Thursday, September 18, 2025
The politics of UK policing
The paper says that prior to Trump's arrival at the castle on Tuesday, protesters unfurled a massive banner featuring a photograph of Trump and Epstein near Windsor Castle, and later projected several images of the two on to one of the castle’s towers.
As a result, according to the police statement, four adults were arrested on suspicion of malicious communications after an “unauthorised projection” at Windsor Castle, which they described as a “public stunt” and remain in custody:
Democrats in the US House of Representatives last week made public a birthday letter Trump allegedly wrote to Epstein more than 20 years ago, though the White House has denied its authenticity.
The release of the letter has brought renewed attention to an issue that has become a political thorn in the president’s side.
Though he has urged his supporters to move on from the topic, appetite for details about Epstein’s crimes and who else may have known about them or been involved with him has remained high.
Trump was friends with Epstein before becoming president but had a falling out with the former financier years before his 2019 death in prison.
The birthday letter contained text of a purported dialogue between Trump and Epstein in which Trump calls him a “pal” and says, “May every day be another wonderful secret.” The text sits within a crude sketch of the silhouette of a naked woman.
Astonishingly, the police have also confiscated a poster van sporting a picture of Donald Trump with Epstein. That could hardly be classed as a malicious communication, so on what grounds did they act?
The latest arrests come after hundreds of people were taken into custody for holding up a placard showing their opposition to the proscription of Palestine Action, and are part of disturbing trend where we are seeing the politicisation of policing in this country.
If expressing a view, albeit one that might offend others, is a criminal offence, then where does it end? Will the government use the police to suppress views that they don't agree with or find offensive? Is this the end of non-state-sponsored free speech in this country?
If expressing a view, albeit one that might offend others, is a criminal offence, then where does it end? Will the government use the police to suppress views that they don't agree with or find offensive? Is this the end of non-state-sponsored free speech in this country?
Wednesday, September 17, 2025
A gamble too far
They say that the Greater Manchester mayor is a former cabinet minister, articulate and charismatic – and would certainly represent a fresh start for this Labour government, but getting him into a position whereby he would be able to challenge for the leadership may be just too difficult:
Unfortunately, though, his route back to parliament to enable him to be prime minister represents a massive opportunity for Reform.
The fact is that a Labour MP, preferably in the Manchester area, would need to stand down and enable a by-election.
Graham Stringer, 75, may vacate Blackley and Middleton South, or there is speculation over suspended MP Andrew Gwynne, 51, regarding his Gorton and Denton constituency.
In both seats, Reform is the favourite to win and – after taking the Labour safe seat of Runcorn and Helsby in a huge by-election victory earlier this year – there is no doubt they could add to the seats they’ve won from Starmer’s party.
Arguably, Reform is in better shape to win a by-election now than when Sarah Pochin won by six votes in May.
Added to the problem is that whichever by-election Burnham stood in, he would be billed as the next prime minister – which would put an even bigger target on his back. Voters generally do not like being taken for granted in that way.
If this were to happen and Reform was to defeat Burnham in a by-election, it would not just be a terrible humiliation for the Manchester mayor but for Labour as a whole – while giving Farage and Reform an almighty boost.
However, after Starmer’s latest failed attempt at a fresh start, it is perhaps no surprise that Labour MPs are now panicking.
With Angela Rayner, the obvious candidate to replace him, now licking her wounds after resigning over her tax affairs, there are few valid options in parliament.
Supporters of health secretary Wes Streeting will push for him if and when it comes to it, but he would represent a rightward move for a party which wants to make a hard turn left.
This explains why somehow getting Burnham back into parliament is such an attractive option – despite him losing Labour leadership elections in 2010 and 2015.
But the harsh reality is that there is no realistic route for him to become leader. If he tries, all he and Labour will do is hand Farage a huge opportunity in a genuine showdown.
Even if the Labour Party needs saving, trying to bring back Andy Burnham would be a gamble too far.
