-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
0
UK Inflation Spikes to 3.5% After April’s Surge in Household Bills
UK Inflation Spikes to 3.5% After April’s Surge in Household Bills UK inflation jumped to 3.5% in April, the highest rate since January 2024, driven largely by widespread hikes in essential household bills. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) confirmed the increase, up sharply from March’s rate of 2.6%, catching many economists off guard who had predicted a smaller rise to 3.3%. The ONS attributed the spike to what many are calling an "awful April" for consumers. “Significant increases in household bills” were the key factor, according to the report. Energy prices rose by 6.4% under the government’s energy price cap, council tax bills increased by approximately 5%, and water and sewerage costs saw a staggering 26.1% surge. This last figure marks the steepest rise in water bills since February 1988, just before the industry was privatised. Additionally, broadband, mobile, and TV licence fees all saw increases, compounding the pressure on UK households already stretched by years of high living costs. The renewed inflationary pressure is now raising serious questions about the timing of potential interest rate cuts by the Bank of England. The consumer prices index, a key measure used to monitor inflation, plays a major role in determining the Bank of England’s monetary policy. Since December 2021, the Bank aggressively raised interest rates to contain inflation during the early days of the cost-of-living crisis. However, as inflation eased, it implemented four cuts since August last year. Prior to the latest ONS data, financial markets had priced in two more rate cuts for this year, though none were expected at the next Bank meeting in mid-June. Following the unexpected inflation jump, mortgage brokers have warned that mortgage rates will “edge upwards” in the coming weeks. Hopes of an interest rate cut next month have all but vanished. “This increase is certainly going to stall the recent mortgage rate improvements, and with inflation due to stay above 3% for the rest of the year it may be too much to expect further base rate cuts in 2025,” said Justin Moy, managing director at EHF Mortgages, in comments to Newspage. Craig Fish, director at Lodestone Mortgages and Protection, echoed the sentiment. “This will hit mortgage borrowers hard, especially those coming off fixed rates or looking to buy,” he said, noting that swap rates—used by banks to set mortgage pricing—are expected to rise in response to the inflation figure. The UK now holds one of the highest inflation rates among G7 countries. In April, inflation in Canada, the US, France, Italy, and Germany all remained below the UK’s 3.5%. The Eurozone, by contrast, recorded an inflation rate of just 2.2%. Only Japan, which saw prices rise at 3.6% last month, appears to be on a similar trajectory, though its April data has not yet been published. Business leaders are also sounding the alarm. Stuart Morrison, research manager at the British Chambers of Commerce, warned of more price hikes to come. “Businesses are facing a perfect storm of cost pressures, which is fuelling inflation alongside rising household bills,” he said. “While April’s jump was expected, the scale, to 3.5%, is concerning.” He added that additional costs such as national insurance increases for employers, minimum wage rises, and global tariffs are likely to push prices even higher. “Our research shows 55% of businesses are expecting to put up prices in the coming months,” Morrison said. “Firms urgently need to see a clear tax roadmap identifying when the burdens of national insurance and business rates will ease,” he added. “Upcoming strategies on industry, trade and infrastructure must live up to business expectations and help drive investment.” As both consumers and businesses brace for more financial strain, April’s inflation data serves as a stark reminder that the UK’s economic recovery from the cost-of-living crisis may be more fragile than hoped. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-05-22 -
0
Driverless Cars Edge Closer in UK in 2027, But Uber Says It's Already Set to Roll
Driverless Cars Edge Closer in UK, But Uber Says It's Already Set to Roll Despite the UK government pushing back the expected rollout of fully autonomous vehicles to late 2027, Uber says it’s already prepared to launch driverless taxi services. While limited self-driving capabilities are currently allowed under UK law—with a human driver still legally responsible—companies like Uber argue that they are ready to take the leap as soon as regulations catch up. Uber's senior vice president of mobility, Andrew Macdonald, joined a test ride in an autonomous car in central London using technology developed by UK-based AI company Wayve. During the ride, Macdonald made it clear: “We're ready to launch robotaxis in the UK as soon as the regulatory environment is ready for us.” The car, a Ford Mach-E fitted with Wayve's self-driving system, navigated the busy streets of London with apparent ease. It used radar, seven cameras, and an AI computer housed in the boot to interpret and respond to road conditions in real time. Macdonald, alongside a BBC journalist on the ride, watched the vehicle smoothly handle heavy traffic, pedestrians, delivery bikes, and even temporary traffic lights without any intervention from the safety driver, who never touched the controls. While Uber already operates robotaxis in places like the