It's 10: 00. This is Sky News at 10: 00, our top story. The Prime Minister plays his Trump card ahead of a meeting with the US President, promising the biggest rise in defense spending since the Cold War, paid for by slashing targeting overseas aid.
Kier Starmer has been forced to acknowledge that the US, under Donald Trump, is no longer the reliable partner that the UK and Europe have counted on for decades.
Reckless and devastating, the verdict from charities on the government's cuts to the aid budget. But exclusive polling for Sky News shows that nearly two-thirds of the public would support the move. Also, tonight, a new cost of living blow for consumers, with the energy price cap set to rise in April for the third successive quarter, and by more than had been expected. The battle for car tombs. Skynews witnesses the devastation in Sudan's capital after a war that's killed tens of thousands. Plus, the sound of silence from some of music's as top stars in protest against the threat of AI to artists. We'll take a first look at tomorrow's front pages in our press preview. That is from 10: 30, right through to midnight. Hello there. Good evening. The Prime Minister today set out what he called the biggest rise in UK defense spending since the Cold War. The amount spent on defense will rise to 2. 5% of GDP in 2027, with an ambition to increase it further to 3% after 2030. In a tight economic environment, it will be cuts to overseas aid that will foot the majority of the bill. A message that seems carefully designed to win the approval of President Trump, whom Sakeer Starmer will meet in Washington on Thursday.
Another person heading to Washington the following day, we learned tonight, is the Ukrainian President, Vladimir Zelensky, with a deal Still on the country's mineral wealth seemingly imminent. We'll have more on that shortly, but first, here's our political editor, Beth rugby.
Our nation on a war footing, facing the reality of a changing world, In these tense times for Europe and the UK, the Prime Minister now take in a decisive step.
Prime Minister.
Coming to the Commons to announce the biggest sustained high making UK defense spending in decades.
We must change our national security posture because a generational challenge requires a generational response.
As the US calls on Europe, Kirstama steps keeping up.
This government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2. 5% of GDP on defense, but we will bring it forward so we reach that level in 2027.
The government says this amounts to an extra 13.
4 billion a year, but this is just the start.
Subject to economic and fiscal conditions and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defense spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next parliament.
That comes at a cost the Prime Minister cuts in the overseas aid budget to pay for defense.
It can only be funded through hard choices. I want to be clear to the House, that is not an announcement I am happy to make. Can we bend a lock? Yes.
But his opposite number liked what she heard.
I welcome his announcement on repurposing money from the overseas development budget.
That is absolutely right.
I look forward to him taking up my other suggestion of looking what we can do on welfare. While the Commons was united as ever over support for Ukraine, MPs divided over the Prime Minister's decision to take aim at aid.
Whilst we support increasing defense spending, we cannot support the ridiculous playbook of cutting foreign aid.
Surely this, too, is a massive strategic and moral mistake. After the Commons, the Prime Minister to a press conference in Downing Street. For months, you've refused to give a time frame of when you'd hit spending 2. 5% of GDP on defense, and now you've accelerated that. Isn't the simple reality that a Trump Whitehouse has now bounced you into that acceleration in that decision? You say this is a generational moment. You reference the Cold War. You sound like a Prime Minister on a war footing. Should viewers be alarmed at how significant this moment is?
But this is a significant moment. I think in our heart of hearts, we've all known that this decision has been coming for three years since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. The last few weeks have accelerated my thinking on when we needed to make this announcement.
This has been a massive moment, a once in a generation moment, because Keir Starmer has been forced to acknowledge that the US under Donald Trump is no longer the reliable partner that the UK and Europe have counted on for decades. What we are seeing is something more than just talk about defense spending as crucial as it is. This is much bigger. It's about a change in world order that our Prime Minister simply cannot ignore. Number 10 has made its move. Now we wait to see whether the huge commitment from the PM here will find favor in Washington on Thursday when it comes to talking Donald Trump into a more favorable peace deal for Ukraine. Beth Rigby, Sky News, Westminster.
Well, the central question now is whether the Prime Minister's move will be enough to meet what he today called a generational challenge. Here's our Security and Defense Editor, Deborah Haynes.
The UK was once genuinely prepared to fight. Its plans were set out in what was called the Government War Book. They included instructions for everything, from calling up the reserves to rescuing national treasures. Now a piece of Cold War history, it's a sobering reminder of what this country may need to consider as it rearms.
We've enjoyed three decades of relative peace.
Since the end of the Cold War, we've had it easy. But state-on-state warfare is back.
Reaping what was called the Peace Dividend, succeeded The obsessive governments chose to hollow out the Army, Navy, and Air Force following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Funding shifted away from defense into peacetime priorities such as health and the economy. A peace time mentality also set in, even among the military, as it lost the capacity to fight at scale. It means a decision by Kirstammer to lift defense spending will be welcome but it won't be enough.
