Weekend news review
Welcome to the weekend from us at Opinions May Vary.
It’s been a big week for the Labour Party, and not in a good way. Fresh from the embarrassing climb down on the Welfare Bill last week, Sir Keir has had a lot on his plate: a side of the junior doctors strike, a healthy portion of whispers of wealth taxes, and, the main course, Macron’s state visit.
Mackerel Fishing in the Channel
This week saw Princess Kate and Mrs Macron go head to head in a Dior-off, as the French first couple arrived in London to tackle a major issue of the day - illegal channel crossings. Things seemed to be going well when Sir Keir and Macron agreed on their ‘one in one out’ policy, but the two bureaucrats were promptly shown up by Nigel Farage aboard a fishing galley…
What is going on there?
President Emmanuel Macron visited the United Kingdom in a heavily publicised state visit, visiting King Charles at Windsor Castle and Sir Keir Starmer at 10 Downing Street.
The result of the visit, as expected, was the signing off of the ‘One in, one out’ pilot scheme which will see British officials detain some of those crossing the channel and send them back to France - in return taking an asylum seeker who can prove they have family connections in Britain.
Enter Nigel Farage aboard a fishing boat, 78 illegal immigrants, a French warship and the UK Border Force ship Hurricane. After handing out life jackets the French warship escorted the dinghy towards Britain where it was promptly intercepted by UK Border Forces - but not before the French demanded their life jackets back. It was set to be a busy day for channel crossings, after all.
Farage has been dismissive of the deal, noting that only one in 17 migrants would be sent back, and noting that it is not a given that the scheme will even survive if taken to court under the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Over 21,000 people have made the crossing so far in 2025, which is a record for this point in the year.
What the papers are saying
Beth Rigby at Sky News says the deal may be a sore point for Farage, because if Starmer manages to deal with the issue then a huge part of Reform’s mandate will be void. Polling by Portland on Thursday morning suggests 4 in 10 voters who are planning to vote reform will defect to Labour if Sir Keir tackles small boats and lowers the numbers of crossings.
Nigel Farage himself, writing for the Daily Mail, called the incident an “Uber-style boat taxi service” and a “national emergency.” He references the recent plot by three Iranian terrorists who planned to blow up the Israeli embassy, saying they had entered the UK on small boats.
Ellie’s take
You can say many things about Nigel Farage, but I admire how he gets to the root of the problem and inserts himself, tick-like, into the folds of the issue, while his coiffured counterparts sojourn in safer climes. The channel crossings are a problem. The impossibility of dealing with the French is a problem. The ECHR is an issue. And if it takes Nigel Farage braying to GB News on a fishing boat to show us what is taking place on the ground, gulp, so be it.
Olga’s take
You do wonder what Farage would do with himself if Starmer was to actually “stop the boats”. Fortunately for him, we’ll never find out. Despite his best efforts, even Starmer didn’t sound like he believed that the new 1 in 1 out scheme - which is initially predicted to allow 17 in and 1 out - would make a dent on the numbers making the crossing. The changes to French maritime law to allow police officers to intercept boats close to shore are long overdue, but experience shows that smugglers are quick to adapt to new police tactics. After 3 days of backslaps and gladhanding, the final deal feels like a drop in the ocean.
Well if it ain’t…wealth taxes
Surprise, surprise, Labour is now looking for ways to fill a welfare-sized hole worth tens of billions of pounds and it looks like they have their eyes back on their favourite victim - the taxpayer. Is the joke on us to have expected anything else from Labour?
Here’s what’s happened
The Welfare Bill left a hole estimated to be worth around £20 - 30 billion that now needs to be filled by other means come the Autumn Budget.
Downing Street has declined to rule out tax increases - despite their election mandate; the idea that is currently attracting interest and debate is an annual wealth tax of around 2% on assets over £10 million in value.
The problem is that major tax payers are leaving the country in droves and the Treasury has warned that they may end up netting less tax overall as a result.
