AG百家乐在线官网

Over 120 Labour MPs are set to rebel against the government on its flagship welfare reforms, and Sophy Ridge asks senior Tory James Cartlidge if the Conservatives should vote in favour of them.

He replies that Kemi Badenoch has "set three tests" for their support, which are cutting the welfare bill, doing more to get people into work, and committing to no tax rises in the autumn.

"I think that's the right thing to do," he says. "You can't just give a blank check at the end of the day. We're there to hold them to account," he said.

He describes the policy as a "knee-jerk way to save money", rather than "a big, thought-out comprehensive reform of the welfare system, which is actually what we need".

But Cartlidge refused to say if the Tories actually support the reforms themselves, outside the tests that Badenoch has set.

The next guest on tonight's Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge is the shadow defence secretary, James Cartlidge, and she starts by asking if the Tories welcome the commitment to spending 5% of GDP on defence.

He replies that "in principle", the target is "fantastic", but his "big worry" for the UK is "we just don't know the details", and questions if the Treasury has allocated the money to make sure we meet the target.

The target includes 3.5% of GDP for core defence, while the remaining 1.5% will be for "national resilience", and Sophy asks him if he thinks that's the right thing to do.

Cartlidge replies: "I think this is classic smoke and mirrors."

'I genuinely worry about the threat we face'

He says we do not yet know what exactly counts as "national resilience", which makes it "a bit of a cheap play".

"That money needs to be in the defence budget," he argues, saying that the military will not be increased to levels last seen when we were spending 5% of GDP on pure defence.

Sophy puts to him that he must sympathise with the Treasury given the very tight fiscal environment, and it's easy to shout from the sidelines.

But he replies: "I'm not shouting from the sidelines, I'm a patriot - I want the country to spend more, I want our armed forces to be stronger, because I genuinely worry about the threat we face."

Sophy Ridge pushes the armed forces minister on the major domestic battle facing Keir Starmer right now: welfare reforms.

At least 123 Labour MPs say they're prepared to rebel against the controversial changes, but the PM has insisted a vote will go ahead next Tuesday despite the risk of a humiliating defeat.

Luke Pollard doubles down on the promise of a vote, but does say ministers are "of course" in dialogue with their concerned backbenchers about making changes.

"There's a concern that's very valid and real for lots of my colleagues," Pollard tells Sophy.

"Discussions will continue until the vote and beyond," he adds, and he doesn't think the PM has been dismissive of the rebels.

"Doing difficult things means you have to have difficult conversations," the minister adds.

Watch: The welfare battle explained

Pollard insists the reforms being proposed "create a huge opportunity to help people currently being failed by a broken system".

He says they "help people into work if they can work, for those who can't to provide more security, bigger payments" - and scrap the "awful" work capability assessments "that so demean those people, especially with long-term conditions, who we know can't work".

The first guest on tonight's edition of Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge is the armed forces minister, Luke Pollard.

Sophy asks him if Donald Trump's public efforts to get NATO countries to spend more on defence has resulted in the 5% of GDP pledge today, and he replies: "Well, he's certainly been making a case for increasing defence spending for quite some time."

But he argues that actually "the new era of threats has largely made the argument persuasive", pointing to Russia, Iran, and North Korea in particular.

"Getting to 5% in 2035 is a really big step for the alliance. But it's not just what we spend, it's how we spend it," he continues.

What even is 'resilience and security'?

Sophy notes that 1.5% of that spending is going on "resilience and security", and she asks the minister exactly what that means.

Pollard replies that "NATO will be publishing the details shortly", but the spending in there we will on "things that keep us safe as a homeland".

Asked if spending on energy security - so renewable energy - is included in that, the minister says they need to "check that against the NATO criteria", but the resilience part of the spending pledge will "cover a lot of different sectors".

Sophy says to him: "Windfarms are not exactly tanks and drones, are they? And some people might look at this and think this is fiddling the books."

Pollard does not deny this, and says: "There's lots of different areas of government spend that could potentially fall within that."

If you ask former prime ministers what surprised them about their time in office, one thing that comes up again and again is how much time they end up spending on foreign policy.

Summits, international diplomacy, and often war - whether conflicts they are directly involved in, or not.

Some of the reason that foreign policy ends up taking so much time is because of the alluring glamour of strutting the international stage - but a lot of it is because, frankly, this stuff is really important.

We've seen Sir Keir Starmer focusing, understandably, on the international:

• The diplomatic dance with Donald Trump;
• Being a champion of Ukraine;
• Committing to more defence spending - along with other NATO allies - at a time when our security may not always be underwritten by America.

But focusing on the international comes with a big risk, because things can sour very quickly domestically - even when you've been elected with a thumping great majority.

