Category: Politics

Keir Starmer is starting the week with a full-frontal assault on the party he considers to be his gravest threat and on the issue that defines its menace: it’s Labour versus Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in a totemic tussle over immigration.

The Home Office launched a publicity blitz this morning, as Labour seeks to persuade voters that Starmer is not the soft touch on border control his critics allege. New figures reveal more than 600 immigration arrests were made last month after authorities carried out 828 raids. The government notes this was a 73 per cent increase compared to January last year — when the Conservatives were in power.

In total, Labour says that more than 16,400 people have been deported since the election — a figure insiders claim will rise later on Monday when new data is published. These deportations have included more than 800 people being off-shored aboard four chartered flights.

This afternoon, the House of Commons will consider the government’s new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill for the first time. The proposed legislation aims to introduce a raft of new offences and counter terror-style powers to crack down on people smugglers bringing migrants across the English Channel.

Among the plans, individuals selling and handling boat parts suspected of being used in Channel crossings could face up to 14 years in prison, while anyone at sea during the dangerous journeys who endangers another life could face a five-year jail term. Labour, the party’s thinking runs, has a strong story to tell on border control. But its own internal polling and focus group work suggest the public has not noticed.

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

This perception-reality gap is the context for Labour’s communications blitz today. Home secretary Yvette Cooper, in this vein, is expected to join an early morning raid this week targeting illegal working — while the government will broadcast footage of deportations, a number of them involving foreign criminals, from detention to removal centres and on to waiting planes.

In recent weeks, Labour has also run Reform-style Facebook adverts boasting the party has achieved a “five year high in migrant removals”. A new account called UK Migration Updates, awash with Reform-esque turquoise, has been set up to share “updates about the UK government’s action on migration”.

This is the manner of aggressive communication we can get used to from Labour in the coming months — with the 1 May local elections looming. Indeed, it is these such tactics Keir Starmer evoked when, at a marathon six-hour cabinet “away-day” last week, he urged his ministers to “be the disruptors, if you don’t want to be disrupted”.

This language was drawn from a recent report by the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), which advises “progressive and mainstream parties” on how to counter the rise of populist forces, particularly those of the right. The institute called for “a complete deconstruction and reconstruction” of the way mainstream parties conduct their politics.

If Starmer is to outswim the rising Reform tide, the report suggests he must embrace an agenda of “disruptive delivery”. It concludes: “The message from our research to progressive and mainstream parties is stark: disrupt or be disrupted. Permanently.”

It’s a strategy lifted straight from the Donald Trump playbook: be noisy, be relentless, be energetic, be controversial. That, in the current media-political environment, is the form of “delivery” that cuts through.

The TBI report reflected on international contexts and the concurrent rise of “insurgent right” forces across Western democracies. The United Kingdom is not due for a general election until 2029 — but already commentators are questioning whether the centre, guarded by a besieged gatekeeper, can hold. Polls point to a sustained and intensifying Reform insurgency. Ceilings are being smashed. The hype — and the threat — is real.

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

The most recent UK voting intention poll, conducted by Opinium for the Observer, put Labour on 27 per cent, Reform UK on 26 per cent and the Conservatives on 22 per cent. This is currently the most common formulation: Labour and Reform are competing within the margin of error, while the Conservatives languish in a distant third place. Under Kemi Badenoch, the Tories are retreating into obscurity. Reform has risen from the scorched party’s ashes. But the Faragist fire now turns on Labour.

“Journalists talk about the rivalry between me and Kemi Bandenoch”, Farage told LBC this morning, “the truth is, it’s the Labour vote we’re after”. It echoes the Reform leader’s warning upon being elected as the MP for Clacton last July: “We are coming for Labour”.

Not if we come for you first, flows the Labour retort.

Last week, a selection of Labour MPs — drawn from the cohort of constituencies in which Reform finished second last July — set up an informal pressure group to help shape the government’s messaging on issues that resonate with Reform-minded voters. This caucus of MPs on the frontline of Farage’s electoral assault reportedly maintains close contact with No 10.