The increase should begin to reverse the quite considerable strategic shrinkage there's been, but I judge there will still be cuts and difficult choices required during this parliament.
The time The meaning of the Prime Minister's alarm over the UK's defenses is also curious. Of course, the war here in Ukraine is underpinning the Prime Minister's decision, but it's been going on for a very long time. In fact, defense insiders say Russia's original invasion of Crimea back in 2014 should have been the wake-up call. If that weren't enough, then 2022, when Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale attack. Instead, it seems it's the return of Donald Trump to the White House that sources say has brought such unpredictableability to the transatlantic alliance that seems to have been the shock to the system that's making Britain finally start to take its defenses seriously again. Mission. Whatever the trigger, this shift is about much more than just rebuilding the UK's military strength. It also requires renewed national resilience. Something that was once second nature. Deborah Haynes, Sky News, Kyiv.
Well, the decision to reduce the UK's aid budget to fund today's increase in defense spending has been called reckless and devastating by humanitarian aid charities. But how will it go down with the general public? Here's our Deputy Political Editor, Sam Coates.
Big announcements, big spending, big figures. That's what the Prime Minister wants you to know. But do the numbers back up. This, 59. 8 billion pounds, is the Ministry of Defense budget in the coming year. It's the lion's share of military spending, which makes up 2. 3% of our GDP. This, 13. 4 billion on top is how much more Kierstaumer says it'll cost to increase defense spending to the government's new target of 2. 5% of GDP. Now, that's an enormous amount of public spending. Some is designed to impress Donald Trump, but would require big, big cuts elsewhere to achieve. Now, Kierstam is getting tough, and he did today offer up one big cut to pay for it, slashing the aid budget. Now, that aid budget is due to be this much 17. 7 billion, which represents 0. 5% of our national income. Kierstam has said today that this would drop to 0. 3% of our national income. But here's the thing. That saves just short of £6 billion, and that's a big, big gap. What does the government say about this shortfall? Well, quietly, the government admitted to some creative accounting. This £7. 9 billion figure is the gap between what we pay now for defense today and what it would have to listen to anyway in 2027, because defense spending is paid to GDP at 2.
3% of it. Now, I wouldn't ordinarily call that section an increase in spending, but Keir Starmer could do that and therefore get a much more impressive sounding figure to brandish in front of Donald Trump. Now, Labor promised to raise international development in the manifesto, not cut it. Here's why they've done it. Exclusive YouGov polling, which shows the public back this move by a margin of 2: 1, more than 2: 1, 62 to 25. The member voters like it much less. Look at that. But amongst voters who back reform last year, it's an absolute belter. Voters really don't want to see cuts to other services to fund this increase. More money, that's clear today, but so much of this is actually a mystery. Kierstammer said that some intelligence and security spending would count towards the target from 2027, and the government won't answer whether future payments to the Chagos Islands might be part of it, too. If If we're being honest, once you start to prod, lots of bits of defense spending turn out to be pretty mysterious. Government departments refuse to give an overall total for defense spending, want to include things like intelligence. I asked for a complete list of what element can count towards the 2.
5 NATO target, and the government wouldn't tell me. Kierstammer just doesn't want inconvenient facts distracting from the big picture. He just wants Donald Trump to understand we're paying a lot more for defense. He hopes it'll do the trick of the White House this week.
Sam Coates there. Well, let's bring in our Security and Defense Editor, Deborah Haynes. She's in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. The Prime Minister, Deborah, no doubt hoping today's announcement will go down well with Mr. Trump when he visits Washington on Thursday. But another significant visitor to the White House on Friday, it seems, the Ukrainian President and an important deal potentially imminent.
Yes. A government source here in Ukraine says that Vladimir Zelenskyy is planning to travel to the White House to meet Donald Trump on Friday. That surely means, hopefully for Ukraine and for the US, that this elusive deal on minerals that Donald Trump has been trying to force Ukraine to sign. Maybe there has been some breakthrough, a Ukrainian government source telling us this evening that an agreement has been made on terms. There's been no word yet from the US, but the sign that Vladimir Zelenskyy is going to be going to the White House is clearly a positive. The Ukrainian President has said that he would very much like to have his first face-to-face encounter with Donald Trump as President once again before President Trump meets Vladimir Putin. That was a bit of a shock when he picked up the phone to the Russian leader before picking up the phone to Mr. Zelensky and this deal on minerals, on accessing the US investment investing money in Ukraine to reap profits from the vast mineral wealth in this country is seen by the Ukrainians as a way to lock in the Americans. So they have skin in the game here in Ukraine to defend this country from the Russians.