The inevitable disastrous showing for Labour in next May's elections could prove fatal for Starmer's premiership but with no credible candidate in place to take over, Labour may have to limp on with him in charge anyway.
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Cap on donations needed after Gething row
The website says that Gething, who broke no rules, was forced to stand down after accepting the donation from a convicted polluter’s company during the 2024 Welsh Labour leadership race:
Before resigning, the former first minister – who outspent rival Jeremy Miles by £254,600 to £61,800 – urged the Senedd’s standards committee to look into reforming donation rules.
Now, in evidence to the committee’s resulting inquiry, witnesses have warned a lack of limits on donations, and a high threshold for reporting, risk damaging public confidence.
Transparency International UK, an anti-corruption nonprofit organisation, said the row over the £200,000 donation has correlated with low levels of trust in the Welsh Government.
The group called for a £10,000 cap on contributions to candidates standing in internal elections from any individual or organisation, with limits on how much can be spent.
Transparency International told members of the standards committee: “The Vaughan Gething case also raised questions about the legitimacy of the donations received.
“Some were linked to criminal investigations and convictions. When a politician is seen to receive contributions from those connected with wrongdoing, it undermines public trust.
“Candidates and parties should do more to ensure the legitimacy of donations they receive.”
Only 24% of people believe party funding is transparent, according to a 2023 Electoral Commission survey on public perception of political campaign finances.
Transparency International and the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) Cymru criticised the £2,230 threshold for reporting donations, arguing it is too high by international standards.
ERS Cymru warned: “Whilst there are limits on spending, there are currently no limits on donations. This creates a space for individual, corporate or other interests to have an outsized impact on the financial flows to parties and candidates.
“Both the total amount of political donations and the size of donations has been increasing.”
The UK’s committee on standards in public life recommended a donation limit of £10,000 in an effort to “end the big donor culture” in 2011.
In its evidence, ERS Cymru said: “Whether it’s parties or candidates, reliance on a small number of wealthy donations can distort politics and open up the potential for corruption. “A donations limit is not only better for preventing undue influence but protects political parties and representatives from risky fundraising behaviours.”
It is important that Welsh politics is both transparent and accountable, that donors of whatever ilk, cannot give the impression of buying influence and that there is a level playing field for candidates. If that means a cap on donations then that is what should happen.
It is important that Welsh politics is both transparent and accountable, that donors of whatever ilk, cannot give the impression of buying influence and that there is a level playing field for candidates. If that means a cap on donations then that is what should happen.
Monday, September 15, 2025
Gen Z may never be able to afford a home
The paper says that an analysis of rental, property and salary data reveals that the average homebuyer in 1995 had to save just a third of their salary – £5,000 – to put down a deposit, while today’s first-time buyers are forking out average deposits nearly twice as high as the average salary:
Gen-Z are being “locked out” of home ownership, campaigners have warned, as first-time buyers now face paying up to six times more for a home than their parents.
An analysis of rental, property and salary data by The Independent reveals that the average homebuyer in 1995 had to save just a third of their salary – £5,000 – to put down a deposit, while today’s first-time buyers are forking out average deposits nearly twice as high as the average salary.
Land registry data in England shows that the average house price now costs £286,594 – nearly six times higher (£50,679) than three decades ago.
But the average salary has barely more than doubled in that time, from £15,034 to £37,430, while the upfront cash needed for a deposit is more than 10 times greater on average.
Rents are also soaring, with average monthly rates going from £1,025 to £1,343 in the past five years alone – a 31 per cent jump, according to the UK-wide private renters index.
“If the government does not slam the brakes on soaring rents, many may never be able to buy their own home,” Ben Twomey, chief executive of the campaign group Generation Rent warned.
“Generation Z is Generation Rent. They are locked out of home ownership because they face higher rent costs than any other generation before them. Trying to save for a deposit to buy a home while rents soar is like pushing a boulder up a hill that keeps getting steeper and steeper.”
