Category: Politics

Last week, as well as welcoming Young Carers from Mark Hall Academy in Harlow into parliament, I took part in a number of activities with Carers Trust to mark Young Carers Action Day. This included opportunity to hold a debate in Westminster Hall on the educational opportunities for young carers — an issue that is close to my heart.

Prior to my election I worked for a wonderful charity in Harlow and across Essex called Action for Family Carers. In this role I provided respite care and in-school support for children and young people who care for family members and loved ones with physical and mental disabilities.

I spent the first 15 years of my working life as a secondary school Maths teacher, working with students of a variety of abilities from 11 to 18.  This is where I can pin-point the moment I realised that our education system was failing young carers. As I recalled in my maiden speech in one of the schools, I taught a boy in my form who was forever late meeting homework deadlines and not getting his homework planner, where he was supposed to record his homework, signed. This led to him receiving several detentions both from myself and other teachers. I remember on parents evening when the student arrived with both of his parents who were severely physically disabled. To my shame I had no idea until this point, he and his older sister were Young Carers. Of course, once I was aware that he was a Young Carer I could provide more support for him. We even had a special arrangement that his older sister would sign his homework planner.

My first key asks during the debate were around identification and support for Young Carers in an educational setting, starting with the need for Young Carers to be a mandatory part of teaching training so that teachers don’t have the same experience I had.

Although many schools do have Young Carers Leads, a single point of contact for Young Carers to approach if they are struggling or are late for school, this is not universal. I have spoken to a number of Young Carers who find themselves having to explain themselves to five or more teachers if they are absent or late because of caring responsibilities. Equally we spoke to one Young Carer who felt embarrassed having to ask his peers to ‘keep it down’ in the school library as this was the only place he could get his homework done.

My final ask was to consider the transition of Young Carers into Universities or higher education. Many Young Carers do not go to university because they do not feel they can leave the person that they care for alone, or if they do, they will only go to local universities, which is cutting their options. One Young Carer we spoke to said that the Universities website didn’t provide any case studies he could relate to.

In the debate there was a consensus that things need to change and the identification, awareness and support that teachers should offer Young Carers is at the root of this. As I mentioned, teachers cannot offer this without training that is tailored to this. In the debate the minister agreed that teacher training should include Young Carers, recognising the tailored support that they often require in school. Offering this training will not only help young carers in school but also aid in identifying young carers. So often many young carers don’t know themselves that this is what they are, let alone be able to seek support.

I look forward to giving more of a voice to Young Carers and Young Adult Carers during my time in Westminster, starting with ensuring they are part of the consultation into the upcoming Youth Strategy.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

This session was far bigger than Kemi Badenoch and the six scripted questions her LOTO title permits her. The Conservative leader is still paying the price for a series of underpowered performances since seizing the reins of her party. Those tuning into prime minister’s questions today therefore, came not for Badenoch’s weekly tirade — but to assess the political contours of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) after the government’s controversial welfare announcement yesterday.

Already, there have been signs of rebellion on the Labour benches — with critical sentiment emanating beyond the usual suspects in the Socialist Campaign Group of left-wing MPs.

Today, as is a common occurrence at PMQs and a natural consequence of Keir Starmer‘s parliamentary supremacy, the order paper was dominated by Labour representatives. Of the fourteen parliamentarians selected to ask questions by the weekly ballot, ten were Labour politicians. (The Conservatives were afforded two). PMQs then, promised to provide at least some partial answers as the PLP pieces itself together — either in support or opposition to the government’s welfare reforms.

Would Labour MPs issue criticisms, cautiously call for additional clarity or offer their complete support? Would their silence be telling?

But first: Badenoch. The Conservative Party, its recent interventions suggest, largely supports the reforms that work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall announced yesterday. When it comes to PMQs, there is — in a counter-intuitive sense — a political opportunity in agreeing with the government on such an issue, as the ministerial line vies with the criticisms of backbench MPs.

Badenoch could have used her six questions to relentlessly pressure Starmer, goading the government in a bid to expand the political distance between the Labour front and backbenches. The very sight of Starmer and Badenoch in ostensible agreement on welfare would have sent quivers running along the Labour Party’s collective spine.

But Badenoch opted in instead to prepare the ground for the Conservative Party’s response to the spring statement on 26 March. According to the Tory leader, the due name “spring statement” is belied by the severity of the economic damage Starmer has already wrought. She repeatedly referred to Rachel Reeves’s forthcoming fiscal statement, in which the chancellor will unveil a host of economic forecasts, as an “emergency budget”.

The Conservative leader tends to keep her first question short and snappish. This afternoon was no different as she inquired of the PM: “The chancellor claimed that her [autumn] budget was a once in a parliament reset. So why are we having an emergency budget next week?”

The parliamentary to-and-fro proceeded predictably from this point. Starmer referenced the £20 billion “black hole” he claims the Conservatives left in the public finances. Badenoch accused Reeves of torching business confidence, and later called on the government to exempt hospices, pharmacies and care providers from the employer national insurance hike.

