Category: Politics

The chancellor has vowed not to accept an “economy that has failed working people” following unexpected growth of 0.1 per cent in the final quarter of 2024. 

The Office for National Statistics reported a 0.1 per cent rise in gross domestic product (GDP) during the fourth quarter, with a recovery for growth in services and manufacturing during December coming to the government’s rescue.

The ONS estimated that the economy expanded by 0.4 per cent in December, which is better than most analysts expected, and marked a pick up following a 0.1 per cent rise in November and a 0.1 per cent fall in October.

The wider ONS figures showed that across 2024 as a whole, total GDP grew by 0.9 per cent.

Reacting to the latest GDP estimates, Rachel Reeves vowed not to accept an “economy that has failed working people”.

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

She said: “For too long, politicians have accepted an economy that has failed working people. I won’t.

“After 14 years of flatlining living standards, we are going further and faster through our Plan for Change to put more money in people’s pockets.

“That is why we are taking on the blockers to get Britain building again, investing in our roads, rail and energy infrastructure, and removing the barriers that get in the way of businesses who want to expand.”

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride responded that working people and businesses are “already paying” for the government’s choices made at the autumn budget.

He said in a statement: “The chancellor promised the fastest growing economy in the G7, but her budget is killing growth.

“Working people and businesses are already paying for her choices with ever rocketing taxes, hundreds of thousands of job cuts and business confidence plummeting.

“It does not need to be this way. Under new leadership, the Conservative Party will continue to oppose Labour’s disastrous decisions and stand up for businesses and working people up and down our country.”

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson Daisy Cooper said: “The chancellor’s budget has resulted in pitiful economic growth. Her complete pigs ear of a jobs tax will hammer small businesses, the backbone of our economy.

“Alongside the government’s baffling refusal to negotiate a bespoke UK-EU Customs Union which would boost British business, the government’s red lines have done nothing but stall our economy.

“Growth is the only way to rescue our public services and protect family finances. These woeful figures and the chancellor’s misguided policies will only prolong the misery.”

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

Political activists in the United States watch on in anguish as the liberal Democratic Party struggles to rediscover a sense of urgency, and self, after its bruising defeat at the hands of Donald Trump last November. The Democratic leadership in congress is accused of mounting a feeble defence of political norms and institutional memory — as MAGA lackeys work overtime to decommission them.

An emboldened Trump is making good on his threats. He is “flooding the zone” with a deluge of executive decrees, outlandish cabinet nominations and White House proclamations. His opponents merely tread water as the new order of things sweeps them away.

In this regard, across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, the big “L” Liberal Democrats may well be showing their unofficial sister party how it’s done.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

The Lib Dems, after a historic general election campaign under Ed Davey’s buccaneering leadership secured 72 MPs, have found their voice in a crowded UK political scene as the prime critics of Trump’s revolution.

The Lib Dems have assumed this anti-MAGA mantle largely by default, that said. The Labour Party, a natural ideological opponent of Trumpism, has been silenced by its government duties and diplomatic responsibilities. The Conservative leadership has positioned itself as supportive of Trump’s general initiative. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is MAGA’s British spin-off. Meanwhile, the Green party — whose criticism might even trump Davey’s — still struggles to cut through the Westminster noise.

The bottom line is this: political circumstance, on both sides of the Atlantic, has conspired to carve a neat niche for Ed Davey’s party — one it is excitedly exploiting.

Davey used both of his questions at PMQs yesterday to direct his fire at the Trump White House. “Eighty years ago this week”, the Lib Dem leader began, “the allies began a pincer movement against German forces between the Ruhr and the Rhine.

“British and Canadian troops attacked from the north, Americans from the south. British, Canadian and American soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder to defeat fascists.”

He added: “Eighty years on, president Trump seems to have forgotten all that. His tariffs against steel and aluminium will hit Canada the hardest, but they will also hit jobs and the cost of living in our country.”

Davey called on the government to draw up plans for retaliatory “Tesla tariffs” on Elon Musk’s electric vehicle firm if Trump carries out his threat to hit the UK steel industry. Musk, the tech billionaire Tesla CEO, is a prominent member of Trump’s administration as its efficiency tsar and chief social media propagandist.

Responding, Starmer promised a “level-headed assessment of the implications” of Trump’s avowed actions — but no “Tesla tariffs”. Davey’s comeback was measured: “It seems to me that, given the way in which president Trump and his ally Musk are operating, they need to hear of strong measures and hear strong words even from their allies.”

