Quick Reads 

After a week of uncertainty in France’s snap election, leftist parties have won the most seats despite no single party winning a clear majority. The July election was called unexpectedly after Macron’s party was defeated by notoriously far-right, anti-immigrant rival Marine Le Pen’s party in the European elections, causing the President to dissolve the French Parliament–the National Assembly. This result in Europe is indicative of the rise of populism in the West in recent years, with Germany, Greece, Poland and Spain amongst the other countries to see victory for the far-right. It is thought that Macron called the election intending to address the shifting political landscape and political instability by establishing a governing majority in the National Assembly. In the first round, however, it looked as though the right may be taking hold domestically as well. Le Pen’s party, the National Rally, led with 33.4% of the vote, with Macron’s centrist Ensemble party winning just 21.3%. Despite this clear victory, the nature of French elections meant the second round of voting was where the decisive result was made. The outcome of this round could not have been more different; the leftist New Popular Front alliance shockingly secured 188 seats in the National Assembly, with Ensemble placing second with 161 seats. The National Rally’s success from the first round was short-lived, winning only 142 seats and placing third in vote share. Far from Macron’s goal of providing political stability, France was left with a hung parliament, as no party or coalition secured the 289 seats required to win an outright majority. Following this result, Macron put the onus on the French parliament to negotiate a broad-based coalition, one which he claimed should be built by ‘republican forces’ supportive of the rule of law and France’s role in Europe. It is thought that this formulation was designed to exclude the National Rally, but also implicitly leftist France Unbowed, a large portion of the winning New Popular Front’s alliance. However, this sparked controversy from the left, who believed Macron was posing a threat to democracy by not allowing the leftist bloc to form a government, given that they won the most seats. Following the resignation of centrist Prime Minister Gabriel Attal after the election result, the left claimed the most democratic move for Macron to take would be to allow their bloc to choose the next Prime Minister. A final decision as to how Macron will form a government is yet to be seen. As it stands, Attal will remain as a caretaker Prime Minister until this happens. The election result has therefore left France in arguably more political uncertainty than it was before; it is only clear who lost but it is yet to be decided who won.

Labour Party – Keir Starmer

• Wealth creation for working people by encouraging more investment

• Add 20% VAT to private school fees to pay for 6,500 extra state school teachers

• Build 1.5million new homes in the next 5 years

• Ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030

• Scrap the Rwanda Scheme and divert the spending to a new Border and Security Command

• Points-based immigration system, reducing reliance on overseas workers

• £24billion for green initiatives, including the Great British Energy Company creating secure supplies of clean energy

• 40,000 more NHS appointments and operations

Conservative Party – Rishi Sunak

• Return of Help to Buy scheme to get more people onto the property ladder

• Abolition of National Insurance for self-employed people

• Tougher sentencing and new prisons; 8,000 new community police officers

• Regular flights to Rwanda

• Legal cap on migration

• Increased defence spending

• Net zero without introducing new green charges

• Increase NHS funding, aiming to build 40 new hospitals and improve working conditions

• Cap on social care costs

Reform UK – Nigel Farage

• Cut NHS waiting lists to zero in two years

• Raise minimum income tax threshold, scrapping VAT on energy bills, reducing government spending by £5 for every £100

• Reduce corporation tax

• Abandon all existing carbon emissions targets to benefit taxpayers

• Scrap student loan interest

• Clamp down on ‘woke ideology’ in schools

• Freeze all non-essential migration, clamp down on student visas to only allow students with essential skills to remain once their studies end

Liberal Democrats – Ed Davey

• Free personal care in England

• 8,000 more GPs and faster cancer treatments

• Increase public spending by £27billion

• Scrap Rwanda scheme providing safe routes for asylum seekers

• Merit-based immigration system, ending ban on workers bringing dependents

• Reach net zero by 2045

• Scrap two-child limit and benefit cap

• Triple early years pupil premium

• Speed up the court process

• Legally recognise non-binary identities

• Proportional representation and votes at 16

Green Party – Carla Denyer & Adrian Ramsay

• £8billion yearly increase in NHS spending with quicker access to NHS dentistry and reduced waiting times