And of course, that's going to be weighing heavily on Kyrstam's mind as well when he heads there on Thursday, just before the Ukrainian leader. And yes, with this new announcement on UK defense spending, but important to note, the US President has said he wants his NATO allies to ramp up defense spending to 5%, so 2. 5 % might look a bit feeble. In fact, Boris Johnson, who I spoke to here in Kyiv last night, he said that he thinks the White House would be expecting a bigger number.
Deborah, live for us in Kyiv. Thank you. Well, we have heard from Mr. Trump, in fact, in the past few minutes. Yeah, I hear that. I hear that he's coming on Friday. Certainly, it's okay with me if he'd like to. He would like to sign it together with me. And I understand that's a big deal, very big deal. And I think the American people, even if you look at polling, they're very happy because Biden was throwing money around like it's cotton candy.
It's a very big deal.
It could be a trillion-dollar deal. It could be whatever. But it's rare earths and other things. And look, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Ukraine and Russia fighting a war that should have never, ever happened. That's a war that would have never happened if I were President. And it didn't happen for four years. People say, How do we know that it didn't happen for four years? Would have never happened. And nevertheless, this guy went into this situation, and he spent money like nobody's ever seen, $350 billion. The other thing that we don't like is that Europe has spent $100 billion, we've spent $350 billion. Europe gets their money back because they spent it in the form of loan And we just gave them, whether it's 300 or 350 billion, nobody really knows. They can't even tell me the answer to that. It means probably more than that.
So what we're doing is now we're saying, Look, we want to be secured.
We want to get that money back. We're helping a country through a very, very big problem, a problem like very few people have had. Shouldn't have had this problem because it shouldn't have happened, but it did happen, so we have to straighten it out. But the American taxpayer now is going to get their money back plus. Mr. President, yes. Well, it's We're bringing in our US correspondent, Mark Stone. So a slew of visitors this week beating a path to the self-proclaimed dealmaker. And the terms of this agreement with Ukraine will no doubt be fascinating to see, Mark.
It really will. I mean, remember, this is the deal that Trump sent his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, to Kyiv to get Zalemski to sign a couple of weeks ago. We were all intrigued at Why was it that the first US cabinet minister, effectively, the first person in Trump's government to go to Kyiv, wasn't the Defense Secretary, wasn't the Secretary of State, it was the Treasury Secretary with a contract that he slapped on Zalemski desk and said, Sign this, sign over 50% of your minerals to us as back payment for what we have been doing for you for the past three years. It felt to many that that was an extortion. I think it felt like that to Zelensky, too. And so behind It's behind the scenes, clearly, over the course of the past 10 days, two weeks or so, behind the diplomatic fallout with one person calling the other a dictator, the other calling the other a living in a misinformation bubble. Behind all that, deals were being done, and Friday maybe is the moment where Zelensky has managed to reframe this mineral deal to something that is more palatable for him. Our understanding is that it's going to be the beginning of a more formal contract between America and the United States.
What we don't know and what is absolutely key and what I think Kyrstam will want to get on Thursday is details on what security guarantee this Minerals deal actually gives Ukraine and gives Europe. I suppose, as Deborah was saying a few moments ago, what it does do is it ties America into Ukraine. It gives America literally a stake in Ukraine if they're getting some back payment for the minerals that are underneath Ukraine. To that end, it clearly locks America into wanting to make sure Ukraine stays Ukraine and that Putin doesn't get the chance to fight another day and perhaps take it another day. But this is very fast moving. I suppose the other question, Anna, is the extent to which Europe is being caught up in the vortex that is Donald Trump, the fast moving vortex where deals are being made and deals which in the short term may bring peace. In the longer term, who knows what they will Yes, we'll certainly watch both those visits later on this week.
Mark, for the moment, thank you very much indeed. Energy bills, so affected, of course, by Russia's invasion originally, will rise again this spring by around £111 a year for the average household. They're expected to fall again in the summer, but campaigners have called the latest increase devastating for households, while the conservative leader, Kemi Badenock, said that labor had failed in its pledge to lower bills. Here's our business and economics correspondent, We're putting that one.
It's been a dicey few years for British households.
The cost of living crisis ate into household budgets, and it doesn't feel like it's over yet, not with energy bills on the up again.
Residents in this part of West London are feeling the heat. There's a lot of people here in the winter, and it's obviously a time where it's a difficult time for everyone with the energy crisis.
The bills go up, the utilities go up, but we all struggle, and they struggle even more. I come so that I can get a good meal for £3.
I can sit in a warm place and a pleasant place.
People do come as a source of escaping increasing energy demands and bills being increasing in that way. Energy bills are still higher than they were before the pandemic. Now, off-dem, the energy has raised the cap again after a cold winter in Europe depleted gas reserves.
It means come April, the average household will be paying an extra £111 a year, taking their annual bill to £1,840. £149.
Analysts say it could fall again this summer to £1,756, but that's still £18 above the current level.
