled a wedding due to missile threats. It is a personal cost for his fiancee as well, and I must say that my dear wife is a hero, and she bears a personal cost.' Avner Netanyahu's wedding was first scheduled for November but was postponed for security reasons. Then it was due to take place on Monday, despite the threat of opposition protests. Reports that the prime minister was going to take a few days off for the event may have contributed to Iran's complacency on Friday morning when its leadership was taken unawares by Israel's aerial attack. The Israeli backlash to Netanyahu's nuptial comments was instant and furious. Anat Angrest, whose son Matan has been held hostage since the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, observed that the suffering 'didn't go unnoticed by my family either'. 'I have been in the hellish dungeons of Gaza for 622 days now,' Angrest said in a post on the social media platform X. Gilad Kariv, a Knesset member for the Democrats, called Netanyahu a 'borderless narcissist'. 'I know many families who were not forced to postpone a wedding, but who will now never celebrate the weddings that were once meant to take place,' Kariv said. He was contemptuous of Netanyahu's claim that his wife, Sara, notorious in Israel for her expensive tastes, was a hero. 'The doctors who leave home for night shifts are the heroes,' Kariv said. 'The teachers who keep our children together on Zoom and phone calls are the heroes.' Amir Tibon, an Israeli journalist, argued that public figures whose children had been killed in combat would never draw attention to the fact. 'But there are no surprises with Netanyahu,' Tibon said. 'Even in moments when a personal example is most needed, he is first and foremost concerned with himself.'
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Wants $25 Million To Settle His Meritless 60 Minutes Lawsuit (opinion)
President Donald Trump is currently suing one of the largest media companies in the country because one of its subsidiaries lightly edited an interview with his political opponent. This week, he apparently declined a settlement offer, even though the lawsuit itself is completely frivolous and arguably an abuse of his power as president. "Paramount Global in recent days has offered $15 million to settle," The Wall Street Journal reported this week. "Trump's team wants more than $25 million and is also seeking an apology from CBS News." The whole affair stems from an October 2024 interview that 60 Minutes conducted with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. (Trump declined the chance to sit for a 60 Minutes interview of his own.) In the interview, correspondent Bill Whitaker asked about Israel's war in Gaza. CBS—the broadcast network owned by Paramount—aired separate portions of Harris' answer, one on the 60 Minutes broadcast and a longer snippet on its Sunday morning show Face the Nation. Trump seized on the different clips and accused CBS of doctoring Harris' answer to make her look better. "Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer," he wrote on X. "They took the answer out in its entirety, threw it away, and they put another answer in," he later said at a campaign rally. "And I think it's the biggest scandal in broadcasting history." Trump sued CBS for $10 billion in "compensatory damages"—amended to $20 billion after he won the election and reassumed the presidency—under a Texas law against deceptive consumer practices. The lawsuit accused CBS of "unlawful acts of election and voter interference." The lawsuit was flawed from the start: Journalists editing interviewees' answers for time or clarity is both routine and protected by the First Amendment. And Harris' answer in either clip is not exactly Churchillian: "Harris did not come across as especially forthright, articulate, or intelligent in either version, although the one that 60 Minutes showed was a little more concise," Reason's Jacob Sullum observed. If CBS were trying to do her a favor by swapping out her answer, one imagines they could have done a better job. Besides, Trump won the election; it's hard to believe he suffered any damages, much less millions of dollars worth. But in a filing this week, Trump's lawyers argued the interview "led to widespread confusion and mental anguish of consumers, including [Trump]." CBS released the full unedited video and transcript of Whitaker's interview with Harris in February, conclusively demonstrating the scandal was bullshit all along: CBS aired one part of Harris' response on 60 Minutes and another part on Face the Nation. Despite Trump's insistence, nobody "replaced" any part of her answer with another, separate answer. But instead of defending its journalists by pressing on and letting a judge laugh the lawsuit out of court, Paramount has been negotiating a settlement. CBS News staffers opposed a settlement, fearing the precedent of a journalistic outlet caving to pressure from the powerful interests it covers. Since negotiations began last month, the producer of 60 Minutes and the executive in charge of CBS News each resigned. But Paramount is in the process of being acquired by Skydance Media, and the transaction requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Around the same time as Trump's lawsuit, the Center for American Rights, a conservative nonprofit, also filed an FCC complaint for "news distortion" over the interview. And FCC Chair Brendan Carr, whom Trump elevated to the job and who has demonstrated unabashed loyalty to the president, has indicated that approval depends upon the resolution of the complaint, which he is in no hurry to get through. "It would be entirely inappropriate to consider the complaint against the '60 Minutes' segment as part of a transaction review," FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez told the Los Angeles Times. Indeed, the lawsuit—especially when paired with the FCC merger approval—smacks of corruption, with Trump trying to cow a disfavored media outlet into silence. Trump's effort is so blatant that Paramount executives reportedly worried they could be prosecuted for bribery of a public official if they settled the lawsuit. Of course, this puts Paramount, CBS, and 60 Minutes in a perilous position: If Paramount—which has been struggling for years—hopes to save itself through a merger with Skydance, it must win over the FCC, whose current head apparently delights in being referred to as "Trump's media pit bull." Doing so will apparently require bending the knee and paying a fee for hurting Trump's feelings, even though by all accounts, 60 Minutes violated neither the law nor journalistic ethics. And if Paramount does cave and pay $25 million or more—worse still, if it apologizes for the sin of doing basic journalism—it will set a dangerous precedent that powerful people can openly and unabashedly bully the journalists who cover them into silence. The post Trump Wants $25 Million To Settle His Meritless 60 Minutes Lawsuit appeared first on
