Category: Politics

Just three in ten Britons now say that it was right for the UK to vote to leave the EU, according to a new poll published on the eve of Brexit’s fifth anniversary. 

Three in ten, or 30%, is the lowest proportion of the public saying that Britain was right to vote to leave since polling organisation YouGov began asking the question in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum.

It compares to 55% who say it was wrong for the country to vote for Brexit in 2016.

Britain officially left the European Union on 31 January 2020, following the 2016 referendum won by “Leave” on a margin of 52% to 48%.

Five years on, new YouGov research has found that one in six Leave voters (18%) now say that it was wrong for Britain to choose to leave the EU.

66% still say Britain made the right decision. 

From YouGov: Belief that Britain was right to vote to leave the EU falls to a new low of 30%

— Josh Self (@josh-self.bsky.social) 2025-01-29T11:02:54.121Z

Just 7% of “Remainers” now think it was right for the UK to leave, compared to 88% who still think a vote for Brexit was wrong, according to YouGov’s polling.

Three-quarters of 18-24 year olds (75%), who were unable to vote in the 2016 referendum, say that Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU. That is against one in ten (10%) who say the UK made the right choice.

More than six in ten Britons (62%) say that Brexit has so far been more of a failure, versus 11% who feel that it has been more of a success.

20% of Britons consider it to be neither a success nor failure.

Leave voters are more likely to consider Brexit to have gone badly than well, with 32% labelling it more of a failure so far, compared to 22% describing it as more of a success. Four in ten Leave voters (38%) see Britain’s exit from the EU to have been neither a success nor a failure.

87% of Remain voters say Brexit has been a failure, with just 3% believing Brexit to have been a success.

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’ big pitch for economic growth today was always going to overshadow Kemi Badenoch and Keir Starmer’s weekly tussle at PMQs.

The Conservative leader’s supporters continue to laud her ability to “cut through” and catapult herself into the headlines. (Not inherently a positive trait). But there could be no competing with the chancellor’s confirmation today, after weeks of feverish speculation, that the government supports plans for a third Heathrow Airport runway.

That said, Badenoch has frequently taken the government to task on the economy as part of her weekly inquisitions — and today was another chance for the Conservative leader to hone her argument.

In this sense, Badenoch’s case is straightforward enough: she maintains that ministers are choking, not kick-starting growth. Even more remarkable then, that Badenoch’s performance today was as incoherent, tetchy and misfiring as any of her prior maladroit showings.

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

Taking to the despatch box, Badenoch began by accusing the prime minister of “destroying” growth. She referenced the “growth test” Starmer set himself on Tuesday: “If a policy is good for growth, the answer is yes. If it’s not, the answer is no”.

The Conservative leader continued: “Let’s look at the employment bill. The government’s own figures say it will cost business £5bn a year. It clearly fails the prime minister’s growth test. Will he drop it?

Starmer’s curt but effective comeback was typical of a more punchier performance this afternoon: “I think the proposition they left a golden inheritance was tested on 4 July [the general election].”

He added: “There’s more to do with reforming planning and regulation, building the new homes that we need, supporting a third runway at Heathrow. And as she admitted to the CBI in November, ‘there’s no point me just complaining about Labour’, she said. ‘It’s obvious that we Conservatives lost the confidence of business.’

“We’re not taking lectures from them.”

With this predictable response, Badenoch’s second question wrote itself — or so you would think. The prime minister had referenced business consternation about the Conservative Party’s record in government; Badenoch could hit back with more recent denouncements of Labour’s economic programme. But what followed was nothing short of bizarre.

Swerving away from her line of inquiry, Badenoch accused the prime minister of having “misled” the House of Commons last week — a significant transgression of parliamentary rules. She referred back to their exchange on schools and suggested the PM “was not on top of his own education bill.”

To accuse a prime minister of knowingly providing false information to parliament is as serious a charge as an opposition politician can level. Until the privileges committee reported in 2023, Keir Starmer never once accused his bête noire Boris Johnson of misleading the House over Partygate from the commons despatch box. But Badenoch chose to do so today, three months into her tenure as Tory leader, over the prime minister’s stance on an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

The speaker, as commons rules oblige, was fast to his feet. “We can’t accuse the prime minister of misleading the House”, Sir Lindsay Hoyle insisted. “We can’t do it! I’m sure that there’s words you would prefer to use.”