Starmer was at his strongest when he delivered his PMQs peroration. “I think she now calls herself a Conservative realist, well I am realistic about the Conservatives”, he declared in reference to Badenoch’s recent foreign policy speech.

“The reality is they left open borders… they trashed the economy… the NHS was left on its knees and they hollowed out the armed forces…”

The prime minister’s answer to Badenoch’s sixth and final question was a signal for interested politicos to heighten their focus.

Colum Eastwood, the first backbencher to address the House after the frontbench exchange, is not a Labour MP. But he sits on the government backbenches as a representative of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), Labour’s sister party in Northern Ireland.

Eastwood’s intervention was stinging — and no doubt reflected a criticism shared by many in the Labour family. He described the case of a disabled constituent whose receipt of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) allowance will be halted under the government’s reforms. Eastwood told the House: “Under the Tory welfare system we were able to get that lady on PIP. Under the prime minister’s new proposed system she will get zero, nothing.

“And after 14 years of the Tory government and many of us wanted to see the back of them, can the prime minister answer one question: what was the point if Labour are going to do this?”

Starmer struggled with the serious, emotionally heavy nature of the question. His answer would not have satisfied the former SDLP leader. “We are proceeding on three principles that if you can work you should work, if you need helping to work the state should help you not hinder you, and if you can never work you must be supported not protected”, Starmer responded.

“They are the right principles but we can’t leave the current system as it is.”

Reeves and Angela Rayner, the PM’s frontbench outriders this afternoon, nodded in agreement. But the Labour cheer was isolated and brief — a potential sign that many MPs are not yet ready to row enthusiastically behind the government.

Some questions later, Starmer was blessed by an unforeseen reprieve as Brian Leishman, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, delivered his intervention. Since July last year, Leishman has acquired a reputation as one of Labour’s most outspoken — and Starmer-critical — backbenchers.

In a post to X earlier this week, Leishman warned the government: “The idea that more austerity is needed to counter the problems created by austerity the first time round is absolute madness.

“Reject all cuts, tax the richest and tackle the inequalities that are destroying our country.”

But speaking in the commons today, he asked about the workers facing redundancy from the Grangemouth industrial site. He opened his question by welcoming the government’s attempts to secure a future for the site with a £200 million investment. Starmer was able to respond to Leishman in the affirmative on this “very, very important issue”.

The exchange is a signal that the Labour Party has yet to succumb to open rebellion. Of all the questions asked by government MPs today, the vast majority were supportive. As we have come to expect, there were the usual set of planted questions that allowed Starmer to direct his fire at the parties stationed opposite, notably the Conservatives and the SNP.

Interestingly, representatives from both the Reform UK and Green parties also caught the speaker’s eye today — which saw Starmer challenged on both his insurgent right and progressive flanks.

Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Greens, was first up. She told the PM: “We have a deeply unfair, unequal economic system where vast numbers of people are struggling yet billionaires are getting richer and richer.

“Does the prime minister really think that the way to tackle this is to put the onus onto older people, children and now sick and disabled people rather than on the shoulders of the super rich with a wealth tax, those people who could most easily afford to pay?”

Starmer lent tentatively into his government’s progressive credentials before issuing a specific swipe at the Greens’ expense. He responded: “We do have a proportional tax system and we have raised taxon the wealthiest under this government. Her advice would count for a bit more if their manifesto hadn’t been a recipe for £80 billion of extra borrowing.”

Then it was the turn of Lee Anderson, the Reform chief whip, whose authority was recently repudiated by 20 per cent of his parliamentary party (Rupert Lowe). “I come to this chamber to ask sensible questions”, Anderson began.

The synchronous laughter of Labour MPs suggests the party is still largely on the same page when it comes to fighting Reform. With party leader Nigel Farage not in his place, Anderson added: “If we became net zero tomorrow, by how much would we reduce the Earth’s temperature by?”

After describing net zero as a “huge opportunity”, Starmer reflected on Reform’s recent travails. The party, he said, “would have better ideas if they stopped fawning over Putin.

“And I understand the member for Claton [Farage] wants to be prime minister. He can’t even lead a party that fits in the back of a taxi!”

But the last, most damning word was granted to Diane Abbott, the veteran Labour MP and mother of the House. Addressing the commons to the prime minister’s right (in a strict geographical sense), she said the government’s welfare reforms are “not about morality” — but “about the Treasury’s wish to balance the country’s books on the backs of the most vulnerable and poor people in this society.”

The prime minister was courteous initially, paying “tribute” to Abbott’s “passionate” advocacy. But Starmer insisted it was a “moral issue” that one-in-eight young people were not in employment, education or training.

He said that he was “not going to turn away from that” and added that he was “shocked that a million people, young people, are in that position, and I’m not prepared to shrug my shoulders and walk past it”.

Labour unity, despite Abbott’s polemic, is holding.