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

The Lib Dem leader moved onto the subject of Ukraine and warned that if Trump forces the surrender of its sovereign territory “that will be the greatest betrayal of a European ally since Poland in 1945”.

He asked: “Can the prime minister reassure the House that he and other European leaders have given sufficient support to president Zelensky so that he cannot be bullied by Trump and Putin into accepting a deal that would effectively hand victory to Russia?”

Starmer repeated the Nato line that his aim is to “put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.”

This morning, the Liberal Democrats issued a press release calling for emergency legislation “in the next few days” to seize frozen Russian assets and “back Ukraine”. Davey accused the government of “sitting on its hands” and urged Downing Street to cancel the upcoming recess to ensure the requisite legislation is passed. (Some old Lib Dem habits die hard).

As a party willing to break a Westminster taboo and take on Trump, the Liberal Democrats are honing a distinct political identity. The MAGA worldview of course, is an anathema to the liberal democratic values Davey’s party champions. But since the coalition government (2010-2015), the Lib Dems — like the US Democrats today — have struggled to forge a unique, compelling sense of self. “Remain” (or indeed “revoke”) under leader Jo Swinson was, after all, an electoral dud.

Today, Davey is finding purpose for the Lib Dems — in a parliament teeming with parties and led by a progressive government no less — with his Trump criticism.

The anti-Trump stance also reinforces the Lib Dem commitment to strengthening Britain’s ties with Europe. Davey called on the government to negotiate a bespoke EU-UK customs union arrangement in a set-piece speech last month; that, he said, would allow the UK to handle “president Trump from a position of strength, not weakness”.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

At Westminster, the Lib Dems are the main party urging the government to invigorate its Brexit “reset”. In other words, the Liberal Democrats are driving against the grain and saying and doing things that are, well, popular. A bold strategy if there ever was one.

According to recent Ipsos research, just 22 per cent of Britons hold a favourable view of Donald Trump, compared to 63 per cent who hold an unfavourable one. Only 17 per cent hold a favourable view of Elon Musk — again, with 63 per cent unfavourable.

A majority of voters (57 per cent) back a UK-EU youth mobility scheme, according to BMG Research for The i Paper. Just 14 per cent are opposed. (The Lib Dems recently introduced a bill in the commons calling for exactly this).

YouGov polling suggests 48 per cent of voters support rejoining the customs union, with 20 per cent opposed. (That is similar to, but not the same as, the Lib Dem proposal to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union).

The Lib Dems’ parliamentary largesse presents the party with far more opportunities to voice these opinions than have come their way in recent years. Ahead of the 2024 general election, the Lib Dems had 15 MPs at dissolution despite a string of by-election victories. Davey was forced to hopefully “bob” at PMQs in vain hope of catching the speaker’s eye. Today, he is endowed with two questions every week (and the straightforward task of following Kemi Badenoch).

With the Tories tracking to the right under Badenoch, the Lib Dem knotweed could still tighten its grip on the 59 constituencies it won from the party last July. Indeed, a new YouGov survey suggests Britons prefer the prospect of a prime minister Davey to a prime minister Badenoch; on the measure of “who would make the best PM”, the Lib Dem leader is selected by 26 per cent. Just 17 per cent prefer his Tory counterpart.

The local elections on 1 May will no doubt prove a happy hunting ground for Davey’s “Tory removal service”.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Rachel Reeves vows not to accept an ‘economy that has failed working people’

Lunchtime soundbite

‘The BBC’s investigation raises serious questions for Rachel Reeves. Keir Starmer said “restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era”.

Until she comes clean — not just about her CV but about the circumstances in which she left HBOS, no one will take him seriously.’

—  Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch responds to a BBC Newsinvestigation (see below) into Rachel Reeves’ work at HBOS and her expenses.

Now try this…

‘The chancellor and her expenses before she became an MP’
According to BBC News, one ex-colleague of Rachel Reeves said she nearly got sacked following an investigation into three senior managers accused of “signing off each other’s expenses”.

‘Reeves’s CV exaggerated time at Bank of England’
More from the BBC.

‘Trump and Putin stun Europe with peace plan for Ukraine’
US president announces that talks with Russia’s leader on ending the war will start “immediately,” after his defense chief warns that Ukraine’s peace goals won’t be met, Politico reports.