Badenoch, deprived of all momentum, was forced to reconfigure her question. “Last week, he claimed to have laid down an amendment that he had not made. He doesn’t know what is going on in here or out there”, she told MPs.

Having thoroughly explored this rhetorical and political cul-de-sac — angering the speaker in the process, Badenoch returned to Labour’s proposed changes to employment rights. “This isn’t an Employment Bill, it is an unemployment bill”, she blasted.

Starmer rejected the criticism: “We believe in giving people proper dignity and protection at work, that is why we are proud of our record supporting workers.”

The Conservative leader has consistently criticised the prime minister as being a “lawyer, not a leader” — having repeated the attack line (first deployed by Boris Johnson) across successive sessions. When Badenoch mocked the employment bill as “an adventure playground for lawyers” therefore, Starmer had a comeback ready.

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

He told the House: “I understand she likes straight talking. She is talking absolute nonsense. She knows and anybody who understands anything about the bill or any employment law will know you can’t start in the morning and got to a tribunal in the afternoon.

“We know she is not a lawyer, she is clearly not a leader. If she keeps on like this she is going to be the next lettuce.”

It was a reference to the infamous Daily Star live stream, which pit a shrivelling shop-bought lettuce against then-prime minister Liz Truss in a battle to the death. As is now Westminster folklore, the lettuce triumphed.

Indeed it wasn’t even close. Six days after the Daily Star began its livestream on 14 October, Truss announced her resignation on the steps of Downing Street. It is little surprise then that Badenoch reportedly told her shadow cabinet earlier this month that she wants “Liz Truss to shut up for a while”. It came after Truss penned a “cease and desist” letter to the prime minister demanding he stop saying she crashed the economy. In PMQs last week, Starmer brandished the letter — and unapologetically repeated the accusation.

Starmer, of course, is far less keen for the name ‘Liz Truss’ and the memory of the vegetable that vanquished her to fade into obscurity. The former prime minister’s political brand remains her successor-but-one’s favourite punching bag.

Lettuce-themed attacks aside, Starmer also punished Badenoch this week for her recent comments about pensions. Badenoch’s triple lock controversy, which she triggered with an off-kilter comment on LBC, epitomises her pitfalls as a political operator. The prime minister showed real political purpose in exploiting that this afternoon.

In response to a planted question from Labour backbencher Damien Egan, Starmer said: “Let me absolutely clear Mr Speaker, there will be no means testing of the state pension under this Labour government. … [The Conservative Party] would cut pensions. We’re increasing them”.

During the frontbench exchange, Starmer added: “The only policy she’s got is to shrink pensions.”

We are still some time away from the specialists at the Daily Star brandishing a leaf vegetable at Badenoch’s expense. But her repeat poor performances at the despatch box are welcome solace for an otherwise pressured prime minister.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

Belief that Britain was right to leave the EU falls to new low of 30%, poll finds

Lunchtime soundbite

‘He knows in relation to the reset with the EU… that we have clear red lines when it comes to the single market and the customs union, so he knows where we stand on that.’

—  Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey urges the prime minister to take the UK into a Continent-wide customs deal with the EU. Keir Starmer responds as above.

Now try this…

‘Labour figures come out against chancellor’s “environmentally illiterate” plans’
PoliticsHome reports.

‘Heathrow third runway: a saga of promises, protest and U-turns’
The Guardian reports.

‘Britain’s Rachel Reeves needs a growth miracle’
All the big hurdles to an economic turnaround as the UK chancellor makes her pro-growth pitch, writes Politico’s Dan Bloom.

On this day in 2024:

Miliband hints Labour could recruit Alok Sharma, Chris Skidmore for climate mission

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

Sadiq Khan has said he remains opposed to the building of a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Labour’s Mayor of Greater London expressed concerns about the “severe impact” it would have on noise, air pollution and climate change targets.

The comments came after chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed in a major speech that she would be backing proposals for Heathrow’s expansion. “A third runway is badly needed”, she insisted.

In a statement, Khan responded: “I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow Airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets.

“I will scrutinise carefully any new proposals that now come forward from Heathrow, including the impact it will have on people living in the area and the huge knock-on effects for our transport infrastructure.

“Despite the progress that’s been made in the aviation sector to make it more sustainable, I’m simply not convinced that you can have hundreds of thousands of additional flights at Heathrow every year without a hugely damaging impact on our environment.”

