Category: Politics

  • Half of Britons support voting reform and ‘proportional’ system, poll finds

    Half of Britons (49 per cent) support reform of the voting system and the introduction of proportional representation (PR) — almost twice as many as those who favour retaining the present first past the post (FPTP) system, a new YouGov poll has found. 

    The 2024 general election was the most disproportional in British history, which saw the Labour Party receive 63.2 per cent of House of Commons seats on just 33.7 per cent of the vote. An increase of 1.6 per cent in the party’s 2019 vote-share had seen Keir Starmer’s party more than double its seats to 411.

    Support for a switch to PR is highest among Green (72 per cent), Reform UK (67 per cent) and Liberal Democrat voters (61 per cent) — the three parties who officially support electoral reform.

    A majority of Labour voters (53 per cent) also support moving to a PR system — versus only 27 per cent who would prefer to keep FPTP.

    Overall, just 26 per cent of voters favour retaining the FPTP system, YouGov found. A further 25 per cent responded “Don’t know” when asked which voting system they prefer, PR or FPTP.

    Conservative voters are fairly evenly divided between the 39 per cent who would like the UK to adopt PR and the 42 per cent who continue to support FPTP.

    YouGov also found that nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of those who express a preference for either voting system say they feel strongly about it, including 59 per cent of those who prefer FPTP and 66 per cent of those who favour PR.

    The poll comes as cross-party pressure for reform of the voting system builds, following a House of Commons debate on proportional representation last week. 

    In the debate, MPs from the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Reform UK and Green parties pressured the government to change the “broken” FPTP system.

    Labour MP Alex Sobel, chair of the Fair Elections All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), told the government that FPTP is “failing on its own terms” and “producing more and more random results.”

    Where do Britons stand on voting system trade-offs?

    — Josh Self (@josh-self.bsky.social) 2025-02-03T10:06:44.982Z

    Liberal Democrat MP and Fair Elections APPG vice-chair Lisa Smart said: “[FPTP] is a system that no longer functions as a fair or effective mechanism for translating the will of the electorate into parliamentary representation.

    “It is collapsing under its own weight, and the time has come to take the first step in addressing this failure with the establishment of a national commission for electoral reform.”

    The minister responsible for responding to the debate, Rushanara Ali, confirmed that the government has “no plans to change the voting system” for elections to the House of Commons “at this time”.

    The democracy minister added: “The [FPTP] system, while not perfect, provides for… a direct relationship between members of parliament and their local constituency.”

    The debate followed a commons vote late last year, when MPs backed a symbolic motion on proportional representation by 138 MPs to 136. 

    Those in favour included 59 Labour MPs.

    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.

    ‘No plans to change voting system’ insists minister, as cross-party pressure for reform builds

    Source: Politics

  • Donald Trump suggests UK could avoid tariffs and praises ‘very nice’ Starmer

    The president of the United States has said he is “getting along very well” with Keir Starmer and suggested a UK-US trade dispute could be resolved without tariffs. 

    The comments came as Trump unveiled tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China, which are due to kick in this week. He has also been clear that the European Union (EU) is next in line.

    Asked by BBC News in a stop at the Joint Base Andrews air force facility whether he will target the UK with tariffs, Trump said: “It might happen with that, but it will definitely happen with the European Union.”

    Taking aim at the EU, Trump said: “They don’t take our cars, they don’t take our farm products. They take almost nothing, and we take everything from the millions of cars, tremendous amounts of food and farm products.

    “So the UK is way out of line, and we’ll see the UK, but [the] European Union is really out of line.

    “The UK is out of line, but I’m sure that one — I think that one can be worked out. But the European Union, it’s an atrocity what they’ve done.”

    UK PM Keir Starmer has held a series of calls with the US president, repeatedly stressing the significance of the so-called “special relationship” between the two countries.

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

    Speaking to reporters early on Monday, Trump said that discussions with Starmer have “been very nice”.

    He said: “Well, prime minister Starmer has been very nice. We’ve had a couple of meetings. We’ve had numerous phone calls. We’re getting along very well.

    “We’ll see whether or not we can balance out our budget.”

    Responding to Trump’s comments, a UK government spokesperson said: “The US is an indispensable ally and one of our closest trading partners, and we have a fair and balanced trading relationship which benefits both sides of the Atlantic.

    “We look forward to working closely with president Trump to continue to build on UK-US trading relations for our economy, businesses and the British people.”