On this day in 2023:

‘Cash for Boris’ row: Can Richard Sharp survive as BBC chair?

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

The Conservative leader is often accused, not least of all by this commentator, of constructing her arguments based on a skim of her social media feed — from which she duly draws a litany of pugnacious anti-Labour material. By repeating the Online Right’s favourite lines back at them, Kemi Badenoch can usually count on a few retweets. That is how LOTO measures success at PMQs, we are led to assume.

But social media kudos does not generate the Westminster weather — the dismal write-ups of Badenoch first 100 days as Tory leader are ample proof. Perhaps this point explains her change of tack today.

This afternoon, the Conservative leader regurgitated — headline by headline — the front page splashes of those newspapers most friendly to the party. The Daily Telegraph and Mail newsdesks in effect dictated Badenoch PMQs script this afternoon. Unfortunately for the Conservative leadership however, the session arrived at an all too familiar conclusion.

First, the Tory leader grilled the prime minister on the UK’s immigration and refugee rules after the Telegraph reported on the case of a Palestinian family, who were granted the right to live in the UK after applying through a scheme meant for Ukrainian refugees.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

The Conservative leader said the decision, handed down by a judge, was “completely wrong, it cannot be allowed to stand”. She asked if the government would appeal the verdict.

“She is right”, Keir Starmer responded. “It is the wrong decision.”

But the prime minister went on to point out the grave error in Badenoch’s question, framed as an attack on the government’s immigration stance. He added: “She hasn’t quite done her homework because the decision in question was taken under the last government.”

Starmer closed: “It should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration, it should be the government that makes the policy, that is the principle and the home secretary is already looking at the legal loophole which we need to close in this particular case”.

But Badenoch was not done. Undaunted by the prime minister’s steady, assured response, the Tory leader insisted Starmer had “not answered the question.”

“If he plans to appeal, then the appeal may be unsuccessful and the law will need to be changed”, she began. “The issue we are discussing today is about judicial systems. We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way.”

She called on the prime minister to commit to bringing forward legislation to address any possible gap in the law, or amend the asylum bill that is currently making its way through parliament.

Starmer cooly referred back to his previous answer and informed Badenoch that the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is already “working on closing this loophole”.

Then came the obligatory swipe at the Conservative Party’s record on immigration — a risk Badenoch consciously ran with this line of questioning. “They lost control of immigration”, Starmer said. Referring to the government’s borders bill, he accused the Conservatives of voting “against increased powers to deal with those that are running the vile trade of people smuggling”.

Badenoch was visibly affronted by the prime minister’s comeback. “If the prime minister was on top of his brief, perhaps he would be able to answer some questions”, she blasted.

Facing crescendoing heckles from the Labour benches, Badenoch called on the government to bring forward legal changes to clarify how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should be treated in UK law. She asked: “Does he agree that we should legislate even if lawyers warn that this might be incompatible with human rights law?”

At this juncture, the prime minister had had enough.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

“She complains about scripted answers and questions, her script doesn’t allow her to listen to the answer”, Starmer responded. “She asked me if we’re going to change the law and close the loophole in question one, I said yes. She asked me again in question two, and I said yes. She asked me again in question three, it’s still yes.”

Conservative MPs found themselves stunned into silence and awkward expressions crept onto the faces of Robert Jenrick and Chris Philp, who flanked Badenoch as her frontbench outriders this afternoon.

The Tory leader had been stifled by her own script. Her response reflected her understandable frustration. “He’s not listening, he is too busy defending the international law framework”, Badenoch said.

The buffering Conservative leader had gotten stuck on the minutiae of her first question and the prime minister’s reply. While Starmer did not directly declare he would look to appeal the verdict, he did answer in a more substantive sense, revealing the government would address the “loophole” itself.

As such, by refusing to shift her focus and accept that not every question she asks from the despatch box will receive a specific acknowledgement, Badenoch lost any semblance of momentum. The Conservative leader’s apparent inability to recognise the direction of a debate reflects poorly on her alleged attack-dog acumen — so lauded by her allies during the 2024 leadership election.

It also shows an inability, on behalf of Badenoch’s inner circle, to game out the prime minister’s answers and respond accordingly. One supposes the strategy was to ask very specific questions and, at every turn, call out Starmer for sidestepping. But the approach missed — and misses — the raw politics of prime minister’s questions. The Conservative leader’s technical rejoinders on the minutiae of the exchange reflect a serious lack of thoughtful planning by her PMQs team. She was left carping from the sidelines about some minor moot detail, as Starmer marched ahead.