Young people who have managed to save for deposits say they feel they have had to “sacrifice” a lot to do it.
It is little wonder that homelessness is also increasing.
Sunday, September 14, 2025
Farage accused of Hypocrisy over house purchase
The Independent reports that Nigel Farage is facing mounting questions about his £885,000 constituency home after an investigation called into question how the property was paid for.
The paper says that the Reform UK leader has denied avoiding more than £44,000 of stamp duty on the four-bedroom house in Clacton, which includes a heated swimming pool, after it emerged it had in fact been purchased by his partner:
Mr Farage said his partner, Laure Ferrari, had paid for the home with her own funds, and was able to do so as she comes from a wealthy French family.
But a BBC investigation cast doubt on the claim, suggesting that her parents do not have the means to have made a significant contribution towards the purchase.
If Mr Farage had given Ms Ferrari the money to purchase the house, he would not have done anything illegal. But it would raise questions of hypocrisy, given that the Reform leader criticised Angela Rayner for her own failure to pay enough stamp duty when purchasing a flat in Hove – something she eventually resigned over.
“I haven’t lent money to anybody. I didn’t give her money,” he told the Mirror.
“She comes from a very successful French family and she can afford it herself. It’s convenient, it works, and she loves it there.”
Labour Party chair Anna Turley said: “There are now far too many unanswered questions about the house he stays in while in Clacton. He must urgently come clean with the public as to whether he financially contributed towards the purchase of this property.
“Misleading the public for political gain about buying a constituency home is appalling in itself. But if he deliberately put in place this arrangement to avoid paying his fair share of tax, that would be even worse.”
Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson Sarah Olney said: “Nigel Farage has serious questions to answer over this. After spending days attacking others over their tax arrangements, he now needs to be frank and honest about his own.”
The Clacton house was purchased last November amid questions about how much time Mr Farage was spending in his constituency. Days before, he told Sky News: “I’ve just exchanged contracts on the house that I’ll be living in there – is that good enough? … I’ve bought a house in Clacton. What more do you want me to do?”
He has since admitted he was wrong to say he had bought the house, as it is owned by his partner.
Mr Farage reportedly owns four properties, including three in Kent and one in Surrey, meaning he would have paid a higher rate of stamp duty if he purchased the Clacton home.
The BBC’s investigation cast doubt on Ms Ferrari’s wealth, reporting that her father ran a haulage business in Strasbourg for many years, but the company was liquidated in 2020 and had more assets than liabilities at the time.
The flat her parents live in, in a suburb of the northeastern city, is reportedly worth around £300,000.
A consultancy set up by Ms Ferrari, meanwhile, has just £1,000 in assets, according to its latest set of accounts.
There are many questions that Farage needs to answer about this house purchase. After all, he is quick enough to demand answers from Angela Raynor, why should he be different?
The paper says that the Reform UK leader has denied avoiding more than £44,000 of stamp duty on the four-bedroom house in Clacton, which includes a heated swimming pool, after it emerged it had in fact been purchased by his partner:
Mr Farage said his partner, Laure Ferrari, had paid for the home with her own funds, and was able to do so as she comes from a wealthy French family.
But a BBC investigation cast doubt on the claim, suggesting that her parents do not have the means to have made a significant contribution towards the purchase.
If Mr Farage had given Ms Ferrari the money to purchase the house, he would not have done anything illegal. But it would raise questions of hypocrisy, given that the Reform leader criticised Angela Rayner for her own failure to pay enough stamp duty when purchasing a flat in Hove – something she eventually resigned over.
“I haven’t lent money to anybody. I didn’t give her money,” he told the Mirror.
“She comes from a very successful French family and she can afford it herself. It’s convenient, it works, and she loves it there.”
Labour Party chair Anna Turley said: “There are now far too many unanswered questions about the house he stays in while in Clacton. He must urgently come clean with the public as to whether he financially contributed towards the purchase of this property.