And as prices have risen, so too has household energy debt doubling to £3.
8 billion since the Ukraine war began.
Energy is just one part of the equation.
People here are juggling other bills, too. Water, food, council tax, they're all adding up.
It means the costs are mounting, but not everyone's wages are keeping up. The government, which earlier this year, withdrawn the winter fuel payment from pensioners, says it's listening. We're going to take action by putting forward proposals for an extra 2. 7 million families to get £150 off bills next winter as part of the warm homes discount. We're acting to bring down bills for everyone with our mission for clean, homegrown power that we control. It needs something, doesn't it?
That could work, but it will take reforms, money, and crucially, time before it pays dividends.
After the turmoil of the past few years, people are hungry for change now.
Gargi Naouh on Sky News.
To Sudan now, where the country's military is continuing its efforts to reclaim the capital city Khartoum from the paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces. Territory is gradually being won, but the cost is heavy. Well, the conflict began in April 2023 with a deadly power struggle between the Sudanese Army and the rapid support forces. It's estimated that more than 61,000 people have died in Khartoum state alone. The The Burkini's army controls most of the north and east of Sudan, while the RSF still has a grip on the southwest. Control of the capital Khartoum is key. The army has reca large parts of the city in recent weeks and wants to end the RSF's almost two-year siege. Our Africa correspondent, Yusre Al Bahir, has this report.
A ghost of a capital. Chard, burnt buildings. The skeletal remains of a city. What wasn't looted was dumped in its streets. Shelling from these reclaimed areas is constant, landing in the heart of Khartoum to loosen the grip of the RSF. It's taken nearly two years to get this close to a key bridge connecting parts of the capital to Khartoum. And even though we've made it here, we can't cross it because the snipers around the bridge make it way too dangerous. Under the bridge, an abandoned RSF position is littered with stolen household items, used ammunition, and reminders of all that was taken and lost. There are long days of fighting still ahead to clear the neighborhoods on the other side. And as civilians wait for good news, soldiers trawl through the spreading devastation. And the markets that sold the treasures that once filled these homes are now husks of burnt metal and emptied stores. Lives and livelihoods laid to waste. The cleanup has started for some, working hard to rebuild what they lost. This restaurant was the source of all our income, says Abdulla. It was supporting entire families. Now, they'll have to take out loans just to start from scratch.
Those with little choice elsewhere are rushing back, celebrating a long-awaited return. But the clang of empty plates reminds us that food is still scarce across the capital. What are people's needs?
Essentially, people need food. Almost 80% of people we see here, depending entirely on this kitchen.
These kitchens are dwindling lifeline, shut down by USAID funding cuts and donor fatigue. The world has turned its gaze from its biggest humanitarian disaster, one that's uprooted millions and killed tens of thousands, maiming those who managed to survive. This man needs surgery he's unlikely to ever get.
I told the RSF, We aren't army. We are civilians, but they just fired at us. In our area, lots of people were curled.
This shelter is for discharged hospital patients with no home to return to. People nursing injuries amid ongoing displacement, and others with wounds that are harder to mend. The pain that can't be fixed with bricks and cement, a war on the spirit of a capital still torn apart. Yusr al Bágr, Skynews, Khartoum.
Care providers protested in Westminster today over the upcoming rise in national insurance contributions, which they say leaves the sector on the brink of collapse. Rising costs are also a factor with some of the country's biggest providers warning that the UK's care system is at breaking point. Here's our People and Politics Correspondent, nick Martin.
Around 3,000 social care workers marched on Westminster. Their message, they are breaking point.
A rise in national insurance contributions, combined with an increase in the national minimum wage, has led to warnings that some care providers simply won't survive this year.
Social care has been under huge pressure for decades. We all know that. So any added burden could be, to invoke a cliché, something that breaks the camel's back.
We're in this because we care.
And you can't do this anymore.
It's broken.
It is completely unprecedented. Local The authorities tell us they don't have the money. Government tells us that they've given it to the local authorities. We're not playing piggy in the middle anymore. Somebody's lying. We've been married 59 years in March.
Hello.
This is the care campaigners say is at risk.
Sheila was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2018. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah. Yeah.
And if carers don't come in to help her, husband Paul says she'd have to go into a home.
I think they're amazing.
I was going to say the prospect had been split up. Take me through how that would feel.
It would be very difficult after such a long time together You can't imagine yourself being on your own and visiting a nursing home every day, or maybe not every day, because every day she wouldn't know me. According to the Nuffield Trust, the rise in national insurance will cost adult social care an extra £900 million a year.
Add in the rise to the national minimum wage and those additional costs rise to an estimated £2. 8 billion.
So this is our domain. This is Applewood Support.
Jane Jones runs the company that provides care to Sheila and Paul.