Badenoch used her fourth question to make a more general point in an attempt to break into a wider stride. “This is precisely why we need to break the conveyor belt from arriving in the UK, to acquiring indefinite leave to remain, and then a British passport, and now a right to bring six family members here as well”, Badenoch insisted.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

She asked the prime minister: “Will he now support our plans to toughen the process on indefinite leave to remain and make getting a British passport a privilege, not a right?”

Badenoch’s reference to her first and only policy as Conservative leader invited Starmer’s return with a Labour attack line. He hit back: “They presided over record high levels of immigration. It reached nearly one million. It was a one nation experiment in open borders.”

For her final question, Badenoch switched papers and referenced a recent Daily Mail scoop. She accused the government of recruiting a chief inspector of borders who “lives in Finland and wants to work from home”. She asked why the British public should put up with this.

Starmer instantly countered that the individual in question was appointed in 2019 by the last government. He then worked from Finland for the following five years.

“We’ve changed that and he is now going to be working from the United Kingdom full time”, Starmer proclaimed.

Once again, it is striking just how poorly researched Badenoch’s questions are. The Conservative leader read the Daily Mail splash this morning and did no further digging, no checking of details — no deep thinking about how the attack line might backfire.

The exchange rather lends credence to the prime minister’s claim, issued in his first answer, that Badenoch does not do her “homework”. At the same time, the Tory leader accuses Starmer of not being across the detail. The whole approach is simply bizarre.

In her final question, Badenoch had also noted there are “very serious questions” being asked about the attorney general Lord Hermer, referencing comments made by Lord Glasman, the leading Labour peer, this week. “If we are serious about protecting our borders we need to make sure we appoint people who believe in our country and everything we stand for”, Badenoch said.

Starmer closed: “She talks about the attorney general. She sat round the cabinet table with an attorney who was later sacked for breaching national security.”

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

This was, and I refuse to caveat this point, a truly miserable performance by Badenoch. There was no sense of invention, no strategic nous or rhetorical force. Her material, borne of the Telegraph and the Mail, was poor — but her delivery and overall performance was worse. Starmer was right to label the whole thing “tedious”. Perhaps that particular adjective is too kind.

It is right that Badenoch, as Conservative leader, only has a narrow room for manoeuvre. She remains hostage to her party’s record on the economy, on public services — and on immigration in particular. And yet, she feels duty-bound to address the latter topic to appease the right-wing press and fight back against Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

What little political space Badenoch has been afforded, however, she has proven singularly unable to exploit.

Let’s step back. The Conservative leader’s reputation as a combative commons operator was supposed to exact crucial gains for her party at prime minister’s questions. By relentlessly mauling Starmer, Badenoch could accomplish what Jenrick, James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat could not. Her early successes would impede Reform’s insurgency and win plaudits in the press.

But Badenoch is consistently dispatched by Starmer — whom Tories simultaneously ridicule as wooden and grey. The Conservative leader has surprised everyone with quite how poor she is at the part of the job her advocates insisted she would excel at.

Let’s cut that down: the Conservative leader has surprised everyone with quite how poor she is.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

UK needs ‘cool and clear-headed’ response to Trump steel tariffs, says trade minister

Lunchtime soundbite

‘The prime minister has so far sat back and allowed Donald Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk to ride roughshod over UK interests while the Conservatives and Nigel Farage cheer them on.

‘The government needs to draw up plans for Tesla tariffs to hit Musk where it hurts, if Trump’s administration follows through with their threats to the UK steel industry’

—  Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey calls on the government to draw up plans for retaliatory “Tesla tariffs” on Elon Musk’s electric vehicle firm if Donald Trump carries out his threat to hit the UK steel industry with a 25% tariff on exports to America.

Now try this…

‘Members think Badenoch should lead the party into the next election – but only a third are sure’
The latest ConservativeHome survey.

‘Oliver Ryan joked about Jewish clothing in Labour WhatsApp group’
MP’s comments threaten to start a new antisemitism row as two MPs and 11 councillors were suspended, the Times reports. (Paywall)

‘Plan to scrap high court signoff for assisted dying sends bill in “wrong direction”, say MPs’
Via the Guardian.