What the papers are saying
The Financial Times focused on Rachel Reeves’ limited options; while saying on multiple occasions (including in April) that she will not increase taxes, her “political options are narrowing” even if she is aware of the risk of punishing wealth creators and driving rich people abroad
The Guardian’s Aamna Mohdin says there isn’t any clear evidence yet of a mass millionaire exodus from the UK. She does, however, cite a report that shows that the UK is expected to see the largest net outflow of millionaires of any country, globally.
The Independent quotes leading tax lawyer Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Associates. He says that a wealth tax would have a detrimental effect on the UK’s tax intake, and that the government is being “naive” and “arrogant” to think it can achieve a “holy grail everyone else has been too stupid to find.”
Stuart Adam, Senior Economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies:
“International experience of annual wealth taxes is not encouraging: they have been abandoned in most of the developed countries that previously had them. There are strong reasons to radically reform how we currently tax the sources and uses of wealth; this includes reforming capital income taxes in order to properly tax high returns. An annual wealth tax would be a poor substitute for doing that.”
Ellie’s take
It makes sense that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden, and it also makes sense that healthcare and social care for those that need it is an important part of a modern and fair society. The problem is that the government has a terribly inefficient tax system and the money it rakes in is essentially pissed up the wall. We also have a culture where success and value creation is regarded with hostility. Kemi is right, Britain is a welfare state with an economy attached. Who will keep the lights on once all those with broad shoulders have left?
Olga’s take
It’s not like anybody believed Rachel Reeves when she said she would fund absolutely everything this government does with “growth”, but there is something deeply demoralising about being treated like an idiot by politicians. That said, Labour didn’t actually pledge against introducing a wealth tax, so maybe our outrage reveals more about ourselves than we would like. Taking any personal feelings out of this, I avoided tax (as a subject, obviously) during my law conversion so I defer to Dan Neidle, the tax law messiah, on the sensibleness-rating of this policy. Final score: -1 for Labour.
Sanchez’s fiesta of corruption
The facts
Pedro Sanchez, Spain’s socialist prime minister, is battling to stay in power as his government is embroiled in yet another corruption scandal.
Sanchez took power in 2018 after the conservative PM, Mariano Rajoy, lost a vote of no confidence due to a corruption scandal. Sanchez himself introduced the vote in parliament with a passionate speech in which he declared that “corruption acts as a corrosive and profoundly harmful force for any nation”.
Seven years later, it is his own party and cabinet who are in the spotlight following allegations that key officials took kickbacks on €500 million of public work contracts. A leaked recording of the same officials comparing notes on prostitutes has added further fuel to the fire. To top things off, on Wednesday the leader of the opposition, Alberto Nunez Feijoo, accused Sanchez of profiting from the proceeds of gay brothels run by his late father-in-law.
The commentary
The Guardian has been exploring why Spanish politics keeps failing to clean up its act. Maria Ramirez paints an ugly picture of weak rule of law and checks and balances, low transparency standards, toothless or politicised oversight bodies, vague ethical codes and inadequate sanctions for corrupt officials and complicit companies. She also accuses Sanchez of failing to make any real effort to address the problems, despite his promises of democratic renewal. Maybe it’s already too late?
The Spectator is not pulling its punches, with a headline that describes Sanchez as “the man who’s destroying Spain”. The magazine points to further allegations surrounding Sanchez and his close allies, including the investigation against his wife for influence-peddling and abuse of power, the allegations of fraud against his brother and long-standing accusations of academic plagiarism and electoral fraud. Unlike the Guardian, the Spectator suggests that the story starts and ends with Sanchez, claiming he “offers a blueprint for other far-left movements in Europe: consolidate power, corrupt the institutions and rewrite the rules”.
Olga’s take
If anything, this is a reminder of how immature democracy and its institutions are in Spain, the youngest democracy in western Europe. As these cycles of corruption show, many of the country’s critical democratic safeguards - independent oversight bodies, strong judicial institutions and a political culture of transparency and accountability - remain fragile. Sanchez's attempts to convince Spain and Europe that his promise of democratic renewal remains alive feel hopeless, particularly as the European Commission notes that Spain was required by law to adopt an anti-corruption strategy but has yet to even start work on one. Maybe the government should focus a bit less on posturing - with its proclamations of support for Gaza and “pacifist” refusal to match its European colleagues’ contributions to NATO’s defence budget - and more on tackling the rot within.