Confirming the government’s support for a third runway on Wednesday morning after weeks of speculation, Reeves said: “I can confirm today that this government supports a third runway at Heathrow and is inviting proposals to be brought forward by the summer.

“We will then take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement. This will ensure that the project is value for money and our clear expectation is that any associated service transport costs will be financed through private funding.

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

In 2018, Khan, city councils and environmental groups applied for a judicial review against the plans for a third runway approved by Theresa May’s then-government earlier that year.

In 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled the expansion decision was unlawful as it did not take climate commitments into account.

However, later that year the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court after Heathrow appealed it, allowing a planning application to go ahead.

Rachel Reeves backs ‘badly needed’ third Heathrow Airport runway

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 has announced her support for a third runway at Heathrow as she battles to get Britain’s economy back on track.

“A third runway is badly needed”, she said.

In a major speech, the chancellor also unveiled plans for nine new reservoirs, thousands of new homes in Cambridge and a “growth corridor” including road and rail upgrades to Oxford.

Reeves deployed these plans as demonstrations of the government’s commitment to economic growth.

The chancellor said: “I am not satisfied with the position that we are in. While we have huge amounts of potential, the structural problems in our economy run deep, and the low growth of the last fourteen years cannot just be turned around overnight. 

“This has to be our focus for the duration of the parliament, because the situation demands us to do more. And today, I will go further and faster in kick-starting economic growth.”

She added: “I come to the decision that perhaps more than any other, has been delayed, has been avoided, has been ducked. The question of whether to give Heathrow, our only hub airport, a third runway has run on for decades. 

“The last full length runway in Britain was built in the 1940s. No progress in 80 years. Why is this so damaging? It’s because Heathrow is at the heart of the UK’s openness as a country. It connects us to emerging markets all over the world, opening up new opportunities for growth. Around three quarters of all long haul flights in the UK go from Heathrow.

“Over 60% of UK air freight comes through Heathrow, and about 15 million business travellers used Heathrow in 2023 but for decades, its growth has been constrained. Successive studies have shown that this really matters for our economy. 

“According to the most recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase potential GDP by 0.43% by 2050. Over half, 60%, of that boost would go to areas outside of London and the South East in creating increasing trade opportunities for products like scotch whisky and Scottish salmon, already two of the biggest British exports out of Heathrow and a third runway could create over 100,000 jobs. 

“For international investors, persistent delays have cast doubt about our seriousness towards improving our economic prospects…

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

“We will then take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement. This will ensure that the project is value for money and our clear expectation is that any associated service transport costs will be financed through private funding.

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

The speech is considered a key moment for a chancellor who has struggled with sluggish economic headwinds since she delivered the autumn budget in October last year.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

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 election news and analysis.

Source: Politics

Ten Labour MPs have backed a bill that would compel the government to establish a compensation scheme for women who lost out financially from the rise in the state pension age.

The bill, put forward by Scottish National Party (SNP) Westminster leader Stephen Flynn, passed a vote in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon by 105 votes to zero.

Last March, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) recommended compensation of £1000 to £2950 per person – a package with a potential total cost of £10.5 billion – after it was concluded that failures in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) meant pension age changes were not properly communicated.

But on 17 December, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall told the House of Commons that paying up to £10.5 billion in compensation to the Waspi women would not be a “fair or proportionate use” of taxpayers’ money.

Flynn’s bill would require ministers to publish measures to address the findings of the PHSO report.

The ten Labour MPs who backed the Women’s State Pension age (Ombudsman report and compensation scheme) bill were as follows: 

• Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool)
• Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury)
• Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole)
• Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire)
• Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk)
• Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth)
• Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields)
• Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)
• Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth)
• Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr)

The vote will be seen as a symbolic show of support for the compensation proposal as private members’ bills introduced by MPs rarely become law.

In the end, representatives from the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Green Party, Reform UK and Plaid Cymru supported the legislation at its first reading. Two Conservative MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Sir John Hayes, also voted for the bill. 

NEW: The SNP secure a symbolic victory as zero MPs vote against Stephen Flynn's bill calling for a Waspi compensation schemeThread below on the commons chicanery that led to this division

— Josh Self (@josh-self.bsky.social) 2025-01-28T16:43:50.634Z

Commenting on the commons vote and his bill’s progress, Flynn said: “After today’s vote, it’s clear that [Scottish Labour leader] Anas Sarwar and Labour MPs have broken their promises to WASPI women and shown they are incapable of standing up for Scotland.