All else being equal, prime minister’s questions today painted the picture of a party in reasonably strong health. The usual sops and loyal recitation of planted questions presented the PM with opportunities to bruise his opponents.

But all else is not equal. After the welfare announcement yesterday, splinters in the PLP are beginning to show. Abbott, of course, can be filed in the draw marked “usual suspects” — she is not one the government whips will be seeking to woo in the coming weeks. Richard Burgon, another Socialist Campaign Group MP who recently had the Labour whip restored, can be considered with this same categorisation. In a post to X after PMQs today, he warned Starmer that his government could face the “mother of all rebellions” over its welfare reforms.

As things currently stand, a MOAR is what Labour’s likely rebels will need to exact considerable concessions from ministers. Starmer’s towering majority shields him from the prospect of a commons defeat.

It is also worth noting the strengths Starmer showed in the session today. The prime minister coped adeptly with the pressure applied by Badenoch, Reform and the Greens. The Conservative leader’s self-inflicted struggles — and her PMQs woes in particular — are sweet succour for an otherwise pressured prime minister.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Keir Starmer calls sickness benefits bill ‘devastating’ as he defends reforms

Lunchtime soundbite

‘It’s clear Trump is being played by Putin — stringing him along and currying favour even as his savage war machine continues to push deeper into Ukraine.

‘Now is the time for the UK and our allies in Europe and the Commonwealth to redouble our efforts to support Ukraine’s defence and achieve a lasting peace.’

—  Responding to Vladimir Putin’s phone call with Donald Trump, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Calum Miller commented as above.

Now try this…

‘Keir Starmer pulled the pin on steep welfare cuts. Now for the hard part’
MPs are digesting a sweeping social security shake-up that marks arguably the biggest test of the British prime minister’s authority yet, Politico’s Dan Bloomand Annabelle Dickson write.

‘Up to 1.2m disabled people will lose thousands in UK welfare overhaul, experts warn’
Via The Guardian.

‘Kemi Badenoch attacked for “killing growth” after axeing Tory net-zero pledge’
CBI warns that “now is not the time to step back” from green growth opportunities, the i reports. (Paywall)

On this day in 2024:

Conservative peer claims Rwanda is ‘perfectly safe’ if you don’t oppose the government

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

The rising sickness and disability benefits bill is “devastating” for the public finances and has “wreaked a terrible human cost”, the prime minister has said.

Keir Starmer penned an op-ed for The Times on Wednesday, after his government announced a £5 billion cut to welfare.

The government announced a raft of welfare measures Tuesday, which it said will help bring more working age people back into jobs and save the taxpayer billions of pounds.

Among the most significant moves is the tightening of eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP), a benefit aimed at helping those with disability or long-term illness with increased living costs.

Around one million people will be affected by the changes to Pip eligibility, the Resolution think tank has said.

Elsewhere, ministers will scrap the work capability assessment for universal credit, the test of whether someone can get incapacity benefit payments based on their fitness for work. This will be replaced by 2028 with a single assessment considering the impact a person’s disability has on daily living, rather than their fitness to work.

***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

Starmer has said to the 2.8 million working age people out of work because of long-term sickness is a “damning indictment of the Conservative record” on welfare.

He said: “The facts are shocking. One in eight young people are not in education, employment or training and 2.8 million people of working age are out of work because of long-term sickness. 

“In every other G7 economy, the employment rate is now higher than before the pandemic — not here.

“Meanwhile, the proportion of people deemed “unfit to work” by the work capability assessment has skyrocketed. In 2011, it stood at 20 per cent. Now, it has risen to 67 per cent.

“This is a damning indictment of the Conservative record. In 2013, George Osborne pointedly castigated Margaret Thatcher’s legacy of leaving millions to languish on incapacity benefits as “quick-fix politics of the worst kind”.

Writing for The Times, Starmer added: “The result is devastating for the public finances. By 2030 we are projected to spend £70bn a year on working-age incapacity and disability benefits alone.

“But more importantly it has wreaked a terrible human cost. Young people shut out of the labour market at a formative age. People with complex long-term conditions, written off by a single assessment.

“People who want to return to work, yet can’t access the support they need. All this is happening at scale, and it is indefensible. An affront to the values of our country and Labour’s history.”

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

The education system is supposed to be teaching young people about the Game Of Life, yet we are not even teaching them the rules of the game before they play. Since I was elected in July, I have had conversations with parents, bankers, teachers and students and they have all been clear that there is a belief that we are not teaching the next generation the importance of money. Management. In fact, only 1 per cent of teachers believe that their pupils hold adequate financial skills.

Although there is a lack of financial education provision, I am certainly not claiming that previous parliaments have not recognised the importance of financial education. However, all attempts have been half-baked and have not made long-lasting difference.