On this day in 2020:

Made homeless by the state: Britain’s assault on women seeking asylum

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Former Green Party leader Caroline Lucas has warned that recent changes to immigration rules that bar anyone entering the UK illegally from ever getting British citizenship will “strengthen” Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. 

The Home Office’s good character guidance, updated on Monday, now says that entering the UK illegally will “normally” result in a refused citizenship – no matter how long the applicant has lived in the UK.

Another new entry to the guidance reads: “A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”

The change to the rules, first disclosed by the Free Movement website, makes it almost impossible for anyone who arrived on a small boat across the English Channel to ever get British citizenship.

Under the previous guidance, refugees who arrived in the UK by irregular routes would be required to wait 10 years before being considered for citizenship.

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

Reacting to the changes, Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy told BBC Radio’s Today programme on Wednesday: “I want to make it clear that I voted for the legislation on Monday, because I think it is important that we repeal the Rwanda legislation, the madness and the money that we spent on that scheme, and that we do actually support a border force.

“This change [to the Home Office guidance] was not part of that process.”

Creasy, who has served as an MP since 2010, added: “I think this change is counterproductive to the message that we want to send about being proud of our country and the role that it has played in supporting those fleeing persecution.”

Caroline Lucas, who served as a Green Party MP from 2010 to 2024, warned that Labour’s “performative cruelty” is likely to strengthen Reform UK.

Writing on X, Lucas said: “Denying refugees citizenship simply on the grounds that they arrived here ‘illegally’ on small boats when there are no legal routes for most of them to use takes cynicism to new heights.

“And such performative cruelty won’t see off Reform – it’s more likely to strengthen them.”

It comes after the second reading of the new border security bill on Monday, which sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.

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 government has updated its guidance to prevent people who arrive in the UK illegally, or made a “dangerous journey”, from getting British citizenship.

An update to the Home Office’s guidance for caseworkers, entitled Nationality: Good Character Requirement, states that anyone applying for British citizenship from Monday who arrived in the UK illegally “will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place”.

Another new entry to that guidance reads: “A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”

The change to the rules, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, makes it almost impossible for anyone who arrived on a small boat across the English Channel to ever get British citizenship. Previously, refugees who had arrived on a small boat would have needed to wait 10 years before being considered for citizenship.

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

A Home Office spokesperson said in a statement: “There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship.

“This policy guidance further strengthens measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused.”

Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, called for the guidance to be reverted “as soon as possible”.

She wrote on X: “This should be changed asap. If we give someone refugee status, it can’t be right to then refuse them route to become a British citizen, to say they can have a home in our country, but never a place in our society and be forever second class.”

Colin Yeo, an immigration barrister and editor of the Free Movement blog, wrote on Bluesky: “This is bad, full stop. It creates a class of person who are forever excluded from civic life no matter how long they live here. It’s also a clear breach of the refugee convention.”

Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: “This change flies in the face of reason. The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.

“We know that men, women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives.”

“So many refugees over many generations have become proud, hard-working British citizens, as doctors, entrepreneurs and other professionals. Becoming a British citizen has helped them give back to their communities and this should be celebrated, not prevented. We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.”

It comes after Labour’s new border security bill, which scraps the previous government’s Rwanda deportation scheme and boosts police powers against people smugglers, cleared its first vote in the House of Commons on Monday.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.

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 Conservative leadership is imitating the political strategy that catapulted Donald Trump back to the White House, with a sustained focus on “new media” platforms — in favour of the Westminster studios Kemi Badenoch famously abhors.

The Tory leader, who disdains SW1-based “old media” duties, marked her 100-day milestone in the role with a wide-ranging interview on the podcast “Triggernometry”. On the show, hosted by commentator double act Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster, Badenoch was asked about the threat posed to the Conservative Party by Reform UK; immigration, both legal and illegal; net zero; and Britain’s general decline among other topics.

Badenoch’s reflections received a mixed reaction from Triggernometry’s regular viewers. At the time of writing, the over one hour-long interview had around 3,700 likes on YouTube — with circa 2,600, mainly scathing, comments. It’s a “ratio” that reflects viewer disquiet. “I hope you read this Kemi”, one representative commenter remarks. “Never again should your party or Labour be anywhere near power”. Another reads: “I won’t be voting for her, or conservative [sic] ever again”.