“Ahead of the UK election, Anas Sarwar promised he would stand up to Keir Starmer but instead he has proven to be spineless in his silence – rolling over and rubber-stamping every damaging decision from Downing Street, no matter the consequences for Scotland.

“Since the election, Scottish Labour MPs have voted to strip the winter fuel allowance from 900,000 Scottish pensioners, pushed thousands of Scottish children into poverty with the two child benefit cap, and now they are backing plans to block compensation for WASPI women.

“No one can credibly claim that is acting in Scotland’s interests – and it speaks volumes that Mr Sarwar lacks the authority to lead his own MPs, let alone Scotland.

“Despite the failure of Labour MPs to vote for the WASPI compensation bill today, it has passed its first hurdle as a result of SNP and opposition party votes. Now the UK government must make time in the parliamentary schedule to ensure the bill can progress.

“Women born in the 1950s have been repeatedly promised compensation – and it’s vital for justice and trust in politics that the Labour government now honours the promises made.”

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson Daisy Cooper MP said: “This government clearly cannot face up to the betrayal it inflicted on millions of wronged women. These women were judged to be the victims of a gross injustice but instead of righting this wrong, Conservative and Labour MPs decided to sit on their hands.

“The Liberal Democrats will ensure that this fight does not end here. We will use everything in our power to make the Government see sense and reverse this callous decision.”

Liz Saville Roberts MP, Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, said: “With one honourable exception, Welsh Labour MPs’ decision to abstain on this bill is disgraceful. These women have been let down time and again by Westminster, and for Labour MPs to sit on their hands when they had the chance to make amends is a betrayal of the promises their party has repeatedly made.

“Welsh Labour figures, including the first minister and secretary of state for Wales, have previously called for compensation for WASPI women. Eluned Morgan and Jo Stevens both declared their solidarity with the campaign and promised action, but when push came to shove, their party failed to deliver.

“Plaid Cymru stands firmly with WASPI women in their fight for justice. This issue transcends party politics – it’s about fairness and trust. If politicians continue to break their promises, they further erode public trust in Westminster. The women who lost out on their pensions deserve compensation, not more empty words.”

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 election news and analysis.

Source: Politics

The Scottish National Party (SNP) is looking to place Labour divisions in the spotlight this afternoon by forcing a vote on compensation for women who lost out financially from the rise in the state pension age.

On 17 December, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall told the House of Commons that paying up to £10.5 billion in compensation to the Waspi women would not be a “fair or proportionate use” of taxpayers’ money. The last government, she added, had not left “a single penny” aside for such measures.

Labour, however, supported the Waspi (women against state pension inequality) cause in opposition. Keir Starmer, now the prime minister, once referred to the treatment of those 1950s-born individuals hit by major changes to the state pension age as a “huge injustice”. But while Kendall accepted there had been “maladministration” in the failure to properly notify women of the changes, she rejected the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendation of compensation.

The SNP reacted furiously at the time, and pledged to hold Labour to account. Crucially, several Labour MPs also expressed their consternation — both privately and publicly. Speaking in the commons late last year, Labour’s Brian Leishman said he was “appalled” by the decision.

“Waspi women certainly do not need words of disappointment and hollow statements. What they need is justice”, he insisted.

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

Responding to Kendall’s commons statement, several usually supportive Labour MPs asked the government for “reassurances”; and at least two (Gareth Snell and Melanie Onn) called on the government to “reconsider” the decision in the future, when the fiscal position improves. Others asked for a narrower compensation scheme than that recommended by the ombudsmen. Kendall could offer no solace.

And lo, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn is set to introduce a 10-minute rule bill that would require the government to publish proposals for a compensation scheme. According to reports overnight, he even hopes to force a vote — putting maximum pressure on conflicted Labour MPs. (That said, the House only divides on a 10-minute rule bill at first reading if an MP delivers a speech, in response, objecting to the proposed legislation. Some chicanery could therefore be necessary on Flynn’s part).

Significantly, Flynn’s bill comes just weeks after the Scottish parliament voted to demand the UK government provides Waspi compensation. In the vote, every single party backed the Scottish government motion — including all SNP, Conservative, Labour, Green and Lib Dem MSPs.

And so the SNP’s Westminster outriders are now piling pressure on Scottish Labour MPs to vote the same way as their Holyrood counterparts. Leishman, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, has already said he will be backing the bill. “I’ll be voting for justice for the Waspi women. We stood in solidarity with the women while in opposition and we should do the same in government”, he told LabourList.