For instance, the coalition government in 2014 introduced legislation to make financial education a part of the National Curriculum. Yet, the introduction of Free-Schools and Academies meant that many students have been taken out of the National Curriculum remit. Whether you agree with curriculum independence for the aforementioned schools or not, it is regretful that they are not providing their students these vital financial life skills.

This is at a time when young people need this education, the most.

We are living in a world of technological advancement which has opened up access to financial decisions for young people. With the development of digital spending, 64 per cent of teenagers are regularly able to purchase items, without parental supervision, at the click of a button. Yet, most concerningly, options such as ‘Buy now, Pay later’ schemes have enabled teenagers to make credit purchases on high value items without acknowledging the means of paying for it.

With fraudsters, also, now actively targeting 50 per cent of young people aged between 15-18. It is shocking that we as a country do not take financial education more seriously. In fact, these countless years of oversight have led to 1 in 2 adults not being able to pass a financial literacy test run by the OECD.  In these standings, we are well below comparable Western nations — and directly above Thailand and Albania.

How on earth can this be the case for the 5th richest country in the world?

Coming from a single-parent family in a more deprived area of the United Kingdom, I know the challenges that many face due to global economic shocks that are out of their control. I was lucky, I had grandparents that taught me about the importance of financial management. However, there are many that do not have this luxury. The increasing body of evidence shows that disparities in the levels of financial literacy between children from different socio-economic background is something that must be addressed.

This is why I, alongside cross-party supporters, launched my #FinEd campaign.

Last Tuesday, I introduced Financial Education 10 Minute Rule Bill to the House. In essence my Bill looks to achieve three goals.

Firstly, the Bill would mandate financial education throughout the Primary School curriculum. I am not suggesting that teachers will have to teach 4-year-olds about mortgages and compound interest but, instead, the simpler aspects of budgeting and saving. This is essential as there have been numerous studies explaining how money habits are being formed in our next generation much earlier than had been presumed.

Secondly, the Bill would consolidate financial education throughout the Secondary School curriculum. We simply must increase the number of Secondary students who are being taught financial education but we must also give teachers the confidence to do so. I recently spoke to Santander and they outlined how they offer free resources to teachers for money management lessons and they also advocated a cross-school approach. The cross-school approach would encourage aspects of financial education in a number of subjects such as History, Geography and IT.

Thirdly, the Bill would extend financial education provision to post-16 educational settings. As students enter a time of their life where they start earning and have more financial freedom, we are currently dropping any education on their finances. It is therefore no wonder that MyBnk found that 96 per cent of young people worry about money daily and that 55 per cent of apprentice employers have witnessed young employees in financial difficulty.

Whilst my Bill is unlikely to be passed into law due to the complexities of parliamentary procedure; I would strongly urge the government to support this cross-party campaign. We need to stop simply standing by and allowing the next generation to walk into financial ruin.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

The story is all too familiar. A young family scrimps and saves to buy their dream flat, or an older couple downsizes to pay for care and move into a smaller flat. Hidden in the small print, however, is something that will hit them time and time again — ground rents and service charges.

These costs are often downplayed during the sale, but a few years after purchase, they start doubling or even trebling as happened to one of my constituents. For many, these costs become larger than the mortgage payments.

What can they do? They can’t sell because who would want to buy a property they don’t truly own? Yet, they are indentured to pay these fees — often to faceless investment companies and landlords.

When they receive the annual service charge statements, they find costs that bear no relation to the services they receive — street lighting for a block of flats, access to facilities they are not allowed to use, or simple paint jobs costing tens of thousands of pounds with no say over who carries out the work or how it is done.

This is the trap of the feudal leasehold system, where people pay upfront to live somewhere as if they own it, but they never really do. For too long, this has harmed communities, leading to the poor condition of homes in my constituency and across the country. It is time for leasehold to go.

Scotland has already abolished leaseholds, and the Conservatives promised to do the same. However, their proposed legislation was riddled with loopholes so large that an elephant could walk through them. That is why I am delighted that the Labour government is committed to abolishing new leaseholds forever and shifting the standard to commonhold.

Commonhold is a little-used but cooperative system where everyone in a block owns a part of the common areas together. They, and only they, decide how to manage their flats. It was introduced at the end of the last Labour government, but landlords and property developers resisted giving up control. Now, Labour will force their hand and return power to tenants and end this unfair system.

Along with making it easier for people to manage their own flats, stopping the rip-off of inflated ground rents, and enacting reforms for renters, this is the final cornerstone of fixing the housing sector.

Many people talk about the need for more housebuilding, and we certainly need that. However, history shows that housebuilding alone does not solve the housing crisis. The market is not one single pool in which everyone is competing. Many people are stuck in specific types of homes, tied to certain areas due to work and family commitments. Developers building homes on greenfield sites may be good for their bottom line, but if those homes are not commonhold or freehold, if they are not council or social housing, and if they are not high-quality, well-insulated, and low-energy, then what is the point?

We don’t need more houses for the rich; we need them for ordinary people—the older couple downsizing to free up larger homes for families, the young family buying their first flat. That vision is impossible if debt collectors are knocking at the door for hidden fees and charges.