She's been in the industry for decades. When you first heard the Chancellor say she was increasing national insurance contributions for employers, what was your first reaction?
I felt sick, physically sick. It worked out to be about £6,000 a month extra that I would need to find. We got rid of two person in the office because we just can't afford it. It's soul-destroying.
The whole reasoning behind the Chancellor's budget was to encourage economic growth. It's her number one thing. But from what you're saying, it appears that it's had the opposite effect.
It's a complete opposite effect. It's an attack on our growth because we can't grow. We can't employ any more staff because we can't afford the NI. We cannot increase our costs like the supermarket can. We are limited to what the government councils can pay us. So if they can't pay us the right amount of money, we're just going to go close our doors. I'm sure that's going to happen in come April.
The social care sector has been in crisis mode, probably for the last 30 years, and successive governments have failed to push through the kinds of reforms that could solve this crisis.
It is unusual to see carers and care providers protest on the streets like this.
They say it's a sign of just how desperate things have become. Campaigners say the sums no longer add up as social care lurches from crisis to crisis. Nick Martin, Sky News, Westminster.
More than a thousand musicians, including Annie Lennix, Kate Bush, and Damon Ulban, have recorded and released a silent album in protest at the government's planned changes to copyright law. The artists say the proposals would make it easier for AI companies to train models using copyrighted content without a license. Sky's Arts and Entertainment Correspondent, Katie Spencer, has more. As albums go, it isn't exactly a banger. But scroll down this tracklist and there's a not-so-suttile message. The British government must not legalize music to benefit AI companies. A super group of a thousand artists have put their names to the protest recordings of empty studios, as did award-winning composer Yolanda Brown. Well, this silent album is thousands of artists coming together to take a stand, a united voice to say, make sure that you're fair in the development of AI. Make sure that the artists are being paid their fair dues, their copyright, their rights. From music to art to the written world, the government has said it wants to lead the AI revolution. And a consultation has been underway proposing changing our copyright law to allow AI companies to train their software using any copyrighted work unless the owner opts out.
To those with concerns, a government spokesperson explaining, as it stands, the UK's current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, but that no decisions have been taken, and they are looking at increased control for right holders and building greater transparency over material being used.
Here, they could browse the platform and request a license.
Those working in the field argue as a country, we have to get this right.
We'd be saying to the government that we think that this changes to the copyright law in the UK is going to have a limited impact on what they're trying to achieve, which I believe is growth in the economy and the supporting the creative community and the AI community.
We'd like to see the government do more in licensing. We think that better access to licenses for AI content will make the situation both better for both parties. It really is the win-win.
Absolute nationwide terror. Concerns over the pace of change are even now playing out in what we see on screen.
The speed of which ChatGPT and artificial intelligence is changing the world, it's almost uncomprehensible.
It's too much to absorb, and it's frightening.
While there's no putting the genie back in the bottle, artists argue now needs to be the time when rules are put in place rather than rains loosend. Katie Spencer, Sky News. Well, that was Sky News at 10. Coming up, we'll take a first look at tomorrow's newspapers in the press preview. Tonight, joined by the journalist and broadcaster, Jenny Clemen, and the Chief Executive of the Total Politics Group, Mark Wallace. Welcome. Great to see both of you. Among the stories, we will be discussing this on the front page of The Guardian, the headline PM cuts overseas aid to increase the defense budget in a fight for peace. That and plenty more after this. Manatory evacuation, you must leave.
For many people, Harvey is far from over.
People here believe the water will be this deep for weeks.
I'm Greg Mylum, and I'm Sky's Chief North of England Correspondent.
Are you trying to run me over, Sir Philip?
No, go away. It looked like it, sir.
Will you respond to those who made accusations, Sir Philip? Can you go away? Sky News, the full story, first.
Hello there. You're watching the Press Preview, a first look at what is on the front pages. Time then to see what's making the headlines with the journalist and broadcaster, Jenny Cleman, and the Chief Executive of the Total Politics Group, Mark Wallace. Great to see both of you and welcome. As ever, let's check out the front pages, shall we? Starting with the Financial Times. It leads on Ukraine agreeing a minerals deal with the United States. That is also the lead for the Times, which reports that President Zelensky will travel to Washington this week to seal that defense accord. The Guardian reports that secure Starmer will cut overseas aid to increase defense budgets in a fight for peace. The story also makes the front page of the eye with missile shields, ships and drones on the Prime Minister's shopping list, while the Daily Mail describes the cuts as Britain entering an era of hard power, while the Telegraph reports that the Chancellor has called on European allies to follow Britain and increased defense spending. The Metro says 50,000 babies are caught up in domestic violence every year. The Express reports on the farmer's protests against Rachel Reeves' tax changes by hearing from their children.