• Tax on assets over £10million

• Tax rise for earners on more than £50,270

• Scrap university tuition fees

• Net zero by 2040

• Stay in NATO

• Free personal care

• Nationalise railways, water, and energy big five

Scottish National Party – John Swinney

• Clean energy future

• Make Scotland an independent country

• Devolve National Insurance and inheritance tax

• £12billion wealth tax

• Investing £300million in NHS to reduce waiting times

• Increase renewable energy

Plaid Cymru – Rhun ap Iowerth

• Welsh independence

• HS2 rail scheme and fair funding for Wales

• Funding for 500 more GPs

• Increase child benefit by £20

• Windfall tax on energy companies

• Scrap Rwanda plan

• Net zero by 2035

• Ceasefire in Gaza

• Devolve policing to Wales

Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty in the hush money case, making him the first US president to be criminally convicted. The case revolved around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to silence allegations of extramarital affairs. The investigation, which began during Trump's presidency, examined payments totalling $130,000 made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal. These payments were intended to prevent the women from going public with their claims of having had affairs with Trump. The prosecution argued that these payments constituted illegal campaign contributions, as they were made to influence the outcome of the 2016 election by preventing damaging stories from emerging. Trump's former personal attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, was a key witness in the trial. Cohen, who had previously been convicted and served time for his role in the payments, testified that he made the payments at Trump’s direction. He provided detailed accounts of how the scheme was orchestrated, including how funds were transferred and how Trump was involved in the decision-making process. Cohen further revealed that Trump told him “Women are going to hate me…this is going to be a disaster for the campaign” upon learning that Daniels planned to sell her story. The jury found Trump guilty on several counts, including violating campaign finance laws and conspiracy. The verdict has significant implications, not only for Trump’s political future but also for the broader legal precedent it sets regarding the accountability of high-ranking officials. Trump, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing, denounced the trial as a politically motivated witch hunt. His legal team has already announced plans to appeal the verdict, arguing that the charges were unfounded and that the trial was biased. Nonetheless, the conviction represents a historic moment in American politics, underscoring the importance of legal accountability regardless of political status.

Inspired by recent student protests in the US, university campuses across the UK have become the epicentre of dynamic protests in support of Palestine in which students have set up tents to camp on university grounds. Organised by student groups, these encampment protests aim to hold universities accountable for their links with Israel and have outlined clear demands that must be met before students stop camping. Some of the first universities to begin this new wave of protests include Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Bristol and Warwick, later joined by a host of other prestigious universities across the country. Outside King’s College in Cambridge, more than 100 people could be seen setting up tents and pro-Palestinian signs, one of which reading ‘Cambridge divest now, don’t be complicit’. Their camp claims it will remain standing until the university “disclose[s] all of its research collaborations and financial ties with companies and institutions complicit in Israel’s genocide and then to divest from these”, according to one Cambridge student advocating for Palestinian liberation.  

Whilst many universities have allowed these camps to remain in place, the president of Universities UK, Prof Dame Sally Mapstone, has said that action may need to be taken if such protests interfere with life on campus. She stated that despite universities not clearing encampments, all students must still be able to fully access university services, as well as take their exams and graduate. This comes after police were called to Newcastle University after some students could not access the university counselling services due to escalated protests. Leaders of 17 universities met with the Prime Minister recently to discuss the camps and the steps they should be taking to prevent antisemitism on their campuses. As of now, the majority of the camps remain in place and claim they will do so until action is taken. 

Humza Yousaf has officially resigned as Scotland's first minister after John Swinney was chosen as the new leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP). Swinney, previously the Deputy First Minister, has expressed his intent to begin a "new chapter" in the SNP's history. Yousaf acknowledged he "paid the price" for the termination of the power-sharing agreement with the Scottish Greens in a recent statement. In his resignation letter to King Charles, the Glasgow Pollok MSP indicated that his resignation would be effective at the start of parliamentary business on Tuesday. Yousaf expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to serve the King and the people of Scotland, appreciating the counsel and kindness extended to him and his family. Yousaf is set to deliver a final speech to the Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) before they vote to elect Scotland's seventh first minister in 25 years. Reflecting on his tenure, Yousaf described his time as first minister as a "phenomenal honour." He shared how, as a young Muslim boy in Scotland, he could never have imagined leading the country.  

During his leadership, Yousaf helped introduce significant changes such as the council tax freeze and the elimination of peak rail fares. He has pledged to continue advocating for marginalised voices from the backbenches of the Scottish parliament. Yousaf was appointed as Nicola Sturgeon's successor last March, narrowly defeating ex-finance secretary Kate Forbes in the SNP leadership race. His term faced several challenges, including a police investigation into SNP finances and a controversy involving ex-Health Secretary Michael Matheson's £11,000 data bill. Other issues included the failed, Green-led deposit return scheme and the shelved highly protected marine areas initiative. The Scottish government also lost a legal battle with the UK government over its gender recognition reforms. Yousaf's leadership concluded after he ended the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens, leaving the SNP a minority in parliament. Facing motions of no confidence, Yousaf announced his resignation last Monday, admitting he had clearly underestimated the impact of ending the agreement with the Greens. John Swinney, the sole candidate