This is what Labour will change, preventing future leasehold abuses and ending this unfair system cannot come soon enough for the leaseholders in Jarrow and Gateshead East and the estimated five million leasehold properties in England.

Source: Politics

Reform UK like to wrap themselves in the Union Jack, but at the slightest breeze it is pulled back to reveal they’re clad head to toe in the Kremlin’s colours.

This isn’t hyperbole. From every word uttered to every act they undertake we can see they don’t stand up for forgotten communities. No. Instead, they seek the advancement of the theory that only might is right and to hell with everyone else.

Asked who he admired as a global leader it took no time whatsoever for the leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage MP, to say “Putin” calling him a “clever political operator”. Not feeling like it was a job done, in a separate interview Mr Farage said that Ukraine and the West provoke Russia into invading. Then we have the comments made most recently by the Reform UK leader that president Zelensky should apologise to president Trump for not wearing a suit. 

But this isn’t limited to one Reform UK MP. Rupert Lowe, the man anointed by Elon Musk to take the crown from Nigel Farage, suggested that president Trump has bigger fish to fry than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A breathtaking statement to make.

The eagled-eyed history buffs reading this piece will very quickly recall that Winston Churchill was often photographed entering the White House wearing his very less than formal RAF siren suit. For those not familiar with the photo imagine Sir Winston wearing overalls and being ready to fix a Spitfire at a moment’s notice. Now, Mr Farage and others may have the privilege of a Coutts bank account and the luxury of knowing that a Shahed 136 drone will not suddenly drop out of the sky on his home, but that doesn’t mean he has the right to tell a wartime leader what to wear.

Moreover, whilst Reform UK can pontificate about sartorial elegance, president Zelensky is having to battle-plan, consider the 12,600 civilian deaths of his fellow compatriots and an international world order which has been flipped on its head. I’m keen to remind Reform UK of the British Second World War advert which stated: “To dress extravagantly in war time is worse than bad form. It is unpatriotic.”

Anyone who tries to defend Vladimir Putin’s illegal annexation of Crimea or his bloody rampage in Ukraine isn’t standing up for Britain — they’re doing the Kremlin’s bidding. Whether through denial, excuses, or outright support, they appear to act not as patriots but as nodding dogs of war, obediently yapping along to Moscow’s tune.

Putin’s Poodles might claim to put Britain first, but their words betray them. When they parrot Kremlin talking points, undermine Western resolve, and call for appeasement in the face of Russian aggression, they aren’t serving British interests — they’re serving Putin’s. True patriotism means standing firm against tyrants, not rolling over to them for belly rubs.

When I drive around my constituency, I see Union flags flying proudly next to Ukrainian flags. Whether it’s from a church steeple, village hall or a slightly more ramshackled attempt of making them stand tall out of a hedge in front garden, South Norfolk residents are showing they stand with Ukraine. For they know that to stand up to a bully is pure Britishness. We cannot abide those who do not play by the rules.

So, we must call out those who use the sacred emblems of patriotism to further the racket of greed. They do not advocate for a Britain that stands proud on the world stage. Those individuals are interested in only one thing: power. Power without responsibility and they will do whatever it takes to gain it — including selling our allies and ourselves down the river to those who wish to destroy us.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

The UK government has been urged to publish the legal advice that is shaping ministers’ decision-making over whether to seize Russian assets to benefit Ukraine. 

The Liberal Democrats have written to the attorney general, Lord Hermer, as pressure mounts on the government to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund support for Ukraine. 

The calls for the government to move from freezing Russian assets to seizing them have grown in recent days in light of US president Donald Trump’s decision to suspend military aid to the war-torn Eastern European country.

The Lib Dem request also comes amid suggestions that Lord Hermer is holding up a plan to seize frozen Russian assets. According to The Times newspaper, the attorney general has been criticised by some in government for warning ministers against the move.

There is a “live discussion” across Whitehall about options for using Russian assets to plug the gap left by the pause in US military assistance to Ukraine, the newspaper reports. 

Rishi Sunak, the former prime minister, is among those advocating a seizure of Russian assets to fund the Ukrainian war effort and/or future re-development projects.

***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

Week-in-Review: Lord Hermer, Blue Labour and the defining choice Keir Starmer faces

Sunak told the House of Commons on Tuesday: “Events overnight [Trump’s decision to suspend military aid] make it even clearer that Europe must find considerably more resources for Ukraine.”

He added: “The chancellor has rightly continued our policy of using the interest on frozen Russian state assets to benefit Ukraine, but I believe now is the moment to go further and to actually seize those assets.

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the principle of sovereign equality providing a basis in international law for this and by acting in concert with our allies we can ensure there are no risks to financial stability.”

Responding to Sunak at commons Treasury questions, chancellor Rachel Reeves insisted that it is “incredibly complicated” to take further action in line with international law. However, she added Russia should “pay for the damage that Russia has caused”.