The aforementioned Opinium poll, which will have focused Labour minds, found that among “Reform considerers” (voters thinking about backing the party), about 72 per cent said they were doing so because of its immigration and borders policies. Many of these will be voters who backed Labour at the last election — a proposition reflected in data provided by More in Common. The pollster notes that Labour has lost support most among more socially conservative but economically statist voters, whom it terms “Loyal Nationalists”. These are the kind of voters that powered Boris Johnson’s 2019 general election victory and the “hero” electors that Labour targeted above all in 2024.

As ever, the fundamental feature of this government is the increasingly frayed electoral tapestry Starmer weaved last year. Under siege from Reform, the government is seeking to shore up support among its “hero” voters, who are especially conspicuous in the kind of seat Reform plans to capture in 2029.

Starmer is, once more, governing against the grain of expectations voters generally hold of a Labour administration. He is testing the limits of what is ideologically acceptable — and is sure to make some of his MPs, and progressive voices in civil society, feel queasy. But such squeamishness has always been a feature of Starmer’s strategic approach, masterminded by his now-No 10 chief of staff Morgan McSweeney. From 2020-2024, it was on these terms that Starmer often appeared most comfortable — and most obviously in the ascendant.

But sustaining an electoral coalition in government is different to constructing one in opposition. Labour’s alienation of “Progressive Activist” voters from 2020-2024, to again borrow More in Common’s terminology, was based on a ruthless strategic calculation about how much support — and where — Labour could afford to lose.

Labour won 67 per cent of Progressive Activists at the 2019 general election under Jeremy Corbyn (voters locked away in safe seats); and only 49 per cent under Starmer in 2024. Labour made up ground elsewhere in target constituencies, and especially among Loyal Nationalist voters. That, in essence, is how McSweeney conjured a 174-seat majority from a 34 per cent vote share.

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

Since the election however, Labour’s support has been eroded across all of More In Common’s voter segments. The Greens, for instance, have gained among Progressive Activists, at Labour’s expense. At the same time, Reform has gained among Loyal Nationalists, at Labour’s expense.

(The SNP is not included in More in Common’s data, but its recovery is largely explicable in these terms too).

Ultimately, Starmer’s blitz on immigration today could alienate more of these progressive voters, without — crucially — a proportional increase in support among socially conservative Loyal Nationalists. And as Robert Ford warned in a piece for the Guardian over the weekend: “Wooing back Reform voters with red meat on Farage’s favourite issues is a strategy with low prospects of success and high risks.”

The Conservative Party from 2010-2024 is, as ever, a case study in strategic failure. Last parliament in particular, Nigel Farage — a populist pied piper — marched the Conservative Party to and from issues and, eventually, off an electoral cliff edge. The desperate spiral of Conservative placation, replication and validation of Reform-style politics only hastened its demise — or stored up trouble for later. In an attempt to stem the flow of support to Reform, Starmer risks expanding the political space that only someone like Farage can dominate.

The Greens, and to a lesser extent the SNP, have struggled to cut through this parliament — with Westminster focused on the battles between Reform, the Conservatives and Labour. But Ford warns: “A populist Labour campaign for Reform votes may be the last straw for many in this socially liberal, viscerally anti-Farage group, putting at risk hundreds of marginal seats where Reform is out of the running, but where Labour needs a united progressive front to prevail next time.”

In 2024, the Green Party of England and Wales showed it could make gains without the kind of national coverage afforded to Reform. The party won crucial breakthroughs, winning four MPs with over 1,800,000 votes. But still today, the Greens are not nearly on the cusp of their own insurgency.