Following his success in the February presidential election, former Prime Minister Alexander Stubb officially assumed office as Finland's new president on 1st March. The Conservative candidate of the National Coalition Party defeated his Green Party-backed rival Pekka Haavisto, previously foreign minister, with 51.6% of the vote compared to 48.4%. Despite beating him to the title of Finland's 13th president, Stubb told Haavisto "I'm proud that I have been able to run with you in these elections". This election in particular holds great importance as it is the first one since Finland joined NATO in April last year in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Stubb's duties as president will therefore differ from those who came before him, now having to play a central role in defining Finland's NATO policies, being directly responsible for foreign and security policy, and acting as commander-in-chief of the country's armed forces. Many voters believe that Russia is the biggest issue that the new President will have to deal with, reflected in the fact that both Stubb and Haavisto campaigned as strong supporters of Ukraine. The new president has made his stance on Russia clear: Finland will have no relations with Putin or any other Russian political leadership until they withdraw from Ukraine. Stubb is a strong believer in deep NATO cooperation, previously suggesting that NATO troops could be placed permanently in Finland and allowing the transport of nuclear weapons through the country. Whilst he would not support the storage of nuclear weapons in Finland, he stated that in some circumstances, "a nuclear weapon is a guarantee of peace". These statements on Russia during the Finnish presidential election were maintained despite retaliation threats from Russia in response to Finland's membership of NATO, alongside Russia's signing of a defence cooperation agreement with the United States in December. Although much of the discourse surrounding the election was focused on Russia, Stubb reminded reporters after the vote that his message was "one of peace", and that he would ensure that Finland promotes peace in his role as president.

North Korea tested a new hypersonic intermediate-range missile at the end of March, firing it into the sea off its east coast. Analysts believe that this new weapon is faster to launch and more difficult to intercept, with a potential reach covering all of Japan and Guam. The ability of this missile to reach so far indicates that North Korea is continuing to develop missiles capable of targeting American military bases in the Western Pacific. These bases pose a threat to North Korea as should conflict break out in the country, they would be used as launchpads for American reinforcement forces. This now marks the third ballistic missile launch from North Korea this year, leading Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to tell reporters that the country's actions were a threat to regional security and "absolutely unacceptable". Tokyo's coastguard urged vessels to be vigilant and report any objects that had fallen into the sea following this most recent launch. The US Indo-Pacific Command, however, stated that this did not pose an immediate danger to its troops, but did condemn it as an unlawful and destabilising act. Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un reported that he was satisfied with the outcome of the firing of this weapon and that it had proved the advantage of the country's defence science and technology. He further stated that North Korea had successfully carried out the Party Central Committee's three principles, which include: building a missile-armed force for rapidly, accurately and powerfully striking any enemy target worldwide. In response, the South Korean Ministry of Defence, published a release stating that the Japan-U.S.-South Korea trilateral security coordination would continue to "expand trilateral exercises based on close coordination and strengthen cooperation to deter and jointly respond to the threat posed by North Korea". The three countries did carry out a trilateral flight exercise following North Korea's launch, though it is unclear as to whether the exercise was a response, or whether it was already scheduled prior to this.

Germany has become the latest country to legalise cannabis, at least to an extent. The new law means that individuals and voluntary associations can grow up to three plants for private consumption. It also allows for possession of up to 50 grams of cannabis at home, or up to 25 grams in public. Smoking cannabis in many public spaces will also become legal from the 1st of April. These changes follow years of debate about decriminalising the drug in Germany, aimed at tackling the high consumption rates among young people, with the number of consumers between the ages of 18 and 25 having doubled in the past 10 years. It is estimated that roughly 7 million Germans regularly use cannabis, with many relying on it for medicinal reasons. The government has said that legalising private growth will improve the quality of the drug, reducing the harm posed to consumers, given the increasing impurity of cannabis on the streets. Despite these claims about the positive impacts of legalisation, the government has been met with opposition. Doctors in particular have warned that making the drug more accessible poses a significant health risk to young people and increases the risk of addiction. Politicians have also been critical of the decision, Christian Democrat politician Tino Sorge called the claim that legalising drugs will contain drug use “the most stupid thing [he’s] ever heard”. Health minister Karl Lauterbach hit back at this, saying that not taking action to reduce the use of cannabis among young people would be “sticking [their] heads in the sand”. As well as permitting individual growth of cannabis, non-commercial “cannabis social clubs” will be created to grow and distribute a limited amount of the drug. Each of these will have an upper limit of 500 members, with membership only available to German residents. This aims to benefit regular smokers, whilst making occasional users and tourists struggle to buy it legally. The German government has said it will be assessing the impact of this new legislation over the next few years, with its eventual goal being the introduction of the licensed sale of cannabis. However, opposition conservatives have stated that if they get into government next year, the new law will be scrapped entirely. It’s safe to say that Germany is unlikely to become Europe’s new Amsterdam anytime soon. 

For months now, there has been speculation about when the UK general election will be called. There seem to be three options. January 2025 has been hailed as an option, as this is the last possible legal date that the general election can be called. Another option seems to be the autumn of 2024, with the last option being this May. 

Political pundits all seem to disagree about when this will be. Here is an outline of the main arguments for each of the dates. 

The main reason those predicting a January 2025 election seem to advance is that the polling for the Conservative party is currently abysmal, so assume that Rishi Sunak will wait until the last possible moment to see if he can successfully create a poll bounce. As well as this, some people say that the election cannot be in the autumn as this would clash with the US presidential election so must happen in January. 