US, China, the UAE, and Singapore, the UK has been more cautious. The Department for Transport now says that self-driving vehicle legislation will likely be ready in the second half of 2027. However, they’re also exploring pilot programs and short-term trials to prepare the ground. Macdonald refuted the idea that the UK is lagging behind, explaining that the US and China are ahead largely because the technology was first developed there. He also highlighted how robotaxis are already proving their value in American cities, operating up to 20 hours a day and offering the same fare rates as traditional Uber rides. Passengers can choose a robotaxi option in the app if one is available. Still, widespread adoption may face hurdles—not least public unease. A 2024 YouGov poll found that 37% of Britons would feel "very unsafe" riding in a driverless car. Macdonald believes this fear quickly fades. “It becomes the new normal,” he said, noting how users typically adapt after their first experience. Safety remains a key concern, however. Although studies in the US suggest autonomous vehicles are generally less accident-prone than human drivers, high-profile mishaps have drawn attention. In Arizona, one man reported being trapped inside a robotaxi as it drove in circles at an airport carpark. In San Francisco, General Motors paused its Cruise driverless taxi service due to safety concerns. “The reality is that one accident is too many,” Macdonald acknowledged. “That said, with EV [electric vehicles], human drivers… we operate in the real world and stuff happens.” In the UK, questions still linger around liability, insurance, and data transparency in the event of an accident. Tom Leggett of Thatcham Research emphasized the importance of a “safety-led” approach and ensuring relevant data is accessible to insurers and investigators. Beyond safety and logistics, there's also concern about the broader societal impact. Andy Prendergast, national secretary for the GMB union, warned of the “significant social implications” of driverless taxis, especially the risk of job losses for professional drivers. Yet Uber’s Macdonald remains optimistic, pointing to a generational shift already underway. “I’ve got young kids,” he said. “Do I think my daughters will necessarily get their drivers licences when they turn 16? No – I think the world is changing a lot.” The UK government believes that if implemented responsibly, self-driving technology could generate up to £42 billion and create 38,000 jobs by 2035. Whether the public is ready—or the legal groundwork laid—remains to be seen. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-22 -
0
Equality Watchdog: Birth Certificates May Be Requested to Protect Single-Sex Services
Equality Watchdog: Birth Certificates May Be Requested to Protect Single-Sex Services Hospitals, gyms, and sports centres may soon be permitted to request individuals' birth certificates to confirm their biological sex in order to uphold the integrity of single-sex services, according to new draft guidance released by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). The proposal follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that legally defines “woman” based strictly on biological sex, prompting the EHRC to revise its interpretation of the Equality Act and open a public consultation on the matter. The draft guidance clarifies that it would be lawful for organisations to ask someone to provide a birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) when it is “necessary and proportionate” to determine eligibility for single-sex services. However, the EHRC stressed that such requests must be handled with sensitivity, as asking about birth sex in a disrespectful or public manner could amount to discrimination or harassment. Baroness Falkner of Margravine, chairwoman of the EHRC, emphasized the importance of clear and accurate legal guidance. “Since the judgment was handed down, the demand for authoritative guidance has been obvious. It’s our job to provide that,” she said. “It is important that our code is both an accurate interpretation of the law and clear to those who use it. So we want to hear views on the clarity of these updates and urge all interested parties to respond to the consultation over the next six weeks. We will consider every response carefully and amend the draft code where necessary.” The guidance proposes that the legal definition of sex be updated to refer only to biological sex recorded at birth, thereby excluding individuals who have legally changed their gender through a GRC. Consequently, services that admit transgender individuals of the opposite biological sex could not describe themselves as “single-sex.” In situations where biological sex is deemed essential — for example, in spaces where women may be undressed, feel vulnerable, or face limited alternatives — service providers may request documentation to verify eligibility. The EHRC warned, however, that if such information is shared without consent, it could constitute a criminal offence. The draft also states that transgender individuals may be excluded from services even if they are biologically aligned with the intended user group if their presence could “cause alarm or distress to other service users.” The regulator acknowledged that such policies are likely to disadvantage trans people compared to non-trans people but said that the legal balancing of rights may still justify such exclusions in certain contexts. “Where services are provided on a single-sex basis, that