The risk for Starmer is that he gives progressive voters another reason to exit Labour’s fragile electoral coalition — while failing to thwart, or even exacerbating, Reform’s rise. Under siege from a rising menace, Labour may well conclude that inaction invites worse problems — but the danger is still altogether plain.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Second Labour MP faces sanctions over ‘unacceptable’ WhatsApp group messages

Lunchtime soundbite

‘Our pay proposal for 2025-26 reflects the experience of the wider working public sector population, and recognises both the vital role of MPs and the current economic climate.’

—  MPs’ salaries could rise to almost £94,000 per year after the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) recommended a slightly above-inflation increase. Ipsa chairman Richard Lloyd commented as above.

Now try this…

‘Trump says he’ll impose 25 percent tariffs on steel, aluminum’
Politico: “Any steel coming into the United States is going to have a 25 percent tariff — aluminum too,” Trump told reporters.

‘Labour accused of trying to outdo Farage with migrant deportation videos’
The government is publishing videos of raids of venues employing illegal workers as it prepares for the second reading of its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, The Independent reports.

‘Sir Keir challenges others to follow lead after becoming first PM to take HIV test’
Via the Metro.

On this day in 2022:

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

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

A Labour MP has said he is being investigated by the Labour Party over “unacceptable and deeply disappointing” comments made in a WhatsApp group.

Oliver Ryan, the MP for Burnley, said he was a member of the WhatsApp group that former minister Andrew Gwynne was sacked over, as he apologised for some of his own comments.

In a statement posted to X, Ryan apologised for remarks “which I deeply regret and would not make today”, and said he would “cooperate fully” with the investigation.

The statement reads: “Between 2019 and early 2022, I was a member of a WhatsApp group created by my MP and former employer, Andrew Gwynne. 

“Some of the comments made in that group were completely unacceptable, and I fully condemn them. I regret not speaking out at the time, and I recognise that failing to do so was wrong. I did not see every message, but I accept responsibility for not being more proactive in challenging what was said. 

“I also made some comments myself which I deeply regret and would not make today and for that I wholeheartedly apologise. I will cooperate fully with the Labour Party’s investigation.”

***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 government source told PA News: “Oliver Ryan’s remarks were unacceptable and deeply disappointing.

“While a Labour party investigation is already under way, the chief whip will also be speaking to him and no action is off the table.”

Gwynne, the MP for Gorton and Denton, was sacked as public health minister on Saturday over remarks he posted on the chat.

According to a Mail on Sunday report, Gwynne made antisemitic comments and “joked” about a pensioner constituent, saying he hoped she died before the next election.

On Saturday, a Labour spokesperson confirmed Gwynne had been suspended as a member of the Labour Party.

Following the decision, Gwynne said he deeply regretted his “badly misjudged comments” and apologised for any offence caused.

He said: “I’ve served the Labour Party all my life and it was a huge honour to be appointed a minister by Keir Starmer.

“I entirely understand the decisions the PM and the party have taken and, while very sad to have been suspended, will support them in any way I can.”

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

When will reality dawn and the panic begin?

The polls conducted since the general election last July, when Rishi Sunak limped across the finish line with 120 fellow MPs, paint an increasingly uniform picture. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has featured ahead of the Conservatives in eleven of the last thirteen voting intention surveys.

At best, Conservative support has proved stagnant since its 23.7 per cent showing last July. At worst, Reform has established itself as the principal receptacle for those disenchanted and indignant about Labour’s performance in government. In other words: one of the most successful electoral forces in the Western world has been relegated to third place by an upstart outfit, which only secured official approval for its name change (from the Brexit Party) in 2021. 

Across recent months, no opinion poll has so seized Westminster’s attention as YouGov’s this week. In a symbolic first, the pollster recorded Reform as in the overall lead — ahead of Labour and the Conservatives by one and four points respectively.

YouGov’s data gives a sense of the trends that could dictate the future of the British right and our national politics beyond. According to the findings, Reform is leading among “Leave” voters in the 2016 Brexit referendum with 46 per cent support — 16 points ahead of its rival on the right and 35 points ahead of Labour. Reform also leads outright among male voters on 29 per cent — 9 points ahead of the Conservatives (5 points ahead of Labour). 