Reeves said: “As the prime minister said yesterday, we would look at going further but as [he] knows it is incredibly complicated to do that in line with international law, but we keep all options on the table because [he] is absolutely right, Russia should pay for the damage that Russia has caused.”

Ben Maguire, the Lib Dem shadow attorney general, has now written to his government counterpart demanding he publish the legal advice underpinning ministers’ decision-making around the potential seizure of the assets.

Commenting, Maguire has urged the government to “make his reasoning public” — calling for “proper scrutiny” of the decision as Ukraine’s military capacity to resist Putin is undermined by the White House.

Trump’s decisions to cut aid to Ukraine and ban the UK from sharing military intelligence with the besieged nation have “crippled” Zelensky’s defence effort, he added.

The Lib Dem MP said: “Zelensky’s besieged nation has been crippled by Trump’s callous approach to Ukraine’s defence. From cutting aid to banning intelligence sharing at the drop of a hat, it’s clear we need a plan B to halt Putin’s brutal invasion.

“We know that the UK holds billions in frozen Russian assets – capital that could transform Kyiv’s defence effort and counteract the reckless decisions coming from the White House. We’ve rightly seized the interest on these assets, but it’s time for Britain to go further and faster.

“That’s why I’m calling on the UK Attorney General to make his reasoning public, and publish his legal advice to the government on seizing the frozen assets in full. We need the chance to properly scrutinise the decision-making on this crucial issue, so the UK can then make the right choice for Ukraine.”

His letter to Lord Hermer adds: “Currently, the profits accruing from frozen Russian assets across the UK are being used to fund Ukraine’s resistance. This is the right thing to do.

“It is essential, however, that the UK goes further and faster. US president Trump’s decision to suspend military aid supplies and intelligence sharing with the Armed Forces of Ukraine makes it imperative that we do more, now, to contribute to Kyiv’s defence…

“As Attorney General, will you — as a matter of urgency — publish the legal advice that you have provided to the UK government in relation to the proposed seizure of frozen Russian assets?”

Foreign secretary David Lammy has agreed in principle that Europe should “move” from freezing Russian assets to seizing them.

Late last month at commons Foreign Office questions, the foreign secretary was urged to introduce legislation to “repurpose” Russian assets for the Ukrainian war effort by Lib Dem MP Alison Bennett.

Lammy insisted that this is not an issue on which any government can act alone. “We must act with European allies”, he said.

He added: “It was a topic of conversation at the G7. It was a topic of conversation at the Weimar group. And of course, Europe has to act quickly. And I believe we should move from freezing assets to seizing assets.”

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Rishi Sunak: Now is the moment to seize Russian assets to help Ukraine

Source: Politics

Statecraft and skilful diplomacy depend, as a prerequisite, on the adherence of those interested parties to a shared reality. 

This shared reality is composed of two parts: the subjective and the objective. The former concerns the communal history and values of a relationship. A collective stock of political-moral principles, subsistent and borne of a common past, will create a framework in which deals can be agreed. The latter pertains to material reality and measurable outcomes: intelligence sharing, military interoperability, cooperation on trade. 

These “shared realities” are sustained by an interdependency. The cultural ease of a diplomatic encounter will affect the level and extent of coordination. Consider also the converse formulation: when there is a rupture in a shared subjective reality, objective progress is obstructed — even thwarted altogether.

Appearing before the Lords international relations and defence committee on Wednesday, four former British ambassadors to Washington were asked whether there is such thing as a UK-US “special relationship” and, if there is, in whose interest it serves today. Dame Karen Pierce (UK ambassador from 2020-2025) described the partnership as “unique”, “deep” and “successful” — but warned that the US is not “sentimental about it”. Sir Peter Westmacott (2012-2016) suggested it was fundamentally “transactional”. Sir David Manning (2003 to 2007) agreed, cautioning that the term can make us “lazy” and even induce a diplomatic moral hazard. Sir Nigel Sheinwald (2007 to 2012) spoke bluntly, arguing the US-UK relationship is of “declining importance in world affairs”.

The diplomats agreed that the historic success of the so-called “special relationship” flowed, in significant part, from our cultural conviviality — which has for decades transcended partisan boundaries.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

Reality, shared or otherwise, has never known a foe like Donald Trump. On a daily basis, the US president uproots norms that once underpinned the US-UK relationship. The challenge was expressed best by Manning, whose diplomatic understatement spoke volumes. He told the committee: “I think we have to be realistic. On a lot of policies, we don’t necessarily have exactly the same view [as the Trump administration] — and it may be much worse than that.” 

The MAGA (Make America Great Again) worldview does not correspond with the official British state interest. It is too rigid, unmoving. Activists profess moral objections. But on a basic diplomatic level, it is intolerable. Trump relies on a Thucydidean conception of geopolitics: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. If might makes right, then a middling power like the United Kingdom is destined to be wrong. Trump admires Vladimir Putin because he conceives of him as an equal competitor; and so the Russian premier is afforded a level of respect that US presidents once reserved for Western allies. (MAGA, of course, seems more interested in annexing its neighbours than engaging with them as equal partners).