    Starmer is in Brussels on Monday as he becomes the first UK prime minister to join a gathering of EU leaders since Brexit. The trip is part of what Starmer calls a “reset” between the UK and the European Union.

    “I’m here to work with our European partners on keeping up the pressure, targeting the energy revenues and the companies supplying his missile factories to crush Putin’s war machine”, the prime minister said.

    “Because ultimately, alongside our military support, that is what will bring peace closer.”

    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

  • Chris Philp claim Britain needs better ‘work ethic’ slammed by Labour, Lib Dems

    Chris Philp has been criticised by both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties after suggesting Britons need a better “work ethic”.

    The shadow home secretary said that “as a country we need to lift our game” when it comes to productivity to compete with countries such as China and India.

    Philp cited economic inactivity statistics that show nine million adults of working age are not in employment, adding: “We need everybody to be making a contribution

    Appearing on the BBC’s Political Thinking podcast, Philp was asked: “Do you think that belief in hard work is something that’s missing in Britain today?”

    Philp replied: “I do a bit. 

    “There are nine million working age adults who are not working, and as we compete globally with countries like South Korea, China, India — we need a work ethic.

    “We need everybody to be making a contribution. We are in, as George Osborne said years ago, we are in a global race, and that means we’ve got to be competitive, and it means we’ve got to work hard.

    “I think as a country, we need to lift our game, we need to up our game.”

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

    Responding to his comments, a Labour spokesperson said: “Chris Philp was the architect of the Liz Truss Budget which crashed the economy and sent family mortgages rocketing.

    “After the Conservatives’ economic failure left working people worse off, it takes some real brass neck for the Tory top team to tell the public that it’s really all their fault.

    “It’s the same old Tories. They haven’t changed and they’ve learned nothing.”

    A Liberal Democrat spokesperson added: “No-one can doubt Chris Philp’s work ethic after he crashed the economy in just 39 days as Treasury minister under Liz Truss.

    “He also treated himself to a £5,000 taxpayer–funded handout after finally resigning from Boris Johnson’s government.

    “The British public will no doubt take his advice with a bucketload of salt.

    “The Conservatives could do with showing a bit more humility after trashing the economy and leaving the NHS on its knees.”

    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

  • Britain has ‘reaped the benefits’ of Brexit, Conservative Party declares on fifth anniversary

    Britain has “reaped the benefits” of Brexit, shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel has said as the nation marks five years since withdrawing from the European Union (EU).

    The Conservative Party is looking to use the anniversary to warn voters of the government’s attempts to “dismantle” Brexit and “drag us back into the EU’s grasp”.

    “This Labour government, driven by socialist ideology and blind to the will of the people, is determined to dismantle Brexit and drag us back into the EU’s grasp”, Patel said. 

    In January 2020, Britain officially left the EU after voting to leave four years prior via referendum. 52 per cent of voters backed the UK’s exit from the EU in 2016, with 48 per cent siding with “Remain”. 

    A YouGov published earlier this week recorded that just 30 per cent of Britons now say it was right for the UK to vote to leave the EU. 

    More than six in 10 Britons (62 per cent) say that Brexit has so far been more of a failure — against just 11 per cent who feel that it has been more of a success. A more noncommittal 20 per cent of Britons consider it to be neither a success nor failure, YouGov found. 

    The polling also revealed that as many as one in six “Leave” voters (18 per cent) say that it was wrong for Britain to choose to leave the EU. 66 per cent still say Britain made the right decision. 

    By contrast, 88 per cent of “Remainers” think a vote for Brexit was wrong, with just 7 per cent saying it was the right choice.

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

    In a recent speech, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch appeared to acknowledge her party had made mistakes following the 2016 referendum. “We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU”, Badenoch said. 

    The Conservatives are now looking to celebrate Britain’s departure from the bloc and the manner in which they — led by Boris Johnson — delivered “on the clear democratic will of the country.”

    A Tory press release marking Brexit’s fifth anniversary cites the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), one of 73 trade deals signed since 2020, as an instance of success.

    The release also celebrates the UK “ending the supremacy of EU law” and the “reform or revocation of almost 2500 pieces of arbitrary or burdensome EU law.”

    The notice adds: “Outside the EU, and free of their regulations, we have been able to deliver more competitive tax policies, such as cutting VAT on certain products, reduce and simplify tariffs, and make the City more competitive with the Edinburgh Reforms.

    “The UK was also able to take control of its waters and protect our fisherman as an independent coastal state.”