needs to be done in a way which is consistent with the law,” Falkner said. “We know that there are strongly held views across our society, both about how the law should be interpreted and whether it reflects the right balance between those rights.” On the subject of sport, the EHRC guidance allows for trans individuals to be excluded from gender-affected sporting events if their participation could confer an unfair advantage or pose safety risks. It also urges organisers to seek less intrusive ways to accommodate trans people while still protecting the single-sex nature of the activity. Maya Forstater, co-founder and chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, welcomed the draft, saying it “reflects the law as clarified by the Supreme Court, so there can be no more excuses for failing to follow it.” Falkner concluded by encouraging engagement with the consultation: “This is a complex area of law, which bears on the rights of people with the protected characteristics of sex, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. So if everybody’s rights are to be protected — as the Supreme Court confirmed the law intends — service providers and their legal advisers need help to navigate these challenges. Please tell us if you think it could be clearer or more helpful. That way, whether you’re a shop owner or the chair of a local sports club; the manager of a hotel or a hospital; an HR professional or a solicitor — you will have guidance to follow so you can be confident that you’re upholding the law.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-22 -
0
Harvard Allegations of Ties to Chinese Military and Human Rights Abusers Stir Controversy
Harvard Under Fire: Allegations of Ties to Chinese Military and Human Rights Abusers Stir Controversy Harvard University is facing intense scrutiny from Republican lawmakers who accuse the institution of collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), providing training to sanctioned paramilitary groups, and engaging in research partnerships that could jeopardize U.S. national security. In a sharply worded letter addressed to Harvard and signed by Representatives John Moolenaar, Tim Walberg, and Elise Stefanik, the university is charged with working alongside Chinese military-linked universities and researchers associated with oppressive regimes, including Iran. “Harvard trained members of a sanctioned Chinese paramilitary group responsible for genocide, and its researchers partnered with Chinese military universities on DoD-funded research and worked with researchers funded by the Iranian regime,” said John Moolenaar, chairman of the House select committee on the Chinese Communist Party. “These are not isolated incidents — they represent a disturbing pattern that puts US national security at risk.” This marks a new escalation in Republican attacks on Harvard, already targeted by the Trump administration over accusations of “fostering antisemitism” amid rising pro-Palestinian activism on campus. The new letter revives longstanding anxieties about Western academic engagement with China, an issue that has also raised alarms in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. At the heart of the allegations is Harvard’s purported relationship with the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), a quasi-military Chinese organization sanctioned by the U.S. in 2020 due to its alleged role in human rights abuses against the Uighur population in Xinjiang. According to the Republican lawmakers, Harvard hosted XPCC delegates for training programs and conferences as recently as last year. The letter claims that Harvard sought to obscure its involvement with XPCC, ceasing to mention the group in public statements and even blurring out names in official photographs. In contrast, Chinese media reports openly acknowledged XPCC representatives’ participation. Beyond XPCC, the lawmakers allege Harvard collaborated with Chinese institutions connected to the “Seven Sons of National Defence,” a group of military-run universities tied to China’s Ministry of Defense. These institutions are known for conducting research with potential military applications, raising the specter of “dual-use” science—research with both civilian and military potential—being shared with a strategic rival. The letter also highlights Harvard’s joint work with scientists whose research received funding from the Iranian regime. “We have found several instances in which Harvard University aided and even collaborated with the CCP — including helping Chinese researchers on military projects funded by the Iranian government,” Walberg said. “This is unacceptable.” Further accusations involve research into organ transplant technologies conducted in partnership with Chinese scientists. The Chinese government has long faced international condemnation over allegations that organs have been harvested from executed prisoners, including ethnic and religious minorities. While no direct evidence from the Harvard collaborations has been disclosed, the associations alone have prompted ethical concerns. Harvard declined to comment on the allegations when approached by its student newspaper, The Crimson, although it confirmed receipt of the lawmakers’ letter. The congressional report raises the possibility of re-evaluating Harvard’s tax-exempt status, suggesting that activities which appear to aid sanctioned foreign entities could be incompatible with its nonprofit mission. “Assisting known, sanctioned paramilitary human rights abusers in developing policy and advancing their foreign military capabilities may undermine Harvard’s non-profit mission,” the letter stated. As the debate unfolds, Harvard finds itself caught in the crossfire of larger geopolitical tensions and domestic political battles. The outcome may have far-reaching implications not only for the university’s funding and reputation, but also for how American academic institutions engage with foreign powers going forward. Related Topics: Harvard Acknowledges Deep Antisemitism Crisis Following Scathing Internal Report Harvard’s Shift: How Islamist Influence Took Root on Campus Behind the Curtain: Harvard’s Quiet Courtship with Trump Before Its Bold Rejection Harvard Becomes Resistance HQ in Trump’s Campus Culture War Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-22 -