Nigel Farage’s party, despite commentary to the contrary, trails the “main” parties among those aged 18-24. But it bests the Conservatives among both 25-49 year-olds (by 10 points) and 50-64 year-olds (5 points). The Tories edge Reform by 2 points in the 65+ bracket. Elsewhere, Reform leads the Conservatives among both the ABC1 and C2DE social grades (by 1 point and 8 points); in England (3 points), Wales (5 points) and Scotland (4 points); and in the North (14 points), Midlands (4 points), and the South of England sans London (4 points). The Conservatives still best Farage in the capital, by a full 15 points. 

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

Socioeconomically, demographically and geographically, Reform is marching deep into Conservative Party territory. For any opposition force at this stage in the electoral cycle, polling confers credibility — nothing more. But having surpassed the Conservatives in an array of voting intention surveys, Reform’s legitimacy as a political force — and as a threat — is no longer doubted. The Conservative Party faces the reverse fate: electoral incredibility. In 89 seats across the country, Reform finished second to Labour at the general election. In those seats at least, the logic of first past the post (FPTP) had already flipped. On the back of recent polls however, Farage is contentedly denouncing the Conservatives as an outside “spoiler” option nationwide. 

Opinion polling is just one front. Last week, more than half a dozen major former Conservative donors paid five-figure sums to attend a lavish fundraiser for Reform UK. The evening reportedly generated more than £1 million in funds for the party; and it came as one Conservative source told the Guardian that the past few months appeared to be one of the worst periods ever for the party in terms of bringing in donations.

The Conservatives have been threatened before, of course. But the party’s historical longevity does not afford it any advantage in its battle with Reform. Voters do not venerate parties because they are long-lasting. In the current milieu of disillusion, Reform’s novel nature looks like an electoral asset. The charge of “inexperience”, likely to be levelled at Farage, weakens when voters value insurgents. In any case, what institutional memory is retained by this Conservative Party about previous existential bouts?

From 2015-2024, Tory leaders responded to challenge through reinvention. At the party’s last notable nadir, when Farage’s Brexit Party trumped the Conservatives in the polls, panic-stricken MPs broke the glass marked “make Boris Johnson prime minister”. No such recourse exists for a future electoral emergency. And voters have grown tired and sceptical of Conservative regeneration. The brand is simply too bruised.

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

That is the essence of Reform’s opportunity — and why Kemi Badenoch’s strategy to engage with Farage on his turf has proved costly. The Conservative leader has mostly accepted the Reform critique of the last government: she claims it “talked right, but governed left”. Badenoch’s political and ideological prescriptions therefore, reflect Farage’s agenda. But aping Reform has failed to stem its appeal. That should be little surprise. Farage is uncontaminated by the record of the last government and unburdened by the Tory brand’s immense baggage. When the Reform chief vows to do something, he is not interrogated over his failure to act across fourteen years in power — a crippling criticism. 

The threat Reform poses, it follows, is far graver and less perishable than that of Farage’s prior “protest” forces. Reform does not represent a bubble that a more assertive, combative Conservatism can simply burst. Badenoch’s tenure as Tory leader, if it can boast any achievements, has proved that. The Conservative leader has come for Farage, and missed.

Indeed, any assessment of the Reform-Tory battle leads inexorably to the conclusion that Badenoch has not only failed to alleviate her party’s existential predicament — she has deepened it. The Conservative Party’s polling since the July general election tracks on aggregate graphs as a bell curve. The party gained at Labour’s expense during its protracted leadership contest. It peaked as Badenoch assumed the mantle of leader. It has declined since. 

New polling from Ipsos backs up this proposition. The Conservatives hold the lowest net favourability rating of any party polled at -37 — just two in ten express a favourable view (20 per cent). But Badenoch’s personal ratings are also staggeringly poor. 16 per cent of voters have a favourable opinion of her. 46 per cent, as she approaches 100 days as LOTO, have an unfavourable one.

