LONDON: The decision by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to leave D-Day commemorations in northern France early has caused a political storm that threatens to derail his Conservative Party’s general election campaign.
Though Sunak apologized for not attending Thursday’s final commemoration on Omaha Beach in Normandy, his critics said the decision showed disrespect to the veterans and diminished the UK’s international standing. Other world leaders including President Joe Biden, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky were all present.
Keir Starmer, the leader of the main opposition Labour Party, remained to the end and said it was up to Sunak “to answer for his choice” to skip the D-Day event.
With opinion polls giving Labour a commanding lead ahead of the election on July 4, Sunak’s gaffe has raised concerns that the Conservatives’ support may come under further pressure over coming days.
Campaign gaffes are regular features of British elections. Some have more impact than others.
Here are a few that have lit up campaigns in recent decades:
1974
Following a difficult few years in government that saw oil prices quadruple following the Yom Kippur war between Israel and Arab nations and the miners’ strike causing widespread economic pain, then Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath called a general election a year earlier than necessary for February 1974.
On explaining his decision to hold the election in the midst of a winter when power was being rationed, Heath said that he sought a mandate from the British people to rein in the power of trade unions. His question to the public was “Who governs Britain?” Ultimately, the British people decided it wasn’t Heath, and Labour’s Harold Wilson returned as prime minister.
1983
Following the Falklands War in 1982 in which British forces sailed thousands of miles to the South Atlantic to expel invading Argentine troops, Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was riding high and was widely expected to win the general election she called for June 1983.
Her victory in the election became more or less assured after Labour, which had been riven with divisions over the previous few years, published an election manifesto that one moderate member of the party described as “the longest suicide note in history.” The manifesto advocated an array of radical left-wing policies to be funded by higher taxes. It also called for unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from what was then the European Economic Community — a policy that the Conservatives decades later would embrace.
Thatcher won a landslide and remained in power until 1990 when she was ousted by lawmakers in her own party.
1992
After 1983’s big defeat, the Labour Party sought, under the leadership of Neil Kinnock, to move back to the center ground, where historically elections are won.
By the time the election was called for April 1992 by John Major, who replaced Thatcher, Labour was contending again. With a week or so to go before the elections, opinion polls were moving in favor of Labour, if not quite winning then becoming the biggest party.
A rally was held in Sheffield, a city in the north of England, and optimism was high. It was an event unlike anything seen before in the UK — more like an event seen in US presidential elections.
Kinnock was clearly caught up with the buoyant mood and started shouting a phrase that sounded like “We’re alright!” or “Well alright” several times.
Whatever he actually said, his perceived overconfidence was widely perceived to be one of the reasons why Labour fell way short and the Conservatives won a fourth straight election.
2001
With hindsight, this was one of the most boring postwar elections, with Tony Blair’s Labour Party widely expected to be re-elected by a big margin, akin to the one it achieved four years earlier.
The election took place a month later than Blair had planned in June 2001 as a result of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Nothing else surprising happened, until Blair’s deputy John Prescott punched a man with a mullet hairdo after he had thrown an egg at him on the campaign trail.
The incident threatened to derail Labour’s campaign, but Blair managed to defuse its impact at the following morning’s press conference. “John is John,” he said, to widespread laughter among the journalists present.
2010
Blair’s successor Gordon Brown didn’t have his predecessor’s natural communications skills and that was particularly evident in the election campaign of 2010. Brown’s ratings — and Labour’s — had collapsed in the wake of the global financial crisis and the party, in power since 1997, faced losing to the Conservatives.
With barely a week to go to the May election, 65-year-old Gillian Duffy quizzed Brown while he was canvassing over the state of the economy and the party’s immigration policies.
Following her interrogation and still wired up to Sky News when he got into his car, Brown told his advisers that the meeting was a “disaster” and that she was “just a bigoted woman.”
The gaffe dominated the rest of the campaign and there was no way back for Labour, though the Conservatives failed to win an outright majority and David Cameron had to enter into a coalition arrangement with the smaller Liberal Democrats.
2017
Theresa May, who succeeded Cameron after he resigned following Britain’s vote to leave the European Union in a referendum in June 2016, sought to capitalize on the Conservative Party’s big opinion poll lead and called an early general election for June 2017.
Her hope was that a big majority would help her face down critics — both within her ranks and the opposition — in the upcoming Brexit discussions with the EU.
However, her proposal to change the way retirees pay for long-term care was criticized across the political spectrum and was quickly dubbed the “dementia tax.” May was forced to make an embarrassing partial reversal.
Rather than increase the modest majority that Cameron had secured in the 2015 general election, she lost it. Her premiership never recovered and she was replaced by Boris Johnson two years later.