0
Rubio Sounds Alarm as Syria Teeters on the Edge of Renewed Chaos
Rubio Sounds Alarm as Syria Teeters on the Edge of Renewed Chaos U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued a stark warning that Syria could be mere weeks away from what he described as “potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions,” as transitional authorities struggle to contain mounting violence and political instability in the wake of Bashar al-Assad’s ousting. Speaking at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Rubio defended President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to lift long-standing U.S. sanctions on Syria just days before Trump met with Syria’s transitional leader, President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda commander, led the rebel forces that overthrew Assad in December and now heads a fragile and deeply divided interim government. According to Rubio, Trump’s rationale for lifting sanctions was grounded in pragmatism. “Nations in the region want to get aid in, want to start helping them. And they can't because they are afraid of our sanctions,” he explained. Trump’s move, while surprising to many, was aimed at removing barriers for international support and humanitarian assistance to flow into the devastated country. There has been no comment yet from Syrian officials, but Sharaa has publicly hailed the decision, calling it “a historic and courageous decision, which alleviates the suffering of the people, contributes to their rebirth and lays the foundations for stability in the region.” However, the picture on the ground remains dire. The U.S. initially imposed sanctions in response to atrocities committed by Assad's forces during Syria’s brutal 13-year civil war, which claimed over 600,000 lives and displaced more than 12 million people. The State Department had maintained that sanctions would only be lifted if key conditions were met, including the protection of ethnic and religious minorities. While Sharaa has pledged to uphold those protections, recent waves of sectarian violence have left hundreds dead and fueled widespread distrust. In March, nearly 900 civilians—predominantly members of Assad’s Alawite sect—were killed by pro-government loyalists in a bloody confrontation with security forces along Syria’s western coast. The loyalist forces were also responsible for the deaths of 450 civilians and 170 security personnel, according to a monitoring group. Then, in early May, more than 100 people reportedly died during fierce clashes involving Druze gunmen, the new security forces, and allied Sunni Islamist fighters in and around Damascus and the southern Suweida province. These incidents have only intensified the fears of minority communities, many of whom are uneasy under a transitional government dominated by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Sharaa’s Sunni Islamist faction and a former al-Qaeda affiliate still labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. Despite being officially designated a “specially designated global terrorist” by the U.S., Sharaa appears to have gained political traction. In December, the Biden administration announced the withdrawal of the $10 million bounty previously offered for his capture. Trump, during a summit of Gulf leaders in Saudi Arabia last week, met with Sharaa and offered unexpectedly warm praise. “He’s a young, attractive guy,” Trump told reporters. “Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter. He’s got a real shot at pulling it [Syria] together. It’s a torn-up country.” Rubio, however, remains cautiously optimistic yet pragmatic. “The bad news is that the transitional authority figures... didn't pass their background check with the FBI,” he quipped. “But on the flip side of it is, if we engage them, it may work out, it may not work out. If we did not engage them it was guaranteed to not work out.” His assessment is bleak: “It is our assessment that, frankly, the transitional authority, given the challenges they're facing, are maybe weeks, not many months, away from potential collapse and a full-scale civil war of epic proportions, basically the country splitting up.” He added that minority groups are still “dealing with deep internal distrust... because Assad deliberately pitted these groups against each other.” In a significant development, European Union foreign ministers have followed the U.S. lead, agreeing to lift economic sanctions on Syria. “We want to help the Syrian people rebuild a new, inclusive and peaceful Syria,” wrote EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas on X. “The EU has always stood by Syrians throughout the last 14 years—and will keep doing so.” Syria’s foreign ministry welcomed the decision, calling it “the beginning of a new chapter in Syrian-European relations built on shared prosperity and mutual respect.” Still, the road ahead remains treacherous, and whether the international community’s gamble on Sharaa will stabilize Syria—or plunge it back into chaos—remains uncertain. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-05-22 -