According to Ipsos’ data, only 21 per cent consider Badenoch an “honest person”, ranking her behind Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and Nigel Farage. 21 per cent say she is a capable leader — a full 12 points behind Davey and Starmer in joint third place. And just 16 per cent say she is “in touch with ordinary people” — 10 points worse off than third-placed Starmer.

Public opinion of Badenoch, one must assume, remains malleable. But the toxic Conservative brand has poisoned the appeal of far more popular leaders than the incumbent. When Rishi Sunak emerged as Tory leader in October 2022, his net favourability stood at -4 — before it tumbled to -36 on the eve of the 2024 general election. 

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

It is often quipped that the Conservative Party has two settings: “complacency and panic”. In the past, this observation has manifested as a process, even cyclically. Theresa May complacently called a snap election. Boris Johnson was first the product of electoral dread and then the cause of it. Sunak’s premiership was a panicked clutter of reactive policy. 100 days ago, before Badenoch’s elevation as Tory leader, complacency had begun its creep back into Conservative politics based on initial assessments of Starmer’s performance as prime minister. How the vibes have shifted.

I have written before about a potential “watershed” moment in British politics, when it becomes overwhelmingly clear that Reform has established itself as a permanent fixture in the UK electoral landscape — and therefore part of the future, in some shape or form, of the British right. 

Our arrival at such a moment will be guided by a close reading of the latest opinion polls. The local elections on 1 May, when the Conservatives will defend an estimated 940 seats, will mark a particularly telling juncture. (Labour and the Lib Dems are both set to defend less than 300). The pressure will be on Reform to prove they are more than an opinion poll sensation; but all signs point to another Tory bloodbath.

In this scenario, Conservative-allied parliamentarians, donors and activists will be forced to adjust to what a permanent right-wing rival means for them and their political goals. For those still institutionally or emotionally attached to the Conservative brand, the primary response will be one of sheer panic. 

First, anonymous critical briefings will appear in the media, attributed to Tory insiders. Those interventions will become public; then borne of more senior sources. In some quarters, the pressure for an official Reform-Tory pact will build. That talk would be met with fierce resistance from others. As Tory tempers heighten, Badenoch could feel compelled to fast-track some policy announcements — potentially on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or net zero. The “red meat” will be carved thicker and dished out faster to rival any prevailing “pact” discourse. First Suella Braverman will switch. Others could well follow. Perhaps letters of no confidence will be penned, with some brandished on social media. ConservativeHome surveys would reflect activist dismay. That could prompt the Tory pretenders, including the obvious candidate on Badenoch’s frontbench, to posture more openly. The Daily Star might brandish a leaf vegetable. And all the while, the historic attachments among once supportive media organisations could melt away. (The defection of Tim Montgomerie, ConservativeHome founder, could be a portent of what is to come. GB News and the Telegraph would naturally play the role of Reform-in-the-media).

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

Even at this early juncture, it is worth considering the historic precarity of Badenoch’s position as Conservative leader. In the final round of the MP voting stage of the Tory leadership contest, Badenoch received the support of just 42 colleagues (35 per cent of the parliamentary party). Some of that number, it was suggested at the time, were James Cleverly supporters seeking to thwart Robert Jenrick’s path to the members’ vote stage. In any case, a full 78 Conservative MPs — 65 per cent of the parliamentary party — backed Jenrick and Cleverly over Badenoch. Perhaps more strikingly, the current Conservative leader was the first choice of only 22 of her MPs (19 per cent), the first ballot in September found. 

In the end, Badenoch won the backing of 56.5 per cent of Conservative members (53,806). Since 2001, the first leadership race held under the current rules, no Tory premier has ever been elected with a thinner mandate — either by MPs or members.