After being forced to U-turn on winter fuel - Starmer is now facing a rebellion by more than 100 MPs on welfare cuts.

This is the thing with rebellion. Once MPs break the whip once, it's much easier to do it again.

Is government's lack of experience costing them?

It's really struck me how little political experience Starmer has. He's a relative newbie in Westminster, which has advantages - but also means he's not steeped in the pure politics of the place.

And his team too. Look, it's not their fault, Labour have been out of power for 14 years. 

It means they don't have the experience of government, which levers to pull, how to set the media narrative, how to control hundreds of MPs.

Because if the PM is going to spend this much time on the international stage, someone has got to have an iron fist back home - strong enough to spot potential rebellions before we get to this point, and squeeze them right back down.

Our flagship weeknight politics programme is under way.

Joining us tonight are armed forces minister Luke Pollard MP and shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge MP. 

On the panel are ex-Tory minister Tom Pursglove and former SNP MP Hannah Bardell.

Watch live in the stream at the top of this page.

As we reported a short while ago, cabinet ministers were instructed to ring around the signatories of an amendment to the government's welfare legislation in a bid to get them to back the cuts rather than tanking the entire bill.

Our political reporter Faye Brown has spoken to three more Labour MPs about the behind-the-scenes efforts of the government to avoid a major humiliation.

Did Treasury underestimate new MPs?

One MP who has signed the amendment told her they've had conversations with ministers and "they're doing everything you'd expect" to quell the rebellion, but was clear he wouldn't characterise it as anything like bullying or dirty tactics.

They said the Treasury has underestimated the fact that many of the 2024 intake came from backgrounds in local government with a determination to fight against austerity, and there's not enough in the welfare package to get people back into work.

Talk of early election 'ridiculous'

Another MP said they'd had a "headmaster's chat" with a senior minister, and added that "they've all been at it".

He described talk of this rebellion triggering an early general election as "ridiculous", but said No 10 "just need to change or delay the vote".

Separately, a third Labour said they'd had a "soft request" from a senior colleague to take their name off the amendment, but "they knew they weren't going to get anywhere".

The government has announced it is purchasing at least 12 new F-35 stealth jets that can carry nuclear warheads.

It's a move that's been described by Downing Street as the most significant strengthening of the nation's nuclear capability in a generation.

So, what are these jets? And why is the UK expanding its nuclear capability?

Sarah-Jane Mee speaks to Dr Thomas Withington, an award-winning analyst and expert in air defence, to understand just how big a change in defence spending this is, what the move means for the UK in NATO, and what it tells us about the shift to make the country war ready. 

By Alexandra Rogers and Faye Brown, political reporters

Cabinet ministers have been asking Labour MPs to take their name off a rebel amendment to the government's controversial welfare bill, Sky News can reveal.

In an attempt to quell the mounting rebellion of more than 100 MPs across all wings of the party, cabinet ministers were instructed to ring around the signatories of the amendment in a bid to get them to back the welfare cuts ahead of a planned vote next Tuesday.

Two Labour MPs said they had been asked if they would take their names off the amendment, while one was asked if they would be prepared to abstain on the bill next week.

Watch: PM questioned on welfare reform rebellion

One Labour MP said: "The more they tell people to take their names off, the more names are added on."

Others were also told their actions could provoke a fresh leadership challenge and that they were aligning themselves with Nigel Farage in a bid to get them to back down.

'Everything is all over the place'

"I had a conversation with a senior cabinet member yesterday who basically said if the government is defeated next week it will trigger a leadership contest," a Labour MP said.

"I can see how that might be the case, but I would argue if that's where we end up it's because the government have allowed that to happen. The ball is very much in their court.

"By and large the rebels do not want this to be about leadership. We just want the government to listen."

Another added that while they had not received a call from a cabinet minister, they knew "some colleagues are being told there will be a leadership challenge or a general election which is utter nonsense", adding: "Everything is all over the place."

There has been much discussion of Article Five of the NATO treaty today, after Donald Trump yesterday refused to confirm explicitly that the US remains committed to it.

Instead, he said it "depends on your definition", adding that he was "committed to being a friend" of NATO allies.

But what exactly is Article Five?

In short, this is the founding idea of collective defence.

When it was signed in 1949, the aim of the North Atlantic Treaty - on which NATO was founded - was to create a pact of mutual assistance.

At the time (and ever relevant today), this was to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe throughout the continent.

An attack on one is an attack on all

Article Five states that members of the alliance "agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all".

Therefore, members agree that "if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith".

Essentially, an attack against one NATO ally is an attack against all - and it could warrant a wider response by the alliance at large.

With that in mind, Trump's vague answer on a commitment to the article could have significant consequences if the US decides not to abide by it.