    The Conservative Party is also seeking to “sound the alarm” over what it sees as Labour’s plans to “unpick Brexit”.

    Commenting on the fifth anniversary of the UK leaving the EU, Priti Patel said: “Five years ago today, the Conservatives honoured the democratic will of the British people and Got Brexit Done.

    “Since then, our country has reaped the benefits—securing new trade deals with dynamic, fast-growing markets across the world and reclaiming sovereignty from Brussels. This has allowed us to reform or revoke 2,500 EU laws, ensuring Britain’s future is shaped by our own parliament.

    “But this Labour government, driven by socialist ideology and blind to the will of the people, is determined to dismantle Brexit and drag us back into the EU’s grasp. The Conservatives will not stand by and allow this betrayal to happen—we will fight them every step of the way.”

    Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, is set to mark the anniversary at an event in Kemi Badenoch’s constituency of North West Essex.

    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

  • Ed Davey marks Brexit anniversary: Conservative deal has been ‘disaster’ for Britain

    Ed Davey has labelled the Conservative Party’s Brexit deal a “disaster” and urged the government to “show the urgency and ambition” needed to fix the UK-EU relationship.

    Marking five years since Britain left the European Union, Davey also accused the prime minister of “living in a parallel universe” if he thinks that the UK economy will grow “without boosting trade with our nearest neighbours.”

    The Liberal Democrat leader said: “A new UK-EU customs union deal will unlock growth, demonstrate British leadership and give us the best possible hand to play against President Trump.”

    In January 2020, Britain officially left the EU after voting to leave four years prior via referendum. 52 per cent of voters backed the UK’s exit from the EU in 2016, with 48 per cent siding with “Remain”. 

    A YouGov published earlier this week recorded that just 30 per cent of Britons now say it was right for the UK to vote to leave the EU. 

    More than six in 10 Britons (62 per cent) say that Brexit has so far been more of a failure — against just 11 per cent who feel that it has been more of a success. A more noncommittal 20 per cent of Britons consider it to be neither a success nor failure, YouGov found. 

    The polling also revealed that as many as one in six “Leave” voters (18 per cent) say that it was wrong for Britain to choose to leave the EU. 66 per cent still say Britain made the right decision. 

    By contrast, 88 per cent of “Remainers” think a vote for Brexit was wrong, with just 7 per cent saying it was the right choice.

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

    In a recent speech, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch appeared to acknowledge her party had made mistakes following the 2016 referendum. “We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU”, Badenoch said. 

    The Lib Dem leader used his own New Year’s address, delivered on 16 January, to call on the government to negotiate a customs union arrangement with the EU. 

    Davey argued such a deal would allow the UK to handle “president Trump from a position of strength, not weakness.”

    He said: “Forming a customs union with the EU is not only the single biggest thing we can do to turbocharge our economy in the medium and long term. But an agreement to work towards one would unlock big economic benefits for the UK now and start tearing down those damaging Conservative trade barriers this year. 

    “It would be a win-win for our country, and I still can’t understand why the government continues to rule it out.”

    At prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, Davey reiterated his call for the prime minister to go further in his pursuit of a UK-EU relationship “reset”. 

    Davey said: “The chancellor has now admitted that we need to go further and faster in the pursuit of economic growth, and we agree, but the prime minister knows that we believe that means setting aside his objections to a UK-EU customs union so that our country can go further and faster in rebuilding our trading relationships with our European neighbours.”

    Keir Starmer replied: “[He] knows that in relation to the reset with the EU, which we are determined to achieve, we have clear red lines when it comes to the single market and the customs union. 

    “He knows where we stand on that.”

    Commenting on the fifth anniversary of the UK leaving the EU, Davey said: “The UK needs to lead in Europe and the world. It’s clear we cannot rely on Donald Trump – a man who has threatened to invade a NATO ally — to secure our continent. Strengthening ties of diplomacy and security with the EU is urgent.

    “We must repair the trading relationship with our neighbours that was so badly ruined under the Conservatives. Their deal has been an utter disaster for our country – for farmers, fishers and small businesses — caught up in red tape.

    “So far the Labour government has failed to show the urgency and ambition needed to fix our relationship with Europe. Ministers must be in a parallel universe if they think we can grow the economy without boosting trade with our nearest neighbours.

    “A new UK-EU customs union deal will unlock growth, demonstrate British leadership and give us the best possible hand to play against President Trump.”