The Tory panic will be conditioned, in a significant part, by the party’s impotency. After fourteen long years in government, the Conservative Party — low on cash and credibility — has few levers to pull or buttons to press. The dashboard is flashing red, but the glass case marked “Break in case of emergency” is empty. This fact could well explain some of Badenoch’s more desperate interventions — such as her criticism of Reform UK’s “fake” membership ticker. Unfortunately for the Tory leader, it was anything but. 

Since November, Badenoch has promised no changes to the cabinet for five years, and no major policies for two (a pledge now broken). Both of these pronouncements presumed the Conservative Party has lots of time. It does not. In recent weeks, Tory unease has been assuaged by a faint collective memory of Margaret Thatcher’s uninspired start as leader of the opposition. But historical allusion can only buy Badenoch so much goodwill. As she prepares to mark 100 days as Tory leader, her room for manoeuvre — and the Conservative Party’s path to recovery is narrowing. 

At this moment of apparent electoral upheaval, one thing is for certain: Farage will fan the flames of Conservative fear at every stage. Against this backdrop, will Badenoch prove politically talented enough to reckon with and reverse Reform’s advance? The evidence of her first 100 days as Conservative leader would suggest not. 

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

In its pre-election manifesto, Labour promised ‘to create a world free from poverty on a liveable planet’. Now the party is in government, and chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out a plan for economic growth that will be ‘guided by one clear principle above all: to act in the national interest’. At Fairtrade, we believe that these two statements can and must be reconciled; the UK’s national interest cannot be separated from the wellbeing of people and planet.

The UK’s long-term economic growth is inextricably linked to the livelihoods of the millions of smallholder farmers across the world that work to feed the UK. The UK is not food secure – we import almost half our food.

Yet at Fairtrade we hear every day from farmers and producers who tell us that international trade is too often synonymous with exploitation: And unless we achieve a system that genuinely meets the needs of overseas farmers, we cannot continue to rely on the food they provide or their contribution to UK trade.

Take tea as an example. In the UK, we drink around 100 million cups every day (almost as many as in Turkey and Ireland!). A product we can’t grow in our climate, tea is one of Britain’s most loved drinks – and over centuries its trade has brought many benefits to our economy and culture. Yet throughout its history, these benefits have often come at the expense of those who grow and pick it.

Farmers in many tea-growing parts of the world such as Kenya are dealing with challenges, including prices that are unpredictable and often extremely low (around $2 per kg) resulting in uncertain and insufficient incomes. “Tea prices are not going up, yet the cost of production has been going up every year,” Kenyan tea cooperative member Erastus Ndumia, told us recently. This impacts on the livelihoods of millions of tea growers.

Erastus is a member of a Fairtrade-certified co-operative, who can rely on a Fairtrade Minimum Price and Fairtrade Premium for the tea they sell on Fairtrade terms. He is also benefiting from established long-term relationships with Fairtrade buyers. But many tea farmers lack the certainty that they will be able to sell on terms that enable them to support themselves and their families.

In the Trade Strategy due to be published in Spring, the UK government has the power to support farmers and workers growing tea, and other food and drink products that we rely on in the UK.

The strategy can put a focus on the need for businesses to pay fair prices for commodities that we import into the UK and to address the needs of those in the first mile of food supply chains. Too often the terms of trade for smallholder farmers and workers in low-income countries are imposed upon them. The first step to delivering fairer purchasing practices is to consult with them when agreeing the terms of trade.

It can also ensure coherence between its trade, development, and climate policies. Trade policies must not encourage a race to the bottom in the name of immediate growth. When trade is made fair, it can help to drive progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and deliver the UK’s commitments on climate and biodiversity, as well as supporting a resilient supply of food into the UK.

Finally, fairer supply chains are at the heart of Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence (HREDD) legislation, another important commitment that the trade strategy should make. This law can ensure that supply chains are environmentally and socially sustainable and that there is greater transparency for consumers. It should be designed so that the costs and burdens of compliance are not passed onto overseas smallholder farmers and workers themselves.