Those predicting an autumn election claim that Sunak wants to extend his time in office for as long as possible to attempt to achieve a poll bounce but that the election cannot be in January because the country would not want this. Activists will likely be unhappy if the country goes to a vote in January due to the poor weather which would be encountered in campaigning. Furthermore, January blues is a real thing and there is evidence that the general mood of people on election days can significantly alter their voting decisions. 

Finally, those predicting a May election put forward the argument that Sunak is aware that the country is crying out for an election (as the polls show) and that he will simply alienate increasing numbers of voters by not calling an election sooner. As well as this, if we have good weather this summer, there is likely to be an increase in the number of small boat crossings. The part of the electorate who opposes the crossings is the part that Sunak is aiming to target, by not meeting this one of his five goals set out a year ago, he may alienate further voters. Going for May enables him to avoid this risk. Lastly, there is serious talk and planning within the Conservative party to oust Rishi Sunak and he knows that the longer he waits to call an election, the higher the chance of his ousting by his own party.

Following a decisive vote in parliament, France has become the first country in the world to enshrine the right to abortion in its constitution. The vote saw an overwhelming result of 780-72 in favour of the decision, with parliament coming to a standing ovation upon announcement of the outcome. Despite abortion having been legal in France since 1975, polls showed that around 85% of the public were in favour of amending the constitution to provide “guaranteed freedom” for women to abort. French President Emmanuel Macron has described the amendment as “French pride”, sending a “universal message”. Some believe this decision was a political tactic from the President, who hoped that constitutional revision on abortion would secure his votes in the European election in June. However, the positive reaction from French citizens would suggest this was an issue important to the electorate, with the Eiffel Tower being lit up in celebration following the vote, displaying the famous slogan ‘My Body My Choice’. Before this change, Prime Minister Gabriel Attal told parliament that the right to abortion could be threatened and was “at the mercy of decision-makers”. He added a message addressed to ‘all women’: “Your body belongs to you and no one can decide for you”. The government has claimed that this constitutional change was introduced in response to the tightening of abortion laws in the US, in which the right to abortion was removed by the Supreme Court in 2022. Naturally, the amendment wasn’t without opposition. Many anti-abortion groups have strongly criticised the change, as has the Vatican, which supported concerns raised by French Catholic Bishops. Such opposition was, however, not enough to bring down the joyous sentiment from the majority in France. In a post on X, Macron invited the public to attend a sealing ceremony on International Women’s Day to celebrate this feminist victory. 

On the 15th of February, Greece’s parliament voted to legalise same-sex marriage. The bill also included provisions for same-sex couples to adopt children. Greece became the first South-Eastern European and majority-Christian orthodox country to do so. This happened amidst virulent opposition from the powerful orthodox church with widespread counter-protests present throughout the country. In fact, the church in Corfu has banned two of the lawmakers who voted in favour of the bill from partaking in religion. Slogans at protests were similar to homophobic slogans seen over the last two decades in other countries during legislative passages of same-sex marriage bills. Homophobic tropes of threats to the traditional family and children were invoked. 

Despite this significant opposition from the country’s established church, popular opinion polls were all in favour of the bill. The bill ended up passing with a fairly large majority in the parliament of the Hellenes. It will provide much-needed equal marriage rights for lesbian, homosexual and bisexual Greeks who have been campaigning for years for Greece to take the same path as many European countries. The move now prompts serious questions about when some of Greece’s neighbouring countries which also have orthodox Christian majorities may take similar action. 

The first same-sex couple to use their equal right to marry was Stavros Gavriliadis and Dimitris Elefsiniotis who got married on 2nd March with the blessing of the mayor. The Greek Prime Minister, an instrumental figure in the passing of the bill, Kyriakos Mitsotakis sent his congratulations to the couple. Gavriliadis will now be formally allowed to adopt his new husband’s twins.

On Thursday 15th February, official figures were released confirming that the UK has entered a recession. A recession is when an economy experiences two negative quarters (6 months) of negative economic growth. In the third quarter of 2023, the UK economy shrank by 0.1% and by 0.3% in the last quarter of 2024. Recessions have serious spiralling implications such as rapid rises in unemployment and falls in standards of living. The global economy is only just recovering from the 2008 financial crash.

This comes as a massive blow to Rishi Sunak and his Conservative government who had pinned their hopes on an incoming general election (within a year) on meeting Rishi Sunak’s 5 pledges to his voters. In a speech in January 2023, the PM outlined 5 promises: Halving inflation, a growing economy, a fall in the national debt, cutting NHS waiting lists and putting an end to small boat channel crossings.

So far, the Prime Minister has only met his first target. Inflation figures released earlier in the year show that inflation had halved from its peak 10.7% level; however, it remains well above the 2% Bank of England target level. Sunak has not managed to achieve any of the other targets, which in an election year, faced with glum polls does not bode well for him. The Conservative mismanagement of the economy and the NHS will come back to bite them. If Sunak wishes to appeal to the Conservative electorate, he must attempt to meet his promises. Currently, he is blaming everyone else for his failures, for example, his attacks on the ECHR for hindering his work on ‘stopping the boats’ and his criticism of NHS strike days for increasing waiting lists.