    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

  • Elon Musk’s meddling shows why laws to safeguard UK democracy must be updated

    Foreign interference in UK democracy is a live threat: laws to prevent such interference play an integral role in defending our democracy. There have long been calls to bring these laws into the twenty-first century – and this overhaul is now critical.

    To see why our electoral guard-rails aren’t clear or strong enough, just look at the cloud of uncertainty that arose from the suggestion that Elon Musk might bankroll Reform UK to the tune of $100 million. It dominated the headlines and rightly unleashed questions around whether that kind of donation would – or should – be possible. Do our laws allow a foreign billionaire to invest in our politics?

    As it stands, a non-citizen like Musk can’t legally donate to any British political party, in a personal capacity. Neither can a foreign company.

    In practice though, it’s not certain that our electoral law is robust enough to prevent an impermissible donor like Musk – or any other wealthy overseas individual – from funnelling a donation to a UK political party via a UK company. For example, what if Musk were to donate through the UK arm of his multinational company Tesla, or X?

    This kind of workaround could be prohibited under current law – if it could be proven that the company was in effect acting on the overseas donor’s behalf. But the detail of what is allowed, and appetite for bringing such a case against any foreign donor, is both untested and uncertain.

    We’ve been given a wake-up call. Whether it’s Musk or any other foreign billionaire – perhaps someone acting on behalf of a foreign power like Russia or China – potential routes to buying influence over UK democracy must be closed off. We can and must go further.

    For example, there have long been calls to limit how much UK companies can donate to political parties – capped at e.g. their UK profits for the past two years, to prevent them funnelling overseas money into our politics. We could even go further, and adopt an assumption that a UK company whose ultimate owner is an overseas impermissible donor should be seen as acting on that owner’s behalf – and so prevented from donating – as the default.

    If we’re starting this conversation, perhaps it’s not just foreign money that we should be concerned about. Iindividual UK donors give significant amounts to our political parties, and there have been some suggestions that we should restrict the amount that any individual donor can give.

    But meddling though money is just part of the picture. Through weighing in on the huge social media platform he owns, and amplifying posts to millions of users, someone like Musk can have a very significant voice in UK political discourse and influence voters without donating a penny. He isn’t alone, of course. Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that Meta will cease fact-checking and enable more political content will further enable foreign interference. And TikTok is its own beast – with the US leading the way in Western democracies in banning the platform.

    What does our legal framework say about this kind of non-monetary interference? Not a lot – what we have is disjointed, piecemeal, and arguably insufficient.

    Upcoming changes will require transparency: the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), due to be introduced this year, will at a minimum require the registration of any arrangement for political advocacy in the UK which is directed by a foreign power. When Musk takes up his new role as a US government official, his use of X to push advocacy material to UK audiences could come within the scope of disclosure requirements under FIRS, if and when they are implemented – although not his personal posts. The regime remains untested, and one question looms – is transparency enough?

    What else do we have? Ofcom has prime position under new provisions in the Online Safety Act, which has brought in a duty to protect ‘content of democratic importance’, and created a new offence of sending ‘false communications’. Again, these remain untested. Ahead of elections, police are responsible for enforcement of outdated electoral laws which prohibit false statements about candidates’ personal conduct or characters during election – but in practice these likely wouldn’t stand up to the test posed by AI deepfakes.

    There may be a limit to what stronger regulation can do. But that’s no reason for inaction. From the role of money in our politics, to how digital platforms are used for foreign influence, revised rules enforced by a joined up and robust approach from UK regulators can make a difference. Laws to safeguard UK democracy can and must be updated for the landscape we’re in. Labour’s manifesto promised to strengthen our democracy. Let’s get on with it.

    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

  • Nigel Farage is vulnerable

    It’s a question successive Conservative premiers proved unable, or unwilling, to answer: what is Nigel Farage’s political kryptonite, his soft underbelly — his Achilles heel? 

    The now-Reform UK leader’s rise from fringe Eurosceptic to, some say, prime minister-in-waiting is without precedent in British political life. Farage maintains he is on the verge of forging an epochal reconstitution of our politics: the logical and inexorable consequence of his decades-long agitation. In fact, before he set foot in parliament as the MP for Clacton — duly elected on his eighth attempt in 2024 — Farage declared himself “the real leader of the opposition”. 

    It was a characteristically headstrong challenge to the Conservative Party and its future leader — but also to Keir Starmer, the prime minister, whose job Farage now covets. 