0
The Biden ‘politburo’ accused of running the USA in secret
Behind Closed Doors: The Insular Circle Steering Biden’s Final Chapter A new book is peeling back the curtain on President Joe Biden’s inner circle—dubbed the “politburo” by insiders—a small group of loyal aides and family members accused of preserving his reelection bid despite deep concerns about his cognitive decline. In Original Sin, journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson chronicle how this tight-knit faction wielded extraordinary power, effectively shielding the president from criticism while making decisions that left even top cabinet members in the dark. David Axelrod, a longtime adviser to former President Barack Obama, is scathing in his assessment. “They did such a disservice to Joe Biden and to the country. The family as well,” Axelrod says in the book. “I don’t understand how you could see him in the condition he’s in and think, ‘Yeah, you oughta go [run for president again].’ To do that to someone you love?” This comes in the wake of the Biden family’s announcement that the former president is suffering from stage 4 prostate cancer. While Axelrod and other Democrats have since called for a pause in evaluating Biden’s fitness for office, the revelations in Original Sin show that internal alarm bells were ringing long before. One Democratic official, reflecting the growing frustration, admitted, “I don’t think there is a way to make it stop. Every Democrat is going to need to have an answer on Biden and why we let him stay for so long.” That answer increasingly leads back to a handful of trusted advisers and family members who formed an impenetrable wall around the president. Mike Donilon, Biden’s longtime confidant of over four decades, emerges as a central figure. Known for his unwavering loyalty, Donilon reportedly demanded $4 million to leave the White House and rejoin Biden’s 2024 campaign—a demand Biden accepted without hesitation. “Pay Mike what he wants,” the president said. Donilon dismissed concerns about Biden’s age, assuring others, “He’s going to get elected again with people thinking he’s too old.” Even after Biden’s poor performance in a debate against Donald Trump, Donilon insisted that the president could still win. Steve Ricchetti, another power player, acted as Biden’s gatekeeper and damage controller. When a reporter attempted to write about Biden’s cognitive lapses—forgetting names and facts during meetings—Ricchetti intervened, calling the reporter off the record and asserting that the claims were false. The story was dropped. Ricchetti even reportedly threatened George Clooney to prevent him from publishing a piece calling for a new Democratic nominee. “Some of his colleagues thought he sounded like a Mob boss,” the book notes. Ron Klain, Biden’s former chief of staff, remained close even after his official departure. Despite voicing concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness, Klain also defended his run. “Who else is going to do this, Axe? Who’s going to beat Trump?” he told Axelrod. Still, Klain was shocked when he arrived at Camp David during debate prep and found Biden needing naps and appearing disengaged. Bruce Reed, Biden’s policy chief and longtime supporter, stayed loyal through the campaign. He coordinated debate preparation alongside Hollywood director Steven Spielberg and continued to argue that Biden could win, even after the debate failure. Another influential figure was Anthony Bernal, First Lady Jill Biden’s top aide. Seen as a fierce loyalist, Bernal was described by one staffer as someone who “would not be welcome at my funeral” due to his intense protection of the president and his family. “He cast out potential heretics,” the book claims. Jill Biden herself played a pivotal role in the reelection push. According to staff, she was one of the most powerful first ladies in history. “She became a political partner in addition to a spouse,” one aide recalled. “Jill isn’t going to like this” became a phrase that could kill any idea in the West Wing. Her dedication extended to her personal fitness regimen, preparing for the rigors of the campaign trail. Hunter Biden, the president’s embattled son, also had the president’s ear. After the Justice Department’s Robert Hur described Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory,” the press team planned a subdued response. But Hunter pushed for an aggressive rebuttal, encouraging his father to fight back publicly. Following the disastrous debate, Hunter continued to press the case that his father was still the party’s best chance. His influence—and the president’s recent decision to pardon him—has caused further strain within the Democratic Party. “It’s toxic,” one Democrat said. With Biden’s health now a matter of public concern, the scrutiny surrounding those who stood by his reelection effort—despite evident warning signs—continues to grow. As one cabinet official remarked, “Five people were running the country, and Joe Biden was at best a senior member of the board.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-05-22
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
Recommended Posts