Rishi Sunak’s D-Day departure is just the latest in a long line of gaffes in UK election campaigns
https://arab.news/b6jtf
Rishi Sunak’s D-Day departure is just the latest in a long line of gaffes in UK election campaigns
- Sunak apologized for not attending Thursday’s final commemoration on Omaha Beach in Normandy
- His critics said the decision showed disrespect to the veterans and diminished the UK’s international standing
NATO chief ‘cautiously optimistic’ for Ukraine peace breakthrough
- NATO chief Mark Rutte said Thursday that he was “cautiously optimistic” for progress toward peace in Ukraine, but that it was up to Russia to take the “necessary next steps”
“I’m still cautiously optimistic that if also the Russians are willing to play ball, and not only the Ukrainians are doing this... that you could get to some breakthroughs over the next couple of weeks,” Rutte said at a NATO meeting in Turkiye.
New militarized border zone spurs national security charges against hundreds of immigrants
SANTA FE, N.M.: Several hundred immigrants have been charged with unauthorized access to a newly designated militarized zone along the southern US border in New Mexico and western Texas since the Department of Justice introduced the new approach in late April.
President Donald Trump’s administration has transferred oversight of a strip of land along the US-Mexico border to the military while authorizing US troops to temporarily detain immigrants in the country illegally — though there’s no record of troops exercising that authority as US Customs and Border Protection conducts arrests. The designated national defense areas are overseen by US Army commands out of Fort Bliss in the El Paso area in Texas and Fort Huachuca in Arizona.
The novel national security charges against immigrants who enter through those militarized zones carry a potential sentence of 18 months in prison on top of a possible six month sentence for illegal entry. The full implications are unclear for migrants who pursue legal status through separate proceedings in federal immigration court.
The Trump administration is seeking to accelerate mass removals of immigrants in the country illegally and third-country deportations, including Venezuelans sent to an El Salvador prison amid accusations of gang affiliation. The administration has deployed thousands of troops to the border, while arrests have plunged to the lowest levels since the mid-1960s.
The federal public defender’s office in Las Cruces indicates that roughly 400 cases had been filed in criminal court there as of Tuesday as it seeks dismissal of the misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor charges for violating security regulations and entering restricted military property. Court records show that federal prosecutors in Texas — where a National Defense Area extends about 60 miles from El Paso to Fort Hancock — last week began filing the military security charges as well.
Las Cruces-based federal Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth is asking for input from federal prosecutors and public defense attorneys on the standard of proof for the trespassing charges “given the unprecedented nature of prosecuting such offenses in this factual context.”
Public defenders say there needs to be proof that immigrants knew of the military restrictions and acted “in defiance of that regulation for some nefarious or bad purpose.”
New Mexico-based US Attorney Ryan Ellison, appointed in April, says hundreds of “restricted area” signs have been posted in Spanish and English to warn that entry is prohibited by the Department of Defense, along New Mexico’s nearly 180-mile stretch of border.
In a court filings, Ellison has said there’s no danger of ensnaring innocent people when it comes to immigrants who avoid ports of entry to cross the border in willful violation of federal law — and now military regulations.
ACLU attorney Rebecca Sheff said basic freedoms are at risk as the government flexes its power at the border and restricts civilian access.
“The extension of military bases ... it’s a serious restriction, it’s a serious impact on families that live in the border area,” she said.
The Department of Justice has warned Wormuth against issuing an advisory opinion on legal standards for trespassing in the military area.
“The New Mexico National Defense Area is a crucial installation necessary to strengthen the authority of servicemembers to help secure our borders and safeguard the country,” Ellison said in a court briefing.
Democratic US Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico expressed concern Wednesday in a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that anyone may be stopped and detained by US Army soldiers for entering a 170-square-mile area along the border previously overseen by the Department of Interior and frequently used for recreation and livestock ranching.
Hegseth has emphasizing a hard-line approach to enforcement.
“Let me be clear: if you cross into the National Defense Area, you will be charged to the FULLEST extent of the law,” he said in a post on the social platform X.
Families of victims in South Korea plane crash file complaint against 15 officials
- Police suggested a complex incident like the Jeju Air crash would require a lengthy investigation but declined to say when they expect to wrap up their probe
SEOUL, South Korea: Families of victims of December’s devastating plane crash in South Korea have filed a complaint against 15 people including the transport minister and the airline chief who they believe are responsible for the disaster that killed all but two of the 181 people on board.
Police and government officials have already been investigating the Jeju Air crash, so the complaint is largely seen as a symbolic step calling for a swifter and more thorough probe. Many bereaved families complain of what they see as a lack of meaningful progress in efforts to determine what caused the disaster and who is responsible.
On Tuesday, 72 bereaved relatives submitted the complaint to the Jeonnam Provincial Police agency in southern South Korea, according to their lawyers and police.
The 15 people cited in the complaint include the transport minister, Jeju Air’s president and airline officials handling maintenance and safety issues, along with officials at Muan International Airport who are responsible for preventing bird strikes, air traffic control and facility management, according to a statement from a lawyers’ group supporting the relatives.
The statement said the crash was “not a simple accident but a grave public disaster caused by negligent management of risks that must be prevented.”
“Four months after the disaster, we can’t help feeling deep anger and despair over the fact that there has been little progress” in the investigation, Kim Da-hye, a bereaved family member, said in the statement.
Lawyer Lee So-Ah said Wednesday the complaint would formally require police to brief bereaved families of their investigation, though police have so far only voluntarily done so.