    Much of this routine is familiar: for years the Reform chief has insisted, with little regard to his party’s polling, that only he can authentically articulate Britain’s national voice. The 2029 general election will present his chance to do so in a de jure sense, from the steps of Downing Street — behind the prime minister’s lectern. 

    The problem posed of Reform’s opponents is how to engage with Farage without tacitly accepting his grandiose (and eccentric) account of his prospects. Similarly, long before the EU referendum in 2016, the Reform leader thrived by hijacking his opponent’s arguments and weaponising them as part of a narrative of betrayal. He confects rows on terms inherently favourable to him. That is what it means to fight Farage on his own turf: he is boxer, referee and judge. He proclaims himself victor before bloodying his opponent to prove it. 

    In 2024, the Reform leader — ringmaster of the right — proved so successful in ensuring his Tory opponents danced to his tune that they forgot he was an adversary. A populist pied piper, he marched the Conservative Party to and from issues and, eventually, off an electoral cliff edge.

    Today, Farage is the lead spokesperson of a band of five MPs — a frankly puny parliamentary force. But our parliament’s constitution and political reality have long since diverged — if they were ever aligned at all. Consider not Reform’s “bridgehead”, but its arriving reinforcements. An Opinium poll last week placed the party on 27 per cent — one point behind Labour and a full six points ahead of the Conservatives. It is a common formulation these days: Reform has leapfrogged the Tories and is vying with Labour for outright supremacy. 

    In the near term, Farage continues to benefit from Conservative foundering. Having spent much of her tenure as Tory leader tumbling into Reform traps, Kemi Badenoch has made her party’s existential predicament worse, not better. 

    The row Badenoch was baited into over the 2024 festive period is an instructive case in point. On Boxing Day, a digital tracker on Reform’s website recorded its membership numbers as surpassing 131,680 — the figure declared by the Conservative Party following its recent leadership election. Badenoch, having absolutely none of it, said Reform’s counter was “coded to tick up automatically” in a lengthy statement published to X/Twitter. 

    “Farage doesn’t understand the digital age”, she added. “This kind of fakery gets found out pretty quickly, although not before many are fooled.”

    Hook. Line. Sinker. 

    Farage responded by saying he would “gladly invite” a firm to audit Reform’s membership numbers — as long as the Conservatives did the same. By the time media sleuths from the Financial Times, Telegraph and Sky News verified Reform’s numbers, Badenoch’s blunder was already driving the news agenda. 

    Wes ups the ante

    The Reform-Tory relationship, in fairness, is complicated. 

    Some form of reconciliation on the right is the subject of incessant speculation, with senior Tories — namely Lord Frost and Suella Braverman — having recently restated their support for an official right-wing liaison. Badenoch has come out fighting, in part, to put such speculation to bed. But her maladroit interventions have only bolstered Reform’s prominence — and therefore those voices promoting accommodation. It’s a continuation of the same demoralising doom loop that possessed the party under Rishi Sunak.  

    The Reform-Labour relationship is straightforwardly adversarial and therefore less complicated. But for months following the election, Labour remained pointedly cautious when prompted by Farage — reticent of tripping any Reform traps. Starmer ducked Farage’s first PMQ on “two-tier policing” in September, mentioning neither the Reform leader nor his chosen topic in his 160-word answer. 

    It denied Farage the totemic clash he surely craved. But developments since have rendered Labour’s wish Reform away sentiment untenable.

    Step forward Wes Streeting, Labour vanguard. Addressing the Fabian Society conference on Saturday, the health secretary vowed to “take on the populists” and “defeat them in the battle of ideas”. Streeting quickly practised his preaching: he told delegates Reform would “put the NHS as a universal service, free at the point of use” at risk. 

    Farage’s response came, inevitably, via X. “Wes Streeting is so scared of Reform that he has now resorted to lying about our plans for the NHS”, he argued. The health secretary hit back by quoting Farage at Farage: “The funding of the NHS… is a total failure. The French do it much better with less funding. There is a lesson there. If you can afford it, you pay; if you can’t, you don’t. It works incredibly well.”

    “‘If you can afford it, you pay’ is not free at the point of delivery”, Streeting protested. “They’re your words, not mine. And I thought you were straight talking…”

    Farage was prompted again on Reform’s health policy in a Sunday morning interview on LBC. He said he was “open to anything”.