The UK must therefore carefully craft its approach to trade in a way that supports businesses and the livelihoods of the millions of small-holder farmers in low-income countries – like Erastus – that produce a third of the world’s food. This is what will deliver sustainability in our food supply chains, which is ultimately ‘in the national interest’.

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

Boris Johnson will go down as “one of the most damaging prime ministers in this country’s history”, the Reform UK chair has insisted. 

Zia Yusuf said the increase in net migration during Johnson’s tenure in 10 Downing Street was “a total betrayal of everybody who voted for Brexit”, as he ruled out the prospect of the former prime minister ever joining Reform. 

In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Political Thinking podcast, Yusuf said there is “nothing Conservative” about Johnson and argued the Tories were “extremely left-wing” in government.

He added: “He took public spending close to Soviet Union spending. So there was nothing Conservative about him.”

By contrast, Yusuf said he would welcome the defection of former home secretary Suella Braverman, whom he revealed he has held several meetings with. 

The Reform chair said he has a “huge amount of respect” for Braverman, the Conservative MP for Fareham and Waterlooville.

Asked if she would be a good Reform member, Yusuf responded: “If Suella wanted to join Reform UK? Yeah, absolutely.”

Yusuf praised Braverman’s views on migration and said she had been “excommunicated” and made a “pariah” by the Conservative Party despite them.

Yusuf also claimed Reform, which now has over 200,000 members, could win up to 400 seats at the next general election, and that if there was a general election tomorrow, it would win between 140 to 200 seats.

Reform returned five MPs in July’s general election but came second in 98 constituencies. In a recent YouGov poll, Reform UK came top with 25 per cent support, compared with Labour on 24 per cent and the Conservatives with 21 per cent.

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

Labour restored the party whip to four MPs yesterday afternoon who were suspended for rebelling over the two-child benefit cap.

The parliamentarians in question — Richard Burgon, Ian Byrne, Imran Hussain, and Rebecca Long-Bailey — are now back in the party after a six-month sojourn in the Westminster wilderness.

Those four MPs, alongside Apsana Begum, John McDonnell and Zarah Sultana, lost the whip last July for voting for an SNP amendment to the king’s speech that called for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped.

McDonnell, Begum and Sultana, however, remain suspended.

The approach reflects a “divide and rule” strategy on behalf of the Labour leadership and government whips’ office, with the latter left-wingers singled out for their records since July. McDonnell, Begum and Sultana have remained heavily critical of the government since voting alongside the SNP.

Sultana in particular has been a vocal opponent of the government’s position on Gaza, accusing it of having “actively facilitated genocide” in the territory last month. The independent MP for Coventry South revealed yesterday that she found out about the news of her colleagues’ readmission via a Daily Mirror report. “Turns out speaking up for Palestine is still a punishable offence”, she said.

Sultana also voted for a Conservative motion opposing the winter fuel payments cut in September, alongside Begum and McDonnell — as well as Ian Byrne and Richard Burgon. Imran Hussain and Rebecca Long-Bailey were absent for the vote, commons records show.

Writing on X yesterday, McDonnell said he was pleased four of his colleagues had been readmitted but disappointed Sultana and Begum had not. The former shadow chancellor added that he was “relaxed about my own position as I’ve made clear I don’t expect whip back until we know whether police are to charge me following recent Palestinian demo after which I was interviewed under caution”.

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

McDonnell and old ally Jeremy Corbyn, now a member of the “Independent Alliance” of five pro-Gaza MPs, were both interviewed under caution by the Metropolitan Police after a Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) protest in central London. The force is investigating what it sees as a coordinated effort by organisers to breach conditions imposed on the event.

In recent months, McDonnell has continued to use his Westminster clout as a former senior frontbencher to critique the government’s economic policy, and accused the prime minister of speaking in the “language” of austerity last September. But McDonnell, an MP since 1997, is still set on one day returning to the Labour fold, having told LBC in January: “We’ve served our sentence so I’m hoping we’ll simply have the whip restored.”