The Star says that a former PM, criticized for his questionable claims, has branded another high-profile politician a liar. Let's talk to Mark and to Jenny then. Welcome to both of you. Lots to discuss, no doubt. Mark, why don't you kick off then with the numbers and the commitment now from Sir Keir Starmer to increased defense spending, which military chiefs have been asking for, it has to be said for years.
Absolutely. This is a very big moment for Keir Starmer for a number of reasons. As you say, there's been long-standing pressure from the defense establishment for increased spending. There's been growing pressure, particularly in recent weeks from Donald Trump denouncing yet again NATO allies, including by implication, the UK, for not spending enough and sheltering under the American defense umbrella. Thirdly, Keir Starmer is off to Washington. This is Some cynically have suggested has been rushed forward, perhaps a bit before that trip, for him to go and meet President Trump, in which he's announced that the British aid budget is going to be cut back in order to bring forward the growth in defense spending to 2. 5% of GDP in 2027. That's above the 2% NATO obligation, and then up to 3% in the next Parliament, if you follow the political tradition of promising things after elections that you haven't yet thought. Yes, indeed. Big news from him. He's trying to get out ahead of this story. He knows there's pressure from abroad and from the right, and that there's quite a strong public feeling on this topic. Then the interesting question now will be, do the numbers add up?
Yes, indeed. We'll come on to that in just a moment, but let's talk about the timing, shall we? So Kirstam asked today, is Donald Trump setting your policy on this? No, this was entirely my decision. Has the world got any more dangerous in the last week or two weeks compared to three years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine? And what is the answer to that, that the US is pulling back in supporting and looking after Western Europe?
No, I think this is another example of how far and how fast Donald Trump has been able to move the dial, meaning that I mean, if you were being charitable to secure Stammer, you would say that he was going to do this anyway, and this has simply accelerated what he was doing. But he is traveling to Washington tomorrow. It is convenient for him to have done two things that Donald Trump will feel feel good about, one, increasing defense spending, although it's not enough. It's not to the level that Donald Trump would like. And the other is cutting the foreign aid budget, which is a very doge. Office of Government Efficiency tactic. So these are the things that are going to appeal to Donald Trump. And whether or not Donald Trump is actually impressed by people who toe the line to what he wants or more impressed by people who stick to their guns, I think actually remains to be seen But we were talking about this before, how all eyes will be on Sakeer Stammer in Washington and how much he is prepared to show that he is standing up to Donald Trump, because it's a very fine line.
Sakeer Stammer is going to want to look like he has a bit of backbone. Macron did quite well, I think, yesterday. But ultimately, he can't take it too far because we know that Donald Trump doesn't like it.
No, the reviews of Monsieur Macron were almost glowing, weren't they? And how he corrected at times Donald Trump about expenditure and what was a loan and what was a gift in terms of aid to Ukraine. But this does feel like an offering to the gods, doesn't it, effectively? If we go to the Daily Mail, there are two offerings. One is on an increase in defense spending. As Jenny pointed out, it's the cut to overseas aid because we've seen what's happened with USAID absolutely being slashed and burned by Elon Musk.
Indeed. I think it's indisputable, to be honest, that the Prime Minister has brought this decision forward because it trumps two different reviews the government has set in motion itself. The first is there's a full spending review happening right now, which would include things like international overseas development aid. That's yet to conclude. The Treasury is negotiating with all the different groups of departments at the minute. It could be quite soon, though, couldn't it? It will have to be relatively soon. But then there's also a defense review that's underway. That's been pushed back. That has been pushed back to the second, expecting the second half of this year. The government, understandably, but debate the urgency see or not, so far has been saying, Well, we need to make sure we have a strategic defense of view before we decide what we're spending and how we're spending it. Donald Trump crops up, and that's all out the window. Thank you very much. We're getting drones, we're getting a missile shield, we're going to be ships and submarines, we're going to be going up to 3%, and we're going to be doing it by influencing the budget another department.
That's definitely been brought forward. I think there's an important domestic and internal to the Labor Party political shift here for a Labor Prime Minister to be saying, actually, hard power does matter. Not saying that international development aid doesn't matter, but actually saying in a time of having to choose, having to prioritize, he's choosing this rather than that.
We saw Mr. Macron there. Obviously, we have secure style. We're going on Thursday, and of Gorda Mislinski on Friday. We'll come on to that Minerals deal, which is in the FT in just a moment. But this idea of soft power is fallen by the way, how many people say this is really the wrong argument. People like General Matis said, You reduce aid. I have to get more ammo effectively. The Guardian as well, not surprisingly, also focusing on the overseas AIDS budget being cut in a fight for peace. The problem is people see spheres of influence, and their places, nations like China and Russia will step in, and you lose that soft power, which has been so critical for decades, really.