    Streeting pounced on the comments. “So there we have it straight from the horse’s mouth: Nigel Farage says he is ‘open to anything’ when it comes to replacing Britain’s NHS with ‘an insurance-based model’.

    “With Reform, our NHS would be reduced to a poor service for poor people, with working people forced to pay to go private… Every single voter considering Reform needs to ask themselves if they could afford to pay for health insurance like patients have to elsewhere?

    “There are elections in just three months time. Voters deserve straight talking from Reform about their plans to move to health insurance.”

    It was a novel exchange: a call and response with Farage conducted on terms that do not favour him politically — a stark contrast to the Conservative Party’s attempts to confront the Reform leader over the past decade.  

    This “Save our NHS from Farage” tactic is the latest product, it would seem, of Starmerism’s ideological and strategic laboratory: Labour Together. The think tank’s chief executive, former Labour MP Jonathan Ashworth, warned of “Nigel Farage’s shocking plan for the NHS” in a recent op-ed for the Daily Mirror. 

    This line of argument and the prosecution of it by Streeting — Labour’s most creative communicator — is no doubt a sign of things to come. 

    Farage’s fallibility

    It is right that Labour is beginning to compose and hone its Farage-facing attack lines. The upstart party is already too big to ignore. But Starmer’s foremost challenge will be to capitalise on the mistakes the Reform leader makes all by himself. 

    Farage’s rise to prominence has not been inexorable or irresistible. It has developed over several years and in waves — characterised by troughs as well as peaks. During the 2024 general election campaign, indeed, Reform’s insurgency often found itself stalled by damaging revelations and unforced errors. Farage himself was criticised for suggesting the West “provoked” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by expanding the European Union and NATO military alliance eastwards. It was a conversation that, at best, distracted from Reform’s central election pitch and, at worst, repelled potential voters. 

    Next, a Channel 4 News exposé filmed Reform activists in Clacton making racist and homophobic remarks, with one referring to the then-prime minister using a slur. Reform candidates up and down the country, concurrently, won national headlines for conspiracy-laden comments.

    Following the summer riots, Farage’s popularity took a notable dent after he was accused of encouraging some of the early online misinformation — comments he later blamed on internet misogynist Andrew Tate. His favourability ratings resultantly tumbled among “Leave” voters in the 2016 EU referendum and 2024 Conservative backers. 

    Even more recently, Farage’s online liaison with tech billionaire Elon Musk was unceremoniously ended after the latter concluded he “does not have what it takes”. This saga proved especially prescient as it underlined, anew, Farage’s fallibility at a moment of apparent ascendancy. 

    Still today, the Reform leader’s news-generating embrace of the Online Right deludes him. He continues to insist that Musk is popular in Britain — contrary to all available polling data.

    Hope?

    Labour’s battle with Reform this parliament will be one of attrition. There is no panacea for populism; victory will never be truly total. Rather, a successful response will involve steadily driving a wedge between the Reform leader and his target voters, by engaging in precise battles over policy and values.

    Badenoch, as Conservative leader, risks rowing her party into irrelevance. The desperate spiral of Conservative placation, replication and validation of Reform-style politics has accelerated under her watch. The balance Starmer strikes will need to be significantly finer — and strictly cognisant of Farage’s reputational baggage.

    Rhetoric and political strategy are important, of course. But Starmer’s worthiest weapons are his policy levers: only successful, sustained and felt delivery will stem the populist tide in the long term. In the end, progress (or lack thereof) will dictate the prime minister’s fate — as it has centrist bastions the world over in recent years. 

    Faragism thrives, like its international counterparts, in a milieu of deepening disillusion. 

    Nigel Farage’s hamartia would be his innate pessimism. But first Labour must inspire hope. 

    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

  • Rachel Reeves cannot escape Labour’s Brexit reckoning

    What didn’t Rachel Reeves say in her growth speech yesterday? The widely trailed address surveyed the wide expanse of the government’s economic programme — from the “difficult” decisions taken in the autumn budget to the latest controversy surrounding a third Heathrow runway.

    The chancellor spoke unapologetically and, yes, optimistically about Britain’s growth prospects. “Everything I see as I travel around the country gives me more belief in Britain, and more optimism about our future”, Reeves said. “Because we as a country have huge potential.”

    She vowed to unlock that potential with a no-holds-barred, unbridled say yesattitude to infrastructure projects. The refusal to sign off long-term initiatives had sustained and deepened Britain’s economic stupor; “We will introduce a new approach”, Reeves added, “changing the default answer to yes.”