Since the last general election in December 2019, there have been 22 by-elections. Three have been held or are being held this month. Overall, the by-elections have mostly been disastrous for the Conservative Party, losing many of their defences to the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. There has only been 1 Conservative gain, which was Jill Mortimer in the Hartlepool constituency. There have only been 3 Conservative holds. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have been able to achieve record swings, overturning majorities in the tens of thousands of votes.

This has served as a constant source of embarrassment for the Conservative party and confirmed their fears of the evidence in the nearly 800 opinion polls conducted since 2019 of their free-falling vote share. The Conservative vote share started to fall following the party-gate scandal and has accelerated during the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss and the unpopularity of Rishi Sunak’s government.

  Furthermore, a significant number of these by-elections have been caused by Conservative MPs having to resign due to the exposure of their involvement in sleaze and scandal, helping to re-brand the Conservative party as the party of scandal, a reputation it had in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The resignation of Owen Paterson in North Shropshire and Christopher Pincher in Tamworth are ones of major scandals. As well as this, some resignations have been down to internal Conservative party divisions, such as the resignation of Nadine Dorries in Mid Bedfordshire. The image of scandal, sleaze and internal cleavages projected onto the Conservative party by these resignations and by-election defeats is causing them to fall even further in the polls. Keir Starmer’s Labour party is rejoicing at these results which confirm the consensus that they are heading for a general election victory, whenever that may be.

After an ITV television drama brought the Post Office Scandal into the public eye, and back on the political agenda, the government has officially passed the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act. The Bill sets out to provide payment for expenses incurred by the Secretary of State related to schemes compensating individuals affected by the Horizon System. The scandal was caused by faulty accounting software, provided by what is known as Horizon. This created false shortfalls in thousands of subpostmasters’ accounts. Over 900 subpostmasters were convicted of theft, fraud and false accounting based on the faulty Horizon data between 1999 and 2015. Others who were prosecuted but not convicted were forced to cover these shortfalls out of their own money. Victims suffered a host of subsequent issues, including illness, divorce, and in four cases, suicide. With greater attention being paid towards the scandal following the hard-hitting television series, which aired in early January, the government has been spurred into action. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has described it as ‘one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history’, which contributed to the passage of the new Compensation Act. The new legislation ensures that all victims will get the compensation they deserve, regardless of the current deadline. It has been made clear that the government is determined to make compensation claims as quickly as possible, and aims to do so by the deadline of August 2024. Despite this, the legislation allows for compensation to be paid by the Group Litigation Order, a scheme launched to compensate postmasters, beyond the deadline if needed. Some more complex claims have been said to need more time taken to assess them, and so the Act will allow everyone to receive full and fair compensation, without being rushed into making a decision. The government announced that, so far, £138 million had been paid out to over 2,700 claimants, with the new Bill expected to increase this number to allow justice to be served.

After passing legislation to toughen France’s immigration policy in December, President Macron’s administration has officially published the formal text of a new immigration law. Government officials have already been given the first instructions on how to apply the new, stricter legislation, being told by the President to implement the new law as quickly as possible. Immigration discourse has been rife in French politics in recent years, with the last presidential election taking a clear focus on such policies. Now, Macron has formalised tougher immigration laws, but not without controversy and opposition. Many features of the initial bill, drafted in December, were deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Council, with 35 of the 86 proposed articles being censured. These include delayed access to social benefits, which would have made the payment of social benefits to foreigners conditional on their employment status, migration quotas placing a cap upon the number of immigrants accepted in France, and stricter measures on immigrants bringing their families to France. The Council’s decision to scrap such provisions was favourable to many officials, as leaders of a third of French regions had previously said that they would not comply with such measures in the law. Political division had erupted within Macron’s party after the initial bill was proposed, with Health Minister Aurélien Rousseau resigning in protest. However, the scrapping of certain articles was not so popular with the right, who had initially welcomed the strict reforms as an ‘ideological victory’ for them. President of the far-right National Rally party described the Council’s actions as a ‘coup by the judges’, saying that the only solution was to hold a referendum on immigration. Despite criticism from the right, the finalised version of the law retains many key elements aimed at cracking down on immigration. For example, a large part of the new law is dedicated to simplifying procedures for expelling delinquent foreigners. The simplification of administrative immigration litigation has also been kept, making the process of expulsion more efficient. Even now the new law has been formalised, there are mixed views on what should happen next. The right believes the administration should resubmit a text which is more aligned with the initial agreement reached with them. However, the far-left has called for the law to be withdrawn for the reason that it lacks legitimacy, due to it being rejected by the Assembly previously. Regardless of this discontent, Interior Minister Gerard Darmanin has squashed the possibility of further legislation, calling the formalised law ‘a win for government’.