I mean, this is a question about what country do we want to be? And this is in an age of America first, is this a Britain first posture from Keir Starmer. But the thing is, it is in keeping with public mood. Survey after survey shows that if there's one part of public spending that people feel comfortable cutting, it's the foreign aid budget, even though the foreign aid budget may be an important part of perhaps stopping people from trying to migrate and make journeys to the UK, might be a way of preventing wars from starting in the first place. The public doesn't see it that way.
So I think it was David Cameron, wasn't it, who changed policy in order to allow the overseas aid budget to keep refugees nearer the country of departure rather than coming to European shores.
Yes, and there's been a large amount of debate in officialdom, but also within both the main parties about whether aspects of defense spending should be included in overseas aid, because this thing goes both ways. I think the big question is, what country do we want to be? The fact is, most voters, first answer, will be a secure and safe one. That's what the Prime Minister is speaking to in this circumstance. I think ultimately, the public's views, I think, on overseas aid are more nuanced than people sometimes assume. I often think of it as a round all, a target, effectively, in the middle, pretty such undisputed disaster emergency aid. There's a crisis, there's a plague, a flood, an earthquake. People want there to be aid. The same for Ukraine in this war. At the far outside of that, I think there's, at the opposite end of the scale, a lot of concern about Should we say more wooly ideas of overseas development aid. Tying that into a strategic interest, a strategic policy is really important.
Yes. Let's go to the Telegraph as well. This is Rachel Reeve calling on Europe to step up. Some European nations already spend more than us, but the point is now, is there a leadership role for the UK in the absence, effectively, of America under Trump in managing how we defend Europe?
I'm sure the UK government would hope so, would hope that we can play that role, but whether or not Europe want to take us seriously in a leadership role remains to be seen, and perhaps the only way to secure that would be if we were putting our money where our mouth is a little bit more. Just to come back on what you were saying, I think, of course, most people would want We don't want us to be a secure country, but it is a question of how do you get the security? Is it by being armed and having the drones? We have this black hole in our equipment. We have a recruitment crisis. Is it through addressing that or is it through trying to stop wars from happening in the first place. But I do think it's easy when people feel that the finances are squeezed to say, actually, let's just trim where we're giving money overseas.
To the FT now, we talked about this economic deal as it's being billed between the US, as Trump tries to get his money back, as he describes it, and Zelenskyy, who we understand is heading to Washington now on Friday. So what's the FT learned about what might be in this agreement?
So the interesting story I think is distinct shifts, it seems, from both parties. We saw that draft agreement that was put forward seemingly by Donald Trump's corporate lawyers in the way it was drafted, according to some reports, that suggested 100% of all UK. Give him time.
If we have where Earth minerals, it will be good.
We'll see what secure Starma comes back on Thursday. But of all Ukrainian minerals and resource extraction, 100% of it going to the United States, controlled by the United United States for them to just get their money back and with no security guarantee. For obvious reasons, that was unacceptable to Ukraine. What's been agreed here is described as a framework agreement, which means there's a lot of detail still to fill in if it gets to a final deal. But they seem to be agreeing to establish a fund, which they'll have some shared ownership, split to be unspecified, of which future extraction, so not the extraction of things, oil and gas, that's currently being taken out of the ground by Ukrainian industry. Security % of those revenues will go into this fund, and the fund will then be spent on projects to rebuild Ukraine with no security guarantee. You can think about this in a couple of ways. I suspect part of what's happening from Ukraine is they're saying, Well, if we can start to get agreement on something, at least we're talking. Maybe we'll be in Washington, then we'll be able to talk about other things. The US may be thinking, Well, if this money is going to be spent in Ukraine, we can jolly well make sure it's being spent on reconstruction by US companies.
Very interesting. Security guarantees was the one the mark that Macron kept referring back to, which is the bit that obviously the Ukrainians want to see from America. Watch more of that, of course. Also, still to come on the next part of our program, how frequent flyers face paying more under the government climate plans discussing that on the front page of the Telegraph on the come back.
I'm Stephen Murphy, and I'm Skye's Ireland correspondent, based here in Dublin. All alcohol products, not just wine will have labels, Warning of Lever disease and the link to fatal cancers. Is it crazy? It's an industry worth around €14 billion a year. That's why Italy sees this Irish plant as such a threat. It's always instructive and occasionally entertaining to hear Donald Trump has to say on the issue of Brexit. She's got her own way of doing it. That's okay.
The job takes me to every corner of this island.
The rioting stemmed from a horrific daytime stabbing attack at a primary school at the city center. The scale of the rioting and the destruction it caused is pretty much unprecedented here in Dublin. Gerry, any comments on the judge's decision?
Do you feel vindicated, Gerry? This is the the somewhat chaotic end of a 52-day trial.
Michal Martin could be set to head back to government with the T-Shuck, Simon Harris. Are you confident that you can now return as T-Shuck?
I'm cautiously optimistic and excited.