    The chancellor promised to be bold, to cut through political controversy and to govern against the grain of Whitehall’s naysaying nature. These are the extreme lengths Labour will go to, the argument ran, to better Britain.

    The speech followed the prime minister’s revelation of a new “growth test” for his government on Tuesday. Speaking to business chiefs in the City of London, Keir Starmer explained his new policy rationale: “Should we do X? If it’s good for growth, good for wealth creation, the answer is ‘yes’, if it’s not then the answer is ‘no’.”

    But critics note an exception that disproves the rule: Brexit.

    In her speech on Wednesday, Reeves referred to the government’s EU-UK relationship “reset” and vowed to be “pragmatic” about the challenges inherited from the last government’s Brexit deal. “Pragmatism”, of course, was not the speech’s prevailing theme. Is this government comprised of GDP zealots, or not?

    In a sit-down with Bloomberg on the Davos fringe last week, Reeves and business secretary Jonathan Reynolds explained the reasoning that governs Labour’s Brexit “reset”. It was put to the ministers that the most effective thing they could do to increase GDP growth “is to do a fresh deal with Europe — something like a customs union.”

    The chancellor did not reject her questioner’s premise, but stressed her abiding pragmatism. “[The business secretary] and I both voted to remain in the European Union, but we’re outside the European Union”, she said. “We’ve got to move on.”

    The government has decided “not to refight” the Brexit argument, Reynolds added. Reeves agreed: “We do want a reset of our relations. [But] we don’t want the antagonism and the battles that the previous government seemed to quite relish.”

    There you have it: the government’s decision not to start a “battle” over Brexit is informed by a political calculation — not an economic one. The subtext of Reeves’ recent remarks, delivered in Davos last week and Oxford yesterday, is that Labour fears the backlash to any major renegotiation from already-antagonistic, pro-Brexit forces.

    The risk is that the government’s economic strategy ends up looking incoherent. Ministers insist they are pulling every lever, pressing every button and flicking every switch on the Whitehall dashboard to unlock growth — except they aren’t.

    And pressure is building. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey delivered a speech earlier this month calling on the government to negotiate a new customs union with the EU to “turbocharge our economy in the medium and long term.”

    He continued to prosecute this case at PMQs yesterday. The relevant question is worth quoting in full:

    “The chancellor has now admitted that we need to go further and faster in the pursuit of economic growth, and we agree, but the prime minister knows that we believe that means setting aside his objections to a UK-EU customs union so that our country can go further and faster in rebuilding our trading relationships with our European neighbours, especially with the threat to world trade posed by Trump’s tariffs and trade wars.

    “If the prime minister will not change his mind today on a customs union, will he confirm to the House that when he goes to Brussels on Monday he will open negotiations for the UK to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention so that we can start removing the growth-damaging trade barriers set up by the Conservatives?”

    “Our No. 1 mission is growth”, Starmer replied. “[He] knows that in relation to the reset with the EU, which we are determined to achieve, we have clear red lines when it comes to the single market and the customs union. He knows where we stand on that.”

    It turns out Labour does value something more than economic growth: its “red lines”. More specifically, it rates the political-electoral cost caused by renouncing its Brexit red lines as greater than the political-electoral gain secured by the growth a significantly closer relationship with the EU would inspire. Reneging on our Brexit promises would have dire implications for public trust, Labour would add.

    But there is no disguising it: from Heathrow to Brexit, Starmer is picking which “wounds” to reopen selectively. Given Labour has gambled on growth lifting living standards, just how sustainable is the above trade-off long-term?

    Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

    Lunchtime briefing

    Rachel Reeves vows ‘spades in the ground’ at Heathrow this parliament

    Lunchtime soundbite

    ‘Some lives exude a dull grey, that the challenge is to fill the canvas, and some are so bursting in colour that the challenge is to contain them in a single portrait. No-one ever described John as dull or grey.’

    —  Sir Tony Blair, the former prime minister, addresses those gathered at John Prescott’s funeral in Hull today.

    Now try this…

    ‘Labour vs. Reform: the fight for our future’
    For British democracy to triumph, the prime minister must find his voice, writes Rafael Behr for Prospect.

    ‘Nigel Farage’s next act: Hammer Labour on energy costs’
    Reform UK has started tying green policies to grimly high energy bills — and some government MPs are getting nervous, writes Politico’s Abby Wallace.