“Misleading the public for political gain about buying a constituency home is appalling in itself. But if he deliberately put in place this arrangement to avoid paying his fair share of tax, that would be even worse.”
Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson Sarah Olney said: “Nigel Farage has serious questions to answer over this. After spending days attacking others over their tax arrangements, he now needs to be frank and honest about his own.”
The Clacton house was purchased last November amid questions about how much time Mr Farage was spending in his constituency. Days before, he told Sky News: “I’ve just exchanged contracts on the house that I’ll be living in there – is that good enough? … I’ve bought a house in Clacton. What more do you want me to do?”
He has since admitted he was wrong to say he had bought the house, as it is owned by his partner.
Mr Farage reportedly owns four properties, including three in Kent and one in Surrey, meaning he would have paid a higher rate of stamp duty if he purchased the Clacton home.
The BBC’s investigation cast doubt on Ms Ferrari’s wealth, reporting that her father ran a haulage business in Strasbourg for many years, but the company was liquidated in 2020 and had more assets than liabilities at the time.
The flat her parents live in, in a suburb of the northeastern city, is reportedly worth around £300,000.
A consultancy set up by Ms Ferrari, meanwhile, has just £1,000 in assets, according to its latest set of accounts.
There are many questions that Farage needs to answer about this house purchase. After all, he is quick enough to demand answers from Angela Raynor, why should he be different?
Saturday, September 13, 2025
Ann of Swansea
Ann Hatton, also known as 'Ann of Swansea', began life as Ann Julia Kemble, born in Worcester in 1764 to the family of famous theatrical actors known across England; one of the most famous of these was her sister, Sarah Siddons. Ann began spending time on the stage, following her family's profession until a marriage that turned out to be bigamous left her poor and much of her early life was colourful and scandalous as she tried to survive in London - a press report of 1789 indicates that she was working in a bagnio when she was accidentally shot in the eye! It was during that time that Ann, as Ann Curtis, published her first collection of poetry.
She later married William Hatton and the couple moved to America where Ann had success on the Broadway stage, writing the first known libretto by a woman.
In 1799, Ann left America and moved to Swansea with William, where they took out a lease on the Swansea bathing house (it was situated where the west end of Swansea Civic Centre now stands), and the pair ran the house and lodgings together. This was at a time when Swansea was known as the "Brighton of Wales" and Swansea was turning itself as a fashionable resort to attract wealthy people looking to improve their health, spend time with friends, and potentially relocate to the town. Bathing was a desirable preoccupation, and the bathing house was in the perfect location on the seafront.
From 1810, after the death of her husband and moving to Kidwelly to run a dance school, Ann adopted the pseudonym "Ann of Swansea", and wrote a series of poetry and 16 popular gothic and romantic novels, including "Lovers and Friends", and "Guily or Not Guilty, or A Lesson for Husbands"
Ann died in Swansea on Boxing Day 1838 and is buried in St. John's churchyard (now St. Matthew's church) in High Street.
Friday, September 12, 2025
Mandelson sacked, but why was he appointed in the first place?
There was a certain inevitability about Peter Mandelson being sacked from his role as UK ambassador to the US following mounting pressure over his newly revealed links to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
The Independent reports that the sacking came after it was revealed that Mandelson had maintained ties with Epstein after the disgraced former banker was jailed for a child sex offence:
Responding to an urgent question in the House of Commons, foreign minister Stephen Doughty said Lord Mandelson had been sacked after leaked emails showed that his relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019, was “materially different from that known at the time of his appointment” as UK ambassador to the US last year.
The Tories said it showed an “extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister” and that it raised “massive questions” about what he knew about the pair’s relationship and when.
Announcing Lord Mandelson’s sacking, Mr Doughty said: “In light of additional information in the emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.
“The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information.”
While there were cheers at the news in the Commons, Tory shadow minister Neil O’Brien was not satisfied with the explanation after prime minister Sir Keir Starmer made a robust defence of Lord Mandelson just 24 hours ago.