Ellie’s take
I am not hugely familiar with Spanish politics, but they can be relied upon for some Netflix-worthy shenanigans from time to time. Was Sanchez profiting from his father in law’s gay brothels? Who am I to say. I defer to the policia. Either way, this seems like a decade old accusation and where there is smoke, there is often fire. Only last week an official and close ally of Sanchez resigned following sexual harassment claims. Is there a smear campaign afoot, or is something really wrong with the Spanish Socialist Party?
A moral dilemma, sponsored by BCG
What you need to know
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is reeling after the Financial Times revealed that it had modelled the costs of “relocating” Palestinians from Gaza and helped to establish the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as part of a project to consider how the enclave could be rebuilt as a regional trading hub.
Between October 2024 and May 2025, around 12 consultants from the firm worked on the top-secret “Project Aurora”, building a financial model for the postwar reconstruction of Gaza. The model included a scenario which estimated that half a million Gazans would leave the enclave with relocation packages of $9,000 per person.
BCG also played a key role in developing the GHF, a US and Israeli backed aid initiative which, in contrast to traditional humanitarian models, operates using a militarised system staffed by US private security contractors and guarded by Israeli forces. Since GHF was launched in May, 400 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces en route to GHF aid sites.
Several staff members at the Tony Blair Institute also participated in meetings as the “Gaza riviera” project developed.
The FT’s investigation identifies Orbis Operations, a Washington-based private security contractor, as BCG’s initial pro bono client worked on behalf of the Israeli-linked thinktank, the Tachlith Institute. From January 2025 onward the contract shifted and BCG was officially paid by McNally Capital, the private equity firm which owns Orbis.
Since the FT published its investigation, BCG fired two senior partners who the company blamed for misleading the firm about the nature of the work. It also stripped two others - the Chief Risk Officer Adam Farber and Social Impact head Rich Hutchinson - of leadership roles. The World Food Programme has announced it is reviewing its partnership with BCG, while the UK’s parliamentary committee on Business and Trade has demanded detailed disclosure explaining the firm’s involvement.
What the papers are saying
The papers seem to be steering clear of direct commentary on BCG’s Gaza involvement so far, which is perhaps indicative of how fraught this topic is, but you can get a flavour of the spectrum of opinion in the comments sections and Twitter takes that abound.
In the Telegraph, Marina Oliver comments “relocate Gazans who are Hamas, rebuild and claim Israel[i] sovereignty. EU puppets and muppets like Blair - stay away from Israel.” Christine Sanderson adds “no one could have tried to help their unpleasant and aggressive neighbours more than Israel. Hamas broke every ceasefire. If the Gazans can't demand these terrorists stop murdering innocent people in their name they have to think about living somewhere else.”
On Twitter, somebody by the name of Joe Mama tweets “did they factor in the cost of the war crimes trial?” Another person calling themselves Basil says “these firms are the biggest frauds of our time—built on hype, not substance. That they’re seen as dream jobs says everything about the failure of our education system. No wonder they are genocide contractors”.
Olga’s take
As the UN announces that almost 800 people in Gaza have been killed while receiving aid in the last 6 weeks - over 600 of them “in the vicinity” of sites run by the GHF - it shouldn’t come as a shock that there are some unscrupulous companies out there willing to profit from the dividends of human misery. It is, however, depressing that there was not one person in power at the consultancy which markets itself as “unlocking the potential of those who advance the world” who was able to question whether this is the kind of world we want to advance. The spectacle of BCG bosses disavowing the whole project and putting the blame squarely on the heads of a handful of partners is embarrassing for all involved.
Ellie’s take
Following the end of the Second World War Hannah Arendt published her famous book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.” The book details the trial of Otto Adolf Eichmann - who was one of the major organisers of the holocaust - and deals with how people can commit atrocities under the guise of “doing his job.” This is the idea that evil can manifest when immoral principles become normal practice over time without a sense of awareness, care, or choice - the perpetrators would simply say they are following the rules. These two situations are not the same, but there is a hint of the banality of rule following in the idea of BCG associates - fresh from Oxbridge or their MBA - mapping out the relocation of Palestinians in Gaza.