    ‘Labour’s plan for ‘growth’ won’t take off, but it will leave ordinary people behind’
    We used to call this ‘trickle-down economics’, and we learned a long time ago that it is a myth, writes Guardian columnist Aditya Chakrabortty.

    On this day in 2024:

    Harriet Harman says it’s ‘ridiculous’ the Labour Party has not elected a woman leader

    Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

    Source: Politics

  • Rachel Reeves vows ‘spades in the ground’ at Heathrow this parliament

    Rachel Reeves has said she wants to see “spades in the ground” at Heathrow Airport in the next five years.

    The chancellor confirmed her and the government’s backing for a third runway at Heathrow in a major speech on Wednesday. “I am not satisfied with the position that we are in”, Reeves told reporters. 

    “I can confirm today that this government supports a third runway at Heathrow and is inviting proposals to be brought forward by the summer”, she added.

    “[The government] will ensure that a third runway is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate objectives.”

    Questioned on Thursday morning, the chancellor revealed Heathrow has been asked to come up with plans by the summer.

    She told BBC Breakfast: “We want to see spades in the ground in this parliament.

    “We have asked Heathrow to come forward with plans by this summer, and then we want to grant that development consent order by the end of this parliament, so we can get the diggers in the ground to get this project up and running.

    “And that’s why we’re reforming the planning system to make it easier to get these sorts of projects, like the third runway at Heathrow built.”

    The chancellor went on to say she is “absolutely confident” that the government can build a third runway and meet its environmental targets.

    “We’ve been clear with Heathrow: We want them to bring forward plans by the summer that are consistent with those environmental and carbon targets. But the answer to new infrastructure can’t always be no.”

    Reeves also insisted that Heathrow’s third runway could be built and in use by 2035. Pressed when flights would take off from the airport, the chancellor told BBC Breakfast: “I think we can get that done in a decade.”

    Asked if that meant planes would be using the new runway by 2035, Reeves responded: “That is what we want to achieve and that is what Heathrow wants to achieve.”

    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.

    Rachel Reeves backs ‘badly needed’ third Heathrow Airport runway

    Source: Politics

  • Cross-party MPs to demand ‘fair and democratic’ voting system in commons debate

    A cross-party group MPs will address Britain’s “flawed” voting system in a House of Commons debate on Thursday.

    The parliamentarians, representing six parties and every region and nation of the UK, will urge the government to establish a national commission tasked with proposing a “fair and democratic replacement to First Past the Post [FPTP]”.

    The backbench business debate was proposed by members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections and follows the commons vote late last year, when MPs backed a symbolic motion on proportional representation by 138 MPs to 136. Those in favour included 59 Labour MPs. 

    Speaking ahead of the debate this afternoon, Labour MP and chair of the Fair Elections APPG Alex Sobel said: “I’m delighted that the House of Commons is having a full debate on Proportional Representation, following last month’s historic vote. 

    “The current voting system is producing parliaments that are less and less representative of how the British people vote — and this is badly undermining trust in our political system.” 

    “MPs across the divide are urging the government to set up a National Commission for Electoral Reform, to recommend a fair and democratic replacement to First Past the Post.”

    The debate also follows a poll, conducted by YouGov, which recorded support for changing to a proportional voting system at 48 per cent. Conversely, just 24 per cent of those polled said they supported for maintaining the current FPTP system.

    Liberal Democrat MP and APPG vice chair Lisa Smart MP said: “There is growing, deep concern about the way our electoral system distorts and denies — rather than delivers — the democratic will of the people. 

    “This concern is evident both outside and inside parliament. To tackle this, I’m backing the call for a National Commission on Electoral Reform. The commission should engage fully with the voting public as an integral part of its work in coming up with the right way forward for our citizens and our democracy.”

    Research into the 2024 general election by the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) last year found it was the most disproportional in British history. The group noted that Labour received 63.2 per cent of House of Commons seats on just 33.7 per cent. An increase of 1.6 per cent in the party’s 2019 vote-share had seen it more than double its seats to 411.

    Green Party MP and APPG vice chair Ellie Chowns said: “First Past the Post is broken. Its chief contribution to our politics is to drive instability, apathy, and disengagement. The public have made their view clear; the two-party system of old is gone, yet our voting system is keeping it on life support against their will. 

    “We need our political institutions to bolster trust in politics, not contribute to undermining it. It’s time for a National Commission on Electoral Reform, to identify and implement a voting system that ensures all votes are equal and every voice is heard.”

    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