The reaction, to some extent, reflects the scale of the challenge Badenoch faces if she is to repair trust in the Conservative Party over the coming years. But perhaps the backlash justifies the ostensible strategy: to re-engage with and persuade right-wing critics. Donald Trump, of course, found significant success with a similar approach throughout the 2024 US presidential election. During the race for the White House, Trump sat down with a rolling roster of podcasters, streamers and vloggers — on the advice of Baron, his 18-year-old son.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) is talking up the Trump parallels. In an email to mark Badenoch’s first 100 days as leader, party chair Nigel Huddleston informed members: “As we also saw in the USA, engagement with the non-traditional media outlets, such as podcasts, is vital to connecting with younger, more online audiences.

“In November Kemi went on Honestly, with Bari Weiss. She spoke about her background, why she joined the Conservatives and how she wants to do politics differently.

“On Sunday Kemi appeared on TRIGGERnometry. She elaborated on how we fix our broken immigration system and she spoke about net zero and the civil service.”

Huddleston added: “There’s a lot we can learn from our sister parties around the world. Particularly those who’ve recently taken their party from opposition into Government.”

There are, however, significant differences between Badenoch’s embrace of online platforms and that which powered Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. The most obvious is this: Trump, a former president, was treated to mainly softball questions by friendly “new media” stars — individuals like Joe Rogan, Spotify’s most listened to podcaster; Logan Paul, the YouTuber-turned-wrestler; and Theo Von, a comedian.

While far from antagonistic, Badenoch’s appearance on Triggernometry was characterised by genuinely tough questions — framed from a right-wing perspective — about the Conservative Party’s failure in office. The audience, as we have established, was a largely unfriendly one. Many will not have voted for the Conservatives at the last election, some might have moved to Reform since. Ultimately, Badenoch’s 3,700 “like” total compares to just under 10,000 for a video (admittedly released last week) discussing grooming gangs with GB News investigative journalist Charlie Peters.

New media in Britain is also not nearly as far evolved as in the United States — in terms of both the audience count and, perhaps more significantly, its fusion of politics and entertainment. Triggernometry is a politics podcast, listened to mostly by individuals who agree with it. The Joe Rogan Experience does not concern itself with genre, and is listened to by a more ideologically diverse audience.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

In short, Trump’s embrace of new media was a direct gateway to undecided, perhaps even under-engaged, (mainly male) voters. Badenoch’s appearance on Triggernometry does not offer the same kind of electoral-political opportunity. Triggernometry’s average viewer is likely extremely engaged and trenchantly anti-Tory.

Badenoch’s new media strategy does, however, come with significant risks. One common criticism of the Conservative leader is that her engagement with online political spaces, on Elon Musk’s X for instance, distorts her politics.

Badenoch’s recent appearances at prime minister’s questions have been characterised by the deployment of tropes and talking points familiar in Online Right fora. She has suggested the prime minister committed a “cover up” over the grooming gangs scandal — and in the session last week blasted “eco-nutters” together with the “immoral surrender” of the Chagos Islands. There was also a “bend the knee” reference, which was surely lost on the average viewer.

The danger for Badenoch is as follows: her engagement with a right wing cultural space that has yet to fully interact with mainstream opinion risks drawing the Conservative Party away from the median voter.

In any case, this is territory that is monopolised — in a party-political sense — by Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. Does Badenoch really believe she can outcompete Farage in a battle for the affections of the Very Online Right? Perhaps more pertinently, is this battle worth risking the alienation of existing as well as potential voters, who are attracted to outfits to Badenoch’s left?

The Liberal Democrats, lest Badenoch forgets, exist. The Conservative Party lost 59 seats to them in England in 2024. Indeed, a YouGov poll this week revealed that while Badenoch and Farage are level (22 per cent) on the measure of “who would make the better prime minister”, the Conservative leader trails Ed Davey. In a head-to-head match-up, the Lib Dem leader is rated as the better PM by 26 per cent. Just 17 per cent prefer Badenoch.

***This content first appeared in Politics.co.uk’s Politics@Lunch newsletter, sign-up for free and never miss our daily briefing.***

Badenoch risks tumbling down an ideological rabbit hole in a desperate bid to court voters who are irretrievably, vehemently anti-Conservative. The Tory leader’s praise for the US administration’s DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency, initiative in a new long-form podcast for the Daily Telegraph could well represent a further manifestation of this phenomenon.