He said: “This is yet another extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister. It raises massive questions.
“It is not just that Peter Mandelson said that Epstein was his best pal and that he loved him. It wasn’t just that he brokered a deal for him while he was business secretary. We now, of course, know that he was working for Epstein’s early release after he was convicted.
“And the simple question is this: is the minister now saying that the prime minister did not know about any of this at the point where [Lord Mandelson] was appointed? What did the prime minister know at the point of his appointment?”
The paper adds that while Lord Mandelson has insisted he regrets ever having met Epstein, an investigation by The Telegraph has detailed a two-decade friendship between the pair, which continued even after Epstein was jailed for a child sex offence in 2008:
Its report includes claims that Epstein brokered a deal involving the then Mr Mandelson, who was the Labour business secretary at the time, in relation to the sale of a taxpayer-owned business, after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences.
Mandelson was a controversial appointment in the first place, he had resigned in disgrace twice before, had a longstanding relationship with Epstein and widespread, complicated, and opaque commercial interests. He was a significant reputational risk.
In retrospect, making him our ambassador to the US was a huge risk, and must bring into question Starmer's judgement. What did he know and when did he know it? Why did he go ahead with this appointment?
The Independent reports that the sacking came after it was revealed that Mandelson had maintained ties with Epstein after the disgraced former banker was jailed for a child sex offence:
Responding to an urgent question in the House of Commons, foreign minister Stephen Doughty said Lord Mandelson had been sacked after leaked emails showed that his relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019, was “materially different from that known at the time of his appointment” as UK ambassador to the US last year.
The Tories said it showed an “extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister” and that it raised “massive questions” about what he knew about the pair’s relationship and when.
Announcing Lord Mandelson’s sacking, Mr Doughty said: “In light of additional information in the emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States.
“The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information.”
While there were cheers at the news in the Commons, Tory shadow minister Neil O’Brien was not satisfied with the explanation after prime minister Sir Keir Starmer made a robust defence of Lord Mandelson just 24 hours ago.
He said: “This is yet another extraordinary error of judgement by this prime minister. It raises massive questions.
“It is not just that Peter Mandelson said that Epstein was his best pal and that he loved him. It wasn’t just that he brokered a deal for him while he was business secretary. We now, of course, know that he was working for Epstein’s early release after he was convicted.
“And the simple question is this: is the minister now saying that the prime minister did not know about any of this at the point where [Lord Mandelson] was appointed? What did the prime minister know at the point of his appointment?”
The paper adds that while Lord Mandelson has insisted he regrets ever having met Epstein, an investigation by The Telegraph has detailed a two-decade friendship between the pair, which continued even after Epstein was jailed for a child sex offence in 2008:
Its report includes claims that Epstein brokered a deal involving the then Mr Mandelson, who was the Labour business secretary at the time, in relation to the sale of a taxpayer-owned business, after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences.
Mandelson was a controversial appointment in the first place, he had resigned in disgrace twice before, had a longstanding relationship with Epstein and widespread, complicated, and opaque commercial interests. He was a significant reputational risk.
In retrospect, making him our ambassador to the US was a huge risk, and must bring into question Starmer's judgement. What did he know and when did he know it? Why did he go ahead with this appointment?
Thursday, September 11, 2025
Tory donations under question
The paper say that more than 40 donations to the Tories over 23 years have been registered in the name of Rosemary Saïd, a British woman, but leaked documents marked “official – sensitive” renew long-running questions about whether it is her husband, the billionaire businessman Wafic Saïd, who is the real source of the money even though he is barred by electoral law from donating:
One of the documents, an official government log from Boris Johnson’s time in Downing Street, contains the entry: “Political meeting with Wafic Said (donor) and Rosemary Said.”
Wafic also had two separate phone calls with Johnson and senior aides without his wife, according to other logs.