The Boeing 737-800 operated by Jeju Air skidded off the runaway at the Muan airport on Dec. 29 after its landing gear failed to deploy, slamming into a concrete structure and bursting into flames.
Authorities have since said they found traces of bird strike in the plane’s engines and that the plane’s two black boxes stopped recording about 4 minutes before the crash. Many analysts said the concrete structure, which housed a set of antennas called a localizer that guides aircraft during landings, should have been built with lighter materials that could break more easily upon impact.
But no exact cause of the crash has been announced and no one has been legally persecuted yet over the crash, the country’s deadliest aviation disaster since 1997.
Jeonnam Provincial Police agency officials said they’ve been investigating the accident. They suggested a complex incident like the Jeju Air crash would require a lengthy investigation but declined to say when they expect to wrap up their probe.
Ukraine peace talks: What are Kyiv and Moscow’s positions?
ISTANBUL: Delegations from Kyiv and Moscow are set to hold their first direct talks on the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine for more than three years.
Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has announced he will travel to Turkiye, while Russia’s Vladimir Putin indicated he will not attend the talks.
Despite the flurry of diplomacy and US President Donald Trump’s call for a swift end to the fighting, Moscow and Kyiv’s demands appear to be far apart.
Russia has repeatedly demanded to keep the territory in southern and eastern Ukraine that it occupies and for Kyiv to cede even more land.
Moscow in 2022 annexed four Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson — despite not having full control over them.
Russia also annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 and has held it ever since.
President Vladimir Putin last year demanded Ukraine pull its forces out of parts of those regions that its army still controls as a prerequisite to any peace settlement.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said recognition of Moscow’s ownership of these territories was “imperative” for any negotiations.
Kyiv has said it will never recognize its occupied territories, including Crimea, as Russian.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Kyiv may be forced to try to secure their return through diplomatic means — effectively conceding that Russia could maintain control over some land in any peace deal.
Russia has also demanded that Ukraine be barred from joining the NATO military alliance and has repeatedly said it wants Zelensky removed from office.
Russia had intended to topple Zelensky when it launched its invasion in 2022, with Putin calling in a televised address for Ukraine’s generals to oust him in a coup d’etat and then open talks with Moscow.
Putin in March floated the idea of Ukraine being put under a UN-backed “temporary administration,” refreshing his call to essentially remove Zelensky.
Russian officials have throughout the war called for the “de-militarization” and “de-Nazification” of Ukraine — casting Kyiv as a neo-Nazi “regime.”
Kyiv, the West and independent experts have rejected those narratives.
Russia has also sought at times to limit the size of Ukraine’s army, wants Ukraine to be declared a neutral state and for Western countries to stop supplying it weapons.
Zelensky has for months been calling for “security guarantees” for Ukraine to stop Russia invading again.
His top demand would be for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO, or for Ukraine to fall under the military alliance’s Article Five collective defense term.
Trump has however, dismissed the possibility of Ukraine joining the bloc and Russia says NATO membership would be “unacceptable.”
Instead, Kyiv is pushing for some other form of Western military commitment that would deter Moscow.
Britain and France are leading discussions about a possible European troop deployment to enforce any ceasefire, among a group of countries dubbed the “coalition of the willing.”
But Zelensky and Kyiv still want Washington to back-up any “security guarantee.”
Moscow has said it would not accept troops from NATO countries being deployed to Ukraine in any capacity.
Zelensky wants an immediate, full and unconditional ceasefire to cover combat on air, sea and land.
He accepted a US proposal for that in March but Putin rejected it.
Putin has instead ordered two short “truces” — over Easter and to cover Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebrations.
Air attacks dipped during the periods but Ukraine accused Moscow of violating both on hundreds of occasions.
In his late-night address from the Kremlin calling for the direct Russia-Ukraine talks, Putin said he did not “exclude” that some kind of ceasefire could be agreed between the sides.
Australia removes repeatedly vandalized James Cook statue
- ‘Don’t think if we put it back up, it wouldn’t be just damaged again,’ says mayor
MELBOURNE: The Australian city of Melbourne will not replace a damaged monument to British explorer James Cook, the mayor said, for fear it will inevitably be vandalized again.
The granite-and-bronze memorial in the southeastern Australian city has been a favorite target of vandals, who tore the monument down last year and scrawled “cook the colony” on its surface.
It was similarly defaced in 2020 with spray-painted slogans of “shame” and “destroy white supremacy.”
Stephen Jolly, mayor of Yarra City in Melbourne’s inner suburbs, said the Cook monument would not be replaced because it would just be “damaged again.”
“I’m not in favor of demolishing statues of people in the past, even problematic ones, but don’t think if we put it back up, it wouldn’t be just damaged again,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
“It would be ongoing. How can we justify that?“
Vandals poured red paint over a different statue of Cook in the lead-up to Australia Day earlier this year.
Statues of colonial figures such as Cook are frequently targeted by vandals to draw attention to the plight of Australia’s Indigenous peoples.
Cook sailed into Botany Bay in 1770 and claimed eastern Australia for Britain under the doctrine of “terra nullius” — land belonging to no one — brushing over tens of thousands of years of Indigenous history.
