Assange faces possible US indictment

Plus: rival site to WikiLeaks set to launch on Monday.

In a report from ABC News, Julian Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson has said that Assange could face indictment by the US authorities under the Espionage Act.

Robinson said: "Our position of course is that we don't believe it applies to Mr Assange, and that in any event he's entitled to First Amendment protection as publisher of WikiLeaks. And any prosecution under the Espionage Act would in my view be unconstitutional and puts at risk all media organisations in the US."

Meanwhile, protests have been planned around the world in defence of Assange, who is still in detention at Wandsworth Prison in London. Demonstrations calling for his release are happening today in Spain, the Netherlands, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico and Peru.

In yet another twist to the story, the LA Times reported yesterday that a rival to WikiLeaks, OpenLeaks, is due to launch on Monday. The site is run by original WikiLeaks staff members who resigned because of Assange's controversial methods. The crucial difference between the two organisations is that OpenLeaks will not publish information on its own, but will only make it available for others to publish.

In a statement, OpenLeaks organisers said their purpose was to be "without a political agenda except from the dissemination of information to the media, the public, non-profit organisations, trade and union organisations and other participating groups".

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.