A Canadian citizen resident in Monaco, Wafic, 85, is barred by law from donating because he is not eligible to vote in the UK. Rosemary, 79, is allowed to give money and the Conservative party has declared donations in her name between 2001 and 2024. Johnson declared a £10,000 contribution from her during his leadership campaign.
When contacted for comment, Wafic Saïd said: “My wife is an independently wealthy woman who has been a strong supporter of the Conservative party her entire life.”
He added: “I have not made donations to the Conservative party for at least 25 years, and any suggestion otherwise would be clearly untrue and would be a very serious matter for me, as I always respect the law.”
Whatever the truth, we have yet another news story on donations. It is time to address the inadquacy of electoral law in allowing large donations and associated questions around influence.
Tuesday, September 09, 2025
Boris Johnson raking in the money
The paper says that the Boris Files contain emails, letters, invoices, speeches and business contracts, which shine a spotlight on the inner workings of a publicly subsidised company Johnson established after leaving Downing Street in September 2022:
The trove reveals how Johnson has used the company to manage an array of highly paid jobs and business ventures. They raise questions for the former Conservative leader about whether he has breached “revolving door” rules governing post-ministerial careers.
The revelations have echoes of the Greensill Capital lobbying scandal that embroiled one of Johnson’s predecessors, David Cameron. They may also spark questions about the taxpayer-funded allowance that former prime ministers get to run their private offices.
There are more than 1,800 files in the cache, including some that date back to Johnson’s tenure in Downing Street. The Guardian is the only UK media organisation known to have viewed the trove.
The files reveal:
* Johnson lobbied a senior Saudi official he had met while in office, asking him to share a pitch with the petrostate’s autocratic crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, for a firm he co-chairs.
* The ex-PM received more than £200,000 from a hedge fund after meeting Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro – contrary to statements he was not paid.
* While in office, Johnson appears to have held a secret meeting with Peter Thiel, the billionaire who founded the controversial US data firm Palantir, months before it was given a role managing NHS data.
* In an apparent breach of Covid pandemic rules, Johnson hosted a dinner for a Tory peer who financed a lavish refurbishment of his Downing Street flat, a day after the second national Covid-19 lockdown came into force.
Johnson did not respond to multiple requests for comment. After publication, Johnson emailed a statement to the Guardian denying his office had misused a subsidy scheme intended to support an ex-PM’s public duties. The public duty costs allowance (PDCA) should not be used for private or commercial purposes.
The paper says that the files raise questions about whether Johnson has blurred these lines while running the Office of Boris Johnson, a limited company established a month after he left Downing Street and funded by an annual six-figure sum from the taxpayer:
A senior Cabinet Office source confirmed that Johnson has claimed funds under the scheme to pay for staff salaries in his private office. Official data shows he has claimed £182,000 in PDCA payments since leaving government.
Johnson’s office, the leak reveals, has played a central role in managing his commercial endeavours. These include deals with Daily Mail and GB News, and a globe-trotting career giving speeches for deep-pocketed clients.
The cache of files suggest that between October 2022 and May 2024, Johnson was paid approximately £5.1m for 34 speeches. The engagements typically earn him hundreds of thousands of pounds, as well as generous expenses to cover first-class flights and stays in five-star hotels for him and his staff.
It is not unusual or against any rules for former prime ministers to travel the world delivering paid speeches, but there are restrictions on business activities they can undertake after leaving government.
These include prohibitions on lobbying contacts developed while in office in foreign governments and commercial organisations. Johnson was reminded of these rules by an official watchdog on the day he left Downing Street.
Revelations from the Boris Files will place pressure on Johnson to explain how some of his recent contacts with foreign governments on behalf of commercial interest fall within the rules.
There are many questions for Boris Johnson arising from these files. I'm just not expecting him to answer them.