Tractors lined the streets of Berlin as over 10,000 German farmers descended on the capital. Farmers have been protesting in Spain and France, with Germany the latest European country to join them. Discontent has risen as the German government proposed subsidy cuts which would force agricultural companies to pay more for diesel fuel. In early December, furious farmers dumped masses of manure on Berlin’s streets, which spurred the government into action. They agreed to water down their plans for subsidy cuts, yet this was not enough to quiet the demands of farmers. Lobby groups are still pushing the government to scrap the plans entirely, triggering further protest action. More than 100,000 tractors could be seen blocking the roads, causing severe delays to commuters. Joachim Rukwied, president of the German farmers association stated that this was a ‘clear signal’ to the government to withdraw their plans. Much of the anger from farmers stems from increased hardship in recent years following an energy crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Farmers found that the pressure to produce less, whilst also being encouraged to increase agricultural output, was difficult to navigate. Moreover, the protests have produced a political threat to the government. This is because these protests have attracted attention from potentially harmful far-right and populist parties. Germany’s protests have gained the support of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a far-right group which has been perceived to have extremist and anti-democratic views. Despite this, the German farmers association has distanced itself from such groups which may be using the protests to spread their ideology. Farmers have stated that they will continue to act until they are appreciated and listened to by the government.

On January 9th, French President Emmanuel Macron nominated a new Prime Minister, Gabriel Attal. He is the youngest ever French Prime Minister at 34 years old and the first openly gay French Prime Minister. This follows the resignation of PM Elisabeth Borne, with her premiership widely viewed as being a failed premiership, partly due to her constant necessity to use the 49.3 mechanism to ensure the passing of laws.

The 49.3 mechanism is a part of the French constitution which states that the government can force legislation through parliament without bringing it to a vote. The condition is that a vote of no confidence follows, which if won by the government, means that the law has passed. The extremely controversial and unpopular pension reform increasing the minimum legal age of retirement to 64 was passed using the 49.3 mechanism sparking further protest and outrage.

Following his nomination, Attal began nominating his new cabinet. Notable figures include Rachida Dati, the leader of the opposition in the Paris Council as Minister for Culture and Amélia Oudéa-Castera as Minister for Sport and Education. Overall, his new cabinet is a clear, purposeful and obvious shift to the right with notable figures from the Republican party (Les Républicains). This is Macron’s method of marking himself increasingly to the right as he has done consistently since the start of his presidency.

This follows his desire to prevent the victory of the ultra-right, Marine Le Pen, in the next presidential election, which he is widely tipped to win. However, many on the left such as those in Mélenchon’s la France Insoumise, claim that due to Macron pandering to the far-right, far-right policies such as the recent immigration law are already being passed. Furthermore, Attal being so young normalises the young age of Jordan Bardella, Le Pen’s desired PM if she wins the next election.

The UK and the US have launched another stream of attacks in Yemen in their attempts to stop Houthi attacks on the Red Sea. The Houthi movement is an Islamist political and military organisation who have been fighting on the side of Palestine in recent conflicts. Since November, the Houthis have attacked more than 25 commercial ships in the Red Sea with drones, missiles and speedboats. They claim to only be targeting Israeli-owned or operated ships, or those which are heading for Israeli ports. In response, the US and the UK have launched a series of cruise missile and air strikes against the Houthi movement. These governments claim to be attacking in the interests of trade. Almost 15% of all global seaborne trade passes through the Red Sea which the Houthis are attacking, forcing major shipping companies to use a much longer, alternative route around Southern Africa. US President Joe Biden argued that the Houthi attacks ‘jeopardised trade and freedom of navigation’, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak defending their response, calling it ‘necessary and proportionate’ to protect global trade. However, as the fifth round of strikes was launched on the Houthis, Joe Biden admitted that the bombings were not stopping or even slowing attacks. The Houthis have stated that they will only back down once a full ceasefire has been approved for Gaza, insisting that ‘nothing – not all the threats, the missiles, the pressure – will change [their] position’. The leader of the Houthis has taken the group’s discontent towards Israel even further, encouraging the Arab world to mount mass boycotts on Israeli goods. Despite the persistence of the Houthis, Biden affirmed that they will continue to bomb Yemen until trade is able to operate freely through the Red Sea once again.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has announced that the rate of national insurance contributions will drop from 12% to 10% as of January 2024. This reduction is set to benefit 27 million people, with further changes to national insurance paid by those who are self-employed. National insurance is taken from salary and charged according to each job, and it is used to pay for state benefits, including retirement pensions. The cuts were proposed in the Autumn Statement, with a host of new measures designed to make it a ‘statement for growth’. This comes as part of Hunt’s promise to reduce tax burdens on families where possible, acknowledging that the UK’s financial troubles had left people “feeling bruised”. Workers can now expect more money on the first payday of the new year as a result. The Treasury gave an example of the positive impact of the cuts on employees, stating that a typical full-time nurse on £38,900 would receive an annual gain of more than £520. Despite the positive talk about the cuts from the Conservatives, critics argue that the impact this will make to alleviate financial pressures is negligible. 