From the perspective of Britain, the political instincts of the Trump administration are decidedly hostile. Nicholas Soames, the former Tory MP and member of the Lords international relations committee, asserted on Wednesday that Trump’s team “despises Europe”. Churchill’s grandson has a point. MAGA movers and shakers consider the European continent — including if not especially the UK — as a blank canvas, onto which dystopian fictions can be projected. This is the role JD Vance has adopted in the administration: pursuant to the MAGA cause, he derives political sustenance from denigrating Europe. Driven by ambition and paranoia, every pronouncement, every speech, every Oval Office intervention can be considered a claim staked to the MAGA crown. The court dynamics of Trump’s White House represent a one-way ratchet to further radicalisation.

So the new administration has upended our historic understanding of the US-UK relationship, “special” or otherwise. Keir Starmer’s visit to Washington DC last week, several geopolitical eras ago, was well-mannered and apparently productive. But the chasm between the disparate realities that drive US and UK foreign policy is already having a material impact. Do not doubt it for one second: the US siding with Russia and North Korea at the United Nations, Trump’s decision to suspend military assistance to Ukraine — these are not blips or bugs in the MAGA worldview. They are irrevocable features. 

The UK has always been the junior partner of the asymmetric “special relationship”. And so as Trump assumes the role of raging bull, Britain alongside its European allies sweep up the shattered china. The United Kingdom is, in other words, a “reality-taker” — not a -maker. The prime minister must adapt to survive in the world Trump is forging. 

It would be unfair to contend that Starmer is responding to Trump by recasting his government in the president’s image. Rather, the PM is reconfiguring his politics to adapt to Trumpism, its rigours, the world it has thrived in — and the world it seeks to create. So he has made concessions. The war in Ukraine, as the US president has decreed, will now end. Europe, in light of the US’ isolationist posturing, will “step up”. Even the prime minister’s visibility on the world stage is a response to the vacuum left by the departed US. 

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

Trump 2.0 demands Starmer 2.0

After months of relative drift, navigating Trump’s new reality has imbued the government with a sense of purpose. The Starmer who presided and adjudicated has been replaced by a variant who acts. Whatever the prime minister lost when Trump assumed power — a new urgency has been gained. “Events, dear boy” have blown Starmer on course.

Starmer’s announcement that defence spending will rise to 2.5 per cent in 2027 — a move he acknowledged was “accelerated” by the US position on Ukraine — was a manifestation of brute prime ministerial power. This was not a path resolved upon by the collective consent of cabinet; ministers were told just hours before Starmer’s commons statement. In a more abstract sense, this was not a decision made by the government’s “Treasury brain” or its “party/progressive brain”. The resolved course owes itself, solely and sufficiently, to No 10’s assessment of the geopolitical runes.

Starmer 2.0 is a diplomatic necessity therefore, forged by the fires of international crisis — but he is also a political opportunity. The prime minister has conducted a “reset” orders of magnitude more far-reaching than that foreseen by 2024’s “Plan for Change” address. 

Nor, crucially, is Starmer’s present footing uneasy for the PM and his closest confidantes. Downing Street chief of staff Morgan McSweeney has long argued that progressive parties must adopt a new playbook. The US presidential election on 5 November reconfigured the political calculus; but the solution Starmer and McSweeney have arrived at owes itself to a trusted formula. This point explains why Starmer, counterintuitively, has found focus in this fast-changing world. 

But still, developments demand a more definitive break with the old order of things. Trump boasted to Congress on Tuesday night that he was “just getting started”. Having largely completed the pre-scripted portion of his premiership, Trump 2.0’s grid will soon appear empty for the first time. In a bid to retain the agenda, MAGA frontiersmen will continue to expand the bounds of diplomatic reality. 

And so greater ruthlessness is required. Starmer has already set course for a political mooring some distance to the right of the median Labour MP. But further progressive shibboleths will surely be sacrificed as security is privileged. This week, the Parliamentary Labour Party began preparations for an almighty battle over welfare spending. Expect more Anneliese Dodds’ as Starmer rewires the state. 

Meanwhile, a final decision over whether to seize frozen Russian assets, which foreign secretary David Lammy is apparently supportive of, could provoke further conflict with the attorney general. As I have argued before, each instance of ministerial friction with Lord Hermer is totemic. But in a practical sense, Starmer will win no plaudits for adhering to a maximalist interpretation of international law when the fate of Ukraine is on the line. The PM proved something of a trailblazer in Europe on defence spending — will he provide similar leadership over the seizure of Russian assets? 

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Week-in-Review newsletter, sign up for free and never miss this article.***

British politics beyond Starmer

Nor is Trump’s impact on British politics limited to Labour and Keir Starmer. The Conservative Party is still struggling to come to terms with the US president’s rolling announcements, as MPs freelance beyond the party line. 