Brexit to hit tourists from next month
The paper says that as a result there will be long delays for British travellers getting into Europe as a result of the new post-Brexit checks:
New Entry/Exit System (EES) measures at the EU borders mean people have to have their fingerprints and photograph taken as well as scanning passports. The move, replacing passport stamping, will come into effect from October 12 for UK and non-EU nationals travelling for a short stay.
A UK government spokesperson said: “While EES checks will be a significant change to the EU border, we are in constant and close dialogue with our European partners to try and minimise the impact on the British public.
“While we have done everything we can to ensure the required infrastructure is in place, anyone who is planning a trip to the European mainland once these checks are introduced will still need to allow more time for their journey as the new EU systems bed in."
EES will be a requirement when entering Schengen area countries including Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. But it will not be required when travelling to Ireland and Cyprus.
It means Brits will have to register on their first visit to a participating country after EES is introduced. Each registration will be valid for a rolling three-year period, or until the passport expires.
All travellers, including babies, will be photographed - but children under 12 will not have to give their fingerprints. Digital records will be created for everyone who goes through the process.
People will need to scan their passports and provide either their fingerprints or a photo at the border. EES is being phased in by European countries over six months - meaning some airports, ports and train terminals will have different requirements until April next year.
For travellers using the Port of Dover, Eurotunnel at Folkestone or Eurostar at St Pancras International, the process will take place at the border before they leave the UK.
The Government has ploughed £10.5million of funding to help pay for the new scanners and equipment needed for checks.
The EU believes the EES system will help track people who enter using the 90-day visa-free travel rule. British citizens covered by Withdrawal Agreement residence
The Government said: "Whilst checks should only take 1-2 minutes for each person, they may lead to longer wait times at Border Control upon arrival in the Schengen area. At the juxtaposed ports, where checks are completed in the UK, prior to departure, there may be longer waits at busy times. Eurotunnel, Eurostar and the Port of Dover have plans in place to minimise disruption as much as possible."
It has taken time, but this is when leaving the EU gets real for many holidaymakers.
Monday, September 08, 2025
Is Starmer listening?
The paper says that with Nigel Farage comfortably leading in the polls, Dame Emily Thornberry and Andy Burnham said the PM must listen more to his backbenchers to stop Reform UK from winning the next general election:
Dame Emily said she was considering running for the deputy leadership after Angela Rayner was forced to resign over her failure to pay £40,000 in stamp duty on the purchase of a flat in Hove.
And she said Labour faces “the fight of our lives” at the next election against Mr Farage. “The last thing we want is to go from a position where we thought we would be in for two terms, to hand our country over to Farage,” she told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg.
She said Sir Keir has restored Britain’s status on the world stage and praised domestic reforms including the strengthening of workers’ rights. “But nobody seems to be hearing about that,” she warned. “They hear about the mistakes, and the question is, why are we making these mistakes?” she added.
Asked why, she said: “I think it's not listening to people of goodwill who want the party to succeed. I think we need to do more of that, because I think that the answers are out there, but I think that we need to continue to listen and learn from the public.”
Meanwhile Mr Burnham, one of Labour’s most powerful figures outside of Westminster, said that Labour MPs must be respected more going forward. “That is the debate we should have during the deputy leadership contest,” he said. “I would say more broadly that it also needs to be a bit of a reset for the government,” he added.
Mr Burnham said he was “concerned about the balance” of Sir Keir’s cabinet following the weekend’s emergency reshuffle, and that “we need to use the contest to discuss some of those things”.
He said: “It is right to have a discussion about the internal management of the Labour Party. And in a time where the scale and the nature of the challenge we face is such as it is, you need everybody pulling together, all parts of the party pulling together.
“And that points to a party management style that is less factional and more pluralistic. Labour MPs need to listen to them more and respect them more.”
Both Thornberry and Burnham are right that the Labour leadership are not very good at listening. This is an election that the prime minister doesn't need.
The fact that senior members are already using the contest to raise concerns about Starmer's leadership suggests that the election of a new deputy leader could well get spicy, and leave the PM with a headache if the 'wrong' candidate is elected.