Speaking to the Daily T, Badenoch backed a British version of Elon Musk’s DOGE and its slash-and-burn cost-cutting model. She said: “The policy commission work which we’re going to be carrying out is going to do lots of deep thinking about all of this.

“We have to do something like DOGE — probably won’t call it that. We have to have a revolution on this.”

According to a recent Ipsos survey, 63 per cent of Britons hold an unfavourable view of Musk — compared to 17 per cent who hold a favourable one. This reality, of course, will not be reflected in Badenoch’s X feed.

The Tory leader’s comments, if DOGE continues to be caught up in controversy, could represent a remarkable hostage to fortune. At the very least, it looks like a gamble to lavish praise — without a hint of caveat — on an unpopular tech billionaire spearheading a controversial scheme at the command of an unpopular president. (Three in five Britons, Ipsos note, hold an unfavourable view of Trump).

These conclusions beg further questions of Badenoch’s strategy as Conservative leader, with both insiders and outsiders noting her slow, buffering start. After all, Badenoch continues to be a big asset for her political opponents — all of them in fact, from Nigel Farage to Keir Starmer through to Ed Davey.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Changes to assisted dying bill safeguards ‘cause for concern’, say cross-party critics

Lunchtime soundbite

‘What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction, but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest based on a full assessment of all the implications of the US actions.’

—  Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, responds to an urgent question in the House of Commons about the US steel tariffs.

Now try this…

‘As Trump torches overseas aid, will Britain step up?’
Britain used to lead the world on international development. But in the era of right-wing populists, its Labour government is now treading carefully, Politico’s Mason Boycott-Owen writes.

‘The battle for Labour’s soul’
An insurgent Blue Labour is colliding with the Treasury and the progressive left, the New Statesman’s reports. (Paywall)

‘Westminster MP calls for CCTV in parliament’s bars’
Via PoliticsHome.

On this day in 2022:

Teacher-assessed grades masked ‘real’ learning losses for disadvantaged students

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Kemi Badenoch has backed a UK version of Elon Musk’s US government efficiency drive, DOGE, calling for a “revolution” in the public sector.

The Conservative leader revealed she is “looking very closely” at DOGE’s slash-and-burn cost-cutting model. Asked on the Daily T podcast if Britain needs a similar initiative, Badenoch responded: “I think so.”

She added: “If you remember in my campaign launch speech, I said that we need to reboot [and] rewire the state. This is what we have to do.

“And I’m looking very closely at what they are doing in DOGE.”

Tech billionaire Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency has been the cause of significant controversy in the United States as it has foraged the federal government for savings. Critics allege a lack of transparency and argue there are no discernible limits on Musk’s influence.

Musk, the world’s richest individual, has said he wants to cut at least two trillion US dollars, one third of the US federal government’s annual budget.

So far, DOGE employees have shown up at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other agencies.

Reflecting on how a national government can best lead an efficiency drive, Badenoch considered two possible approaches, including one advocated by Argentinian president Javier Milei. 

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

She said: “You can try and make services more efficient, or you can just stop doing things, which is what they’ve done in Argentina, which is the ‘Afuera’ model, as I call it. I think that’s likely to be much more effective — where you have to think through and plan and work out, if we stop this, what’s going to happen? 

“Quite often, what happens is people make an announcement, we’re going to stop this, and then there’s all sorts of knock on effects, and they panic, and then they put it back, and you realise they don’t know what they’re doing. 

“The policy commission work which we’re going to be carrying out is going to do lots of deep thinking about all of this. We have to do something like DOGE — probably won’t call it that. We have to have a revolution on this, and we have to make sure that we get more people back into work, because that fixes a whole bunch of things. 

“It fixes immigration, where there’s pressure to bring in lots of people to do jobs that Brits don’t necessarily want to do or cannot do because they don’t have the skills. But it also means that we’re making more money and can support better run public services.”

Badenoch also began the Conservative Party’s expectations management ahead of the upcoming local elections on 1 May.

She said: “If people are not voting Conservative because they want to give us a kicking or they want to try their luck with Reform, then we’re going to see more and more Labour. 

“These are going to be extremely difficult local elections, not just because four years ago, we were at a high water mark, but because of the results in July 2024, if we had those results now, we will lose all but one council that we control. In fact, I think we might even lose that council if we repeated the July 2024 results. 