This episode is another manifestation of the prevailing SNP-Labour dynamic this parliament. The SNP’s Westminster sect, reduced to a lowly 9 last July (from 48 in 2019), is challenging Labour on progressive issues at every turn — in a bid to drive a wedge between the UK government and the party’s Scottish MPs.

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

In this vein, the SNP has already expressed strident objections to the government’s decision not to scrap the two-child benefit cap and, separately, its winter fuel allowance cut. Seven left-wing Labour MPs were suspended from the party after voting for an SNP amendment on the former issue in July. On the latter, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar vowed last year to expand the winter fuel payment if he is elected first minister following the May 2026 Holyrood election.

Unfortunately for Sarwar, the UK government’s woes at present mean this eventuality is looking less and less likely. One poll published earlier this month shows the SNP is on course to return 53 MSPs in the 2026 Holyrood election, compared to 24 for Scottish Labour. (24 is only two more than Labour won in the 2021 election, which was its worst-ever Holyrood result). The finding, polling guru Sir John Curtice said, reflects “voters’ disappointment” with the UK government’s performance.

So far this parliament, the SNP has found significant success in, (1), exposing nascent ideological tensions within the Labour Party; and, (2), capitalising on progressive disaffection with the UK government electorally — according to opinion polling.

On the general election campaign trail last year, Keir Starmer would often insist that the road to a Labour government “runs” through Scotland. Today, the prime minister — though it receives less treatment than other frontlines — is losing ground across his progressive, tartan flank.

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Lunchtime briefing

UK must ‘speed up, not slow down’ in drive to net zero, insists Ed Miliband

Lunchtime soundbite

‘What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks!’

—  Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, is accused of making an “absolutely outrageous set of remarks” after he questioned who in government is the “obstacle” to easing a backlog in courts.

Jenrick said: “Who is the obstacle to resolving this? Is it the justice secretary  [Shabana Mahmood], who is content for rape trials to be scheduled as far off as 2027? Or is it the chancellor [Rachel Reeves], and the justice secretary has just had rings run around her by the Treasury?”

Mahmood responded: “What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks, completely forgetting that only six months ago it was his government that was in charge and it was a government that he was part of that all but ran our justice system into the ground.”

Now try this…

‘Reform is eyeing up a “seismic moment” in Lincolnshire elections’
PoliticsHome reports.

‘Rachel Reeves tells MPs the “immense prize” of boosting growth ahead of major speech’
Via the Mirror.

‘Why doubts are growing over Kemi Badenoch’
The Conservative leader too often displays confidence without homework, writes the NS’ Rachel Cunliffe. (Paywall)

On this day in 2022:

No 10 has still not received Sue Gray report, says minister

Subscribe to Politics@Lunch

Source: Politics

In July 2024, I became Ealing Southall’s first Irish born and bred Member of Parliament. So, while I’ve lived in London for more years than I care to remember, I still never like to pass up a good opportunity to point out where Ireland does something better than the UK.

Kerrygold Butter? Unbeatable. The craic? Brits are fun, but the Irish own the concept of fun. Complaints about the weather? Maybe we’ll call that a draw.

But Ireland is also ahead when it comes to keeping streets clean and carbon emissions down. That’s why Labour is pressing ahead with a Deposit Return Scheme (or DRS) like in Ireland.

Since February last year, shops across Ireland have been fitted with brand new reverse vending machines. There’s one in the shop up the road from my mum’s house in Dublin.

When you buy a drink in a can or a plastic bottle, you pay 15p or 20p extra. Then when you’ve finished with the drink, you bring it back to any shop or collection centre with a reverse vending machine. You feed your bottles and cans into the machine and then out pops a voucher for your money back.

Yes, not everyone thinks of cans and plastic bottles when asked about the Government’s agenda. But it’s a simple way to increase recycling and keep the streets clean. Why litter when you get paid to recycle?

It’s a common sense environmental policy that tackles the scourge of littered drinks containers, protects our beaches, wildlife and green spaces, reduces the burden on local authorities, and restores pride in local communities.

And making our day-to-day rubbish part of the economy brings results.

Already in Ireland they’ve found there’s been a significant reduction in street litter and they’re on track to reach a collection rate of 77% this year and 90% by 2029.

Charities have benefitted too, with tens of thousands raised for charity from those who don’t need their money back.