Labour hit back at the plans, saying that such a small cut would “not remotely compensate” for the tax rises the government had already implemented, and that economic growth was a lost cause. This feeling was echoed by the Liberal Democrats, who argued that the Autumn Statement was a “big deception”. Regardless, the changes made mean workers can enjoy more monthly income as of January.

Labour leader Keir Starmer has faced a major rebellion from his MPs after threatening to sack MPs if they back a full ceasefire in Gaza. This comes after a vote on an SNP amendment to a government motion on the plans for the upcoming year, as delivered in the annual King’s Speech, urging all parties to agree on an immediate ceasefire. Starmer has been clear in his stance, advocating for pauses in the conflict to allow aid to be delivered, but stopped short of supporting a ceasefire. Before the vote, the Labour leader made clear that any MP backing a ceasefire call would be sacked. Fifty-six Labour MPs voted against Starmer and for an immediate ceasefire, and ten frontbenchers stepped down over the vote, including eight shadow ministers. Among those was shadow domestic violence minister Jess Phillips, who stated that she “can see no route where the current military action does anything but put at risk the hope of peace and security for anyone in the region”, which left her no choice but to leave her role. Starmer said he regretted the vote of some of his party but defended his position on the conflict, despite increasing country-wide calls for a ceasefire. He made clear that he saw a ceasefire to be ineffective, arguing that it would freeze the conflict and embolden Hamas. The UK has seen a string of protest marches throughout the month, with one rally attracting over 300,000 people. Chants for “ceasefire now” could be heard outside Parliament from pro-Palestinian supporters as the voting took place. This means that despite the leader’s rigidity in his stance, he will have to face continued pressure domestically to change his position. With Labour currently well ahead in opinion polls, the party is in a strong position to win a general election that is expected next Autumn. Starmer’s actions are therefore crucial to his success and are being closely watched.

On November 13th, following a weekend of turmoil which included ultra-right English nationalist groups causing havoc on Remembrance Sunday aiming to tarnish the image of Pro-Palestine marches, Rishi Sunak reshuffled his cabinet.

Firstly, following wide speculation over the weekend, Suella Braverman was sacked as Home Secretary and replaced by the Foreign Secretary James Cleverly. Braverman was sacked based on a newspaper article she wrote criticising the Metropolitan Police responses to multiple Pro-Palestine marches. She allegedly submitted the article without the amendments to it that 10 Downing Street had suggested. To many, her words fanned the flames of ultra-right sentiment and were the direct cause of the turmoil on the streets on Remembrance Sunday. Some may argue that her sacking was the right decision as her actions demonstrate she is unfit to be Home Secretary, a cabinet position with the responsibility of the security of Britain’s streets. Her words, ironically, led to massive insecurity.

In a move that shocked the political world and beyond, former Prime Minister David Cameron was appointed Foreign Secretary as James Cleverly’s replacement. Whilst Cameron had seemingly left political life, he had recently hinted that he would be willing to make a comeback. His appointment raises serious constitutional questions about political accountability. Mr Cameron is not an MP and had to be speedily appointed as Baron of Chipping Norton to enable him to sit in the House of Lords and face some scrutiny. It is widely believed that Sunak’s move in appointing Cameron was to achieve a period of stability in Britain’s foreign policy. It is telling that Sunak made this decision; it does seem to imply that he believes the talent pool in the Conservative parliamentary party is not wide enough for anyone to be Foreign Secretary.

Overall, his reshuffle with the naming of Victoria Atkins as Health Secretary does drag his cabinet more to the centre-right. Red-Wall Conservative MPs have been dismayed at this, suggesting that the reshuffle was designed for the Conservative party to appeal to the home counties and the so-called ‘Shires’ again.

On the evening of November 12th, Elizabeth Borne’s government faced defeat in the National Assembly. The first stage of Gerald Darmanin, the Minister of the Interior’s new immigration bill was voted down. It wasn’t even the first stage, it was the vote to consider the law up for debate. Before French legislation can be debated in parliament, MPs have to vote to approve the law to even be debated. This normally always passes, however, the French government is currently a minority one.

In a turbulent shock, MPs voted 270-265 to reject the law to be considered. 268 were needed for a majority. The far-left (Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise and the French Communist Party), the Centre-left (Socialist Party and Green Party), the Centre-right (The Republicans) and the Fascist far-right (Le Pen’s National Rally) joined forces to cause a blowing defeat to Darmanin and the government. Some stir has been caused and some of Renaissance (Macron’s MP) are accusing the left of losing their morals as they voted with the far-right. However, the motion of rejection of the law was proposed by a Green MP, so it was in fact the far-right who voted with the Left. This was a huge embarrassment for Darmanin who has been prepping this piece of legislation for the past 18 months. He offered his resignation to Macron, who refused it. Some say this was for show, and neither had any intention for him to resign.

The moment when the result was announced was extraordinary, with MPs from all sides standing up and shouting in joy. Chants of Darmanin Demission (Darmanin resign!) soon erupted from the Left-wing MPs. Of course, the parties voted against the law for different reasons; the right and far-right believed that the law was not strict enough while the left believed the law was too strict and racist. The fact that the Republicans, who have propped up the government with many votes, voted against the bill, is a latent effect of the Government pushing through the Pension Reform with the controversial 49:3 article.