Kemi Badenoch, implicitly or explicitly, is having her authority tested.

Several Tory MPs reacted angrily to the comments delivered overnight on Monday by JD Vance, after he appeared to mock Britain as “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 years”. Badenoch, when drawn on the remarks, urged “cool heads” — and denied the US vice president intended to denigrate Britain. But that intervention came several hours after her own shadow defence secretary, James Cartlidge, had issued a stinging rebuke. 

The developments of recent weeks have also put paid to the idea that Reform UK would benefit from having a populist ally in the White House. In the House of Commons this week, Nigel Farage could hardly have looked more uncomfortable as he responded to the prime minister’s statement on geopolitical developments. The Reform leader’s ostensible question concerned US security guarantees, and specifically whether a Trump-Ukraine raw materials deal can provide requisite protection. Starmer said no and instructed Farage to cease “fawning over Putin”. Reform, distracted by internecine scuffles, has yet to advance a compelling counter-argument.

As a parliamentarian and party leader, Farage is exposed — no longer able to pronounce selectively from the sidelines. His facade of populistic invincibility has shattered.

Across the board, the US president has upended British politics — no party, faction or intellectual strand has been spared. Those who will fare best in the world carved anew by Trump 2.0 will defer to a coherent strategy — a North Star to trust when night descends. 

There is still plenty of danger ahead for Starmer. But his diplomatic firefighting, complemented by a renewed focus at home, has an obvious political resonance. Whatever agency he has been afforded in this age of diplomatic disorder, he is utilising.

Starmer’s self-confidence is a start — and his opponents’ mistakes will prove reassuring. At this febrile juncture however, few doubt the prime minister will need to go further as the stakes ratchet upwards. 

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Source: Politics

Keir Starmer has been urged to visit the new Canadian prime minister as a show of solidarity against Donald Trump’s threats towards the Commonwealth country. 

It was announced on Sunday evening that Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, will be the new Canadian prime minister after he won the Liberal Party leadership contest.

Carney, who also used to head up Canada’s central bank, won 85.9 per cent of vote cast by 150,000 members in a landslide victory. 

Carney’s tenure begins as Trump, the US president, steps up his threats against Canada, which he has vowed to make America’s “51st state”. Trump repeatedly referred to Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, as the “governor” of Canada. 

In his victory speech, Carney hit out at Trump for “attacking Canadian families” and wanting to “destroy the Canadian way of life”.

He described the US president’s tariffs and threats as the “greatest crisis of our lifetime”.

“There is someone who is trying to weaken our economy. Donald Trump. Donald Trump has put unjustified tariffs on what we build, sell and how we make a living”, Carney said.

After the US last week levied sweeping 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods, Canada retaliated with its own 25 per cent tariffs on up to $155 billion in US goods over the course of this month.

***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

Starmer, the UK prime minister, has now been urged to show solidarity with Carney and Canada by making a visit to the Commonwealth country this week. 

Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has said it is vital for both British and Canadian security that the Commonwealth allies “stand strong together”.

In comments overnight, he urged Starmer to show a “united front” against Donald Trump’s “senseless” threats against Canada’s sovereignty and economy.

Davey said: “I would like to express my warmest congratulations to the new leader of Canada, Mark Carney. We treasure Canada’s historic relationship with the UK and I look forward to our two nations’ ties becoming ever stronger during your premiership.

“It’s vital for both British and Canadian security that we stand strong together. With global instability rising, it’s never been more important to show a united front with our Commonwealth friends — and to stand together against Trump senselessly turning the screws on his allies, whether that’s Canada, the UK or Europe.

“Responding to the trade war along the North American border, our prime minister must stand in solidarity against Trump’s bullying and visit Ottawa in a joint show of strength. Starmer must be clear that Trump’s threats against Commonwealth nations’ sovereignty are unacceptable.”

In a session of prime minister’s questions last month, Starmer was urged to call out Trump’s “childish nonsense” over Canada ahead of their meeting in Washington DC.

Conservative MP Simon Hoare said that when the PM meets the US president, whom he referred to as the “former leader of the free world”, he does so “with the hopes and prayers of this House and the country.”

Hoare added: “Whilst Ukraine will clearly dominate, will the prime minister undertake to raise with president Trump that Canada is a valued, respected and much-loved member of both NATO and our Commonwealth?

“This childish nonsense of a 51st State should be called out by the prime minister for what it is.”

Starmer responded: “The UK and Canada are close allies and have been for a very long time, with a partnership based on a shared history and a shared set of values and a determination to be an active force for good in the world.

“We work closely with them on issues of the Commonwealth on NATO, and of course Five Eyes intelligence-sharing. And we will work to strengthen that relationship.”

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

Conservative MP urges Starmer to address Trump’s ‘childish nonsense’ over Canada

Source: Politics