And by keeping materials in circulation, we reduce the need for energy-intensive production processes. Recycling aluminium cans saves up to 95% of the energy required to produce a new one, cutting emissions at every stage of the supply chain. Pounds back in people’s pockets and a boost for the environment. No wonder the Tories couldn’t deliver it.

They first promised it back in 2017, but it’s taken Keir Starmer to get the job done. Legislation has been agreed to target single-use drinks containers made of plastic, aluminium, and steel, with sizes ranging from 150 millilitres to 3 litres, with new scannable returns codes on their labels. Consumers will pay a refundable deposit which they can claim back when the containers are returned to designated return points. It aims to see 70% (rising to 90% in 2030) returned.

With this new legislation the government is setting up an organisation to run and manage the scheme, including setting deposit levels. By October 2027 shops across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will have in-store reverse vending machines where space allows, while glass will be included in new packaging rules that will make the polluter pay for recycling, instead of hard-pressed local councils.

These rules, called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), will see a small levy on packaged products from October this year. This will drive down litter and pay for the clean-up in the process. The throw-away culture is finally coming to an end.

Labour gets that. It’s why our returns scheme isn’t just about recycling. It’s about reshaping our relationship with rubbish. With these changes the UK is poised to launch its own rubbish revolution, with cleaner streets, parks and beaches while putting money back in your pocket.

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

Accusations of two-tier policing reflect a “right-wing extremist narrative”, according to a leaked Home Office review.

Civil servants reportedly found the claim, promulgated by several high-profile UK politicians and tech billionaire Elon Musk, as among a series of “damaging extremist beliefs”.

Home secretary Yvette Cooper said in August she had directed the Home Office to conduct a “rapid analytical sprint on extremism” to map and monitor trends and inform the government’s strategy. 

Cooper said the review, commissioned after last summer’s riots, would “map and monitor extremist trends” and “understand the evidence about what works” to “underpin a new strategic approach to countering extremism from government”.

The review has not yet been published, but leaked sections have been seen by the Policy Exchange think tank, which is critical of its findings. 

The think tank said the review lists “behaviours and activity of concern” and “damaging extremist beliefs” including misogyny, violence against women and girls and having a “fixation on gore and violence without adherence to an extremist ideology”.

Those findings came alongside the suggestion that claims of “two-tier” policing are an example of a “right-wing extremist narrative”. In recent months, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick have been among the most prominent politicians to have called for an end to so-called “two-tier policing”.

However, BBC News reports that Cooper disagrees with some of the central findings of the Home Office report — which broadly recommends that the UK’s approach to extremism should be based on concerning behaviours and activity rather than ideologies.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The counter extremism sprint sought to comprehensively assess the challenge facing our country and lay the foundations for a new approach to tackling extremism — so we can stop people being drawn towards hateful ideologies.

“This includes tackling Islamism and extreme right-wing ideologies, which are the most prominent today.

“The findings from the sprint have not been formally agreed by ministers and we are considering a wide range of potential next steps arising from that work.”

According to Policy Exchange, the report also recommends reversing a code of practice to limit the number of “non-crime hate incidents” being recorded and floats the idea of creating a new crime of making “harmful communications” online.

Former journalist and government advisor Paul Stott and Andrew Gilligan, now of Policy Exchange, said: “This new approach risks swamping already stretched counter-extremism interveners and counter-terror police with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of new cases, making it more likely that dangerous people will be missed.

“Some of the definitions of extremism also threaten free speech, defining aspects of normal and legitimate political debate as extremist.”

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, has also reacted critically. He argued that the leaked report is “smearing as ‘far right’ those who raise concerns about young girls being gang raped”.

Philp said: “By extending the definition of extremism so widely, the government risks losing focus on ideologically motivated terrorists who pose the most risk to life.

“In fact, the Shawcross Review of Prevent made clear that counter-extremism and the counterterrorism strategy should be more focused on terrorist ideology, not less.

“Prevent must be equipped to deal with the terrorist threats in our society, and we should not be dialling back efforts to confront this.

“We cannot overlook the fact that Islamist terrorism is responsible for 94% of terrorist-caused deaths in the last 25 years.

“The government may want to ignore this, but they have an over-riding duty to protect the public.

“Other appalling and unacceptable criminal behaviour that is not ideologically motivated – of which there are many kinds – should be dealt with via the police and criminal justice system, and via other agencies such as social services and mental health services, including sectioning those that present a risk.”

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