A mystery press conference hastily called. Leo Veradker strode out and didn't disappoint.
I am resigning as President and Leader of Fine Gael Effective today.
The people here sometimes feel they're somewhat neglected by the Irish government, to the extent It's important that this place is sometimes known as the Forgotten County. The waters of Ireland and Britain should be home to great white sharks, but none have ever been found. If there are great white sharks in this area, there's no reason they wouldn't come here to feed.
It's basically a buffet on a beach.
This could be not only a record-breaking storm, but potentially the most dangerous storm ever to hit Ireland. Sky News.
Get the full story for first.
There's always more to the news than a headline. We want to discover, to delve a little deeper, to find out what's really going on. Explanation, analysis, the people at the heart of every story. I'm Neil Patterson, and this is the Skynews Daily podcast. So by the end, we'll hopefully all understand what's going on in the world just that little better. Available whenever you get your podcast. We've got your Sunday mornings covered. From the front page and the sounds of the streets to the voices of the people who make the major calls and big picture politics beyond Westminster.
We'll put you at the heart of our story.
I'm ready. Are you? Join me Trevor Phillips, Sunday mornings on Sky News. Weeknight on Sky News.
This is your chance. Tell people.
Welcome to the politics Hub.
A police force has apologized.
If you wanted to find out about Grimsby, you come to the docks. I'm live in Jerusalem. Are you not concerned that that could lead to all that war? Hello there. Good evening. There are fears of an upsurge in violence. What's at stake here?
You are watching the press preview. A first look at the front pages as they Well, welcome back.
You are watching the press preview with me once again, the journalist and broadcaster, Jenny Clemen, and the Chief Executive of the Total Politics Group, Mark Wallace. Welcome back to both of you. Shall we go to the front page of The Guardian now, Jenny, and this is the BBC. We fell short over what feels like another misconduct case. Tell us more about her reaction to this.
This is about the Radio1 DJ, Tim Westwood, who denies all these allegations, but there was a very large number of women who who came forward. There were 120 people who were heard from in this BBC inquiry, a large number of women who came forward to say that he had behaved inappropriately and assaulted some of them. The reason why... I mean, this is a very sad story, but it shows that there has been this culture of deference to presenters. We're not just talking about Jimmy Savill here. This is also Russell Brand, where you have BBC presenters and a time when The staff knew that they were behaving in an inappropriate way. They had on the BBC News this evening, they had a clip of him talking to one of the news presenters and talking about her breasts. You could hear how awkward it was, but it was just a completely acceptable part of the culture. And so this is incrementally building up that there was just a very large number of cases with a wide variety of different presenters where they were just allowed to behave in an appalling way. I hope this era is over, But many of the cases that were revealed in this report, they said they could have gone to the police with, but producers felt that, not presenters, but producers felt that they shouldn't because he was too big of a star.
Yes, and Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, met today with the BBC Director General Tim Davie, saying the allegations against Tim Westwood are very serious. It is essential that staff and the wider public can have confidence in the BBC as our national broadcaster. Forgive me. There have been far too many instances of appalling behavior in the media industry, and there's been a culture of silence around inappropriate behavior for too long. This cannot continue. So echoing what you said. Final story, frequent flyers. Going to get expensive. Mark?
Yes, so this is the latest Climate Advisors' latest carbon budget with the Climate Change Committee recommending that one measure it could put forward is the more often you fly, you take multiple holidays abroad a year, you should start to pay extra on top of what you already pay. Now, you can hear a lot of people at home thinking, well, if you fly more, you already do pay more because you're paying tax and air passenger duty every single time you fly. But this, I think, is in the foothills of what's going to become a bigger and bigger argument. As our country gets poorer as our economy wobbles. That's very presumptive, by the way. No, comparatively poorer. I do think people in this country have fully realized yet the degree to which we've fallen behind, say, the United States. If we were to join the United States, we would now be the US state of the United States, behind Alabama, Mississippi, whatever people might like to think. I think in the next 10 years, you'll see a move on the minute enterprises, young people are going to Dubai. Within 10 years, they'll be going to Poland. Poland's economy is growing super fast.
Watch British plumbers go and work in Poland. I think it'll be a bit of a culture shock for people. But as people get squeezed, these issues of the presumption that climate change policy can simply transition us without massively squeezing people and businesses, that's going to start to hurt.
Running out of time. We're here to cheer you up. That's how I'd sum that one up. Anyway, Mark Wallace and Jenny Keeman. Thank you as ever. See you for more in the 11, obviously. Next in our program, of course, we will have more on the Prime Minister's pledge to boost defense spending, funded by cuts to overseas aid, ahead, of course, of his visit to Washington to see Donald Trump on Thursday.
Watch News at Ten for a roundup of today's top stories from the UK and across the world, as Sir Keir Starmer confirms his ...