The result of the vote raises questions about the government’s next steps and its immigration policy. A policy which is crucial to address if it wants any chance at stopping Le Pen from getting into power.

UK judges have been told to delay the sentencing of convicted criminals currently on bail, including rapists, as prisons are too full. Sentencing hearings by the Crown Court are set to be delayed to keep numbers in prisons down. A senior Crown Court judge reported that judges have been “strongly encouraged” not to jail those who appear before them, in an attempt to tackle the overcrowding crisis in prisons. Instead, defendants convicted of serious crimes – including rapists – could be left free in the community whilst they await a hearing. This guidance came from Lord Edis, the senior presiding judge for England and Wales. Barristers, judges, and politicians alike have spoken out to express their anger and disbelief at this proposed solution. One judge, on speaking about convicted rapists, asked ‘Do I release that person who is now convicted back into the community, where the victim might see them? What will the victim think?’. Shadow secretary for Justice Shabana Mahmood called the new guidance a ‘damning indictment of the state of our prisons’. However, Alex Chalk, Secretary of State for Justice has denied these claims made by judges, saying their reports are ‘untrue’. He maintained that the courts would continue to give rape victims the justice they deserve and that the government’s focus is strict on ensuring that ‘the British people are protected’. Despite this, prison populations continue to soar, and so the actual approach that will be taken to combat this issue is yet to be seen. 

Paul Bristow, Conservative MP for Peterborough, has been sacked from his role in government after calling for a ‘permanent ceasefire’ in Gaza. This comes after he urged Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to consider taking action in the wake of Israel’s siege and airstrikes campaign after Hamas’s attacks against Israel on October 7th. Bristow’s call for a ceasefire was found to be inconsistent with No. 10’s perspective. The removal of Bristow from government was triggered by the principles of collective ministerial responsibility. This refers to the procedure within the government that requires all cabinet members to publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them. Breaking the code of collective ministerial responsibility requires an MP to lose their position in government. Bristow’s proposal for a ceasefire was seen as openly opposing Sunak’s approach to the conflict. The Prime Minister urged a pause in fighting to allow more humanitarian aid to safely reach those without food, water, or medicine, but stopped short of pushing for a full ceasefire. Online comments made Bristow’s dissent from Sunak’s decision highly public, with a comment on his Facebook page arguing that Palestinians ‘should not suffer collective punishment for the crimes of Hamas’. Whilst Bristow was regretful for having to leave a job he enjoyed, he stated ‘I can now talk openly about an issue so many of my constituents care deeply about’. Bristow is not alone in his call for a full ceasefire, with many protests taking place across the country to urge the government to act. Whether Sunak will respond to such pressure is yet to be seen.

This week in the first King’s speech in more than 70 years, legislation was proposed to permanently ban smoking for anyone who is currently under the age of 14. The idea is that when today’s 14-year-olds reach the age of 18, the smoking age will increase to the age of 19. This will increase systematically by 1 year every year. 

This follows from the policy in New Zealand in 2022 when they banned tobacco sales for anyone born after the date of January 1st 2009. This is part of the drive to make New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. As well as this, the number of retailers licensed to sell tobacco products was reduced from 6000 to around 600. A key aspect of this legislation is that it should help reduce the gap in life expectancy between native Maori populations and non-native populations, making the legislation a key tool to achieve further social justice. 

In the UK, this is also a tool to be used in society’s fight against the harms and negative externalities caused by smoking. According to the charity Action on Smoking and Health, smoking costs the NHS 2.5 billion pounds every year and the wider economy 17 billion pounds. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that 4 in 5 smokers started before the age of 20, highlighting the importance of cracking down on youth smoking. 

There has been some backlash from the right of the Conservative Party. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss stated she would vote against the ban and that it is time for the Conservatives to stop banning things. Largely though, this policy has been praised across the political spectrum.

About two weeks ago, the Energy bill passed all stages of scrutiny in the legislative chambers and received royal assent to become the Energy Act 2023. Whilst the piece of legislation did not receive much media attention, it is the biggest piece of energy legislation in the UK’s History. 

The Act is a component piece of the UK government’s target of reaching net zero. The Act will increase Britain’s energy independence, which is especially important due to the recent crises in Ukraine and the Middle East. An energy-independent country means that prices are less vulnerable to external shocks, decreasing their volatility and keeping them low. 

One change that will come about as a result of the Act is that Ofgem will now have to include net zero decision-making in its everyday operation–something which many pundits are in uproar over having not been done previously. Another key aspect is that it introduces a newly formulated tender process in the UK’s onshore electricity networks. The government says that this might save British consumers up to £1bn from their energy bills by the year 2050. Another significant aspect of the new law is that it introduces a specific merger regime for energy networks. This will fall under the remit of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Finally, the bill provides new frameworks for consumer protection, which is crucial in an increasingly volatile and susceptible environment.