“So we need to compare where we are now from where we were in July 2024 and remind people that when you vote for a local council, you’re voting for who you want to run your school, your children’s education, to take your bins, look out after your parks, fix your roads, and it’s not about giving Conservatives a kicking.”

The Conservative leader also ruled out ever signing a pact with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, saying the party’s manifesto promises “didn’t add up”.

Badenoch told the Daily T podcast: “I am the custodian of an institution that has existed for nigh on 200 years…I can’t just treat it like it’s a toy and have pacts and mergers.”

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 MP behind the assisted dying bill has proposed replacing the need for High Court judge approval with an expert panel in a move she claims will strengthen the legislation, which is currently making its way though the House of Commons. 

Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, is expected to bring forward amendments for a so-called “judge plus” system, after hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month.

In an article for the Guardian newspaper, Leadbeater revealed she wanted to scrap the requirement for an assisted dying application to be approved by a high court judge, because of judiciary concerns the process would be too time-consuming and clog up the courts.

Under new proposals, an expert panel — with a legal chair — would vet the assisted dying applications already approved by two doctors. Leadbeater claims the change will make her bill “even more robust”.

But opponents of the proposed legislation have reacted angrily to the change, including Conservative frontbencher and member of the committee of MPs tasked with scrutinising the bill, Danny Kruger. 

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

Kruger wrote on X on Monday evening: “Approval by the High Court — the key safeguard used to sell the Assisted Suicide Bill to MPs — has been dropped. 

“Instead we have a panel, NOT including a judge, of people committed to the process, sitting in private, without hearing arguments from the other side. A disgrace.”

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday morning, Kruger argued that Leadbeater’s amendment meant that MPs, when they voted to back the bill by 330 votes to 275 at second reading, did so on a false premise.

He said: “I have to ask why, if this is the plan, why this isn’t the plan that was put to MPs when the whole House of Commons voted it through at second reading.

“At that point the point was made very strongly that the principal safeguard for the bill, the way people could have confidence that it was going to be safe for vulnerable people, was that there would be a high court judge approving the application.

“That’s now being removed. I don’t think it would have passed the House of Commons if this new system — which doesn’t involve a judge, it is involves a panel of people all of whom, presumably, are assisted to the principle of assisted dying, not an impartial figure like a judge would be.”

Conservative MP Matt Vickers, who serves as a shadow Home Office minister, told Sky News that there had been a “slippage” on safeguards in the bill. 

He said: “You need to make sure that vulnerable people are not coerced, are not put under pressure, often, you know, in very difficult circumstances where they may not be well, where they’ve got all sorts of challenges”.

He continued: “When this bill came forward, they told us that one of those safeguards was a High Court judge. And already we’ve seen some slippage on that. There’s a real cause for concern for anybody who was on the fence, who was unsure about how to vote in this legislation.”

Vickers added: “This was meant to be foolproof. It needs to be foolproof because it needs to protect vulnerable elderly people.”

Labour MP and mother of the House Diane Abbott, another critic of assisted dying who opposed the bill at second reading, posted on X: “Safeguards on the Assisted Dying Bill are collapsing. Rushed, badly thought out legislation. Needs to be voted down.”

Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron added: “Lots of MPs voted for the bill at 2nd reading in the expectation that there would be stronger safeguards added at committee stage… and yet we now see that even the weak safeguards that existed, are being dropped.”

Leadbeater also spoke to the Today programme on Tuesday morning to face questions about her bill’s changes. She insisted that replacing a High Court judge’s oversight of assisted dying applications with a panel of experts would not move the process behind closed doors.

Asked if the proposed new process for approving assisted dying could lead to it being done in private, the Labour MP said: “It wouldn’t be done in private, it would be taking into account patient confidentiality but there would be public proceedings.

“And actually, I think it’s really difficult to suggest that by having three experts involved in this extra layer of scrutiny that is somehow a change for the worse.”

She added: “There would be a very strict recruitment procedure for people to sit on these panels, and they would not be there in a personal capacity. They would be there in a professional capacity to do their job.”

Labour MP Jo White, who voted in favour of the original proposal, told Newsnight on Monday evening that the changes strengthen the bill and will enable a “fast and effective decision” rather than face delays in the “snarled up” court decision.

She said: “The proposal, I believe, means there’s experts in the field actually giving a much sounder choice and giving the judge a better case for making that judgment on whether that person has the right to take their life.”

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