The rebels enter Gaddafi's base

Rebel fighters reported to have entered Gaddafi's house after storming his compound.

Events in Libya continue to develop at a rapid pace, with the rebels now reported to have entered Colonel Gaddafi's house after breaking into his military compound at Bab al Aziziya. A gold statue of Gaddafi has been toppled (you can see a screengrab of the rebels stamping on the statue's head here) and the rebels are climbing over his famous sculpture of a fist crushing a US fighter jet. Iconoclasm has rarely looked more satisfying.

The whereabouts of Gaddafi himself are still unknown, although he is thought to be inside the compound. Earlier this afternoon, the Russian chess federation chief Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who visited Gaddafi in June, said he spoke to to the Libyan leader by phone today. He told Reuters that Gaddafi's eldest son Mohammad called him and "gave the phone to his father, who said that he is in Tripoli, he is alive and healthy and is prepared to fight to the end."

It's worth noting that Nato Colonel Roland Lavoie played down the importance of capturing Gaddafi at a press conference in Naples earlier today. He said:

If you know, let me know. I don't have a clue. I'm not sure it really does matter. The resolution of this situation will be political. Everyone recognises that Gaddafi will not be part of that solution. He's not a key player any more.

This contrasts with the stance taken by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of the National Transitional Council, who has said "the real moment of victory is when Gaddafi is captured."

It's also important not to forget the danger to civilian life at this time. Amnesty International has issued a statement warning that prolonged fighting in Tripoli is "seriously endangering civilian lives and has the potential to create a humanitarian crisis." It is imperative that the allies, who intervened in Libya to save lives, do everything possible to minimise civlian casualties.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.