At the same time, he also warned against the creation of a new party in an article for the Guardian. He wrote: “Even if a leftwing challenger party only took a limited number of votes, this could still cost Labour dearly.”

This episode is part of an ongoing battle between the Labour leadership and the party’s left flank. Diane Abbott, the veteran MP, claimed her lengthy suspension in the last parliament was a “factional manoeuvre”. She was later readmitted and allowed to stand as the Labour candidate for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

On current form, matters would have to change drastically for Sultana to gain readmission to the parliamentary Labour Party and stand as a candidate at the next election. The latest manoeuvre by the whips’ office could serve to push the rebels, and perhaps her in particular, closer to Corbyn’s Independent Alliance.

For some on the Labour right, an official liaison between independent ex-Labour MPs and Corbyn’s caucus would be a sign of total factional victory.

But for the time being, McDonnell, Begum and Sultana’s example provides an enduring warning to other Labour representatives about the consequences of rebellion. And it comes at a moment when MPs will be considering how or whether to pressure the government over a range of flashpoint issues — not least of all Starmer’s relationship with US president Donald Trump.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

PMQs: Nigel Farage says Labour ‘panicking’ amid battles with Starmer on Chagos, NHS

Lunchtime soundbite

‘We would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. There must be no forced displacement of Palestinians, nor any reduction in territory of the Gaza Strip.’

—  Foreign Office minister Anneliese Dodds tells the House of Commons the UK government “would oppose” Donald Trump’s proposal to force Palestinians out of Gaza.

Now try this…

‘He’s back: the Prince of Darkness returns’
The FT interviews Peter Mandelson. (Paywall)

‘Could a Tory/Reform pact be looming?’
The Spectator’s Katy Balls asks: could the two warring tribes of the Conservatives and Reform be brought together under one leader? (Paywall)

‘Concern in Downing Street over Chagos Islands handover deal’
Via The Guardian.

On this day in 2024:

Former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng to stand down at next election

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Kemi Badenoch has appeared to confirm she had “tough words” with underperforming Conservative Party staff members. 

The Tory leader responded to recent reports that in all staff call with members of Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ), she urged the party machine to “do better”.

Asked if it was true that she had told some CCHQ staff they were not up to the job, Badenoch told BBC News: “I believe that everyone who works for the Conservative Party needs to be fully dedicated to the mission.”

Pressed on whether she was saying that some staff members are not dedicated, Badenoch insisted she would always intervene when “people aren’t doing a great job”.

She said: “It is what the members have asked for. And if we feel that there are people who are doing a great job, we will tell them. And when people aren’t doing a great job, we will do the same. We need to make sure that we have good feedback. And one of the things that I want to see.”

She added: “What I want people to know is that we want to have a high performing organisation. And leadership isn’t just about telling everybody how great they are. Sometimes it’s about telling them how to improve. 

“And quite frankly, one of the things that we’re seeing in this country is millions of people out of work, and not enough people pulling their socks up and getting back on their feet. 

“We need sometimes to have tough words when people aren’t doing well, and words of praise when they are doing well. And that’s exactly what I did.”

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

The comments came as Badenoch unveiled her first major policy as Conservative leader. She told the BBC that immigrants should only be able to apply for British citizenship after being in the country for 15 years rather than six.

Badenoch also said that indefinite leave to remain, which someone must have before considering applying for citizenship, should only be given to those who do not have criminal records and who have not claimed benefits or social housing.

Badenoch said that citizenship is a privilege for those who have developed a “meaningful connection to the UK”.

Speaking to BBC News, Badenoch claimed the rules as they stand have created a “conveyor belt” to citizenship and that too many people gaining citizenship in this way is “creating a strain on public services”.

“We need to make sure that people coming here have a real, meaningful connection to the UK, so no criminal records, they should be net contributors to the economy, not relying on benefits but people who care about our country and our communities.”

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